45 replies to this topic

[OverSword]

ninjadude, on 15 February 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

seems like a sensible law. I hope it passes.

What is sensible about requiring people to destroy or turn in property that was perfectly legal when they paid good money for it????  With some of the things you post it's almost like you don't have your own opinion about anything, just toe that party line again and again.

[OverSword]

questionmark, on 15 February 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Unless the laws have changed since the 70s, yes. It is not like anybody without training gets to own anything but a shotgun though.

Alot of damage can be done to a room full of people if one of them has a shotgun.

[OverSword]

AsteroidX, on 15 February 2013 - 09:45 PM, said:

Alot of hype for a proposed bill that has no possibility of being passed in Missouri.

That's what they said about obamacare

[MichaelW]

OverSword, on 15 February 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

What is sensible about requiring people to destroy or turn in property that was perfectly legal when they paid good money for it????  With some of the things you post it's almost like you don't have your own opinion about anything, just toe that party line again and again.

Laws change.

[Uncle Sam]

MichaelW, on 16 February 2013 - 09:48 AM, said:

Laws change.

True, but this change is unconstitutional.

[Rafterman]

aztek, on 14 February 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

out of all the states, i'm surprised it is  missouri. even new york didn't say nothing about actually remoiving, yet, only regester, but i guess they will soon as well.

that is how it starts, than they will remove the rest, little by little no one will notice.
'

You have to remember that there is Missouri and then there is St. Louis.

Any idiot in the legislature can propose a bill.  This has zero chance of passing.

Although ti does blow a hole in the myth that this whole thing isn't about gun confiscation.

Not to mention, if it did pass, it would make zero difference in the shooting rate since only about 200 people are killed by "assault weapons" annually.

Edited by Rafterman, 16 February 2013 - 01:12 PM.

[and then]

If the state of Missouri passed such a law I'd never travel there or ever do business with anyone from there again.  If Alabama passed such a law, the day an officer came to take possession of my weapons I think        I would become infamous for a few seconds on the media.  Both he and myself would relearn what the second amendment was truly about - more's the pity.

[ninjadude]

OverSword, on 15 February 2013 - 10:44 PM, said:

What is sensible about requiring people to destroy or turn in property that was perfectly legal when they paid good money for it??

You can pay "good money" for any number of illegal items that would be confiscated by government. Illegal arms are no different.

and no, I'm not "toeing" any party line, I'm in total agreement with it.

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

What is sensible about requiring people to destroy or turn in property that was perfectly legal when they paid good money for it??

Quote

You can pay "good money" for any number of illegal items that would be confiscated by government. Illegal arms are no different.

Well they werent illegal at the time. So if this happens, the gov. should compensate the people for cost of the firearms plus interest since time of purchase.

[lancimouspitt]

and then, on 16 February 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

If the state of Missouri passed such a law I'd never travel there or ever do business with anyone from there again.  If Alabama passed such a law, the day an officer came to take possession of my weapons I think I would become infamous for a few seconds on the media.  Both he and myself would relearn what the second amendment was truly about - more's the pity.

I feel the same. Though i'm wondering how many officers would actually want to even go through with this.

[and then]

lancimouspitt, on 17 February 2013 - 01:38 AM, said:

I feel the same. Though i'm wondering how many officers would actually want to even go through with this.

It would be a great tragedy and would pit honest, otherwise law abiding citizens against their own friends and neighbors who work in local government.  But a line MUST be drawn somewhere and this is the place.  If they win this battle then none of the others can be one by the free people of this country.

[ninjadude]

Bavarian Raven, on 17 February 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

Well they werent illegal at the time. So if this happens, the gov. should compensate the people for cost of the firearms plus interest since time of purchase.

you'd think so but consider the drug laws where the government can confiscate nearly anything "associated" with drugs during a drug enforcement action. Cars, boats, houses, etc. No one is compensated. Consider the cash confiscated from people traveling across country on the "suspicion" that it must be for drugs. No one is compensated.

http://www.fee.org/t...property-rights
http://jalopnik.com/...biding-citizens

[preacherman76]

Purifier, on 15 February 2013 - 06:34 AM, said:

So this new law, if it get's past in Missouri, means only ten people can be killed at a time, because of a 10 round limitation? Why 10 and not way lower than that? What about those who do decide to go on a killing ramapage and carry three or more guns (especially hand guns)? It's likely they got two hands. Or if they start duct taping 10 round clips together, or gluing two pistol clips end to end, which any trick like that could equal 20 to 30 rounds alltogether, how does that stop the 10 round kill ratio?


I don't get it. How does this stop mass killings when lots of people know tricks like that to get around the law they're trying to pass?

It doesnt. This has nothing to do with stopping anything other then the idea that you are free.

[preacherman76]

ninjadude, on 17 February 2013 - 12:39 AM, said:

You can pay "good money" for any number of illegal items that would be confiscated by government. Illegal arms are no different.

and no, I'm not "toeing" any party line, I'm in total agreement with it.

What are you talking about? These people didnt buy illegal arms. They played by the rules. And now they want to change the rules. You act as if these people paid good money to buy something they knew the government was going to confiscate. Im just gonna call you CNN from now on. Cause Im pretty sure you have never said a single thing on here that wasnt a regurgitation of it.

The worst part is, come the next republican president, you will be condeming him for the exact things you defend 0bama for.

[pallidin]

Since the intention of the 2nd Amendment is to equalize the firepower of citizen-vs-government in order to help prevent the government from becoming an autonomous entity with the potential of forcefully creating a "military state", I demand my right to possess any and all weapons the Gov does. Including nuclear weapons.

Wouldn't go very far would it.