No, you don’t have a ‘choice.’ By law, you have to get rid of the gun. There’s no choice.

As for New Jersey:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=3619

The most well known example of inappropriate prosecution under the ban is the Pelleteri case:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/state_v_pelleteri.txt

which upheld a conviction for possession of a .22 rifle (Marlin model 60) as an “assault firearm” because the internal tube magazine held 17 rounds, two more than the state allowed limit of 15. Even though the rifle was legally purchased prior to the ban’s enactment, the court nonetheless convicted him, holding “WHEN DEALING WITH GUNS, THE CITIZEN ACTS AT HIS PERIL.” The court described the .22 as a “highly dangerous offensive weapon.”

Now, New Jersey is considering increasing the penalties for such a ‘crime.’

Obama supports states and localities writing their own gun laws. Therefore, he supports NJ on this one. Now, tell me how this isn’t a full fledged gun grab. I’m eager to see your explanation.

If you can provide some information or a link about the New Jersey ban that would help. I know New Jersey wanted to ban the sale and possession of .50 caliber rifles. I will note that NJ Assembly bill no. 3998 included this language:

2. (New section) The provisions of paragraph (3) of subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 shall not apply to any person who lawfully possessed a firearm of a caliber of 50 caliber or greater on or before the effective date of this act.

So if you owned a .50 caliber rifle before the date the law went into effect, you didn’t have to surrender it. Additionally, if someone wanted to own a .50 caliber rifle, all they would have to do is buy it and register it before the law took effect. The would take effect:

3. This act shall take effect on the first day of the second month following enactment.

So someone who wanted to own a .50 rifle would have two months to go out and buy one and be able to keep it after the law took effect.

Now, I have to ask again, do you have any evidence from anywhere that Obama supports taking guns away from anyone who already legally owns one?

Right, so I would have had to have moved to Washington DC in 1975 to exercise my constitutional rights. Otherwise, it’s “Tough shit.”

The next paragraph is a total non sequitur.

Perhaps, but you’re “Don’t move there” is not a valid response to the issue where a person moving to DC effectively having their handguns taken from them by virtue of the districts ban. And DC may not have banned handguns retroactively, but states like New Jersey have banned guns and made the bans retroactive. And once again, since Obama says states and localities should be able to decide for themselves what regulations, should be in place, he’d have no problem with NJ’s ban and that too would make him a gun grabber.

The hole you’re digging for yourself is getting deeper.

Maybe you missed the part where the DC gun ban allowed people who already owned registered guns to keep them. Did you miss that part or did you just ignore it?

The next paragraph is a total non sequitur.

The phrase “gun grabber” implies that Obama supports taking guns away from citizens who legally own them. He doesn’t.

If a gun is banned, it no longer can be ‘legally’ owned. The only alternative is to dispose of it, or turn it over to the authorities. That’s taking guns away from citizens. And such politicians who support such policies are gun grabbers.

And I like the “Don’t move there bit.” I suppose the next time we have a debate about health care, and you touting how much better France or Germany’s system is, I can just say, “Well if you like French of German health care better, go move there!”

Wait, what? I have to ask you the “right” question if I want a non-defensive response but when it comes to understanding your vague “metaphors” you can just tell me: “You know what I meant.” Whatever, Jay.

And your example Re: the DC gun ban is a stretch, at best. The law, when originally enacted allowed people who had their guns registered before the law took effect to keep their guns. If someone from outside the state wants to keep their gun now, they shouldn’t move to DC. Why? Because it is illegal to own a gun in DC. Simple as that. The phrase “gun grabber” implies that Obama supports taking guns away from citizens who legally own them. He doesn’t.

You are such a fucking retard. One that is clearly afraid of debating the issues.

Like I said, you could have simply asked the right question. You said you wanted clarification. Again: ASK FOR IT. It’s not that difficult. You won the pissing contest. Happy? Moving along.

So a “gun grabber,” in your mind, is anyone who proposes to limit or otherwise regulate the sale of firearms?

No, a ‘gun grabber’ is the sort that supports the positions that Obama supports.

Of course if you want to paint a politician as more extreme than they actually are “gun grabber” works nicely as a means to plant the impression that Obama wants to literally “take” their guns. Which he clearly doesn’t.

Currently, if I own a 9mm pistol living in Florida and move to Washington DC, I have to get rid of the gun. Through such legislation, it is in effect, being ‘taken’ from me and Barack Obama supports that position. So my calling him a gun grabber based on that and his other extremist positions on gun control is a fair description.

The simple answer to my “loaded” question would have been “No.” Was that so hard? At the same time, you defended your vague statement by suggesting that you were speaking “metaphorically.” Really? Could you identify the metaphor you were using because I fail to see one.

As to the “gun grabber” label, now there’s a neat bit of semantics. So a “gun grabber,” in your mind, is anyone who proposes to limit or otherwise regulate the sale of firearms? But that isn’t exactly “grabbing” is it, if by grabbing you mean taking. Of course if you want to paint a politician as more extreme than they actually are “gun grabber” works nicely as a means to plant the impression that Obama wants to literally “take” their guns. Which he clearly doesn’t. Or are speaking metaphorically again?

No, that’s not the crux of my argument at all and you should know that since you raised the issue. We’re talking the BAN of the sale, manufacture and possession of such items simply because the government feels as though it’s something we don’t need anymore.

Obviously I didn’t which is why I asked for some clarity. Asking someone to clarify a statement is hardly “a logical fallacy.” Accusing someone of a logical fallacy who asks for clarification, however, is most definitely a tad defensive.

Well, you didn’t ask for clarification. That would have said, “Jay, can you clarify this statement?” Instead you wrote, “Wait a second, are you suggesting that the government currently does not dictate what can and cannot be sold in this country?” It’s a loaded question. Again, if you want clarification……ASK FOR IT.

As to the government regulating what we can and cannot buy, whether its guns or computers, the government can and does dictate what can be sold in this country, not only through health and safety laws, but also through trade policy.

They do not however, do it on a whim or do it because they decide we “have enough” of whatever it is that’s being sold and then also ban the possession of said items.

I’d also like to ask you to clarify your use of the phrase “gun grabber” in describing Obama and liberals, in general.

Actually, I already did. I showed you his positions and the things he supports. In the realm of second amendment rights, it clearly makes him a gun grabber. It’s hard to find liberals (notice I am speaking clearly about liberals, not necessarily Democrats as there are some Democrats with strong second amendment records) that don’t support the same forms of gun control that he supports.

Obviously I didn’t which is why I asked for some clarity. Asking someone to clarify a statement is hardly “a logical fallacy.” Accusing someone of a logical fallacy who asks for clarification, however, is most definitely a tad defensive.

As to the government regulating what we can and cannot buy, whether its guns or computers, the government can and does dictate what can be sold in this country, not only through health and safety laws, but also through trade policy.

Now unless, of course, you think it’s a logical fallacy, I’d also like to ask you to clarify your use of the phrase “gun grabber” in describing Obama and liberals, in general.

I find that contention absurd, but I ask that you clarify if I’ve misunderstood.

Yes, but I was talking metaphorically. If the government said, “We have more than enough computers in this country. We don’t need anymore.” or “We have more than enough HDTV’s that are in this country. No more.” THAT, people would have a shit fit about.

As for the 1940′s question, I couldn’t answer it.

Yes, I’m okay with that. The government already does that. Drug laws, for one, although that’s a thornier issue that I won’t get into here.

Here’s another question: how many handguns were being produced for home collectors in the early 1940s, when our government asked that we ration ourselves in a time of war? Was there a national grumbling about how there weren’t enough personal guns to go around?

Answering a question with a question is a logical fallacy. You’re not an idiot so please don’t get into semantics. You know what I meant.

Do we or do we not already have enough guns as it is?

But what’s ‘enough’? I understand now what you were asking, but there are new types of guns made all the time. If somebody is a collector, they’re probably going to want to see the new stuff. If I remember correctly, you’re involved in the arts. You probably know a musician or two and like many musicians I’m sure one that you know has more guitars, bass’s, drums or keyboards and other musical toys than he’ll ever really need. My brother in law is a guitarist and for awhile had the same kind of double neck guitar that Jimmy Page had. He owned it for 10 years and played it maybe three times.

So as long as gun owners are still being responsible and law abiding, who cares how many guns they buy?

Thanks for the link, Farris, I now have another example of the ever-present American absurdity that is the disparate tolerance of violence and sex in our society.

Actually, isn’t that kinda the opposite of our usual hypocrisy? TV shows showing people getting blown up in prime time, no problem. Showing two married adults getting a bit intimate, no way.

That didn’t answer my question, which I reiterate was more of an off-hand comment than a serious statement of policy. Do we or do we not already have enough guns as it is?

Wait a second, are you suggesting that the government currently does not dictate what can and cannot be sold in this country?