This banana is still legal to own.
This is a dangerous assault banana with prohibited features, and is illegal to own.
Posted on 03/06/2018 8:05:35 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
neither muzzle velocity nor muzzle energy has anything to do with the definition of "assault weapons," which hinges on military-style features such as folding stocks, pistol grips, and barrel shrouds. And while all so-called assault weapons accept detachable magazines, many guns that accept detachabale magazines do not fall into this arbitrary category because they lack the features that offend politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004 and has been pushing a revised version since the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, last month.
To give you a sense of how silly Feinstein's distinctions are, her bill specifically exempts the Iver Johnson M–1 Carbine (above right, top) and the Ruger Mini-14 (above right, bottom), but only when they have fixed stocks. Adding a folding or adjustable stock to these rifles transforms them from legitimate firearms into proscribed "assault weapons," even though that change does not make them any more lethal or suitable for mass murder. That's the sort of nonsensical line drawing that must be defended by an
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
It’s all about appearances, which is the only thought liberals are capable of processing.
Actually, its about “foot in the door” and slippery slope. Ban the “scary looking” guns first and then use that as legal precedent to ban other firearms with similar functions.
We have a winner!
To a liberal mind, form is substance.
This is what happens when people who have never fired a gun try to write regulations banning the scary looking ones.
This banana is still legal to own.
This is a dangerous assault banana with prohibited features, and is illegal to own.
What about pointed sticks?
they should have just called it the “scary looking gun ban.”
Yep. That's what I've called the '94 ban for many years.
Doesn’t the mini 14 have the samd ballistic performance as the ARs? And doesn’t the mini 30 fire the same round as the AKs.? When gun laws are proposed by legislators clearly ignorant about guns, it makes me wonder what other legislative proposals they are also ignorant of.
If the Left didn't say stupid things, they would be totally silent.
The Ruger Mini-14. I haven’t had one. Some users have said that they’re pricey for what they are and not very accurate. True?
.
Anyone who thinks a mini 14 is “pricey” probably hasn’t bought a gun for decades.
As for accuracy, that is usually a personal problem (90%)
Prescription shooting glasses make sense.
.
Thanks. I was already reading some info from a search on it with these keywords.
“ruger mini-14” accuracy
Looks like there have been some improvements. Just curious. Nothing against Ruger. Had a Ruger revolver that was really stout and pretty accurate after bore lapping and properly cast bullets. I’ve enjoyed having barrel nuts on rifles, though.
like putting racing stripes on a neon makes it a racecar
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.