The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 104
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Mar. 30, 2007
    Location
    Hollowed out volcano in the South Pacific.
    Posts
    11,454

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    Theft from public agencies is a real threat. The more police cars that carry heavy duty weaponry the more that weaponry is exposed to theft. I wonder how many weapons are lost annually from the National Guard, Army, Marines, etc.? I tried a quick search to find some numbers but was not very successful. I'm not surprised as this is not something that DoD would advertise. I did find instances of large scale theft in Britain and Australia. I also found some articles on "gang infiltration" of the U.S. Armed Forces, particularly the Army.

    It's only good sense to keep weapons secure against unauthorized use. That may or may not include any specific strategy.

    G.
    I can tell you this for a fact, it is a serious problem. When I went to FLETC, all those attending were advised NOT to bring firearms with us - though we could - because theft of LE and military-grade firearms outside the facility - they did serious firearms training there with firearms that would give caballero a raging boner - were commonplace and when I worked in DC, removal of issued firearms outside of our assigned duty stations was forbidden and we were not allowed to have them on us unless we were on duty and in uniform.
    Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!



  2. #82
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tle View Post
    <SNIP>


    Like what? That the definition currently being used by our lawmakers to define an "assault weapon" is silly because the only difference is cosmetic changes like a collaspible stock or pistol grip? Or than many people (as shown even here) don't understand the difference between semi-automatic and automatic? What facts have been thrown out by pro-gun folks that aren't facts??

    <SNIP>
    Off the top of my head, the bogus George Washington quote. The idea that Hitler instituted gun control (he did but only for the Jews) He actually made guns MORE available in 1930's Germany.
    Not mentioned on this thread but that idiot female lawyer asserting that guns make women safer when a woman is 500% more likely to die in a domestic abuse situation if guns are available to her abuser.

    As I said, there's misinformation on both sides.
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.



  3. #83
    Join Date
    Sep. 16, 1999
    Location
    Ohio: Charter Member - COTH Hockey Clique & COTH Buffy Clique
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    That's just not true. Over 40% of the guns sold in this country are sold without a background check. There are too many loopholes. You can stick your fingers in your ears and say you're not going to believe it, but that doesn't make it any less true.
    Please cite the source of your statistic.

    It seems that you're doing the "lalalala" as much as anyone thinking that background checks will limit criminal access to guns.
    ************
    "Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be hard. It's the Hard that makes it great."

    "Get up... Get out... Get Drunk. Repeat as needed." -- Spike



  4. #84
    Join Date
    Sep. 16, 1999
    Location
    Ohio: Charter Member - COTH Hockey Clique & COTH Buffy Clique
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Or the ones that are stolen...just another reason why a responsible gun owner keeps those babies locked up.
    I never understand this thought. Yes, I get to keep guns away from children (or better yet TEACH them responsible gun handling on top of keeping them away from accidental use). And No, I wouldn't want my guns stolen either. But if you have a gun for personal defense in case of an intruder, why would you want ti locked away in a cabinet several rooms, or floors, away from where you are? "gee, mr. intruder, can you wait a second while I go to the gun cabinet upstairs, enter in the code, pull out the gun, and unlock the ammunition in a separate safe"
    ************
    "Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be hard. It's the Hard that makes it great."

    "Get up... Get out... Get Drunk. Repeat as needed." -- Spike



  5. #85
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tle View Post
    Sunridge1... I don't know what Walmart you're shopping at, but I can't buy ANY gun there, aside from paintball and air-soft. I can buy ammunition but not the guns themselves (and now Walmart is limiting ammunition sales to 3 boxes/day).
    TLE ... It might be a function of your location & laws. My Walmart sells long guns... but no pistols. Pistols require a permit in NC, long guns only fed background check.



  6. #86
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    2,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    So what? I didn't mention my eye color either. The question is irrelevant to us Strict Constructionists. When necessary we answer the question but that still doesn't make it relevant.
    Let's recap briefly. You addressed the OP as though the question of need for an assault rifle is irrelevant. The fact it is irrelevant to YOU (as a "Strict Constructionalist") doesn't make the question irrelevant in terms of the current or future legality of assault rifles. Furthermore, you could've answered the OP's question just for the sake of informed discussion, instead of dismissing it as "irrelevant."

    As for my “credentialism” -- wrong again. I didn't say that Winkler’s word was to be taken as gospel because he's a UCLA law professor, I merely mentioned his credentials to show that he actually has some knowledge of that which he speaks. Anyhoo, inasmuch as you mentioned YOUR OWN credentials, I guess you are also guilty of "credentialism."

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    OK. Then under this analysis the AR-15 rifle with a large capacity magazine is not subject to regulation. It is in widespread use in the civilian market in the U.S. That means that it has the same protections as a handgun and thus the actions of N.Y. (and the pending action in CA) would be unconstitutional. Ditto for most other popular semi-automatic handguns.
    So say you. Others may disagree. Even the Supremes, as we all know, disagree with one another with great frequency.

    As for my casual dismissal of the concepts of Rights, did you somehow miss the "for the purposes of this discussion" qualifier? Did you somehow miss my acknowledgement of the importance of the distinction you made OUTSIDE of a debate on an internet bulletin board? You would be wise not to accuse someone else of totalitarianism as a result of your own reading comprehension problems.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Nov. 6, 2002
    Location
    Henrico, NC 36 30'50.49" N 77 50'17.47" W
    Posts
    5,826

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunridge1 View Post
    Ah yes the devil is always in the details. Some one probably inserted bad language deliberately. I don't know.

    What would be the advantage of pistol grip on a shotgun? Honest question.
    A Pistol grip makes it much easier to shoot in some positions, like from the hip, or in close quarters since you don't have to stick the gun as far out in front of you as you do when it has a full sized stock. Shoot a 12 ga. from the hip with a regular stock, and it will probably hurt your wrist. An 870 with an 18" barrel, and two pistol grips is a handy gun. You'd be surprised that a clay skeet target can be hit with it from the hip. You can also shoot it one handed pretty easily.



  8. #88
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    18,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fooler View Post
    I trust long-time responsible gun sellers and gun owners. Here is the link to the FBI Fact Sheet for steps FFL's have to follow with each weapon sale.
    I'm not saying that responsible gun owners and licensed gun dealers are not following the law. But if you want to buy a gun and won't pass a background check, are you going to go to the licensed dealer or will you maybe think about a gun show, a private sale or an online purchase?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  9. #89
    Join Date
    Nov. 6, 2001
    Location
    Fairfax
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carolprudm View Post
    Off the top of my head, the bogus George Washington quote. The idea that Hitler instituted gun control (he did but only for the Jews) He actually made guns MORE available in 1930's Germany.
    Not mentioned on this thread but that idiot female lawyer asserting that guns make women safer when a woman is 500% more likely to die in a domestic abuse situation if guns are available to her abuser.

    As I said, there's misinformation on both sides.
    I don't know what is in your head, but your rationalization that Hitler ONLY took the guns away from Jews is downright disturbing. That event is the absolute perfect example as to why people are disturbed about losing their rights. He took the guns away from the Jews so they would be easier to exterminate. The fact that he chose to allow his chosen more access to guns proves the point perfectly that citizenry without access to their own firearms is more vulnerable to the whims of bad governance.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    18,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tle View Post
    Please cite the source of your statistic.

    It seems that you're doing the "lalalala" as much as anyone thinking that background checks will limit criminal access to guns.
    Here's one. It's Politifact and they find it half true, more because the study was 20 years old than anything else. I can't do a lot more searching because I'm close to exceeding my bandwith (don't get me started on broadband and the lack thereof in rural areas).

    From the article: "The City of New York commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales in 2011. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale.The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nt-guns-are-s/
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  11. #91
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2006
    Location
    rapidan,virginia
    Posts
    1,593

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Maybe someone can answer why mass murderers seem to prefer the AR-15? Personally, I think the bullets are the problem, not the guns.
    The Virginia Tech shooter used handguns.

    The 9/11 terrorists used box cutters and airplanes.

    The Oklahoma City bomber used fertilizer and a rented truck.

    The Reverend Jones used poison in Koolade.

    I don't think the bullets or the weapons are the problem, the responsibility for the problem rests squarely on the shoulders of the evil and/or deranged person who chooses to murder.
    "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    Rainy: http://tinyurl.com/kj7x53c
    Stash: http://tinyurl.com/mmm3p4e


    7 members found this post helpful.

  12. #92
    Join Date
    Sep. 16, 1999
    Location
    Ohio: Charter Member - COTH Hockey Clique & COTH Buffy Clique
    Posts
    9,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Here's one. It's Politifact and they find it half true, more because the study was 20 years old than anything else. I can't do a lot more searching because I'm close to exceeding my bandwith (don't get me started on broadband and the lack thereof in rural areas).

    From the article: "The City of New York commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales in 2011. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale.The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nt-guns-are-s/
    From the article: "Bloomberg said 40 percent of gun sales take place through gun shows or the Internet, without a background check.

    The best information on the informal gun market is based on a survey and is about 15 years old (the data used in the survey is almost 20 years old). There’s no question that many guns are bought with no background check, but there’s not sufficient current evidence to say that the proportion is 40 percent of all sales."

    So you quote a site that proves my argument not yours. Thanks!

    2bayboys... thanks for the details. I knew I had read them somewhere but couldn't remember specifics when it was posted earlier. Columbine also didn't use AR-15s.
    ************
    "Of course it's hard. It's supposed to be hard. It's the Hard that makes it great."

    "Get up... Get out... Get Drunk. Repeat as needed." -- Spike



  13. #93
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jr View Post
    I don't know what is in your head, but your rationalization that Hitler ONLY took the guns away from Jews is downright disturbing. That event is the absolute perfect example as to why people are disturbed about losing their rights. He took the guns away from the Jews so they would be easier to exterminate. The fact that he chose to allow his chosen more access to guns proves the point perfectly that citizenry without access to their own firearms is more vulnerable to the whims of bad governance.
    SIGH, after WWI firearms were STRICTLY controlled in Germany thanks to the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler relaxed these restrictions on all but the Jews. Maybe if they were armed they could have successfully resisted but I seriously doubt it. Hitler had to much popular support along with his military and police.

    Guns are not likely to help a group of people overthrow a government because chances are the government is going to have more and better weapons. To go back to the history of guns and WWII the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was unsuccessful despite their guns. Hitler rolled over much of (armed) Europe despite his victims guns. He was stopped in large part by Mother Nature in the form of the Russian winter and the Atlantic ocean.

    Many revolts are only successful with outside help. Starting with the American Revolution. Perhaps the Civil War would have ended differently if England had come in against the north
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.



  14. #94
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    9,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Windsor1 View Post
    Let's recap briefly. You addressed the OP as though the question of need for an assault rifle is irrelevant. The fact it is irrelevant to YOU (as a "Strict Constructionalist") doesn't make the question irrelevant in terms of the current or future legality of assault rifles. Furthermore, you could've answered the OP's question just for the sake of informed discussion, instead of dismissing it as "irrelevant."

    As for my “credentialism” -- wrong again. I didn't say that Winkler’s word was to be taken as gospel because he's a UCLA law professor, I merely mentioned his credentials to show that he actually has some knowledge of that which he speaks. Anyhoo, inasmuch as you mentioned YOUR OWN credentials, I guess you are also guilty of "credentialism."



    So say you. Others may disagree. Even the Supremes, as we all know, disagree with one another with great frequency.

    As for my casual dismissal of the concepts of Rights, did you somehow miss the "for the purposes of this discussion" qualifier? Did you somehow miss my acknowledgement of the importance of the distinction you made OUTSIDE of a debate on an internet bulletin board? You would be wise not to accuse someone else of totalitarianism as a result of your own reading comprehension problems.
    Your point is...???

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão



  15. #95
    Join Date
    Nov. 6, 2001
    Location
    Fairfax
    Posts
    1,796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carolprudm View Post
    SIGH, after WWI firearms were STRICTLY controlled in Germany thanks to the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler relaxed these restrictions on all but the Jews. Maybe if they were armed they could have successfully resisted but I seriously doubt it. Hitler had to much popular support along with his military and police.

    Guns are not likely to help a group of people overthrow a government because chances are the government is going to have more and better weapons. To go back to the history of guns and WWII the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was unsuccessful despite their guns. Hitler rolled over much of (armed) Europe despite his victims guns. He was stopped in large part by Mother Nature in the form of the Russian winter and the Atlantic ocean.

    Many revolts are only successful with outside help. Starting with the American Revolution. Perhaps the Civil War would have ended differently if England had come in against the north
    Wow. Your post is offensive. Guess the Jews in Germany should have just given up because there was no hope. they dont get to try and protect themselves. ask any military planner - Can civilian arms stop a determined aggressor? possibly not. What it can do is make the cost of the action, going house to house, extremely high and less attractive.

    2nd you don't get to make that call. We have a right to defend ourselves. Period. You don't get to say for someone else, it may not be effective, so it is not worth letting you try.

    How smug, you look back at the holocaust and say ehh, doesn't matter that arms to a small part of the population was restricted since the larger part of the pop did just fine. And it probably wouldn't have helped anyway. Incredibly offensive. As someone who has talked with holocaust survivors, I can tell you that many would have preferred to try to defend themselves, rather than witness the slow extermination of their families.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  16. #96
    Join Date
    Sep. 8, 2006
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    2,472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    Your point is...???

    G.
    That the OP's question with regard to the need for assault rifles is in fact relevant.
    Everyone is entitled to my opinion.



  17. #97
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    9,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LauraKY View Post
    Here's one. It's Politifact and they find it half true, more because the study was 20 years old than anything else. I can't do a lot more searching because I'm close to exceeding my bandwith (don't get me started on broadband and the lack thereof in rural areas).

    From the article: "The City of New York commissioned an investigation of Internet gun sales in 2011. The report said on 10 websites, it found over 25,000 weapons for sale.The report said that over 60 percent of sellers allowed a purchase to move forward even when the alleged buyer said he didn’t believe he would pass a background check."

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...nt-guns-are-s/
    Politifact is dreadfully short of "fact." It cites conclusions and statements but if you read the whole thing the answer to the question, "how many firearms are sold without background checks?" the honest answer is "we don't know."

    I've bought and sold firearms in private transactions. When I sell I want a copy of the buyer's driver's license. Ditto when I buy. And I'll give mine. If I ever get "bad vibrations" about a transaction I walk away. When I do interstate transactions I always go through an FFL. It adds a few bucks but "covers my six" in the event of a future problem.

    Sat. and Sun. I'll be manning a Cavalry Association display at a local gun show. It's a collectors show mostly. Lots of Garands and Springfields and Colts but not too many ARs and AKs. It will be interesting to see how traffic varies from prior shows (I do this twice a year at this show and have done so for several years).

    When we moved to TN in 1990 and all handgun transfers were regulated. Before a transaction could be concluded (either a commercial or private sale) the buyer took the paperwork to the local sheriff's office and had it signed. If the sheriff didn't sign it was a no sale. This changed with the national data base program in the early '90s. I do not know how many transfers were effected without proper paperwork. This was also a remnant of the "Jim Crowe" era when the sheriff would routinely approve transfers for whites but deny them for blacks.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão



  18. #98
    Join Date
    Aug. 25, 2007
    Posts
    9,012

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carolprudm View Post
    SIGH, after WWI firearms were STRICTLY controlled in Germany thanks to the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler relaxed these restrictions on all but the Jews. Maybe if they were armed they could have successfully resisted but I seriously doubt it. Hitler had to much popular support along with his military and police.

    Guns are not likely to help a group of people overthrow a government because chances are the government is going to have more and better weapons. To go back to the history of guns and WWII the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was unsuccessful despite their guns. Hitler rolled over much of (armed) Europe despite his victims guns. He was stopped in large part by Mother Nature in the form of the Russian winter and the Atlantic ocean.

    Many revolts are only successful with outside help. Starting with the American Revolution. Perhaps the Civil War would have ended differently if England had come in against the north
    I just looked at the Treaty of Versailles. I didn't find any restriction on private ownership of firearms. Art. 168 strictly limits manufacture of firearms. Art. 170 prohibits import or export of firearms. I did find restrictions on instruction in the "professional use of arms" but that appeared to be a measure to prevent "cheating" by outlawing "military clubs."

    It's my understanding that the draconian limits imposed by the Nazi regime were imposed on all, not just on Jews. If I'm not correct I'd appreciate a reference.

    G.
    Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #99
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,356

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carolprudm View Post
    SIGH, .... Guns are not likely to help a group of people overthrow a government because chances are the government is going to have more and better weapons. To go back to the history of guns and WWII the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was unsuccessful despite their guns. Hitler rolled over much of (armed) Europe despite his victims guns. He was stopped in large part by Mother Nature in the form of the Russian winter and the Atlantic ocean.
    SIGH... back to you...

    Gov't will always have more and better weapons.

    Arms inferiority doesn't take away that an armed population will make coercing them very costly in casualties compared to an unarmed population. The more weapons, the more cost to coerce. Just like the supermarket, cost weighs in the decisions.

    See Afganistan...

    While not a confirmed quote by Japanese Admiral Yamamoto , ..."You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass" .

    ... it would certainly be true, unless the liberal elite get their way.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #100
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Guilherme View Post
    I just looked at the Treaty of Versailles. I didn't find any restriction on private ownership of firearms. Art. 168 strictly limits manufacture of firearms. Art. 170 prohibits import or export of firearms. I did find restrictions on instruction in the "professional use of arms" but that appeared to be a measure to prevent "cheating" by outlawing "military clubs."

    It's my understanding that the draconian limits imposed by the Nazi regime were imposed on all, not just on Jews. If I'm not correct I'd appreciate a reference.

    G.
    http://www.policymic.com/articles/22...han-they-think
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 148
    Last Post: Dec. 30, 2012, 12:20 PM
  2. Replies: 160
    Last Post: Dec. 30, 2012, 11:18 AM
  3. "Brutal Horse-Mounted Assault" on Portland "Occupiers"
    By Mike Matson in forum Off Course
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: Nov. 20, 2011, 12:38 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Dec. 11, 2010, 08:08 PM
  5. Psycho Arrested in an Assault by Horse...
    By Trakehner in forum Off Course
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Aug. 13, 2009, 07:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness