Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-31-2012, 11:26 AM
 
Location: Del Rio, TN
39,868 posts, read 26,503,175 times
Reputation: 25768

Advertisements

There is more than a little price gouging going on, even by manufacturers. These AR lowers were $125 3 weeks ago. T15â„¢ AR15 LOWER RECEIVER WITH STBAâ„¢ INSTALLED by: Tactical
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2012, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,864 posts, read 24,108,334 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
There is more than a little price gouging going on, even by manufacturers. These AR lowers were $125 3 weeks ago. T15â„¢ AR15 LOWER RECEIVER WITH STBAâ„¢ INSTALLED by: Tactical
Supply and demand. LOTS of people want them right now - it's not gouging if you're charging what the market will bear. I'm sure that even at those prices, they can't keep them in stock.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2012, 11:34 AM
 
Location: North of Canada, but not the Arctic
21,119 posts, read 19,707,707 times
Reputation: 25625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
So my question is what good is a ban going too be? These weapons will be around and functional for the next thousand years.

True, but the quantity would not increase. Therefore, it would presumably become harder for someone to acquire one because:
  1. They will not be able to buy one from a dealer.
  2. Private sellers would demand more money for them (presumably).
Personally, I don't think a ban is the best solution. I think they need better regulations as to who can own them and the conditions under which they are stored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2012, 11:37 AM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,963,815 times
Reputation: 7365
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
Burying a coffee can full of cash is a better investment than a municipal bond from California.
That depends on what kind of cash it is... Silver and gold cash, or cheap junk notes we use today which have no better value than common toilet paper. Pretty soon these will be Obama bucks.

These will come in 2 forms
La


AND La
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2012, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,864 posts, read 24,108,334 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
I think they need better regulations as to who can own them and the conditions under which they are stored.
Why? Can you list reasons based entirely in fact to support your position?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2012, 11:50 AM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,963,815 times
Reputation: 7365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
True, but the quantity would not increase. Therefore, it would presumably become harder for someone to acquire one because:
  1. They will not be able to buy one from a dealer.
  2. Private sellers would demand more money for them (presumably).
Personally, I don't think a ban is the best solution. I think they need better regulations as to who can own them and the conditions under which they are stored.
So far all the shooters would be 'prohibited persons'....... All illegal for any number of reasons. Most in so called Gun Free Zones which works as good as blood in water to draw sharks.

For these very reasons no Democrat liberals should be able to propose LAW anymore.

They have proven to be over the past 50 years inept, and too Stupid to create LAW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2012, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Itinerant
8,278 posts, read 6,274,484 times
Reputation: 6681
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post

NRA-ILA's take:

NRA-ILA | Feinstein Goes For Broke With New Gun-Ban Bill



She wants them completely banned and confiscated, and that's what this proposal leads to.
Then if this comes to pass, you take a bunch of ATF Form 1's and re-register your affected items as SBR's. Same tax price, same fingerprint requirement, and documentation requirements. Totally resellable, inheritable since a legally transferable SBR has no requirement to actually be an SBR

She's obviously a moron and unfamiliar with what we have on the books, it took me 5 minutes to poke that hole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2012, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Tyler, TX
23,864 posts, read 24,108,334 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir View Post
Then if this comes to pass, you take a bunch of ATF Form 1's and re-register your affected items as SBR's. Same tax price, same fingerprint requirement, and documentation requirements. Totally resellable, inheritable since a legally transferable SBR has no requirement to actually be an SBR

She's obviously a moron and unfamiliar with what we have on the books, it took me 5 minutes to poke that hole.
I'm with you on that she's a moron, but *if* it passes as written, it will be law. It doesn't matter if it's more restrictive than what's already there. If the law states that this weapon or that weapon isn't transferable, then those weapons aren't transferable. It would take an act of congress - literally - to change that, or a successful challenge in the supreme court.

I was very concerned about a new AWB being passed after the Newtown incident. I still am, but not as much. This proposal is SO far out there, with SO many terrible restrictions, that I don't think it'll pass. Now maybe she wrote it that way so after all the negotiating is done and all the changes are made, she'll have something close to what she actually wants or believes can pass, but in its apparent (the bill hasn't been released, AFAIK) current form, I don't think it stands much of a chance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2012, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Dublin, CA
3,807 posts, read 4,275,246 times
Reputation: 3984
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
I'm with you on that she's a moron, but *if* it passes as written, it will be law. It doesn't matter if it's more restrictive than what's already there. If the law states that this weapon or that weapon isn't transferable, then those weapons aren't transferable. It would take an act of congress - literally - to change that, or a successful challenge in the supreme court.

I was very concerned about a new AWB being passed after the Newtown incident. I still am, but not as much. This proposal is SO far out there, with SO many terrible restrictions, that I don't think it'll pass. Now maybe she wrote it that way so after all the negotiating is done and all the changes are made, she'll have something close to what she actually wants or believes can pass, but in its apparent (the bill hasn't been released, AFAIK) current form, I don't think it stands much of a chance.
I don't believe the non transferable part will get through. A ban, yes; this no. You have a huge 14th Amendment issue here. You purchased the firearm legally, now you cannot even leave it to your son (or daughter)? If such an issue passes, it will be a lawsuit and the US Supreme Court will be involved. Of course, Obama stacking the court in his favor won't help the issue either.

I just don't see how they can make a law saying I have to destroy something I legally purchased with no due process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2012, 01:00 PM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,697,144 times
Reputation: 23295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306 View Post
I don't believe the non transferable part will get through. A ban, yes; this no. You have a huge 14th Amendment issue here. You purchased the firearm legally, now you cannot even leave it to your son (or daughter)? If such an issue passes, it will be a lawsuit and the US Supreme Court will be involved. Of course, Obama stacking the court in his favor won't help the issue either.

I just don't see how they can make a law saying I have to destroy something I legally purchased with no due process.
It's that way currently in California. Except you have three options. Being an California LEO I am suprised you dont know this.

1. turn it in
2. Sell it to an FFL with an Assault weapons permit
3. Remove from the state.

Also understand that RAW fall into two catagories

1. RAW's by having the three "deadly" charactaristics
2. RAW's specfied on the CalDOJ list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top