194 replies to this topic

[Logan]

The thing I hate about Gun control advocates is they ultimately want to take my guns away from me. I'm not trying to force them to arm themselves, tell them how to live, but somehow they feel because they don't want guns, they have the right to deny me my mine. Cars kill people, maybe we should deny gun control advocates the right to own cars because far more people are killed by cars than are killed by guns in this country. Just because bad people do bad things with guns is no argument for denying good people from having them. Bad people are always going to find ways to do bad things to people. Bombs are illegal yet bad guys find ways to make bombs that blow up and kill innocent people, so taking guns away from good people will not solve the problem of bad people killing good people.

[The Average Joe]

Owning is gonna get a lot more expensive. I was out running errands and popped into Wild Sports to maybe get some supplemental ammo and a few accessories. Whoa! .223 ammo has more than doubled, AND you can only buy half as much. .308 also jumped. A rifle I was looking at 3 months ago went from 699 to 1,549. No low end available at all. The rifle shelves and even some of the handgun racks were getting sparse. A lot of vacant slots. And yet, they were calling numbers for service there were so many people in there.
Strange times we live in...

[chris v]

Yes. If you can find 223 or 556 ammo it costs big $$$ now. Everywhere I checked this weekend was out of it. Went to STS to get a lower and they were out of everything. Told me at least 6 months until they have anything. River City had bare lowers and fully assembled lowers yesterday but they were going real fast. Bare lower there was over $300. Even the 338 lapua ammo was non existent. At $6+ per round. I think with the way people are voting with their $$$ that should make a huge statement. Background checks are at an all time high for gun purchases.

[supermom]

reloader is an avid shooters best friend

[supermom]

This photo was labeled assault pea shooter

and a friend asked--you gonna ban this next?


Tee hee heee kinda funny. just put it here for humor

[old soldier]

So you assume that all people with guns are so proficient in all situations that 10 rounds is enough? Do you remember recently an encounter in NYC between LEOs and a criminal -- http://www.huffingto..._n_1830007.html? And just yesterday -- 3 assailants in a home invasion robbery in Sac. The point is -- misses happen, multiple assailants happen, single handgun GSW may not be enough to stop a threat. Or, in your experience, is it always one shot per threat? If so, perhaps you have much to teach to the rest of us.

And you think your budget is a good reason for limiting capacity to 10 rounds? And how many civilians who need 30 rounds is enough to reconfirm basic rights? Isn't one civilian enough? Is the life of a law enforcement officer more important than a civilian?

And finally, it's disappointing to hear from someone, who commands respect by having fought for and defended our constitution, is now voicing that it's acceptable to limit the rights afforded by the Second Amendment -- why is the focus on crime alone; why not ALL of the benefits afforded by the SA?

old soldier having a debate is kinda fun, cause having someone smart testing your remarks makes you sharper.. first of all old soldier thinks he is profidient with weapons cause he was paid to be that way. regarding magazines with 30 rounds, I have heard more stories about bad guys using all the rounds. are there any stories out there about a civilaian in a victory of self defense where he needed 30 rounds. my expeneind3e is rambo types blazing away at the range (which may slow down cause of the cost of ammo) are the main source of ammo use.

I would not have my dander up if I didn't think obama and company are using military type guns and magazines to excite the dumber folks (the ones that got him reelected) into serious disarming laws. I hope giving a little like on mental health, magazine size and background checks will keep common sense folks away from joining up with the obama generated frenzie, take their guns away movement.

just a tip from the old soldier, for those on the fence and maybee thinking about personal protection, old soldier recommends a reminginton 870 shot gun, with 20 inch barrell loaded with double ought buck as the best weapon. with the buck shot you have 9 pellets per shot, with five shots, you aim can be a little off and still get the defence job done and if you tried the same thing with your military AR type you might have a jam problem (didn't the portland bad guy have one) and also you wouldn't have to worry about your rounds that missed shooting holes though you neighbors bedroom.

regarding the 2nd amendment, old soldier would be the first one to join up if there is a movement out there to start some.

[camay2327]

Old soldier, I have to say you are right on. A shotgun with buck shot is a great defense weapon
inside the home. I wouldn't mind having one myself. I just sent my last gun (30-40 Krag) to my
brother in Michigan. It was our father's and my mom gave it to me when he died. I never used
it so I gave to to my brother so he could give it to one of his sons.

I may get a shotgun or pistol later.

[supermom]

[Logan]

This photo was labeled assault pea shooter

and a friend asked--you gonna ban this next?


Tee hee heee kinda funny. just put it here for humor

What's not funny about this, is the way Folsom wrote it's anti-shooting law, firing those within the city limits of Folsom is technically against the law.
Technically, you could be ticketed for shooting a rubberband, my favorite weapon for spiders on the ceiling.

Anf for those who think I may be exagerating:

9.88.010 Use restrictions.
A. No person within the corporate limits of the city shall discharge any rifle, shotgun, pistol, cannon or any instrument of any kind, character or description which may throw or project bullets or missiles of any kind to any distance, by means of an elastic force or any explosive substance. No person shall make use of any device by which missiles of any kind or description are hurled or projected by any explosive substance, or any manner use the same to the danger or annoyance of any person or injury to property.

[supermom]

What's not funny about this, is the way Folsom wrote it's anti-shooting law, firing those within the city limits of Folsom is technically against the law.
Technically, you could be ticketed for shooting a rubberband, my favorite weapon for spiders on the ceiling.

Anf for those who think I may be exagerating:

I think they wrote that to include home-made small firearms.

ps, my favorite weapon for spiders on the ceiling is holding my kitten up and saying "get 'em zoey"

and he does. and then the spider hits the floor. and then zoey eats them. Which means I dont have to wash spider guts off the ceiling

[Chris]

Supermom, I thank you for your service and the time you spent away from family and kids to keep us safe..........
I know there are alot of 19 year olds right now sitting on a very cold rocky hilltop somewhere in Afghanistan this Christmas eve..........
Some will stay up all night watching while others sleep............
As I sleep safely and warmly tonight in my cot, my air pad, and sleeping bag (it's a long story....you don't want to know, but I do have central heat...!) I will think of our troops on the other side of the world......... Chris

[Logan]

I think they wrote that to include home-made small firearms.

ps, my favorite weapon for spiders on the ceiling is holding my kitten up and saying "get 'em zoey"

and he does. and then the spider hits the floor. and then zoey eats them. Which means I dont have to wash spider guts off the ceiling

Well, it includes bb guns and slingshots and bows and arrows. Can't do archery practice in my backyard, or let my son shoot at a target with the bb gun.

there is even more to the code specifically outlawing paintball as well. even the nerf guns in my house are a violation the way the law is written, but I would bet a judge would laugh the LEO out of his courthouse that wrote a ticket for a nerf gun, but it does fire a "bullet or missle of any kind" by use of an "elastic force."

[eVader]

1) Why is that? An intruder in your home is about the same threat regardless of where you live. Why would you need more firepower living in a rural Sacramento?

2) True, to some extent. I grew-up, and my family still lives in, a neighborhood that is Crip territory. Some of my friends in Blood territory. However, the type of gun really isn't the factor. You really aren't much safer in your home because you have an AR vs having a 9mm handgun. And really, the gun in the home isn't much of a factor. Other than petty-theft break-ins, there's not much personal threat inside your home. The real threat is outside the home. Conceal & Carry is really what you need more of.

Which brings me to another point that wasn't really mentioned before. I think we need MORE conceal and carry, but make it more difficult to get. Not difficult as in you need to have a reason for a C&C, but requiring you to pass a tactical test that shows you could, if needed, draw your weapon and effectively use it without harming yourself or bystanders (within reason... since that obviously can't be guaranteed). In other words, you can effectively and safely go from holster to hitting a target in a timely manner.

1) In a rural area (e.g. Montana, Sac, El Do or Placer Co) LEO response time will be must longer than here in Folsom. However when it is a life/death scenario, seconds count.

2) An AR would be a suitable home defense weapon as would the .44 or .45 however the better home defense plan is a handgun (any caliber) so that you can get to your next weapon. My choice would be a pump or semi auto shotgun. With adrenaline pumping, mind racing to determine where and how many intruders there are, shotgun will be more effective and has a lower chance of hitting non-targets.

I like your last comment. STS Guns, Ammo Depot and other stores have a list of instructors that teach CCW certification, firearms 101, home defense and tactical training. I can trust the folks at Sac Valley Shooting Center that shoot in members only target bays who have had to demorate basic handgun safety and safe holstered target shooting.

[SacKen]

The thing I hate about Gun control advocates is they ultimately want to take my guns away from me. I'm not trying to force them to arm themselves, tell them how to live, but somehow they feel because they don't want guns, they have the right to deny me my mine. Cars kill people, maybe we should deny gun control advocates the right to own cars because far more people are killed by cars than are killed by guns in this country. Just because bad people do bad things with guns is no argument for denying good people from having them. Bad people are always going to find ways to do bad things to people. Bombs are illegal yet bad guys find ways to make bombs that blow up and kill innocent people, so taking guns away from good people will not solve the problem of bad people killing good people.

To be fair, we do have "car control" in place. We try to stop people from driving that we think would be more likely to kill someone while driving. However, much like gun control, it only works on law-abiding citizens. The criminal minds still drive without a license.

Also, bad guys do use bombs, but you don't have kids killing each other on the streets daily with bombs or accidentally killing their friend with Daddy's bomb they found in his room. While current gun control laws are useless, you can't deny that having less guns easily available, in general, would result in less gun deaths. Most gun control advocates I know are coming at it from this angle... get rid of them so that people we don't trust can't easily get their hands on one.

No, you won't stop the drug cartel from having guns or people with the patience to go all Timothy McVeigh, but the average kid in the burbs with a burr up his arse, or even the average wannabe thug on the streets, won't be able to quickly and efficiently kill large groups of people, in a moment's notice, with relatively little effort.