Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been arrested a few times but never convicted once, and so all sorts of cops have my prints, plus NICS, DARE and others have my prints in order to work with kids in schools and or to sell guns under a FFL Dealer.
At any time i could commit a crime, and i have serious doubts any finger prints would stop me if i chose to break law.
This is me leaning on a tree with my flintlock musket leaning on me doing a for hire living history demo for a public school some time ago...
Had i chosen to shoot kids in school the .62 cal musket would have been capable of killing as many as 14 with one shot, so long as I had the kids stand in a line.
How i know this is the Russians did it to a bunch of eskimo's in the 1860's with a similar gun.
I maintain you can not legislate safety.....
What we have is 2 problems........
1 we parole violent offenders like we release trout in a catch and release zone. Well I know when i catch a trout in such a fly fishing only zone i release them again...
I don't know what everyone else really does.
2 This nation needs to deal with a very ugly topic and no political sides will like it one bit. That is insanity.
This is going to be expensive, and a lot of hearts will be broken.
Nor me. So what's your point? I simply answered another poster's question. Don't try to make something out of nothing.
OK, I though you said people would have to be "found" and forcibly stripped of their guns, and my point was that most would surrender them voluntarily.
The gun control matter has been talked to death, but I haven't seen much on a surprising provision of Dianne Feinstein's new version of the so-called "assault weapon ban." In the 1994 version of the law, all guns made before Clinton signed it were "grandfathered." Existing guns could be owned, sold, and traded just as prior to the law. The law only banned the manufacture of new guns.
The new version is much more restrictive. Current owners would be able to keep their guns, but could not sell, trade, or give them to anyone else. Presumably when the owner dies, they will have to be turned in and melted down, because any transfer would be flatly illegal.
But what I found most interesting is this (from Sen. Feinstiein's site):
So this is a MASSIVE new registration program. If you currently own a banned gun, presumably you would have to bring it in to your local police to have the serial number recorded and have your fingerprints taken.
OK, I though you said people would have to be "found" and forcibly stripped of their guns, and my point was that most would surrender them voluntarily.
Nope! Beyond that, I'm neither worried nor paranoid.
Because there would be a greater resistance from the gun owners. If not an all out civil war.
I don't think it would come to much of a fight to be honest. if the Feds stated it was going to be a buy back date, and there after anyone with a gun would be deemed a criminal, probably only Finn would turn in his guns....
Everyone else would know the Govt can't enforce it. Who can the feds get? With the oath takers making a voluntary oath to defend the cons. that pretty takes out all the cops..... The Cons prevents any armed forces being used against us and that would be a act of Capitol offense much like shooting a cop or the pres..
An act of a Traitor like The filthy few......biden, reed, feinstein, schumer, pelosi ad nausum, who will never get any ban to pass with any meaning... In fact these people should be charged with treason now, but are not because Holder refuses to do his duty.
But there is no one to enforce this if it were to become an illegal law. All that will happen is the gun grabbers will beg, plead, and whine.... Just like always...
Excellent explanation......Now can people understand it?
I've asked this question before, and nobody seems to link the 2 together....
Someone, anyone, I need a 20oz soda, in a cup from New York.....
while i am nursing my big gulp here in florida , i think that there are states in which the citizens might want to be able to defend themselves and there are states where they want to wait for the government to defend them.
seeing how i am the first provider of defense for myself, i would prefer to have the ability to be armed, and so would prefer to live in a state that allowed me to do so.
feinstein should concentrate on california and see how they like it there-but we didn't elect her here.
I still don't think that there will be a ban. Just look at the house won't vote for keeping us off the fiscal cliff. I think all these crazy prices are nuts. Someone is getting rich.
it's simple, the law of demand...... Anyone who can afford to buy as many mags and guns as they can will make out great for their investment later.
I sold one of my AK's last summer for twice what I paid... I own a govt model .45 i bought for a song, and it is worth 8 times what i paid for it.
This is better than any money in any bank, even better than gold.
it's simple, the law of demand...... Anyone who can afford to buy as many mags and guns as they can will make out great for their investment later.
I sold one of my AK's last summer for twice what I paid... I own a govt model .45 i bought for a song, and it is worth 8 times what i paid for it.
This is better than any money in any bank, even better than gold.
you know i was thinking that this could be the next big bubble if they try and move the bubble away from gold.
maybe it is all intentional, as i bet all this "chatter" does increase gun sales.
anyhow, it isn't as if america already hasn't had some gun control bills passed:
1994, when the Brady Bill was passed, to 2004, when federal law restricted the sale of large-capacity magazines and certain semiautomatic rifles. That bill passed after three years of back-to-back, high-profile "gunfire incidents": the 1991 massacre in Killeen, Texas, which claimed the lives of 22 people; Ruby Ridge in 1992; and the Waco siege in 1993.
i believe the waco siege involved government guns.
Last edited by floridasandy; 01-01-2013 at 05:25 PM..
How has the government taken away any tobacco or food products?
Try a tax of better than 2000% two thousand percent. Just because that tax didn't have any affect on YOU, doesn't mean the govt can't tax something like that that does effect you...
I don't drink a lot, and have only had 4 beers the entire month of Dec and I don't smoke, so that didn't affect me either....
The Govt might tax ammo like that, but that won't bother me a bit..... I can reload with what i have for the rest of my life.... There will be a lot left over for my son, and he reloads too. The only question I have is if there is enough for my 4 year old grandson's life
I know this senate has already set a fee on his taxes... These poly tic leeches should be ashamed of themselves, but it seems they don't know shame at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, i think that there are states in which the citizens might want to be able to defend themselves and there are states where they want to wait for the government to defend them. 
