Reason for CCW

p64pro · Post by **p64pro** » February 16th, 2006, 4:05 pm

I agree with slimster22 completly. We need simpler,old fashon ways. Unfortunatly, I live in the peoples republic of Illonois. also know as the Land of King Richard and Gov. Blowhardovitch. I have thought many times about moving out of this state to a more friendly political climate, but that would be giving up the fight.

himmel · Post by **himmel** » February 16th, 2006, 4:16 pm

rtroha = interesting comment about gun control. or lack thereof, in Canada,---where did you get that info??????

Here's a link:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

Enter "gun registry" in the search engine at the top of the page...

warshield · Post by **warshield** » February 16th, 2006, 11:11 pm

Drugs come into this country by the ton and the gument hasent been able to stop them.Pass all the gun controal laws you want and guns will still come into this country by the tons and directly into the hand of criminals.

burnsie · Post by **burnsie** » March 21st, 2006, 1:42 pm

I recently aquired a "Curio and Relics" license from the ATF. I have since been receiving material on our nation's firearms restrictions. Please pay attention here daysleeper guy.

1. State Laws and Published Ordinances - Firearms - 457 pages long - and that doesn't do it justice - these pages are 8.5 X 11 and with VERY small type.

2. Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide - 243 pages - sames size type and page.

3. There are another 6 booklets "FYI".

4. There is a log, where I can record all of my purchases of my surplus firearms.

Daysleeper...
How many more pages are needed? 1000? Will 2000 more pages be sufficient for you? HOW MANY MORE RESTRICTIONS TO YOU INTEND TO PLACE? WHERE WILL IT STOP?

Hint: It won't stop. Read up on Hitler's rise to power and his firearm "registration" which later lead (via my aforementioned "slippery slope") to complete and total gun control, and allowed him to disarm the entire Jewish community before killing 7 million Jews, and 6 million Christians, political enemies, the handicapped, etc, who were unable to defend themselves thanks to gun control advocates like you.

I know that's a harsh allegation - but its true. Once we choose to give the government more power than they should be afforded to control our affairs, 99 times out of 100, they will abuse and increase that power - with little regard to historical perspective and reason.

You intention is to disarm criminals with legislation, I understand. What I don't understand is how you can COMPLETELY IGNORE this basic principle - CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES THEM CRIMINAL PERSONALITIES TO BEGIN WITH!!!

Post by **papabear** » March 21st, 2006, 11:59 pm

What in the world is going on here, of course gun control is necessary, use both hands and make darn sure you hit what you aimed at........ just my two cents worth! ::)

saands · Post by **saands** » March 22nd, 2006, 12:33 am

Stricter gun laws ... dude, you should just move to California. There, you would have had to wait for 10 days before you could have purchased your firearm (any firearm, not just a handgun) so that you could take care of yourself when you moved back home after Katrina hit. But, then you wouldn't have been able to buy a P64, either, because they aren't on the approved list of "safe" handguns in CA. The police (who carry daily) of course don't need "safe" firearms there, so THEY are exempt from the list. And if you wanted to carry concealed there, you basically have 2 options other than being a cop: be a politician like Diane Feinstein (or be her son) or donate huge sums of money to a sherriff's re-election campaign. Everyone else need not apply. And if you are stupid enough to waste the money applying for a CCW, they don't even have to give you a reason for rejecting the application. THAT is where more restrictive firearms legislation takes you in the short term. The real anti-gun politicians there haven't had enough fun yet, even in CA, though ... there they are trying to pass a law that makes it a felony to possess any ammunition that doesn't have a serial number on it that connects it to the buyer in a DOJ database. They haven't actually figured out HOW to accomplish marking the bullets and I'm sure they couldn't care less ... the cops, afterall, will be exempt. I imagine that THAT will add a buck a round to purchased ammo (if you can find it in your caliber ... you can write off "obscure rounds like 9x18 and small rounds like 22LR) and will essentially eliminate reloading as an option. Gotta hand it to them ... banning ammo might even be more effective than than banning guns ... the only problem is that they'll make felons out of every rancher and rural homeowner that has a box of 22LR for the rifle that they use to dispatch the rabid skunks that take an interest in the chickens. Not just a simple felon, mind you, but since each bullet in posession is a separate felony violation, the poor rancher might end up doing a minimum of 45 years for the partial box of 22LR that he had in his hand when the animal control guys came to take the dead rabid skunk in for testing. Yeah ... you ought to move to CA where the criminals buy new guns (that, by the way, probably WERE stolen) without a waiting period and carry whenever and whereever they feel like it ...

Be careful for what you wish for, it might come true.

Saands

Post by **papabear** » March 22nd, 2006, 9:02 am

saands,
If your post was meant for me, please re-read my post, I am not for gun control, I was just trying to lighten up the mood here. Using both hands and hitting what you aim at is my form of gun control. The more serious questions here is; why in the world would I want to move to California? Been there done that a few times, California is a nice place to visit, but live there, no thanks, and I am sure some folks would say the same about my home state (Kentucky), its all about what you are use to I guess. But please, don't confuse me with gun control activists, I have owed guns all my life, and I have respected those guns and have acted in kind to others who did or did not have or believed in guns. That is what is so right about this country, we have the freedom to believe in what we want to, and I fought for that right in 67 and 68, have the scars to go along with it, and I will fight again if I have to, to preserve that freedom, but until then, I am going to enjoy all my hobbies and especially my guns. IMHO, if you want to worry about something being taken away, I believeeeeeeee, we should be worried about "GUN SHOWS" being eliminated first.
The gun control people believe that guns kill people, but reality tells us that people kill people, so why not ban "CAR SHOWS" because cars kill people. By the way, do they have gun shows in California, I wouldn't know, but I hope they do. I truly enjoy this P-64 forum, and all that participate on it, at the end of each day before I turn off my pc, I check this board and read all the new post, then I think back and say, "This is Good"

Thanks all for letting me get in my two cents worth!

daysleeper · Post by **daysleeper** » March 22nd, 2006, 1:43 pm

That slippery slope syndrome is a by-product of voters' support for the two-party system in this country. When I said before that it's not related to gun control I meant that it wasn't specific to guns, that it permeates through all legislation. That's why we have the tons of regulations. And really, since I don't support the two-party system and haven't voted in decades, I'll be least responsible when the government makes it full conversion to Nazi-ism.

I don't like to reiterate but all I'm suggesting is a simple licensing system and restrictions on and monitoring of transfers. Unjustified violence is the tactic of the very, very stupid. Make sure the buyer has at least a GED. And I'd support heavy taxation of transfers so that the demographics of legal gun ownership would shift away from the desperately poor and uneducated. A side-effect of this system could be the elimination of the need for CCW licenses in which, as our police chief has stated, the legality just a matter of interpretation. Now I'm talking about fewer controls, ok? And I did it in the space of a short paragraph without slippery-sloping into California style regulation.

It is true that this would have no immediate effect on most criminals, but it would lessen the demand for legal firearms and there would eventually be a smaller pool of guns available to the black market. In the meantime, we would see an immediate decrease in the number of innocent victims - spouses, children, friends and lovers - that are killed in crimes of passion by emotionally infirm individuals. People that shouldn't own guns. Keep in mind that the controls I'm suggesting are not directed to anyone on this board, since being able to read these posts would qualify them for ownership.

I think the vast majority of murders committed with illegally acquired guns are victimless crimes, i.e., one drug pusher exterminating another. Hey, it saves taxpayers the cost of incarceration. In that respect my only real complaint with those who obtain illegal firearms is that they are such bad shooters that someone innocent ends up getting killed. But that happens too often, several times a year down here, so I'm all for disarming that crowd.

saands · Post by **saands** » March 22nd, 2006, 4:34 pm

Papabear: My comments were in no way shape or form a response to your comment ... I fully support and practice your form of gun control. For the record, I almost always use both hands when I shoot and almost always hit that at which I am aiming ;D.

My comments were directed towards Daysleeper, who it seems, is living in a world free from logic (having a GED qualifies you to own a gun ::), indicates that you are mentally stable? Not having a GED or lots of money means that you are scum ::) ), historical context (when and where have more restrictive gun laws EVER lead to more liberal CCW laws?), and civic responsibility (I'm sorry, but if you don't vote, you have MORE responsibility for the outcome, not LESS!). He says that HE gives himself the right to defend himself with a firearm. That's nonsense! He may have purchased it, but if you have scars from '67 and '68, then YOU gave us that right and for that I send you a sincere, heartfelt and humble thankyou.

Gun shows? Until recently I resided in CA and I did see an ad for a show on occasion (once a year or so), but they are rare (and getting rarer) as many localities have banned them altogether. Besides, there is a 10 day waiting period on ANY firearm transfer through an FFL and only C&R longguns over 50 years old can be privately transferred. Sooo ... the whole concept of a show that might attract buyers and sellers from a wide area just doesn't fit there. If you drive 2 hours to get to a show and find something you want, you have to go back to some local FFL 10 days later ... so when you count the gas and the 8 hours of driving into the price of the acquisition, shows just aren't worth it out there.

Saands

himmel · Post by **himmel** » March 22nd, 2006, 6:09 pm

uhhh...did I hear something in here like "make guns vastly more expensive so only the RIGHT people can have them???" Man, it just gets worse and worse--like Carl Rowan, liberal par excellance, who of course favored all kinds of gun control--but when some poor drunk wandered over to take a dip in his swimming pool, he didn't hestitate a second to open fire with an illegally-possessed handgun--Not bought, BTW, no messy transfer taxes or long forms to fill out for HIM--given to him by a nephew who happened to be an FBI agent...He was one of the RIGHT people, doncha know...

himmel · Post by **himmel** » March 22nd, 2006, 6:12 pm

And BTW, the "slippery slope" is a well-know factor in the law, not just the area of party politics, frequently cited in appellate decisions all the way up to the SCOTUS as a rationale for upholding or not upholding some law or another...and it is as sure as any law of physics

dolang1 · Post by **dolang1** » March 22nd, 2006, 7:00 pm

It happened in my state.
Tulsa robbery detectives hope someone recognizes the man who was shot Saturday during a robbery and seen lying on the ground.

Tulsa Police say the man who was shot and a second man was trying to rob the Homeland near 91st and Memorial Saturday evening, when a customer in line, shot one of the robbers.

Police say the customer was legally carrying a concealed weapon and the shooting is within the law. Detectives are now looking for the two robbery suspects. They believe the one who was shot in the chest is seriously injured and needs medical attention or could die.

Even though you can't make out the man's face, police hope someone recognizes his clothing and can point them in the right direction. You can call Crimestoppers at 596-COPS with any information

butch50 · Post by **butch50** » March 22nd, 2006, 7:36 pm

I am a Fortress American crossed with a Libertarian. When it comes to guns I believe that there should be no laws at all. Like kitchen knives don't need or have laws regulating them.

space · Post by **space** » March 22nd, 2006, 7:59 pm

Read the 2nd amendment. It's clear to me, don't know why it's so hard to understand for the Liberals. Enough said.

Penn & Teller have a show on HBO named "Bull$hit". They did a great show about how worthless gun laws are. I was pretty amazed to find that they were pro-gun. If you get a change to watch it, it is pretty good.

amd6547 · Post by **amd6547** » March 22nd, 2006, 8:29 pm

After reading daysleepers elitist and moronic views, I have say I am glad about one thing he wrote--he dosn't vote.

The Unofficial P64 Resource Forum