Ever swung one of these babies?
Isn't a gun, basically, just a metal pipe?
If they are banning these by name, couldn’t the manufactures just change the name...
...Looks more like a shopping list to me...
A single shot Thompson Contender would be banned? Why?
Thank goodness I don’t have any of those things.
The list is ridiculous.
HK G3 is not mentioned, No Windham AR15 (ex bushmaster)
Where is the venerable Remington Model 8?
Why are Saiga 12 hicaps on the list but no Saiga 20’s or 410’s?.
As to the pistols, they are all ridiculously inaccurate.
To heavy to aim and to much recoil to be of any real use.
How can they define a CETME as an assault rifle when they specifically refer to it as a CETME Sporter in the bill?
They are banning Russian-made weapons? Who do these people think they are, a bunch of Commies?/s;)
Ever swung one of these babies?
i used to have every one of those on the list, but i’ve misplaced them
Where’s the M-1 Carbine or the Garand...Geeesh, what pikers.
They can come get my KMA.
This is going to cost our economy tens of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.
This is crazy.
Notice that they aren’t calling them “assault weapons.” This is surprising to me because California invented the term, at least as it is applied to any firearm the gun-grabbers find to be odious, and that would be any rifle or handgun.
But they can’t start with grabbing Daddy’s shotgun or little brother’s Ruger 10-22.
`Sturmgewehr’: Storm or assault rifle. The Californos probably figured it was a good way to suggest that gun-owners are like SS troopers ...
Anyway, they call their Lutheresque 99 Feces: “List of Firearms Prohibited by Name,” and they allow us to infer that they mean “assault weapons.”
Anyone who isn’t a gun naif, an idiot or a Democrat understands that an “assault weapon” is a firearm capable of fully automatic fire and these weapons are already (over) regulated ... I want to be able to buy one at Walmart.
OK, no more scare quotes around the evil things that must not be mentioned in the list heading.
Arguing that any firearm subjectively found to be scary-looking is an assault weapon is only slightly less fatuous than arguing that Home Depot is loaded with dangerous assault weapons: Fully automatic weapons are subsumed within the category “firearms”, not vice versa.
They are arguing backwards—I believe it may be called a `composition’ logical error—and should be called on it.
And while the black-letter, supreme law of this land is that `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ the gun-grabbers say—and presumably with a straight face—that they want to “prohibit” (an arbitrary laundry list of scary-looking, semi-automatic) firearms that may cause gun naifs, et al., to quail, but in fact, in 2011 assault weapons, that cause them so much loss of sleep, actually caused less than one percent of all firearm-related deaths in this country. I believe the Breitbart figure was 0.12.
QED. No one takes Fineswine or Biteme series; everyone knows this—except Di and Slow Joe. They are like children. Malicious, stupid children. And that raises another point, why do we have armed guards in Congress?
Well ....
This is a letter that I sent to Senator Bill Nelson a little while ago...
Subject: Gun control is people control.
Dear Senator Nelson:
I'm writing you today because of a letter you supposedly sent to one of your constituents.
The Second amendment to the U.S. Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I know you are an intelligent man, so I wanted this to be on record...
A well regulated Militia means a well equipped and trained people in the time of the Founders. You can review the Federalist papers (i.e. 26, 49 and others) to verify that definition.
Also, I'm sure you know what, "shall not be infringed," means too.
The Second amendment has to do with security, not hunting. As I'm sure that you are familiar with the Federalist papers, that means secure from tyranny of government.
As of the moment, my government is starting to scare me. I seem to be losing individual rights every day, that were not only embodied in the Constitution, but given to me by God.
So that my position is made very clear, if the government has an AR or AK, or whatever platform, and 30 round magazines, then I should have easy access to same.
Whether it is a crazy man (Loughner, a democrat), or Lanza (a crazy man whose mother was a democrat), or Holmes (a crazy man who happens to be democrat), it doesn't matter. It isn't the gun, it's the person.
You also probably know by now that Lanza was denied the ability to purchase a gun because of a background check. You also know that in FL, if you want to purchase a weapon, you have to undergo a background check.
In conclusion, Newton was a horrible tragedy. I feel so bad for the families involved. I'm sure you do too. Let us not us the blood of those innocent children to further a political agenda.
Thank you sir for your time.
Sincerely,
Mike Kehoe
us=use sheesh.
5.56mm
My gun is not on their:
I have a protection device (assault weapon), BS-16 (AR-15) with a hand held extension (pistol grip) and multifunction shoulder assisted mount (adjustable stock) that can hold variable quantity ammunition deliverable accessories (high capacity magazine).
So if we change the names we’re good.
So if I read this correctly, the Ruger mini -14 is legal but the mini - 14 tactical is not. Makes perfect sense
I’m changing my rifle’s name to Buffy. There, it’s no longer in your list.
