The Socialistic Nine - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: The Socialistic Nine

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    I can vouch for New Jersey. For all practical purposes NJ is a NON-issue State. Interestingly, there's an article in the paper today (or you can see in on NJ.com) that laments people leaving this State in droves and taking their taxable incomes with them. New Jersey is deflating like a cheap balloon, and there are myriad postings from citizens trying to explain why, which follow the article. Of course, that only addresses that part of the population that can be traced . . . no mention of the enormous influx of untraceable folk.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Technically, the same goes for handguns in D.C. and Chicago. People who owned handguns that were already registered at the time the handgun bans were enacted in those cities are not subject to the ban. However, what good does that do for people who move there or were born after the ban took effect? Same for your magazines; there is a de facto ban on them for people who did not own them before the ban was enacted.
    Oh, I know it is a technicality, but I just wanted everyone to know my 'full capacity magazines' were legal in california as I do not want folks thinking I am braking the law. I have 'full capacity mags' for my S&W 5906, AR 15 Bushmaster and FN FAL by DSA.

    It is a shame that we have to be so aware of the laws from state to state to be on the up and up. Notice they are 'full capacity magazines' not high capacity magazines. For carry for me it really doesn't matter as I am allowed only 2 firearms on my permit and they are : SA Micro-compact and Kimber Ultra CDP II, so 7+1 is all I get.

    spc

  4. The Socialistic Nine

    I've had my CPL in Washington state for about eight years or more now, I just got it renewed the first time awhile back. I'm proud that my record is clean and that I'm allowed to have this license, yet I feel that it was way too easy to get. I feel that with this license should come responsibility, it's should almost be like a pledge to each and every other license holder assuring them that you have the sensibility to properly and safely use your weapon and won't mar the system that they've bought into that allows them to carry also. I want to be able to trust each and every concealed license holder believing that that they won't go off and accidently shoot their child or family member, or even me, because they've never been properly trained on how to handle their weapon! Unfortunatly Washington state doesn't seem to care if you know or not, and that bothers me to be honest! I'm pleased I was able to get my license, I've handled guns all my life, yet I'm not totally pleased with the system handing out licenses to people they have no clue about their experience with their weapons.

    I don't think it's right to just hand out licenses without knowing if someone has sense enough to handle a weapon or not, or has even ever fired one in the first place, yet that's exactly what happens here. You go in and fill out the paperwork, they fingerprint you, do an FBI background check while you wait 15 minutes and bingo, if you're clear you get handed the license without them even having the slightest clue if you know how to even load your weapon or not. I don't like that part of it.

    I feel that at least while getting your license you should be made to demonstrate to someone there at the police station that you are at least familiar enough with your weapon to handle it properly and safely. Is that an unreasonable thought? Why is the law so slack in this here?

    SnowCajun

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Why is the law so slack in this here?
    The "Law" you refer to here is the 2nd Amendment. I subscribe to the Ted Nugent school of thought: The 2nd Amendment is my Concealed Carry Permit...no other authorization is necessary.

    The Truth is that some folks shouldn't be carrying guns. Some people should also not be driving, or writing their volatile opinions for others to read. Some people shouldn't be procreating! But who's to decide that? There's no "Right" to drive, but...despite the fact that they're hard to conceal, registered with the State, easy to trace and require a test to operate legally...cars are use in the commission of virtually every crime that's committed. And inept drivers cause accidents, some fatal, every day of the year. What good are those controls, which are even harsher than those you recommend for firearms?

    Sorry...Vermont and Alaska have it right, and it should be the law of the land. (It is, actually, but no politician seems to have the cojones to stand up and make it reality!)
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  6. Huh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    The "Law" you refer to here is the 2nd Amendment. I subscribe to the Ted Nugent school of thought: The 2nd Amendment is my Concealed Carry Permit...no other authorization is necessary.
    Good deal, you just go right on ahead and run with that theory, I hope you can afford a good lawyer to keep getting you out of jail for carrying a weapon without a permit! Well I guess we only have to worry about that happening three times, that three strike law may bite ya in the backside eventually. Surely you don't expect us to believe that you carry with no license because of Ted Nugent and his view of the 2nd Amendment? I think we all know better! Why spout off this way, that's what I don't get? That's like shaking metal rod up towards the sky in the middle of a lightning storm and daring God to nail ya.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    The Truth is that some folks shouldn't be carrying guns. Some people should also not be driving, or writing their volatile opinions for others to read. Some people shouldn't be procreating! But who's to decide that? There's no "Right" to drive, but...despite the fact that they're hard to conceal, registered with the State, easy to trace and require a test to operate legally...cars are use in the commission of virtually every crime that's committed. And inept drivers cause accidents, some fatal, every day of the year. What good are those controls, which are even harsher than those you recommend for firearms?
    True there are a lot of people doing a lot of things they shouldn't be doing, idiots who continue to drive without licenses after getting numerous DUI's .. or people who have just gotten too old to safely control their vehicles any longer, but that's why there has to be licenses and laws, it's the only way the government has of controlling people who abuse these issues and endanger innocent peoples lives. When they break those laws then they get put away where they won't keep endangering the rest of society over and over again. Would you want the 95 year old man down the street who is nearly blind driving his Cadillac down the road past your house several times a day while your kids play on the sidewalk just because he has a right to, or do you think there should be some kind of control over him to keep him from endangering your kids and the rest of society?

    Are you suggesting that Ted Nugent feels it's okay for everyone to be carrying concealed no matter who they are, gang members or not, or does he really feel that there should be some bit of regulation to prevent those who continually are breaking the law from carrying? These are the very people making it so hard on the truly honest folks now. There's too many gang shootouts, the drive-by shootings, or school shootings. Proper licensing is helping to remove illegal guns from those who shouldn't have them. True they'll probably never be able to get them all because there's so many, and criminals will always either steal one or buy one somehow, yet the licenses assure us that when found with one and you don't have the proper licensing to be carrying it then that gun is likely going to be history and gone from the population! I believe that any time a gun is removed from the hands of a gang member, or anyone else carrying it illegally, it's a good thing, that it's better for each and every one of us who do honor and obey the rights we have in accordance to our licenses.

    As for cars since you mentioned them, there has to be some sort of assurance that drivers can pass the set requirements and guidelines which show they have the ability to continue to operate their 3000 lb vehicle and speeds up to 75 mph in a safe manner for another couple of more years, that makes it safer for all of us. It's just this simple, it's a checks and balances system, if they go to renew their license and find there's been violations of the laws then they lose their privilege to drive, and that is supposed to help in protecting the rest of us out there on the roads. Does it always work? Of course not, but that's why the laws are there, so when it doesn't work they lock the people away to prevent them from further dangering society again in the future. Unfortunately this is not a perfect world!

    You speak of the Law as if it were written for today, yet this law you so boldly quote was actually written 220 years ago, a time when the 1790 Census showed there to be 3.9 million people in the entire USA, there's that many in the Houston, Texas area alone today, and that's a good bit short of the nearly 400 million people in the USA today! To be honest I can hardly imagine that our founding fathers would have expected there to be this many people here now.

    I'm not saying the law is not good and not just, but it shouldn't be used as a blanket set of rights to allow just any law violaters to carry concealed. Do you honestly want just every Tom, ****, and Harry carrying without any verification to see if they're dangerous, if they've had mental issues, or if they're prior criminals? All things have to change and there have to be ways of keeping people who absolutely shouldn't be walking around with firearms from having them. For the life of me I can't see how you could possibly not agree with that!

    I'm all for the Concealed Carry laws and was just voicing my feelings about my own state and what I felt they were not being totally safe in doing, what's wrong with being safe? I think above and beyond all things said above, just the fact that we're allowed to have this license and carry concealed should be a sign to all the other people who really don't like this law that we know what we're doing and know how to safely carry and use our weapons we have. Simple safety checks instead of just handing out licenses haphazardly and not knowing one way or the other if the person they just gave the license to even has a clue how to load the very weapon they just gave them the license to carry concealed would be a step in the right direction.

    SnowCajun
    Last edited by SnowCajun; 10-28-2007 at 04:07 PM.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Hoplites1234 View Post
    Hey Tattedupboy don't be telling them there Californicators to move to Nevada to enjoy the 2nd amendment. They need to fix their own state not come running here--they need to throw Boxer and Feinstein out on their liberal arsses and take Pelosi with 'em.
    +1 Hop! :D


    ALWAYS carry! ~ NEVER tell!

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    near the middle of nowhere
    Posts
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by SnowCajun View Post
    I don't think it's right to just hand out licenses without knowing if someone has sense enough to handle a weapon or not, or has even ever fired one in the first place, yet that's exactly what happens here. You go in and fill out the paperwork, they fingerprint you, do an FBI background check while you wait 15 minutes and bingo, if you're clear you get handed the license without them even having the slightest clue if you know how to even load your weapon or not. I don't like that part of it.

    I feel that at least while getting your license you should be made to demonstrate to someone there at the police station that you are at least familiar enough with your weapon to handle it properly and safely. Is that an unreasonable thought? Why is the law so slack in this here?

    SnowCajun
    I too believe the Ted Nugent School of Thought. The Second Amendment should be my CCW. However, the law of the State of Kansas says I must have a permit to carry. I have one. Remember, we are all law abiding citizens here and I doubt that the other guy was actually proposing we carry illegally. If you aren't happy with the way your state gives out licenses, work to change the law. Personnally, I believe that we shouldn't have to jump through as many hoops as we have to. But that is the way some states have written their laws, and we do it.
    Paddle Faster! I hear banjo music!

  9. Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by windfinder View Post
    I too believe the Ted Nugent School of Thought. The Second Amendment should be my CCW. However, the law of the State of Kansas says I must have a permit to carry. I have one.
    The Ted Nugent theory would be acceptable to me if it weren't for a couple of small facts! First off this isn't 1787 anymore and not every single household in the country has guns hanging over their fireplaces that all of their children have been taught to handle to both put food on the table and protect themselves from the Indians they've pushed off their homelands when they decided to settle just wherever they wanted! :)

    Quote Originally Posted by windfinder View Post
    If you aren't happy with the way your state gives out licenses, work to change the law.
    I am, did I give you the impression I wasn't? Never the less it's not in effort to bring forth more regulations for people to struggle through, I just want it to be more like a guarantee to those who already oppose these rights we enjoy that the person being issued this license has enough sense to handle his loaded weapon safely, that's all. Wouldn't you want the person carrying concealed next to your child in the grocery store line to be absolutely knowledgable and safe with the weapon he's carrying around so close to them? Just because Ted Nugent thinks this guy should have it doesn't mean he automatically knows how to handle it.

    Quote Originally Posted by windfinder View Post
    Personnally, I believe that we shouldn't have to jump through as many hoops as we have to. But that is the way some states have written their laws, and we do it.
    First off I take these forums as a source of learning, and by debating the issues we learn how others think. I'm not angry or arguing about your views, I'm just trying to learn how you think and why you think different is all. I clearly see you feel that the Second Amendment should be all you need, no discussion period, it's just that cut and dry! Right?

    Where you seem to find it to be an inconvenience to "jump through as many hoops as we have to" as you say, I honestly find it to be an acceptable inconvenience to endure because I feel the end result of my efforts are worth this special priviledge I'm allowed, that my country or state thinks I'm safe enough to be allowed to do this.

    Quote Originally Posted by windfinder View Post
    Remember, we are all law abiding citizens here and I doubt that the other guy was actually proposing we carry illegally.
    I don't think the other guy was proposing that either, but I said it that way trying to make a point. On top of that I don't buy it that "we're all law abiding citizens here" either. There have been times in my past that I've not been, I'm not perfect, and I'm sure you aren't either. I've carried many years ago without a license because I was a truck driver working in some of the worst areas that Houston, Tx had to offer, areas where I had to go to numerous mini warehouses in bad areas alone at night, park my 18 wheeler, get out and walk up to the buildings in the dark and unlock the doors, and go in alone to find the lights so I could see to back my truck in, and unload my load all alone. I know of two times right off hand thinking back twenty years that had I not been armed I'd have been in serious trouble, that having my weapon probably either saved my life or saved me from serious injury.

    I also remember one other time a police officer somehow squeezed past the rubber bumper between my truck and the loading door and walked up behind me totally unheard and when he spoke I spun around and drew down on him with a 1911 from a shoulder holster. You want to know what he did about me carrying illegally? He apologized to me because he knew he wasn't supposed to have been in that building. I worked for a Newspaper company and he was after a free morning newspaper which we always gave them, but they'd always hollered from the loading door and never come in the building before! There were darned well no concealed carry licenses back then I guarantee you, yet he understood the areas and times we had to work, still he could have arrested me, but they pretty well knew us all and fortunately realized the places we had to work in! You can't toss out a blanket statements saying, "we are all law abiding citizens here" because life is life and sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

    If you use this blanket statement theory of Ted Nugents saying the, "Second Amendment should be my CCW", then I say it's your right to have your opinion, but as far as my own beliefs and opinion goes, it's just a fact unfortunately that there are people out there that in no form or fashion should be allowed to carry a weapon period, and that's what the law is trying to prevent even if it inconveniences you a little or not.

    It's just not an equal world out there. Do you think the Virginia Tech shooter should have had that same right Ted Nugent proclaims? Well we know he shouldn't have because of his documented mental issues, yet even the laws let him slip through. Mistakes will always be made, that's just human nature unfortunately, but hopefully each time an error in the system is found it'll lead to a more exact system that will turn out in the end to be right for everyone and make things safer for all, even to the point the anti gun advocates might see that also.

    SnowCajun

    PS: Sorry about the books, I have trouble condensing!
    Last edited by SnowCajun; 10-29-2007 at 05:49 AM.

  10. Look at at the stats of legal ccw people in bad shooting. It is your responsablility as a person to have self government. How many bad shootings have occured since ccw arrived.

  11. #20

    2nd Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    The "Law" you refer to here is the 2nd Amendment. I subscribe to the Ted Nugent school of thought: The 2nd Amendment is my Concealed Carry Permit...no other authorization is necessary.

    The Truth is that some folks shouldn't be carrying guns. Some people should also not be driving, or writing their volatile opinions for others to read. Some people shouldn't be procreating! But who's to decide that? There's no "Right" to drive, but...despite the fact that they're hard to conceal, registered with the State, easy to trace and require a test to operate legally...cars are use in the commission of virtually every crime that's committed. And inept drivers cause accidents, some fatal, every day of the year. What good are those controls, which are even harsher than those you recommend for firearms?

    Sorry...Vermont and Alaska have it right, and it should be the law of the land. (It is, actually, but no politician seems to have the cojones to stand up and make it reality!)


    I totally agree with you. The 2nd amendment is and should be our licence to carry. The unfortunate problem is that we have been brain washed for so long by liberal polititions and a liberal press that most Americans do not no or understand the constitutioin. The left has been chipping away at the constitution for years so that it now lies in the Smithsonian on life support systems near death.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast