Rather Than No Tolerance For Even Sensible Gun Policy, What Do You Think Is Reasonable? (Page 12): Go back & look at my posts on the issue. Or is it you prefer to disregard the t***h...

zillaorange

Coos Bay Tom wrote:

What have you come up with for reasonable measures?

Go back & look at my posts on the issue. Or is it you prefer to disregard the t***h in favor of your socialist/dem agenda ???

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

zillaorange wrote:

So did I ! However you seem confused about the M 16 & the AR 15 !!!

You said I was that is all

woodguru

Mikeyavelli wrote:

On OPP you come across as a Trump hating anti American socialist.

Which is the definition to Trump lovers of anyone who dares to criticize him, not to mention the scare word socialism is meant to convey McCarthy era c*******t socialism, which does not have any resemblance to current reality.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

zillaorange wrote:

Go back & look at my posts on the issue. Or is it you prefer to disregard the t***h in favor of your socialist/dem agenda ???

My agenda is only my idea. It is not Socialist or democrat. Public office has taught me a lot of debate and compromise. It is frustrating at times but eventually a solution comes that every body can live with.

woodguru

Coos Bay Tom wrote:

Red f**g laws are neither right or left. I can agree there will be abuse in some cases such as girl friends wanting to ditch a boyfriend as sometimes happens in domestic cases now.

Part of it is aggressive and harsh penalties to those filing false claims, my sister tried to do it to me, I came off as well balanced, the sheriff had a talk with her and told her she would be arrested and charged if she didn't drop the charge. She admitted to them she had done that as payback for me going after her for fraud, they called me and asked if I wanted to press charges, and I should have but didn't.

Acting on reports of threats may have abuses here and there, but the flip side of responding to unstable people with anger management issues makes it worth it. It's a violation of rights that unstable dirt bags do not get, nobody has the right to threaten or be a threat to other people.

woodguru

Blade_Runner wrote:

Automatic firearms ("assault weapons") were prohibited for civilian purchase by the National Firearms Act of 1934. One must hold a valid Class 3 FFL to purchase and shoot a Class 3 firearm. Semi auto firearms, including the AR15, ARE NOT classified as Class 3 firearms (assault weapons).

And what is different about taking a new look at rifles that are derived from military purposed rifles and deciding they are not appropriate for civilian use? What's wrong with putting a magazine size restriction into effect, making it law just like was done in 1934? The constitution didn't prevent that then and it won't prevent new National Firearms Acts from being made into law.

woodguru

PeterS wrote:

This is why the ban should be on all semi-automatic weapons to put aside all unnecessary bickering over what is and isn't an assault weapon.

While I support moderate restrictions, I completely object to the all inclusive language of "semi automatic weapons", that can be all of the semi auto .22s and other quality sport rifles, it can be semi auto pistols such as the 1911 .45 that has been a favorite with gun enthusiasts for decades. I own an array of target quality custom .45, .38, and .22's, some of which cost as much as $2000+.

Open language that says semi automatic makes me very nervous, and there needs to be care used by those who advocate gun legislation that it doesn't go too far lest you alienate a huge part of the population that won't support too far.

This is more about strong background checks and mental health and red f**g laws, worry about overcoming the minority opposition to that before adding to it with those who support sensible.

woodguru

Coos Bay Tom wrote:

Thanks for this post. I am not in favor of a ban just a re classification. Not that many years ago we did not have to worry about the insanity of mass k*****gs--now we do.

And actually you touch on something there that has a validity, let the type of firearm the heat is on undergo a registration and permit process like class three permits have, many states allow suppressors with a permit, people with iffy backgrounds will never get one.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

woodguru wrote:

And what is different about taking a new look at rifles that are derived from military purposed rifles and deciding they are not appropriate for civilian use? What's wrong with putting a magazine size restriction into effect, making it law just like was done in 1934? The constitution didn't prevent that then and it won't prevent new National Firearms Acts from being made into law.

You like my idea eh--- I have not seen any other ideas just opposition. The problem I see here is people have been convinced that every single gun in America will be confiscated and that is not true at all.

woodguru

zillaorange wrote:

Then it'll be the Garands, the M1 carbines, Mini 14.s etc !!! The gun grabbers will be responsible for BLOOD IN THE STREETS !!!

Then it will be over, nobody says the right will win.

Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon

woodguru wrote:

And actually you touch on something there that has a validity, let the type of firearm the heat is on undergo a registration and permit process like class three permits have, many states allow suppressors with a permit, people with iffy backgrounds will never get one.

woodguru

zillaorange wrote:

The right to own & bear arms shall not be INFRINGED !!! Infringe - violate, t***sgress, encroach, trespass. Pick 1 & tell me the gun grabbers are ANTI CONSTITUTION !!!

Nobody is talking about infringing your rights any more than they were infringed in 1934 with the firearms act that prohibited certain types of higher forms of firepower.

I have an AR, and I don't expect to see a mandatory requirement to turn it in. California has a california compliant set of specs, and a magazine size limit, and I'm good with that, I'd rather have that than not be able to get any version of it. In the past when the state banned AR sales those already out were grandfathered in and could be passed down to family.

The right needs to stop using fear mongering terms that lead people to think all guns versus select guns and sensible gun laws.

I don't care if there is heat on unhinged people with anger management issues being prevented from buying or owning guns, or having their guns taken away.

woodguru

zillaorange wrote:

More murders in London, where ALL FIREARMS ARE BANNED than in N. Y. !!!

Who cares about London?

woodguru

zillaorange wrote:

There ya go lefty ! What part of the Constitution goes next ??? Go read w's Patriot Act !!! It's O.K. to violate the Constitution, but don't t***sgress on the moslem political movement !!!

Really...already we are seeing a president refusing to release information that was part of the Mueller investigation, which found obstruction by the president, and he and the AG Barr continue to obstruct by allowing congress to see the documents used as evidence. The house intelligence committee members have top secret security clearances, actually more valid ones than most of Trump's family and cabinet have. They by law can see classified information.

Gatsby

JFlorio wrote:

The last shooter failed a background check and still used an AR-15. They will get the same weapon or one worse. Why should I be subject to a class 3 background check? The ban was a failure. That’s a statistical fact. More modern stats show no discernible increase due to ownership of AR-15’s. I gave you facts. You just don’t like em. You are willing to give up guaranteed rights for security. I get it. I’m not.

The last shooter failed a background check because he provided false information on Federal Form 4473.

That was a Federal Felony. ATF neither investigated nor alerted state authorities.

If existing law had been enforced, the shooter would have been serving a 10 year sentence in prison.

There is only one "Reasonable Gun Policy" it is "Enforce Gun Laws"