|
posted to rec.boats
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2014
Posts: 580
|
|
Had to share this story
On 10/31/2014 7:33 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 19:31:25 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:
On 10/30/2014 7:01 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 18:57:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:
On 10/30/2014 6:41 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:50:05 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:
Well, I'm glad you're satisfied with the laws in your state. I'm glad
I can legally buy and own a Kimber .45!
Different issue.
Not entirely. What happens when the suddenly decide to make a gun you
own, illegal?
Then they decide the fair market price is the melt weight of the steel
or some other ridiculous price and they want you to turn it in for
that "just compensation" (assuming they even honor the 5th amendment).
You registered it, they know you have it.
Making previously legal guns "illegal" has been done before and in
several states. But they don't confiscate them. They grandfather them.
If you owned 'em before they became illegal, you can keep them.
The rest of your post is pure conjecture.
Fifty years ago many of the MA laws would have been 'pure conjecture'
along with most of the recently passed MD laws.
Maybe. But at some point in our human evolution we should say it's time
to start doing something about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
I wonder which of the laws in either MA or MD would have prevented the
school attacks.
All of that looks like any given month in Chicago, which has some of
the most restrictive laws in the country.
Why don't the cops use those laws to confiscate guns from criminals?
|