Bills to stop online ammo sales, ban hi cap mags, limit rifle buys

[VoodooMountain]

Not this divisive crud again, please. They want us to be as divisive amongst ourselves as they are to us.... Don't.


Most of CA's most restrictive laws weren't passed by voters but we're rammed thru by politicians... just like the NY UNSAFE Act and that BS new law in MA. All rammed thru with out a citizen vote.

No anti gun laws are passed because the pro 2A people 'let it happen'. It's because they were out voted or not given the chance to vote on it and its a disservice to all gun owners to portray it that way.

Those people didn't "let" the laws pass any more than you and every other pro 2A American 'let' the 94 AWB pass.


The Anti 2A politicians introduce these bills because they know this pic represent the average gun owner.

View attachment 765401



They use the same tactic with everything else, too. Divide and Conquer... demonize and defeat.

These types of bills will continue in large quantities, with limited success but some success none the less, until the average gun owner in America decides that a mantra of 'its an inalienable right for all' isn't enough and that United We Stand is the Answer to their Divided They Fall tactics.



We are all in this boat together. When their is a leak, it should be ALL hands on deck to fix the leak... rather than taking the divisive position that so many do, including THR, of 'Well my seat is dry, so what, they deserve it, they can move' and then start thread to complain that pro gun owners from those states moved to thier states.


Boom. I said it.

I don't see it as a divide and conquer by original plan. The same politicians and voting public that want those unconstitutional laws in a federal level simply were able to do so at a state level because of much less opposition.

It is a stepping stone and leads to a dangerous slope for uninformed voters or people who vote emotionally when tragedy strikes and the mainstream media is filled with "experts" telling us how we need those unconstitutional gun laws nationwide to make us safer. They will/do tell us to look at NY or California and either tell us how muchndafer it is or how bordering areas need the strict gun control to make those places safer.

Enough people are under these unconstitutional laws and fuds come out in full force talking about common sense and the media portrays a happier and fulfilling life without these boom sticks as if to make you feel silly for holding these guns so closely to yourself when the rest of the world seems to get along without them.

My buggest concern with those laws in those states are the possibility of something like the NY safe act making to the federal Supreme Court when the court is anti gun. We shouldn't have this issue for some time because of trump filling the vacancy but it absolutely could have fin the other way if Clinton got elected.
I've heard some people go as far as to argue much of the unconstitutional legislation was written to be implemented nationwide from the beginning.

 

[AlexanderA]

Both sides of the gun debate should realize something: all these proposed laws, even the most draconian ones, won't remove guns from society. Instead they will simply drive guns underground. (That's been the experience in Europe, for example.) Let's think about the consequences of having an underground gun culture with "invisible" guns. First of all, it will make criminals out of otherwise law-abiding people. It will increase contempt for the law in general. (Think back to alcohol Prohibition.) Even gun safety couldn't be taught openly. A whole sector of legal commerce would disappear, along with thousands of jobs. Organized crime would step in to fill the void.

This argument of practicality should be one of our strongest arguments against the gun-banners.

 

[GAF]

In Wisconsin Milwaukee and Madison failed to do that this time and in the election of Scott Walker.

 

[herrwalther]

I have never, ever heard of ATF contacting an individual over a form 3310.4 NEVER. Not to mention not one, not two but three "agents". I'm sorry, but this smacks of either not being even halfway truthful, or only part of a much larger story. When ATF does inquiries without any reason for probable cause regarding a criminal act, they send out an (as in one, singular) investigator (not agent) to report on it. They simply do not have the resources to inquire on routine multiple purchases. They don't even have the resources to do annual compliance inspections on every licensee. I know a lot of FFLs who have been operating for years and never had one.

They had other questions about my purchase. Based on the questions asked they thought my purchases were connected to a gun running operation. I was at university at the time and they asked if I knew another student by name. Which I did. That student did some time in federal prison. While 3 handgun purchases in a day may not always warrant a red flag with ATF, it may if it is believed to be of a larger investigation.

I wouldn't talk to them without a lawyer present. They've actually in the past produced a training video on how to lie under oath.

My university retains several attorneys and one of them was present. Along with the assistant dean who told me about the ATF asking for me. The meeting, attorney, and dean presence were by choice. The ATF did not have a warrant or subpoena for anyone so the decision was up to me.

 

[danez71]

I don't see it as a divide and conquer by original plan. The same politicians and voting public that want those unconstitutional laws in a federal level simply were able to do so at a state level because of much less opposition.

It is a stepping stone and leads to a dangerous slope for uninformed voters or people who vote emotionally when tragedy strikes and the mainstream media is filled with "experts" telling us how we need those unconstitutional gun laws nationwide to make us safer. They will/do tell us to look at NY or California and either tell us how muchndafer it is or how bordering areas need the strict gun control to make those places safer.

Enough people are under these unconstitutional laws and fuds come out in full force talking about common sense and the media portrays a happier and fulfilling life without these boom sticks as if to make you feel silly for holding these guns so closely to yourself when the rest of the world seems to get along without them.

My buggest concern with those laws in those states are the possibility of something like the NY safe act making to the federal Supreme Court when the court is anti gun. We shouldn't have this issue for some time because of trump filling the vacancy but it absolutely could have fin the other way if Clinton got elected.
I've heard some people go as far as to argue much of the unconstitutional legislation was written to be implemented nationwide from the beginning.

It seems you're woth me on this, actually.

Demonize guns.. or some small segment of guns. That small segment is then divided from the rest of the gun community. Then they were defeated and conquered.

Rinse and repeat until those states are notably more restricted than the other states. Which achieves further divisiveness amongst the various pro 2a states population.

Look at how many comments on THR that target the pro 2A people of those states rather than the law makers that rammed the anti 2A bills through with the lame reasoning that they should just move... then complain when they do move.

The pic is perfect. Too many blindly fall into their playbook.

 

[Deanimator]

My university retains several attorneys and one of them was present.

A very wise course of action indeed.

 

[alsaqr]

Contrary to what you may have been told; the states of CA, CT, MA, MD, NJ, and NY enacted serious gun control because the majority of their citizens want serious gun control. Case in point: Polls have shown that NJ voters want more gun control.

 

[AlexanderA]

Contrary to what you may have been told; the states of CA, CT, MA, MD, NJ, and NY enacted serious gun control because the majority of their citizens want serious gun control. Case in point: Polls have shown that NJ voters want more gun control.

Correction: the "opinion leaders" in those states -- the media. academics, politicians -- want more gun control. Grass roots voters are either apathetic or they're pro-gun. Polls are skewed depending on how the questions are asked, and organizations such as the "Million Moms March" and "Everytown for Gun Safety" are externally-funded Astroturf groups. I'm convinced that gun control is actually a losing issue for Democrats. No matter the polling, the intensity is on the side of gun owners. If the Democrats do an honest post-mortem on why they lost the 2016 election, they'll have to admit that the gun issue tipped the balance in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

 

[hq]

Contrary to what you may have been told; the states of CA, CT, MA, MD, NJ, and NY enacted serious gun control because the majority of their citizens want serious gun control. Case in point: Polls have shown that NJ voters want more gun control.

No. They don't want gun control. They want everything that has been promised by politicians who have led so many people to believe that it could be achieved by the means of stricter gun control. In reality none of it can, of course, but an average voters are amazingly easily misled in any issue they haven't bothered to study themselves.

The biggest problem is that too many people still see career politicians as credible authorities, which they are not. They are in it for the money and power, without an exception. All of them are despicable, some are just much worse than others.

 

[danez71]

Contrary to what you may have been told; the states of CA, CT, MA, MD, NJ, and NY enacted serious gun control because the majority of their citizens want serious gun control. Case in point: Polls have shown that NJ voters want more gun control.

And what poll is that? A poll on Washington Post?

I bet if it was an NRA poll it would be just the opposite in NJ.

Most people aren't single issue voters; even on THR. Many members here have stated they aren't single issue voters.

Polticians get voted in on their platform of many social and physcal issues.

 

[brewer12345]

Eh, this all just reinforces the idea that by the time we have a meaningful election coming up I want to be fully stocked up on components.

 

[Hokkmike]

http://www.guns.com/2017/10/13/house-dems-propose-bills-to-stop-online-ammo-sales-ban-mags/

“No sportsman or woman needs 30 rounds to kill a deer. It’s shameful that we protect our deer better than we protect our people.”​

.

This is the old standby - make it seems as if the Second Amendment is for hunting.....