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.
If I recall, not too long ago there were the liberals saying ' take off the tin foil hat, no one is going to take away your guns, there won't be any confiscation'. You can keep your gun PEROID
I was told if I like my guns then I can keep my guns. And the cost of keeping my guns will go down. And I'll get an even better guncare policy... Hey, wait a minute. It's like deja vu all over again!
they are identifying people that have firearms and requiring additional compliance. it will not end with 5 shot weapons. more down the road. the taxpayer cost of this current compliance action is enormous.
the reason they are able to do this is bek of the requirement of massive documentation when the purchase occurred.
there is a reason they are requiring massive documentation when the purchases occur, its not to make sure that the wrong people not buy them bek that has already been established we are not the wrong people. this is not the end, this is the beginning of the gun grab.
they are identifying people that have firearms and requiring additional compliance. it will not end with 5 shot weapons. more down the road. the taxpayer cost of this current compliance action is enormous.
the reason they are able to do this is bek of the requirement of massive documentation when the purchase occurred.
there is a reason they are requiring massive documentation when the purchases occur, its not to make sure that the wrong people not buy them bek that has already been established we are not the wrong people. this is not the end, this is the beginning of the gun grab.
You are right, they will not stop.
The push to restrict magazine capacity focuses on the apparently magic number “ten”. Reduce Americans to ten-round magazines and no more mass murder, they claim. Let’s look at where this leads.
Ten rounds has been the standard capacity for military rifles for a long time. 1895 Lee-Enfield held ten, as did the Soviet SVT and the German G43 rifles. Post-WW2 SKS, FN49 and SVD held ten also. No one would claim that they aren’t formidable weapons even today. So why stop at ten if the goal is to reduce capability of any rifleman?
The first military rifle designed for high-velocity smokeless ammunition, the 1886 Lebel, held 8 rounds in the magazine. So did the first rifle with detachable box magazine, the 1888 Lee-Metford. As did the “finest battle implement ever designed”, the US M1 Garand. Nobody can claim that these aren’t suitable for bloody mayhem in the wrong hands, so could we claim that fewer than 8 should be the limit.
That brings us to six rounds. The Italian WW2 Carcano (including that which was used to shoot JFK), the superb Swiss Schmidt-Rubin, the American M1917 and many Mannlicher bolt actions held six. Too many still?
Five, do I hear five? That would be the capacity of Mauser, Springfield, Mosin, P1914, MAS38, Arisaka, Krag, Winchester 1895 and many other guns that were front-line military weapons until the 1950s.
Four? No, that would give us certain Winchester and Remington sniper rifles in common military use since the Vietnam War. No anti-gun legislator would admit sniper rifles suitable for civilian ownership. The substantial similarity of a deer hunting rifle to the military sniper rifle is purely coincidental, of course.
Maybe three would be the magic number? French Berthier infantry rifle with a three-shot magazine was widely used through WW1. So the real number would probably be two. At which point anit-gun propaganda would harp on the similarity to double-barreled dangerous game guns and the few remaining gun owners would end up with single-shot low-power guns grudgingly permitted after much red tape…until the next confiscation. It’s a lot easier, you see, to go after people reduced to pre-1850s defensive technology. Not that the gun-banners would go after us in person — even a musket or a pike in steady hands scare them — but they would send their uniformed thugs with modern guns. That scenario played out in Soviet Russia, in Communist China and more recently in Venezuela. Once the gap of arms between the government and the people is great enough, such minor matters as civil rights cease to matter much to the rulers.
The mostly disarmed British subjects may still possess a few guns of limited specifications, but they lost the right to use those for self-defense. Storage, transport and other uses are so severely restricted as to make the remaining arms of minimal use. That’s the end game for the American gun banners — but they won’t live to win it. Their demented numerological plots matter less than the million defensive rifles sold this week. Those gun purchases are the true vote — with money, personal time and effort — that will override the hateful propaganda broadcasts and the squawking in the bully pulpits of the legislative sessions.
New York’s SAFE Act is a bad, bad thing. It requires people to register, sell or transfer (out of state) “assault rifles” and “high capacity” magazines. Many Empire State gun and standard capacity ammunition magazine owners have complied. Many have not. So, at some point, the State’s gonna go get ‘em. People on both sides of the law enforcement divide might die and the s will hit the fan. Meanwhile, there it is: the reason why expanded background checks, indeed all background checks and any type of registration, set the stage for confiscation. And tyranny.
This goes to show how the Civilian Disarmament Complex never stops, and is never to be compromised with.
Once again, We were right, and we will say "I Told You So".
No biggie.....this is what the Turdocrats want. More and more control by Big Brother is fine according to the Stinkocrats......they ARE statists after all.
Once again, peaceful, America-loving gun owners show their true colors ...
I think you are confused. The government that views citizens as subjects is showing their colors, and have no problem urinating on rights, freedoms, or the US Constitution.
1984 has reached NY, it's just a few decades late. Perhaps Fahrenheit 451 is next.
The first military rifle designed for high-velocity smokeless ammunition, the 1886 Lebel, held 8 rounds in the magazine. So did the first rifle with detachable box magazine, the 1888 Lee-Metford. As did the “finest battle implement ever designed”, the US M1 Garand. Nobody can claim that these aren’t suitable for bloody mayhem in the wrong hands, so could we claim that fewer than 8 should be the limit.
- snip -
You are a very knowledgable individual and people should take notice. They simply don't understand.
Let me give some background. I was deployed in Viet Nam and my objective was to take out the enemy.
Being brought up on the farm, I did my fair time at bringing down those pesky prairie dogs and a skunk or two. I joined uncle sam's canoe club. They saw what I did and the next thing I knew I was practicing at a camp, just outside of San Diego. They told me that I needed to point, pull, and take out, a particular target. I thought back to those old days of sitting at the carnival and popping off the dummy's. Hell, I had done that my whole life out on the farm. So I did it. Next thing I knew is that I held a M1-D and I was stairing down at the NVA. I had to pick my targets, and most importantly, I had to pick a way out.
Years, and many rounds went by and I found myself sitting in the position of looking down the barrel of the Eastern folks (Still can't go on with who) and yet, I still held an "M1 Garand". 8 rounds. Give me 8, that's all I ask for. If I can't do it in 8, I need to go home an suck on momma's..........
No. 8 should not be a limit. Here is the reason. When an intruder breaks into my home and decides that I am done, ask yourself this. Can you tell me how many people are going to break in? Can you tell me how fast they are going to advance? If you can tell me that, I will make sure I arm myself for that particular intrusion. if you can't tell me that, then I guess I'm going to have to arm myself for whatever comes at me.
You are a very knowledgable individual and people should take notice. They simply don't understand.
Let me give some background. I was deployed in Viet Nam and my objective was to take out the enemy.
Being brought up on the farm, I did my fair time at bringing down those pesky prairie dogs and a skunk or two. I joined uncle sam's canoe club. They saw what I did and the next thing I knew I was practicing at a camp, just outside of San Diego. They told me that I needed to point, pull, and take out, a particular target. I thought back to those old days of sitting at the carnival and popping off the dummy's. Hell, I had done that my whole life out on the farm. So I did it. Next thing I knew is that I held a M1-D and I was stairing down at the NVA. I had to pick my targets, and most importantly, I had to pick a way out.
Years, and many rounds went by and I found myself sitting in the position of looking down the barrel of the Eastern folks (Still can't go on with who) and yet, I still held an "M1 Garand". 8 rounds. Give me 8, that's all I ask for. If I can't do it in 8, I need to go home an suck on momma's..........
No. 8 should not be a limit. Here is the reason. When an intruder breaks into my home and decides that I am done, ask yourself this. Can you tell me how many people are going to break in? Can you tell me how fast they are going to advance? If you can tell me that, I will make sure I arm myself for that particular intrusion. if you can't tell me that, then I guess I'm going to have to arm myself for whatever comes at me.
Thank you for your service.
Well when you are 23, love guns and have the net its hard not learn the history of arms, for they are the history of nations, history men and the rise of liberty its fall and its rebirth..
I never can understand why some people think they know things will never get so bad past a certain point so where they will only need X number of rounds..I mean no one knows anything about something that has not happened yet until it does.
Ummm...the insinuation of violence here is coming from a gun control ADVOCATE. The poster is daring firearms owners to oppose the confiscation, and rah rahing for whoever is taking guns. You took the post out of context. He/she is on YOUR team. Lol
Lol How many pages of self righteous indignation and making a fool of herself do you think it would have taken before she noticed?
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.
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.
seriously.....
