Gun ban non political.

[sgtmcboom]

I thought I would be safe by getting a saiga 12 for home defence when is this an assult rifle this is going to far. Are they going to make it so that if you own it its against the law to keep it?

[hunter63]

Watch the news, .......call/write your congressmen, both state and federal.

[Old GI]

I heard a photo of a standard 10/22 was shown and declared it would be legal. Then showed the same 10/22 with foldong stock and some other after-market mods (not full auto) and that would be illegal. Beauty IS in the mind (or lack thereof) of the beholder.

[GreatUsername]

I really don't get what the big deal is with pistol grips. Folding stocks I can understand a little bit, but pistol grips simply do not make a gun more deadly or (other than cosmetically) threatening. Does anyone know the reasoning behind restrictions surrounding pistol grips? I personally know I would be more accurate and dangerous to other combatants (or whoever) with a rifle that had a traditional stock, but maybe I just have weird preferences? I really really don't get it.

And what about flash suppressors? What's the deal there? If people really think that a flash suppressor will make a gunman less noticeable, they've obviously never been around firearms much. Sure, it will reduce visibility, but the type of weapons that have flash suppressors are typically so loud that I can't imagine not immediately knowing where the gun is when fired. And of course, there is the funny bit where they forgot that flash suppressors were invented not to conceal the guns from others, but to keep the muzzle flare from blinding the person firing the gun during low-light conditions. Guuuuuuh

If they understood firearms at all, they'd leave these features alone and go after certain types of sights. IE: long-range telescopic sights, holographic sights, red dot, anything that increases the weapon's killing power over iron sights. But no. It's the stuff that makes guns more comfortable to use without greatly improving performance that can't be tolerated. Just as I think entities with a more conservative bias ought to fully research as well as interact with other beliefs and their practitioners before attempting to condemn, the anti-gun crowd is appallingly unread about guns, and I just find it all embarrassing.

Any thoughts on why they want to ban other features of assault weapons?

[crashdive123]

Their goal is to ban weapons. In order to do that, they play on the fears and emotions of others to accomplish their ultimate goal which is to ban weapons. It is easy to demonize something by it's appearance. You would have thought that we stopped those sort of tactics following the civil rights movement. Guess not.

[randyt]

no truer words have ever been spoken. The sooner people realize this the better. Gun control is wrapped up in this big lie about being reasonable.

"Their goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban wTheir goal is to ban weaponseaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weaponsTheir goal is to ban weapons"

[hunter63]

At any cost, anyway possible, from any direction, a bit here, a bit there, what ever or how ever it takes,......The goal is to ban weapons.......Never for get it.

[Geek]

The whole term "assault weapons" is intended to confuse people who aren't familiar with guns. References to "military style", "killing machines", yada, yada throw up so much fog that people think these are fully automatic weapons.

[Daniel Nighteyes]

My friends, with this post I am quite possibly going to alienate many of you.

I strongly support the Second Amendment. Now, with that said, I also support Vice President Joe Biden's position on limiting magazine capacity. As I have stated in another thread, if you can't get the job done with 10 rounds, you probably can't get the job done with 20 (or 30, or 40) rounds without also causing significant collateral damage. As the old saying goes, "Gun Control means being able to hit your target."

If you can't do it with 10 rounds, why the f*ck should we let you have 20, or 30, or 40, rounds?

But hey, that's just me. Opposing opinions are more than welcome.

-- Nighteyes

[randyt]

If it makes sense to limit magazine capacity then it only seems reasonable to limit the amount of firearms a person can own. If you can't get the job done with one firearm holding 10 rounds why in the f*ck should we let you have two firearms or three firearms? Well shootfire If a person carried three ten round handguns that would be the equivalent to a 30 round magazine.

[Daniel Nighteyes]

I've thought long and hard about my position; I have stated my position; and I'm content with my position. Anyone can "yes-but" and "but-what-if" my position to their heart's content. It will change nothing...


The simple fact is, and remains, that short of full-on combat against enemy troops or Zombies, there is no reason that rank-and-file citizens need magazines holding more than ten rounds. I could effectively make the case for limiting rifle magazines to five rounds, but why bother? Y'all have enough to contend with as it is...

-- Nighteyes

[randyt]

I'm just trying to be reasonable. For a guy that said "Opposing opinions are more than welcome" you sure have a way of showing it.

[hunter63]

My friends, with this post I am quite possibly going to alienate many of you.

I strongly support the Second Amendment. Now, with that said, I also support Vice President Joe Biden's position on limiting magazine capacity. As I have stated in another thread, if you can't get the job done with 10 rounds, you probably can't get the job done with 20 (or 30, or 40) rounds without also causing significant collateral damage. As the old saying goes, "Gun Control means being able to hit your target."

If you can't do it with 10 rounds, why the f*ck should we let you have 20, or 30, or 40, rounds?

But hey, that's just me. Opposing opinions are more than welcome.

-- Nighteyes

I disagree.
The principle,..... It's no one business if I choose to have a high cap magazine.....I might like them just because.

[Daniel Nighteyes]

I disagree.
The principle,..... It's no one business if I choose to have a high cap magazine.....I might like them just because.

And that, my friend, is a right guaranteed to both of us by the Constitution. 'Tis good to hear from you.

-- Nighteyes

[crashdive123]

Daniel - while I certainly respect your opinion - I disagree with it on a couple (at least) levels.

I can think of quite a few instances where more than 10 rounds might be necessary. I also (as has been stated) believe that reasons for ownership, or participation as one desires if you will don't matter when it comes to rights.

[Daniel Nighteyes]

Daniel - while I certainly respect your opinion - I disagree with it on a couple (at least) levels.

I can think of quite a few instances where more than 10 rounds might be necessary. I also (as has been stated) believe that reasons for ownership, or participation as one desires if you will don't matter when it comes to rights.

Crash,

Isn't it wonderful that such a forum as this permits individual expressions without limitation?

[crashdive123]

Oh - there's limitations - I'll let you know when you reach yours.

[Geek]

I've thought long and hard about my position; I have stated my position; and I'm content with my position. Anyone can "yes-but" and "but-what-if" my position to their heart's content. It will change nothing...


The simple fact is, and remains, that short of full-on combat against enemy troops or Zombies, there is no reason that rank-and-file citizens need magazines holding more than ten rounds. I could effectively make the case for limiting rifle magazines to five rounds, but why bother? Y'all have enough to contend with as it is...

-- Nighteyes

The second amendment refers to militia, which is every able bodied man. When called we are supposed to show up with firearms adequate to the task of engaging in combat. In combat I would prefer large magazines, especially if I am already disadvantaged by using a semi-automatic when the opposing force may have fully automatic weapons.

Now you may argue that being called in such a fashion is unlikely. However, our military is about to undergo a very serious contraction and that makes the likelihood of having to act as local militia higher than it has ever been in our lifetime. Furthermore, as preppers we prepare for a wide variety of catastrophes, including a total breakdown of government. In such a circumstance, the possibility of combat is quite real, so again the best combat weapon available is what would be preferred.

If we are not armed with combat capable weapons, we are prepared neither to perform the function for which the 2nd Amendment was intended, nor for the possibility of government breakdown.

Do I think either of these scenarios is likely? Not at the moment, but depending on what our military looks like in a few years, I may feel the likelihood is increasing and the need for such weapons greater than it is today.

[GreatUsername]

High-cap mags also make the government live in greater fear of its people. I like that very much. You know what they say about tyranny...

[Seniorman]

I strongly support the Second Amendment. Now, with that said, I also support Vice President Joe Biden's position on limiting magazine capacity. As I have stated in another thread, if you can't get the job done with 10 rounds, you probably can't get the job done with 20 (or 30, or 40) rounds without also causing significant collateral damage. As the old saying goes, "Gun Control means being able to hit your target."

If you can't do it with 10 rounds, why the f*ck should we let you have 20, or 30, or 40, rounds?

Based on your following qualifiers, none of which exist in the Second Amendment, I do not believe you "strongly support the Second Amendment." The word "need" is not in any part of the Second Amendment, nor is anything about requiring a person to hit his target else be denied his Second Amendment Right. Yet you want standard capacity magazines banned because that towering pyramid of intellect, Joe Biden, tells you that gun owning citizens don't "need" them.

Ah, Joe Biden. Such a firearms expert and self defense authority on whom you rely.

Biden has also stated people should only have shotguns for self defense. He's been on record for years also stating that he does not believe people should own guns, just as his boss, Obama has stated.

Such a law as you and Biden and Obama and Feinstein, and all their comrades advocate would also necessarily require the Government Police, at the point of their guns, to confiscate the millions and millions of banned standard magazines from several million gun owners.

After all, if the evil little tin boxes with springs inside, holding eleven or more rounds were left in the hands of the worker peasants and serfs, the anti-guns crowd could assume they might still use them to run rampant, murdering dozens of little children at a session. Standard capacity magazines would have to be confiscated. You and Biden , et al. demand punishment of people before they commit a crime. (Anti-Fourth Amendment, Anti-Fifth Amendment.)

You and Biden, et al. have the Right to determine your needs, but you have no Right to arrogantly determine mine, nor determine how I choose to defend myself and family. My unalienable Rights are not subject to your onerous dictates. Nor do you have the Right to punish me if I do not accept your dictates.

Perhaps you hold your flawed opinion because you are unfamiliar with semi-auto rifles and pistols, instant magazine changes and how rapidly they can be done. Any criminal who decides to go on a murderous rampage, can change 10 round magazines quickly and continue killing, just as he (or she) could with a standard capacity magazine. So, the criminal just carries a bunch of 10 round magazines and goes at it.

Of course, the anti-Second Amendment crowd would then argue, "Well, in that case, we'll just have to pass a law that no one can own more than one ten round magazine." Or, to paraphrase the Left's great hero, Calif. Dem. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, "Turn in those ten rounders you worker peasants and serfs, or we'll come get them!"

Any Federal law passed banning standard magazines for rifles and pistols, must necessarily be enforced with armed force, and there must be harsh penalties for violating said law if it is to be effective in the eyes of your Lords and Masters on the Left. The worker peasants and serfs must be made so frightened of the Government Police and Politicians they will obey their dictates in mass. Fear must be instilled on a national level.

Considering that several million people very well may not be as afraid of your Lords and Masters as they want, and those people violate the laws and NOT turn in their standard capacity magazines, how many years in a Federal prison do you want these million or two malevolent lawbreakers to serve?? And, how many new, gigantic Federal prisons do you want to be built to house all the lawbreakers who refuse to obey your Lords and Masters?? And how many of those lawbreakers do you want your Federal Police to kill, should they "make a furtive move" while being arrested?

D.N. - "If you can't do it with 10 rounds, why the f*ck should we let you have 20, or 30, or 40, rounds?"

"We??????" Who the Hell are you that you adopt the Imperial "We?" Who the Hell are you that you'll not "let me" own a small tin box with a spring in it?? How very, very telling of your arrogant, holier-than-thou, superior, elitist attitude. Are you an I-love-the-power Federal police officer with a gun and badge, or perhaps just some low level Federal paper pusher who swills at the taxpayers' trough, wallowing in self annointed authority you'd like to have but don't have?

D.N. - "I Strongly support the Second Amendment?"

No, not hardly. Either you are profoundly naive of facts, or you are extremely disingenuous. I suspect "both."

That's my opinion of your opinion.

S.M.