Trampling Gun Rights

Reba said:
Hubby says that in his readings of the NRA magazines, ammo that is clean and dry (no rust/corrosion) is fine. If it's been in your care that should be OK. The main concern about older ammo is if you buy old ammo from other countries where you don't know how it was stored.

You could show it to a gun smith for peace of mind.
Click to expand...

yep. i forgot the term but it's the one where there may be a bit of delayed firing. that's scary! :Ohno:
 
Jiro said:
yep. i forgot the term but it's the one where there may be a bit of delayed firing. that's scary! :Ohno:
Click to expand...
Do you mean after the primer is fired it's a slow burning powder? Or do you mean a jam?
 
Reba said:
Do you think most voters know enough about guns to make educated decisions on that?
Click to expand...


Of course they don't....but then again most voters know very little about the economy or the law but we let them vote for congress....lol
 
Reba said:
Do you think most voters know enough about guns to make educated decisions on that?
Click to expand...

since when do they ever know enough about any issues? :lol:

I wouldn't worry too much about it since this should be limited to each state. For ie - my gun Springfield is banned in California.
 
Reba said:
Have you had a bad experience?

We haven't had that happen, and we've used some old ammo and re-loads.
Click to expand...

no it never happened to me but he said "1985". it depends on how it's being stored, how it's manufactured, etc.

I don't mean like 1-2 seconds delay. More like 0.5 seconds delay. The gunpowder could be less combustive. Anything is possible. improperly seated primer. insufficient powder. deformed case. type 1/2/3/4 malfunction. double feed. etc.
 
I wasn't putting you down, Jiro. I have had cap and powder replica pistols misfire because they became too hot, lol.
 
Beowulf said:
I wasn't putting you down, Jiro. I have had cap and powder replica pistols misfire because they became too hot, lol.
Click to expand...

oh don't worry. I gotcha and I lol'ed :cool2:
 
School shooting suspect identified
(CNN) -- The man suspected of shooting two students at a Littleton, Colorado, middle school was identified as 32-year-old Bruco Strongeagle Eastwood, authorities said Wednesday.

Eastwood was arrested after the incident Tuesday at Deer Creek Middle School and is scheduled to appear in court Wednesday morning, according to the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. He is facing two counts of attempted first-degree murder, the sheriff's office said.

He is accused of shooting two students as classes were letting out at 3:15 p.m. Tuesday.

David Benke, a 6-foot-5 former college basketball player who is a math teacher and track coach, tackled the suspected gunman as he was preparing to fire again, CNN affiliate KMGH reported.

"[The shooter] was trying to rack another round," Benke told the station. "I knew he couldn't get another round in before I got to him, so I grabbed him."

A parent who saw the incident told KMGH that the gunman kept mumbling, "I'm fighting for freedom. I'm fighting for freedom," as he was being subdued.

The students, a boy and a girl, were taken to Littleton Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, a sheriff's office spokeswoman said.

Tuesday's shooting occurred in the same area as one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history, the 1999 killing of 12 students and a teacher at Columbine High School. The two gunmen in that incident, both Columbine students, then turned their guns on themselves.
Click to expand...

what the heck??? fighting for freedom by shooting at kids???? :mad2:
 
I have been very concerned with the latest events - the gun-free school zones and workforce. Clearly - the gun-ban policy in certain area is not working because it's where crazy gunman choose to massacre people. The time has changed. Our laws must be changed too. Please don't take it wrong. I am not attempting to use a string of tragic events for agenda purpose. I am genuinely concerned. It is my life and your life at stake.

It is a huge misconception that repealing gun-ban policy automatically means everybody will start packing heat and the town will turn into Wild West. If repealing the policy means giving the criminal a second thought in shooting up innocent people.... then support the repealing of gun-ban law!
 
I've been mulling over the idea for some time now about getting a pistol for concealed carry and protection. My experience with guns is limited to the BB gun I had as a kid and the shooting at cans on a fencepost with a my brother in law's .22 rifle. I've read a few gun and ammo magazines and I'm kind of drawn to the 9mm, .40 cal and the .45 cal pistol. Can someone with an extensive knowledge of guns give me a comparison among these 3? Does it really matter what brand you get? Smith and Wesson, Glock, Beretta, etc? Thanks in advance for your input. By the way, I haven't fired a gun in about 30 years so I'm a raw beginner.
 
Defmusicman said:
I've been mulling over the idea for some time now about getting a pistol for concealed carry and protection. My experience with guns is limited to the BB gun I had as a kid and the shooting at cans on a fencepost with a my brother in law's .22 rifle. I've read a few gun and ammo magazines and I'm kind of drawn to the 9mm, .40 cal and the .45 cal pistol. Can someone with an extensive knowledge of guns give me a comparison among these 3? Does it really matter what brand you get? Smith and Wesson, Glock, Beretta, etc? Thanks in advance for your input. By the way, I haven't fired a gun in about 30 years so I'm a raw beginner.
Click to expand...
If you can, go to a gun shop and try each one out on the indoor range.

For concealed carry, try the lightest guns in each caliber.

Hubby recommends .38 special, 9mm, or .40 cal. The .45 is too powerful in a small gun.

Any major brand is fine. Look for light weight and compact size. Check out the websites for each manufacturer. They usually have comparison charts for each category so you can compare weights and features.

Preference is very personal. Try out different kinds so you can feel which one is most comfortable for you.

For target practice, use standard (cheaper) loads most of the time. Practice with the personal-protection (expensive) loads enough to become familiar with them.

Each state has different requirements for concealed carry permits and the requisite training.
 
Defmusicman said:
I've been mulling over the idea for some time now about getting a pistol for concealed carry and protection. My experience with guns is limited to the BB gun I had as a kid and the shooting at cans on a fencepost with a my brother in law's .22 rifle. I've read a few gun and ammo magazines and I'm kind of drawn to the 9mm, .40 cal and the .45 cal pistol. Can someone with an extensive knowledge of guns give me a comparison among these 3? Does it really matter what brand you get? Smith and Wesson, Glock, Beretta, etc? Thanks in advance for your input. By the way, I haven't fired a gun in about 30 years so I'm a raw beginner.
Click to expand...

what state do you reside in? and what is your budget limit? and the most important question - what is your reason to consider about getting a CCW gun?

Choosing a gun for CCW purpose depends on your physical & personal preference. Having a CCW license requires you to keep your gun hidden from plain view and that is the law. You can get arrested if your gun is visible under CCW status. What Reba said - I would recommend you to get a small gun because you will be carrying it with you all the time hidden on your waist so you will want a light, smallest one. I would avoid .45. It's too big & heavy and it's not pleasant to wear in your pants all day. I would go for .38 or 9mm. For any gun you have for CCW purpose - I'd go with hollowpoint (HP) rounds. Again - it's your choice to go with regular round or hollowpoint and also read up on your state law on hollowpoint. Shooting hollowpoint round is illegal my state (NJ) but owning it is not illegal. Rather dumb :roll:

One thing usually for sure - the smaller gun is, the more "sting" you will feel when shooting it. The advantage is - it's surprisingly accurate. so once you purchase the gun, please buy at least 500 rounds and spend a time at range. use all of those rounds. You must get accustomed to it because you have only one chance to do it right when you're forced to use the gun on someone. only ONE chance. and please do spend some time at range regularly like once a month to stay sharp. I do strongly recommend you to try out competition in your state such as IDPA. It is for everybody of any skill, any gun. Just show up, pay your fee and enjoy!!!

If you can - tell us what few guns you are interested in and we can try and help sharing with what we know or heard about.

and lastly - please be honest and ask this to yourself - Are you prepared to take a huge responsibility as a CCW license holder? Are you willing to go extra measure to be a responsible law-abiding armed citizen? Do you have a right mindset and mentality as CCW license holder? This is a serious question that you have to be honest about yourself because this affects other people's lives... not just criminals.

About me - I reside in NJ but I have 2 non-resident CCW issued by Florida and Virginia. I own Springfield XD-9 Tactical 5" (9mm) and it's definitely not a CCW gun. It's too big! That's why I'm looking into another pistol for CCW purpose.... I'm very interested in Ruger pistol.
 
time's ticking

Justices debate Chicago handgun ban
Washington (CNN) -- Chicago's 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership appeared in trouble Tuesday at the U.S. Supreme Court in a potentially far-reaching case over the ability of state and local governments to enforce limits on weapons.

A conservative majority seemed ready to say the U.S. Constitution gives individuals greater power than states -- or at least equal power -- as far as possessing certain firearms for self-protection.

The only question was how far the court would apply competing parts of the 14th Amendment to preserve some "reasonable" gun control measures in place nationwide.

"There are provisions of the Constitution, of the Bill of Rights, that have been incorporated against the states, where the states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose reasonable regulations," Justice Anthony Kennedy said. "Why can't we do the same thing with firearms?"

At issue is whether the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question has remained unanswered for decades, and it gives the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow Americans expanded weapon ownership rights.

A ruling is expected by late June.

The appeal was filed by a Chicago, Illinois, community activist who sought a handgun for protection from gangs. Speaking from outside his South Side home, Otis McDonald told CNN that he wants a handgun to protect himself and his family from violence in his neighborhood.

"That's all I want ... just a fighting chance," McDonald said. "Give me the opportunity to at least make somebody think about something before they come in my house on me."

The city of Chicago, with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation, denied McDonald's application for a handgun permit.

Two years ago the justices affirmed an individual's right to possess such weapons, tossing out restrictive laws in the federal enclave of Washington, D.C.

The larger issue is one that has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one -- aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation? And is that regulation limited to federal laws, or can they be applied to local communities?

The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Tuesday's hourlong arguments focused mainly on the whether the Second Amendment should be "incorporated" or applied to state and local laws like most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

James Feldman, the attorney for the city of Chicago, told the justices that gun laws are different. "Firearms are designed to injure and kill," Feldman said.

That argument brought skepticism from several conservatives on the bench.

"Your position is that a state or local government could completely ban all firearms?" Justice Samuel Alito asked Feldman.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the court's 2008 ruling over Washington's law applied this time, too. "The function of what was codified" in the Second Amendment, he said, "was to enforce the traditional right of the people to bear arms."

Chief Justice John Roberts downplayed concern of a sweeping ruling that might cripple cities from finding ways to prevent violence. The extent of gun rights are "still going to be subject to the political process," Roberts said.

A number of others, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, sought to limit the court's ruling striking the handgun ban in Washington. That decision offered at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes.

The Justice Department estimates as many as 275 million guns are in the United States. In 2005, three-quarters of the 10,100 homicides by firearms nationwide were committed with handguns.

"Chicago says that their gun law has saved hundreds, including -- and they have statistics -- lots of women in domestic cases," Breyer said. "When you have the First Amendment, or some of the other amendments, there is always a big area where it's free speech versus a whole lot of things, but not often free speech versus life. When it's free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life."

Underpinning the legal basis for the court's jurisdiction in this appeal is a complex reading of the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of the Civil War to ensure all citizens -- including newly freed slaves -- were protected from state laws that might restrict their fundamental rights.

One part ensures states cannot deprive people of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." That has been commonly applied by federal courts when it comes to disputes over basic rights, so-called "ordered liberty" cases. Such cases include affirming the right to abortion and to homosexual sex.

But another rarely used provision also prevents states from depriving the "privileges or immunities" of all citizens. The specific question for the high court in the Chicago case is whether the "immunities and privileges" clause should now be used to overturn the handgun ban. An 1873 ruling limited use of that provision when striking down a variety of state laws.

Alan Gura, the attorney for Chicago activist McDonald, has promoted a new reading of the clause in his lead role representing gun owners.

However, the current court appeared reluctant to revive that argument, seemingly content to apply the "due process" standard to Chicago's handgun law.The National Rifle Association supports that position.

The constitutional theories are dense, but some legal scholars have said they think if the high court embraces this "privileges and immunities" clause, it could open up to fresh review a huge range of issues, such as property rights and same-sex marriage.

Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semiautomatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The high court's conservative majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004.

Forty-four state constitutions protect their residents' right to keep weapons, according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapons owners in the current appeals.

Some constitutional experts have noted the Bill of Rights had traditionally been applied by courts only to the federal government, not to local entities. It was not until the past half-century that the justices have viewed free speech, assembly and the press -- among other rights -- as individual in nature, and fundamental to liberty, superseding in many cases the power of states.

There have been limits. The high court repeatedly has refused to extend to states the Fifth Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by "indictment of a grand jury."
Click to expand...
 
deafPhD said:
I grew up with guns, whether hunting or plinking. I'm also a life member of the NRA. I can tell you firsthand that there are some guns out there that have no business being on the market. These guns are designed for the purpose of nothing more than killing people. THOSE, in my opinion, are the ones that should be banned or restricted.
Click to expand...

Every gun is designed to kill people. Well, other than paintball, BB, pellet and toy guns.

Are you suggesting .22 and above should be completely banned?

I have a great idea, why don't we just make murder, rape, theft, assault, drugs, etc. illegal too?
:giggle:
 
Jiro said:
perfectly understandable and it's tricky. There are guns that are designed for self-defense purpose and there are other guns that are designed for killing dozens of people. They do not need UZI, breaching shotgun, automatic assault weapon, etc.

I would say to leave the decision up to the voters.
Click to expand...

during the L.A. riots, a man defended his home from roving bands of looters with a fully automatic assault rifle.

They should never be banned.
 
Steinhauer said:
during the L.A. riots, a man defended his home from roving bands of looters with a fully automatic assault rifle.

They should never be banned.
Click to expand...

in Haiti - they used mostly shotguns.... the good ole' Remington 870.
 
Back
Top