U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-04-2012, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,824 posts, read 21,293,371 times
Reputation: 6523

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
Which is precisely my point.

A rifle capable of firing a .223 round downrange at 3000 fps is not LESS dangerous than one capable of firing a .223 round downrange at 3000 fps that has a telescoping stock or pistol grip.

But moron gun-grabbers don't get that, they see a rifle that "looks like" an "army gun" and they freak out.

Because stupid people are, well, stupid.
Those "moron" gun-grabbers are looking for any excuse to disarm the populace. If they can ban weapons merely by their appearance, and not their function, all the better for them to achieve their goal. You have to think beyond the act of gun-grabbing in order to understand the purpose for the gun-grabbing and why they so tenaciously want to disarm law-abiding citizens.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-04-2012, 11:30 PM
 
Location: San Francisco, CA
15,091 posts, read 12,025,570 times
Reputation: 14225
Fine with assault rifles, so long as they are not fully automatic, and so long as the purchasers do not have some recognized mental illness or criminal record. That's all.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 11:46 PM
 
Location: SWUS
5,420 posts, read 8,327,358 times
Reputation: 5825
Gun laws (with a few exceptions) are more or less fine the way they are. People in states that are more restrictive should do what they can to broaden their options or vote in new people, but other than that I don't see an issue with leaving things where they're at.

Just wish the military wouldn't destroy so much surplus ammunition- shooting sports would be affordable again.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 11:49 PM
 
1,684 posts, read 1,030,711 times
Reputation: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
Fine with assault rifles, so long as they are not fully automatic, and so long as the purchasers do not have some recognized mental illness or criminal record. That's all.
May 19th 1986 already took care of post samples unless you are a Class III dealer, Law Enforcement or Military.

As for pre May 19th 1986 samples?

I can own them in my State along with AOWs , SBRs and suppressors.

A $200 Federal tax stamp and some special BATF paperwork is all I need.

On the AOW the tax stamp is only $5.


Something someone from SF wouldn't know anything about.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 11:53 PM
 
1,684 posts, read 1,030,711 times
Reputation: 349
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanJP View Post
Gun laws (with a few exceptions) are more or less fine the way they are. People in states that are more restrictive should do what they can to broaden their options or vote in new people, but other than that I don't see an issue with leaving things where they're at.

Just wish the military wouldn't destroy so much surplus ammunition- shooting sports would be affordable again.
Should have gotten in awhile back on all the Lake City SS109 M855 in sealed crates. I bought up a bunch and I'm fimiliar with it. VERY fimiliar with it.

It's what AR variant rifles are supposed to shoot. Cheat against your buddies with their Wally World crap.

Perfect 300 or I buy your lunch man.

You wont ever buy!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 11:53 PM
 
Location: Atlantis
3,017 posts, read 3,492,622 times
Reputation: 8849
The philosophy behind banning assault weapons, at least for those in power is simple:


Make them illegal to own, so that when it all finally hits the fan and common citizens obtain them and are defending others from federal mercenaries, anyone in possesion of an assault weapon that is not working for the federal government or is in the army/marines/national guard, etc - can then be called a
'terrorist'.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2012, 11:54 PM
 
31,371 posts, read 33,803,965 times
Reputation: 14928
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss View Post
What makes this:
More dangerous than this:
Rate of fire and magazine capacity DUH!

You would have been better off comparing how silly the last "assault" gun ban was by using an AR style rifle verses a Mini-14, the AR which was banned and the Mini-14 which wasn't. Same relative rate of fire, same potential magazine capacity the only difference was one was black and had a pistol grip and one didn't.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 02:48 AM
 
21,527 posts, read 19,327,248 times
Reputation: 12128
You know handguns are used far more frequently in crimes. High magazine semi automatic pistols seem to be used more in shooting sprees than assault rifles. Its just that assault rifles sound and look scary.
.
BTW, I think Bob Costas new nickname should be " Sally."
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 03:57 AM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,384 posts, read 4,690,964 times
Reputation: 2279
Quote:
Originally Posted by A. Victor View Post
That's not completely true. A 5.56mm NATO SS109 M855 can't be fired in a .223 Rem weapon. It can/could blow it up. What makes the AR more dangerous? A well trained U.S. Marine. That civilian "hunting" rifle isn't in the same league.

A well trained anyone is dangerous with any decent weapon. I prefer my k98k with ZF39 scope.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2012, 04:13 AM
 
9,459 posts, read 4,578,367 times
Reputation: 5708
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
The point is, you can ban any kind of firearm you want and it will change nothing.. Criminals will still have them. The only thing you will accomplish is to make it easier for a criminal to do what he pleases to a lawful citizen.
Of course they will when there is a plentiful supply. We learned that in our Jr. High economics class. I hope you realize that every person we have behind bars was a "lawful" citizen at one time.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top