Sure, you can limit my "clips" to 10 rounds, as long as the legislation clearly defines a "clip" correctly, and that definition does NOT include magazines...[ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by jake
Sure, you can limit my "clips" to 10 rounds, as long as the legislation clearly defines a "clip" correctly, and that definition does NOT include magazines...[ROFL1]Quote:
Originally Posted by jake
She needs to learn the difference between clips and magazines
How would a requirement that certain products be purchased face to face rather than online be a curb of rights? Let's assume no paperwork is required. I don't actually consider this to be a solution that would work, but the right to shop on the Internet isn't a constitutional one.Quote:
Originally Posted by flan7211
Ok how about the limit on online sales is a true violation of the interstate commerce clause? Interstate commerce meant regulating states ability to put duties and tariffs on each other not regulate consumer goods just because they cross state lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Storefront you are forced to pay taxes while online you don't. Storefront faggot will upcharge it making it more expensive. So they can funnel our freedoms into nice little avenues that can be easily shut down later.
But would you have to go through a background check in order to get one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__...s_the_joke.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by 68Charger
Storefronts like "firing line" already jack the prices to almost double the online cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
why is the elimination of a free market a good idea again?
Getting hung up on the distinction between magazine and clip, and the fact that the media uses them interchangeably is a distraction. They want the overall capacity of a given firearm reduced, the wording they use is somewhat irrelevant to all but a few folk that are semantically obsessed or trying to drive up their post count.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
this is true, if a bill is passed, the lawyers who write it will not overlook that small detail
I posted on her Facebook wall
Quote:
Ms DeGette, what do you plan to do to curtail dangerous drivers on the road? I'd like to ask you to consider a ban on high capacity fuel tanks. With today's modern fuel efficiency, there is no need for people to be able to travel hundreds of miles on a single tank of gas.
Tmckay, your suggestion would only serve to spotlight the legality of sbr, sbs, supressors, and machine guns; which have NEVER been illegal. Even during the 1994 AWB, "assault" weapons weren't illegal. That's how far below the radar they are.
I strongly agree that AK-47s should NOT be in the hands of criminals! I, however, am NOT a criminal, thus, I will be keeping mine. I thought we had rules forbidding CRIMINALS from possessing firearms. What? Criminals would dare to break the law?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
I am tired of hearing that they believe in the second amendment but we should limit our guns by hunting standards, the second amendment was instituted to protect our freedoms and liberty, who cares what is suitable for hunters, its a different subject.
Interesting point on the Interstate Commerce Clause. Other than firearms, are there any other goods that can't be directly mail-ordered?Quote:
Originally Posted by flan7211
I understand why you might find online purchases more attractive, but it's just as easy to shut down online purchasing of goods as it is to shutdown a storefront.Quote:
Storefront you are forced to pay taxes while online you don't. Storefront faggot will upcharge it making it more expensive. So they can funnel our freedoms into nice little avenues that can be easily shut down later.
Count me OUT! Every time we say YES to them, it encourages them to continue this witch hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by jake
I can't think of any off the top of my head. However, technically, you're supposed to pay "use tax" on anything you buy online when you file your income taxes in the beginning of the year. That means paying 2.7% to the state for everything you bought online from an out of state retailer, and possibly paying the 3-5% to your city (depending on the county). I think most of Jeffco is safe, but I haven't checked in a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
Back on topic, I also sent in feedback and said something to the effect of "you're wrong." To be honest, I think a death toll of less than 25% is a good thing. I shudder when I think of what the asshat could have done had he decided to throw some Molotov cocktails into the mix of people just sitting there in the seats. Not only would the death rate have been higher, but more than likely the grievous injury rate would have been greater as well.
Not to mention the fact he could have more severely damaged the theatre in the process.
Either way, guns are a tool like any other. There's no restrictions on the manufacture of knives or hammers... there shouldn't be on firearms either. It would be nice if some of our fucktard legislators would do more than watch "Commando" and learn how firearms actually work. Watch a USPSA match, and see how much fun the competitors have, and do so safely.
But no, the "majority of firearms owners will agree" with her. My ass.
It's a difference without a distinction in my mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
What would requiring face-to-face purchases do to prevent this non-problem? Would you require the mag purchase to be handled by a FFL holder?
I don't understand the logic.
I emailed her my concern for her relelection and my desire to campaign against her and for her opponent
if she persues any kind of firearm or firearm related legistlation restricting our right. [Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang][Bang]
I'm in favor of keeping criminals away from guns. How about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by jake
I'm not saying it's necessary logical. I was just wondering about the middle ground, if a compromised proved necessary, between the folks that want to ban the sale of high capacity mags entirely and those of us who think that's it's a total non-issue. I'm really not seeing the level of hysteria out there that I expected, and I'm hoping that really does mean "no new laws".Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweety Bird
You don't need to compromise on non-issues. Compromising only legitimizes the non-issue.
I thought the reference to barrel shrouds would clue most of you in. I thought the safety wink would finish the job. I even dragged out Rainier Wolfcastle for you all.
Tsk tsk, CO-AR15.
She's too stupid to get it but ...
Quote:
I just read your misinformed knee-jerk call for a ban on high capacity magazines. It fits in with your anti-Second Amendment views but as usual doesn't conform to reality. Instead of making more laws that don't work, why don't you, Lautenberg and Schumer work toward putting some teeth in the laws that do? We'd be much better off dissuading these miscreants by not letting them predict that an entire closed room of people are weaponless targets.
The problem in this case was a sad deluded individual who could easily have switched to a fire bomb or truck bomb that would have created even more casualties. Instead of harassing legal gun owners, you should be calling for more opportunities for people to train and equip themselves to defend themselves instead of resorting to being innocent targets.
Is it nit picking to mention that the 2nd Amendment does not grant citizens the right to own guns?
The 2A prohibits the government from infringing on a right that all people are born with. I do not need any laws to protect my right. I only expect the government to abide by the laws that gave the government it's purpose for existence.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...cond_amendment
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
Hear, Hear! No need for any other discussion.
Next time you need to use the special sarcasm font to remove any question of your meaning. <JK>Quote:
Originally Posted by jake
Agreed. Well stated cstone.Quote:
Originally Posted by flan7211
Here's the email response I got: (just a canned response of course...)
Should I resend it with an 1st district address and see what happens?Quote:
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting my office via e-mail. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.
As a Congressional courtesy, I can only respond to residents of the First District of Colorado. Based on the address you provided, you live in another Congressional district. You may use the following link to find your U.S. Representative: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Sincerely,
Diana DeGette
Member of Congress
hmmmmmmmm....
I'm going to put this simply and plainly, in the words of Tommy Lee Jones from the Fugitive "I... Don't... Bargain!" No compromise! Let me put that in terms you all can understand:
NO COMPROMISE!
These democrats don't understand give and take, they only understand take. You give them any bit of our 2a rights and they'll start going for more and more and more until there's a big whited out section between the 1st and 3rd amendments.
The link that DeGette's office sent back is kind of a mess. It shows who your current representatives are, but with CO redistricting for this election a lot of us will be voting for or against an incumbent who has never been in our district before.
Coffman has been my Rep until this election, now I get to vote against DeGette. I wonder if I would get the same canned response.
Either way, vote against DeGette [Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by sturn18