JohnRich 4 #1 April 9, 2009 Interview an ABC's "Good Morning America":"Roberts: Under the Bush administration, you pretty much said the ball was in their court when it came to reinstating the ban. Now, it's a Democratic President, a Democratic House. So, is the ball in your court where this is concerned? "Pelosi: Yes, it is. And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution because the court, in the meantime, in recent months, the Supreme Court has ruled in a very- in a direction that gives more opportunity for people to have guns. We never denied that right. We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered..."Source: Examiner And liberals wonder why gun owners are "paranoid" about the new Democratic administration... Fuck Pelosi! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #2 April 10, 2009 She wants a hell of a lot more than registration. You can come up with the relevant quote easier than I. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #3 April 10, 2009 Nancy Pelosi is probably the biggest threat to Constitutional rights in America today. I'm hoping that Barack Obama, who seems quite a bit smarter than her, can keep her from running amok. On the other hand, if she does push a bunch of her agenda through, it would give the Republicans another chance, and maybe this time they'd actually work for smaller government. Note that I'm not saying Obama doesn't favor many of her positions--just that he's smart enough to know that there will be a lot of backlash if that stuff gets passed into law.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,176 #4 April 10, 2009 > On the other hand, if she does push a bunch of her agenda through, it > would give the Republicans another chance. Agreed there. She and Reid are probably the last best hope for the republican party. (If it survives at all, that is. When even Newt Gingrich is calling to abolish it you know it's in trouble.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Unstable 9 #5 April 10, 2009 QuoteOn the other hand, if she does push a bunch of her agenda through, it would give the Republicans another chance. I know this issue may seem irrelevant to some reading this post - but we are dealing with a Woman who throws a temper tantrum if she doesn't get a Military Jet when and where she wants to chauffeur her around like she's princess Dianna. When dealing with character issues, it's not hard to connect one to another.=========Shaun ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 April 10, 2009 QuoteI know this issue may seem irrelevant to some reading this post - but we are dealing with a Woman who throws a temper tantrum if she doesn't get a Military Jet when and where she wants to chauffeur her around like she's princess Dianna. When dealing with character issues, it's not hard to connect one to another. Good freekin' lord . . . you really have bought into crap hook, line and sinker. Lemme ask you this; what transportation -should- the person that is 3rd in line of succession in the US take, commercial flights? (sigh) She has NO choice in the matter. She is pretty much required to take military flights. She is pretty much required to be driven and is given the same sort of protection both the President and Vice President get. She's the freekin' Speaker of the House FFS. FROM OVER TWO YEARS AGO WHEN BUSH WAS STILL IN CHARGE! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #7 April 10, 2009 Quote I know this issue may seem irrelevant to some reading this post - but we are dealing with a Woman who throws a temper tantrum if she doesn't get Is this some funny definition of what a temper tantrum is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #8 April 10, 2009 QuoteQuoteI know this issue may seem irrelevant to some reading this post - but we are dealing with a Woman who throws a temper tantrum if she doesn't get a Military Jet when and where she wants to chauffeur her around like she's princess Dianna. When dealing with character issues, it's not hard to connect one to another. Good freekin' lord . . . you really have bought into crap hook, line and sinker. Lemme ask you this; what transportation -should- the person that is 3rd in line of succession in the US take, commercial flights? (sigh) She has NO choice in the matter. She is pretty much required to take military flights. She is pretty much required to be driven and is given the same sort of protection both the President and Vice President get. She's the freekin' Speaker of the House FFS. FROM OVER TWO YEARS AGO WHEN BUSH WAS STILL IN CHARGE! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17035721/ Don't bother the righties with facts. Facts make their heads explode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #9 April 11, 2009 QuoteShe wants a hell of a lot more than registration. You can come up with the relevant quote easier than I. Oops! It was a Feinstein quote I was thinking of. First sentence very likely still applies though! "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybill 22 #10 April 11, 2009 Hi JR, To your comment, Yea', an' people in hell want icewater, so what the hell else is new?? Besides her head up her wazeaux rantings I think it would be cheaper for our govt if she forewent her "Jet" to fly to and from CA and just used her broom!!!! BTW how fast can that thing get to 12-5?? maybe we can snivle some cheap jumps off of her!!!!!SCR-2034, SCS-680 III%, Deli-out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
riddler 0 #11 April 11, 2009 Hey John, I don't understand this issue, because I don't understand the existing gun laws. I believe that everyone that legally owns a gun needs to have a license, but that each individual firearm does not need to be registered. Is that correct? If so, is the issue here that gun owners do not want to register each individual firearm?Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #12 April 11, 2009 Quote I believe that everyone that legally owns a gun needs to have a license, but that each individual firearm does not need to be registered. Is that correct? No. Currently, gun ownership requires neither a license nor registration. Owning a firearm requires a "license" (typically called an "owner's ID" or similar) in a very few states. Purchasing a new firearm from a dealer requires a background check. The only firearms that currently require registration are: 1) A few state specific registries (some states maintain registries of grandfathered weapons that are now banned from sale in that state) 2) NFA (National Firearms Act of 1934) weapons are on a national registry. These require a $200 tax stamp at registry or re-registry (moving between states or transfering to a new owner). These include: (a) Machine Guns (no new machine guns have been allowed to be registered since 1989, and prices are now insanely high as a result) (b) Suppressors (devices to reduce the noise signature of a weapon discharge) (c) Short barrel shotguns and rifles (with barrels shorter than 16") (d) Destructive Devices (this is generally things like grenade launchers, but can include pretty much anything the ATF decides to classify in there) (e) AOW (Any Other Weapon): this is a "grab bag" category for innovative or unusual weapons the ATF wants to include in this category, and only requires a nominal ($5) registration fee, rather than the normal $200. An example of this is the Serbu Super Shorty, which is essentially a pistol shotgun (although other pistol grip shotguns on the market have not been classified as AOW, so it's a little fuzzy as to what is or is not included until the ATF rules or changes a ruling). I'm sure I made some mistakes there that John Rich can correct.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #13 April 12, 2009 QuoteQuote I believe that everyone that legally owns a gun needs to have a license, but that each individual firearm does not need to be registered. Is that correct? No. Currently, gun ownership requires neither a license nor registration. Owning a firearm requires a "license" (typically called an "owner's ID" or similar) in a very few states. Purchasing a new firearm from a dealer requires a background check. The only firearms that currently require registration are: 1) A few state specific registries (some states maintain registries of grandfathered weapons that are now banned from sale in that state) 2) NFA (National Firearms Act of 1934) weapons are on a national registry. These require a $200 tax stamp at registry or re-registry (moving between states or transfering to a new owner). These include: (a) Machine Guns (no new machine guns have been allowed to be registered since 1989, and prices are now insanely high as a result) (b) Suppressors (devices to reduce the noise signature of a weapon discharge) (c) (Short barrel shotguns 18" or less and rifles with barrels shorter than 16") (d) Destructive Devices (this is generally things like grenade launchers, but can include pretty much anything the ATF decides to classify in there) (e) AOW (Any Other Weapon): this is a "grab bag" category for innovative or unusual weapons the ATF wants to include in this category, and only requires a nominal ($5) registration fee, rather than the normal $200. An example of this is the Serbu Super Shorty, which is essentially a pistol shotgun (although other pistol grip shotguns on the market have not been classified as AOW, so it's a little fuzzy as to what is or is not included until the ATF rules or changes a ruling). I'm sure I made some mistakes there that John Rich can correct. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #14 April 12, 2009 NOTICE Remember that a rifle with a bbl of less than 16" when the non permanently attached muzzle device (brake or flash hider) is enough to get you convicted of a FEDERAL FIREARMS VIOLATION. Because it has been shown that the difference between 14.5"bbls and 16" bbls is exactly 1.5" And to a politician who is in favor of gun control an inch and a half is HUGE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #15 April 12, 2009 Viewed from the other side, there are millions of "cheaters" out there who have added a flash suppressor to a 14.5" barrel to skirt the law. I own a couple of them. This sort of nitpicking is a perfect example of why the short barrel category ought to be eliminated from the NFA registration requirements.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #16 April 12, 2009 QuoteViewed from the other side, there are millions of "cheaters" out there who have added a flash suppressor to a 14.5" barrel to skirt the law. I own a couple of them. This sort of nitpicking is a perfect example of why the short barrel category ought to be eliminated from the NFA registration requirements. That is not cheating, if done within the BATFE guidelines it is not even close to cheating. Even if it is welded on it can Be changed. Even if the bbl was 30" long, it can be changed. Just not too easily by someone with no skills. Short bbl weapons used in crimes are usually never purchased, they are crudely sawed off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #17 April 12, 2009 Serbu makes a nice universal key when adapted via a Picatinny to an AR-15Two pins and it is on, or off. It can actually be done far cheaper but Serbu does fine work. Doing SBS is not as easy as one might think. Shimming, cone shape and alignment without compression are the keys to success. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
