Obama and Company offer another Swipe at the 2nd Amendment

accutly i aggree shooting randomly on public land should be baned . Yea we all know how nyou love shooting at things we just prefer it NOT TO BE US.
But tell you what you guiys shoudl have the right to keep shooting all you want just section offf a shooting area on these publice lands .
Put up skull and cross bones singns and the I want to shoot at thing problem will solve its self.
The right to bare arms does not meen you can just go shooting up teh town or just start fireing randomly on public land .
You know you guys should be banded from owing gun as right now you say hey im shooting out here and if you get shot because im irresponcible with a gun well to bad .
lol what a joke nope untill they put aside a area shooting range I say it should be baned on public land you offesly dont care who you may kill

Originally posted by The Cusp

Originally posted by macman
From the EPA wanting to ban lead projectiles, to proposed Gun purchase tax and so on.

There is nothing wrong with banning lead projectiles. Lead is toxic, especially if you're going to be hunting something that you plan on eating. Bismuth is almost as heavy as lead, non-toxic, and it makes the coolest crystals ever.

I wish i had a lead painted house now to help with the radiation.

It should be legal to find a safe place on public grounds to sight in a gun.
However anyone endangering the public should be entitled to a jury trial.
I would like to see 12 gun toting jury members convict someone for target practicing.
That would be who his peers are but something tells me it does not work that way.

Gun owners who have historically been able to use public lands for target practice would be barred from potentially millions of acres under new rules drafted by the Interior Department, the first major move by the Obama administration to impose limits on firearms.

This has not been a problem before.
So why should we section off land or change laws to solve a problem that does not exist.

This is all like what happens when some yuppie buys a cheap house down the street froma gun range that's been there for 100 years. Suddenly the yuppie is all upset he has to hear gun shots so he gets his lawyer and they start hitting the range with anything they can remotely throw at it until somebodys money runs out and a side loses.

reply to post by macman

So your rights trump mine?
Because you don't want to go there and hear or see people shooting guns, they have to stop? Because your rights are greater then their rights?

You really need to reevaluate your statement and beliefs.
You come across as someone who is for individual rights, but when it goes against what you want, you conveniently throw the above out the window.

No, my rights don't trump yours. But my "rights" in this case don't put people in danger if they want to walk near me.

You shooting your gun or riding your ATV any where you want is potentially dangerous to others. Me having a picnic or hiking with my family does not endanger you in any way at all. You can't expect others to just stay out of your way because you are exercising your "rights"...and if they get in the way and die, you say too bad.

It doesn't work like that. Your activities have the potential to endanger others...so your "right" to do those on public land that should be accesible to everyone is infringin on others rights to be there.

Slowly

Inch by inch

They try to take what isn't their's to touch

Fanning the flames with their own ill-conceived "operations"

Causing untold deaths on both sides of the border.. ntm antagonizing Mexico.

And now.. you want more limitations on gun owners.... after endangering the public in two countries.

And I'm to take my government seriously on this matter?

I have three words

Go pound sand.

Thank you.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by The Cusp

Originally posted by macman
From the EPA wanting to ban lead projectiles, to proposed Gun purchase tax and so on.

There is nothing wrong with banning lead projectiles. Lead is toxic, especially if you're going to be hunting something that you plan on eating. Bismuth is almost as heavy as lead, non-toxic, and it makes the coolest crystals ever.

Please show me an accurate study linking an area on public land that becomes unusable or unsafe due to lead bullets used.

Lead projectiles are used on almost 99% of all hunting rounds.
Please do some research.

And the use of Lead is cheap, in regards to bullets.
Steel rounds are expensive and deemed the old "Cop Killer" rounds.
So, lets connect the dots shall we?
EPA wants to ban lead projectiles claiming bad for the environment (With no study and nothing to back the claim against lead bullets), thus leaving the only useable alternative metal for bullets as steel. Not only very expensive, but deemed more lethal by the doofus anti gun crowd. So, that really leaves no alternative. And voilà, gun control.

Steel is too expensive. Bismuth, man, Bismuth! Although I just googled bismuth bullets and there appears to be some debate regarding the toxicity of bismuth rounds.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by macman

 

So your rights trump mine?
Because you don't want to go there and hear or see people shooting guns, they have to stop? Because your rights are greater then their rights?

You really need to reevaluate your statement and beliefs.
You come across as someone who is for individual rights, but when it goes against what you want, you conveniently throw the above out the window.

No, my rights don't trump yours. But my "rights" in this case don't put people in danger if they want to walk near me.

You shooting your gun or riding your ATV any where you want is potentially dangerous to others. Me having a picnic or hiking with my family does not endanger you in any way at all. You can't expect others to just stay out of your way because you are exercising your "rights"...and if they get in the way and die, you say too bad.

It doesn't work like that. Your activities have the potential to endanger others...so your "right" to do those on public land that should be accesible to everyone is infringin on others rights to be there.

You driving your car has the potential to be a hazard to my safety. Should we then ban you from driving on what ifs and might be's?
Any activity has the potential to be dangerous.
People climbing cliffs have the potential to dislodge rocks, that could hit and injure hikers. We should ban climbing then.

No.
Again, when convenient, you toss out the individuals rights.

You have the right us the land, alongside people shooting guns. You have the right to go somewhere else. No one is forcing you to go where they are shooting.

Again, your rights trump others.

reply to post by The Cusp

It has the same density as Lead, but is brittle. This would lead to the idea that it will have poor ballistic qualities.

The majority of dog walking and picnics are in the spring/summer.
The majority of able bodied people going out to supplement there income with deer meat is in the fall/winter.
It's not wise to go out in unknown territory this time of year.
It would be like driving backwards on the not so freeway.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mockrock

 

This is about US issues. Where are you from again?

Thanks for playing.

Well if you want to walk around shooting each other.. From the outside it looks crazy!! Richest country in the world has larger death rate than the U.S soldiers annual death rate during the Vietnam war..

I think you need outside help to tell you this is MADNESS!!

reply to post by mockrock


If it's about sport and target practice.. laser technology and simulations are safer! If one kid is saved from an accidental shooting by stricter laws.. is that not a price worth paying?

Originally posted by mockrock
If one kid is saved from an accidental shooting by stricter laws.. is that not a price worth paying?

Absolutely not! Not by any stretch of the imagination.

Even if you could, and you cant, prove a direct correlation between a life saved and a law enacted, it would still be too high a price to pay.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Don't you see the paradox.. More guns results in greater need for guns.

Nobody has guns.. then you don't need guns to defend yourself.

Reply to post by mockrock

There is no need. I don't need a gun because my neighbor has one. Need, like safety, has nothing to do with it. My guns are not for protection. Sure, they can and may serve that purpose but that is not why I have them.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by mockrock

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by mockrock

 

This is about US issues. Where are you from again?

Thanks for playing.

Well if you want to walk around shooting each other.. From the outside it looks crazy!! Richest country in the world has larger death rate than the U.S soldiers annual death rate during the Vietnam war..

I think you need outside help to tell you this is MADNESS!!

Yeah, because that is all we do in America. Walk around with guns'a blazing.
Please, unless you have any personal experience with this and have been here, go post in another thread.
You are obviously clueless in this realm.

reply to post by macman


His family having a picnic isn't going to get you killed. Your stray bullet can get someone killed. It is that simple people should not have to worry if their trip to the great outdoors is going to turn into a trip to the emergency room, followed by a trip to the coroner's office, followed by a trip to the funeral home. Does it suck? Yes it certainly does, but if we weren't bending over backwards for every damn developer that wanted build yet more housing and buildings on vacant land because it was cheaper than redeveloping the land we already use. Until we start addressing the urban sprawl, this issue will be brought to the forefront time and time again. It isn't anyone's personal crusade to take away your recreation, it is simply a grim reality that as more and more people start using these areas the less and less area you will have to enjoy for your preferred use.

I almost posted without actually reading the article. Then I realized how much I hate it when others do it, so I stopped and read the article. I am glad I did. I was planning to mention how irresponsible it is to use public land to target practice. After all, you can not see everything and you do run the risk of striking a hiker. Unfortunately I DID read the article....

Judging from the article, this public land is used by hunters. That would make it a pretty rural area. It seems the only reason for this action is because people from the city, come into these areas and they "freak out" when they hear gun shots. So instead of educating people about guns, you rather remove the guns so people don't "freak out".

That is nonsense. If you live in the city, and decide to drive out to the country, you had better make sure your not walking through an area known for hunting. It is not the responsibility of the gun owner... it is the responsibility of the hiker to know where he is going.

Click here for more information.

Reply to post by KeliOnyx

Statistically there is no need to worry. Never has been. Why do we consistently bend to irrational fear? Inconsistently applied irrational fear no less.

That picnicking family is far more likely to die in the car on the way there, choking on food, from an insect bite or bee sting, from a rabid animal than from any plinker.

I'm tired of bending over for every paranoid nut that can cry "think of the children!"


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com