gun control rant thread

Strizzo wrote: hide yo 3D printers, too! NY State Rep proposing law banning 3D printed magazines http://israel.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1133:rep-israel-to-introduce-legislation-to-prohibit-homemade-3-d-printed-magazines-along-with-plastic-guns&catid=57:2013-press-releases

Yes, they certainly need to ban 3D printing... because no one using common sheet metal forming techniques could ever fabricate a rectangular box with a spring-loaded floor in less time and of more durable materials!

In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:

yep. berkeleytheberkeleyingberkeleyersrightintheirberkeleyingface .

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Strizzo wrote: hide yo 3D printers, too! NY State Rep proposing law banning 3D printed magazines http://israel.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1133:rep-israel-to-introduce-legislation-to-prohibit-homemade-3-d-printed-magazines-along-with-plastic-guns&catid=57:2013-press-releases

Yes, they certainly need to ban 3D printing... because no one using common sheet metal forming techniques could ever fabricate a rectangular box with a spring-loaded floor in less time and of more durable materials!

his bill includes guns too doesn't it. Stupid gun still needs stell parts that are detectable. We went through all this when Glocks first came out.

I'm afraid what is happening is a lots of Dems are going to start filing bill after bill until something sticks.

'nuff said.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Once more, I want to leave NY.

This varies from county to county in NC.

Local sheriff has to sign Form 4. Previous sheriff would sign. Current sheriff won't.

I have been reading of a proposed BATF policy change that won't require sheriff to sign Form 4. Can hardly wait.

stroker wrote: 'nuff said. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/

Don't they realize that they cannot seize lawfully purchased property without either due process or adequate compensation? I am 99.9% positive that this would be considered blatantly unconstitutional.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/breaking-colorado-approves-hb-1224-banning-high-capacity-magazines/

Late last night, the Colorado House passed HB 1224 (limiting magazine capacity to 15 rounds) and three other bills (after the jump) by voice vote. [....] Magazine manufacturer Magpul is now certain to up-stakes and take 700 jobs with them.

If the new bill in Washington becomes law it will require home inspection (without warrants) to ensure safe storage. That's still better than the proposed ban ( with no grandfathering) in Missouri; 90 days to get rid of anything on the list http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/foghorn/missouri-legislature-introduces-firearm-confiscation-bill/#more-201881

Midway (hi Stroker) and CTD won't sell anything to LEOs they can't sell to civilians

In reply to JoeyM:

These lawmakers have been proposing the same bill for years, combined with the fact that the same provision is in so many other dems bills across the country, their excuse that it "accidentally" was in the WA bill is misleading at best.

In reply to JoeyM:

That's no so much a policy as a computer limitation. I think LaRue (?) has just adopted a POLICY of applying civilian laws to all law enforcement agencies for their respective states, e.g. NY state LEO's get 7 round mags maximum effective April.

stroker wrote: In reply to JoeyM: That's no so much a policy as a computer limitation. I think LaRue (?) has just adopted a POLICY of applying civilian laws to all law enforcement agencies for their respective states, e.g. NY state LEO's get 7 round mags maximum effective April.

I hear they are re-writing that and with Nixon in office, I find the Missouri attempt laughable. One side pushes door confiscation, the other pushes to criminalize feds enforcing federal law. Many Dems will get the boot next election.

If you guys see anything about a Midway "statement" regarding a change in policy on sales to LEO's and LE Agencies it's Internet E36M3.

Just an FYI.

My condolences to the once great state of Colorado:

http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-house-approves-gun-control-bills-213900507.html

barrowcadbury wrote: My condolences to the once great state of Colorado: http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-house-approves-gun-control-bills-213900507.html

Seems reasonable

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Seems reasonable

I sure hope this is sarcasm......making inanimate objects illegal to even possess, even those purchased new when NOT ILLEGAL, is complete and utter bullE36 M3. Paging magpul, Indiana welcomes you.

yamaha wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Seems reasonable

I sure hope this is sarcasm......making inanimate objects illegal to even possess, even those purchased new when NOT ILLEGAL, is complete and utter bullE36 M3. Paging magpul, Indiana welcomes you.

Nope seems reasonable. Might move there.

And with states banning hi cap mags, I wouldn't want to be near magpul. Sounds like they are in a declining market and about ready to spend money they will shortly not have on a very expensive and foolhardy move. It would be best for them to just contract in place.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:

The rest I can understand, but if you feel criminalizing private citizens who have done nothing wrong for simply owning a box with a spring in it "Sounds Reasonable".....you might need to look into a mental health screening.

yamaha wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: The rest I can understand, but if you feel criminalizing private citizens who have done nothing wrong for simply owning a box with a spring in it "Sounds Reasonable".....you might need to look into a mental health screening.

Gotta love democracy. It's what the majority wants.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: The rest I can understand, but if you feel criminalizing private citizens who have done nothing wrong for simply owning a box with a spring in it "Sounds Reasonable".....you might need to look into a mental health screening.

Gotta love democracy. It's what the majority wants.

We're a republic. One limited by a set of boundaries, at that. The want of the majority must not infringe upon the rights of the minority.

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine:

Fear mongering, which is precisely what was used here, should never be confused with "What the majority wants".

Osterkraut wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: The rest I can understand, but if you feel criminalizing private citizens who have done nothing wrong for simply owning a box with a spring in it "Sounds Reasonable".....you might need to look into a mental health screening.

Gotta love democracy. It's what the majority wants.

We're a republic. One limited by a set of boundaries, at that. The want of the majority must not infringe upon the rights of the minority.

That's obviously not what the majority wants. Or we could just make your rights null and void. Like the right to destiminate based upon race. We horrid of that a while ago

yamaha wrote: In reply to Fueled by Caffeine: Fear mongering, which is precisely what was used here, should never be confused with "What the majority wants".

Ok. Have a nice day.

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: That's obviously not what the majority wants. Or we could just make your rights null and void. Like the right to destiminate based upon race. We horrid of that a while ago

"Destiminate?"

"We horrid of that"?

Posted from a phone, by chance?

Will wrote:

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: That's obviously not what the majority wants. Or we could just make your rights null and void. Like the right to destiminate based upon race. We horrid of that a while ago

"Destiminate?" "We horrid of that"? Posted from a phone, by chance?

Aww crap. Yes. Good call. I meant descriminate.