COLORADO ALERT: 2013 Anti-Gun Bills at the State Capitol

FredHayek wrote: "Regulated" didn't mean then what it means now.

"Regulated" meant more like well-equipped than legally monitored.

And you do know if you go get the right licenses and pay the necessary tax you can buy fully automatic weapons, artillery, and grenade launchers? And these very "evil" military grade weapons have almost never been used in crimes. (They do tend to be super expensive, an M-16 will cost you $20,000.)

I hear ya Fred, I'm just sayin' that protection doesn't need to be an extreme like an M-16. Wanting and needing are two different things imo. I can do a lot of damage with the "little" guns I own, so I was pointing it out to some on the left. These guns don't even have large cap. mags ya know? I agree about the def of "regulated," but this ain't the 1700's man. However, if the Dems think they're gonna bully the NRA and everyone else that owns a weapon in this country, they got another thing coming. Just my p.o.

Edit: Also agree that we don't see murders on our streets involving rocket launchers and such, lol .

My father in-law is an avid hunter in upstate New York and him an I over Christmas (he came out to visit) talked about what a gun store would be like if all you had to choose from were like a dozen hunting rifles and a few side arms. Fine with me. Dude, am I really a conservative? Hmmmmmmm.

Colbert has it right...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 48529.html

I never said anything was evil. A tool is a tool. Only people can be evil. I'm only asking if there is any acceptable level of regulation to you. If I want an RPG should I be able to have one? If not, why not? Everything from a switchblade to a nuclear weapon is an "arm". We do regulate some of these. Where are the lines drawn, and why? Weaponized biological agents could also be considered "arms". The term now encompasses thing the Founders could not have imagined. I do not trust the Brady group, nor the NRA, nor any other group to represent my interests without carefully studying what their goals are. I am distrustful of the NRA as they have become to arms manufacturers as the AARP has become to insurance groups. Their beginnings have been corrupted. I also do not believe that my right to own and bear arms should be infringed, but I'm not sure if that right should be extended to me having access to anthrax or a dirty bomb. You might call these examples ridiculous, but they are merely extensions of the arguments that many use to excuse the ownership of semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and military style battle armor.
TL;DR: Who do we trust to decide what, if any restrictions are put on our 2nd amendment rights and what do those right encompass?

Everyone has stated, time and again, that the Second Amendment is no more "absolute" than the First Amendment. I'd like to see where they would draw the line as well.

(At one of the recent gun-buybacks by the L.A. Police Department someone actually DID turn in a rocket-launcher....)

chickaree wrote: I never said anything was evil. A tool is a tool. Only people can be evil. I'm only asking if there is any acceptable level of regulation to you. If I want an RPG should I be able to have one? If not, why not? Everything from a switchblade to a nuclear weapon is an "arm". We do regulate some of these. Where are the lines drawn, and why? Weaponized biological agents could also be considered "arms". The term now encompasses thing the Founders could not have imagined. I do not trust the Brady group, nor the NRA, nor any other group to represent my interests without carefully studying what their goals are. I am distrustful of the NRA as they have become to arms manufacturers as the AARP has become to insurance groups. Their beginnings have been corrupted. I also do not believe that my right to own and bear arms should be infringed, but I'm not sure if that right should be extended to me having access to anthrax or a dirty bomb. You might call these examples ridiculous, but they are merely extensions of the arguments that many use to excuse the ownership of semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and military style battle armor.
TL;DR: Who do we trust to decide what, if any restrictions are put on our 2nd amendment rights and what do those right encompass?

I say that whatever regs the Dems want to pass, let 'em. It's fine with me because it won't solve the problem that people will find whatever means they can to kill each other. No, you shouldn't be able to buy an RPG, but you can be issued one if you're in a war serving in the military.
Edit: Sorry Chick for being vague. The line is drawn at necessity. We don't live in Iraq.

A few days I posted this:

No, THIS is "nuts":

Unhinged: Radio Host Unleashes Explosive Pro-Gun Tirade (VIDEO)

Morgan invited Jones onto his show to discuss the conservative pundit's campaign to "Deport Piers Morgan" in the wake of the CNN host's advocacy of gun control following the Sandy Hook massacre.

Jones first came to prominence as a ferociously libertarian radio host who argued, among other things, that the U.S. government was involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Funny video...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/0 ... r=Politics

But then an hour or two later, he put out an even funnier one:

LadyJazzer wrote: [youtube:3kah7jgs]

[/youtube:3kah7jgs]

"The way this'll work is, 'oh, see here they were protesting gun grabs and some crack dealers shot them,'" he said. "These people clearly work for Bloomberg ... it was just super-creepy ... If something happens to us, we're killed by crackheads, it was the NYPD or the mafia they hired, period," Jones said. "...This city runs white slaves, that's sex slaves, out of here all day, narcotics, you name it. This is mafia central."

"I'm not afraid of you," he said. "I came here and I got in your redcoat usurper hatchet man's face and I told him to go to hell!"

God, I just hope guys like this keep doin' what they're doin'... The 90% of America that isn't NRA/bat-sh*t-crazy sees this, and they KNOW that something needs to be done to rein in the extremists.

(He should wipe that foam from around his mouth...The neighbors are starting to notice...)

Well, today we have a new contestant for "wacko gun-nut of the day"... One of those "must-see" videos....

Tactical Response CEO Threatens To 'Start Killing People' Over Possible Obama Gun Measure (VIDEO)

One CEO says he's willing to go to outrageous lengths to protect his right to use a gun.

James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills, claimed in a video posted on YouTube and Facebook that he would "start killing people" if President Barack Obama decides to take executive action to pass further gun control policies, Raw Story reports.

In a frenetic address to the camera, Yeager puts a call out to other gun rights advocates to "load your damn mags" and "get ready to fight" in what he claims will turn into a "civil war" if gun control measures in the country get any stricter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 ... 48751.html

DAMN! I hope these Neanderthal knuckle-draggin' gun-nuts keep coming out of the woodwork. They are doing more to ensure tighter gun-regs than ANYTHING we could do...

PLEASE!!!.... Jus' keep doin' what yer doin'....

Jekyll wrote:

chickaree wrote: I never said anything was evil. A tool is a tool. Only people can be evil. I'm only asking if there is any acceptable level of regulation to you. If I want an RPG should I be able to have one? If not, why not? Everything from a switchblade to a nuclear weapon is an "arm". We do regulate some of these. Where are the lines drawn, and why? Weaponized biological agents could also be considered "arms". The term now encompasses thing the Founders could not have imagined. I do not trust the Brady group, nor the NRA, nor any other group to represent my interests without carefully studying what their goals are. I am distrustful of the NRA as they have become to arms manufacturers as the AARP has become to insurance groups. Their beginnings have been corrupted. I also do not believe that my right to own and bear arms should be infringed, but I'm not sure if that right should be extended to me having access to anthrax or a dirty bomb. You might call these examples ridiculous, but they are merely extensions of the arguments that many use to excuse the ownership of semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and military style battle armor.
TL;DR: Who do we trust to decide what, if any restrictions are put on our 2nd amendment rights and what do those right encompass?

I say that whatever regs the Dems want to pass, let 'em. It's fine with me because it won't solve the problem that people will find whatever means they can to kill each other. No, you shouldn't be able to buy an RPG, but you can be issued one if you're in a war serving in the military.
Edit: Sorry Chick for being vague. The line is drawn at necessity. We don't live in Iraq.

True, we have always been expert predators. I feel this is an issue (like the abortion issue) that is used to blind and divide us. It could use an intelligent discussion in this country. This would be a good time to have it, along with the way we handle mental health in this country.

LJ, I'm getting a bumper sticker:
"You're a gun nut until a crisis, then you're a hero."

On Topic: What's your take on Dianne's proposed legislation?

chickaree wrote:

Jekyll wrote:

chickaree wrote: I never said anything was evil. A tool is a tool. Only people can be evil. I'm only asking if there is any acceptable level of regulation to you. If I want an RPG should I be able to have one? If not, why not? Everything from a switchblade to a nuclear weapon is an "arm". We do regulate some of these. Where are the lines drawn, and why? Weaponized biological agents could also be considered "arms". The term now encompasses thing the Founders could not have imagined. I do not trust the Brady group, nor the NRA, nor any other group to represent my interests without carefully studying what their goals are. I am distrustful of the NRA as they have become to arms manufacturers as the AARP has become to insurance groups. Their beginnings have been corrupted. I also do not believe that my right to own and bear arms should be infringed, but I'm not sure if that right should be extended to me having access to anthrax or a dirty bomb. You might call these examples ridiculous, but they are merely extensions of the arguments that many use to excuse the ownership of semi-automatic weapons, armor piercing bullets and military style battle armor.
TL;DR: Who do we trust to decide what, if any restrictions are put on our 2nd amendment rights and what do those right encompass?

I say that whatever regs the Dems want to pass, let 'em. It's fine with me because it won't solve the problem that people will find whatever means they can to kill each other. No, you shouldn't be able to buy an RPG, but you can be issued one if you're in a war serving in the military.
Edit: Sorry Chick for being vague. The line is drawn at necessity. We don't live in Iraq.

True, we have always been expert predators. I feel this is an issue (like the abortion issue) that is used to blind and divide us. It could use an intelligent discussion in this country. This would be a good time to have it, along with the way we handle mental health in this country.

Agreed. Crimes should be punishable more harshly, as to deter the rest of the masses, just m.o. As far as the mental health system, we could overhaul THAT along with our regular health care system, although I think it won't happen. It should though Chick, it should.