jdxj
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Colorado Springs
GUNS & AMMO
- Thread starter Skully
- Start date
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
I have a lot in Pinedale with water.
xj-grin
NAXJA Member #1096
- Location
- Colorado Springs, Colorado
Do you really? Pinedale is one of those pretty damn cool out of the way places... my Mom has always said she'd end up there, but since she's in her mid-70's now, my bet is she won't make it out of buffalo...
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
Yep, Dad bought in 1972. It was a massive rip-off development, but the landowners ended up with enought money from a lawsuit to put it a central watersystem. The name is escaping me at the moment. It's off the highway southwest of town. Till the real estate crash, it had actually appreciated enought to pay for it's ownership. I think it's down by 50% from peak.
Pinedale is only an hour from Jackson Hole, that is what is driving the land values.
Pinedale is only an hour from Jackson Hole, that is what is driving the land values.
Frank Z
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Colorado Springs
Still looking for one.......:bawl:
Gonepostal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- WY
Thats What i thought, Oh well might be a good time to move!atriot:
C'mon on up the door is always open.
jdxj
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Colorado Springs
DAMNIT just bought a house too
Gonepostal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- WY
Spent a year working out of there and packed into Winds from there a bunch over the years.....great area. Wanna sell it?
Gonepostal
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- WY
The best part is we keep our liberals on a list and we know where they live....lol.
DrMoab
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- The Utah Backwater
Jackson isn't driving land values. The gas and oil industry is. Pinedale is only 20 min from the Jonah field. One of the most busy and productive oil fields in Wyoming. You can't find a house, apartment or hotel room within 150 miles of that place. Right now there are man camps up there the size of small cities filled with nothing but RVs.
UnlimitedMatt
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Cheyenne, Wyoming
This one time, at man camp...
Im curious what you all think.
I am all for less control. But I am MORE for beter education and stricter penalties for those that dont abide by the laws. (example: you rob a liquor store with a stolen gun and you are a felon. You dont get to go home and wait for your court date, you do not get 15 months probation after maybe 6 months in jail. You go away for a long time. and you work your ass off while locked up to offset the costs you are creating)
I feel there are a LOT of idiots that own guns. A lot of people are very misinformed and act wild when they get a gun (look at the messes we have cleaned up here). There is no qualification shooting for a ccw, an any idiot that hasnt done anything wrong (yet) can buy a gun. While 99.999% of owners are law abiding and will never do anything malicious with their weapon toward another person, there is a good chunk that still commit crimes of lesser value if you will. All the damage done to our NF areas and trails is in good part to illegal/improper gun usage (yes, read the pdf on what is and isnt allowed, it has been posted several times as to what is and is not allowed in NF areas). And most of it is due to lack of education and it is hard to enforce rules to ignorant folks.
So educate. And educate well. How? A permit/license for gun ownership. Ya i know, a list right? You buy a gun at a shop, your info is no less "listed" than if you have a license. (the biggest thing is who does licensing? Sherrif, state, PD, FFL dealers?) But basically you have to past a written exam. Use, storage, care of a firearm. This gets you a permit. You can now have a gun in your hands to shoot. No permit, no shooting. (if your 7 year old can pass, they can shoot). Then you have to pass a qualification. I need to know you know how to safely operate and transport that firearm. You cant hit a barn with it? You cant buy one. You pass, you get a license. You can now purchase that gun.
Just like auto licensing, I have a CDL, Tanker endorsement, motorcycle endorsement etc. Your permit test and practical test are for specific equipment (revolver, semi auto pistol, shotgun, rifles, full auto.) The testing and requirements change for which type of "endorsement" you hold.
Then just like buying a pack of smokes, I need to see your ID. And if you sell to someone without that ID you are accountable. Just like liquor to minors...
No ID means no Purchase, No permit means no guns in your hands.
You dont have to register guns, or serial numbers, and you can get a license and not ever buy a gun ( i have bike endorsement but no bike). It just says you are competant with that type of weapon. Licensing would be no worse than fees for drivers license.
Get caught without you permit or license, just like a car, your ass is going to jail. And now when you break the rules about shooting/gun ownership, I can ticket you, because I KNOW you know better.
Granted there are ways it would need to be ironed out. But that is how I feel. Use education. It limits the idiots and holds people moer accountable, without limiting what you can own (unless you cant pass the test, in which case you dont need to own it anyway)
Thoughts?
I am all for less control. But I am MORE for beter education and stricter penalties for those that dont abide by the laws. (example: you rob a liquor store with a stolen gun and you are a felon. You dont get to go home and wait for your court date, you do not get 15 months probation after maybe 6 months in jail. You go away for a long time. and you work your ass off while locked up to offset the costs you are creating)
I feel there are a LOT of idiots that own guns. A lot of people are very misinformed and act wild when they get a gun (look at the messes we have cleaned up here). There is no qualification shooting for a ccw, an any idiot that hasnt done anything wrong (yet) can buy a gun. While 99.999% of owners are law abiding and will never do anything malicious with their weapon toward another person, there is a good chunk that still commit crimes of lesser value if you will. All the damage done to our NF areas and trails is in good part to illegal/improper gun usage (yes, read the pdf on what is and isnt allowed, it has been posted several times as to what is and is not allowed in NF areas). And most of it is due to lack of education and it is hard to enforce rules to ignorant folks.
So educate. And educate well. How? A permit/license for gun ownership. Ya i know, a list right? You buy a gun at a shop, your info is no less "listed" than if you have a license. (the biggest thing is who does licensing? Sherrif, state, PD, FFL dealers?) But basically you have to past a written exam. Use, storage, care of a firearm. This gets you a permit. You can now have a gun in your hands to shoot. No permit, no shooting. (if your 7 year old can pass, they can shoot). Then you have to pass a qualification. I need to know you know how to safely operate and transport that firearm. You cant hit a barn with it? You cant buy one. You pass, you get a license. You can now purchase that gun.
Just like auto licensing, I have a CDL, Tanker endorsement, motorcycle endorsement etc. Your permit test and practical test are for specific equipment (revolver, semi auto pistol, shotgun, rifles, full auto.) The testing and requirements change for which type of "endorsement" you hold.
Then just like buying a pack of smokes, I need to see your ID. And if you sell to someone without that ID you are accountable. Just like liquor to minors...
No ID means no Purchase, No permit means no guns in your hands.
You dont have to register guns, or serial numbers, and you can get a license and not ever buy a gun ( i have bike endorsement but no bike). It just says you are competant with that type of weapon. Licensing would be no worse than fees for drivers license.
Get caught without you permit or license, just like a car, your ass is going to jail. And now when you break the rules about shooting/gun ownership, I can ticket you, because I KNOW you know better.
Granted there are ways it would need to be ironed out. But that is how I feel. Use education. It limits the idiots and holds people moer accountable, without limiting what you can own (unless you cant pass the test, in which case you dont need to own it anyway)
Thoughts?
Last edited:
and because this was brougt up. The goal of it is not to impede on your rights. It is to make you a better participant.
You still get to have your guns. Now you are a well educated and trained gun owner. you are now better equipped to stand your ground. And as training and education would point to a sort of regulated training, like a militia. It would be even harder to remove your rights.
You still get to have your guns. Now you are a well educated and trained gun owner. you are now better equipped to stand your ground. And as training and education would point to a sort of regulated training, like a militia. It would be even harder to remove your rights.
YELLAHEEP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Littleton, Colorado
Gun ownership is an unrestrained Constitutional right.
Driving is a bureaucratic privilege.
BIG difference.
As I read what you've suggested...... you're suggesting gun ownership should be a privilege and some governing entity should oversee it for the protection of the public. It's still gun control. Why do I need a governing agency of any sort putting restrictions on my constitutional rights in any form? If you accomplish a national firearms safety training program to weed out the crazies and make everyone a safer gun owner...... Who's standards are we abiding by? Some bureaucrat stuff shirt who says I can't carry cross-draw because the program suggests it's unsafe to do so? Let them specify what ammo we can carry because that's what everyone gets trained with so there's uniformity among the weapons?
WAY too many opinions on what comprises gun safety. Way too many opinions on what makes a person "safe" to own a gun.
Remember, our Constitutional right to bear arms was specifically added to protect the American people against a tyranical Government....... The writers of the Constitution added this to protect the people...... FROM THEM! They saw the potential for a good intentioned republic to become a tyranical government because they had experienced it first hand.
I say nay-nay.
Driving is a bureaucratic privilege.
BIG difference.
As I read what you've suggested...... you're suggesting gun ownership should be a privilege and some governing entity should oversee it for the protection of the public. It's still gun control. Why do I need a governing agency of any sort putting restrictions on my constitutional rights in any form? If you accomplish a national firearms safety training program to weed out the crazies and make everyone a safer gun owner...... Who's standards are we abiding by? Some bureaucrat stuff shirt who says I can't carry cross-draw because the program suggests it's unsafe to do so? Let them specify what ammo we can carry because that's what everyone gets trained with so there's uniformity among the weapons?
WAY too many opinions on what comprises gun safety. Way too many opinions on what makes a person "safe" to own a gun.
Remember, our Constitutional right to bear arms was specifically added to protect the American people against a tyranical Government....... The writers of the Constitution added this to protect the people...... FROM THEM! They saw the potential for a good intentioned republic to become a tyranical government because they had experienced it first hand.
I say nay-nay.
Last edited:
YELLAHEEP
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Littleton, Colorado
No waiting? What, the firearms education you've suggested becomes instant and downloaded into your brain upon approval of your application?
In order to implement such strict safety programs...... you're gonna create waiting periods.
Not saying more training and safety education isn't a great idea and very important........ but forcing it in order to legally possess a firearm? Nope.
I can see where folks would see this sort of program/control as a benefit in reducing personal liability to some degree too. But that'd get destroyed the very instant a properly permitted/trained gun owner looses his marbles and kills someone. All that would prove is the shooter likely followed the safety rules in shooting a gun and killed the person(s) he intended to shoot because he knew how to shoot the gun.
Last edited:
of the shooters. not recently. In the us in general. How many shooters were well versed in gun control and safety?
Why wait? I don't need CBI to look anything up. If something happened to disqualify me from purchasing, its preloaded onto my license. when they pull me up, the license shows suspended. I can not buy.
What in our current process is any different from that? You have to fax or pick up the phone? that's a lot of time for my mind frame to change...
Why wait? I don't need CBI to look anything up. If something happened to disqualify me from purchasing, its preloaded onto my license. when they pull me up, the license shows suspended. I can not buy.
What in our current process is any different from that? You have to fax or pick up the phone? that's a lot of time for my mind frame to change...
xj-grin
NAXJA Member #1096
- Location
- Colorado Springs, Colorado
Hi Mike -- welcome to the top of the slippery slope.
"reasonable restrictions" represents the political good intention that paves the road to hell. Every single left-liberal-progressive idea (so as not to confuse with classical libs like myself) on every conceivable subject has a common sense compassionate basis, be it "do it for the kids", "its for our safety" or whatever. 9 times out of 10 a HUGE majority of Americans will agree with the sentiment, if not the execution, of such ideas.
The problem is, every single one of these good-natured proposals for common sense reasonable restrictions -- be it on the rights of the citizen or the felon -- requires some PERSON (i.e. flawed just like you and me, at best) to sit in judgment of the citizen, and apply the POWER associated with their position against them to achieve that good-natured reasonable objective. But power corrupts -- that is to say that corruption seeks out those in power to accomplish the corrupts' own ends, and those in power inevitably give in to the lure of easy money and more POWER. So now instead of reasonable restrictions being regulated/imposed by a reasonable person, you have corrupted ulterior motives that have little to do with the original ideal, and everything to do with advancing some hidden agenda at the expense of the citizens rights.
It always starts small, and I'm just naive enough to believe that most folks who end up destroying our rights have good intentions to start with -- but it always spins out of control. The best analogy I can think of right off the top of my head is the ridiculous signing statement that the current fuhrer attached to the NDAA in 2012, asserting that he objected to provisions of the law that would vest the federal government with the authority to imprison and even kill American citizens without due process, but not to worry, because hes a good guy and won't use that power -- hard to believe from the mouth of a guy with a secret kill list and a record of killing Americans abroad with unmanned drones, no? But it is the basis of the entire progressive line of thinking: Big Government is great as long as you have "good" people in power -- there are no good people who seek power, and there are none who willingly surrender such power when acquired, and we therefore continue our spiral towards tyranny.
As to educational requirements on the front end of your exercising your natural right to defend yourself -- who should enforce those requirements? Government? What about when the "good" people become less good through the corruption process and use that same common sense educational requirement to gut the right in the first place and deny self protection to all but government agents because we mere citizens simply can't achieve the education necessary to safely defend ourselves? Surrendering your right to be a responsible gun owner without government oversight just because some other asshat isn't is not consistent with liberty. I have a natural, god-given, inalienable right to defend myself, and if in the defense of myself I harm someone else, I should be held responsible for that act -- but you cannot expect me to ask permission of some bureaucrat to exercise an inalienable right... it nullifies the right altogether.
There will always be criminals, there will always be idiots, and there will always be those that think the oppression of some will make others more free. Giving into an albeit rational and common sense idea that a little bit of oppression of these sad folks would be better for the rest of us simply opens the door for the next guy to expand the reach of that oppression to eventually engulf us all. The only reasonable answer to such questions is to advocate for personal responsibility, to exercise it yourself, and to hope that when enough people do, that education will start to take hold on the masses. /rant.
"reasonable restrictions" represents the political good intention that paves the road to hell. Every single left-liberal-progressive idea (so as not to confuse with classical libs like myself) on every conceivable subject has a common sense compassionate basis, be it "do it for the kids", "its for our safety" or whatever. 9 times out of 10 a HUGE majority of Americans will agree with the sentiment, if not the execution, of such ideas.
The problem is, every single one of these good-natured proposals for common sense reasonable restrictions -- be it on the rights of the citizen or the felon -- requires some PERSON (i.e. flawed just like you and me, at best) to sit in judgment of the citizen, and apply the POWER associated with their position against them to achieve that good-natured reasonable objective. But power corrupts -- that is to say that corruption seeks out those in power to accomplish the corrupts' own ends, and those in power inevitably give in to the lure of easy money and more POWER. So now instead of reasonable restrictions being regulated/imposed by a reasonable person, you have corrupted ulterior motives that have little to do with the original ideal, and everything to do with advancing some hidden agenda at the expense of the citizens rights.
It always starts small, and I'm just naive enough to believe that most folks who end up destroying our rights have good intentions to start with -- but it always spins out of control. The best analogy I can think of right off the top of my head is the ridiculous signing statement that the current fuhrer attached to the NDAA in 2012, asserting that he objected to provisions of the law that would vest the federal government with the authority to imprison and even kill American citizens without due process, but not to worry, because hes a good guy and won't use that power -- hard to believe from the mouth of a guy with a secret kill list and a record of killing Americans abroad with unmanned drones, no? But it is the basis of the entire progressive line of thinking: Big Government is great as long as you have "good" people in power -- there are no good people who seek power, and there are none who willingly surrender such power when acquired, and we therefore continue our spiral towards tyranny.
As to educational requirements on the front end of your exercising your natural right to defend yourself -- who should enforce those requirements? Government? What about when the "good" people become less good through the corruption process and use that same common sense educational requirement to gut the right in the first place and deny self protection to all but government agents because we mere citizens simply can't achieve the education necessary to safely defend ourselves? Surrendering your right to be a responsible gun owner without government oversight just because some other asshat isn't is not consistent with liberty. I have a natural, god-given, inalienable right to defend myself, and if in the defense of myself I harm someone else, I should be held responsible for that act -- but you cannot expect me to ask permission of some bureaucrat to exercise an inalienable right... it nullifies the right altogether.
There will always be criminals, there will always be idiots, and there will always be those that think the oppression of some will make others more free. Giving into an albeit rational and common sense idea that a little bit of oppression of these sad folks would be better for the rest of us simply opens the door for the next guy to expand the reach of that oppression to eventually engulf us all. The only reasonable answer to such questions is to advocate for personal responsibility, to exercise it yourself, and to hope that when enough people do, that education will start to take hold on the masses. /rant.
