CIVIL WAR: Senate To Go For Handguns

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

not word has been mentioned about belt fed systems nor stripper clips or even the more "interesting" harmonica gun designs.

Don't give 'em any ideas, they'll amend the bill before they pass it.

You have it correct, though. The loopholes will be there, no matter how hard they try to prevent it. We Americans can still be inventive when we have to be!

Regardless of any loopholes you would be suprised to find out how many people think it is easy to convert semis into full auto. If only the government has the automatic sear then there is practically no way a gunsmith can reliably convert the weapon. I actually dislike automatics because they offer a false sense of security and burn up ammo too fast. Hand grenades would be a more effective weapon if they were allowed.

I SOOOO agree. Hence the reason they converted the standard issue M16 from a fully automatic weapon to a 3 round burst as statistically, anything past 3 rounds was a waist of ammo. Fully auto, I think the statistics were staggering. I think it was some ungoddly number around 700 rounds to take down 1 enemy.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

This isn't a gun ban

It is a ban.

It may only be the first part of a much larger ban, but it IS a ban.

There are weapons that will be forbidden to own, sell or manufacture.

'Grandfathered' weapons will not be allowed to be transferred, to include giving them to your own son.

Well, yes and no in my opinion. It's not a ban..it's regulation. OVER-Regulation, perhaps (I sure see it that way) but we are fast moving from the language of blogs where wording means nothing and people just term things however it sounds good......to the world of legal action against us as a population where wording means everything and whole features of our lives come to be defined by the turn of phrase in a legal document.

It's going to lead TO a ban, yes. In terms of the way it's legally seen though? California DOES have this law she's pushing on the nation. It DID survive the Heller decision as Heller incorporated the 2nd ..that means it came to apply to states and even city Government as it never had before. Still....the California AWB stands as their law without challenge as a ban. So...I guess we won't get far fighting it that way. We'll just lose the debate by default.

reply to post by FeatherofMaat

Finally, the fact that you think your little pop guns are worth two hoots against just a single M1 Abrams, a drone, etc, is almost cute.

Ask anyone in the military if you can control and hold ground by tanks and drones alone.
You need boots on the ground. If every citizen has a handgun you could not conduct business with any degree of safety.
This is what seperates us from Syria.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by Ahabstar

 

not word has been mentioned about belt fed systems nor stripper clips or even the more "interesting" harmonica gun designs.

Don't give 'em any ideas, they'll amend the bill before they pass it.

You have it correct, though. The loopholes will be there, no matter how hard they try to prevent it. We Americans can still be inventive when we have to be!

Regardless of any loopholes you would be suprised to find out how many people think it is easy to convert semis into full auto. If only the government has the automatic sear then there is practically no way a gunsmith can reliably convert the weapon. I actually dislike automatics because they offer a false sense of security and burn up ammo too fast. Hand grenades would be a more effective weapon if they were allowed.

I have shot a variety of automatic weapons, most of them require a lot of practice (read a ton of money in ammo cost) to get proficient with them. Most are fairly difficult to control. They do have they effect of scaring the bejesus out of the intended target, but if you don't hit them, they are still a viable opponent.
I'd take a manually operated weapon that was accurate over a full-auto only weapon.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
The proposed bill takes the 'Assault Weapons Ban' of 1994 and makes it stronger. These are the words of Ms, Feinstein herself.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was a ban. This proposed law will BAN over 100 different weapons that are currently legal to own.

It will be a ban if it is passed because it will be illegal to produce, own, possess or transfer these weapons after the effective date of the legislation.

What is it about this proposed law that makes you feel it is not a ban?

Originally posted by AngryCymraeg

Why would a civilian weapon need a military characteristic? And I regard her other points as being very sane.

The main "military characteristic" is the ability to shoot where pointed. Defining ergonomic and/or cosmetic features as uniquely military is at least stupid and at most not sane. As is the rest of this garbage.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
Bitching in these forums is gonna get you exactly nowhere! Occupy has the right idea in that they have hit the streets!

If just 1% of gun owners organized and marched in DC this non sense about gun control would end over night! That said, inaction is all we will likley see!

Here here. I'd like to hear the plans of any of the "outraged" gun owners on this forum. I'm guessing very few are going to take any real action. I mean, why try to organize a demonstration when you can just sit on your duff and wait for someone else to do it, right? Outraged, yes. Enough so to get off the couch, not likely.

reply to post by L8RT8RZ


Gee, registered 2 days after sandy hook. You aren't one of those paid shills, are you? It sure sounds like it. Let me give you a little newsflash, [snip]

In 1934 the government passed a law to regulate suppressors (a safety device required by law at some ranges overseas) fully automatic weaponry, and short barreled rifles/shotguns. The case went to court and it was ruled in favor of the defendant. The government appealed and since the original defendant could not be found, the government snuck an outright lie in the face of a skeptical but open judge. Thusly the National Firearms Act of 1934 came to be. It had grandfathering, just like this bill. However, the tax to register a now-regulated weapon was $200, a fortune in 1934. It had the intended effect that many people did not bother to register them. Then they passed a law stating that no more weapons could be registered, that the grace period was up. I believe that was in GCA 1968, but I could be wrong on that last one.

I suspect the fees on regulated weaponry will go up drastically if this draconian steaming pile of horse dung passes. If you can't regulate them out of existence, you tax them out of existence during the worst economy in decades.

Who needs evil AK-47s and AR-15s? Me. I went through Katrina. I was there. My AK was used to keep the thieving looters from stealing the generator we were using to keep my grandfather's insulin cold, in addition to defending the homes of each house within 400 yards of my grandfather's home. My rifle was not the only one. As evidence of their efficacy, there were -0- instances of looting on that entire street during the entire three week period that our power was off. Who else needs AR-15s? A sovereign citizen defending himself from the worst society has to offer.

You can roll over and depend on the country's largest criminal gang (the police) for your protection. Me? I'm clinging to my bible, my AK, and my honor. The only solace i have in this whole crappy mess is that to a man (or woman) all of those I talk to say they're not giving them up, and they're not registering them. They're not buying up just to register them. They're gearing up for a fight.

Oh, and how's this for idiocy? I have a very nice levergun chambered in .357 mag. More John Wayne than John Rambo. Guess what? It's a centerfire rifle with a magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds. BANNED.

This is how incrementalism works. You can hide shivering behind your cell phone waiting for the help that might be coming in 2 minutes or 20 minutes. Me? i'm calling 911 back to tell them to send the coroner to pick up the invader's carcass from off my floor.

reply to post by butcherguy

Well, it's not a ban because ban is a legal term. It's a legal term that has been deemed outright impossible to accomplish. So.....They will allow firearms until the Super Court can be changed ..IF we allow the same people to keep holding power while that happens.

I'm confused as to what anyone sees about what she is proposing that CAN be fought outright on legal or procedural grounds? Make no mistake, I am 1000% AGAINST this law and HER as a specific individual in leadership. However, the fact still sits there.....like dog crap on a marble floor.

There is nothing she is proposing here ...that I have seen...which does not ALREADY EXIST in one state or another today as we sit here. Magazine bans?? Take a look at your security guards in the Northeast. Look HARD at the Butt of their automatics in holsters. See the empty HOLE where the bottom of a magazine ought to be? That is because they are hollow half way up the box. Like this:


(Many now do have a butt plate so it's not THAT obvious how poorly armed an armed guard is in those states..but many don't.)

So they CAN safely ban the magazines which make a firearm worth owning ......while never banning the gun the Super Court said they cannot ban as a whole class. They CAN BAN specific weapons...and again, this law already exists.

In California, it's well beyond that actually. They don't BAN specific guns in California. They start from a position of *ALL GUNS ARE BANNED*...and to stay right with the Courts, they then have an approved list. If your gun is on the APPROVED list, you may own it with their permission. If it isn't? You're a criminal in violation of state law. That is FAR FAR beyond what she is trying to do here...and it's stood Constitutional Challenge well enough.

Elections DO have consequences. Sometimes, very very BAD ones. Many of us TRIED ALL WE COULD to tell everyone what the outcome this time would likely be. It isn't about TPTB and all that junk... Much of this is 100% PERSONAL agenda by INDIVIDUALS in leadership position. .....and we'll now suffer the crusades they are finally in a position to pursue almost unchecked. The "they are all the same" and "Red/Blue same same all over" is fine....outside the PERSONAL CRUSADES of individuals. That is what we see in Feinstien. We're in trouble.

Originally posted by lilmehere
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

Except that all of the paperwork you are suggesting totally goes against "shall not be infringed".

Having children is my God-given right. I don't need to fill out paperwork to make sure I'm competent. I don't have to re-certify.

Defending myself with guns is my God-given right. I don't need to fill out paperwork to make sure I'm competent. I don't have to re-certify.

Being compelled to do either is a complete violation of my Second Amendment rights.

If we allow TPTB to legislate our inalienable rights, we have given them the power to take those away. What is legislated CAN be taken away.

Don't y'all get it?

First, it would be great if you DID have to certify before creating a child, but that's another topic

Second, no, owning guns is NOT your God-given-right or you would have been born holding a pistol and would grow guns from your body as needed or desired. You don't produce them biologically, so it's not a "God given right" at all.

The only God-give right you have is to someday die. Period. If you are a believer, then you have the God-given right of being saved since he died for you on the cross. Nothing in this world is guaranteed to you, absolutely nothing.

As far as the second ammendment, most of the firearms we have today weren't even in existance at the time of it's writing and it could be argued that they don't apply to the ammendment at all. Given the right lawyer and the right judge, it could be accepted. Nothing about it is God-given.

With rants like yours, it makes me more apt to accept forms of gun control to keep them out of your hands. I would definitely vote for psychiatric testing, no doubt about it.

Some people shouldn't have guns.

Some people shouldn't reproduce either.

Originally posted by FeatherofMaat
Civil War? Puhleeze.

First, despite any poll showing anything, there are just not that many Americans who care about guns. Of those that do, the overwhelming majority would cave to the Government. Finally, the fact that you think your little pop guns are worth two hoots against just a single M1 Abrams, a drone, etc, is almost cute.

All you nuts have are your MREs and blog outrage. It is kinda funny.

You ever lived in the Deep Southeastern United States?

In that American setting, your claims couldn't be any farther from reality.

Originally posted by butcherguy

I have shot a variety of automatic weapons, most of them require a lot of practice (read a ton of money in ammo cost) to get proficient with them. Most are fairly difficult to control. They do have they effect of scaring the bejesus out of the intended target, but if you don't hit them, they are still a viable opponent.
I'd take a manually operated weapon that was accurate over a full-auto only weapon.

Exactly. The size of the gun isn't nearly as important as the ability to use it and be accurate with it. Some people just don't get that and they want the biggest and baddest guns they can get their hands on and have no skill in operating them at all.

Sure, they'll talk big and bad and say they do, but they don't. They want the big bad guns to compensate. Real men can do the same with a 38 revolver that one of the idiots can do with a fully automatic machine gun with endless rounds.

If people are going to own guns, they need to be able to handle them, not just look all big and bad posing for pictures while holding them and not have a clue how to be effective with them.

Originally posted by lilmehere
reply to post by L8RT8RZ

 

Except that all of the paperwork you are suggesting totally goes against "shall not be infringed".

Having children is my God-given right. I don't need to fill out paperwork to make sure I'm competent. I don't have to re-certify.

Defending myself with guns is my God-given right. I don't need to fill out paperwork to make sure I'm competent. I don't have to re-certify.

Being compelled to do either is a complete violation of my Second Amendment rights.

If we allow TPTB to legislate our inalienable rights, we have given them the power to take those away. What is legislated CAN be taken away.

Don't y'all get it?

Legislation is necessary. The people voted into office have a deranged idea of what is ethical and safe. They don't use critical thinking much except to fullfil agendas behind closed doors. The dollars in their bank accounts speak more than common sense.

It is the media and peoples fault. We should place blame where blame is deserved. The government can be as evil as it wants and as long as the media and people are complicit then nothing will ever change for the better. It will keep getting worse.

Think about that next time you vote D and R instead of C, L or G!

The ballots have options for "other candidates" where parties cannot gather enough mainstream support. The libertarians were on every ballot in 2012 but it was "oh I am not going to waste my vote" nonsense that prevailed and people deserved to get punished imo.

Originally posted by L8RT8RZ
reply to post by netwarrior

 

"little girl"??

I could wipe the floor with you and leave you crying in the corner little boy. Instead of hiding behind your toy guns, get up and be a man.

I told my sisters boyfriend recently, "I am way to old to try to fist fight any more. But I am just the right age to shoot a hole in you."

If i have to defend myself, someone will likely die. There is none of that "equal force" nonsense.

Click here for more information.

Let's keep it civil please and remember to go after the ball, not the player.