Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: [post=19409476]Indigo5[/postwww.criminallawyerdenver.com...
AGAIN,wrong.

The link you provided supports what I said and disproves your claim.

You must be CONVICTED of Domestic Abuse in order for it to even potentially effect your right to purchase a gun.

a reply to: Indigo5

What does deferred charges mean?
"In the State of Colorado and most other states Domestic Violence Convictions, even with Deferred Judgements, can have a significant impact on your right to bear arms. Regardless of whether you possess a gun for protection or for hunting, you may be completely deprived of your second amendment right to bear arms.
Domestic Violence Misdemeanor and Gun Rights"

All a woman has to do is cry "wolf" and if believed THEY'RE gone, BOULDER does that alot.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Indigo5

What does deferred charges mean?

Your link explains it clearly

Often times following charges of Misdemeanor Domestic Violence the defendant will be offered or will attempt to receive a Deferred Judgement. This requires the entering of a Plea of Guilty

....

The law on gun rights during this period is vague. It can be assumed that you lose your right to bear arms during a deferred judgement period, but then recapture your rights upon successful completion of your sentence.

You said...

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Indigo5

In my state the accusation does it.

THAT WAS FALSE...

Tantrums, shouting and emotions, baiting, changing claims et al don't change facts..

a reply to: Indigo5

Agreed my semantic failure is true,in hindsight.
Nevertheless it IS happening as I have seen it used a few times as a divorce ploy. Regardless of the legal interpretations.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: nenothtu

And redefining the 2nd does not respect the 2nd.


And.....the 2nd was not exactly established to fight against roaming bands of Indians.

Absolutely clueless.

The Second Amendment was established because a person has an innate right to defend themselves from any and all threats, be they roving Indians, roving gang bangers, or roving storm troopers. Having a weapon is one of the better ways to accomplish a defense, so weapon possession is a right as well, tied to the right to defend one's self. It was not aimed at a specific threat, it was aimed at the defense from ALL threats. The preamble, "A well regulated militia..." is set apart through a comma BECAUSE it is a preamble, one reason among many to justify a citizen being armed - not the ONLY reason, as determined by the Supreme Court.

It does not need to be redefined. It is already plain and simple, and the Supreme Court thinks so as well, if their ruling in DC vs. Heller is to be taken as an example. It is not my fault, your fault, or the Supreme Court's fault if some citizens are incapable of understanding simple English. That fault would lie with the educational system.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Answer

You make a very good point. It's true that gun related deaths have been on a steady decline. I know it's easy to correlate to the increase in gun ownership to the decrease in violent crime, but correlation does not equal causation. It could be that violent crimes are decreasing as a result of the increased "police state" style of policing that has been going on since the early 70s and the advent of the "drug war". Of course, it could also be because more people are armed. It's hard to say.

What I can say is that since living in Japan, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, I rarely see reports of murders. In fact, the Japan Intentional Homicide Rate is at 0.3 per 100,000, whereas the the intentional homicide rate is at 4.7 per 100,000 in the United States. Again, correlation does not necessarily equate to causation, but the parallel is interesting.

Now, I don't agree with the gun laws in Japan. I wish I could have brought my guns with me from New Mexico to my new home here. Do want to live in a world where guns are no longer necessary? Sure. I think everyone wants to live in that world, unless they just revel in combat. I don't have good answers for how to intelligently implement restrictions on gun ownership without trampling on the rights of the average citizen. I'm not a game theorist, I'm not even a particularly intelligent girl. I just have my opinions on things, and I think it's a discussion worth having. If nothing comes of it, I would accept that, but at least we would have talked about it.

I have a theory,only a theory mind you that as babyboomers aged ,crime stats declined.Don`t have anything to base it on,just observation.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But what happens to those of us in the middle, who love guns, but kinda understand where the anti-gun people are coming from?

Stay out of the way and keep your head down.

Duck.

Heh, very true. The far right calls me a liberal gun-grabber, and the far left calls me a gun-nut.

I can't win with either camp. Guess I'll go sit in the corner.

No,stay here with us...

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Answerwww.paladin-press.com...


THAT'S how .

That is the book that I was talking about.

It seems a mystery to some that 'machining' can be done with simple tools, like a file and hacksaw. Firearms can be made with barrels that are nothing more than a piece of pipe.

That set of plans is just one among many. the underground is circulating plans for an "R-5 SMG" built on the same general plan as a "Sidewinder" SMG from around 1979. it devastatingly simple, and as accurate as pointing your finger at a target.

If I remember correctly, Soldier of Fortune Magazine had a cover photo in the late 1970's featuring the sidewinder, with an article about it.

Yup, that's the one. An "arm gun" of sorts. A tubular reciever, a pistol grip, and a curved butt to rest inside the bent elbow, No sights used because of the way it was employed, but pretty devastating in close quarters. that's the same principle, and the same general body plan, for the SMG in the plans I'm referring to.

originally posted by: Answer

"An Afghan suqatting in a mud hut on a dustry street with a file and an anvil" is not fabricating functioning AK's from raw materials. That statement is a gross oversimplification of the process and it's false.

They were when I was there. Maybe by the time you made your trip there, they had closed shop. I dunno.

Perhaps the difference lies in what one considers "raw materials". They were not smelting ore into iron and then refining it into steel, if that's what you mean by "from raw materials". Other than that, yeah. Pretty much from the blocks of steel up.

The AKs were functional enough that you could take them to a range outside of town and fire them before you bought them to make sure they worked well enough to suit you.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But some of their concerns I think ARE valid, and worth discussing.

Which ones? Serious question.

I bet there's already a law that addresses every concern that you can think of.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But some of their concerns I think ARE valid, and worth discussing.

Which ones? Serious question.

I bet there's already a law that addresses every concern that you can think of.

Maybe allowing and requiring a dealer to check to see if the buyer has been found mentally ill in a court of law?

originally posted by: Indigo5
Maybe allowing and requiring a dealer to check to see if the buyer has been found mentally ill in a court of law?

That's already a requirement. One of the questions on form 4473 that you fill out when purchasing a firearm asks about this and is a part of the background check that the dealer calls in to the FBI's instant background check system before finalizing the sale.

And let me just note here: I'm not saying that its perfect or that it catches everything. Undoubtedly, it does not.

a reply to: thefallenone

Speaking of old, tired and worn out arguments, thank you for interjecting your own. No, just because someone disagrees with your opinion on this issue does not make them 'absolutely insane and paranoid.'

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But what happens to those of us in the middle, who love guns, but kinda understand where the anti-gun people are coming from?

Stay out of the way and keep your head down.

Duck.

!!!!

You just gave me a 'brilliant' analogy!

Gun regulation is the modern day equivalent to 'duck, and cover'.

Well all know what effective hiding underneath a desk was to 'stop' nuclear radiation.

And we all know just how effective gun regulation has been over the decades.

originally posted by: beezzer

I'm all for free speech, as long as what you say is pre-approved by the government first.

Not to derail this debate - but to add to the concept that Rights are under attack and that things can and do get out of hand - The First Amendment is also currently under an extreme form of attack from the so-called SJW movement. They are pushing heavily and I mean heavily for a society completely devoid of any language that has the potential to offend anyone. Period. They want "total social comfort" and they utilize Title IX lawsuits as a weapon against anyone who offends them.

So, yeah...

Good thing we have an armed population to protect us from a handful of agenda driven fanatics who can utilize loopholes in laws to force their vision upon the mainstream.

At least that's not under attack.

Oh... Wait....

Damn.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But some of their concerns I think ARE valid, and worth discussing.

Which ones? Serious question.

I bet there's already a law that addresses every concern that you can think of.

Maybe allowing and requiring a dealer to check to see if the buyer has been found mentally ill in a court of law?

The form required when anyone purchases a gun from a dealer specifically asks that question. There is also an FBI background check performed at the time of the purchase.

Next concern?

originally posted by: thefallenone
Why does anyone debate these guys.

They are absolutely insane and paranoid. You can't take their manhood from them other wise their families would be completely helpless.

Mom looks at dad for help, "dad says sorry nothing I can do..no gun"..

Mention guns and common sense, gun nuts get their panties in bunch.

Have they used their tired old arguments already? Over and over again

Stop if you want to know what they are going to say, go to any pro gun site and read them, all these people ever do is parrot the same ol' tired BS.

Are you going to add anything to the conversation or just continue trolling?

a reply to: thefallenone

I thought you were leaving...about 5 times ago.

originally posted by: Indigo5


Sooo...Hmm..Legalize rape and murder? Cuz the law doesn't stop those things from happening?

that's your argument?

If that is how you read my post, then we've got larger issues in the world than gun debates. :/

Even though it's bait and an absolute twisting of both words and meaning, I'll still reply because I'm just that nice of a guy. If you can show me where I have, or have ever had a Constitutionally protected and guaranteed right to rape and murder - I'll cave in and agree you have a valid point.