Author Topic: opinions welcome (Read 3269 times)

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #30 on:** January 28, 2013, 04:52:42 PM »

Quote from: mcwoodduck on January 26, 2013, 04:04:37 PM

Quote from: Doublebass73 on January 26, 2013, 03:59:39 PM
The Democrats were definitely behind the machine gun ban in the FOPA of 1986. That doesn't mean Reagan had to sign it. He's just as guilty as they are for signing it.
Ok there is a big difference between stopping the manufacture of new commercial machine guns and taking the ones that the people already legally owned.
Now I agree this is not a conservitive thing but, it was clearly not a GUN Grab.

So if this wasn't a gun grab then I guess Feinstein's bill isn't a gun grab either, correct?

BUGEYE · « **Reply #31 on:** January 29, 2013, 12:30:48 AM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on January 28, 2013, 04:52:42 PM

Quote from: mcwoodduck on January 26, 2013, 04:04:37 PM
Quote from: Doublebass73 on January 26, 2013, 03:59:39 PM
The Democrats were definitely behind the machine gun ban in the FOPA of 1986. That doesn't mean Reagan had to sign it. He's just as guilty as they are for signing it.
Ok there is a big difference between stopping the manufacture of new commercial machine guns and taking the ones that the people already legally owned.
Now I agree this is not a conservitive thing but, it was clearly not a GUN Grab.

So if this wasn't a gun grab then I guess Feinstein's bill isn't a gun grab either, correct?

This is how you win friends and influence enemies. everybody take note.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #32 on:** January 29, 2013, 01:12:36 AM »

ok, so it was not a gun grab. What it was about is CONTROL. Just like this AWB is about CONTROL. First you get them registered. Then you confiscate them. Then you can do any damn thing you want, like suspend the Constitution, suspend elections, make yourself President for life. Just like Idi Amin Dada made himself President for life. It is what dictators do.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #33 on:** January 29, 2013, 06:54:37 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on January 28, 2013, 04:52:42 PM

Quote from: mcwoodduck on January 26, 2013, 04:04:37 PM
Quote from: Doublebass73 on January 26, 2013, 03:59:39 PM
The Democrats were definitely behind the machine gun ban in the FOPA of 1986. That doesn't mean Reagan had to sign it. He's just as guilty as they are for signing it.
Ok there is a big difference between stopping the manufacture of new commercial machine guns and taking the ones that the people already legally owned.
Now I agree this is not a conservitive thing but, it was clearly not a GUN Grab.

So if this wasn't a gun grab then I guess Feinstein's bill isn't a gun grab either, correct?

Feinstiens bill is going to mirror the CA law as far as I can read. I will stop the manufacture, inport and sale of all assault guns.
Here in CA we had to register all of our assault rifles and have to carry a letter from the AG. If not the police can seize them.
So in this bill I am not allowed to sell, give, or pass down my rifles, I can sell them outside of the state, but if I only have family in CA, my estate is to turn them in to the local police and send a copy of the letter registration to the AG showing the disposable of my property.
OH and I ma not allowed to let anyone under 18 shoot the rifles, it is a felony to allow my cousin 17, my friends kids, 15, and 17, to shoot the rifles.
In the Bill Regan signed all he did was stop the making of class three weapons, the class three guns could still be used, sold and passed down. It also sprouted a new industry of semi auto versions of many of the full auto versions. Like a belt fed Semi Auto M60.
Sounds like the CA law is a gun grab as my rifles are no longer mine and the only way I can get rid of them is sell them outside of the state, or hand them to the police. If Fienstiens bill passes then I may not have the option to sell it outside of the state, an neither will you. What do you own that the feinstiens of the world would call an assault gun, grandads browning auto 5? Your Remington 1100?

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #34 on:** January 31, 2013, 06:12:18 PM »

Read the full text of her bill, it's different from the CA law that you mentioned as far as transferring grandfathered weapons goes. It's no different from the Reagan ban as far as transferring and passing down a grandfathered weapon. With class III rifles you can pass a weapon down to a family member IF AND ONLY IF it is done through a class III dealer and that family member can legally comply with owning a class III weapon via a tax stamp and background check. Feinstein's bill is EXACTLY the same as this. If you don't believe me read the full text yourself like I just did.

Make all the excuses you want for Reagan, the truth is there is no difference between his ban and Feinstein's ban. Is Feinstein a gun grabber? Of course, but then again so was Reagan.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #35 on:** February 01, 2013, 07:04:01 AM »

Reagan is not president and it is Feinstein introducing the bill. We must deal with the here and now. I do not care what is in the AWB this time. It is an infringement and I totally oppose it from first word to last.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #36 on:** February 01, 2013, 01:00:01 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on January 31, 2013, 06:12:18 PM

Read the full text of her bill, it's different from the CA law that you mentioned as far as transferring grandfathered weapons goes. It's no different from the Reagan ban as far as transferring and passing down a grandfathered weapon. With class III rifles you can pass a weapon down to a family member IF AND ONLY IF it is done through a class III dealer and that family member can legally comply with owning a class III weapon via a tax stamp and background check. Feinstein's bill is EXACTLY the same as this. If you don't believe me read the full text yourself like I just did.

Make all the excuses you want for Reagan, the truth is there is no difference between his ban and Feinstein's ban. Is Feinstein a gun grabber? Of course, but then again so was Reagan.

OK so Regan was wrong. What do do you want to hear?
Does it matter now what RR did? And it is not the same as. Regan went after class three weapons, full auto. Feinstien goes after the most popular models right now. At what point do they retro activly go after Garands and other semi autos?

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 01, 2013, 01:28:08 PM »

Quote

OK so Regan was wrong. What do do you want to hear?
Does it matter now what RR did? And it is not the same as. Regan went after class three weapons, full auto. Feinstien goes after the most popular models right now. At what point do they retro activly go after Garands and other semi autos?

Reagan was wrong, this thread is about our opinion of Reagan when it comes to gun control. As freedom loving gun owners we should condemn any type of gun control even if it came from someone that we otherwise liked. Reagan took the 1st step in taking away our militia right to own the same guns as the military. Feinstein wants to take the 2nd step now so we need to fight it harder than we did before.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #38 on:** February 01, 2013, 01:45:02 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on February 01, 2013, 01:28:08 PM

Quote
OK so Regan was wrong. What do do you want to hear?
Does it matter now what RR did? And it is not the same as. Regan went after class three weapons, full auto. Feinstien goes after the most popular models right now. At what point do they retro activly go after Garands and other semi autos?

Reagan was wrong, this thread is about our opinion of Reagan when it comes to gun control. As freedom loving gun owners we should condemn any type of gun control even if it came from someone that we otherwise liked. Reagan took the 1st step in taking away our militia right to own the same guns as the military. Feinstein wants to take the 2nd step now so we need to fight it harder than we did before.

You make it sound in your earlier posts that you are agains RR but got DF and her gun ban. Clearly both were an attack on our rights and both are an attack on free market economics. The difference is RR's law already happened and we cna not unring that bell, DF's bill is here and now and is something we can argue about. As we all know there is an intent of a law and the implmentation of the law. The intent of the law is stop the current sale of new assault rifles. The practice of the law says SALE OF. Sale is a sale of either new or used as far as I can see it.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #39 on:** February 02, 2013, 10:43:39 AM »

I own 3 AR15s since incomplete lowers are considered rifles. I do not own one 'assault weapon'. Drop the BS term. It is a semi automatic rifle no different than the Remington 750 Woodsmaster. The Remington 750 and its variants have been used for over 60 years. Mine just LOOKS different.

Really it matters not. All are protected by the Second Amendment. This so called Assault Weapon Ban is UnConstitutional. Pure and simple.

Doublebass73 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 02, 2013, 01:37:43 PM »

Since the government calls them "personal defense weapons" we should call them that also.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #41 on:** February 02, 2013, 05:15:07 PM »

Quote from: Doublebass73 on February 02, 2013, 01:37:43 PM

Since the government calls them "personal defense weapons" we should call them that also.

Weapon implies intent to use it to harm someone.
My rifles are for either hunting or target shooting. I have no intent to use it as a weapon.
I think we should just call them Firearms.
Like a Sports car and a pick up truck are both automobiles. I do not want to allow the left to divide shooters and collectors into us vs them.
They have done this with the rich vs poor, those with health care and those that do not want health care.
We have those that think that We should work for our selves adn those that think I should spend more than half of my time working for the government.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #42 on:** February 04, 2013, 02:42:46 PM »

how about PDF? Personal Defense Firearm. I like it.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #43 on:** February 04, 2013, 04:17:51 PM »

Quote from: SharonAnne on February 04, 2013, 02:42:46 PM

how about PDF? Personal Defense Firearm. I like it.

Alread taken by UZi and H&K for their Micro and Mini SMGs. and the left will pull out the PDW/ PDF and say this is what they are trying to keep even thought they are class III weapons.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #44 on:** February 04, 2013, 04:34:52 PM »

I mean PDF as a general term. who cares if uzi or H&K use it. Just a general term for all defensive firearms

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #45 on:** February 04, 2013, 05:01:12 PM »

Quote from: SharonAnne on February 04, 2013, 04:34:52 PM

I mean PDF as a general term. who cares if uzi or H&K use it. Just a general term for all defensive firearms

I understood what you were saying. What I am saying is the left, Obama in particular will parage out one of the Secret Service's H&K PDW full auto with the folding stock and tell the great uninformed voter that the PDF is what they want to save and get the great unwashed to vote to eliminate all of your PDF.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #46 on:** February 05, 2013, 09:47:09 AM »

you are right. The great unwashed think all AR15s are M16s and all CAR15s are M4s. It looks like a duck and walks like a duck but it does not quack like a duck. The radic-libs are working on the looks. Show M16s firing and hold up an AR15 and feeble minded think they are the same thing.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #47 on:** February 05, 2013, 06:30:29 PM »

Quote from: SharonAnne on February 05, 2013, 09:47:09 AM

you are right. The great unwashed think all AR15s are M16s and all CAR15s are M4s. It looks like a duck and walks like a duck but it does not quack like a duck. The radic-libs are working on the looks. Show M16s firing and hold up an AR15 and feeble minded think they are the same thing.

The first assault weapons ban went by a number of combinations of options.
Somehow a Ruger Mini 14 with a wood stock was not
but and AR 15 was, both used 30 round mags and are semi auto firing 223 rounds.
One has a pistol grip one as a standard grip

SharonAnne · « **Reply #48 on:** February 06, 2013, 06:56:07 AM »

the Ruger Mini made it this time. Detachable magazine. Only ONE factor makes it an "ASSAULT WEAPON". There go all of the Remington Woodsmasters. Funny, they have not been since their introduction, suddenly they are a public menace.

Remember People, it is not about the guns, it is about CONTROL. Disarmed we are like the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, the non Nazi Germans, anyone Stalin did not like, 'elitist' and educated in Cambodia (think "Killing Fields"), anyone not of Idi Amin Dadas' tribe, ethnic cleansing in Chechnia, Suni vs Sheite Muslims. If you are disarmed you are controlled, manipulated and eventually you have a "President for Life".

I truly wonder if we will have 2016 elections. There is already a movement to remove the term limit on the Presidency. Be afraid brothers and sister, be very afraid.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #49 on:** February 06, 2013, 08:20:44 AM »

Quote from SharonAnne:
"I truly wonder if we will have 2016 elections. There is already a movement to remove the term limit on the Presidency. Be afraid brothers and sister, be very afraid."

The above should replace the word afraid with paranoid.

GuzziJohn

sluggo · « **Reply #50 on:** February 06, 2013, 09:30:17 AM »

I can't figure it out........as a combat veteran I carried numerous high cap mags for my 92F, pouches full of .223 mags, a hummer full of belt fed M60 ammo, grenades, rocket launchers, claymores, etc., but I can't be trusted to own a 15 rd magazine for my personal weapon?

reliquary · « **Reply #51 on:** February 06, 2013, 11:58:45 AM »

Sluggo: yep, welcome to civilian life. Thank you for your service.

This way to the showers; men in this line, women and children over there.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #52 on:** February 06, 2013, 11:35:40 PM »

I have had all of guzzijohns idiotic comments. He quite obviously an anti gunner. b-bye gz

yellowtail3 · « **Reply #53 on:** February 07, 2013, 03:02:41 AM »

Quote from: SharonAnne on February 06, 2013, 11:35:40 PM

I have had all of guzzijohns idiotic comments. He quite obviously an anti gunner. b-bye gz

SMACK! The door swings and hits her in the butt...

SharonAnne · « **Reply #54 on:** February 07, 2013, 09:07:29 PM »

wrong, it slams shut on gz and I don't read his drivel anymore. It is called 'ignore list'.

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #55 on:** February 09, 2013, 05:56:57 AM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on February 06, 2013, 08:20:44 AM

Quote from SharonAnne:
"I truly wonder if we will have 2016 elections. There is already a movement to remove the term limit on the Presidency. Be afraid brothers and sister, be very afraid."

The above should replace the word afraid with paranoid.
GuzziJohn

And if the Republicans had been talking about lifting it for GWBush you would have been yelling and screaming the end of America, and the bill of rights.
Since they are talking about it and you have comments by people like Maxine Waters on the Presidents Data Base knowing everything about everyone and that things will not change in 2016 on a radio talk show the other day, you can see whay we ask, you can see why we are concerned.

SharonAnne · « **Reply #56 on:** February 11, 2013, 08:23:02 AM »

mcwoodduck

guzzijohn · « **Reply #57 on:** February 11, 2013, 09:47:32 AM »

Quote from SharonAnne:
"wrong, it slams shut on gz and I don't read his drivel anymore. It is called 'ignore list'."

Well I see I finally made someones ignore list. Must of hit her hot button. SharonAnne, as the old saying goes a parachute and a mind both work best when open. I see that you are not interested in learning anything other than what you already know. There are more than a few here that don't much care for my point of view on some things however they at least read it and sometimes respond to it agree or disagree, but at least they may be thinking a bit which is more than you are saying for yourself.
GuzziJohn

mcwoodduck · « **Reply #58 on:** February 11, 2013, 01:53:11 PM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on February 11, 2013, 09:47:32 AM

Quote from SharonAnne:
"wrong, it slams shut on gz and I don't read his drivel anymore. It is called 'ignore list'."

Well I see I finally made someones ignore list. Must of hit her hot button. SharonAnne, as the old saying goes a parachute and a mind both work best when open. I see that you are not interested in learning anything other than what you already know. There are more than a few here that don't much care for my point of view on some things however they at least read it and sometimes respond to it agree or disagree, but at least they may be thinking a bit which is more than you are saying for yourself.
GuzziJohn

I figured I made your Ignore list as you, TM7 and a few others liberals here never answer the questions I ask you about the liberal policies you support. If not, I guess the questions are just too hard to answer.