Support your 2nd amendment rights!

[rebelcowboysnb]

Diane Feinstein never said that.

Putting words in quotes does not make it true.

You are correct. Frankly she has said so much stupid stuff that it all runs together. I saw that an it sounds like something stupid she would say an did not think to check. Here is her actual quote.
Quote: Not the same words but the meaning, at least to me is pretty close to the same.

 

[Bullitt]

"All vets are mentally ill" is not close to the same as "find a way that veterans who are incapacitated for one reason or another mentally don’t have access to this kind of weapon."

I would say her real statement is stupid for two reasons. One, PTSD is a product of any violent situation. It's not a product of just the Iraq War. Two, she should be talking about how to identify any person with mental issues rather than just veterans. That is what really got the negative attention.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

The way I read what she said is that a vet should have to prove they are not mentally ill which implies the assumption that you are until you show otherwise.

The government should have a burden to prove something to take a right away but she is talking in reverse of that.
Quote:

 

[Bullitt]

Whatever she is talking about is expanding the law to include veterans. She is talking about some specific thing that I am not even sure about.

But what she is talking about is expanding the law, not taking something away. Apparently veterans weren't exempted previously with what she is discussing, and then they are talking about adding veterans to the exemption.

Maybe you know. Are they discussing some specific gun? Has this bill already passed, or were they just discussing it?

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

This was when she was trying to repass her failed assault weapons ban that had ran its course. The law she is talking like is "the law" is gone an has no chance of being passed again. What sounds like giving back is actually her trying to talk us in to letting her take the whole birthday cake as long as she leaves us a candle to lick on. Because we let her take the cake an all last time she is talking like she is giving us something.

 

[Bullitt]

OK, thanks. So basically it was just a discussion.

That "assault weapon" term is crazy. They will ban rifles just because they have black stocks.

I do not support individuals owning fully automatic weapons, and that term is easy to understand. And I know some people will disagree with me about owning these. I just see no need for individuals owning fully automatic weapons.

We were discussing machine guns earlier in this thread. I did a search.

"The idea of a gun that would keep up a continuous stream of fire attracted inventors early in the development of firearms. In 1718 James Puckle invented what he called his Defence Gun. Placed on a tripod it was a large revolver with a cylinder behind its single barrel. Although the cylinder had to be turned manually it could fire 63 shots in seven minutes."

Hand-held machine guns were not invented until the late 1800s. We don't have to worry much about some guy with a heavy machine gun on a tripod. It's the ones that can be carried that can cause a problem.

And background checks on gun sales are necessary.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/26/gun-dealers-support-background-checks_n_3986380.html

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Full auto guns are still legal, the law is just set up to make a class system. If you are wealthy you can have one. You can also have one if you are one of the governments special people. The so called ban only effects the lower class people. Dumb law anyway. A file is all the tools needed to make most simi-auto guns full auto. The law has yet to be challenged an most people I have talked to think it will die if it ever does.


As for background checks, I have not had to do one to buy a gun in 9 years. Besides, it is easier to buy a gun on the street than it is in the store an thats with me not having to do the background check. I like my guns to be new so I buy new. Most people I know don't cause its a hassle an it costs more. I have no reason to think criminals would go buy guns new if the checks were not there. An the few that try now are never charged.



By the way, supreme court has agreed to hear a case on gun rights for someone convicted of domestic violence in Tn. I expect the man to win.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

That link by the way, well... I am not surprised that a dealer in any item would support a law that says private sales are now illegal an everyone must come pay them to do if for them. I bet your ford dealer would jump on that deal too.

 

[Bear Foot Farm]

Quote: That's OK if YOU "see no need"
I "see no need" for some folks to have access to computers.


Quote: That's odd since there were none until the 1990's
You'd think someone would have figured out they were "necessary" before then

Reality is they are poiintless, since they do nothing to stop crimes from being committed

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I bet Alexian Lien, his wife an baby could see a need for fully automatic weapons.