Interesting police opinion

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Dang ol, my favorite revolver just became an "Assault Revolver" and illegal in NY.



But if it held one round less, well it'd be legal.

'Worse here. My carry piece would make me John Dillinger if this idiotic law were passed. 'TWELVE rounds in the mag...plus one in the pipe. 'Guess the gubmunt would expect us both to 'short load' then, wouldn't it.

...and, of course, ALL crooks and loons would make darned sure THEY limited THEIR hand gun's capacity to 7 rounds so as not to break that law as they robbed a bank or committed their home invasion, wouldn't they. Why, SHURRRRRRRR they would.

The anti-gun crowd is completely c-l-u-e-l-e-s-s.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Ten to seven? This is ridiculous. Next thing we'll be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

We have all the pinheads we need, we're just short of angels.
Jimbo,

With all due respect, the recent school slaughters have left us with way too many Angels!:(
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
...the recent school slaughters have left us with way too many Angels!:(
...and limiting MY weapon's mag capacity before the fact would have changed that HOW, exactly??? Ditto making it "illegal" for ME to own an AR-15?

Good krymuny...think, man.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
...and limiting MY weapon's mag capacity before the fact would have changed that HOW, exactly??? Ditto making it "illegal" for ME to own an AR-15?

Good krymuny...think, man.
The Sandy Hook gun enthusiast was able to fire approximately 152 times in just a few minutes using 30 round clips!

Honestly, you can't see a problem with that?

When the police arrived he then killed himself. If for the sake of argument, he had, say 10 round clips, how many childeren would be alive today?

Perhaps you would like to explain your rights to the parents of the last few childeren slaughtered that day?
 
Last edited:

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
The Sandy Hook gun enthusiast was able to fire approximately 152 times in just a few minutes using 30 round clips!

Honestly, you can't see a problem with that?

...and limiting MY "clips" to SEVEN ROUNDS will prevent the next LOON from getting his hands on as many 30 round "clips" as he wants HOW, exactly?????????????

Can't YOU see the problem with THAT???

Crooks and loons will continue to get whatever mag or weapon they WANT - law of NO law. That's been demonstrated over and over and over ad nauseam.

As I have asked roughly 100,000 times by now, if BANNING GUNS ALTOGETHER in a given area has COMPLETELY F-A-I-L-E-D to prevent shootings like Sandy Hook, et al - HOW THE DEVIL will limiting all law-abiding people's ammo capacity going to SUCCEED in that endeavor??????? HOW does limiting law-abiding person "A's" rights mystically and magically translate into limiting the behavior of loon "B"?????

Please directly address the question -
 
Actually, ABC had reported that no "Assualt Weapon" was used at all.
They picked up four handguns in the school and the Evil .22 Cal "Bushmaster" assualt weapon was found in his car.
 
Last edited:

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
You said over and over that the Mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was a law abiding gun owner.

If that is true and large capacity clips were illegal, as they soon will be, then he would not have had large capacity clips. When large capacity clips are illegal, they may still be available on the black market, but just like most illegal items, they are harder to find and the price goes up. This unemployed gun lover with no income would not be able buy them, would he?

Larry, do you really think that anyone over 18 should be able to go to a gun show and buy a gun with huge capacity clips without any questions asked?

Am I the only one who thinks that laws that make it possable for anyone to be able to shoot 152 rounds in just a few minutes is CRAZY!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Jim,
I do not believe that anyone would argue that he was not crazy. Funny, the the story news about the college slasher in Texas has disappeared shortly after a few students remarked that they could have stopped him if it was not a "NO GUN" zone.
 
Colorado goes further today.........
Misdemeanor convictions in Colorado could call for DNA swab



Thursday, April 11, 2013


Whether it's an assault or a relatively minor offense such as destroying a library book, Coloradans convicted of a misdemeanor would have to open wide and say "aaagh," should lawmakers pass a requirement that the state collect from them an oral DNA sample.

In what's billed as an ambitious effort to solve cold cases, exonerate those wrongfully convicted and quell future crimes, a Democratic state lawmaker wants to require that individuals convicted of Class 1, Class 2 or Class 3 misdemeanors must submit a DNA sample to be stored in a statewide database system.

But this effort to expand DNA collection to misdemeanor convictions has raised concerns about privacy issues and the rationale behind such a requirement.

"DNA is the 21st century fingerprint," said Rep. Dan Pabon, a Denver Democrat, who is the sponsor of the legislation that's set to be heard before a House committee Thursday. " We have become so sophisticated in our technology and science, we can without a shadow of a doubt link someone physically to a crime."

Already in Colorado, individuals arrested on a felony charge and some misdemeanors involving unlawful sexual conduct are required to provide the state with a DNA sample. And those convicted of a misdemeanor under the proposed legislation would have to pay a $128 fee to cover the costs of the sample.

Late Wednesday afternoon, after The Denver Post reported about Pabon's bill online, the sponsor said he would offer an amendment to the measure that would only require Class 1 misdemeanors be swabbed.

However, though Pabon is targeting most misdemeanor offenses, his legislation does not require those convicted of misdemeanor traffic offenses — such as DUIs — to submit oral samples.

"We don't have the statistics that demonstrate just because you're drinking and driving that you have a propensity to commit more serious crimes," Pabon said. "With respect to theft crimes, assault crimes, those involving the objectification of a person ... those types of crimes indicate that you're going to commit more serious crimes."

Denise Maes, public policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said it's a false assumption to conclude that any person who commits a low-level misdemeanor will commit more serious crimes in the future.

"This encroaches on an individual's privacy," said Maes, who will offer testimony on Thursday in opposition to the bill. "Further, listen carefully to the rationale supporting this bill: 'Collecting DNA helps solve crime.' There is no end to this mission. One may facetiously say 'just chip us at birth,' but in reality this is precisely where the rationale of the proponents naturally leads us to."

Colorado, were the measure to pass, would join only New York — which passed a similar measure expanding DNA samples for all misdemeanors in 2012 — as states that call for DNA submissions with misdemeanor convictions.

In 2006, New York legislation allowed for DNA samples to be collected for some misdemeanors that range from petit larceny — such as shoplifting — to assault and criminal trespassing.

Of the more than 3,300 hits resulting from DNA expansion since then, 32 percent came from petit larcenies and were connected to other, more dangerous felony offenses, according to New York's Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey, a staunch proponent of the measure, said expansion will lead to more hits related to felonies in Colorado and around the nation.

Morrissey's office points to DNA sampling involved in the arrest of Eddie Simon last month. Simon was arrested on a felony drug charge. After his DNA was taken, a match was made in connection to the cold-case rape of a Denver woman in 2001. Simon has since been charged by Morrissey's office with second-degree kidnapping, two counts of sexual assault and third-degree assault.

Pabon said Wednesday the measure has bipartisan support, though some members of his own party assail the legislation as a severe overreach and question storage of the DNA.

"When you take DNA evidence from somebody that is completely unrelated to a crime, you're basically creating a database that can be searched at will and without warrant into the future," said Senate Majority Leader Morgan Carroll, a Democrat from Aurora. "It's a serious intrusion into to privacy to keep a government-run database ... this is a slippery slope, and we don't have the oversights in place to do it responsibly."

Kurtis Lee: 303-954-1655,
[email protected] or twitter.com/kurtisalee

Some of the misdemeanor convictions that would require a dna sample to be submitted


Class 1 misdemeanor

Gun Shows

Violating any of the provisions of section 12-26.1-101 regarding

background checks at gun shows is a class 1 misdemeanor.

Liquor code

Selling, serving, giving away, disposing of,

exchanging, or delivering, or permitting the sale, serving, giving, or

procurement of any alcohol beverage to or for anyone who is less than

21 years old is a class 1 misdemeanor.


Class 2 misdemeanor

Barbers and Cosmetologists

The first violation of practicing or attempting to practice barbering, hairstyling, esthetics, manicuring, or cosmetology without a license is a class 2 misdemeanor.

Athletic Trainer Practice Act

The first violation of practicing or attempting to

practice athletic training without an active registration is a class 2

misdemeanor.

Class 3 misdemeanor

Driver's Licenses

Unlawful possession or use of a license. Photographing, photostating, duplicating,

or in any other way reproducing any driver's license or facsimile of one for the

purpose of distributing, reselling, reusing, or manipulating the license is a class 3

misdemeanor.

Libraries

Library property. Theft or mutilation of library property is a class 3 misdemeanor.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
Jim,
I do not believe that anyone would argue that he was not crazy. Funny, the the story news about the college slasher in Texas has disappeared shortly after a few students remarked that they could have stopped him if it was not a "NO GUN" zone.
Jack,

What we saw in Texas was the future in a sane America!

We have another crazy person bent on death, slaughter and destruction in a school! We hade more than a dozen people attacked, the result?

No deaths and the person bent on slaughter was stopped by people on the scene using their hands!

The differance NO GUN!!!!

You folks keep saying that......... "He could have just as easliy used a knife" should we outlaw knives"?

We we now have an answer, don't we?
 
Last edited:

Ron Earp

Admin
Am I the only one who thinks that laws that make it possable for anyone to be able to shoot 152 rounds in just a few minutes is CRAZY!!!!!!!
The issue is that those that want to control large capacity magazines think the magazines and the rifle alone allow 152 rounds to be shot in less than five minutes. This is incorrect. It takes a shooter, and he or she doesn't have to be a particularly skillful one to perform the task.

I'm not an incredibly accomplished shooter and I can put 152 rounds on target in much less than five minutes with a ten round magazine. If my IDPA scores are any indication, I can do the same with a seven round capacity 1911 .45 - a pistol designed in 1911 for those not experienced with firearms. And, I'm willing to bet I can do it with my moon clip fed six round S&W 625 revolver although that would require more than 25 reloads, on average I can accomplish each reload of a the revolver in less than 3.5 secs. There are folks far faster than I am, and, if I practiced for the task I'd be a lot faster too.

The point? These magazines and semi-automatic rifles do not cause mass shootings to occur nor will their elimination keep such massacres from ever happening again.
 
Of the 12,500 gun related deaths in 2012, under 350 or less than 3% were caused by "assault type" rifles with high capacity magazines. Not one was an actual assault rifle. As Jack M said, the Sandy Hook killings were done with pistols. People that don't know anything about weapons are trying to make laws about them. The women in Colorado talking about "disposable magazines" was living proof. If 10% of the time used for this argument were put towards reducing the "sustainable debt, sic", we would be far better served. Our kids and grandkids won't have an America to live in.
 

Jim Craik

Lifetime Supporter
So Tom,

You are saying that in 2012, 349 people were killed by "assault type" rifles with high capacity magazines?
Only 349, you must be very proud!

Tom, how many were killed by "assault type" rifles with just regular magazines?

**************************

2012 gun murders...........all types of guns, not just assault type rifles with large magazines!

Australia........................30
Japan............................11
New Zealand....................7
England & Wales..............41

Total.............................89
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
You said over and over that the Mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was a law abiding gun owner.

If that is true and large capacity clips were illegal, as they soon will be, then he would not have had large capacity clips. When large capacity clips are illegal, they may still be available on the black market, but just like most illegal items, they are harder to find and the price goes up. This unemployed gun lover with no income would not be able buy them, would he?

Larry, do you really think that anyone over 18 should be able to go to a gun show and buy a gun with huge capacity clips without any questions asked?

Am I the only one who thinks that laws that make it possable for anyone to be able to shoot 152 rounds in just a few minutes is CRAZY!!!!!!!


The unemployed drug lover with no income manages to get drugs does he not?
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
You said over and over that the Mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was a law abiding gun owner.

If that is true and large capacity clips were illegal, as they soon will be, then he would not have had large capacity clips. When large capacity clips are illegal, they may still be available on the black market, but just like most illegal items, they are harder to find and the price goes up. This unemployed gun lover with no income would not be able buy them, would he?

Larry, do you really think that anyone over 18 should be able to go to a gun show and buy a gun with huge capacity clips without any questions asked?

Am I the only one who thinks that laws that make it possable for anyone to be able to shoot 152 rounds in just a few minutes is CRAZY!!!!!!!
Spin and dance...again.

I ask again: If BANNING GUNS ALTOGETHER in a given area has COMPLETELY F-A-I-L-E-D to prevent shootings like Sandy Hook, et al - HOW THE DEVIL will limiting all law-abiding people's ammo capacity going to SUCCEED in that endeavor??????? HOW does limiting law-abiding person "A's" rights mystically and magically translate into limiting the behavior of loon "B"?????

Answer (since you'll NEVER get to it): THEY WON'T. 'Never HAVE - 'never WILL. Crooks and loons always HAVE HAD and always WILL GET whatever 'arms' they want. That's just a fact. Therefore, taking weapons and ammo capacity away from people like ME won't change diddly. LEOs ACROSS THE NATION AGREE WITH THAT.

Police officers: Obama's gun-control proposals would make... | Kyle Wingfield | www.ajc.com
 
Top