Reread.

[QUOTE=spence;1100019]Reread.[/QUOTE

Reading that crap article from the Post was painful enough once but I read it again . It never mentions that the "legally "purchased fire arms used in the killings were not purchased by the shooters . It's more of an anti-gun article then a truthful one . I expected nothing else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"There is no limit on the amount of ammunition that U.S. citizens can buy and keep in their homes; " from your link https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ef3_story.html
Is FALSE information and simply not true, there is a limit, there might not be for all states, but here in the People's Republic of Mass. there is. These journalists should get things correct if they want to be taken seriously instead of trying to put fear into their articles.

Yep

just more dividing the country, anti gun bull

[QUOTE=buckman;1100020]Actually it does, you didn't read it did you?

What is the legal ammo possession limit in MA?

I don't think there is a limit .
You always want to make sure you have one more than you need and you never know how many you'll need .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slip doesn't agree.

Oh I agree with buckman
but as far as the law states,

here we are allowed 10,000 rounds of rimfire and 10,000 rounds of centerfire
if you are a reloader and have a need for a chitload of primers because they are sold in large quantity, then you can get a permit at your fire dept. for a few bucks and can have I think more than twice that amount of ammo. I am sure it is online at massgov someplace

Some people don't realize there is a limit, like reporters obviously.

Well I finally learned something from this thread .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You misread my question. Read it again, in the proper context. Amazing that someone who is as contextually attuned to and driven by CONTEXT would miss the context in which I asked my question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
but I wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendments Rights either.
Detbuch reply: Do you have any evidence of this?

The context was your "want." Do you have any evidence that you wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendment rights?

I was yanking your chain regarding your usual "do you have any evidence of this" type of rebuttal of someone's opinion of a politician formed and based on obviously circumstantial occurrences of past speeches, position papers, legislation, and repetitive talking points.

Can you provide any "evidence," circumstantial or positive, that you wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Silly question? It was meant to be as silly as your non sequiturs or often straw man statements, and then insisting on "evidence" for someone else's opinions.

On the other hand, you were attempting what you think is clarity when you said: "I don't think that's really even that important part of the issue though...the question is the threshold for the feds to deny rights under current law without sufficient evidence there's a clear threat to public safety."

To begin with, what you think is clearly the question is muddled again by your situational ethics. When it suited you, you backed up Nebe's assertion that your chances of being killed by a terror attack were very rare. But it suits you in this thread to posit that there's a clear threat to public safety if the feds threshold to deny rights is not raised (made sufficient) in order, among other things, to " Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists."

But what is clear to me, not only in this assertion by you, but in consistently similar statements by you in many other posts, is that the federal government simply doesn't have enough authority over the individuals in this country. Any occurrence which you conveniently deemed rare in another instance, now conveniently becomes a threat to public safety and should be cause to give the federal government the power to deny rights. So any contrived crisis must not be wasted if it can be used to expand the federal government's scope of power.

The federal government actually does have within its original constitutional scope of power the ability to severely limit the immigration of any category of groups into this country. But applying that power in order to mitigate the "threat to public safety" is not acceptable to you, or other Progressives who ply such bromides as "that is not us." It clearly has been us over most of our history, but Progressives, among the arsenal of anti-American and Constitution busting tactics, have in the importation of massive numbers of immigrants who provide no special qualities or abilities to strengthen what were actually once considered American values, found another way of actually watering down those values while at the same time creating a large populace of allies who will add to and strengthen the Progressive trajectory of central government's intrusion into every aspect of our lives.

I do not have actual "evidence" that you really do wish to limit our once unalienable rights and making those rights government rights rather than individual rights. But it just seems, clearly, that you do.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-...74c1490547666e
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting . . . no evidence that she intentionally or willingly broke the law. Does that mean she did, but she just didn't know that she did?

Wikipedia:
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

But in Hillary's case, ignorance is merely bliss. Is being unaware that one is breaking a law a positive qualification for the reputedly highest office in the land? Is the lack of proper procedure which leads to the unintentional breaking of a federal law a qualification for the chief law enforcer of the land?

So there's no federal law, but Massachusetts -- perhaps the most liberal state in the nation -- caps you at a measly 20,000 rounds? The government tyranny here is beyond reproach!

Buck, what would you estimate as the most ammo you've ever had at one time?

This nitpick also doesn't do anything to dismiss the fact the weapons were all purchased legally at a FLL. This has been reported many times...

You're presuming a law was broken, this is still just speculation. I read a legal paper some months ago though that was very specific that intent is everything in this cases. If not they'd have to indict most of the CIA and DoD.

so what?

he also entered the country legally
had a job
but somewhere along the line was radicalized into the murderer he was

why is it important that the weapons were at some point in their existence purchased at an FFL?

Guns don't kill people, people do
Guns are inanimate objects just like a knife or a car
Why is everything a gun control issue?

because it is about control

I am not on the side of giving up control, I enjoy freedom

Romanian Hacker 'Guccifer' Just Gave Bernie Sanders the Democratic Nomination http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9856196
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yet the FBI found no evidence, he can't provide any evidence and he's regarded as 3rd rate hack...

He's just making crap up because he's in jail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

here is what I or anyone can store without a special permit if ya have a gun permit


•Not more than 10,000 rounds of rimfire ammunition
•Not more than 10,000 rounds of centerfire rifle/pistol ammunition
•Not more than 5,000 rounds of shotgun ammunition
•Not more than 1000 primers
•Not more than 16 pounds of smokeless powder
•Not more than 2 pounds of black powder

With a local permit from your local fire department

•Up to 30,000 rounds of rimfire ammunition*
•Up to 50,000 rounds of centerfire rifle/pistol ammunition*
•Up to 50,000 rounds of shotgun ammunition*
•Up to 10,000 primers
•Not more than 48 pounds of smokeless powder
•Not more than 5 pounds of black powder

So what is your point spence?....:)

I haven't heard the FBI say anything yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence, plus a fellon can not legally possess a firearm in mass, but yet they can have a musket....:)...no sense at all....:)

https://gma.yahoo.com/emails-hillary...205506182.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Old news.

No it's not old news unless you call tonight's news old.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This was reported in December by Politico.

Oldies but goodies.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...emails-hacked/

Iran probably has them also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That email cited in the story came from the known hack of Sidney Bluemthal's server...not Clinton's. It was his email sent to her.

You're reading made up news.

Oh that makes it better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It makes it irrelevant.