pharmer
Member
If they get this they will go after that evil 9MM--this crowd will never stop.
Well, an "important person" has declared: "A 9mm will blow the lungs right out of a person!" Joe
If they get this they will go after that evil 9MM--this crowd will never stop.
That's exactly what this current bill would do. Even the antigunners know that they can't magically eliminate the current inventory of guns. This is not Australia. Their only hope is through gradual attrition.With the number of "assault weapons" that are out there, which someone said were in the 10s of millilons, I am wondering if someone will make the distinction between current ownership and future sales, and think they can get a bill through a lot easier if it only bans future manufacture and sales and lets current owners keep what they got?
I'll admit that hunters and sport shooters could be valuable allies in preserving the RKBA. But, historically and legally, that's not what the 2nd Amendment is all about. And, to the extent that hunters and sport shooters are "Fudds," they can't be relied upon to support the weapons in question. Money quote: "Who needs an AR-15 for hunting?"The OP was about a proposed assault weapon ban. If you think it advances the cause to focus on anti-personnel use of the gun and to dismiss sporting and hunting use, you are like the bicycle rider who has the right-of-way but not the mass of the F-250 that occupies the same space.
Keep telling everyone who owns guns to vote for gun rights in upcoming elections.Silver lining ... Law makers who voted for it will be the target list to vote out in 2022 by gun owners.
And, to the extent that hunters and sport shooters are "Fudds," they can't be relied upon to support the weapons in question.
And tell everyone else just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of "free speech" like email/text/online forums, the Second Amendment protects modern types of "arms" like magazines and semi-auto firearms. (Heller ruling and recent Supreme Court Bruen ruling said so)Keep telling everyone who owns guns to vote for gun rights in upcoming elections.
Gee, isn't this terrible. The Democrats want to ban 'assault' rifles. When the Republicans had control of House and Senate - Great Leader Mitch McConnell did nothing to promote or let come to the floor Reciprocity and the SAGA act (one to ban state AWBs). Now, you might say that they couldn't pass given the filibuster and it would just be a gesture. However, they were happy to make gestures over Obama care, over and over. Wouldn't a proRKBA gesture or two be a good thing?
Think about it before the usual venting over ideological posturing from a known antigun party. To me this is another legislative yawn.
Second, think about why Scotus has avoided taking an AWB case. Supposedly sending cases back is a big deal - with years of screwing around probably - why not just take a clear case and make a clear decision (rather than their ambiguous blather)?
Instead, the Californian Communists are coming - Lion, Tigers and Bears - oh my!
So my Mini-14 Ranch is not an assault weapon according to the list, but if it has a threaded barrel or a folding or adjustable stock, it is.
Makes a lot of sense, because either of those totally change its operation and abilities.
The dem party is not going to stop.
The lawmakers who vote for this -- and especially the ones who are co-sponsoring it -- see it as a net plus for their election chances in 2022. That's the way things roll in their deep blue districts. Gun owners have zero clout there.Silver lining ... Law makers who voted for it will be the target list to vote out in 2022 by gun owners.
I'll admit that hunters and sport shooters could be valuable allies in preserving the RKBA. But, historically and legally, that's not what the 2nd Amendment is all about. And, to the extent that hunters and sport shooters are "Fudds," they can't be relied upon to support the weapons in question. Money quote: "Who needs an AR-15 for hunting?"
OK, explain what they are made primarily for, if not for killing. (Justified killing, I might add.) This reminds me of the silly campaign to dub AR's "modern sporting rifles." It doesn't fool anyone. In fact, it's an insult to the intelligence.Your position seems to be that ARs are made primarily for killing and that is why they are protected. Good luck with that.
Your position seems to be that ARs are made primarily for killing and that is why they are protected. Good luck with that.
Last I checked, knives are still used as "weapons of war" and legal to use for self defense, so are shotguns."Weapons of war" are precisely what are protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Hunting is irrelevant. Sports are irrelevant - spoke by someone who enjoys both.