2nd Amendment being lost in Colorado!

[FacePalm]

So, the 2nd Amendment being a roadblock, of course they want to eliminate it. What strikes me as odd/sad is that sooo many people want to give the Government that power, on a silver platter no less.

My guess is these folks expect this Government to care for & protect them. We can see from examples such as Hurricanes Katrina & Sandy, and the increasingly common "catch & release" solution to criminal conduct/ prison overpopulation, that this is unrealistic.

My experience as a Police Officer has been that I have arrested people for various crimes and those people have walked out of the jail before I could finish the pile of paperwork needed to put them there. I have also, countless times, released a person with an active arrest warrant because the county or state from which that warrant originates will not 'Abstract' that document. In other words, they dont have the time/money/room to house that person so their response is "Meh, kick em loose".

I work with Border Patrol (BP) on a daily basis, and I could fill this forum with info on how they have been neutered by the very Government that employs them.

Lets also pay close attention to the Rampant Hypocrisy of our elected official's 'Do as I say, not as I do' mentality.

Dianne Feinstein will happily take away my ability to own & possess a firearm while simultaneously enjoying the privilege of her own concealed carry permit. In the interest of brevity lets just say that she's not the only one in power with this mindset who enjoys the protection of firearms.

When the elected start exempting themselves from their own laws, we have the underpinnings of tyranny. And we ALL know this phenomena is not limited to gun control (Obamacare is a great example).

So on to the argument of "Does one really need an AR-15?"

From a Cop's perspective- Yes, and I'll tell you why.

More on that next, I gotta get some grub...

 

[FacePalm]

So on to the question of Firepower- How much is enough???

First, revisit the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Our Government's got Nukes & Stealth Bombers, so we're already at a huge disadvantage, or are we? Look at what those camel-jockies in irakistan have managed to do against us with AK-47s & religious fervor.

I look at it this way: As a Cop, Its already been well established that an AR-15 or similar platform is needed to counter the threats I may face on a daily basis. It is a compact, proven weapons system that can penetrate cover & defeat body armor. Body armor is legal in Cali & I know for a fact the bad guys use it.

Think about it this way- Civilians face the same threats that their civilian Police Officers do. Only difference is its my job to actively seek & engage those threats.

So, in favor of the AR-15 we have:
-The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment
-The fact that you folks face THE VERY SAME threats that LEOs do

Next lets look at Magazine Capacity. The idea that 10 rounds is somehow safer than 11 is right up there with "Gun-Free Zones" on the laugh-ability scale. Can anyone cite an instance where these have actually prevented a crime???

Now look at it from the good guy's point of view: How many rounds do you want in your gun when it comes time to defend your life, or when your wife needs to defend herself and/or your children's? We all know how fine motor skills degrade in high-stress situations, especially with limited/no training. We've seen stories of how trained LEOs have sent entire volleys downrange only to connect on a small percentage. A lot of this has to do with 'suppressive fire', a lot more with adrenalin and its affects on trigger control.

Consider also that 1, 2 or 10 rounds, even if they connect, may not stop the threat. Recent story relates to this...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/05/my-wife-is-a-hero-georgia-mother-shoots-home-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/

Fact: Certain drugs in common use amongst criminals can mask injuries/pain, and allow them to fight through otherwise debilitating wounds.

So, in favor of standard capacity magazines we have:
-Laws limiting their capacity have NO PROVEN VALUE whatsoever
-They give the good guys a better chance at stopping the threat

And on the subject of training, I hear a lot of people arguing that an untrained/ armed citizen is more a threat to people around them than the bad guy.

Hey, I'm all for more training. Here's an idea for the weenies in Sacramento: take all that tax money you're wasting on the "Dream Act" ($$$ to pay for Illegal Alien's college education) and instead fund FREE firearms instruction for good law-abiding citizens. I'm quite sure there's money being wasted at the federal level that can be put to the same purpose.

So, to summarize...

 

[FacePalm]

Facepalm....from one leo to another. Answer this for me.

Why do you and I have to have a perfect record in order to enforce the laws and yet the people making the laws can have a criminal past?

My agencies requirements for hire would rule out 80% of the senators in Colorado. The two pushing the biggest gun contol measures have a very long criminal record.

Thanks for your work. If you collect patches and want a colorado patch let me know.

Boostedxt, Your question fits perfectly into what I'm trying to broadcast.

So in summary,

Look CLOSELY at who are making the laws and why. The 2nd Amendment was put in place, in part, to check their need for more & more power.
-My state and federal Governments have PROVEN themselves to be INEPT
-The lawmakers have exempted themselves from their own laws
-In exchange for you giving up your rights they have promised protection & services they cannot/ will not provide

These additional gun-control laws they are proposing WILL DO NOTHING to prevent anything like Sandy Hook or Columbine. As stated in a previous poster's link, what was done there was ALREADY illegal.

Do we REALLY need to put MORE restraints on Law-Abiding Citizens? Howz about we instead talk about tackling the VERY REAL issue of Mental Illness, AND ENFORCING THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE ON THE BOOKS!?!

-Face

P.s. And what about "Shall not be infringed" dont you understand :question:

 

[JonnyCinco]

My wife and I just got into the sport of firearms (yes, poor financial timing...I know). But why in three months do we now own 7 firearms, including 2 ARs......because it is fun to shoot'm. We go to the range and do a little competition. Much like racing....I want to be able to triple stack a target with my AR. Same reason I spend a shit ton on motorcycle crap is the same reason I spend equally on firearms nowadays.

Point 2: I don't like to be told I can't do something..

#C: after my "contribution" to the gubberment, it is definitely my right to own a 8lb, $1200 metal polymer paperweight.

As for all these stats being tossed around...really?

Let's take the light away from the AR and start talking about the SCAR 17s....now that thing can do some damage.....but if anyone is selling one I will gladly take it off their hands ;

 

[houndman]

Hey Boosted I think it is interesting that those involved in LE are generaly not in favor of bans. Yet the media would want us to think that any chief is in favor of bans. As a memeber of LE/corrections in Ca, I can speak that there is an overwhelming majority that favors freedom/right to bear arms. Way better than half of the murderers convicted were NOT allowed to possess a firearm in the first place yet they acquire firearms at ease without regard for any consequence. Is that supposed to change after bans? Bans leading to total confiscation? Who can not see that this is what it is? A trail to total confiscation.

 

[hANNAbONE]

I don't know, I thought the vast majority of Americans, somewhere in the 70-80-90% range, favor reasonable controls and the continued right to keep and bear arms. We have a very few that want all out bans, and a very few NRA types that would characterize any attempt at control with great hyperbole, as we keep seeing here.

Jan :
with all respect - once that door opens for "reasonable controls" that door will never - ever be shut again. EVER.
Do you really think that Feinstein would be content with just "reasonable controls"??? Do you think for a second that she'd stop??
Nope - she and most of the same leaning folk WANT IT ALL - for whatever reason/reasons - covert or other -
I am most certain that many want to literally "disarm" America.
Others want something more marginal.

I believe they are waking a not so slumbered giant. Everyone is on point now...look at gun sales/ammo shortages...
Everyone that wants to keep our Rights in place with no changes are readying and getting the skillet warmed, bracing for the evidential fight.

Cold dead hands, and all that....

 

[Blaine]

Pray tell...

At exactly what point do "assault weapons" get "out of control"?

And please note, "automatic" weapons are already under the strictest control in USA. You can't legally have a true "automatic" (continues firing as long as the trigger is depressed or until it's out of ammo) weapon without an application for a federal permit, signed by a local law enforcement official, a federal permit fee paid ($200 last I had one), direct approval by the ATF, and sold and delivered by a licensed Class III dealer. Perhaps you are referring to *SEMI* automatic "assault weapons", which fire a single round when the trigger is depressed, just like your 9mm handgun...

So again, I ask you... At what exact point does the level of "assault weapons" get "out of control"? Is it based on number of units, and if so, is the number 1,000,000? 100,000? 10,000? 1,000? And who, exactly, gets to determine this? You? Me? Barack Obama?

But maybe you're trying to base this on magazine capacity... If so, how many rounds? 30? 20? 10? But let's just say the number you like is a 10-round capacity... If so, please explain to me how a weapon with a 10-round capacity keeps you and me "safer" than one with 11-rounds? Or 100-rounds?

Guns are a tool, just like a hammer. More people are killed with hammers each year than with assault weapons... When do we start regulating hammers? And who is going to be doing that?

Dallara



~

Tex, you're forgiven.... I could not have said it better. ::009:: Personally, I'm a cold dead fingers kind of Redneck. They can have my boolits one at a time, and those Baby Blue Helmets make damn good targets ::009::

 

[coastie]

Great posts facepalm!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Madhatter]

the 2nd amendment is not about your right to hunt. the 2nd amendment is not about your right to defend yourself from the criminal down the street. the 2nd admendment is about americans being able to defend our nation our states our communities our homes from a tyrannical government intent on defrauding you and yours , of your life liberty etc. the former items are just the benefits of a free people.i will never surrender a firearm I own to any government of the united states of America,i've read the constitution, it is not that diffilcult, it says plainly what it says.do not let those who hate America and the freedoms we share who even use these same freedoms to try and convince you me us that some how we are wrong win...stand strong ,remember when they can destroy one part of the bill of rights they can destoy any of it... ::009::

 

[cbat]

This is the biggest part of the problem. Feel good politics. They don't know of what they are legislating. ]http://www.guns.com/2013/04/03/lead-sponsor-of-federal-high-capacity-ban-was-unaware-magazines-could-be-reloaded-video/?fb_action_ids=588769817802793&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%22588769817802793%22%3A507732842595664}&action_type_map={%22588769817802793%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]

 

[offcamber]

Connecticut just went down the tubes in regrades tot he second amendment.

 

[Madhatter]

you keep fighting you don't give up. you join the nra . you exersize your first amendment rights, while you still have them. remember politicle correctness, it is as un American as communism,an attempt to shut up those on the right by those on the left.there is a generation of americans that is passing through history, this generation are those of the sixties and early seventies, that is what you are seeing. I believe the following generations will turn things around,freedom still means something...the sun is out im going for a ride . the president is raising money for his buddys while the north Koreans threaten to start ww 3. never surrender your rights,an American solder gave all so you could be free...even freedom for the liberals among us...

 

[oregon-rider]

::008::

you keep fighting you don't give up. you join the nra . you exersize your first amendment rights, while you still have them. remember politicle correctness, it is as un American as communism,an attempt to shut up those on the right by those on the left.there is a generation of americans that is passing through history, this generation are those of the sixties and early seventies, that is what you are seeing. I believe the following generations will turn things around,freedom still means something...the sun is out im going for a ride . the president is raising money for his buddys while the north Koreans threaten to start ww 3. never surrender your rights,an American solder gave all so you could be free...even freedom for the liberals among us...

Well said ::008::

 

[drengmike]

So on to the question of Firepower- How much is enough???

First, revisit the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Our Government's got Nukes & Stealth Bombers, so we're already at a huge disadvantage, or are we? Look at what those camel-jockies in irakistan have managed to do against us with AK-47s & religious fervor.

I look at it this way: As a Cop, Its already been well established that an AR-15 or similar platform is needed to counter the threats I may face on a daily basis. It is a compact, proven weapons system that can penetrate cover & defeat body armor. Body armor is legal in Cali & I know for a fact the bad guys use it.

Think about it this way- Civilians face the same threats that their civilian Police Officers do. Only difference is its my job to actively seek & engage those threats.

So, in favor of the AR-15 we have:
-The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment
-The fact that you folks face THE VERY SAME threats that LEOs do

Next lets look at Magazine Capacity. The idea that 10 rounds is somehow safer than 11 is right up there with "Gun-Free Zones" on the laugh-ability scale. Can anyone cite an instance where these have actually prevented a crime???

Now look at it from the good guy's point of view: How many rounds do you want in your gun when it comes time to defend your life, or when your wife needs to defend herself and/or your children's? We all know how fine motor skills degrade in high-stress situations, especially with limited/no training. We've seen stories of how trained LEOs have sent entire volleys downrange only to connect on a small percentage. A lot of this has to do with 'suppressive fire', a lot more with adrenalin and its affects on trigger control.

Consider also that 1, 2 or 10 rounds, even if they connect, may not stop the threat. Recent story relates to this...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/05/my-wife-is-a-hero-georgia-mother-shoots-home-intruder-five-times-after-being-cornered/

Fact: Certain drugs in common use amongst criminals can mask injuries/pain, and allow them to fight through otherwise debilitating wounds.

So, in favor of standard capacity magazines we have:
-Laws limiting their capacity have NO PROVEN VALUE whatsoever
-They give the good guys a better chance at stopping the threat

And on the subject of training, I hear a lot of people arguing that an untrained/ armed citizen is more a threat to people around them than the bad guy.

Hey, I'm all for more training. Here's an idea for the weenies in Sacramento: take all that tax money you're wasting on the "Dream Act" ($$$ to pay for Illegal Alien's college education) and instead fund FREE firearms instruction for good law-abiding citizens. I'm quite sure there's money being wasted at the federal level that can be put to the same purpose.

So, to summarize...

I Like It! ::012::

 

[RED CAT]

Though not an American, I have been following this debate for years as I am a shooter too. Definitely don't stop the good fight. You live in a great, free country. Been thinking that perhaps you should be storing all the ammo you can. Your government could go after ammo production somewhere down the line which would be easier to curb than gun control. Same with primers and powder. Our big problem here is the crap they teach students about political correctness and tolerance in schools and universities these days. Lately we have accepted a terrorist back from Gitmo who has admitted killing a US soldier, and a bunch of left leaning lawyers have jumped on the bandwagon to defend him for free and expect to see him on the streets soon after only a couple years incarseration. Guess, I'm old school. An eye for an eye!

 

[20valves]

it makes me laugh all this garbage about the 2nd Amendment from most wimpy people that didn't do military service. )
about not going to Colorado... be sure to stay away from Canada and every civilized country of Europe.
BTW, are you that wimpy to need a assault weapon to ride your bike? if so, you shouldn't ride a bike.... get an armored cage!!

What a chicken shit post. Did you have a point or did your 7 year old get your password?

 

[dcstrom]

Some of you guys keep rattling on about the second amendment as if the meaning is crystal clear. Maybe it is, in your minds, but, your minds are not the ones that matter...

Justice Scalia, the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, said this. I appears to leave plenty of room for gun control legislation that would be considered constitutional. Many of these controls are in place already in various states.



District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) -- supreme.justia.com

[...]
1.(f) [...]

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
[...]


In those two Scalia-penned paragraphs (ugh), the over-the-top-Conservative outlined several "legal exceptions" where gun ownership could be "constitutionally" constrained:
1) limits the type of weapon;
2) concealed weapons prohibitions;

3) prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill;

4) forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings;

5) laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms;

[Shorter: Bazooka Bans; Licensing; Competence; Locality; Gun-sale Registration & Supplier constraints.]

 

[troll]

take cover everybody, I think I hear a drone. ::26:: ::26::

 

[FacePalm]

To dcstrom, I would say this: The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was very CLEAR to to those who penned it. In our great system of "Checks & Balances", it was meant to be, amongst other things, a Check against overreaching/ expanding Government power. A means for "We the People" to keep our Government in check.

We in California have already seen how a majority vote of the people can be rendered MEANINGLESS by a single opposing judge (2 separate times in the case of Prop 8 ).

Once the Government STOPS being Of/By/For the People, and it has, the ONLY thing WE have left IS the 2nd Amendment.

If YOU are ok with your government removing the last Check on its insatiable lust for power, I say Step to the FRONT of the Line & Disarm Yourself. Be a good little sheep, and trust in your government to put yours & your family's safety at the top of their priority list.

But DO NOT expect me to fall for the fallacious argument that Disarming Law-Abiding Citizens makes us SAFER!
) ) )

One of the favorite mantras of the liberal, "if it saves just one life", except if civilian uses a gun to save that life!

 

[dcstrom]

To dcstrom, I would say this: The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was very CLEAR to to those who penned it.

And you know this how? And if it was so clear to them, you'd think they'd have done a better job of spelling it out to the rest of us. Scalia is known as the "originalist" on the Supreme Court, which means HE thinks he knows what the writers of the amendment meant when it was written in 1791 - and he says there is room for gun control laws to be constitutional.