OT ... Nitwits

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

One of the provisions of NY's new gun laws.
The act also outlaws possession of "any electronic dart gun, electronic stun
gun,
gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle
knife,
cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles,
chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type sling-shot or slungshot,
shirken or 'Kung Fu star'" by anyone in the State of New York.

I wonder how many people were killed with any of those 18 items, in the last
20 years ?

The maximum allowed capacity of gun magazines
was reduced from ten rounds of ammunition to seven rounds.
Ten round magazines are still legal to own but you can only put 7 rounds in
them.
So if you are loading a 10 round magazine, miscount and put 8 rounds in it,
you could be charged with a misdemeanor and possibly lose your CC permit.

Any time the democrats pass a gun law, it shows just how stupid they are.

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[ozm...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:21:10 AM UTC-6, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
> One of the provisions of NY's new gun laws.
>
> The act also outlaws possession of "any electronic dart gun, electronic stun
>
> gun,
>
> gravity knife, switchblade knife, pilum ballistic knife, metal knuckle
>
> knife,
>
> cane sword, billy, blackjack, bludgeon, plastic knuckles, metal knuckles,
>
> chuka stick, sand bag, sandclub, wrist-brace type sling-shot or slungshot,
>
> shirken or 'Kung Fu star'" by anyone in the State of New York.
>
>
>
> I wonder how many people were killed with any of those 18 items, in the last
>
> 20 years ?
>
>
>
> The maximum allowed capacity of gun magazines
>
> was reduced from ten rounds of ammunition to seven rounds.
>
> Ten round magazines are still legal to own but you can only put 7 rounds in
>
> them.
>
> So if you are loading a 10 round magazine, miscount and put 8 rounds in it,
>
> you could be charged with a misdemeanor and possibly lose your CC permit.

And don't forget the part that says that children can not inherit guns.

Upon my death, as a NY resident, all owned guns MUST REVERT TO THE STATE.

[Hank]

Since I don't see any link to any credible source, I guess we are suppose to believe anything you post because YOU are so credible? You didn't even put in quotation marks. LOL

Hank

[Bruce S]

Gun control laws have nothing to do with guns and everything to do with
control of the people. They want everyone disarmed and harmless.

--
Bruce

Talent hits a target no one else can hit. Genius hits a target no one
else can see. Arthur Schopenhauer

[Ron]

"JerryD(upstateNY)" wrote in message
news:kdqjt5$pa2$1...@jerryd.eternal-september.org...

+++++++
And of course all the criminal types in NY will obey the new laws, NOT! ;-)
Ron
+++++++

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"Hank" wrote Since I don't see any link to any credible source,

I guess we are suppose to believe anything you post because
YOU are so credible? You didn't even put in quotation marks. LOL<<<

hahahaha
That's funny.
If I put a 'credible source" for every word in my post, my "credible source"
would never stand up to your standards,
so you wouldn't believe it anyway.

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[dm_callier]

On Jan 24, 4:27 pm, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)" <jer...@rochester.rr.com>
wrote:

So you'll just continue to talk out of your ass...good plan...

[Lone Haranguer]

Maybe YOU should do the research.

You'll find an article that police are upset because (untill
amended) even they will be bound by the law.

How would you like it if you were a cop and limited to 7 rounds
while the gangbanger had 15?
LZ

[ozm...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:33:22 AM UTC-6, Evan Platt wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 23:29:28 -0800 (PST), ozm...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >Upon my death, as a NY resident, all owned guns MUST REVERT TO THE STATE.
>
>
>

> I'd like to see the wording on that. I'm sure it means children as in
>
> under the age of 18 or 21.

I was quoting one of the first readings.

In a bunch of time-wasting research today, I was unable to find the full text of the bill that got signed.

I did, however, find text of the one "supposedly" sent to the gov.

It had NO MENTION of my assertion above.

...but DID declare you guilty -- prima face' -- of a class 3 felony if you possess (own) three or more firearms

...AND a class one felony if you possess ten or more.

Skeet shooters beware..........

[Hank]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:50:27 PM UTC-5, ozm...@gmail.com wrote:

> In a bunch of time-wasting research today, I was unable to find the full text of the bill that got signed.
>

Isn't it funny how that always seems to be the case?

Hank

[Debbie]

I think that it is Feinstein's proposal that would prohibit your heirs
from inheriting anything described as an assault weapon in her proposed
law. That covers just about anything other than a single shot shotgun in
her book.

[nothermark]

I suspect anything of interest will get sold out or state by the
deceased before it becomes an issue. ;-)

[Bruce S]

Most people might want to sell or give away their guns before they die,
but if the gun grabbers get their way even that might be difficult since
even giving it to your family members would require that they pass the
background check. That is what they are talking about when they call
for universal background checks.

I think the plan is that since YOU will be the only one able to run the
background check on your guns, when you die, you can't run the check and
therefore, the guns cannot be given to your family.

[ozm...@gmail.com]

Thank you.

[nothermark]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:14:38 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What they are trying to do is force every private sale be done through
a dealer for a fee. The major problem is a lot of folks who trade
much also cross state lines. Unless the feds get the same law passed
there will be no way to prove anyone did not go to PA or VT and sell
their gun at a flea market. In fact, I suspect there will be an
increase in such activity.

I have heard but not verified that NY is trying to require "assault"
weapons be registered so the owner can keep it or sell it out of state
within the year but cannot pass it on to another family member in an
estate. At that point it has to be surrendered to the state. I
expect there is a good chance that will be challenged as confiscation
on one hand or the weapons will be otherwise disposed of. The first
hurdle will be registration.

[Debbie]

You are welcome.

[Frank Howell]

Hard for me to believe that Feinstein chairs the Select Committee on
intelligence.

--
Frank Howell

[Frank Howell]

And maybe another scenario is to end up with a bureaucracy that is in charge
of
administrating these rules, that is underfunded by design and end up with a
2 year
waiting period for the completion of a background check.

--
Frank Howell

[RonB]

On Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:21:10 AM UTC-6, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:

I have a separate post on this....

A Missouri state senator has introduced proposed legislation requiring parents to inform schools is they own firearms. Failure to comply imposes a $100 fine. Failure to secure the firearms in a safe manner imposes up to $1000 fine. When they aired the news story late this week a SW Missouri sheriff basically debunked the idea saying it was unenforceable because his department estimated that about 80% of the households in his area (Joplin area) owned guns. They also interviewed a local school administrator who seemed irritated at the whole idea. As presented the schools would be responsible for enforcing the law.

I don't believe teachers or school administrators can execute search warrants........... YET!

RonB

[Vito]

"Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote

| Hard for me to believe that Feinstein chairs the Select Committee on
| intelligence.
|

Hey, just watch the lead in of "Idiocracy" one more time and you'll
understand.

[bill horne]

Nothing wrong with Feinstein's intelligence. She wants all guns gone,
and will say anything she thinks the dumbass voters will believe.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[Don Lampson]

On Jan 26, 5:56 pm, bill horne <redy...@rye.net> wrote:
> Frank Howell wrote:
> > Debbie wrote:

> >> On 1/24/2013 10:50 PM, ozma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:33:22 AM UTC-6, Evan Platt wrote:

I saw her picture in the paper today, posing in front of a display
board full of assault rifles. Right behind her was a Hi Point 9mm ten
shot carbine, just like mine! I expect she has plenty of voters who
believe just the way she'd like them to, when it comes to "assault
rifles"?

She'll probably have a lot more, soon as the next nutcase takes his
"shortcut" to fame?\


Commando Cody

[bill horne]

Gasp! You have an assault weapon.

[Lone Haranguer]

And he probably voted for Feinstein.........
LZ

[Frank Howell]

Come on, even Florida doesn't allow voting for California candidates. Do
they in AZ?

--
Frank Howell

[Bruce S]

Lampson lives in California and that is who the "he" in LZ's post refers to.

[Lone Haranguer]

Unless he's moved recently Lampson lives in California.
LZ

[Don Lampson]

I ended up having an assault weapon by accident? I thought the Hi
Point was cute. It reminded me of those carbines in "Planet of the
Apes"; and 9mm rds were under $5 per box, back in the good old
days! It was also really cheap, and even has a scope! IIRC, it
was under $175 with the paperwork? They're now going for over $300
used on the auctions!

I wish I could sell it, but think the only reason I could buy it in
the 1st place, was because I was an LEO then? Now, I'm a fuzz that
wuz, with nuthin' comin'! Maybe I can turn it into Ms Feinstein for
tickets to a rap concert, or basketball game? <wink wink>

BTW, I didn't vote for Feinstein! She has the deed to her office! I
wrote in the name of Don Lampson, for my choice as Senator from the
Great State of Commiefornia! HawHawHaw!


O.J. Simpson Jr.

[Lone Haranguer]

When they come for the neighbor's "assault weapon" they will also
be coming for yours.
When you voted for Obama, you should have expected that.
LZ

[Hank]

On Monday, January 28, 2013 10:59:37 AM UTC-5, Lone Haranguer wrote:

>
> When they come for the neighbor's "assault weapon" they will also
>
> be coming for yours.
>
> When you voted for Obama, you should have expected that.
>
> LZ

Do you actually believe Romney would've side-stepped the issue after the Sandy Hook killings?

Hank

[Bruce S]

I absolutely believe that Romney would have said NO to more gun control.

[Lone Haranguer]

YEP! The gun-grabbers are 99% Democrats and Romney would have
been advised not to join them in passing more stupid laws that do
nothing to prevent or deter crime.

The gun is simply a tool. Passing a bill that bans "assault
weapons" does only one thing; it proves the stupidity and
ignorance of those who support it.
LZ

[Frank Howell]

I stand chagrined and will repent.


--
Frank Howell

[MaxD]

The quit grinning!

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"Hank" wrote Do you actually believe Romney would've

side-stepped the issue after the Sandy Hook killings?<<<

No, Romney wouldn't have "side-stepped the issue", BUT
he would have done something that would help, not
something that has been proven over and over that
it doesn't do a damn thing, like obama's proposed
stupid gun laws.
There are about 20,000 federal gun laws right now and
people are still getting illegal guns and killing others.
How can you liberals believe that passing another law or
even 10-20 new laws, will cure the problem ????????
Only a fool would think that.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[Don Lampson]

I doubt it? Remember, I'm a retired LEO, one of those "good guys",
Obama thinks should have them for protection of the public! (smile)


Fearless Fossdick

[bill horne]

And I'm retired military. I should be given a Personal Defense Weapon
(PDW) EBT card so that I can buy a select-fire PDW and a bunch of PDA
(Personal Defense Ammo).

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:06:56 -0800, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 1/28/2013 12:51 PM, Hank wrote:
>> On Monday, January 28, 2013 10:59:37 AM UTC-5, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> When they come for the neighbor's "assault weapon" they will also
>>>
>>> be coming for yours.
>>>
>>> When you voted for Obama, you should have expected that.
>>>
>>> LZ
>>
>> Do you actually believe Romney would've side-stepped the issue after the Sandy Hook killings?
>>
>> Hank
>
>I absolutely believe that Romney would have said NO to more gun control.

---------------------

Bruce, that just may be why Romney is not sitting in the "big-house".

Of course there were many more issues that kept Romney out of the Big
house but that was probably one of them.

mike
--

Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

Mike Hendrix" wrote Of course there were many

more issues that kept Romney out of the Big
house but that was probably one of them.

Probably not.
From Oakland, California, to Binghamton, New York, several
mass shootings in recent weeks have killed dozens across the country.
But has there been an effect on public opinion? Yes, and in a surprising
way.
Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop --
__________________________________________________
only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws,
__________________________________________________
according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-08/politics/gun.control.poll_1_gun-laws-gun-owner-rights-people?_s=PM:POLITICS
--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[Bruce S]

Anybody who would support stricter gun control is to stupid to be out
without a keeper, and, therefore, would have supported 0bama regardless
of whatever position Romney might have taken.

[Lone Haranguer]

OK, Fearless Mossdick. You might need yours if some newspaper
prints your name & address.
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

And I have a lot of experience with the .50 caliber Browning
machine gun while working for Uncle Sam so I should be issued one
for personal defense.

It's only fair.
LZ

[MaxD]

Hey, I operated a 50 for a brief time. Shouldn't I get one of those.
And a Jeep to mount it on?

[Hank]

I'm confused. How come back in 07 when CNN was reporting on the upcoming election, you (and others) said they were not to be believed and only FOX had the real facts. But now (since they report something you agree with), they are the gospel? You need to get your stories straight. Am i suppose to believe CNN or not? You're strange.

Hank

[Lone Haranguer]

You can have the BMG but no Jeep. The Jeep is not critical for
self-defense.

Send in your petition today.
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

Hank wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:53:32 AM UTC-5, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
>> Mike Hendrix" wrote Of course there were many
>>
>> more issues that kept Romney out of the Big
>>
>> house but that was probably one of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> Probably not.
>>
>> From Oakland, California, to Binghamton, New York, several
>>
>> mass shootings in recent weeks have killed dozens across the country.
>>
>> But has there been an effect on public opinion? Yes, and in a surprising
>>
>> way.
>>
>> Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop --
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>> only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws,
>>
>> __________________________________________________

>> incompetent

>> according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-08/politics/gun.control.poll_1_gun-laws-gun-owner-rights-people?_s=PM:POLITICS
>>
>> --
>>
>> JerryD(upstateNY)
> I'm confused. How come back in 07 when CNN was reporting on the upcoming election, you (and others) said they were not to be believed and only FOX had the real facts. But now (since they report something you agree with), they are the gospel? You need to get your stories straight. Am i suppose to believe CNN or not? You're strange.
>
> Hank

Even a blind and incompetent squirrel occasionally finds an acorn.
LZ

[Bruce S]

Besides, the poll was commissioned by CNN, not conducted by them. And
since the result differs from their editorial position, I doubt it has
been reported on CNN TV either.

[MaxD]

I'm too old to be carrying an 85 lb. firearm around. That's without the
ammo. The Jeep is a necessity.

[ozm...@gmail.com]

...and I operated an F-4 and an FB-111...(but I must admit they were unarmed)

Now.......if only I could get one and hide it under the bed........

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"MaxD" wrote I'm too old to be carrying

an 85 lb. firearm around. That's without the
ammo. The Jeep is a necessity<<<<<<<<<

That's why I carry a gun.
Carrying a whole cop is too heavy.

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[Lone Haranguer]

Apply for a handicap sticker; maybe you can get a variance?
LZ

[bill horne]

Or wait a year or two, and a Jeep will be an entitlement.

[Frank Howell]

Well I got to test fire a quad 50 in 'Nam and it was mounted on a
half-track, but I would
have to pass on wanting to own one cuz if I need one for home defense it's
time to di di mo.


--
Frank Howell

[Frank Howell]

Shit man, you need a sherpa!

--
Frank Howell

[MaxD]

I had a sherpa...from MacDonalds.