IGX

CA- San Diego Police Chief, William Lansdowne said in an interview that the implementation of new gun laws will take guns off the streets of America within a generation.

According to San Diego 6, Lansdowne said that it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban:

“Chief Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) association, said it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban legislation. Some of the items his organization is addressing include; a ban on assault weapons, restricting high-capacity magazines, closing loopholes that allow firearm sales between private owners without background checks, and implementing much stricter background checks by using a comprehensive database.”

Lansdowne called for tougher gun laws in an interview with KPBS, and praised President Obama for his initiative on gun control.

“I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has,” he said.

“I think it’s courageous with the politics involved in this process. But I think it’s goin to eventually make the country safer and certainly safer for my officers that have to respond to these calls.”

Lansdowne believes that the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut weakened the gun lobby’s power and has opened the door for new gun control legislation.

“We broke the NRA,” Lansdowne said off-camera.

Lansdowne’s position on gun control appears to be in the minority among sheriffs across the nation, however.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, sheriffs from Florida to California have stated publicly that they will not comply with any new gun control measures proposed by the federal government.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-wi ... en-streets

Second Amendment hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein have concealed gun permits.

A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.

Unfortunately most states – especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings – continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.

At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio’s Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF’s goal is to protect American’s from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer’s efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat – a right they wish to deny other citizens – met with limited results.

Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office — the investigative arm of the US Congress — slammed Schumer’s use of police resources for personal protection. It’s clear that Schumer believes he’s special. He wishes to ban private citizens’ ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.

“No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much – he’s able to protect himself,” says a 25-year police veteran.

Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an “unrestricted” pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it’s evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules — one for Americans and one for himself.

And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco – an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.

Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan’s swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That’s when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O’Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O’Donnell doesn’t carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn’t it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104

Batboy2/75 wrote:I have a prognostication for Lansdowne.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Police chief: All guns will be banned within a generation.

CA- San Diego Police Chief, William Lansdowne said in an interview that the implementation of new gun laws will take guns off the streets of America within a generation.

According to San Diego 6, Lansdowne said that it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban:

“Chief Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) association, said it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban legislation. Some of the items his organization is addressing include; a ban on assault weapons, restricting high-capacity magazines, closing loopholes that allow firearm sales between private owners without background checks, and implementing much stricter background checks by using a comprehensive database.”

Lansdowne called for tougher gun laws in an interview with KPBS, and praised President Obama for his initiative on gun control.

“I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has,” he said.

“I think it’s courageous with the politics involved in this process. But I think it’s goin to eventually make the country safer and certainly safer for my officers that have to respond to these calls.”

Lansdowne believes that the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut weakened the gun lobby’s power and has opened the door for new gun control legislation.

“We broke the NRA,” Lansdowne said off-camera.

Lansdowne’s position on gun control appears to be in the minority among sheriffs across the nation, however.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, sheriffs from Florida to California have stated publicly that they will not comply with any new gun control measures proposed by the federal government.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-wi ... en-streets

Second Amendment hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein have concealed gun permits.

A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.

Unfortunately most states – especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings – continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.

At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio’s Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF’s goal is to protect American’s from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer’s efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat – a right they wish to deny other citizens – met with limited results.

Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office — the investigative arm of the US Congress — slammed Schumer’s use of police resources for personal protection. It’s clear that Schumer believes he’s special. He wishes to ban private citizens’ ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.

“No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much – he’s able to protect himself,” says a 25-year police veteran.

Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an “unrestricted” pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it’s evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules — one for Americans and one for himself.

And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco – an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.

Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan’s swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That’s when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O’Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O’Donnell doesn’t carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn’t it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104

Beretta, the nearly 500-year-old family-owned company that made one of James Bond’s firearms, has already invested more than $1 million in the machine and has planned to expand its plant further in Prince George’s County to ramp up production.

But under an assault-weapons ban that advanced late last week in the Maryland General Assembly, experts say the gun would be illegal in the state where it is produced.

Now Beretta is weighing whether the rifle line, and perhaps the company itself, should stay in a place increasingly hostile toward its products. Its iconic 9mm pistol — carried by every U.S. soldier and scores of police departments — would also be banned with its high capacity, 13-bullet magazine.

“Why expand in a place where the people who built the gun couldn’t buy it?” said Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for Beretta.

Dan Martin wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Police chief: All guns will be banned within a generation.

CA- San Diego Police Chief, William Lansdowne said in an interview that the implementation of new gun laws will take guns off the streets of America within a generation.

According to San Diego 6, Lansdowne said that it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban:

“Chief Lansdowne, who plays an active role in the western region of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) association, said it may take a generation but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws like Senator Diane Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban legislation. Some of the items his organization is addressing include; a ban on assault weapons, restricting high-capacity magazines, closing loopholes that allow firearm sales between private owners without background checks, and implementing much stricter background checks by using a comprehensive database.”

Lansdowne called for tougher gun laws in an interview with KPBS, and praised President Obama for his initiative on gun control.

“I could not be more supportive of the president for taking the position he has,” he said.

“I think it’s courageous with the politics involved in this process. But I think it’s goin to eventually make the country safer and certainly safer for my officers that have to respond to these calls.”

Lansdowne believes that the shooting in Newtown, Connecticut weakened the gun lobby’s power and has opened the door for new gun control legislation.

“We broke the NRA,” Lansdowne said off-camera.

Lansdowne’s position on gun control appears to be in the minority among sheriffs across the nation, however.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, sheriffs from Florida to California have stated publicly that they will not comply with any new gun control measures proposed by the federal government.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-wi ... en-streets

Second Amendment hypocrites: Senators Schumer and Feinstein have concealed gun permits.

A recent poll conducted by the National Association of Chiefs of Police indicated that almost 64 percent of police commanders and sheriffs favor a law allowing private citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection. Almost 73 percent said that citizens should not be restricted from purchasing more than one weapon, and 96 percent say they believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources.

Unfortunately most states – especially those called Blue States due to their Liberal-leanings – continue to prohibit private citizens from carrying concealed handguns.

At the same time, there are outspoken opponents of gun ownership, such as Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), who are carrying concealed weapons, according to WABC Radio’s Mark Levin. Levin, a recognized constitutional expert, heads the Landmark Legal Foundation. The LLF’s goal is to protect American’s from unreasonable and illegal government intrusions and violations of the US Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

The mainstream news media have been aware that several antigun proponents are carrying concealed firearms but have failed to expose this hypocrisy. This writer’s efforts to discover how many other anti-gunners are also packing heat – a right they wish to deny other citizens – met with limited results.

Not only does Schumer carry a handgun, the New York City Police Department also provides armed escorts for the good senator. In fact, the Government Accounting Office — the investigative arm of the US Congress — slammed Schumer’s use of police resources for personal protection. It’s clear that Schumer believes he’s special. He wishes to ban private citizens’ ownership of firearms, while he enjoys layers of protection.

“No wonder Chuckie Schumer shoots his mouth off so much – he’s able to protect himself,” says a 25-year police veteran.

Also, a check of Pistol License records shows that Senator Schumer possesses an “unrestricted” pistol permit, a rarity in New York City. Licenses are distributed in different categories in the Big Apple: Target Permits allow only use of a firearm at a licensed firing range; Premises Permits allow weapons to be kept in a home or apartment; Restricted Permits allow the gunowner to carry their firearms concealed but only within the purview of their job (security, jewelers, armored car guards, etc.). So it’s evident that Senator Schumer has two sets of rules — one for Americans and one for himself.

And then we have Senator Diane Feinstein on the Left Coast who possesses something more rare than a conservative Republican in San Francisco – an unrestricted concealed weapons permit. Apparently without shame, she participated in a citywide gun turn-in program that was intended to create some kind of statue from the donated guns that were to be melted down. One of her police body guards let it slip that she contributed a cheap model for the meltdown, while retaining her .357 magnum revolver for her own personal self-defense.

Hypocrisy is not limited to politicians when it comes to the Second Amendment. For Example, well-known Washington-based columnist, Carl Rowan, often wrote about the ills of firearms ownership. Until, that is, he shot and wounded a teenager who trespassed on his property. The white teenaged boy claimed he wanted to try Rowan’s swimming pool. Rowan, an African-American, retaliated with deadly force using a firearm. That’s when the news came out that Carl Rowan, gun-control advocate, actually possessed a license to own firearms.

Another example is the loudmouth entertainer, Rosie O’Donnell, who once ran roughshod over conservative actor Tom Selleck because of his stance supporting the Second Amendment. Although Ms. O’Donnell doesn’t carry a gun, she has three armed bodyguards who protect her, her wife and her children, something the vast majority of hardworking Americans could never afford. Isn’t it comforting to know all these Liberals are looking out for us?

http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=10104

I know that fucker Lansdowne. He has always been a grandstanding tool. He's a professional police chief who is double dipping with pensions from two other California cities. San Jose and Richmond to be exact.

Police departments and other government agencies throughout New York state will no longer be able to do business with Murfreesboro’s Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Co. – either to purchase guns or have them serviced.

Owner Ronnie Barrett, in a letter posted on his company’s website (http://barrett.net/news/11), said he was taking the action because of New York’s recent passage of stricter gun-control laws in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre.

Dan Martin wrote:The whole Beretta thing is so convoluted that having them get cunty is laughable. When the US was looking to replace the 1911A1 as the standard sidearm for US armed forces it was also looking for strategic bases in the Mediterranean.

Of course there were many pistols submitted for testing and consideration, but...lo and behold, there are now US "bases" in Italy and Beretta got the contract.

Many will argue about the various what-have-you's concerning the 9mm/.45ACP debate, and they are all right. But of all the various 9mm pistolas submitted, the Beretta didn't perform as well when it came to longevity. (rounds fired before frame failure, etc.)

La dolche vita.

johno wrote:I have no idea what they would do if orders came down to confiscate weapons, ala New Orleans-Katrina.

DARTH wrote:

Dan Martin wrote:The whole Beretta thing is so convoluted that having them get cunty is laughable. When the US was looking to replace the 1911A1 as the standard sidearm for US armed forces it was also looking for strategic bases in the Mediterranean.

Of course there were many pistols submitted for testing and consideration, but...lo and behold, there are now US "bases" in Italy and Beretta got the contract.

Many will argue about the various what-have-you's concerning the 9mm/.45ACP debate, and they are all right. But of all the various 9mm pistolas submitted, the Beretta didn't perform as well when it came to longevity. (rounds fired before frame failure, etc.)

La dolche vita.

Should have been the Glock 17 or the Sig. I'd want the Browning Hi-Power, HK P7, or CZ-75 but I can see them not being chosen.

The Browning because it seems some people are to stupid or paranoid to carry a single action weapon cocked and locked or to know if you don;t you do not put one in the chamber.

The P7 because tof the 2 verssions the M13 (13 rd +1 in pipe) has a bulky handle and the M* that I ike only holds 8 +1 rounds.

The CZ-[would be a great choice as you can carry cocked and locked or with the hammer down and go DA but it's got Comm-Block orgins.

Trooper carried the Glock 19 in the 90's, a good choice for an officer or someone going plain cloths. I'd want a 17 if I was a soldier carrying a Glock.

All f coarse considering it has to be a 9mm.

We really should have kept the 1911A! and just bought new ones. GI's with anti 1911 strories were using old beat up guns for the most part and Colt made a shitty 1911 in the 80's and 90's. Springfield Armoury was the way to go IMO. A good gun and there is alot of tradition there.

Dan Martin wrote:The whole Beretta thing is so convoluted that having them get cunty is laughable.

Dan Martin wrote:

DARTH wrote:

Dan Martin wrote:The whole Beretta thing is so convoluted that having them get cunty is laughable. When the US was looking to replace the 1911A1 as the standard sidearm for US armed forces it was also looking for strategic bases in the Mediterranean.

Of course there were many pistols submitted for testing and consideration, but...lo and behold, there are now US "bases" in Italy and Beretta got the contract.

Many will argue about the various what-have-you's concerning the 9mm/.45ACP debate, and they are all right. But of all the various 9mm pistolas submitted, the Beretta didn't perform as well when it came to longevity. (rounds fired before frame failure, etc.)

La dolche vita.

Should have been the Glock 17 or the Sig. I'd want the Browning Hi-Power, HK P7, or CZ-75 but I can see them not being chosen.

The Browning because it seems some people are to stupid or paranoid to carry a single action weapon cocked and locked or to know if you don;t you do not put one in the chamber.

The P7 because tof the 2 verssions the M13 (13 rd +1 in pipe) has a bulky handle and the M* that I ike only holds 8 +1 rounds.

The CZ-[would be a great choice as you can carry cocked and locked or with the hammer down and go DA but it's got Comm-Block orgins.

Trooper carried the Glock 19 in the 90's, a good choice for an officer or someone going plain cloths. I'd want a 17 if I was a soldier carrying a Glock.

All f coarse considering it has to be a 9mm.

We really should have kept the 1911A! and just bought new ones. GI's with anti 1911 strories were using old beat up guns for the most part and Colt made a shitty 1911 in the 80's and 90's. Springfield Armoury was the way to go IMO. A good gun and there is alot of tradition there.

There is nothing "wrong" per se with the 9mm. The Beretta is just not up to being shot a lot. Having frame failure after 5000 rounds is no bueno. Glock's are plenty rugged and can be repaired easily.

I believe a certain special segment of the USMC just made a large purchase of 1911A1's.

Dan Martin wrote:

DARTH wrote:

Dan Martin wrote:The whole Beretta thing is so convoluted that having them get cunty is laughable. When the US was looking to replace the 1911A1 as the standard sidearm for US armed forces it was also looking for strategic bases in the Mediterranean.

Of course there were many pistols submitted for testing and consideration, but...lo and behold, there are now US "bases" in Italy and Beretta got the contract.

Many will argue about the various what-have-you's concerning the 9mm/.45ACP debate, and they are all right. But of all the various 9mm pistolas submitted, the Beretta didn't perform as well when it came to longevity. (rounds fired before frame failure, etc.)

La dolche vita.

Should have been the Glock 17 or the Sig. I'd want the Browning Hi-Power, HK P7, or CZ-75 but I can see them not being chosen.

The Browning because it seems some people are to stupid or paranoid to carry a single action weapon cocked and locked or to know if you don;t you do not put one in the chamber.

The P7 because tof the 2 verssions the M13 (13 rd +1 in pipe) has a bulky handle and the M* that I ike only holds 8 +1 rounds.

The CZ-[would be a great choice as you can carry cocked and locked or with the hammer down and go DA but it's got Comm-Block orgins.

Trooper carried the Glock 19 in the 90's, a good choice for an officer or someone going plain cloths. I'd want a 17 if I was a soldier carrying a Glock.

All f coarse considering it has to be a 9mm.

We really should have kept the 1911A! and just bought new ones. GI's with anti 1911 strories were using old beat up guns for the most part and Colt made a shitty 1911 in the 80's and 90's. Springfield Armoury was the way to go IMO. A good gun and there is alot of tradition there.

There is nothing "wrong" per se with the 9mm. The Beretta is just not up to being shot a lot. Having frame failure after 5000 rounds is no bueno. Glock's are plenty rugged and can be repaired easily.

I believe a certain special segment of the USMC just made a large purchase of 1911A1's.

cleaner464 wrote:Children, children - no one one will take your pop-guns away from you. However, the NRA will continue to take your dues and pump up your paranoia.

Now go do something useful; like preparing for a zombie apocalypse, or whatever nonsense you worry about.