NRA does serve a valuable role, although agree that they push back on EVERY attempt to make things safe if such attempts might slightly inconvenience a lawful gun owner. I don't support that. The Heller decision did allow for some control, as it should have. The problem with Hillary is a court that shifts far left. With Ginsburg's comments just this week about Heller ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?_r=0[/url]), it is easy to see how the NRA is not just puffing it's breath. I don't support the kind of "common sense" that Hillary supports, and the overturning of Heller is goodbye to many rights. Their "scare tactic" over the government coming to take our guns is no such thing. She and Obama regularly laud the practices of Australia and the UK, both of which took back guns from the people. They also advocate removing semi automatic rifles (the AR15 is pretty much the most popular leisure rifle in the country) from civilian ownership as weapons that can cause mass destruction. So that would be a gun take back. What she does not realize is that in the UK, most police do not have guns. And those that do have to get special permission to use it (at least they did before 9/11). So, until the government downs itself on guns and being armed, I don't think there is a cent of constitutionality in Hillary's plan, nor what the Court would start allowing if it overturned Heller. A bunch of BS. Meanwhile, we'll bash our law enforcement broadly, we'll blame racism when convenient (not the gun the officer was holding, nor the minorities when responsible for 40% of police shootings), and then we'll blame guns when convenient (when a mass shooting happens). All the while, we won't lament the tens of thousands of low income and predominantly minority homicides (especially black on black) that happen each year due to gun violence, guns that are largely stolen or taken from family/friends (not through a "gun show loophole"). And we'll further ignore the income inequity/divide, the broken families, the drugs, etc, as real root causes that have to be solved. Take away guns from good guys, the bad guys will still get them; take them away somehow from all over the country, and the bad guys will use bombs and other highly lethal means to kill people. And to make it all worse, we have no moral backbone of any kind in this country anymore. That's required for democracy. But that's what you get when you toss any allowance of religious expression out of the national landscape under the guise that acknowledging religions is an establishment of religion. As if affirming atheism is not in itself an establishment of a religion: atheism. So good luck solving anything in this country with no absolute moral background. The republicans are so friggin' dumb, Donald Trump in a year when the country is begging for someone to run to the right a little more, someone who is not a flaming liar, lifetime filthy rich politician. Donald Trump. Just precious. Idiots.

[B)] heemer & eaglefan are going over the top of my intellectual level in this thread. I'll defer to a more authoritative source: https://www.gty.org/blog/B150619/john-macarthur-on-keeping-gods-law It's NOT just about Obama and Guns anymore. [:I]

quote: Originally posted by KendoSurf [B)] heemer & eaglefan are going over the top of my intellectual level in this thread. I'll defer to a more authoritative source: https://www.gty.org/blog/B150619/john-macarthur-on-keeping-gods-law It's NOT just about Obama and Guns anymore. [:I]

maranâ thâ

"Man, you have me wanting to get out and do a little plinking. I have a little vintage .22 Colt revolver that is a blast to shoot. Here is a video of a guy with a revolver like mine - https://youtu.be/7UrDOTkzxUA" [^] LIKE! Here, I can own any rifle or shotgun with merely a quick background check at the place of purchase. For a handgun, I'd need to have a special permit, pay a fee, etc. Seems ironic, since my Tootsie-Pump loaded with 5 Sluggers can do a hell of a lot more damage than a [8D] Colt .22. I believe it's the "concealment" factor that's in view here. Understandable, BUT [8)] ...What say y'all? [?]

quote: quote: Originally posted by KendoSurf "Man, you have me wanting to get out and do a little plinking. I have a little vintage .22 Colt revolver that is a blast to shoot. Here is a video of a guy with a revolver like mine - https://youtu.be/7UrDOTkzxUA" [^] LIKE! Here, I can own any rifle or shotgun with merely a quick background check at the place of purchase. For a handgun, I'd need to have a special permit, pay a fee, etc. Seems ironic, since my Tootsie-Pump loaded with 5 Sluggers can do a hell of a lot more damage than a [8D] Colt .22. I believe it's the "concealment" factor that's in view here. Understandable, BUT [8)] ...What say y'all? [?]

Oh, I didn't know you would have those extra steps. You are correct that good pellet guns can do more damage than a .22. Pellets are more economical! I don't do concealed carry. I have researched carrying around something like a baton or slap-jack, but in Iowa, I would need the same permit that you need for pistols! Stun guns are also in that category in Iowa. I don't know the regulations in other states.

The Tootsie-Pump refers to my 12 gauge Stevens...Sluggers are Remington's 12G slugs. But I HAVE seen the .177 pellets do a better job of demolishing bottles than .22 bullets sometimes...?!? [:0] Variables involved that I don't understand, but usually a .22 bullet shows itself to be more powerful than a .177 pellet. [;)] [8)] Yeah, there are arbitrary rules and regs all around. I've always assumed that carrying a tonfa, for instance, would not be restricted by law? Afa Stun Guns, I have no idea what the law says around here. Self Defense is still OK...isn't it, Obamna??? [B)]

quote: Originally posted by heemer77 quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by KendoSurf "Man, you have me wanting to get out and do a little plinking. I have a little vintage .22 Colt revolver that is a blast to shoot. Here is a video of a guy with a revolver like mine - https://youtu.be/7UrDOTkzxUA" [^] LIKE! Here, I can own any rifle or shotgun with merely a quick background check at the place of purchase. For a handgun, I'd need to have a special permit, pay a fee, etc. Seems ironic, since my Tootsie-Pump loaded with 5 Sluggers can do a hell of a lot more damage than a [8D] Colt .22. I believe it's the "concealment" factor that's in view here. Understandable, BUT [8)] ...What say y'all? [?] Oh, I didn't know you would have those extra steps. You are correct that good pellet guns can do more damage than a .22. Pellets are more economical! I don't do concealed carry. I have researched carrying around something like a baton or slap-jack, but in Iowa, I would need the same permit that you need for pistols! Stun guns are also in that category in Iowa. I don't know the regulations in other states.

quote: quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by KendoSurf The Tootsie-Pump refers to my 12 gauge Stevens...Sluggers are Remington's 12G slugs. But I HAVE seen the .177 pellets do a better job of demolishing bottles than .22 bullets sometimes...?!? [:0] Variables involved that I don't understand, but usually a .22 bullet shows itself to be more powerful than a .177 pellet. [;)] [8)] Yeah, there are arbitrary rules and regs all around. I've always assumed that carrying a tonfa, for instance, would not be restricted by law? Afa Stun Guns, I have no idea what the law says around here. Self Defense is still OK...isn't it, Obamna??? [B)] [quote]quote: Originally posted by heemer77 [quote]quote: quote: quote: Originally posted by KendoSurf "Man, you have me wanting to get out and do a little plinking. I have a little vintage .22 Colt revolver that is a blast to shoot. Here is a video of a guy with a revolver like mine - https://youtu.be/7UrDOTkzxUA" [^] LIKE! Here, I can own any rifle or shotgun with merely a quick background check at the place of purchase. For a handgun, I'd need to have a special permit, pay a fee, etc. Seems ironic, since my Tootsie-Pump loaded with 5 Sluggers can do a hell of a lot more damage than a [8D] Colt .22. I believe it's the "concealment" factor that's in view here. Understandable, BUT [8)] ...What say y'all? [?]

I need to read more carefully! I just recall seeing some higher end pellet guns that put out the pellet at a much faster velocity than a .22. As far as those regulations, the ones I referred to are state level in Iowa. Here, I think that you can freely carry mace and pepper spray, it's the weapons that are intended to cause harm that get the regulations which includes concealed blunt objects and large knives. It's best to read up on local laws. It was only in the last 6 months or so that stun guns were included on that list by a Supreme Court of Iowa ruling.

"I just recall seeing some higher end pellet guns that put out the pellet at a much faster velocity than a .22." [:0] Oh, yeah! Airguns have a long history of being serious weapons. There were extremely high caliber guns...around .72 or .76...I'll see if I can garner enough ambition to seek out some of those links. [;)]

http://www.beemans.net/400%20Years%20of%20Tradition.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_gun http://www.aceros-de-hispania.com/air-guns-history.htm And here's a links page for anyone wanting to go further with the subject: https://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+airguns&oq=history+of+airguns&ie=UTF-8 [8D]

quote: Originally posted by heemer77 As far as those regulations, the ones I referred to are state level in Iowa. Here, I think that you can freely carry mace and pepper spray, it's the weapons that are intended to cause harm that get the regulations which includes concealed blunt objects and large knives. It's best to read up on local laws. It was only in the last 6 months or so that stun guns were included on that list by a Supreme Court of Iowa ruling.

Yup. Odd stuff. In MA you can't carry pepper spray unless you get a permit. The pistol carry permit enables you to also carry pepper spray. In DE, the concealed carry permit covers all weapons. In PA, a firearm permit enables the carrying of a firearm, not a knife. And even with permits in 10 or so states, there are always those very oppressive states that basically don't issue or recognize permits (MD and NJ, e.g.), and even in those states, there can be significant county to county differences (NY and CA). It's a mess. Interesting cases in circuit/appeals courts, some may press the Supreme Court to be at it again, so the next waive of appointees is critical for 2nd Amendment rights. We all know there won't be dialogue and compromise on the issue in Congress. Lost country.