Small Arms Treaty

[Michael Britt]

25 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

This is a prime example of what I mean when I said, "what these people continue to try to do even after they do get some of their "common sense" (quote-unquote) gun laws enacted".

It was "common sense" to get rid of "large capacity" magazines of 30 rounds -- so they (I'm talking NJ politicians) redefined "large capacity" to 15 rounds (that was in the mid-90s I believe). But now - no no! "common sense" before was defined as 15, but NOW "common sense" tells us large capacity magazines are 10 (that was in 2018). What is to stop a NJ politician from again redefining "large capacity" to something lower than 10? Apparently, nothing - because it actually was proposed in 2014 to define "large capacity" to mean 5 !!! (see NJ A671). That did not pass. But the next reduction will almost certainly be 5 - and then it will be 1... and then 0.

Why think it would be different?? We already saw their common sense definition of "large capacity" go down from 30 to 15 to 10 in a span of about 25 years.

Their definition of "common sense" changes after they get their way - they just keep restricting the laws by redefining their own definition of "common sense". Here's the latest set of "common sense" laws Murphy wants to enact (from this April): https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562021/20210415b.shtml

This is what I mean when I say they just keep coming for more and more and will not stop until they ban and eventually confiscate every firearm. That is the trajectory they are on, and a few even admit as much.

30 rounds is standard capacity, not large capacity.

[Batsto]

23 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

This is a prime example of what I mean when I said, "what these people continue to try to do even after they do get some of their "common sense" (quote-unquote) gun laws enacted".

It was "common sense" to get rid of "large capacity" magazines of 30 rounds -- so they (I'm talking NJ politicians) redefined "large capacity" to 15 rounds (that was in the mid-90s I believe). But now - no no! "common sense" before was defined as 15, but NOW "common sense" tells us large capacity magazines are 10 (that was in 2018). What is to stop a NJ politician from again redefining "large capacity" to something lower than 10? Apparently, nothing - because it actually was proposed in 2014 to define "large capacity" to mean 5 !!! (see NJ A671). That did not pass. But the next reduction will almost certainly be 5 - and then it will be 1... and then 0.

Why think it would be different?? We already saw their common sense definition of "large capacity" go down from 30 to 15 to 10 in a span of about 25 years.

Their definition of "common sense" changes after they get their way - they just keep restricting the laws by redefining their own definition of "common sense". Here's the latest set of "common sense" laws Murphy wants to enact (from this April): https://nj.gov/governor/news/news/562021/20210415b.shtml

This is what I mean when I say they just keep coming for more and more and will not stop until they ban and eventually confiscate every firearm. That is the trajectory they are on, and a few even admit as much.

Agree 100%! Pecking away at our constitutional rights. 

[Mr12gauge]

Well Mr. FeniQuest217 I'm Mr. Government.  Please give me your make , model , and serial number of all the guns you have. I will check and see if any of these firearms are the ones I don't like (or maybe in the future won't like). Now that I know exactly what you own you will now have to surrender the "bad" ones, sorry but your overlords have determined that you can't have them . Have a nice day.

[NotJust22s]

4 hours ago, FeniQuest217 said:

i dont disagree with you but this is the current shitty world we're living in. Registration - tho a complete pain in the ass and more money which all theyll ever go after is appeasement. Right now you have leftist wanting to make us like Australia. 

You don’t appease the anti gun nuts. Once they get them registered then they arbitrarily determine a feature of a specific gun is evil, so they decide to ban it and require them to be turned in. Next thing you know someone is knowing on you’re door asking for your evil gun.
They don’t stop until no civilian has a gun.  

[Bubblehead]

5 hours ago, FeniQuest217 said:

In honesty - if i was a politician - Id push harshly for registration because it provides appeasement.  Im all for guns etc obviously but im reading the terrain. If you think gun laws are ever going to get less strict - you're clearly not paying attention.  The world is constantly changing and yes in our agreed opinion for the worse. But at the very least, gun registration will appease those who oppose guns. 

Listen - no matter what happens with our current President and Governor - theyre going to be here for the next few years. Even if a Republican does get int at some point, they won't win the narrative on guns. Not too mention theyll just sway people over to the left who will focus on stricter and stricter policies.  Too much damage has been done with the gun narrative in this country - its an absolute shame but its currently what is happening. 

 

 

The only thing that will appease people who are against private citizens owning guns is private citizens not being allowed to own guns. Period end of that story. The only reason the government cares what we own is so they know what they need to come get from each of us when they attempt to disarm us. Period end of that story

[stratocaster]

9 hours ago, FeniQuest217 said:

Personally, It doesn't bother me one bit about registering and keeping records of a firearm and its owner. Honestly its completely logical in my opinion. I really don't understand the argument against registration. You have to register your vehicle - and that's statistically more dangerous than guns.

However, probably since i was born over 30 years ago - guns and abortion have been the common theme among every single candidate and they continue to butcher each decision. If people are free, they should be able to live there life as they choose within reason of the law. But these laws have seriously impacted our 2nd amendment rights and it continues to get stricter and stricter. It really pissed me off how misguided their logic is on gun restriction and control.

It truly is not surprising that you --amazingly--have bought into the narrative about registration since you have clearly not read the 2A and understand what power it gives to the citizenry via the constitution nor do you understand the true reason for the constitution itself or why the Bill of Rights was included.  Nor do you understand what tyranny really means and how the constructs of tyranny are in complete opposition to a representative republic, which we are.  We are not a democracy.   

  It really isn't logical because you have provided no logical argument for registration, and neither has anyone else, and actually undermine your own argument by referencing the "vehicle" registration argument and further destroy your argument by stating: "If people are free, they should be able to live there life as they choose within reason of the law." <<<<How does this statement comport with your comfort regarding gun registration?  

Nothing in the constitution guarantees your right to keep and own a vehicle, house, lawn mower or anything else and driving is a privilege, not a right bestowed on us unlike the 2A.   You should really read the Federalist papers and the Bill of Rights and try to understand why our constitution separates us from the rest of the world as it relates to self government.   If you needed more convincing why the constitution is so vital,  look at the current occupant of the WH and what he is doing to try to force people into a certain mode of action. 

[stratocaster]

5 hours ago, FeniQuest217 said:

In honesty - if i was a politician - Id push harshly for registration because it provides appeasement.  Im all for guns etc obviously but im reading the terrain. If you think gun laws are ever going to get less strict - you're clearly not paying attention.  The world is constantly changing and yes in our agreed opinion for the worse. But at the very least, gun registration will appease those who oppose guns. 

Listen - no matter what happens with our current President and Governor - theyre going to be here for the next few years. Even if a Republican does get int at some point, they won't win the narrative on guns. Not too mention theyll just sway people over to the left who will focus on stricter and stricter policies.  Too much damage has been done with the gun narrative in this country - its an absolute shame but its currently what is happening. 

 

 

Thank God you are not a politician.  That mindset of appeasement has nothing but the worst possible outcomes. 

[stratocaster]

5 hours ago, FeniQuest217 said:

i dont disagree with you but this is the current shitty world we're living in. Registration - tho a complete pain in the ass and more money which all theyll ever go after is appeasement. Right now you have leftist wanting to make us like Australia. 

Correct on the comparison with Australia and with the communist left here.   But you need to understand appeasement is nothing but a trojan horse.  

[stratocaster]

25 minutes ago, NotJust22s said:

You don’t appease the anti gun nuts. Once they get them registered then they arbitrarily determine a feature of a specific gun is evil, so they decide to ban it and require them to be turned in. Next thing you know someone is knowing on you’re door asking for your evil gun.
They don’t stop until no civilian has a gun.  

We truly need God's help when people get in the voting booth who think appeasing people is a good idea.