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.
I'm not in favor a taking anything away from anyone. Read what I said.
I'm in favor of taking semi-auto's off the shelf and not selling them to civilians.
Do you not see the irony in those two sentences?
"Not selling a product to civilians" .. is not the same as "Not taking it away from anyone"?
Do you not see the irony in those two sentences?
"Not selling a product to civilians" .. is not the same as "Not taking it away from anyone"?
Taking individual liberty, is the same as denying an individual the tools needed to fight an aggressive bully.
Why the rifle, when the handgun, kills more bullies in the nation than any rifle ever has, outside of the Civil War.
If a over bearing government wants to bully the people, is it the hand guns that are going to keep them at bay? Or the rifle, that can reach out and touch them. Everyone wonders why it is always the scary black rifle that go after.
So Iv'e been thinking, Here's a new gun law that I think both sides can come to an agreement on.
How about a Federal Mandate making the prosecution of gun laws mandatory, with mandatory sentences, No more plea bargaining away possession by a felon, Rob a store with a gun, full prosecution of ALL charges, etc.
We may need to sweeten the deal on both sides, maybe CCW reciprocity to help alleviate people accidentally crossing a state line with a CW.
We could role out the new law with a big public info campaign, so no one could claim they didn't know
On the contrary, eliminate all laws proscribing or limiting the possession of weaponry, including swords, knives, guns, machine guns, etc.
Simply punish those who commit felonies, regardless of the weapon used.
Abolition of liberty to prevent crimes is a crime, itself.
WOW!! Someone has been watching way too many movies. I bet a revolver has never been in the hand to make an uneducated guess like that.
Yes, a revolver can be cocked. All that does is give it a hair trigger. The pull on the trigger is considerably harder not cocked, but it will pull the hammer back and fire, by squeezing the trigger.
Worse thing one can do is jerk the trigger, with one finger. It will so to the side of the left ot right hand the shooter is using.
Squeeze to make a fist.
Some revolvers, such as the Colt Single Action Army, have to be manually (thumb) cocked to be fired. There's no way these revolvers could be considered "semi-automatics". That's the point I was making. You should have picked up on that. Most modern revolvers are "double action" and can be fired either by thumb cocking the hammer and then pulling the trigger ("single action" mode) or by pulling the trigger in "double action" mode which both coks and releases the trigger (hence the term "double action"). Also considering double action revolvers to be "semi-automatic" is a stretch.
Some revolvers, such as the Colt Single Action Army, have to be manually (thumb) cocked to be fired. There's no way these revolvers could be considered "semi-automatics". That's the point I was making. You should have picked up on that. Most modern revolvers are "double action" and can be fired either by thumb cocking the hammer and then pulling the trigger ("single action" mode) or by pulling the trigger in "double action" mode which both coks and releases the trigger (hence the term "double action"). Also considering double action revolvers to be "semi-automatic" is a stretch.
True, but single actions aren't very common for use by criminals or even for home defense.
They are pretty much collector items, recreational pieces and of course, the choice of Cowboy Action shooters for competition.
A double action revolver is not a semi-auto in terms of design but for the purpose of comparing how it fires...one bullet per trigger pull until it's empty....the analogy is valid.
Originally Posted by Listener2307 I'm not in favor a taking anything away from anyone. Read what I said.
I'm in favor of taking semi-auto's off the shelf and not selling them to civilians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by epliny
Do you not see the irony in those two sentences?
"Not selling a product to civilians" .. is not the same as "Not taking it away from anyone"?
There are lotsa products that civilian cannot buy, lotsa products civilians cannot carry; lotsa states that ban this item or that.
No. I do not see an irony.
Originally Posted by Listener2307
I'm not in favor a taking anything away from anyone. Read what I said.
I'm in favor of taking semi-auto's off the shelf and not selling them to civilians........
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
So if semi automatic rifles are so dangerious and should never be sold again why are they not dangerious enough to confiscate the tens of millions of them? .......
Because those rifles are private property.
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.
