Obama and Company offer another Swipe at the 2nd Amendment

Yeah, Obama and Company aren't after gun rights? No, not them. Can't be..
A wait, I forgot how they will do it. Slowly, as not to cause a commotion by many.
www.usnews.com...

Kicking people off PUBLIC land? So I guess it is not PUBLIC then, unless you are doing "Zee Approved" actions from "Zee Führer!"

Go to a local shooting range or gun club if you want to target shoot. Shooting on public lands where anyone could just walk by and catch a stray bullet is irresponsible.

The 2nd Ammendment says you can bear arms....it says nothing about your right to target practice or hunting on public land.


Really stretching for this one, huh?

Originally posted by SG-17
Go to a local shooting range or gun club if you want to target shoot. Shooting on public lands where anyone could just walk by and catch a stray bullet is irresponsible.

PUBLIC is just that. PUBLIC.
If you are too dumb to walk in front of people shooting, I guess natures law will be used.

How very elites. You can go do what you want on public land, but if I want to shoot, then I am not allowed.

So, it is not public land then. It is land that can only be used by people that want to hike or walk their dog.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The 2nd Ammendment says you can bear arms....it says nothing about your right to target practice or hunting on public land.


Really stretching for this one, huh?

It restricts the right from public land.

A stretch? Possibly. But seeing the tactics used by Obama is just pieces to the puzzle.
From the EPA wanting to ban lead projectiles, to proposed Gun purchase tax and so on.

You of all people should see this as restrictive in nature.
Regardless if it is people wanting to shoot, or ride ATVs. The Govt comes in and states some can't do this.

It is Govt intrusion at the very base level.

Originally posted by macman
So, it is not public land then. It is land that can only be used by people that want to hike or walk their dog.

As long as you hike on clearly defined trails and your dog is leashed and curbed.

This hasnt been an issue in how many decades? Suddenly it's an issue? Seems like he's just taking whatever he can get.

And it's inconsistent to boot!

"The policy fails to recognize that recreational shooting has one of the lowest incidences of death and injury compared to virtually any other outdoor recreational activity. The policy is prejudicial and discriminatory to target shooters as compared to other recreationists," said the council's draft response, expected to be finalized today.

Gotta love it.

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by SG-17
Go to a local shooting range or gun club if you want to target shoot. Shooting on public lands where anyone could just walk by and catch a stray bullet is irresponsible.

PUBLIC is just that. PUBLIC.
If you are too dumb to walk in front of people shooting, I guess natures law will be used.

How very elites. You can go do what you want on public land, but if I want to shoot, then I am not allowed.

So, it is not public land then. It is land that can only be used by people that want to hike or walk their dog.

So you'd be fine with allowing people to stand in the middle of the street, which is public land, and shoot their guns freely and anyone who happens to be too dumb and drives by just happens to be unlucky?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by macman
So, it is not public land then. It is land that can only be used by people that want to hike or walk their dog.

As long as you hike on clearly defined trails and your dog is leashed and curbed.

This hasnt been an issue in how many decades? Suddenly it's an issue? Seems like he's just taking whatever he can get.

Again, restrictive in nature.
Thou shall not hike here.
Thou shall not operate ATVs there.

I am tired of the Govt, Fed Govt specifically coming in and establishing more rules and laws without votes, without consent and just as a power grab.

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.

Originally posted by SG-17

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by SG-17
Go to a local shooting range or gun club if you want to target shoot. Shooting on public lands where anyone could just walk by and catch a stray bullet is irresponsible.

PUBLIC is just that. PUBLIC.
If you are too dumb to walk in front of people shooting, I guess natures law will be used.

How very elites. You can go do what you want on public land, but if I want to shoot, then I am not allowed.

So, it is not public land then. It is land that can only be used by people that want to hike or walk their dog.

So you'd be fine with allowing people to stand in the middle of the street, which is public land, and shoot their guns freely and anyone who happens to be too dumb and drives by just happens to be unlucky?

2 entirely different situations.
Nice try though.
Local and city statutes have laws against discharging firearms within city/town limits.
This is a law aimed at use of Public Forrest and Desert land.

They have been doing this for years,I'm from northwest New Mexico and they have been closing off access to BLM land for years.They have been using the excuse that we are a danger to the cattle that graze there,my problem with this is our tax dollars take care of this land ,it is all of ours and i dont feel they have the right.As for shooting ranges,have you ever wandered around the west?Ive gone hiking and seen no one all day,it is sparsely populated,and wide open,just 'cause some city folk get nervous when they hear gunfire is no reason to restrict the people who live around and use these areas constantly,as for stray bullets,that would be how the weapon is used...we always fire into sandhills and such,after all the box of .300 win mag says dangerous to 7 miles,it always seemed prudent to fire into something,but we can't cover all the bases accidents do happen...but shutting us down like this is wrong..too bad my vote doesn't really count....peace ya'll

Well change is what Obamas campaign was about... He never claimed it was a good change. And if people were to be asked to give up their guns, particularly the backwoods rednecks, and constitution holders will not go down without a big war on their hands. I don't think the gov. want to open that can,but then again its Obama.

Originally posted by SG-17
So you'd be fine with allowing people to stand in the middle of the street, which is public land, and shoot their guns freely and anyone who happens to be too dumb and drives by just happens to be unlucky?

It's against common sense and the law to fire across lanes of travel. That goes for roadways and trails. It's also against common sense and the law to discharge a weapon within a certain proximity to occupied structures.

It's also against common sense, yet not against the law, to fire without knowing the full life of that bullet once it leaves the barrel. Flight, impact, backstop.

Two guys in a 500,000 acre parcel firing into a berm in an old quarry is hardly a safety concern to a hiking family on marked trails.

reply to post by macman


You call it government intrusion, I call it government responding to concerns of it's citizens.

I personally don't want to go to a public park with my kids where people are shooting guns. Sure, you say it is safe, and I'm sure you are very safe when you shoot...but you can't speak for everyone.

Your rights end where mine begin...right? So by you wanting to use public land as a wild west shooting range, that restricts MY use of that same land.

Me having a picnic or going for a hike doesn't stop someone from enjoying the land right next to me...you using your gun prevents people from using quite a bit of land around you.

with ARMED drug trafficers taking over public lands - this would be a good indication they didn't belong there (carrying a rifle)

I live next to several thousand acres of public hunting land - this isn't such a bad idea as peoples horses dogs and people get shot often .... BUT there always could be any area within the public lands where target shooting is allowed ......

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.

You can bear arms..

This is the most stupid thing about america... you need to bear arms because other people bear arms..

If nobody beared arms you would not need to!!!

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002)0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]

South Vietnamese military deaths[3]
Year Regular RF/PF Para Total
1966 4,418 7,535 - 11,953
1967 6,110 6,606 - 12,716
1968 12,930 11,393 3,592 27,915
1969 8,652 10,286 2,895 21,833
1970 9,647 11,738 1,961 23,346
1971 8,864 13,118 756 22,738
1972 38,697 890 39,587


Your annual death rate is comparable to US soldier's Vietnam war annual death rates..

How is it possible to argue that this is good for America..

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by macman

 

You call it government intrusion, I call it government responding to concerns of it's citizens.

I personally don't want to go to a public park with my kids where people are shooting guns. Sure, you say it is safe, and I'm sure you are very safe when you shoot...but you can't speak for everyone.

Your rights end where mine begin...right? So by you wanting to use public land as a wild west shooting range, that restricts MY use of that same land.

Me having a picnic or going for a hike doesn't stop someone from enjoying the land right next to me...you using your gun prevents people from using quite a bit of land around you.

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.

reply to post by mockrock


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

Thanks for playing.