"NY SAFE" passed in less than 24 hours.

[vert_this]

Abortion, really? Take your bible elsewhere.

As far as guns are concerned, there were ~8500 gun homicides in 2011......3x that number were suicides, why are those counted with "gun violence"

Still waiting for some answers on my pervious questions.

Oh and another thing look at mexico with the gun bans, nothing more than crooks and cops have em there and they are killing left and right.

Its amazing to me looking over something a year old 02/12 has where we are today pegged.

look@this: http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/ar...un-rights.aspx

[mrsleeve]

In essence I agree with that. Its never about safety, its about power and in the case of sin taxes they dont want to tax to be so high that everyone stops doing what ever it is, they just want to extract the maximum amount of money from your wallet.

Today its "Assault Rifles/Weapons" tomorrow it will be "Sniper Rifles" I have seen that written and uttered as of late. How long before we hear calls that we dont NEED a high powered Center fire rifle with telescopic sights on it to shoot deer??? After all its was scoped off the shelf hunting rifles BOUGHT FROM SPORTING GOOD STORES that were issued to sniper teams in Vietnam.

How long till my 300Wby with a 6.5-20 Zeiss on top (its new glass on order for it, though may be diverted to 300WM Sako project I am trying to track down), Or my Browning Medallion 7mmRM 3.5-10 VXIII on it going to be demonized as unnecessary and not having a sporting purpose because they are magnum calibers and have a scope on them and not fair for the deer??? Or my Savage Model 99 lever guns with glass put into the same category. Or my various shotguns because they hold more than 5 rounds and dont have much wood on them so they also serve no sporting purpose. Really they dont??????

Once they get one thing they are after, does not mean it will stop at that point.



Manic: Bloomberg came out yesterday I think and said he thinks there are too many guns, and too many people kill them selves with them, and all guns should be banned to protect us from our selves....... While he walks around with armed security every where all the time. Also included in those 8500 gun killings last year are the justifiable self defense and people shot by the cops in the line of doing their job. Why are those included in that stat?????

[vert_this]

Once they get one thing they are after, does not mean it will stop at that point.

Especially when the killing will continue with all the nutbags out there. They can then say damn we gotta get em all.

FROM MY COLD DEAD BODY.

[z31maniac]

Vert this, you realize I'm not in favor of the gun bans right?

I posed those questions to the left leaning members of the forum.

[mrsleeve]

and so the Resistance in NY begins. Large numbers of new yorkers are refusing to comply or register their arms under this new law including one State Assembly man.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14322-gun-owners-refuse-to-register-under-new-york-law

[CorvallisBMW]

So can anyone explain to me, in actual rational facts, how the requirement to register a gun infringes in any way on the right to own one?

[mrsleeve]

Counter to my normal Modus operandi on this topic with people like you, a simple one line response is all I am going to provide you with

If you can lose a "right" by not filling out a piece of paper, then it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government, owing firearms is not a privilege in this county.


Edit: think about that question you just asked, and apply it the 1st amendment and get back to me.

[2761377]

So can anyone explain to me, in actual rational facts, how the requirement to register a gun infringes in any way on the right to own one?

it's an existential threat to that right in that registration facilitates confiscation.

[z31maniac]

it's an existential threat to that right in that registration facilitates confiscation.

Yep, because otherwise, the gov't wouldn't be able to take the guns of overweight, middle aged Rambo wannabes.

If the gov't wants your guns, they will come get them. Don't fool yourself into thinking the military won't turn on the American people and don't kid yourself that you could stop them.

[2761377]

Yep, because otherwise, the gov't wouldn't be able to take the guns of overweight, middle aged Rambo wannabes.

If the gov't wants your guns, they will come get them. Don't fool yourself into thinking the military won't turn on the American people and don't kid yourself that you could stop them.

you (deliberately?) miss the point-

how can they take it if they don't know i have it? conversely, a registered gun will be the first to be taken and is a red flag to search for others.

why do you think they want to register them anyway? what purpose does it serve other than to make confiscation easier?

if you think you are insulting me with the rambo comment let me say that's a fail, too.

[CorvallisBMW]

Counter to my normal Modus operandi on this topic with people like you, a simple one line response is all I am going to provide you with

If you can lose a "right" by not filling out a piece of paper, then it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the government, owing firearms is not a privilege in this county.


Edit: think about that question you just asked, and apply it the 1st amendment and get back to me.

So why am I not allowed to by a surface-to-air missile or ICBM? Those are "arms", no? Why can we bar felons, rapists, the insane, and toddlers from buying guns if the 2nd amendment prohibits regulation?

The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment says "A well-regulated militia..." as in one with regulations. Do you think those 2 words just don't count?

[z31maniac]

Have any statistics to back up your assumption that harsher penalties reduce crimes?

How has the 3 strike rule worked out in California?


How does any of the proposed legislation keep guns out of the hands of criminals vs law-abiding citizens? Pull up gun crime statistics in Chicago, D.C. and England after the ban of hand guns?

The "need" argument is bullshit as well. I don't need a 420hp 160mph muscle car to drive to work every day either, so find a fact-based argument instead of tired anecdotes and personal feelings.

Again, Cale/Herb/Guevara/Darrin..........anyone?

[mrsleeve]

So why am I not allowed to by a surface-to-air missile or ICBM? Those are "arms", no? Why can we bar felons, rapists, the insane, and toddlers from buying guns if the 2nd amendment prohibits regulation?

The bottom line is that the 2nd amendment says "A well-regulated militia..." as in one with regulations. Do you think those 2 words just don't count?

If you would bother to read anything I post you know the answers to this already. 1 ICBM is not something that is carried or deployed by and individual rifle man now is it, there for out of the context of the 2A and is there for a red herring of an argument.

Regulated in the context of the 2A DOES NOT MEAN Compliance with many arbitrary rules, or playing army with your buddies in the woods on the week ends. It means you should know how to regulate your own weapons IE. load and aim and fire, repair and be well versed in general use and maintenance of your personally owned weapons. The fact that the militias are UNORGANIZED until such time as they are needed, makes your argument a foolish attempt to change the context in which that statement is written

Regulate: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <regulate the pressure of a tire> - Websters.

Good try again you fail

[iamsam]

Don't fool yourself into thinking the military won't turn on the American people and don't kid yourself that you could stop them.

Please don't fool yourself into assuming the US military will turn on the people.

Go ahead and ask as many active military people as you can, conduct a mass survey, see if you can present solid reason to believe what you said above.

[iamsam]

The "need" argument is bullshit as well. I don't need a 420hp 160mph muscle car to drive to work every day either, so find a fact-based argument instead of tired anecdotes and personal feelings.

Just quoting this for truth. Today I heard again (from a MI senator reply to a letter from friend of mine) the generic "need" argument used once again.

Not only is the argument irrelevant, but even condescending in principle, to tell someone else what they do and do not need.

I can even agree with the argument fundamentally, and agree that I do not NEED an assault rifle at this time in my life, but that in NO WAY should bear ANY relevance to whether I should be able to own one or not.