Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Do You Think the NRA is Protecting You?

Maximum Peach





Posts: 8241
(8241 all sites)
Registered: 10/12/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/5/2012 at 10:50 PM
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_21237711/bill-would-close-loophole-states-ass ault-weapons-law?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

In wake of the recent massacre in Colorado, Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said Friday that he plans to amend his SB249 in the Assembly next week, adding language to make it clear that state law bans rifles and shotguns with easily detachable magazines. The National Rifle Association urged it's members to call and email state lawmakers to oppose the revised bill, calling it "a gun ban monster". It warned that hundreds of thousands of semiautomatic rifles legally sold in California since 2001, when the state's latest assault ban regulations took effect, would become illegal under Yee's bill. Yee's spokesman, Adam Keigwin: "A gunsmith could make the change in a few minutes by welding over the (bullet button) mechanism."



[Edited on 8/6/2012 by robslob]

 

____________________
Don't let the sounds of your own wheels
Drive you crazy
Lighten up while you still can
Don't even try to understand
Just find a place to take your stand
And TAKE IT EASY

 
Replies:

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8406
(8407 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 12:23 AM
California hasn't exactly been 'gun-friendly' for some time. Like so much in that state, common sense was lost long ago.

As to the NRA protecting anyone, that's the wrong question. In the event of someone trying to break into your home, do you think local law enforcement will be able to protect you? The NRA wants to see that you still have the option to defend yourself by whatever means necessary, if you so choose. States like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would prefer that you don't even have that choice.


[Edited on 8/6/2012 by Fujirich]

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6556
(6555 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 10:56 AM
"New York?"

Please tell me what pending gun control legislation you're referring too, Fuij? I'm a gun owner and also pay fairly close attention to law making in my state. If you're referring to Mayor Bloomberg and his outspoken support of banning some assault weapons, please tell me what it is you don't support about his efforts. I guess I'm just not getting what you refer to specifically when you mention New York doesn't want you to have the right to defend yourself with a gun in your own home. I'm not being a smart @ss either, just curious why you have this opinion.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8406
(8407 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 11:19 AM
I had no mention of "new" legislation Chain. The current situation there is bad enough.

While NY shotgun and rifle laws aren't too bad (NYC excepted), handgun laws are among the most restrictive in the nation. Concealed carry permits far more difficult to obtain there than in most states. NY reciprocity on CCW's is far more restrtictive than most states.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8241
(8241 all sites)
Registered: 10/12/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 11:23 AM
quote:

NY reciprocity on CCW's is far more restrtictive than most states.


Good for NYC!

 

____________________
Don't let the sounds of your own wheels

Drive you crazy

Lighten up while you still can

Don't even try to understand

Just find a place to take your stand

And TAKE IT EASY

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6556
(6555 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 11:30 AM
quote:
I had no mention of "new" legislation Chain. The current situation there is bad enough.

While NY shotgun and rifle laws aren't too bad (NYC excepted), handgun laws are among the most restrictive in the nation. Concealed carry permits far more difficult to obtain there than in most states. NY reciprocity on CCW's is far more restrtictive than most states.


I have no issues with NY state gun laws as they now stand other than the length of time it takes to get a pistol permit. But I believe that is just the bureaucracy playing its role and feel if anyone wants such a permit, or a concealed carry permit, they need to complete the process. In other words I don't feel the process is hindering my rights to own a gun anymore than standing in line at the DMV for hours hinders my right to drive a legally licensed, registered, or insured automobile. A bit apples to oranges but I think you get my point.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8406
(8407 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 12:32 PM
There's a similar permitting process here in NC too Chain, though it's not as restrictive. My CCW permit took about 60 days to get after I went through training and applied. From what I know, CCW in NY varies a lot by county. I'd imagine that near NYC, it's almost impossible to get, while upstate it's probably a little more possible. But the big difference is state law. NY is a "may issue" state, while NC is a "shall issue" state regarding CCW permits.

Once a CCW permit is issued here, individual permits for the purchase of a handgun are not required, as the individual has already been fully checked and is on file with the local sheriff.

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5822
(5827 all sites)
Registered: 7/4/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 01:18 PM
quote:
California hasn't exactly been 'gun-friendly' for some time. Like so much in that state, common sense was lost long ago.

As to the NRA protecting anyone, that's the wrong question. In the event of someone trying to break into your home, do you think local law enforcement will be able to protect you? The NRA wants to see that you still have the option to defend yourself by whatever means necessary, if you so choose. States like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would prefer that you don't even have that choice.


[Edited on 8/6/2012 by Fujirich]


good common sense answer that spells it out for anyone confused.... great post and i agree 100%

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8241
(8241 all sites)
Registered: 10/12/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 08:16 PM
quote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
California hasn't exactly been 'gun-friendly' for some time. Like so much in that state, common sense was lost long ago.

As to the NRA protecting anyone, that's the wrong question. In the event of someone trying to break into your home, do you think local law enforcement will be able to protect you? The NRA wants to see that you still have the option to defend yourself by whatever means necessary, if you so choose. States like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would prefer that you don't even have that choice.


[Edited on 8/6/2012 by Fujirich]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



good common sense answer that spells it out for anyone confused.... great post and i agree 100%


I must say that you two have me greatly confused. California hasn't voided the 2nd Amendment, now has it? You can still defend yourself in your home. And please tell me why you think that defending yourself in your own home must include an "easily detachable magazine".

 

____________________
Don't let the sounds of your own wheels

Drive you crazy

Lighten up while you still can

Don't even try to understand

Just find a place to take your stand

And TAKE IT EASY

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 09:22 PM
quote:
Yee's spokesman, Adam Keigwin: "A gunsmith could make the change in a few minutes by welding over the (bullet button) mechanism."


Sure he could, and a James Holmes or Major Hassan is going to see the gunsmith to have this work done on their firearms?

Sure.


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 69251
(69612 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 10:37 PM
quote:
quote:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
California hasn't exactly been 'gun-friendly' for some time. Like so much in that state, common sense was lost long ago.

As to the NRA protecting anyone, that's the wrong question. In the event of someone trying to break into your home, do you think local law enforcement will be able to protect you? The NRA wants to see that you still have the option to defend yourself by whatever means necessary, if you so choose. States like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would prefer that you don't even have that choice.


[Edited on 8/6/2012 by Fujirich]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----



good common sense answer that spells it out for anyone confused.... great post and i agree 100%


I must say that you two have me greatly confused. California hasn't voided the 2nd Amendment, now has it? You can still defend yourself in your home. And please tell me why you think that defending yourself in your own home must include an "easily detachable magazine".




Exactly. Illinois does not allow concealed carry. The City of Chicago has a laughable ban on handguns (but only handguns). But in Illinois you can legally have a gun in your home. So how does Illinois stop you from defending yourself in your home?

 

____________________

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12503
(12493 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/6/2012 at 10:41 PM
quote:
quote:
California hasn't exactly been 'gun-friendly' for some time. Like so much in that state, common sense was lost long ago.

As to the NRA protecting anyone, that's the wrong question. In the event of someone trying to break into your home, do you think local law enforcement will be able to protect you? The NRA wants to see that you still have the option to defend yourself by whatever means necessary, if you so choose. States like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would prefer that you don't even have that choice.


[Edited on 8/6/2012 by Fujirich]


good common sense answer that spells it out for anyone confused.... great post and i agree 100%


Yeah! To heck with accuracy!!

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 01:32 AM
quote:
California hasn't exactly been 'gun-friendly' for some time. Like so much in that state, common sense was lost long ago.

As to the NRA protecting anyone, that's the wrong question. In the event of someone trying to break into your home, do you think local law enforcement will be able to protect you? The NRA wants to see that you still have the option to defend yourself by whatever means necessary, if you so choose. States like California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois would prefer that you don't even have that choice.


[Edited on 8/6/2012 by Fujirich]


Complete nonsense. The best home protection is a shotgun and nobody is saying take those away.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9082
(9082 all sites)
Registered: 2/25/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 07:22 AM
It seems that whenever some hate filled fckface or psychopath goes on a shooting spree, whether it be the Batman guy, Gabby Gifford's assailant, Norway or the most recent numbnuts, there is an outcry for banning guns or making laws more restrictive. However, it seems like places with the most restrictive gun laws have the most gun violence (NYC, DC and Chicago). And even in places like Norway where guns are pretty much forbidden, psychopaths can be very imaginative and get their hands on stuff they are not suppose to have. In addition, all of the most recent shooting occurred in gun free zones. And they would have occurred even if there was a prohibition on guns. Psychopaths and criminals could care less about gun free zones and laws.

I think we regualrly miss the point when horrible events take place and guns are used. Our solutions are always, we need to ban guns, we need to have more restrictive policies. However, we never ask, What drives a man to wantonly murder another? Its not the gun.

I don't think anyone here has called for an outright ban on guns, but we have seen the success or lack thereof with regard to prohibitions on things like drugs. We overload the penal system with “criminals” who have harmed no one; then we have selective enforcement usually targeting a certain class of people; there is increased interest in the thing being banned; there is the creation of a black market empowering criminals and organized crime. Finally, we usually end with the failure to eliminate access to the thing being controlled.

Again, I think we should be asking, what drives a man to kill another?

quote:
Complete nonsense. The best home protection is a shotgun and nobody is saying take those away.


Pete, I sort of agree with you, but not entirely of course. This is the WP, right? ;-)

If the people who want guns banned because they are assault weapons or whatever they want to call them, then they should ban shotguns too, because like you say, they are a great weapon, for a number of reasons. I can do a lot more damage with a shotgun than I can with anything else. Also, its pretty hard to hit a target with a bullet as opposed to using a shotgun. I usually scratch my head when people want to ban semi automatic hand guns and "assault" weapons, and then say, well, shotguns are fine.

I am also amazed at how the law works with regard to gun laws, especially in a place like DC, where I lived when it was the murder capital of the US...a place where guns were effectively banned due to the following case:Warren v. District of Columbia

Two women were upstairs in a house when they heard their roommate being attacked downstairs by intruders. They called the police several times and were told that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw tha the police never came, but the intruders were still there. According to the court: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them. The court said the police and the DC have no obligation under the law to protect them.From this case, firearms were banned in DC because the men who assaulted the women were armed.

So the police don't have to protect you, you can't own a gun, but the criminals can get their hands on a gun and keep you in your house to have their way with you? I am confused by this law.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9704
(9729 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 07:56 AM
I suppose the idea is that if certain types of guns are banned that the people who want to go on killing sprees will have a harder time getting them and then their murderous acts will be avoided. Is that pretty much it?

I have never been in the head or shoes of person wanting to kill innocent people just going about their normal lives, but something tells me when a person reaches that point, if they want to do it they will find the means to do it.

Go ahead and ban the guns. The guns will exist. You can't wave a magic wand and all of a sudden these guns just vanish off the face of the earth. They will be available through various means. Heroin is an illegal drug and not readily available (depending on what group of people you associate with), yet I am confident that if I wanted to buy some heroin I could have some in 24 to 48 hours.

It is the same with banning weapons. People will be able to get them whether they are legal or not. I do not see how it would stop some of these awful and senseless killings. I personally would feel no safer if rifles with detachable magazines were banned. Lots of things are "banned" and can still be had.

Rifles such as the AR15 are great sporting rifles, there are shooting competitions across this nation involving those rifles. You don't typically hunt or defend your home with one, but they do have sporting use. Who or how do you decide that ones legal actions with a given gun, or object for that matter, should be eliminated because some people are using the gun or object criminally?

I agree with Jim, as a nation and a society we should be trying to tackle the harder question of why these murders are doing what they are doing rather than try to ban the tools they are using.

When it comes do defending your home in this state or that state, the thing that is important is not being required to retreat when fearing for your life and also having criminal and civil immunity when deadly force is used to protect your life. I am not sure what states have this. Some states extend this policy from homes to autos. If a state's law does not protect you criminally or civilly or states you have a duty to retreat when your llife is on the line then technically you do not have much legal ground to use deadly force to protect your life.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4772
(4786 all sites)
Registered: 12/5/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 08:01 AM
The NRA thrives on fear mongering. For the last 25-30 years that has been their main propaganda and fund raising method. I have hunted and owned guns since I was 10 years old but I parted company with the NRA about 4 years ago. I don't want to belong to an organization that manipulates it's membership with dishonest, and deceitful scare tactics to raise money.

 

____________________
"Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all". John Maynard Keynes

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17361
(17416 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 08:28 AM
"I think we regualrly miss the point when horrible events take place and guns are used. Our solutions are always, we need to ban guns, we need to have more restrictive policies. However, we never ask, What drives a man to wantonly murder another? Its not the gun."

"I agree with Jim, as a nation and a society we should be trying to tackle the harder question of why these murders are doing what they are doing rather than try to ban the tools they are using."

Totally agree with those two statements. That's the real question, the hard one, and of course the one we avoid most of the time. And what about our mental health system? Most of these people came into contact with the MHS before they committed their acts of violence and people were concerned about them, but nothing was done. Saying we'll just make the weapons illegal and that will stop the violence is like saying we'll make the drugs illegal and that will stop substance abuse. How's that working out?


 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6556
(6555 all sites)
Registered: 8/11/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 08:46 AM
It would appear that I spoke too soon with regard to New York state and new legislation with regard to tighter gun laws:

New York State Senator Gianaris seeks new, tougher gun laws
(08/07/12) In the wake of increased gun violence in New York and two mass shootings in the nation in the last few weeks, a State Senator is proposing stricter gun laws that he says could give New York the toughest gun laws in the country. Karen DeWitt reports.

Senator Mike Gianaris says he’s working on a package of bills that would limit gun purchases by New Yorkers and help curb what he says is growing gun violence in the state and the nation.

“It’s certainly a matter of pressing urgency,” said Gianaris, who says gun violence in New York City is up 12% over last year.

The bills would limit the purchase of handguns in the state to one per month, and would avoid repeating the scenario in the Aurora Colorado shooting, where the gunman allegedly purchased several hand guns in the space of a few weeks. Two other states, New Jersey and California, already have similar laws. The bills would also require a 10 day waiting period for gun purchases, and mandatory safety courses for buyers. Gun dealers would have to work more closely with law enforcement, and report all sales of firearms to the state’s Division of Criminal Justice, where they’d be kept on file for a decade.

Senator Gianaris, a Queens Democrat, says he’s working with the Brady Center, named after President Ronald Reagan’s former press secretary Jim Brady who was injured in an assassination attempt on the President back in 1981.

Gianaris says he will also push for passage of existing bills that would ban assault weapons, and require micro stamping identification on all guns sold in the state, to help police trace gun ownership through the bullets if a crime is committed.

The legislation, which Gianaris says will be finished in a few days, would make New York’s gun laws the toughest in the country.

“If we pass that package as a whole we will become, according to the Brady Center, the number one state in the nation in terms of our gun laws,” he said.

Gianaris’ Democratic party is in the minority in the State Senate. If the bills were to pass, he’d need the support of at least some of the members of the Majority GOP Senate conference. So far, none are backing the bills, he says.

“The Senate Republicans have decide to cater to the NRA,” said Gianaris, who says his bills exclude guns used for hunting from the new requirements.

Governor Cuomo has said in the past that he’s a supporter of some of the measures, like micro-stamping, but the governor has not actively pushed for their passage. Senator Gianaris says he’ll be talking to the governor’s aides in the coming days about the new gun control bills that he is writing.

Gianaris is the head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, which is attempting to win back the Senate from the Republicans in the November elections. Gianaris says he’s hesitant, though, to politicize the issue, after Sunday’s shooting in the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. For the same reason, a spokesman for the Senate Republicans declined to comment on the issue.


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8241
(8241 all sites)
Registered: 10/12/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 09:22 AM
quote:

I think we regualrly miss the point when horrible events take place and guns are used. Our solutions are always, we need to ban guns, we need to have more restrictive policies. However, we never ask, What drives a man to wantonly murder another? Its not the gun.


This argument is regularly thrown out against more restrictive gun policies, and the problem I have with it is this: There are NO statistics out there for things that NEVER happened, and there never will be.

What I'm saying is this: Some lunatic is driving a car with an expired registration and he gets pulled over. Police find a rifle with a detachable magazine and ammunition and they confiscate it. The guy is put in jail for having the weapon, and when he is released, he's monitored by a probation officer.

Can you honestly tell me that this policy wouldn't save a few lives? IF IT SAVES ONLY ONE, IT WAS WORTH IT. Yes, people will always be able to get guns, and there will always be lunatics. But again, the statistics are not going to tell you who WAS NOT murdered.

[Edited on 8/7/2012 by robslob]

 

____________________
Don't let the sounds of your own wheels

Drive you crazy

Lighten up while you still can

Don't even try to understand

Just find a place to take your stand

And TAKE IT EASY

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 16027
(16019 all sites)
Registered: 10/13/2007
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 10:02 AM
quote:
Yes, people will always be able to get guns, and there will always be lunatics. But again, the statistics are not going to tell you who WAS NOT murdered.


Counting the number of people still alive will give you a pretty accurate statistic on who hasn't been murdered.

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9136
(25085 all sites)
Registered: 10/30/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 10:33 AM
quote:
The NRA thrives on fear mongering. For the last 25-30 years that has been their main propaganda and fund raising method. I have hunted and owned guns since I was 10 years old but I parted company with the NRA about 4 years ago. I don't want to belong to an organization that manipulates it's membership with dishonest, and deceitful scare tactics to raise money.


I have hunted since the same age and I have never joined because of similar sentiment. I looked into it many years ago, and just was not comfortable with the way they did business.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8091
(8091 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 11:01 AM

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9136
(25085 all sites)
Registered: 10/30/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 11:36 AM
quote:



Where do I join?

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9704
(9729 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 06:41 PM
quote:
quote:



Where do I join?


So you are comfortable with her business I take it?



I rejoined NRA after the 2004 election. You can call me a tool if you want. I hate lobbying, but that is how the game is played. I donate to land use groups for ohv/atv/4x4 rights and access in our public lands as well. Individually I have no voice, but as a member of some of these groups they can influence and argue for atleast some of the same things I support. I write a few letters/emails to my reps and senators, which usually is replied to with a canned response, I don't have any confidence that my writing these people has any effect. The only time they pay attention is groups with large numbers behind them standing up for or against something.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3070
(3075 all sites)
Registered: 5/30/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2012 at 08:14 PM
I'm in the NRA and I don't even own a gun. Never have because I'm too afraid I'll use it.

 

____________________
"What we do in life echoes in eternity."




 
<<  1    2  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com