http://tinyurl.com/b7rvo34

The link goes to Senator Diane Feinstein's site. A summary of her
proposed U.S. weapons ban is there.

On Jan 24, 11:06*pm, Dean Hoffman "
wrote:
* *http://tinyurl.com/b7rvo34

* * The link goes to Senator Diane Feinstein's site. *A summary of her
proposed U.S. weapons ban is there.



"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket
launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."


The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. WTF?
Threads kill people? Same insanity with grips. Like
banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial difference in any
of the recent shootings?

Then we have:

"All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable
of accepting more than 10 rounds."


That bans the magazines sold today with probably 90% of the
pistols not just in the USA but around the world. Which is exactly
what the libs are up to. They rail on about 100 round mags,
30 round mags, but then deliberately screw all the legal
gun owners out there by putting 10 or 7 in the actual law,
instead of 15 which would cover that 90%.
And just like in NY, when 10 doesn't work, next step is 7.

Fortunately the chances of this passing Congress are
near zero.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:06:38 -0600, Dean Hoffman
" wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/b7rvo34

The link goes to Senator Diane Feinstein's site. A summary of her
proposed U.S. weapons ban is there.

Bang the cow bell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjsUf_oIgp0

She wants to make you a criminal - overnight if the law is passed.

wrote:

"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket
launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."


The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. WTF?
Threads kill people? Same insanity with grips. Like
banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial difference in any
of the recent shootings?

The threaded barrel enables the goblin to attach a suppressor ("silencer"),
flash hider, or grenade launcher. My state recently passed enabling
legislation allowing suppressors - for hunting, target practice, etc. With a
suppressor, one could theoretically take down the whole heard of wild hogs
without them being spooked by the first BANG. Likewise, rifle ranges would
irritate neighbors less if they were quieter.


Then we have:

"All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable
of accepting more than 10 rounds."


That bans the magazines sold today with probably 90% of the
pistols not just in the USA but around the world. Which is exactly
what the libs are up to. They rail on about 100 round mags,
30 round mags, but then deliberately screw all the legal
gun owners out there by putting 10 or 7 in the actual law,
instead of 15 which would cover that 90%.
And just like in NY, when 10 doesn't work, next step is 7.


They don't want 10-round magazines; they want the issue. Whether the bill
passes or fails is irrelevant.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:35:19 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Jan 24, 11:06*pm, Dean Hoffman "
wrote:
* *http://tinyurl.com/b7rvo34

* * The link goes to Senator Diane Feinstein's site. *A summary of her
proposed U.S. weapons ban is there.



"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket
launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."


The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. WTF?
Threads kill people? Same insanity with grips. Like
banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial difference in any
of the recent shootings?

Then we have:

"All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable
of accepting more than 10 rounds."


That bans the magazines sold today with probably 90% of the
pistols not just in the USA but around the world. Which is exactly
what the libs are up to. They rail on about 100 round mags,
30 round mags, but then deliberately screw all the legal
gun owners out there by putting 10 or 7 in the actual law,
instead of 15 which would cover that 90%.
And just like in NY, when 10 doesn't work, next step is 7.

Fortunately the chances of this passing Congress are
near zero.

Right. Harry Reid is skeptical (D-NV) I do not trust him as one of my
senators. 20 Dems will be up for 2014 election, maybe 2 special
elects?

This bill will ban ..."shotgun with a revolving cylinder." *

No **** -

Speaking for myself, I have seen five such weapons I kept in a state
prison armory. They fire as many shots as an 870 Reminington pump
(fine shotgun). She should ban all weapons that shoot cables over a
helicopter to bring it down (another prison weapon).

* ...shotgun with a revolving cylinder is a weapon for law
enforcement. Launches Smoke/CN/CS gas (adapted) and rubber pellets

Boo

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:36:33 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:

"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket
launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."


The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. WTF?
Threads kill people? Same insanity with grips. Like
banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial difference in any
of the recent shootings?

The threaded barrel enables the goblin to attach a suppressor ("silencer"),
flash hider, or grenade launcher. My state recently passed enabling
legislation allowing suppressors - for hunting, target practice, etc. With a
suppressor, one could theoretically take down the whole heard of wild hogs
without them being spooked by the first BANG. Likewise, rifle ranges would
irritate neighbors less if they were quieter.

I'd like that. Of course it would be even better if they'd invite me
over a weekend a month. ;-)

Then we have:

"All ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips, and drums) capable
of accepting more than 10 rounds."


That bans the magazines sold today with probably 90% of the
pistols not just in the USA but around the world. Which is exactly
what the libs are up to. They rail on about 100 round mags,
30 round mags, but then deliberately screw all the legal
gun owners out there by putting 10 or 7 in the actual law,
instead of 15 which would cover that 90%.
And just like in NY, when 10 doesn't work, next step is 7.


They don't want 10-round magazines; they want the issue. Whether the bill
passes or fails is irrelevant.

Oh, they want *something* to pass (it won't be the magazine size or
scary looking guns). The slippery slope needs grease.

" wrote:

"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or
rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."

The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. WTF?
Threads kill people? Same insanity with grips.

Like banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial
difference in any of the recent shootings?

Not being a gun owner (the closest I've ever come to firearms is when I
see them from a distance on shelves inside Gander Mountain or Bass Pro)
maybe you can explain something:

Say that there are people that are thinking of buying their first rifle
(for what-ever reason they think they might use it for) and they walk
into a gun store or browse a catalog, and they DON't see any rifles
along the lines described in the above list of banned guns (banned
because the law went into effect, and rifles with those features are no
longer legal).

So they don't see any rifles with "military features" - pistol grip,
threaded barrel, rocket launcher, etc.

Will those people walk away - and not make a purchase because the rifles
that are available to them do not appeal to what they had in mind when
they walked into the store?

In other words - they wanted to buy a "military-looking" rifle, but not
seeing any for sale - they instead spent their money on something else
(video game, iCrap, their next mortgage payment, etc) ???

Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale of guns
and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the choices that the
"casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has available to him, to "water
down" the choices, such that only the bland, non-cool-looking guns are
left (which are still perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have
a certain class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. ?

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:25:13 -0500, wrote:

They don't want 10-round magazines; they want the issue. Whether the bill
passes or fails is irrelevant.

Oh, they want *something* to pass (it won't be the magazine size or
scary looking guns). The slippery slope needs grease.


Some think doing something; anything, is better than doing nothing.
Just do something... it has to be done for the sake of the children.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:24:51 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:25:13 -0500, wrote:

They don't want 10-round magazines; they want the issue. Whether the bill
passes or fails is irrelevant.

Oh, they want *something* to pass (it won't be the magazine size or
scary looking guns). The slippery slope needs grease.


Some think doing something; anything, is better than doing nothing.
Just do something... it has to be done for the sake of the children.

Yes, we heard you the first time, Douggie.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:20:51 -0500, Rifleman wrote:

" wrote:

"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or
rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."

The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. WTF?
Threads kill people? Same insanity with grips.

Like banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial
difference in any of the recent shootings?

Not being a gun owner (the closest I've ever come to firearms is when I
see them from a distance on shelves inside Gander Mountain or Bass Pro)
maybe you can explain something:

Say that there are people that are thinking of buying their first rifle
(for what-ever reason they think they might use it for) and they walk
into a gun store or browse a catalog, and they DON't see any rifles
along the lines described in the above list of banned guns (banned
because the law went into effect, and rifles with those features are no
longer legal).

So they don't see any rifles with "military features" - pistol grip,
threaded barrel, rocket launcher, etc.

Will those people walk away - and not make a purchase because the rifles
that are available to them do not appeal to what they had in mind when
they walked into the store?

In other words - they wanted to buy a "military-looking" rifle, but not
seeing any for sale - they instead spent their money on something else
(video game, iCrap, their next mortgage payment, etc) ???

Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale of guns
and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the choices that the
"casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has available to him, to "water
down" the choices, such that only the bland, non-cool-looking guns are
left (which are still perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have
a certain class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. ?

No, the reason is to grease the slippery slope. The end game is
confiscation. Anything that direction is a gain for the lefties.
It's not about guns. It's about control.

On 1/25/2013 10:31 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:20:51 -0500, Rifleman wrote:

" wrote:

"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or
rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."

The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. WTF?
Threads kill people? Same insanity with grips.

Like banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial
difference in any of the recent shootings?

Not being a gun owner (the closest I've ever come to firearms is when I
see them from a distance on shelves inside Gander Mountain or Bass Pro)
maybe you can explain something:

Say that there are people that are thinking of buying their first rifle
(for what-ever reason they think they might use it for) and they walk
into a gun store or browse a catalog, and they DON't see any rifles
along the lines described in the above list of banned guns (banned
because the law went into effect, and rifles with those features are no
longer legal).

So they don't see any rifles with "military features" - pistol grip,
threaded barrel, rocket launcher, etc.

Will those people walk away - and not make a purchase because the rifles
that are available to them do not appeal to what they had in mind when
they walked into the store?

In other words - they wanted to buy a "military-looking" rifle, but not
seeing any for sale - they instead spent their money on something else
(video game, iCrap, their next mortgage payment, etc) ???

Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale of guns
and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the choices that the
"casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has available to him, to "water
down" the choices, such that only the bland, non-cool-looking guns are
left (which are still perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have
a certain class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. ?

No, the reason is to grease the slippery slope. The end game is
confiscation. Anything that direction is a gain for the lefties.
It's not about guns. It's about control.


I would like to see pro Second Amendment law makers say OK, you want to
restrict guns and ammo? The restrictions will apply to ALL civilians. No
civilian government agent or LEO will be allowed to have any weapon that
any citizen can't have. This would mean no prohibited weapons for the
armed guards protecting the politicians. No machine guns for the FBI
and Secret Service. It's only fair that citizens not have to face any
weapon that they themselves are not allowed to possess. ^_^

TDD

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:29:14 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 17:24:51 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:25:13 -0500, wrote:

They don't want 10-round magazines; they want the issue. Whether the bill
passes or fails is irrelevant.

Oh, they want *something* to pass (it won't be the magazine size or
scary looking guns). The slippery slope needs grease.


Some think doing something; anything, is better than doing nothing.
Just do something... it has to be done for the sake of the children.

Yes, we heard you the first time, Douggie.

I'm not Doug. Never confuse this matter again.

Call me Oren!

I think there's a couple reasons. other gentle readers may add to the list.

1. The government knows that military style rifles
might be used at some future time for the second
American Revolution, after the citizens get tired of
over regulation. Taxation without representation, and
other things that the admin is doing.

2. The recent tactic is to demonize, or marginalize.
Also to set groups of people against each other.
The Admin wants us to be angry at illegal immigrants,
the rich who didn't pay their fair share, or whackos
with Rambo guns. After we get used to "gun owning
terrorists" they will take more rights away, including
possibly making relocation camps like they did with
Japanese looking Americans during world war two.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Rifleman" wrote in message
...

Not being a gun owner (the closest I've ever come to firearms is when I
see them from a distance on shelves inside Gander Mountain or Bass Pro)
maybe you can explain something:

Say that there are people that are thinking of buying their first rifle
(for what-ever reason they think they might use it for) and they walk
into a gun store or browse a catalog, and they DON't see any rifles
along the lines described in the above list of banned guns (banned
because the law went into effect, and rifles with those features are no
longer legal).

So they don't see any rifles with "military features" - pistol grip,
threaded barrel, rocket launcher, etc.

Will those people walk away - and not make a purchase because the rifles
that are available to them do not appeal to what they had in mind when
they walked into the store?

In other words - they wanted to buy a "military-looking" rifle, but not
seeing any for sale - they instead spent their money on something else
(video game, iCrap, their next mortgage payment, etc) ???

Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale of guns
and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the choices that the
"casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has available to him, to "water
down" the choices, such that only the bland, non-cool-looking guns are
left (which are still perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have
a certain class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. ?

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:25:13 -0500, wrote:

They don't want 10-round magazines; they want the issue. Whether the bill
passes or fails is irrelevant.

Oh, they want *something* to pass (it won't be the magazine size or
scary looking guns). The slippery slope needs grease.


Some think doing something; anything, is better than doing nothing.
Just do something... it has to be done for the sake of the children.

That's called mental masturbation. May feel good emotionally but produces
no effective solution.

The other side is the deflection of efforts from that which might make a
difference.

Realize that under our current health insurance system mental health
services are typically 50% co pay and 30 day LIFETIME limits on services.

I have had better luck getting effective treatment for foster kids with acne
than I have getting effective treatment of mental health issues for those
same kids. (Kids in foster care carry one h*ll of an emotional load. A
load that is NOT addressed by the system with the result that they enter
adulthood emotionally bent.

An no mental health care is not the only solution and for some may not be
the right solution but what we've done before has not worked and more of the
same will not improved the result.

When otherwise intelligent people push and implement solutions that don't
help, you can be sure there is a hidden agenda.

That combines with the "if it isn't working, do it harder" thought process.

In another couple years, we'll have Chicago's crime rate across the
(disarmed law abiding) USA, we'll have the government posture of the TSA as
the cops search all the law abiding with no probable cause, and we'll have
the English legal system which drives the burglar home for a good night
sleep and prosecutes the home owner who's been broken in a dozen times, and
finally takes to beating burglars with a Cricket bat.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"NotMe" wrote in message ...

Oh, they want *something* to pass (it won't be the magazine size or
scary looking guns). The slippery slope needs grease.


Some think doing something; anything, is better than doing nothing.
Just do something... it has to be done for the sake of the children.

That's called mental masturbation. May feel good emotionally but produces
no effective solution.

The other side is the deflection of efforts from that which might make a
difference.

Realize that under our current health insurance system mental health
services are typically 50% co pay and 30 day LIFETIME limits on services.

I have had better luck getting effective treatment for foster kids with acne
than I have getting effective treatment of mental health issues for those
same kids. (Kids in foster care carry one h*ll of an emotional load. A
load that is NOT addressed by the system with the result that they enter
adulthood emotionally bent.

An no mental health care is not the only solution and for some may not be
the right solution but what we've done before has not worked and more of the
same will not improved the result.

On Jan 25, 8:20*pm, Rifleman wrote:
" wrote:
"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or
rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."

The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. *So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. * WTF?
Threads kill people? * Same insanity with grips.
Like banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial
difference in any of the recent shootings?

Not being a gun owner (the closest I've ever come to firearms is when I
see them from a distance on shelves inside Gander Mountain or Bass Pro)
maybe you can explain something:

Say that there are people that are thinking of buying their first rifle
(for what-ever reason they think they might use it for) and they walk
into a gun store or browse a catalog, and they DON't see any rifles
along the lines described in the above list of banned guns (banned
because the law went into effect, and rifles with those features are no
longer legal).

So they don't see any rifles with "military features" - pistol grip,
threaded barrel, rocket launcher, etc.

Will those people walk away - and not make a purchase because the rifles
that are available to them do not appeal to what they had in mind when
they walked into the store?

In other words - they wanted to buy a "military-looking" rifle, but not
seeing any for sale - they instead spent their money on something else
(video game, iCrap, their next mortgage payment, etc) ???

I seem to recall the issue being that these new laws
were gonna prevent the next mass shooting. I might be
wrong, but I don't think you can achieve a mass shooting
with a video game. You can however achieve it with
the same gun, minus the threaded barrel, which will still
be available for legal purchase by a skunk out to commit
the next murder.






Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale of guns
and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the choices that the
"casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has available to him, to "water
down" the choices, such that only the bland, non-cool-looking guns are
left (which are still perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have
a certain class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. *?

No, it's clearly not the intent at all. Did you read my post?
NY state had a 10 round limit on magazines. They had an
assault weapons ban. They just passed even MORE restrictions
including a 7 round limit on magazines. THAT clearly show
that they are out to SCREW legal gun owners. If you went
into any gun store in the USA, probably 90% of all the pistols
they are selling have magazines that exceed 7 rounds.
Your going to tell me that a gun with 7 rounds is peachy
keen, but one with 10, or 15 is suddenly significantly more
dangerous? Or that the same rifle, minus a threaded barrel
or with a different stock is going to make a difference?

How long do you think it takes a typical shooter to change
a magazine and resume shooting? I think most folks who
don't have a gun think it must involve taking the gun apart
with tools. It doesn't. Instead of showing up
with a 15 round, he shows up with ten 7 round ones. What
does that solve? But in NY if you have a greater than 7 round
magazine, you have a year to get rid of it, or else YOU are
the criminal. The real objective here is 15, 10, 7, 3, 0....

On Jan 25, 11:38*pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 1/25/2013 10:31 PM, wrote:





On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:20:51 -0500, Rifleman wrote:

" wrote:

"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or
rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."

The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. *So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. * WTF?
Threads kill people? * Same insanity with grips.

Like banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial
difference in any of the recent shootings?

Not being a gun owner (the closest I've ever come to firearms is when I
see them from a distance on shelves inside Gander Mountain or Bass Pro)
maybe you can explain something:

Say that there are people that are thinking of buying their first rifle
(for what-ever reason they think they might use it for) and they walk
into a gun store or browse a catalog, and they DON't see any rifles
along the lines described in the above list of banned guns (banned
because the law went into effect, and rifles with those features are no
longer legal).

So they don't see any rifles with "military features" - pistol grip,
threaded barrel, rocket launcher, etc.

Will those people walk away - and not make a purchase because the rifles
that are available to them do not appeal to what they had in mind when
they walked into the store?

In other words - they wanted to buy a "military-looking" rifle, but not
seeing any for sale - they instead spent their money on something else
(video game, iCrap, their next mortgage payment, etc) ???

Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale of guns
and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the choices that the
"casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has available to him, to "water
down" the choices, such that only the bland, non-cool-looking guns are
left (which are still perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have
a certain class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. *?

No, the reason is to grease the slippery slope. *The end game is
confiscation. *Anything that direction is a gain for the lefties.
It's not about guns. *It's about control.

I would like to see pro Second Amendment law makers say OK, you want to
restrict guns and ammo? The restrictions will apply to ALL civilians. No
civilian government agent or LEO will be allowed to have any weapon that
any citizen can't have. This would mean no prohibited weapons for the
armed guards protecting the politicians. No machine guns for the FBI
and Secret Service. It's only fair that citizens not have to face any
weapon that they themselves are not allowed to possess. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's what NY state just did.....accidently. Cuomo and
his ilk are so damn dumb and so intent on passing laws without
any hearings, they forgot to exempt those you list above.
I agree with you. They should just leave it as is, but of course
now they will go back. The good think for those unfortunate
enough to live in NY is that when they do, they may be able
to get some changes, like maybe getting the mag limit back
to 10. But I wouldn't hold my breath....

" wrote:

Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale
of guns and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the
choices that the "casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has
available to him, to "water down" the choices, such that only
the bland, non-cool-looking guns are left (which are still
perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have a certain
class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. ?

No, it's clearly not the intent at all. Did you read my post?
NY state had a 10 round limit on magazines. They had an
assault weapons ban. They just passed even MORE restrictions
including a 7 round limit on magazines.

You're missing my point.

I'm not questioning the technical merits or differences between various
styles of rifles. All it takes is one bullet fired from any type of
rifle to kill someone.

I'm questioning the *visual appeal* of "military-style" rifles,
especially those that go by the designation "assault rifle".

I'm wondering if there is a class of weapons-buyer that is turned off
(or would be turned off) by the prospect of buying an "ordinary-looking"
rifle if a law went into effect that banned military-style (ie -
military "looking") rifles.

Are there people that seek to buy or are attracted to buy
military-looking rifles JUST BECAUSE they LOOK more "awesome", deadly,
dangerous, than your ordinary run-of-the-mill hunting rifle?

Putting aside the legal/rights argument; If such people exist, are those
the people that you really want to own such weapons?

On 1/26/2013 8:26 AM, NotMe wrote:
"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:25:13 -0500, wrote:

They don't want 10-round magazines; they want the issue. Whether the bill
passes or fails is irrelevant.

Oh, they want *something* to pass (it won't be the magazine size or
scary looking guns). The slippery slope needs grease.


Some think doing something; anything, is better than doing nothing.
Just do something... it has to be done for the sake of the children.

That's called mental masturbation. May feel good emotionally but produces
no effective solution.


Thats exactly what all of the tit for tat arguments are that are posted
in this home repair newsgroup.


The other side is the deflection of efforts from that which might make a
difference.

Realize that under our current health insurance system mental health
services are typically 50% co pay and 30 day LIFETIME limits on services.

I have had better luck getting effective treatment for foster kids with acne
than I have getting effective treatment of mental health issues for those
same kids. (Kids in foster care carry one h*ll of an emotional load. A
load that is NOT addressed by the system with the result that they enter
adulthood emotionally bent.

An no mental health care is not the only solution and for some may not be
the right solution but what we've done before has not worked and more of the
same will not improved the result.

On 1/26/2013 7:51 AM, wrote:
On Jan 25, 11:38 pm, The Daring Dufas the-daring-du...@stinky-
finger.net wrote:
On 1/25/2013 10:31 PM, wrote:





On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:20:51 -0500, Rifleman wrote:

" wrote:

"All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and
have at least one military featu pistol grip; forward grip;
folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or
rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel."

The above should be more than enough to convince any
reasonable person what a complete moron she is. So,
a rifle without a threaded barrel is just peachy keen.
But put a threaded barrel on it and it's banned. WTF?
Threads kill people? Same insanity with grips.

Like banning a pistol grip is going to make a substantial
difference in any of the recent shootings?

Not being a gun owner (the closest I've ever come to firearms is when I
see them from a distance on shelves inside Gander Mountain or Bass Pro)
maybe you can explain something:

Say that there are people that are thinking of buying their first rifle
(for what-ever reason they think they might use it for) and they walk
into a gun store or browse a catalog, and they DON't see any rifles
along the lines described in the above list of banned guns (banned
because the law went into effect, and rifles with those features are no
longer legal).

So they don't see any rifles with "military features" - pistol grip,
threaded barrel, rocket launcher, etc.

Will those people walk away - and not make a purchase because the rifles
that are available to them do not appeal to what they had in mind when
they walked into the store?

In other words - they wanted to buy a "military-looking" rifle, but not
seeing any for sale - they instead spent their money on something else
(video game, iCrap, their next mortgage payment, etc) ???

Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale of guns
and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the choices that the
"casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has available to him, to "water
down" the choices, such that only the bland, non-cool-looking guns are
left (which are still perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have
a certain class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. ?

No, the reason is to grease the slippery slope. The end game is
confiscation. Anything that direction is a gain for the lefties.
It's not about guns. It's about control.

I would like to see pro Second Amendment law makers say OK, you want to
restrict guns and ammo? The restrictions will apply to ALL civilians. No
civilian government agent or LEO will be allowed to have any weapon that
any citizen can't have. This would mean no prohibited weapons for the
armed guards protecting the politicians. No machine guns for the FBI
and Secret Service. It's only fair that citizens not have to face any
weapon that they themselves are not allowed to possess. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's what NY state just did.....accidently. Cuomo and
his ilk are so damn dumb and so intent on passing laws without
any hearings, they forgot to exempt those you list above.
I agree with you. They should just leave it as is, but of course
now they will go back. The good think for those unfortunate
enough to live in NY is that when they do, they may be able
to get some changes, like maybe getting the mag limit back
to 10. But I wouldn't hold my breath....


Do you think the government in New York will obey its own law
restricting weapons for government agents or will they ignore the law
the way the P.L.L.C.F. who infest government always do? ^_^

TDD

I agree with your assessment. Well written.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

wrote in message
...

NY state had a 10 round limit on magazines. They had an
assault weapons ban. They just passed even MORE restrictions
including a 7 round limit on magazines. THAT clearly show
that they are out to SCREW legal gun owners. If you went
into any gun store in the USA, probably 90% of all the pistols
they are selling have magazines that exceed 7 rounds.
Your going to tell me that a gun with 7 rounds is peachy
keen, but one with 10, or 15 is suddenly significantly more
dangerous? Or that the same rifle, minus a threaded barrel
or with a different stock is going to make a difference?

How long do you think it takes a typical shooter to change
a magazine and resume shooting? I think most folks who
don't have a gun think it must involve taking the gun apart
with tools. It doesn't. Instead of showing up
with a 15 round, he shows up with ten 7 round ones. What
does that solve? But in NY if you have a greater than 7 round
magazine, you have a year to get rid of it, or else YOU are
the criminal. The real objective here is 15, 10, 7, 3, 0....

On Jan 26, 9:16*am, Rifleman wrote:
" wrote:
Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale
of guns and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the
choices that the "casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has
available to him, to "water down" the choices, such that only
the bland, non-cool-looking guns are left (which are still
perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have a certain
class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. *?

No, it's clearly not the intent at all. *Did you read my post?
NY state had a 10 round limit on magazines. *They had an
assault weapons ban. *They just passed even MORE restrictions
including a 7 round limit on magazines.

You're missing my point.

No I'm not. Your point is that somehow taking threads off
a gun or changing the stock, is going to prevent the next guy
intent of committing mass murder. It's just that your *point* makes
no sense.




I'm not questioning the technical merits or differences between various
styles of rifles. *All it takes is one bullet fired from any type of
rifle to kill someone.

I'm questioning the *visual appeal* of "military-style" rifles,
especially those that go by the designation "assault rifle".

I'm wondering if there is a class of weapons-buyer that is turned off
(or would be turned off) by the prospect of buying an "ordinary-looking"
rifle if a law went into effect that banned military-style (ie -
military "looking") rifles.

Are there people that seek to buy or are attracted to buy
military-looking rifles JUST BECAUSE they LOOK more "awesome", deadly,
dangerous, than your ordinary run-of-the-mill hunting rifle?

Putting aside the legal/rights argument; If such people exist, are those
the people that you really want to own such weapons?

There are tens of millions of those weapons out there.
99.999% of legal gun owners are not using them to
commit murder. There is zero evidence that the type
of stock or grip has anything do with crime. The guy that
wants to commit murder,
you think that because a gun doesn't have a particular
stock isn't for sale legally in the gun store, that is going to
stop him? He'll just buy the same gun, minus the stock
or obtain one illegally on the street.

You'd have to be totally nuts to think that changing a
cosmetic feature on guns is going to do anything to
dissuade criminals. All it's going to do is **** off the
99.99% of legal gun owners. But that's exactly what
the libs want to do, because the real plan is to eliminate
all guns, one step at a time. They take one dumb idea,
like yours, after another. They don't work. We know they
don't work. We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years.
We had a magazine limit for 10 years. It did nothing.
Even the libs know it. They just then use the fact that
what they did had no effect to then clammer for MORE
restrictions. 15, 10, 7, 3, 0. Capiche?

wrote:

I'm questioning the *visual appeal* of "military-style" rifles,
especially those that go by the designation "assault rifle".

Are there people that seek to buy or are attracted to buy
military-looking rifles JUST BECAUSE they LOOK more "awesome",
deadly, dangerous, than your ordinary run-of-the-mill hunting
rifle?

The problem is, a stock is not a gun so, even during the 94 "ban"
you could still buy a folding stock or a removable pistol grip for
your "legal" rifle.

Again -

Saying you can do this or that, that you can machine this or that part,
that you can swap this or that part, etc, is not the point.

Are there people that are buying "assault" or "military" rifles for the
look, the thrill factor, and if you impose a ban on the sale /
manufacture of those rifles then those people will just walk away from
the gun store AND NOT instead buy some other ordinary, "plain-looking"
(but legal) rifle?

On Jan 26, 6:43*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
When otherwise intelligent people push and implement solutions that don't
help, you can be sure there is a hidden agenda.

That combines with the "if it isn't working, do it harder" thought process.

In another couple years, we'll have Chicago's crime rate across the
(disarmed law abiding) USA, we'll have the government posture of the TSA as
the cops search all the law abiding with no probable cause, and we'll have
the English legal system which drives the burglar home for a good night
sleep and prosecutes the home owner who's been broken in a dozen times, and
finally takes to beating burglars with a Cricket bat.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org

Uh, it is my understanding that we already have law since before 70's
that prevents one from 'over exuberance' Not sure, but I think the
wording is that once you have removed the threat of bodily harm from
your assailant you are NOT allowed to pummel them anymore. The law was
designed so that if somebody comes at you with a knife, you take the
knife away removing the threat of bodily harm, you are then NOT
allowed to beat the assailant into unconsciousness - preventing you
from trying to administer punishment for the original assault..

" wrote:

You're missing my point.

No I'm not. Your point is that somehow taking threads off
a gun or changing the stock, is going to prevent the next guy
intent of committing mass murder.

I'm looking at what happens (or doesn't happen) at the point-of-sale.

Are there people that are buying "assault" or "military" rifles for the
look, the thrill factor, and if you impose a ban on the sale /
manufacture of those rifles then those people will just walk away from
the gun store AND NOT instead buy some other ordinary, "plain-looking"
(but legal) rifle?

It's just that your *point* makes no sense.

I'm asking a question that nobody seems to want to answer.

The question raises the point about why some people might want to buy
certain types of rifles.

There are tens of millions of those weapons out there.

What is being discussed currently would pertain to new purchases, to
what would be available commercially in the future.

If you look at the mass-murder events that happened over the past dozen
years - how many involve recently-purchased weapons? Weapons that were
purchased a few days, a week or a month before the event?

You'd have to be totally nuts to think that changing a
cosmetic feature on guns is going to do anything to
dissuade criminals.

There's a difference between a criminal and a murderer.

All it's going to do is **** off the 99.99% of legal gun owners.

So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners are going to have to realize
that society is reaching the point where they will not tolerate the
abuse, murder, injury and death being performed upon them by guns so
that others can "enjoy" the right to possess these same guns.

The constitution, above all else, enshrines democracy. Democracy is the
rule of the majority. If the majority feel that some, many, most or all
personal firearms are more of a liability to society than a benefit,
then there will be change.

Gun advocates need to start paying attention to the problem and need to
come up with a solution to keeping guns out of the hands of crazy,
insane, angry, autistic or suicidal people. ESPECIALLY people young
people.

If the irresponsible people can't be stopped from getting their hands on
guns, and if gun activists, enthusiasts and hobbiests don't want to play
a constructive role, then *everybody* pays a price.

When children can't play nice with the toys they have, responsible
parents step in and take the toys away.

Guns are nothing more than toys for big boys.

In Rifleman wrote:

There's a difference between a criminal and a murderer.

Let's see...

All murderers are criminals, but not all criminals are murderers.

So?

--
St. Paul, MN

In Rifleman wrote:

So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners

So called?

Now, that's interesting.

The constitution, above all else, enshrines democracy.

No, it doesn't. You're obviously completely ignorant of American
history.

Democracy is the rule of the majority.

Why, yes it is. In a democracy, the majority is free to run roughshod
over any minority it chooses.

Is that your ideal?

--
St. Paul, MN

Bert wrote:

So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners

So called?

Now, that's interesting.

Yes - because many or most gun injuries and deaths are performed by
people who 5 minutes before-hand were "law abiding".

Democracy is the rule of the majority.

Why, yes it is. In a democracy, the majority is free to run
roughshod over any minority it chooses.

Is that your ideal?

Most people's ideal would be that the actions of a minority do not run
roughshod over the majority.

And I would hardly call the body of citizens in the US that constitute
gun owners a minority.

In Rifleman wrote:

Bert wrote:

So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners

So called?

Now, that's interesting.

Yes - because many or most gun injuries and deaths are performed by
people who 5 minutes before-hand were "law abiding".

Really?

Can you back up that assertion, or did it just come to you in a dream?

But what's this "many or most" crap?

--
St. Paul, MN

In Rifleman wrote:

Bert wrote:

Democracy is the rule of the majority.

Why, yes it is. In a democracy, the majority is free to run
roughshod over any minority it chooses.

Is that your ideal?

Most people's ideal would be that the actions of a minority do not run
roughshod over the majority.

And I would hardly call the body of citizens in the US that constitute
gun owners a minority.

So you feel free to ignore history, ignore the Constitution, ignore the
rights of individuals and simply impose your whims.

Thanks for the clarification.

You're just another wannbe authoritarian thug.


--
St. Paul, MN

Rifleman wrote:

snip
I'm not questioning the technical merits or differences between various
styles of rifles. All it takes is one bullet fired from any type of
rifle to kill someone.

I'm questioning the *visual appeal* of "military-style" rifles,
especially those that go by the designation "assault rifle".

I'm wondering if there is a class of weapons-buyer that is turned off
(or would be turned off) by the prospect of buying an "ordinary-looking"
rifle if a law went into effect that banned military-style (ie -
military "looking") rifles.

Are there people that seek to buy or are attracted to buy
military-looking rifles JUST BECAUSE they LOOK more "awesome", deadly,
dangerous, than your ordinary run-of-the-mill hunting rifle?

Putting aside the legal/rights argument; If such people exist, are those
the people that you really want to own such weapons?

I like an adjustable stock so that my wife, who is less than 5', and I
6'2", can both shoot the same rifle.
--
Jim Rusling
More or Less Retired
Mustang, OK

In Rifleman wrote:

Putting aside the legal/rights argument;

Yes, we know all about your desires.

If such people exist, are those the people that you really want to own
such weapons?

You call yourself "Rifleman" but are apparently completely unaware of
the myriad of uses to which AR-15 clones are put?

Just what sort of idiot are you? The fact that you're an idiot is beyond
doubt.

--
St. Paul, MN

On Jan 26, 11:54*am, Rifleman wrote:
Bert wrote:
So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners

So called?

Now, that's interesting.

Yes - because many or most gun injuries and deaths are performed by
people who 5 minutes before-hand were "law abiding".

That's a lie. Most gun shootings and gun deaths are from people who
for years before have a long history of breaking laws.




Democracy is the rule of the majority.

Why, yes it is. In a democracy, the majority is free to run
roughshod over any minority it chooses.

Is that your ideal?

Most people's ideal would be that the actions of a minority do not run
roughshod over the majority.

And I would hardly call the body of citizens in the US that constitute
gun owners a minority.

Not to worry. You libs have just about zero chance of
getting an "assault weapons" or magazine ban through
Congress. But you prefer to tilt at windmills, keep the
public's eye off the real dangers that could sink us all,
like out of control spending.

"Rifleman" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

Don't you think that is the real reason for prohibiting the sale
of guns and rifles with certain characteristics - to alter the
choices that the "casual" or "rambo-man-new gun owner" has
available to him, to "water down" the choices, such that only
the bland, non-cool-looking guns are left (which are still
perfectly fine for shooting bullets) - so you have a certain
class or type of buyer that is turned off by what's available
- and they decide not to buy. ?

No, it's clearly not the intent at all. Did you read my post?
NY state had a 10 round limit on magazines. They had an
assault weapons ban. They just passed even MORE restrictions
including a 7 round limit on magazines.

You're missing my point.

I'm not questioning the technical merits or differences between various
styles of rifles. All it takes is one bullet fired from any type of
rifle to kill someone.

I'm questioning the *visual appeal* of "military-style" rifles,
especially those that go by the designation "assault rifle".


Then before you question, you should maybe expand your vocabulary and use
the correct terminology
"Assault Rifle" = select-fire (full auto, burst, single shot) currently
standard military issue. ONLY available if you jump through hoops and pay
your $200 tax
"Assault weapon"= single-shot semi-auto with specific cosmetic features that
are "scary"

It should be noted that in the original "Assault Weapon Ban" of 1994,
"assault weapons" were banned on PURELY COSMETIC FEATURES, compared to
rifles that did NOT have those cosmetic features.



I'm wondering if there is a class of weapons-buyer that is turned off
(or would be turned off) by the prospect of buying an "ordinary-looking"
rifle if a law went into effect that banned military-style (ie -
military "looking") rifles.


Why ban something for PURELY reasons ?
It's like banning a car painted yellow with orange polka dots, while plain
yellow cars are perfectly legal...



Are there people that seek to buy or are attracted to buy
military-looking rifles JUST BECAUSE they LOOK more "awesome", deadly,
dangerous, than your ordinary run-of-the-mill hunting rifle?


And ??
If the rifle performs in exactly the same way without those features, what
is the point of banning them..
There is a point of banning them if the NEXT step is to ban the ones
without those features



Putting aside the legal/rights argument; If such people exist, are those
the people that you really want to own such weapons?


What people are those ??
What exactly is the problem with having such features on a rifle
THEY ARE COSMETIC
They are not different from people who have add-on spoilers, tinted windows,
add-on mag wheels, etc. the back of their cars
What excatly is your problem with people "tricking out" something they own
??
Next you'll be telling us that women should not wear make-up, push-up bras,
high heels, short skirts, etc.
It's all part of the same mind-set where you try to dictate to others what
should be acceptable and what should not.

Bottom line, it's really NOT abotu the guns or their cosmetic features, it's
all about CONTROL.

I have problems with people like YOU, who try to control others because
of YOUR failings.

"Rifleman" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I'm questioning the *visual appeal* of "military-style" rifles,
especially those that go by the designation "assault rifle".

Are there people that seek to buy or are attracted to buy
military-looking rifles JUST BECAUSE they LOOK more "awesome",
deadly, dangerous, than your ordinary run-of-the-mill hunting
rifle?

The problem is, a stock is not a gun so, even during the 94 "ban"
you could still buy a folding stock or a removable pistol grip for
your "legal" rifle.

Again -

Saying you can do this or that, that you can machine this or that part,
that you can swap this or that part, etc, is not the point.

Are there people that are buying "assault" or "military" rifles for the
look, the thrill factor, and if you impose a ban on the sale /
manufacture of those rifles then those people will just walk away from
the gun store AND NOT instead buy some other ordinary, "plain-looking"
(but legal) rifle?

And this claim is based on what exactly ??
What happened during the 10 years (1994-2004) of the AWB prove you wrong.

"Rifleman" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

You're missing my point.

No I'm not. Your point is that somehow taking threads off
a gun or changing the stock, is going to prevent the next guy
intent of committing mass murder.

I'm looking at what happens (or doesn't happen) at the point-of-sale.

Are there people that are buying "assault" or "military" rifles for the
look, the thrill factor, and if you impose a ban on the sale /
manufacture of those rifles then those people will just walk away from
the gun store AND NOT instead buy some other ordinary, "plain-looking"
(but legal) rifle?


The fact that you keep repeating the same ignroant ****, while IGNORING the
responses to it, demonstrates that you are NOT here to actually learn
anything but to try to push your (ignorant)belief.

It's just that your *point* makes no sense.

I'm asking a question that nobody seems to want to answer.


It was answered more than once.
But you seem not to want to hear the answer


The question raises the point about why some people might want to buy
certain types of rifles.


Because they can
Because they think it's cool
Because they want to..

It's none of your business really.
And NO, it has NOTHING to do with" need"
NOR SHOULD IT !

There are tens of millions of those weapons out there.

What is being discussed currently would pertain to new purchases, to
what would be available commercially in the future.


What you are really trying to to is push your point of view by ignoring the
reality that has been pointed out to you more than once.


If you look at the mass-murder events that happened over the past dozen
years - how many involve recently-purchased weapons? Weapons that were
purchased a few days, a week or a month before the event?


Fine
Then set up a system that can identify these loons before they commit a
shooting
But leave the rest of us 99+% alone..


You'd have to be totally nuts to think that changing a
cosmetic feature on guns is going to do anything to
dissuade criminals.

There's a difference between a criminal and a murderer.


Yes there is
A murderer is a criminal
But not all criminals are murderers
At least you got something right.


All it's going to do is **** off the 99.99% of legal gun owners.

So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners are going to have to realize
that society is reaching the point where they will not tolerate the
abuse, murder, injury and death being performed upon them by guns so
that others can "enjoy" the right to possess these same guns.


Since it's not the so-called legal and "law-abiding" gun owners, nor their
guns, who are the problem, the same legal gun ownere are getting tired of
****heads who are stupidly trying to control the law-abiding instead of
going after the criminals.

Your logic is as flawed as trying to go after ALL drivers because of a few
drunk drivers
Go after the ones with a dringking problem and leave the rest of us
alone.
Our guns ro cars are NOT THE PROBLEM !




The constitution, above all else, enshrines democracy.

NOPE
1) The US is NOT a "democracy"
It's Consititutional Republic
2) The Constitution First and FOREMOST enshrines that the people are in
charge and NOT the state or some bureaucrats
3) The Constitution then enshrines our INDIVIDUAL liberties by stating
they are ours and nto given to us by government whim
4) The Constitution then defines the form of the government, and how it
is setup to protect our liberties.


Democracy is the rule of the majority.

ANd since we are NOT a "democracy", but a Constitutional Republic, your
argument is ignorant bull****.


If the majority feel that some, many, most or all personal firearms
are more of a liability to society than a benefit, then there will be
change.

NOT without a Constitutional Amendment
Oh and by the way, if the majority were to decide tomorrow that all
gun-controllers are insane and should be institutionalized for their own
good, would you then go along when the paddy-wagon comes for you ?



Gun advocates need to start paying attention to the problem and need to
come up with a solution to keeping guns out of the hands of crazy,
insane, angry, autistic or suicidal people. ESPECIALLY people young
people.


I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of some you mention above
But why do you think that coming after MY guns will solve that problem ?
Since you have NOT defined a problem correctly. And since you have ignored
what the REAL problem why do you expect us to take you seriously ?


If the irresponsible people can't be stopped from getting their hands on
guns, and if gun activists, enthusiasts and hobbiests don't want to play
a constructive role, then *everybody* pays a price.


Well you go ahead and go after all those irresponsible people
BUT UNTIL YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE that someone is irresponsible, I would suggest
you have NO RIGHT to go after them...



When children can't play nice with the toys they have, responsible
parents step in and take the toys away.


What a ****ing vacuous oxymoron.


Guns are nothing more than toys for big boys.

Maybe in your childish universe
In my universe, they are something else.

Molon Labe

"Rifleman" wrote in message
...
Bert wrote:

So called legal or "law abiding" gun owners

So called?

Now, that's interesting.

Yes - because many or most gun injuries and deaths are performed by
people who 5 minutes before-hand were "law abiding".


That's a TOTAL and IGNORANT CROCK of ****



Democracy is the rule of the majority.

Why, yes it is. In a democracy, the majority is free to run
roughshod over any minority it chooses.

Is that your ideal?

Most people's ideal would be that the actions of a minority do not run
roughshod over the majority.



Funny
Thatt's how the holocaust was justified
Ironically, most of the people killed in the holocaust were of of a minority
that was powerless to "run roughshod over the majority"..

You want to try that argument in a better way.


"
And I would hardly call the body of citizens in the US that constitute
gun owners a minority.

60+ million households with guns out of 100 million households does NOT
constitute a minority

"Jim Rusling" wrote in message
g...
Rifleman wrote:


Putting aside the legal/rights argument; If such people exist, are those
the people that you really want to own such weapons?

I like an adjustable stock so that my wife, who is less than 5', and I
6'2", can both shoot the same rifle.


I put one on a couple of my rifles, so that my kids can shoot them while
they're small.

"Bert" wrote in message
.. .
In Rifleman wrote:

Putting aside the legal/rights argument;

Yes, we know all about your desires.

If such people exist, are those the people that you really want to own
such weapons?

You call yourself "Rifleman" but are apparently completely unaware of
the myriad of uses to which AR-15 clones are put?

Just what sort of idiot are you? The fact that you're an idiot is beyond
doubt.


Look at where he's posting from ..
AIO|E

On 1/26/2013 10:20 AM, Rifleman wrote:

******Clip P.L.L.C.F. Codswallop********


The constitution, above all else, enshrines democracy. Democracy is the
rule of the majority. If the majority feel that some, many, most or all
personal firearms are more of a liability to society than a benefit,
then there will be change.


Nonsense you P.L.L.C.F. moron. The United States is not a "democracy",
it is a "republic" and it's quite evident you have no clue as to what
it means or why. Democracies always fail and the framers of The U.S.
Constitution were well aware of the fact which is why they formed the
system of government that we have. The Constitution does not enshrine
democracy, it enshrines "The Rule Of Law" which those of your ilk wish
to ignore. Your type constantly foments the nonsense that our Bill Of
Rights gives rights to the citizenry which is wrong, it affirms and
codifies the rights that we have and restricts government authority.
The Constitution and Bill Of Rights were purposely designed to be
difficult to amend which is extremely frustrating to your sort who would
like to alter it on every emotional whim to gain more power and
government control over the people.

Guns are nothing more than toys for big boys.


"Guns are nothing more than toys for big boys." That's got to be one of
the most asinine statements I've read in the group in some time. It is
obvious that it is a talking point of the P.L.L.C.F. who will never grok
the fact that "Guns are tools that, like any other tool, can be misused
in the wrong hands." More people are murdered with knives and blunt
instruments (baseball bats) than are murdered with guns. You are 4.5
times like to be stabbed and 3.5 times likely to be beaten to death than
shot with any rifle. Honest researchers who were anti gun came away
with changed minds when their research on guns proved that their
preconceived notions about guns were wrong. Tens of millions of people
in the last century lost their lives when their governments instituted
bans on citizens possessing firearms, ie, gun control. That's will not
happen in my country because our Second Amendment rights will prevail. O_o

TDD