LumberJocks

All Replies on Assault Weapons (not political)

  • Advertise with us
View lumberjoe's profile

Assault Weapons (not political)

by lumberjoe
posted 01-17-2013 07:42 PM


« prev 1 2
96 replies

96 replies so far

View moke's profile (online now)

moke

499 posts in 1434 days


#51 posted 01-25-2013 07:00 PM

HMike,
With all due respect, after spending 33 years on the street as an officer and commander I could not disagree more with NIH. From my experience all three of their points are wrong. As I survey my career, 95% of violent crime I have dealt with was drug/alcohol related or probably the two most grieveous crime scenes I have attended were as a result of mental issues. One of them occurred after I had a conversation with the perpetrators pyshcologist told me two days earlier that they were in no way a threat of any violence.

From my experience when the violent mentally ill comitt a crime, they are very persistant, not willing to give up until it reaches their expectations. These are truly the scariest crimes to respond to. I should probably not “profile” the mentally ill, but as you can see by the recent violence the violent mentally ill often hold value of life to be very low. Both for their victims and themselves. I am sure that “Mentally Ill” is such a broad term that the violent portion of it could only be 5%...they just leave a very lasting impression.

While we train for these incidents, I have never been to anything like the recent ones….thank God. It is said for the officers that attend those scenes carry very deep scars. Most Officers carry “baggage” the rest of their days, but not like those at Columbine, Aurora, or the recent Conn grade school.

View DrDirt's profile

DrDirt

2451 posts in 2400 days


#52 posted 01-25-2013 07:27 PM

Crap! I have to agree with H-mike.

To Mikes comment at #35 that has him supporting the second amendment…
I suspect that deep down the people that are realists and thinkers from both the left and the right understand responsibility and the constitutional freedoms.

The folks like Chuck Shumer, Piers Morgan and Diane Feinstein (while she herself got her Concealed carry in 1995) thinks that all guns should be taken… don’t have the IQ of stale bread.

Just as the mentall ill comit a small percentage of the crimes (perhaps made up for by their bodycount and brutality). The AR15’s even though they have the CAPACITY to inflict more rapid damage, only account for less than 1% of the violent murders in the USA. So the gun grabbers want to at BEST, affect (not solve) less than 1% of the crimes. I say affect, because I believe that even if there were NO assault rifles, Adam Lanza would still have taken the handgun to the school, or a bomb made out of a propane tank etc.

Gun control is like trying to clamp jello – it doesn’t prevent/dissuade the whacko that wants to kill a bunch of people from their plans – - they just use different methods.
Ask Tim McVeigh…not a single shot was fired.

-- "If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves." Edison

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

14754 posts in 2334 days


#53 posted 01-25-2013 07:35 PM

If they really wanted to do anything about crime and violence, they would start by enforcing existing law.

This whole debate and grand stand show is about stirring the pot, energizing the base and getting them to the polls for the next election.

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View teejk's profile

teejk

1215 posts in 1343 days


#54 posted 01-25-2013 08:03 PM

Dwain first…somebody weeks ago said that we can “pretend” that things are as they were decades ago…when I heard that I could only think about “we’re not in Kansas anymore Toto”. Something has changed but as I have predicted we’ll put a bandaid on a gushing wound.

Mark…give me a pump shotgun any day. Open choke at close distance in the dark (would be the only case where I would ever use it) will hit something. Better yet, there is no other sound in the world that could be mistaken for chambering a round into a pump shot-gun. An experienced crook will know the sound and will leave.

View oldnovice's profile

oldnovice

3770 posts in 2026 days


#55 posted 01-25-2013 08:12 PM

The NRA was successful in stopping the CDC of tracking most gun related violence but they did not succeed in stopping the CDC from all tracking gun related incidents in homes of gun owners.

In a many of these cases murder/suicide/fits of anger/self inflicted injuries were typically related to hand guns and not assault weapons!
So maybe more homes should have assault weapons to bring this statistic down!

-- "I never met a board I didn't like!"

View EdwardR's profile

EdwardR

66 posts in 912 days


#56 posted 01-25-2013 08:43 PM

  • Teejk. * got that right. i was going to edit and add that and did not. I guess i should have added my barrel is reworked and vented for reduced recoil and precision.
View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

14754 posts in 2334 days


#57 posted 01-25-2013 09:15 PM

Teejk, Never underestimate the ignorance of a lowlife scumbag. I had one come for a 2nd look at my 12 gauge. I guess he decided it was real, did not return for a 3rd.

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View MarkwithaK's profile

MarkwithaK

370 posts in 1836 days


#58 posted 01-25-2013 09:53 PM

”Mark…give me a pump shotgun any day. Open choke at close distance in the dark (would be the only case where I would ever use it) will hit something. Better yet, there is no other sound in the world that could be mistaken for chambering a round into a pump shot-gun. An experienced crook will know the sound and will leave.”

Perhaps. But are you really going to wait until you are within ear shot to rack your shotgun just so the guy can hear it? Plus if said intruder were under the influence then that “scary sound” may not register in their mind in which case the intimidation factor is gone. The term experienced crook was used so on that basis someone that is willing to unlawfully enter your home while you are there is not all that unlikely to do so while they themselves are armed. That can lend them a certain sense of security that, again, would negate that old saying.

As far as the scenario you offered (it being dark) let me expand on that a bit. If you are in a dead sleep and are awakened by the sound of someone in your home your adrenaline will start to flow but the grogginess of sleep may still be there while the intruder is wide awake and probably already on the look out for the homeowner. In addition he has no responsibility of being careful not to shoot another inhabitant of the house. The homeowner may not know where the other inhabitants of the house are at that moment and while attempting to down the intruder some shot finds it’s way into a family member as well.

I’m not saying a shotgun isn’t good for home defense. I am in fact taking the stance that an automatic rifle, the AR-15 in this case, would be better. In fact the shotgun would be my 3rd choice.

-- If at first you don't succeed then maybe skydiving isn't for you.

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

14754 posts in 2334 days


#59 posted 01-27-2013 09:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F584p5kJL-U

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View RockyTopScott's profile

RockyTopScott

1140 posts in 2137 days


#60 posted 01-28-2013 09:47 PM

Looks like a topic HMike, Topa and I can agree on it seems.

-- “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.” ― Thomas Sowell

View DrDirt's profile

DrDirt

2451 posts in 2400 days


#61 posted 01-28-2013 11:17 PM

Though the Washington Times article for Homeland Security to buy 7000 AR15’s for “Personal Defense” brought an interesting admission by DHS that indeed the AR15 is a defensive weapon! and they want it with the 30 round clip!

—————————————————————-

While the Obama administration calls for a ban on assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, the Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 “personal defense weapons” — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians.

A report by Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com cites a General Service Administration request for a proposal on behalf of DHS seeking more than 7,000 AR-15s and matching 30-round clips “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, introduced legislation Thursday that would enact a so-called “assault weapons” ban, prohibiting more than 150 firearms and limiting magazines to 10 rounds.

Critics, such as Republican New York state Sen. Greg Ball, are already blasting the DHS request, arguing that the government deems these firearms as suitable for self-defense but want to ban civilians from owning them.

“Now the Department of Homeland Security even agrees that these modern sporting firearms, made illegal by Governor Cuomo, are suitable for self-defense,” Mr Ball said. “On top of that, a recent story reports that two RIT [Rochester Institute of Technology] students who were legal gun owners were protected by an AR-15. The story may have had a very tragic ending, had Governor Cuomo’s anti-self-defense bill been in full effect.”Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/27/homeland-security-seeking-7000-assault-weapons-per/#ixzz2JIhkPHaF

-- "If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves." Edison

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#62 posted 01-29-2013 02:19 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View DrDirt's profile

DrDirt

2451 posts in 2400 days


#63 posted 02-01-2013 08:27 PM

Knee Jerk Administration

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/21/us/pennsylvania-girl-suspended/index.html

(CNN)—A 5-year-old girl chats up classmates while waiting for the bus after school. The topic: Playing with a Hello Kitty “bubble gun” that, with the flick of a finger, blows bubbles everywhere.

“I’ll shoot you, you shoot me, and we’ll all play together,” the kindergartner says.

The next day, that remark—which was made innocently, according to the lawyer for the girl’s family, who related the story—landed the young central Pennsylvanian child in the principal’s office.

Soon after, she was sent home after being issued a 10-day suspension for a “terroristic threat,” as indicated on the suspension form signed by Mount Carmel Area Elementary School Principal Susan Nestico. That and other documents were provided to CNN by Robin Ficker, the lawyer representing the girl and her mother.

—————————————————————————-

How is it really that a little girl that has a hello Kitty Bubble gun AT HOME – - is labled a terrorist and given mandatory 10 day suspension? (Remembering how we are told by these geniuses that Labeling kids is BAD)

Also mandatory visits to a psychologist to determine if they are somehow a closet delusional mass murder?

Sure there are lots of low information fools out there but shouldn’t the Principal of the School, actually have a friggin brain in his head?

Somehow our Zero Tolerance society drops the hammer on 5 year olds if they even make a gun sign with their finger and say pow… then we all prognosticate about why they grow into a real psychopath.

Kids play. They even play cowboys and indians…. kids even do paintball! It doesn’t mean they will be recruited by Al Quaeda!

-- "If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves." Edison

View oldnovice's profile

oldnovice

3770 posts in 2026 days


#64 posted 02-02-2013 12:34 AM

DrDirt you hit the nail on the head and this is as bad as the girl that was suspended from school for supplying drugs when she gave of her friends an aspirin. Taking the laws to its extreme!

-- "I never met a board I didn't like!"

View ScottinTexas's profile

ScottinTexas

108 posts in 606 days


#65 posted 02-02-2013 12:45 AM

moke – you mention alcohol and drugs – are people on pot violent? I’ve been told to ask a police officer if they would rather deal with somone on alcohol or marijuana . :-)

View moke's profile (online now)

moke

499 posts in 1434 days


#66 posted 02-02-2013 03:57 PM

Scott,
Good question, I do not recall a violent pot head….they are terrible drivers and make incrediably poor decisions, but not violent.

The new generation of “pot-heads” are using synthethic dope….these people can be violent…..some of the synthetic pot can yield a week long high, making the user think they are bullet proof and 12’ tall! Mostly they are dangerous to themselves.

View ScottinTexas's profile

ScottinTexas

108 posts in 606 days


#67 posted 02-02-2013 06:34 PM

oldnovice – ”...as bad as the girl that was suspended….”

Or someone needing to urinate on a long trip peeing on the side of the road labled a “sexual predator.” True in several states:

http://www.economist.com/node/14164614?story_id=14164614&source=hptextfeature

It is pretty easy to see where everything is going if you are even half-way paying attention (which leaves out at least 90% of the people). In addition to these lists (add the absurd “terrorist watch list” – is that even legal? Where is the due process?) they are trying to get everyone on some Big Pharma poison which is bad enough but will also be used to remove rights.

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#68 posted 02-03-2013 09:39 PM

notice the assault rifle

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View DrDirt's profile

DrDirt

2451 posts in 2400 days


#69 posted 02-04-2013 06:52 PM

Thanks Scott – - Followed your link….it is alarming to say the least! Here is the key paragraph!

Many people assume that anyone listed on a sex-offender registry must be a rapist or a child molester. But most states spread the net much more widely. A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

So teen sex is illegal in 29 states. and requires registration.

I apologize that this gets far off the topic of assault weapon definitions… but shows where society is headed, as we seem to need new laws for every perceived grievance.

-- "If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves." Edison

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#70 posted 02-06-2013 02:51 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View thedude50's profile

thedude50

3515 posts in 1136 days


#71 posted 02-07-2013 06:52 AM

Ill take a Kate and an ar15 over a shot gun and I will be damned if I will just sit buy and watch this video come to fruition.

-- when I am not on Lumberjocks I am on @ http://thisoldworkshop.com where we allow free speech

View thedude50's profile

thedude50

3515 posts in 1136 days


#72 posted 02-07-2013 07:03 AM

Moke I know you don’t know first hand about what your talking about since you never smoked any grass there is no such thing as synthetic weed that is some kind of crap the DEA is telling you to keep you paranoid and against a drug that should never have been illegal in the first place. Now you want to see violent crime Alcohol the no1 cause of violent crime.

If the us ends the war on drugs today we can pay off the deficit in less than 36 months. Now lets get serious about ending a unwindable war. instead of sending pot heads to state prison we can send the ones who cant function to rehab for pennies on the dollar. do you have any idea how many non violent drug offenders there are at 7500 dollars a day its no wonder we are taxed to death we are paying for a war Nixon started and we will never win a war no one wants to win.

-- when I am not on Lumberjocks I am on @ http://thisoldworkshop.com where we allow free speech

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#73 posted 02-08-2013 01:51 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View thedude50's profile

thedude50

3515 posts in 1136 days


#74 posted 02-12-2013 05:30 AM

Dan you must be the only liberal i know that is pro gun

-- when I am not on Lumberjocks I am on @ http://thisoldworkshop.com where we allow free speech

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#75 posted 02-12-2013 11:08 PM

not a liberal . registered Republican ... moderate amiable expressive

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View darinS's profile

darinS

384 posts in 1525 days


#76 posted 02-12-2013 11:18 PM

Dan,

I’ve been watching post #68 for awhile now. Where exactly is the assault rifle?

-- If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you!

View jeepturner's profile

jeepturner

920 posts in 1450 days


#77 posted 02-12-2013 11:58 PM

Darin, I too have watched post #68 and I can attest there is a rifle. I never call them assault rifles, but I notice that this one has an excellent recoil absorption system. It definitely helps me keep a bead on target.

-- Mel,

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#78 posted 02-13-2013 12:42 AM

notice the high capacity magazine clip on that baby …. must be one of those that holds over 100 :-)

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View oldnovice's profile

oldnovice

3770 posts in 2026 days


#79 posted 02-13-2013 12:47 AM

thedude is correct, legalize drugs and we can reduce crime and reduce the deficit at the same time.

-- "I never met a board I didn't like!"

View DrDirt's profile

DrDirt

2451 posts in 2400 days


#80 posted 02-13-2013 11:35 PM

Ummm –
Maybe it could change the culture – and could curb some spending – but the statement: If the us ends the war on drugs today we can pay off the deficit in less than 36 months.

Not accepting the idea that we can pay off the deficit (1 trillion/year every year for the past 5 years) nevermind the national debt in 36 months from drug tax proceeds, and spending cuts to the DEA….
Doubt it is remotely close!

Just as a Sanity Check – here are the US tax revenues from Alcohol. I would surmise – that there are more drinkers than pot smokers. True many are the same group – - but I think that we sell a LOT more budweiser and Jack Daniels in the USA… and thay only gets 5 Billion with a B!~

-- "If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves." Edison

View ScottinTexas's profile

ScottinTexas

108 posts in 606 days


#81 posted 02-14-2013 01:37 AM

I recoil at the notion of taxing a plant. You will end up with the same enforcment nightmare as when it is illegal. Taxing the manufacture of it if they sell it retail, ok. But it would be like taxing tomatoes you grow. I wouldn’t want to go down that path and I don’t even have the intention of growing it. In fact, it is the very nature of making everyone a “suspect” and empowering police to become highway robbers seizing property with NO due process that makes me want to legalize them all.

DrDirt, you are right, in the grand scheme of things it wouldn’t be anything like the scale of paying off the deficit (and how do you pay off a defict in 36 months – a deficit is a yearly shortfall. If you pay off one in 3 years you have still added to the debt) However, the money, and this is all about money, would not be limited to taxes and cuts in DEA. We have about 2 million people in prison. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world by a fair margin. Russis is second and a distant 3rd is Canada. And a good portion of those people are in there for minor drug offences. Now, common sense tells you that we pay for all that and we do. The thing is, a lot of people get that money and many prisons are privatized. Beware the public-private partnership – you will see that more and more in many facets (such as in Texas where they are selling off infrastructure to foreign companies and charging tolls on roads) and it is always a bad thing no matter how they sell it. I will end my rant there.

View DrDirt's profile

DrDirt

2451 posts in 2400 days


#82 posted 02-14-2013 06:19 PM

Hey Scott – Agree – however there is only a small part of the prison population that is there SOLELY for posession. Usually it is part of the overall sting. For example – you get a domestic violence/abuse call. The police head down to the bar/park to pick up the perp and he has some weed in his pocket.
They are busted for the original call + the drug charge.
So indeed there are many folks in prison who have a drug charge as PART of their sentence. But it is a small percentage of folks that are doing time for posession of pot. It is usualy driven by the assault or robbery/carjacking charge.

On ASSAULT WEAPONS – -
Now Missouri has legislation pending for confiscation of all “assault weopans”

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM

The whole bill is 3 pages – and teh first two are all of the “evil attributes” that make it an assault weapon like:

c. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

AKA having a forestock to hold/steady the rifle!!

Second to last part of the bill is key
————————————————————

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

—————————————

No Buyback involved!
There is no provision to compensate you for your legally acquired rifle! You Sell it, or turn it in for destruction- or have it confiscated for destruction along with doing time as a Class C Felony.

-- "If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves." Edison

View prattman's profile

prattman

440 posts in 776 days


#83 posted 02-15-2013 06:04 AM

Damn, that link that Drdirt just put up kinda says it all. If mo is putting that out there then who is next?

-- Everyone calls me Ed or Eddie , mom still calls me Edward if she is mad at me.

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#84 posted 02-16-2013 12:39 AM

CUT AND PASTE is more fun then links2 me …

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 545

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES ELLINGER (Sponsor), SCHUPP, MCNEIL AND WALTON GRAY (Co-sponsors).

0776L.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 571, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of any assault weapon or large capacity magazine, with a penalty provision.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 571, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 571.023, to read as follows:

571.023. 1. As used in this section the following terms shall mean:

(1) “Assault weapon”, any:

(a) Semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

c. A folding or telescoping stock; or

d. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

(b) Semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

(c) Semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

a. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

b. A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;

c. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or

d. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;

(d) Semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:

a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;

c. A folding or telescoping stock;

d. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; or

e. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

(e) Shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or

(f) Conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

Assault weapon does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable;

(2) “Detachable magazine”, an ammunition feeding device that can be loaded or unloaded while detached from a firearm and readily inserted into a firearm and includes a magazine that can be detached by merely depressing a button on the firearm either with a finger or by use of a tool or bullet;

(3) “Fixed magazine”, an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action;

(4) “Large capacity magazine”, any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the following:

(a) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;

(b) A twenty-two caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or

(c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm.

2. No person, corporation or other entity in the state of Missouri may manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine.

3. This prohibition shall not apply to:

(1) Any government officer, agent, or employee, member of the armed forces of the United States, or peace officer, to the extent that such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess an assault weapon or large capacity magazine, and does so while acting within the scope of his or her duties;

(2) The manufacture of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device by a firearms manufacturer for the purpose of sale to any branch of the armed forces of the United States, or to a law enforcement agency in the state of Missouri for use by that agency or its employees, provided the manufacturer is properly licensed under federal and state laws; or

(3) The sale or transfer of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device by a dealer that is properly licensed under federal, state, and local laws to any branch of the armed forces of the United States, or to a law enforcement agency in the state of Missouri for use by that agency or its employees for law enforcement purposes.

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#85 posted 02-16-2013 12:47 AM

This one is the same ”find the assault rifle challenge” as #68
...

...

... watch for this one on Odie’s Blog this Saturday.

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

14754 posts in 2334 days


#86 posted 02-16-2013 02:37 AM

Who is next? CA & WA http://www.examiner.com/article/gun-ban-bills-three-states-including-wash-could-make-citizens-criminals?CID=examiner_alerts_article

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#87 posted 02-17-2013 03:53 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#88 posted 02-18-2013 01:42 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

14754 posts in 2334 days


#89 posted 02-19-2013 05:24 AM

Facts, just the facts:

FROM: Marion P. Hammer USF Executive Director NRA Past President

On February 13, 2013, the NRA sent a letter to members of the U.S. Congress concerning the White House proposals to require background checks for all firearms purchases.

The letter lays out facts that every concerned citizen needs to know—just the facts, no fluff, no hyperbole, just simple, straight forward facts.

To view a copy of the letter from the NRA-ILA’s Executive Director Chris Cox to the U.S. Congress regarding so-called “universal background checks” click here.

THESE ARE THE FACTS — READ THEM — LEARN THEM — SHARE THEM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TALKING POINTS

NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) [1], and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Dealers
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.

Private Sales
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.

Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2]

Gun Shows
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.

A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.[3]

Prosecutions
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.[4]

“Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.

According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration.[5] In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View DrDirt's profile

DrDirt

2451 posts in 2400 days


#90 posted 02-20-2013 08:37 PM

In the Washington (state) examiner -
.Home inspections for gun owners proposed by Washington state lawmakers

Biz Pac Review reports today that a bill sponsored by three Seattle Democrats would require owners of assault weapons to submit home inspections annually conducted by the county sheriff. The proposed legislation, SB 5737 – 2013-14, bans the sale of assault weapons but allows those who already own them to keep them but submit to the home inspections.

The part of the bill regarding the home inspections is this, “In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”

The Biz Pac Review article reports that two of the bill’s sponsors made a mistake in putting that provision into the bill. “As it turns out, two of the bill’s sponsors — Sens. Ed Murray and Adam Kline — took a cue from their congressional brethren and didn’t bother reading the bill before signing on to it, the article said.”

Murray, the bill’s sponsor admitted that the home inspection provision is “more than likely unconstitutional.”
——————

So why write a bill that you already think will be unconstitutional rather than trying to craft inside a Constitutional framework?

-- "If we did all the things we are capable of doing, we would literally astonish ourselves." Edison

View TopamaxSurvivor's profile

TopamaxSurvivor

14754 posts in 2334 days


#91 posted 02-21-2013 05:20 AM

I’m surprised they didn’t slip in a repeal of the 3rd Amendment and claim to not have read it. They could have a full time tattle tail in the home!

-- "some old things are lovely, warm still with life ... of the forgotten men who made them." - D.H. Lawrence

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#92 posted 02-22-2013 01:50 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#93 posted 02-22-2013 02:46 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#94 posted 02-22-2013 02:47 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#95 posted 02-22-2013 02:47 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

View Dan'um Style's profile

Dan'um Style

13003 posts in 2641 days


#96 posted 02-22-2013 02:48 AM

-- keeping myself entertained ... Humor and fun lubricate the brain

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

« prev 1 2
96 replies


DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

HomeRefurbers.com

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics

GardenTenders.com :: gardening showcase