Obama and Company offer another Swipe at the 2nd Amendment

reply to post by xxcalbier


Actually, I think our country needs to worry more about education than snuffing out gun rights.

reply to post by macman


Of course this wouldn't apply to cops...

reply to post by macman


This US News report highlights a draft new BLM policy that critics argue would go much to far to discourage target shooting on federal lands under its jurisdiction.

Officials say the administration is concerned about the potential clash between gun owners and encroaching urban populations who like to use same land for hiking and dog walking.
"It's not so much a safety issue. It's a social conflict issue," said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior's Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites "freak out" when they hear shooting on public lands.

Of course, under the Bush administration the local BLM office closed a number of long-popular target ranges around the Redding area, largely because of conflicting recreational uses. Sounds like more of the same -- but has anyone seen the policy?

So Bush did this previously as mentioned. Also, no one can seem to find this policy in the OP source.

Also should a residential neighborhood have a shooting range close by? Most residents in that neighborhood would say no and since the federal area would be effectively disturbing the wishes of state residents then who has the right to do what?

Also we do have the right to bear arms. Who said we could shoot them? I am being serious. Who said we could fire them in residential areas (for example) That is why there are regulations. To clean up the gray areas.

Remember that we get our rights as long as they do not encroach on the rights of others.

I love the 2nd amendment, I honestly do, I am trying to give you constructive and realistic reasons behind laws that keep the 2nd amendment in check to an extent.

reply to post by macman


Go to a shooting range man, I don't see how this is an issue unless you want to walk around in parks unloading clips, this seems incredibly trivial dude...

I see nothing wrong with someone owning A gun, and a registered one at that. Anyone caught with an unregistered gun should get ten in the pen, that would help control guns I am sure. Do not take away peoples rights, just make life hell for the ones who do not respect peoples rights. If the laws of the land were in favor of the citizen and not the criminal this would not be a topic to begin with, that is how I see it anyway.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I use government bombing range as a backstop where I shoot.

If someone is downrange from me they have trespassed on a military base with a fence and signs and climbed up on a hill where there are no roads or trails.

And they are going to have more problems from the military then from my bullets.

The only other place i shoot is uses a old gold mine tunnel as a back stop.

Originally posted by mockrock

Originally posted by deadeyedick

If you want to be a real man learn a martial art, only cowards use guns.

reply to post by mockrock

 

Anyone with a 1 degree black belt in martial arts is considered a deadly weapon.
Those real men fighting you speak of would be breaking the law if they killed someone to save a life.
You are trying to twist this to be about more than loosing our hunting rights.
Do you think that me eating deer killed with a gun is contributing to the manufactured drug and robbery problems we have.

Yes, the ease of access to guns is contributing to gun violence. So what if a few people can't shoot helpless deer.

It takes time and dedication to learn a martial.. But $100 can buy any idiot a gun.. With great power comes responsibility, which most people cannot handle. Is the price to be free to shoot deer worth 12,632 homicide deaths.. ? It's about balance.. It's hardly a fair fight using a gun to kill a deer? Try a bow and arrow, we have a longer human history using those than guns, far more skill involved too.

I went to a shooting range and did target practice.. It is too easy ! With a 10 minute lesson you can hit the bulls-eye, there is no skill to this. If you need a thrill take up rock-climbing at least you only risk yourself.. Much more of buzz and great to keep off weight.

Tell you what if I need food this winter ( and with the eco the way it is I will) I will promiss not to sight in my rifle if you come out and round house kick a deer in the face and kill it for me hows that. Besides bow season is limited. Real man
Side note: I do know martial arts but I am not gonna try to use it on a deer.

By your logic why dont we get rid of guns all together and defend our homelands with spears and swords etc... like the old days. I hear it took alot more skill.

reply to post by mudbeed


If Bush's Admin was pushing it as well, then shame on them.

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by macman

 

Go to a shooting range man, I don't see how this is an issue unless you want to walk around in parks unloading clips, this seems incredibly trivial dude...

It is simply about rights.
If you don't see that, then there is no help for you.

reply to post by DoNotForgetMe


Registration of Guns is only in a select few States.

Looks like this was appropriately removed from the table of stupid options by the Govt.
www.usnews.com...

reply to post by macman


What's the problem with securing some land for those who like to camp or enjoy nature without worrying if a round from a .45mm handgun whiz by your head?

This will simply redirect the shooting ranges so that no area where people will be downrange from the range itself preventing someone from taking one in the skull.

No swipe at the 2nd Amendment!

They have backed off. Gun owners always make sure they are heard.
Shoot away, fellas!
link:
www.usnews.com...

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

What's the problem with securing some land for those who like to camp or enjoy nature without worrying if a round from a .45mm handgun whiz by your head?

This will simply redirect the shooting ranges so that no area where people will be downrange from the range itself preventing someone from taking one in the skull.

No swipe at the 2nd Amendment!

That land is already secured for use by campers, hikers and picnickers. Just so happens that they must continue to SHARE the PUBLIC land with everyone else, including those that like to shoot outside of ranges.

reply to post by radosta


There was no ban on firearms as that was never in threat.

reply to post by macman


As long as the range is roped off and downrange be marked off so that no one mistakenly steps into an open range with live fire!

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

As long as the range is roped off and downrange be marked off so that no one mistakenly steps into an open range with live fire!

So long as the hiking trail is roped off, so no hiker ends up being down range of the live fire.

See, this can be twisted the other way as well.

To suggest that one group needs to do this and this, and another needs only depend on the actions of the first is just stupid.

If you ware dumb enough to walk between a person shooting a firearm and the backstop, I think there are bigger issues then what has been stated.

Please, stay in Jersey. You are a very well conditioned City dweller.
Stay out of the West and the fly-over area of the country.

reply to post by macman


That's when you have the Park ranger's office be allowed to dictate the times the range and the trails are open.

In your twisted logic if someone isn't alerted to the risk of being in a live fire zone it is somehow their fault? Blaming the victim again I see!

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

That's when you have the Park ranger's office be allowed to dictate the times the range and the trails are open.

Your canned response is basically more Govt control.

Ok.

Again, please stay in Jersey.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

In your twisted logic if someone isn't alerted to the risk of being in a live fire zone it is somehow their fault? Blaming the victim again I see!

edit on 17-11-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)

Sure sure. Ok then.
The automatic response that someone walking is the victim, as apposed to someone not paying attention, and thus requires everyone else to watch out for them.