Obama starts his move against Firearms...as he said he would.

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by neo96

 

You seem to be having a conversation with yourself and talking in a circle.

Please continue, you don't need me for this.

Obviously since some people do not want to listen.

Instead they just want to carry the administrations water like normal.

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by thesaneone

 

yet you support our streets being flooded with assault rifles and large caliber rifles that have led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent LIVING children, parents, and friends.

I do not support the making of new gun laws when they cant even keep up with currant laws. How will this help prevent more crimes from happening?

Originally posted by neo96
Because if that blunderbuss has been deemed to be 'legal' first off then 'Granny' can leave it to you,
But You can not pick it up or take possession of it without getting government's permission first.
Don't your a felon.

Let's see.....

Though there’s no federal law that prohibits a gift of a firearm to a relative or friend that lives in your home state, some states—California for example—require you to transfer the gun through a local firearms dealer so an instant background check will be performed to make sure the recipient is not legally prohibited from owning the gun.

National Shooting Sports Foundationb

Seems there is no problem at the Federal level. Only at the State level.

I live in Texas though, we can give Firearms away as CrackerJack prizes.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by BritofTexas

 

That ain't spin.
That is truth.
I don't support government fascism unlike some.

Not to sure about that last line. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Please tell me how either of the two measures in the OPs article will stop my Grandmother leaving me her favorite Blunderbuss?

It doesn't but it could stop a father from leaving his rifle with a 14" barrel to his son. A future chief of police could deny the son the right to own it. Under NFA guidelines the chief of police has to okay a person taking posession of such equipment. So the ideological leanings of a person appointed by the local mayor could prohibit the inheritance of a rifle solely based on the length of the barrel.

Originally posted by groingrinder
Chicago! Nuff said.

reply to post by AlienScience


If you support idiotic gun laws you should not even own a gun.
Just my opinion.

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by thesaneone

 

Your post is full of irony!

There you are crying about how we are supporting the "killing of unborn childern." yet you support our streets being flooded with assault rifles and large caliber rifles that have led to the deaths of hundreds of innocent LIVING children, parents, and friends.

Oh the Irony indeed;

reply to post by neo96


Oh so true.

Originally posted by BritofTexas

Originally posted by neo96
Because if that blunderbuss has been deemed to be 'legal' first off then 'Granny' can leave it to you,
But You can not pick it up or take possession of it without getting government's permission first.
Don't your a felon.

Let's see.....

Though there’s no federal law that prohibits a gift of a firearm to a relative or friend that lives in your home state, some states—California for example—require you to transfer the gun through a local firearms dealer so an instant background check will be performed to make sure the recipient is not legally prohibited from owning the gun.

National Shooting Sports Foundationb

Seems there is no problem at the Federal level. Only at the State level.

I live in Texas though, we can give Firearms away as CrackerJack prizes.

The problem is they are trying to make 'gifting' illegal without getting a back ground check.

reply to post by neo96




I agree with you! we should definitely have more armed POLICE OFFICERS on school campuses

Criminals do not own registered guns! The only way to eliminate gun crime is to apply the DEATH PENALTY to people who commit crimes with guns in their possession. If these guns are unregistered and illegal, then we should kill them twice. Mass shooters should be erased from history. Mass shooters should be assigned a number and only be referred to by that number. For instance Mass Shooter 7743.

Criminal street gangs should be prosecuted as domestic terrorists. They are not social clubs. Folks join these organizations to conspire to commit crimes.

Why is the government trying to go after folks who have not committed a crime when the streets are full of folks who have advertised their intention to commit crimes by being in a gang?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
It doesn't but it could stop a father from leaving his rifle with a 14" barrel to his son. A future chief of police could deny the son the right to own it. Under NFA guidelines the chief of police has to okay a person taking posession of such equipment. So the ideological leanings of a person appointed by the local mayor could prohibit the inheritance of a rifle solely based on the length of the barrel.

You're talking about the elected local Government or an appointee of an elected local Goverment. Not the Federal Government.

If you don't like County/States rights that's a topic for another Thread.

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by AlienScience

 

If you support idiotic gun laws you should not even own a gun.
Just my opinion.

lol, and are you a 2nd amendment supporter?

This is where silly gets really silly...people wanting to support the 2nd amendment, except they want to take that right away from people who support some more control. Which in turn means that they themselves support restricting the 2nd amendment, so they support themselves not owning a gun.

Do you know the definition of hypocrite, paradox and circular logic?

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by AlienScience

 

If you support idiotic gun laws you should not even own a gun.
Just my opinion.

So...You think that Felons should own guns...but not anyone that thinks different than you on the issue?

I just remembered why ATS is sliding fast.

reply to post by neo96

The problem is they are trying to make 'gifting' illegal without getting a back ground check.

If you need a background check to buy a gun, why wouldn't you need one to have one given to you?

The background check is for owning the gun, not for how you acquire it.

reply to post by muse7





So 'gun violence' ?

Rinse and repeat dogma.

Originally posted by neo96
The problem is they are trying to make 'gifting' illegal without getting a back ground check.

Must have missed that part of the article.

Please point it out.

Obama offers new gun control steps

reply to post by muse7


On the right hand side there should be a column that says " Criminals killed or apprehended by legal gun owners." The tally in that column would match or exceed the tally shown in your little cartoon. Your little cartoon however does show the incredible carnage committed by folks who own illegal firearms. No amount of gun legislation will stop this. See my previous post about applying the DEATH PENALTY to accomplish that.

Nice spin with the "felons registering to corporations" bit.

He's talking about NFA trusts.

Because of the poorly written NFA if you want to own anything covered by the NFA (rifles with barrels under 16 inches for example) you have to have a local sheriff sign off approval.

If your sheriff is a tool, an anti-gun crusader or just doesnt like you he is under no obligation to sign off on it.

It's a defacto ban.

Enter the NFA trust. So you can bypass your asshole sheriff and get the item you are lawfully entitled to.

Trusts are also used to pass on collections of firearms to family upon death of the owner. It makes it much easier especially in states where registrations and anti-gun politicians would have the collection tied up for decades.

Getting rid of firearms trusts is a big blow to the 2nd.

Unless he pairs it with ending the NFA of course.

reply to post by AlienScience

lol, and are you a 2nd amendment supporter?

So what if he is ?

More than just about the second anyway.

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's pretty damn clear.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's pretty damn clear.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That' pretty dam clear too.

The powers not delegated meaning the powers have clearly been defined, as the Federal Government keep their damn hands off the second amendment, The ninth clearly says there that no power government has can be used to deny or disparage the second.

There is no argument to be made here.

Obama is wrong, and those defending his asinine EO's are WRONG

www.archives.gov...