jbscout2002

Get a load of this guy. These are the people shaping the minds of the future leaders of America.

Same for me Same here. Pay your dues, than a week later get mail asking for donations. Donate $5 and get a t shirt, donate $10 and get a key chain.... How about you take my membership dues and stop spending it on key chains and junk mail campaigns and private jets, and actually put it to use. They can have my vote. No more money tho.

Is it not a knee-jerk reaction of the President to address the nation with his list of reactionary gun control measures the very day of the shooting? Or, more plausibly, dose he have his little wish list of gun bans all ironed out and has just been sitting on it, waiting for the opportunity to take advantage of a tragety so he can capitalize off of the emotions of victims' families? After all, timing is key!

The NRA has several different organizations. One is a "foundation" which is non-profit and is devoted to charity. Another is the membership organization, which is for profit. Yet another is the political organization, which operates under different rules. These things move in cycles: Public shooting occurs. Politicians call for more gun control. Citizens fear gun restrictions and go buy guns now fearing they won't be able to later. Gun makers profit. Citizens join the NRA to fight against the gun restrictions so they can keep their guns. The NRA profits. If the politicians would focus on the real problem, instead of threatening to take guns from law-abiding citizens, the gun-buying and NRA-joining cycles would stop. This is one of the most simplistically intelligent ways I have seen someone describe the situation. Not to mention that by "focusing on the real problem" the public shootings will decrease as well, which is ultimately the goal, right? It's hard to tell anymore, as some people prove to care nothing about violence or public safety and only care that an object they don't like goes away.

In Florida, it is illegal for a single, divorced, or widowed woman to parachute on Sunday afternoons.

Looking at my LS2 full face motorcycle helmet verses my ReVolve, the bike helmet is heavier (by far), and much larger/bulkier on my head. Vision isn't quite as good and head movement isn't as free in bike helmet. The skydive helmet, as I understand, protects you from bumping your head in the plane, and getting knocked out or dazed in a free fall collision. Motorcycle helmet is designed to absorb high speed, high impact collision, with hard objects by dispersing energy through an inner and outer shell with foam in between. It the absorbs energy from your head decelerating against the inner shell with very thick foam padding.

You're the experienced one, but the first thing that popped at me was the D ring chin strap. With skydiving helmets having the plastic buckle and some having cutaways, is the d ring strap wise?

What a BS, who is *them*? All you did here was product placement. You used this platform for advertisement. Actually all I've done is waste my time and take up space in DZ.com storage space. I don't have to convince gun control advocates to "see it my way". They have to convince the 80 million of us who own guns, along with the few who don't, but still believe in the right to. Less than 92.5 million registered voters. I don't know how much of that voting pool is represented by us 80 million, but I do know we are adamant about getting out there and voting for our guns Gun control advocates have this little battle cry, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". In voting terms, 80 million is the many and 12.5 million is the few, so good luck.

Or better yet, don't do research. Continue to regurgitate whatever gun control misinformation helps you sleep better at night. It never passes in Congress because Americans simply don't support it. It's a beautiful concept. If you don't support firearms in America, don't buy one. Withhold your financial support from the industry by being a rebel and boycotting them. Please excuse me from the table though. I'm going to step away so you can continue to convince yourself that that with a little common sense legislation, our country will suddenly become a utopian Pandora that even Europe will envy.

from https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/fr/home/sicherheit/waffen/faq.html we make a big differnce between "transporting a weapon" and "carrying a weapon". Gun holder goes hunting or shooting at the range : transport, no question asked. Gun holder carries weapon for self defense/protection : needs to pass an exam etc etc etc... This is exactly the same in the U.S. To purchase, you do an application, background check, and show photo ID. Unless you do it privately (including from an individual as opposed to a licensed dealer) at a gun show in 32 states). And, of course NO record is kept anyway. Unlike Switzerland. But no permit is required if you don't want a CCW. Unlike Switzerland. Many states now require private firearm sales to go through a licensed deal, where a mandatory background check is completed, to include at gun shows. Records are in fact kept. There is a records keeping requirement on all gun sales from licensed dealers. These records are not submitted to a national database for registry purposes, however, the BATF&E can trace any firearm originating from a legal sale within the U.S. Several states do in fact require a license to own a firearm. This is not a CCW, but an ownership license. So, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Do some research before you throw your random BS out there. Just like in your post number 243 where you proclaimed how the enactment of CCW led to higher murder rates in Chicago, to wit, I produced several credible sources showing exactly the opposite.

Fun Facts: There are an "estimated" 80 million gun owners in the U.S. In 2014, there were 92,251,000 registered voters in the U.S. (census.gov) http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp was used for the following. copy/paste is used to save time Based on surveys, as of 2010, 40-45% of households had firearms (probably a low number because gun owners get paranoid about those surveys and say they don't have any guns) A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard." Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun. Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year. A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: • 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" • 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun" • 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were committed by people with criminal records. During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower. In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales. - Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower. Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect. In 2005 (during hand gun ban), 96% of the firearm murder victims in Chicago were killed with handguns. * Under federal law: • It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for the following people to receive, possess, or transport any firearm or ammunition: someone convicted of or under indictment for a felony punishable by more than one year in prison, someone convicted of a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years in prison, a fugitive from justice, an unlawful user of any controlled substance, someone who has been ruled as mentally defective or has been committed to any mental institution, an illegal alien, someone dishonorably discharged from the military, someone who has renounced his or her U.S. citizenship, someone subject to certain restraining orders, or someone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. • It is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison to sell or transfer any firearm or ammunition to someone while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe" this person falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above. • It is illegal to "engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms" without a federal license to do so. • It is illegal for any federally licensed firearms business to sell or transfer any firearm without first conducting a background check to see if the buyer/recipient falls into any of the prohibited categories listed above. • It is illegal for anyone except a federally licensed firearms business to sell, buy, trade, or transfer a firearm across state lines. * Under federal law, private individuals are not required to a conduct a background check before selling or transferring a firearm to someone who lives in the same state, but it is illegal and punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a private individual to sell or transfer a firearm while "knowing" or having "reasonable cause to believe" that the recipient falls into one of the prohibited categories above. Some states such as California require background checks for all firearms transactions, including those conducted between private individuals. A 1997 U.S. Justice Department survey of 14,285 state prison inmates found that among those inmates who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were sent to jail, 0.7% obtained the firearm at a gun show, 1% at a flea market, 3.8% from a pawn shop, 8.3% from a retail store, 39.2% through an illegal/street source, and 39.6% through family or friends (straw purchase, which is illegal). Each state has its own laws regarding right-to-carry and generally falls into one of three main categories: 1) "shall-issue" states, where concealed carry permits are issued to all qualified applicants 2) "may-issue" states, where applicants must often present a reason for carrying a firearm to an issuing authority, who then decides based on his or her discretion whether the applicant will receive a permit 3) "no-issue" states, where concealed carry is generally forbidden As of 2012, 40 states were "shall-issue" In right-to-carry states, the violent crime rate is 24% lower than the rest of the U.S., the murder rate is 28% lower, and the robbery rate is 50% lower. On October 1, 1987, Florida's right-to-carry law became effective. This law requires that concealed carry licensees be 21 years of age or older, have clean criminal/mental health records, and complete a firearms safety/training course. As of July 31, 2010, Florida has issued 1,825,143 permits and has 746,430 active licensees, constituting roughly 5.4% of the state's population that is 21 years of age or older. Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower. From the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law through July 31, 2010, Florida has revoked 5,674 or 0.3% of all issued permits. 168 of these were due to crimes committed with a firearm. Since the outset of the Texas right-to-carry law, the Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 28% lower. Since the outset of the Michigan right-to-carry law, the Michigan murder rate has averaged 4% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 2% lower. In 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the United States, constituting 0.5% of 123,706 fatal accidents that year. In the 2008 election cycle, gun rights groups donated $2,397,743 to federal candidates, equating to about 1% of the money donated by lawyers/law firms. In the 2008, election cycle, gun control groups donated $57,919 to federal candidates, equating to about 2% of the money donated by gun rights groups. The Bill of Rights includes two Amendments other than the Second that use the phrase "right of the people": Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - Thus based on the argument the the 2nd Amendment applies to the right of the States to maintain a National Guard force, this would also mean that it is only the state and federal government, and not individual citizens, who have any protections guaranteed under the 1st and 4th Amendments. Enjoy.

It is the order of this Court that you shall be remanded to carry with you at all times, and to all places, a potted plant. And that this plant shall be sufficient in its size to adequately replace a cubic volume of oxygen that shall be determined to be equal to, or greater than, that of which you have unjustly embezzled from your fellow man. May God have mercy on your soul. Court is adjourned.

Yeah that can be a problem, not have the magazine at Walmart. They used to have them. Now you have to go next door to Gander Mountain.

Right? Like as one of those face comes strolling through the parking lot with a couple riffles hanging off his shoulder, no one says, "hm, maybe we should question this"

As a side note, I went to Walmart yesterday and glanced at the ammo shelves, not expecting anything like usual, but low and behold, .22 ammo. Full shelf of 555 round boxes of .22 ammo. I was delighted, as my fellow shooters would understand. I bought my maximum allowance of 3 boxes, as did my anti-gun wife. 3330 rounds of fresh new 36 grain hollow points. Oh what a glorious day indeed.

so what makes the difference between having a country with lots of guns and close to no gun violence, and another country with lots of guns with lots of gun violence ? How are we different ? Why is it that in one of the countries people want guns because they have the right to have them, and not in the other one ? Feeling insecure much ? P.S. By the way I like guns, I enjoy shooting (from 9mm Pistol to 15.5cm Howitzer, and my favorite is Browning M2 .50Cal) but wouldn't want to buy any. Difference is culture. In rural areas of the U.S. we're guns are a normal part of life, they are used for hunting and sport. Most people I know that have a CCW got more for the convenience factor. With the CCW you can put a pistol in a range bag and go to the range to shoot, but without the CCW, that is illegal. CCW mostly protects my from " accidentally" breaking random arbitrary laws that would lead to fines or the confiscation of my gun. Where I live in upstate NY, I don't carry a gun. I don't need one. The only crime here is a heroin problem. When I go to Syracuse, I'll put it in the car, but depending on what I'm doing down there, it usually stays in the car. In these areas it seems to be a lot like Switzerland. In the cities, guns are viewed as evil. People are scared of them. People don't hunt in the cities. You can't target shoot in your back yard in the city. Their only view point of a gun is that it is a death machine. An instrument of war. And for inner city thugs it is a status symbol to carry one. And you prove yourself and gain street-cred by using them.

I am thinking some people would have trouble finding how communist our far right political parties are They hear.. "Conservative" and get little stiffies.... it is the lack of critical thinking skills My conservative-ism stops at gun rights. After guns, we have nothing to talk about. I'm a pro choice atheist who believes in free health care and taxing people proportionately based on how much mulla the make. 10% of a $50,000 salary is harsh, but 25% of a $5,000,000 salary doesn't affect the millionaires life so much.

from https://www.fedpol.admin.ch/fedpol/fr/home/sicherheit/waffen/faq.html we make a big differnce between "transporting a weapon" and "carrying a weapon". Gun holder goes hunting or shooting at the range : transport, no question asked. Gun holder carries weapon for self defense/protection : needs to pass an exam etc etc etc... This is exactly the same in the U.S. To purchase, you do an application, background check, and show photo ID. Then you can "transport" that gun to the range for target practice, or to the woods to go hunting. State laws vary, but generally, it must be unloaded, in plain view, and the ammo stored separately, such as gun in the car, ammo in trunk. A CCW requires state and federal background checks, passport photo, finger printing, a CCW class, then some states have additional requirements such as character references and providing a written statement to your local head of law enforcement which may be either the Sheriff or Chief of Police depending on where you live, that explains why you are requesting the CCW.

you might find interesting reply here https://www.ch.ch/en/acquiring-firearm/ OMG! You're saying that Switzerland, poster child for the US gun lobby, actually requires LICENSES for guns? And to transfer a gun you need a written contract with details of the person transferring and the person acquiring the weapon and the weapon itself? And to get the license you have to send a written application along with a criminal record certificate and a copy of your passport or ID card to the cantonal weapons office? And you must be at least 18 years old, you must not be subject to a deputyship or a supervision order, you must not give any cause to assume that you could harm yourself or anyone else with the weapon, you must not have a criminal record for violent or dangerous offences or repeated felonies or misdemeanours. And they will check up on all this before they let you have the permit? Oh the humanity! Really? Most of this is already the case in the U.S. Must be 18 Not subject to deputy ship or supervision order Not give cause to assume self harm or harm of others Not have record for felonies or domestic misdemeanors All this is checked before each gun sale. And look back through some of these post. Where you do nothing but complain of perceived problems, many of which are invented or imagined by you, I have attempted to offer solutions. You will see I fully support an application process to obtain a gun license. What do you think is required for a CCW? Who is factually challenged here? I think you are actually retarded. I give up. I tap out. You are the one child left behind.

you might find interesting reply here https://www.ch.ch/en/acquiring-firearm/ This is what we call our Army. The actual age is more 20-32. Every male swiss Citizen "should" serve, but the actual numbers show that this is not true anymore. Until the 90's we had a 800'000 men army. Now it is around 200'000. Out of which around 1'000 women. http://www.vtg.admin.ch/internet/vtg/fr/home/dokumentation/publik_zeitrschr/publikationen.parsys.76089.downloadList.25051.DownloadFile.tmp/kurzfassungarma2014f.pdf. Approximately 20% of these people do not keep their weapons at home, mostly for safety or convenience reasons. Mainly in towns. They might have kids at home, and don't want to mix kids and guns, they don't have space to keep the weapons safe enough against theft or misuse. So they have the possibility to leave their military gear at the arsenal, and pick it up when they are on military duty, or for their yearly mandatory shooting session (kind of currency requirement) yes. For us shooting is a sport. Not a " I need to protect myself and my family at all cost" kind of thing. Every 4 years there is even a "National Shooting Competition" which spreads over a month, involving 40'000 shooters from across the country, and in lots of different categories. good luck with that. You can also have a read (and a Google translate) at that https://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19983208/index.html A more direct answer is, yes, you are in the ball park. The age isn't 17-35, but is 20-32, and not "everyone" keeps their service weapon at home. About 20% choose not to for personal reasons. And yes to all the parts about gun clubs and shooting events.

You really are factually challenged. www.give.org/charity-reviews/national/health/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-in-new-york-ny-626 So you didn't answer my question. As per your M.O. you cherry picked pieces of my question to quote and then respond with your typical douch baggery.

How is there a charity taking donations for planned parenthood. Aren't those people Dr.s and researchers who makes a bunch of money? Should be a charity to cover the costs for the young women that need services but can't afford it.

Even tho the numbers are going to be thrown off (in your favor) because a bunch of gang bangles clebrated the 4th of July by mowing each other down, which is probably why you would offer this, I'd take it anyways. The money goes to a good cause. We need to establish parameters tho. Like using the FBI UCR to compare both years for example. But since CCW also deters not just other gun crime, but all violent crime, it has to be based off of overall violent crime rate.

I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is. I bet you $100 to your favorite charity that Chicago's 2015 murder rate will be higher than the 2014 rate. Since you claim "conclusively" there's a correlation between the CCW permits being issued and the decline in murders, you should be willing to bet $100 to my favorite charity that the 2015 rate will be lower. So how about it, soldier? I usually pick charities for abused or sexually exploited children, but in the case, do you know of any good gun violence survivor charities or findings for victims families?

How many of the 33,000 would never ride in a vehicle again, just to live another day? It doesn't work like that. Derek V A lot of first-world democracies have chosen to restrict the right to bear firearms, and they have a far lower rate of shooting homicides than the USA does. So it does work like that. This. Pulled out of your ass. Which first-world democracies? And where is a credible source for you info? Also remember that I have in fact shown you credible sources speaking to the contrary on the same claim. You can name a couple one way and I can name a couple the other. I don't have to look far to do this. Every one of your posts is full of shit. You are a quack hiding behind accusations made towards others. I'm not going to bother recycling 500 some odd posts worth of you being full of shit. Looking next to your name, you have spewed out over 52,000 posts worth of your completely empty rhetoric. Give it a rest turbo.