A law-abiding responsible gun owner strikes again.

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah assault rifles last a hell of a lot longer than ten years. Especially with the way most owners care for them.

-Cops were called 14 times to their house since 2012.
-Three of those 14 visits were because the mom attempted suicide.

http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2016/06 ... -attempts/

So that to "reduce" the number of guns in circulation would lead to mass confiscation of legal guns from law abiding American citizens. Can't think of a much worse scenario but there you have it.....And for what??? You still haven't gotten NEAR the illegal weapons and their suppliers, so (?) destroying Democracy for WHAT?

There was a grandfather clause put there so there wouldn't have been confiscation. The number of these weapons would naturally decline over time. Change takes time.

"...a grandfather clause". I wonder if that's the same ruse they used to take away veteran's souvineer rifles out here? Pretty sure it was.

This is the same lie they're using to now take legally puhrchased/legally owned/grandfathered magazines.

You can't trust greedy politicians. They can, and do, what they wish and lie constantly.

Eh, you could kill 50 people cowering in a crowded room with a break action double shotgun if you were so inclined.

It's more to do with skill and resolve than any specific tech. advantage (as long as it's a cartridge based breech loader so you can get out a shot every 1 second to 2 with some practice).

ROF advantage of an intermediate caliber semi doesn't really matter when your single shot from say a 12 gauge double is 2-3 times as powerful; it will be close enough in firepower to ROF comparison that it doesn't matter when shooting unarmed civilians.

We've already had an AWB and they didn't confiscate peoples guns.

There is not going to be any mass gun confiscation. No one has ever proposed doing that. Not only that but congress can't even get a vote on any gun management legislation. All this gun grabber talk is non sense. It's this kind of hysteria that is preventing us from taking any actions on guns whatsoever and that is no longer acceptable.

Yeah but let's just let people have assault rifles with drum magazines and it will make killing 50 people so much easier and faster.

Also swat would have an easier time dealing with an assailant with a shotgun than an assault rifle.

Sure a person can kill someone else in numerous other ways. But why make it easier?

AND THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE BIG LIE CALLING SPORTING RIFLES: ASSAULT WEAPONS.

The gun grabbers KNOW these are not "assault weapons" so why do they use the term? It's so uninformed people will be frightened.

Then if they should wrangle another ban, it'll be time for them to notice my old Remington is not only a semi-automatic, but also takes magazines (along with fine hunting rifles of this type). What would you like to bet it'll be on the chopping block next?
And after that there will be those pesky lever action rifles that fire sooo fast (to say nothing of pump action hunting rifles) and hold a lot of bullets in those long tubes AND ETC. AND ETC, AND ETC.

YOU GET THE IDEA. So it's no camel's nose under the tent, period.

ZenDen

Are you saying an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fam ... ut-n593356

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -civilians

Here's what the constitution actually says:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Here's what right-wingers hear: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What militia are you guys a part of again?

"Yeah but let's just let people have assault rifles with drum magazines and it will make killing 50 people so much easier and faster."
"Also swat would have an easier time dealing with an assailant with a shotgun than an assault rifle."

You don't seem to possess a great deal of knowledge about "guns" or military tactics. The person you imagine to be an attacker isn't constrained by your ideas. Such a person could have a bomb strapped to them. This person could have hand grenades. This person could have several guns and switch anytime and reload one weapon while firing another.

This is the simplest method to avoid "running dry" and it works every time....authorities know this. The assault weapon ban is an assault on our Constitutional Rights.

As I said, these "ban" ideas are not based on serious studies...only fear.

Even if you take out the word militia, it still says "well regulated"

Well, I'm assuming a semi-auto .223/7.62x39mm and similar with whatever sized mag. you can get, as it takes about a second to change a mag here. It's not going to really affect anything against unarmed people whether you change a 10 round mag 9 times, a 30 round one 3 times or not changing it at all. An extra 10 seconds really isn't going to affect the outcome.

Yep. That's where the advantage of intermediate caliber semis come into play, which is against armed people. Though, you can include say, full power bolt-actions and lower cap. semis here in similar calibers as being just as useful against armed people as the smaller caliber semis; power and ROF comparison comes into it again, as does armor penetrating ability. Nowadays, .223 Rem. from your AR isn't going to penetrate the vests they wear, and it's going to be hard against the newer helmets. SWAT is well prepared here no matter what.

Eh, I don't think punishing the 99.999999 percent (whatever absurd number it is for how rare spree killings are) of people because of that 0.000001 is what I'd call useful and just legislation. Especially when the effect will probably be incalculable.

The problem the US has is inner-city minorities killing each other to absurd amounts in comparison to other Western countries. I don't know what can actually stop this from happening other than trying more and/or different social programs; the ones in place clearly aren't working.

Who do YOU refer to when you think of SCOTUS? Do you feel you have information these justices do not? The question has been answered by the highest court in the land: Gun ownership is an INDIVIDUAL right....just like the rest of The Bill of Rights.

Yeah, not to mention that the miltia part is the operate clause of the entire sentence, the right to bear arms coming exclusively for the defense of the nation by militia forces...not personal firearms for pleasure, self protection, or even hunting for that matter-- nope solely to feed the militia (which obviously don't even exist anymore).