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.
@travis t - someday, your obsessive need to control the behaviors of others is going to manifest itself towards someone willing and capable to hold you to account for it.
Part of me feels bad about that, given how utterly unnecessary your obsession with meddling into the lives of others is, and another part of me accepts that there's no getting around Newton's 3rd Law.
Just an observation.
Back on the topic - almost every serious gun control campaign goes down in flames. Every elected official who cares about being or staying elected knows this with absolute clarity. So you're right, this will send a message, and the message will be "do not vote for anyone who voted yea on this latest bit of tyranny."
It may play OK in certain local or even state level elections, but on the national/federal level, it's a poison pill.
Actually the 1994 ban was consistently upheld by courts. It had a (very stupid) 10 year sunset clause. When the GOP controlled the Congress and WH in 2004, they just let it expire.
If so, how were people legally still buying sporter rifles thru that time ? I'm sure several posters here did, maybe they can shed some light on how effective this ban was.
Democrats = the best gun and ammo salespeople of all time.
Indeed.
I remain 100% convinced that Diane Feinstein's stock portfolio is like 75% tied to the gun/ammunition industry, because she can sell more firearms, accessories and ammunition in 10 seconds of speaking than anyone else in recorded history.
I remain 100% convinced that Diane Feinstein's stock portfolio is like 75% tied to the gun/ammunition industry, because she can sell more firearms, accessories and ammunition in 10 seconds of speaking than anyone else in recorded history.
She's a public servant. Her motive is only for the common good.
cool fantasy story. (Rakin can't support his claim at all and wont even try)
Do you think we should also be allowed to have nukes?
real question either there is a limit to privately held arms or there is not. once you accept that it is merely where we draw the line.
You appear to want unlimited access to all and any weapons.
I agree that common sense should be used to determine what was intended by the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and how that applies to today's weapons.
The arms that were possessed at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights were muzzle-loaders that were highly inaccurate, extremely unreliable and inefficient, but so was every other firearm.
In it's time, muzzle-loaders were state of the art and that placed a militia member armed with such a weapon on an even footing with anyone else that the state might send to visit him.
Fully automatic firearms are unnecessary to resist tyranny because they would serve no practical purpose.
You don't need a base of fire, or suppression fire (automatic), to make taking away the rights of the people too costly to be worth while.
You need one that is highly accurate, simple, light weight, durable, reliable and has excellent range and stopping power.
The AR-15 and its many variants are well-suited for this purpose.
As for weapons of mass destruction, to include nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, destroying what you are trying to save is pointless, so none of these weapons are needed.
A large number of armed citizens backed by the will of the people makes ruling over a nation against its will practically impossible.
Weapons need to be useful to that end but not destructive to others.
Sure, you see a Nuke is but a "tool". An inanimate object. If you take away the Nuke, the perp will just kill you with an assault rifle, a rock, a knife or a baseball bat.
Yes, preach! Nukes don't kill people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
I guess the big question is, why do you need an assault weapon as a citizen ? Just because you can ? Just because of the 2nd amendment that never foresaw people owning weapons that could mow down a lot of people in a few seconds ?
I guess the big question is, why do you need an assault weapon as a citizen ? Just because you can ? Just because of the 2nd amendment that never foresaw people owning weapons that could mow down a lot of people in a few seconds ?
Military, I can see. Joe Average, I can not.
Assault weapon is a meaningless manufactured term. Feinstein's bill classifies pistols weighing 50 ounces or more as "assault weapons." That includes the large handguns commonly used for bear defense in remote areas where grizzlies are present. It's nonsensical.
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.
