New gun laws proposed in Massachusetts (think your state is bad?)

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starwise
I wrote my congressman last week and gave him the scenario of what the *TERM* GANG RAPE means....I don't think a little 7 round capacity pistol will help in that situation......

All the rules these states are making are going to make it easy for criminals, and make a state of more victims of rape, burglary and robbery....


i dunno, 4-5 guys, 4-5 shots, always worked for me, with two bullets left over.. Once you take out the leader the rest tend to scatter anyhow...




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by vkey08

Originally posted by Starwise
I wrote my congressman last week and gave him the scenario of what the *TERM* GANG RAPE means....I don't think a little 7 round capacity pistol will help in that situation......

All the rules these states are making are going to make it easy for criminals, and make a state of more victims of rape, burglary and robbery....


i dunno, 4-5 guys, 4-5 shots, always worked for me, with two bullets left over.. Once you take out the leader the rest tend to scatter anyhow...

You're joking right? You figure in high stress and life/death decision making ...you're going to be fine with carrying 1 shot per attacker and have a couple to spare?

This has to be sarcastic humor and I just missed that... text is funny about conveying tone.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



You're joking right? You figure in high stress and life/death decision making ...you're going to be fine with carrying 1 shot per attacker and have a couple to spare?

This has to be sarcastic humor and I just missed that... text is funny about conveying tone.


Ya, I don’t like those odds either. People should be able to have hi cap magazines for self defense. This video is a good example of WHY we need them. A mother of 2 shot an intruder 6 times (5 hit the mark – face and neck) with a 38 special; she emptied the gun. The intruder was able to flee the scene in his car. Had he been holding a gun he would have easily been able to kill this woman and her children even after she used her weapon.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


100% total sarcasm.... There is no way I would trust those odds, been there, and having two left over just ain't gonna happen, but yes it was sarcasm.. .



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by Camperguy
 


All our gun crime in Massachusetts stems from the gang violence in downtown Boston, areas such as Roxbury, Mattapan and Dorchester keeps the police busy due to the heavy gang presence...and the bulk of these crimes are handgun related...and I would say that the majority of the guns are illegally owned seeing that the majority of the kids are under 18 using them.

Funny because the Governor not long ago back in December talked about how his mom owned a handgun because she was mugged when he was younger and didn't really have a stance on this..luckily crime has been down in the hoods as the murder rates have thankfully dropped due to getting more policemen and women to walk around in the troubled neighborhoods in addition to treating juvenile crime a bit differently on minor first time offenses..
edit on 21-1-2013 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)


My bud the Springfield cop/Swat team member is furious over the proposed gun laws. Most crimes are with illegally obtained handguns he himself has never seen a military looking weapon used in a crime. He is an avid modern firearms collector and I feel sorry for the people that try to take his weapons. Seriously he wont be alone when the # hits the fan , there are plenty of good people who feel this way the problem is the news media/Government will report that people who resist confiscation are "Terrorist'' when in all reality they are true American Patriots!

Lets hope the system works, but as we see in NY and soon to be Ma.it doesnt.

Bill



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by vkey08
 

Whew.... You scared me there. With some of the "logic" and "reasoning" to be used in the light of day recently? Well, I just never quite know for sure when context isn't clear these days. Scary times when that's the case.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
ALL state-level gun laws are unconstitutional, period.

I love the hypocrisy of republicans, and other people like you. It's all "states' right this, states' rights that." But as soon as a state does something you disagree with, it's unconstitutional.
edit on 20-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


Actually, you miss the point. The Constitution states, quite clearly, that anything not specifically a duty of the Federal government in the Constitution, nor specifically denied the states, shall be the perview of the states. Thus, for example, federal welfare is not an enumerated duty of the federal government, so it falls to the states.

The Bill of Rights protects the rights of the people and with the concept of incorportation also restrains the States as well. For example: if a state bans religion or creates a state religion, it is in violation of the First Amendment. Likewise, these gun control laws are in violation of the Second Amendment.

Thus it is quite logical and reasonable to say that something like gay marriage is a state issue, but also say that a ban by a state of religion is also unconstitutional.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
I'd rather have state-wide gun laws than federal gun laws. States should be sovereign entities, if you are opposed to how your state is running things you should be able to weigh your options and move to a different state. Let the states that want gun laws have them, and let those that don't, well, don't.


I am wondering if you would also consider that a proper response to the historical "sit in the back of the bus" Jim Crow laws?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Camperguy

Massachusetts has stated it will spend every last dollar the tax payers have fighting against the 2nd amendments rights.

Bill


Do you have a link for this comment or is it an opinion? Admittedly, Massachusetts is going against the constitution, but the above is insane.

Thanks



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by boncho
 


Thats the truth about the cosmetic features being banned. It really infuriates me. Now I have to remove a few features I added on my guns because they look evil. And now when holding and firing my weapon I can be less safe because I will have less control due to having to remove my forward grips. Epic facepalm if I ever saw one.


Could you like, uhhhh paint your cosmetic features orange.....and be good with that? Or maybe hot pink with a lime green outline?????? IDK, just a thought.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by Camperguy

Massachusetts has stated it will spend every last dollar the tax payers have fighting against the 2nd amendments rights.

Bill


Do you have a link for this comment or is it an opinion? Admittedly, Massachusetts is going against the constitution, but the above is insane.

Thanks


All I have is word of mouth from friend who owned a firearms store. When the first round of assault weapons ban went through in mass, mid 90, s i think. He contacted the NRA and that is what they told him.

Bill



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 




While each of the 50 states has its own constitution, all provisions of state constitutions must comply with the U.S. Constitution.

usgovinfo.about.com...

Just for reference.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by boncho
 


Thats the truth about the cosmetic features being banned. It really infuriates me. Now I have to remove a few features I added on my guns because they look evil. And now when holding and firing my weapon I can be less safe because I will have less control due to having to remove my forward grips. Epic facepalm if I ever saw one.


So, I guess this must scare the #$@#$ out of everyone then?





posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by boncho
 


Thats the truth about the cosmetic features being banned. It really infuriates me. Now I have to remove a few features I added on my guns because they look evil. And now when holding and firing my weapon I can be less safe because I will have less control due to having to remove my forward grips. Epic facepalm if I ever saw one.


Could you like, uhhhh paint your cosmetic features orange.....and be good with that? Or maybe hot pink with a lime green outline?????? IDK, just a thought.


I would be totally fine with painting it lime green and orchid metallic (it's a variant of purple), had a car in high school those colors and loved it, sprayed it myself. Now on a serious note cosmetic features like a forward grip or compensator (not many like them) but they do have their place for example on my hi point 9mm rifle it looks better with it on rather than off. Point being it impacts the lethality of the gun in no way whatsoever. But it looks scary so it must be banned. Adjustable stock is another good example, without it you are less able to control your firearm effectively and safely especially if you have short popeye arms like myself. Does 2 or 3 inches of travel of the stock make it more deadly? NO. Does it make it easier to hide? NO. So what purpose does the ban serve other than someone who doesn't know what they are talking about passing laws and regulations. Forward grip, would I rather have a designated place at the front of my rifle to place my non trigger hand that keeps it from getting burned on the hot barrel YES makes sense to me. I could go on for hours on menial stuff that is against the law or restricted and makes things unsafe because of it but I think I made my point.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by jaynkeel
reply to post by boncho
 


Thats the truth about the cosmetic features being banned. It really infuriates me. Now I have to remove a few features I added on my guns because they look evil. And now when holding and firing my weapon I can be less safe because I will have less control due to having to remove my forward grips. Epic facepalm if I ever saw one.


So, I guess this must scare the #$@#$ out of everyone then?




Hard to tell sarcasm on the net but your laughing symbols lead me to think that way if not see above post explaining cosmetic if your confused. I have a nice hot pick sling I could throw on my gun if it makes it less evil if that helps, also supports breast cancer awareness with it.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Well, these are state laws.

If people don't like them, they can move to Texas.


Funny you say that. Lots of people leave Massachusetts. Including me.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Moving to Texas sounds fine to me, you people there still have a good head on your shoulders for the most part except for one city I've heard about.
edit on 22-1-2013 by 1loserel2 because: correction



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Most people don't understand terminology when it comes to "guns" (firearms). People who own and shoot them know that the media misuse of these terms is what sows a lot of the controversy about what exactly constitutes an "assault weapon" or "handgun". Both of these terms are misnomers designed to confuse the population at large into lumping them altogether into one category that has vague specifics. The media people themselves don't really understand their own terms it seems. They just call everything a "gun" and seek to "control" them.

Really any serious discussion of firearms must include a distinction between the actual terms such as "rifle" or "shotgun" and "pistol" or "revolver". The term "assault weapon" is so vague it can easily include every firearm if thats what the firearm is used for in a crime. If I assault you with a sword, that is an "assault weapon". If it just hangs over the fireplace, it is neither.

The file footage the MSM uses to show what they mean usually is a tidbit from a gun store or gun show that is used as "background" for their segment.

What is an "assault weapon"? I don't know. Show some "military style hardware"... lol. It should be black, have appendages and fire "repeatedly". Whatever all that means. All gun metal is "blued' or "parkarized" giving it a black appearance. All gun stocks today are made of black plastic instead of wood, go figure.

So every "gun' is an "assault weapon" which fires "repeatedly" and thats all the general public needs to know about it.

Then they say they are not taking away your "rights" in the same sentence.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The same people who write laws like this try to convince us that they'll never come for our shotguns or rifles.

So lets look at their stupid laws.

First it was 10 round limits.

Folks cried "watch out, slippery slope"

They countered with "that's a fallacy, we wont come for your guns"

Now those same people give us the 7 round limit.

Can we say "slippery slope" now or do we have to wait for it to get to 5 rounds?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Just reading an article today in the local paper and found out he's one of those mayors against guns. He is quoted in the paper that these assault weapons are in the same class as bazookas and tanks and the founding fathers never intended us to have those! What a fukking idiot.

Bill





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join