No, but I have a couple like that.Col Hogan wrote:bobbythekidd wrote: If I could afford to waste the money on the ammo, I'd get a weapon with 2 drum mags for the range. On the other hand, when I carry a concealed weapon, I am hiding it on my person. It doesn't make any sense to me to carry a small pistol and give that fact away by having a 14 inch magazine. But I don't care if you want to do that.
What...you don't want to conceal carry with a 33-round mag???
BEAR: Can we agree that any American citizen, meeting the same restrictions as listed above, can OPENLY carry a weapon with certain places off-limits to even that (Federal facilities, court house, inside a school building) and that individual states can regulate concealed carry within their borders.Are under the age of 18 for permit to carry or under the age of 21 for permit to acquire (see Juveniles and Firearms section in this brochure)
♦ Are addicted to the use of alcohol or any controlled substance
♦ Have a history of repeated acts of violence
♦ Constitute a danger to any person as determined by the issuing officer (permit to carry)
♦ Have ever been convicted of any of the following :
~ domestic abuse
~ hate crime
~ assault on a peace officer, jailer, correctional staff member, fire fighter or health care provider
~ setting a spring gun or trap
~ hazing
~ stalking
Speaking of the Glock 27...Col Hogan wrote:What...you don't want to conceal carry with a 33-round mag???
bobbythekidd wrote:No, but I have a couple like that.Col Hogan wrote:
What...you don't want to conceal carry with a 33-round mag???
That is wwaaaayy too much for me...but to each their own... 
I knew I liked you. Mine is a 27 as well.93henfan wrote:Speaking of the Glock 27...Col Hogan wrote:What...you don't want to conceal carry with a 33-round mag???
As I said....way too much...but I'd like to try them...bobbythekidd wrote:Col. I just went and looked at my long mags. They are 25 round mags made by KCI (russian). They were giving them away with any Glock purchase at the time. They don't quite fit right, but they are fun for the range.
1) I agree you should have to have a permit to own guns, one that can be revoked if you violate the above restrictions, along with your arsenal.Col Hogan wrote:OK, let's see if we can agree on this...
The 2nd Amendment, which has been ruled to be an individual right by SCOTUS in the two m,ost recent ruling, says an American citizen has the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS...
KEEP: Can we agree that there should be no restrictions on an American owning arms...as long as they meet certain basic requirements (refer back to Clenz post)
BEAR: Can we agree that any American citizen, meeting the same restrictions as listed above, can OPENLY carry a weapon with certain places off-limits to even that (Federal facilities, court house, inside a school building) and that individual states can regulate concealed carry within their borders.Are under the age of 18 for permit to carry or under the age of 21 for permit to acquire (see Juveniles and Firearms section in this brochure)
♦ Are addicted to the use of alcohol or any controlled substance
♦ Have a history of repeated acts of violence
♦ Constitute a danger to any person as determined by the issuing officer (permit to carry)
♦ Have ever been convicted of any of the following :
~ domestic abuse
~ hate crime
~ assault on a peace officer, jailer, correctional staff member, fire fighter or health care provider
~ setting a spring gun or trap
~ hazing
~ stalking
Can we agree to this??? If not, please tell me how you would restrict this Constitutionally guaranteed right...
mainejeff wrote:My gun is bigger than your gun........
But....but.....but.......dbackjon wrote:2) The basic issue, I guess, is how do you define arms. Since you are a strict constitutionalist, wouldn't that entail limiting the right to own guns to those types available at the time of the signing of the constitution?
My only objection to this is that the fully loaded magazine must really throw off the balance of the weapon and greatly diminish its accuracy.Col Hogan wrote:bobbythekidd wrote: If I could afford to waste the money on the ammo, I'd get a weapon with 2 drum mags for the range. On the other hand, when I carry a concealed weapon, I am hiding it on my person. It doesn't make any sense to me to carry a small pistol and give that fact away by having a 14 inch magazine. But I don't care if you want to do that.
What...you don't want to conceal carry with a 33-round mag???
Col Hogan wrote:OK, let's see if we can agree on this...
The 2nd Amendment, which has been ruled to be an individual right by SCOTUS in the two m,ost recent ruling, says an American citizen has the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS...
KEEP: Can we agree that there should be no restrictions on an American owning arms...as long as they meet certain basic requirements (refer back to Clenz post)
BEAR: Can we agree that any American citizen, meeting the same restrictions as listed above, can OPENLY carry a weapon with certain places off-limits to even that (Federal facilities, court house, inside a school building) and that individual states can regulate concealed carry within their borders.Are under the age of 18 for permit to carry or under the age of 21 for permit to acquire (see Juveniles and Firearms section in this brochure)
♦ Are addicted to the use of alcohol or any controlled substance
♦ Have a history of repeated acts of violence
♦ Constitute a danger to any person as determined by the issuing officer (permit to carry)
♦ Have ever been convicted of any of the following :
~ domestic abuse
~ hate crime
~ assault on a peace officer, jailer, correctional staff member, fire fighter or health care provider
~ setting a spring gun or trap
~ hazing
~ stalking
Can we agree to this??? If not, please tell me how you would restrict this Constitutionally guaranteed right...
Just scanned the Constitution again...I can find the line about "Keep and Bear Arms"...but I can't find any reference to the type of arms...so your strawman about being a strict constitutionalist must mean limiting guns to the type available at the signing of the Constitution isdbackjon wrote:The basic issue, I guess, is how do you define arms. Since you are a strict constitutionalist, wouldn't that entail limiting the right to own guns to those types available at the time of the signing of the constitution?
Or, if you believe that the second amendment is designed as a deterent to excessive government power, and the arms available to the Government in 1789 were also available to the general public, that anything the Army has, a private citizen should be able to have?
Do you agree with the other statements, particularly about open carrying???Skjellyfetti wrote:Col Hogan wrote:OK, let's see if we can agree on this...
The 2nd Amendment, which has been ruled to be an individual right by SCOTUS in the two m,ost recent ruling, says an American citizen has the right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS...
KEEP: Can we agree that there should be no restrictions on an American owning arms...as long as they meet certain basic requirements (refer back to Clenz post)
BEAR: Can we agree that any American citizen, meeting the same restrictions as listed above, can OPENLY carry a weapon with certain places off-limits to even that (Federal facilities, court house, inside a school building) and that individual states can regulate concealed carry within their borders.
Can we agree to this??? If not, please tell me how you would restrict this Constitutionally guaranteed right...
I agree with all of these restrictions you listed. I agree with the right to own a gun. But, this is some major backpedaling on your part.
You start a thread called "Eliminate Most Gun Control Laws." Now you are saying you agree with most gun laws and most restrictions placed on guns?
Are the only laws you disagree with and believe should be overturned the laws restricting magazine size in 6 states and 3 cities?
I agree with what you earlier said about concealed carry:Col Hogan wrote:
Do you agree with the other statements, particularly about open carrying???
Because there are about two dozen states that either outright prohibit carrying or seriously restrict it...which flys in the face of "Bear Arms" in the Constitution...
Those are the laws...and thus the thread title...that need to be eliminated...along with the prohibitions on magazine size...
If a locality wants to make carrying weapons legal... either concealed or open... they should be able to. They should be able to regulate it (as you admitted they should be able to) as well. I'd assume an outright ban on concealed or open carrying would fall under that regulation????Col Hogan wrote: Can we agree that any American citizen, meeting the same restrictions as listed above, can OPENLY carry a weapon with certain places off-limits to even that (Federal facilities, court house, inside a school building) and that individual states can regulate concealed carry within their borders.
So how do you propose allowing the Constitutionally guaranteed "Bear Arms" portion of the 2nd Amendment?Skjellyfetti wrote:I agree with what you earlier said about concealed carry:Col Hogan wrote:
Do you agree with the other statements, particularly about open carrying???
Because there are about two dozen states that either outright prohibit carrying or seriously restrict it...which flys in the face of "Bear Arms" in the Constitution...
Those are the laws...and thus the thread title...that need to be eliminated...along with the prohibitions on magazine size...
If a locality wants to make carrying weapons legal... either concealed or open... they should be able to. They should be able to regulate it (as you admitted they should be able to) as well. I'd assume an outright ban on concealed or open carrying would fall under that regulation????Col Hogan wrote: Can we agree that any American citizen, meeting the same restrictions as listed above, can OPENLY carry a weapon with certain places off-limits to even that (Federal facilities, court house, inside a school building) and that individual states can regulate concealed carry within their borders.
Ok, then every justice (even the MOST CONSERVATIVE) currently on the Supreme Court is opposed to the 2nd Amendment.... and every court since the 19th century has been against the 2nd Amendment.Col Hogan wrote: So how do you propose allowing the Constitutionally guaranteed "Bear Arms" portion of the 2nd Amendment?
According to Websters Dictionary, to "Bear Arms" means to "carry or possess"...
I'll concede the right of a state to legislate concealed carry...but to follow the Constitution, citizens MUST be allowed to keep and bear arms...OPEN CARRY...
Otherwise, you are opposed to the Second Amendment...it's not an ala carte decision...
Your position is to the EXTREME fringe on this. You may not believe so... but, it's the truth.Antonin Scalia wrote:Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
Well here's the dirty little open secret, jon: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.dbackjon wrote:Guns for personal protection, hunting, etc should never be banned.
But, just as free speech has restrictions/regulations, so should guns. I think we all recognize that there are inappropriate places for guns (airplanes, for example). The question should be to define what specific areas should guns be regulated/banned. Broad bans like Chicago/DC had to me, where clearly unconstitutional.
Also, as technology expands, with it firepower, the state has legitimate interests in regulating that. I don't want my neighbors to have a bazooka. Armor piercing bullets have no place in private hands.
I would also be in favor of a uniform national CCW permit that required classroom and hands on experience, with emphasis on safety, coupled with strict laws on misuse of the permit.
You mix apples and oranges and then declare MY position extreme...Skjellyfetti wrote:Ok, then every justice (even the MOST CONSERVATIVE) currently on the Supreme Court is opposed to the 2nd Amendment.... and every court since the 19th century has been against the 2nd Amendment.Col Hogan wrote: So how do you propose allowing the Constitutionally guaranteed "Bear Arms" portion of the 2nd Amendment?
According to Websters Dictionary, to "Bear Arms" means to "carry or possess"...
I'll concede the right of a state to legislate concealed carry...but to follow the Constitution, citizens MUST be allowed to keep and bear arms...OPEN CARRY...
Otherwise, you are opposed to the Second Amendment...it's not an ala carte decision...
I post this again... since you seem to have missed it the last time:
Your position is to the EXTREME fringe on this. You may not believe so... but, it's the truth.Antonin Scalia wrote:Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues ... The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
Yet you still avoid the basic question I posed...Col Hogan wrote:I'll concede the right of a state to legislate concealed carry
You think states should have a right to ban concealed carry... but not open carry?Col Hogan wrote:
You mix apples and oranges and then declare MY position extreme...
I accept what Justice Scalia said...
Yet you still avoid the basic question I posed...Col Hogan wrote:I'll concede the right of a state to legislate concealed carry
The 2nd Amendment gives citizens the right to KEEP and BEAR arms...how is a citizens rights protected if they can't OPEN carry firearms???
):He's not differentiating between carrying openly or concealed. He says "it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
I believe the next big ruling from this Court on the 2nd Amendment will be on this right...and the right will be upheld IMHO...It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose
I don't believe I've ever said I believe that...Skjellyfetti wrote:Why do you believe that carrying a weapon openly is a right given by the Constitution... but carrying a weapon concealed isn't?
