Chris Rock Wants You to Shut Up and Obey the President
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=84&load=8013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/chris-rock-backs-obama-gun-control_n_2638177.html
Chris Rock Wants You to Shut Up and Obey the President
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=84&load=8013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/chris-rock-backs-obama-gun-control_n_2638177.html
stroker wrote: Then every firearm and ammunition manufacturer in the country (and hopefully worldwide) should tell every law enforcement agency in the state of California to go Berkeley themselves.
Thought they pretty much did already?
I know Barrett refuses to sell to anyone in CA.
rainydave wrote: Chris Rock Wants You to Shut Up and Obey the President http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=84&load=8013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/chris-rock-backs-obama-gun-control_n_2638177.html
Chris Rock can kiss the fattest part of my ass.
In reply to Grizz:
even more insulting was Tony Bennett telling everyone how "if only there had been gun control in Germany, the Nazis wouldn't have been able to take over and do terrible things that they did" when the truth is nearly exactly 180 degrees from that.
Strizzo wrote: In reply to Grizz: even more insulting was Tony Bennett telling everyone how "if only there had been gun control in Germany, the Nazis wouldn't have been able to take over and do terrible things that they did" when the truth is nearly exactly 180 degrees from that.
False. Hitler actually expanded the rights of citizens to own weapons. What he did was change who was considered a citizen and/or explicitly denied groups of people from owning/selling things under new laws..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act
Hitler was not trying to disarm his population. He didn't need to. He was popular. He was trying to militarize it. He disarmed the people next door after conquering them.
But gun control certainly would not have stopped it. It's almost as if... the modern gun control debate has NOTHING to do with what the Nazis did. (In Germany, where they actually had them, still have people who want to go back to that, and are kind of afraid of it potentially happening again, they focus more on hate speech, racism, and xenophobia than guns.)
Colorado gun control bills: HB13-1224, HB13-1226, HB13-1228, HB13-1229
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/daniel-zimmerman/colorado-gun-control-bills-read-em-and-weep/#more-199659
At Cabellas today. Four (only what I can assume to be) thugs standing around the counter looking at this: 
"Ohhh! A fo-five, daw, check it out, dats a fo-five!"
No, sir, I believe that's not quite what you think it is, but go ahead and try to put a .45 ACP in there and see what happens.
Don't hate the mares leg.......Hate the ignorant.
stroker wrote: WTF is an "assault bullet"?
I dont know, but this is an ice bullet. 
Makes about as much sense.
Crap. I want ice bullets now.
Those would look good in my drink.
I just ordered some. 
Chill out 
I will when the get here from China. I wonder if I'll have to make them 922R compliant.
Nah, atf will just kick your door in
I have that bullet tray kinda cool but really hard to make without bubbles in the ice.
Joey
N Sperlo wrote: I just ordered some.
Where'd you order them? I was going to say you could order them at thinkgeek
http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e7b4/
Oh, BTW: New Jersey has 43 gun bills coming up for consideration
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/ammoland-lists-njs-43-new-civilian-disarmament-bills/
New York is pressing for gun owners to hold $1 million in liability insurance. 
Liberty Alert The NY State Legislature is considering requiring all firearm owners to have one million dollars of insurance before you can own a firearm. This another direct assault on your right to own a firearm..
Molon Lobe
A03908 Summary: BILL NO A03908
SAME AS No same as
SPONSOR Ortiz
COSPNSR
MLTSPNSR
Add S2353, Ins L
Requires owners of firearms to obtain liability insurance in an amount not less than one million dollars.Go to top
A03908 Actions: BILL NO A03908
01/29/2013 referred to insurance Go to top
A03908 Text: S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K ____________
3908
2013-2014 Regular Sessions
I N A S S E M B L Y
January 29, 2013
___________
Introduced by M. of A. ORTIZ -- read once and referred to the Committee
on Insurance
AN ACT to amend the insurance law, in relation to requiring owners of
firearms to obtain liability insurance
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
1 Section 1. The insurance law is amended by adding a new section 2353
2 to read as follows:
3 S 2353. FIREARM OWNERS INSURANCE POLICIES. 1. ANY PERSON IN THIS
4 STATE WHO SHALL OWN A FIREARM SHALL, PRIOR TO SUCH OWNERSHIP, OBTAIN AND
5 CONTINUOUSLY MAINTAIN A POLICY OF LIABILITY INSURANCE IN AN AMOUNT NOT
6 LESS THAN ONE MILLION DOLLARS SPECIFICALLY COVERING ANY DAMAGES RESULT-
7 ING FROM ANY NEGLIGENT OR WILLFUL ACTS INVOLVING THE USE OF SUCH FIREARM
8 WHILE IT IS OWNED BY SUCH PERSON. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN SUCH INSURANCE
9 SHALL RESULT IN THE IMMEDIATE REVOCATION OF SUCH OWNER'S REGISTRATION,
10 LICENSE AND ANY OTHER PRIVILEGE TO OWN SUCH FIREARM. 11 2. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE 12 OWNER OF A FIREARM IF SUCH FIREARM IS LOST OR STOLEN UNTIL SUCH LOSS OR 13 THEFT IS REPORTED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR SHERIFF WHICH HAS JURIS- 14 DICTION IN THE COUNTY, TOWN, CITY OR VILLAGE IN WHICH SUCH OWNER 15 RESIDES. 16 3. ANY PERSON WHO OWNS A FIREARM ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS SECTION 17 SHALL OBTAIN THE INSURANCE REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 18 OF SUCH EFFECTIVE DATE. 19 4. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO ANY PEACE OFFICER 20 WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A FIREARM. 21 5. THE DEPARTMENT IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED AND DIRECTED TO PROMULGATE 22 RULES AND REGULATIONS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS 23 SECTION. 24 S 2. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall 25 have become a law, provided, however, that effective immediately, the 26 addition, amendment and/or repeal of any rule or regulation necessary 27 for the implementation of this act on its effective date is authorized 28 to be made and completed on or before such date.
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD07448-01-3
Remington is pulling out of NY.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/gov_in_gunfight_to_keep_state_jobs_8V5QogOOb28MmQaJq0LH4J
N Sperlo wrote: I will when the get here from China. I wonder if I'll have to make them 922R compliant.
I'd make a lead joke, but I haven't had any sleep right now.
JoeyM wrote:N Sperlo wrote: I just ordered some.Where'd you order them? I was going to say you could order them at thinkgeek http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e7b4/
4.99/pc on ebay.
914Driver wrote: New York is pressing for gun owners to hold $1 million in liability insurance.
Hopefully easier to read.
Well played, LaRue Tactical. I wish I could buy this man a beer.
Policy for State and Local Agency Law Enforcement Sales: Due to the recent and numerous new Anti-gun/Anti-2nd Amendment laws passed and/or pending across our country, LaRue Tactical has been forced to reconsider how we provide products to state and local agencies. Effective today, in an effort to see that no legal mistakes are made by LaRue Tactical and/or its employees, we will apply all current State and Local Laws (as applied to civilians) to state and local law enforcement / government agencies. In other words, LaRue Tactical will limit all sales to what law-abiding citizens residing in their districts can purchase or possess. State and local laws have always been a serious focus of this firm, and we are now dovetailing that focus with the constitutional rights of the residents covered in their different areas by the old and new regulations. We realize this effort will have an impact on this firm’s sales – and have decided the lost sales are less danger to this firm than potential lawsuits from erroneous shipments generated by something as simple as human error. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Mark LaRue
Meanwhile in NJ......
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/breaking-3rd-u-s-district-court-upholds-njs-one-gun-a-month-law/
BREAKING: 3rd U.S. District Court Upholds NJ’s One-Gun-a-Month Law
914Driver wrote: Remington is pulling out of NY. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/gov_in_gunfight_to_keep_state_jobs_8V5QogOOb28MmQaJq0LH4J
We in the Hoosier state will welcome them with open arms......they can even come to a city bearing their company's name. 
You'll need to log in to post.
