Obama says gun lobby stokes fear of federal action

[himher 634]

It looks cool? It costs more? I dunno. Don't really own any "military style weapons" except for that german-killing A303 but even though it's prolly about 70 years old it's "up for confiscation", not because it's semiauto (it isnt) or because it holds a lot of rounds (only holds 5) but because it has a bayonete (spell check that please) clip on the front.

what is a military style weapon and why is it more dangerous than a non military style weapon. ?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It is not preventing someone from being armed, is it? No.

I think it's ridiculous to use the second amendment and say that it allows you to have however many and whatever kind of guns you want. Just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean that rules and regulations to control the situation are anti-American or whatever other nonsense people are throwing out there.

Maybe you could have whatever you want in 1791, but it's 2013 now and guns are a bit different today than they were when this was put into place. With changing times and changing technology, rules must also be changed to reflect them.

You can still have your gun. You can still protect your home with it. You can still go hunting with it. But you don't need to be carrying military style weapons around. Sorry.

I disagree. NY used to allow any size. Then they regulated it to 10. Now 7. A few years it will be 5, then 3, then 1, and then 0. Not to mention a lot of firearms don't make 7 round magazines.

[himher 634]

I am not aware of a handgun magazine that only holds 7 rounds so basically they are confiscating all semiauto handgun magazines (well some of the old .45's and cheap saturday nite specials were limited to 7)

So it's a back door way to confiscate the vast majority of semiauto handguns. This is an area of concern.

Yeah, New York is showing everyone why there should be a fight over 10 round magazines. The ultimate goal is to get to zero and they will continue to legislate the number down.

Edited January 15, 2013 by himher

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

This thread actually sickens me to see how people will spread the blame to the "gun lobby" when its clearly because of proposed bills and their effects. It shows a lack of logical thinking.

[^_^ 5,021]

I disagree. NY used to allow any size. Then they regulated it to 10. Now 7. A few years it will be 5, then 3, then 1, and then 0. Not to mention a lot of firearms don't make 7 round magazines.

Noob question: Can manufacturers make 7 round magazines? If not, why not?

Also: can manufacturers modify existing magazines that hold > 7 to make them compliant with the new law?

Edited January 15, 2013 by ^_^

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358272470' post='5923361]

Noob question: Can manufacturers make 7 round magazines? If not, why not?

They can. A few models have 7rd by default like the 1911. I suppose you could argue it will create jobs in that sense.

The point of the 7rd limit in my opinion is it wipes out the majority of magazines in possession currently.

[quote name=' timestamp='1358272470' post='5923361]

Noob question: Can manufacturers make 7 round magazines? If not, why not?

Also: can manufacturers modify existing magazines that hold > 7 to make them compliant with the new law?

Just saw your edit.

Regarding the NY law I am not sure yet. In CA which has a 10rd limit you can weld a plate to shorten the spring in the magazine. CA has been toying with making the mod illegal, hence I'm not sure NY will allow it.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[^_^ 5,021]

They can. A few models have 7rd by default like the 1911. I suppose you could argue it will create jobs in that sense.

The point of the 7rd limit in my opinion is it wipes out the majority of magazines in possession currently.

Yes, and generates demand for new 7 round magazines. I don't really see the point in doing this. 10 to 7? What the hell is that? If 10 is a problem then so is 7. So either grow some fukcin balls and go down to a much lower number in one shot ... or leave it alone.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

That is an accurate statement. I have seen a lot of posts supporting the misconstrued notion that all guns will be confiscated, a common tale by the less aware of our political and constitutional system.

Fear sells, and the NRA is dispensing it by the buckets.

Just as the people who want to strip rights of Americans take every opportunity to do so, the gun lobby is going to take every opportunity to take advantage of their actions. Why not.

Gun sales up 40%, membership up 30%.

The attempts to squash the rights of Americans have fueled great advances for our rights in the past 20 years.

1. 49 states allow concealed carry

2. Firearm Owners Protection Act eliminated the GCA of '68

3. Firearm's Manufacturers Protection Act protects manufacturers from being sued for the actions of criminals

4. Heller decision

5. McDonald decision

6. ELimination of the former "assault weapons ban"

7. Stripping Democrats of power in Congress after 40 years

The fact is that any such political organization needs an "enemy" to rally the troops, to fill the coffers and to make advances. Necessity is the mother of invention.

I am proudly a LIFE MEMBER of the NRA since 1973. In times when there has been any threat of federal legislation, the organization has surged ahead. It was ONLY such threat from Jimmy Carter that even caused the NRA to enter into the legislative process in 1977. In his campaign of 1976, Carter said "I will break the back of the NRA in 6 months and ban ahndguns in one year" How did that work out for you Jimmy?

Membership will now surge ahead again. Even though there is actually little chance of any new federal legislation, the NRA is not going to lose the opportunity to capitalize on the rhetoric.

An example...The NRA protected firearms rights in Vermont many years ago with legislative action to implement pre-emption. NO ONE from the NRA was at the recent Burlington City Council meeting when they voted to "ban" assault weapons AND semi-auto handguns (in case you think they only want assault rifles). WHY? No need. The ordinance was meaningless and the NRA gave it all the attention a meaningless action deserves.

BUT NOW, the NRA is using it as ammunition to raise more money, and it is working. "LOOK! Even in VERMONT they are trying to take away your HANDGUNS" It works. The ordinance is meaningless except to generate a few million $$$$ for the NRA to fight any other legislation. When the anti-gun morons learn that the Vermont ordinance is null and void they say "who cares?" Right. Who cares that you just handed the NRA a few million $$$ ????????

Is that a "problem" for Obama? You BET it is.

[^_^ 5,021]

By the way, in case no one noticed - Cuomo is done, no 2016 shot for him.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The point of the 7rd limit in my opinion is it wipes out the majority of magazines in possession currently.

Wrong. The POINT is that if they can limit magazine size they can limit about anything else. It is a precedent.

It is not going to happen in any case.

The last time it did, with a Non-ban ban, they all lost their jobs. They have not forgotten that and the NRA is MORE powerful now and has two SCOTUS decisions they did not have at that time. Obama is a never-to-be-elected-again guy running his mouth. The votes to pass any such legislation do not exist.

He will attempt to avoid congress and implement this by some order, which also should make us nervous. Congress is not going to do it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

They can. A few models have 7rd by default like the 1911. I suppose you could argue it will create jobs in that sense.

The point of the 7rd limit in my opinion is it wipes out the majority of magazines in possession currently.

Just saw your edit.

Regarding the NY law I am not sure yet. In CA which has a 10rd limit you can weld a plate to shorten the spring in the magazine. CA has been toying with making the mod illegal, hence I'm not sure NY will allow it.

Nope Model 1911 is a military style weapon... Got to GO!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Nope Model 1911 is a military style weapon... Got to GO!

lol yeah I suppose thats true isn't it.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

[quote name=' timestamp='1358272721' post='5923380]

Yes, and generates demand for new 7 round magazines. I don't really see the point in doing this. 10 to 7? What the hell is that? If 10 is a problem then so is 7. So either grow some fukcin balls and go down to a much lower number in one shot ... or leave it alone.

I give you an A+ for having the nads to say what your true goal is..

[^_^ 5,021]

Wrong. The POINT is that if they can limit magazine size they can limit about anything else. It is a precedent.

It is not going to happen in any case.

The last time it did, with a Non-ban ban, they all lost their jobs. They have not forgotten that and the NRA is MORE powerful now and has two SCOTUS decisions they did not have at that time. Obama is a never-to-be-elected-again guy running his mouth. The votes to pass any such legislation do not exist.

He will attempt to avoid congress and implement this by some order, which also should make us nervous. Congress is not going to do it.

The limit to 7 is happening in New York State. And it is going to happen. They have the votes.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/15/new-york-assault-weapons-guns/1835785/

I give you an A+ for having the nads to say what your true goal is..

Was it ever in doubt?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Is that a "problem" for Obama? You BET it is.

I agree it is a problem but not really for Obama, or any other POTUS that will follow. They have bodyguards and a full time protection detail. The problem has always been, remains and will be, in the future, for the likes of the families of those killed at the movie theater, the elementary school in Newtown and others who will lose a family member or friend in the next mass murder's bullet extravaganza.