The "want to be" gun confiscators would have a daunting job ahead of them

[bj139]

Obama was very civil as he tried to enslave us.

Trump is very un-civil as he tries to free us.

Which would you choose?

[JASmith]

Obama was very civil as he tried to enslave us.

Trump is very un-civil as he tries to free us.

Which would you choose?

Well said!

[JASmith]

Threats? Exhorting a coup and civil war? You're really indulging in gross over-exaggeration.

And the "severed head" was NOT a call for assassination, as demonstrated by the fact that the person who did it was not arrested.

Now I know that Stan is being deliberately obtuse. Using the lack of an arrest as a test of guilt or intent behind a communication is a truly weak way to inflame one’s audience.

I am reminded of a few verbal bullies in high school and college who prided themselves in their ability to out-argue anyone with twisted logic and “facts” drawn put of context to support one’s point. Surely Stan is not intentionally following this practice.

I do know that the gnashing of teeth and deep thought on the part of his victims frequently gives the rest of us some factual evidence and deep insight. Keep up the good work guys and gals!

[stanc]

Now I know that Stan is being deliberately obtuse. Using the lack of an arrest as a test of guilt or intent behind a communication is a truly weak way to inflame one’s audience.

I have no idea what you think you're trying to say with the part in blue, but the lack of an arrest shows that the Secret Service -- which takes threats against the President very seriously -- does not share your hyper-inflated view that the "severed head" stunt was either a threat to kill the President, or a call for his assassination.

I am reminded of a few verbal bullies in high school and college who prided themselves in their ability to out-argue anyone with twisted logic and “facts” drawn put of context to support one’s point. Surely Stan is not intentionally following this practice.

Hmm. So, what you're saying is that in high school and college you were repeatedly out-argued by people who also pointed out your faulty logic. That explains a lot.

[stanc]

Obama was very civil as he tried to enslave us.
Trump is very un-civil as he tries to free us.
Which would you choose?

Cleverly phrased, but Obama didn't actually have the power to enslave us, and I'm not sure that Trump is trying to do anything but be the center of public attention.

[JASmith]

I have no idea what you think you're trying to say with the part in blue, but the lack of an arrest shows that the Secret Service -- which takes threats against the President very seriously -- does not share your hyper-inflated view that the "severed head" stunt was either a threat to kill the President, or a call for his assassination.


Hmm. So, what you're saying is that in high school and college you were repeatedly out-argued by people who also pointed out your faulty logic. That explains a lot.

Stan, it would appear that you have confirmed the point. . .

[stanc]

Stan, it would appear that you have confirmed the point. . .

Yeah, Joe. To you, I have no doubt that it does.

[JASmith]

Maybe we should worry about confiscation:

http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2018/...PRECISION2

On the surface, it seems that the only "voluntary" action here is whether to turn in your firearm or be a felon waiting to be caught and convicted.

California is very close with the Assault Weapons "Safety" initiative but one at least has the option of modifying the AR to be compliant.

[grayfox]

I would not trust Jerry Brown or any CA laws that say they have an "option."
Just sayin'.
Don't have to face this as I'm not in CA, but worried that it could export to other states.
See NJ.
Michael Douglas in that movie "American President" unconsciously gave their strategy away by saying the line at the climax of the movie "... and we' re gonna get the guns!!!"

[stanc]

Maybe we should worry about confiscation:

http://www.selfreliancecentral.com/2018/...PRECISION2

On the surface, it seems that the only "voluntary" action here is whether to turn in your firearm or be a felon waiting to be caught and convicted.

Fake news. Contrary to the scare-mongering article, you don't have to "surrender your guns or become a criminal."

The New Jersey law is a limitation on magazine capacity. All you have to do is permanently alter the mags to hold no more than 10 rounds.

Instead of leaping to erroneous conclusions based on BS, try reading the actual law: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/...761_I1.HTM

[bj139]

Cleverly phrased, but Obama didn't actually have the power to enslave us, and I'm not sure that Trump is trying to do anything but be the center of public attention.

The only reason Obama did not have the power to enslave us is because we have guns exactly as the founders intended.

[jonny rotton]

Fake news. Contrary to the scare-mongering article, you don't have to "surrender your guns or become a criminal."

The New Jersey law is a limitation on magazine capacity. All you have to do is permanently alter the mags to hold no more than 10 rounds.

Instead of leaping to erroneous conclusions based on BS, try reading the actual law: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/...761_I1.HTM

is this new law in line with our constitution???

[stanc]

is this new law in line with our constitution???

Are state gun laws required to be in line with the Constitution?

[JASmith]

Sorry Stan — the message remains. We are at risk of losing our firearms.

The Bakersfield farmer made a good faith attempt to comply with the registration requirement and effectively lost everything because the photo he sent included a muzzle device that looked like a can.

New Jersey is much the same as New York and California.

[jonny rotton]

would you answer your own question?? i am sure you know the answer.

[stanc]

The only reason Obama did not have the power to enslave us is because we have guns exactly as the founders intended.

No, that's not why.

When the country was founded, there was a small standing army. Both private citizens and government forces had the exact same types of guns: Muzzleloading muskets, rifles, and pistols.

Today there is a very large standing army. Private citizens (with few exceptions) are still limited to having rifles and pistols, while government forces have rifles, pistols, machine guns, self-propelled artillery, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, guided missiles, attack helicopters, jet fighters, bombers, etc, etc.

In the 18th Century, an armed citizenry posed a credible counterbalance to an equally armed government.

In the 21st Century, the disparity in force is so great that, IMO, the original concept is no longer adequate in and of itself to be an effective counter to a government becoming tyrannical.

[stanc]

Sorry Stan — the message remains. We are at risk of losing our firearms.

Sorry Joe -- the article you linked to is still wrong. The New Jersey law does not require you to "surrender your guns or become a criminal."

However yes, I agree we are at risk of losing our guns. In fact, I would opine that -- judging by history -- it's not a question of if, but when.

[stanc]

would you answer your own question?? i am sure you know the answer.

All I know (and the only thing that seems relevant) is that countless federal and state laws exist which "infringe" on the RKBA, said laws being upheld by the courts, and enforced by police.

[montana]

Fake news. Contrary to the scare-mongering article, you don't have to "surrender your guns or become a criminal."

The New Jersey law is a limitation on magazine capacity. All you have to do is permanently alter the mags to hold no more than 10 rounds.

Instead of leaping to erroneous conclusions based on BS, try reading the actual law: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2018/Bills/...761_I1.HTM

I guess it depends on how a person looks at these types of restrictions. In truth, all semi autos have just been neutered in that state nullifying their true performance and purpose. If they banned high horsepower engines, all a Corvette owner would need to do is put a low hp 4 banger under the hood to continue owning it, "but truthfully" it would no longer be a true Vette. It is like pretending we own our homes and property when we actually don't since property taxes gives true ownership to the taxers. The old saying: don't take a wiz on my head and then tell me it is raining outside applies.

[stanc]

I guess it depends on how a person looks at these types of restrictions. In truth, all semi autos have just been neutered in that state nullifying their true performance and purpose. If they banned high horsepower engines, all a Corvette owner would need to do is put a low hp 4 banger under the hood to continue owning it, "but truthfully" it would no longer be a true Vette.

False analogy. The part of a car that's actually analogous to a firearm's magazine is the gas tank, not the engine.

The correct analogy would be a law requiring the 18-gallon gas tank be replaced by one with a 6-gallon capacity.

A Corvette with a 6-gallon tank would still be a "true" Corvette, able to accelerate just as quickly, and go just as fast. The only difference is it would have to refuel more often.

Likewise, an AR-15 limited to 10-round magazines can fire the same ammo just as rapidly, just as far, as an AR-15 with 30-round mags. It just has to be reloaded more often.