RE: Feinstein's Bill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


imdoingitagain -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 5:58:53 AM)

I just absolutely LOVE how we are once again just arbitrarily banning weapons that have certain features for no other reason than that THEY LOOK SCARY.
I just hope that this time, you can find someone that supports this bill that actually knows what a barrel shroud is....




Yachtie -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 6:29:28 AM)

fr

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

[8|]




Owner59 -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 6:38:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
No, my friend who is lacking in this knowledge about me, that isnt what I am saying at all. If you can prove you took reasonable measures, as determined by law, to prevent the theft of your weapons, as I have stated repeatedly on many threads so far (and no one seems to read them, instead they just assume they know what someone's position is and ends up looking .. well.. TOS prevents me from saying that part), then you would not be held liable for not taking those steps.
In other words, a fine and jail term... for failing to comply with that law, not for what the "thief" did.
And, with a half a million - 500,000 - guns stolen every year, yeah, I think this is a pretty damn big problem, considering there are those who have come on these threads to talk about flimsy house locks to keep intruders out.
You people never heard of a security system? Gun safe?


And, Tazzy, we are back to that word again: reasonable. I understand what reasonable means to you. I know what reasonable would mean to me. And, not owning guns and, therefore, not investigating adequate security measures for keeping them, I can agree with the methods you have mentioned most: security system, gun safe, and trigger lock.

However, what I do not agree with or to, is having some anti-gun nut making the decision on what is reasonable, especially after a tragedy such as Sandy Hook.

As is the case with most politicians (notice the intentional lack of Party affiliation), an event is a great way to get legislation passed that otherwise wouldn't be passable.

Reasonable is also a legal term.

"Reasonable doubt","reasonable suspicion" ,etc.

It`s not a weasel word there for people to abuse or misuse.




LizDeluxe -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 6:42:29 AM)

Democrats are the masters of tripping over unintended consequences. People who would have never thought of owning a gun are now arming themselves. Go try and find a semi-auto rifle in the gun shops. Same with some ammunition. Even law enforcement is having a tough time keeping ammo on hand.




Owner59 -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 6:45:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

[8|]


Sorry but we`re not going for the lunatic fringe`s false argument that it`s unfair that law enforcement officials and the military can possess this class of firearms.



No one(normal) has a problem with them possessing fully automatic,hi-capacity weapons either.




Owner59 -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 6:46:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

Democrats are the masters of tripping over unintended consequences. People who would have never thought of owning a gun are now arming themselves. Go try and find a semi-auto rifle in the gun shops. Same with some ammunition. Even law enforcement is having a tough time keeping ammo on hand.

Says the party that lied/tricked us into Iraq......killing thousands of our GIs....




Nosathro -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 7:05:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
No, my friend who is lacking in this knowledge about me, that isnt what I am saying at all. If you can prove you took reasonable measures, as determined by law, to prevent the theft of your weapons, as I have stated repeatedly on many threads so far (and no one seems to read them, instead they just assume they know what someone's position is and ends up looking .. well.. TOS prevents me from saying that part), then you would not be held liable for not taking those steps.
In other words, a fine and jail term... for failing to comply with that law, not for what the "thief" did.
And, with a half a million - 500,000 - guns stolen every year, yeah, I think this is a pretty damn big problem, considering there are those who have come on these threads to talk about flimsy house locks to keep intruders out.
You people never heard of a security system? Gun safe?


And, Tazzy, we are back to that word again: reasonable. I understand what reasonable means to you. I know what reasonable would mean to me. And, not owning guns and, therefore, not investigating adequate security measures for keeping them, I can agree with the methods you have mentioned most: security system, gun safe, and trigger lock.

However, what I do not agree with or to, is having some anti-gun nut making the decision on what is reasonable, especially after a tragedy such as Sandy Hook.

As is the case with most politicians (notice the intentional lack of Party affiliation), an event is a great way to get legislation passed that otherwise wouldn't be passable.


then there are those pro gun crazies....claiming to be law bidding, even after the shoot someone...(their music was to loud, I felt threatened) oh the NRA was against gun locks.




Powergamz1 -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 7:08:01 AM)

You keep using that word 'normal'.. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Are you going on reocrd as being OK with mentally ill and criminal people having access to powerful firearms just because of the job they hold???? Because you are certainly aware that neither the military or political office screens out on that basis.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.

[8|]


Sorry but we`re not going for the lunatic fringe`s false argument that it`s unfair that law enforcement officials and the military can possess this class of firearms.



No one(normal) has a problem with them possessing fully automatic,hi-capacity weapons either.






Powergamz1 -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 7:52:36 AM)

"The dealer in most states wont complete the sale without insurance, bond or deposit. New Hampshire being the exception."

No matter how many times this thoroughly debunked line of BS gets repeated, it simply isn't true. They may not let you drive away onto the public streets, but they'll be more than happy to take payment in full, and deliver it no questions asked.

The government regulates the *operation* of vehicles in public, they do not prevent people from simply buying a vehicle and keeping it on private property. The DMVs write this up different ways, such as 'Farm Use' tags, or proof of non-operation filings, but there is no state in America where the police come confiscate your car from your private property because the owner doesn't have a driver's license.

These attempts to pretend that cars and guns are exactly the same thing, like other interent myths is simply anti-intellectual Kool-Aid. An apples-to-apples comparison would be *carrying* a gun in public needing the same sort of licensure etc. as a car, which would in fact make sense.




LizDeluxe -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 9:19:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59


quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

Democrats are the masters of tripping over unintended consequences. People who would have never thought of owning a gun are now arming themselves. Go try and find a semi-auto rifle in the gun shops. Same with some ammunition. Even law enforcement is having a tough time keeping ammo on hand.

Says the party that lied/tricked us into Iraq......killing thousands of our GIs....


Coming from a party that was busy getting it's cock sucked in the Oval Office.




LizDeluxe -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 9:23:13 AM)

They have little choice but to grandfather in pre-owned guns. I may go gun shopping this weekend. Help support the local economy. Obama and his minions don't realize how close they are treading towards revolution in this country.

If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?




mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 9:28:53 AM)

The inept teabaggers and their minions are scaremongers.

Don't pay so goddamn much for an overpriced fuckin 22.   There will be bills introduced, and much weeping and gnashing of teeth.  But this will be just like the primer shortage.....

No bill will pass.

The prices will cave.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 9:58:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
No, my friend who is lacking in this knowledge about me, that isnt what I am saying at all. If you can prove you took reasonable measures, as determined by law, to prevent the theft of your weapons, as I have stated repeatedly on many threads so far (and no one seems to read them, instead they just assume they know what someone's position is and ends up looking .. well.. TOS prevents me from saying that part), then you would not be held liable for not taking those steps.
In other words, a fine and jail term... for failing to comply with that law, not for what the "thief" did.
And, with a half a million - 500,000 - guns stolen every year, yeah, I think this is a pretty damn big problem, considering there are those who have come on these threads to talk about flimsy house locks to keep intruders out.
You people never heard of a security system? Gun safe?

And, Tazzy, we are back to that word again: reasonable. I understand what reasonable means to you. I know what reasonable would mean to me. And, not owning guns and, therefore, not investigating adequate security measures for keeping them, I can agree with the methods you have mentioned most: security system, gun safe, and trigger lock.
However, what I do not agree with or to, is having some anti-gun nut making the decision on what is reasonable, especially after a tragedy such as Sandy Hook.
As is the case with most politicians (notice the intentional lack of Party affiliation), an event is a great way to get legislation passed that otherwise wouldn't be passable.

Reasonable is also a legal term.
"Reasonable doubt","reasonable suspicion" ,etc.
It`s not a weasel word there for people to abuse or misuse.


Any proof to back up your assertion?




tazzygirl -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 10:28:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The inept teabaggers and their minions are scaremongers.

Don't pay so goddamn much for an overpriced fuckin 22.   There will be bills introduced, and much weeping and gnashing of teeth.  But this will be just like the primer shortage.....

No bill will pass.

The prices will cave.


Yep




tazzygirl -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 10:29:45 AM)

quote:

quote:

Reasonable is also a legal term.
"Reasonable doubt","reasonable suspicion" ,etc.
It`s not a weasel word there for people to abuse or misuse.



Any proof to back up your assertion?


reasonable adj., adv. in law, just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable

For fuck sake.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 10:45:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

quote:

Reasonable is also a legal term.
"Reasonable doubt","reasonable suspicion" ,etc.
It`s not a weasel word there for people to abuse or misuse.

Any proof to back up your assertion?

reasonable adj., adv. in law, just, rational, appropriate, ordinary or usual in the circumstances. It may refer to care, cause, compensation, doubt (in a criminal trial), and a host of other actions or activities.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/reasonable
For fuck sake.


There was a point to my asking, Tazzy, not just being an ass. Well, not any more of one than normal, anyway.

just, rational, appropriate, ordinary and usual are all also subjective terms.




lovmuffin -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 10:53:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The inept teabaggers and their minions are scaremongers.

Don't pay so goddamn much for an overpriced fuckin 22.   There will be bills introduced, and much weeping and gnashing of teeth.  But this will be just like the primer shortage.....

No bill will pass.

The prices will cave.



Did you forget NRA scare mongering ? If it wasn't for scare mongering some of this stupid shit could pass like in 1994. It certainly doesn't hurt to be vigilant.




mnottertail -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 10:59:39 AM)

The NRA has done more to fear monger and scaring people into wanting more restrictions for guns than any other lobbying group.  And the stupid shit wouldn't pass like 1994, that was teabaggers shitting their pants cuz someone shot one.





lovmuffin -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 11:10:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The NRA has done more to fear monger and scaring people into wanting more restrictions for guns than any other lobbying group.  And the stupid shit wouldn't pass like 1994, that was teabaggers shitting their pants cuz someone shot one.






I don't believe that. The NRA has done more to stop gun control. They won recently at the SCOTUS. They have defeated anti gun state legislation and promoted and won pro gun state legislation such as CCP's in most of the states that didn't allow them. If it wasn't for the NRA we would likely be down to muzzle loaders by now.




DomYngBlk -> RE: Feinstein's Bill (1/25/2013 11:17:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The NRA has done more to fear monger and scaring people into wanting more restrictions for guns than any other lobbying group.  And the stupid shit wouldn't pass like 1994, that was teabaggers shitting their pants cuz someone shot one.




Of course they do. How else are they going to get these idiots to keep sending them money? It isn't in the NRA's best interest to be reasonable about guns.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125