gun control

DoingHomework · **Joined:** Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am **Posts:** 4487

iDude wrote:

Oh, and speaking of home remedies:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenbe ... -gun-laws/

But that's silly. If manufacture and possession of magazines is prohibited, the particular manufacturing process used (3D printing) is irrelevent. It's a little like growing your own marijuana. Just because it came from your garden does not make it any more legal.

Tightwad · **Joined:** Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:15 pm **Posts:** 955

How about we just ban all the morons & idiots in the world from breeding?

Problem solved! :lol:

iDude · **Joined:** Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:39 am **Posts:** 53

DoingHomework wrote:

iDude wrote:

Oh, and speaking of home remedies:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenbe ... -gun-laws/

But that's silly. If manufacture and possession of magazines is prohibited, the particular manufacturing process used (3D printing) is irrelevent. It's a little like growing your own marijuana. Just because it came from your garden does not make it any more legal.

Who said possession of 10+ cap magazines would be illegal? It wasn't with the '94 AWB. Or at any rate, "pre-ban" magazines were legal to possess, and there wasn't any way to tell the difference.

LeRainDrop · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:53 am

Tightwad wrote:

How about we just ban all the morons & idiots in the world from breeding?

I support this! And don't let them vote either

bpgui · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:04 pm

LeRainDrop wrote:

Tightwad wrote:

How about we just ban all the morons & idiots in the world from breeding?

I support this! And don't let them vote either

Too bad the morons & idiots in office would be the ones determining who the morons & idiots are.

DoingHomework · **Joined:** Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:01 am **Posts:** 4487

Tightwad wrote:

How about we just ban all the morons & idiots in the world from breeding?

Problem solved! :lol:

You've got my vote. Wait, you're not a moron are you?

Tightwad · **Joined:** Mon Nov 01, 2010 5:15 pm **Posts:** 955

DoingHomework wrote:

Tightwad wrote:

How about we just ban all the morons & idiots in the world from breeding?

Problem solved! :lol:

You've got my vote. Wait, you're not a moron are you?

Only when I'm getting on my wife's nerves!

N2Deep · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:13 pm

DoingHomework wrote:

I don't think most politicians are aware of much at all based on the idiotic things they say to get morons to vote for them.

You sir are exactly 100% correct

N2Deep · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:23 pm

The state of NY is trying to be the one that starts the next American Revolution

Quote:

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo unveiled his proposal to bolster the state's gun laws late Monday after weeks of behind-the-scenes negotiations with legislative leaders, with a full ban on assault weapons slated to take effect as soon as it is passed.

The Senate passed Cuomo's bill in a 43-18 vote around 11 p.m. Monday. The Assembly is set to take up the legislation when it returns to session at 10 a.m. Tuesday.

Cuomo's bill — named the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, or NY SAFE — would enact a number of new measures, including a ban of all magazines that hold more than seven rounds and universal background checks for all gun sales, regardless if they are private, person-to-person sales.

"We're not looking to demonize gun owners," Cuomo said. "Gun owners have done nothing wrong."

After spending more than three hours in conference behind closed doors Monday afternoon, Senate Republicans emerged and signaled a deal was imminent.

Assault weapons -- defined as any rifle with a "military style" feature, such as a bayonet or a telescoping stock -- that are currently owned would be grandfathered and would have to be registered with the state. Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and manufactured before 1994, which are currently legal, would have to be turned over to authorities or sold out of state within one year. If a magazine has a capacity between eight and 10, it would have to be retrofitted to only hold seven rounds.

Under Cuomo's plan, the state would have one year to set up an instant background check system for all ammunition purchases. Law enforcement would be alerted to large purchases of ammunition.

for the full story
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/1833271/

N2Deep · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:27 pm

Time to gear up... the state of NY has fired the first shot

Quote:

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a package of tougher gun measures Tuesday, soon after the state Assembly voted to bolster the state's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

The Democrat-dominated Assembly passed the provision Tuesday by a 104-43 vote after the state Senate approved it by a wide margin late Monday.

"What we're saying today is some of these weapons is beyond what we believe to be reasonable for purchase for New Yorkers," said Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, a Manhattan Democrat who chairs the state chapter of State Legislators Against Illegal Guns.

The new laws provide for an immediate ban on semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols with a "military-style feature," such as a flash suppressor or a bayonet mount. Guns that had been legal but are being banned would be grandfathered in, but their owners must to register with the state.

Magazines are limited to a maximum capacity of seven bullets, down from the current 10.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/1835785/

Registration is the first step to confiscation. Confiscation is the first step to domination. NY and anyone else that want's to try this crap can kiss my

They wanna fight... they got one.

ambition · **Joined:** Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:07 am **Posts:** 193

N2Deep wrote:

Time to gear up... the state of NY has fired the first shot

Quote:

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed a package of tougher gun measures Tuesday, soon after the state Assembly voted to bolster the state's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

The Democrat-dominated Assembly passed the provision Tuesday by a 104-43 vote after the state Senate approved it by a wide margin late Monday.

"What we're saying today is some of these weapons is beyond what we believe to be reasonable for purchase for New Yorkers," said Assemblyman Brian Kavanagh, a Manhattan Democrat who chairs the state chapter of State Legislators Against Illegal Guns.

The new laws provide for an immediate ban on semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols with a "military-style feature," such as a flash suppressor or a bayonet mount. Guns that had been legal but are being banned would be grandfathered in, but their owners must to register with the state.

Magazines are limited to a maximum capacity of seven bullets, down from the current 10.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/1835785/

Registration is the first step to confiscation. Confiscation is the first step to domination. NY and anyone else that want's to try this crap can kiss my

They wanna fight... they got one.

Man, I would have thought they would have confiscated my car long ago. So you're going to fight by voting for folks that will repel such legislation?

N2Deep · **Posted:** Tue Jan 15, 2013 10:39 pm

For those that think the American people have never stood up against a tyrannical govt in this country... apparently they have. This is part of our history that I didn't know until just now. This happened in TN and it's worth watching.

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/B ... thens.html

Bichon Frise · **Joined:** Fri May 04, 2012 2:23 pm **Posts:** 695

Feinstein bill is interesting. The main thing I oppose the greatest is the national registry. Good luck getting me to sign up for that.

VinTek · **Joined:** Fri May 04, 2007 8:14 pm **Posts:** 982

Bichon Frise wrote:

Feinstein bill is interesting. The main thing I oppose the greatest is the national registry. Good luck getting me to sign up for that.

Why? Yeah, I've heard the argument that it's the first step in taking all guns away, but there's really no evidence of that.

Here in CA, if you want to sell someone your old shotgun in California, before the deal can be closed, both parties must take the firearm and documentation for the transaction to a federally licensed dealer. I haven't heard of anybody who's been deprived of their right to bear arms unless they have a criminal background. That part seemed to have worked pretty well. My own guns are duly registered (they're just handguns) and nobody's tried to take those from me. I've registered my cars forever and no one tries to take those either. Why would this national registry be different?

Bichon Frise · **Joined:** Fri May 04, 2012 2:23 pm **Posts:** 695

VinTek wrote:

Bichon Frise wrote:

Feinstein bill is interesting. The main thing I oppose the greatest is the national registry. Good luck getting me to sign up for that.

Why? Yeah, I've heard the argument that it's the first step in taking all guns away, but there's really no evidence of that.

Here in CA, if you want to sell someone your old shotgun in California, before the deal can be closed, both parties must take the firearm and documentation for the transaction to a federally licensed dealer. I haven't heard of anybody who's been deprived of their right to bear arms unless they have a criminal background. That part seemed to have worked pretty well. My own guns are duly registered (they're just handguns) and nobody's tried to take those from me. I've registered my cars forever and no one tries to take those either. Why would this national registry be different?

Since you brought up california, I'll share my sentiments about the state. It could fall into the ocean and I could care less. And I don't really care what the california laws are.

Second, I'll preface the rest of comments by saying, I'm not here to try and persuade anyone in to my line of thinking. I was asked a question, and I am simply responding. If you disagree with me, great. If you agree with me, great. I'm not asking you to understand, I'm just giving you an answer to your question.

Onto why I don't like a gun registry. 1) It's the same reason I don't like the Census. I feel it is none of their business if I own a gun, what kind of gun it is and how many bullets it holds. In a lot of ways, I'm a nutjob and I do believe the gubimint would use this information to discriminate against people. 2) I feel they will eventually have a gun owner's tax, and if I'm not on their stupid registry, they can't tax me (yes, I would evade that tax). 3) didn't a newspaper recently get a hold of a registry of gun owners? While I don't have any definitive proof, my gut tells many were robbed b/c of it. I own multiple guns on the feinstein list of no-no's, all I want are those guns being illegal and my name listed on a registry as owning them. 4) I wear a tin-foil hat. My dream retirement is having a long gravel driveway where on one end s a gate with a 'no trespassing' sign and the other I sit in a rocking chair on the porch all day sipping lemonade and holding my benelli shotgun with one finger on the trigger.

At end of the day, I have all the guns I need. And I'll never put my name on a registry for owning a gun.

gun control

Who is online