Mass Killing Theater

[doctor712]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/16899...2012-plus-six-facts-about-colorados-gun-laws#


TRAGEDY IN COLORADO. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families of Thursday night’s tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado—where twelve are dead and fifty-nine are injured after a gunman opened fire on a crowd at a midnight screening of the latest Batman movie. Although we don’t yet know the full details of what led 24-year-old James Holmes to commit such a heinous crime, nor how when and how he obtained the means to do so, Nation columnist Gary Younge was right to tweet Friday that “there’s no plausible conversation about the shootings in Colorado that does not engage with gun control.” Here’s what we do know: existing gun control laws in Colorado are inadequate and likely led to Holmes obtaining an assault weapon with relative ease, reports George Zornick. Thanks to years of successful lobbying, the NRA and other gun groups have led a rollback of gun control regulation in the state. Zornick has more.

 

[Arch Guillotti]

And please let the mods police this forum.

Everyone:

 

[doctor712]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/168986/colorado-shooter-likely-got-guns-ease

D712Blurbs:

"....New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg immediately called for a renewed conversation on gun control. “You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country,” he said. “There are so many murders with guns every day, it’s just got to stop.”....

...So when one person is able to shoot seventy-one people in rapid succession before police arrive, it’s sensible to talk about whether it should be so easy. Guns aren’t exclusively to blame for the tragedy, but they sure did help make it possible, and multiply the destruction.

The problem is that, thanks to years of dedicated lobbying by the National Rifle Association, “existing laws” are simply inadequate. The existing laws in Colorado likely allowed the shooter, James Holmes, to obtain these guns—including an assault weapon—with ease."


We don’t yet know the details of when or how Holmes purchased the guns, but consider these scenarios:

If Holmes bought the guns in Colorado, he did not have to register them. The state prohibits gun registration.

Holmes reportedly drove up to the movie theater with his arsenal. That too was entirely legal in Colorado—as long as the guns are visible, you don’t need a permit. Permits are only required for concealed carry.

The assault weapons ban that expired under George W. Bush allowed Holmes to purchase the high-powered weapon that he reportedly used, an AR-15. President Obama campaigned on renewing the ban, but quickly dropped it from his agenda and “won’t even talk about” renewing it. (EDIT TO ADD: GEE, I WONDER WHY HE WOULD DROP THIS TOPIC...HMMM)"

If Aurora had decided prior to this shooting that it wanted to enact tougher gun control laws, it wouldn’t have been allowed to. Since 2003 it has been expressly illegal for any local government or law enforcement agency in Colorado to “enact an ordinance, regulation or other law that prohibits the sale, purchase or possession of a firearm that a person may lawfully sell, purchase or possess under state or federal law.” (Nearby Denver has been contesting this law in court).

Holmes was arrested with an assault rifle, a shotgun, and two pistols. But authorities could have never noticed he was stockpiling weapons during his short time in Colorado, because it is prohibited for any law enforcement in the state to build databases of gun buyers or gun owners.

If Holmes bought the guns outside Colorado, there are no laws restricting bringing them into Colorado.

It could have been even worse—Republican state legislators have been pushing to allow the state Insta-check background system for gun buyers to expire. (They actually succeeded at this in 1999, and not long after a man purchased a 9mm gun despite an active restraining order against him by his wife, which would have otherwise disqualified his purchase. He used the gun to kill the couple’s three young daughters. The system was quickly re-instated).


WASHINGTON DC HAS SOLD OUT TO THE NRA BECAUSE OF THEIR BLOOD RED GUN MONEY. NO DIFFERENT THEN BLOOD DIAMONDS. AT THIS POINT THE NRA IS ALL POWERFUL. WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT. WASHINGTON IS AFRAID OF THE NRA TODAY. CHANGE IT! WITH YOUR GLOCK ON YOUR SIDE. NOT YOUR MACHINE GUN!!!!!!

D712

 

[pgg]

Mass shooting prompts calls from Capitol Hill and beyond for tighter gun laws


The call for federal lawmakers to tighten gun laws has intensified following the mass shooting in Colorado, with New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg urging Congress on Saturday to swiftly address a ban on certain weapons.
“Let's stop wasting time and start saving lives,” Lautenberg, D-N.J. said on his Twitter account. “Congress must prioritize a ban on high-capacity gun magazines.”


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/21/mass-shooting-prompts-calls-from-capitol-hill-and-beyond-for-tighter-gun-laws/#ixzz21LS4nETA

Gun control's going nowhere this year -

Obama won't let any overt gun control efforts take place before the election. He knows it's political poison. The election looks to be a close one, and gun control is the absolute last subject he wants on the table - especially since it would drag Holder/F&F back into the spotlight.

 

[deleted103644]

Gun control's going nowhere this year -

Obama won't let any overt gun control efforts take place before the election. He knows it's political poison. The election looks to be a close one, and gun control is the absolute last subject he wants on the table - especially since it would drag Holder/F&F back into the spotlight.

I agree, but don't think F&F is a serious concern for them.

The only people paying serious attention to it were already going to vote against him anyway.

 

[pgg]

I agree, but don't think F&F is a serious concern for them.

The only people paying serious attention to it were already going to vote against him anyway.

Probably, but -

Extra attention might make it harder for Obama/Holder to keep stonewalling document release. If there really is anything incriminating or embarrassing hidden there, that would sway other voters.

It would also distract the media from subjects Obama would rather talk about.

 

[doctor712]

Gun control's going nowhere this year

Probably not, because of the NRA. And I just wanna say that America is a better place with 100 round drums being legalized in order to kill a lot of people fast. (See: Aurora incident, you might have heard of it).

Obama won't let any overt gun control efforts take place before the election.

Because of the NRA.

He knows it's political poison.

Because of the NRA.

The election looks to be a close one, and gun control is the absolute last subject he wants on the table...

Because of the NRA.

See the theme...

D712

 

[deleted103644]

Probably, but -

Extra attention might make it harder for Obama/Holder to keep stonewalling document release. If there really is anything incriminating or embarrassing hidden there, that would sway other voters.

It would also distract the media from subjects Obama would rather talk about.

There's nothing embarrassing there beyond the usual crap that can come up with communications dumps (eventually someone says something stupid). And it's not particularly relevant or important - they might as well ask for Obama's colonoscopy (probably more likely to find something relevant there). I'm not a fan of executive privilege, but the whole investigation seems silly.

I've lost track of the conspiracy theory - so the Bush administration colluded with the Obama administration to bungle an operation to prevent illegal guns from getting smuggled to Mexico --> ??? --> banning guns in the US --> profit.

It really makes no sense outside of conspiracy land, and I don't think those people were ever voting for Obama (if they vote at all).

 

[Trisomy13]

...
A little anal never killed anyone. I'm sure Holmes would take it like a good boy.

...

D712

Not true!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case

 

[gettheleadout]

I think I've covered my argument almost as good as I can, but to answer your thought a) I think PGG's premise is wrong, so I don't buy into his logic. b) explicitly, I don't buy into your logic c) less bullets in weapons that we CANNOT control, will cause less deaths, even in an AR-15. d) arms, to me, should be construed as handguns, and nothing more.

D712

😕

I was looking for a response from pgg or someone who sides with him because I was posing the same question you did. Why is any sort of weapon banned (e.g. rocket launchers) if A) law-abiding citizens should be trusted to lawfully own and use such weapons and especially B) pgg's premise of the intent of the Second Amendment being that the populace be as well armed as the military?

 

[deleted103644]

😕

I was looking for a response from pgg or someone who sides with him because I was posing the same question you did. Why is any sort of weapon banned (e.g. rocket launchers) if A) law-abiding citizens should be trusted to lawfully own and use such weapons and especially B) pgg's premise of the intent of the Second Amendment being that the populace be as well armed as the military?

Yeah. Why stop there? You could purchase the DNA for a lethal organism (synthesized) for only a few thousand bucks - why shouldn't US citizens be allowed to own that according to their second amendment rights?

I mean, if you're actually protecting yourself against the government, you'll need some non conventional weapons, right?

 

[doctor712]

Not true!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case

Yeah, I figured someone would post something like this.... 😱

D712

 

[doctor712]

😕

I was looking for a response from pgg or someone who sides with him because I was posing the same question you did. Why is any sort of weapon banned (e.g. rocket launchers) if A) law-abiding citizens should be trusted to lawfully own and use such weapons and especially B) pgg's premise of the intent of the Second Amendment being that the populace be as well armed as the military?

As far as this thread goes, I don't know who is asking what anymore! 😛 I probably misread your question, what with all the energy I have to put toward PGG....

D712

 

[doctor712]

Yeah. Why stop there? You could purchase the DNA for a lethal organism (synthesized) for only a few thousand bucks - why shouldn't US citizens be allowed to own that according to their second amendment rights?

I mean, if you're actually protecting yourself against the government, you'll need some non conventional weapons, right?

EXACTLY! Ebola, Flesh eating bacteria, HIV, Yellow Fever, TB, Smallpox, let's ARM ourselves in order to fight the big bad G!!!!

D712

feds: note sarcasm please. 😀😎

 

[pgg]

There's nothing embarrassing there beyond the usual crap that can come up with communications dumps (eventually someone says something stupid). And it's not particularly relevant or important - they might as well ask for Obama's colonoscopy (probably more likely to find something relevant there). I'm not a fan of executive privilege, but the whole investigation seems silly.

I've lost track of the conspiracy theory - so the Bush administration colluded with the Obama administration to bungle an operation to prevent illegal guns from getting smuggled to Mexico --> ??? --> banning guns in the US --> profit.

It really makes no sense outside of conspiracy land, and I don't think those people were ever voting for Obama (if they vote at all).

I'm a big believer that one should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.


But it's not correct though that the same kind of operation was going on during the Bush years. (For the record, I have very unfavorable view of GWB.)

For one thing the Bush-era operation actually tracked the guns. They also ran the operation together with Mexican authorities. For another, they ended the operation after it became clear it wasn't useful, and was in fact pointlessly risky.

I'll spot the Obama side a fair bit of credit for using the "b-b-b-b-b-but Bush" excuse when it comes to things like the economy. But not on this.


I don't believe there's anything criminal or evil that's being concealed by the Executive Privilege claims. My suspicion is that there are probably some candid remarks that reveal Obama's and/or Holder's personal feelings on gun control that would be inconvenient or embarrassing. He's worked very, very hard to avoid the subject his entire first term.

Yeah. Why stop there? You could purchase the DNA for a lethal organism (synthesized) for only a few thousand bucks - why shouldn't US citizens be allowed to own that according to their second amendment rights?

I mean, if you're actually protecting yourself against the government, you'll need some non conventional weapons, right?

You're being sarcastic, but I actually do agree with you. As I've written before here (though not in this thread), I think the correct place to draw the line is WMD. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear devices have uses as strategic or terror weapons. There's no Constitutional defense for individual ownership of them.

I'm not sure if the Founders really had any concept of strategic/terror weapons, or imagined that they would ever exist. They may not have imagined machine guns but clearly their intent was not to restrict the people's access to armaments in common use.

 

[doctor712]

You're being sarcastic, but I actually do agree with you. As I've written before here (though not in this thread), I think the correct place to draw the line is WMD...

WTF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? There's the line PGG draws everyone, WMD. Read it twice, thrice, WOW. WOW.

I'm not sure if the Founders...

Now you're getting it...!

but clearly their intent was not to restrict the people's access to armaments in common use.

Arms. Armaments. Common use? All PGG's BRAINSTORMING. NONE of it EXPLICIT in the CONSTITUTION. I ask you, WHY NOT? Perhaps, not their INTENT????????????

D712

 

[doctor712]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/2...un-range-application-drew-red-flag-for-owner/

Important read, take a peak. I think the Gun Club owner had good intentions and was clearly intuitive when it came to this WACKO. Too bad he didn't call the authorities, or follow-up.

D712

 

[pgg]

😕

I was looking for a response from pgg or someone who sides with him because I was posing the same question you did. Why is any sort of weapon banned (e.g. rocket launchers) if A) law-abiding citizens should be trusted to lawfully own and use such weapons and especially B) pgg's premise of the intent of the Second Amendment being that the populace be as well armed as the military?

The simple answer is that there IS no logical reason why individual ownership of weapons is restricted.

The notable exception being individuals with felony convictions, or who have been judged mentally incompetent - this is a special case, and the individuals affected are entitled to appropriate due process. (Actually, my personal feeling is that only violent felony convictions should be disqualifying, but reasonable people can disagree about where that line should be drawn.)


Gun control, at least as it exists in the last 150 or so years, came about because of racism and classism. It began in the post Civil War era as white racists became concerned that newly freed slaves would get all uppity and have the gall to defend themselves. It continued through the Great Depression with the 1934 NFA which imposed a $200 tax (about $3200 in today's dollars) on transfers of certain types of weapons - guns for purposes other than hunting were supposed to be restricted to wealthy people. Suppressors ("silencers") were included in the NFA not because they are assassin tools for criminals, but because starving poor people were poaching meals with them.

It continues because it's an easy way to manipulate some people. Being 'tough on crime' and 'protecting the children' helps score votes, and the reasonableness or even the actual utility of proposed laws don't matter anywhere near as much as the impression that the politician is doing something.

I continue to marvel at the incredible coup, that the Democratic party has convinced poor minorities that gun control is in their own best interest, and made it a reliably vote-getting part of their platform. Convincing a disadvantaged group to give up a basic civil right like armed self defense is positively diabolical.


And there are always, always people who are willing to surrender personal liberty for the illusion of security. May their chains rest lightly upon them and may posterity forget that they were our countrymen.

 

[FiremedicMike]

An interesting note on gun control as it relates specially to this case. Cinemark theaters is supposedly a strict "gun free zone" per corporate policy, and one would assume that appropriate signage was posted. Another fine example of gun laws only affecting those who care enough to obey them, and those are generally not the people who are interested in murdering people.

While I think johnny makes an interesting point about a single CCW carrier not standing much of a chance, what if there were 4, or 5, or 10? One could assume that Holmes had prepared for police officers entering through predictable entry points and using somewhat predictable rules of engagement, whereas 4-7 CCW carriers coming out of the audience and shooting at the bad guy from different angles and not entering from the entrance in the back (because they were already there) may have overwhelmed Holmes and saved at least a few lives..

As for fast and furious.. well I think that's just a cluster-**** that actually sits as my largest disappointment in this administration. Not so much that it happened (apparently it started during Bush), but that they refuse to hold anyone accountable for the total breakdown of the plan. On a side note, I think F&F should serve as a wake up call to those who believe a complete ban of assault weapons in America would lead to a cease of new assault weapons entering circulation in this country.

I have no answer for the rocket launcher question, I will concede that it's an interesting point.

 

[doctor712]

The simple answer is that there IS no logical reason why individual ownership of weapons is restricted.

PGG aka Lord Pgg.

Gun control, at least as it exists in the last 150 or so years, came about because of racism and classism.

Most of the founders were classists or racists. Yet they wrote your beloved Constitution. Doesn't stop you from sucking
on their kneecaps.

But more to your point...presently, in 2012, Gun Control, for those of us in the 21st Century, is about making streets safer.

READERS: Please note, PGG spent this entire next paragraph:

It began in the post Civil War era as white racists became concerned that newly freed slaves would get all uppity and have the gall to defend themselves. It continued through the Great Depression with the 1934 NFA which imposed a $200 tax (about $3200 in today's dollars) on transfers of certain types of weapons - guns for purposes other than hunting were supposed to be restricted to wealthy people. Suppressors ("silencers") were included in the NFA not because they are assassin tools for criminals, but because starving poor people were poaching meals with them.

Going on and on about US history and racism. We know how the US was in 1787.

So, which is it PGG, racist Founders with Slaves, OR Racist Gun Control dudes during Civil War?

Take your pick.

But - is there a difference??????

Being 'tough on crime' and 'protecting the children' helps score votes

I'm not running for office. REALLY? Protecting kids isn't a noble cause.

WOW.

Since I don't need votes, well, what are my motives?

You wanna talk about VOTE BUYERS: SEE NRA.

Do you know why they SUCKERED AND BRAINWASHED you into thinking the 2nd amendment is without review???????
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO LINE THEIR NRA POCKETS. PERIOD.

And there are always, always people who are willing to surrender personal liberty for the illusion of security.

6 shooter vs. 100 rounds. Which is "safer" for movie goers? Illusion? Or reality? Your only defense is the 2nd amendment,
an UNLIMITED UNTIL WMD 2nd AMENDMENT!!!!!! 🙄


D712

 

[pgg]

An interesting note on gun control as it relates specially to this case. Cinemark theaters is supposedly a strict "gun free zone" per corporate policy, and one would assume that appropriate signage was posted. Another fine example of gun laws only affecting those who care enough to obey them, and those are generally not the people who are interested in murdering people.

I don't see that as a problem.

It's private property. They can choose to restrict the behavior of guests any way they like. I or other CCW holders can choose not to go to their establishment.

If you carry on their property, the worst that can happen is that they can ask you to leave, and if you don't, the police can arrest you for trespassing. Of course, it's rude and douchey to carry a weapon on someone else's private property if they ask you not to.

I carry at movie theaters. Haven't ever seen a sign at the local places. If they post one now, I'll either leave my gun in my car or stay home.

While I think johnny makes an interesting point about a single CCW carrier not standing much of a chance, what if there were 4, or 5, or 10? One could assume that Holmes had prepared for police officers entering through predictable entry points and using somewhat predictable rules of engagement, whereas 4-7 CCW carriers coming out of the audience and shooting at the bad guy from different angles and not entering from the entrance in the back (because they were already there).

Anything's possible, but I doubt it.

Again, this guy was armed and armored up better than the North Hollywood bank robbers. A bunch of cops in broad daylight on open streets couldn't handle them. This guy in a dark, smoky theater ... I think it's pure fantasy to speculate that a person carrying the usual compact handgun could have done anything more than attract his attention and get shot sooner.

Also ... 4-7 legal permitted carriers in a theater audience is a pretty unlikely thing to ever expect, even in shall-issue states like Colorado. Very few people actually get permits. Few permit holders carry every day.

This incident couldn't have been prevented by gun control, and CCW is even more of a side topic.

I have no answer for the rocket launcher question, I will concede that it's an interesting point.

You can buy rocket launchers in many states, if you can find one for sale. Of course, the launcher itself is subject to the whole NFA acquisition process (+$200 tax) ... and every single round of ammunition would be too. Again, if you can find such things for sale, which you generally can't.

There are M203 grenade launchers up on gunbroker.com all the time. People buy them and goof off with smoke rounds, I guess. Each actual grenade would be subject to a 6-8 month ATF waiting period and $200 tax - and again this assumes you can find any for sale. I don't think there are any commercial manufacturers.

I think - but I'm not sure - that an individual could legally manufacture rounds for either weapon, if they wanted to tempt Darwin. If they were for personal use, the Form 1 process could be used (+$200 tax per round and current 6-8 ATF waiting period). If they were for sale then surely at a minimum the licensing required for ammunition manufacturers would apply.


Of course, you'll find these legal weapons used in crimes about as often as you'll find legal machine guns used in crimes. Which is to say, never.

Edit to add - I should qualify that last statement. In fact, there have been three murders committed with registered machine guns. The first was a police officer who killed someone in 1934, the year the NFA was passed. One was another police officer who killed an informant (?) in the 1980s. I don't recall the other case but I think it wasn't a police officer, for a change.

 

[gettheleadout]

The simple answer is that there IS no logical reason why individual ownership of weapons is restricted.

The notable exception being individuals with felony convictions, or who have been judged mentally incompetent - this is a special case, and the individuals affected are entitled to appropriate due process. (Actually, my personal feeling is that only violent felony convictions should be disqualifying, but reasonable people can disagree about where that line should be drawn.)


Gun control, at least as it exists in the last 150 or so years, came about because of racism and classism. It began in the post Civil War era as white racists became concerned that newly freed slaves would get all uppity and have the gall to defend themselves. It continued through the Great Depression with the 1934 NFA which imposed a $200 tax (about $3200 in today's dollars) on transfers of certain types of weapons - guns for purposes other than hunting were supposed to be restricted to wealthy people. Suppressors ("silencers") were included in the NFA not because they are assassin tools for criminals, but because starving poor people were poaching meals with them.

It continues because it's an easy way to manipulate some people. Being 'tough on crime' and 'protecting the children' helps score votes, and the reasonableness or even the actual utility of proposed laws don't matter anywhere near as much as the impression that the politician is doing something.

I continue to marvel at the incredible coup, that the Democratic party has convinced poor minorities that gun control is in their own best interest, and made it a reliably vote-getting part of their platform. Convincing a disadvantaged group to give up a basic civil right like armed self defense is positively diabolical.


And there are always, always people who are willing to surrender personal liberty for the illusion of security. May their chains rest lightly upon them and may posterity forget that they were our countrymen.

So, referring back to your interpretation of the Second Amendment as equal armament of the citizens with respect to the military, would you personally advocate legal purchase by non-felons of rocket launchers, tanks, unmanned drones, grenades, C4, cruise missles, nuclear weaponry, etc...? If there is anything you would not restrict citizens from individually owning, what is it and why?

 

[pgg]

So, referring back to your interpretation of the Second Amendment as equal armament of the citizens with respect to the military, would you personally advocate legal purchase by non-felons of rocket launchers, tanks, unmanned drones, grenades, C4, cruise missles, nuclear weaponry, etc...? If there is anything you would not restrict citizens from individually owning, what is it and why?

I wouldn't restrict any of it, except the aforementioned WMD for the aforementioned reasons. There's no reason for an individual to possess a weapon that has ONLY strategic or terror applications.

But I'm not sure where you're going with this, because this stuff is legal for individuals to purchase and own TODAY, in most states. It an be expensive, and there are some legal hoops to jump through.

But there's no reason you or I couldn't buy or build a drone or a very large guided or unguided rocket. The difficulties are mainly financial and technical. You can buy explosives with a credit card - certain types have licensure and storage requirements, but you can get 20 pounds of Tannerite delivered to your door by the US Postal Service for about $100.

Weaponizing any of these things is another question; there are unrelated laws concerning firing guns from vehicles or aircraft, for example, and the ATF is really the BATFE which is interested in explosives. And for some aspects of these DIY projects, you'd probably run into areas regulated by the NFA again, resulting in the usual ATF waiting periods, tax costs, and related state laws that may prohibit it altogether.

 

[pgg]

So, referring back to your interpretation of the Second Amendment as equal armament of the citizens with respect to the military, would you personally advocate legal purchase by non-felons of rocket launchers, tanks, unmanned drones, grenades, C4, cruise missles, nuclear weaponry, etc...? If there is anything you would not restrict citizens from individually owning, what is it and why?

Here you guy, you can buy this 40mm grenade launcher this afternoon:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=297381373

Only $3000 or so.

Provided you live in a state that doesn't ban NFA regulated destructive devices, which is most of them. You also wouldn't get your hands on it for the better part of the year. And ammo is hard to find.

 

[gettheleadout]

So what's your position on the current regulations in place on these heavy weapons? Also, what about tanks? What about weaponized aircraft like bombers and fighter-bombers? Can I or should I be able to legally drop $200M on a fully armed F-22? I assume you're implying that nukes aren't a weapon the government could conceivably use against its own citizens, or at the very least not one the citizens could use back against the government. However, if the latter is the case then why should the government be allowed to have such weapons if there is any chance at all of their use against the people? The government could conceivably nuke Hawaii as a threat to the mainland citizens not to revolt.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN Mobile

 

[doctor712]

Again, this guy was armed and armored up better than the North Hollywood bank robbers. A bunch of cops in broad daylight on open streets couldn't handle them.

THIS is a photo from a LAPD exhibit with the NORTH HOLLYWOOD shooters' clothes places on dummies.

To restate: THIS IS THE ARMOR AND WEAPONRY that PGG thinks is legal and wise for the US citizenry to wear: (not my flickr acct)...take a peak.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/35518438@N04/4407196726

A bunch of cops in broad daylight on open streets couldn't handle them.

So, remember those North Hollywood shooters, that COPS (AKA the GOVERNMENT) couldn't handle? Yeah,
well, I would say that by definition, this invalidates PGG's argument that the citizenry should only be AS armed at the G.
Not BETTER ARMED. Frankly, it's an asinine argument altogether. But just to prove a point.

Of course, you'll find these legal weapons used in crimes about as often as you'll find legal machine guns used in crimes. Which is to say, never.

PGG states "facts" about machine guns. Apparently, to PGG, the 100 ROUND DRUM and its friend the AR-15 (cinema shooting) is not a fully automatic MACHINE GUN. Um, SO?! Cute slight of hand. Who cares about the name MACHINE GUN???????????? Let's rephrase to "ANY EXCESSIVE ROUND RIFLE that fires SEMI-AUTOMATIC BULLETS IN A CLIP LARGER THAN 20".

Now I'd like PGG to go and find how many deaths these weapons have caused since 1934...

Slight of Hand brought to you by PGG and the NRA.

D712

 

[doctor712]

I wouldn't restrict any of it, except the aforementioned WMD for the aforementioned reasons.

This is what you call, an extreme belief.[/QUOTE] No limits until WMDs...wow.

You can buy explosives with a credit card - certain types have licensure and storage requirements, but you can get 20 pounds of Tannerite delivered to your door by the US Postal Service for about $100.

1) Gee, I wonder how PGG knows this? 🙄
2) PGG forgets to mention that any item delivered using the USPS for the commission of the crime...buys you a FEDERAL charge if convicted. Small point.

For the record: Postal Inspectors do not carry 100 round AR-15s as duty weapons on a daily basis. But the 40 cal Glock. The north hollywood shooters and cinema shooters used 100 round drums on AR-15s...

D712

 

[doctor712]

Here you guy, you can buy this 40mm grenade launcher this afternoon:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=297381373

You also wouldn't get your hands on it for the better part of the year. And ammo is hard to find.

See how PGG makes it seem that buying 40mm grenades is "difficult"??? To PGG, this is one of the "arms" Madison wanted you to have as a liberty.

Not a handgun, but a GRENADE LAUNCHER.

Please -- don't buy into this FALLACY. PGG stopped replying to my PLETHORA of Constitutional replies because he hasn't a clue. But thinks it's FUN to have a Grenade Launcher. You know, priorities. 👍

D712

 

[FiremedicMike]

I don't see that as a problem.

It's private property. They can choose to restrict the behavior of guests any way they like. I or other CCW holders can choose not to go to their establishment.

If you carry on their property, the worst that can happen is that they can ask you to leave, and if you don't, the police can arrest you for trespassing. Of course, it's rude and douchey to carry a weapon on someone else's private property if they ask you not to.

I carry at movie theaters. Haven't ever seen a sign at the local places. If they post one now, I'll either leave my gun in my car or stay home.

Oh I totally agree, I was simply pointing out that it was an example of gun control that only affects criminals. As Holmes is a perfect example of someone who carried illegally into a supposed gun free zone.

Anything's possible, but I doubt it.

Again, this guy was armed and armored up better than the North Hollywood bank robbers. A bunch of cops in broad daylight on open streets couldn't handle them. This guy in a dark, smoky theater ... I think it's pure fantasy to speculate that a person carrying the usual compact handgun could have done anything more than attract his attention and get shot sooner.

Also ... 4-7 legal permitted carriers in a theater audience is a pretty unlikely thing to ever expect, even in shall-issue states like Colorado. Very few people actually get permits. Few permit holders carry every day.

<shrug> You're probably right..

This incident couldn't have been prevented by gun control, and CCW is even more of a side topic.

That was kind of my point too, I may have just articulated my opinion poorly.

You can buy rocket launchers in many states, if you can find one for sale. Of course, the launcher itself is subject to the whole NFA acquisition process (+$200 tax) ... and every single round of ammunition would be too. Again, if you can find such things for sale, which you generally can't.

There are M203 grenade launchers up on gunbroker.com all the time. People buy them and goof off with smoke rounds, I guess. Each actual grenade would be subject to a 6-8 month ATF waiting period and $200 tax - and again this assumes you can find any for sale. I don't think there are any commercial manufacturers.

I think - but I'm not sure - that an individual could legally manufacture rounds for either weapon, if they wanted to tempt Darwin. If they were for personal use, the Form 1 process could be used (+$200 tax per round and current 6-8 ATF waiting period). If they were for sale then surely at a minimum the licensing required for ammunition manufacturers would apply.


Of course, you'll find these legal weapons used in crimes about as often as you'll find legal machine guns used in crimes. Which is to say, never.

Edit to add - I should qualify that last statement. In fact, there have been three murders committed with registered machine guns. The first was a police officer who killed someone in 1934, the year the NFA was passed. One was another police officer who killed an informant (?) in the 1980s. I don't recall the other case but I think it wasn't a police officer, for a change.

Yeah, I believe you can buy just about anything as long as you get the proper NFA paperwork, isn't that correct?

 

[deleted103644]

I'm a big believer that one should never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.


But it's not correct though that the same kind of operation was going on during the Bush years. (For the record, I have very unfavorable view of GWB.)

For one thing the Bush-era operation actually tracked the guns. They also ran the operation together with Mexican authorities. For another, they ended the operation after it became clear it wasn't useful, and was in fact pointlessly risky.

I'll spot the Obama side a fair bit of credit for using the "b-b-b-b-b-but Bush" excuse when it comes to things like the economy. But not on this.


I don't believe there's anything criminal or evil that's being concealed by the Executive Privilege claims. My suspicion is that there are probably some candid remarks that reveal Obama's and/or Holder's personal feelings on gun control that would be inconvenient or embarrassing. He's worked very, very hard to avoid the subject his entire first term.

I don't think invoking the Bush administration is inappropriate here, because the operation was started by the Bush administration. I don't think this was a priority for them, so they probably just let it continue on autopilot.

There probably are embarrassing things said in the emails, but take a large enough sample of any organization's emails and you could say the same thing. I doubt the administration is hiding any particular email, they just don't feel like going along with a witch hunt.

You're being sarcastic, but I actually do agree with you. As I've written before here (though not in this thread), I think the correct place to draw the line is WMD. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear devices have uses as strategic or terror weapons. There's no Constitutional defense for individual ownership of them.

I'm not sure if the Founders really had any concept of strategic/terror weapons, or imagined that they would ever exist. They may not have imagined machine guns but clearly their intent was not to restrict the people's access to armaments in common use.

You're generally relatively rational in your arguments, but I'm calling you out on this one being a bit fishy.

An assault rifle was as alien to the founding fathers as mustard gas - why would they oppose individual possession of one and not the other? You're setting a pretty arbitrary line here.

Also your interpretation of the second amendment is suspect, as you are missing the historical context. There wasn't really a standing army when the Constitution was signed. The US mainly depended upon a network of militias for defense. Eventually conflicts with the native Americans necessitated formation of a standing army, but the point of the second amendment wasn't to keep citizens armed against their government, it was to make citizens the defenders of their government.

Once a standing army was established (first in 1791), that rationale became less important.

 

[BLADEMDA]

This is what you call, an extreme belief.

No limits until WMDs...wow.



1) Gee, I wonder how PGG knows this? 🙄
2) PGG forgets to mention that any item delivered using the USPS for the commission of the crime...buys you a FEDERAL charge if convicted. Small point.

For the record: Postal Inspectors do not carry 100 round AR-15s as duty weapons on a daily basis. But the 40 cal Glock. The north hollywood shooters and cinema shooters used 100 round drums on AR-15s...

D712[/QUOTE]


For the record the 2 criminals in the North Hollywood Bank of America robbery used illegal fully auto AK47 machine guns with 100 round drums as their primary weapon. These guns were illegal. Robbing a bank was illegal. Killing police and civilians are illegal.

What laws do you want passed to prevent this "tragedy" from happening again? Do you think making the 100 round drum illegal in the US would have stopped these criminals?

The thing that has stopped a copy cat crime like the North Hollywood massacre was the Issuing of the AR15 rifle to the police. Now, many beat cops have AR15s and don't need to wait for SWAT to fight back.

 

[BLADEMDA]

California vs. Colorado on*gun laws

Here's a comparison between California and Colorado gun laws:
Assault weapons
Colorado law: Allows ownership of assault weapons, though Denver can restrict them.
California law: Prohibits ownership of assault weapons unless acquired before 1989. Semi-automatic guns, however, are not considered assault weapons and are allowed as long as they carry magazines of less than 10 rounds.
Background checks, waiting periods
Colorado law: Requires background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows.
California law: Requires a background check and 10-day waiting period on both handguns and rifles; gun shows are not exempt.
Concealed weapons
Colorado law: Concealed weapons require a permit.
Local law enforcement officers retain the right to deny concealed carry permits on reasonable doubt.
California law: Allows concealed-weapon permits, but the number of permits issued varies widely by jurisdiction.
Open carry
Colorado law: Allows anyone who owns a gun to carry openly.
California law: Prohibits individuals from openly carrying weapons.

 

[BLADEMDA]

James Holmes. He wore a bulletproof vest, helmet, and gask mask, and entered a movie theater that was playing The Dark Knight Rises&#8212;so the room was dark and loud. He tossed a "gas canister" that went off and would have obscured the vision of anyone looking back at him. From the AP:

They saw a silhouette of a person in the haze near the screen, pointing a gun at the crowd and then shooting.
"There were bullet (casings) just falling on my head. They were burning my forehead," Jennifer Seeger said, adding that the gunman, dressed like a SWAT team member, fired steadily, stopping only to reload.
"Every few seconds it was just: Boom, boom, boom," she said. "He would reload and shoot and anyone who would try to leave would just get killed."
You've got dark, panic, an enclosed space, and some kind of painful gas. No one's in any position to get the jump on the shooter. No one has a place to hide from him&#8212;he has a perfect vantage point of every seat. And he's wearing protective gear.
So, I think the answer for Gohmert is: No. No one was in an ideal position to pull a Dirty Harry on the man shooting at him/her in a panicked theater.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-07-22/aurora-gun-control-debate/56419042/1?csp=34news

Was it illegal to carry concealed in Aurora Colorado? If a citizen shot back at Holmes and actually killed him during this massacre would he/she have been arrested by police? Would the hero do jail time for violating Aurora law and Theater policy (gun free zone)?

Finally, we need more upstanding, good citizens carrying weapons at all times. While we may get the ignorant, over zealous Zimmerman types from time to time we may be able to limit Virginia Tech type tragedies.

PGG, 100 round drums are unreliable in AR type weapons. They work better in Ak47s. Holmes AR jammed during the massacre. This meant there was time to take out Holmes when he went to his Glock Pistol. Gas masks limit vision and mobility. If this shooting happened in Florida or Texas and you were carrying legally in those states would you have taken a shot?

 

[deleted103644]

I agree - state gun control laws are ineffective (except as a way to add years after the crime has been committed).

It's far too easy to go into a lax gun control state, buy guns, and smuggle those guns into the tight gun control state.

In order for any gun control measure to truly be effective, it would have to be federal.

 

[BLADEMDA]

** See Aurora Code Sec. 94-146a: "It shall be unlawful for any person to fire, shoot, or discharge any firearm; crossbow; bow and arrow; slingshot; blowgun; BB gun or pellet gun, whether powered with gunpowder, compressed air, or gas cartridges; gas gun; or any weapon whatsoever within the city limits. However, such discharge, firing, or shooting by any law enforcement officer, federal, state, county, or city, in the course of his or her official duty shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection, and such discharge, firing, or shooting at commercial, private, or public shooting ranges or by authorized classes of schools or universities at all times under proper instruction and supervision as may be authorized or permitted by law shall not be deemed a violation of this subsection."

*** Aurora Police Department confirmed this is the case within the city limits and without a conceal-and-carry permit from the appropriate county. See*Aurora Code Sec. 94-144.5.

 

[BLADEMDA]

* This ordinance banning the carrying of "dangerous weapons" was deemed "unenforceable" when*Colorado state prohibited cities and counties from enforcing such laws in 2003. After talking to officials the Aurora Police Department, we found that counties can now issue concealed-and-carry permits, BUT in Aurora, it is still against the law to fire the weapon unless at a shooting range (or if you are an officer on duty). Therefore, it would have been illegal for anyone to fire in the theater. Also, the theater banned any and all weapons. Anyone without a conceal-and-carry permit in Aurora must also keep their guns unloaded unless at a range

 

[FiremedicMike]

I agree - state gun control laws are ineffective (except as a way to add years after the crime has been committed).

It's far too easy to go into a lax gun control state, buy guns, and smuggle those guns into the tight gun control state.

In order for any gun control measure to truly be effective, it would have to be federal.

With all due respect, what you described is already against federal firearms laws.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Glocks seem to be like Mac's you either love &#8216;em or you hate &#8216;em. *Regardless of which camp you fall into Glocks are one of the one of the most popular semi-auto handguns. *They are very accurate, light weight and extremely reliable. *If you are considering your first conceal and carry gun I would suggest you try one.

They are small and are a particularly good choice of Conceal and Carry Weapons. It is 6.29&#8243; long, weighs just under 1 1/4 pounds and fits very well in your hands. If you find that the grip is a little short they make after market hi-cap magazines with grip extenders for a bit more heft. The Glock 26 will hold 10 rounds in the standard size magazines, and the 27 will hold 9.

Personally, I prefer the 26 (9mm) vs. the 27 (.40 caliber). *I find the 26 doesn't jump around as much and it is easier to control during repeated firing.

 

[doctor712]

For the record the 2 criminals in the North Hollywood Bank of America robbery used illegal fully auto AK47 machine guns with 100 round drums as their primary weapon. These guns were illegal. Robbing a bank was illegal. Killing police and civilians are illegal.

What laws do you want passed to prevent this "tragedy" from happening again? Do you think making the 100 round drum illegal in the US would have stopped these criminals?

The thing that has stopped a copy cat crime like the North Hollywood massacre was the Issuing of the AR15 rifle to the police. Now, many beat cops have AR15s and don't need to wait for SWAT to fight back.

Blade,

first off, you owe me a PM, I'd love to know your thoughts! 🙂

also, respectfully, I really put a lot into those posts, and I think the numerous ones back and forth with PGG state my overall feeling about gun control, random acts of violence, 100 round drums, glocks and weapons of mass destruction. oh, and F-15s as well. 🙂

in short though, no such law exists to prevent ANY crime. yet we have laws. seat belt laws don't prevent people from driving without belts and ending up on your OR table. yet we still have them, and - many people buckle up. on a greater scale, guns, i've stated simply, what my view of the founders is, and where i think the "line of normalcy" should be drawn. i feel that's at hand guns and non-automatic weapons. as much as PGG thinks that RPGs should remain legal, i think weapons in citizens hands should be limited to hunting guns, hand guns and THAT'S IT.

will that prevent ALL mass murders? no. will it logically, under a nationwide band, and a decades long CRACK down, change the mentality that these guns just get more and more and more rare and limited, provide people (at least mathematically) less opportunity to do what Holmes did? I think yes. does such a ban infringe on gun holders rights? i suppose, but as i've stated, the calculus is sickening at this point, that the NRA has such influence over politicians. also, the calculus is simple, had Holmes only used a Glock, this would have turned out differently, and not worse. I think, tonight, what I heard at dinner at least, is that Holmes' AR-15 jammed, causing him to drop it and move to the Glock. do you know what the witnesses said? something along the lines of, "had that AR-15 not jammed, there would have been 150 dead." and that's my point.

there is tooooo much entropy in the world to control it all, i get it. idiots will be idiots. i started my argument with PGG, to say that we need to find a better balance between rights (handguns) and the ability to use 100 round drums and massacre people. that's it. simple math. simple simple math.

PGG then went on to theorize about Madison and that's where we disagreed even more.

Also, I don't think the NH shooters used AK47s. This is from Wiki (didn't wanna dig anymore...)

"Phillips and M&#259;t&#259;s&#259;reanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor." I don't know if the AR was made automatic, that sentence isn't perfectly clear. But needless to say, I don't find these weapons to have a place in the US Constitution, and I'm reallllllly not alone in that thought.

I'm happy you have guns, I'm happy you have many handguns. Do I agree with the legality of your rifles? Sure. Ones with Drums of rounds? No.
But that's only part of the equation here. It boils down to: is your 100 round drum more important than keeping these drums out of bad people's hands. I say yes. That's where we are at in this country. At least, me.

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

Glocks seem to be like Mac's you either love &#8216;em or you hate &#8216;em. *Regardless of which camp you fall into Glocks are one of the one of the most popular semi-auto handguns. *They are very accurate, light weight and extremely reliable. *If you are considering your first conceal and carry gun I would suggest you try one.

They are small and are a particularly good choice of Conceal and Carry Weapons. It is 6.29&#8243; long, weighs just under 1 1/4 pounds and fits very well in your hands. If you find that the grip is a little short they make after market hi-cap magazines with grip extenders for a bit more heft. The Glock 26 will hold 10 rounds in the standard size magazines, and the 27 will hold 9.

Personally, I prefer the 26 (9mm) vs. the 27 (.40 caliber). *I find the 26 doesn't jump around as much and it is easier to control during repeated firing.

The Glock 26 is the most accurate small handgun I have ever fired. This baby Glock has minimal recoil in 9mm and is deadly accurate at 25 feet. The only thing I don't like is that in my opinion the Glock should be carried without a round in the chamber in order to avoid accidental discharge. This means you must pull the slide back in order to load a bullet into the chamber.

My second favorite CCW is the Ruger 9mm. A slightly larger version of the popular version Ruger LCP (.380 caliber). http://www.ruger.com/products/lc9/models.html

My favorite CCW revolver is the Smith and Wesson 642 but the Ruger LCR is nice as well. These revolvers are safe and effective to carry but do not have the accuracy of the Glock 26 followed by the Ruger LC9.

http://www.ruger.com/products/lcr/index.html

 

[deleted103644]

With all due respect, what you described is already against federal firearms laws.

Missed my point.

Obviously smuggling across state lines is illegal, but relatively unenforceable.

If you banned assault rifles nationwide, criminals would be limited to importing across national borders (difficult, at least smuggling weapons into the US) or by stealing them from military/law enforcement.

This would dramatically reduce the availability of these weapons to criminals and dramatically increase the price.

(And before you bring up drug smuggling across borders, it is both far easier and far more profitable to smuggle drugs into the US than firearms - the traffic is generally in the opposite direction. )

 

[BLADEMDA]

Blade,

first off, you owe me a PM, I'd love to know your thoughts! 🙂

also, respectfully, I really put a lot into those posts, and I think the numerous ones back and forth with PGG state my overall feeling about gun control, random acts of violence, 100 round drums, glocks and weapons of mass destruction. oh, and F-15s as well. 🙂

in short though, no such law exists to prevent ANY crime. yet we have laws. seat belt laws don't prevent people from driving without belts and ending up on your OR table. yet we still have them, and - many people buckle up. on a greater scale, guns, i've stated simply, what my view of the founders is, and where i think the "line of normalcy" should be drawn. i feel that's at hand guns and non-automatic weapons. as much as PGG thinks that RPGs should remain legal, i think weapons in citizens hands should be limited to hunting guns, hand guns and THAT'S IT.

will that prevent ALL mass murders? no. will it logically, under a nationwide band, and a decades long CRACK down, change the mentality that these guns just get more and more and more rare and limited, provide people (at least mathematically) less opportunity to do what Holmes did? I think yes. does such a ban infringe on gun holders rights? i suppose, but as i've stated, the calculus is sickening at this point, that the NRA has such influence over politicians. also, the calculus is simple, had Holmes only used a Glock, this would have turned out differently, and not worse. I think, tonight, what I heard at dinner at least, is that Holmes' AR-15 jammed, causing him to drop it and move to the Glock. do you know what the witnesses said? something along the lines of, "had that AR-15 not jammed, there would have been 150 dead." and that's my point.

there is tooooo much entropy in the world to control it all, i get it. idiots will be idiots. i started my argument with PGG, to say that we need to find a better balance between rights (handguns) and the ability to use 100 round drums and massacre people. that's it. simple math. simple simple math.

PGG then went on to theorize about Madison and that's where we disagreed even more.

Also, I don't think the NH shooters used AK47s. This is from Wiki (didn't wanna dig anymore...)

"Phillips and M&#259;t&#259;s&#259;reanu carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines and ammunition capable of penetrating police body armor." I don't know if the AR was made automatic, that sentence isn't perfectly clear. But needless to say, I don't find these weapons to have a place in the US Constitution, and I'm reallllllly not alone in that thought.

I'm happy you have guns, I'm happy you have many handguns. Do I agree with the legality of your rifles? Sure. Ones with Drums of rounds? No.
But that's only part of the equation here. It boils down to: is your 100 round drum more important than keeping these drums out of bad people's hands. I say yes. That's where we are at in this country. At least, me.

D712

1. North Hollywood Shooters used automatic AK47s with 100 round drums. This gun fires a larger caliber round (7.62) than the standard AR15 (5.56). Hence an AK47 can do more damage through car doors than an AR15. Also, Ak47s are much more reliable shooting high capacity magazines over 30 rounds compared to an AR15.

2. One criminal in the North Hollywood massacre had an H and K AR type weapon as a backup. The weapon which did the mass wounding and killing was an auto AK47.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm1PEY8F4xE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

(watch this video and you will likely watch the entire 4 part series like me)

3. 100 round drums suck. They jam and aren't for me. I use highly quality 30 round clips taped back to back for rapid fire. These are much more reliable and allow confidence in your rife. Our troops usually use the same high quality 30 round clips.

4. All the laws in the world won't stop nut jobs. Look at Norway one year ago.

5. In the USA we need more CCW holders legally armed at all times.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Missed my point.

Obviously smuggling across state lines is illegal, but relatively unenforceable.

If you banned assault rifles nationwide, criminals would be limited to importing across national borders (difficult, at least smuggling weapons into the US) or by stealing them from military/law enforcement.

This would dramatically reduce the availability of these weapons to criminals and dramatically increase the price.

(And before you bring up drug smuggling across borders, it is both far easier and far more profitable to smuggle drugs into the US than firearms - the traffic is generally in the opposite direction. )

I own several AR weapons for personal defense. Would my rifles become illegal? Will you pay me back for my legally purchased rifles? If my rifles are legal then criminals will just acquire older preban rifles to committ crimes while law abiding citizens will be denied their AR rifle due to excessive cost.

 

[doctor712]

Finally, we need more upstanding, good citizens carrying weapons at all times. While we may get the ignorant, over zealous Zimmerman types from time to time we may be able to limit Virginia Tech type tragedies.

Yes. Handguns.

 

[doctor712]

1. North Hollywood Shooters used automatic AK47s with 100 round drums. This gun fires a larger caliber round (7.62) than the standard AR15 (5.56). Hence an AK47 can do more damage through car doors than an AR15. Also, Ak47s are much more reliable shooting high capacity magazines over 30 rounds compared to an AR15.

2. One criminal in the North Hollywood massacre had an H and K AR type weapon as a backup. The weapon which did the mass wounding and killing was an auto AK47.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm1PEY8F4xE&feature=youtube_gdata_player

(watch this video and you will likely watch the entire 4 part series like me)

3. 100 round drums suck. They jam and aren't for me. I use highly quality 30 round clips taped back to back for rapid fire. These are much more reliable and allow confidence in your rife. Our troops usually use the same high quality 30 round clips.

4. All the laws in the world won't stop nut jobs. Look at Norway one year ago.

5. In the USA we need more CCW holders legally armed at all times.

1) I knew they had the AR type, didn't know what they SHOT.
2) Ok.
3) Thank GOODNESS Holmes' DRUM jammed, let's leave it at that. And yes, I would have fired - if the opportunity presented itself (wouldn't have shot if someone was directly behind Holmes). Why else carry?
4) Agreed. Let's make current laws better, and make the Holmes' of the world limited to guns that are less deadly, both from the standpoint of drums/extended mags, and automatics.
5) Sure. With handguns.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f-podCzsoU&feature=youtube_gdata_player


The Glock 26 is simply awesome for a small handgun. With the pinky extension on the magazine the Glock 26 is the most accurate subcompact I have ever fired regardless of price. This $500 handgun shoots better than most $1,0000 subcompact handguns. I own many, many guns and you wont find a better Carry gun for sheer accuracy under $1,000 than a Glock 26. But, the gun is heavy and bulky compared to many other available Carry weapons especially in hot climates.

Again, the Glock trigger is light and has been Associated with many accidental discharges. So if you carry this gun then a proper holster is essential or carry like PeriopDoc without a bullet in the chamber (that is how I carry Glocks).

 

[FiremedicMike]

Missed my point.

Obviously smuggling across state lines is illegal, but relatively unenforceable.

If you banned assault rifles nationwide, criminals would be limited to importing across national borders (difficult, at least smuggling weapons into the US) or by stealing them from military/law enforcement.

This would dramatically reduce the availability of these weapons to criminals and dramatically increase the price.

(And before you bring up drug smuggling across borders, it is both far easier and far more profitable to smuggle drugs into the US than firearms - the traffic is generally in the opposite direction. )

For the record, I'm not trying to argue just to argue..

With that said, an all out ban on assault weapons would almost certainly create a profitable and vibrant gun smuggling operation from the outside in, don't you think?

 

[FiremedicMike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f-podCzsoU&feature=youtube_gdata_player


The Glock 26 is simply awesome for a small handgun. With the pinky extension on the magazine the Glock 26 is the most accurate subcompact I have ever fired regardless of price. This $500 handgun shoots better than most $1,0000 subcompact handguns. I own many, many guns and you wont find a better Carry gun for sheer accuracy under $1,000 than a Glock 26. But, the gun is heavy and bulky compared to many other available Carry weapons especially in hot climates.

Again, the Glock trigger is light and has been Associated with many accidental discharges. So if you carry this gun then a proper holster is essential or carry like PeriopDoc without a bullet in the chamber (that is how I carry Glocks).

I love my G26! It's one of the few guns I own that's on my own "never sell" list..

 

[BLADEMDA]

For the record, I'm not trying to argue just to argue..

With that said, an all out ban on assault weapons would almost certainly create a profitable and vibrant gun smuggling operation from the outside in, don't you think?

Absolutely. Prices skyrocket so law abiding citizens can't afford a rifle while criminals buy the illegal automatic version.