One gun a month: Bloggers debate N.J.'s new gun control law

If they actually look at this seriously, they should make a new law where criminals are limited to one crime a month. Both laws would work equally well.

RustyS wrote:

If they actually look at this seriously, they should make a new law where criminals are limited to one crime a month. Both laws would work equally well.

What works and what doesn't.
.
They should ask just this: Has any such law succeeded in the past?
.
If not, then the law is an exercise in futility, and it amounts to nothing less than an infringement upon the citizens themselves, because it treats them as criminals to be.
.
Such a proposition is hideous for it presumes that all are guilty, and all must prove their innocence before exercising a right.
.
But if criminals pay no attention to the law, then the law is entirely an imposition upon the innocent.
.
Liberty = 1/government
.
By definition of that equation, the least amount of government = the greatest amount of Liberty.
.
Government is that quantity which impedes individual liberty.
.
The idiots who wrote that law should become familiar with this law:
—————
"WHOEVER, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects ANY person in ANY State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the CONSTITUTION or LAWS of the UNITED STATES, OR to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

- U.S. CODE: TITLE 18> PART I> CHAPTER 13> § 242
—————

Not even a handgun ban has stopped gun crime in Chicago.

Sooner or later, the one-gun-purchase per month will make a buyer angry enough to kill someone.

The waiting period law is degrading and humiliating.

Waiting periods make gun buyers more angry while they wait and when they must return to the gun store (again.) It's a good thing the one-gun per month and the wait period laws don't apply to criminals or maniacs.

Tory II wrote:

Not even a handgun ban has stopped gun crime in Chicago.
Sooner or later, the one-gun-purchase per month will make a buyer angry enough to kill someone.
The waiting period law is degrading and humiliating.
Waiting periods make gun buyers more angry while they wait and when they must return to the gun store (again.) It's a good thing the one-gun per month and the wait period laws don't apply to criminals or maniacs.

Well I'm a gun owner and I buy as many as I can afford. I can not buy one a month due to the price of about $1200 per weapon. And if you take the Mn carry class and have your card it's as easy as walking in filling out one form and taking your gun. I don't know of any anger coming over me at all. But making it a LAW that you can only buy ONE gun a month DOES make me mad.
What the hel1 is the difference if I own the 15 I have or 25+ I'd like. It's just stupid!

No spin zone wrote:

<quoted text>Well I'm a gun owner and I buy as many as I can afford. I can not buy one a month due to the price of about $1200 per weapon. And if you take the Mn carry class and have your card it's as easy as walking in filling out one form and taking your gun. I don't know of any anger coming over me at all. But making it a LAW that you can only buy ONE gun a month DOES make me mad.
What the hel1 is the difference if I own the 15 I have or 25+ I'd like. It's just stupid!

Rule &#8470; 1:
No man-made law has =EVER= stopped anything from happening.
.
Rule &#8470; 2:
If a law cannot be enforced 100% of the time, then the law is useless.
.
Rule &#8470; 3:
If a law is useless, it is inoperable for any purpose save to harass.
.

No spin zone wrote:

<quoted text>Well I'm a gun owner and I buy as many as I can afford. I can not buy one a month due to the price of about $1200 per weapon. And if you take the Mn carry class and have your card it's as easy as walking in filling out one form and taking your gun. I don't know of any anger coming over me at all. But making it a LAW that you can only buy ONE gun a month DOES make me mad.
What the hel1 is the difference if I own the 15 I have or 25+ I'd like. It's just stupid!

I don't believe you. You sound like a person who has never owned or purchased a gun, and who has never had a desire to have a gun.

My first rifle cost me $100.00 plus tax (no where near the $1200 you quote as typical).

Only one gun per month? Still sounds like too many. Perhaps two guns or three per lifetime?

"One gun a month"

How can that possibly be when:

"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed"?

It CANNOT be according to the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND".

THE GUNS FORUM

FORUM ISSUE:

POST# 1679

BY: Law (Bellevue, NE)

rosco's sing-a-long...

Trollin', trollin', trollin,
Man, my sphincter's swollen.
Might be from cornholin', rawhide.

Don't really have a notion
And never use the lotion
I'm into all the motion, rawhide!"

rosco wrote:

Only one gun per month? Still sounds like too many. Perhaps two guns or three per lifetime?

Sounds like you are talking about your intelligent thoughts. And yes that is way too many for you. You would be lucky if you could verbalize just 1 intelligent thought a year.

Tory II wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe you. You sound like a person who has never owned or purchased a gun, and who has never had a desire to have a gun.
My first rifle cost me $100.00 plus tax (no where near the $1200 you quote as typical).

I don't buy crap. I would never buy a gun for $100 dollars. I buy nothing but Kimber Guns. If your shooting a $100 dollar gun ... you haven't really shot a gun. Go look them up at www.kimberamerica.com Hel1 my kids paint ball gun cost more than a $100 bucks.

NO more laws!! no one can possibly know all the laws in this "free" country of ours.
Lawyers making laws so lawyers can make more money.
Vote 'em all out...start over

No spin zone wrote:

<quoted text>I don't buy crap. I would never buy a gun for $100 dollars. I buy nothing but Kimber Guns. If your shooting a $100 dollar gun ... you haven't really shot a gun. Go look them up at www.kimberamerica.com Hel1 my kids paint ball gun cost more than a $100 bucks.

Arrogantasshole! Some people can not afford the high dollar weapons, you jerk. It does not matter the cost of the device used for self protection, it only matters that they have the right.

Patrick H wrote:

NO more laws!! no one can possibly know all the laws in this "free" country of ours.
Lawyers making laws so lawyers can make more money.
Vote 'em all out...start over

Amen. We need to get rid off the politicians & the lawyers. Then we could go back to laws that are Constitutional, according to Original Intent of the Founders.

Wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>Amen. We need to get rid off the politicians & the lawyers.

But you repeat yourself ...
.
:o)
.

Wolverine wrote:

Then we could go back to laws that are Constitutional, according to Original Intent of the Founders.

Indeed!
—————
“Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society.”

~ John Adams ~
—————

Criminals don't always buy their guns at the gun store or thru the licensed gun dealer - therefore the one-gun-per-month law won't apply to them.

The (clean record) people who buy, thru the gun dealer, for the criminal have the time to buy one gun each month. The one-gun-per-month law only hinders the peaceful law-abiding person; it leaves them unsafe.

The one-gun-per-month law is just another slippery slope gun control law for peaceful people that benefits the criminals and govt.

Wolverine wrote:

<quoted text>Arrogantasshole! Some people can not afford the high dollar weapons, you jerk. It does not matter the cost of the device used for self protection, it only matters that they have the right.

It's not arrogant to buy the best when it comes to defending yourself and family. It does take a stupid asz like you not to know that. Maybe you should read his post again. You missed the point Jerk!

Well if you disagree with it move.
Why stay in a state that want to control your RIGHTS ?
Why even pay taxes to a state that Takes away your
RIGHTS ?
Move WEST to GODS country!

Don t Agree wrote:

Well if you disagree with it move.
Why stay in a state that want to control your RIGHTS ?
Why even pay taxes to a state that Takes away your
RIGHTS ?
Move WEST to GODS country!

If you don't fight it where it starts, it'll eventually follow you where ever you go. Like I've said on other threads:" I only run far enough so I can turn, aim, and fire'

No spin zone wrote:

<quoted text>It's not arrogant to buy the best when it comes to defending yourself and family. It does take a stupid asz like you not to know that. Maybe you should read his post again. You missed the point Jerk!

You are an arrogantasshole. I own guns ranging in price from $100 to several thousand dollars. Your original post was arrogant. This so called stupid ass was a soldier/cop for almost 12 years. Yeah I do not know how to buy a gun or use it. You are a fn idiot.