danielost Posted March 21, 2013 #26 Share Posted March 21, 2013 The (US) Army standard for changing a 20/30 round magazine in combat is 8 seconds or less... While a civilian shooter might not be able to quite match that time, it really doesn't take much longer... plenty of time to change magazines while walking down a deserted school hallway while everyone is trying to hide from you... Like I said... this law will change nothing... Which is what the sandy hook shooter did. He didn't empty a mag before changing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted March 21, 2013 #27 Share Posted March 21, 2013 At least they are standing up against the NRA...money thieves Another unqualified expert opinion i see This crap changed nothing and is meaningless just a feel good story for the few who actually believe in "Change" This rings hollow! 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRYSiiSx2 Posted March 21, 2013 #28 Share Posted March 21, 2013 At least they are standing up against the NRA...money thieves LMFAO! The NRA is one of the best organizations in this country. Don't want to support it? DON'T CONTRIBUTE. Money thieves? Last time I knew I wasn't paying taxes up the ass for a pack of cigarettes to support the NRA. Jesus... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted March 21, 2013 #29 Share Posted March 21, 2013 No. Good God, could you imagine what that would entail? Where would it stop? Third cousins? As for third cousins or seconds cousins boyfriends sisters goldfish, yes they should be included if living on the same house as where the gun is going to be held.......and it seems that they are, Michelle has answered my question. I wonder if it is enforced though, do they actually check whether the family living in the same household are lunatic registered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted March 21, 2013 #30 Share Posted March 21, 2013 I wonder if it is enforced though, do they actually check whether the family living in the same household are lunatic registered. Not here. I only live with my wife and they never checked her out when I bought my guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsteroidX Posted March 21, 2013 #31 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Stupid idiots. The criminals are drooling right now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYCWDH5RGtI&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLa7JTOsvuh1nsGZUQRwXHLwPK0jryLrRp Edited March 21, 2013 by AsteroidX 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jugoso Posted March 21, 2013 #32 Share Posted March 21, 2013 The one positive thing that backround checks do is that a person with an already detected mental disorder (I mean serious disorder - not something non violent) could be stopped from legally getting a weapon..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freetoroam Posted March 21, 2013 #33 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Not here. I only live with my wife and they never checked her out when I bought my guns. thats because they knew your wife as the sane one. (joke) Bit of a tricky situation really. Just because one of the house members might be a criminal does not mean that the rest are, but maybe if the non criminals in the home want to own a gun there should be special training or rules on how they lock their guns away and how responsible they would be of the criminal got hold of the gun. Like with Lanza, he did not need a license because his mother had the guns...legally. Do you think somehow the legal gun owner should be held responsible if another member manages to get hold of the gun? Edited March 21, 2013 by freetoroam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted March 21, 2013 #34 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Stupid idiots. The criminals are drooling right now. [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYCWDH5RGtI&feature=player_detailpage&list=PLa7JTOsvuh1nsGZUQRwXHLwPK0jryLrRp[/media] Colorado has had a huge spike in gang related crime in recent times especially denver,guess this little set of rules was a far better answer than going out and actually declaring war on gangs.When i say war i mean real war,not the war on drugs type.Politicians and their followers never fail to amaze me with stupidity.That said i am sure that criminals and gang members are already in the gun return program lines waiting for forgiveness. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praetorian-legio XIII Posted March 21, 2013 #35 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Thinking like a Ct: The government doesn't worry about criminals having weapons, its worried about patriotic citizens having assaut weapons and large capacity magazines because when the time comes that the majority of the population of this country takes to the streets in armed protest against an every increaseingly oppressive and dictatoral government, they won't be able to defend themselves against the onslaught. That is the purpose of the right to bear arms and this clandestine covert government doesn't like it. It has started with colorado's "gun control act" but this is just the start of what will oneday become a total ban on all weapons if we as citizens don't stop it now. Consider what size magazines DHS is using to load the hundreds of millions of rounds they are domestictly stockpiling and what type of weapons those rounds will be loaded into. ten'll get you twenty they ain't revolvers 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpumper Posted March 21, 2013 #36 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Do you think somehow the legal gun owner should be held responsible if another member manages to get hold of the gun? I guess it depends on the situation. I make sure my wife has access to all our guns. She reminds me we have them while I'm beating her and that makes me stop. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonKing Posted March 21, 2013 #37 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Im sorry but all the brits who keep lecturing us on gun control and guns in general,we appreciate your opinions and you are free to have them.BUT have you yourselves ever owned a gun?Ever shot a gun?Ever been in a situation where one might come in handy?If not then you are trying to explain something you have no understanding of,it comes across as pointless and just arguing for the sake of arguing. You all have a royal family which i and some other americans see as pointless and stupid.I do not and will not lecture on why they are not needed,i do not understand the point of having them or their purpose but it is your right to keep them.Not my country,not my customs,not my rights,not my place to judge. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praetorian-legio XIII Posted March 21, 2013 #38 Share Posted March 21, 2013 If it wasn't for all the US guns,woundn't the disgruntled Brits all be lecturing us in german right now? 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+HerNibs Posted March 21, 2013 #39 Share Posted March 21, 2013 As for third cousins or seconds cousins boyfriends sisters goldfish, yes they should be included if living on the same house as where the gun is going to be held.......and it seems that they are, Michelle has answered my question. I wonder if it is enforced though, do they actually check whether the family living in the same household are lunatic registered. Michelle is kind of right. It's actually the felon that cannot be around the gun. I believe it varies from state to state but not by much. One of my sons had a friend who wanted to "stay" with us for a couple of months. He has a felony on his record. He actually asked us if we could put our guns elsewhere while he stayed with us because he (according to his parole officer) cannot be in a home where he has access to a gun. In Colorado the background checks are only on the person listed. NOT the family, the address residents or friends. If an individual is going to own a weapon he/she better be damn sure that they do so responsibly. Nibs 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+HerNibs Posted March 21, 2013 #40 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Just a note - Colorado Sheriffs are NOT happy about the new laws. Colorado Sheriffs Sue Yesterday Democratic Colorado Governor John Hickenloopersigned sweeping new gun control legislation into law prohibiting ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds and criminalizing the transfer of private firearms. Before Hickenlooper's signing, Colorado's Weld County Sheriff John Cooke explained that the new law is pretty much unenforceable and confusing:Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he won’t enforce either gun-control measure waiting to be signed into law by Gov. John Hickenlooper, saying the laws are “unenforceable” and would “give a false sense of security.” Nibs 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted March 21, 2013 #41 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) Thinking like a Ct: The government doesn't worry about criminals having weapons, its worried about patriotic citizens having assaut weapons and large capacity magazines because when the time comes that the majority of the population of this country takes to the streets in armed protest against an every increaseingly oppressive and dictatoral government, they won't be able to defend themselves against the onslaught. That is the purpose of the right to bear arms and this clandestine covert government doesn't like it. It has started with colorado's "gun control act" but this is just the start of what will oneday become a total ban on all weapons if we as citizens don't stop it now. Consider what size magazines DHS is using to load the hundreds of millions of rounds they are domestictly stockpiling and what type of weapons those rounds will be loaded into. ten'll get you twenty they ain't revolvers Secretary Napolitano of course won't acknowledge questions regarding the 1.6 billion hollow point bullets she has acquired.. I agree with your post. All great empires eventually collapse; Alexander of Macedonia's empire, Gengis Khan's empire, Rome's empire, Great Britain's empire, Napoleon's empire, Hitler's empire, etc.. Any one who disregards history is delusional. America has a global influence comparable to an empire; well, it did after World War II, anyways. It is in decline and it will fall apart. What caused these empires to fall? Time. Our current government's actions are blatant to any one with a brain, but are not nearly transparent enough to the public because of the skewed media presenting their account of things. Obama's administration isn't to entirely blame; Bush is to blame too. I'm no right-wing nut, but I do say, all the people rushing to disarm American gun-owners are enemies to the Republic. Edited March 21, 2013 by Eonwe 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen in the North Posted March 21, 2013 #42 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Im sorry but all the brits who keep lecturing us on gun control and guns in general,we appreciate your opinions and you are free to have them.BUT have you yourselves ever owned a gun?Ever shot a gun?Ever been in a situation where one might come in handy?If not then you are trying to explain something you have no understanding of,it comes across as pointless and just arguing for the sake of arguing. You all have a royal family which i and some other americans see as pointless and stupid.I do not and will not lecture on why they are not needed,i do not understand the point of having them or their purpose but it is your right to keep them.Not my country,not my customs,not my rights,not my place to judge. Actually, as a Brit, I can't see how suddenly bringing in lots of gun control measures is going to do much over there. I'm not an expert, don't really know anything about it, but I think once the general population has guns and they are so readily available, it seems to me you just can't take them all away, even if you wanted to. It does seem as though it would be taking away the guns from all the people who legitimately have them, leaving the only people with guns the criminals. I don't think it would ever occur to most people here to want/have a gun in their house. But it's not my country and I'm not arguing! Though I do hope you aren't suggesting offing the royal family 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRYSiiSx2 Posted March 21, 2013 #43 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Just a note - Colorado Sheriffs are NOT happy about the new laws. Colorado Sheriffs Sue Nibs Holy balls! Some cops who actually don't want citizens disarmed and helpless?! Just kidding, but good for them, unlike those Cali sissies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted March 21, 2013 #44 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Im sorry but all the brits who keep lecturing us on gun control and guns in general,we appreciate your opinions and you are free to have them.BUT have you yourselves ever owned a gun?Ever shot a gun?Ever been in a situation where one might come in handy?If not then you are trying to explain something you have no understanding of,it comes across as pointless and just arguing for the sake of arguing. You all have a royal family which i and some other americans see as pointless and stupid.I do not and will not lecture on why they are not needed,i do not understand the point of having them or their purpose but it is your right to keep them.Not my country,not my customs,not my rights,not my place to judge. I know! I'm so sick and tired of them lecturing US when they are full of it. Their crime rate is just as bad as ours! Sure GUN deaths are down. But check out stabbings, rape (Rape is getting REALLY bad over there, according to a recent BBC article I read) car jackings, and burglary. Check this out. It was published in 2009: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html Another one in 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html Rape statistics for England and Wales: the flow from victimisation to conviction Illustration: Paul Scuton for the Guardian Between 2009/10 and 2011/12 there were an estimated 78,000 victims of rape per year in England and Wales - 69,000 females and 9,000 males. Over the same period there were an average of 1,070 convictions per year for the offence, though offenders and victims may nor relate to the same cases, since a single case can take years to be concluded. The figures were published jointly in a statistical bulletin by the Ministry of Justice, Home Office and the Office for National Statistics. Given its nature as an estimate, the figure of 78,000 is perhaps best stated alongside the upper and lower limits of its 95% confidence interval: 60,000 and 95,000 respectively. Over the same three years an average of 15,670 rapes were recorded by the police each year. This would give a recording rate somewhere between 16.5% and 26.1% using the upper and lower boundaries, but such figures should not be confused with a reporting rate, since not all reports are recorded as a crime. As the MoJ report states, "Police record crime if the circumstances reported amount to a crime are defined in law and there is no credible evidence to the contrary." The estimate of 78,000 rapes per year was calculated using data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, now administered by the Office for National Statistics. The survey data also shows that in 2011/12 one in five females aged between 16 and 59 had been the victim of a sexual offence or attempted ofeence since the age of 16. Among males the figure was 2.7%. Speaking in response to the publication of the figures, Justice Minister Jeremy Wright said, "All sexual offences are abhorrent. Very tough sentences are available to the courts for those who commit the most serious offences including a new mandatory life sentence which we have introduced for anyone convicted of a second very serious sexual or violent crime." Data compiled by the Ministry of Justice also showed the conviction rates and outcomes of court proceedings for sexual offence cases. In 2011 the conviction rate for rape against a female was 39.7%, just below the 45.2% rate for rape against a male. The aggregate rate across all sexual offences was 60.3%. Of cases completed by the end of 2011, 55.9% of rape defendants were found guilty (compared to 61.6% of defendants in all sexual offence cases). 42.3% of rape defendants were found not guilty, while the remaining 1.8% of cases were discharged, terminated early or had an other outcome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted March 21, 2013 #45 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Actually, as a Brit, I can't see how suddenly bringing in lots of gun control measures is going to do much over there. I'm not an expert, don't really know anything about it, but I think once the general population has guns and they are so readily available, it seems to me you just can't take them all away, even if you wanted to. It does seem as though it would be taking away the guns from all the people who legitimately have them, leaving the only people with guns the criminals. I don't think it would ever occur to most people here to want/have a gun in their house. But it's not my country and I'm not arguing! Though I do hope you aren't suggesting offing the royal family I think Queen Elizabeth is more classy and sets a better example for her people than any of our lawmakers in Washington! I'd be very proud to have someone like her in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRYSiiSx2 Posted March 21, 2013 #46 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) I think Queen Elizabeth is more classy and sets a better example for her people than any of our lawmakers in Washington! I'd be very proud to have someone like her in charge. In the US, you could never be President without being born into a pool of money. Edited March 21, 2013 by CRYSiiSx2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted March 21, 2013 #47 Share Posted March 21, 2013 In the US, you could never be President without being born into a pool of money. Sorry both obama and clinton re self made men. Sorta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drayno Posted March 21, 2013 #48 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Sorry both obama and clinton re self made men. Sorta. Or someone made them rich so they could be puppet-Presidents. *cough* banks *cough* 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted March 21, 2013 #49 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) I won't do it..No, I won't do it.....Oh, heck I'll post it... Edited March 21, 2013 by Kowalski 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted March 21, 2013 #50 Share Posted March 21, 2013 (edited) And my favorite: Edited March 21, 2013 by Kowalski 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now