Justify banning this rifle...

[Swagger]

Tell me who makes it.

Why?

Just curious, I want to look up the specs. I cant Identify it from that photo. looks to me to be .223 or .308, BTW I dont believe in banning any guns.

Tubb 2000 - Wikipedia

 

[Swagger]

Just curious, I want to look up the specs. I cant Identify it from that photo. looks to me to be .223 or .308, BTW I dont believe in banning any guns.

Tubb

ahhh, I know where you are going with this

So do I.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just curious, I want to look up the specs. I cant Identify it from that photo. looks to me to be .223 or .308, BTW I dont believe in banning any guns.

Tubb

ahhh, I know where you are going with this

It's not like I'm hiding anything.

 

[Ernie S.]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

I don't know what it is. But whatever it is I doubt it is any more lethal at any distance than a Remington 700 in 30.06 with an ordinary, well-zeroed, 3-9x scope and a clip-on bipod. The pistol grip is redundant.
Am I mistaken?

It is designed to shoot under a minute at 1000yds.

Under a minute? It should only take second plus or minus a FCH at 948 meters/second.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know what it is. But whatever it is I doubt it is any more lethal at any distance than a Remington 700 in 30.06 with an ordinary, well-zeroed, 3-9x scope and a clip-on bipod. The pistol grip is redundant.
Am I mistaken?

It is designed to shoot under a minute at 1000yds.

Under a minute? It should only take second plus or minus a FCH at 948 meters/second.

There are SO many people that don't understand what you and I just said.
Really surprised none of them have tried to justify banning this rifle.

 

[Ernie S.]

It's scary looking enough to scare the bejeebers out of a liberal, but it's a bolt action weapon.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes, registration is nothing more then the first step to confiscation. The Government has no compelling need to know where LEGALLY obtained and owned weapons are.

Would you support a 6 month period where the Government was free to ignore the Constitution to clean up gangs and their weapons?

And there’s the problem typical of many Second Amendment ‘supporters.’

You make these highly hyperbolic and inaccurate statements which serve to only undermine an otherwise cogent argument.

Yes, registration does manifest an undue burden to the exercising of one’s Second Amendment rights, and there is indeed no evidence that registration reduces gun violence. But it has nothing at all to do with ‘confiscation,’ as no lawmaker or lawmaking body is proposing any such measure.

Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".

If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And there’s the problem typical of many Second Amendment ‘supporters.’

You make these highly hyperbolic and inaccurate statements which serve to only undermine an otherwise cogent argument.

Yes, registration does manifest an undue burden to the exercising of one’s Second Amendment rights, and there is indeed no evidence that registration reduces gun violence. But it has nothing at all to do with ‘confiscation,’ as no lawmaker or lawmaking body is proposing any such measure.

Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".

If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?

There is no Constitutional right to own a car. Further the Government has no idea where your car is unless a cop is behind it on the radio or it is in an impound lot.

What part of "shall not Infringe" don't you understand councilor?

The Government has no compelling interest EXCEPT the ability to decide to confiscate the weapons, to know where legally held and purchased firearms are.

 

[Sallow]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

I don't want anyone shooting me in the face with it in a movie theater.

I like popcorn..not bullets.

 

[M14 Shooter]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

I don't want anyone shooting me in the face with it in a movie theater.

Is this what you consider a sound argument?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".

If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?

There is no Constitutional right to own a car. Further the Government has no idea where your car is unless a cop is behind it on the radio or it is in an impound lot.

What part of "shall not Infringe" don't you understand councilor?

The Government has no compelling interest EXCEPT the ability to decide to confiscate the weapons, to know where legally held and purchased firearms are.

It's been said before: "Gun control has nothing to with guns, it has everything to do with control."

 

[Ernie S.]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

I don't want anyone shooting me in the face with it in a movie theater.

Is this what you consider a sound argument?

It sounded good to him as it echoed around in his empty skull...

 

[there4eyeM]

If everyone is so concerned with control, why are random police stops, which a priory are a presumption of guilt and punishment without trial (loss of time, inconvenience, angst) allowed? This is a much more fundamental and widespread infringement on liberty.

 

[novasteve]

Better yet, post a pic of the AR-15 style 22LR guns and watch libs want to ban it because it looks scary.

 

[asterism]

Gun sales are booming, yet it's the same gun owners buying more guns.
How many "assault" rifles do they need to sleep at night?

How do you know it's the same gun owners buying more guns?

 

[eflatminor]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

If that's the rifle I think it is, it's designed for maximum accuracy. Clearly, if you want to shoot accurately, it's only because you want to kill innocent people. Why in the hell do you need such an accurate weapon?

My argument is that if we ban accurate guns like this one, criminals will only have inaccurate guns and will therefore miss their intended targets.

Genius!

 

[georgephillip]

Yet. Thus the claim of "first step".

If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?

There is no Constitutional right to own a car. Further the Government has no idea where your car is unless a cop is behind it on the radio or it is in an impound lot.

What part of "shall not Infringe" don't you understand councilor?

The Government has no compelling interest EXCEPT the ability to decide to confiscate the weapons, to know where legally held and purchased firearms are.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to private property, like your car, for example.
If a robber loses her legal gun during an attempted stick-up, the government has a compelling interest to find that legal gun's owner, Your Honor.

 

[hazlnut]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

1) You think it's cool.

/thread

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you agree that government has a compelling need to know where legally obtained vehicles are, why would guns be any different, since some legal guns are used for highly illegal purposes?

There is no Constitutional right to own a car. Further the Government has no idea where your car is unless a cop is behind it on the radio or it is in an impound lot.

What part of "shall not Infringe" don't you understand councilor?

The Government has no compelling interest EXCEPT the ability to decide to confiscate the weapons, to know where legally held and purchased firearms are.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees a right to private property, like your car, for example.
If a robber loses her legal gun during an attempted stick-up, the government has a compelling interest to find that legal gun's owner, Your Honor.

And return that property to the legal owner. I keep a list of what I own with the serial numbers. If one of my legally owned firearms is stolen, I include that information in the police report. Government has absolutely no need to know details about all the firearms I own. Period.

 

[MikeK]

... with a sound argument, and I will support any gun ban you care to name.

Note that a 5-rd mag is pictured; the gun can take any standard SR25 5- 10- or 20-rd mag.

I don't want anyone shooting me in the face with it in a movie theater.

I like popcorn..not bullets.

If being shot in the face in a theater is your primary anti-gun concern you should have no apprehensions about this sniper rifle, which no self-respecting psychopath would choose to shoot up a theater with. In terms of impracticality for that purpose it is second only to a longbow.