This is topic Predictions on what the new gun control legislation will be? in forum General Talk at Northern California Ford Owners  .


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://californiafords.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=057429

---

Posted by John91coupe (Member # 18) on :
 
Here goes mine.

Any pistol or rifle with a detachable magazine will be limited to 6 rounds. All existing higher capacity magazines will be deemed illegal. Turn them in or destroy them. Heavy fines for anyone using or in possession of one.

Pretty sure they realize that they cannot ban semi auto's due to the fact they would make criminals out of 100 million Americans. On the other hand the magazine capacity rule would be easier to implement.

What do you guys think?
 

---

Posted by hilltim54 (Member # 10655) on :
 
It's bullshit...
 

---

Posted by turbo50 (Member # 6700) on :
 
Don't matter I'm never turning my arms into anyone for anything.
 

---

Posted by Greasy (Member # 5258) on :
 
I'm going to say 10rd mags will be the new standard for every state, maybe bullet buttons too They can't/won't ban a particular or weapons period. I think they'll just start cracking down on capacities if anything.

So just start carrying a bunch of mags, makes no difference if I'm using a 10rd or 15rd mag I'll have more.
 

---

Posted by John91coupe (Member # 18) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by turbo50:
Don't matter I'm never turning my arms into anyone for anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wilit:
The legal environment is vastly different today than it was in 1994. Also the fact that communicating and mobilizing the masses to take action is much easier now thanks to the Internet. I believe any legislation proposed has an uphill battle to pass Constitutional muster. The 4th and 14th Amendments still apply, and the government cannot arbitrarily make citizens criminals overnight. Not to mention, the Republicans still control Congress.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wildfire532FB:
If Obama was a good President he would realize that its not the gun that's the problem its the mental health of some people but he's not and he wants less resistence from the slaves so he'll take our guns away until all we have to protect ourselves from the government is rocks.

---

You know what they say about if pigs had wings, right?
 

---

Posted by kingroy (Member # 7736) on :
 
Implement the magazine rule, and put an age limit on who can own one and use one. Anyone under the age limit caught using one, the responsibility for that persons actions falls on the owner. Negligence.

16 to drive
18 to smoke cigarettes
21 to drink alcohol
25+ to own a gun.
 

---

Posted by Greasy (Member # 5258) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingroy:
Implement the magazine rule, and put an age limit on who can own one and use one. Anyone under the age limit caught using one, the responsibility for that persons actions falls on the owner. Negligence.

16 to drive
18 to smoke cigarettes
21 to drink alcohol
25+ to own a gun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingroy:
Implement the magazine rule, and put an age limit on who can own one and use one. Anyone under the age limit caught using one, the responsibility for that persons actions falls on the owner. Negligence.

16 to drive
18 to smoke cigarettes
21 to drink alcohol
25+ to own a gun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 92MaroonGT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingroy:
Implement the magazine rule, and put an age limit on who can own one and use one. Anyone under the age limit caught using one, the responsibility for that persons actions falls on the owner. Negligence.

16 to drive
18 to smoke cigarettes
21 to drink alcohol
25+ to own a gun.

---

16 to drive
We all drove before 16, I am almost certain

18 to smoke cigarettes
I know I smoked cigarettes before 18, not proud of it. But still did it.

21 to drink alcohol- My biggest partying days where before I'm 21. Now that I am, I haven't touched it.

25+ to own a gun.

But 18 to go into the military, which you can use bigger, more lethal guns. And go kill people?

Nahh

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wildfire532FB:
If Obama was a good President he would realize that its not the gun that's the problem its the mental health of some people but he's not and he wants less resistence from the slaves so he'll take our guns away until all we have to protect ourselves from the government is rocks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SF Coupe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wildfire532FB:
If Obama was a good President he would realize that its not the gun that's the problem its the mental health of some people but he's not and he wants less resistence from the slaves so he'll take our guns away until all we have to protect ourselves from the government is rocks.

---

Guns and our society's handling of mental health issues are both problems. They both need to be addressed in an intelligent manner. The old saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is worn out and doesn't hold much water in light of the numerous mass killings we have had to endure. All of which involved sick people and guns.

---

Sick people will find any means available to achieve there murderous goal. Sure it's easy to say if guns were not readily available we would eliminate that possibility for them. But they would just find another means to do their deed. Poisoning the water/food, explosives (pretty easy to make), machete, fire. I mean there is no end to the possibilities.
 

---

Posted by SLOWBACK 67 (Member # 6348) on :
 
Can the people in favor of more gun bans defend this kind of behavior?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zw0vnAo_mjA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
This video shows you just how much Liberal hollywood stars & liberal politians think they are above everyone else.

[ December 17, 2012, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: SLOWBACK 67 ]
 

---

Posted by SF Coupe (Member # 1810) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by John91coupe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SF Coupe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wildfire532FB:
If Obama was a good President he would realize that its not the gun that's the problem its the mental health of some people but he's not and he wants less resistence from the slaves so he'll take our guns away until all we have to protect ourselves from the government is rocks.

---

Guns and our society's handling of mental health issues are both problems. They both need to be addressed in an intelligent manner. The old saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is worn out and doesn't hold much water in light of the numerous mass killings we have had to endure. All of which involved sick people and guns.

---

Sick people will find any means available to achieve there murderous goal. Sure it's easy to say if guns were not readily available we would eliminate that possibility for them. But they would just find another means to do their deed. Poisoning the water/food, explosives (pretty easy to make), machete, fire. I mean there is no end to the possibilities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SF Coupe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by John91coupe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SF Coupe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wildfire532FB:
If Obama was a good President he would realize that its not the gun that's the problem its the mental health of some people but he's not and he wants less resistence from the slaves so he'll take our guns away until all we have to protect ourselves from the government is rocks.

---

Guns and our society's handling of mental health issues are both problems. They both need to be addressed in an intelligent manner. The old saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is worn out and doesn't hold much water in light of the numerous mass killings we have had to endure. All of which involved sick people and guns.

---

Sick people will find any means available to achieve there murderous goal. Sure it's easy to say if guns were not readily available we would eliminate that possibility for them. But they would just find another means to do their deed. Poisoning the water/food, explosives (pretty easy to make), machete, fire. I mean there is no end to the possibilities.

---

True, but at this point guns are the easiest solution for these wack jobs. I don't agree with the argument that we shouldn't take action on guns just because a perp can find another means to his end. I don't know what the laws should be but ignoring the fact that guns are one part of a complex problem is not right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greasy:
More expensive? Have you seen the gun prices lately?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredfifty:
make guns and ammo more expensive or tack on an additional fee to "fight gun abuse/violence" sort of like what the airlines do with 9/11 fees...money from that towards mental health research, gun education, gun programs/proper handling, etc...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ECOboostin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredfifty:
make guns and ammo more expensive or tack on an additional fee to "fight gun abuse/violence" sort of like what the airlines do with 9/11 fees...money from that towards mental health research, gun education, gun programs/proper handling, etc...

---

Your just trying to arm the 1%!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John91coupe:

quote:

---

Originally posted by wilit:
The legal environment is vastly different today than it was in 1994. Also the fact that communicating and mobilizing the masses to take action is much easier now thanks to the Internet. I believe any legislation proposed has an uphill battle to pass Constitutional muster. The 4th and 14th Amendments still apply, and the government cannot arbitrarily make citizens criminals overnight. Not to mention, the Republicans still control Congress.

---

Yeah well, the state of California did that (made citizens criminals) with the pre ban "assault" weapons law that anyone with one had to register them. I recall that around 12K registered them and over 100K citizens that didn't are now criminals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cobraracer46:
I predict that background checks will be tightend and the gun show loophole in certain states that allowes people to purchase a firearm with out a background check will be eliminated.

I would like to see the background check on people wanting to buy guns tightened up to such a high level that you would have to fill out a mountain of paper work and be subjected to an extensive background check lasting months that would require federal agents to go to your house and turn it upside down. Such a stringent gun buying prossess would cost a lot money and the gun buyer would be the one paying gor it. Furthermore, it should be a requirment to go through mandatory fire arm safety training at a considerable cost and such a requirment would have to be met every year or else the government would take away your gun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cobraracer46:
I predict that background checks will be tightend and the gun show loophole in certain states that allowes people to purchase a firearm with out a background check will be eliminated.

I would like to see the background check on people wanting to buy guns tightened up to such a high level that you would have to fill out a mountain of paper work and be subjected to an extensive background check lasting months that would require federal agents to go to your house and turn it upside down. Such a stringent gun buying prossess would cost a lot money and the gun buyer would be the one paying gor it. Furthermore, it should be a requirment to go through mandatory fire arm safety training at a considerable cost and such a requirment would have to be met every year or else the government would take away your gun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by warhorse58gt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cobraracer46:
I predict that background checks will be tightend and the gun show loophole in certain states that allowes people to purchase a firearm with out a background check will be eliminated.

I would like to see the background check on people wanting to buy guns tightened up to such a high level that you would have to fill out a mountain of paper work and be subjected to an extensive background check lasting months that would require federal agents to go to your house and turn it upside down. Such a stringent gun buying prossess would cost a lot money and the gun buyer would be the one paying gor it. Furthermore, it should be a requirment to go through mandatory fire arm safety training at a considerable cost and such a requirment would have to be met every year or else the government would take away your gun.

---

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fostang:
Tell me again what criminal follows the laws?

---

+1000000
 

---

Posted by 408LIGHTNING (Member # 7447) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cobraracer46:
I predict that background checks will be tightend and the gun show loophole in certain states that allowes people to purchase a firearm with out a background check will be eliminated.

I would like to see the background check on people wanting to buy guns tightened up to such a high level that you would have to fill out a mountain of paper work and be subjected to an extensive background check lasting months that would require federal agents to go to your house and turn it upside down. Such a stringent gun buying prossess would cost a lot money and the gun buyer would be the one paying gor it. Furthermore, it should be a requirment to go through mandatory fire arm safety training at a considerable cost and such a requirment would have to be met every year or else the government would take away your gun.

---

And this prevents what? You do understand that criminals don't follow laws. That's why they are called criminals. And the law currently in effect WORKED in this instance. The shooter attempted to purchase a rifle days prior, but didn't due to the 14-day waiting period.

If a criminal wants a weapon, they will find a way to obtain one. A mound of paperwork isn't going to stop them.


As for the topic, I see classes of weapons being further designated instead of reduced capacities. It's going to be interesting...

---

+1. My opinion in this case the person to blame is the mother(rip). had she have locked up her firearms in a safe this might have never happened.
 

---

Posted by 408LIGHTNING (Member # 7447) on :
 
And not saying it was her fault exactly but she could have maybw prevented this from happening.

[ December 18, 2012, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: 408LIGHTNING ]
 

---

Posted by 9cobra7 (Member # 2812) on :
 
Whatever the new legislation will be, is not going to be good for anyone!
This tragedy in Connecticut has absolutely nothing to do with firearms! Blaming firearms for this tragedy is like blaming pencils for incorrect spelling.
Is it possible for this one jerk off, just one, to completely fuck up our whole way of life from here on out? I fear so. Liberals are going to completely fuck this great country of ours.....so so sad

This whole shooting makes absolutely no sense either. Where's the motive? Everything people do has some sort of motive.
You don't break into a house just to do it. You break in to steal or rape or something for your own personal gain.
All there is, is black n white photos of this clown on the news. Was he born in 1920 or something? WTF

 

---

Posted by SLOWBACK 67 (Member # 6348) on :
 
I have a question for the gun ban folks.

If you feel that the 2nd amendment wasn't intended to allow Americans to own military type rifles. Then how come there hasn't been any uproar in the past with military surplus rifles sold in the United States?
I own numerous rifles that were actually in service in WW1, WW2 & Korean War. Do you think my 1903 Springfield should be banned? Should I not be able to own any military rifle? Some of our older military rifles like the M1 grand &M1 carbine are semi auto rifles. They even have detachable mags.
So if that's the case I can't even own a black powder musket. The original rifle that helped win our freedom.

Another thing that bothers me is this whole mindset of blaming guns for our actions. There have always been good men and bad men. When did we start to make excuses for bad peoples actions?
When JFK was assassinated did anti gun activist come out asking for the ban of bolt action rifles? When MLK was shot did they come out blaming the gun used? Does anyone even know what type of gun was used to kill Malcolm X?
Did people blame the easy access to small caliber pistols when Lincoln was shot?

This was a metaly disturbed gentlemen who committed this evil act. The warning signs were there for years, yet his parents didn't do anything about it. Nobody did anything about it. He wasn't doing good in school so what did his mother do? She took him out of school to be home schooled. She knew he was getting worse yet didn't admit him to an institution for an evaluation? Why didn't the parents get their guns out of the house? They could have had another family member or neighbor storing them so he couldn't get to them.

What I'm trying to say is had his parents done their job and gotten this guy some serious physiological help, this most likely wouldn't have happened. That's the lesson that should be learned. If you know someone who's unstable, acting wierd...... Do the right thing and get them some help. You might be able prevent this from happening. Taking away all our guns isn't going to fix people with mental health issues.
 

---

Posted by wilit (Member # 3367) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SLOWBACK 67:
I have a question for the gun ban folks.

If you feel that the 2nd amendment wasn't intended to allow Americans to own military type rifles. Then how come there hasn't been any uproar in the past with military surplus rifles sold in the United States?
I own numerous rifles that were actually in service in WW1, WW2 & Korean War. Do you think my 1903 Springfield should be banned? Should I not be able to own any military rifle? Some of our older military rifles like the M1 grand &M1 carbine are semi auto rifles. They even have detachable mags.
So if that's the case I can't even own a black powder musket. The original rifle that helped win our freedom.

---