Gun Nut Plans March On Washington

[PsyOps]

I described how a mini14 could be decked out above. Guess you missed that. If you would actually read the law maybe you would see that your cosmetic preferences for a long gun haven't been "infringed upon" much at all.

I don't care what you can do to get around the laws (legally or illegally). If you can mod a firearm, the government will find a way to ban it. THAT is the problem; THAT is the premise behind combating an intrusive government. We should not have to come up with more creative ways to create firearms to combat/counter a government that bans things and does things that aim to make the people weaker. The government should not have this authority. The government DOES NOT have this authority, except that we – the people – in our complacent ignorance allow them; to our own demise. You either believe in the spirit of the constitution or you don’t.

 

[PsyOps]

That is debatable as we have never seen a true total gun ban to date, and in Maryland, there have been restrictions on certain firearms but to my knowledge there has never been an outright ban.

It’s not about that. It’s about a government that us weaker. We are not to be deemed weaker by our government. It is the government is to be deemed weaker by the people; and the constitution demands this.

It is exactly the role of government to tell you whether or not you are worthy. You seem to think that this right is an absolute right and we all know it is not. You are crying the sky is falling when in fact it is only raining.

It is only by our allowing it that this is the case. The government has no power over us that we don't give them. But we ignorantly give it to them time and time again. This was never the intent of our founders and the constitution. The constitution was intended to limit government, not the people through government. If you even try to understand the words of our founders you’d get that.

 

[Ken King]

I don't care what you can do to get around the laws (legally or illegally). If you can mod a firearm, the government will find a way to ban it. THAT is the problem; THAT is the premise behind combating an intrusive government. We should not have to come up with more creative ways to create firearms to combat/counter a government that bans things and does things that aim to make the people weaker. The government should not have this authority. The government DOES NOT have this authority, except that we – the people – in our complacent ignorance allow them; to our own demise. You either believe in the spirit of the constitution or you don’t.

If it is legal you are not getting around a law you are complying with the law.

It seems you seek anarchy, absolute total freedom and the ability to do whatever you want without regard for others. Is that the spirit you are speaking of? If that is the case, why have a government in the first place?

 

[Gilligan]

they are restrictions that might prevent you from owning a specific already regulated weapon in the future or a copycat of that weapon.

And for what purpose have these restrictions been imposed? Toward what end? What will they actually accomplish?

Maryland is one of the very few states that regulate semi-automatic rifles and is now one of the very few that bans the sale or in-state transfer of them outright.

Why?

 

[PsyOps]

You are being emotional and hysterical it shows. I am neither deflecting nor progressive just trying to show you that there is no ban. The soon to be in place restrictions are not a ban, nor is it a confiscation of any weapon you already possess, they are restrictions that might prevent you from owning a specific already regulated weapon in the future or a copycat of that weapon.

Well, that's the second time you've attempted to deflect this discussion to personally analyzing my personality rather than just stick with the subject at hand. I've answered to this already... I am not hysterical. I have thought through this carefully and rationally. I stand with a lot of people that fear a government that has become far too powerful and intrusive. But limiting our rights in any way should be a very personal and emotional thing.

If you cannot buy something by edict of the government, that is called a ban. Did you know there is a provision in the law that if you take any of the banned firearms to a gunsmith to get repaired that gunsmith is required by the law to turn that gun into authorities? That is a form of confiscation. Now, if you own a semi-auto rifle and don't know how to repair it, you no longer can use that gun. It's useless. Come 1 Oct you will NOT be allowed to buy another one. THAT IS CALLED A BAN. That is called confiscation.

Your constant rationalization "If you own one before 1 Oct it's not a ban" doesn't work in so many scenarios. If I want to own another one, 5 more, 10 more over time, I will not be allowed to do so. THAT is called a ban.

 

[Ken King]

Well, that's the second time you've attempted to deflect this discussion to personally analyzing my personality rather than just stick with the subject at hand. I've answered to this already... I am not hysterical. I have thought through this carefully and rationally. I stand with a lot of people that fear a government that has become far too powerful and intrusive. But limiting our rights in any way should be a very personal and emotional thing.

So are you of such conviction that you will partake in this march?

If you cannot buy something by edict of the government, that is called a ban. Did you know there is a provision in the law that if you take any of the banned firearms to a gunsmith to get repaired that gunsmith is required by the law to turn that gun into authorities? That is a form of confiscation. Now, if you own a semi-auto rifle and don't know how to repair it, you no longer can use that gun. It's useless. Come 1 Oct you will NOT be allowed to buy another one. THAT IS CALLED A BAN. That is called confiscation.

Your constant rationalization "If you own one before 1 Oct it's not a ban" doesn't work in so many scenarios. If I want to own another one, 5 more, 10 more over time, I will not be allowed to do so. THAT is called a ban.

Cite that portion of the law because I certainly can't find it. And while you might not be able to replace the exact model of weapon does not mean that you cannot own a semi-automatic weapon.

 

[GURPS]

Im thinking that the government will put people in that are instructed to shoot.
What better way to impliment an all out gun grab.

I had this thought as well ....

.... but Honestly what law enforcement agency is going to try to play the part of Custer at the last stand, against 10,000 people armed with loaded Rifle's

 

[Gilligan]

The constitution was intended to limit government, not the people through government.

That. That is the fundamental intent of our Constitution. To expressly define and limit the powers of our Federal government.

Unfortunately, Maryland is taking too much advantage of the "leaving the rest to the states" part.

 

[PsyOps]

So are you of such conviction that you will partake in this march?

I've already answered that. No. No matter how much I might disagree with a law, I don't violate it for the sake of making a point. I aim to do what I can to change it through peaceful means; until violence and oppression is inflicted on me that subverts my liberties. That happens through our processes. We are not there yet.

But let me ask you this.., would you vote for O'Malley or Obama because of their stance on gun control? Do you support these gun control measures?

 

[Ken King]

I've already answered that. No. No matter how much I might disagree with a law, I don't violate it for the sake of making a point. I aim to do what I can to change it through peaceful means; until violence and oppression is inflicted on me that subverts my liberties. That happens through our processes. We are not there yet.

So you admit that the new Maryland law does not subvert your liberties.

But let me ask you this.., would you vote for O'Malley or Obama because of their stance on gun control? Do you support these gun control measures?

Nope, never have I voted for them and I never will for reasons well beyond this. I realize that the executive doesn't establish laws, the problem is with the legislature and their misguided attempts to solve what they perceive as the problem. I think the measures are useless to the problem at hand, but I don't see them as preventing me from getting adequate tools to protect myself, family and property.

 

[PsyOps]

So you admit that the new Maryland law does not subvert your liberties.

Nope, never have I voted for them and I never will for reasons well beyond this.

I'm getting to the point where I don't want to waste my time with someone that spins what I say. You accuse me of getting hysterical, yet your spin gives me every reason to. I always thought you to me more intelligent than this.

The Maryland law does and will subvert my liberties. If I want to buy an AR come Oct 2 I will not be able to. If my current AR breaks and I can't get it repaired come Oct 2 I will not be allowed to own an AR. There is nothing - NOTHING - in the constitution that permits our government to do this; except that we - the people - in our ignorance of the constitution allow them to. Yet you admit, you wouldn't vote for any of these people doing this, and defend what they're doing. Amazing!

 

[PsyOps]

Cite that portion of the law because I certainly can't find it. And while you might not be able to replace the exact model of weapon does not mean that you cannot own a semi-automatic weapon.

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281f.pdf

Section 4–304.

A law enforcement unit may seize as contraband and dispose of according to regulation an assault [pistol] WEAPON transported, sold, transferred, purchased, received, or possessed in violation of this subtitle.

This is the "gunsmith trap" - If your AR breaks after Oct 1 and you take it to a gunsmith for repair, the exchange of that AR to the gunsmith was not legally done. No background check was accomplished for that gunsmith to take possession of that banned firearm. Under this section of the law LE could confiscate and destroy that weapon since the gunsmith is in illegal possession of a banned firearm.

Here's another little trap you may not know about... 'the hunting trap' - If you go hunting out of the state with your AR, and get caught trying to bring it back it, you are in violation section 4-303, and LE is required to confiscate that LEGALLY OWNED firearm from you.

 

[Ken King]

I'm getting to the point where I don't want to waste my time with someone that spins what I say. You accuse me of getting hysterical, yet your spin gives me every reason to. I always thought you to me more intelligent than this.

The Maryland law does and will subvert my liberties. If want to buy an AR come Oct 2 I will be able to. If my current AR breaks and I can't get it repaired come Oct 2 I will not be allowed to own an AR. There is nothing - NOTHING - in the constitution that permits our government to do this; except that we - the people - allow them to. Yet you admit, you wouldn't vote for any of these people doing this, and defend what they're doing. Amazing!

So quoting your own words is spin. Okay

Where in the law does it say that after 10/1 you cannot get your AR repaired should it need it? You have claimed this before yet you cannot cite the section that states it.

I am not defending what they want to do. I think it is a useless exercise of the legislative process, but I think it has been established that states can constitutionally restrict owning certain weapons. What I have been trying to get across is that the "ban" you are all worried about will in no way impact your ability to protect yourself, family or property as there is an abundance of suitable tools for you to accomplish that objective.

 

[Ken King]

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2013RS/bills/sb/sb0281f.pdf

​

This is the "gunsmith trap" - If your AR breaks after Oct 1 and you take it to a gunsmith for repair, the exchange of that AR to the gunsmith was not legally done. No background check was accomplished for that gunsmith to take possession of that banned firearm. Under this section of the law LE could confiscate and destroy that weapon since the gunsmith is in illegal possession of a banned firearm.

Here's another little trap you may not know about... 'the hunting trap' - If you go hunting out of the state with your AR, and get caught trying to bring it back it, you are in violation section 4-303, and LE is required to confiscate that LEGALLY OWNED firearm from you.

Talk about spin. This section applies to firearms that were "possessed in violation of this subtitle. " If you legally possessed the weapon you were not in violation of the law.

EDIT: just noticed that your link to the law was as it was reported to the Senate and not the law as enrolled.

 

[PsyOps]

Talk about spin. This section applies to firearms that were "possessed in violation of this subtitle. " If you legally possessed the weapon you were not in violation of the law.

Read very carefully... Taking your gun to a gunsmith is consider a TRANSFER OF POSSESSION. Under the new law that firearm is a banned firearm and the gunsmith cannot legally be in possession of it since he/she took possession of it after Oct 1. This is subject to confiscation. This is not spin, it's in the law.

Perhaps you could tell me what scenarios would apply to that section? Can you point to me where in SB281 where gunsmiths can legally take possession of a banned firearm?

 

[PsyOps]

Talk about spin. This section applies to firearms that were "possessed in violation of this subtitle. " If you legally possessed the weapon you were not in violation of the law.

EDIT: just noticed that your link to the law was as it was reported to the Senate and not the law as enrolled.

Bill Text: MD SB281 | 2013 | Regular Session | Enrolled | LegiScan

Hasn't changed.

 

[Gilligan]

as there is an abundance of suitable tools for you to accomplish that objective.

"Suitable". As determined by....whom?? wtf??

Why not pass laws to make sure I can only drive only what someone else has determined is a "suitable" vehicle? There goes my Pantera, my '59 Triumph, my '47 Harley, etc...all simply because some biased and uneducated bureaucrat or dimwitted elected flack decided that they don't like the "look" of the aforementioned vehicles and, of course it goes without saying that I don't "need" any of them anyway.

 

[PsyOps]

I think it is a useless exercise of the legislative process, but I think it has been established that states can constitutionally restrict owning certain weapons. What I have been trying to get across is that the "ban" you are all worried about will in no way impact your ability to protect yourself, family or property as there is an abundance of suitable tools for you to accomplish that objective.

Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This has nothing to do with whether you think this impacts my ability to protect myself. It has to do with the government having the authority to pass laws that are unconstitutional. I have given you quote after quote of our founders on the issue and you reject it. You're not interested in what our founders intended. You're not interested in the intent of the constitution. You're interested in the fact that the constitution forbids states from passing laws that subvert the constitution. Anytime the government passes laws that make us weaker than the government, that is considered a severe impediment to all of our ability to protect ourselves from criminals and tyranny. It doesn't matter whether we believe there is any current threat or not. It weakens us - the people. When we are further weakened by our government and they seize more power over us, this gives birth to real evil to seize that opportunity to oppress us. It doesn't matter whether we believe if this will really happen or not. The intent of our founders is clear - they wanted we - the people - to retain the power to control our destinies, not the government.

 

[PsyOps]

"Suitable". As determined by....whom?? Why not make sure I cn only drive only what someone else has determined is a "suitable" vehicle? There goes my Pantera, my '59 Triumph, my '47 Harley...

"Suitable". As determined by....whom?? Why not make sure I cn only drive only what someone else has determined is a "suitable" vehicle? There goes my Pantera, my '59 Triumph, my '47 Harley...

As per Ken's definition. If it's good enough for him, then it should be good enough for everyone.

Which demands the question:

Ken... If our government banned all firearms except bolt action rifles and revolvers, would this still be, in your opinion, considered acceptable under the constitution? At what point would the government be violating the constitution? What bans would cross the line for you?

 

[Ken King]

"Suitable". As determined by....whom?? wtf??

Sadly the answer to that is the ones you (the collective you) elected to office that craft legislation.

Why not pass laws to make sure I can only drive only what someone else has determined is a "suitable" vehicle? There goes my Pantera, my '59 Triumph, my '47 Harley, etc...all simply because some biased and uneducated bureaucrat or dimwitted elected flack decided that they don't like the "look" of the aforementioned vehicles and, of course it goes without saying that I don't "need" any of them anyway.

They've been doing that already, aren't manufacturers required to meet all sorts of government regulations before they can sell a product to the public. Older vehicles like your collection are still legal because they met the requirements at the time they were manufactured.