And yet Puerto Rico recently went from a Police Permit system of Restrictive, no issue, of concealed carry permits to Constitutional carry. Crime has always been high in Puerto Rico, compared to the rest of the World, however, do you wonder what will happen now, that Puerto Rico is now under the Federal Regulations, fill out a form 4473, Instant check, and you are good to go. Nothing further is required and you can open carry, carry concealed etc, Criminals still can't carry because LE will arrest them as usual.... Identified by NICS and VICAP through the FBI, etc... Gun control advocates as usual contribute nothing of merit or value to society or social order.
I've had to correct you so many times on your wild assertions, you must still think you're in the 8 th grade. You should keep a low profile.
According to your Anti gun hysteria and your own anus, your opinion of me does not acquaint itself with facts, I was present at the WTC on 9/11/01, at ground Zero, in the rescue effort, then the recovery effort, I commanded Juliet Squad of the U.S. ARMY, what squad did you command ??? hmmm ? the grab asstic squad of gun grabbers ???? The do nothings butt whine for more gun control......
8 pages of replies and the OP has not responded after leaving us his little nuggets of misguided wisdom. Rich people and governments cary guns and no one else...lol.. Thats too damn funny..
Why would I want a pistol? I have no desire to kill anyone. I am not going out in a state of fear of my fellow man. Irish, police or any other. A pistol is no use to me. It's a criminals weapon. Easily concealed. It's purpose is to kill people. It's just not a useful tool for me. A policeman or a soldier, sure. But for me? Just a toy. I don't miss it myself. That change in the law didn't affect me since I didn't own one anyway.
The result we are all looking for however, is not dying. Not for your idea and not for anyone elses idea. Stay alive! Everyone in a free society like yours wishes to be free not to die. And if you won't respect that, then yes the police and soldiers will do the same to you as they do to everyone else in your country who won't respect that. There will be no civil war anytime soon. More gun control, probably. Civil war? Not very likely. Maybe I don't know what I am talking about, but that is my prediction. You will see more gun controls in America long before you will see civil war.
20 years ago, I had to leave my gun at home. After a bunch of people were murdered at Luby"s in Killeen, gun laws changed and we carry everywhere. Crime has steadily fallen since then. There is no reason for more gun control other than people control.
You are correct, not dying is the goal but you're a poor study of history. In order to live in peace people had to die for an idea. Don't really much care whether you want or are willing to die for an idea that's your cup of tea. I Thank those who believed and have died for an idea. No the police and military will not be coming for our guns just because of ideas, they are more firm in their beliefs that this country was founded on ideas, current events highlight that quite nicely, eh? We'll see less gun control as we go along, driven by the ideas that the gubbermint can't be there for you and criminals don't care about laws. You got the wrong person if you are thinking I believe there would be a civil war, federal politicians are woosies and states are slowly bringing the control of things like guns back into their control.
Well, that bragadosia has done nothing for your understanding of the rights and obligations of citizens living under the constitution. I get dissed on experience for commenting on what is good for law enforcement by some who say things like, "all you need is the right holtster for weapon retention" ....you don't need training. And, then, none of you correct these bozos because they cheer for the David Koresh's It's this insane referrals to the Davidian's like the Waco lunatics, distain for law enforcement and the military which is our govt., when in reality, you don't like like the politics of a minority president. What is silly is you guys running off your mouths about your experience, but a gun control advocate has none. That is BS. There are lots of working cops and military people who want more gun control. I told people what my experience was in the beginning . I don't need nor will I ever brag about it again as it just becomes a launching point for uninformed one sided pro gun for everyone crowd.
If we don't see more gun control measures in the federal level, it will be for the same reasons. Many Republicans do believe in global warming, a woman's right to chose and sensible gun laws. The problem is, even those these are beliefs of many registered republicans too, the elected representatives of both sides are completly controlled by PACs like the NRA and corporate interest in general. The change then comes about slowly as a result of chanlenged to rulings, one state at a time, one city at a time.
Hey, you missed this the first time so I thought I'd give you another shot to further your debate: First, I happen to agree with you about Trump. I'm afraid he's actually a typical leftist who wants to disarm Americans. Interesting, that you refer to muzzle loaders, which was the somewhat state of the art firearm that common soldiers carried when the constitution was written. So let's talk about the First Amendment. Perhaps, with your liberal/progressive/socialist mindset that cedes your individual liberty to a central authoritarian government, you'll agree that only the government should have access to the Internet. After all, when the constitution was first written there wasn't an ability to post political opinions digitally. And newspapers? Handset printing presses only, right? Have you seen a modern high speed printing press? It is way too easy to distribute opinions that might threaten the federal government. It's amazing how you actually think that the constitution was written for newspapers that were more then two hundred years later. Individuals have way too much sway over opinions by their ability to reach a mass audience across the country... Right?
I have a hard time conflating weapons used to kill with the news paper that is used to inform and enlighten. I don't think the founding fathers would say " the Internet is a more efficient form of comunication so our constitutional rights shall stay intact." Is the same as saying, " because in 100 years from now,a handheld weapon that is more efficient in killing an entire group of people,our costitutioal decisons still remain in tack on that issue too. " ." One kills, one informs. Access to information should be encouraged, access to too violent killing machines should not. I don't feel the same need to kill 30 people with one clip as I see the need to be able to confer with 30 people at once . Out Supreme Court has NEVER said that and has is not trying to abolish the restrictions on machine guns for that very reason. Hand held rocket launchers and every other weapon they say is too dangerous to be used for civilian defense. The problem has always been, what we are defending ourselves agasint. Weapons have advanced s far and so fast, it's really a dumb discussion about assault weapons as even in the early 30's when machine guns were regulated, there was not a thought as how advanced semi autos would become and how unregulated they would as well. They were smartly thinking,the times will determine that. To disregard science is to disregard progress. To disregard the need to change regulation as a response to science, puts us in peril. The cell phone has become more of a weapon then any assault weapon for terrorists. Would you support more regulation and control over it's monitored use because of it ? I certainly would not deny these tools to law enforcement we need to protect my kids. It's a balancing act that needs discourse, not criticism I see too often here.
The federal government has begun to monitor most cell phones in the U.S., where logarithms are seeking key words in order to fight terrorism. So I guess as a leftist, you're ok with this, right? And you're correct, "The cell phone has become more of a weapon then any assault weapon for terrorists." So we should restrict the use of these cell phones? You're contradicting yourself. And the Internet is used for all kinds of crimes, to commit fraud, blackmail, child molestation, vandalism; with your liberal/progressive/socialist beliefs we should restricts its use, right? This is why leftists are disingenuous when it comes to their desire to violate the 2A. For those of you who suffer from Hoplophobia, here is a simple observation: Historically, Americans have always felt that owning the same firearms that police officers did provided them with the most appropriate form of protection. And it seems SCOTUS decisions, whether accidental or not, have followed this trend. For example, back in the 1960s and '70s, most of the firearms in the home were .38 caliber revolvers (which police carried at the time) and the occasional shotgun. In the 1980s and '90s, as police departments were switching to 9mm semi-auto handguns, Americans did the same. In the 2000s and beyond, as police officers began carrying various caliber semi-auto handguns with 15+ rounds in their magazines, Americans did likewise. In the past decade or so, police officers on the beat began carrying AR-15 platform .223 semi-auto rifles. As a result, this type of rifle became popular with many Americans. I'm a former police officer, and it was very common for a local resident to walk up and quiz me about the weapons I carried. They were doing so because they realized that it often takes the police many minutes to arrive for help, minutes when the resident was on their own. As a Hoplophobia, none of the particulars about calibers or guns will mean anything to you, so please educate yourself if you wish to have a cogent debate. Most liberals/progressives/socialists only believe the "authorities" should be armed, which I've never understood...
************************************************************************ Maybe where you live, on Fairy Top Mountain, on the corner of Gay Lollypop lane and Cherry pick blvd, where people are always cheerful and sweet to everyone, you don't need a "Pistol" , and that is fine & dandy for you, I hope you never have a pistol either..... However, here in Oregon, there are many Minority Gangs, Mexicans, Crips, Bloods, Black Gangs and they also rob people at gunpoint to get money for their exploits, they also tend to target Anglos / White (looking) people, and that is why people in Oregon, 1 in 16 according to the Oregon State Police, has a concealed carry license. The Oregon Police have ZERO problems figuring out who should not be carrying and arrest those Gangstas Flocks O Gangstas, yet they do not hassle permit holders, go figure...... We are NOT talking about defending yourself from your fellow man from the pub, we are talking about defending yourself from hardcore criminal Drug Dealers, purveyors of death ( Heroin ) to children. Dagosa keeps talking about arming Children and mental defectives, well those criminals are doing the arming of those already prohibited classes of people, and giving them already highly illegal Drugs to sell, such as Cocaine and Heroin and Meth etc....... As a retired credentialed LEO, I have had in recent times, had to resist such criminals and had I not been armed, I would be dead now.
You compromise your self by putting your own perspective on everything. Everyone who disagrees with you, couldn't possibly be a military man, law enforcement or even own a gun. Must be a leftist. Boy, you are wrong about that. They could not possibly be for regulation. (Not restriction) ha ha. Now, , name me one device, appliance or apparatus, including a cell phone sold on the free market that is not regulated already......yawn. Waiting. This is what is empirically deficient in all of your remarks. First, everyone is a leftist that want's federal gun regulation in a world where the vast majority of products ARE ALREADY REGULATED for safety. Even the the Supreme Court has stated the 2 nd amendment is not absolute because they are not dumb enough to realize we live in a world of regulations and laws and guns WILL BE REGULATED. That's a fact, deal with it. If you were a real cop, you would get that. You must have had some constitutional law and civil rights trainng or had to be asleep when they gave it to you. Now, you have to tell me where all these places are where police are carrying assault rifles on the beat. That's a real good one. I doubt you have the experience you had or you went through your service with your eyes closed. Maybe, they are accessible in the back of a cruiser but are not commonly carried in the open in any common place where everyone can see. You're repeating the same trype in response to your wanting the same weaponry as police. If this is common place, you need to move. Police are generally trained and weaponized in response to threats. Semi auto rifles were ALWAYS available to the public, 9 mm autos were always available as well. When criminals started carrying them, the police training requirements changed according to FBI bulletins which provided training through the state police. That civilians started carrying these weapons because they were cool and because the police did. Btw, one of self defense pistol is a 5shot snub nose and one of the best home defense weapons is a shot gun. Don't pretend that AR styled guns and hi cap 9mm are for anything else then playing with. If you need anything more, you are a hunter or playing cowboy or a criminal. I HAVE two Glocks. I am not a criminal and don't hunt with them so I am fooling no one. They are for play.
Which ultimately goes to prove what precisely? - - - Updated - - - And pray tell, what percentage of the united states public still believes that september eleventh was deliberately orchestrated by the federal government? How many of them refuse to consider otherwise because the contrary does not fit their narrative?
Who believes that 9-11 was Orchestrated by the govt. ? Probably the same bunch of lunatics who believe in UFOs and alien abductions. They also don't believe in climate change because they haven't had enough ligit science course education to believe in the first and not the second.
My problem is not understanding the science. My problem is accepting the sources of data since obviously global warming scientists and the media have an agenda. I never cared for biology, but I have had tons of advanced math, physics and chemistry.
No, I'm just providing what is common knowledge that those in law enforcement and military/veterans are more commonly conservative than the general population. https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-American-military-overwhelmingly-conservative Most people who want to ban certain firearms are leftists, you disagree with this? Cell phones, cars etc are not incased in our Bill of Rights. As I pointed out with your absurd "200 years ago" argument, this nonsense is no more applicable to the printing presses and the 1A as it to the 2A. Guns are certainly regulated. People who own guns are regulated. So why do liberals/progressives/socialists want to take them away from Americans? Why do leftists want to violate our civil rights? You obviously are not familiar with firearms. Don't feel bad, most liberals/progressives/socialists are this way. But you really should have done some googling as I suggested. See, what you call an "assault rifle" is simply a semi-automtic .223 on an Ar15 platform. The rounds used in these rifles are not even used for deer when hunting, it's not a 'machine gun' it's simply a lightweight round fired one at a time. But it's scary, right? Most departments, even in places like California, provide these rifles for their officers in the beat car. It has generally taken the place of the shotgun, which is most often now used for less than lethal rounds (such as beanbags). In your ignorance, you think these are the same rifles the military carries. It's not. But leftists don't seem to care about this, to them it's simply a scary black rifle. This is why you guys are constantly losing this argument. And criminals carrying these firearms is against the law. Departments began transitioning from shotguns in beat cars to semi-auto rifles after the Los Angeles bank shootout, where the two criminals were carrying illegal (full auto) AKs. And no, a snub nosed revolver is a poor choice for home defense; most shootings will involve more than five rounds to stop a threat. The average police shooting (which circumstances are most similar to a shooting involving someone protecting themselves with a firearm) involves far more misses than hits, which is why a person who is using a handgun for safety should have a magazine capacity larger than 10 rounds: http://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/ I concur that shotguns are great home defense weapons, especially if someone does not practice their shooting skills very often. But an Ar15 is a much better defense weapon, which is why police officers now routinely carry them. Interesting. What caliber? Magazine capacity? Should gun owners be limited to six round revolvers for 'safety reasons'? This is what has happened in other countries that implemented "common sense" gun laws. Should all semi-autos be banned? You claim to be a gun owner, yet you're willing to abandon your right to own a firearm? Ot just the scary ones?
Dagosa clearly does not understand any of the topics he is going on about, Two Glocks and they are for play ??? He claims to have been a LEO, yet, he does not carry on credentials, however, He claims to have a CCW permit ? Much of the stuff he claims, just does not add up. And no, a shotgun is not a good choice for home defense, an AR is a much better choice, with a laser, chambered in .300 Blackout, with a suppressor......
Beat cops are exposed to the public. If you bothered read the entire post, I said cops keep them in cars, not while being on the beat exposed to the public. I obviously know more then you do about how cops are trained. They are secondary weapons. They do not replace shot guns, they are an adjunct to them. Again, another fallacy. Don't give me this stuff sbiut the second amendment bring specifically referring to firearms. It does not. It referred to " arms" which is all hand held weapons referred to in 2a. . You also show your lack of knowledge of constitutional law by omitting rulings by the courts which are just as important as the constitution. You seem ignorant that we have regulated "arms" including knives and machine guns and even the sale of guns to minors. We have instant background checks, we regulate them from federal buildings. How can you be that naive to say guns are not constitutionally regulated already. In the bubble. We have regulated ALL WEAPONS since the constitution was written and do today, federally. If it wasn't constitutional we would not be doing it. Now, when you try to conflate guns to cell phones and I show you they are regulated too, you back off that. You're a moving target, bouncing away from all your false statements. Cell phones are used as a supplemental weapon in the hands of killers to ignite IEDs as much as a plunger was used for dynamite in demolition. That you want to say they only have regulation as a jumping off point for leftist, points to your poor understanding of the problems police forces have. When cops are working, the are not political. A liberal cop wants the same things that conservative cops do. All cops that work want some form of gun regulation. EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM. If you can find me a cop that is OK selling guns to six year olds and openly selling automatic weapons on the street to druggies and letting convicted criminals parade around with them, you have made your point. Other wise, it's all BS. Cops want gun regulation, it just varies by degree. How can you guys be so blatently wrong and still make those comments we will never know. You don't seem to hunt much either. In our hunting state, we don't hunt pigs or people so we have no need to use AR15s in .223 and laugh at jokers who do. Fear is the biggest motivator of sales of these weapons.
I make no claims about anything that you guys doubt as much as your own bragging. Like I have said, I have corrected you on so many fallacy statements, it's getting repetitive. Credentials are less informative and in our state, not as meaning ful as a permit. Many towns will not recognize them so they are usless as a retiree. They are not as instantly identifiable as the state issued permit. You guys live in the bubble. You can brag about your experience, I let my much more informed answers speak for themselves. Wow, I am not impressed that you take the traditional gun nuts line of ARs being such great home defense weapons. What s really funny is, if you do an inventory of retired police, you would be hard pressed to find a majority who actually used them as self defense weapons. Find a majority of working cops who keep their AR15 s in their home. Cops use their most comfortable choices they worked with for self defense.....service pistols and small back ups which now become their primary off duty carry. They aren't into exotics "look at me weaponry" except for toys....and to expand your manhood. Wow, look at me !
You make these bogus claims yet in every debate, I have proven you incorrect... So name me a bogus statement ? Make sure you quote it ! You know so little about procedure and law it sounds like you slept during your training if you had any.
If you understand science, you would know it's a consensus among disaplines tied together by math. Having an open mind to many areas of disapline and not just one, allows you to see the convergence of all of them to the same conclusion. You don't ask biology to prove global warming. You ask it to agree with the hard sciences everywhere else. Spacing the rings on a thousands of year old red wood that coincides with the math model you make from the geological findings in rocks and the co2 samples from glacial ice, all converging to the same conclusion. Science does this for you. Accumulating the data, is simple and straight forward. Dissing the science of global warming is dissing the some of the best science man kind has ever had. The problem conservatives have is simple. Climate change was an agreed upon conclusion twenty plus years ago but since citizens United and the control of corporate interest in the GOP, they have reversed their stance in the interest of the donors, mainly, the fossil fuel industry which is funding the opposing legislation. What really comical is, fossil fuel web sites all agree with global warming and depend on the politics of looking like they are involved in a solution. It's really quite comical finding a way you guys have of disagreeing with all the govts. of the free world, every accredited university and research institution in every industrialized nation of the world....just to what end, looking really uninformed. I don't get it. The main problem that conservatives have, is agreeing with liberals. Scientist tend to be liberal for one reason. To be dogmatic and set in ones ways and never be open to real eveidence, is to live in a world of ignorance. Some people just don't want live with their head in the sand.
