One person in Chicago decided that lying down and dying was not an option

It's the baddest part of town. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And whatever you do, do run into Bad, bad Leroy Brown

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2a5CjKOTlg

What are you offering to do if I find a single post made by you that denies gun owners their rights? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Unlike you who simply stops responding in a thread when proven incorrect. I will say "You are right, I was wrong."

And the statement(s) you are looking to find is something I have said that supports ADDITIONAL gun control, which is what you accuse me of saying. Anyone who believes in ANY gun control could be accused of denying gun owners their rights.
I don't want to see a 5-year old walking down the street with a loaded M-16 slung over his/her shoulder. That can certainly be interpreted as denying a gun owner his/her rights.

Have you been to Chicago lately?

So we are setting the terms; additional and not gun control in general. Would new enforcement of old laws count as additional?

It would be best if you stayed away from hyperbole. A five year old with an M-16 (you realize that IS an assault weapon and not just a black rifle?).

Have you been to Chicago lately?

So we are setting the terms; additional and not gun control in general. Would new enforcement of old laws count as additional?

It would be best if you stayed away from hyperbole. A five year old with an M-16 (you realize that IS an assault weapon and not just a black rifle?). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

My son and his wife visited Chicago this past weekend. No problems. What's your point?

First, to my understanding, an M-16 with the automatic firing capability removed is NOT considered an assault weapon. But, even if I'm incorrect on that point, you TOTALLY missed the overall point, which is no matter what gun control law I point to currently in affect, it will be a law that in some way is denying the rights of gun rights groups.

Here is your statement made earlier in this thread:

"You are going to deny that you have actively been pushing for more gun legislation."

I would say that enforcement of gun control laws currently on the books would NOT count as more gun legislation. All I'm asking is for you to back up your statement.

A M-16 with the sear mechanism removed is an AR-15 or what we sometimes call a "black rifle". It shoots one shot with every squeeze of the trigger.

I would say that pushing to enforce previous laws on the books that have not been enforced for many years is pushing for more legislation but we're getting into the weeds now. Okay, I have some time this weekend. So I will do a couple of hours of searching while listening to some music or TV. So the best you can do is, OOPS! you got me!

The M-16 with full auto capability would certainly be considered an "assault rifle".

Without the full auto capability, it is no different than any other commercially available Semi-automatic Rifle.

OReilly is reporting that one problem in Chicago is the Prosecutors keep plea bargaining the gun cases down, to where no serious time is even served by those who violate the laws already in place.

How about this. If you commit a crime using a deadly weapon, it is a mandatory 25 years in addition to what ever charges are applicable to the crime committed.

The M-16 with full auto capability would certainly be considered an "assault rifle".

Without the full auto capability, it is no different than any other commercially available Semi-automatic Rifle. Originally Posted by Jackie S

My point exactly. Although it is also my understanding that one can purchase the semi-automatic M-16 and upgrade it to a fully automatic M-16 fairly simply.

An M-16 is an automatic (select fire) weapon, an AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon. You cannot purchase a semi-automatic M-16 because if it is an M-16 then it is already automatic.

This may seem trivial to you but in a court of law it is very serious. You have to be correct and not be a talking head on TV or a democratic politician.

Take the Browning BAR. BAR stands for Browning Automatic Rifle. This is a BAR like your grandfather carried into combat during World War II


It is chambered in 30-06 and has a 20 round magazine. Pull the trigger one time and all 20 go down the pipe. This is a Browning Rifle like your father could have carried while hunting



It is chambered in 30-06 and has a four round magazine. It will fire one and only one shot when you squeeze the trigger. According to the news people (using their style book) they are both the same thing. The last time someone was known to use a BAR in a crime was the 1930s. This was Bonnie and Clyde's weapon of choice.

Taking an AR-15 and converting it into a M-16 is not as easy as you make it sound or everyone would be doing it. The holes in the reciever have to be drilled in just the right place and some metal will have to be machined away. Of course it is illegal (so you have to think about that everytime you take it out) unless you pay the tax and fill out the paperwork. What criminal pays the tax and does the paperwork?

Its my understanding that you could buy some cough syrup and turn it into meth fairly simply.

I'm 15 minutes into my search and I feel like getting some chips. I should eat, haven't eaten in hours but I have a function in a few hours.... Anyway I have found this so far but I will find something better:

WOW!! You are being dense. This whole thread has been about the inability of private citizens in the state of N.J.. to obtain CHLs. No talk about criminals and their intentions. Talk about deflecting!! I have chosen not to carry a gun to protect myself against criminals. May be a mistake at some point but that is my choice. As you and others have said, criminals who want to do so will carry guns no matter what the law says. But I do want protection for myself from law-abiding citizens who deem it necessary to carry a gun. I don't want them carrying their guns in my home. I don't want them carrying guns in my place of work. If I were still a college student, I wouldn't want them carrying guns into school buildings and dormitories. There are laws in place that protect me in these cases. I also want laws in place that put minimum restrictions on those that want to carry concealed handguns, unlike the states of Utah and Wyoming. Simple enough to understand??

Written by Speed Racer, 17 Mar., 2014, post 92 in response to the OP by IIFFOFRDB "The Constitution is under assault..." The color change is my doing but this does express a desire on your part to have more laws that restrict concealed carry if not gun ownership.


Couldn't pass on this, post 105, same OP:

Connecticut??? I've never mentioned Connecticut. Try again.

My "enlightened approach" is currently supported by the overwhelming majority of the 50 states, so I would hardly refer to it as MY enlightened approach. A handful of states do not require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. Get your facts straight for a change. In Texas, less than 3% of citizens 21 and older have a valid CHL. That leaves 97% of us who are either carrying concealed handguns illegally, don't want to invest the time/money to obtain a CHL, or, the largest group by far IMHO, those who don't really care about whether or not the ability to obtain a CHL exists. I firmly believe that the majority of the 97% want people obtaining CHLs to be qualified by a certified course of instruction. I'm sorry that such a "burden" is placed on those such as yourself that would pass a CHL course without having to attend it, but most times laws are made for the majority and not the minority

There is an argument that ID should not be required to exercise the right to vote because paying for and going to get said ID is RACIST. So here we are talking about the cost and inconvenience of getting a CCW. Isn't this also RACIST as it is the same exact argument on the other foot?


Before I go do something else for a while let me ask you a question; do you support the return of the "Assault Weapons" ban? Simple question unless you start looking at what exactly you're talking about. This is why the terminology is so important. If you support an assault weapons bans (the ownership of real assault weapons is heavily restricted) then you must support the ultimate confiscation of said weapons. The most recent conditions that define a weapon as an assault weapon were either written by people such as yourself (with a grade school knowledge of weapons) or by someone trying to decieve the populace. The major points; a high capacity magazine (what constitutes high capacity? New York will tell you AFTER they pass the law), a bayonet lug, semi-automatic performance, folding stock, pistol grip, or any version of said weapon that fired in a fully automatic form.

I give you the M-1 Garand. The weapon that won World War II for the American military and it's little cousin the M-1 Carbine.


Both are semi-automatic, both have a bayonet lug, both have had a version that fired in full auto (but they were not widely used), the carbine has what you might call a high capacity magazine (20 rounds) but some would call the Garand magazine high capacity as it holds more than five (eight rounds), both have been modified for a folding stock in their histories. According to some people like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama they are assault weapons. At least both presidents have charged people with importing them into this country (their country of orgin by the way). No one can name when a Garand was used in a crime or a drive by. The Carbine is better for this but those cases are few and far between. Before I forget, both are over 60 years old and considered by some to be collectors items.

So the question comes up again, do you support the current crop of "Assault Weapon" bans being promulgated around the country (that have very little chance of passing)?

So the question comes up again, do you support the current crop of "Assault Weapon" bans being promulgated around the country (that have very little chance of passing)? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I answered the assault weapons ban question previously. I really don't think the ban would help much at all. How many crimes are committed with weapons that would be banned? Few if any I would venture to say. Even if additional assault weapons were banned, potential criminals have the ability to find enough alternate firepower to commit their crimes.

WOW!! You are being dense. This whole thread has been about the inability of private citizens in the state of N.J.. to obtain CHLs. No talk about criminals and their intentions. Talk about deflecting!! I have chosen not to carry a gun to protect myself against criminals. May be a mistake at some point but that is my choice. As you and others have said, criminals who want to do so will carry guns no matter what the law says. But I do want protection for myself from law-abiding citizens who deem it necessary to carry a gun. I don't want them carrying their guns in my home. I don't want them carrying guns in my place of work. If I were still a college student, I wouldn't want them carrying guns into school buildings and dormitories. There are laws in place that protect me in these cases. I also want laws in place that put minimum restrictions on those that want to carry concealed handguns, unlike the states of Utah and Wyoming. Simple enough to understand??
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I have many "wants" and "don't wants" when it comes to guns. I don't want open carry in most instances. I want people who carry handguns outside their homes to do so only with a CHL so they are familiar with their guns and know when they are allowed to use them. I would like to eat in a restaurant and know that no one there is packing. Unrealistic for the most part.

The sentence you highlighted in red concerns Texas only. I fully support any state's rights to do what they deem necessary when it comes to gun control. Even though I may disagree with their decisions, it is their right to do so, unless the action is found to be unconstitutional.

Couldn't pass on this, post 105, same OP:

Connecticut??? I've never mentioned Connecticut. Try again.

My "enlightened approach" is currently supported by the overwhelming majority of the 50 states, so I would hardly refer to it as MY enlightened approach. A handful of states do not require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun. Get your facts straight for a change. In Texas, less than 3% of citizens 21 and older have a valid CHL. That leaves 97% of us who are either carrying concealed handguns illegally, don't want to invest the time/money to obtain a CHL, or, the largest group by far IMHO, those who don't really care about whether or not the ability to obtain a CHL exists. I firmly believe that the majority of the 97% want people obtaining CHLs to be qualified by a certified course of instruction. I'm sorry that such a "burden" is placed on those such as yourself that would pass a CHL course without having to attend it, but most times laws are made for the majority and not the minority

There is an argument that ID should not be required to exercise the right to vote because paying for and going to get said ID is RACIST. So here we are talking about the cost and inconvenience of getting a CCW. Isn't this also RACIST as it is the same exact argument on the other foot? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

My voter ID card costs me nothing and I am sent a new card every year (?) in the mail. Cost to me $0. I have never lived in a state where a voter ID card cost me any money. That is not to say that some states charge for a voter ID card. But let's assume your statement is true.

I assume that asking someone to pay for something is racist? I also assume that you consider it racist because non-whites would have a more difficult time coming up with the cost for a CCW than whites? So when a poor white person can't afford the cost of a CCW that is not racist? IMHO when you try to lay out a cause-and-affect scenario, your cause is misplaced. Some people can't afford the cost of a CCW because they are POOR, not because they are black or white or brown or any other color.

My voter ID card costs me nothing and I am sent a new card every year (?) in the mail. Cost to me $0. I have never lived in a state where a voter ID card cost me any money. That is not to say that some states charge for a voter ID card. But let's assume your statement is true.

I assume that asking someone to pay for something is racist? I also assume that you consider it racist because non-whites would have a more difficult time coming up with the cost for a CCW than whites? So when a poor white person can't afford the cost of a CCW that is not racist? IMHO when you try to lay out a cause-and-affect scenario, your cause is misplaced. Some people can't afford the cost of a CCW because they are POOR, not because they are black or white or brown or any other color. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I think you recognize that it is not my argument but the argument of the left.

I think you recognize that it is not my argument but the argument of the left. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You could certainly be correct. Again, anytime something costs money, the more money it costs the more racist it becomes in some people's eyes.