Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They will not take that gun. No one has or will go knocking door to door and take them DUHHH. Get a clue man.
Why the hell should the government stop a person who is not a felon from owning an m1 garand? Amazing, we fought the Nazis with those guns to preserve our supposed freedom, only to lose the freedom to buy one?
There you go with that again. What was the bad name you called Clinton supporters when he was president and this law passed the first time around?
If you are going to call names, how will that help you?
It makes you look like an angry red neck wingnut that is
paranoid his guns will be taken from him, when clearly
the law in question has been in place since 94-04
and you still had your guns.
I suggest you ask McCain if calling names and being mean
helped his cause any.
Because you did the same perhaps....
Do you READ ANYTHING POSTED re: the AWB and its wording???
The new improved AWB is much more strict.
Educate yourself on the topic IF you want to be taken seriously...
People who are anti-gun but don't have a clue what these components actually do want to have as many restrictions as possible, so the next law will go futher toward their goal of having our 2nd Amendment limited to only black powder muskets. Then they can claim we still have the right to bear arms, but no actual meaningful way of defending our property or lives.
In those examples, they claim "assault" weapons are only meant to be fired from the hip, and that a pistol grip helps them do that. Clearly, they've been watching too many movies in Hollywood and don't understand the first thing about how people actually use firearms in the real world, for legal or illegal reasons. They ban telescoping stocks so you can't easily hide the weapon, which doesn't do any good when someone can have a pistol in their pocket in the first place. They ban magazines larger than 10 rounds so you have to reload more frequently, without caring that ban further hurts legal citizens who use firearms for defense. If you're being attacked by multiple enemies, why should you be limited to 10 rounds between reloads when all criminals will have 15-40+ round magazines? They aren't going to follow laws. It's as simple as that.
I'd bet TigerLily can't answer what a barrel shroud (or countless other specifics of that ban) even is, just like one of the politicians that supported the 1994 AWB who when asked, told a reporter that a barrel shround is "that thing that goes up." If you don't understand what the items are in a law, why are you voicing your opinion? That'd be like me giving hardware design advice to a microprocessor engineer, and I'm a software engineer. People who aren't informed, who haven't looked at independent research reports from unbiased sources, shouldn't be attempting to define the law. If you don't like guns, fine.. don't use them. That's your choice. But it's simply ignorant to think that these laws are going to prevent criminals from using illegal firearms. You only penalize the legal citizens with laws like this.
They will not take that gun. No one has or will go knocking door to door and take them DUHHH. Get a clue man.
Ummm....READ AGAIN!!!
A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.
The FBI says it had no effect on crime.This is about freedom versus tyranny, it has nothing to do with fighting crime. People need to seriously question the motives of those who wish to disarm us.
Nothing posted so far (before quoted comment) would be very adequate for elephants.
I was joking, sorry I know you have your panties all in a wad here...
About like the gays having theirs in a wad that they had their civil rights
to marry taken from them.
but for real --
lighten up, that is some massive stopping power and you know it.
You guys just want to complain, when you don't even live in a city
or know what it's like for law enforcement there. These laws are to protect people from criminals. If you have not committed a crime with your gun then said trace wouldn't happen to you, if you dont need to take down an buffolo (which became near extict without automatic weapons) or go on a massive killing spree then you sure don't need an automatic gun inteneded for the Military or Law enforcement.
guns are for people who belong in the special olympics.
Wish you told me that before I went through those 5 long years to earn my Ph. D. in computer science, then struggle for tenure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.