Guns

[Old Ridge Runner]

Not to mention that the Clinton ban on weapons was on looks also, liberal, sheezzzzz.

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

What is the function of the military?

 

[oicu812]

Not to mention that the Clinton ban on weapons was on looks also, liberal, sheezzzzz.

yes, the assualt weapons ban...in one stroke of a pen, turned millions of legal semi-auto weapons, illegal...why,,because thet LOOKED like assualt weapons..the stupid people passed a law to ban what they thought were assualt weapons,,but if they had bothered to check with the ATF, they would have realized what they were targeting was full auto, which had been dealt with in the 1930s..the ban included folding stocks, magazines that held over 10 rds., flash suppressors, {they thought they were silencers, already addressed 50 years prior} and any weapon with a bayonett lug, and bayonetts...that one made me actually laugh out loud..they must have thought there was going to be a rash of bayonetting comming...unbelievably uninformed, and misguided feel-good law that statistically did nothing to save lives{i assumed that was their intention} and only produced a massive increase in gun sales just prior to being enacted...the bill went into effect in 1994, and allowed to "expire" in 2004 because nothing could be presented to show it had any effect on gun violence except to put more guns on the street..i kept all my sport shooters during the ban, knowing what a ridiculous farce it was..so, the legal weapons i had before the ban,,became illegal,,then became legal, again....no need to make this kind of shyt up,,,the ignorant politicians do it all for us.....

 

[degsme]

yes, the assualt weapons ban...in one stroke of a pen, turned millions of legal semi-auto weapons, illegal...why,,because thet LOOKED like assualt weapons..the stupid people passed a law to ban what they thought were assualt weapons,,but if they had bothered to check with the ATF, they would have realized what they were targeting was full auto, which had been dealt with in the 1930s

Um hint... recent SCOTUS rulings eviscerated Miller

 

[oicu812]

What is the function of the military?

in a nutshell, to protect the citizens against all enemies of the USA both foreign, and domestic.....

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

yes, the assualt weapons ban...in one stroke of a pen, turned millions of legal semi-auto weapons, illegal...why,,because thet LOOKED like assualt weapons..the stupid people passed a law to ban what they thought were assualt weapons,,but if they had bothered to check with the ATF, they would have realized what they were targeting was full auto, which had been dealt with in the 1930s..the ban included folding stocks, magazines that held over 10 rds., flash suppressors, {they thought they were silencers, already addressed 50 years prior} and any weapon with a bayonett lug, and bayonetts...that one made me actually laugh out loud..they must have thought there was going to be a rash of bayonetting comming...unbelievably uninformed, and misguided feel-good law that statistically did nothing to save lives{i assumed that was their intention} and only produced a massive increase in gun sales just prior to being enacted...the bill went into effect in 1994, and allowed to "expire" in 2004 because nothing could be presented to show it had any effect on gun violence except to put more guns on the street..i kept all my sport shooters during the ban, knowing what a ridiculous farce it was..so, the legal weapons i had before the ban,,became illegal,,then became legal, again....no need to make this kind of shyt up,,,the ignorant politicians do it all for us.....

I don't think it was ignorance on the part of the Clinton Adminstration on the Assult Weapons Ban. I think that they really thought that they could ban all weapons and the Assult Weapons Ban was just the beginning, but the outcry of the people stopped the ban from going further.

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

in a nutshell, to protect the citizens against all enemies of the USA both foreign, and domestic.....

Exactly, therefore it would be plausible to place troops along the American borders to stop illegals, cartels and others from crossing those borders. As long as thoses troops do not interfer in civilian affiars, there is no problem.

 

[oicu812]

I don't think it was ignorance on the part of the Clinton Adminstration on the Assult Weapons Ban. I think that they really thought that they could ban all weapons and the Assult Weapons Ban was just the beginning, but the outcry of the people stopped the ban from going further.

the ban lasted 10 years and was allowed to expire because it only increased the number of sport weapons owned.

 

[oicu812]

Exactly, therefore it would be plausible to place troops along the American borders to stop illegals, cartels and others from crossing those borders. As long as thoses troops do not interfer in civilian affiars, there is no problem.

i have no problem utilizing the natn'l. guard for border protection.

 

[oicu812]

Exactly, therefore it would be plausible to place troops along the American borders to stop illegals, cartels and others from crossing those borders. As long as thoses troops do not interfer in civilian affiars, there is no problem.

AZ and TX wanted to use the guard for patrol, but the feds said it was not those states problem...

 

[BrianDamage]

We are in agreement....Heston was right. Guns in the hands of a bad person is a bad thing. Why does the NRA prevent any attempt to control that? Why are they against reasonable attempts to insure that background checks must be performed to transfer a gun from one person to another?

Because they pay attention. And they saw what happened to smokers. And they know that, if they accede to more regulations, they're next. Besides which, it's not as if there aren't any laws on the books, regards selling guns.

 

[degsme]

Because they pay attention. And they saw what happened to smokers. And they know that, if they accede to more regulations, they're next. Besides which, it's not as if there aren't any laws on the books, regards selling guns.

The laws have been eviscerated.

And if you are comparing guns to smokes,,, the NRA is in deep kimchi.

 

[oicu812]

Because they pay attention. And they saw what happened to smokers. And they know that, if they accede to more regulations, they're next. Besides which, it's not as if there aren't any laws on the books, regards selling guns.

rights are never taken in one fell swoop, instead by increments,,,one baby step at a time...

 

[middleview]

Cigarette registration a problem?

Because they pay attention. And they saw what happened to smokers. And they know that, if they accede to more regulations, they're next. Besides which, it's not as if there aren't any laws on the books, regards selling guns.

You can <cough,cough> take my camels away <hack, cough, wheeze> when you <wheeze,cough,hack> pry them <cough> them from my <hack,hack> cold, yellow fingers....

 

[BrianDamage]

rights are never taken in one fell swoop, instead by increments,,,one baby step at a time...

Exactly my point.

 

[Bo-4]

A lucid moment.. EXCELLENT MP!!

 

[BrianDamage]

The laws have been eviscerated.

And if you are comparing guns to smokes,,, the NRA is in deep kimchi.

Not all of them. And you're certainly intelligent enough to know I'm not saying that guns and tobacco are the same, but the situations are.

 

[BrianDamage]

You can <cough,cough> take my camels away <hack, cough, wheeze> when you <wheeze,cough,hack> pry them <cough> them from my <hack,hack> cold, yellow fingers....

Laugh all you want. That doesn't change the fact that I'm correct. The gun control lobby would have done better to work with the anti-tobacco lobby, so that gun rights supporters didn't have such a telling example of how one's rights can be nibbled away by ducks.

I have, and continue to, support the existing laws regarding gun control. And there's a better chance that Miley Cyrus will hunt me down just so she can give this fat old man a hummer, than there is that the NRA will ever see a dime from me. But I'll for damned sure be working against any new gun control legislation, because I saw what happened to smokers.

 

[oicu812]

Not all of them. And you're certainly intelligent enough to know I'm not saying that guns and tobacco are the same, but the situations are.

ban, regulate, confiscate,, all moot points untill the armed public willingly surrenders their weapons...didnt work in 94, or again in 2004..when they tried to extend the ban, but were defeated...laws are useless unless people obey them and the govt. can enforce them...

 

[BrianDamage]

ban, regulate, confiscate,, all moot points untill the armed public willingly surrenders their weapons...didnt work in 94, or again in 2004..when they tried to extend the ban, but were defeated...laws are useless unless people obey them and the govt. can enforce them...

They haven't even banned tobacco, yet. Firearms will be slower than tobacco, but don't fool yourself, it could happen. It'd be slow. First, it'd be a ban someplace that sounds entirely reasonable. Sunday schools, maybe. Then, 5 or 10 years later, no firearms in hospitals. Then, no guns in sports stadiums. Eventually, after banning firearms in more and more places, they ban the sale of new firearms to civilians. But not to worry, because you can still buy a firearm made before 20X0. Now, ask yourself how many firearms made before 1912 are still in circulation?