Most law enforcement agencies are. Especially when it comes to NFA items.
Will the 15-22 fall under an AWB?
- Thread starter StlBluesFan72
- Start date
- Status
Most law enforcement agencies are. Especially when it comes to NFA items.
Biginge
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Godzilla,
You put that in print!!!!!! Send the guy that the gun was stolen from his closet to the federal pen? You have got to be kidding. The is my last post here.
Dikinalaska
Member
I don't take it as he thinks they SHOULD be sent to prison, I think he's saying you will go, so you might as well make the best of it. I don't know technicalities but I'm pretty sure if you were negligent in securing your firearm and that firearm was used in a crime, you can still be held liable in some way.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2008
- Messages
- 6,619
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 924
- Reaction score
- 2,929
Sorry guys, but.....
no law/regulations, new or re-visited will stop this kinda' stuff. Bottom line here is me & my guns have done nothing wrong. I will not turn in guns or mags, just because these idiots have a knee jerk reaction to another shooting. The NWO people runnin' the show are gonna try & take 'em anyway. They're gonna get 'em warm & empty. If you are naive enough to think this won't get bloody, you better wake up fast!
What really makes me sick is, why did we go to Korea & Viet Nam, then let these pieces of crud take over our country? My dad & his buddies gotta be spinnin' in their graves!!
There is a connection between the shooters in Aurora & Newtown.
Check out this stuff from Welcome to Examiner.com | Examiner.com
Ned
no law/regulations, new or re-visited will stop this kinda' stuff. Bottom line here is me & my guns have done nothing wrong. I will not turn in guns or mags, just because these idiots have a knee jerk reaction to another shooting. The NWO people runnin' the show are gonna try & take 'em anyway. They're gonna get 'em warm & empty. If you are naive enough to think this won't get bloody, you better wake up fast!
What really makes me sick is, why did we go to Korea & Viet Nam, then let these pieces of crud take over our country? My dad & his buddies gotta be spinnin' in their graves!!
There is a connection between the shooters in Aurora & Newtown.
Check out this stuff from Welcome to Examiner.com | Examiner.com
Ned
cyphertext
US Veteran
If someone breaks into my house, the guns were already stored under lock and key. I should not be required to keep my personal belongings locked up within my own residence. Why would you blame the victim of a burglary instead of the criminal?
cyphertext
US Veteran
How do you define unsecured? If you have to break into my house to access my firearm, is it not secured? Is it only considered secured if you have to commit breaking and entering twice, once on my residence and then again on a safe?
OldEagleEars
Member
The answer to your question is that both the Right and the Left are to blame for the disaster that is mental health care in this country. The Left embraced the concept that institutionalizing the mentally disturbed violated their rights and "prevented society from interacting with them and dealing with the situation of differing perceptive states". The Right wing jumped on this really quickly since it meant the States didn't have to levy taxes to build and run mental hospitals (besides, "..buncha them loonies was just loafers suckin' at the public teat!" The insurance companies loved this because they could charge sky-high premiums and limit coverages on mental illness and no one would notice. All this baloney did was to make it impossible for the ordinary family to afford much professional care for disturbed family members so many of them were left in the home and ignored by the nation until one of them goes walkabout with an AR and a pants-load of ammo! So here we are with 20 dead children and American freedoms about to be abrogated and all because the Left and the Right and the free-enterprise system all screwed the pooch on mental illness!
ParadiseRoad
Member
...unless Congress violates the Ex Post Facto clause of Article one...sections nine and ten of the US Constitution...existing firearms have to be "grandfathered" in.
...Ex Post Facto clause prohibits laws from being retroactive...in this case banning something that was legal before the law was passed...
CLICK HERE
HotRoderX
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 717
- Reaction score
- 348
I wanna start by saying I wanna cover a few different things.
First people need to calm down take a deep breath and stop freaking out. All this does is make us as gun owners look paranoid. Which is something we don't need right now.
My way of thinking is simply this other then extremely left wing advocates I am not seeing much support for a renewed Hi-Cap or ASW ban. In fact the thing I keep seeing brought up is mental health in this country.
I see that being what they target not weapons this time around. Obama is in his second term. That means that what ever happens over the next 4 years is his legacy. Think about how tainted that legacy will be if the biggest bill in-acted by congress since medicare is connected to children being killed by a psyco path who needed help. I seriously think congress and the president will focus more on the health care issue then anything else.
I also think with the way gun sales have been the past few years congress will be very hesitate to go near anything gun related. The 2 year midterm election is coming up and no one wants to lose there seats. Then there is the simple fact the only thing Americans love more then money is children. That means no one wants to be accused of trying to use the death of kindergartners to push there agenda for gun control.
Take this a step further unemployment if they start banning firearms then that means manufactures start cutting back during one of the biggest recessions (cant we call this a depression at this point) since the great depression. Think about all the different materials that go into manufacturing a gun from the metal to the lumber. That's something else congress has to think about before they start acting.
Then there is the health care bill its self. It could be argued it split this country up. There are plenty of states out there that straight appose it. How would that affect the states them self's if congress came out and said where imposing strict gun laws on you?
Then there is the simple fact that if extreme left wing views are correct. Then why do we need law enforcement? Maybe we should just disband all agency's since laws protect people. The bottom line is the laws don't protect anyone its the people willing to stand up and enforce those laws (civilian or military) that do.
First people need to calm down take a deep breath and stop freaking out. All this does is make us as gun owners look paranoid. Which is something we don't need right now.
My way of thinking is simply this other then extremely left wing advocates I am not seeing much support for a renewed Hi-Cap or ASW ban. In fact the thing I keep seeing brought up is mental health in this country.
I see that being what they target not weapons this time around. Obama is in his second term. That means that what ever happens over the next 4 years is his legacy. Think about how tainted that legacy will be if the biggest bill in-acted by congress since medicare is connected to children being killed by a psyco path who needed help. I seriously think congress and the president will focus more on the health care issue then anything else.
I also think with the way gun sales have been the past few years congress will be very hesitate to go near anything gun related. The 2 year midterm election is coming up and no one wants to lose there seats. Then there is the simple fact the only thing Americans love more then money is children. That means no one wants to be accused of trying to use the death of kindergartners to push there agenda for gun control.
Take this a step further unemployment if they start banning firearms then that means manufactures start cutting back during one of the biggest recessions (cant we call this a depression at this point) since the great depression. Think about all the different materials that go into manufacturing a gun from the metal to the lumber. That's something else congress has to think about before they start acting.
Then there is the health care bill its self. It could be argued it split this country up. There are plenty of states out there that straight appose it. How would that affect the states them self's if congress came out and said where imposing strict gun laws on you?
Then there is the simple fact that if extreme left wing views are correct. Then why do we need law enforcement? Maybe we should just disband all agency's since laws protect people. The bottom line is the laws don't protect anyone its the people willing to stand up and enforce those laws (civilian or military) that do.
The issue is not in the mentally incompetent, it's not in guns, and its not gun owners. It is the individual that commits these heinous acts.
Honestly, how many of the individuals that commit these acts actually own the firearms that they use to commit the crimes? By this I mean how many of them own them legally? I'm sure it's very few. So the issue is not that we need to get the guns "off the streets," the issue is not that we need tighter gun control laws. What we need is something to keep the people from committing the acts. The only way that will happen is to arm more people in the right places. Signs that say gun free zone will do nothing, obviously. Making it illegal to have them will do nothing, obviously, because if there is a law that states firearms are not allowed on school grounds, criminals won't pay them any attention. Why? THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!! If they would obey a no weapons area sign, they they would obey the law that says it is illegal to murder.
The only deterrent that could ever possibly work is to arm personnel. Change the no guns allowed sign to hey idiot, your not going to get very far before you get plugged by the teachers signs. That will deter the twisted ones. The only effective way to stop violence is with tough people ready to be violent to save the innocent. That is why there is an army, an air force, the marines, and navy. Let's not forget the coast guard... They are a moving sign saying don't tuck with our shot or we will leave your butt at the bottom of the ocean.
This is what we need, a sign that says armed personnel on premises waiting for you to do something stupid. Some say an eye for an eye makes the world blind, but this is an eye for a hundred innocent eyes able to see with confidence.
The right to bear arms means the right to carry a tool for the protection of yourself, your property, your neighborhood, your community, state and nation. To protect those who cannot protect themselves. It is our DUTY as human beings to protect those who are weak. And you cannot effectively protect from a person with a state of the art firearm with a six pea shooter. You can, but your level of confidence is likely to be hindered. And you are not as effective with an arm that is weak compared to the arm that is presented against you.
Honestly, how many of the individuals that commit these acts actually own the firearms that they use to commit the crimes? By this I mean how many of them own them legally? I'm sure it's very few. So the issue is not that we need to get the guns "off the streets," the issue is not that we need tighter gun control laws. What we need is something to keep the people from committing the acts. The only way that will happen is to arm more people in the right places. Signs that say gun free zone will do nothing, obviously. Making it illegal to have them will do nothing, obviously, because if there is a law that states firearms are not allowed on school grounds, criminals won't pay them any attention. Why? THEY ARE CRIMINALS!!! If they would obey a no weapons area sign, they they would obey the law that says it is illegal to murder.
The only deterrent that could ever possibly work is to arm personnel. Change the no guns allowed sign to hey idiot, your not going to get very far before you get plugged by the teachers signs. That will deter the twisted ones. The only effective way to stop violence is with tough people ready to be violent to save the innocent. That is why there is an army, an air force, the marines, and navy. Let's not forget the coast guard... They are a moving sign saying don't tuck with our shot or we will leave your butt at the bottom of the ocean.
This is what we need, a sign that says armed personnel on premises waiting for you to do something stupid. Some say an eye for an eye makes the world blind, but this is an eye for a hundred innocent eyes able to see with confidence.
The right to bear arms means the right to carry a tool for the protection of yourself, your property, your neighborhood, your community, state and nation. To protect those who cannot protect themselves. It is our DUTY as human beings to protect those who are weak. And you cannot effectively protect from a person with a state of the art firearm with a six pea shooter. You can, but your level of confidence is likely to be hindered. And you are not as effective with an arm that is weak compared to the arm that is presented against you.
Sid Nitzerglobin
Member
If they break into your house, steal your gun and kill someone w/ it they already should be up against (at least) life in prison.
My opinion is that responsible gun ownership includes an obligation that they are well secured when not in use. In my view that burden is on every owner whether there are legal repercussions (civil or criminal) for failing to do so or not. If new gun control legislation were to be put in place, I think this could stand some chance of having actual impact on the incidence of gun violence, whether it be against another person or self inflicted, intentional or accidental. Much more so than focusing on trying to restrict magazine capacities or what specific kind of firearms one can legally purchase.
It's just my opinion FWIW (not much) and I'm not saying anyone else has to agree w/ it. I'll go ahead and stop sharing it here if it's not welcome, and I apologize if I offended.
alde
Member
The bottom line is that the people who would write and pass a law are self serving politicians. Some of you may not be old enough to remember the last AWB but the folks in Washington DC are and they remember what happened. A bunch of them lost there jobs and it will happen again. There are many more gun owners now then there were back then and most are not willing to give up what for we Americans is an inalienable right. Not a privilege granted by our government. If they pass a ban we will have a very different congress in 2 years and they know that. They may get away with a 10 round magazine limit with hi capacity magazine grandfathered but anything they do will be challenged in the SCOTUS.
We have to keep on our toes and write our reps and let them know what we the people want. The other side will be plenty vocal and we have to do our part. We can't start giving in to the emotion of the times. Remember, we responsible, law abiding gun owners have nothing to feel guilty about. We had nothing to do with what happened in CT.
We have to keep on our toes and write our reps and let them know what we the people want. The other side will be plenty vocal and we have to do our part. We can't start giving in to the emotion of the times. Remember, we responsible, law abiding gun owners have nothing to feel guilty about. We had nothing to do with what happened in CT.
Last edited:
I do not believe that there will be a semi auto ban, di fi and friends love to make noise. o can not do it himself, house will not pass any. 10 yrs of the 1994 "it's a crime Bill" did not affect the rate of military style looking firearms involved in crime. 10 or 100 yrs would not matter. We currently do not have a " mental health test" that would tell us who will commit a violent crime anymore than someone carrying concealed know when they would be attacked. A headline in the AP today was "mass killings declining" . We need to look at the entire social network- video games/tv/movies and that still will not stop someone from committing such acts. Armed teachers-Better than unarmed! Realize that the M-1 carbine with 15-30 rd mags have been available to the public since the late 40's early 50's. As di fi said she did not want the "high cap" M-1 Garand's , her ignorance shows since it will take a 8 rd "clip". Be Safe, Stay Armed,
Kayback
Member
We have to operate under safe storage laws. I tend to agree with restricting access by unauthorised people to my guns. I agree however that if someone has broken the law to obtain my weapons, I don't see how I'm at fault.
If I walk up to someone and hand over the gun, sure. But if they break into my house and steal it, why am I at fault?
That being said, I wish people would realise this isn't about guns. In the deadliest school attack in the USA a bomb was used. This was back in 1927, but it is still the deadliest with 57 dead, IIRC.
People who kill are the problem. It is already illegal to murder people, so obviously laws don't actually prevent anything, they just give you a means to punish someone afterwards.
Preparation stops it. There are a people claiming one of the dead teachers as a hero because she hid her kids and then when confronted by the killer lied to him and said they were at the gym. She was killed by the shooter. How much better would it have been if she'd shot him twice in the face?
People plan for fires. They have active systems to fight them, they have practice sessions to evacuate the buildings, and they get training on how to handle them and the gear to do it! For active shooters? Close door and hide in the corner.
This isn't working. Something needs to be done, and something that stops the attacker when he is already there. Trying to prevent it by limiting legal gun owners isn't enough. In South Africa there have been 700 police firearms stolen this year. This include a large number from cops who have been murdered and had their guns stolen.
But this issue is political, and banning guns is an easy rallying point. The sheeple will flock to it. 'scuse the pun.
Because blaming inanimate objects is easier than admitting some people are just evil.
KBK
If I walk up to someone and hand over the gun, sure. But if they break into my house and steal it, why am I at fault?
That being said, I wish people would realise this isn't about guns. In the deadliest school attack in the USA a bomb was used. This was back in 1927, but it is still the deadliest with 57 dead, IIRC.
People who kill are the problem. It is already illegal to murder people, so obviously laws don't actually prevent anything, they just give you a means to punish someone afterwards.
Preparation stops it. There are a people claiming one of the dead teachers as a hero because she hid her kids and then when confronted by the killer lied to him and said they were at the gym. She was killed by the shooter. How much better would it have been if she'd shot him twice in the face?
People plan for fires. They have active systems to fight them, they have practice sessions to evacuate the buildings, and they get training on how to handle them and the gear to do it! For active shooters? Close door and hide in the corner.
This isn't working. Something needs to be done, and something that stops the attacker when he is already there. Trying to prevent it by limiting legal gun owners isn't enough. In South Africa there have been 700 police firearms stolen this year. This include a large number from cops who have been murdered and had their guns stolen.
But this issue is political, and banning guns is an easy rallying point. The sheeple will flock to it. 'scuse the pun.
Because blaming inanimate objects is easier than admitting some people are just evil.
KBK
photoracer
Member
That is not a detachable magazine. Please ask more intelligent questions.
photoracer
Member
I don't know about you but I would not trust a left wing, tree hugging, vegan teacher to know when to shoot and when not to. The idea of arming the teachers does not make a lot of common sense. Most of them are scared to even look at a gun because they have no experience with firearms except what they see in the news. And unfortunately rent-a-cops are not the solution either, they are just another incident waiting to happen. I can't see the average teacher going thru similar training to airline pilots just to carry something they abhor.
The founding fathers wanted every adult male American to have a firearm to protect our hard won liberty. No standing army in those days, as they looked to the idea of citizen armies as used by the early Roman Republic. That was Ok when we were an ocean away from our likely enemies. Then we abrogated the entire concept when we initiated a federal army, which the times demanded I admit. But the idea was an armed citizenry to protect themselves from a possible subjugating government.
You have to remember that the extreme right (fascists) and the extreme left (communists) both can't come to power and keep it if they let the people keep firearms. The founding fathers assumed that the average citizen would have the same state of the art firearms as a possible army. The last time that was true was in the 50's before the ATF and before the government declared a certain level of combat arms were going to be banned or controlled. Not everyone remembers the Minutemen right wing "militias" of the early Cold War. When it was legal for the average citizen to own a working full auto firearm, mortar, recoiless rifle, or bazooka as examples. In the Wash. DC area they used to go to the rock quarry in Laurel, Md to practice with those things. Then the Feds took them all away except for people willing to jump thru hoops to get a permit or had to permanently disable them for "collector" purposes.
Far be it from me to be a conspiracy theorist (I think all of them are slightly off) but if I was really interested in disarming the population, and was willing to do whatever it took, engineering incidents like this would be the most effective way to bring about the result.
Just my $.02 worth.
Dikinalaska
Member
This is the best way of putting it I have ever heard. Well said sir.
Jyezahn
US Veteran
I'd say, based upon the last sentence of his post, the question you're referring to, was rhetorical.
Because all teachers are leftist, tree-hugging, and vegan? What makes a teacher any different than anyone else who wants to protect their children? How can you generalize the teaching population and say that "most of them are scared to even look at a gun"? Nothing wrong with paying someone to defend a building full of children, after all, they're paid to defend the people in office. Please make more intelligent statements.
Majorlk
Member
Because all teachers are leftist, tree-hugging, and vegan? What makes a teacher any different than anyone else who wants to protect their children? How can you generalize the teaching population and say that "most of them are scared to even look at a gun"? Nothing wrong with paying someone to defend a building full of children, after all, they're paid to defend the people in office. Please make more intelligent statements.
I'll go along with this. My daughter and son-in-law are both school psychologists, Teresa in a school the next district over from Newtown. Both of them are ardent shooters and neither are tree-loving vegans. And both would have put this animal down in a heartbeat.
- Status
