It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Over One Million Gun Owners Refuse To Obey Ban, No One Turning In Magazines

page: 8
75
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

WRONG. If you're caught with a >10 round mag, you will be charged. You said, if you have a >10 round mag, you will be charged. NO.

Magazines are not registered with the crap state of NJ nor do they have serial numbers.. So they have no idea what you own.
edit on 23-12-2018 by jseeley because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

The people can elect others. Seems to me people get upset but then elect the same people into office.
When the Progressives wanted the national government to ban alcohol, they realized that an amendment to the Constitution was needed. Prohibition on the state and local level.
Since the Twenty-First Amendment Repealed the Eighteenth, nothing in any of the Constitution’s amendments gives the federal government any additional power to ban something.
this is the state of NJ im waiting to see what other states will fallow.
citizens of NJ march on your state capitals grass.
Make it look like a election day post signs. Just annoy the crap out of your governor.
rap him up a 20 round banana clip for Christmas throw it in his yard noooo not threw his window...lol
edit on 23-12-2018 by madenusa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2018 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: madenusa

The fine folks of NJ won't get around to doing that. Too much effort is required.



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Xcathdra

Do you refuse to take people to jail/issue ticket over pot?


I've taken one person to jail for DUI-drugs (marijuana). Other than that its not my primary focus. The people in my state just voted to legalize it so its even less of an issue now. However even if the law was active at the time of many stop he still woulds have gone to jail.

In this instance, regarding the magazine size, encroaches on a constitutional right.



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: jseeley
Why would ANYONE hand-in THEIR PROPERTY which was paid for with their hard-earned money? Even so, why would anyone hand in mags for a less-than fair price? Why aren't people handing-in their mags? Because, like me, the majority are planning on using them again when they move out of the NON-FREEDOM NJ state. Then NJ will become a REAL DUMP with continuing crime. A friend of mine had to spend $600 for 10 round mags for his guns to be legal in NJ. He shipped his >10 round mags to FL where he will be moving. You have to be nuts to hand-in your property. At least sell it if you're not moving out of the crap state of NJ.

It's been said over and over.... This law ONLY INCONVENIENCES the honest law abiding gun owners. It's all about control. I blame the poor and uneducated sheeple who blindly vote Democrat regardless of the candidate. And this time, they blindly voted for ANOTHER Goldman Sachs executive just like Corzine. HOW STUPID.


I am curious if anyone ever challenged this type of law as a violation of no ex post facto requirement in the Constitution. Buying something thats legal only to have the government years later decide its no longer legal. The people who owned before the law went into effect should have been grandfathered in. By not doing that they just made more than a million people criminals.



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




In this instance, regarding the magazine size, encroaches on a constitutional right.


So does not possessing fully automatics, certain types of ammo, artillery, aircraft will machine guns and bombs. Where is the line drawn? And why can there even be a line? Hasn't society allowed it so it is now acceptable?

Hey, I think the 10 round mag situation is stupid but look where it came from. It some balancing act in action.



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

Just take more clips along, I see no problem with having that restriction unless you are shooting a bunch of people in a club or school. High capacity magazines make the loose cannons feel more powerful. For the vast majority of gun owners these clips are not a problem but for the few that do school shootings and stuff, it makes them less fearful of being challenged and increases their confidence of doing their thing.. Same with bump stocks, the majority of people have them for just having fun but there are loose cannons there that gain confidence to do bad things. How do you control these few, I agree with making bump stocks illegal and keeping clips to less than fifteen rounds, we do not need them.


Ah, so your stance is that unless the "law makers" in power and any given time can see a real good reason for YOU to own something, then we all really don't need it nor should want it. Is that it?



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: JBurns

Doesn't that mean any restrictions and firearms needs to be ignored. Full auto and armor piercing ammo laws.




The Second Amendment does not contain exceptions pertaining to those items, now does it?

What exactly, in a legal sense, is the definition of "infringed"?

Interesting to note, there is nothing at all in the Second Amendment indicating that felons can have their right to bear arms removed by government action. Not unless a felon ceases to be among the member group "the people" as defined by the US Constitution. Again, there are no exceptions noted. Not that I am in favor of it, but it is what it is. Would certainly make an interesting class action lawsuit, I would think.



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Double post removed.
edit on 24-12-2018 by Rich Z because: Site slowed down and caused a double post.



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: roadgravel

The system, IMHO, is screwed up.

For instance, unless I myself write in someone on my own ballot, I only get to choose between a 'slate' of contenders from the recognized political parties.

The press / media is supposed to vet all candidates running for every single political office / seat, but they do not do that.

So, I can usually vote for one individual between 2, maybe 3 candidates, of the top political parties, none of whom I generally like, or else technically 'not' vote.

I vote every election that ever happens; however, in this situation my own personal vote is NEVER EVER going to make a difference.

The system itself was screwed up, before I was ever personally even old enough to vote for the first time!

I just wish I could have some input about who is on the ballot, because I get ZERO of that!

Please do not tell me that the primary elections as currently structured in the United States give me some choice. They don't.

Is this REALLLY democracy?




Oh, it's worse than that. I voted for Ron Paul via write in when the options presented before me were not acceptable. Well, come to find out that in Florida, at least, write ins don't count unless the person written in has been validated to be "qualified" to vote for. Believe me, that was a WTF moment for me! So we can only realistically vote for "approved" candidates?



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: madenusa

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Fowlerstoad

The people can elect others. Seems to me people get upset but then elect the same people into office.
When the Progressives wanted the national government to ban alcohol, they realized that an amendment to the Constitution was needed. Prohibition on the state and local level.
Since the Twenty-First Amendment Repealed the Eighteenth, nothing in any of the Constitution’s amendments gives the federal government any additional power to ban something.


That was just the proverbial camel's nose underneath the edge of the tent. Notice that the government didn't feel that an amendment was necessary in order to ban "recreational" drugs? What is different about the procedure then and now?



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Rich Z




So we can only realistically vote for "approved" candidates?


At least have meet some qualification determined by those in charge. The old write in doesn't really work like so many think.



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Violater1

" Any law that restricts any part of the Amendment's, is illegal. "


So , that would Include Ammo ?


If you know the amendment, you know it does not say guns. It uses the term, "arms". That term, at that time, meant firearm, powder, and ball. One of the reasons that they had to beat back the British soldiers marching on Concord in April of 1775. The soldiers were heading to seize the powder reserves stored there.

Historic context is everything in this regard.

PS: And, the words "well regulated" actually means well trained and in good order. It does not mean more laws to restrict (or infringe) that right, which is actually clearly stated.




So , according to the Second Amendment , could a Bow and Arrow be considered an " Arm " ? A Rock , a Piece of Wood ? Anything that could be turned into a Weapon ? If so , then like you said , " Arms " do not Only mean Firearms . Hmm...


Hyperbole much?

Now, if you want to have a serious conversation about the 18th Century definition of "arms" and the context in which it is used in the U.S. Constitution, I will happily provide source documentation that I have done here on ATS countless time in countless threads to educate the countless ignorant of the topic.

It's your choice to either be educated or ignorant.



edit on 12/24/2018 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Xcathdra




In this instance, regarding the magazine size, encroaches on a constitutional right.


So does not possessing fully automatics, certain types of ammo, artillery, aircraft will machine guns and bombs. Where is the line drawn? And why can there even be a line? Hasn't society allowed it so it is now acceptable?

Hey, I think the 10 round mag situation is stupid but look where it came from. It some balancing act in action.


Well the guideline established under the Heller decision for firearms revolves around a common use doctrine. Semi automatic weapons are commonly available and used by the public at large. Automatic weapons - not so much. You can thank the good ole days of the Mob for the restrictions on automatic weapons.

You can obtain automatic weapons however they are restricted. So automatic weapons arent really a good example to argue from.



posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel




posted on Dec, 24 2018 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rich Z

originally posted by: rickymouse

Just take more clips along, I see no problem with having that restriction unless you are shooting a bunch of people in a club or school. High capacity magazines make the loose cannons feel more powerful. For the vast majority of gun owners these clips are not a problem but for the few that do school shootings and stuff, it makes them less fearful of being challenged and increases their confidence of doing their thing.. Same with bump stocks, the majority of people have them for just having fun but there are loose cannons there that gain confidence to do bad things. How do you control these few, I agree with making bump stocks illegal and keeping clips to less than fifteen rounds, we do not need them.


Ah, so your stance is that unless the "law makers" in power and any given time can see a real good reason for YOU to own something, then we all really don't need it nor should want it. Is that it?


No, but in this case, the loose cannons, maybe one half percent of gun owners, feel more powerful owning things like this. Heck, I knew some loose cannons over the years, they would go out shooting and shot anyway they had a desire to shoot, including up in the air. Bullets come down, stray bullets can hit someone. I did not like hunting with those kind of people, I did not feel safe. The more impressive the gun the more wreckless they are with it and show off all the time. Now a small percent of those people go out and do mass shootings, the guns fuel their confidence. Best to just ban bumpstocks and huge clips so those one in a thousand loose cannons cannot go on killing sprees. They do not feel so powerful with an old fashioned thirty thirty even though the thirty thirty is just as deadly.

One loose cannon can kill a lot of people, one terrorist can kill a lot of people, one thief can steal from many homes. One bad person can impact many people.

I like owning guns and have my fair share, but I don't need a machine gun type gun and feel nobody really needs one. Most of the people I know who have impressive guns buy them to show superiority.



posted on Dec, 25 2018 @ 11:22 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

I have a buddy who buys and repairs vintage firearms. He owns a different types of gatling guns, automatic rifles, and an assortment of other automatic weapons. They are all fully functional and operate like the day they were made. Does he need them for survival or protection? No. Does he shoot them? Why, yes he does. People can even go to his gun range and pay a ridiculous amount of money to shoot them.

He is probably one of the most humble persons I know. He's over the hill and still says yessir/no sir to people half his age. Banning things because of "loose cannons" is a logical fallacy. Hell, let's start with banning cars because all the loose cannons who go on vehicular rampages. All the belligerent drunks who decide to drive drunk every day shouldn't be driving. Let's go ahead and ban knives. Scratch that. Let's ban everything that's been used to kill another person.



posted on Dec, 25 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: RealityIsAbsurd
a reply to: rickymouse

I have a buddy who buys and repairs vintage firearms. He owns a different types of gatling guns, automatic rifles, and an assortment of other automatic weapons. They are all fully functional and operate like the day they were made. Does he need them for survival or protection? No. Does he shoot them? Why, yes he does. People can even go to his gun range and pay a ridiculous amount of money to shoot them.

He is probably one of the most humble persons I know. He's over the hill and still says yessir/no sir to people half his age. Banning things because of "loose cannons" is a logical fallacy. Hell, let's start with banning cars because all the loose cannons who go on vehicular rampages. All the belligerent drunks who decide to drive drunk every day shouldn't be driving. Let's go ahead and ban knives. Scratch that. Let's ban everything that's been used to kill another person.



Hey, like I said, it is only a small percentage of people who would misuse these kind of weapons. I would have it that they just ban bumpstocks and high volume clips than to start banning all semi-automatic guns. We need to find a way to stop loose cannons from buying guns. I can deal with careless people playing bigshots with their fancy weapons, but I can not justify having fully automatic weapons out there that crazy people can access. It is not about how lethel they are, it is about crazy people getting more self confidence with these weapons then going out and shooting the town up.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: RealityIsAbsurd
a reply to: rickymouse

I have a buddy who buys and repairs vintage firearms. He owns a different types of gatling guns, automatic rifles, and an assortment of other automatic weapons. They are all fully functional and operate like the day they were made. Does he need them for survival or protection? No. Does he shoot them? Why, yes he does. People can even go to his gun range and pay a ridiculous amount of money to shoot them.

He is probably one of the most humble persons I know. He's over the hill and still says yessir/no sir to people half his age. Banning things because of "loose cannons" is a logical fallacy. Hell, let's start with banning cars because all the loose cannons who go on vehicular rampages. All the belligerent drunks who decide to drive drunk every day shouldn't be driving. Let's go ahead and ban knives. Scratch that. Let's ban everything that's been used to kill another person.



Hey, like I said, it is only a small percentage of people who would misuse these kind of weapons. I would have it that they just ban bumpstocks and high volume clips than to start banning all semi-automatic guns. We need to find a way to stop loose cannons from buying guns. I can deal with careless people playing bigshots with their fancy weapons, but I can not justify having fully automatic weapons out there that crazy people can access. It is not about how lethel they are, it is about crazy people getting more self confidence with these weapons then going out and shooting the town up.


I would argue that crazy people would probably not be sane enough to think about committing mass murder. It's easy to call a mass shooter a lunatic but in all reality, they do actually know exactly what they're doing and that it is wrong (which is why they often kill themselves before they can be captured). So they're not legally insane IMO.

We are (IMO) way too eager to play into the hands of the people who want to baby step their way to a ban. First, they will say you can buy a gun as long as you're not crazy. Then they will start changing the meaning of the word "crazy". Probably slowly. Eventually, it will be almost impossible because they'll invent so many mental illnesses that everyone will have one. I mean, honestly, it's kind of already at the point to where if they really wanted to, they could technically diagnose the vast majority of people with some kind of mental disorder.

I don't think you can go down that road and not ultimately lose the whole shebang.
edit on 26-12-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Allaroundyou

I’m all for sensible gun laws.


Who gets to define "sensible"?




top topics



 
75
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join