|
|
Post by surefire on Dec 9, 2008 22:31:50 GMT -5
All those threats are very scary. Our lovely RINO has already approved microstamping in CA, and it will likely affect the reliability of semi-auto pistols (revolvers so far will not have to have microstamping in 2010). Firing pins are sure to break sooner with microstamping applied. Imagine if the firing pin breaks when you need it the most... Actually, if you read that law carefully, I doubt it will ever go into effect. I havn't read it recently so the details are a bit foggy, but there was a clause in it about having the technology to do the microstamping being reliable, and - I THINK - needing to have more than one source for the tooling, something like that. I do remember researching it and there was something that pretty much makes it impossible to impliment. Gaff, you forgot to mention his desire for a total ban on semi-autos and handguns for private citizens. It's been a while since I read it, but I thought any semi-auto needs microstamping after 2009 to get on the lame "safe" list? Except for those that are already on it and keep paying their yearly extortion fee. I sure hope you're memory is better than mine though. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Dec 9, 2008 22:33:45 GMT -5
The campaign website still notes that Barack wants to reinstate the failed Clinton "assault weapon" ban, and that is a reasonable restriction.
Nothing to worry about here.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Dec 9, 2008 22:36:24 GMT -5
Joe's memory is still good.
The microstamping technology may not be single source or proprietary in any way. Unless those conditions are met, and there is only one outfit actively working on microstamping now, then it shall not come to pass.
We're going to get that stupid "safe list" done away with. It's a serious equal protection infringement. Once Heller is incorporated across the states there is going to be a bunch of litigation forthcoming and the dominoes should fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Dec 10, 2008 0:55:41 GMT -5
Joe's memory is still good. The microstamping technology may not be single source or proprietary in any way. Unless those conditions are met, and there is only one outfit actively working on microstamping now, then it shall not come to pass. We're going to get that stupid "safe list" done away with. It's a serious equal protection infringement. Once Heller is incorporated across the states there is going to be a bunch of litigation forthcoming and the dominoes should fall. I'm not as optimistic about Heller being incorporated accross all states. But I hope you are right. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Dec 10, 2008 9:22:32 GMT -5
So, I still don't understand why anybody would be too concerned about gun ownership. If you already own them you're still going to own them after Obama is in power, and even if Obama got mad cow disease, went crazy, and then decided nobody is entitled to own one they'd still be a dime a dozen on every street corner. I don't see the need to run out and buy more guns...
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Dec 10, 2008 15:20:45 GMT -5
So, I still don't understand why anybody would be too concerned about gun ownership. If you already own them you're still going to own them after Obama is in power, and even if Obama got mad cow disease, went crazy, and then decided nobody is entitled to own one they'd still be a dime a dozen on every street corner. I don't see the need to run out and buy more guns... You're not a gun owner, are you? Gun owners see additional restrictions placed on gun ownership - and, make no mistake, restrictions on ammunition are restrictions on gun ownership - as being the same slippery slope as abortion proponents see in any parental notification requirements or a ban on partial birth abortions. As far as a "dime a dozen on every street corner," I think you should educate yourself some more on what it takes to legally buy a handgun in California. The only ones who are purchasing guns under the conditions you describe are the criminals, the ones least likely to be affected by additional gun laws. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Dec 10, 2008 16:06:32 GMT -5
jgaffney, maybe I am a gun owner, and maybe not. My point is, supply and demand drives everything and if guns were hard to purchase legally you can bet it wouldn't be too hard to get one on the street, you might have to pay more, but you could do it nonetheless. It's all hypothetical anyway.
So, if you're a gun owner now, you should go buy more guns based on a fear that you can't buy another? Who would ever need more than a pistol, and a rifle? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Dec 10, 2008 16:56:13 GMT -5
So, if you're a gun owner now, you should go buy more guns based on a fear that you can't buy another? Who would ever need more than a pistol, and a rifle? I don't get it. I'm still guessing you're not a gun owner. Owning guns is much more than just a fear that someday you might have to use it. A gun is a fine piece of machinery that also does an excellent job of throwing lead down range. As such, to say that you only need one gun is like saying you only need one DVD. The pleasure of owning one is much more than just the experience of using one. Think about rifles for a second. A 22 autoloader, like a Ruger 10/22, is perfect for plinking or target shooting. I can shoot the center completely out of the target at 50 yds and only use about $3 in ammo. However, if you want to knock down a deer at 350 yds, a completely different rifle is necessary. The older, military surplus rifles are very popular because of their heritage, while the newer AR-style rifles are very reliable and highly customizable. So, why should a gun owner be limited to owning just one? Collecting guns is just like collecting any other item - you don't have to justify the next purchase to anyone other than yourself. And, possibly, your significant other. |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Dec 10, 2008 20:42:55 GMT -5
So, if you're a gun owner now, you should go buy more guns based on a fear that you can't buy another? Who would ever need more than a pistol, and a rifle? I don't get it. I'll try to answer the need question. One may like skeet shooting and/or hunting birds, so he needs a shotgun. One may also need a second shotgun with a short barrel for home defense -- since a shotgun is about the most effective short range home defense gun made. 3+ pistols are needed for enthusiasts... .44 magnum revolver for short range hunting big game (for those that hunt, or possibly even as bear defense where legal), .45 acp semi-auto for home defense and big bore competitions, and a .22 LR of some type for cheap practice. 3+ rifles are needed for hunters... big game hunting rifle, medium game hunting rifle, and a .22 LR for small game and cheap practice. Now I'm not saying that ALL gun owners need as many as others, but it is the citizen's right to make that choice on their own. I don't hunt, so my "needs" are different than the scenario above. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Dec 10, 2008 20:55:04 GMT -5
jgaffney, oh, so what we're really talking about is the right to have a hobby rather than to defend yourself, while I may be a bit sarcastic reality is people don't really have to be concerned about their right to defend themselves, or shoot a deer, right? What bothers me is in some circles people are paranoid about their rights being extremely reduced and are buying guns based on fear rather than fact.
And by the way, I wouldn't comment about owning a gun for many reasons, nor do I feel comfortable disclosing my name, address, gender, income etc. on the internet since we all really don't know each other, though I trust most of you who knows whether or not a nut job is lurking... And, by the way that answers a question you posed a while back asking why we don't use our real names. For example, I saw an obit in the PD with your last name and wondered if you were related, and if I had criminal intentions, or wanted revenge for some insane reason that info might lead me to you where you live etc. Don't worry, I'm honest and don't have a criminal record, but think about it...
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Dec 10, 2008 20:55:32 GMT -5
jgaffney, maybe I am a gun owner, and maybe not. My point is, supply and demand drives everything and if guns were hard to purchase legally you can bet it wouldn't be too hard to get one on the street, you might have to pay more, but you could do it nonetheless. It's all hypothetical anyway. So, if you're a gun owner now, you should go buy more guns based on a fear that you can't buy another? Who would ever need more than a pistol, and a rifle? I don't get it. Rambo. I've seen him shoot two at once.  |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Dec 10, 2008 22:25:26 GMT -5
JMO, we are talking about an enumerated and protected civil and constitutional right. There is a huge body of dicta from various courts, including the USSC that cites it as one of the fundamental rights of free citizens. Check out the Dred Scott decision - one of the reasons given in the decision was that if given equality with whites, the free blacks would walk around armed as free citizens were in the habit of doing.
|
|
