Guns

[a6m5]

I think it's paranoia, but there is a reason for all those suspicions being pointed out in the video. Very poor leadership being presented by the Obama Administration, and how little faith so much of the country have in him. The current level of divide in this country is just unbelievable to me. I have wondered if the 60's in the States was similar to this.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Back in the days when they tried banning certain books that is how the FCC tried to defend it, but their ultimate explanation is that they own the airwaves and license out permissions to use them. Do as they say or don't broadcast.

It is why no FCC argument works for print, movies, music, television or games available in any other, yet equally available, medium.

If anything the FCC is a shining example of why you should never allow government to claim regulatory power over something new or something they haven't regulated so far.

To use the FCC as an example, if Feinstein's bill passes then banning more guns, and eventually all guns, is just a matter of adding to her list. Depending on how the enforcement is laid out that list could be altered by the ATF with minimal oversight.

No matter anyone's thoughts on guns, this kind of power grab should scare everyone.

Kind of the point we have been trying to make to you, no? This is the fear and for anyone who thinks the U.S. Government can do no wrong, I am curious to understand why.

 

[Nicksfix]

The grandfathered ones will also be required to be registered too.

What grandfathered ones ?

I don't normally like Ann Coulter but this vid I found funny

The part about lib woman had me in stitches

Gotta love Ann for that one. 👍

i live in a town with no police department, closest towns with police are atleast 11 miles away... if you threaten my family or break into my house im not calling 911

Bravo, same here. There is not enough to call 911. Shoot that son of a 🤬. Then when you do call 911, tell them to bring the coroner along with them because there is a body lying there that will need to be officially pronounced dead.

I doubt they'll confiscate it. I think what they'll do is give you x amount of days to turn it into a police department, probably will not compensate you for it fairly or at all, or else you'll be a felon if they catch you with it. Maybe they'll set up a system so that your neighbor gets a reward for ratting you out.

I too doubt the confiscation part. However, if (key word) any of this crap passes, don't be surprised if it would come down to this.

A lengthy video ... about 20 minutes, but worthy of watching. Video

Another thing I heard is that it will be illegal to leave any of your guns to your children, effectively ending gun ownership with the current generation of gun owners.

I've heard and read the same thing. Hence why I have taken some of my pieces and "sold them" to my boy. The registered ones are not in my name anymore. If I die, they can't take them and my kid is the proud owner of them.

I really doubt the legislation will pass, in any form. There are Democrats who will not vote for it because they don't want to get voted out. Even these types of laws that have been passed in Colorado and New York are going to face Supreme Court challenges soon, and I expect them to be shot down as well.

Agreed. Yeah, it passed the smaller Senate Judiciary, but when it hits the big house it will be met with a lot more rebuttal.

Article

What I fear them doing is putting a property tax against guns.

Then they'll just make it too expensive for anyone to be a gun owner.

If the so called ban fails, I could see this happening.

Is an assault weapons ban just the beginning ? Article

This. Oh God this.

It will never come to this .... too much political propaganda out there.

 

[FoolKiller]

Kind of the point we have been trying to make to you, no?

Exsqueeze me?

Did I step into Bizarro World by accident while standing behind my copy of the Constitution and shouting libertarian philosophy?

 

[Slash]

It will never come to this .... too much political propaganda out there.

I don't agree. I think the threat is very real right now.

 

[hogger129]

Just heard Dianne Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapon Ban failed in Congress.

 

[Slash]

just heard dianne feinstein's 2013 assault weapon ban failed in congress.

yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nicksfix]

Just heard Dianne Feinstein's 2013 Assault Weapon Ban failed in Congress.

Indeed . We are not completely out of the woods yet, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Gun reform package loses.

Feinstein, put that one in your pipe and smoke it ...... 🤬.

I don't agree. I think the threat is very real right now.

Still think there will be another Civil War ?

 

[Slash]

Indeed . We are not completely out of the woods yet, but there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Gun reform package loses.

Feinstein, put that one in your pipe and smoke it ...... 🤬.



Still think there will be another Civil War ?

Perhaps, but not at the immediate moment.

 

[a6m5]

Boy, that is great news. 👍

For me, the quote of the day from Nick's article:

" understand, going back to the day she found the mayor dead in his office having been killed, how strongly she feels about that. I know that.

She wants to ban guns, because she was victimized by one? How about the guns that keep her & her family safe? She may not be a sixth grader, but she possesses some of their logic.

 

[Nicksfix]

I like these quotes from the article.

Feinstein said, unable to mask her disappointment.

I would have generously given $100 to see the look on her face when the decision was reached.

That's the problem with this place, that, you know, the gun lobby is inordinately powerful," she said.

A problem ? The only problem is people like her wanting to dis-arm America. You just now learned this Dianne ? Ever hear of the NRA ? They are a little bit powerful ... huh ?

 

[arora]

Know your rights people. This story is so lame 👎

Good for the dad though 👍

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/...ap_familysaysnjoverreactedtoboysgunphoto.html

 

[Slash]

The dad did good. Glad he knew enough to not let the police search his home.

 

[hogger129]

Boy, that is great news. 👍

For me, the quote of the day from Nick's article:

She wants to ban guns, because she was victimized by one? How about the guns that keep her & her family safe? She may not be a sixth grader, but she possesses some of their logic.

It's not about safety and it never has been. It's about a monopoly on political power. No more guns, how do you oppose tyranny? That is the entire point of the Second Amendment. This whole "NRA is too powerful" is a lot of nonsense. They are there to protect our constitutional rights.

 

[hogger129]

Know your rights people. This story is so lame 👎

Good for the dad though 👍

http://www.philly.com/philly/wires/...ap_familysaysnjoverreactedtoboysgunphoto.html

Exactly why I refuse to use social media. Everybody sees everything you do on there.

 

[a6m5]

It still doesn't make any sense how they just show up at their doorstep with FOUR police officers. All because of a picture posted of a clean cut kid, big smile on his face, holding a rifle he just got for his birthday? Wow, Nazi Soviet North Korea anyone?

What's even more amazing is that they haven't issued any apology, or even a clarification on the matter. Everybody makes mistakes, and they are made everyday, we all realize that. But if it wasn't for the press, they were just going to play it off? Really classy, Nazi Jersey.

A problem ? The only problem is people like her wanting to dis-arm America. You just now learned this Dianne ? Ever hear of the NRA ? They are a little bit powerful ... huh ?

What an idiot. It's not just the problematic "gun lobby", didn't she & her idiot friends witness the gun & ammo shortage they caused in the U.S.? American people have clearly spoken, you'd know if you opened up your eyes, ears & paid a little attention.

It's not about safety and it never has been. It's about a monopoly on political power. No more guns, how do you oppose tyranny? That is the entire point of the Second Amendment. This whole "NRA is too powerful" is a lot of nonsense. They are there to protect our constitutional rights.

I'm just pointing out her flawed & hypocritical view. 👍

 

[hogger129]

It still doesn't make any sense how they just show up at their doorstep with FOUR police officers. All because of a picture posted of a clean cut kid, big smile on his face, holding a rifle he just got for his birthday? Wow, Nazi Soviet North Korea anyone?

What's even more amazing is that they haven't issued any apology, or even a clarification on the matter. Everybody makes mistakes, and they are made everyday, we all realize that. But if it wasn't for the press, they were just going to play it off? Really classy, Nazi Jersey.

What an idiot. It's not just the problematic "gun lobby", didn't she & her idiot friends witness the gun & ammo shortage they caused in the U.S.? American people have clearly spoken, you'd know if you opened up your eyes, ears & paid a little attention.

I'm just pointing out her flawed & hypocritical view. 👍

Yep, no offense taken.

 

[a6m5]

Do any of you guys remember the political climate before the Assault Weapons ban from 1994 to 2004?

After the good news we received today, I began to wonder about the speculations leading up to the ban, and also the reactions to the original ban. Was the proposal taken as a serious threat? Were they caught off-guard? Anybody know?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Exsqueeze me?

Did I step into Bizarro World by accident while standing behind my copy of the Constitution and shouting libertarian philosophy?

Sounds like it, though I thought you were libertarian at one point like me and others, after the last year election cycle I think differently and the post here that you've made point to that a bit. Unless you are playing fairness to both sides

 

[Danoff]

Civil war over what? The fact that our representatives try to pass laws that we, the people, have clamored for out of stupidity? I don't care if we are being manipulated by the media, we're asking for these things, and our congress is giving it to us. If we really hated what they were doing, they wouldn't keep getting re-elected.

No if there's to be fighting it has to be over the supreme court - which is supposed to prevent congress from trampling our rights. But people don't follow the supreme court, they get pissy about congress.

 

[FoolKiller]

Sounds like it, though I thought you were libertarian at one point like me and others, after the last year election cycle I think differently and the post here that you've made point to that a bit. Unless you are playing fairness to both sides

What exactly did I post to make you think I'm not libertarian? I have always argued less government, even to the point of arguing against speed limits and having driving drunk, by itself, not be illegal.

 

[Omnis]

Sounds like it, though I thought you were libertarian at one point like me and others, after the last year election cycle I think differently and the post here that you've made point to that a bit. Unless you are playing fairness to both sides

Go back and read it again before FK gets passive-aggressive on yo' candy ass.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What exactly did I post to make you think I'm not libertarian? I have always argued less government, even to the point of arguing against speed limits and having driving drunk, by itself, not be illegal.

Certain things in this debate that seemed more left than center is all, but reading back I can see how it is just personal choice and not really political choice. The Adam Corolla point you made, and how you defended it was a small example. However, just because you think it is a good idea to injur without killing, does not mean you aren't for defending oneself with a gun. At that time though with the political swirl, I saw it differently and shouldn't have along with your other quotes.

Go back and read it again before FK gets passive-aggressive on yo' candy ass.

I ain't scared does he even lift!!! No but seriously I'm more asking then just outright saying "yeah your this not this" so really guys don't take offense, but if you do I understand.

 

[arora]

lol Omnis and lm response

As a super right, so right and such, I sometimes wonder about the libertarians on here as well, not so much fk though. There are always differences as their freedom knows no bounds.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

lol Omnis and lm response

As a super right, so right and such, I sometimes wonder about the libertarians on here as well, not so much fk though. There are always differences as their freedom knows no bounds.

I'm glad to bring laughs, and yeah I was just curious because I wanted to be sure he was a libertarian. Just due to the fact that I would enjoy, a liberal (maybe a Feinstein or Cuomo fan) to hash it out.

 

[FoolKiller]

Certain things in this debate that seemed more left than center is all, but reading back I can see how it is just personal choice and not really political choice. The Adam Corolla point you made, and how you defended it was a small example. However, just because you think it is a good idea to injur without killing, does not mean you aren't for defending oneself with a gun. At that time though with the political swirl, I saw it differently and shouldn't have along with your other quotes.

I had a feeling that's what you were referring too. As a kid that had no problem getting access to my parents' guns and now a parent I can't imagine a way to safely secure guns from kids that leaves it available during an imminent threat. A gun ready to kill at a moment's notice is a gun that can kill by accident with no warning. And that is a decision made from respect for guns through years of camps with gun training, having passed a gun safety class required to get a child's hunting license, and owning a shotgun I got at 16 that I keep at my mom's house. Anyone else that feels secure in having guns in a house with kids is free to have them. If they develop the kind of tech where the gun only works for me then I will reconsider keeping them in my house.

And the fact that our justice system won't recognize self defense unless you go for a kill shot is ridiculous and puts many potential victims at risk. Having done martial arts I know incapacitation doesn't require death. Anyone using a gun without intent to kill needs to recognize the potential lethality of their actions, then you can hold them responsible for any bystander injuries. Non-lethal defense by potential victims shouldn't be illegal when we equip our law enforcement with tazers, rubber bullets, bean bags, and pepper gas so that they don't have to use lethal force unless necessary (or if you are two Asian women delivering newspapers in a vehicle that looks nothing like the vehicle the large black male suspect was seen driving).

But in the gun control debate the home security against an invader is more of a straw man that those who support gun control bring up, along with hunting. You see it whenever they talk about firing warning shots or not needing assault rifles to hunt. It deflects from the wording of the 2nd Amendment and focuses the argument in a way that makes tight limits sound reasonable. How you defend your self against criminals and hunt is a personal decision, but if you are able to defend against those who try to use force and fear to make us live the way they think we should isn't a debatable case in my mind.

And in a world where our government say they own any water falling from the sky, the electromagnetic spectrum, and your physical health I don't think it is unreasonable to think it could become necessary. I feel that reminding our citizenry of that is also important. They want to get their way via complacency due to fear, which is why every major loss of rights occurs after a tragedy. A school shooting is an opportunity to ban guns without as big if a fight and to get the majority to say, "Anything to stop the tragedy." It's how Australia banned guns. The same thing has been happening since 9/11 with The Patriot Act and the NDAA. To this day I still hear people say, "If it keeps my flight safe." We must remind people that the greatest threat to liberty is not the once or twice a year mass shooter or the once a generation terrorist attack on American soil.

The number one argument against gun control is to show statistics comparing annual numbers of mass shootings, terrorist attacks on US soil, and rights infringements by law enforcement.

I ain't scared does he even lift!!!

Nothing over 35lbs, and then with a hernia support harness.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I had a feeling that's what you were referring too. As a kid that had no problem getting access to my parents' guns and now a parent I can't imagine a way to safely secure guns from kids that leaves it available during an imminent threat. A gun ready to kill at a moment's notice is a gun that can kill by accident with no warning. And that is a decision made from respect for guns through years of camps with gun training, having passed a gun safety class required to get a child's hunting license, and owning a shotgun I got at 16 that I keep at my mom's house. Anyone else that feels secure in having guns in a house with kids is free to have them. If they develop the kind of tech where the gun only works for me then I will reconsider keeping them in my house.

And the fact that our justice system won't recognize self defense unless you go for a kill shot is ridiculous and puts many potential victims at risk. Having done martial arts I know incapacitation doesn't require death. Anyone using a gun without intent to kill needs to recognize the potential lethality of their actions, then you can hold them responsible for any bystander injuries. Non-lethal defense by potential victims shouldn't be illegal when we equip our law enforcement with tazers, rubber bullets, bean bags, and pepper gas so that they don't have to use lethal force unless necessary (or if you are two Asian women delivering newspapers in a vehicle that looks nothing like the vehicle the large black male suspect was seen driving).

But in the gun control debate the home security against an invader is more of a straw man that those who support gun control bring up, along with hunting. You see it whenever they talk about firing warning shots or not needing assault rifles to hunt. It deflects from the wording of the 2nd Amendment and focuses the argument in a way that makes tight limits sound reasonable. How you defend your self against criminals and hunt is a personal decision, but if you are able to defend against those who try to use force and fear to make us live the way they think we should isn't a debatable case in my mind.

And in a world where our government say they own any water falling from the sky, the electromagnetic spectrum, and your physical health I don't think it is unreasonable to think it could become necessary. I feel that reminding our citizenry of that is also important. They want to get their way via complacency due to fear, which is why every major loss of rights occurs after a tragedy. A school shooting is an opportunity to ban guns without as big if a fight and to get the majority to say, "Anything to stop the tragedy." It's how Australia banned guns. The same thing has been happening since 9/11 with The Patriot Act and the NDAA. To this day I still hear people say, "If it keeps my flight safe." We must remind people that the greatest threat to liberty is not the once or twice a year mass shooter or the once a generation terrorist attack on American soil.

The number one argument against gun control is to show statistics comparing annual numbers of mass shootings, terrorist attacks on US soil, and rights infringements by law enforcement.


Nothing over 35lbs, and then with a hernia support harness.

I agree with pretty much everything you say an the last serious part really drove it home, and why I feel that our rights not just 2nd amendment are being punched with holes like swiss cheese, thus not being absolute or directly on par with the times. I don't like it nor appreciate it.

Also, nice comeback to the "do you even lift" meme, quite funny.

 

[arora]

Caitlin Halligan's nomination has been withdrawn.

Some might not know who what where, lets just say anyone who thinks gun manufacturers should be held accountable for a persons actions has no place on a high court.

 

[a6m5]

Senate Republicans argued that Halligan’s work pursuing a lawsuit against the gun-manufacturing industry on behalf of the state showed her to be a “judicial activist” who would not hold a strict view of the Constitution. link

While this sounded obvious to me, you should check out the comments section on the actual article. Just about everyone there believes that Republicans are what is wrong with this country, and they need to be voted out. I couldn't find any comment criticizing Halligan for going after gun manufacturers for the shootings.

There were even commenters who also agreed that when shooters kill, someone else are also held accountable: Any Republican who would block a gun control....... I am dead serious. I thought Washington Post was a prestigious name, and they may be, but did their readers smoke too much pot when they were young or something? With that logic, I guess Henry Ford was a Hitler, Thomas Edison was the Satan. Infinity Ward(makers of Call of Duty violent video games), life sentence w/o parole. These people have real trouble with the fact that crazies & criminals exist. You can ban everything all day long, turn this country into Soviet Union, or just one big prison, and there will still be people who'll try to harm others.

 

[Zenith]

@WaPo qote

Sadly the Supreme Court nomination process is just as dumb.