NJ residents have 90 days to turn in bumpstocks.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Hewhowaits

Im with you, exactly my thoughts. Confiscation is absurd.

People who obey the law don't need guns.

Only the criminals need guns.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Hewhowaits

Im with you, exactly my thoughts. Confiscation is absurd.

People who obey the law don't need guns.

Only the criminals need guns.

The whole gun grab debate is interesting, people who bang on about how important law and order is will happily denigrate illegal immigrants and bang on about they deserve what they get for not following the law will also say if government / police try and take their guns they will happily die first and if cops need to die in the process so be it. Very interesting it's like selective law abidance and denial all wrapped up in a nice neat little package.

People who obey the law don't need guns.

Only the criminals need guns.


Tell that to a charging boar or bear.

My guess is the NJ AG would obtain a court order to force NJ gun shops to cough up sales records on bump stocks. They cannot go beyond the state's borders with something like this.

The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. This mandated strict guidelines for firearms manufacturers and required owners to register machine guns via an excise tax, among other provisions. All automatic weapons owned by private citizens at that time were grandfathered because the government knew it would be unconstitutional to instantly criminalize law-abiding citizens.

My, how times have changed.

There are a whole lot of people today who are perfectly happy to blow their nose in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights to satisfy their own agendas. Not just within government. Citizens too, who are quite willing to pick up a hammer and chip away at their own rights as Americans. It boggles the mind. They have forgotten--or never properly learned--what freedom and liberty truly mean.

They also didn't pay attention when WWII was being covered in history class, and they sure are paying no attention to what's happening in countries today that have outlawed gun ownership or strictly regulate it. It's pathetic.

Remember how lovely East Germany was? People died just trying to escape from that prison of a country, and that was not that long ago. There is a difference between being a citizen and being a subject. I choose to be a citizen. All subjects are hereby excused to go find an oppressive regime to live beneath.

I've had people tell me citizens should not have the right possess firearms; nobody needs a gun to protect their family because that is the police's job. I always invite them to put their money where their mouth is: "Okay, take those fire extinguishers out of your kitchen, garage, workshop, and vehicle and throw them away. Why would you need to fight a fire? That's the fire department's job."

If you are unaware of the whole 'police protection' thing, here is some usable info. Many states evade liability by relying on the ironically-named "public duty doctrine," which says police are duty bound to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual. "Protecting the public" means enforcing the law, not protecting the individual.

Likewise, the general rule of law in the U.S. is that government is obligated to protect the public in general, but owes no statutory duty to protect any particular person from criminal behavior. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime. As a federal appeals court (Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05, 5th Cir. 1961) bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have "no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." This opinion has held since then, despite several challenges over the years.

Don't be a sheep. Don't be a parrot. Educate yourself on this stuff; there is a whole lot to learn.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Hewhowaits

Im with you, exactly my thoughts. Confiscation is absurd.

People who obey the law don't need guns.

Only the criminals need guns.

The 2d Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. What other parts of the Constitution are you thinking we 'don't need'?

If we're to begin ignoring laws, how 'bout we do away with any loosely defined within the Ten Commandments. Lets start with, "Thou shalt not kill." My point would be readily obvious were everyone to suddenly begin ignoring that one.

What a tired argument. The day gun confiscation begins will be unforgettable. If you think Stalin or Mao killed a lot of folks. Oh my!

Well, unless they have some sort of registry of who owns what, he's going to be waiting an awful long time for people to start turning their products in...

Hopefully the first legislation approved by the NEW governor will be to undo the crap passed by this goofball

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: Hewhowaits

Im with you, exactly my thoughts. Confiscation is absurd.

People who obey the law don't need guns.

Only the criminals need guns.

I must say, that is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard. The job of cops is to enforce laws, not to prevent crime. What that means is they show up AFTER the crime has already happened. If you take away the people's ability to protect themselves you turn control over to the criminal. To say something like that tells me that you're more than happy to sit back and let someone else risk their lives so you can pretend to care. If you're not willing to step up and stand on that wall then leave the "How to do it" to those who are.

Oh yeah just FYI, my rights were paid for with the blood of my forefathers, and the price has not changed. In other words if YOU want my guns then YOU can come and get them.

a reply to: neo96

Why do you need them? Hunting? Taking down a charging herd of elephants???
in Cincinnati? Taking out a crowd enjoying a concert?

Fill this in
I'm for these devices because_______________________________________.

a reply to: neo96

Christie is a moron.

And so is everyone else demagoguing bump stocks.

I'd like to see you tell that to the 500+ victims of the Vegas shooting.

originally posted by: amazing
OK so serious question. I've seen a bumpstock and it does pretty much convert the rifle to fully automatic. Most of us are okay with a fully automatic weapons ban. I don't think banning these is a bad thing. Yes no?

I realize the big argument is ....next they'll be coming for our shotguns and hand guns but that never happend. Even after 8 years of Obama. I don't believe there will ever be a gun ban in the United states ever.

I think I'm okay with a Bump Stock ban.

www.youtube.com...

The point most are trying to make is that you can duplicate a bump stock with your belt loop and thumb. It's called "bump-firing", you can look it up on youtube. So to ban this one thing, is pointless, and if you devolve into door to door confiscation, then what's next? It's just a bad idea, on top of a bad idea.

What's the official NRA stance on Cristie's decision to ban an outlaw bump fire stocks?

a reply to: Liquesence

And your point is what ?

Running around shooting people is already against the law.

Doesn't stop people from breaking it.

So ban stuff you know damn well isn't going to stop it from happening again.

originally posted by: MikeA

I must say, that is the dumbest thing I think I have ever heard. The job of cops is to enforce laws, not to prevent crime. What that means is they show up AFTER the crime has already happened.

That's not the point.

The "availability" of guns, is the problem, and it is driven by market forces.

If you ban the gun, then the manufacture of these weapons will decline, and it becomes harder for criminals to get guns.

So, when the criminal gets into your home, he's armed with a knife instead, and does less damage. And you always have knives in your home to fight back, so it's an even battle.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Liquesence

And your point is what ?

Running around shooting people is already against the law.

Doesn't stop people from breaking it.

So ban stuff you know damn well isn't going to stop it from happening again.

The point?

That without such a thing so many people would not have have been injured or killed as with it. That's the point.

I know you're not that daft.

I'm pro 2nd Amendment, and a avid gun enthusiast...but I support the ban and sale of bump fire stocks to the public citizenry, because the use of such devices, make it to easy for some neophyte 'spray an pray' shooter to go out an kill people.

originally posted by: Erno86
I'm pro 2nd Amendment, and a avid gun enthusiast...but I support the ban and sale of bump fire stocks to the public citizenry, because the use of such devices, make it to easy for some neophyte 'spray an pray' shooter to go out an kill people.

I don't own a gun. Never owned a gun. Don't want to own a gun. Don't want to live anywhere that I would feel the need to have to own a gun. The idea that I would be walking about "thinking" about when, if, and how, I would have to use that gun to shoot another human being is abhorrent to me. I don't want to participate in that "thought process" on any regular basis, while living on planet earth. I understand Police and Soldiers have to live with these types of thoughts, and I admire them for suffering under it, but it's not my profession to have to own or handle weapons, and I'd rather be thinking of other things.

So, if I'm going to vote, I'm going to vote for the type of environment where nobody feels the need to have these guns. That's because we all influence each other, and if all my neighbors have guns, that puts pressure on me to also have a gun. Otherwise, I'd be at a tremendous disadvantage, should me and my neighbors ever disagree on some issue, like my dog pooped on their lawn, etc..

The way I see it, the 2nd amendment doesn't give the citizens the right to have guns, it's about the right of the state to establish a militia and bear arms for the states protection. Only those people the state puts into the militia have the right to have these guns, along with the police. Even the police should have their guns removed, they should be walking about with night sticks.

a reply to: AMPTAH


What if the police and soldiers in your country represent the most evil kind of government, that performs vast criminal misdeeds in the name of that government --- the likes of mass executions of innocent people, ala death squads, concentration camps and forced starvation --- Would you rather have a gun, or say, join a militia to protect your family and friends from forced annihilation by the said government?

The art of shooting is an Olympic sport....be it with archery, shotguns, pistols and rifles. They are fun to shoot, meanwhile...helps develop hand, eye and muscle coordination that can sometimes rival a Zen master.

Target shooting is my favorite kind of shooting sport --- I love to blast steel metallic gong targets at a shooting range that I belong too...be it with my AK's, AR's or my favorite old war relic guns.

May I suggest that you join a gun club and shooting range, so you can familiarize yourself with guns; and you just might find how much fun they are to shoot --- safely and respectfully.

Cheers,

Erno

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: AMPTAH


What if the police and soldiers in your country represent the most evil kind of government

You don't need a gun to kill someone. But, the only purpose of the gun is to kill someone.

You can always remove the police and soldiers if they turn out to be evil.

To get rid of the police, you only have to poison the donuts.

a reply to: DBCowboy

That particular tactic strikes me as not terribly safe...