NJ limits guns and clips to 10 rounds

[pallidin]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

And yet, at least ONE of the original framers EXPLICITLY warned about that possibility ? 

Silly you. "societal interests" far outweighs individual desire.

Unless you're an anarchist mentality and want the US to be a third-world country.

[RoofGardener]

Just now, pallidin said:

Silly you. "societal interests" far outweighs individual desire.

Unless you're an anarchist mentality and want the US to be a third-world country.

What on EARTH are you talking about ? 

How does that relate to the stated opinions of one of the framers of the constitution ? 

Have you been drinking ? 

And if so.... why wheren't we invited ? 

[pallidin]

12 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

What on EARTH are you talking about ? 

How does that relate to the stated opinions of one of the framers of the constitution ? 

Have you been drinking ? 

And if so.... why wheren't we invited ? 

Lol...

But, if you can't understand societal interests as a dominant factor for human life... What more can Anyone say?

[pallidin]

Take a picture of the United States without any goverrnment.

Total anarchy, gang-ridden streets, crumbling infrastructure.

Does this remind you of third-world countries?

[Menhir]

5 hours ago, pallidin said:

That is total bull****. The government has zero desire to remove your standard handgun or rifle.

Blanket denials like yours along with labeling people who don't buy said denials as stupid is true BS.

There are multitudes of quotes available where various government officials have plainly stated that total or near total disarming of the citizenry is their desire.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Farmer77]

Just now, Menhir said:

There are multitudes of quotes available where various government officials have plainly stated that total or near total disarming of the citizenry is their desire.

Links? 

[Menhir]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Links? 

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/05/nolte-close-america-outright-gun-confiscation-close/

The quotes by Obama and Clinton are readily verifiable across the internet.

And before someone says"Oh but they weren't talking about confiscating ALL types of guns, only high capacity assault weapons." that's obviously not true since they clearly want to emulate the confiscation programs of the UK and Australia.  A review of those nations' gun laws show that in Australia, for example, private ownership of a handgun is restricted to the point of being nearly non-existent:

https://ssaa.org.au/news-resources/research-archive/handgun-ownership-facts-in-australia

And that includes ALL types of handguns...even airguns.

[Menhir]

"I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

Barack Obama, during conversation with economist and author John Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s

“If I could have gotten...an outright ban – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!”

Senator Diane Feinstein, author of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, Menhir said:

https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/05/nolte-close-america-outright-gun-confiscation-close/

The quotes by Obama and Clinton are readily verifiable across the internet.

And before someone says"Oh but they weren't talking about confiscating ALL types of guns, only high capacity assault weapons." that's obviously not true since they clearly want to emulate the confiscation programs of the UK and Australia.  A review of those nations' gun laws show that in Australia, for example, private ownership of a handgun is restricted to the point of being nearly non-existent:

https://ssaa.org.au/news-resources/research-archive/handgun-ownership-facts-in-australia

And that includes ALL types of handguns...even airguns.

While I agree vigilance is required I don't think the link you supplied actually is them saying they want to disarm the citizenry. If you look at some of the other statements from the speech Breitbart quoted you'll also find this:

Quote

“I don’t foresee any legislative action being taken in this Congress,” he said. “And I don’t foresee any real action until the American public feels a sufficient sense of urgency and they say to themselves, ‘This is not normal, this is something that we can change and we’re going to change it’.”

Obama backs Australia's gun laws while condemning latest mass shootings in US

Remember the POTUS has a responsibility to all citizens. Many, myself included (although my thoughts are quite different than most) feel like there has to be a way to protect our innocents from needless slaughter.   

 

 

[Menhir]

15 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

While I agree vigilance is required I don't think the link you supplied actually is them saying they want to disarm the citizenry. If you look at some of the other statements from the speech Breitbart quoted you'll also find this:

Obama backs Australia's gun laws while condemning latest mass shootings in US

Remember the POTUS has a responsibility to all citizens. Many, myself included (although my thoughts are quite different than most) feel like there has to be a way to protect our innocents from needless slaughter.   

 

 

Non sequitur.  Just because Obama recognized that Congress would not go along with his stated desire does not negate that he clearly wants gun confiscation.

And I notice you didn't address Feinstein's statement.

The point is you challenged me when I said that yes -contrary to glib denials like pallidin's- there most definitely are are those in government calling for confiscation of ALL guns.  Challenge met...so now you're mewing about being protected.

You talk about being "vigilant" but how can you be vigilant when you turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to what the government (or at least many in the government) does or would like to do...PER VERBATIM STATEMENTS BY GOVERNMENT-???

Sticking your head in the sand is not being "vigilant".

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Farmer77]

Just now, Menhir said:

And I notice you didn't address Feinstein's statement.

Im afraid I just cant take her seriously enough 

1 minute ago, Menhir said:

The point is you challenged me when I said that yes -contrary to glib denials like pallidin's- there most definitely are are those in government calling for confiscation of ALL guns. 

I didnt challenge the facts, just whether you actually knew them or were just another mindless parrot 

1 minute ago, Menhir said:

Challenge met...so now you're mewing about being protected.

Mewing about being protected? What? 

If by that you mean trying to have a meaningful back and forth conversation then sure.  

Lemme guess because Im not carrying the hardcore right wing line you're assuming im anti 2nd amendment? 

 

[Menhir]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Im afraid I just cant take her seriously enough 

 

One of the greatest tricks the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he doesn't exist.

[Menhir]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Lemme guess because Im not carrying the hardcore right wing line you're assuming im anti 2nd amendment? 

 

No, I can tell you're anti 2nd A by the way you dismissed Obama's stated desire to disarm Americans by quoting where he lamented he couldn't do it unilaterally.  Admitting he couldn't do it in no way negates that he would have if he could have.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, Menhir said:

One of the greatest tricks the Devil ever pulled was convincing people he doesn't exist.

Clearly take a peek at POTUS. 

So are you opposed to any restrictions on the 2nd amendment?  Willing to compromise somewhere? Do you have any suggestions to make this situation better? 

 

Just now, Menhir said:

No, I can tell you're anti 2nd A by the way you dismissed Obama's stated desire to disarm Americans by quoting where he lamented he couldn't do it unilaterally.  Admitting he couldn't do it in no way negates that he would have if he could have.

Yikes. No im actually not anti 2nd amendment. Ive become anti US gun culture but the two aren't the same. IMO the current lazy and arrogant US gun culture is going to lead us to a place where the majority of citizens simply demand the 2nd is changed. 

The second amendment is vital to protecting from tyranny I don't give a flying **** about home defense. IMO there should be regional and local militia programs, completely separate from the state and federal governments,  which one must enlist and drill regularly with to have access to anything beyond a revolver and single action shotgun. It would be a massive society changing type undertaking but I believe it would be worth the effort to protect our society both from itself and from tyranny. 

My kids had 4 legitimate school shooting threats this year with I think 3 of them being arrested while sitting on a pile of firearms. That **** has got to stop, we have to stop encouraging lazy gun culture via this refusal to change. If we don't we will lose the 2nd. 

 

[preacherman76]

The only way we lose the second is if the actual gun owners chose to give them up. 

I’m personally willing to do all kinds of things to protect these kids, but those opinions aren’t welcome. 

[Menhir]

12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The second amendment is vital to protecting from tyranny I don't give a flying **** about home defense. IMO there should be regional and local militia programs, completely separate from the state and federal governments,  which one must enlist and drill regularly with to have access to anything beyond a revolver and single action shotgun. 

So....only your kids at government schools -being indoctrinated with "America the Evil" lesson plans- deserve protection ('cause like, you don't want anything to interrupt the process) and you don't give a flying eff about anyone's home defense. 

Got it...and just as I figured.

And, once again, it's people who are obviously ignorant about the most basic knowledge of firearms lecturing the rest of us.  As in, just exactly what is a "single action shotgun"-?

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Hawken]

I'm more worried from those idiots with a cellphone texting & driving then someone with a gun.

If they want to save lives, crack down on them since more people own cellphones then guns.

Treat it the same way as a DUI. CellphoneFatalities

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, Menhir said:

So....only your kids at government schools -being indoctrinated with "America the Evil" lesson plans- deserve protection ('cause like, you don't want anything to interrupt the process) and you don't give a flying eff about anyone's home defense. 

Wow someone needs to step away from the AM radio  Seriously calm it down Michael Savage, we almost completely agree on the issue. 

I didnt say I didnt "give an eff" about anyones home defense. There are multitudes of ways to do that which don't include semi automatic weapons. Seriously are you that scared you need a banana clip to sleep well at night? LMAO 

8 minutes ago, Menhir said:

And, once again, it's people who are obviously ignorant about the most basic knowledge of firearms lecturing the rest of us.  As in, just exactly what is a "single action shotgun"-?

A single action shotgun is what happens when you're torn between typing single action rifle and pump action shotgun and your fingers work faster than your brain.

I do admit im not a big gun guy but I have been trained professionally in their use and Ive owned many, still own a couple, although they're in storage now because I have kids and an overly emotional wife. 

Seriously , why so angry and combative?

….Is it constipation?  Ill bet it is, that always makes me grumpy  too 
 

 

[Menhir]

18 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

I didnt say I didnt "give an eff" about anyones home defense. 

No, to be exactly correct you said "I don't give a flying **** about home defense." 

I know, I know: my omission of the adjective "flying" when quoting you  just completely changed the whole tone and timbre of what you meant.  That and you didn't use 'the F word'; you said "****" which could have meant "bird" or "fish".

(sarcasm intended)

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Menhir]

19 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

A single action shotgun is what happens when you're torn between typing single action rifle and pump action shotgun and your fingers work faster than your brain.

Okay, I'll play along; tell us what constitutes a "single action RIFLE" there Mr. Professionally Trained On The Use Of Guns -?

(Getting the butter ready for the popcorn as I wait to be  schooled on guns.)

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Farmer77]

Just now, Menhir said:

Okay, I'll play along; tell us what constitutes a "single action RIFLE" there Mr. Professionally Trained On The Use Of Guns -?

(getting the butter ready for the popcorn as I wait on being schooled on guns)

Really? You're serious? This link will answer all your questions  http://google.com 

6 minutes ago, Menhir said:

No, to be exact you said you "I don't give a flying **** about home defense." 

I know, I know: my omission of the "flying" adjective when quoting you  just changed the whole tone and timbre of what you meant.  That and you didn't use 'the F word'; you said "****" which could have meant "bird" or "fish".

 

There is this thing called context. When you take the time to read and digest what one has written you can understand their intent via the context. In this case the context was guns, specifically anything beyond a single action shotgun (said that just for you big guy ) or revolver. 

Any further questions on context can be answered here http://google.com

 

[aztek]

13 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Sorry to hear that Aztek. Perhaps you should move to New Jersey ?

perhaps not.

[Menhir]

24 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Really? You're serious? This link will answer all your questions  http://google.com 

There is this thing called context. When you take the time to read and digest what one has written you can understand their intent via the context. In this case the context was guns, specifically anything beyond a single action shotgun (said that just for you big guy ) or revolver. 

Any further questions on context can be answered here http://google.com

 

Negative.  You're running away like a coward.  If you could direct me to a link that describes "single action rifles" you would.  You can't so you did a 'S**t and Get'.  You post a link to Google as if there's something somewhere on Google that corroborates your gun-ignorant statement(s).  Nope- nada.

Let me clean this up for you 

"Single Action (SA)" vs "Double Action (DA)"  refers to the function(s) of a gun's trigger. 

SA means the trigger only fires the gun, i.e. the classic Colt Single Action western revolver, or the Colt M1911 .45 Automatic miltary pistol...or an AR15 semi-automatic rifle.

DA means the trigger can c-o-c-k and fire the weapon as in a DA revolver or a DA automatic pistol.  

There are variations but we'll stick to single action for now since you said you think citizens should be limited to owning "Single Action Rifles", you effectively said you believe people should be allowed to own semi-automatic AR15, AK47, etc. type rifles.

Now...I doubt that's what you believe or meant to say; but that IS what you said since the only action (single action) the trigger on a semi-auto AR15 performs is to fire the gun.  So it meets your criterion for private party ownership of a "single action rifle".

See what happens when you misrepresent yourself as someone who has an informed opinion about guns when in fact, you obviously don't know any more than the leftwing anti-gun talking points?  It gets bad real quick...just like it would if all you wannabe gun grabbers try gun confiscation a la Australia.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Menhir

[Farmer77]

8 minutes ago, Menhir said:

Negative.  You're running away like a coward.  If you could direct me to a link that describes "singke action rifkes", you would.  You can't so you did a 'S**t and Get'.

Really I couldn't have googled single action rifles and just posted that info for you? 

You seem to be working really hard to get some kind of "win" here and im simply flummoxed as to why. 

8 minutes ago, Menhir said:

See what happens when you misrepresent yourself as someone who has an informed opinion about guns when in fact, you obviously don"t know any more than the leftwing anti-gun talking points?

Do you hooonestly think a mature adult who is self confident feels the need to run out and prove his knowledge to someone he doesn't know because they demanded it?    Comeon man.  

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Farmer77

[Menhir]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Really I couldn't have googled single action rifles and just posted that info for you? 

No you couldn't (and didn't) because "single action rifle" isn't really a legitimate term.  

My intention is not to show how 'smart' I am since it's very basic, elementary knowledge but rather to highlight how you don't know the most basic facts about guns, how they function, etc. 

It's people like you pontificating about "common sense gun laws with reasonable restrictions" while flying a false flag of being a gun owner "professionally trained in their use" blah blah blah...when in reality you know as much about guns as Obama demonstrated in his cornhole "Ah'm a gonna shoot dis heah shotgun to show Ah'm a red-blooded, gun-toting, 2nd Amendment-spouting American you all can trust!" photo op.