Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by boogerhook, Oct 11, 2015.
Thanks for posting.
If it comes down to confiscation; living in a 2a county would be nice. This will be a waterfall decision for sure.
I am tired of hearing "assault weapon" and "weapon of war" as names for semi-automatic rifles. There is no difference in lethality between a Ruger 10-22 with wooden stock and a S&W MP15 in .22. They both shoot the same caliber, have the same barrel length, and have mags between 10 and 30 count. The classification is all based on looks rather than function. Especially in the case of .22 calibers, it's ridiculous to compare them to weapons of war. Our military would cry crocodile tears, if that's what they had to fight our wars.
The ignorance of anti-gunners is what makes "common sense" solutions a farce, and basically a non-starter for many discussions.
I agree, I don't even want to read or hear that term again, it is uber effing stupid!!!!!
Hence the rise of terms like "Modern Sporting Rifle," as opposed to those hidebound, over-labor-intensive, HEAVY wood-stocked things.
Why does the Left hate shooters of limited physical strengths and want to discriminate against them? Just because it doesn't look like what they grew up with? (Elmer, take your Fudd-toy duck gun and stick it up your arse!)
Easier to demonize those black, giant magazine holding, bayonet capable, Modern Sporting Rifles! Helps with the lying and innuendo!
I wonder though, with the current makeup and recent history of the SCOTUS, if they would rule in our favor. We may hold a 'majority', but they have already shown that doesn't guarantee anything. While I would hope that we would see a repeat of the 2008 ruling, I'm just not convinced it would go that way now.
And, this serves as a good reminder of the impact that the 2016 presidential race will have - several of these old fogies are about ready to keel over any day now. We need to know that we can maintain some pro-gun folks on the high court, otherwise, we're really screwed.
If the 1994 ban went away (all while the rest of us continued to own the rifles we bought before then, as well as the ones we bought minus bayonet lug etc.) then I have no doubt that this case will not be nearly as far reaching as some think.
In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
Oh, and one more nugget; from a learned man of the law:
The opinion, written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said that “a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs.”
Oh, bans work to reduce carnage? How did a complete ban work out for the victims of Anders Breivik in Norway (where AR-15s are banned) wherein he killed 69 people and injured 110 people on an island where there aren't any guns (right? )
So it is a city ordnance... Remember everyone; IGNORE THE SIGN.
The '94 ban was different because it had a Sunset Clause to kill it; none since do. As it was, there was strong pressure to make it permanent and even GWB said he'd sign a clean extension if it hit his desk--some believe he was giving implied direction to the House leadership about "you guys gotta bury this one."
We are only one bribe sway from a ban.
Exactly; we have to allow plenty of time so our legislators and judges can purchase (or dump) ample-amounts of stock in the companies and corporations they are about to decide on.
I prefer "lead catch and release device" to return lead to its natural environment in the dirt.
One might even argue, that at close range (20-30 feet), handguns are more effective than a long-rifle. The speed of maneuvering, aiming, reloading, and possibly shooting 2 at the same time being factors. Which the VT massacre would be a supporting example of. When taking all mass shootings in the last 20 years or so, handguns are responsible for 75% of the carnage.
So then, if mass damage is the true concern, why go after sporting rifles?
BTW, I don't even have an AR - it's just the logic that is MIA
Take your logical thought out posts and out them on liberal websites. Here it's just a circle jerk... a really fun circle jerk but still.
You mean to say we are preaching to the choir?
But at least we dont ban people for posting contrary opinions:
"This is a group, not a forum. Groups often serve as safe havens for members who share similar interests and viewpoints. Individuals who post messages contrary to a particular group's stated purpose can be excluded from posting in that group."
There are a few people in there are brave enough to post pro-gun facts
I appreciate this sight, and enjoy the hours of free entrainment. It's rare to find people that will agree with me and even like what I hace to say...
But it's nessisary for us to inform as many people as possible. I like guns, people know how I feel about guns (and most other things) and 1/4 of my coworkers think I'm going to shoot up my work place because I own a ar-15, 1/2 think I'm crazy and need to "get off my soap box" the last quarter ether never cared or were anti's now they come to defend the second amendment when a dip stick opens thir mouth. Brow beating works
It's important to have a sight where people of like mind do go back and forth. It's how we stay informed about what's going on. It's how others share with us the facts and figures we can use with the 'other side'.
As for sharing on other sites, I don't find forums are the most effective place to try and 'convert' people. Rather, that should be reserved for one on one conversations. That is really where you can make a difference. And that is where I choose to share the information I gather here, with those that will, hopefully, listen.
But going to those other sites...well, they give about as warm a welcome to folks like us as they sometimes receive here when they show up trolling with anti-gun stuff. Just not very likely to convince anyone otherwise.
I'll wait for the one on one conversations, in person.
Indeed, one on one, with experience if possible, is best. It's how I flipped a couple antis on my college's library staff back then... they noticed the intensive amount of study I was doing on works like In The Gravest Extreme, studying police qualification standards and tactics... and the fact that one of them had a baby during that time and for the first time understood having something you'd go to ANY length to protect played a role in getting her to understand the Defensive Mindset too.
I think you are on the Money. I think they haven't taken any up because Kennedy won't back Scalia and Thomas and they don't want to take s chance.