Senators reach a bipartisan deal for school safety and gun measures

Window Dressing to pacify & make us think they give a damn.
If they intended to do anything about this, they'd have done it after 20 kids & 5 teachers were murdered at Sandy Hook.
And all the ones before that.
"Raising the age for gun purchase from 18 to 21?" Yeah, big difference between an 18 year old psycho & a 21 year old psycho.
Somehow, I just can't see an 18 year old nut thinking, "Damn! There's so many people I wanted to kill & now I gotta wait 3 whole years."
More likely, he'll just have his 21 year old buddy get one for him - like the Columbine shooters did.
 
If it passes, it won't do squat to curb gun violence. Most mass murderers don't have a history of mental illness, and those that do are often not entered into the databases checked when someone purchases a gun. Laws already on the books are not enforced because of the hodgepodge of databases and rules for keeping track of people with mental illness.
 

win231 said:
Window Dressing to pacify & make us think they give a damn.
If they intended to do anything about this, they'd have done it after 20 kids & 5 teachers were murdered at Sandy Hook.
And all the ones before that.
"Raising the age for gun purchase from 18 to 21?" Yeah, big difference between an 18 year old psycho & a 21 year old psycho.
Somehow, I just can't see an 18 year old nut thinking, "Damn! There's so many people I wanted to kill & now I gotta wait 3 whole years."
More likely, he'll just have his 21 year old buddy get one for him - like the Columbine shooters did.
Click to expand...
It is a start in the right direction in that it represents some sort of change in thinking. It looks like a willingness to do something to curb gun violence within the existing limits of a federal system.

Not enough, I agree, but it is a turning point towards a safer society.
 
Warrigal said:
It is a start in the right direction in that it represents some sort of change in thinking. It looks like a willingness to do something to curb gun violence within the existing limits of a federal system.

Not enough, I agree, but it is a turning point towards a safer society.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree, I wanted a ban of assault weapons but we probably will not see any significant change until the anti gun control politicians are voted out.
 
IMO there is a sad lack of substance or commitment to the issue in this proposal.

I would like to see a ban on semiautomatic weapons or at least a registration and licensing requirement for them and the people that purchase them.

Also, bans on high-capacity magazines and other after-market conversion kits to increase the firing capacity.

I'm not opposed to gun ownership, but I do believe that we need to find an acceptable middle ground on exactly what individuals should be able to own for sport and for personal protection.

We can do better and we need to start on election day.
 
Did you hear? The economy is so bad that the Mafia just fired 3 judges in Jersey City?

+++

What do you call a corrupt lawyer?

- Your Honor

++++

What do you call a corrupt judge?

- Senator

++++


This message brought to you by the State of New Jersey, leading the world in political corruption since 1924...
 
Pepper said:
Can you please explain why? I value your opinion.
Click to expand...
Sure. Maybe I am misunderstanding just how these laws will work because different commentators have put their own twist on it when explaining how these laws work.

If I understand this correctly when of if I purchase a weapon, let’s say a S&W .380, my gun is registered and all the information along with it is placed into a database. If anyone, a law enforcement officer, neighbor, family member, whoever, would suspect that I am planning to shoot someone or make comments that may think I could want someone taken out, they could ask the court to remove all of my guns.

From listening to some of the news commentators, the real reason for red flag laws is by registering everyone’s guns into a national registry or database is so the government will know where the weapons are. If later, the Congress makes a law banning all semi automatic weapons, the government and local police agencies will know where the weapons are, so they can come knocking on your door and ask for them. It’s really another way big brother will be looking over our shoulders.

Any of us could make an off the cuff remark like “I would like to shoot the guy that developed this parking lot.” Or “I felt like shooting my neighbor after he didn’t clean up after his dog crapped in my yard.” If the wrong person hears those remarks, it’s possible that you could lose your weapons for a certain amount of time leaving you without your weapon to protect your family.

Unless I physically put a gun to my head and threaten suicide, or point my gun at someone, my guns should stay under my possession. I just think that it may be possible that someday if our government ever decides to remove all guns, they will know where they are.
 
oldman said:
Sure. Maybe I am misunderstanding just how these laws will work because different commentators have put their own twist on it when explaining how these laws work.

If I understand this correctly when of if I purchase a weapon, let’s say a S&W .380, my gun is registered and all the information along with it is placed into a database. If anyone, a law enforcement officer, neighbor, family member, whoever, would suspect that I am planning to shoot someone or make comments that may think I could want someone taken out, they could ask the court to remove all of my guns.

From listening to some of the news commentators, the real reason for red flag laws is by registering everyone’s guns into a national registry or database is so the government will know where the weapons are. If later, the Congress makes a law banning all semi automatic weapons, the government and local police agencies will know where the weapons are, so they can come knocking on your door and ask for them. It’s really another way big brother will be looking over our shoulders.

Any of us could make an off the cuff remark like “I would like to shoot the guy that developed this parking lot.” Or “I felt like shooting my neighbor after he didn’t clean up after his dog crapped in my yard.” If the wrong person hears those remarks, it’s possible that you could lose your weapons for a certain amount of time leaving you without your weapon to protect your family.

Unless I physically put a gun to my head and threaten suicide, or point my gun at someone, my guns should stay under my possession. I just think that it may be possible that someday if our government ever decides to remove all guns, they will know where they are.
Click to expand...

Scotland had a massing shooting. Enacted reasonable gun laws ---- no more mass shootings.

Australia had a massing shooting. Enacted reasonable gun laws --- only one or two mass shootings in the last 20 years.

Every single country that has enacted reasonable gun laws has had serious reduction or complete elimination of mass shootings.


Of course, the gun lobby would prefer that you continue to give them as much cash as possible...so they spin different scenarios.

But the facts are simple, clear and direct.

And, about 75% of NRA membership support reasonable gun laws.

And, most of the major national police organizations support reasonable gun laws.


Only people who truly do not support reasonable gun laws are the gun manufacturers making money off the guns.

+++

Just in case you think it isn't about cash...and these folks are true patriots and not just corrupt thieves...

from The Wall Street Journal (owned by conservative businessman Rupert Murdoch)

Leaked Letters Reveal Details of NRA Chief’s Alleged Spending​

Wayne LaPierre expensed $39,000 in clothes in one day, $18,300 for car and driver, ad agency says; NRA says board has ‘full confidence’ in him​

​

https://www.wsj.com/articles/leaked...ls-of-nra-chiefs-alleged-spending-11557597601​

 
JonSR77 said:
Scotland had a massing shooting. Enacted reasonable gun laws ---- no more mass shootings.

Australia had a massing shooting. Enacted reasonable gun laws --- only one or two mass shootings in the last 20 years.

Every single country that has enacted reasonable gun laws has had serious reduction or complete elimination of mass shootings.


Of course, the gun lobby would prefer that you continue to give them as much cash as possible...so they spin different scenarios.

But the facts are simple, clear and direct.

And, about 75% of NRA membership support reasonable gun laws.

And, most of the major national police organizations support reasonable gun laws.


Only people who truly do not support reasonable gun laws are the gun manufacturers making money off the guns.

+++

Just in case you think it isn't about cash...and these folks are true patriots and not just corrupt thieves...

Leaked Letters Reveal Details of NRA Chief’s Alleged Spending​

Wayne LaPierre expensed $39,000 in clothes in one day, $18,300 for car and driver, ad agency says; NRA says board has ‘full confidence’ in him​

​

https://www.wsj.com/articles/leaked...ls-of-nra-chiefs-alleged-spending-11557597601​

Click to expand...
RE: "Only people who truly do not support reasonable gun laws are the gun manufacturers making money off the guns." I just want to add: and radicals on all sides of the aisle, vigilantes, unsanctioned militias, paranoid people, assorted psychotics, etc., etc.
 
Pepper said:
You know it wouldn't make any difference at all. They vote to assuage their base.
Click to expand...
One poll said that something like 70% of those surveyed want stricter gun controls. So, if it was up to a popular vote, we would get better results. I'd have to examine different polls to see how well that statistic holds up - and who was polled and when. I'm sure feelings run highest right after children are slaughtered.
 
Pepper, there is another reason red flag laws are wrong. I speak from experience.
In 1980, when I was going through a divorce, my wife included - in her sworn declaration - that I was abusive, I beat her & I threatened to shoot her & her brother. Today, such a lie would have meant confiscation of my firearms -- "to err on the side of caution"-- while she could keep hers. And also a ban on future firearms ownership. Other wives going through a divorce have done the same vindictive thing.

Later, when we appeared in court for our divorce hearing, I was immediately surrounded by 5 sheriff's deputies - one who had his gun out, pointed at the floor. I asked them, "What's wrong?"
One of them said, "Sir, are you carrying a firearm?"
I said, "Of course not; why would I have a firearm in court?" I also said, "You can search me if you want."
He said, "That won't be necessary."
I figured it out when they went to my wife & started yelling at her, saying "You could be arrested & charged for making a false statement to officers. Even worse if we misinterpreted something your husband innocently did - like move his hands a certain way - stretching, etc."
That was exactly what my wife was hoping for. It wouldn't be the first time she did something like that - for a life insurance payout.

Later, I asked the deputies what my wife told them. They said, "She told us you carry a gun everywhere you go & you were planning to shoot her at the courthouse."
She died several years ago at 66 & I'm sure she's resting in.......hell where she belongs.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
I was thinking the same thing...but this is not enough! Why in the hell would any private citizen need an oozie? @win231 I so agree with your reply.
Click to expand...
ROFLOL - "oozie." I think you mean "Uzi."

By the way, I owned an Uzi for 45 years. (the civilian version - which is semi auto; not fully auto.)
1. I competed in Metallic Silhouette & combat competition with it. (extremely accurate)
2. It's one of the most reliable & durable firearms ever made. That's why the Secret Service uses it. Mine went over 25,000 rounds without a malfunction or sign of wear.
3. It came in very handy during an attempted break in 40 years ago at 2:00am. I didn't have to fire a shot.
The guy took a locked sliding glass door off the track. I woke up to the sound of the screen door being cut & when he moved the curtains, he saw the front of the Uzi & when he turned & ran out, his arm went through the glass door & broke it. Police looked at the amount of blood leading out to my driveway & were convinced at first that I shot him, but after examining my gun, they could determine that it hadn't been fired. One cop said, "He must have cut an artery; the way he's bleeding, he won't get far; we'll check the ER's in the area."

Why would someone own any high-performance firearm?
Why would anyone own a Ferrari, Lamborghini or Porsche when the speed limit is 1/2 or 1/3 what such cars are capable of?

By the way, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my Uzi. So has Princess Dianna's car.
 
After the Christchurch Mosque catastrophy the laws have been tightened again.

2019 New firearm laws​


The Arms Act has been amended,- banning most semi-automatic firearms, some pump action shotguns, some tubular magazine firearms and certain large capacity magazines. There are limited exemptions. There are also controls around who may possess parts of prohibited firearms.
There is no longer a category of firearm known as a military style semi-automatic firearm (or MSSA) and the old "E" endorsement is obsolete.
The newly banned items are called prohibited firearms, prohibited magazines, and prohibited parts. New offences involving prohibited items carry tougher penalties.
An amnesty and buy-back scheme ran until 20 December 2019. Those who are still in possession of prohibited items must hand these items in immediately to Police
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top