Jump to content

Downr@nge

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    287

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by Downr@nge

  4. Posted

    OPPOSED!

     

    This one here makes the "Lautenberg" statute even worse!

     

    a crime involving domestic violence as defined in section 3 of P.L.1991, c.261 (C.2C:25-19), whether or not armed with or having in his possession a weapon enumerated in subsection r. of N.J.S.2C:39-1;

    As it is now, you cannot be "Lautenberged" if you are convicted of a domestic violence crime WITHOUT A WEAPON. IIRC, it only affects you if you were convicted and you used a weapon.

     

    This is dangerous because restraining orders are often abused and used as tools/weapons of leverage in separations. Basically, anyone can go into a police station and accuse someone of doing some act of domestic violence against them WITHOUT ANY PROOF and get a restraining order. The standard of evidence is INCREDIBLY and unfairly low to get a restraining order; in fact, all it takes is a the word of the accuser and a half way believable story. On the other hand, the threshold for the accused to prove he DID NOTHING WRONG, is MUCH higher; which is UNFAIR.

     

    This new legislation should be thrown out.

  5. Posted

    They requested the stay at this level and were denied. Just because they ask for it, doesn't mean they'll get it. I thought I read somewhere that the 4th circuit has been smacking MD around quite a bit lately. I'll have to see if I can find that again.

     

    http://www.ammoland.com/2012/07/30/maryland-concealed-carry-update/#axzz22KvzrSvV

     

     

    This part. I wouldn't hold my breath while those hoplophobes try day and night to stop this from passing.

     

    First, the order dissolving the stay does not take effect until two weeks from July 23

    rd

    . This gives the State time to apply to the Fourth Circuit for another stay. Should that happen, the state could continue to deny permits for lack of a

    “good and substantial reason”

    while the appeal is pending. Resolution of the appeal could take many long months.

  8. Posted

    Man oh man......... Way to go some of you.... I'm not going to name names, but thanks for showing your true colors. And oh yeah, just in case some of you didn't know, there ARE black people on this forum INCLUDING ME.... The undercover racists are coming out of the woodworks with this one on here. I mean, I've seen little questionable and slick remarks here and there in other threads but they were far and few in between so I just got over it. I'd read a comment somewhere on the forum and think to myself, "I wonder if this person knows black people are on this forum too...," and move on.

     

    And before any of you go on a diatribe about the New Black Panther Party and Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Nutter, and all the other folks out there doing the same thing on the opposite side of the spectrum, I have just as much distaste for them doing what they are doing as I do for some of you. Am I saying all this because some of you support Zimmerman? Absolutely NOT. I'm saying all this because of the way you are supporting Zimmerman.

     

    Now go ahead and negative rep this one to death and see if I care one bit.

     

    Racism is a mental disease plain and simple.

  9. Posted

    Please stop speculating znd let the cops do their job.

     

    All that is known is that Zimmerman shot the boy.

    Zimmerman does not seem solid but I read that his head was

    Covered with his own blood and had grass stains on his back.

     

    The boy also was not the clean cut kid the papers are making him out to be.

    He was spend the week at his dad house (not his normal residence)

    because he was suspended for aweek from school.

     

    Should he have been shot? I have no idea.

     

    But there are plenty of question that need answers before passing judgement.

     

    I'm not trying to be rude to you or anything like that, but are you a mod??? As long as people aren't being rude to each other and discussing in a friendly manner, I don't see why we couldn't speculate until we were blue in the face. After all, this IS a discussion board; right?

    • Like 2

  10. Posted

    30+ min of audio tells most of the story. http://z6mag.com/fea...dio-166633.html

    A major point not expalined or even mentioned in the news is that he was apparently running and in peoples backyards; not on the street as described.

     

    I think I saw where it was in a neighborhood like a development or something similar where there really isn't a backyard per se but a common area or courtyard where a group of home's back door has immediate access to.

  14. Posted

    The politicians are something else.... I am far from being anti-cop (matter of fact, I'm still trying to get into LE), but I get the sense that the NJSP doesnt want civilians having guns because they feel they would lose their advantage. Like now the only big difference between officers and civilians is they have a gun and we don't so they'd lose that intimidation factor. I personally know some cops who feel this way but in more of in an arrogant way.

     

    Its a shame they feel that way. As far as their pay, I think they start out at $60k and top out after 7 years at $110k. Plus they get a crapload of overtime so some are easily making over $150k.

  19. Posted

    Learning the golden rules is one thing, but I think mandating it infringes on our rights. Just like driving, owning a gun comes with responsibilities. It should be up to the individual, and not the government to make sure one learns the golden rules. Do I want everyone carrying a gun to be safe and and responsible? absolutely! However, it is not up to me or the government to force a person to be responsible. What I want the government to do is to protect me IF the person does something irresponsible, not mandate laws to force some people to pretend to be responsible.

    The same irresponsible folks will just take the "required" CCW class and still be irresponsible after the class. So in the end, all you accomplish is forcing responsible gun owners to take a class on what they already learned (from other responsible owners!)

     

    Great point.

  20. Posted

    I am not advocating NO training.. I think ALL gun owners should have training.. I think ALL gun owners should have a safe.. I am just against making a LAW about it.. get it? to be honest.. ONE class ONE day? what is that going to do for your average citizen 5 years from now when confronted with a life or death situation... you think ANY of that is going to matter? that is the point.. I am against illogical LAWS.. not logical practice..

     

    EVERYONE who handles a firearm SHOULD have training..

    the GOVERNMENT should not REQUIRE it..

     

    and like I was saying to you.. people who would actually take something away from the class.. people who know that they need to be trained.. those people are already getting training.. like I offered to take you to the range.. on several occasions.. :icon_e_wink: so yes.. I am an advocate of training.. and think it is necessary.. but I do not think it should have a thing to do with the government.. and them holding it over my head before I can exercise a right..

     

    and see if you follow this logic..

     

    we both agree ONE class will do nothing..

    so tomorrow the state decides you need two classes..

    then four classes..

    then a week of classes followed by a qualification test.. where you need a %70..

    then no that is not enough.. maybe you need an %80..

     

    allowing the government to regulate something they have no right regulating just creates bureaucracy.. and potential for abuse..

     

    drinks.gif

     

    I hear you. Thats the other side of the coin. We all believe we should have training because we all believe in being safe and responsible firearm owners. The challenge is, if HR 822 passes, if its not required to train, how do we go about effectively encouraging training and promoting safety to the average person to go train with that brand new firearm they just purchased? Thats my real issue. Like I said, I see both sides of the coin as do many in this thread.

     

     

     

     

     

  21. Posted

    SHOULD and REQUIRED are not the same thing..

    like I said before..

     

    the person who would benefit from a class is already taking one..

    the person who would limp through the class let the info slide in one ear and out the other is wasted time..

     

    the problem is suffering from the complete DELUSION that a single NRA basics style class is going to do ANYTHING in regards to actually preparing someone for a self defense shoot..

     

    the assumption is purely emotion driven.. "oh can't have a bunch of untrained people walking around every day armed" so you "require them to take a class" as if that one single class will somehow be so filled with amazing instruction that it will instantly make anyone safer.. I have been to MANY a first steps classes.. and while yes at the end.. most people with a brain are marginally safer (keep in mind these people took the class even without being forced)many of them were in NO WAY prepared to defend themselves with a gun..

     

    SMH... Listen, nobody is suffering from any delusions over here. Like I said in my last reply, since i am one that does think training is beneficial, all I did was offer a suggestion as to what type of basic training I thought would not cause a hardship on anyone's time or wallet. If you have any better suggestions, by all means, please state them, or not, either way it's your perogative.

  22. Posted

    all of this is nonsense.. YES there are MANY people who cant shoot.. cant clean a gun.. can't disassemble it.. should probably not even own one..

     

    but in the scope of ONE single class.. ONE time... how much will really be learned.. AND you are placing MORE faith in the government than the people.. you are assuming that the government must FORCE the class because people will not seek it out..

     

    you are literally empowering this class to take average john doe off the street with NO firearms experience and elevating him to a status of being a safe self defense shooter.. so who is teaching this magic class? and where do I sign up..

     

    SMH... Its not nonsense or magic. If a person takes the class and doesn't learn anything, then that is on them. Sure, I agree that ONE class isn't enough. But at the very least, the four golden rules would be learned. Learning basics like that are indispensable to someone new to guns. If anything, the class could teach a person how to safely handle a firearm when not in danger. I don't think it's "magic" at all, and to be honest, that's overstating it quite it bit IMHO. It's just like learning how to drive a car. Those that just get behind the wheel without first learning how to drive usually wreak havoc that first time behind the wheel. These things we call guns aren't toys. Some form of training should be required IMHO. I offered a suggestion as to what level of training that could be but by all means, if you have a better idea, please feel free to add it. However, at the same time, I do understand the argument against mandatory or required training.

     

    As a responsible and SAFE gun owner, I just think its highly irresponsible to advocate no training required. It puts me between a rock and a hard place because I also believe in our rights. I also know how crafty the antis are in usurping our right to bear arms. There has to be a happy medium. I made this thread because I believe this will be an issue when it comes time for the Senate to vote on it.

  23. Posted

    I never said you or anyone can't post or have an opinion, I said what is being said past post # 2 is now really relabemt. Fun to talk about at times but in the end does more harm than good. You may now have someone read this and say I read on the forum that you need training for the 2A.

     

    I'm done for the night on this one. Have fun and just know my only position is I believe in the 2 A and don't like it when people out there own spin on it, that's the same reason we are in the boat we are in in regards to our 2a rights.

     

    Alright sir, Happy Thanksgiving.

  24. Posted

    Can you please explain how my argument is the same as the anti's please.

     

    If anything as I say all the time, the 2A is just that a right and not a privlege, it's not a drivers license you need to take a test for. It is as long as your not a prohibited person the ability to carry and is not conditional, period. I Agee that if you as a person decides to carry you should take it upon yourself and get some training, but I am sorry I can not see that as a requiremenit.

     

    Why we have to even have these discussions is beyond me. To note why I said this thread could have been locked after PK90, Paul posted, well he answered the question with the right answer and everything else is opinion or someone's view, and unfortunately many times a very distorted view that gets passed along in a forum and becomes forum

    Law. The next person starts quoting forum law and it grows and grows into total BS.

     

    Sorry to me, post # 2 was Game, Set, and Match.

     

    Last time I checked, this was a public forum where almost ALL posts are opinions. If its "beyond" you as to why "we" have to have these discussions then simply scroll past the thread or don't enter or don't post. Are you a mod??? Did I break any rules by posting this thread? Or should I have asked YOU whether or not its a worthwhile point of discussion? Not trying to be facetious but I'm growing very tired of people on PUBLIC forums OTHER THAN MODS telling people what they should or shouldn't post in so many words or directly.

     

    As far as your "forum law" stuff, I've never seen it.

  25. Posted

    Yea states that don't even require a permit to CCW just are stacking up with the dead bodies aren't they..

     

    To this, in those states, there aren't many occurrences where someone has to use their gun either so your point is moot. Having no training with your weapon is downright irresponsible whether its a requirement or not. You would think that most of us here being the firearm enthusiasts that we are would agree that some form of training is better than none.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...