Be a Supporter!

Gun confiscation

  • 5,099 Views
  • 218 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 02:55 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 10:40 AM, morefngdbs wrote: So at least in this case .... registration did not lead to confiscation.

Furthermore, as I can see, the Canadian government is not so quick to tyrannical actions.

The US government is frequently controlling, tyrannical and violent. And when nations like that go down this road, it leads to bad, bad shit.

You guys have n reason to need guns to protect yourselves from your government, as it seems to be fairly tame. Germans in the 1930s needed guns. Russians in the USSR needed guns. The Chinese citizenry during the Cultural Revolution, needed guns. We need guns.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 06:02 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 02:51 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/2/13 10:40 AM, morefngdbs wrote:
So at least in this case .... registration did not lead to confiscation.
Maybe so....but it's fucking Canada.

;;;
Yes, so what has that to do with anything ?

We did have a periood in the last 10- 12 years where they restricted automatic guns & you had to turn those in & or prove they were unfirable.

They also made large magazines illegal.

BUt in comparison tho the USA ...we've got around 38 million people spread out across a pretty large chunk of realestate !
Although the majority of people live within 100 miles of the USA border with Canada . I live a bit further away from the nearest border than that ! (about 300 miles if I drive to Yarmouth & take a boat to Maine & around 300 miles to drive to Calais Maine)


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 2nd, 2013 @ 07:56 PM Reply

At 12/31/12 06:25 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
... 2) Historically, registration laws ALWAYS lead to confiscation

Canada HAD gun registration...did not lead to confiscation. All it did was show how ineffective and expensive gun registration is.

That's why they got rid of it.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
YomToxic
YomToxic
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 23
Game Developer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 3rd, 2013 @ 10:07 AM Reply

Sure, they can confiscate your guns.

But you know, there's this methodology called gunsmithing. If people don't have access to legally purchased guns, they will buy illegal firearms and zip-guns to defend themselves from armed criminals.

Welcome to America, and happy hunting!

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 3rd, 2013 @ 04:40 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 07:56 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 12/31/12 06:25 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
... 2) Historically, registration laws ALWAYS lead to confiscation
Canada HAD gun registration...did not lead to confiscation. All it did was show how ineffective and expensive gun registration is.

That's why they got rid of it.

;;;
It was really expensive over 2 billion dollars ..that's a lot of money in a country with only 37 million people. Plus it never accomplished the goal of making firearm crime lessen.

Seems the damn criminals ...wouldn't register their guns.
Refused to go through legal avenues to acquire guns.

So the entire exercise was a complete waste of time & MONEY

I'm not sure if that's why they got rid of it though. Seems (at least to my view) that it was really a political move.
The Coinservative Party kept telling anyone they could ...vote for us & we'll get rid of the gun registration.

Many people figured it would all just go back to the way it was 11 or 12 years ago.
But it didn't.
Now you have to have a permit to buy & or sell guns, & you can't keep your guns if you are caught with them & you've let your permit to acquire expire. Ammo cannot be purchased as it was before unless you can provide proof of passing course .
The only thing they got rid of was the central data base of peoples legal firearms . Which never had info on criminal possession . Which never had a real account of the guns in the country.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

AuggyDoggy
AuggyDoggy
  • Member since: Dec. 25, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 5th, 2013 @ 04:39 PM Reply

When guns are outlawed the only people who will have guns will be outlaws.


Death is come as death is go.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 03:08 PM Reply

At 1/5/13 04:39 PM, AuggyDoggy wrote: When guns are outlawed the only people who will have guns will be outlaws.

WoW
What an original saying you came up with there !


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 03:32 PM Reply

Feinstein is up to her old fucking tricks again she wants to pass a bill that makes the AWB look like childs play

*require current owners of firearms to register them with the Federal Government noting locations
*impose a $200 tax per firearm
* prohibit their transfer to other people
*require that those weapons be forfeited and destroyed upon the ownersâEUTM deaths.
*The guns would be registered (presumably, like machine guns, subject to periodic inspections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) *FUCK THE ATF*
*And ownership of the gun would apparently be contingent on a local judge or chief law enforcement officer approving that ownership--with the official in question not required to provide that approval, or even a reason for disapproval.

Failure to meet any of these requirements would be grounds for confiscation.

Proteas
Proteas
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 05:44 PM Reply

At 1/2/13 06:02 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 1/2/13 02:51 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Maybe so....but it's fucking Canada.
;;;
Yes, so what has that to do with anything ?

Well, as you have so often explained, you have to get proper permission and permits from local authorities before you can transport your guns anywhere. You have your guns, but you run the risk of prison for failing to have the proper paperwork filled out.

Your government just doesn't trust you, period.

At 1/7/13 03:32 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Feinstein is up to her old fucking tricks again she wants to pass a bill that makes the AWB look like childs play

Seeing as how there's a Republican majority in the house, I guess it sucks to be her, doesn't it?


BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 05:56 PM Reply

At 1/7/13 05:44 PM, Proteas wrote:
At 1/7/13 03:32 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Feinstein is up to her old fucking tricks again she wants to pass a bill that makes the AWB look like childs play
Seeing as how there's a Republican majority in the house, I guess it sucks to be her, doesn't it?

though with with the brady campaign and public opinion swayed who knows it may pass I mean the difference in the house is only by 33 members between republicans and Democrats and in the senate which is Democrat controlled the difference is 8 members. if it looks like its gonna pass I'm taking out a loan and going to start buying up.

Proteas
Proteas
  • Member since: Nov. 3, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 06:47 PM Reply

At 1/7/13 05:56 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: though with with the brady campaign and public opinion swayed who knows it may pass I mean the difference in the house is only by 33 members between republicans and Democrats and in the senate which is Democrat controlled the difference is 8 members. if it looks like its gonna pass I'm taking out a loan and going to start buying up.

I don't think it will happen, and here's why;

The banning of person-to-person transfers violates the Interstate Commerce Clause. If you mess with that, the repercussions will be far reaching beyond simply screwing with the every man, which is why no politician has ever attempted to ban said transactions. The law could be overturned on the whole, or that section could be struck down by the Supreme Court. In either case, the law would be rendered useless; what's the point of registering a firearm 10 different ways and tracking it's every move if person to person transfers aren't illegal?

It would also create a paperwork clusterfuck the likes of which this country has never seen. As I've already several times, there's 300+ million firearms floating around in the United States, and tin many states there is currently no standing law that states that the weapons HAVE to be registered with the buyer when sold. Now, imagine all the information that's gathered together when you buy a gun from a dealer (because you'll have to submit that info for guns you already own), along with any additional forms for the BATF, licensing and permits, and submission of paperwork to local law enforcement for approval and processing. It would take years to process all that information, in all likelihood taxing already strained law enforcement and government offices to process.

Basically, Feinstein doesn't know her decrepit twat from a hole in the ground. She's pandering to her supporters to make it look like she's "doing something" about the issue, and this bill will go nowhere, leaving us back at square 1.


BBS Signature
Elfer
Elfer
  • Member since: Jan. 21, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 38
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 7th, 2013 @ 09:45 PM Reply

At 1/1/13 02:25 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Well, SHE used the words Ex Post Facto...so maybe that cunt needs to learn what it means.

If she called it that (which I doubt she would, I'm guessing that this label came from pro-gun rights bloggers) then she's incorrect. It's not an ex post facto law, it's simply a law that does not include a grandfather clause. It's not going to retroactively punish people who didn't register guns before they needed to be registered.

For example, if a person manufactures a designer drug that's a legal analogue of a prohibited substance, then lawmakers catch on and make it illegal, it's not an ex post facto violation for them to prosecute that person for continuing to manufacture it or possess a large quantity of it.

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 8th, 2013 @ 03:15 AM Reply

At 12/31/12 06:25 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, Dianne Feinstien is currently trying to introduce a bill, that will require registration of all firearms and Photo ID's and fingerprinting for all gunowners. Dianna Feinstien's goal, in her words, is to "disarm all americans". And she plans to make this law ex post facto. How does everyone feel about this?

That's not confiscation. Nor do I immediately see how that "disarms all americans" unless she seems to think that it will be impossible for all americans to meet these requirements for one reason or another (which is silly as shit because I personally could meet these requirements easily).

Do you think this will pass?

Fuck no, the NRA's pockets are too deep. This is Feinstien trying to make a name for herself as a Don Quixote type tilting at that there windmill. Congrats to her because it's working so far.

Do you think it should pass?

Trickier question I think. I personally am in favor of more controls about who gets a firearm, I think putting controls on anyone getting anything that is (or could be) a lethal weapon is societally beneficial (it's why we license people to drive and why it's a good idea on a principle...and a ridiculous pain in the ass in other respects but I digress). I don't see why there is this digging in of heels any time anyone mentions more controls over access to WEAPONS, which is precisely what we're talking about.

Just two notes. 1) Ex Post Facto laws are unconstitutional,

Proof?

and 2) Historically, registration laws ALWAYS lead to confiscation

Proof? Because I have to register my car to drive...they don't confiscate my car if I don't register it, they just suspend my driving privileges and I get into bad fucking trouble if I ignore them and keep driving.

Yes I realize it's probably bad to respond to the OP two pages in but...it's late, I wanted to see how poorly constructed this was and chime in. Next time I'll do the work, swears.


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 8th, 2013 @ 12:52 PM Reply

At 1/8/13 03:15 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: That's not confiscation. Nor do I immediately see how that "disarms all americans" unless she seems to think that it will be impossible for all americans to meet these requirements for one reason or another (which is silly as shit because I personally could meet these requirements easily).

I don't know man...when the Chinese, and the Nazi, and the Russians required tracking of guns and their owners, it ended really badly. As for the "disarming all Americans"....that's a quote of hers.

Trickier question I think. I personally am in favor of more controls about who gets a firearm, I think putting controls on anyone getting anything that is (or could be) a lethal weapon is societally beneficial (it's why we license people to drive and why it's a good idea on a principle...and a ridiculous pain in the ass in other respects but I digress). I don't see why there is this digging in of heels any time anyone mentions more controls over access to WEAPONS, which is precisely what we're talking about.

Well, the thing is, weapons are what protects us from danger, be it a para-military police force, a Manson family member, a kid shooting up a school, or a petty thief at an ATM. These dangers will always exist. That's why cops carry guns. So, the question is, why punish or make it harder for people to defend themselves?

I don't understand the "oh a shooting happened! Better make it more difficult for people to defend themselves". I don't understand that mentality.

Proof?

Article I, Section 9, US Constituion No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Proof? Because I have to register my car to drive...they don't confiscate my car if I don't register it, they just suspend my driving privileges and I get into bad fucking trouble if I ignore them and keep driving.

I meant GUN registration. Sorry for the mixup

Yes I realize it's probably bad to respond to the OP two pages in but...it's late, I wanted to see how poorly constructed this was and chime in. Next time I'll do the work, swears.
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 8th, 2013 @ 07:15 PM Reply

At 1/7/13 05:44 PM, Proteas wrote:
At 1/2/13 06:02 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
Well, as you have so often explained, you have to get proper permission and permits from local authorities before you can transport your guns anywhere. You have your guns, but you run the risk of prison for failing to have the proper paperwork filled out.

;;;
Sorry Proteas, I either screwed up the explaination or you misunderstood.
RESTRICTED weapons need paperwork aka a permit to travel
Rifles, shotguns just need to be in a case & unloaded to travel. You don't have to inform anyone that you are doing so.

Your government just doesn't trust you, period.

Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

aviewaskewed
aviewaskewed
  • Member since: Feb. 4, 2002
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Moderator
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 9th, 2013 @ 03:40 AM Reply

At 1/8/13 12:52 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I don't know man...when the Chinese, and the Nazi, and the Russians required tracking of guns and their owners, it ended really badly.

This is a ridiculous reduction to oppressive regimes that America and the current administration (and even the prior one bad as they were) are no where near. You deflate your own argument when you start bringing such outrageous examples into the argument.

As for the "disarming all Americans"....that's a quote of hers.

I don't dispute that she said it, I dispute the idea that she can do it with this particular law because I simply do not see the mechanisms whereby that happens.

Well, the thing is, weapons are what protects us from danger,

Uh no. Not always. Weapons can in fact be the SOURCE of danger (I.E. people with weapons who have terrible intent). Safe neighborhoods like the small town I live in, with low to no criminal element are also a deterent.

be it a para-military police force, a Manson family member, a kid shooting up a school, or a petty thief at an ATM.

Police, laws, things like that keep us safe from those things. Yes, said police are usually armed, but guess what? They have to be TRAINED and LICENSED to carry and use those armaments. They also go through psych evals. Their not simply handed to them with a pat on the shoulder and a "best of luck to ya!"

These dangers will always exist. That's why cops carry guns. So, the question is, why punish or make it harder for people to defend themselves?

Because not all gun owners/possesors own/possess guns for protection and defense. This is a complete misnomer and it again deflates your overall point because it's dismissive of the bad, or other reasons that are more benign (collectability) that people own guns. If you want acknowledge the dangers and only the benefits, then you aren't really having this debate honestly.

I don't understand the "oh a shooting happened! Better make it more difficult for people to defend themselves". I don't understand that mentality.

Because that isn't the mentality and I think if your honest instead of having a knee jerk reaction you'd get that. This was a case of "oh a shooting happened because a mentally ill person got their hands on a firearm! Guess we better look into trying to make it more difficult for the wrong kind of folks to get those weapons". Which I think is a good thought, but a companion bill/study into getting the mentally ill BETTER and more COMPREHENSIVE treatment for their disorders would be equally, if not more helpful. That is sadly getting buried in the debate that's emerged over the gun aspects, which is perhaps what the politicians (many of whom are shutting down government run mental health facilities for budgetary reasons) want us to do.

Article I, Section 9, US Constituion No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Thank you.

I meant GUN registration. Sorry for the mixup

Again, I think it falls under the exact example I gave you. A gun is a deadly weapon. That is it's function, that's what it was invented to do. It was invented to kill. A car is only a POTENTIAL deadly weapon, it's primary purpose is a means of convenience from point A to point B, but if it is improperly operated it can have lethal consequences for the driver and anyone who comes into contact with him. We license drivers, and register vehicles. Why then is it a bad idea to license gun owners and register their firearms?


You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the senate. --Mark Pryor, Senator
The Endless Crew: Comics and general wackiness. Join us or die.
PM me about forum abuse.

BBS Signature
leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 10th, 2013 @ 06:07 PM Reply

All WMDs including but not limited to bombs, Guns, Tanks, Helicopters, planes, ships, subs, etc etc etc should all be removed from each person, machine, city, country, continent and world as there are far better and more efficient, intelligent and humane methods of oppressing and correcting would be shit disturbers.


BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 10th, 2013 @ 06:14 PM Reply

At 1/10/13 06:07 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: AHHHH

THE PRODIGAL SON RETURNS!

leanlifter1
leanlifter1
  • Member since: Sep. 30, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 10th, 2013 @ 06:19 PM Reply

At 1/10/13 06:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
At 1/10/13 06:07 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: AHHHH
THE PRODIGAL SON RETURNS!

Stop adjusting what you quote of my post please !


BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 10th, 2013 @ 06:31 PM Reply

At 1/9/13 03:40 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: This is a ridiculous reduction to oppressive regimes that America and the current administration (and even the prior one bad as they were) are no where near. You deflate your own argument when you start bringing such outrageous examples into the argument.

There is nothing that separates the US government from such regimes. They made of people who are just as corruptible, and potentially just as evil. To pretend that the US government wouldn't stoop to such levels is ignorant and foolish.

There's no reason to pretend like US politicians are somehow different than others in history....especially considering it's actions in the past 15-20 years (give or take)

I don't dispute that she said it, I dispute the idea that she can do it with this particular law because I simply do not see the mechanisms whereby that happens.

Depends. When people get afraid, they allow politicians to do fucked up shit. Case in point, Patriot Act and the Iraq War....or the first weapons ban in response to Columbine....hell, even post-WW1 Germany is a good example. When tragedy strikes, that's a perfect opportuinity for the government to take advantage of people's fears. Hell, Obama said recently after the Sandy Hook shooting "One of the worst tragedies in our memory. The country deserves for folks to be willing to compromise on behalf of the greater good"

When bad shit happens, people are more willing and susceptible to letting tyranny slide...be it invading a nation on a false premise, or committing genocide of an entire religion.

Uh no. Not always. Weapons can in fact be the SOURCE of danger (I.E. people with weapons who have terrible intent). Safe neighborhoods like the small town I live in, with low to no criminal element are also a deterent.

Ever notice how cops carry guns? Why do you think that is?

Police, laws, things like that keep us safe from those things. Yes, said police are usually armed, but guess what? They have to be TRAINED and LICENSED to carry and use those armaments. They also go through psych evals. Their not simply handed to them with a pat on the shoulder and a "best of luck to ya!"

You have to be trained and licensed and undergo evaluation/investigation (or a combination of the three depending on the type of gun), to legally own a gun too.

As for police and laws....well murder is illegal, yes? Didn't stop a lunatic from stealing a gun, and killing 20 or so elementary school students, did it? How about we make meth illegal too! That'll keep it off the streets, right?

Because not all gun owners/possesors own/possess guns for protection and defense.

EVERY SINGLE gun owner I've met, and that's in probably the thousands, buy them for defense, collecting purposes, or sport. In fact, I've only ever met TWO people who have used a gun on a person...one was a cop, and one was being robbed at an ATM.

Because that isn't the mentality and I think if your honest instead of having a knee jerk reaction you'd get that. This was a case of "oh a shooting happened because a mentally ill person got their hands on a firearm! Guess we better look into trying to make it more difficult for the wrong kind of folks to get those weapons". Which I think is a good thought, but a companion bill/study into getting the mentally ill BETTER and more COMPREHENSIVE treatment for their disorders would be equally, if not more helpful. That is sadly getting buried in the debate that's emerged over the gun aspects, which is perhaps what the politicians (many of whom are shutting down government run mental health facilities for budgetary reasons) want us to do.

Wrong people will ALWAYS find a way to get a weapon. Always. A crazy person will kill someone with whatever they can find. Hell, one of the worst mass murders in history used boxcutters and airplanes as the weapon.

There will always be crazy people, and they will always use whatever they can to hurt people. They could jump in a car and start running people over, go on a shooting spree, throw them in gas chambers, or hijack airplanes. You wanna ban airplanes because they get hijacked or bombed? Wanna ban cars? They kill a lot of people.

The only way to prevent a crazy person from hurting you, is having an effective means of stopping them. Taking away weapons will not work. The only way to stop a shooter effectively, is to use a weapon. That's why cops carry guns.

Again, I think it falls under the exact example I gave you. A gun is a deadly weapon. That is it's function, that's what it was invented to do. It was invented to kill. A car is only a POTENTIAL deadly weapon, it's primary purpose is a means of convenience from point A to point B, but if it is improperly operated it can have lethal consequences for the driver and anyone who comes into contact with him. We license drivers, and register vehicles. Why then is it a bad idea to license gun owners and register their firearms?

Anything can be a weapon. I could go on a killing spree in my car right now if I wanted to. But I don't. As stated before 9/11 was one of the biggest mass murders in US history. Wanna ban airplanes?

A gun only becomes lethal if improperly operated as well. Case in point, I've met many gun owners who have never even aimed a gun at a person. A friend of mine owns an AK47. You tihnk he bought it with the intent of shooting someone with it? And destroying his house in the process? No. Most guns, like the ones the government plans to ban, such as the AR-15, are bought solely for collecting purposes and sport shooting. Not even home defense, as you'd probably go deaf and blow your house to hell.

As for gun owners, they are licensed. If you aren't, and you use your gun, even to stop a person from robbing you at an ATM, you're going to jail. Also, all guns in retail stores are registered as well.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 10th, 2013 @ 06:33 PM Reply

At 1/10/13 06:19 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Stop adjusting what you quote of my post please !

sorry I just missed you sooo much!

OBAMA TALKING ABOUT USING EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR GUN CONTROL TO BYPASS CONGRESS!

this doesn't wreak of tyranny at all.. much less abuse of power for political and personal gain. though I just went to the bank to see if I could get a loan for 25K loan so I could purchase firearms and I got it at 4% for 90 months! One Million AR-15 Magazines On Backorder which is just dandy I went to every surplus and dealer site in my Firearms Bookmark folder and all of the AR magazines are sold out.
I really hope this shit doesn't happen and if it does it will get taken to the SCOTUS because if it violates District of Columbia v. Heller or any SCOTUS rulings it can be thrown out. though I have to admit that Obama is the Firearm salesmen of the year! he single handedly sold 5 Million+ firearms in the last few months and completely sold out all available AR magazines the internet has to provide!

so much for gun control if all those purchases go to the streets..

919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 10th, 2013 @ 06:50 PM Reply

At 1/7/13 03:08 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 1/5/13 04:39 PM, AuggyDoggy wrote: When guns are outlawed the only people who will have guns will be outlaws.
WoW
What an original saying you came up with there !

what an original comeback you came up with there!

it may be said all the time but that statement is TRUE


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
TheKlown
TheKlown
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 44
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 10th, 2013 @ 08:45 PM Reply

Dianne Feinstien sounds like the name of someone who was part of the Nazi organization.


I bleed Orange, Green, and Red.
Flyers, Eagles, Phillies, and Sixers.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 10th, 2013 @ 09:00 PM Reply

At 1/10/13 08:45 PM, TheKlown wrote: Dianne Feinstien sounds like the name of someone who was part of the Nazi organization.

agreed and her record doesn't help either.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 11th, 2013 @ 01:03 AM Reply

NRA: White House Meeting 'Had Nothing To Do With Keeping Our Children Safe' and we all know that the gun lobby will try vetoing it in the congress and senate and if any legislation does pass they will take it to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 11th, 2013 @ 12:52 PM Reply

At 1/10/13 09:00 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
At 1/10/13 08:45 PM, TheKlown wrote: Dianne Feinstien sounds like the name of someone who was part of the Nazi organization.
agreed and her record doesn't help either.

Disarm the citizens then the government can do what it wants.

WadeFulp
WadeFulp
  • Member since: Dec. 15, 1999
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Staff
Level 30
Animator
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 11th, 2013 @ 02:20 PM Reply

She should worry about making rape illegal in her State first, as some guy just found a loop hole in their law and got away with raping a woman.

Gun confiscation


Follow me on Twitter! TWITTER
Be my Facebook friend! FACEBOOK
Google+ Profile

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 11th, 2013 @ 03:32 PM Reply

At 1/11/13 02:20 PM, WadeFulp wrote: She should worry about making rape illegal in her State first, as some guy just found a loop hole in their law and got away with raping a woman.

Feinstein is a traitor to the country.

Feoric
Feoric
  • Member since: Mar. 20, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 02
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 11th, 2013 @ 03:36 PM Reply

At 1/11/13 03:32 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Feinstein is a traitor to the country.

Yeah, right up there with Benedict Arnold and Nancy Pelosi.

thegarbear14
thegarbear14
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Gun confiscation Jan. 11th, 2013 @ 03:39 PM Reply

At 1/11/13 02:20 PM, WadeFulp wrote: She should worry about making rape illegal in her State first, as some guy just found a loop hole in their law and got away with raping a woman.

She's too concerned with gun control as always to care about crime and victims of crime.


BBS Signature