Sign in to follow this  
Plenipotentiary Tom

Florida Gun Ban Proposed

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

No. First of all, this is a delayed confiscation program, so my heirs would be required to turn it in, not me. California is the one with the immediate confiscation program.

But I would be like about 85% of assault weapon owners up in CT and would be Uncooperative about registering my assault weapon. Since its existence is already public knowledge, I would also acquire a few more guns in private sales and would never mention them in public. OK, more than a few. I know how the prices will skyrocket after a ban and would buy extras to sell.

Basically, if grabberz are going to continue with the idea that my old .22 is a battlefield weapon that must be banned, I will resist that effort because I disagree.

Well, we now know beyond doubt what sort of person you are. I hope you don’t “disagree” with the laws against murder and mayhem. 

Have a nice day. 

Share this post


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

Well, we now know beyond doubt what sort of person you are. I hope you don’t “disagree” with the laws against murder and mayhem. 

Have a nice day. 

If failure to sign up for a confiscation program indicated murderous intent, don't you think CT would have a bit of a problem with the scores of thousands of assault weapon owners who haven't signed up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

POS time, with Tom Ray. Same old deal. 

Share this post


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

If you hope the .22 ban in this thread doesn't happen, why curse me and call me a liar for bringing it up? If people like us who oppose such measures don't speak out, who will?

And how does my willingness to say that this ban should not be passed make me responsible if it is passed? I think those who support it are responsible, along with those like yourself who denounce people who oppose it and those who oppose it but lack the courage of their convictions to say so.

Why? Because you are the opposite of those you complain about. A total ban has less chance than a snowball in hell yet every conversation you fixate on your .22  with the conclusion that you oppose any change in gun law.  Something is going to happen and you can either help or get run over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should add that I didn't realize I was posting in the FL gun thread.  All this shit just runs together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Why? Because you are the opposite of those you complain about. A total ban has less chance than a snowball in hell yet every conversation you fixate on your .22  with the conclusion that you oppose any change in gun law.  Something is going to happen and you can either help or get run over.

That's your conclusion, not mine.

I talk about my gun and my wife's because I think that reasonable people don't consider them assault weapons. But legislators in my state do, and Diane Feinstein agrees with respect to my wife's .22.

Pointing out when they are being unreasonable is intended to help. If you're puzzled about why people aren't flocking to support her latest attempt to DO SOMETHING, perhaps it's because lots of them don't consider a Ruger 10-22 to be an assault weapon and don't think I should have to go to town to get a background check before letting someone fire it in my back yard, as she also proposes. "They must be stupid people who hate kids" isn't the only possible reason to oppose such a bill.

Share this post


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

That's your conclusion, not mine.

I talk about my gun and my wife's because I think that reasonable people don't consider them assault weapons. But legislators in my state do, and Diane Feinstein agrees with respect to my wife's .22.

Pointing out when they are being unreasonable is intended to help. If you're puzzled about why people aren't flocking to support her latest attempt to DO SOMETHING, perhaps it's because lots of them don't consider a Ruger 10-22 to be an assault weapon and don't think I should have to go to town to get a background check before letting someone fire it in my back yard, as she also proposes. "They must be stupid people who hate kids" isn't the only possible reason to oppose such a bill.

I promise to not post in this thread again since I don't, never have and most likely never will live in Florida.  If you have supported some form of restrictions on guns I missed it ( in fairness I try to avoid 2A threads like the plague or the flu).  There are people who advocate for a total ban on guns, I can respect their views while also realizing it ain't going to happen, at least not in my lifetime.  There are people who oppose any change and for that I can only shake my head as change is coming and if they aren't helping they will just make it worse. 

Not that long ago I again considered buying a .223 AR type rifle and decided it made less sense than buying another boat.  And something else I don't need to worry about keeping secured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

I promise to not post in this thread again since I don't, never have and most likely never will live in Florida.  If you have supported some form of restrictions on guns I missed it ( in fairness I try to avoid 2A threads like the plague or the flu).  There are people who advocate for a total ban on guns, I can respect their views while also realizing it ain't going to happen, at least not in my lifetime.  There are people who oppose any change and for that I can only shake my head as change is coming and if they aren't helping they will just make it worse. 

Not that long ago I again considered buying a .223 AR type rifle and decided it made less sense than buying another boat.  And something else I don't need to worry about keeping secured.

Yes, you've missed my support for attempts to disarm domestic violence offenders, my opposition to the SYG law, and probably others. Instead of asserting that I support no laws, you could have asked.

I can't respect those who advocate a total ban on guns any more than I can respect Zero Tolerance advocates of any other form of prohibition and I'm glad it won't happen here any more than it has happened anywhere else in the world.

I don't know of anyone who opposes any change. The moronic ones among my elk say in earnest what (I think) Gouv says to make a point: no gun laws are constitutional. I agree they're not helpful. Gouv is trying to make a point and I think it's unnecessary but he's not a moron and I'm not including him in the unhelpful elk.

I only occasionally consider buying an AR type gun, mostly when I'm posting on here. But the feeling always goes away and is overwhelmed by the desire to buy more boats and boaty stuff as soon as I go outside. So at least we agree on one thing!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, d'ranger said:

I promise to not post in this thread again since I don't, never have and most likely never will live in Florida. 

Fair enough, but if you want to talk more about how you

On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, d'ranger said:

don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything 22lr. 


Then we can discuss DiFi's law that covers my wife's Ruger 10-22. Since you don't follow the gun threads, I should let you know that I classified it under things that are Stoooopid and put it here but Jeff felt it deserved a new thread, which is here.

The Stooopid thread has the actual text of the part of the law covering my wife's .22.

I agree with you that DiFi is not a reasonable person, but she is a powerful US Senator and what she proposes is relevant to the discussion IMO.

Share this post


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

Fair enough, but if you want to talk more about how you


Then we can discuss DiFi's law that covers my wife's Ruger 10-22. Since you don't follow the gun threads, I should let you know that I classified it under things that are Stoooopid and put it here but Jeff felt it deserved a new thread, which is here.

The Stooopid thread has the actual text of the part of the law covering my wife's .22.

I agree with you that DiFi is not a reasonable person, but she is a powerful US Senator and what she proposes is relevant to the discussion IMO.

same crap a few hundred times? how did you  get tossed out of two private high schools?

Share this post


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

Untitled.jpg.8299df783f507c327f4daf765aabe112.jpg

 

I'm glad to see that our legislature doesn't think BJ and I caused this shooting by owning our .22's. I don't think I caused it. It's uncertain whether BJ thinks he caused it and continues to do the thing he thinks caused it. He won't say whether he's that kind of monster or not, he just thinks I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 20/02/2018 at 2:40 AM, d'ranger said:

I should add that I didn't realize I was posting in the FL gun thread.  All this shit just runs together. 

Tom likes to drag his responses around to play games. You have to double check when he quotes you to make sure the context is correct because he likes to change it then abuse your assumption you were continuing a different discussion than the one your post came from.

Share this post


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

 

I'm glad to see that our legislature doesn't think BJ and I caused this shooting by owning our .22's. I don't think I caused it. It's uncertain whether BJ thinks he caused it and continues to do the thing he thinks caused it. He won't say whether he's that kind of monster or not, he just thinks I am.

BJ can't fit a long gun in his mailbox.

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

BJ can't fit a long gun in his mailbox.

 

You can if you fold it enough times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Saorsa said:
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

I'm glad to see that our legislature doesn't think BJ and I caused this shooting by owning our .22's. I don't think I caused it. It's uncertain whether BJ thinks he caused it and continues to do the thing he thinks caused it. He won't say whether he's that kind of monster or not, he just thinks I am.

BJ can't fit a long gun in his mailbox.

Bah. The deaths of kids in a neighboring state created a legislative emergency affecting the entire state of New York, such that they couldn't just follow the normal rules of debate and amendment on the SAFE Act.

There are airplanes. If he's really causing the deaths of kids by owning his .22, he can fly back here and destroy it or give it to the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Tom likes to drag his responses around to play games. You have to double check when he quotes you to make sure the context is correct because he likes to change it then abuse your assumption you were continuing a different discussion than the one your post came from.

Correct, about ambushes into other threads, and correct about Tom quoting partial shit out of context. He just grabs some phrase, and speechifies in some other setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Righty_tighty_lefty_dumbas said:

Hey boy how you feeling about FL not even talking about guns? Yeah working in your favor? Not so much!

FL looks pretty bad right now.

I'm unsure what you are claiming.  But FL has an angry legislator calling out Marion Hammer, by name, in public.  And  the survivor kids got Trump's attention., and broad media attention.  The Gunshine State needs to sort things out.

FL gun control.jpg

Share this post


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

Well, it’s Florida -

2358C826-FD00-41F9-A8A2-F0B996D2CD44.jpeg

97216CFA-E311-471F-B4BE-A88779188B98.jpeg


Too bad we have Puritans in the R party who want to censor sexual expression. Would be nice to get a few libertarians in there to rein that shit in.

But I'm glad to see that our legislature isn't interested in making extraordinary procedural moves to ban and confiscate our .22's. That means I still don't have to join the NRA and can continue devoting discretionary income to the fleet instead of political contributions.

Thanks for that bit of good news, Sean!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida decreed AW's for all school officers yesterday. What a fine mark of achievement. Feeling pretty heady this morning, @Uncooperative Tom?

florida.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mid said:

Over here Tom , your very own thread , knock yourself out  :D


I think one that actually links to and comments on the law in question is a bit better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2018 at 1:40 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:


Too bad we have Puritans in the R party who want to censor sexual expression. Would be nice to get a few libertarians in there to rein that shit in.

But I'm glad to see that our legislature isn't interested in making extraordinary procedural moves to ban and confiscate our .22's. That means I still don't have to join the NRA and can continue devoting discretionary income to the fleet instead of political contributions.

Thanks for that bit of good news, Sean!

Tom loves to make fun of grieving students. Makes him feel all tough or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2018 at 11:39 AM, jocal505 said:

AW's for all school officers yesterday.

Cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this article in The Atlantic,

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

It's by an ER radiologist who claims that the damage from the higher-velocity AR-15 causes a lot more internal damage than lower-power weapons. In one case, she mentioned that one of the victims in Parkland didn't even have the organ that was hit, it was just shreds, and the patient died.

It's interesting for me, because I have read different things, for instance that low-power weapons are actually more dangerous because the projectile is more likely to bounce around internally. This radiologist's take doesn't agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I just read this article in The Atlantic,

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

It's by an ER radiologist who claims that the damage from the higher-velocity AR-15 causes a lot more internal damage than lower-power weapons. In one case, she mentioned that one of the victims in Parkland didn't even have the organ that was hit, it was just shreds, and the patient died.

It's interesting for me, because I have read different things, for instance that low-power weapons are actually more dangerous because the projectile is more likely to bounce around internally. This radiologist's take doesn't agree with that.

We've had arguments about this around here. Jeff is on the flick now, but strongly objected to this doctor's premises. I presented doctor descriptions with cites, Jeff djust oubled down. Five or more operations are needed for survivors. Flesh transfers are needed. Aw's are not a leading cause of spinal paralysis. Rep. Scalise had two operations, just for infection. These wounds are on a new level of gunshot injury.

From your article:

Quote

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim's body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and they do not bleed to death before being transported to our care at a trauma center, chances are, we can save the victim. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine cartridge with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

 

Share this post


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


I think one that actually links to and comments on the law in question is a bit better.

Would you call the law major legislation? You make sweeping insinuations about the WA law, and it's under the radar in the SAF's home town, Bellevue. I checked.

This is made-up shit Tom. AND boring.

Share this post


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

We've had arguments about this around here. Jeff is on the flick now, but strongly objected to this doctor's premises. I presented doctor descriptions with cites, Jeff djust oubled down. Five or more operations are needed for survivors. Flesh transfers are needed. Aw's are not a leading cause of spinal paralysis. Rep. Scalise had two operations, just for infection. These wounds are on a new level of gunshot injury.

From your article:

I'm sorry that JBSF is on the flick, he's a friendly fellow.

Off the subject of guns, but I didn't want to start a thread about it, I also read this article in The Atlantic about women with autism.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/02/women-camouflaging-autism/553901/

The most interesting bit to me is that autistic girls are more likely to mask their autism by being social and spending time around the other girls, while a tell for autism in boys is that they tend to play alone. The article suggests that autism may be just as common in men as women, but it isn't diagnosed.

Share this post


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

The metal detectors are also escalation. So are police APC's. All this for gunz? All this for violence?

So the only armed protection you find acceptable is for politicians and courts?

 

Share this post


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

I'm sorry that JBSF is on the flick, he's a friendly fellow.

Simple Jeff's head must have exploded, because he began to insinuate pedo.

Yes, he can be friendly, but he weaponizes the race issue, and uses rape as a two bit Jeffie offense. Repeatedly.

Quote

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. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bpm57 said:

So the only armed protection you find acceptable is for politicians and courts?

 

Got a cite bro?

Share this post


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

 

Ground Control to Major Tom???  are your circuits on??


Yes, I just have no interest in safe spaces where people jabber on and on about DOING SOMETHING without talking about what, specifically, they want to do.

That other thread seems popular with those who just want to talk about me or make vague suggestions to DO SOMETHING.

Reality check: DOING SOMETHING means banning .22's 100% of the time, since every assault weapons ban law I have read covers them.

Maybe someone has found one that does not cover .22's? I haven't seen it and will retract my statement in the unlikely event one should be posted.

Share this post


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


Yes, I just have no interest in safe spaces where people jabber on and on about DOING SOMETHING without talking about what, specifically, they want to do.

That other thread seems popular with those who just want to talk about me or make vague suggestions to DO SOMETHING.

Reality check: DOING SOMETHING means banning .22's 100% of the time, since every assault weapons ban law I have read covers them.

Maybe someone has found one that does not cover .22's? I haven't seen it and will retract my statement in the unlikely event one should be posted.

DOING SOMETHING: Wankeroo time with Tom Ray. How clever he is, and such a dynamo too, with a pretty stupid holding pattern more than a year old.

Quote

That other thread seems popular with those who just want to talk about me or make vague suggestions to DO SOMETHING.

You have made 

Share this post


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

Got a cite bro?

Did you read the message of yours that I quoted? Or do you find all armed security unacceptable?

Share this post


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

How clever he is, and such a dynamo too, with a pretty stupid holding pattern more than a year old.

I was hoping that the 2018 version would at least let people like us keep the .22's with fixed magazines, but no joy. It's still stupid.

Share this post


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

Did you read the message of yours that I quoted? Or do you find all armed security unacceptable?

Here it is.

Quote

(Joe) The metal detectors are also escalation. So are police APC's. All this for gunz? All this for violence?

Here is your question, again:

Quote

(Bpm) So the only armed protection you find acceptable is for politicians and courts?

I'm waiting, you hollow dud. You need to cite me saying what your claim says I said. Otherwise, you are making shit up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2018 at 12:54 PM, Sol Rosenberg said:

It would seem that the next generation is somewhat less than willing to swallow propaganda and bullshit, and does not wish to wait until March to march. 

28168779_1610141312354599_57591971590284


Gee, I wonder if they're interested in any specific bill that has been proposed?

Share this post


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

Gee, I wonder if they're interested in any specific bill that has been proposed?

 

That's quite a crowd. Your problem is more general than specific Tom. LMFAO.

Did you hear them chanting in unison, wearing orange, confronting the FL state lefislators in chamber? Marion Hammer's dupes were cowed in their shame, they shrunk down before the kids,on camera,  Shirley.

You are very screwed in FL, Tom. You are the most exposed of all by your ultra-weak gun laws, and have a most adamant base of young folk. Go Pulse Nightclub. Your  deterioration in post content will develop as you face the broad span between existing FL policy and what will be demanded by high schoolers.

We may have seen in round three how you are going to handle other rounds. But I hope you can do better.

Share this post


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

If only your lies were not so funny and blatant.

After AWBs failed twice since 2/14 we are still in great shape.

"The annual scorecard measures what lawyers at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence consider “the relative strength or weakness” of gun laws in each state in 2017. Gave FL an F"

Florida legislature, which has long been seen as a laboratory for gun-rights legislation that is tested elsewhere in the country, rejected a ban on assault weapons after Parkland.

 

so you can spew all your lies and bull shit, but the truth is easy to see. FL is progun and that is not changing any time soon.

First off, I see no lies in the facts I've stated.

A change seems to be happening. I'm not expecting it to be sudden, but I see a conclusive direction here. Even on Political Anarchy.

Tallahassee after Parkland.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FL Legislature DID SOMETHING

Quote

The bill bans bump stocks, increases the minimum age to buy a rifle from 18 to 21 — with exceptions for military and law enforcement officials — and imposes a three-day waiting period for all gun sales.

Bump stocka are stupid and so is banning them.

Feelgood BS but at least they failed to ban our .22's so that's good.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/02/2018 at 12:58 PM, mikewof said:

I'm sorry that JBSF is on the flick, he's a friendly fellow.

Yeah. A "friendly fellow" that will accuse someone of doing nothing but watch whilst their wife is raped in front of them. All because he gets frustrated at his failure to understand Australian law. Super friendly. :rolleyes: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other news, one of my lefty sailor buddies has been very active on FB since the Parkland murders.

I finally got tired of it and showed him where FL and US legislators want to ban his .22.

He STFU. Just like that.

So yeah, blah, blah, blah .22.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43325913

Florida shooting: Gun control law moves step closer

New gun control measures for Florida have passed another legal hurdle, weeks after one of the worst school shootings in US history.

The state's House of Representatives passed a bill raising the age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 and imposing a three-day waiting period on all gun sales.

The bill, already passed by the Senate, now goes to the state governor.

What is in the new law?

In addition to raising the age and bringing in the three-day waiting period, the legislation:

  • Introduces a voluntary armed "guardian programme" for schools, named after Aaron Feis, a coach who died in the Parkland shooting. It allows school personnel to be armed, subject to school district approval and specialist training
  • Classroom teachers are excluded from carrying arms unless they have a security forces background
  • Bans devices, such as bump stocks, that modify a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic
  • Raises mental health funding and increases the power to seize or ban guns under mental health concerns

The legislation does not include a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons like the AR-15, despite it being a key demand of Parkland students and their parents.

Florida law already mandates a three-day waiting period for the purchase of a handgun but a person as young as 18 can buy a rifle with no waiting period.

Share this post


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

So yeah, blah, blah, blah .22.

 

Share this post


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

The legislation does not include a ban on the sale of assault-style weapons like the AR-15 Ruger 10-22, despite it being a key demand of Parkland students and their parents.

I suspect many of those students would be as surprised as my formerly-supportive friend to learn that they were advocating banning ordinary .22's.

The campaign to make people think "assault weapon" equals "AR15" has been remarkably successful, as the quote from the Canadian in the topic post shows.

Going around and correcting that misunderstanding is slow work and would be impossible without the help of gungrabby legislators who never fail to include my wife's gun in an assault weapon ban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
On 3/8/2018 at 4:19 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

In other news, one of my lefty sailor buddies has been very active on FB since the Parkland murders.

I finally got tired of it and showed him where FL and US legislators want to ban his .22.

He STFU. Just like that.

So yeah, blah, blah, blah .22.

 

Yep, he had no response at all, much like yourself. Thanks for the demonstration. I know why he had no response and that's good enough for me.

Share this post


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

So yeah, blah, blah, blah .22.

 

Share this post


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

Yep, he had no response at all, much like yourself. Thanks for the demonstration. I know why he had no response and that's good enough for me.

You are so clever, Tom. You are something else buddy. You showed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Yep, he had no response at all, much like yourself. Thanks for the demonstration. I know why he had no response and that's good enough for me.

You are so clever, Tom. You are something else buddy. You showed him.

Fooling him into becoming a temporary advocate for banning his own gun was the really clever propaganda trick.

Showing him links to actual bills was all it took to bring his advocacy to an end. Really not all that difficult or clever by comparison. But thanks anyway.

Share this post


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

Fooling him into becoming a temporary advocate for banning his own gun was the really clever propaganda trick.

Showing him links to actual bills was all it took to bring his advocacy to an end. Really not all that difficult or clever by comparison. But thanks anyway.

Atta boy Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that didn't take long

Quote

 

The National Rifle Association has filed a federal lawsuit over gun control legislation Florida Gov. Rick Scott has signed, saying it violates the Second Amendment by raising the age to buy guns from 18 to 21.

The lawsuit came just hours after Gov. Scott, a Republican, signed the compromise bill Friday afternoon.

Lawyers for the NRA want a federal judge to block the new age restriction from taking effect.


 

And as always,

Quote

The bill fell short of achieving the ban on assault-style weapons sought by survivors.

The main thing being sought was to ban our .22's and I'm still glad they failed and glad they didn't even get close enough to prompt me to join the NRA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the part on registration:

Quote

     (b) An assault weapon A battlefield .22 or large standard capacity ammunition magazine
282  possessed pursuant to this section may not be sold or
283  transferred on or after January 1, 2018, to any person within
284  this state other than to a licensed gun dealer, as provided in
285  subsection (5), or by a bequest or intestate succession. A
286  person who obtains title to an assault weapon a battlefield .22 or large standard capacity
287  ammunition magazine for which a certificate of possession has
288  been issued under this section by bequest or intestate
289  succession shall, within 90 days of obtaining title, apply to
290  the Department of Law Enforcement for a certificate of
291  possession as provided in paragraph (a), render the weapon .22 or
292  large standard capacity ammunition magazine permanently inoperable, sell
293  the weapon .22 or large standard capacity ammunition magazine to a licensed
294  gun dealer, or remove the weapon .22 or large standard capacity ammunition
295  magazine from the state.

(edited a bit for accuracy. The "10" in Ruger 10-22 indicates the size of the standard magazine, but the topic law says more than 7 is "large" capacity, so in practice, "large" means "standard.")

The dates have been updated but the intent remains: use the registry as a tool to make sure the next generation can't own battlefield .22's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

The best part is hearing the moron squad saying that the left is driving those kids’ efforts. It is worse than that. Those kids are driving the left. They don’t believe the bullshit machine, and they are going to be voting for a long time. 


Those Parkland kids are also delightfully honest and have enough courage of their convictions to actually come out and say that the main SOMETHING they want done is to ban our .22's.

I mean ban assault weapons, of course. It's the same damn thing, but for some reason when I word it one way it's particularly annoying.

Share this post


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

I mean ban assault weapons, of course. It's the same damn thing, but for some reason when I word it one way it's particularly annoying.

Do you find value in being "particularly annoying"? How is that working for you so far? Isn't fifteen months enough?

Share this post


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

Do you find value in being "particularly annoying"? How is that working for you so far? Isn't fifteen months enough?

You are being ironic, right Joe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shots fired....

'The first casualty': NRA broadsides Florida House Speaker for gun control 'betrayal'

Source: Politico




By MARC CAPUTO 03/19/2018 01:21 PM EDT Updated 03/19/2018 01:48 PM EDT 

MIAMI — The National Rifle Association accused outgoing Florida House Speaker and likely gubernatorial candidate Richard Corcoran of a “betrayal” on Monday for his role in passing a gun control law for the first time since Republicans won control of the Florida Legislature two decades ago. 

“Speaker of the House Richard Corcoran (R) is adding insult to injury by calling the betrayal of law-abiding firearms owners ‘one of the greatest Second Amendment victories we’ve ever had,’” NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer said in a legislative update sent to members and posted on the website of the NRA’s lobbying arm. 

“One of the greatest Second Amendment victories we’ve ever had,” she wrote again for emphasis, “NOT !!!!!!” 

Hammer made clear that, though the law in question helps end “gun free zones” at many public schools, she and the NRA do not believe that the new three-day waiting period and 21-year age limit for long gun purchases is justified.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/03/19/the-first-casualty-nra-broadsides-florida-house-speaker-for-gun-control-betrayal-319476 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Untitled.jpg.99c344c2e3b359befc26c2214da79925.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Shots fired....

'The first casualty': NRA broadsides Florida House Speaker for gun control 'betrayal'

Source: Politico




By MARC CAPUTO 03/19/2018 01:21 PM EDT Updated 03/19/2018 01:48 PM EDT 

MIAMI — The National Rifle Association accused outgoing Florida House Speaker and likely gubernatorial candidate Richard Corcoran of a “betrayal” on Monday for his role in passing a gun control law for the first time since Republicans won control of the Florida Legislature two decades ago. 

“Speaker of the House Richard Corcoran (R) is adding insult to injury by calling the betrayal of law-abiding firearms owners ‘one of the greatest Second Amendment victories we’ve ever had,’” NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer said in a legislative update sent to members and posted on the website of the NRA’s lobbying arm. 

“One of the greatest Second Amendment victories we’ve ever had,” she wrote again for emphasis, “NOT !!!!!!” 

Hammer made clear that, though the law in question helps end “gun free zones” at many public schools, she and the NRA do not believe that the new three-day waiting period and 21-year age limit for long gun purchases is justified.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2018/03/19/the-first-casualty-nra-broadsides-florida-house-speaker-for-gun-control-betrayal-319476 

I thought the lawsuit filed March 10 was the first expre$$ion of di$approval.

Anyway, glad to see this too. Not quite glad enough to join yet, but a bit closer.

Share this post


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

Golf Cart of Death.jpg

That pic doesn't show the telescoping stock that makes it a scary assault weapon but does show a few of the reasons it's not exactly concealable.

Are you still afraid of the revolver with the open cylinder?

Share this post


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

That pic doesn't show the telescoping stock that makes it a scary assault weapon but does show a few of the reasons it's not exactly concealable.

Are you still afraid of the revolver with the open cylinder?

Good job, your carbine barrel is pointed at your guest, you're an idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2017 at 6:36 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

And this part covers my dad's old .22 rifle because the tube magazine holds more than ten rounds.

 

Quote
d. Any semiautomatic pistol or any semiautomatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

That's the text of the law under consideration.

18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I want to openly join d'ranger is calling you a bloviating liar about your whole .22 issue. 

Having another grabber call me a liar for telling the truth makes my day, jocal. Fact is, my rimfire rifle holds more than ten rounds and I'm not the one who has an issue with it. Grabberz are.

Because they claim to think it's a weapon of war. Oddly, none will say whether they'd be indifferent between my gun and an M4 if headed to actual combat.

Share this post


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

Because they claim to think it's a weapon of war.

 Where? Cite it.

Share this post


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

 Where? Cite it.

Well, how about the words (and legislation) of Diane Feinstein?

  “There are steps we can take to reduce shootings that are overwhelmingly supported by the public. We can expand and strengthen the background check system. We can help states in their effort to keep guns from dangerous individuals. We can raise the age to purchase all guns to 21. We can ban dangerous bump stocks that allow semi-automatic guns to fire like machine guns. And we can ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets."

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=BFD26004-BB01-4A2A-8D07-08764021C615

Now, lets go to the text of her latest AWB, so we can see what these "military-style assault weapons" are:

(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(i) A pistol grip.

“(ii) A forward grip.

“(iii) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.

“(iv) A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.

“(v) A barrel shroud.

“(vi) A threaded barrel.

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

“(C) Any part, combination of parts, component, device, attachment, or accessory that is designed or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle but not convert the semiautomatic rifle into a machinegun.

“(D) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any 1 of the following:

“(i) A threaded barrel.

“(ii) A second pistol grip.

“(iii) A barrel shroud.

“(iv) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

“(v) A semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.

 

Now, what does that cover? Well, lets see:

image.jpeg.8ab598c1f6dfbc577806e42253ba15e2.jpeg

Target pistol to the rest of world. Even legal in Canada, despite the short barrel length. But to deadly for US citizens to own according to DiFi.

You can make the case that every aftermarket trigger for anything  is illegal under (C)

Plenty of others, find a partial list here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2095/text

You might even be able to make the case that the catch all categories in her list of banned firearms bans everything semiauto.

I won't ask why she has a long list of "legal" firearms added at the end, her bill is only supposed to effect semi autos with detachable mags, right?

Of course, in 1991 NJ, "assault weapons" were the "guns of choice for drug dealers", according to Gov. Florio.

Like the Marlin model 60 that Pelleteri owned.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fail. I just don't see the silly bit, where Tom's rimfire gun is being declared a "weapon of war."  I see where the thing is restricted, but restricted in darn few places. Let's start over.

Quote

(NOTE: Deadeye Dick is a susceptible elk. Now he needs to document Tom Ray's prolonged timewaster silliness:

Tom Ray: Having another grabber call me a liar for telling the truth makes my day, jocal. Fact is, my rimfire rifle holds more than ten rounds and I'm not the one who has an issue with it. Grabberz are.

Because they claim to think it's a weapon of war.

Again where do "they" claim to think Tom's rimfire is a weapon of war?

Share this post


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

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

This line, taken from your post, seems to exempt Tom's semi automatic long gun from your definition of AW. Nowhere are rimfires or Model 60's identified as weapons of war. You are making shit up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2018 at 4:17 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

That pic doesn't show the telescoping stock that makes it a scary assault weapon but does show a few of the reasons it's not exactly concealable.

Are you still afraid of the revolver with the open cylinder?

 

Golf Cart of Death.jpg

The fucking pistol on the floor of the golf cart, which has no cylinder, was left pointed at an area of human activity. Why?

It's next to a beer. Why?

The lever action carbine is yours, but is a second gun pointed at the activity area. Why?

Let's be careful out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
On 2/25/2018 at 5:58 AM, mikewof said:
On 2/25/2018 at 5:38 AM, jocal505 said:

We've had arguments about this around here. Jeff is on the flick now, but strongly objected to this doctor's premises. I presented doctor descriptions with cites, Jeff djust oubled down. Five or more operations are needed for survivors. Flesh transfers are needed. Aw's are not a leading cause of spinal paralysis. Rep. Scalise had two operations, just for infection. These wounds are on a new level of gunshot injury.

From your article:

I'm sorry that JBSF is on the flick, he's a friendly fellow.

I just saw this.... I've never been on the flick.  Where do you make this shit up from, joke-al????

Share this post


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

I just saw this.... I've never been on the flick.  Where do you make this shit up from, joke-al????

:lol: Your head had exploded, Jeffie. You began to spout pedophelia nonsense. Jeffie plays the pedo card, wtf? Post 1776 Just Another HS Shooting Monday Feb. '18

Quote

Shootist Jeff Posted Monday at 08:09 AM

"refreshing children"????  Seriously, get help jocal.  You are on the edge of a mental breakdown with this shit. 

Not to mention CREE PEE.  I won't use the P-word, but you're coming damn close to that line.

Then you went incommunicado. Since you had also accused me of pedo with my daughter, this was a second offense. I assumed Zapata got you tossed for a bit. I was mistaken.

Watch your mouth my friend.

Share this post


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

 Where? Cite it.

As BPM noted, this part of DiFi's press release:

Quote

we can ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets.

Says that the guns covered by her proposal, such as my wife's .22, belong on a battlefield, not on our streets with badlat's SCAR.

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:
9 hours ago, bpm57 said:

“(B) A semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

This line, taken from your post, seems to exempt Tom's semi automatic long gun from your definition of AW. Nowhere are rimfires or Model 60's identified as weapons of war. You are making shit up again.

This is the problem with not reading. I have lost count of how many times I have tried to set this straight. Let me try one more time.

Her proposal DOES exempt my gun. Glad you discovered it. You could have discovered it much sooner by simply reading my posts.

The topic proposal DOES NOT exempt my gun.

Here's a quote from a FL Senator who is sponsoring the ban on our .22's:

Quote

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – State Senator Linda Stewart (D-Orlando) is calling on her colleagues in the legislature to place SB 196, a bill relating to gun safety, on the agenda for a hearing. The bill bans the sale of civilian versions of military assault weapons and the high capacity magazines that make them so lethal.

The bill in question covers your ex gun and mine.

So were you aware in 2013 that you owned a civilian version of a military assault weapon with a high capacity (though fixed and tedious to load) magazine?

Because that's what Senator Stewart just called our guns.

Share this post


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

So were you aware in 2013 that you owned a civilian version of a military assault weapon with a high capacity (though fixed and tedious to load) magazine?

Garbage. If a clip is not to be confused with a magazine, I kinda figure an ammo-feeding tube is not to be represented as a magazine. Where is the sweeping rimfire objection these days? Did it get screened out?

5 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:
Quote

we can ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that belong on the battlefield, not on our streets.

Says that the guns covered by her proposal, such as my wife's .22, belong on a battlefield, not on our streets with badlat's SCAR.

It doesn't say that, not in your own quote ^^^ or anywhere else. It doesn't claim that all LCM platforms determine a battle gun. But many laws suggest that all LCM platforms are a public hazard. If you are all confused about battle weapons like this, you don't mind playing the fool.

Stupid hour started five minutes ago, and its over. If you think this argument works for you, just use it intensely a few more years.

Share this post


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

Garbage. If a clip is not to be confused with a magazine, I kinda figure an ammo-feeding tube is not to be represented as a magazine.

It doesn't say that in your own quote, or anywhere else. It doesn't say that all LCM platforms are battle guns. But many laws suggest that all LCM platforms are a public hazard. You are confused about battle weapons, you don't mind playin the fool.

Stupid hour started five minutes ago, and its over. If you think this argument works for you, just use it intensely a few more years.

Joe, what you are calling an ammo feeding tube, is literally called a tubular magazine.

Some shotguns, and even lever actions have them too.

Share this post


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

high capacity magazines

You sound confused, too. You let Pooplius do your thinking, eh? You follow him, to such stupidity?

Share this post


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

You sound confused, too. You let Pooplius do your thinking, eh? You follow him, to such stupidity?

So what is a "high capacity" magazine to you, Joe? Your fellow travelers seem to not agree on the issue.

Share this post


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

Joe, what you are calling an ammo feeding tube, is literally called a tubular magazine.

Some shotguns, and even lever actions have them too.

Now you've done it, the usual suspects will be around soon to talk about nitpicking gun nuts.

Which always makes me wonder about what words they use on their boats - since correct terminology clearly doesn't matter to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That question is thoroughly covered in my signature line. Many are like Sister Mary Shootist, Shirley, there will be no satisfaction.

Share this post


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

The fucking pistol on the floor of the golf cart, which has no cylinder, was left pointed at an area of human activity. Why?

It's next to a beer. Why?

The lever action carbine is yours, but is a second gun pointed at the activity area. Why?

Let's be careful out there.

Probably because a firearm doesn't do anything on its own, Joe, and the adults there have self control.

Share this post


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

Garbage. If a clip is not to be confused with a magazine, I kinda figure an ammo-feeding tube is not to be represented as a magazine.

Get back to me when you kinda figure out how to read and have looked at the definitions in the topic law.

That tube under the barrel of our assault weapons is called a "fixed magazine."

Share this post


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

Get back to me when you kinda figure out how to read and have looked at the definitions in the topic law.

That tube under the barrel of our assault weapons is called a "fixed magazine."

Twenty two's are not battle guns, big guy. You have embarrassed yourself, even up and down the third grader trail, for 1.3 years.

Whine away at this definition, or the next one. Whine whine whine, but as you lecture, the active shooter drills and magnetometers teach the kids all they need to know. 

Share this post


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

Twenty two's are not battle guns, big guy.

We're developing something of a consensus on that point around here.

On 3/26/2018 at 4:58 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I'm just still in agreement with this post, except the part calling me a liar for noting that all the "assault weapon" bans include our .22's.

On 2/15/2018 at 12:03 PM, d'ranger said:

Dear Clueless Tom - I don't know any reasonable person advocating banning anything 22lr.  That you use it makes you just as big a disingenuous fucktard as Jack.  


And yes, D'Ranger, when you go out of your way to call me a liar for telling the truth, you might just see that post a few more times.

Now if only we could get the word to gungrabby D's who actually write these bans on (assault weapons, our .22's) we could quit discussing something on which we all apparently agree. Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

blah blah blah (assault weapon, .22)

I'd like to see a specific law to confiscate that fucking .22 - just to shut him up.

(Fixed for the easily-triggered.)

Your wish is my command. Have a look at post 1 of this thread for the law of your dreams. That's the 2017 version. The 2018 update is somewhere in the thread, but only the dates are changed.

Share this post


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

(Fixed for the easily-triggered.)

Your wish is my command. Have a look at post 1 of this thread for the law of your dreams. That's the 2017 version. The 2018 update is somewhere in the thread, but only the dates are changed.

The law that turned Tom into a moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2018 at 2:55 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Get back to me when you kinda figure out how to read and have looked at the definitions in the topic law.

That tube under the barrel of our assault weapons is called a "fixed magazine."

All worked up about .22's? How's the blood pressure, Tom? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ease the sheet said:
10 hours ago, mad said:

In what way?

Its about the magazine.  Why is Tom's gun ok and his wife's potentially illegal?  They are both .22. And only one has a large capacity, removable magazine.


I'm glad you think my gun is OK. Grabberz in my state, like those in others, definitely do not think it's OK.

They specifically say that the magazine on my gun is not "large capacity" but that doesn't matter. It's an assault weapon, subject to banning and confiscation like any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites