Get it now.

[2dumb2kwit]

If any of you are thinking about any high capacity gun, or anything that may be "black and scary", you may want to get it real soon. I'm guessing that gunshows are about to get very crowded, again....and the price of ammo is about to go through the roof...again.

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Tuesday night after the speech, Obama adviser David Plouffe said to NBC News that the president would not let the moment after the Arizona shootings pass without pushing for some change in the law, to prevent another similar incident. “It’s a very important issue, and one I know there’s going to be debate about on the Hill.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/27/w...n-control.html

[BENESSE]

So if you're mentally unstable, hurry up and get yours NOW.

[BENESSE]

In fact, set up a mental check point to all the gun shows because most people going in will probably
be off their rocker and just stocking up before the new gun-control effort kicks in.

[2dumb2kwit]

So if you're mentally unstable, hurry up and get yours NOW.

Yeah. LOL

Actually, what I meant was....whenever there is talk of more gun control, the market for high capacity guns, scary looking guns, and ammo goes crazy.

As far as new laws go, you don't think they will only try to keep guns out of the hands of nut-jobs, do ya? The problem with their "common sense" gun laws, is that they aren't.

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

In fact, set up a mental check point to all the gun shows because most people going in will probably
be off their rocker and just stocking up before the new gun-control effort kicks in.

Without trying to be argumentative, It all depends on what type of "Mental instability" they look for. I haven't met ANYONE that couldn't be diagnosed with "Something" that would qualify as a "Mental condition". From the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress, on down to me. We all have some little "Quirk" or other. With some it might be Anorexia, OCD, Mild depression, or something that is non-threatening to the Public. I don't think there are any "Easy" answers to the problem either. However I don't think continued increase in legislation/regulation is the right thing to do either. At what point do we say "enough is enough"?

[Justin Case]

Los Angeles is talking about banning ammo,,

[Justin Case]

Oh Wait,, I got that wrong,, They want to uphold a ban on teflon coated "Cop Killer" bullets,,
http://www.bhcourier.com/article/Loc...orcement/74226

But did you know they tried to ban all online ammo sales ? http://redtape.msnbc.com/2011/01/onl...e-for-now.html

[BENESSE]

Without trying to be argumentative, It all depends on what type of "Mental instability" they look for. I haven't met ANYONE that couldn't be diagnosed with "Something" that would qualify as a "Mental condition". From the POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress, on down to me. We all have some little "Quirk" or other. With some it might be Anorexia, OCD, Mild depression, or something that is non-threatening to the Public. I don't think there are any "Easy" answers to the problem either. However I don't think continued increase in legislation/regulation is the right thing to do either. At what point do we say "enough is enough"?

This type: wacko, schizo, paranoid instability with years of heads up, apparent to anyone who isn't deaf, blind and in denial. It's what Arizona, Virgina Tech and Fort Hood shooters all had in common. If anyone thinks that keeping guns away from those type of lunatics constitutes a "slippery slope" then I'm truly speechless.

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

This type: wacko, schizo, paranoid instability with years of heads up, apparent to anyone who isn't deaf, blind and in denial. It's what Arizona, Virgina Tech and Fort Hood shooters all had in common. If anyone thinks that keeping guns away from those type of lunatics constitutes a "slippery slope" then I'm truly speechless.

But there's the problem. All of those were already known but overlooked/ignored (By Psychiatrist, LE agencies, etc.) with the current laws already in place. New legislation isn't called for, just enforcing CURRENT legislation.
IF Those laws we already have were enforced they wouldn't have happened..... except maybe the Fort Hood Shooter who was just an extremist KNOWN to the FBI.

[Justin Case]

They should start by restricting everyone that takes mood altering prescription drugs,,,, There is a reason they take it... just MHO

[BENESSE]

But there's the problem. All of those were already known but overlooked/ignored (By Psychiatrist, LE agencies, etc.) with the current laws already in place. New legislation isn't called for, just enforcing CURRENT legislation.
IF Those laws we already have were enforced they wouldn't have happened..... except maybe the Fort Hood Shooter who was just an extremist KNOWN to the FBI.

I'd say a new efferot IS needed to strengthten current laws. What's wrong with that"

"...the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check."

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

They should start by restricting everyone that takes mood altering prescription drugs,,,, There is a reason they take it... just MHO

So if I have a nervous condition that makes my hands shake, and I take a nerve medicine, I shouldn't own a gun? Some "Mood altering drugs" are used to treat other things as well. I forget which one specifically, but one anti-depressant was/has been used to treat a Physical illness too.

Still ALL of those that "B" listed were "slip through the cracks" cases, that should not have owned guns WITH current legislation. No new laws are needed, just better enforcement of those laws. It really is getting closer every day where the saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns" is true.

[Justin Case]

So if I have a nervous condition that makes my hands shake, and I take a nerve medicine, I shouldn't own a gun? Some "Mood altering drugs" are used to treat other things as well. I forget which one specifically, but one anti-depressant was/has been used to treat a Physical illness too.

Still ALL of those that "B" listed were "slip through the cracks" cases, that should not have owned guns WITH current legislation. No new laws are needed, just better enforcement of those laws. It really is getting closer every day where the saying "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will own guns" is true.

No, But If a person is prescribed such meds, there could be a database or something that can be searched as to why a person is taking it,,, I dunno, was just a thought,,

[2dumb2kwit]

This type: wacko, schizo, paranoid instability with years of heads up, apparent to anyone who isn't deaf, blind and in denial. It's what Arizona, Virgina Tech and Fort Hood shooters all had in common. If anyone thinks that keeping guns away from those type of lunatics constitutes a "slippery slope" then I'm truly speechless.

The problem with these people isn't the gun laws.....it the privacy laws. It's the whatchacallit law....you know...like a hospital can't release info about a patient. Their doctors, or whoever, can't report their craziness to the databases. Even if this was not the case, where do you draw the line? If someone is thought to be dangerous enough, that if they had a gun, they might kill...they should be locked up. If they are crazy enough to kill, not being able to buy a new gun isn't going to stop them. If they are not enough of a threat, to be put in jail, why is it OK to take away there rights?

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check."

He owned "Assault Weapons"? I haven't heard this before. All I knew was that he had the pistol, nothing else. Still even with this being the case,we don't need more laws to do this. Application, not legislation is what is needed.

We don't need another law to "Fix" existing laws, just better enforcement of laws we already have! Some laws are just not enforced sufficiently, making MORE laws isn't going to change that.

PM inbound B.

[2dumb2kwit]

He owned "Assault Weapons"? I haven't heard this before. All I knew was that he had the pistol, nothing else. Still even with this being the case,we don't need more laws to do this. Application, not legislation is what is needed.

We don't need another law to "Fix" existing laws, just better enforcement of laws we already have! Some laws are just not enforced sufficiently, making MORE laws isn't going to change that.

PM inbound B.

That's what gun-grabbers call anything that you can put a magizine in, with more than 10 rounds in it. Or if it's black....or if it's a rifle with a pistol grip....or a flash hider....or a folding stock.

[2dumb2kwit]

Believe it or not, I'm glad that crazy S.O.B. used a gun, instead of a bomb. Do you realize how many people could have been killed, if he had used a bomb?


How about that nut at Fort Hood? How many could he have killed with explosives?

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

That's what gun-grabbers call anything that you can put a magizine in, with more than 10 rounds in it. Or if it's black....or if it's a rifle with a pistol grip....or a flash hider....or a folding stock.

That's stupid. I can put all of those modifications on my 10/22, but no soldier in his right mind would use it to "assault" anything. Except rabbits,squirrels, and paper targets. Matter of fact my 10/22 already has a black synthetic stock, but it has a bright shiny barrel and receiver(nickel plated I believe) AND I have a 25 round magazine for it. Only a fool would consider it an "assault weapon".

[2dumb2kwit]

That's stupid. I can put all of those modifications on my 10/22, but no soldier in his right mind would use it to "assault" anything. Except rabbits,squirrels, and paper targets. Matter of fact my 10/22 already has a black synthetic stock, but it has a bright shiny barrel and receiver(nickel plated I believe) AND I have a 25 round magazine for it. Only a fool would consider it an "assault weapon".

That is what happens when laws are made out of and/or to play to emotion, rather than logic, and reason.

[2dumb2kwit]

That's stupid. I can put all of those modifications on my 10/22, but no soldier in his right mind would use it to "assault" anything. Except rabbits,squirrels, and paper targets. Matter of fact my 10/22 already has a black synthetic stock, but it has a bright shiny barrel and receiver(nickel plated I believe) AND I have a 25 round magazine for it. Only a fool would consider it an "assault weapon".

BTW...I don't think you can buy a 25 round magazine for it in Cali. And I would guess it would also be an issue in Mass.