|
Post by deputy on Apr 5, 2013 9:57:05 GMT -4
Nice party line quotes but this bill does nothing to fight crime or criminals. I'm curious as to how long ago was the last gun show topfish was at, or worked at.
I seriousley doubt that criminals are buying guns at gun shows, Ammo maybe, but not guns. Most if not all the "loopholes" at gun shows are gone and have been gone for a long while.
This bill, like most other "gun control" bills aren't about gun control, it's about law abiding citizen control and will only make more criminals out of good citizens. This is a bad bill, a bad plan, passed almost solely on party lines and will do NOTHING to stop another Aurora, Sandy Hook, or Fort Hood, etc.
The liberal dems are smothering this country and supporting the bad guys. WHY?
Why is DHS and other gubment agencies buying millions of rounds of ammo with no explanation given?
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 5, 2013 10:58:32 GMT -4
Top fish, did you even read the bill?
It does nothing to prevent the fears you have.
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Apr 5, 2013 14:36:37 GMT -4
One of the oldest laws in the books is: "Thou shalt not kill". Has it stopped folks from killing? So, they tighten up gun control laws. What does that do to prevent the criminal, who couldn't care less about following the "gun control laws", from still getting a gun? The core issue is not the gun, it is the person using it. No manner of laws will stop human nature. This is an exercise in pure emotional reaction to a horrific event caused by one deranged person. Who pays? The law abiding citizen who just wants to own a gun for either protection or to hunt with no intent to harm others.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Apr 5, 2013 14:40:44 GMT -4
One of the oldest laws in the books is: "Thou shalt not kill". Has it stopped folks from killing? So, they tighten up gun control laws. What does that do to prevent the criminal, who couldn't care less about following the "gun control laws", from still getting a gun? The core issue is not the gun, it is the person using it. No manner of laws will stop human nature. This is an exercise in pure emotional reaction to a horrific event caused by one deranged person. Who pays? The law abiding citizen who just wants to own a gun for either protection or to hunt with no intent to harm others. 100%
|
|
|
Post by topfish on Apr 5, 2013 15:15:37 GMT -4
At Gun Shows there are many attendees that bring their guns with them to sell, trade, etc. At the check in table the guns are checked to make sure they are not loaded and plastic straps are attached to the trigger so the mechanism cannot be fired. I have witnessed and have been with relatives and friends who have purchased guns of all sorts at Shows from private individuals. I have purchased and sold guns in the past at Gun Shows without any paper work. I have no clue if the guy who purchases any guns in this way are felons and the only way to help alleviate sales in this manor is Universal Background checks. If you are not a felon and have a clean record you will not have any problems. The Universal Background Checks will save lives. Will it be 100% reliable: NO but at least it is an attempt to help in some way. In my opinion, to do nothing is absolutely not an option. The mental health and violence in games and films also needs to be addressed. If just a few lives are saved through Background Checks per week it is all worthwhile. I have not found a rational argument about not doing background checks. Wayne's World dispatches fear and paranoia and it is sad that he is the Spokesman for the NRA. He has made the NRA a "Fringe Organization" and in the long run due to his actions will harm the NRA in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Apr 5, 2013 15:27:41 GMT -4
One of the oldest laws in the books is: "Thou shalt not kill". Has it stopped folks from killing? So, they tighten up gun control laws. What does that do to prevent the criminal, who couldn't care less about following the "gun control laws", from still getting a gun? The core issue is not the gun, it is the person using it. No manner of laws will stop human nature. This is an exercise in pure emotional reaction to a horrific event caused by one deranged person. Who pays? The law abiding citizen who just wants to own a gun for either protection or to hunt with no intent to harm others. I guess nowhere have I seen that law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves or hunt will not be allowed to do so. How exactly are they being hurt?
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Apr 5, 2013 15:32:19 GMT -4
The extra hoops they have to jump through to get a gun. I am not saying "hurt", per se. Seems these laws are being passed "thinking" it will reduce crime or killing and it will not, really. Look at how many different versions of laws describing what killing a person means. IE - murdering a minority for their race is considered a "hate crime", yet, it is still murder. You know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Apr 5, 2013 15:45:29 GMT -4
The extra hoops they have to jump through to get a gun. I am not saying "hurt", per se. Seems these laws are being passed "thinking" it will reduce crime or killing and it will not, really. Look at how many different versions of laws describing what killing a person means. IE - murdering a minority for their race is considered a "hate crime", yet, it is still murder. You know what I mean. Well, I sort of know what u mean, but then that opens up a whole new can of worms, like abortion, mercy killing, you name it, none of which has anything to do with gun laws. If you have to spend an extra half hour every time you needa gun, but the whole process can prevent a nut from easy access to one and thereby save a life or two or fourteen, then I think you need to man up and accept that owning a gun should be considered as serious as getting a driver's license, or a passport, etc., and should carry some responsibility on the part of the citizen. It's hard to boohoo over some inconvenience, when no one is taking away your gun or keeping you from getting one.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Apr 5, 2013 15:49:20 GMT -4
[quote author=deputy board=politics thread=12730 post=134646 This bill, like most other "gun control" bills aren't about gun control, it's about law abiding citizen control and will only make more criminals out of good citizens. ?[/quote] Well, not if they don't break the law....
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Apr 5, 2013 16:14:54 GMT -4
alleycat.. I see your points. Overall, the control advocates think they can control crime with these laws while the gun advocates go to the other extreme and think the government is trying to take away guns. I have yet to see any version of gun laws that is designed to take away guns in total. I could never understand the rhetoric spouted by the gun folks about the 2nd amendment when a gun control law is suggested implying it is to deny a citizen's right to bear arms. It wouldn't surprise me that if you asked the original framers of the constitution what their intent was with that amendment, it was intended to allow the average citizen to bears arms to protect the country and not necessarily to say you have a right to own a gun. I am certain those folks back then are rolling in their graves with the way the constitution is being interpreted today!
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 5, 2013 16:24:56 GMT -4
The meat of this bill isn't about background checks and licensing. It is about bans on guns with evil features like grenade launchers and magazine capacities.
When was the last time a crime was committed in the state of MD with a rifle launched grenade?
|
|
|
Post by burnerbill on Apr 5, 2013 16:32:07 GMT -4
Probably one of the most divisive topics one can ever have. Like most things, overall consensus will not be achieved. There will always be an extreme right to counter the extreme left with most in between chuckling at the rhetoric being lobbed over their heads with common sense out the window. (-;
|
|
|
Post by bluecrabber on Apr 5, 2013 16:36:39 GMT -4
Ignorance stupidity is bliss.. How is going to hurt law abiding citizens? Well, we could start with the fact that limiting detachable magazines to 10 shells makes thousands of Marylanders criminals. Most modern day handguns have detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. In effect the law makes it illegal to have those guns. One of the most popular handguns is a Glock 17 that holds 17 shells in the magazine. Most others are around 12-14. SB-281 bans those handguns. Next, shotguns with pistol grips are banned. Many Law-abiding Maryland citizens already own shotguns with pistol grips. They are popular with Turkey hunters. Improves the grip on the shotgun and helps with accuracy. Heaven knows how many Law-abiding Marylanders will now be criminals. Same thing with rifles.. many have pistol grip stocks. Current law-abiding Maryland citizens who own now banned handguns and rifles must register these guns by Jan 1, 2014 or be fined for each gun they have up to $1000. Next, the law requires anybody purchasing a handgun to pay for training and obtain a license to have a handgun. And, to own a handgun requires a renewable license. $25 every 10 years. It is not clear yet if that applies to each gun or will a single license cover all that a law-abiding citizen owns. Total estimated cost to own a single handgun is $300. And we all know that tax and spend O'Malley will be salivating over the potential revenue he might extort our of law-abiding Maryland citizens. I can go on and on about how this bill will hurt law-abiding Maryland citizens, but go to this link and read the details. marylandshallissue.org/share/SB0281_pamphlet.pdfThis bill is one of the most egregious acts of defiance of the rights of the people and the Constitution of the United States that has ever been passed by elected elitist idiots. And, the sad part is nothing in the bill addresses the criminals nor punishment for crimes with a gun. In fact, one of the Amendments proposed to the bill that was flatly rejected by Maryland Democrat Delegates was requiring criminals who commit crime with a gun to serve entire sentences.. no parole. Flatly rejected by the Democrat majority. "Hurt" Maryland law-abiding citizens? How about making it unaffordable for many Marylanders to own a handgun. How about making thousands of Marylanders criminals? How about driving major business out of Maryland? Corporate Beretta in Accoceek Maryland has already said they are taking their 600 jobs and $30+ million in tax revenue out of Maryland. :/ I really did not think we had as many stupid people representing us as we do. But watching this bill in Maryland and the one in Colorado over the last couple weeks, and reading and listening to the comments of the legislators I was left speechless.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Apr 5, 2013 17:01:46 GMT -4
Looks like all you have to do is register your nonconforming weapon and suddenly you are not a criminal.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 5, 2013 17:23:41 GMT -4
But you can't buy one if you don't already own one.
These features have not been proven to make these guns any more of a danger to the public than ones without these features.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Apr 5, 2013 17:57:32 GMT -4
So what? This really sounds like a case of wanting something you can't have because someone told you you can't have it? Hard to say how they came up with $300. Seems like this might be over ten years. And the Glocks mentioned above don't sell for peanuts, so what is the big deal? Bottom line is, no one is taking away your gun or my gun. There are things you can't have because you live in one state or another or one country or another. People in California can't have the same kind of cars we have *even if they want one* and yet they can still have a nice car, drive it wherever they please, etc. You can hunt here, but only during certain seasons, and yet people manage to hunt legally and survive the horror of restrictions. Why not be happy you live here, and not, for example, in Canada?
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Apr 5, 2013 18:44:18 GMT -4
Foot, meet door, in it that is.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Apr 5, 2013 18:52:06 GMT -4
Hey Now Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Apr 5, 2013 18:55:12 GMT -4
Looks like all you have to do is register your nonconforming weapon and suddenly you are not a criminal. Yep, register and get your papers. Yeah, OK. Got it. What's next, and what's enough? When do we do something to fight crime and criminals? This sure isn't it.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 5, 2013 19:12:03 GMT -4
Alleycat, I can tell you really haven't thought your argument out.
Imagine the 20 year old looking forward to purchasing their first handgun next year, because they have to wait until they are 21. It isn't a matter if wanting something NOW just because OMalley says you can't have it. New gun owners come into age every day, or adults decide to pick up the hobby, or whatever reason all the time.
The options of future gun owners have been severely limited without ANY provable benefit to the citizens on MD.
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Apr 5, 2013 19:14:37 GMT -4
Looks like all you have to do is register your nonconforming weapon and suddenly you are not a criminal. Yep, register and get your papers. Yeah, OK. Got it. What's next, and what's enough? When do we do something to fight crime and criminals? This sure isn't it. Well, we are, but clearly not enough. But this is not about criminals. As to registering...well, you register your car, you register to get a driving license, you register to get a hunting license, a fishing license, which Amy or may not be your point. Would you prefer that anybody could just get in a car and drive? I know...people do...the *criminals!*...and what is to stop them...but it does put a dent in car accidents, so to speak, if you have to pass a test, and show that you're of age, etc. etc.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Apr 5, 2013 19:17:46 GMT -4
Since you brought it up, yes. I would prefer ANYONE be able to go out to their completely unregistered automobile and without a license, drive wherever they want, at whatever speed they want, and be held TOTALLY accountable for any harm/damage they cause to persons or property along the way.
That is a free society.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Apr 5, 2013 19:22:24 GMT -4
So what? This really sounds like a case of wanting something you can't have because someone told you you can't have it? Hard to say how they came up with $300. Seems like this might be over ten years. And the Glocks mentioned above don't sell for peanuts, so what is the big deal? Bottom line is, no one is taking away your gun or my gun. There are things you can't have because you live in one state or another or one country or another. People in California can't have the same kind of cars we have *even if they want one* and yet they can still have a nice car, drive it wherever they please, etc. You can hunt here, but only during certain seasons, and yet people manage to hunt legally and survive the horror of restrictions. Why not be happy you live here, and not, for example, in Canada? This...is...NOT....about....hunting. Prioir to that @sshat OweMalley and the other knee jerk law-makers-cum-lazy-good-for-NOTHINGS got a hold of the Constitution, we could own any weapon we wanted to, sort of like we had a RIGHT to - without requiring funds or - as they say when it happens in an area like Atlantic City - "extorting" monies, from us. It's extortion - "you can't have *THIS* unless you pay *THIS*- pure and simple. Sorry there are whack-a-doodles out there...they are everywhere for sure....but I am not one...and I will say with complete confidence the MAJORITY of gun owners are not one - but it gives everyone a nice, warm fuzzy feeling to "do something" - - without actually considering the long-term effects or "big picture". And...we have NEVER had the right to "drive". If we did - I would be just as upset about this. There is a HUGE difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE. Oh - and yep - RM is right on target.....I would honestly support a truly free society version...of course, that would require a huge amount of personal accountability and responsibility....we can't have that now can we?
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Apr 5, 2013 19:28:29 GMT -4
So what? This really sounds like a case of wanting something you can't have because someone told you you can't have it? Hard to say how they came up with $300. Seems like this might be over ten years. And the Glocks mentioned above don't sell for peanuts, so what is the big deal? Bottom line is, no one is taking away your gun or my gun. There are things you can't have because you live in one state or another or one country or another. People in California can't have the same kind of cars we have *even if they want one* and yet they can still have a nice car, drive it wherever they please, etc. You can hunt here, but only during certain seasons, and yet people manage to hunt legally and survive the horror of restrictions. Why not be happy you live here, and not, for example, in Canada? This...is...NOT....about....hunting. Prioir to that @sshat OweMalley and the other knee jerk law-makers-cum-lazy-good-for-NOTHINGS got a hold of the Constitution, we could own any weapon we wanted to, sort of like we had a RIGHT to - without requiring funds or - as they say when it happens in an area like Atlantic City - "extorting" monies, from us. It's extortion - "you can't have *THIS* unless you pay *THIS*- pure and simple. Sorry there are whack-a-doodles out there...they are everywhere for sure....but I am not one...and I will say with complete confidence the MAJORITY of gun owners are not one - but it gives everyone a nice, warm fuzzy feeling to "do something" - - without actually considering the long-term effects or "big picture". And...we have NEVER had the right to "drive". If we did - I would be just as upset about this. There is a HUGE difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE. Oh - and yep - RM is right on target.....I would honestly support a truly free society version...of course, that would require a huge amount of personal accountability and responsibility....we can't have that now can we? Yeah, What SHE SAID
|
|
|
Post by alleycat on Apr 5, 2013 19:52:47 GMT -4
Since you brought it up, yes. I would prefer ANYONE be able to go out to their completely unregistered automobile and without a license, drive wherever they want, at whatever speed they want, and be held TOTALLY accountable for any harm/damage they cause to persons or property along the way. That is a free society. Well, it's sort of like free speech. You can say what you want, but you really shouldn't ought to yell fire in a movie theatre. I might say the same about whether you have thought out your remarks, other than I want it and I want it now and to hell with everyone else. I won't sleep any easier if some blind idiot runs me over and kills me and then is held accountable. He is now, and he is less likely to be out there looking to run me down. Rob, this is not an argument that anyone is going to win. This is an emotionally charged issue on many levels. If I have a gun, I want it to shoot. I don't care if it washes my windows as well. This is an oversimplification, I know.
|
|