AWB 2018 and grandfathering

eruby · Feb 28, 2018

Boondock Saint said:
.

TexDefender · Feb 28, 2018

lonewolf220 said:
No what I’m saying is people need to do some soul searching when it comes to taxes. People want all this stuff but seem to think it won’t cost anything. Guess what, it costs money. So if that’s what you want to advocate for then you better be willing to support a politician that will raise your taxes

True, but money could be found in the budget, say by re-prioritizing. In some governments they are paying criminals not to break the law. How much of Baltimore's budget is for social services? Are they working, because based on the Magazine Bill Testimony they don't seem to be working. But one of the Bill sponsors was fishing for more funds.

GlocksAndPatriots · Feb 28, 2018

BradMacc82 said:
Are you ****ing kidding me?!?

If the Feds, or Local LE had done their ****ing jobs and followed up on his threats/posts, the firearms would've been removed from his possession and he would've been monitored - at the least. The firearms would've been held/logged into secured storage.

Would that have stopped Cruz from committing some act of violence? Possibly. Maybe he would've just cooked up a VBIED and bombed the place instead - then the numbers of injured/killed would be many times what they were. Hell, could've just chained the exterior doors and set fire to the place. With that many students in one place, that could've been a true disaster.

With Cruz, there were definitive indicators he was intent on doing harm. The Feds and the locals dropped the ****ing ball, simply put.

How? How could they have seized his firearms if he wasn't charged with a crime or committed? You can't just seize them because you feel like it.

BradMacc82 · Feb 28, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
How? How could they have seized his firearms if he wasn't charged with a crime or committed? You can't just seize them because you feel like it.

Terroristic Threats, just the charge would've been grounds for a court order for him to surrender his firearms.

GlocksAndPatriots · Feb 28, 2018

BradMacc82 said:
Terroristic Threats, just the charge would've been grounds for a court order for him to surrender his firearms.

If there was grounds for a charge. My point is that he was mentally ill even if he hadn't committed any crimes, and should have been committed on that basis alone. We need to make it much easier to lock up crazy people.

lonewolf220 · Feb 28, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
If there was grounds for a charge. My point is that he was mentally ill even if he hadn't committed any crimes, and should have been committed on that basis alone. We need to make it much easier to lock up crazy people.

No we don’t. Because “crazy” is an ill defined term. One man’s sane is another’s crazy. It’s been argued in other threads that they’ll just define whatever they want as crazy and use it to deny rights. Good first group to round up will be those that believe the 2A is supposed to be a check on oppressive government. Clearly they are crazy. Don’t they know the gov has drones and tanks?

GlocksAndPatriots · Feb 28, 2018

lonewolf220 said:
No we don’t. Because “crazy” is an ill defined term. One man’s sane is another’s crazy. It’s been argued in other threads that they’ll just define whatever they want as crazy and use it to deny rights. Good first group to round up will be those that believe the 2A is supposed to be a check on oppressive government. Clearly they are crazy. Don’t they know the gov has drones and tanks?

Again, using the standards used prior to the 70s.

BradMacc82 · Feb 28, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
If there was grounds for a charge. My point is that he was mentally ill even if he hadn't committed any crimes, and should have been committed on that basis alone. We need to make it much easier to lock up crazy people.

*There was grounds for a charge, his social media alone would've been the gift that keeps on giving - if either the Feds or Locals had done their god-damned jobs and investigated. 39+ chances to possibly prevent this, 39+ failures to do so.

There's already guidelines/procedures in place in regards to having individuals committed (willingly and forcibly).

If the little shit needed to be evaluated/possibly committed, then that falls on his parents/custodians for failing to act on it themselves.

lonewolf220 · Feb 28, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
Again, using the standards used prior to the 70s.

How about explaining what those standards are? And what process will exist to ensure that innocent people aren’t denied their rights and that rights can be restored. Because I have serious doubts about any system that can lock away people who aren’t charged with a crime

clingy · Feb 28, 2018

Even though I disagree with GlocksAndPatriots on all his gun control points, he’s right about one thing - some of you guys are as bad as SJWs with how you INSULT and ostracize someone with different beliefs than you.

babalou · Feb 28, 2018

what the ywant

GlocksAndPatriots said:
How? How could they have seized his firearms if he wasn't charged with a crime or committed? You can't just seize them because you feel like it.

Like the movie Minority Report.

Brychan · Feb 28, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
Again, using the standards used prior to the 70s.

That's just crazy.

I don't want people, some of which can't even decide what gender (if any) they are to judge my mental health. In my opinion many of the shrinks are not much above witch doctors with a sheepskin on the wall. The mind is much like space, largely unexplored or understood.

Life is not safe and taking away freedom from others because of what they may do, or taking away tools to protect yourself and family is about as Un-American as you can get.

jefflac02 · Feb 28, 2018

Boondock Saint said:
I think one of the the largest disconnects between people who actually love and embrace freedom and those who would rather someone else (generally the government) take care of certain things for them is that one group understands that man is imperfect, that evil exists in this world, and that neither fact will ever change. Given those two truths, there will always be danger in this world, and bad things will happen to good people. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I recognize that there's very little that can be done about it. Restricting access to the very tools that good people can use to defend themselves against imperfect and evil people simply isn't the answer. If it was, gun control would have proven itself at some point over the course of the last 84 years.

The illusion of safety and security is all that you'll get by restricting the freedom of good people, and in fact you'll be less safe and secure in doing it. No one wins there, except reptiles.

It's feelings vs. facts, and facts are stubborn things. You don't have to like it, but you do have to live with it. The idea that people are somehow less safe with well-trained, well-armed sheepdogs among them is the work of idiots who eschew logic for emotion and reptiles who gladly promulgate the narrative to get closer to their end goal - yet more control over free men and women.

Amen

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

j_h_smith · Feb 28, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
Cruz did that! The warning signs were there for every one of these shooters, except for Paddock.

You have no idea. Show me where these men were proven to be deemed insane or criminal BEFORE they committed these crimes.

Just because you say so doesn't make it fact. As a matter of fact, your position flies in the face of professionals who are responsible for making these decisions.

j_h_smith · Feb 28, 2018

GlocksAndPatriots said:
Saying that there were no warning signs doesn't make it true.

That's not me saying it, that is the findings of the good people who investigated these incidents. You're becoming annoying trying to win an argument by replace facts with your own story.

j_h_smith · Feb 28, 2018

clingy said:
Even though I disagree with GlocksAndPatriots on all his gun control points, he’s right about one thing - some of you guys are as bad as SJWs with how you INSULT and ostracize someone with different beliefs than you.

You can't honestly tell me that just because someone can spout any belief they want, you actually think that we should have faith in that person's opinion? If so, then why argue a pro 2A stance against an anti 2A stance? After all, by your standards, they have their beliefs and we should all live along together fine. Oh, that's fine except they want to take our rights from us.

Others here want to have some arbitrary definition of what insane would be. Thinking that you would want someone in government to tell you whether or not you can own a firearm by THEIR definition is beyond me.

But that's fine. You can play the game of who's got the key to the asylum, but I'll not sit in for a round of that game.

94hokie · Feb 28, 2018

j_h_smith said:
You have no idea. Show me where these men were proven to be deemed insane or criminal BEFORE they committed these crimes.

Just because you say so doesn't make it fact. As a matter of fact, your position flies in the face of professionals who are responsible for making these decisions.

While I agree with you on some shooters, at least the Virginia Tech shooter should have been federally prohibited due to being found mentally ill by a judge; but because that didn't automatically prohibit him in Virginia at the time, it wasn't forwarded to the NICS check system by Virginia which allowed him to buy his guns.

clandestine · Feb 28, 2018

clingy said:
Even though I disagree with GlocksAndPatriots on all his gun control points, he’s right about one thing - some of you guys are as bad as SJWs with how you INSULT and ostracize someone with different beliefs than you.

I'm not going to apologize for being blunt to people who wish to infringe on my rights.

I don't see how infringing on my rights any different than someone coming to me and using Force to take my property. My rights and my property is something they have no right to take or try to infringe.

j_h_smith · Feb 28, 2018

94hokie said:
While I agree with you on some shooters, at least the Virginia Tech shooter should have been federally prohibited due to being found mentally ill by a judge; but because that didn't automatically prohibit him in Virginia at the time, it wasn't forwarded to the NICS check system by Virginia which allowed him to buy his guns.

I don't believe I included the Va Tech shooter in my list.

GOG-MD · Feb 28, 2018

clandestine said:
Banning Bumpstocks means they redefine the meaning of machinegun, which means they will use the new definition to ban semi autos next.

Full Auto and Semi Auto is clearly defined. When you use "rate of fire" as a new definition then all semi autos are in jeopardy if they can be readily modified for increased rate of fire.

What is an acceptable rate of fire? Well it will be whatever they want just like magazine capacity.

Trouble is libs aren't happy with any compromise. You give them bump stocks today, they'll go after standard-capacity magazines tomorrow. Then an AWB next week. Next year it's a ban on all semi-autos. Before you know it, we'll all be completely disarmed.

AWB 2018 and grandfathering

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Confederate Jew

Ultimate Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Member

Banned

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

AR-15 Savant

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics