Mark@Sea

  Yes, the law is asinine.  Criminal intent has nothing to do with it.     I personally want to see him jailed and fined because he's lawing at me, I should be able to law back.  This whole "the laws aren't meant to be applied to those on the right side of the issue" thing is troubling too.     Hey, Howard, the peasants are getting restless, what?  Best lean a little harder on on the gun control siren. 

Could always use more canned bacon

I make no concessions.

No.  Afghanistan is what this country would look like if the grabbers have their way.

I think it'd be very hard to split ammunition from arms, to the satisfaction of the supreme court.  Taxing a right in order to suppress it is a big no-no.  Poll tax, anyone?

Called 'em days ago.

Feinsteins' bill won't pass.  I would regard ANY compromise version as theft.   Frankly, the 'big push' for gun control everyone is talking about is coming from far left democratic politicians and mainstream media (pretty much the same thing).  The public has been voting on this for a couple of weeks now, with dollars, in the market.  The outcome of that 'poll of public opinion' should be crystal clear, to even the blindest of politicians.   Going to be really, really hard to make the 'common use doesn't apply' argument.    ATF can't manage the NFA registry now - this is common knowledge - they haven't a prayer of managing one that just expanded a thousandfold or more.    Feinstein and co. are thieves.  They are trying to steal not just goods (that can be replaced) but rights, which can't.  Let me make this clear - the gov't didn't grant the right in the first place, merely recognized it exists.   Molon Labe

Definitely.  The first one is his warning, after that they're behavioural modification.     In my youth I rode some of the best roller coasters in the world, but the loops, spins and disconnects in logic exhibited by the ban crowd beat all I've ever seen. -  A gun in the hands of a madman is a precision killing instrument, yet unless you're special forces, a gun would be useless to oppose a criminal. -  If they're just going to take your gun and use it against you, why aren't the spree killers stacked up like cordwood? -  Good intentions and pure hearts, apparently, are a much better choice of defense against an armed madman than good intentions and a 1911.  Not sure why, maybe the rainbows of defenseless innocence are supposed to blind the shooter and convert him to a peaceful, high fiber, fur-free lifestyle. -  I wouldn't want anyone in my daughters school to have a gun, because they might miss and hit a child instead of the madman. -  I trust my childrens' teacher with their education, discipline, care, feeding, school trips, sports, and everything else, but if the teacher had a gun it is virtually certain it would make them insane monsters.     If it weren't for autonomous functions (breathing, for example) I am convinced that 80% of these thought-free people would fall over dead. 

Active shooter in a school, my first response wouldn't be to yell "I've got a gun!". I'd take as steady a stance as I could, with as much cover as I could get, and put enough lead in the shooter you could use him as an anchor. I figure one in the chest is all the warning he deserves.

Wouldn't do 'em any good - the law also includes mags that can be converted or restored.

If they tried it, they'd find out quick it'd be way too expensive.

We could always threaten to boycott the network.  I hear they are running neck and neck with Oprahs' network, and I'm sure they'd like to keep their market share.

Well, the brits have a counter-petition up.  I say we should compromise, and deport him halfway.

They'd have to raise our taxes to pay for it.  Might not be in the news much, but the govt is whistling past the graveyard financially.

Sure they can.  The same way the marginally performing .223 is also a nuclear-tipped WMD.      Hey, how is it that semi-auto rifles are WMD in the States, but full auto rifles, machineguns, RPG's, and chemical weapons in Iraq don't qualify?

He probably doesn't - for a couple reasons.  He can't get a journalism job there because of the frameup he tried to pull on British troops, and he might face more investigation into the cellphone hacking issue they had going on there.     And from comments on the web, pretty clear the Brits don't want him back.     Nobody who has seen the interview can claim he was interested in a dialogue, he plainly wanted only an opportunity to scream.  Not very good behaviour for someone who is a guest in our country.

I don't see it as a first amendment issue.  I wouldn't come to your home and piss on your rug, and if I did, I'd expect you to toss me out.

There are prop mags.  They are blue.  That one was aluminum.  If they claim it was a prop, they lie.

55000 plus at 10PM   Something I didn't know - this pussbucket was fired as editor to a newspaper in Britain for faking photos of Brit troops abusing Iraqis.   I agree that First Amendment rights are as important as 2A - but they don't trump. 

"pontificating, underinformed, supercilious twit, whose arrival here was in violation of the legal prohibitions against importing foreign insect pests."     Stolen gleefully from "Of arms and the Law"

I hope (but seriously doubt) they find the arsonist.  And if they do, I hope (but seriously doubt) he will be given a rapid trial by his peers, and sentenced to death.  Hanging, behind the courthouse, within 24 hours of sentencing would be just fine.

No, but about 240 years ago it would have started one.

Wow, what an effective law!  See how well it kept some moron from getting that evil high powered magazine?

I think that would merit 20 years, no parole.

Government is a necessary evil.  It possesses a mindless urge to expand.  It can only do so at the expense of liberty.  Its' only tools are deception and naked force.  Only heroic efforts and constant vigilance keep it confined, lest it escape and destroy its' creators.  It creates and controls mindless drones who look just like real people, yet they exist only to expand its' power.   If that isn't the subject of nightmare, then what is?