Senate coming after handguns

[SniperFire]

Ah, but this lame argument still has legs.

If excess speed became an issue to the degree that firearms have there would probably be legislation to curb the problem. I would even bet that you would support such legislation given your reasoning.

Short feeble legs, like your feeble mind.

There is legislation, its called speed limits. And again, it punishes those who break the laws, not those who did not.

And I would not support such legislation, as I am pefectly capable of doing 75 in a 65.

I am so sorry if you are being 'punished' by not being allowed an AR-15 which would leave you at a 'tactical' disadvantage. Does that mean police should have to carry SAWs so they do not find themselves at a tactical disadvantage?

We often find how some people choose to exercise their Constitutional freedoms to be distasteful, but they are our freedoms, non the less.

 

[bripat9643]

And no one is trying to take away your shotgun, or your dogs, so why are you defending the AR-15 with the 30 round mag?

Because that's what you're trying to take away, numb-nutz. At least, that's what you're admitting to. An AR-15 with a 30 round mag is exactly the kind of gun the 2nd amendment was intended to protect - the kind of gun the militia would use.

No. The second amendment was intended to allow us a 155 howitzer. After all you should be well aware that the definition of a 'gun' is a multi-person weapon.

Actually, many people would claim it was intended to allow us to have 155 howitzer or any other weapon someone in the military might use. At a minimum, it was intended to allow a civilian to carry any arm that an infantryman would carry. That includes fully automatic weapons and even RPGs.

BTW, moron, it's the "right to bear arms," not the right to bear guns. An "arm" is anything that can be used to kill someone.

 

[martybegan]

Short feeble legs, like your feeble mind.

There is legislation, its called speed limits. And again, it punishes those who break the laws, not those who did not.

And I would not support such legislation, as I am pefectly capable of doing 75 in a 65.

I am so sorry if you are being 'punished' by not being allowed an AR-15 which would leave you at a 'tactical' disadvantage. Does that mean police should have to carry SAWs so they do not find themselves at a tactical disadvantage?

Kind of like the police and swat teams have APC's, flashbangs, sub-machineguns, etc already?? Do I support the police and military having the best weaponry available to stay ahead of criminals and enemies?? You betcha

I would disagree with police being able to be armed with anything more than a civillian is armed with. My issue is that if we keep letting the police have better stuff than us, they will naturally begin to support removing our weapons rights while maintaining thier own.

 

[martybegan]

Because that's what you're trying to take away, numb-nutz. At least, that's what you're admitting to. An AR-15 with a 30 round mag is exactly the kind of gun the 2nd amendment was intended to protect - the kind of gun the militia would use.

No. The second amendment was intended to allow us a 155 howitzer. After all you should be well aware that the definition of a 'gun' is a multi-person weapon.

Actually, many people would claim it was intended to allow us to have 155 howitzer or any other weapon someone in the military might use. At a minimum, it was intended to allow a civilian to carry any arm that an infantryman would carry. That includes fully automatic weapons and even RPGs.

BTW, moron, it's the "right to bear arms," not the right to bear guns. An "arm" is anything that can be used to kill someone.

I have always seen arms as non crew serviced weapons, rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc.

Arms to me also dont include explosive or incidiary devices like cutting charges or grenades.

Semi auto rifles, however are an "arm" and are thus protected by the 2nd amendment.

 

[DiamondDave]

I am so sorry if you are being 'punished' by not being allowed an AR-15 which would leave you at a 'tactical' disadvantage. Does that mean police should have to carry SAWs so they do not find themselves at a tactical disadvantage?

Kind of like the police and swat teams have APC's, flashbangs, sub-machineguns, etc already?? Do I support the police and military having the best weaponry available to stay ahead of criminals and enemies?? You betcha

I would disagree with police being able to be armed with anything more than a civillian is armed with. My issue is that if we keep letting the police have better stuff than us, they will naturally begin to support removing our weapons rights while maintaining thier own.

Do I think the police need aircraft carriers, SAMs, etc?? No... but they do need (as seen many times) to have superior firepower over perps in crisis situations... I, for one, am glad they have the authority to use flashbangs, use an APC to go in to a building or area of fire, etc... And having such weaponry does not mean they should have influence over us losing our rights to bear arms. And I don't think they would support removing weapons rights from law abiding citizens

 

[chikenwing]

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;


WTF!!!

 

[GoneBezerk]

emptyhead is the typical piece of shit liberal that talks about stuff it has no clue about.

 

[boedicca]

I'm actually not to worried about this. Reasons:

1. The Red State Dems are not going to vote for it - witness the reaction to Machin's comments about supporting gun control, which he rapidly walked back.

2. Obama has appointed JOE BIDEN to head up the Gun Control Commission. I expect The Won will follow its recommendations with the same enthusiasm he showed the Simpson-Bowles one.

3. Harry Reid will, in the end, will refuse to take it to a vote. That's my bet.

 

[elvis]

I'm actually not to worried about this. Reasons:

1. The Red State Dems are not going to vote for it - witness the reaction to Machin's comments about supporting gun control, which he rapidly walked back.

2. Obama has appointed JOE BIDEN to head up the Gun Control Commission. I expect The Won will follow its recommendations with the same enthusiasm he showed the Simpson-Bowles one.

3. Harry Reid will, in the end, will refuse to take it to a vote. That's my bet.

Did these events you speak of happen before or after Newtown?

 

[emptystep]

emptyhead is the typical piece of shit liberal that talks about stuff it has no clue about.

I like to think of myself as atypical.
Heaven forbid it be otherwise.

 

[chikenwing]

I'm actually not to worried about this. Reasons:

1. The Red State Dems are not going to vote for it - witness the reaction to Machin's comments about supporting gun control, which he rapidly walked back.

2. Obama has appointed JOE BIDEN to head up the Gun Control Commission. I expect The Won will follow its recommendations with the same enthusiasm he showed the Simpson-Bowles one.

3. Harry Reid will, in the end, will refuse to take it to a vote. That's my bet.

I suspect your right,but you just never know for sure,a lackadaisical approach could get something extremely undesirable.

 

[eflatminor]

I am so sorry if you are being 'punished' by not being allowed an AR-15 which would leave you at a 'tactical' disadvantage.

Why don't you tell us in your own words why you would WANT to put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage. You say your 'sorry' about that, so why would you support laws and regulations that do just that?

Well?

 

[boedicca]

I'm actually not to worried about this. Reasons:

1. The Red State Dems are not going to vote for it - witness the reaction to Machin's comments about supporting gun control, which he rapidly walked back.

2. Obama has appointed JOE BIDEN to head up the Gun Control Commission. I expect The Won will follow its recommendations with the same enthusiasm he showed the Simpson-Bowles one.

3. Harry Reid will, in the end, will refuse to take it to a vote. That's my bet.

Did these events you speak of happen before or after Newtown?

After. It's been all over the news.

 

[boedicca]

I'm actually not to worried about this. Reasons:

1. The Red State Dems are not going to vote for it - witness the reaction to Machin's comments about supporting gun control, which he rapidly walked back.

2. Obama has appointed JOE BIDEN to head up the Gun Control Commission. I expect The Won will follow its recommendations with the same enthusiasm he showed the Simpson-Bowles one.

3. Harry Reid will, in the end, will refuse to take it to a vote. That's my bet.

I suspect your right,but you just never know for sure,a lackadaisical approach could get something extremely undesirable.

300 million legally owned guns are not lackadaisical. Gun ownership is not a fringe issue - it's mainstream and broad based.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Do you think we are incapable of trying to solve multiple problems at the same time?

The government never "solves" any problem without creating bigger and worse problems.

...and in doing so, generally either accomplishes nothing in regards to the original problem, or makes it worse!

 

[Jarlaxle]

deadliest warrior e-tool - YouTube

That may be but no one would carry it around because it sucks as a shovel. The screwy thing that is suppose to hold the blade in place will not stay tight.

Horse shit. I used one many times (carried it in my recovery kit when I drove wreckers)...it worked just fine.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm actually not to worried about this. Reasons:

1. The Red State Dems are not going to vote for it - witness the reaction to Machin's comments about supporting gun control, which he rapidly walked back.

2. Obama has appointed JOE BIDEN to head up the Gun Control Commission. I expect The Won will follow its recommendations with the same enthusiasm he showed the Simpson-Bowles one.

3. Harry Reid will, in the end, will refuse to take it to a vote. That's my bet.

God and goddess, I hope you're right...though I honestly don't see it getting through the House, regardless.

 

[RoadVirus]

Progressive totalitarians have been predictable throughout history.



SENATE TO GO FOR HANDGUNS

Assault Weapons - Issues - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein

No biggie. It might survive the Senate, but it will die in the House.

 

[francoHFW]

Why can't dupes focus on reality, possible bans of assult rifles and huge magazines, bought without background checks? Why all the brainwashed fear mongering, and of course the hate?

BTW, blacks are killing each other over drugs and money, and are ALL Dems because they know which party includes all the racists.

 

[martybegan]

Kind of like the police and swat teams have APC's, flashbangs, sub-machineguns, etc already?? Do I support the police and military having the best weaponry available to stay ahead of criminals and enemies?? You betcha

I would disagree with police being able to be armed with anything more than a civillian is armed with. My issue is that if we keep letting the police have better stuff than us, they will naturally begin to support removing our weapons rights while maintaining thier own.

Do I think the police need aircraft carriers, SAMs, etc?? No... but they do need (as seen many times) to have superior firepower over perps in crisis situations... I, for one, am glad they have the authority to use flashbangs, use an APC to go in to a building or area of fire, etc... And having such weaponry does not mean they should have influence over us losing our rights to bear arms. And I don't think they would support removing weapons rights from law abiding citizens

APC's and flashbangs are not an issue. My concern is if we start going towards the "only 1 shot weapons and no hanguns" direction the grabbers want to go, part of the law must be the police would be forced to go through the same procedure to have the same weapons we are allowed at home. That means anything determined to be "illegal" has to be locked up at thier precinct at the end of the shift, and they get to go home to whatever weapons we are allowed.

The same applies to off duty concealed carry. if it gets banned for us, its banned for them when off duty. They should have to wait for the on duty police just like us.