Sign in to follow this  
billy backstay

Registered my high capacity mag w/state of CT- STOOPID LAW!

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I thought you had one of the old ones with the big magazine designed for battlefield applications?

Vigilante Joe really doesn't like to talk about the AW he owned for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 10:24 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I see one with the big magazine that Marlin used to sell around the US before New Jersey caused them to change what we could all buy to one with a small magazine.

I thought you had one of the old ones with the big magazine designed for battlefield applications?

You got lost in your own meaningless characterizations. Mocking the terms of Heller is a good space for you, you have committed yourself to that, mucho, for 1.5 years.

As you diddle yourself further and dumb down Political Anarchy, I'll be seeking relevant content Tom. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 4:35 PM, bpm57 said:

Vigilante Joe really doesn't like to talk about the AW he owned for years.

Tell us about living in your quaint little cult, where .22's are confused with battle guns, every day, by many.

Tea Party down with Tom.jpg

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2018 at 10:24 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I see one with the big magazine that Marlin used to sell around the US before New Jersey caused them to change what we could all buy to one with a small magazine.

I thought you had one of the old ones with the big magazine designed for battlefield applications?

Check your database for your shot of the two guns, and read the Wiki article on the Marlin Model 60.

  •  The top gun shown on the blue blankie has a 20" barrel and 20" magazine. It was the latest of three versions
  • The bottom gun in your database shot has a 22" barrel and 20" mag.
  • Mine had a 22" barrel and 22" mag. It held eighteen rounds. It was the original, of three models.
  • Now be a dumbass, and spread confusion, and cheapen Scalia's words, by insisting these are... most useful in military service.
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Tell us about living in your quaint little cult, where .22's are confused with battle guns, every day, by many.

Like the NJ legislature? I mean, they _did_ write an AWB all those years ago - the kind that you cheer on - and they called the rifle you owned an AW.

But tell me again why it wasn't an AW despite meeting the NJ definition of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Check your database for your shot of the two guns, and read the Wiki article on the Marlin Model 60.

  •  The top gun shown on the blue blankie has a 20" barrel and 20" magazine. It was the latest of three versions
  • The bottom gun in your database shot has a 22" barrel and 20" mag.
  • Mine had a 22" barrel and 22" mag. It held eighteen rounds. It was the original, of three models.
  • Now be a dumbass, and spread confusion, and cheapen Scalia's words, by insisting these are... most useful in military service.

https://www.marlinforum.com/articles/new-jersey-and-marlin-22-assault-rifles.22/

Wiki? No thanks. That's where the image came from and they seem to know a bit more about battlefield .22's than you do. Since the magazines are obviously different lengths, your assertion that they're both 20" is amusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

https://www.marlinforum.com/articles/new-jersey-and-marlin-22-assault-rifles.22/

Wiki? No thanks. That's where the image came from and they seem to know a bit more about battlefield .22's than you do. Since the magazines are obviously different lengths, your assertion that they're both 20" is amusing.

Look closely and be a victim too; demonstrate some honesty for once.

You are mistaken, and must look beyond "obvious" here. The magazine lengths are the same. The barrel lengths are not, causing your confusion. 

 

But your article is not the source of your battle weapon confusion. From your whiney article...

Quote

"It's definitely not an assault weapon," Van Drew said. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The picture caption agrees with my eyes:

Quote

Note the different magazine lengths in these two Marlin Model 60s. Guess which one was made after 1990?

I'd guess the one where the magazine ends at the end of the barrel is the battlefield .22 like yours.


marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

But go ahead and insist that those magazines are the same length if you must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RKoch said:

Jeff likes guns. Nazis like guns. They're kinfolk.


Is it upsetting to learn that posters here view you as "Nazi kinfolk" billy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thread with Tom mostly replying to himself and droning on about guns and dogballs’s.  Short Jeff laps it up and Jocal takes the bait.  It’s a tiresome pattern.

SAD...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2018 at 4:28 PM, Fakenews said:

Another thread with Tom mostly replying to himself and droning on about guns and dogballs’s.  Short Jeff laps it up and Jocal takes the bait.  It’s a tiresome pattern.

SAD...

Hi Fakenews. Tell us about your dogballs.

 

Look, this thread has chapters. Significant court reversals happened, in a pattern, after the thread began.

And the CT law was just part of a simiilar pattern in the courts, it stands as one of  FOUR district courts which upheld AW bans. The courts have ruled on the stoopiditity of battle guns, using Heller guidelines rejecting weapons most useful in battlefield application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Tom is willfully conflating dogballs with battle guns.


That's not true.

On 11/8/2017 at 8:53 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Speaking of Stoopid...

Feinstein Did Something

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

Her new assault weapons ban exempts your gun, Billy. It does, however, ban my wife's Ruger0-dogballs. Because a0-dogballs is soooo much more lethal than a Mini 14.

I know, I know, it's stoooopid to actually look at details or respond to a gun ban with anything other than a simple "yes."

When I used my vast mental powers to cause DiFi and co to write a bill conflating squirrel shooters with battle guns, it actually happened while I was having a nightmare, not awake, so it wasn't willful at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Tom is willfully conflating dogballs with battle guns.


That's not true.

That did it. You, sir, are a liar.

 

On 8/9/2018 at 11:45 PM, jocal505 said:

And the CT law was just part of a simiilar pattern in the courts, it stands as one of  FOUR district courts which upheld AW bans. The courts have ruled on the stoopiditity of battle guns, using Heller guidelines rejecting weapons most useful in battlefield application.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

That did it. You, sir, are a liar.

 

 

Darn, you caught me. I really never had a nightmare that caused DiFi to call guns like this battle guns. She just did it all on her own.

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice flower. It lives is a database, and so does this:

Quote

Kolbe, Section III C.

We could resolve the Second Amendment aspects of this appeal by adopting the district court’s sound analysis and thereby follow the lead of our distinguished colleagues on the Second and District of Columbia Circuits. That is, we could simply assume that the assault weapons and large-capacity magazines outlawed in Maryland are protected by the Second Amendment and then deem the FSA constitutional under the intermediate scrutiny standard of review.

 

 It is more appropriate, however, in light of the dissent’s view that such constitutional protection exists, that we first acknowledge what the Supreme Court’s Heller decision makes clear: Because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — they are among those arms that the Second Amendment does not shield. See Heller, 554 U.S. at 627 (recognizing that “M-16 rifles and the like” are not constitutionally protected).

P59 Popularity

D. We are confident that our approach here is entirely faithful to the Heller decision and appropriately protective of the core Second Amendment right. In contrast, our dissenting colleagues would expand that constitutional protection to even exceptionally lethal weapons of war and then decree that strict scrutiny is applicable to any prohibition against the possession of those or other protected weapons in the home.

At bottom, the dissent concludes that the so-called popularity of the banned assault weapons --- which were owned by less than 1% of Americans as recently as 2013 --- inhibits any effort by the other 99% to stop those weapons from being used again and again to perpetrate mass slaughters. We simply cannot agree.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3470578-Kolbe-v-Hogan-en-Banc-Opinion.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2018 at 8:05 AM, jocal505 said:

Because the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — they are among those arms that the Second Amendment does not shield.

This is an interesting point.

As you may recall, Billy's Mini-14 is not an assault weapon. It has ordinary, non-scary wood furniture.

The gun with the flower on the thread protector is an assault weapon.

Of the two, which do you think is more "like" an M-16?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

This is an interesting point.

As you may recall, Billy's Mini-14 is not an assault weapon. It has ordinary, non-scary wood furniture.

The gun with the flower on the thread protector is an assault weapon.

 

They call him Tommy Dogballs now. NOTE: He went loopy about dogballs in Dec. of 2016, three months before battle guns were ruled to be unprotected by the courts and constitution. 

Quote

Of the two, which do you think is more "like" an M-16?

I don't give a shit. I am numb, over-exposure to dogballs is blocking my brain. The two year anniversary of your battle weapon confusion is approaching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

This is an interesting point.

As you may recall, Billy's Mini-14 is not an assault weapon. It has ordinary, non-scary wood furniture.

The gun with the flower on the thread protector is an assault weapon.

Of the two, which do you think is more "like" an M-16?

 

Correct, but it fires semi-auto, same as an AR-15 which IS considered to be an assault weapon, and therefore illegal in my state...  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billy backstay said:

 

Correct, but it (the Ruger Mini 14) fires semi-auto, same as an AR-15 which IS considered to be an assault weapon, and therefore illegal in my state...  

Am I reading this correctly, bb? All semi-automatics are drawn into the category of AW in CT? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Am I reading this correctly, bb? All semi-automatics are drawn into the category of AW in CT? 

 

The law spells out which are permitted and which are not.  The Ruger "Ranch Rifle" Mini-14 that I have, with a large scope is legal, the AR-15 is a "Scary Black Gun", so it is not permitted.  My 20 round magazine was licensed to me only, by the state, a couple of months before it became illegal to own. The Ranch Rifle is every bit as utilitarian as the AR-15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billy backstay said:

Correct, but it fires semi-auto, same as an AR-15 which IS considered to be an assault weapon, and therefore illegal in my state... 

 Your words seem to make some AW decision in CT  based on the semi-automatic feature itself. Many semi-automatics, most of other calibers, are not AW's in CT as far as I know.

Let's retain the capability of distinguishing between generic semi-auto's, and battle gun semi-auto's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Let's retain the capability of distinguishing between generic semi-auto's, and battle gun semi-auto's.

You mean like this:

SWVictoryFlower.jpg

Which category does it fall in???  Is this a generic or a battlegun semi-auto???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Am I reading this correctly, bb? All semi-automatics are drawn into the category of AW in CT? 

Instead of relying on someone else Joe, maybe you could find the CT gov't website and look it up yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if it's a wooden stock or a black pistol-grip number, a semi-auto dogballs with a 20-round mag would be sufficient for a massacre. If you honestly need a banana-mag semi-auto of whatever caliber, you must live in a fucking scary place.

For farm varmints, a bolt-action 5-round dogballs and a traditional double-barrel 12-gauge shottie are more than adequate. For home defence if you live in a war zone, the shotgun will do.

A biologist friend who used to do research around crocodile nests had a permit for a .44 Mag revolver. If he was American he'd probably have wanted a belt-fed .50 M2, grenades, and a flamethrower.    

He was attacked a few times by angry huge mama crocs, but fast running/dodging and good tree-climbing skills meant he never had to use the Dirty Harry gun. He reckoned it near broke his wrist training with it at the range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Happy said:

Doesn't matter if it's a wooden stock or a black pistol-grip number, a semi-auto dogballs with a 20-round mag would be sufficient for a massacre. If you honestly need a banana-mag semi-auto of whatever caliber, you must live in a fucking scary place.

If you honestly think trying to ban and confiscate my assault weapon is necessary, you must live in a fucking delusional place. As noted upthread, the compliance rate with the confiscation program in Billy's state is dismally low. CT has created "scores of thousands" of new felons and that hasn't increased public safety one bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no interest in what happens with US gun laws. I don't live there (thank fuck) and have no plans to ever visit.

Just think that the general obsession with owning lots of unneeded firepower is weird and dangerous. 

Americans are becoming scared pussies. I used to read about Americans who took on 10-foot grizzly bears armed with just a large Bowie knife and stunning BO.

Where are those men now? Whining about having to comply with a few regulations so they can have that big potent-looking banana mag on their gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Happy said:

Americans are becoming scared pussies.

I see this a lot and always ask the same question:

Do you lock your doors? Because I don't own a key to my house, which has never been locked.

Oddly, no one answers the question. Maybe you'll be first. Or maybe you're another anonymous person who is scared and hides behind locked doors like he hides his real name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lost the front door key probably ten years ago. We always leave it open at night anyway, so the dog can crap outside and patrol. We live on 6 acres adjoining a national wilderness park.

If snakes come in, she kills them. If mice come in, they're dead. She's also tackled wild pigs. She's a Ridgeback/Belgian Shepherd/Rottweiler cross.

I sleep well. I don't want or need a gun.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Happy said:

Lost the front door key probably ten years ago. We always leave it open at night anyway, so the dog can crap outside and patrol. We live on 6 acres adjoining a national wilderness park.

If snakes come in, she kills them. If mice come in, they're dead. She's also tackled wild pigs. She's a Ridgeback/Belgian Shepherd/Rottweiler cross.

I sleep well. I don't want or need a gun.

^^^An effective form of self defense, in action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I see this a lot and always ask the same question:

I see Tommy Dogballs make claims about the founding fathers, and I always ask the same question: do you believe in Joyce Lee Malcolm's version of history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
18 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
39 minutes ago, Happy said:

Lost the front door key probably ten years ago. We always leave it open at night anyway, so the dog can crap outside and patrol. We live on 6 acres adjoining a national wilderness park.

If snakes come in, she kills them. If mice come in, they're dead. She's also tackled wild pigs. She's a Ridgeback/Belgian Shepherd/Rottweiler cross.

I sleep well. I don't want or need a gun.

^^^An effective form of self defense, in action.

Kinda hard to carry a Ridgeback/Belgian Shepherd/Rottweiler cross dog in your purse with you to work and back....  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Kinda hard to carry a Ridgeback/Belgian Shepherd/Rottweiler cross dog in your purse with you to work and back....  Just saying.

I have four unarmed sisters, and I think they would just cross the street to avoid you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I have four unarmed sisters, and I think they would just cross the street to avoid you.

<shrug>  They shouldn't because I'm not a threat to them.  However the 6'4 220lb armed with a knife rapist waiting for them in the ally is.  What is their self-defense plan should they encounter that guy?  Lie back and think of England, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bpm57 said:

Instead of relying on someone else Joe, maybe you could find the CT gov't website and look it up yourself.

I was hinting that the man was mistaken. His clarification was quite poor.

There are no sweeping gun laws  in CT which outlaw generic semi-autos, just the semi auto AW's of the .223 variety and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

<shrug>  They shouldn't because I'm not a threat to them.  However the 6'4 220lb armed with a knife rapist waiting for them in the ally is.  What is their self-defense plan should they encounter that guy?  Lie back and think of England, right?

My sisters can sniff out your elk Jeffie. They would cross the street to avoid you. Your party conversations with them would be brief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I was hinting that the man was mistaken. His clarification was quite poor.

There are no sweeping gun laws  in CT which outlaw generic semi-autos, just the semi auto AW's of the .223 variety and the like.

 

Mini-14 is legal and uses .223 NATO rounds.  What was poor about my clarification?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Mini-14 is legal and uses .223 NATO rounds.  What was poor about my clarification?

Allow me to phrase the question again. It went unanswered by yourself.

Quote
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 9/18/2018 at 4:04 AM, billy backstay said:

Correct, but it (the Ruger Mini 14) fires semi-auto, same as an AR-15 which IS considered to be an assault weapon, and therefore illegal in my state...  

Am I reading this correctly, bb? All semi-automatics are drawn into the category of AW in CT? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Allow me to phrase the question again. It went unanswered by yourself.

 

 

I thought I did answer your question, when I replied that the law specifies which semi-autos are not permitted.  Specifically the AR-15 is NOT, but the Mini-14 IS, and their respective functionality is nearly identical for all intents and purpose.   Ergo, the law is hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

I thought I did answer your question, when I replied that the law specifies which semi-autos are not permitted.  Specifically the AR-15 is NOT, but the Mini-14 IS, and their respective functionality is nearly identical for all intents and purpose.   Ergo, the law is hypocritical.

Okay, thanks.

When hypocrisy is conquered, we will see a better day. But until then, you guys will scream about ANY specifics. Yet the over the top bits need to go IMO. This got out of hand long ago.

Go ahead. Since you don't care for where CT drew the line, please cough up some skookum list of bannable guns. If not forthcoming, you de-credit all this AW definition bullshit by default, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Okay, thanks.

When hypocrisy is conquered, we will see a better day. But until then, you guys will scream about ANY specifics. Yet the over the top bits need to go IMO. This got out of hand long ago.

Go ahead. Since you don't care for where CT drew the line, please cough up some skookum list of bannable guns. If not forthcoming, you de-credit all this AW definition bullshit by default, IMO.

 

Why do you think I don't care about the laws of my state?  Not that I can do anything about them, one way or the other.....

And what do I de-credit, whatever that means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billy backstay said:

 

Why do you think I don't care about the laws of my state?  Not that I can do anything about them, one way or the other.....

And what do I de-credit, whatever that means?

Your mini dodged the bullet, billy, and this pleases me. And you went legal with it, which is sustainable citizenship. You are a model for future gun ownership. And I am a happy guy, about the Mini.

But you are bitching.

Where's your damn list of over-the-top guns? Let's continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:

Your mini dodged the bullet, billy, and this pleases me. And you went legal with it, which is sustainable citizenship. You are a model for future gun ownership. And I am a happy guy, about the Mini.

But you are bitching.

Where's your damn list of over-the-top guns? Let's continue.

 

Me bitching?  Not at all, I am fairly content with my bland existence.  Happy to have a job with healthcare, and mates boats to race on, and vacations in Europe.  Life couldn't be much sweeter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

 

Me bitching?  Not at all, I am fairly content with my bland existence.  Happy to have a job with healthcare, and mates boats to race on, and vacations in Europe.  Life couldn't be much sweeter!

Envy alone shall not turn me against you. And long live the Mini.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Envy alone shall not turn me against you. And long live the Mini.

 

FOR SURE!  But, I've concluded that a warmed over Miata, with a Turbo, might just be a more suitable summer, toy car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
17 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Where's your damn list of over-the-top guns? Let's continue.

Its right here:  

Yes, please let's continue.  We are waiting for you to tell us which ones are "over the top gunz".  We need to define that list.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Its right here:  

Yes, please let's continue.  We are waiting for you to tell us which ones are "over the top gunz".  We need to define that list.  

 

YOU need to define it. I need only to define an amalgam of undesirable features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really about the guns. A single-shot dogballs short derringer can kill you just as dead as an AK47 on full auto.

The problem is any American with a clean history can buy a gun. If they don't want to go through the legal hoops, they can buy one (or many) at legal gun shows.

A tiny percentage of those Americans will experience some kind of mental episode that makes them snap and go out and shoot lots of people and themselves. If they didn't have guns, they'd likely kick a few windows in, punch a cop or two, no dead bodies left for families to identify.

The cops have to assume that every asshole has a gun and is willing to shoot them. As a result, many unarmed innocents get killed by twitchy cops.

It's not going to change. America's love of gun ownership for all is stronger than America's pain over gun massacres at schools, concerts, churches, workplaces. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Happy said:

(clipped from a good post, which I agree with, except for this bit)

It's not going to change. America's love of gun ownership for all is stronger than America's pain over gun massacres at schools, concerts, churches, workplaces. 

I think it's changing. At the end of the day, the courts dictate the acceptability of gun extremism. 

Quote

Gun-rights groups launched more than 900 challenges to gun regulations from 2008 to 2015, according to a study last year by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that supports increased gun regulation. Courts have upheld the regulations in 96% of them.  http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-supreme-court-turns-away-legal-challenge-to-semiautomatic-rifle-ban-1466431947?mod=trending_now_3

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Happy said:

The problem is any American with a clean history can buy a gun. If they don't want to go through the legal hoops, they can buy one (or many) at legal gun shows.

You've never been to a gun show, have you?

I have. It is possible to find a few private sellers wandering around with guns they wish to sell, which might or might not be the gun you wish to buy. Never has been in my case. The idea that you could find lots of guns you'd want from private dealers like our own badlat is just not realistic.

Other than a handful of private sellers, there are tables and tables filled by gun dealers, where a buyer goes through the same "legal hoops" as they would back at the store or anywhere else a dealer sells a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, jocal505 said:
21 hours ago, billy backstay said:

 

Why do you think I don't care about the laws of my state?  Not that I can do anything about them, one way or the other.....

And what do I de-credit, whatever that means?

Your mini dodged the bullet, billy, and this pleases me. And you went legal with it, which is sustainable citizenship. You are a model for future gun ownership.

There's nothing sustainable about billy's registered magazine. The future of it was assured when he registered it: it will belong to the state upon his death. That's why the vast majority of owners have been Uncooperative about signing up for the confiscation program.

I suspect that's the model for all gun ownership that would please you most and I seriously doubt you're really pleased that DiFi omitted Billy's gun from her ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

You've never been to a gun show, have you?

I have. It is possible to find a few private sellers wandering around with guns they wish to sell, which might or might not be the gun you wish to buy. Never has been in my case. The idea that you could find lots of guns you'd want from private dealers like our own badlat is just not realistic.

Other than a handful of private sellers, there are tables and tables filled by gun dealers, where a buyer goes through the same "legal hoops" as they would back at the store or anywhere else a dealer sells a gun.

What a rosy picture, Tom.

Dr. Garen Wintemute went to scores of gun shows in 19 states.

  • He came back with photographic evidence of rampant straw purchases.
  • He found a lot of CA license plates at NV gun shows, too. 
  • Both Canada and Mexico have formally complained about the laxness of U.S.  gun shows in general.
Quote
Quote

 "Inside Gun Shows: What Goes on When Everybody Thinks Nobody’s Watching,"

 This comprehensive, 300-page report provides a “you are there” exposure to the issue based on direct observations made at 78 gun shows in 19 states, most of them between 2005 and 2008. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20090923_gun_study/index.html

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I seriously doubt you're really pleased that DiFi omitted Billy's gun from her ban.

It sounds like a nice toy, by all accounts. It's the AW I would choose, in a different environment. I am Joe and I  am pleased you guys get to enjoy it into the indefinite future.  I  only regret all the angst Di-fi has caused you, with such inexcusable hypocrisy and all.

 

11 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's why the vast majority of owners have been Uncooperative about signing up for the confiscation program.

You are the vulture circling above them, you will feed and thrive on such disaster. You feed on the garbage, the detritus of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

There's nothing sustainable about billy's registered magazine. The future of it was assured when he registered it: it will belong to the state upon his death. That's why the vast majority of owners have been Uncooperative about signing up for the confiscation program.

I suspect that's the model for all gun ownership that would please you most and I seriously doubt you're really pleased that DiFi omitted Billy's gun from her ban.

 

What did the Senator from California have to do with the State of CT's banning certain semi-auto rifles, but not others??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

So Californians are gun importers? Is that bad?

It depends on whether interstate trafficking of contraband was involved. If so, do they get a tsk tsk from Tommy Dogballs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
17 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I seriously doubt you're really pleased that DiFi omitted Billy's gun from her ban.

It sounds like a nice toy, by all accounts. It's the AW I would choose, in a different environment. I am Joe and I  am pleased you guys get to enjoy it into the indefinite future.

Billy's not immortal. Only the Uncooperative gun owners will get to enjoy their property into the indefinite future, which is the very reason they're Uncooperative.

2 minutes ago, billy backstay said:

What did the Senator from California have to do with the State of CT's banning certain semi-auto rifles, but not others??

When I read her ban and felt inclined to post about it in PA, I thought about starting a new thread but decided we have a thread about STOOPID gun laws already so I posted about it in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Billy's not immortal. Only the Uncooperative gun owners will get to enjoy their property into the indefinite future, which is the very reason they're Uncooperative.

Where will you hide your AW? Your choices are limited by the weather, and even by how buildings are built.

Your long term success of this hiding depends on the success of your marriage, given common custody battle issues and nasty divorce situations. If your kids see the gun, they must become complicit in lying about it. This is a creepy, shifty, move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
10 hours ago, Happy said:

If they don't want to go through the legal hoops, they can buy one (or many) at legal gun shows.

YOU LIE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

SO DO YOU JEFF

Yeah?  Cite it then, angry boi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the gun show private sellers have had to tighten up their act, that's good. 

Fact remains, majority of the  public massacres are committed with guns that the shooter purchased and registered legally.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 minutes ago, Happy said:

Fact remains, majority of the  public massacres are committed with guns that the shooter purchased and registered legally.

Zactly.  So how do you stop these fucks from committing crimes???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Zactly.  So how do you stop these fucks from committing crimes???

Change your laws so these fucks can't buy a gun. Fucking obvious and simple.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/8/2017 at 8:53 PM, dogballs Tom said:

Speaking of Stoopid...

Feinstein Did Something

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

Her new assault weapons ban exempts your gun, Billy. It does, however, ban my wife's Ruger0-dogballs. Because a0-dogballs is soooo much more lethal than a Mini 14.

I know, I know, it's stoooopid to actually look at details or respond to a gun ban with anything other than a simple "yes."

Almost a year later...

21 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I looked at it. 100 pages of single-spaced, outlawed gun models, and 25 pages of text.  DiFi is being very specific. It seems she is attempting to represent your interests, with integrity, but that you are insatiable for details. 


You finally got around to looking at the sacred text that embodies the TeamD Holy Crusade?

I have no interest in seeing my wife's gun banned. I have no interest in taking people to town for a background check before they're allowed to shoot it in my yard. Knowing those details, I oppose her stoopid law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2018 at 3:59 AM, Happy said:

Change your laws so these fucks can't buy a gun. Fucking obvious and simple.

 

 

That's how we solved the whole alcohol problem. It worked so well, we're using it against other drugs. As you may have noticed, that problem is more and more SOLved every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

. I have no interest in taking people to town for a background check before they're allowed to shoot it in my yard.

:rolleyes:.What a crybaby. Did you take Noel from Australia to town?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 1:07 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

(After being called a liar) Yeah?  Cite it then, angry boi.

Don't mind me stepping in, I hope. What's this?

Quote

JBSF, on 02 Jan 2017 - 11:33 AM, said:

I don't recall ever saying that all or most gun homicides were gang related.

JBSF Posted 06 June 2015 - 09:50 PM

Joke-awf thinks women should just lay there and take it while they are being raped and killed. To do anything to protect themselves would mean they are bloodthirsty vigilantes. 

You have claimed that "Few if any states have weak CC requirements," yet twelve states have NO requirements. You have claimed "We have federal background checks," but 23% of the sales, the private ones, have none.

Hmm, in the interchange below, one person in lying, while bullying away... and while claiming that the other is a liar.

Pee Wee dresses for Jeffie.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Help me out here joey..... WTF do CC requirements or private sales have to do with Gang violence or you thinking women defending themselves against rape are vigilantes????  You are as all over the map as Gaytor is all over the road on his vespa after a night of drinking in the Key West gay bars.  NTTAWWT.

We are sorting out misc. Jeffie lies, at your request. You picked those topics, with your lips moving. Even Pee Wee becomes dubious, eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

You finally got around to looking at the sacred text that embodies the TeamD Holy Crusade?

Tom, I didn't miss anything with that choice. But you actually found Winkler and Volokh for me.

let's play BOOKMOBILE RODEO with MR. TOM RAY

Tell you what, bigmouth. I'll read 300 pages of anything you want and come back and do a book report on it, here, within two weeks. But in return, you have to read 300 pages of the MLK of my choosing, and present a book report on it, here, in the same timeframe. Are we on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jocal505 said:
22 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I think our confiscation programs won't work in the way you think because so many of us are Uncooperative. CT is a relatively liberal state and they have "scores of thousands" of new felons who didn't sign up to have their property confiscated. We're seeing similar compliance rates in the NJ and Cali confiscation programs. The majority of gun owners simply won't comply, and it's not because we're mass murderers.

These guns are not in lawful use at this time. And you are a vulture, celebrating their lawlessness! Interesting.

You can't build upon some lawful group's behavior? You want to lead and give voice to a body of scofflaws, and criminals? You're going to feature an undesirable lot, IMO.


Pointing a fact out is not celebrating it. Fact is, gun owners are Uncooperative when it comes to confiscation of their previously-legal property.

I would celebrate if grabberz quit trying to confiscate property that is doing no harm. But they think that just by existing, a gun is doing harm unless it is safely in government hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Fact is, gun owners are Uncooperative when it comes to confiscation of their previously-legal property.

This is a sweeping generalization. You need it to be wrong, too.

Kolbe determined that only 1% of gun owners own AW's (and thar each owns an average of three, but I digress). If every single AW owner hid his gun, 99% of gu owners would be in compliance.

Quote

But they think that just by existing, a gun is doing harm unless it is safely in government hands.

 

This is merely your thought pattern, just victimology, unless you can identify and cite "them."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2018 at 1:02 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
On 9/20/2018 at 12:57 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

(To MJ) YOU LIE! (that is, about gun shows offering guns free of legal hoops) 

SO DO YOU JEFF

 

On 9/20/2018 at 1:07 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah?  Cite it then, angry boi.

Allow me.  Here's the guy who was making regular runs with duffel bags full of guns. He got them free of legal hoops at gun shows,  took them to Chicago, for several years.

 

The Man With the Duffle Bags

In May of last year, David Lewisbey was sent to prison for 17 years after he was convicted of a scheme whereby he would buy “duffel bags full of guns” at Indiana gun shows and then resell them in Chicago, Illinois. Lewisbey, who had an otherwise clean criminal record, sold as many as 43 guns in a single weekend, and hundreds more between 2008 and 2012.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/hillary-clinton-background-check-plan/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
18 hours ago, jocal505 said:
On 9/21/2018 at 12:07 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah?  Cite it then, angry boi.

Allow me.  Here's the guy who was making regular runs with duffel bags full of guns. He got them free of legal hoops at gun shows,  took them to Chicago, for several years.

  Quote
 

The Man With the Duffle Bags

In May of last year, David Lewisbey was sent to prison for 17 years after he was convicted of a scheme whereby he would buy “duffel bags full of guns” at Indiana gun shows and then resell them in Chicago, Illinois. Lewisbey, who had an otherwise clean criminal record, sold as many as 43 guns in a single weekend, and hundreds more between 2008 and 2012.

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/hillary-clinton-background-check-plan/

Where in your link did it say he bought them w/o a BGC?  It just said he bought them at a gunshow.  Nothing whatsoever shows he bought them thru a private seller with no BGC.  As I hope you are aware of by now, private sellers are a tiny minority of gun show sales.  Dealers are the vast majority of the sellers there and they have to conduct a BGC at the gunshow just as if they were at their gun store.

Note it also said that the perp "had an otherwise clean criminal record", which meant he would have passed any background check anywhere - store or gun show.  So your link proves NOTHING.  As usual......  just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Kolbe determined that only 1% of gun owners own AW's (and thar each owns an average of three, but I digress).

Link/Cite?  I think that number is way way wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:
20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Kolbe determined that only 1% of gun owners own AW's (and thar each owns an average of three, but I digress).

Link/Cite?  I think that number is way way wrong.

I agree. I think the number is closer to 99% of gun owners own AW's, since "AW" just means "gun that TeamD wants to ban." Might even be 100%.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

True.  I'm still waiting for joe to explain how a gun generates goodness so I can find some goodness generating gunz to buy.  I'm in the market for some new gunz, but I would like some direction this time so I don't buy the wrong ones.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just feeling inadequate since I only own two assault weapons and the average is three.

Maybe I'll have to get that S&W Victory and put a sombrero on the thread protector after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Link/Cite?  I think that number is way way wrong.

The Kolbe court used the NSSf numbers, as presented before them. See p 59, near the bottom.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3470578-Kolbe-v-Hogan-en-Banc-Opinion.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

I agree. I think the number is closer to 99% of gun owners own AW's, since "AW" just means "gun that TeamD wants to ban." Might even be 100%.

A lonely buzzard circles over Scalia's grave. Heller wasn't good enough for this noisy bird.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

What page???  I did a wordsearch on it for assault weapon, gun owner and 1% and found nothing.

Joe's not very good at this. It's page 23 and near the top. It says this:

Quote

The State has calculated that — accepting the plaintiffs’ estimate that there were at least 8 million FSA - banned assault weapons in circulation in the United States by 2013 — those weapons comprised less than 3% of the more than 300 million firearms in this country. Moreover, premised on the plaintiffs’ evidence that owners of the banned assault weapons possessed an average of 3.1 of them in 2013, the State has reckoned that less than 1% of Americans owned such a weapon that year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

Joe's not very good at this. It's page 23 and near the top. It says this:

That's not my source. The NSSF's own calculation in 2013 is my source.