California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Oooh... we're gettin nasty now eh?

Who is getting nasty???

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
The right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall not be infringed upon. The legislation we're discussing does not infringe upon those rights.... only the manufacture. See the difference? No? Go ask your daughter... maybe she can explain it to you

Oh, so I am free to make my own firearm, without restrictions then???Oh, nice try but oh so sorry. It doesn't work that way. I own a company that manufactures firearms. "I" own it. So, because people like you and others think that since it is a company, that "I" the owner should now have new and more laws to live by. Nope, no thanks.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Yes reeeeeaaallly.... it's logic man. It's employed by progressives as well as others. And no... you don't know who you're dealing with... you only think you do

No, that is not logic. That is the infection of Progressive thought.
If it walks and quacks like a duck.........You use talking points from the Anti-Gun Rights crowd, you must either have the same mindset or be one. Or both.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
I call BS. I don't believe you're being sincere. You don't think sales should be restricted? Tell you what... when all restrictions on sales of guns are removed, I'll be on the street corner across from your daughter's school selling .38s cheep... I'll even throw in free ammo. I bet you'd like that eh?

Call BS all you want. How the Constitution was written, with the Amendments as well, there is nothing stating that there are to be restrictions. Now, my personal thoughts on this really have nothing to do with this. It is how it was written. That includes people that have served jail time. Go do some research, as my stance has not changed since being here on ATS.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Fair enough...

I will believe it when I see it.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
There you go again... thinking you know. Dude.... it's their state. They can do what they want within the limits of the constitution... my point is that they are within the limits. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Yes, but they aren't.Shall not infringe is very clear and simple. The State can do what they want, but can't restrict freedoms as defined by the Cons/BoR/Amendments.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Well then you should get her to explain the difference between regulating and restricting manufacture and sales as opposed to an individuals right to keep and bear.

*Sigh* Because if I can't manufacture it, then the people are restricted. Those people can't make their own firearm, without the restrictions in place, So......the Govt controls the free market via your beloved "regulation".
So, it is infringed upon.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Good lawd... History much?
The current tax code was signed into law by Ronald Reagn back in 1986. I can't blame you for not knowing that though... since you daughter is only 6 she wouldn't remember.

Oh,so the income tax was created under Reagan???Geez, me to young to understand that. I guess you know my age as well then.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Agreed... I think you should give it a rest.... maybe go take a nap or something.

Nah I am good. Thought you might need it, seeing as you have insinuated as being the "old man" here.
Would you like some applesauce and kidney beans?

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
“This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.”
--Ronald Reagan, (progressive swine!) in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford.

And you providing this to me means what? Oh...you think that since Reagan had an R by his name, and that you think I also must have an R that I will now be befuddled in my response.
I don't hold Politicians on high like that.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
“Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.”
--Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.

Again, that means what to me?????

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
He said lots more but I think you get the idea.... Say g'night kiddos...

Good night I guess. Must be the senior early bird special hours then night night time.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Another one who thinks she knows....

....I'm not 'progressive' or 'lberal' or 'conservative'

I'm a God damned human being... using his head.

Polly want a cracker?

I didn't bring up Reagan in the first place... Mac did... unknowingly. FTW...

edit on 24-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

Dude, you posted many quotes about Reagan, so you can't divert on that.

Using your head? I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

She? What are you? Sexist?

Originally posted by Blarneystoner


I didn't bring up Reagan in the first place... Mac did... unknowingly. FTW...

Oh, I did?????

Care to provide that quote???

Have you been hitting the sauce early on us???

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Just a little history lesson for you.

Seems that Reagan didn't create, pass or implement the Income tax code.
www.infoplease.com...

Are you personally trying to re-write history, or are you honestly thinking Reagan was a good angle to hit me from.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Just a little history lesson for you.

Seems that Reagan didn't create, pass or implement the Income tax code.
www.infoplease.com...

Are you personally trying to re-write history, or are you honestly thinking Reagan was a good angle to hit me from.

What really offends me is his assumption that women do not "use their heads."

"She thinks she knows" what sort of sexist claptrap is this? Typical patriarchal male.

reply to post by NavyDoc


It's the picture sweetie....



You assumptions are your own...

reply to post by Blarneystoner


About as creepy old sexist man as it gets.

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig

California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills

personalliberty.com

With the stroke of a pen, new semi-automatic handguns have been banned from sale in California.

How, you ask? This bulletin, signed by the State’s Bureau of Firearms Chief, Stephen J. Lindley, for Attorney General Kamala Harris, requires all semi-auto pistols to be equipped with microstamping technology.

The technology, while available, is expensive and impractical and is not being employed by major manufacturers. Firearms manufacturers will most likely walk away from California rather than gear up to make the handguns for one State, a State that already has onerous gun laws. Califor

(visit the link for the full news article)

How is that legal? It seems like executive regulatory agencies have seized way to much power from legislative bodies.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

About as creepy old sexist man as it gets.

lol... That's right... if you can't win the argument based upon logic then attack your opponent.

Too funny... If I can't address a woman using the pronoun 'she' without being accused of sexism then what am I supposed to use?

It's a testament to your thought processes... assumptions, speculations, confusion and delusional paranoia.

with regards to the tax reform and The Gipper:

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was given impetus by a detailed tax-simplification proposal from President Reagan's Treasury Department, and was designed to be tax-revenue neutral because Reagan stated that he would veto any bill that was not. Revenue neutrality was targeted by decreasing individual tax rates, eliminating $30 billion annually in loopholes, and increasing corporate taxes.[1] The bill reduced overall revenues by 8.9 billion dollars.[2] As of 2012, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the most recent major simplification of the tax code, drastically reducing the number of deductions and the number of tax brackets.

Wiki

I don't know how much more plain it can be....

Originally posted by howmuch4another
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

actually a microstamp is not an infringement of the 2nd. nobody is saying you cannot have a gun or buy a gun in Cali. This is for the manufacturer and you are not entitled to force a manufacturer to comply. They can just leave the State.


eta..what Hope said.

faster than me.

edit on 5/22/2013 by howmuch4another because: (no reason given)

Actually it is an infringement, as the second Amendment clearly was meant to enable the general populace to be well armed in-order to maintain a free society. The regulation infringes on that by using economic levers to make it near impossible for anyone other than the rich to own firearms.

Only enabling the rich to own arms does not create, or promote a free society. Also, the attitude of those behind this regulatory change. How steep the change is one could argue it is unconstitutional because it infringes on the legislatures authority, and by Constitutional rights, all states have are guaranteed a Republic form of government. So by using regulatory agencies to run around the state legislature, they are endangering California's Republic form of government and the balance between legislative and executive authority.

If you really want to be strict about it, the regulatory body is engaging in an act of insurrection(and if they use force to enforce this edict, as that is what it is, a tyrannical edict), the regulatory body is engaged in an act of armed rebellion and the US military is legally bound to use force if necessary, to put an end to the uprising and restore Constitutional rule of law(as defined by the new changes to Military authorizations of domestic usage).

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

lol... That's right... if you can't win the argument based upon logic then attack your opponent.

Too funny... If I can't address a woman using the pronoun 'she' without being accused of sexism then what am I supposed to use? It's a testament to your thought processes... assumptions, speculations, confusion and delusional paranoia.

Guess not, as navydoc isn't a woman.

Your assumptions, have put you in your place. I didn't have to do anything, just let you open your mouth.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

with regards to the tax reform and The Gipper:

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was given impetus by a detailed tax-simplification proposal from President Reagan's Treasury Department, and was designed to be tax-revenue neutral because Reagan stated that he would veto any bill that was not. Revenue neutrality was targeted by decreasing individual tax rates, eliminating $30 billion annually in loopholes, and increasing corporate taxes.[1] The bill reduced overall revenues by 8.9 billion dollars.[2] As of 2012, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was the most recent major simplification of the tax code, drastically reducing the number of deductions and the number of tax brackets.

Wiki

I don't know how much more plain it can be....

Ohhhh, how about WHO created the income tax.

You must be past the nap stage, as you seem to just gloss over that.

I did not ask who modified it. I asked who created it.

Again, you fail. Keep trying though.

Originally posted by macman
Guess not, as navydoc isn't a woman.

Your assumptions, have put you in your place. I didn't have to do anything, just let you open your mouth.

Shame on me for not assuming a NavyDoc was a man. Based upon 'it's' avatar I assumed whatever...

Ohhhh, how about WHO created the income tax.

You must be past the nap stage, as you seem to just gloss over that.

I did not ask who modified it. I asked who created it.

Again, you fail. Keep trying though.

So... I have to assume... lol... that you're talking about the 17th amendment to the Constitution that you so vehemently defend.

...or do you only defend the parts you agree with?

...it's funny how you and others seem to think that attacking me personally is appropriate. It's like water off of a ducks back and really doesn't lend any credence to your arguments.

...And hey!

You never answered my question... how would you feel about it if someone was selling weapons on the corner across the street from your daughter's school? And try to answer honestly this time.

..see you're not thinking it through. There has to be and always will be restrictions and regulations on the sale of firearms.

reply to post by korathin


doesn't seem like it in this thread but really I am proudly pro gun.
I agree 100% that is the way it SHOULD be interpreted. The SCOTUS does not share our views however.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Do you think this decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court?

nope..States rights. totally within their jurisdiction.

reply to FortAnthem

they'll just exempt the LEO's and they'll go to Nevada an buy whatever they want.

States rights CANNOT overturn the U.S. Constitution. And this action clearly is in violation of the 2nd Amendment by "infringing" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Make no mistake, it is an infringement, and encroachment upon that constitutional right.

Definition of INFRINGEMENT 1 : the act of infringing : violation 2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of Infringment

While you are defining the constitution, please define organized militia.

S&F!!!! Like you said...(Kinda) we already know why this is bull#! The only thing I would add and it's sooo I portent to me....Our 2nd Amendment Rights should not be violated by our current dictatorship the White-House.

We should be able to protect ourselves from the criminal that DOES NOT FOLLOW GUNLAW'S and an ever increasing scary government and the Military attached to it. And.....they're fun to target practice with!!!



They do this w/ the ever increasing prices to be able to keep the common man that is trying to support his family from buying these guns for protection ect.

To reload here in Montana is ridiculous. What about the guy living off the land...? The hunter, the target shooter....it's soooooo expensive!!! And, your lucky if u can find it and get enough of it!!!

I think more and more people have had enough!
S&F...

....and of course you're not going to find this story on 1A!!! The more people in the dark!!!!

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by neo96

 

It would have to start with the firing pin doing the imprinting. Then, I am sure that the law would migrate to something even more intrusive, like the bottom of the case or the case itself.
The inside of the barrel, just past the throat would have the micro stamping and the act of firing the round, where the shell will expand slightly, would imprint the stamp.

So, now we have receivers as a controlled BATF item, this will include firing pins in that arena as well. Then barrels.

But, what stops the criminal from replacing the stock CA mandated pin with one that is not micro-stamped? Or doing the same with a barrel.

All this is, is a form of Govt control, pushing moronic legislation to send the Progressive base into a self-satisfied frenzy with good intentions warming the blood.

This will do nothing but create an environment of more people leaving the dump of a state, businesses to continue to flee and others not wanting to visit for tourism.

CA is on the path to become the next Detroit.

This is a STATE applying guidelines, you gun rights supporters want more state control, what is the problem. California doesn't want guns, Mississippi doesn't want dildos or abortions, states rights all the way.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by neo96

 

It would have to start with the firing pin doing the imprinting. Then, I am sure that the law would migrate to something even more intrusive, like the bottom of the case or the case itself.
The inside of the barrel, just past the throat would have the micro stamping and the act of firing the round, where the shell will expand slightly, would imprint the stamp.

So, now we have receivers as a controlled BATF item, this will include firing pins in that arena as well. Then barrels.

But, what stops the criminal from replacing the stock CA mandated pin with one that is not micro-stamped? Or doing the same with a barrel.

All this is, is a form of Govt control, pushing moronic legislation to send the Progressive base into a self-satisfied frenzy with good intentions warming the blood.

This will do nothing but create an environment of more people leaving the dump of a state, businesses to continue to flee and others not wanting to visit for tourism.

CA is on the path to become the next Detroit.

This is a STATE applying guidelines, you gun rights supporters want more state control, what is the problem. California doesn't want guns, Mississippi doesn't want dildos or abortions, states rights all the way.

Pardon me, but I must have missed the Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing the citizens right to abortions or dildo's. But I do know what a straw man argument is, and I just saw one ^^^^^^

reply to post by howmuch4another


I want the high speed rail...

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

It's the picture sweetie....

You assumptions are your own...

See? See? That's what I'm going on about: the male dominated patriarchal society. Don't you repress me.


Help! Help! I'm being repressed.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by macman
Guess not, as navydoc isn't a woman.

Your assumptions, have put you in your place. I didn't have to do anything, just let you open your mouth.

Shame on me for not assuming a NavyDoc was a man. Based upon 'it's' avatar I assumed whatever...

Ohhhh, how about WHO created the income tax.

You must be past the nap stage, as you seem to just gloss over that.

I did not ask who modified it. I asked who created it.

Again, you fail. Keep trying though.

So... I have to assume... lol... that you're talking about the 17th amendment to the Constitution that you so vehemently defend.

...or do you only defend the parts you agree with?

...it's funny how you and others seem to think that attacking me personally is appropriate. It's like water off of a ducks back and really doesn't lend any credence to your arguments.

...And hey!

You never answered my question... how would you feel about it if someone was selling weapons on the corner across the street from your daughter's school? And try to answer honestly this time.

..see you're not thinking it through. There has to be and always will be restrictions and regulations on the sale of firearms.

edit on 24-5-2013 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)

Well, had you looked closer, you wails have noticed the Amazon logo on top of the avatar pic. It is for a novel I recently read and enjoyed. Once I figure out how to properly format it, it will be more plain.

It did not stop us from having a little fun at your expense though.