The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 17, 2012, 06:48 PM   #51
barnbwt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 17, 2012
Posts: 676
Hmmmm, let's see, beneficial gun controls...

I wouldn't mind a ban on new drum mags...


...so I could sell mine at 5000% value like SBRs and MGs :evil:. Blasted thing don't work half a damn anyway

TCB
__________________
"I don't believe that the men of the distant past were any wiser than we are today. But it does seem that their science and technology were able to accomplish much grander things."
-- Alex Rosewater
barnbwt is offline  
Old October 17, 2012, 07:45 PM   #52
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,249
Quote:
I wouldn't mind a ban on new drum mags...so I could sell mine at 5000% value
That's the sort of mentality that some machine gun collectors use when they tell me they have no wish to see the Hughes Amendment repealed, or the NFA reformed.

It's also the same mentality that led to some truly unethical price gouging in early 2009.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 17, 2012, 08:01 PM   #53
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
I believe that any form of gun control is in violation of the second amendment. I think the current constraints that apply for convicted felons and the mentality ill are fine. Aside from that, citizens should have the rights to own all sorts of firearms. Now I know someone is going to mention tanks and howitzers and cannons, when you can afford one and carry it around with your hands fine. And any air to middle weapons, ya I get it, but rocket launchers are not a firearm.
mayosligo is offline  
Old October 17, 2012, 08:33 PM   #54
Crankgrinder
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 669
As a member of a gun related forums obviously im not at all in favor of "gun controll". With this understanding i also believe 2A is not only about "sport shooting" but also defense against tyranical gov. With this in mind "tanks, rocket launchers and howitzers" are weapons our gov. has. I find it would be awfuly hard to defend against such a gov. armed only with rifles and handguns, and only the ones they say you can have at that, so the point seems moot. Not saying everyone needs to have such, just pointing out weve put ourselves at a great disadvantage on that point.
Crankgrinder is offline  
Old October 17, 2012, 09:01 PM   #55
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
Others, a long time ago, articulated it better than I can.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. I am not a friend to a very energetic government." -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” -Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

The list goes on and on. I am continually amazed how relevant a lot of what Jefferson wrote still is.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old November 1, 2012, 09:57 PM   #56
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Guns that should be illegal to own:
-Nuclear weapons


Edit: Serious post, should it be mandatory for functionally everyone to own a weapon in their residence? Like the good old swiss?
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 08:23 AM   #57
jgcoastie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Location: Kodiak, Alaska
Posts: 2,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Big Bird PhD
Edit: Serious post, should it be mandatory for functionally everyone to own a weapon in their residence? Like the good old swiss?
No.

As good of a thought as that seems to be, there would be no constitutional way for the federal government (if it were even inclined to do so, which it is not) to implement it.

As much as gun owners want the gov't to honor and abide by the Constitution, we shouldn't be proposing things that are contradictory to it. A mandatory ownership law would leave a bad taste in my mouth, just like the Affordable Care Act... (let's not get sidetracked on that either)

The real purpose of the RKBA movement isn't to get to mandatory ownership... Mandating something or outlawing it because we like/don't like it is the same MO as the anti's... They don't like guns, so they don't want anyone to have them... We just want them to leave us alone and let people make their own decisions.
__________________
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." -Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.
jgcoastie is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 09:11 AM   #58
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
Simply put, do you believe that we benefit from some forms of gun control, and if so, why?
#1 - I beg everyone's forgivness for this.
For the first time since I became a memeber here in 1998, I've never posted anything w/out first reading all the repsonses.
Until now...

In my lifetime (I'm 60), I've seen the results of more gun control, more drug control, more tobbacco control, more alcohol control, more new driver control and a whole slew more.

Not a single one has worked. Either they make things worse or they make criminals out of people that otherwise would be law abiding and tax paying citizens.

Enough is enough & enough is too much.

Personally, I'm at the point where I'm all for tossing out any laws or controls on anything - that were put in place after the Constitution was written and starting all over again with a clean slate.
Hal is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 09:33 AM   #59
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,249
Quote:
Serious post, should it be mandatory for functionally everyone to own a weapon in their residence? Like the good old swiss?
Actually, a town in Georgia called Kennesaw has such a law. It's not enforced, which is why a (likely successful) court challenge hasn't been brought against it.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 09:37 AM   #60
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,646
We don't need the government mandating actions. It simply needs not forbid people in the application of their basic rights.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 10:05 AM   #61
StainlessSteel215
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2012
Posts: 250
I'm surprised this thread was re-opened.

I'll be honest....as a relatively newer shooter I admittedly learned a lot based on your responses, particularly the veterans and senior shooters with decades of experience through the years.....watching various regulations/legislation being implemented.

Let's get down to brass tacks now....the 2 pressing issues on the table right now is the AWB and the bigger picture that could be a giant smelly foot in the door for stronger laws: the UN Peace Treaty that seems to be looming in the White House although it seems to have slowed down (election season).

Speaking with honesty, Ive heard the argument on the other side of the table which is basically this: "why do american citizens need to own Assault weapons, they belong in the military, etc". "Why do NRA supporters who seem to back up law enforcement allow support these guns, which are capable of mowing down cops and innocent bystanders, etc?"

A lot of folks feel that too many AW's end up in the hands of gangs via straw purchasing and crime. Now, Johnny Q. Crip has armed himself with firearms/ammunition that could pierce most police and military armor, etc.

I have to say....I know there are a TON of AK-47 and AR-15 owners spread across the country but if that was the one and only law put into place that infringed on 2A but silenced the anti-gun people out there.....how compliant would everyone be? The obvious response is OVER MY DEAD BODY. But is there a single intelligent response to the contrary?

I just feel that sometimes we have to step outside of our safety "gun zone" and place yourselves in citizens' shoes who either CANNOT own and carry firearms, or simply dont believe in guns and are afraid of them. Would some standardized general weapons training/marketing videos via NRA help to ease some people's anxiety around guns, and promote responsible ownership/NRA support to those who are otherwise afraid? I dont know...just opening discussion since this thread was re-opened and I took some serious fire for even dreaming this thread.

These things HAVE to be talked about, because its very likely Obama will take re-election and both of these issues are on the table still. Im sure NRA is already drafting up some serious counter-legislation to buy more time.

Last edited by StainlessSteel215; November 2, 2012 at 10:30 AM.
StainlessSteel215 is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 10:39 AM   #62
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,646
There is little chance given any likely congressional configuration that a new AWB will be passed. Thus, panic posts aren't needed.

Nor do we need to re-open the UN treaty panic. Don't.

If one understands the legislative process, you don't propose counter-legislation. You simply don't pass the ones you don't like. If an AWB was passed and signed - who is going to pass counter legislation?

As far as public opinion, one notes that the public has been moving steadily against gun control measures. Terrible rampages have moved the usual folks to talk about AWBs and the like but no stampede was seen in Congress with enough Republicans and Democrats to get one through. The issue is brought up (just as the GOP brings up its extreme issues for campaigns regarding social issues), but then nothing happens. The forces that could guarantee an AWB (as happened before) don't exist outside of their choir.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 10:46 AM   #63
StainlessSteel215
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2012
Posts: 250
Thats encouraging news Glenn. Honestly I havent had the time to delve into the latest NRA/gun control news updates and honestly it seems like everything is quiet right now thankfully. Im just speaking on the notion of what I hear in passing and when Im at my local gun store.

Maybe the words "counter-legislation" were not properly used. I mean that the NRA lobbyists are hopefully ready with their own spin to counter any laws that would infringe on the NRA members and 2A rights.

For instance a bunch of politicians sit in a room drafting up legislation. NRA top political figures look it over, and propose counter-legislation with what they would like to see in its place.

Anyways, we shall see....Im certainly NOT in any panic mode. But those things are still on the table, correct?
StainlessSteel215 is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 10:57 AM   #64
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,646
Well, before you yak about what you hear at the local gun store, study up.

As a new gun owner, become a responsible consumer of information.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 11:20 AM   #65
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Speaking with honesty, Ive heard the argument on the other side of the table which is basically this: "why do american citizens need to own Assault weapons, they belong in the military, etc". "Why do NRA supporters who seem to back up law enforcement allow support these guns, which are capable of mowing down cops and innocent bystanders, etc?"

A lot of folks feel that too many AW's end up in the hands of gangs via straw purchasing and crime. Now, Johnny Q. Crip has armed himself with firearms/ammunition that could pierce most police and military armor, etc.

I have to say....I know there are a TON of AK-47 and AR-15 owners spread across the country but if that was the one and only law put into place that infringed on 2A but silenced the anti-gun people out there.....how compliant would everyone be? The obvious response is OVER MY DEAD BODY. But is there a single intelligent response to the contrary?
Let's break this down and see how reality does not jive with any of what you just said. If so called "assault weapons" are such an issue, why are so few crimes committed with them? Very few crimes are committed with long arms in general, even fewer with "assault weapons".

What makes a .223/5.56 bullet or a 7.62 bullet any more dangerous just because it came out of an AR or an AK type firearm or any other bullet just because it came out of a firearm that looks like the military might use it? They're not any more dangerous just because the firearm it came out of looks like something the military would use.

So unless you're suggesting an outright ban on just about all rifle caliber ammunition, how does banning "assault weapons" fix the virtually non-existant problem of Mr. Gangmember or any other bad guy using ammunition that can pierce police soft armor? It does nothing to "fix" a virtual non-issue.

Now lets look at history, in 1994 did gun related violent crime take a sudden and measurable down turn because all of those evil black rifles were taken off the streets? No. How about any other state or jurisdiction when they implemented their own AWB or essentially maintained the 1994 ban? No.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 12:28 PM   #66
StainlessSteel215
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2012
Posts: 250
Listen guys, Im getting frustrated to revisit this thread and have to constantly defend myself against your interpretations of my comments. I am NOT a guy speaking out against 2A in any way....Im trying to simulate the response from all of the anti-gun folks out there who are constantly writing their local senators and legislators about gun laws....who have already turned around and placed the AWB on the table as a small part of the UN Peace Treaty. Its happening. Dont ignore it.

My goal is to open discussions on how you would intelligently address John Q (anti-gun) public and his wife who stand up for more gun control. This is just one small website in a giant online sea....but maybe the right people could get together, join with the top NRA lobbyists and draft up legislation that could somehow silence the anti-gun folks without taking further hits to 2A. Thats it!

For god's sake I own multiple guns myself including a .223 long range pistol and DO NOT want to give up anything unless the gov comes knocking one day. Im just saying, dont bury your heads in the sand...there is a large population of folks out there who have either been stripped of their gun rights already or simply dont believe in guns...and want you to give up your assault weapons because they think it could kill 10x as many innocent people as a pistol.
StainlessSteel215 is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 12:48 PM   #67
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
But is there a single intelligent response to the contrary?
Quote:
My goal is to open discussions
Then don't ask questions if you don't want answers? Don't ask for discussions if you're not prepared to hear the truth or other peoples view points?

Quote:
who have already turned around and placed the AWB on the table as a small part of the UN Peace Treaty. Its happening. Dont ignore it.
Really who? What evidence do you have that the "UN Peace Treaty", aka the arms trade treaty(not sure where you got this peace treaty thing from), has had any effect or relation to potential AWBs?

The arms trade treaty is dead in the water currently as far as US involvement is concerned. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Have you bothered to look into these things, to paraphrase, "that are happening and cannot be ignored". Where are the facts? All you've presented is rumor and speculation and poorly informed rumor and speculation at that.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 01:18 PM   #68
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
So you go from

Quote:
who have already turned around and placed the AWB on the table as a small part of the UN Peace Treaty. Its happening. Dont ignore it.
to

Quote:
Im asking questions, not pretending to be an expert!
The former is not a question, but a statement.

"Current" Events

An interesting highlight.

Quote:
The Obama administration was under pressure to delay or walk away from an agreement. Fifty-one senators had urged the administration not to sign it in a letter sent Thursday. That letter sent an important signal of defeat because ratification requires 67 Senate votes.
Half our senators openly opposed this treaty, more than half are required to ratify. Doesn't really get any more dead in the water than that.

Quote:
Thats all the guys at my local gun shop talk about: a revival of the UN treaty via Hilary Clinton and how Obama would likely address the AWB in his second term. Is is speculation at this time? Sure. Is it possible? Sure.
The guys at your LGS are pretty poorly informed about the facts and reality of the political process.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 01:29 PM   #69
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,106
Quote:
should it be mandatory for functionally everyone to own a weapon in their residence? Like the good old swiss?
Seems to me we are pretty well covered by just allowing those who want to own guns, to be able to own guns ... as many as they like and of pretty much any type. There seems to be enough gun enthusiasm here that you don't need to require it, just allow it. I think we're probably better covered. Not everyone is armed but those who are are passionate about and for the most part very capable. Don't mess with us is the message - hehe.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!
pgdion is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 01:33 PM   #70
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
Kinda wished this thread stayed shut because my glaring ignorance is showing!
This is your thread that was closed. This one is not your thread that was closed.
sigcurious is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 01:36 PM   #71
StainlessSteel215
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2012
Posts: 250
Jeeeeez I cant win today! after losing power for the last 4 days and sleeping like crap in a cold house due to hurricane Sandy...I'm officially burned out man. Whatever....you win. I need a beer lol
StainlessSteel215 is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 01:50 PM   #72
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,646
If this thread is to continue, those who are ill-informed should do some basic reference work before posting. I have deleted some nonsense and noise.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 03:40 PM   #73
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,004
Quote:
a revival of the UN treaty via Hilary Clinton and how Obama
Just a side note. If the President wins Hilary Clinton is not expected to return, she plans to retire regardless of the outcome of the election. I have no idea who might be called to replace her.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 04:37 PM   #74
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,045
SS215, first of all, here's hoping that you get power back soon.

Second, I'm going to attempt to respond to the post quoted below. I know that you're growing tired of "defending yourself" from other posters, but you asked the questions, so here are my answers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . .Speaking with honesty, Ive heard the argument on the other side of the table which is basically this: "why do american citizens need to own Assault weapons, they belong in the military, etc". . . . .
First, the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution have never been called the Bill of Needs.

Second, just because an argument could be made that one individual does not need a particular right at a particular time does not mean that we, as a society, do not need to protect that right. Take the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. I have never needed to assert that right on my own behalf in defense of a criminal prosecution against me. Nonetheless, we (our society) needs to protect that right. Why? Because, in its absence, the government could simply send police officers rummaging through houses with neither warrants nor probable cause, looking for evidence of crimes, then convict the owners based on what was found. In fact, the police could just go house-to-house doing warrantless searches.

Same with the Fifth Amendment. I've never personally needed to exercise mine. Nonetheless, a prohibition on torturing confessions out of detainees, perhaps folks who were detained as a result of the warrantless searches mentioned above, is something that we as a society need to have in place. Yes, it winds up protecting some of the guilty from being convicted for their crimes. It also protects the innocent from being coerced into offering testimony against themselves.

With respect to the Second Amendment, for a variety of reasons, I personally need that right. On top of that, I need (& we need) for citizens (generally) to have that right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . . "Why do NRA supporters who seem to back up law enforcement allow support these guns, which are capable of mowing down cops and innocent bystanders, etc?" . . . .
This argument kind of confuses the issues. Yes, lots of NRA members support cops. I am an NRA member, and generally support law-and-order type stuff. I also support my own right to defend myself and my family. I also support my right, and the right of others, to own cars. Cars are capable of mowing down cops and innocent bystanders, too, are they not? I support guns, and I support cars. I do not support mowing down cops and innocent bystanders with either one of them. The argument above confuses "supporting gun ownership" with "supporting shooting cops."

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . . A lot of folks feel that too many AW's end up in the hands of gangs via straw purchasing and crime. Now, Johnny Q. Crip has armed himself with firearms/ammunition that could pierce most police and military armor, etc. . . .
If Johnny Q. Crip did that through a straw purchase, it was done illegally. He was willing to ignore federal felony statutes to arm himself. If we then institute a ban on (for example) AR or AK style weapons, should we believe that he will obey those statutes?

As for the "firearms/ammunition" that could pierce most police and military armor, the reality of AWBs (IMHO) is that they amount to "Scary Gun Bans." Very few of the banned features had any effect on functionality. It was a matter of pistol grips and folding stocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . .But is there a single intelligent response to the contrary? . . . .
SS215, perhaps I should just apologize for this one on the front end, 'cuz it's going to sound snarky.

If the anti-gun crowd wants an intelligent response, they need to ask an intelligent question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . .I just feel that sometimes we have to step outside of our safety "gun zone" and place yourselves in citizens' shoes who either CANNOT own and carry firearms, or simply dont believe in guns and are afraid of them. . . . .
An interesting perspective. I've assessed their arguments and found them lacking. What exactly is the next step that I should take to "put myself in their shoes," and why should I do it?

Gun control has gone on for about the last 80 years. In those places where guns are under the strictest control, does it appear that it (gun control) has worked? Has gun control actually reduced crime in NY, Chicago, Washington, D.C.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . . Would some standardized general weapons training/marketing videos via NRA help to ease some people's anxiety around guns, and promote responsible ownership/NRA support to those who are otherwise afraid? . . . .
I'm not sure about the "standardized general weapons training" would, but I do think some marketing videos or something like PSAs from the NRA might help. The probem is getting mainstream media to run them. As it stands, you'd likely only see NRA videos on things like "The Hunter's Channel," where they'd be preaching to the choir.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 2, 2012, 08:00 PM   #75
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
I have to say....I know there are a TON of AK-47 and AR-15 owners spread across the country but if that was the one and only law put into place that infringed on 2A but silenced the anti-gun people out there.....how compliant would everyone be? The obvious response is OVER MY DEAD BODY. But is there a single intelligent response to the contrary?
How do you know this? I don't mean to sound confrontational, but it appears that you "know" something that is, in fact, impossible. AK-47s are full-auto assault weapons and are not legal in the United States. On the other side of your argument, AR-15s are NOT full-auto or select fire, are NOT assault weapons, and are NOT what our military is using. (The military uses M16 rifles and M4 carbines, both of which are either full-auto or select fire.) There is no functional difference between an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 or ranch Rifle. The fact that there are a "ton" of AR-15 owners around the country is like saying there are a ton of .30-30 owners or a ton of deer hunters around the country.

You appear to have allowed the Brady bunch's disinformation obscure the facts in your understanding of what is and what ISN'T an "assault weapon."

Quote:
Originally Posted by StailessSteel215
...there is a large population of folks out there who have either been stripped of their gun rights already or simply dont believe in guns...and want you to give up your assault weapons because they think it could kill 10x as many innocent people as a pistol.
I don't own any assault weapons, and I can't afford any NFA firearms. I doubt that you own any assault weapons, either. However, I do own an entry-level AR-15. It was bought during the Federal AWB period. It is not, in any functional way, an "assault weapon" or an "assault rifle." Would YOU consider it to be an assault weapon just because it looks like an AR-15 ... even though it was expressly legal under the Federal law that prohibited the purchase of anything even vaguely hinting at being a (so-called) assault weapon?

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; November 2, 2012 at 08:06 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17542 seconds with 7 queries