Illegal gun laws

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Consider the following,,,,

You decide to take up skeet shooting, but you don't want to simply break the clay pigeons; you want to reduce them to clay dust. You come to the conclusion that what you need is a 10 guage shotgun!!

Now, the first thing that occurs to you is to try to find one on Ebay, but Ebay refuses to handle firearms; nature hates vacuums and this is the sort of vacuum which nature hates, and the solution to it is gunbroker.com and auctionarms.com. You figure this out with a bit more digging and arrive at the following:

http://gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=85712315

Looks pretty good:

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/28190.jpg

But then you read down a bit on the page and notice the following:

Quote:

BUDSGUNSHOP.COM RESTRICTED STATE SALES POLICIES

California - No Hi-Cap Mags without a Hi-Cap Mag Permit.
No Defense/Clip Fed Shotguns. No Semi-Auto Rifles. No M-16 Bolts.
Los Angeles, Sacramento, & San Francisco, CA - No Ammo without a FFL.

Connecticut - No Semi-Auto Rifles.

Hawaii - No Pistol Mags over 10rds.

Illinois - No Ammo without a FFL.

Maryland - NO GUNS PERIOD PER BUD.

Massachusetts - No Handguns. No Hi Capacity Mags.
No Defense/Clip Fed Shotguns. No Semi-Auto Rifles. No Ammo.

New Jersey - No Hi-Cap Mags over 15rds without a FFL.

New York State - Long Guns only to NY STATE. No Shipping to NYC

Washington DC - No Firearms. No Hi-Cap Mags. No Ammo.

Washington State - No M-16 Bolts.

You ask yourself, what the hell is this ****?? Don't we have a constitution, and doesn't it guarantee us all the right to own firearms? Doesn't that law apply to the whole land? I mean, it SHOULD apply to the whole land, and pages like this one should not exist on gunbroker. This is nibbling away at a basic right.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 644 • Replies: 16

No top replies

You gun nuts burn me up with your crazy rantings.

0 Replies

Re: Illegal gun laws

gungasnake wrote:

You ask yourself, what the hell is this ****?? Don't we have a constitution, and doesn't it guarantee us all the right to own firearms? Doesn't that law apply to the whole land? I mean, it SHOULD apply to the whole land, and pages like this one should not exist on gunbroker. This is nibbling away at a basic right.

Do any of the states in the union prohibit the ownership of any and all firearms?

0 Replies

Re: Illegal gun laws

InfraBlue wrote:

gungasnake wrote:

You ask yourself, what the hell is this ****?? Don't we have a constitution, and doesn't it guarantee us all the right to own firearms? Doesn't that law apply to the whole land? I mean, it SHOULD apply to the whole land, and pages like this one should not exist on gunbroker. This is nibbling away at a basic right.

Do any of the states in the union prohibit the ownership of any and all firearms?

Not whole states. Nonetheless DC has made pistols illegal and other firearms kept in DC must be locked up and chained and, far as I know, firearms are illegal in NYC.

Maryland is a total conundrum. Other than for the two goof counties i.e. Montgomery and Baltimore counties, the state would be a perfectly normal red state and shooting and outdoor sports are very big in Md and, funny thing, shooting sports and hunting go on much closer in to cities in Md than they do in Va. Nonetheless they've apparently made it so hard to do business involving guns there that out of state dealers refuse to deal with Md residents as the adds indicate.

The way gunbroker.com normally works is sufficiently simple: you buy something and have it shipped to a local dealer who does transfers and have him transfer it to you for whatever the going rate for that is, usually $20 - $30 including all state and federal paperwork. To prevent something like that is basically perverted and illegal.

0 Replies

Re: Illegal gun laws

gungasnake wrote:

[and, far as I know, firearms are illegal in NYC.

Based on this reality, would you ever consider voting for Rudy? I understand that you wouldn't go Democratic, but would you abstain from voting or write in another candidate (or 3rd party if there is one).

0 Replies

Re: Illegal gun laws

maporsche wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
[and, far as I know, firearms are illegal in NYC.

Based on this reality, would you ever consider voting for Rudy? I understand that you wouldn't go Democratic, but would you abstain from voting or write in another candidate (or 3rd party if there is one).

I vote against democrats, i.e. for whoever has the best mathematical shot at preventing the dcemocrat from holding the office in question. Nothing owuld make me happier than a real shot at electing a liberatarian or some other third party candidate if some such has a real shot, but I won't risk having a dem win an office for the sake of such a vote. We need runoff elections, badly.

I don't hate Sick Clinton for being a psychopath, he can't help that, but I hate the dem party for going to the wall to keep an obvious mental defective in the whitehouse for a full eight years when it was flagrantly obvious what they were dealing with. For that and other reasons, I view the dem party as a criminal endeavor.

0 Replies

Quote:

an obvious mental defective in the whitehouse

Er... I thought that was the GOP guy? And isn't it "White House"?

0 Replies

You thought wrong. I have big problems with W. and his agenda and mine are not the same on all issues, but W is NOT a mental defective.

0 Replies

Bill Clinton attended the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., receiving a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service (B.S.F.S.) degree in 1968. Upon graduation he won a Rhodes Scholarship to University College, Oxford, where he studied government. After Oxford, Clinton attended Yale Law School and obtained a Juris Doctor degree in 1973, after which he returned to Arkansas and became a University of Arkansas law professor.

Some dummy. If he is a "mental defective", he sure managed to fool a number of rather selective institutions.

0 Replies

contrex wrote:

Bill Clinton attended the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., receiving a Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service (B.S.F.S.) degree in 1968. Upon graduation he won a Rhodes Scholarship to University College, Oxford, where he studied government. After Oxford, Clinton attended Yale Law School and obtained a Juris Doctor degree in 1973, after which he returned to Arkansas and became a University of Arkansas law professor.

Some dummy. If he is a "mental defective", he sure managed to fool a number of rather selective institutions.

He apparengly didn't fool anybody at Oxford, where he was asked to leave for another of his non-existent sexual assaults....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1017597/posts

Quote:

...Eileen Wellstone, 19-year-old English woman who said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where the future President was a student in 1969. A retired State Department employee, who asked not to be identified, confirmed that he spoke with the family of the girl and filed a report with his superiors. Clinton admitted having sex with the girl, but claimed it was consensual. The victim's family declined to pursue the case;

...In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford University for a "European Tour" in 1969 and was told by University officials that he was no longer welcome there. Aldrich said Clinton's academic record at Oxford was lackluster. Clinton later accepted a scholarship for Yale Law School and did not complete his studies at Oxford.

The State Department official who investigated the incident said Clinton's interests appeared to be drinking, drugs and sex, not studies....

Give Charles Manson a 180 IQ and you've got SlicKKK KKKlinton; that's all SlicKKK ever was, i.e. a psychopath with a 180 IQ.

0 Replies

A whole bunch of hearsay and innuendo. You blowhards never give up with this crap. You even quote that notorious thief site, freerepublic.

Free Republic is a right-wing bulletin board where Clinton-haters go to bond; it features hundreds of discussion topics with titles like "Do we dare call it treason?" and "Billy caught lying again." As such, it's similar to many other conservative political Web sites.

But one practice that's common among Free Republic denizens, who like to call themselves "FReepers," is something you don't often find on other bulletin boards: Free Republic's discussions are full of the complete texts of other sites' news articles, cut and pasted from the original Web pages into archived postings on the Free Republic boards. Often, the re-posted articles are grabbed in raw HTML format -- which means that they're formatted exactly as they originally appeared, sometimes even including the original graphics.

Of course, First Amendment protections apply most strongly to political speech, which is definitely what Free Republic traffics in -- and fair use claims are bolstered by his site's noncommercial nature. However, republishing material in its entirety is another matter.

Why not just link to them? My hunch about what's really going on here is that the folks at Free Republic hate the "liberal media" so blindly that they don't want to contribute to the traffic on the newspapers' sites. If they link to a media site, they contribute to that site's traffic, which helps that site sell ads and possibly even make some money. Why help your enemies make a buck when you can violate their copyrights instead? And so the FReepers betray one of the most fundamental principles of conservative thought -- the protection of property rights -- rather than add a few clicks to the L.A. Times' and Washington Post's totals.

0 Replies

http://firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/democratic_crybaby_seal.jpg

0 Replies

The fact that pretty much nobody ever actually wraps a fish in newspaper anymore could lead one to the erroneous conclusion that the Washington Post was altogether worthless but, believe it or not, I' ve actually seen a reasonable use for the thing recently: patterning shotguns. You couldn't do that very easily with a "tabloid" format paper like the NY Pos, not big enough; you need one of the old fashioned tabletop (dinosaur media) papers.

0 Replies

Consider this. In Pa this past week, the rules committee of the State House voted against a bill that would require anyone who has lost or had a gun stolen, be required to report it. The County Sherriffs Association, the Frat order of Cops, and the STate police were unanimous in support of this bill, and its partner which would limit purchase of one gun per month to any but licensed gun dealers.

The state House rules committee is overwhelmingly GOP(who are overwhelmingly the C**k s**kers of the NRA ) . The NRA doesnt nrepresent you gunga, it represents gun manufacturers, and youre just a little pawn in their game of arming the entire country several times over with guns of dubious use.

I can see using a 10 gage for "clay birds" o0r shooting elk at close range, but why wouldnt you wish to have your stolen gun reported? you got an agenda Dbag?

I usually dont vote for GOP's cause most of them are cowards unless theyre in big groups.

0 Replies

I don't have any love for the GOP and I don't have any reason for disliking a law requiring stolen guns to be reported.

But I ****ing hate the demokkkrat party for going to the wall to keep an obvious mental defective in the whitehouse for eight years when they knew what they were dealing with. THAT was inexcusable. Guns are just one more demagogue issue for the rats and one of the least of the reasons I despise them.

I don't get that same sort of an overwhelming sense of loathing for the pubbies.

0 Replies

Honest truth, if I had to put my finger on it, the point at which I started to really despise the dems was the Clarence Thomas hearings and the conduct of senators Kennedy and Metzenbaum.

Teddy Kennedy appears to be living his life in what amounts to an effort to prove Dean Wormer wrong, i.e. that fat, drunk, and stupid really is a way to go through life.

0 Replies

Quote:

but W is NOT a mental defective.

Your whole thread raises an interesting question.

Let's assume that Bill Clinton is, as you believe, a mental defective. If so, then probably he'd be the last person we ought to turn to in order to get his estimations of other people and who among them are 'mentally defective'. We don't want to have mental defectives telling us who among us is mentally defective and who is not, after all.

If this self-evident truth weren't the case, your thread might not seem to have been written by a person with rapidly whirling retinas.

0 Replies

Illegal gun laws

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know