Social Issues

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul young

Quinnipiac University is in Hamden, Ct. It's not very far from Sandy Hook, Ct.-Paul

---

Wonder why some obscure Conn. college would pick Virginia residents to poll about gun rights? Oh yeah, it's the evil state that supplies NY's and all of the rest of New England's criminals with guns because its gun-toting, bible-thumping residents abhor gun control and its gun shops sells them to any criminal that wants to shoot up a school ((((eye roll)))).

Not picking on you, Paul and thank you for educating me on Quinnipiniac U, since I'd never heard of it and thought maybe it was among the plethora of internet schools that have sprung up recently. It does get tiresome hearing sanctimonious NE politicians, esp. NYC Mayor Bloomberg, blaming VA for supplying their criminals with guns. As if here in Virginia we have a cottage industry breeding and raising guns to kill people....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeus3925

Going back to Goose's point, some people there is no reasoning with. What good is making Feinstein an issue? You and I are not going to change her stance. Move on and look for support for more agreeable sources. Going after Feinstein only creates a high visibility martyr for people of like minds to coalesce around. The one thing about getting down in the mud and wrestling with someone as intractable as Feinstein is you end up where nobody can see through the mud to discern the difference. I don't think you want to end up looking like Feinstein unless you are going to a masquerade ball on Halloween.:)

As for the rant on liberals, I have heard the same tirade from the other side against conservatives. It gets us no where and it really precludes any meaningful discussion on the issues before the country. Liberal, conservative, progressive, libertarian, moderate are all legitimate points of view. Those lines of thought have been the strength of this democracy. To slam a door on any particular viewpoint does a disservice to us all.

---

Heres Goosers Thoughts..


The Constitution, nor the oath of office,, require an allegience to a politicle party..

But,,

There IS a such a thing called majority tyranny.


Gooser

"Meaningful discusion??"
Are you freakin' kidding me??
Where was the meaningful discussion on;
Obama Care
Stimulus II
UAW bailout
Forced religious institutional birth control
Green company hand outs (Fiskars & Solyndra)
Debt ceiling (which is coming again, soon)
Tax increases


"It's not a Democrat / Republican thing??"

That's exactly what it is.
You leftys followed the pied piper, now deal with it.
No Republicans are pushing for gun control, that's coming from the Whitehouse!!!!

He wants to make gun control an issue?
Great, do it, and you leftys will lose the Senate at the mid terms.
Let's see, who all is up??
LA, UT, SD, and several more.

Obama used the useful idiots to get in and now (like he told the russian dude) he can do "lot's more!!!"

Pretend like you didn't see this comming all you want.
Blame who ever you want bot Obama is "fundamentally changing America," just like he said he would.
"No one is so blind as he who refuses to see!!!"

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q...-hopenosis.gif

Guns are not the problem ladies and gentleman, liberalism is!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by road kill

"Meaningful discusion??"
Are you freakin' kidding me??
Where was the meaningful discussion on;
Obama Care
Stimulus II
UAW bailout
Forced religious institutional birth control
Green company hand outs (Fiskars & Solyndra)
Debt ceiling (which is coming again, soon)


"It's not a Democrat / Republican thing??"

That's exactly what it is.
You leftys followed the pied piper, now deal with it.

He wants to make gun control an issue?
Great, do it, and you leftys will lose the Senate at the mid terms.
Let's see, who all is up??
LA, UT, SD, and several more.

Obama used the useful idiots to get in and now (like he told the russian dude) he can do "lot's more!!!"

Pretend like you didn't see this comming all you want.
Blame who ever you want bot Obama is "fundamentally changing America," just like he said he would.
"No one is so blind as he who refuses to see!!!"

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q...-hopenosis.gif

Guns are not the problem ladies and gentleman, liberalism is!!!!

---

But, But...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by huntinman

But, But...

---

But the Republicans ran this guy...... This is not a Romney problem, but a Republican problem.

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people. -Mitt Romney

Quote:

---

The definition of “assault weapon” is the same as the federal law that went into effect on September 13, 1994. Specific guns are banned by name, and guns with certain combinations of features are banned:

a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon ;
(iii) a bayonet mount;
(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
(v) a grenade launcher;

a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip,
or silencer;
(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits
the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--"

(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'“

A “large capacity feeding device” is defined the same as in federal law, or:
“a fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip or similar device capable of accepting, or that can be readily converted to accept, more than ten rounds of ammunition or more than five shotgun shells; ... The term “large capacity feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with,.22 caliber ammunition.”

A “large capacity weapon” is basically any firearm, rifle or shotgun that is semi-automatic with a fixed large capacity feeding device or that is capable of accepting any detachable large capacity feeding device; or an “assault weapon.”

Ban on recently-manufactured “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines.” State law clearly limits possession to pre-1994 items and exempts out only law enforcement and retired law enforcement:

“No person shall sell, offer for sale, transfer or possess an assault weapon or a large capacity feeding device that was not otherwise lawfully possessed on September 13, 1994. Whoever not being licensed under the provisions of section 122 violates the provisions of this section shall be punished, for a first offense, by a fine of not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment, and for a second offense, by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $15,000 or by imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 15 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. The provisions of this section shall not apply to: (i) the possession by a law enforcement officer for purposes of law enforcement; or (ii) the possession by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving such a weapon or feeding device from such agency upon retirement.”

Transportation of “Large Capacity Weapons:” No person possessing a large capacity rifle or shotgun under a Class A or Class B license issued under section 131 or 131F shall possess the same in a vehicle unless such weapon is unloaded and contained within the locked trunk of such vehicle or in a locked case or other secure container. Whoever violates the provisions of this subsection shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.

References: Mass General Law C.140 §§121, 131C, 131M and 18 U.S.C. section 921(a)(30)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngundog

But the Republicans ran this guy...... This is not a Romney problem, but a Republican problem.

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people. -Mitt Romney

---

Romney is not President, your guy is and he is "assaulting" law abiding citizens constitutional rights!!!!

Are you trying to make us believe you voted for Obama due to his pro-gun philosophy??

That is hysterical......................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by road kill

Romney is not President, your guy is and he is "assaulting" law abiding citizens constitutional rights!!!!

Are you trying to make us believe you voted for Obama due to his pro-gun philosophy??

That is hysterical......................

---

My guy, your hysterical, I have ever never been behind Obama...ever...., you bragged up a Republican candidate that was in favor of gun control and socialized health care, you sound more like a Obama supporter than me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngundog

But the Republicans ran this guy...... This is not a Romney problem, but a Republican problem.

Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people. -Mitt Romney

---

Who is the president??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by starjack

Who is the president??

---

In keeping with the theme of the OP, I thought it was worth noting that both parties ran gun control freaks and that is hardly irrelevant in this discussion. I do believe it is a fair question to ask democratic voters their thoughts on gun control in the mid terms, I believe it would be a better question to ask republican voters the same question. Gun Control policy was absolutely abandoned by the Republican party in the last election, I hope they come around in the mid-terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mngundog

In keeping with the theme of the OP, I thought it was worth noting that both parties ran gun control freaks and that is hardly irrelevant in this discussion. I do believe it is a fair question to ask democratic voters their thoughts on gun control in the mid terms, I believe it would be a better question to ask republican voters the same question. Gun Control policy was absolutely abandoned by the Republican party in the last election, I hope they come around in the mid-terms.

---

it was abandoned because polling from the likely voters showed it wasnt in the Top 5 issues...they also knew that the gun control issue was going to be fought in the courts...everyone and their kid sister knew BHO was going after the guns IF he got a second term, no one imagined he would have gotten a national tragedy like Newton to further his agenda

Could you imagine the field day the media would be having IF the R's had won the WH and Newton still went down, even before a new Pres was inaugurated