The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

General Discussion Topics

Senator Feinstein makes new push on guns

The Black Vault Message Forums has a considerable number of niche forums to place your post. If you can not find a home for it, and the topic doesn't fit anywhere else, then post it here.

Postby blackvault » Fri Dec 28, 2012 7:56 pm

Out of curiosity, how many states have banned them, however, even fully automatic before 1986?
-----
John Greenewald, Jr.
The Black Vault Website Owner / Operator
http://www.theblackvault.com
User avatar
blackvault
 
Posts: 1747
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: North Hollywood, Ca.

Postby Wing-Zero » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:51 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_i ... California

I count six, as well as a few that say, "Unless NFA approved".
War is an extension of economics and diplomacy through other means.

Economics and diplomacy are methods of securing resources used by humans.

Securing resources is the one necessary behavior for all living things.

War = Life
User avatar
Wing-Zero
 
Posts: 3230
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: California Uber Alles

Postby rath » Sat Dec 29, 2012 3:44 am

orangetom1999 wrote:Rath,

I find it ironic that in a time of so called evolution taking place that the epitomy of being human is to take ones clothes off to declare ones humanity.

I dont think that nudity is a good yardstick by which to measure mans progress. If that is all their is..I think we have not progressed or are going backwards ...intellect and science have failed us.

For I have a very strange belief and understanding that people/human beings are so much more than sex and sexuality...ie..nudity and pornography. Much much more.

Drugs..for recreational purposes...This is to me the same as people worrying about banning swearing and nudity. If the peak performance of a person is to spend monies on such drugs..I dont want to be around any such person. I feel the same about career drinkers. I dont want to be around them as well. I am choosy about the people with whom I surround myself.

If the peak of someones performance is to pump monies and time into their souls in such a recreational drug manner..bon appetit. But it is to me a life wasted and not glorious at all.

I have better things to do with my life and monies earned at great risk than recretional drugs...including doing nothing.


At least in the horse or horse and buggy days the horse/mule could usually find the way home if he rider could just hang on. Mind you now many riders did not and often froze to death in the winter...but the horse or mule could usually get home. Not so with today's cars.

I think that.. just like guns...plans are quietly on the burners for an opportune time to stealthly turn an unthinking, overly emotional, and ignorant, easily controlled, and emoted public against vehicles and the internal combustion engine. Social engineers and psuedo leaders have already experimented with this against SUVs to gauge public reaction.

Thanks for your post.
Orangetom



rath wrote:
blackvault wrote:And just to add to that, with your logic, if the weapon doesn't matter, and if it kills it kills... then on the ban list:

Knives
Guns
Cars
Busses
Tractors
Hands
Feet
Bottles
Glass objects

Oh, and anything that can be sharpened.


It's true .... if you let them ban guns, then whats next ???

If they are allowed to ban guns in the USA, ..... then before you know it. they will seek to ban other things as well.

& before you know it, ........

The USA will be run by a bunch of fascist prudes' who will what to ban swearing & nudity on T.V, ...
The sale of large soft drinks at fast food shops ( because fast food & sugar case more deaths through obesity & cancer ... diabetes & high blood pressure ) & they may even seek to force fast food shops to publish the calorie count off their food right on the shop well' & on food packaging.

& we all know fatty foods & trans fats. food related diabetes & cancers, don't kill people. People do.

The USA would never force stricter laws regarding nudity, pornography & offensive language on television. Nor would the USA ever force tougher laws on fast food chains.




Orangetom ....... Lighten up man. ....... What are you Amish?

Greeney2 & everybody are claiming that if you let the USA ban Guns then they will seek to ban other things aswell.

I mearly pointed out they may be right. because if the U.S government is allowed to ban gun then what will they seek to ban next.

rath wrote:It's true .... if you let them ban guns, then whats next ???

If they are allowed to ban guns in the USA, ..... then before you know it. they will seek to ban other things as well.

& before you know it, ........

The USA will be run by a bunch of fascist prudes' who will what to ban swearing & nudity on T.V, ...
The sale of large soft drinks at fast food shops ( because fast food & sugar case more deaths through obesity & cancer ... diabetes & high blood pressure ) & they may even seek to force fast food shops to publish the calorie count off their food right on the shop well' & on food packaging.

& we all know fatty foods & trans fats. food related diabetes & cancers, don't kill people. People do.

The USA would never force stricter laws regarding nudity, pornography & offensive language on television. Nor would the USA ever force tougher laws on fast food chains.
[/quote]



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19953716

http://www.psmag.com/health/robert-lust ... iet-50948/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/nyreg ... .html?_r=0


If the USA can ban trans fats because they kill.

If the USA can Ban Soft drinks because they make Americans the fattest in the world & obesity kills.

IF the USA can Ban trans-fats because they kill.

If the USA can ban nudity & offensive language in the media because of the perceived harm it does.

Why do Americans think guns are any different.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby orangetom1999 » Sat Dec 29, 2012 6:04 am

Rath,

Orangetom ....... Lighten up man. ....... What are you Amish?


Oh..goodness no Rath.

It is just that some of us can think and function further than what makes you insecure and concerned. We do not find thinking and functioning to Hollywood non standards...to be a good yardstick by which to measure progress or the upward reach of mankind.

We are also concerned that our leadership has it's nose up the backside of Hollywood and vice versa in order to seduce the public to this non standard for votes/power.

We dont find this kind of non standard to be leadership at all..but ..instead showmanship...cheap showmanship. And I mean both political parties.

You brought up some points or issues of what you seem to think is important in life...and I found many of them to be somewhat shallow and commented so.

Rather than rebutt...you declared ..lighten up. This to me is Hollywood. No problem. I merely make note of it.

Thanks,
Orangetom
orangetom1999
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 2:25 am

Postby rath » Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:45 am

orangetom1999 wrote:Rath,

Orangetom ....... Lighten up man. ....... What are you Amish?


Oh..goodness no Rath.

It is just that some of us can think and function further than what makes you insecure and concerned. We do not find thinking and functioning to Hollywood non standards...to be a good yardstick by which to measure progress or the upward reach of mankind.

We are also concerned that our leadership has it's nose up the backside of Hollywood and vice versa in order to seduce the public to this non standard for votes/power.

We dont find this kind of non standard to be leadership at all..but ..instead showmanship...cheap showmanship. And I mean both political parties.

You brought up some points or issues of what you seem to think is important in life...and I found many of them to be somewhat shallow and commented so.

Rather than rebutt...you declared ..lighten up. This to me is Hollywood. No problem. I merely make note of it.

Thanks,
Orangetom



Are you high man....

What drugs are you on.

Nothing you said in your entire post made any coherent sense at all. & none of it even address the topic at hand.


Moreover .......

You don't need to tell me Hollywood & the U.S government are in bed tougher ...... That's how they have brainwashed the American people for decades.

topic1061.html
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby _Billy_ » Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:37 pm

Pelosi, Feinstein, and Reid are sleeping together.
"Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez" Let the Good Times Roll
User avatar
_Billy_
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby at1with0 » Sat Dec 29, 2012 7:45 pm

Thanks for the horrific image. :evil:
"it is easy to grow crazy"
User avatar
at1with0
 
Posts: 9182
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:55 pm
Location: the coproduct of the amalgam of all structures

Postby En-Lugal » Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:01 pm

_Billy_ wrote:Pelosi, Feinstein, and Reid are sleeping together.


Thanks for that mental image. Thankfully, I ate an hour ago. :shock:
The modern definition of ‘racist’ is someone who’s winning an argument with a liberal.
User avatar
En-Lugal
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:19 am

Postby chiselray » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:15 am

blackvault wrote:So... the Senate democrats wants to take another stab at our 2nd amendment right of gun ownership? (Source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/ ... lt-weapons) Well, hear me out. This will only take a moment. If you feel guns should be banned, have you ever looked at the deaths associated with motor vehicles? I'll use the same logic you are using about taking away guns.

It is estimated that there are 310 MILLION guns in America as of 2009 (Source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf) It is estimated there are 254 MILLION motor vehicles (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_ ... f_vehicles). Yet, in 90% of the states, vehicle deaths outnumber, and in many cases FAR outnumber, gun deaths (Source: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... least.html).

Many left wing publications are touting more gun control, and even my source above touts "more deaths by guns than vehicles by 2015." And this is an argument for more gun control. Actually, I think if you are going after guns, you should first cut down on super charged motor vehicles and ban cars altogether. That would decrease considerably the amount of deaths in our country and keep our kids safer. Right? I mean, it's the same logic and would actually save MORE people. Ooops. Don't want your car taken away?

There are just as many, if not more (Source: My opinion) crazy people that get behind the wheel after drinking excessively, road raging about a bad day, furious and speeding off after a fight with their spouse, etc. They kill (see the attached chart) at rates HIGHER than guns (MORE guns than vehicles... LESS deaths by guns - it isn't rocket science to see which is statistically safer).

Some people like their super charged automobiles. They like to go VROOOM while others (like me) like to go BOOM. So what's the difference if its legal? If we do it safely, regardless of our toy of choice, what does it really matter to you? You think your kids aren't or can't be killed by drunk drivers? You think kids aren't killed by speeding teenagers in daddy's Porsche? Trust me... they are. And I knew that situation all too well in High School.

So the next time you support someone like Senator Feinstein on gun control - look at the facts.

"Don't bother me with the facts... my mind is made up."

-- http://www.theblackvault.com/


the same old bitter comes up, it's always a case of defensiveness before looking at what can be achieved by getting rid of the damn things..(guns)

I can't believe you are for 61 shooting sprees since the Columbine disaster,because if you weren't for it you would be voting for taking the things away...
But maybe i am being a tad harsh ,after all i am attacking your right to own something you really desire when it is really just an innocent hunk of metal tubing ...The same as your super charged car arguement ,they are just metal too and they do kill yes they do, in the wrong hands as guns do. But we don't use tehm as weapons of terrorism do we ?
We all need cars ,but we don't all need guns, the difference is clear i guess.
User avatar
chiselray
 
Posts: 1539
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: earth

Postby _Billy_ » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:00 am

History repeats itself, look at the countries that banned guns. Do You think that anyone who desires to do harm to others will not be able to obtain a gun? Only honest people follow laws. This country defeated the British because of ordinary citizens who owned guns helped with the battles. We may need them again. Feinstein's proposal is only the beginning, it will eventually cover all guns. If those who do harm to others don't have guns, they will make bombs, unless fertilizer is banned also, which is the main ingredient. Unlike the French we do not throw up a white flag when a battle begins/
"Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez" Let the Good Times Roll
User avatar
_Billy_
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion Topics

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 3 users online :: 2 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest