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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
