Marine To feinstein: I Will Not Register My Weapons

[Matt1970]

 

[OrByte]

I wonder if this "marine" threw such a big hissy fit when he had to go get his drivers license

or when he registered his vehicle

or a business (business license)

yeah....big bad gubbermint gonna git yer freedums!!

 

[Angry Irishman]

pay what price ? what will be missing ? this doesn't ban firearms.

what if it saves a child's life ?

I can agree that dealing with mental health issues is probably even more important, but is also a very difficult problem because of the social stigma and the financial cost.

Many of the same people who don't want the AWB are the same people who don't want to give food to hungry people. We're supposed to believe they want to address mental health ?

The price is the watering down of our rights. It's all for our own good though. Just ask the federal government.

I'm just as horrified at kids being killed but this effort won't stop what's been happening throughout history....not just recently.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I wonder if this "marine" threw such a big hissy fit when he had to go get his drivers license

or when he registered his vehicle

or a business (business license)

yeah....big bad gubbermint gonna git yer freedums!!

None of those items are based as Constitutional law and as such rights.

It's amazing how trusting this country has become regardless of what's put on the plate. "That will never happen here", "you're worrying about nothing." Sheepish complacency is just what the founders of this country cautioned us about many times. Being skeptical of the government's motives is a founding premise of this country.

Don't worry though; it's all for our own protection. Think about that the next time you're stopped at a homeland security checkpoint and you're asked to have your vehicle searched. "Its all for your own protection."

You sound is if you don't approve of Marines?

 

[OrByte]

I'm not diving down this rabbit hole...I'm tired. It's an open ended question and I think you know the answer.

Read the Constitution. The second amendment is clear. Her bill is violating that right.

I dont see where it is written in the Feinstein bill that she intends to legally remove "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

how is her bill in violation of the 2nd amendment again?

As for the ACTUAL language in the bill...it looks more to me like a shot at the gun industry in limiting what gun manufacturers can legally sell and make $$ on in the US. I personally think it has less to do with safety, GUN ownership rights, or any of the bullshit that the NRA wants people to get their panties in a wad over.

This has to do with Feinstein wanting to go after the gun industry and it's deep pockets.

 

[HomerJS]

Strange this same marine who had to register himself with selective service when he turned 18 is not making any claims his right to life, liberty, etc are at risk.

 

[Tom]

The price is the watering down of our rights. It's all for our own good though. Just has the federal government.

I'm just as horrified at kids being killed but this effort won't stop what's been happening throughout history....not just recently.

how is it watering down our rights ?

I keep hearing that there's no real advantage to these weapons, its all cosmetic.

So maybe there's a psychological reason some muderers are drawn to these weapons..

For those of us who are sane, if we can still get the same effectiveness with alternative firearms, it seems like not much to give up for the possible benefit of saving some innocent people from death, or a life of suffering.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I dont see where it is written in the Feinstein bill that she intends to legally remove "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

how is her bill in violation of the 2nd amendment again?

As for the ACTUAL language in the bill...it looks more to me like a shot at the gun industry in limiting what gun manufacturers can legally sell and make $$ on in the US. I personally think it has less to do with safety, GUN ownership rights, or any of the bullshit that the NRA wants people to get their panties in a wad over.

This has to do with Feinstein wanting to go after the gun industry and it's deep pockets.

She wants to water down the amendment even more than it is now...where does it stop? Should we only be allowed to have muskets? That's the problem. What gun someone owns is none of her or the federal governments business. The government needs to stick to what it's mandated to govern via the Constitution. Just because YOU or the aristocrat Senator from California don't like the variety of weapons doesn't mean YOU or she has the right to change what is a fundamental right as a citizen of the US.

Going after an industry...no, she's trying to stay in office. Weapons manufactures have just as much right to turn profit as ping pong ball makers. What's the difference?

 

[OrByte]

None of those items are based as Constitutional law and as such rights.

It's amazing how trusting this country has become regardless of what's put on the plate. "That will never happen here", "you're worrying about nothing." Sheepish complacency is just what the founders of this country cautioned us about many times. Being skeptical of the government's motives is a founding premise of this country.

Don't worry though; it's all for our own protection. Think about that the next time you're stopped at a homeland security checkpoint and you're asked to have your vehicle searched. "Its all for your own protection."

You sound is if you don't approve of Marines?

au contraire mon frere!! Americans have the right to pursue liberty/hapiness blah blah blah! If I want to go open up a business selling whatever then I have the right to do so!! provided I follow commerce rules, file for appropriate business licenses, pay business fees etc etc etc.

omg thats almost Exactly what I was saying when the Patriot Act and wireless wiretapping were being passed into law!

I dont approve of marines that think they matter more than other people...which is the vibe I get from Mr. Boston.

 

[OrByte]

She wants to water down the amendment even more than it is now...where does it stop? Should we only be allowed to have muskets? That's the problem. What gun someone owns is none of her or the federal governments business. The government needs to stick to what it's mandated to govern via the Constitution. Just because YOU or the aristocrat Senator from California don't like the variety of weapons doesn't mean YOU or she has the right to change what is a fundamental right as a citizen of the US.

Going after an industry...no, she's trying to stay in office. Weapons manufactures have just as much right to turn profit as ping pong ball makers. What's the difference?

slippery slopes are dangerous...I wouldn't employ them if I were you.

focus on the ACTUAL language of the bill. Not what you people are telling you to be afraid about.

 

[Matt1970]

I dont see where it is written in the Feinstein bill that she intends to legally remove "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..."

how is her bill in violation of the 2nd amendment again?

As for the ACTUAL language in the bill...it looks more to me like a shot at the gun industry in limiting what gun manufacturers can legally sell and make $$ on in the US. I personally think it has less to do with safety, GUN ownership rights, or any of the bullshit that the NRA wants people to get their panties in a wad over.

This has to do with Feinstein wanting to go after the gun industry and it's deep pockets.

Seeing as how you are such a proponent of the bill, maybe you can tell us how this will stop any mass shootings? The guy in Binghamton NY used 2 registered pistols to murder 13 people.

 

[OrByte]

Going after an industry...no, she's trying to stay in office. Weapons manufactures have just as much right to turn profit as ping pong ball makers. What's the difference?

if you think she is TRYING to stay in office then you really don't know anything about Feinstein, California, or the fact that she is no where near in ANY danger of losing her seat in congress.

 

[OrByte]

Seeing as how you are such a proponent of the bill, maybe you can tell us how this will stop any mass shootings? The guy in Binghamton NY used 2 registered pistols to murder 13 people.

there you go using your wonderful reasoning and logic skills!! Matt you really rock! how old are you again?

where did I ever say I was a proponent of the bill?

 

[Angry Irishman]

au contraire mon frere!! Americans have the right to pursue liberty/hapiness blah blah blah! If I want to go open up a business selling whatever then I have the right to do so!! provided I follow commerce rules, file for appropriate business licenses, pay business fees etc etc etc.

omg thats almost Exactly what I was saying when the Patriot Act and wireless wiretapping were being passed into law!

I dont approve of marines that think they matter more than other people...which is the vibe I get from Mr. Boston.

I never said I agreed with those practices either. I don't see how it's governments role to require any of that. Perhaps at a municipal level but certainly not at the federal level.

I really don't care for the Patriot Act, wireless tapping, Detention Act, etc... All instances of laws voted to the books by a government that says it has our safety and interests in mind...right.

But hey, dancing with the stars is on....I'll worry about that shit later. Surely Uncle Sam has my best interests in mind.

Regarding Cpl/Mr. Boston, he has every right to make his statement whether you agree or not. The fact that he was a Marine means that he swore to defend the Constitution not twist it around to meet political motives.

 

[Angry Irishman]

if you think she is TRYING to stay in office then you really don't know anything about Feinstein, California, or the fact that she is no where near in ANY danger of losing her seat in congress.

Oh I lived in California and am very much aware of her political reign. Limiting terms of crooks like her would go a long way towards fixing this countries problems. You just emphasize what a big part of the problem is with the Honorable Feinstein and those like her who reign, not serve, on the Hill.

Please don't use California as an example of a state that has it's act together. Nothing could be further from reality. She has much to do with that.

 

[OrByte]

I never said I agreed with those practices either. I don't see how it's governments role to require any of that. Perhaps at a municipal level but certainly not at the federal level.

I really don't care for the Patriot Act, wireless tapping, Detention Act, etc...

But hey, dancing with the stars is on....I'll worry about that shit later. Surely Uncle Sam has my best interests in mind.

Regarding Cpl/Mr. Boston, he has every right to make his statement whether you agree or not. The fact that he was a Marine means that he swore to defend the Constitution not twist it around to meet political motives.

never said he didnt have the right to free speech champ...

doesnt mean I have to respect him for it.

I dont know of anyone twisting the Constitution around for anything...so I don't know what point you are trying to make.

 

[OrByte]

Oh I lived in California and am very much aware of her political reign. Limiting terms of crooks like her would go a long way towards fixing this countries problems. You just emphasize what a big part of the problem is with the Honorable Feinstein and those like her who reign, not serve, on the Hill.

Please don't use California as an example of a state that has it's act together. Nothing could be further from reality. She has much to do with that.

where did I say California is an example of a state that has it's act together?

you and Matt1970 attend the same elementary school?

reasoning and logic...I swear they need to teach that to the kids these days...

 

[Matt1970]

there you go using your wonderful reasoning and logic skills!! Matt you really rock! how old are you again?

where did I ever say I was a proponent of the bill?

Because you have mocked everyone here that has any complaints about it. And don't bring up age, I probably have T-Shirts older than you.

 

[Angry Irishman]

where did I say California is an example of a state that has it's act together?

you and Matt1970 attend the same elementary school?

reasoning and logic...I swear they need to teach that to the kids these days...

I'm not you're champ nor your kid....in fact, I'm most likely older than you.

You're not saying much of anything except asking questions and not liking the answers you receive. Not very logical or reason based.

Tell me how her bill isn't changing my Constitutional rights, pal?

 

[OrByte]

Because you have mocked everyone here that has any complaints about it. And don't bring up age, I probably have T-Shirts older than you.

if I am mocking you it is because you probably deserve it

I mock anyone in here that employs childish reasoning, lazy logic, obfuscation, and useless propaganda.

If you notice what I said about Feinsteins ACTUAL language in the ACTUAL bill. I stated that personally I think it has less to do with safety, GUN RIGHTS, and all the other BS that people are arguing in circles about

it has more to do with targeting an industry...something politicians do all the time. If you want to hate on Feinstein and this bill...I can get on that wagon.

But Im not getting on the stupid wagon..the wagon that says she is out to get your freedums....thats just plain stupid.

 

[OrByte]

I'm not you're champ nor your kid....in fact, I'm most likely older than you.

You're not saying much of anything except asking questions and not liking the answers you receive. Not very logical or reason based.

Tell me how her bill isn't changing my Constitutional rights, pal?

because at the end of the day...the arms that you cling to...you still can.

you still have the right AS WRITTEN to "arms"

her bill in no way takes away that right.

show me where her bill takes away that right?

WHat you are arguing is WHICH ARMS you feel you have the right to...and that is no longer covered by the 2nd amendment. For those rights you would need to review the National Firearms Act to identify catagories of firearms that are regulated.

Thats where the meat and potatoes of your agony originates. Feinsteins bill may result in modifications to these catagories, but it in no way changes the 2nd amendment.

cling on my brotha!

 

[Angry Irishman]

if I am mocking you it is because you probably deserve it

I mock anyone in here that employs childish reasoning, lazy logic, obfuscation, and useless propaganda.

If you notice what I said about Feinsteins ACTUAL language in the ACTUAL bill. I stated that personally I think it has less to do with safety, GUN RIGHTS, and all the other BS that people are arguing in circles about

it has more to do with targeting an industry...something politicians do all the time. If you want to hate on Feinstein and this bill...I can get on that wagon.

But Im not getting on the stupid wagon..the wagon that says she is out to get your freedums....thats just plain stupid.

And.....that is all your opinions and not one thing you just typed is based in fact....opinions only. I have read her bill through and have the opposite opinion. If anything she is targeting the industry to divert attention to the real purpose of this bill.

If your mocking behavior and logic is indicative of your intellect you might consider getting on the next wagon that comes by.

 

[OrByte]

I'm not you're champ nor your kid....in fact, I'm most likely older than you.

You're not saying much of anything except asking questions and not liking the answers you receive. Not very logical or reason based.

Tell me how her bill isn't changing my Constitutional rights, pal?

I don't know which answers you are referring to that I am not liking...I haven't seen any answers from you.

 

[Angry Irishman]

because at the end of the day...the arms that you cling to...you still can.

you still have the right AS WRITTEN to "arms"

her bill in no way takes away that right.

show me where her bill takes away that right?

WHat you are arguing is WHICH ARMS you feel you have the right to...and that is no longer covered by the 2nd amendment. For those rights you would need to review the National Firearms Act to identify catagories of firearms that are regulated.

Thats where the meat and potatoes of your agony originates. Feinsteins bill may result in modifications to these catagories, but it in no way changes the 2nd amendment.

cling on my brotha!

You're telling me that this bill will not change the law as it's written now and further take away from the amendment? I never said I agreed with the laws on the books now. You make a lot of assumptions. That is the problem here....here's your scooby snack buddy!

 

[OrByte]

And.....that is all your opinions and not one thing you just typed is based in fact....opinions only. I have read her bill through and have the opposite opinion. If anything she is targeting the industry to divert attention to the real purpose of this bill.

If your mocking behavior and logic is indicative of your intellect you might consider getting on the next wagon that comes by.

/golf clap

please, tell me, please

what is her "real purpose" of this bill?