Reply With Quote
Looks like its going to happen:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2331578.html
Looks like its going to happen:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2331578.html
Watching these guys flip out is gonna be funny
From a PM is sent 4 days ago:
"Nothing will happen other than some placebo bills that won't pass. Those that might will be magazine capacity and evil features on "high powered assault weapons". Nothing that happened in Conn will actually be affected by that, because the weapons won't even fall into that category, but dumb ass libs will feel they've achieved something and, since they don't know existing laws or anything about guns, they won't know they didn't get anything done" -The Prophet, DMC
btw, Conn already has an assault weapons ban in place.
That's great. Maybe that ban saved the lives of more teachers and children at Sandy Hook.
What kind of ban is it when Nancy Lanza was able to acquire an assault weapon?
Take the lead from Japan. No mass shootings, very hard to get a gun in Japan.
there's no mass shootings in China either or North Korea. we should be more like them.
4 dead (including shooter) in a PA shooting on a highway, 100 miles east of Pittsburgh, today. WTF is going on?
Where does the right to bear arms stop btw...of course it's the human who pulls the trigger, but why can't citizens who pass background checks have tanks and missiles???? After all, to protect from a tyrannical gov, would need more than guns, missiles and nukes would be useful tbh. And of course, it's the human who presses the button to send the missile.
I understand a lot of the arguments from the pro-gun crowd, and I go back and forth on this issue myself (naturally as a libertarian), but I do think trying to limit access to high capacity mags is worth a shot (or similar laws). My main issue is that most humans are a combination of dumb, lazy, and negligent. I don't really care about the black market and gangbangers, they're all mostly killing each other anyway, so they can have their guns for all I care. If we can limit gun access to your average, dumb, negligent American, I'm all for it. There have been plenty of incidents just in the past few weeks that show how stupid people are with their guns... a western PA man shot (and I believe killed) his 9 year old cousin who was in costume at a Halloween party. The man supposedly thought she (cousin) was a skunk (not sure I've ever seen a 4-foot skunk). Another recent case (within past 2 weeks), a man getting into his car with his 5 year old son in a parking lot laid his pistol on the dash board, he thought the gun was unloaded, yet setting it down accidentally caused the pistol to go off and kill his 5 year old son. The man thought it was empty, had checked the clip previously but did not make sure there wasn't a bullet in the chamber.
Of course we all know about Adam Lanza's re ed mom who clearly had no control of the situation, and I'm certain a significantly large percentage of law abiding gun owners are negligent when it comes to their guns. It just has to be, a great amount people are when it comes to their everyday lives.
I don't know, I basically don't trust your average person to own guns. If as a government/country we're going to hold the mentality that it's the human that pulls the trigger, why can't we own tanks and missiles?
In gun free zones, only the criminals carry guns...
Slogans will save us!
They got nuked twice. No thanks.
Ironic response
The right to bear arms stops just where the freedom of speech stops, when it infringes on the rights of others. Offends is not the same as infringing.4 dead (including shooter) in a PA shooting on a highway, 100 miles east of Pittsburgh, today. WTF is going on?
Where does the right to bear arms stop btw...of course it's the human who pulls the trigger, but why can't citizens who pass background checks have tanks and missiles???? After all, to protect from a tyrannical gov, would need more than guns, missiles and nukes would be useful tbh. And of course, it's the human who presses the button to send the missile.
I understand a lot of the arguments from the pro-gun crowd, and I go back and forth on this issue myself (naturally as a libertarian), but I do think trying to limit access to high capacity mags is worth a shot (or similar laws). My main issue is that most humans are a combination of dumb, lazy, and negligent. I don't really care about the black market and gangbangers, they're all mostly killing each other anyway, so they can have their guns for all I care. If we can limit gun access to your average, dumb, negligent American, I'm all for it. There have been plenty of incidents just in the past few weeks that show how stupid people are with their guns... a western PA man shot (and I believe killed) his 9 year old cousin who was in costume at a Halloween party. The man supposedly thought she (cousin) was a skunk (not sure I've ever seen a 4-foot skunk). Another recent case (within past 2 weeks), a man getting into his car with his 5 year old son in a parking lot laid his pistol on the dash board, he thought the gun was unloaded, yet setting it down accidentally caused the pistol to go off and kill his 5 year old son. The man thought it was empty, had checked the clip previously but did not make sure there wasn't a bullet in the chamber.
Of course we all know about Adam Lanza's re ed mom who clearly had no control of the situation, and I'm certain a significantly large percentage of law abiding gun owners are negligent when it comes to their guns. It just has to be, a great amount people are when it comes to their everyday lives.
I don't know, I basically don't trust your average person to own guns. If as a government/country we're going to hold the mentality that it's the human that pulls the trigger, why can't we own tanks and missiles?
With the anecdote on the 5 year old: he ed up by checking the clip. Handguns have magazines.
Inasmuch as it is a slogan of sorts, I guess.
Unless you meant something else. If you did, please explain.
Japan has gun crime under control. Take the lead from them on gun crime. That is what we are talking about not WW2.
No the police also carry guns.
ASSAULT WEAPON
"Assault weapon" means any one of the following:
1. Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol.
2. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
3. Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescopic stock;
ii. a pistol grip;
iii. a bayonet mount;
iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
v. a grenade launcher.
(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
ii. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
iv. a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescoping stock;
ii. a pistol grip that protrudes con uously beneath the action of the weapon;
iii. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and
iv. an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
4. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
Source: General Statutes § 53-202a (a) (applies to §§ 53-202b -- 202k).
Commentary: The term "assault weapon" does not include any firearm modified to render it permanently inoperable. General Statutes § 53-202a (b).
Her weapon didn't meet that definition. That's what happens when stupid ass liberals define a gun cosmetically instead of functionally. Just remove the offending cosmetic features and you have a legal firearm, no longer an assault weapon. Whoa... what's that? So the semi-auto still fires without the pistol grip and the folding stock? No way.
They were nuked, told they cannot have a real military, we occupy them.
You should move there, report back your findings. Let us know how the radiation that "didn't happen" is going. Yeah, they are honest with their gun control stats.
The 1st one.
I don't think it's going to catch on tbh.
You want America to be like China and North Korea? So you want to watch state run television and news? You want to be able to have your access to media, art, and literature restricted? You sure you thought this through?
And it takes how long for them to respond?
one of the survivors is suing the govt for 100m for unforeseeable protection hahahahaha...fkn lame argument
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
