Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
OverSword

Missouri democrats to confiscate firearms

47 posts in this topic

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?

Not that I'm advocating a round limit---but you can only carry so many mags. If you carry 10 mags of 10 rounds, that's 100 rounds instead of 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on how you define personal security.

Are firearms legal in Spain keithisco?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, reading some on those comments on there, if the police have to go in armed to remove any of their guns, well, it could get bloody!

Are the police giving their guns in too or just those nice sweet sounding people who live there?

In very few cases, most, in general terms, just are vocal heroes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a law that won't do anything, but hinder legal gun owners. There are many ways to bypass this, but the 4 seconds to change out clips isn't going to change the amount of damage that can be done. The politicians are just pandering for votes while trampling the constitution in the process, because the populations doesn't know the true meaning and value of the constitution. We are not being taught about it in schools, we are being told it is a aged and relic of the past by the liberal college professors. Our children are being taught to give away our rights and liberties to our government by the people who suppose to teach them otherwise. There should be a law to make it unconstitutional for this to happen, it is manipulation on the highest level that betrays everything that this country is suppose to stand for. I stood up to a professor who was trying to teach me this, in front of the whole class, explaining why it is important to me and why it should be important to everyone the class room. I got thrown out of the college and pretty much shunned by other colleges. Because of this type of teaching, I personally felt the effect of being denied my rights by the liberals. So you can go on and on how the constitution is a age relic of the past, but if it was enshrined and practiced, I wouldn't have to stand up for it and have my ability to better myself taken away by a professor with a liberal agenda.

As for this unconstitutional law being passed by the politicians in Missouri, it should be fought with every ounce of dialog till every avenue is exhausted. If it is passed against the wishes of the people of the state, then they should stand up and say no more, by practicing their right to remove tyrants from office either by impeachment or by force if necessary to ensure the freedom of the people and the state.

If it hinders legal gun owners, it sure in the hell isn't much of a hindrance. And are politicians just "pandering for votes"? Yep, looks that way to me. Politicians make the best con-artists and the world is full of con-artists.

As to teachers trying to teach liberal idealogy in public schools and colleges, I've seen it and witnessed it, can't say it doesn't happen. But that's one of the reasons why we are able to have homeschooling and private schools, if some of us don't agree with their public teaching; along with the right of the parent to teach his/her child about the constitution. No biggie, there are ways around it, just like gun control...apparently.

Not that I'm advocating a round limit---but you can only carry so many mags. If you carry 10 mags of 10 rounds, that's 100 rounds instead of 30.

True and you can only carry so many hand guns, as well. But it still doesn't stop mass murders from killing say up into the teen numbers or more people, with the gunclip tricks I mentioned. I've seen gangbangers pull those tricks, of course their aim sucks from a distance. Probably the reason why they load up like that. I guess they think one bullet out of 30 or more will eventually hit their target, but the missed shots at their target usually hit innocent people nearby in the process.

It's just like Uncle Sam mentioned in part of his post, "politicians are just pandering for votes". But I think they want to have their cake and eat it to (more votes) by doing gun owners a halfass mercy favour too, with a useless gun law to get around. If they really cared, they'd do a helluva lot more than that. Because they know how people can get around these BS gun control laws that they propose. It's all just a BS'ing game to them, like I said: Politicians make the best con-artists.

Which they remind me somewhat of the Standup Philosopher, in this scene Mel Brooks and Bea Arthur performs :D....

[media=]

[/media]
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

That's what they said about obamacare
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laws change.

True, but this change is unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/the_freeman/detail/seizure-fever-the-war-on-property-rights

http://jalopnik.com/5913416/cops-can-confiscate-money-and-property-from-law-abiding-citizens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :passifier:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to come into your home Law abiding citizen and forcefully remove any weapon you own and oh BTW he is your court appearance for the future prison time. That one aint gonna very far either.

Not even the Liberals believe they can get away with confiscation though they would like too.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im going to come into your home Law abiding citizen and forcefully remove any weapon you own and oh BTW he is your court appearance for the future prison time. That one aint gonna very far either.

Not even the Liberals believe they can get away with confiscation though they would like too.

Right. Blatant confiscation we never happen, or, if it does, will not be tolerated.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.