JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
"(iii) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned..."

Any wooden stock on any semi-auto rifle "partially encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned". Thus, it could be argued (probably successfully) that any semi-auto rifle is illegal.

All of this is based on what Feinstein and others have seen in the movies. It's based on watching Rambo fire from the hip and mow down the opposition. In reality, you fire from the hip with a semi-auto and I'll aim with a bolt action rifle and let's see who goes down.
 
No Scout, I'm serious. What is your definition of an acceptably sized magazine?

If you would have read my previous posts you would have seen my belief that the second ammendment entitles US citizens to own any gun we want or any size magazine we want. I don't necessarily know that I am comfortable with the average person owning some high tech weapons only available to the military, but I would never vote for or agree with a government saying what a law abiding citizen can or cannot own. Law abiding citizens with high capacity magazines and "Assault Rifles" do not scare me, its the criminals that own them that do scare me.
 
Thanks for clearing that up. I think I'm going to become a Washington resident -- but maybe I'll wait until after the next election, so I can help vote the bstids out of office, first.

(I helped vote them in, after all. Sorry about that. It's only right that I should help get them out.)

-- Paravani

If you move to Washington, you can't own an SBR!
 
Assault Rifle
assaultrifle.jpg

Assault Weapon
assaultweapon.jpg

assaultrifle.jpg

assaultweapon.jpg
 
If you would have read my previous posts you would have seen my belief that the second ammendment entitles US citizens to own any gun we want or any size magazine we want. I don't necessarily know that I am comfortable with the average person owning some high tech weapons only available to the military, but I would never vote for or agree with a government saying what a law abiding citizen can or cannot own. Law abiding citizens with high capacity magazines and "Assault Rifles" do not scare me, its the criminals that own them that do scare me.

And there is the whole problem right there. The all powerful government, can't keep drugs out of criminals hands. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to keep these guns out of criminals hands, is living in a fantasy world.
 
Law abiding citizens with high capacity magazines and "Assault Rifles" do not scare me, its the criminals that own them that do scare me.

Knowing that a criminal is a law abiding citizen before they decide to break a law, just how does a society separate these two groups in order to mitigate the societies fear of armed thugs ?
 
Law abiding citizens with high capacity magazines and "Assault Rifles" do not scare me, its the criminals that own them that do scare me.

Why? Assault rifles are not used in crime. The last two murders committed with Assault Rifles were done by bad cops, and that was like 2 murderes in the US in the last 10 years.

Even Normal Hunting Rifles (bolt action, semi-auto, and SS) are not generally used in crime...more people were murdered with fists and feet last year than with rifles of any time.

The only fear of rifles and shotguns is that fear manufactured by the media and their handlers.
 
Knowing that a criminal is a law abiding citizen before they decide to break a law, just how does a society separate these two groups in order to mitigate the societies fear of armed thugs ?

It's not possible. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It's not a free society's job to "separate" any two groups - we're each responsible for our own conduct. If someone else violates "the (constitutional) law of the land", there should be reasonable and commensurate penalties which should be severe enough to deter would-be criminals. Some suggest that no one can be trusted to do the right thing, so we need to strip away everyone's 2A rights... If that happens, which rights are they prepared to surrender next?
 
Last Edited:
Yeah, after I had hit "post" I felt a little remorseful that I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. Hook- if I misinterpreted the intent of your note, I apologize for the tone of mine.
 
It's not possible. Are you one of those who would suggest we "take away everyone's guns" or limit evil magazine capacity under the delusion that we'll all be safer that way? Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

It's not a free society's job to "separate" any two groups - we're each responsible for our own conduct. If someone else violates "the law of the land", there should be reasonable and commensurate penalties which should be severe enough to deter would-be criminals. Your statement suggests that no one can be trusted to do the right thing, so we need to strip away everyone's 2A rights?? If that happens, which rights are you prepared to surrender next?

Exactly. It's not possible, in the same way that it's impossible to stop a legally-owned firearm from ever entering a criminal's hands. Either one of two things happen: A) the lawful owner commits a crime and thereby becomes a criminal, or willfully provides a known criminal with the gun (thereby also becoming a criminal), or B) the lawful owner of the firearms become a victim of a theft, at which point the firearm is now lost into the ether, and is now one of the millions of "unregistered firearms" that anti-gun people think they will be able to eliminate by legislation.

So I like to tell them to go ahead and do what would need to be done given these two circumstances - go all out and push for a full repeal of the second amendment. I want them to stop dicking around with my rights. If they're going to strip me of my right to own a firearm of any type, quit trying to nitpick about it and go all the way. Drop the charade and go for the all-out fight that we all know they really want to have.

Because that's what we did with recreational drugs, and it has worked so very well. They're as easy to get as a pack of beer. Getting a black-market, unregistered gun is actually harder today than it is to get drugs.
 
Good question, since any one of us in the PNW can legally purchase a firearm FTF today without a background check or registration - but I don't consider that to be a black market.

I would say that a "black market" gun is any firearm stolen from a lawful owner or purchased by legal means, but which is now transferred to the possession of one who is ineligible to buy, most often a felon. I think we can pretty much agree that the average gangster in Chicago, for example, is probably someone ineligible to purchase a firearm, who likely purchased or received it from another person who is likely not eligible to own one as well.

There is definitely a market that exists where non-eligible buyers can and will purchase a stolen or straw-purchased firearm. And, surprise, it will most likely exist in places that have the most restrictive laws on firearms ownership, since statistically they are the places most rife with gang crime.
 
Good question, since any one of us in the PNW can legally purchase a firearm FTF today without a background check or registration - but I don't consider that to be a black market.

I would say that a "black market" gun is any firearm stolen from a lawful owner or purchased by legal means, but which is now transferred to the possession of one who is ineligible to buy, most often a felon. I think we can pretty much agree that the average gangster in Chicago, for example, is probably someone ineligible to purchase a firearm, who likely purchased or received it from another person who is likely not eligible to own one as well.

There is definitely a market that exists where non-eligible buyers can and will purchase a stolen or straw-purchased firearm. And, surprise, it will most likely exist in places that have the most restrictive laws on firearms ownership, since statistically they are the places most rife with gang crime.

Thanks, that makes perfect sense. I wanted to make sure you weren't referring to the NWFA FTF sales as the "black market" ;)
 
I will be sending out tomorrow about 20 letters and attachments against the proposed gun control measures to the key proponents of the measures and pro-gun democrates and conseratives. If anyone has any ideas for my letter-let em know soon. Thanks.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top