|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 5, 2013, 08:06 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
|
Spats McGee nailed it perfectly - I quote:
" I have a few thoughts about the line "nobody's going to take away your guns. 1) It's patronizing, and I think it's supposed to be. As the OP noted, "The tone of the statement is always that of the reasonable but exasperated parent (them) explaining something incredibly simple and obvious to the slightly backward and petulant child (us)." I think the listener is supposed to come away with the feeling that gun owners need to be dealt with as slightly backward and petulant children, and that the speaker of the line is the better-knowing parent. 2) As long as something short of "jack-booted thugs kicking in doors" is going on, it allows the speaker to say, "See? I told you they're not taking away your guns." Example: 3,000% tax on ammo, primer, and bullets? That's not "taking away guns." That's just a tax. Full firearms registration? That's not "taking away guns." It will allow the speaker of the line to be technically right in the face of an innumerable other acts that were, in and of themselves, wrong to begin with. 3) It's not just a lie, it's a big lie. It's a whopper. The anti-gun groups will work by small increments, but make no mistake as to what they want. They want the bulk of private ownership of firearms outlawed. (I say "the bulk" because even the most ardent anti-gunners would allow a few elite civilians to keep their guns, IMO.)" Thanks for that perfect summation by the way. __________________ |
February 6, 2013, 10:24 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 5, 2008
Posts: 182
|
Quote:
|
|
February 7, 2013, 10:32 AM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Let's not debate whether Koresh was worthy of anything. HINT!
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 7, 2013, 05:23 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/c...-laws-18433972
Haven't seen the law but the article implies that bans will also effect current guns that are legal now in CA. That's coming for your guns.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 7, 2013, 06:36 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I have deleted a thread complaining about moderation of a thread suggesting illegal actions and a reasonable reply to it (redundant).
I will remind folks that complaining about moderation is best done by PM. Suggesting illegalities and conspiracies are not our thing.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 8, 2013, 10:14 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185
|
Hopefully not too far off topic; but here's an article about a special gun confiscation unit in California.
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_bn1...llegal-gun.cnn They go after illegal guns, or guns that are "illegally owned". But that's what the fight over gun control is about, whether to make more guns illegal guns. They use records to go to homes and search for them, whether the person is home or not. There's no big shootouts or sieges or violent resistance involved, for many guns are something they bought over a decade ago and just have in their home somewhere. |
February 8, 2013, 03:59 PM | #57 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
I just received an e-mail from a friend in CT, informing me (and a gazillion other recipents) that CT seems to be doing its best to emulate NY. Rather than send proposed gun control bills through the standard process of assigning to a committee, holding hearings, taking comments, and then debating the issue -- the CT legislature apparently wants to declare gun control as "emergency" legislation, which will allow them to fast-track it with no committee reviews and NO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
In other words, nearly the same as NY's dark-of-night adoption. Quote:
|
|
February 8, 2013, 04:09 PM | #58 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
In this and several threads, I've seen references to the emergency clauses and "other purposes" language. Emergency clauses are standard fare in legislation. They are simply put in so that a law takes effectively as soon after passage as possible. There's nothing unusual or sneaky there. The language "and for other purposes" is also standard. From the legislator's perspective, if you do not include "for other purposes," that leaves a law subject to challenge on almost anything that is not specifically spelled out.
For example, from a bill currently in the Arkansas General Assembly: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
|
|