It was stated on the news about a month ago that CA has about 19000 felons that they now about that have weapons but they can't go after them because they don't have the money. So what good are new laws. The bad guys do not obey them in the first place. Fienstein's assult weapons ban would ban almost every weapon I have. It is not about AR style weapons which are only semiautomatic and I had a 22 w2hen I was 10 that my grandfather got me through Sears mail order and that was 60 yrs ago. Non of my weapons has killed any one and I have one in the closet and it still has not moved from the time I put it there.
It is not about gun control, It is about getting a foot in the door to abolish the second amendment. They know that if they can get one amendment changed they can change the rest of them and then abolish our constitution. Does anyone wonder what comes next after they disarm all of America? What part of " Shall not be infringed" does nobody understand?
Actually they have. Senator Feinstein and Governor Cuomo have both brought this up. Feinstein wants to ban assult weapons but grandfather them until the current owners' death when they will have to be surrendered to the government and they cannot be sold or transfered.
Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” Governor Cuomo said.
If it makes you feel more like a man, buy a gun.
If you don't want a background check, go to a gun show.
If you hear voices that the gov. is going to take over, have your friend buy you a gun.
If you don't want to be responsible for the gun, let it lie around the house so the kids can play with it.
Carry it in the car so you can scare the next s.o.b. that cuts you off.
After all, you are a man, you own a gun.
I am a Vietnam Vet. and a hunter, but I do not see the need for assault type or large clips for anybody not in the service, or police use. I do not need 60 or 100 rounds to drop a deer. If they want guns as souvenirs then have the barrels filled, welded closed,and useless. If a crime is commited with a gun , there should be a manditory death penility, even if the gun was not fired. No insanity plea, if they use a gun, eliminate the person and end of the problem. Other than that, let everyone have a gun let's go back the old west, you will only maybe get one shot, if you are fast enough, we have too many people anyway! Which sounds better??
If the underworld agrees not to outgun us in their home invasions and whatever else they plan, then your opinion about banning the more effective guns makes sense. Empirical evidence shows that if having many armed people is going back to the old west, then we should indeed go there because the more guns there are about, the less crime seems to occur.
There is a thrust today to limit the individual and enhance the state. That's what gun control is. If the second amendment acknowledges a God-given right then no more tests or restrictions should be on its exercise than that of the franchise.
It frightens me so many don't see that voting to restrict gun sales based on mental health is also a way for the government to disarm us. This can be applied to many of our fellow veterans that have simply sought treatment at the VA for PTSD or related. Any vet that has taken an anti-depressant or taken a sleep aid could all be relegated to this status. Surely, no one is suggesting that we take away the gun rights of the people that were sent to fight and put in harms way for us. Am I correct in assuming The the American Legion shares this stance?
I also don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer. I may however need 30 rounds to stop multiple criminals invading my home in the middle of the night. And let us not forget that the courts have ruled that the police have no legally enforceable mandate to protect citizens from crime.
Oh yeah, if a group of criminals are entering my house, I should call 911 and wait for the police. Who can then investigate the murder of my family and myself. Because I only had 7 rounds in a firearm (yes, not a semi-automatic). That all sounds good to me.
@M Caudill,
"If it makes you feel more like a man, buy a gun."
Why exactly do you imply that persons that want to own a firearm want to feel like a man? Do you have any idea how many women in this country own firearms? And does this ridiculous statement actually add anything to the discussion?
If you don't want a background check, go to a gun show.
If you hear voices that the gov. is going to take over, have your friend buy you a gun.
'If you don't want to be responsible for the gun, let it lie around the house so the kids can play with it.'
This is actually a good point, one that the majority of legal firearm owners live by, they do secure their firearms.
"Carry it in the car so you can scare the next s.o.b. that cuts you off."
Legal firearm owners do not do this, as it is illegal. Do you honestly think legal owners are wandering about on a daily basis with their legal firearms in public view?
"After all, you are a man, you own a gun."
Yes, I am a man. And I own legal firearms, and I, like other legal owners are not doing the things you suggest.
Sorry I missed these:
"If you don't want a background check, go to a gun show."
By far and away, purchases at gun shows require a background check. I do agree with you that there should be some type of legislation to require all purchases at gun shows require a background check. The issue is that at the same time the universal background check that is purposed would also include sales/transfers to family and heirs. Placing an unneeded financial burden on individuals.
"If you hear voices that the gov. is going to take over, have your friend buy you a gun."
WTF?
tommyB
January 17, 2013 - 2:37pm
Permalink
They need to enforce the laws they already have
subvet
March 28, 2013 - 7:55pm
Permalink
It was stated on the news about a month ago that CA has about 19000 felons that they now about that have weapons but they can't go after them because they don't have the money. So what good are new laws. The bad guys do not obey them in the first place. Fienstein's assult weapons ban would ban almost every weapon I have. It is not about AR style weapons which are only semiautomatic and I had a 22 w2hen I was 10 that my grandfather got me through Sears mail order and that was 60 yrs ago. Non of my weapons has killed any one and I have one in the closet and it still has not moved from the time I put it there.
ronnie948
January 17, 2013 - 2:55pm
Permalink
It is not about gun control, It is about getting a foot in the door to abolish the second amendment. They know that if they can get one amendment changed they can change the rest of them and then abolish our constitution. Does anyone wonder what comes next after they disarm all of America? What part of " Shall not be infringed" does nobody understand?
asususer
January 17, 2013 - 4:10pm
Permalink
Nobody has said that "they" are going to take your guns away. Go back inside your bubble.
cgonyaw
January 18, 2013 - 12:53pm
Permalink
Actually they have. Senator Feinstein and Governor Cuomo have both brought this up. Feinstein wants to ban assult weapons but grandfather them until the current owners' death when they will have to be surrendered to the government and they cannot be sold or transfered.
Cuomo indicated the state will likely force some kind of permit process on owners of semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In addition to generating revenue and expanding the size and reach of government, the effort will allow the state to confiscate the weapons of citizens who do not comply.
“Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it,” Governor Cuomo said.
1Jump
January 17, 2013 - 6:29pm
Permalink
if you cant get a car from a private dealer without paperwork you shouldnt get a assault rifle either pure dumbness
M Caudill
January 17, 2013 - 9:59pm
Permalink
If it makes you feel more like a man, buy a gun.
If you don't want a background check, go to a gun show.
If you hear voices that the gov. is going to take over, have your friend buy you a gun.
If you don't want to be responsible for the gun, let it lie around the house so the kids can play with it.
Carry it in the car so you can scare the next s.o.b. that cuts you off.
After all, you are a man, you own a gun.
EShattuck
January 18, 2013 - 2:35pm
Permalink
M Caudill - some of those things are happening now and adding more laws are not going to change them.
vincenthays610
January 18, 2013 - 5:23pm
Permalink
I am a Vietnam Vet. and a hunter, but I do not see the need for assault type or large clips for anybody not in the service, or police use. I do not need 60 or 100 rounds to drop a deer. If they want guns as souvenirs then have the barrels filled, welded closed,and useless. If a crime is commited with a gun , there should be a manditory death penility, even if the gun was not fired. No insanity plea, if they use a gun, eliminate the person and end of the problem. Other than that, let everyone have a gun let's go back the old west, you will only maybe get one shot, if you are fast enough, we have too many people anyway! Which sounds better??
tom343
January 31, 2013 - 7:15pm
Permalink
If the underworld agrees not to outgun us in their home invasions and whatever else they plan, then your opinion about banning the more effective guns makes sense. Empirical evidence shows that if having many armed people is going back to the old west, then we should indeed go there because the more guns there are about, the less crime seems to occur.
tom343
January 31, 2013 - 7:11pm
Permalink
There is a thrust today to limit the individual and enhance the state. That's what gun control is. If the second amendment acknowledges a God-given right then no more tests or restrictions should be on its exercise than that of the franchise.
rhosea1
February 3, 2013 - 12:44pm
Permalink
It frightens me so many don't see that voting to restrict gun sales based on mental health is also a way for the government to disarm us. This can be applied to many of our fellow veterans that have simply sought treatment at the VA for PTSD or related. Any vet that has taken an anti-depressant or taken a sleep aid could all be relegated to this status. Surely, no one is suggesting that we take away the gun rights of the people that were sent to fight and put in harms way for us. Am I correct in assuming The the American Legion shares this stance?
bussiepaul
February 9, 2013 - 6:42pm
Permalink
I also don't need 30 rounds to kill a deer. I may however need 30 rounds to stop multiple criminals invading my home in the middle of the night. And let us not forget that the courts have ruled that the police have no legally enforceable mandate to protect citizens from crime.
Oh yeah, if a group of criminals are entering my house, I should call 911 and wait for the police. Who can then investigate the murder of my family and myself. Because I only had 7 rounds in a firearm (yes, not a semi-automatic). That all sounds good to me.
bussiepaul
February 9, 2013 - 7:23pm
Permalink
@M Caudill,
"If it makes you feel more like a man, buy a gun."
Why exactly do you imply that persons that want to own a firearm want to feel like a man? Do you have any idea how many women in this country own firearms? And does this ridiculous statement actually add anything to the discussion?
If you don't want a background check, go to a gun show.
If you hear voices that the gov. is going to take over, have your friend buy you a gun.
'If you don't want to be responsible for the gun, let it lie around the house so the kids can play with it.'
This is actually a good point, one that the majority of legal firearm owners live by, they do secure their firearms.
"Carry it in the car so you can scare the next s.o.b. that cuts you off."
Legal firearm owners do not do this, as it is illegal. Do you honestly think legal owners are wandering about on a daily basis with their legal firearms in public view?
"After all, you are a man, you own a gun."
Yes, I am a man. And I own legal firearms, and I, like other legal owners are not doing the things you suggest.
bussiepaul
February 9, 2013 - 7:30pm
Permalink
Sorry I missed these:
"If you don't want a background check, go to a gun show."
By far and away, purchases at gun shows require a background check. I do agree with you that there should be some type of legislation to require all purchases at gun shows require a background check. The issue is that at the same time the universal background check that is purposed would also include sales/transfers to family and heirs. Placing an unneeded financial burden on individuals.
"If you hear voices that the gov. is going to take over, have your friend buy you a gun."
WTF?