gun control rant thread

Trying to save the thread again:

Now, please back to our regularly scheduled debate without insulting anyone including the president, vice president, speaker of the house, or tea party... Or anyone else here.

N Sperlo wrote: It's stayed a rant regarding guns for how many threads? Of course politics are going to play a part. Please don't come in shouting your conspiracy theory (which is purely what it is) about Obama. I don't know if you misread my post, but as an independent supporter of our president, I'm trying to show how he can help end this weapon ban to the benefit of gun owners. Now, please back to our regularly scheduled debate without insulting anyone including the president, speaker off the house, or tea party.

I wasn't insulting anyone, i was merely pointing out that nobody seems to be doing much fact checking when reporting on this stuff, they let the politicians dictate the story and regurgitate it blindly without any thought like "hey, that doesn't make sense!"

what conspiracy theory are you talking about?

In reply to Strizzo:

This president for some reason never gets called out on things, and instead gets a free pass to piss on our shoes while telling us it's raining. "We have the most open and transparent administration in the history of the country" while all the time doing the opposite. "I'm not going to try to take your guns away" while working on legislation in secret to do just that. "The debt limit negotiation has never been tied to a spending discussion, and debt has nothing to do with spending" seriously, how do you think we got all that debt in the first place? stuffing all our money inside the mattress?

Sounds like a theory to me and damaging to the thread. Some things should be kept to oneself. Just try to use something you can back up with fact if it's going to carry ship much with it.

How does blaming debt on the president contribute to the gun rant thread. Thats hat pissed me off, because I have other feelings on the issue without regard to what you think and i decided to keep them bound.

Facts?!?!?!, facts are never used......they are only twisted to fit whatever you want to say.

I'll jump in with helping save teh thread as well

I'll help save it with some relevant stuff:

I suspect this will happen very often.

LOL. Thanks YamYam. You're doing a great service.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to Strizzo:

This president for some reason never gets called out on things, and instead gets a free pass to piss on our shoes while telling us it's raining. "We have the most open and transparent administration in the history of the country" while all the time doing the opposite. "I'm not going to try to take your guns away" while working on legislation in secret to do just that. "The debt limit negotiation has never been tied to a spending discussion, and debt has nothing to do with spending" seriously, how do you think we got all that debt in the first place? stuffing all our money inside the mattress?

Sounds like a theory to me and damaging to the thread. Some things should be kept to oneself. Just try to use something you can back up with fact if it's going to carry ship much with it. How does blaming debt on the president contribute to the gun rant thread. *Thats* hat pissed me off, because I have other feelings on the issue without regard to what you think and i decided to keep them bound.

i was pulling commentary from current events is all, I'm not trying to get into a debate about the national debt, and just last night several shows were talking about the presidents press conference yesterday when he said that the discussion on debt ceiling has never been connected with spending discussion, when in fact it has been all but one time in recent history. so, not really a theory there.

Then, YOU posted the quote from the President during the last election campaign about (i'm paraphrasing) "Don't worry, hunters, and outdoorsmen, i'm not going to take your guns away."

and the first one was one that hasn't been made by the president since his first election, but others from his staff and from his party have claimed it.

my comment on nobody calling him out when he says he's doing A, when he's obviously doing Z, are from my own observations, not from anything that's been fed to me, and definitely not a "conspiracy theory."

NOW - back to our regularly scheduled thread, last night the NY state senate passed the strictest gun legislation quite possibly ever seriously proposed. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/nyregion/new-york-legislators-hope-for-speedy-vote-on-gun-laws.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=0

cancels the grandfathering of "high capacity" magazines of more than 7 rounds

Ninja Edit

This would be most helpful in the case that assault rifles are banned. I don't think my AK is even my most dangerous weapon. My .308 is.

In reply to Strizzo:

Thanks for your very valuable commenting pertaining to Obama. I'm sure it will be helpful in this conversation. Everything is so clear now.

tuna55 wrote: I'll help save it with some relevant stuff: I just got a pissed off call from my "friend" (nameless and relationshipless for anony type reasons) in another place who is desperately trying to hoard guns asking if I could buy a gun for him and then sell it to him privately to bring back to his place of residence. Something about pending legislation. I am not being specific. I suspect this will happen very often.

What he is attempting to do is get you to knowingly commit perjury......

N Sperlo wrote: I've had a friend wanting to register his weapons (and mine) with multiple people to ensure it remains in civilian hands in the case the primary owner dies. ... None of my guns are registered. This would be most helpful in the case that assault rifles are banned. I don't think my AK is even my most dangerous weapon. My .308 is.

My lever action, 700, and sig p230 are the only three weapons I own that have been "transferred" to me on the form 4473. All my shotguns, other large caliber rifles, other handguns, and my M1 carbine are off the record, and I don't plan on changing that.

Ninja Edit

Are we under oath?

In reply to N Sperlo:

what guns? mine were all lost in a terrible boating accident.

Strizzo wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: what guns? mine were all lost in a terrible boating accident.

USCG is on the phone. They want to talk to you.

In reply to N Sperlo:

Filling out a Form 4473 during a straw purchase would be considered perjury....

N Sperlo wrote:

Strizzo wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: what guns? mine were all lost in a terrible boating accident.

USCG is on the phone. They want to talk to you.

international waters!

Strizzo wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

Strizzo wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: what guns? mine were all lost in a terrible boating accident.

USCG is on the phone. They want to talk to you.

international waters!

The IW...G? Called?

yamaha wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: Filling out a Form 4473 during a straw purchase would be considered perjury....

Had to look that one up. We don't do those in Missouri in private transfers. Just a bill of sale will suffice. Dealers have to use them, though, so it looks familiar.

Strizzo wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

Strizzo wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: what guns? mine were all lost in a terrible boating accident.

USCG is on the phone. They want to talk to you.

international waters!

Shoot son, we had more jurisdiction in International waters than regular ones.

N Sperlo wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: Filling out a Form 4473 during a straw purchase would be considered perjury....

Had to look that one up. We don't do those in Missouri in private transfers. Just a bill of sale will suffice. Dealers have to use them, though, so it looks familiar.

No, we don't privately either.......if Tuna's friend wanted him to go buy whatever new, that'd be perjury.

Javelin wrote:

Strizzo wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

Strizzo wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: what guns? mine were all lost in a terrible boating accident.

USCG is on the phone. They want to talk to you.

international waters!

Shoot son, we had *more* jurisdiction in International waters than regular ones.

Interpol called........as did green peace, they both seem butthurt as to why you're polluting their oceans and arming the dolphins.

yamaha wrote:

N Sperlo wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to N Sperlo: Filling out a Form 4473 during a straw purchase would be considered perjury....

Had to look that one up. We don't do those in Missouri in private transfers. Just a bill of sale will suffice. Dealers have to use them, though, so it looks familiar.

No, we don't privately either.......if Tuna's friend wanted him to go buy whatever new, that'd be perjury.

I believe tuna was buying it for himself, but planning on not keeping it for long. He had a family member interested in possibly buying it from him when he's gotten his uses out of it.

In reply to N Sperlo:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with that official statement, but the way he laid it out suggested otherwise....

In reply to yamaha:

He was confused.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to yamaha: He was confused.

Nick's spot on, as usual. I have a gun I may be interested in and I wanted to buy it (it's very hard to find for rent) to see how it is. Guns are good investments, and some investments can be short term. I may own it for a few months before sending it off to a good home.

tuna55 wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to yamaha: He was confused.

Nick's spot on, as usual. I have a gun I may be interested in and I wanted to buy it (it's very hard to find for rent) to see how it is. Guns are good investments, and some investments can be short term. I may own it for a few months before sending it off to a good home.

In all realty, this is perfectly legal, and knowing tuna's tenancy to want to play with new toys, likely.