TexasCHLforum.com

Taking the gun I was going to buy next month, next year, or next decade is the same to me as taking the gun I already own.

Taking guns that my children (still small) and grandchildren (not even close to being born) could one day own is no different than taking a gun from me right now that I actually own.

Sorry, I've heard the left mock us on this point, and I'm still not pacified.

anygunanywhere wrote:Removing the freedom of the press as the press currently understands their freedom it is not wrong, but the proper thing to do.

Reinstating the actual freedom of the press the way the founders understood would also be the right thing to do.

In as near a totality as ever was, the press, media, whatever you want to call it, is a total slave to the left.

Anygunanywhere

Exactly.

Purplehood wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Let's remove their freedom of the press.

Anyguynanywhere

Since we don't have a free press no one would likely even notice. It's an idea whose time has come, and given the damage the media has done to the Republic, it might actually improve the country.

Two wrongs do not equal a right. (pun also intended)

My statement was somewhat tongue-in-cheek....somewhat. Note, I paraphrased the anti gun statements that say banning guns is an idea whose time has come. The somewhat is this: the media is capsizing the country with lies and propaganda, and we're eventually going to sink if the ship isn't righted. I don't know what the answer is exactly, but I do know the country can't survive the press we have now. The best outcome would be for market forces to simply kill off the legacy media, but that probably isn't going to happen with a lowest common denominator driven media, and also because the government will step in to prevent it, if the market threatens to make that happen.

PUCKER wrote:Baldeagle - VERY well written response!

Thanks.

MISSOURI GOP REP. TURNS THE TABLES ON DEMS: INTRODUCES BILL THAT MAKES PROPOSING GUN CONTROL LAWS A FELONY
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02 ... -a-felony/

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons. This week, a GOP state representative has turned the tables to make a point.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

The Annoyed Man wrote:MISSOURI GOP REP. TURNS THE TABLES ON DEMS: INTRODUCES BILL THAT MAKES PROPOSING GUN CONTROL LAWS A FELONY
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02 ... -a-felony/

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons. This week, a GOP state representative has turned the tables to make a point.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

Now this is how you do it!

RX8er wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:MISSOURI GOP REP. TURNS THE TABLES ON DEMS: INTRODUCES BILL THAT MAKES PROPOSING GUN CONTROL LAWS A FELONY
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02 ... -a-felony/

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons. This week, a GOP state representative has turned the tables to make a point.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

Now this is how you do it!

tommyg wrote:Since it is a Fed crime to sell or give a gun to a resident of another state if the Missouri bill
passes the only way is turn in a newly prohibited gun to the police or cut the gun up.
Maybe sell it to a FFL before the law takes effect then the FFL can sell it out of state to another FFL
This = confiscation

It is not a federal crime to sell a gun to a resident of another state. It is done daily. You can sell it, but it needs to be transfered from an FFL in your state to an FFL in the other state.

When they promise that no existing gun owner will have to give up anything that these are the same people who promised that no one would have to give up their existing health plan under the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Guess what, lots of employers are no longer able to offer health benefits to their employees. We won't take your guns away - we will just make it impossible through regulation for you to keep them!

JJVP wrote:

tommyg wrote:Since it is a Fed crime to sell or give a gun to a resident of another state if the Missouri bill
passes the only way is turn in a newly prohibited gun to the police or cut the gun up.
Maybe sell it to a FFL before the law takes effect then the FFL can sell it out of state to another FFL
This = confiscation

It is not a federal crime to sell a gun to a resident of another state. It is done daily. You can sell it, but it needs to be transfered from an FFL in your state to an FFL in the other state.

Emphasis is mine...

I don't think it was his point that it is NOW illegal to do. The bill says that after 90 days, you will be a felon if you

manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine

RX8er wrote:

JJVP wrote:

tommyg wrote:Since it is a Fed crime to sell or give a gun to a resident of another state if the Missouri bill
passes the only way is turn in a newly prohibited gun to the police or cut the gun up.
Maybe sell it to a FFL before the law takes effect then the FFL can sell it out of state to another FFL
This = confiscation

It is not a federal crime to sell a gun to a resident of another state. It is done daily. You can sell it, but it needs to be transfered from an FFL in your state to an FFL in the other state.

Emphasis is mine...

I don't think it was his point that it is NOW illegal to do. The bill says that after 90 days, you will be a felon if you

manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine

I do not see it as you did.

He said:

Maybe sell it to a FFL before the law takes effect then the FFL can sell it out of state to another FFL

He believes that:

Since it is a Fed crime to sell or give a gun to a resident of another state

Okay... either way, he should know now that it is perfectly legal to sell a gun out of state, including MO.

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons. This week, a GOP state representative has turned the tables to make a point.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

So a legislator wants to make it a felony to propose legislation that he may oppose? That sounds like the opposite of Democracy to me.

Purplehood wrote:

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons. This week, a GOP state representative has turned the tables to make a point.

Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

So a legislator wants to make it a felony to propose legislation that he may oppose? That sounds like the opposite of Democracy to me.

I hear you, but to me, passing legislation, directive, or action and acting in a manner in direct, visible, and intentional violation of the Constitution should be a criminal offense.

Anygunanywhere

RX8er wrote:Okay... either way, he should know now that it is perfectly legal to sell a gun out of state, including MO.

If he has one of those scary black rifles that he need to get rid of, I am willing to do a "buy back". He send me the rifle and I'll send him a $200 gift card. Everybody wins.

I'll even take some of those humongous 30 round mags off his hands at $0.50 a piece.