Quote from: Mike_Fontenot on August 13 2016 01:25:51 PM MDT

Quote from: colt1911fan on August 13 2016 11:12:26 AM MDT

Quote from: sqlbullet on August 07 2016 10:07:40 AM MDT
Here is my conspiracy theory.  I think Trump is secretly a democrat supporter, and he is deliberately and intentionally sabotaging the republican party in this election. (not really....But more believable to me than Obama not leaving office)

Pretty much spot on. He's the farthest from a conservative, just a megalomaniac who showed how messed up the Republican party has become. GOP owns the problem. Needs to split into two parties with clear agendas/platforms and then just be "allied" with each other to beat the Dems. That's the one good thing that may come out of this Trump fiasco: it blows up the republican party.

Hope you're wrong.  If the Repubs split, Hillary wins.  If she wins, and appoints several SC justices, we can kiss the 2nd Amendment goodby.  Game over.

Oh, I understand the implications of Hillary winning. And I don't support it at all. But, the Republicans no longer are conservative and have completely lost all that Reagan did for the Party and Country. They haven't been for the last few elections. And to make matters worse, they no longer have a clear platform. Educated middle class white voters were behind Romney, the less educated were not. It is the opposite today with Trump. You need both, as the Republicans have alienated African Americans and Trump is at record lows with Latino-Hispanics. That's the demographics and basics behind electology. Why is the White electorate split so much on the past two candidates? Because those two candidates are highly inconsistent with each other, and neither is a Reagan Republican.

GOP implosion has happened, but the reconstruction will not happen in time for this November, definitely not with Trump as the hope to accomplish such a thing. And to be honest, I don't want that liberal to be anywhere near the formation of a Party I would support into the future. Sure, stoopid says is better than stoopid does, but neither is a foundation on which to build a new Party for Conservatives.

Liberal progressive-ism is rampant.

Quote from: sqlbullet on August 07 2016 10:07:40 AM MDT
Here is my conspiracy theory.  I think Trump is secretly a democrat supporter, and he is deliberately and intentionally sabotaging the republican party in this election. (not really....But more believable to me than Obama not leaving office)

Pretty much spot on. He's the farthest from a conservative, just a megalomaniac who showed how messed up the Republican party has become. GOP owns the problem. Needs to split into two parties with clear agendas/platforms and then just be "allied" with each other to beat the Dems. That's the one good thing that may come out of this Trump fiasco: it blows up the republican party.

Quote from: Wolfie on July 12 2016 11:11:44 AM MDT
In NYS, permits in 55 out of 60 counties are for life without fees and only recertification.

Contrast to Texas and Florida who have renewal fees.

If Hillary wins she will not take any rights away. She will stack the court and the court will take gun liability away from gun manufacturers. According to Heller, you have a right to have a gun in your home. They will build on that.

If a court can rule that corporations are people, certainly they can rule on guns.

The second amendment was written when guns were one shot at a time.

Blaster you would not take reciprocity in exchange for national carry standards and background checks? How is that negotiating a right away?

I give up

I would take this trade in a second:

Shall issue national carry recognition AND with very limited "safe" zones.

FOR

* Required Basic 8hr training certification (such as NRA Basic Pistol which includes live fire) over and above Form 4473 requirements to get the permit (not the gun).
* Universal background checks on permanent transfers between any two parties, where permanent is defined by an exchange of more than 24 hrs where you are not also present.
* Accountability for firearms and allowing an unauthorized person unsecured access to it. In other words, you are accountable for any crimes the unauthorized commit as an accomplice if your firearm was accessed by them and not secured at the time. In your house with locked doors and no kids living there or no guests/services (who could be unauthorized) coming through, etc, is secured. In your house and locked in a safe with kids is secured. In your car and secured by locks is secured. Etc... Under your bed with the non citizen maid coming through with your permission/hire, that's unsecured if maid commits crime after finding it. Etc...

Why would I not trade basic measures of accountability if I believe in "responsible" gun ownership? Don't we claim that's what we are all the time? If you are a "responsible" gun owner, you should have satisfied them all already, minus MAYBE the formal training if you've grown up with firearms and good mentorship. But heck, that's a couple hundred dollars and 8hrs, a drop in the bucket relative to what we spend on firearms and shooting.

Quote from: my_old_glock on July 06 2016 08:32:13 PM MDT

I read that a lot of people (police) put the first round into the ground. That might not be so bad. #1) The sound of the shot may startle the bad guy cussing him to make a mistake; #2) The recoil brings the muzzle up and on target.


.

I understand why it happens and am not to put myself above such a possibility should I ever get in a stressful situation and have to draw and shoot. But, I don't see how that could be anything but bad. It's more time for the threat to get you first, I mean you are presumably drawing because of an immanent threat to you or someone's life. Additionally, where those bullets end up going and who else they might hit is a huge risk when hitting the ground, especially if a hard surface. The benefit of startling someone is not something I would be counting as a huge plus, and firing the gun to get the sites on target isn't either.

The only data I am aware of similar to this is the number of shots on average to take someone out of action, and if I recall correctly, it varies between 2 and 3 for 9, .40, and .45 calibers. Closer to 3 for the 9mm, and closer to 2 for the .45. Surprisingly "bigger power" doesn't make a huge difference among those calibers. Not the data you are looking for, but....

I think you're confusing past conservative republicans with two guys that were not that conservative (the Bushes) and a guy that DEFINITELY IS NOTHING LIKE A CONSERVATIVE: Trump. Sure, they are all "Republicans," but far from a contrast to Obama and Democrats in many cases.

A gorgeous weapon, indeed. Good luck, be safe, and enjoy!

Never had a problem with my Para 1911 or my Delta Elite 10mm as long as you don't try to use Buffalo Bore's ammo in the DE (as their product claims is ok).

I don't support this bill, but it is the logical conclusion to completely flat equality, which is the popular agenda.

Individual private bathrooms are logical conclusions to the popularized and now legally supported destruction of birth-defined sexuality.

Incorporated unions (of any number or mix of sex) OR zero state recognized unions are the only two possible logical conclusions to the popularized destruction of birth-defined sexuality and the traditional institution of marriage.

I don't support the changes, but I value consistency. Given what is now realized as the popular, at least be consistent. America can have what it wanted.

They aren't getting my guns or religion or speech, though.

Quote from: redbaron007 on January 20 2016 02:48:10 PM MST

Quote from: colt1911fan on January 16 2016 08:26:15 PM MST

Quote from: redbaron007 on January 09 2016 05:11:05 PM MST

Quote from: colt1911fan on January 08 2016 08:10:50 PM MST
Until there is a plan and the "end game" is clearly portrayed, there will be no step by step compromises. Every instance that the NRA bucks against full background checks (which is a minuscule addition to pretty thorough checks already) or against laws requiring the reporting of known firearm theft it kinda rubs me the wrong way. I'm even ok having to get some worth of psych evaluation and/or basic training before owning a firearm, certainly the latter for before being able to carry. But every time Obama speaks out of one side of the mouth like he respects the 2A and would never confiscate and that everyone creates that fictitious scenario, I get nauseous and react with disgust because I know he does want to get rid of "assault rifles" or any "semi automatic" weapon, has said so before, and perhaps most dishonestly says that we should model the UK or Australia, where they did just that, outlawed firearms almost outright. Don't trust anyone speaking out of all sides of his mouth.

Knowing the latter, I'm not giving an inch, until we see what we can get in return. In exchange for some or all of the above, can we get rid of gun free zones in every instance except where full screening and armed LEO protection is provided for us (e.g. courthouse, some schools, etc...)? Can we get reciprocity across all states? Can I not be presumed a criminal before I am one in terms of where I can possess my firearm in self defense? Can I not have to EVER register all of my firearms with the federal government when I believe that one of the strongest foundations for the 2A is a balance of power with the government and keeping them in check against their abuse of power?

Sorry, this ain't gonna work inch by inch. Too polar a topic, and the fact is, the middle ground is probably possible where we all could be happy AND REAL causes of gun violence might be reduced. But, I'm supporting the NRA until then even when they are a bit ridiculous.

No offense......but suggesting more background checks, basic training and psych evaluation to purchase a firearm is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and personal freedoms.

Unfortunately, it stances like this that encourage the liberals even more. If King Obama heard this, he'd promote you to Secretary of Gun Confiscation.   

Respectfully, you don't sound like a supporter, but want to portray yourself as one.....similar to King Obama.

Not sure what you're trying to exactly state as you hide behind terms like "no offense" or "respectfully," but I'm no Obama fan of the left.

And, while your position sounds more right handed and pro gun than mine, all I can say is that "bearing arms" for me is much more than being able to buy them with minimal barriers. Consequently, I'd like to support SOME laws that increase the rigor in buying them so that I can BEAR them, in other words carry and possess them outside of my home. Heck, the laws and due diligence I would support really aren't about much more than what the NRA and most gun owners insist we are - responsible and safe gun owners. And to be able to carry a pistol with me all the time is really what I desire.

But whatever. If that makes me way far more left than you and we want to make this about extremes and left and right.... so be it. That's the exact problem with Obama and his executive actions and the polar views of this country that has abandoned all compromise and rational thinking. It's the precise problem with the "pro gun extreme right" all the same.

Guess I'm confused......how does giving more influence/control to the bureaucrats help the bearing of arms in the future? From your comments, I am making an assumption, which you are are more than welcome to correct; but I get the feeling and perception that you are saying, if I give into more/stricter background checks (whatever they will be) you will get something in return that you don't have already. I have never seen the government take something from you and turn around and give you more. 

What specifically are you wanting to support; then receive back from the Bureaucrats?

A little late to reply, guess I don't monitor the threads enough. But the receive back was in the first post, the right to carry wherever I want with said guns bought with higher standards (and carry means in all states and with limited gun free zones, where each one provides security screening of all and armed security and lockers to store mine). Give me that, and you can control my purchases more strictly.

More gun control for even cops, right? That's the solution because of a knucklehead.

Yet, gun possession and concealed carry is ridiculous for the average law abiding citizen, the same people who have crime statistics equal or lower than police, depending on the study you read.

Pass my my holster and pistol, please. I will continue to carry. It should be legally across all 50 states and other territories.

Country has lost its way.

Gross.

Lethal return force on a naked guy, charging or not, seems excessive. Baton, spray, Tazer, anything else first

Another case of a bad guy that should have had charges pressed or filed against him years ago, where he would not have been able to legally buy the gun in the first place. But, the "solution" here will be another law against carrying guns in food establishments. Oh wait, MD already has that covered. Probably should add another 8hrs of training to the curriculum to even buy a gun in MD.

The "military" test is ridiculous. The 2nd amendment, even if you think it does not protect self defense, is clearly established to provide a balance of the people to the government and for a militia. It should have been thrown out for that purpose.

MD is hades for lawful gun owners, ahead of only NJ and California.

Quote from: Triathloncoach on February 03 2016 05:48:35 PM MST
You guys are all calling yourselves dunderheads. While I'm reading your posts wishing I had 10% of the knowledge you
guys had to fix your snafus. I'd be off to the gunsmith.

Yup, what you said. I got my Ruger 22/45 Mark III in a pickle once and should have taken it to someone who could have helped faster than my strongheaded self. It's not a straightforward field strip, most complex of my standard firearms (assuming I keep the right parts with the right guns, good story, sql).

Quote from: PCFlorida on January 19 2016 03:12:42 AM MST
Thanks, I'm really looking forward to shooting it this week, it should be a hoot.

I want.