Sunday, February 17, 2013

Missouri Democrats introduce bill that would give gun owners 90 days to turn in their weapons on certain stye guns.

In Missouri, some Democratic fascist state house members have proposed a bill that would require gun owners to surrender or destroy certain styles of semi automatic weapons they own within 90 days of the bill passage. Think progressives aren't out to infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners? This is what the Missouri House Bill 545 says.

" Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
  (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity 
magazine from the state of Missouri;

  
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or


 (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.


5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony."

 The proposed ban would include semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and semi-automatic pistols with the capacity to shoot more than ten rounds of ammunition before reloading, It's a good thing that the Missouri State Chambers are 2/3rds controlled by Republicans, so the chances of this bill becoming law is microscopic at best. Liberals created the terminology of what an "assault weapon" is. Gun owners and gun shop owners know more about what makes a gun a certain type of gun rather then some clueless, self serving, power hungry politician and the idiots who follow them.

KCTV5

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't any gun an assault rifle? Could you use your hunting rifle as an "assault rifle"?

Like any object around you, you too can use it as a weapon that could inflict harm on another person. I could use the pencil on my desk to put someone's eye out if I choose to.

-Big Pop

9:41 PM  
Anonymous Vincent said...

How could anyone contemplating being an American politician much less BE an American politician endeavor to break one of the fundamental elements of the Constitution and of freedom itself?
It boggles the mind.

11:35 AM  
Blogger Thersites said...

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

5:32 PM  
Blogger Gratz Brown said...

http://ssristories.com/index.php
The Untold Story (link provided). Pages and pages of documented crimes with this common factor: Antidepressant Drugs (SSRI type, like Prozac, Ritalin, Paxil, Zoloft, etc.). The Columbine killer is included in this list, as are many, many similar killings. It notes that not only the USE of these drugs was involved, but also the WITHDRAWAL from such drugs links to homicidal and suicidal behavior. The multibillion dollar pharmaceutical lobby has done a masterful job in keeping the lid on this one. So in the mainstream media they use the mantras of “gun control” and the generic “mental health,” but no mention whatsoever of the psychiatric/psychotropic drugs being prescribed to children and adults in this society and in others around the world.
http://ssristories.com/index.php

9:12 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Gratz;"Pages and pages of documented crimes with this common factor: Antidepressant Drugs (SSRI type, like Prozac, Ritalin, Paxil, Zoloft, etc.)".

Sure, psychotropic drugs can cause humans to do almost anything. The drugs do exactly what they're made to do. But, why blame the drug manufacturers? Why blame the doctors? Why blame the drug? A person can (as Nancy Reagan coined) "just say no!"

Question; If gun supporters say "don't blame the gun, blame the person shooting the gun", can it also be said that you can't blame the "drug", but the person who took the drug? Just as a gun can do no harm lying around untouched, neither can a drug. A gun when fired by a human at another human can harm or kill. A drug, when ingested by a human can cause that human to harm or kill.

How about this one... The answer to the psychotropic drug issue is.... MORE PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS! Yeah, that's it! What can stop a "bad guy" on prescription drugs? A "good guy" on prescription drugs! Wait a minute... it's conservatives that's trying to take away our "rights and liberty." I have the right to "privately" ingest any "legal" psychotropic drug I agree to ingest. Hell, the pharmaceutical companies are losing to many jobs as it is. You conservatives are trying to "kill jobs!" More drugs = more jobs!

Here's a crazy concept;

After the election of President Obama (in 2008), gun sales skyrocketed. A black, male, liberal democrat caused Americans to run out and buy guns. I recently read that Sarah Palin might through her hat in for a presidential bid in 2016. If she's elected (god forbid), will a "white female conservative republican" cause psychotropic drug sales to skyrocket? Just a thought...

2:19 PM  
Anonymous Eddie said...

Allen, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Big Pharma, Big Agro... it's all linked if you do the research.

Less Government = More Jobs.

Less Government = Less Pharma. Less Pharma = Less Violence.

10:06 PM  
Anonymous Eddie said...

I suggest anyone who is interested, please watch this when it is available. Keep and open mind and learn.

http://youtu.be/0uK_AyKg0W0

2:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.Allen: Sure, psychotropic drugs can cause humans to do almost anything. The drugs do exactly what they're made to do. But, why blame the drug manufacturers? Why blame the doctors? Why blame the drug? A person can (as Nancy Reagan coined) "just say no!"

Drunk driving accidents are treated more harshly than regular driving accidents, aren't they?

Don't they now try to prosecute bars who sell booze to someone the bartender should have known was already drunk if that drunkard got into an accident?

2:43 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Eddie;"Allen, you really have no idea what you are talking about, do you? Big Pharma, Big Agro... it's all linked if you do the research".

Obviously, you have no idea what I'm about... Who said anything about "Big Agro?" (eg. agriculture) Not me! What does corporate farming have to do with guns? If you wish to discuss your libertarian point of view of Socioeconomic order, save it for another posted essay...Tyrone will get to it.

Eddie, I often use sarcasm to make a point. The point of my prior post is to show the correlation of personal freedoms, and how some people (mostly those of a conservative bent) are disingenuous when stating their so-called beliefs.

Example; Gratz Brown appears to be railing against legal prescription drugs, and the drug industry as a probable cause of violence (be it gun violence or what ever) as if one can attribute specific drugs as the one cause of the violence. Yet Mr. Brown ignores (or fails to mention) the readily availability of weapons that can kill multiple people in seconds. My point here is that the two (drugs and guns) are significantly synonymous.

An unbalanced person buys his prescribed legal Paxil, goes to a legal gun show, buys an AR-15 rifle, then goes on a killing spree. You cannot make bricks without straw. Do you get my drift....?

Thus, in my response to his "one-sided" argument, I showed how the argument can be framed to "protect the rights" of a person who chooses to take "legal" psychotropic drugs. Ironically the right to ingest these drugs can be framed in the same manner gun supporters use to protect their rights. Yet, some gun supporters believe that their right to own a gun supersedes, or is somehow different from the right to privately ingest legal psychotropic drugs. Under the law, you can legally purchase, possess and use both.

Mind you, I do believe that there is a problem with the "over medicating" of American society. Furthermore, psychotropic drugs and guns definitely don't mix. But to look at one side of the problem without considering the other is disingenuous and makes me suspect of persons asserted beliefs. If President Obama had said he's just going to ban guns, without addressing the mental health issue, I would be suspect of his intentions. Instead the president has made it part of his larger response in addressing the shooting in Newtown, Conn. to which I applaud him.

6:03 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Anon;"Drunk driving accidents are treated more harshly than regular driving accidents, aren't they? ".

Of course they are, and they should be!

However, (and yet again, god forbid) let's say your loved one's car broke down along a rural highway. He/she is walking along and suddenly was shot (accidentally) and killed by a hunter. After an investigation it was found that the hunter was far past legally drunk. Should a drunken hunter be treated "more harshly?" Or would you be willing to accept that "everything looks like big game after 2 pints of vodka."

Anon;"Don't they now try to prosecute bars who sell booze to someone the bartender should have known was already drunk if that drunkard got into an accident?.

I've heard of such cases. But what's you point? Are you saying that a gun dealer shouldn't sell to a guy who says he need's an assault rifle because President Obama has taken away all his rights and is going to send the brownshirts to his house to take his guns, and to keep the Mexicans and Blacks from raping the white women?

11:38 PM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Eddie;"Less Government = More Jobs".

Prove it. Show exactly when the American government made cuts, and where the cuts were made. Then show when and where more jobs were created.

Eddie;"Less Government = Less Pharma. Less Pharma = Less Violence".

Do the same for that assertion.

Although I could "spin" the following facts show that more government equates to more jobs, I'll be open and honest and posit that the facts and stats could be coincidental.

Under Reagan, federal government employment increased by 100,000 from the middle of the 1982 recession until the 1984.

In the most recent four recessions, three shows an increase in government employment. Thus, in three of the four, government employment "INCREASED" and overall employment was "INCREASED", showing lower unemployment figures.

But wait.... during the last recession (2007-08) government and overall employment declined! (except for a spike after government stimulus) Hmmmmm? Oh well, I guess your assertion that "less government = more jobs" can't be proven. (at least not in America, or the planet earth, for that matter)

12:38 AM  
Anonymous Eddie said...

How the market is disarming government...

http://youtu.be/VWvjWJ3Hdjo

Apologies if i do not reply but i would think respectfully that you the individual would be wise enough to figure out what is going on and why. This applies to anyone.

1:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

P.Allen: "But what's you point?"

The point is, no one's demanding to ban cars when a drunk driver kills someone

10:56 AM  
Blogger p. anthony allen said...

Anon;"The point is, no one's demanding to ban cars when a drunk driver kills someone".

Sarcasm aside... With all due respect Anon, that's a response shrouded in ignorance. The ban proposed by the president (which is entirely different from the D.O.A. ban proposed by the Missouri Democrat) does not ban "all guns" as some extremists might try to make you believe. The idea is to limit and control the proliferation of assault weapons that maniac's are using to kill school children.

Pay close attention Anon. You mentioned a "ban" on cars, right? Are you aware that there are bans on certain types of vehicles on American roads, highways and/or streets? Are you aware that certain types of vehicles are not "street legal?" Do you know the reason why? It's simple... For the safety of yourself and the general public! If you owned an airplane, do you think you could just hop in it (drunk or not) and fly from city to city without any rules, limits or regulations?

Thus, no one has proposed banning cars, boats, airplanes, trains, motor bikes, scooters, or horse carriages, be the driver drunk, or not!

12:39 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home