Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Gun banning and change to socialist--> communist gov you betcha


calfoxwc

Recommended Posts

it's what marxists do. They take over, control forever, if they can. But a free people with arms to defend themselves from tyranny and intimidation, who won't cower in their homes out of helplessness... socialism/communism can't take over those people.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/missing-the-marx-gun-controls-future-is-communism/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2cf230e847-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-2cf230e847-20770865#axzz5WOObOAEw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

it's what marxists do. They take over, control forever, if they can. But a free people with arms to defend themselves from tyranny and intimidation, who won't cower in their homes out of helplessness... socialism/communism can't take over those people.

https://www.ammoland.com/2018/11/missing-the-marx-gun-controls-future-is-communism/?utm_source=Ammoland+Subscribers&utm_campaign=2cf230e847-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6f6fac3eaa-2cf230e847-20770865#axzz5WOObOAEw

There are only two things I agree with in terms of gun control. One is not allowing military level weapons from full auto-rifles on up. That would mean no means of using bump stocks or any other method of making them full auto. There is a long history of that kind of control dating back to the Thompson submachine gun and other similar weapons kept from the general public. The 2nd issue for me is the lack of background checks at gun shows. For me to purchase any weapon in this state and to get my LTC I had to pass an extensive background check by the state of Texas. Had I just decided to purchase a pistol or rifle at a gun show, I would not have had to do that. That to me is ridiculous. It negates the reason for state background checks, which is to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals or severely disturbed individuals who have already come to the attention of governmental authorities. It should not be that easy to bi-pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the thought of gun banning scares me regardless of the latest shooting headlines.

It's still true the only known way to man to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!

Terrorists, insane people, armed robbers, school shooters, gang members, Putin (just kidding, sorta).......you can finish the list.

.......oh I've been a real gun shooter since I was 11 I'm 68 now, haven't broke the law.....yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mjp28 said:

Just the thought of gun banning scares me regardless of the latest shooting headlines.

It's still true the only known way to man to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun!

Terrorists, insane people, armed robbers, school shooters, gang members, Putin (just kidding, sorta).......you can finish the list.

.......oh I've been a real gun shooter since I was 11 I'm 68 now, haven't broke the law.....yet.

Sad thing is that even if Cal. had better LTC laws, that shooter would not have been stopped. In Texas you cannot carry a weapon for which you have an LTC into any establishment that makes more than 50% of it's gross sales from alcohol. Same would have applied to the Florida shooting in that nightclub. It makes me wonder though if even law enforcement persons like the off duty guys in Cal. are also not allowed to carry their weapons into bars when not on duty. That would be a real shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this interesting little bit from Wiki:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994

William B. Ruger, a founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., is often ascribed with providing the impetus for high capacity magazine restrictions. Ruger proposed that instead of banning firearms, Congress should outlaw magazines holding more than 15 rounds.[17] “No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun,” Ruger told Tom Brokaw of NBC News in 1992.[18][19] On March 30, 1989, Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

William B. Ruger[20]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.[21]:1–2 The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994. The ban, including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset provision. Attempts to renew the ban have failed on the federal level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own a Ruger 9mm. The magazine it came with from the factory holds 17 bullets. So do the 2 extra magazines that I bought. They are also Ruger branded.

So I guess the Ruger firearms company has softened on the high capacity stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

 The 2nd issue for me is the lack of background checks at gun shows. For me to purchase any weapon in this state and to get my LTC I had to pass an extensive background check by the state of Texas. Had I just decided to purchase a pistol or rifle at a gun show, I would not have had to do that. That to me is ridiculous. It negates the reason for state background checks, which is to keep guns out of the hands of known criminals or severely disturbed individuals who have already come to the attention of governmental authorities. It should not be that easy to bi-pass. 

I agree with your first point - but your second point is 97% bs - not your fault, necessarily. All gun dealers, gun show or not, MUST DO BACKGROUND CHECKS. PERIOD.

  I've bought guns at gun shows - seen plenty of others buy guns at gun shows - they ALL DO BACKGROUND CHECKS.

Now, there may be a PRIVATE SELLER who is only selling used guns he legitimately owns - he won't have to do a background check.

Should he be required to? I rather think he shouldn't be allowed at gun shows. Here's why -

the only way to require background checks for private sales of guns/private transfers of guns - is to require absolute registration of all guns. This can NOT ever be allowed.

   Registration is eventual confiscation. In NY, guns were registered, and their names and addresses were PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER. Even policemen. firemen. That is so freaking dangerous...

   Gun registration - all the left has to do after that, is tax/fine/fee them out of existence.

   My opinion - if private sellers don't have to do background checks at gun shows, they shouldn't be allowed to be at gun shows. But even that isn't a "gun show loop hole" - they are free to transfer their gun to responsible children, etc... and sell them privately outright out of the trunk of their car - from home, flea market, garage sale.

   But registration of private sales is gun registration. That can never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Sad thing is that even if Cal. had better LTC laws, that shooter would not have been stopped. In Texas you cannot carry a weapon for which you have an LTC into any establishment that makes more than 50% of it's gross sales from alcohol. Same would have applied to the Florida shooting in that nightclub. It makes me wonder though if even law enforcement persons like the off duty guys in Cal. are also not allowed to carry their weapons into bars when not on duty. That would be a real shame.

   I believe there were six off-duty policemen at that bar - unarmed. I really like the commercial where some sicko goes into a bar with his big gun and threatens everybody in the bar a crowded place - except everybody threatened pulls their pistols out and aims at him - he stops.

   I repeat - on our road trip to LA and Texas, to Missouri - I sure had my ccw with me. Couldn't take it down in the caverns of Kentucky - at the time - my Ohio ccw not recognized (but is now), and in Missouri, I was allowed to take my gun with me into a theater, no problem. Has to stay concealed, obviously. Not a crowded theater - but the theater manager (I called her directly before going...) explained that it was perfectly legal. Makes sense to me - background checked, trained, lifetime responsible, I'm good with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

Good points cal.

Thanks ! BTW, another point - if a responsible private citizen wants to sell his rifle or pistol, they can...at least here in Ohio - do a transfer of ownership with a gun dealer. It's a quick official paper stating you sold your gun to so and so, as I understand it.  That is what I would do. That is why I traded my two other pistols in - didn't bother to try to sell them and get more bucks for em - the dealer was pretty fair with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

   I believe there were six off-duty policemen at that bar - unarmed. I really like the commercial where some sicko goes into a bar with his big gun and threatens everybody in the bar a crowded place - except everybody threatened pulls their pistols out and aims at him - he stops.

   I repeat - on our road trip to LA and Texas, to Missouri - I sure had my ccw with me. Couldn't take it down in the caverns of Kentucky - at the time - my Ohio ccw not recognized (but is now), and in Missouri, I was allowed to take my gun with me into a theater, no problem. Has to stay concealed, obviously. Not a crowded theater - but the theater manager (I called her directly before going...) explained that it was perfectly legal. Makes sense to me - background checked, trained, lifetime responsible, I'm good with that.

Fortunately I never go to bars because I also never drink and drive so I can carry anywhere I go other than inside schools, churches or sporting events. I think the church thing is ridiculous given the church shootings both in Texas and in Penn. And law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry anywhere, off duty or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said:

I found this interesting little bit from Wiki:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994

William B. Ruger, a founder of Sturm, Ruger & Co., is often ascribed with providing the impetus for high capacity magazine restrictions. Ruger proposed that instead of banning firearms, Congress should outlaw magazines holding more than 15 rounds.[17] “No honest man needs more than 10 rounds in any gun,” Ruger told Tom Brokaw of NBC News in 1992.[18][19] On March 30, 1989, Ruger sent a letter to every member of the US Congress stating:

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

William B. Ruger[20]

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1993 included a ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.[21]:1–2 The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, commonly called the assault weapons ban (AWB), was enacted in September 1994. The ban, including its ban on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, became defunct (expired) in September 2004 per a sunset provision. Attempts to renew the ban have failed on the federal level.

This is also why I won’t own a Ruger product and of late a Springfield product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

This is also why I won’t own a Ruger product and of late a Springfield product.

LOL! I love Ruger pistols. Got 3 of 'em now. My 1972 3-screw .357 Blackhawk is now a classic (Just like it's Old owner). Great shooting pistol. Very accurate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

The quality is there but I like to give my money to companies who don’t have a history of trying to be a Judas to gun owners.

BTW I wrote the guy who did this video and asked him if I should put on the newer, better looking grips that Ruger makes and if I should get the transfer bar "fix" that Ruger offers for free to prevent accidental discharge that sometimes happens if dropped hammer first with a round in the chamber covered by the hammer (I have always left that chamber empty when not in use for safety reasons). He advised me that with an original owner classic like mine with less than 150 rounds fired through it was worth far more to collectors unaltered in any way. This guy really knows his guns. He does excellent reviews regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said:

BTW I wrote the guy who did this video and asked him if I should put on the newer, better looking grips that Ruger makes and if I should get the transfer bar "fix" that Ruger offers for free to prevent accidental discharge that sometimes happens if dropped hammer first with a round in the chamber covered by the hammer (I have always left that chamber empty when not in use for safety reasons). He advised me that with an original owner classic like mine with less than 150 rounds fired through it was worth far more to collectors unaltered in any way. This guy really knows his guns. He does excellent reviews regularly.

I will have to check out more of his stuff and I definitely feel how he does. Keep it original and just keep using your noggin. People carried single action pistols for a long, long time. There wasn’t a Great Hammer Drop Massacre of 1890 on the books haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said:

I will have to check out more of his stuff and I definitely feel how he does. Keep it original and just keep using your noggin. People carried single action pistols for a long, long time. There wasn’t a Great Hammer Drop Massacre of 1890 on the books haha.

It got modernized by the FBI with the backflip triggerpull on a pistol obviously left off safety.🤪 He was later charged with 2nd degree assault. Don't know the status on that now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Rita Mae Brown

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/11/10/thousand-oaks-shooting-gunman-posted-instagram-during-bar-massacre/1958013002/

Long, 28, first posted on Instagram at 11:24 p.m: "It's too bad I won't get to see all the illogical and pathetic reasons people will put in my mouth as to why I did it," the military veteran said in the post. "Fact is I had no reason to do it, and I just thought....(exploitive), life is boring so why not?" Long posted, according to ABC News and Buzzfeed.

Three minutes later Long posted, "I hope people call me insane (two smiley face emojiis) would that just be a big ball of irony? Yeah... I'm insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is 'hopes and prayers'...or 'keep you in my thoughts'."

He added, "Every time...and wonder why these keep happening... --(two smiley face emojis)."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

I think that is called psychotic behavior?

Walking into a crowded bar and killing people is very psychotic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I didn't want to start a new thread on this so I posted it here:

 

All-American: Wisconsin Company Gives Guns To Employees As Christmas Gifts

A Wisconsin company has decided to give its employees revolvers as Christmas gifts this year. The company says the gifts will promote team building and personal safety.

Ben Wolfgram, who co-owns Hortonville-based BenShot, a local business that produces glassware embedded with bullets, recently decided to give every employee a handgun as a Christmas present. The father-son business was started in 2015 in a small garage workshop in a little village of about 3,000 residents 100 miles northwest of Milwaukee. This is the first time Wolfgram has given guns as Christmas gifts to his employees. And it’s been a well-received decision.  Employee Chelsea Priest of Green Bay, Wisconsin, told the Appleton Post-Crescent that she believes the gift will empower her and help keep her safe. “I’ve never been a part of anything like this,” she said.

USA Today reported that the gift of a revolver is a choice, and employees can decline to accept the gun as a present. At least two employees initially declined the gift but are considering accepting the revolver after taking a gun-safety course that company executives have required before Wolfgram can begin giving out the guns. The business has 16 full-time employees, including several veterans, however, the business also has employees who had never fired a gun, said Wolfgram.

https://freedomoutpost.com/all-american-wisconsin-company-gives-guns-to-employees-as-christmas-gifts/

Dang I never worked at a cool place like this company. At Christmas I always got the one year supply for the jelly of the month club lol..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

got a nice christmas bonus some years, but a gun would have been AWESOME !

You betcha! Especially if they gave me exactly what I wanted. I'd believe in Santa again for sure!! 🎅

BTW Mrs. Santa 🤶 is just now talking Xmas bonus for each of us this year. I think the retired & disabled vet pay increase I told her about this afternoon went to her head. I may have that Henry sooner than spring after all.🤠

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

I would never give up my soul for anyone remotely like Trump. It isn't just a vote for me. It's my own personal integrity that would be compromised. And I'm speaking only for myself here, not anyone else. Let me make that clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said:

I would never give up my soul for anyone remotely like Trump. It isn't just a vote for me. It's my own personal integrity that would be compromised. And I'm speaking only for myself here, not anyone else. Let me make that clear.

sounds gallant, but seriously? your integrity is fine with voting for liar dirty scumdwelling rotten-egg sucking higgardlybeast? I don't believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, calfoxwc said:

sounds gallant, but seriously? your integrity is fine with voting for liar dirty scumdwelling rotten-egg sucking higgardlybeast? I don't believe that.

You feel about her the same way I do about Trump. I would never ask you to vote for her, but I would ask you to find a better alternative than Trump. I'm fairly certain I have found one in Ben Sasse, just like I had a strong belief in McCain over Trump. I voted for him when he was available. There is a difference in voting against someone you feel is truly a person who would take this country to hell for his own personal aggrandizement. That's how I feel about him. You likely feel that way about her, but I did not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...