CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

page: 5
81
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Some guns were made with magazines that exceed 10 rounds.

For example my son owns a Marlin Camp Carbine and uses a 12 round magazine.

It's simply how the gun was designed. Banning high capacity magazines would do nothing. Any semiautomatic pistol can have it's magazine changed in less than 2 seconds.



Did you realize you just pointed out how they will outlaw most guns?
Any that carries a detachable magazine.

If this affects the manufacture of Colt 1911's then everything I've worked for over the last 17 years goes down the tube. I have a business that depends completely on the production of that particular firearm. These laws could also put many. many people out of business - manufacturers, gunsmiths, parts suppliers, wholesalers, engravers, stock carvers, etc.




posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Going after the guns will not solve the problem go after bullets instead or at least increase the price of bullets to 1000 dollars per bullet ,that will teach people the price of life and to think twice before they shoot somebody.Also tax people whenever they want to use their guns and implement tracking ids in bullets to track gun owners and how much bullets they use.
edit on 27-12-2012 by TheChosenKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
I hope this link works...
www.naturalnews.com...

I'v been saying this about the South for some time now. You can try all you want to disarm us, but it will be So bloody, it will either start another civil war, or end as quick as it began.
The Genie's out of the bottle..
edit on 27-12-2012 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheChosenKing
 


Can you be any more obvious? It's time to turn in your badge, it's over. You must not have gotten the
memo!
www.peoplestrust1776.org...



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


Drudge is an awful site and insanely unreliable.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheChosenKing
 


Hey Chris Rock showed up!



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


Some guns were made with magazines that exceed 10 rounds.

For example my son owns a Marlin Camp Carbine and uses a 12 round magazine.

It's simply how the gun was designed. Banning high capacity magazines would do nothing. Any semiautomatic pistol can have it's magazine changed in less than 2 seconds.



Did you realize you just pointed out how they will outlaw most guns?
Any that carries a detachable magazine.

If this affects the manufacture of Colt 1911's then everything I've worked for over the last 17 years goes down the tube. I have a business that depends completely on the production of that particular firearm. These laws could also put many. many people out of business - manufacturers, gunsmiths, parts suppliers, wholesalers, engravers, stock carvers, etc.


Yep.

What concerns me is the "Military feature(s)" that they have in the legislation. They need to define that, and limit that.

If they don't, then "Military feature(s)" can then be defined as many things if they so desire and if people do not pay attention. A draconian view would be:

"If a weapon used by the military has it, it is therefore a 'Military Feature'"

Say they decide that 'blow back' is a military feature and that will wipe out many semiautomatic weapons. I can see that being used to limit civilians to revolvers and bolt action rifles only. Single load and pump action shotguns too.

Okay, that should be good enough for general home defense and hunting for the most part, correct? But then where does it stop?

Anything over a certain caliber? Double action revolvers?

Rifling in the barrel?

Better break out the old ball and cap muskets then.........that is until they decide that gun powder should be a banned substance.

We've had guns for a very, very long time now. We've had gun violence too. But we've not had the horrific types of crimes that we've been seeing as of late in the past either, even when just about everyone was walking around with a gun on their hip.

The problem isn't the guns. The problem isn't the bullets. The problem isn't how fast a gun can shoot, nor how many rounds it can hold.
Banning guns will not solve anything.

The problem lays with trying to find out WHY certain individuals suddenly decide to commit these horrific crimes. There has to be a WHY. Figure out the WHY and you'll figure out the problem, and it's not be they had access to guns.

Timothy McVeigh didn't use a single bullet, yet he was able to kill 168 people and injure 800. 19 of those victims were children. And not one bullet was fired.

So again, the problem isn't guns. The problem is why do we have people in todays world that want to kill a lot of people and go through with it.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Well, this will put even more fire under the Gun industry to increase production and hire more shifts. I'll just bet the people at Ruger, Springfield, Smith and the others have been moving that way for awhile ..just as they did in 2008/09, but this? This will put all that into fast forward as people now take the threat seriously and buy buy buy.

This will, if passed, bring a direct grab for the guns. I have no doubt of that. I won't come right away....and it won't be from THIS bill. This will set the critical first step for what quickly piles on afterward. Just as this woman helped the state officials do in California...which never shook their FAR more restrictive AWB when the national one expired. However, in the years they've been cowed and disarmed ..it got to the point where San Francisco felt pretty confident awhile back and before Heller with just trying to ban guns in their city entirely.

Now it couldn't have reached anything LIKE that point ...without the laws that California has been all but crushed under in SO many ways. It takes living outside the state for years and going back to realize it's damn near another country there already in some ways.

What I see a lot of though are sales. MUCHO GRANDE SALES. Not JUST of guns....but of ammo, reloading equipment, specific powders and primers by the gross. Then... water tight containers of just such a shape and size to be just right ...and digging. Lots of digging all over this land from sea to shining sea. Anyone who thinks I'm kidding will see the reality soon enough. ALL these guns being bought by the thousands a week right now? They're all going to be tragically (dig dig) stolen (dig dig) or sold (dig dig) and who knows where they went (fill in dirt and plant a garden).



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
We theorize that the Government wants to take our guns because they give us power BUT trying to take our guns will only give the people more power when they start a civil war. I thought banning guns was supposed to stop civil war? TPTB have a plan, all ways 50 steps ahead.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph... 5 pages in and I'm facepalming here.

I've said all of this before in other threads, but startlingly few people seem to think about it in threads like this. So... to restate the obvious:
1. Why is anyone purchasing any firearms from dealers in the first place? That is a fool's errand of the highest order. You buy firearms in party to party sales or from gun shows which require no identification, especially if you are a clean, law abiding citizen. Furthermore, when you purchase ammo, you do so paying in cash (or, better yet, learn reloading and gear up! But remember, buy your reloading gear and supplies with cash, too.)
2. Why am I seeing people stating what firearm they (or worse, a friend or loved one) own in an open internet thread? That is a level of denseness which should never be displayed. Hell, ideally everyone in this thread should state "I don't own a firearm, but..." Never mind the reality of your situation... including if you have a back room stocked floor to ceiling with Win Mags. SHOW SOME COMMON SENSE and keep your hand out of view of the rest of the table. This is very much akin to those idiots on the TV Doomsday Prepper programs. (You know, the ones where the moron shows the whole damn world his "secret" bug out location and talks about how difficult his bunker will be to find as he stands next to the street sign it is located on in front of the cleared, open door into it?) We're in a thread about gun grabs from the government, so for the love of God act like you don't own one yourself.
3. Do the laws they pass matter anymore? Hell, the feds don't follow their laws, so why should anyone else worry about them? Just keep your head down, your eyes open, and be ready to do whatever you feel the need to do if the worst case scenario plays out and the retards in Washington DC pass something like this.

Oh, and did I mention I own no firearms...



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
I was going to wait until my birthday to buy a Henry Rifle.

Not anymore.






posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
Feinstein will introduce a bill to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition feeding devices.
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and


1. doesn't affect ownership, only the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing
2. Doesn't apply to single action firearms used for hunting and basic protection
3. The US military took out Saddam who had tanks, planes, uzi's and a standing army. You owning an assault weapon isn't going to keep you from being "taken down" by the military if you are trying to overthrow the government.
4. The "right to bear arms" was written at a time of black powder rifles, not assault weapons
5. If the government is ever taken over by the will of the people, it won't be done with guns and the military isn't going to turn on its own countrymen.
6. It's about time they do something about keeping those things out of the hands of the general public, they're for the military, not for the "guy on the street" whether he be a criminal or not, there is no legitimate use for them

If they aren't attacking single action revolvers or hunting rifles (and they won't) then I see no problem with it as I have no use for anything other than that nor does anyone else

Number 3 is a pretty big one



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Civil War my butt. If and that is a big if one were to occur over the same law we already had. It would be over in about in eight hours once people wake up to the fact they are hungry and pretty much need to get back to work.
edit on 27-12-2012 by KeliOnyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheChosenKing
Going after the guns will not solve the problem go after bullets instead or at least increase the price of bullets to 1000 dollars per bullet ,that will teach people the price of life and to think twice before they shoot somebody.Also tax people whenever they want to use their guns and implement tracking ids in bullets to track gun owners and how much bullets they use.
edit on 27-12-2012 by TheChosenKing because: (no reason given)


Yes let's track people exercising their God given birth right. How about we track people that have abortions? At least you know that every single one of those people are murderers.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Having visited several Gun shops and sporting goods stores, I took the time to talk to management and customers. Most of them are saying they will not comply. Also they cannot keep AR 15 or AK 47 Rifles or mags in stock. They are selling them as soon as they get them in. One class 3 FFL I deal with has spent about $500K for "display Models" of both .308 and .50 Cal new Machine Guns. I think you can read between those lines. There was open talk about civil war if they pass this.



I was amazed. Even 2 LEO's in the shop were saying they would side with the firearms owners.



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Well, some moderator finally got around to reading this. Thanks for the link!


Feinstein has been whipping this horse since 1978 - when she walked in on the Moscone / Milk killings right after they happened. She has an agenda - and it's transparent for all to see.

Here's what some moderator thinks:

Feinstein will introduce the Bill and it will pass the Senate but will die in the House. Why? Because:


Source

That's where the military industrial complex invested their money - there and they bet both sides of the POTUS race - as the above shows.

The gun makers have their own interests covered.

Feinstein has a dismal approval rating of 22.4% and gets the bulk of her campaign funding from unspecified sources. IE she's unpopular and has skeletons to keep hidden.


Source

She's got no game.

What the POTUS has said, is:


We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there's no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.
But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence.

Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that's been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible — they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection.
But you know what, I am also betting that the majority — the vast majority — of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. I'm willing to bet that they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas — that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone's criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown — or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day.

Source

Just about two hours ago, Charles Krauthammer published the following:


Congress enacted, and I supported, an assault weapons ban in 1994. It didn’t work according to a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department. The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all firearms and repeal the Second Amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.

Feinstein’s law, for example, would exempt 900 weapons. And that’s the least of the loopholes. Even the guns that are banned can be made legal with simple, minor modifications.

Most fatal is the grandfathering of existing weapons and magazines. That’s one of the reasons the ‘94 law failed. At the time, there were 1.5 million assault weapons in circulation and 25 million high-capacity (more than 10 bullets) magazines. A reservoir that immense can take 100 years to draw down.

Source

When it 's all said and done, even if the Bill ( which is not even introduced yet ) gets past the House? It's loophole ridden and won't amount to much. Well, unless you're buying guns with a felony record or maybe a history of involuntary commitment.

Some mod personally thinks that the Feinstein agenda is to cause the kind of mass panic that would make her bill viable. You know... things like calling for a civil war.

Never ceases to amaze me how high off the ground folks get when they hear the word "frog". Flinch in a street fight? Get bloodied. Flinch now? You'll hand them the entire game - point spread and all.

~Heff



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
anyone suprised that the very popular and standard issue police handgun (atleast where i live), the glock 9mm, would be included in this ban due to it's magazine size?

more "we can have it, but you can't" rhetoric, though this time it is very dangerous, and taken way too far.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   


Liberty or death, what we so proudly hail Once you provoke her, rattling of her tail Never begins it, never, but once engaged... Never surrenders, showing the fangs of rage Say don't tread on me So be it Threaten no more To secure peace is to prepare for war So be it Settle the score Touch me again for the words that you'll hear evermore... Don't tread on me


When do we unite? Don't tread on me, we are worth the sacrifice says my body and soul without fear and full of a glow.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
I am afraid I have just found a loophole for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. If a firearms company could make a magazine that snaps onto another magazine, which snaps onto another magazine one could have 20 10 round magazines and click them all together at time of usage to get many many more than 10 rounds a magazine.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManOfHart
I am afraid I have just found a loophole for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. If a firearms company could make a magazine that snaps onto another magazine, which snaps onto another magazine one could have 20 10 round magazines and click them all together at time of usage to get many many more than 10 rounds a magazine.


You'd have to change springs too. I doubt a spring-follower-spring-follower setup would work. Be interesting to try and make it work though.





new topics
top topics
 
81
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join