Hundreds march across Brooklyn Bridge for stricter gun laws

[rice555]

I use to buy guns while I lived in California, going back to the early 60's,

always had a background check on hand guns, but not on shotguns and

rifles, again every state is different and there can also be local laws.

Each state must follow Federal Guidelines, and the states . . make their own

laws and guidelines/laws, California you can't have machine guns, but OR,

NV, AZ, I think all together 28(memory is foggy) states you can buy machine

guns, FULL AUTO, buy that is run by the ATF and local cops have a say in

this to. A gun dealer with a FFL to sell guns and AUTO's is the only one that

can handle a sales, not a regular FFL dealer.

In Cal for over the past 20 years only a FFL dealer can sell a gun at a gun

show, privet people could not sell hand guns at a gun show, there was Cash

and carry in the parking lot, but, no law was broken, because it was person

to person and not sold by a FFL holder, if he did, he broke the law, no thing

covering NON first time sales when a gun is first registered and in the system.

There use to be, back with Brady and little Ronny Ray-gun got shoot, then the

elected boys and girls passed a law in DC started to monitor sales of hand gun

ammo and the store had to keep records. Years later the law was dropped

because it NEVER WORKED.

Enforce the laws that are on the books already. If I remember right, didn't Hinkely

use a 22 Cal.?? they weren't covered by the law.

Years back, by the FBI's records, no crime had ever been committed with a

legally registered automatic weapon.

Again, every state has different laws and regulations also the fed's.

rice555

[Publicus]

@Sirineou #86.

Your question has been answered by me and several others... there is to be no real discussion of an issue we do not support ... Go ahead - blow off my opinion on this subject - but keep in mind my opinion is mild compared to many millions of American gun owners. And these same millions of Americans vote and call their Congressional Representatives ... Remember Members of the House of Representative have to run for election every two years. House Reps want to be re-elected... going against the millions of active gun / 2nd. Amendment enthusiasts is a fast way not to be re-elected.

So - demand all the answers you want ... you won't get them because you're not important in the grand scheme of things.

Five million of the hundred million Americans who own guns take a membership of the National Rifle Association which opposes laws regulating ownership or possession of guns and which thereby places the NRA on the margin of the gun culture of the United States.

To advocate in the absolute guns and ammunition must not be regulated by the government is a crazy idea that only the most extreme segments of a society can conceive.

No one or group of a society has the right to demand exemption from the laws or can expect or insist on being exempt from the rule of law.

Concomitantly, advocating that certain people with whom one disagrees should not be allowed to express their opinion or pov suggests very strongly of <removed> tendencies. That such people should have unregulated access to guns and ammunition and be exempts of the laws of the society scares the bejeezus out of myself and the vast majority of Americans besides.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) only opposes gun laws and regulations that infringe on the 2nd Amendment. It is a well known fact, the NRA works with legislators drafting sensible gun laws and regulations. Repeating over and over again members of the NRA are "extreme segments of society" is silly. The majority of NRA members are patriots, unlike the loony, whiny, leftist, who are trying to destroy America.

the NRA works with legislators drafting sensible gun laws and regulations.

The gun laws of the United States and among the individual states comprise a contradictory mess of legal loopholes and passe' laws that fail to address many issues, as has been pointed out.

So it seems that any gun law, rule, regulation adopted by a government from Washington DC to California is a loony liberal left gun provision except for only those written for legislators by the NRA???

The National Rifle Association (NRA) only opposes gun laws and regulations that infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

That too is as clear as mud because it's more than apparent the extremists say that any gun law, rule, regulation not written or approved by the NRA is necessarily an infringement on the Second Amendment. Who or what indeed are the NRA to write its own laws that it likes for itself and to exempt gun ownership or possession from laws, rules, and all regulations not written by the NRA itself only.

The Second Amendment does not say, hasn't ever said, gun owners only can write the laws that govern them, that anyone else who tries to write gun laws, rules, regulations is an anti-gun loon who wants to take away everyone's guns who have guns.

The people who claim absolute Second Amendment protections and exemption from the rule of laws they don't like, don't approve of, or haven't themselves written, are extremist <removed> of the first order.

Edited May 18, 2015 by ubonjoe
removed a inflammatory comment

[sdanielmcev]

Would've been much better if they marched against the democrats for coddling criminals.

[beechguy]

@Sirineou #86.

Your question has been answered by me and several others... there is to be no real discussion of an issue we do not support ... Go ahead - blow off my opinion on this subject - but keep in mind my opinion is mild compared to many millions of American gun owners. And these same millions of Americans vote and call their Congressional Representatives ... Remember Members of the House of Representative have to run for election every two years. House Reps want to be re-elected... going against the millions of active gun / 2nd. Amendment enthusiasts is a fast way not to be re-elected.

So - demand all the answers you want ... you won't get them because you're not important in the grand scheme of things.

in reply #86

you explained the difference between different weapons, and the different regulations that govern them in different locations,

but it did not answer the question concerning a comprehensive background check regulation

there is am amalgamation of local. state , and federal laws, some with no teeth what's so ever, lucking enforcement and funding.

This is a deliberate strategy of the NRA

I don't demand an answer, I simply ask, what I consider a reasonable question, and since I think I am conversing with reasonable people , I expect a reasonable answer

Non is forthcoming , and I suspect because non is available.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/politics/2014/07/25/gun-control-colorado/13158581/

One example of poor legislation, and we don't have any confidence, that a better outcome would occur on a National level, because of the incompetence and dishonesty there. Obama has been informed that he is using erroneous information, but that doesn't stop him from lying.

The problem for foreigners, is that don't realize how ignorant they are of the situation, they simply pass judgment by the headlines. They simply don't have a clue.

There are a number of laws that prevent people from legally owning firearms, such as criminal records. There was gunfight in Texas at a restaurant, between members of bike gangs, 9 dead at last count. I have doubts they all were carrying legal firearms, and I would expect many of them did not get them at WalMart, or the latest gun show.

I believe it may have been you, in an earlier post, asking why don't we look at successful models in other countries. Many of us do look at other countries, we see idiots like Barnaby Joyce in Australia. Thanks, but no thanks. If you all want to live like nervous nellies in a nanny state, very well, have at it. Frankly, most of us do not believe it is the governments business, to know what we have in our homes, as long as we aren't breaking the law.

Edited May 17, 2015 by beechguy

[JDGRUEN]

@Sirineou #86.

Your question has been answered by me and several others... there is to be no real discussion of an issue we do not support ... Go ahead - blow off my opinion on this subject - but keep in mind my opinion is mild compared to many millions of American gun owners. And these same millions of Americans vote and call their Congressional Representatives ... Remember Members of the House of Representative have to run for election every two years. House Reps want to be re-elected... going against the millions of active gun / 2nd. Amendment enthusiasts is a fast way not to be re-elected.

So - demand all the answers you want ... you won't get them because you're not important in the grand scheme of things.

in reply #86

you explained the difference between different weapons, and the different regulations that govern them in different locations,

but it did not answer the question concerning a comprehensive background check regulation

there is am amalgamation of local. state , and federal laws, some with no teeth what's so ever, lucking enforcement and funding.

This is a deliberate strategy of the NRA

I don't demand an answer, I simply ask, what I consider a reasonable question, and since I think I am conversing with reasonable people , I expect a reasonable answer

Non is forthcoming , and I suspect because non is available.

I and others have given you answers ... your approach is childish. You can ask for the candy all you want -- but there is none to give. I have given you my opinion why there are not answers. I will add... The NRA may cooperate on Legislation that it considers sensible relative to guns and possession ... but many millions of gun owners are not going to cooperate and they vote and the scared of losing their jobs Congressional Reps are afraid of losing their jobs.

Now - go ask someone else. Quit asking me ... You have asked several times - I have answered - you don't like it ... Your continual dogging me for an answer in the manner of some child insisting on candy will get you reported for stalking... Now go away - take my answers or not -- but go away.

[stevenl]

'Only Americans can post about this' 'go away, go away' 'you're stalking me'.

You have a serious attitude problem.

Edited May 18, 2015 by stevenl

[stevenl]

Thanks, your reply reinforces my earlier statement.

[Scott]

This is a public forum and any member is welcome to comment. You are not required to be American to comment on these threads. I strongly suggest that some of the nasty personal comments stop. Inflammatory remarks such as 'nutters', facists, etc., can also stop.

[CMNightRider]

I'm always surprised how left leaning individuals get hysterical over law abiding citizens owning a firearm. The liberals aren't concerned with saving lives. If they were, they would focus their attention on the people who commit crimes using a firearm, not the millions of law abiding gun owners.

Liberals are obsessed with controlling peoples lives they feel inferior to them. These people want to tell others what they should eat, drink, and even how much salt you use on your food. &lt;deleted&gt;! Why don't these people worry about themselves. As one common sense poster suggested, protestors on the Brooklyn Bridge should have been "marching against democrats for coddling criminals."

[thaibeachlovers]

Australian comic Jim Jeffries on guns:

very funny , and so true. My favorite comedian,

I love his

Good comedy....the truth seems to be a funny thing when presented by a good comedian.

Meantime....factually, in the USA...there are a whole lot of incidents where a gun owner has protected themselves and others because they had a gun to do so.

You can look it up and there are thousands of incidents where people intent on doing harm or committing crimes were stopped by way of another citizen having a gun that stopped the crime from happening .....while often enough the criminal is dead...while the near victim(s) are alive and well.

There is a huge amount of crime going on in the USA....more than you may ever come to fathom...so, I can understand why a lot of Americans want to own a gun and protect themselves.

If you lived under such conditions you also may eventually become a gun owner for protective purposes because the social environment you live under near requires a gun to make your life safe.....it is that bad in some parts of the USA.

Meantime...stricter gun laws are not going to fix the problems in many respects concerning firearms ..but, it helps and can lessen the impact from all too many guns in the hands of the citizens, while all too many of the citizens are criminals with guns.

"there are a whole lot of incidents where a gun owner has protected themselves and others because they had a gun to do so."

It would be interesting to know if any one of those incidents would have required the use of an assault rifle with a thirty round clip--the kind of weapon most are talking about banning.

T

Anyone that thinks a home invader could be stopped with one or two shots ( and there are likely to be more than one anyway ) has been watching too many movies. In the real world it would be possible to miss with most of a 30 round magazine. Shooting targets is not the same as a moving person, and people don't normally get dead with one shot.

The attitude that you espouse is probably due to the propaganda put out by the anti gun lobby.

[JockPieandBeans]

Anyone that thinks a home invader could be stopped with one or two shots ( and there are likely to be more than one anyway ) has been watching too many movies. In the real world it would be possible to miss with most of a 30 round magazine. Shooting targets is not the same as a moving person, and people don't normally get dead with one shot.

The attitude that you espouse is probably due to the propaganda put out by the anti gun lobby.

Sorry TBL.

If someone requires to use a 30 round magazine to take out a home invader, they should not have a firearm.

That individual would be devoid of even basic firearms training.

I can assure you, people do normally get dead with one shot.

[sirineou]

In the mean time back at the farm

"

Waco biker gang shootout involved Bandidos and Cossacks, sheriff says

10:57 p.m. Sunday, May 17, 2015 "

But mostly morons with guns.

[thaibeachlovers]

Anyone that thinks a home invader could be stopped with one or two shots ( and there are likely to be more than one anyway ) has been watching too many movies. In the real world it would be possible to miss with most of a 30 round magazine. Shooting targets is not the same as a moving person, and people don't normally get dead with one shot.

The attitude that you espouse is probably due to the propaganda put out by the anti gun lobby.

Sorry TBL.

If someone requires to use a 30 round magazine to take out a home invader, they should not have a firearm.

That individual would be devoid of even basic firearms training.

I can assure you, people do normally get dead with one shot.

So, why are there more wounded in a war than dead?

Have you ever actually shot anyone? you seem to be an expert on the subject.

I did day that there would probably be more than one home invader, or do you use "magic" bullets that kill several people at once?

[Scott]

Please stay on the topic, which is about stricter gun control, not about killed and wounded in war.

[thaibeachlovers]

Please stay on the topic, which is about stricter gun control, not about killed and wounded in war.

I just returned to the internet cafe specifically to rebut Jocks argument, but I guess I'll have to abide by your ruling.

[chuckd]

And not all laws passed by the gun control mob are ruled constitutional.

For example:

-------------------------------------------------------------------

BREAKING: Washington, D.C. “May Issue” Handgun Carry License Law is Unconstitutional, Rules Federal Court Today

posted on May 18, 2015 in Legal News

A little over three months after Brian Wrenn, two other law-abiding gun owners, and the Second Amendment Foundation asked a federal court to stop Washington, D.C. from enforcing one of its new handgun carry license laws, Senior United States District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., issued a significant legal decision granting their motion for a preliminary injunction.

In response to Judge Scullin’s earlier decision in the case of Palmer v. D.C., which struck down D.C.’s total ban on carrying handguns outside the home, the District of Columbia passed new set of “may issue” license laws, including a “good cause”/”proper cause” requirement. Plaintiffs then filed suit, claiming that the “good cause” requirement was a violation of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

As explained in today’s decision, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) that it would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties, and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction.”

Entire article here: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/news/legal/breaking-washington-d-c-may-issue-handgun-carry-license-law-unconstitutional-rules-federal-court-today/

Judge's decision here: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Wrenn-v-Lanier-decision-order-MPI.pdf

[chuckd]

<<snip big time>>

If one doesn't yet have night vision, or has just been awakened with an invader standing over you, you might want what I own in the U.S., an automatic handgun.

<<snip>>

"you might want what I own in the U.S., an automatic handgun."

Please expand on this.

[JDGRUEN]

<<snip big time>>

If one doesn't yet have night vision, or has just been awakened with an invader standing over you, you might want what I own in the U.S., an automatic handgun.

<<snip>>

"you might want what I own in the U.S., an automatic handgun."

Please expand on this.

I wonder if he has a special - costly ATF license for that automatic pistol ?

[NeverSure]

If one doesn't yet have night vision, or has just been awakened with an invader standing over you, you might want what I own in the U.S., an automatic handgun. Close in, in the home at night, night vision yet or not, I'd be more than pleased to make a limited latitude spray at a vaguely targed invader than have to be precise or exact.

To zap out a couple dozen or more rounds in such a circumstance would be just fine, thx, and as you'd appreciate, to eject and insert clips rapidly and effectively in such a circumstance requires highly skilled, trained and practiced hands that need to be better than those of a second baseman.

Those fully auto pistols cost about US$30,000 and it takes a very special Federal license and large annual insurance premiums to own one. Now the feds are tracking your every move regarding the gun.

They are no good for home defense. Spraying bullets in the middle of the night could kill your whole family. Yes the bullets will go through walls. If you ever fire a gun you have to know what your backstop is even if it's the perp.

The preferred weapon is a short barreled shotgun loaded with 00 ("double-aught") buckshot meant to kill a deer. Being longer it's easier to aim especially if one is just waking up, and hitting a perp with 9 lead pellets each the size of a 9mm bullet all at once is lights out. You don't need a license for the shotgun and they cost perhaps $400. Shotgun pellets don't travel nearly as far as center fire bullets do.

Cheers

Edited May 19, 2015 by NeverSure

[NeverSure]

Publicus my friend, you might just want to stop pontificating about guns in the US when you're talking to guys who actually happen to know something

about guns, laws and licenses LOL.

[chuckd]

"Youse guyz" is so passe.

[Publicus]

"Youse guyz" is so passe.

Bothers some certain people eh

Thx for the advisory.

[chuckd]

I couldn't care less. Just seems childish and immature, but up to you.

[Publicus]

Do advise me why the right wingers always have to make the one additional post that gives youse guyz the last word, maybe for a short while before someone on the other side posts, sometimes for a long while before another on this side posts. But then youse guyz make another short meaningless post yet again and so on.

Youse guyz do it consistently across the threads and over an extended period of quite some time. Maybe its coordinated, maybe it's spontaneous, but it happens regularly.

[CMNightRider]

Do advise me why the right wingers always have to make the one additional post that gives youse guyz the last word, maybe for a short while before someone on the other side posts, sometimes for a long while before another on this side posts. But then youse guyz make another short meaningless post yet again and so on.

Youse guyz do it consistently across the threads and over an extended period of quite some time. Maybe its coordinated, maybe it's spontaneous, but it happens regularly.

Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself this question.

[Publicus]

I couldn't care less. Just seems childish and immature, but up to you.

Yes dear.

What to some is their own eccentric characterization, is to me a personal style consciously used by a mature adult with a quality education and professional career. This could therefore be suggestive of a petty spousal spat.

Discourse on the topic btw is not restricted to those who consider the Second Amendment their own personal license that applies to them only in the exclusive ways that please them only.

It would seem the point just bounces off these very people however. I suppose the spouse could always get an inunction that would keep the other at a distance from which he could neither be seen or heard.

[chuckd]

"personal style consciously used by a mature adult with a quality education and professional career."

As soon as you find somebody with these qualifications, please let us know.

[Publicus]

"personal style consciously used by a mature adult with a quality education and professional career."

As soon as you find somebody with these qualifications, please let us know.

There isn't a one on the lunar right.