free to move...:tm:

This is some grade A conspiracy, paranoid misinformation right here.

I heard stuff like this existed but I didn't think anyone really believed it???

No, I am talking about any gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps that's a key contributor to MA's ultra low gun death rate.

Perhaps it isn't. Other states with less strict gun laws also have low gun death rates. What was Massachusetts' gun death rate before having its current laws?

Maybe because Massachusetts is ranked #1 in mental health care? Oh that's right, we aren't supposed to connect mental health to the gun control issue.

http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/i...ranking-states
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or maybe it's because Mass is top 3rd of the country for unemployment?

https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

or maybe it's the rather low Suicide rate in Mass, since that gets lumped into all the stats about gun violence.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/suicide.htm

one thing I noticed is that if you bounce the Suicide by state against the Unemployment by state, the States with the highest unemployment seem to be in the states with the highest suicide rates.

so maybe if we looked at the more socio-economic issues instead of an inanimate object, maybe we can figure something out.

but why would we want to do that Kevin? Oh , I know, it takes more effort and politicians are lazy and do things the easy way with little effort because they don't friggin care. We all know gun control is about control, yet some follow along mindlessly like sheep.

The rest of your post is spot on also :btu: but it does not fit the Left's agenda

Some of those same countries you could be jailed for your post, so there is that ; )

Free to move from here, not necessarily free to move to most of those countries ; )

(not picking on Pete ; ) )

All his points are pretty spot on - in fact if the left looked more closely at some of those other socioeconomic statistics that might be too much in the mirror.

I would be amenable for some of Mass's restrictions except they would not end there. I could be OK with a Red Flag law / GVRO / bump stock ban / safe storage laws / additional certification if it was going to stop there, but it won't. I was willing to concede in certain areas but the past 2 months of convinced me (again) that would be a fools compromise to give in.

apparently you believe it

Are you joining that cult?
Or are you trying to say you can have many wives or concubines here?

To go to a pre-revolutionary war killing of 72 is a stretch to make it part of this narrative, but hey tin foil hats will make you think crazy #^&#^&#^&#^& up to make a point. Common sense rules & reg's, it's as simple as that, I don't want anyone giving up their guns and agree the 2nd amendment is still valid. I do however find the argument that the public should be able to bear arms of any kind because the constitution says so is dated.

John made a point I've brought up repeatedly in this always circular debate, that the odds of a Hitler type leader somehow convincing the entire military to support his believe we should all be disarmed is crazy and I doubt that even if they could be convinced; a civilian militia armed with what those (willing) can bring to the fight don't stand a chance. What percentage owning arms are going to join the fight and again with what the average or even above average sportsman brings to the fight, to believe they can stop a POTUS and his band of bullies from taking all your guns is laughable.

but nice try

you need to understand what banning is and what gun control is

they are not the same thing

buts its a good thing you have ted nugent and scott baio on yourside

PS you haven't proved anything except you think everyones coming for your guns ... and no one on that list has or had the power to make it happen and by listing the "Actors" list you have shown how out of touch your view really is ... please provide the link to the website you got it from.. because you did not dream that up on your own

The Trump vector seems the closest we've gotten the past century, but in this case it's the gun zealots who are his blind supporters.

Still, it's so far off to be a non threat and a foolish errand at that. While the system had a hiccup in 2016 it seems like the key parts are still working if at times a bit clumsy.

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

Through legislation they told their citizens if they have something that was legal yesterday - turn it in or be fined 200-1000 dollars per day. Unless you jump through a bunch of hoops.

For all practical purposes they are confiscating those firearms.

Can you guess who won't be turning them in? The people that already own them illegally.

Just to be clear 'Arms " refers to personal weapons easily carried, not tanks, jets, missile launchers etc.

Trump is the most likely vector? :rotflmao:

It really should not matter who is President, but thanks for your inclusive approach.

I said the closest. We've never seen leadership this corrupt with such fanaticism in my lifetime if at all in the last 100 years.

Closest - whatever.


:rotflmao: Well, Obama may or may not have been as corrupt (though his ideology surely is) the fanaticism was real. The fanaticism, supported byt the media on how bad Mitt Effing Romney was. Mitt was a Boy Scout and spot on WRT a lot of things. But binders of wimin... And he's gonna putcha back in chains.

GMAFB

Dizzy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope - saving the world one server at a time ; )

"out of touch MY view is" That is your opinion based on years of your own personal life experiences. Try understanding that listing those peoples' opinions makes my point that these people are influencing all the sheep who pressure those who actually do have the power to ban guns. But I guess you needed me to point that out to you.( I can be condescending also)
And since I did not explain why I listed those, you proclaimed that you win the debate. I never said everyone is coming for my guns, those are your words.
I understand what infringements are.
It's a good thing you have all that money on your side.

So while I am back on this thread again,
here is a nice blog you will get another list for you to mock.

https://thewriterinblack.com/2017/05...e-your-guns-2/


too long to copy and paste the whole thing but here is a sample


Whenever I, or others, object to “registration” or bans on transfers, or other forms of “gun control” and firearms restrictions as steps toward an eventual complete prohibition and the confiscation that such would necessarily entail, we get told we’re paranoid and “nobody wants to take your guns.”

Well, perhaps we should consider these “nobodies”:

“A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls … and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center)

“My view of guns is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.” Deborah Prothrow-Stith (Dean of Harvard School of Public Health)

“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say ‘Sorry.’ it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” Rosie O’Donnell (At about the time she said this, Rosie engaged the services of a bodyguard who applied for a gun permit.)

“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Andrew Cuomo

“I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by [the] police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state.” Michael Dukakis

“If someone is so fearful that they are going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, it makes me very nervous that these people have weapons at all.” U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman

“In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic – purely symbolic – move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” Charles Krauthammer, columnist, 4/5/96 Washington Post

“Ban the damn things. Ban them all. You want protection? Get a dog.” Molly Ivins, columnist, 7/19/94

“[To get a] permit to own a firearm, that person should undergo an exhaustive criminal background check. In addition, an applicant should give up his right to privacy and submit his medical records for review to see if the person has ever had a problem with alcohol, drugs or mental illness . . . The Constitution doesn’t count!” John Silber, former chancellor of Boston University and candidate for Governor of Massachusetts. Speech before the Quequechan Club of Fall River, MA. August 16, 1990

“I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about. Is that it will happen one very small step at a time so that by the time, um, people have woken up, quote, to what’s happened, it’s gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the banning of semiassault military weapons that are military weapons, not household weapons, is the first step.” Mayor Barbara Fass, Stockton, CA

“Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed.” Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy (interview appeared in the Washington Evening Star on September 19, 1969)

“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” Senator Diane Feinstein, 1993

truth

Minnesota Bill Introduced 2018: “Expand the definition of an “assault weapon” to include many semiautomatic pistols, rifles or shotguns and makes possessing them a felony, with the exception of some that were legally registered before February 2018. Those owning a grandfathered assault weapon must undergo a background check, renew their registration annually, and use them only on their property or at a shooting range. Such weapons could not be sold or transferred, only surrendered to law enforcement for destruction.” Even ignoring the “possessing” part the inability to transfer makes it a ban with delayed enforcement.

East Lansing School District has made an official resolution which includes: “Whereas, no civilian should ever be allowed to purchase, possess or use a weapon of mass destruction, including but not limited to automatic and semi-automatic guns, nor be allowed to purchase, possess or use any magazine, clip or other tool designed to deliver rapid-fire ammunition without the need to reload;” (That’s the vast majority of all firearms in American and pretty much anything but single-shot firearms.)

“Kerry Picket, Sirius XM Patriot: ‘Now some would argue that then guns and ammunition would only be available to those with money, those who are wealthy. And that those who are in the lower classes as far as financial terms are concerned would not be able to afford such weapons. Tell me about that.’

“Congressman Danny Davis (D-Ill.): ‘Well I would be just as pleased if neither group were able to get them [guns]. So what I am saying is it doesn’t pose an issue for me because I would like to outlaw them altogether. I am saying I would like to make it where nobody except military personnel would ever have access to these weapons. So it wouldn’t bother me that one category of people couldn’t get them even if the other one was willing to pay the high price for them. Then we use that money for services that are needed and people could make use of them.’
“Picket: ‘So rich people only could own firearms?’
“Congressman Davis: ‘So if rich people could only get firearms then only rich people would be able to pay the price. And if that could prevent some people from getting them, I would want to prevent all people from getting them. But if rich people were willing, and would continue to pay the high price then I’d be happy that we kept the other group from getting them.'” Audio of interview included at this link.

An article at VOX.COM: “Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.”

House Bill effectively a delayed ban on the vast majority of firearms in the US: “The bill prohibits the ‘sale, transfer, production, and importation’ of semi-automatic rifles and pistols that can hold a detachable magazine, as well as semi-automatic rifles with a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Additionally, the legislation bans the sale, transfer, production, and importation of semi-automatic shotguns with features such as a pistol grip or detachable stock, and ammunition feeding devices that can hold more than 10 rounds.” By banning the transfer they are, in effect, creating a delayed ban. As soon as the current owner of a covered firearm (most of those in the US) dies or otherwise is unable to keep the firearm it cannot be passed on to someone else–like ones heirs. That gun is then gone and no more can replace it.

Daryl Fisher (A Democrat candidate for Sheriff in Buncombe County NC): “Any weapon that is designed for use by the military I think we should ban. You’ve heard people say you have to pry my gun from my cold dead hands. [shrugs] OK.” (Up front about willing to kill to take people’s guns.) What is interesting to note is that while my 1893 Argentine Bolt Action (an antique, old enough that it’s not even regulated by the ATF), my Mosin Nagant rifle, and various other bolt actions, including the extremely popular Remingtin 700 have been used by the US and other militaries, that AR-15 is not (the similar appearing M-16 and M-4, both having full auto or “burst” fire that the AR-15 lacks, are different beasts).

Going back in time a bit, to a bill Senator Diane Feinstein introduced in 2013. “‘The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time,’ Feinstein said. ‘Therefore, there is no sunset on this bill.'” After all, ending transfer of the firearms means that when, for whatever reason (including eventual death) a person cannot own their existing weapon it has to be surrendered. A slow confiscation over time is still a confiscation.

“But nobody wants to take our guns?”

The number of influential people who want to ban "all" guns seems to be extremely small. Most of the quotes on that page are talking about prohibitions on specific weapons only.

There's almost zero public support for the idea of banning "all" guns. Yet, the percentage of the population in favor of tighter restrictions is overwhelming. Politicians are left hamstrung by special interest money over the will of their constituents.

I'll bet you do look good in a weskit and tricorn when you go to church though :hihi:

It’s a lot easier to blame the inanimate object, than it is to accept responsibility for ourselves. One of the cornerstones if liberalism is that no one is responsible for the things they do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is why Jim.

Well John, time to speak up as your state is next to red flag according to the Governor's panel she assembled that is made up of people who already made up their minds so why they bother to go thru motions is just optics I guess.


https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/1...6d49ca56a4ad72


good luck, we already had our red flag bill rammed thru this summer, my Rep and a dozen or so others voted no but in this state there was no stopping this poorly written law from passing as they slap each others' backs congratulating themselves for "doing" something, as opposed to addressing the actual problem.