Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Forum Thread A note about the site and any replies from other users.
Porn Users Forum » Horrified!
51-81 of 81 Posts < Previous Page 1 Page 2
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home

12-22-12  04:29pm - 701 days #51
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 1,000
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Cybertoad says, "PSS, sorry one more thing I also do not own an assault weapon mainly because I see those as a gun good for one thing that it does well and that is kill therefore I do not need one.

Some of my friends do not agree with me on that, but I do not need one and will not get one."

I talked to a gun enthusiast at my niece's wedding reception yesterday about the AR-15. He told me because of the low caliber shell it fires, it was used by the military to wound combatants not kill them. He also said they used this wounding technique to draw out other combatants to take out when they went to rescue their buddies. Sounds more like what the Cong did in Vietnam, but I don't know. It's not, as I understand it, really an automatic weapon and is based on a standard rifle guts. The Assault part are optional dressings to make it look a certain way.Do you have any thoughts about it? If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

12-22-12  04:39pm - 701 days #52
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by messmer:


Thanks, CT. A very reasonable answer and I left your answer intact for that reason. Now if only every gun owner were like you!


Thanks for the compliment

Sadly, also I agree too. I know some very nice people who agree with me, and have similar gun views. For every 10 people I know with my view there are 5 more that do not get it.

Owning a gun is a 2nd amendment right, sweeping a crowd with ammo is not, nor is stocking up for Armageddon Or having high capacity assault riles.
I do believe the founding fathers wanted us to have guns if we chose to, however in the day of cannons and flint locks I can not see them ever foreseeing one gun like an AK that alone could take on 100 soldier with flint locks. So what is next, laser guns? Maybe some that produce radiation ?
I have no idea what the next technology in guns will be, but the word Gun should not mean automatic ownership.

Sorry hate to ramble on about this, but most of my gun owning responsible owners think training should be required on the very first gun you buy should require a 6 hour class on gun safety and gun owners have to pass a test after that and then the typical background check.
I also have a very unpopular view that owners should be licensed to show you are license owner. I know I have to carry my Concealed License everywhere I go and police are happy when the know I have one, because I took time to learn.

There is room for compromise. Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

12-22-12  07:01pm - 701 days #53
pat362 (371)
Active User



Posts: 2,988
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by jberryl69:


Also, there is a big difference between trying to commit mass murder and just shooting someone over a disagreement. Just cause you have a gun and use it (even if it's a crime you're committing) doesn't mean you want to commit mass killings.


Is there really such a big difference? Aside for the number of victims. You are still talking about someone murdering one or more person using a gun or riffle. That the intent was different changes nothing to the fact that you have another victim or victims by gun fire. Wouldn't those dead people still be alive if guns were much harder to get?

Originally Posted by jberryl69:


Plus some of the onus needs to be shared by the mass media for sensationalizing it to the point where the public is ready to puke.


Yes and No. Although it's true that mass media too often use these tragedies to get ratings and their approach to reporting borders on the indecent. These are the kind of tragedies that must make Nations puke with disgust. If not then nothing really happens until the next one or not even that. There were 8 mass shootings just this year until this latest one which now makes it 9. The news cycle is such that we too often forget yesterday's news because it gets replaced by something else so the only solution is to keep talking about it. It took the brutal murder of 20 very young children and six adults to get people to start talking about a possible ban. You aren't even talking about banning them but having discussions so you are maybe months or years before a law gets passed if ever. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-22-12  10:05pm - 701 days #54
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by jberryl69:


The Assault part are optional dressings to make it look a certain way.Do you have any thoughts about it?


From my own gun enthusiast point of view.
And assault weapon is different from any other semi-auto and semi-auto as bad as it sounds only means fires as fast as the gun allows and this varies some guns cycle way faster then others. I have a semi-auto pistol police edition and the first pull is heavy and not feather light to fire it fast would require work, ok that said.

Assault weapons are semi-auto that are either by design or by modification
able to do the following.

1. Fire a medium to large caliber bullet.
2. Cycles fast ( meaning ejects and reloads fast)
3. Has a feather trigger.( means takes little to squeeze and is were rapid fire comes from.

I was not sure what your friend was explaining as what makes a assault rifle more deadly is high velocity rounds not just the caliber.
And AR-15 why not a heavy round the volume and speed it can put out really makes the argument it is dangerous, and could kill pretty easy. Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

12-23-12  12:40am - 701 days #55
graymane (31)
Active User



Posts: 1,350
Registered: Feb 20, '10
Location: Virginia
It can be argued the Thompson Submachine Gun is every bit as deadly as our modern day assault variety.
So how come kids, teachers, shoppers, college students, and the throngs of other people living in the Prohibition era could be anywhere they wanted to be without harboring a nano-thought of suddenly being blown away by a hail of bullets?
The only victims anywhere associated with this weapon one ever read about were mobsters .... and as riddled as they were from the ammo of these devastating firearms, one didn't hear, therefore never complained about innocent bystanders being killed in the fray.
Firearm policing was never necessary.......
So why wasn't mass killing happening then as they are today?
Is it something in the food chain?????? What?

For those who might be interested in some statistics on the Thomason.... I've copied herewith:





From Wikipedia .....

Thompson Submachine Gun,
Caliber .45M1928A1 wartime production variant.
Type
Submachine gun

Place of origin
United States
Service history
In service
1938–1971 (officially, U.S. military)

Production history:
Designer ....John T. Thompson
Designed: 1917–1920
Produced... 1921–present

Number built1: 700,000 approx.
Specifications:
Weight 10.8 lb (4.9 kg) empty (M1928A1)
10.6 lb (4.8 kg) empty (M1A1)
Length
33.5 in (850 mm) (M1928A1)
32 in (810 mm) (M1/M1A1)
10.5 in (270 mm)
12 in (300 mm) (with cutts compensator)
Cartridge .45 ACP (11.43 × 23 mm)
Action: Blowback, Blish Lock
Rate of fire: 600–1500+ rpm, depending upon model Feed system ....
20-round stick/box magazine
30-round stick/box magazine
50-round drum magazine
100-round drum magazine
(M1 and M1A1 models do not accept drum magazines)


The Thompson is an American submachine gun, invented by John T. Thompson in 1919, that became infamous during the Prohibition era. It was a common sight in the media of the time, being used by both law enforcement officers and criminals.[6] The Thompson was also known informally as: the "Tommy Gun", "Trench Broom", "Trench Sweeper", "Chicago Typewriter", "Chicago Piano", "Chicago Style", "Chicago Organ Grinder", and "The Chopper".[7][8][9][10]

The Thompson was favored by soldiers, criminals, police and civilians alike for its ergonomics, compactness, large .45 ACP cartridge, reliability, and high volume of automatic fire. It has since gained popularity among civilian collectors for its historical significance.

12-23-12  09:50am - 701 days #56
pat362 (371)
Active User



Posts: 2,988
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^I think the reason is that the number of ordinary people who owned a Tommy Gun was tiny compared to the number of poeple who own an assualt riffle today so it stands to reason that death by Tommy Gun would be rare outside of peopel associated with organized crime. Another reason might be that the population was significantly lower in those days. Less people with less guns means less death by guns in the same way that today you have more people with more guns and therefore more deaths by guns.

There was an intersting discussion on CNN last night where Don Lemon had invited two police officers and a couple of other guests to discuss the assualt riffle situation and as far as I can tell. Both officers were not for a ban on assault riffles and one of them who owns a gun shop was not even open to discussing it. He was asserting that it's assault riffles in the hands of the mentally unstable people that is the real problem. Which is basically the line the NRA is using to justify their position. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-23-12  10:17am - 701 days #57
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Originally Posted by pat362:


^I think the reason is that the number of ordinary people who owned a Tommy Gun was tiny compared to the number of poeple who own an assualt riffle today so it stands to reason that death by Tommy Gun would be rare outside of peopel associated with organized crime. Another reason might be that the population was significantly lower in those days. Less people with less guns means less death by guns in the same way that today you have more people with more guns and therefore more deaths by guns.

There was an intersting discussion on CNN last night where Don Lemon had invited two police officers and a couple of other guests to discuss the assualt riffle situation and as far as I can tell. Both officers were not for a ban on assault riffles and one of them who owns a gun shop was not even open to discussing it. He was asserting that it's assault riffles in the hands of the mentally unstable people that is the real problem. Which is basically the line the NRA is using to justify their position.


I would claim without hesitation that both police officers and all those who are not for a ban on assault rifles are the ones who are mentally unstable. That a ban is necessary is obvious to most rational people while the NRA's answer is to put a cop in every school, mall and movie theater!! By all means, let folks keep their hand guns if they feel unsafe but do away with all those super sized ammo clips and the rifles that go with them. 20 little kids and 6 adults cry out that something be done this time. Enough is enough.

12-23-12  06:01pm - 700 days #58
pat362 (371)
Active User



Posts: 2,988
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
^Actually it's a little scarier than that because the NRA don't actually want to put an actual police officer but an armed security guard which is not exactly the same thing. Even better. They are talking about arming teachers and principals because we all know that these people are well versed in the use of firearms and that packing a gun in a class is a wise idea.

I think the experts on CNN last night said that there would be at least 26 accidental deaths in schools if we allowed teahcers to have guns. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-23-12  06:04pm - 700 days #59
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Most assault weapons do one thing, and they do it well !

I feel as do many owning one, makes you part of the problem not the solution. Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

12-23-12  07:01pm - 700 days #60
messmer (137)
Active User



Posts: 2,512
Registered: Sep 12, '07
Location: Canada
Scarier yet, who can reassure me that all those armed security guards, principals and teachers will always remain emotionally stable? As CT pointed out everyone has a trigger, so, the less guns the less deaths if someone should snap unexpectedly.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Every decent member of the NRA, and I don't doubt there are many, should hand in his membership this very moment in response to the callous indifference shown by their leadership.

Such a bizarre reaction, attempting to maintain the status quo with all these tragic incidents ... one after the other after the other ... staring them in the face! Incidents that completely fly in the face of their arguments. It may be people that kill people but they should not be handed rapid fire instruments of death to help up the numbers. Disgusting.

12-25-12  02:12pm - 698 days #61
littlejoe (23)
Active User

Posts: 48
Registered: Jan 25, '07
Location: earth
we should start banning cars too so this never happens

http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article...uring-13-4144574.php

12-28-12  09:42am - 696 days #62
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,951
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by graymane:


It can be argued the Thompson Submachine Gun is every bit as deadly as our modern day assault variety.


Yes and no. Most assault rifles fire small caliber, high velocity ammunition--good range and stopping power with relatively little recoil. The Thompson has quite a bit of recoil, uses pistol ammunition, and is pretty heavy even for a submachine gun.

But yes, both types of weapons can be just as deadly, and I doubt people would have a preference for being with either one.

Originally Posted by graymane:


So how come kids, teachers, shoppers, college students, and the throngs of other people living in the Prohibition era could be anywhere they wanted to be without harboring a nano-thought of suddenly being blown away by a hail of bullets?
The only victims anywhere associated with this weapon one ever read about were mobsters .... and as riddled as they were from the ammo of these devastating firearms, one didn't hear, therefore never complained about innocent bystanders being killed in the fray.
Firearm policing was never necessary.......
So why wasn't mass killing happening then as they are today?
Is it something in the food chain?????? What?


It's complicated. Different gun laws and economic realities are probably the biggest reasons.

The Thompson was legal for a time, assuming you could even afford it. Sort of like the cartoonishly huge sniper rifles that are made today; gigantic ammo, long range, and stratospheric prices compared to a lot of other weapons that are civilian legal. They're definitely intended for military use, but they're anything but compact and the size of the ammo only allows for small magazines so they are legal throughout much of the U.S.

And I would also argue that shootings by gangsters in the 1920s and '30s (many related to our Puritanical alcohol laws) are just as bad as ones today by people with previously clean criminal records and legal weapons. It's just that then the blame could legitimately be placed on outlaws, and stricter gun laws were not an obvious solution (many of their automatic weapons were stolen from government armories, not purchased at the local gun store). "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

12-28-12  10:20am - 696 days #63
Capn (28)
Active User



Posts: 1,699
Registered: Sep 05, '09
Location: Near the Beer!
Originally Posted by littlejoe:


we should start banning cars too so this never happens

http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article...uring-13-4144574.php


Virtually anything can be used as an offensive weapon.

There is a fundamental difference in what a vehicle & a weapon are designed to be used for though.

Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award
Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award
( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/
Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder!

12-30-12  02:08am - 694 days #64
anyonebutme (14)
Active User



Posts: 287
Registered: Aug 23, '09
Here's the flip side of the situation:

If there were no guns, if there were no threat of gun violence, we can happily go back to ignoring people with mental health issues, treating them as invisible, unimportant people?

Is it primarily because of threats that we have to show anyone any courtesy or respect?

12-30-12  02:14am - 694 days #65
anyonebutme (14)
Active User



Posts: 287
Registered: Aug 23, '09
Originally Posted by messmer:

That a ban is necessary is obvious to most rational people while the NRA's answer is to put a cop in every school, mall and movie theater!!

Large majority of people never heard this news story:

http://nbclatino.com/2012/12/17/latina-o...tonio-movie-theater/ Edited on Dec 30, 2012, 02:25am

12-30-12  02:47am - 694 days #66
anyonebutme (14)
Active User



Posts: 287
Registered: Aug 23, '09
Originally Posted by jberryl69:

I talked to a gun enthusiast at my niece's wedding reception yesterday about the AR-15. He told me because of the low caliber shell it fires, it was used by the military to wound combatants not kill them.


?

The AR-15 is a civilian weapon, not a military weapon. Surprised such an expert gun enthusiast didn't correct himself when talking about the M16 military rifle. Only in the very early field testing of the weapon did the military use it under the designation AR-15. Enthusiasts are usually good about making those corrections.

The lower caliber bullets were used because soldiers could carry more ammo. The bullets were designed to fragment and created a larger and more lethal wound than other assault rifles of the time period.

The M16 was far more accurate than the AK-47, I suppose that would mean soldiers had better opportunities to aim at a leg to wound an enemy soldier? But that has absolutely nothing to do with the bullet's caliber. Edited on Dec 30, 2012, 02:59am

12-30-12  09:18am - 694 days #67
pat362 (371)
Active User



Posts: 2,988
Registered: Jan 23, '07
Location: canada
Originally Posted by anyonebutme:


Is it primarily because of threats that we have to show anyone any courtesy or respect?


I'm Canadian so I'm bound to disagree on this point of view because I believe we are quite courteous and we do not have many guns in Canada. Courtesy at the point of a gun isn't really courtesy but fear and fear is never a good catalyst for anything.


Originally Posted by anyonebutme:


If there were no guns, if there were no threat of gun violence, we can happily go back to ignoring people with mental health issues, treating them as invisible, unimportant people?


You're argument would and should have merit but mental health issues are being ignored both in the US and sadly in Canada and guns are definetely not the solution. How many people with mental issues out in the street today would have been in an institution not that many years ago? Goverments spend money on some dubious things all the while ignoring some serious problem like mental health.

We have a similar problem in Canada but our's tends to be more one-sided than in the US. Here a person with mental issues rarely has access to a gun so if he or she loses it then the death toll is significantly smaller and often the only person to actually die is the person with those mental issues. Long live the Brown Coats.

12-30-12  07:42pm - 693 days #68
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Correction on the AR-15, it is a high velocity high capacity weapon. The military has exact compliments as the AR-15.
I have a military grade civilian Mossberg 500 is exactly like the military's versions. Just because a weapon is sold to civilians does not mean it is not military grade. I have a law enforcement grade 40 cal. Just want everyone to know civilian and military issue does not at times change specs, just, model and auto capabilities. I think only trained people should handle such arms. Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

12-31-12  05:32am - 693 days #69
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 1,000
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
Isn't the caliber of the AR-15 .223? Correct me if I read this wrong. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

12-31-12  08:52am - 693 days #70
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Well yes and no lol,
AR 15 rifles typically use .223 Remington and 5.56×45mm ammunition. But what is .223 Ammunition the difference between the two?
The civilian version of the 5.56 is the .223 Remington, which is simply a longer version of the now defunct .222 Rem. Unlike the 5.56, .223 ammo is able to be safely fired from both the M16 and the civilian AR 15.

The 5.56x45mm is the U.S. military designation of ammo for their AR 15, which they renamed the M16. Although the 5.56 and the .223 have identical dimensions, the 5.56 is usually designed for higher pressures and velocities and is generally considered to be unsafe to shoot from the civilian AR 15.

I know makes the head spin to figure it all out, but the basic premise is they are all very very similar in ability and harm they can cause civilian or military has no real bearing.

CT Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

12-31-12  12:39pm - 693 days #71
jberryl69 (12)
Active User



Posts: 1,000
Registered: Nov 27, '10
Location: neverland
^lol - I don't know crap about it so I will have to take your word for it while my head spins like a top. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee.

If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat!

12-31-12  02:05pm - 692 days #72
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by jberryl69:


^lol - I don't know crap about it so I will have to take your word for it while my head spins like a top.


I know huh, kinda like trying to explain someone about the universe and how it was made LOL Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

01-02-13  08:47pm - 690 days #73
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,951
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by Cybertoad:


Well yes and no lol,
The civilian version of the 5.56 is the .223 Remington, which is simply a longer version of the now defunct .222 Rem. Unlike the 5.56, .223 ammo is able to be safely fired from both the M16 and the civilian AR 15.

The 5.56x45mm is the U.S. military designation of ammo for their AR 15, which they renamed the M16. Although the 5.56 and the .223 have identical dimensions, the 5.56 is usually designed for higher pressures and velocities and is generally considered to be unsafe to shoot from the civilian AR 15.


A lot of civilian weapons--the AR15-style weapons--are 5.56 NATO so people can also use the military ammunition if they want. For hunting purposes and the rules at some ranges pretty much all military and full metal jacket ammunition is not allowed. The .223 Rem ammo may operate at lower pressures but it's still deadly and the softpoint bullets can create catastrophic wounds that are meant for quickly/humanely killing game in one shot (if you can call it humane).

I've read many accounts of hunters successfully killing deer (which isn't even legal with this caliber in all states) with one round from AR-15s. .223 is really a varmint round but gets used in bigger animals; boars, coyotes, and even deer as I mentioned. Keep in mind deer are also hunted with bows so the .223 is hardly underpowered when you compare it to what's available. And because hunting regulations outlaw full metal jacket ammunition hunters frequently end up choosing bigger calibers.

If full metal jacket ammunition was legal for hunting you could probably just as easily use .223 to kill bear or even moose with a single shot to the head, but hunting regulations prevent this because it's easier and more practical to hit an animal somewhere besides the head, especially at longer ranges. Hitting a bear in its chest with a .223 round may not be lethal and would almost certainly not be a quick kill.

For the purposes of gun crimes it's best to think of any firearm as being potentially lethal. Endless arguments about bullet mass, barrel length, bullet design, and other minutiae are pretty much meaningless when you're talking about people being shot at close range in crowded areas. More than one victim can get hit with a single bullet, no one is wearing body armor, medical attention may be delayed, and of course no one is expecting to be shot at, all play into the fact that even "underpowered" weapons and ammo can be very lethal. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-02-13  09:05pm - 690 days #74
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


More than one victim can get hit with a single bullet, no one is wearing body armor, medical attention may be delayed, and of course no one is expecting to be shot at, all play into the fact that even "underpowered" weapons and ammo can be very lethal.


Yep and is why " any firearm " should in my opinion only be in the hands of a trained person. I know so many people with way more guns then me that are even older then me, and have no idea about safety. When we go target shooting one guy scares the hell outta me as he has no idea what safety is.
A firearm should not be in your hands unless you know what the hell you are doing. Bullets are very unforgiving even a 22 bullet can kill if it hits an organ. I share the opinion of banning all guns is silly and irresponsible, but on the same point guns should not be like buying lawnmowers either. You ever see how dumb people are they can not even start a mower but we allow them to own a firearm? I know the 2nd says you have the right to have arms, I am not saying to take that away. I am saying we need safe gun owners, not just gun owners. ( and I see no need for an m-16 or ak-47's ( my opinion)
After all we don't just give our driver licenses like they are playing cards so why do we allow firearms in the hands of people that are not trained. Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

01-03-13  12:19am - 690 days #75
lk2fireone (194)
Active User



Posts: 1,545
Registered: Nov 14, '08
Location: CA
In California, there are all kinds of rules/regulations about owning a firearm.

Below, is just an introduction to some of the rules about firearms:


In California, before you can legally buy a firearm, you have to pass a background check. The application must be notarized.

Also, all firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process. California imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a buyer or transferee. A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To buy a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age, and either 1) possess an HSC plus successfully complete a safety demonstration with the handgun being purchased or 2) qualify for an HSC exemption.

As part of the DROS process, the buyer must present "clear evidence of identity and age" which is defined as a valid, non-expired California Driver's License or Identification Card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. A military identification accompanied by permanent duty station orders indicating a posting in California is also acceptable.

If the buyer is not a U.S. Citizen, then he or she is required to demonstrate that he or she is legally within the United States by providing to the firearms dealer with documentation that contains his/her Alien Registration Number or I-94 Number.

Purchasers of handguns are also required to provide proof of California residency, such as a utility bill, residential lease, property deed, or government-issued identification (other than a drivers license or other DMV-issued identification).

I believe that if you own a handgun in California, you have to pay a yearly license fee. I don't know if you have to pay for a separate license fee for each handgun, or just pay for a single license fee.

If you give or sell a handgun to your adult child or domestic partner (husband, wife), you don't have to use a licensed dealer for the transfer. But you do have to report the transfer and pay a $19 fee to the California Department of Justice.

May I carry a concealed firearm in California?

Except in extremely limited circumstances, you may not carry a concealed firearm on your person in public unless you have a valid CCW license. CCW permits are issued only by a county sheriff to residents of the county, or by the head of a city police department to residents of that city.

Depending on where you live, it might be extremely difficult to get a CCW permit.

(PC Sections 12025-12031, 12050-12054)

I live in another state and have a permit to carry a concealed handgun that was issued in my home state. Does my permit allow me to carry a concealed handgun while in California?

No. Weapons permits from other states are not valid in California.

01-03-13  03:36am - 690 days #76
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,951
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


In California, there are all kinds of rules/regulations about owning a firearm.


You're not kidding, the regulation minutiae are like some sort of bureaucratic art form!

If you're buying ammo within Los Angeles the vendor is required to record what exactly you're buying, how much, and then get a thumbprint from you. You can of course legally just drive outside the county or order online (if the ammo is allowed in CA and LA). And though it sounds like an environmental issue (dry climate, wild fire dangers), tracer ammunition is illegal in the state because it's considered a destructive device.

LA also bans all ammo sales 5 days prior to New Year's Eve and 4th of July. The city has a problem with celebratory fire around these holidays, so I guess this is to stop that typical impulse buying that happens when you're doing your holiday firearms shopping. (BTW, discharging a weapon is pretty much illegal anywhere in the city except for a range so the celebratory fire is a no-go. )

Originally Posted by lk2fireone:


To buy a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age, and either 1) possess an HSC plus successfully complete a safety demonstration with the handgun being purchased or 2) qualify for an HSC exemption.


What's stupid is the minimum age is 18 to get the HSC but that doesn't mean you can legally buy a handgun (I think 21 is a federal standard, state age laws can only go above that minimum).

You also have to recertify the HSC every five years for the same fee, which makes it sound like a typical nickel-and-dime issue, not a safety one. And even though I'm a veteran I would not be exempt from the HSC requirements (honorably discharged is not an exemption, though retired is).

Makes me a little nervous that there's no "safety" difference between me and some firepower-salivating douchebag who's watched too much YouTube gun porn (which frequently have a gleeful disregard for even the most basic of safety procedures) because we've both passed and paid for the same simple test. And shotguns and rifles, assuming they're even CA legal of course, are exempt from a safety certification. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-03-13  03:51am - 690 days #77
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,951
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by Cybertoad:


Bullets are very unforgiving even a 22 bullet can kill if it hits an organ. I share the opinion of banning all guns is silly and irresponsible, but on the same point guns should not be like buying lawnmowers either. You ever see how dumb people are they can not even start a mower but we allow them to own a firearm?


A .22LR can be lethal out to a range farther than most weapons that shoot it are even sighted for, especially considering it's now really only intended for short range target practice. And for all the blustering about "stopping power" of this and that round basically every caliber every made has a body count. Even blanks can cause injuries and they don't have bullets.

Originally Posted by Cybertoad:


I share the opinion of banning all guns is silly and irresponsible, but on the same point guns should not be like buying lawnmowers either. You ever see how dumb people are they can not even start a mower but we allow them to own a firearm?


On that note, not only does California have some of the strictest state-level gun laws in the U.S., they also have some of the strictest air pollution laws, higher than even federal standards. This pertains not only to cars but also, yep, lawn mowers.

I guess no matter what poison you pick someone's going to regulate it.

(I can only imagine the prophylactic-related micromanagement politicians will dream up when it comes to condoms in LA-shot porn. Though unlike the NRA and guns I don't think barebackers really have an industry on their side.) "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-03-13  07:48am - 690 days #78
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
I guess it boils down to I am for regulations, not restraints which California sounds like the latter.
I left that state years ago after being a homegrown original as the state was ruined in my opinion by way over regulating and taxing the hell outta people. I have a 64 Chevy Impala with a corvette engine in it. Cost me in fees alone $450 a year to drive it. They forced me to have a car smogged that never had smog in it. The state braininess, just picked years and never even checked on what cars and trucks were exempt or should be. Registration on my newer car was over 300 a year 20 years ago. I used to love that state now it just a regulated to death fucked up state.
LOL maybe I should say how I really feel LOLOL,.

I live in a place now where, I can go buy a gun today have it home within and hour and go shoot. There is a background that requires ID but that is it. It requires nothing more then a form that I say I am a good guy they check it at the state police and hand me the gun usually hour or less from the time I pay. For me that is too loose and not regulated enough. Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

01-03-13  08:42am - 690 days #79
Cybertoad (104)
Active User



Posts: 2,084
Registered: Jan 01, '08
Location: Wash
Originally Posted by turboshaft:


A .22LR can be lethal out to a range farther than most weapons that shoot it are even sighted for, especially considering it's now really only intended for short range target practice.


Weird off topic in a porn forum, yes you are correct, 22 can be high velocity depending on ammo can exit a rifle at about 1600 FPS, a bb gun in example is average around a thousand and a 45 is slight over that as well. I do get what you are saying TS, however a 22 does not have the design to hold that velocity more then about 100-200 feet in an open range. Bullets fired from a rifle will have more energy than similar bullets fired from a handgun. More powder can also be used in rifle cartridges because the bullet chambers can be designed to withstand greater pressures which is where hypervelocity 22 etc come from. If a person was shot by a 22 at 300ft the bullet most likely would hurt but would have lost 70% of its energy and would barely break the skin leaving to hit at the speed of a bb gun. An SKS as an example with a 223 round at 300 feet carries nearly all its energy and could pierce a 57 chevys door a 22 could no at that range.

Bullets have allot to do with with ammo and whether is a rifle or handgun and then Bullet grain x velocity divided by the distance will equal energy at target. I only posted all this as a 22 is dangerous but any firearm is going to vary greatly depending on these factors.

I would say a 17 why smaller then a 22 has a bullet design and mass enough to penetrate ( I said penetrate in a porn forum LOL ) skin at 300 feet easily. They are pointed not round bullets and are hyper-velocity and travel at extreme speeds.
Kinda scary for a bullet only weighing 30gr as a opposed to say a 40 caliber at 186gr . Gone For Awhile ! Be Safe !

01-03-13  04:01pm - 689 days #80
turboshaft (24)
Active User

Posts: 1,951
Registered: Apr 01, '08
Originally Posted by Cybertoad:


I guess it boils down to I am for regulations, not restraints which California sounds like the latter.
I left that state years ago after being a homegrown original as the state was ruined in my opinion by way over regulating and taxing the hell outta people. I have a 64 Chevy Impala with a corvette engine in it. Cost me in fees alone $450 a year to drive it. They forced me to have a car smogged that never had smog in it. The state braininess, just picked years and never even checked on what cars and trucks were exempt or should be. Registration on my newer car was over 300 a year 20 years ago. I used to love that state now it just a regulated to death fucked up state.
LOL maybe I should say how I really feel LOLOL,.


Yeah, stop holding back.

They have some asinine regulations relating to the ownership of pickups, which are all required to be registered as commercial vehicles even if they actually aren't used for this purpose. The problem is that requires the owner to pay an additional annual weight-based fee beyond the registration. So a heavy truck, like a dump truck, could be hundreds of dollars, while a light pickup truck could be about $10 (though you also have to pay to get it weighed somewhere if it's imported into the state).

It's little but still nonsensical. There are SUVs, even large sedans, that weigh more and don't pay this fee and can ultimately have worse gas mileage and theoretically do more damage to the road (if either of these are the reason behind the specific fee).

I see the irritation as the seeming randomness of regulations and laws that confuse the hell out of citizens and don't get much in the way of positive results behind incremental bits of revenue--a main goal of pretty much every government, especially one with a population the size of California.

Worse, I believe these open up loopholes to people who have the means to skirt, if not actually break, the laws and exploit the resources of people who can't easily work around them. The biggest known example of this is all the accounting magic tricks bigger corporations perform in order to avoid paying every penny of taxes they can find. And it's all over the place, from gun laws to "decency" and "safety" laws that affect our love of porn. It's not that I'm against regulation, it's just that regulation needs to strong and effective, not feel good and superficial.

Just my cynical . "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove

01-03-13  04:15pm - 689 days #81
Capn (28)
Active User



Posts: 1,699
Registered: Sep 05, '09
Location: Near the Beer!
I think with the current economical climate, any government is grabbing cash wherever they can without any serious considereation of any valid justification.

It is just they way things are at the moment.

Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU Award
Hilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award
( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/
Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder!

51-81 of 81 Posts < Previous Page 1 Page 2
 
Thread Nav :  Refresh Page  |   First Post  |   Last Post  |   Porn Forum Home


Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

Protecting Minors
We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.

DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.

To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP!  We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction?  We recommend this helpful resource.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.04 seconds.