“Congress’ latest crack at a new assault weapons ban would exempt more than 2,200 specific firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle nearly identical to one of the guns used in the bloodiest shootout in FBI history,” the AP reports. “President Obama has called for restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines. Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has introduced a bill that would ban 157 specific firearms designed for military and law enforcement use and exempt those made for hunting. One model of the Ruger Mini-14 — used in the deadly 1986 FBI shootout — is on the list of banned guns. A different model is on the list of exempted firearms. Gun experts say the two firearms are equally deadly.” Just what are they trying to say here? Whatever it is, exactly, I don’t like it. And the fact that foxnews.com republished this ditty doesn’t make me happy either. You?
Thanks for answering my query regarding the Henry 30-30 and I enjoyed reading all of the comments as well. The biggest problem I’m now having is getting someone to order a Henry for me. I live 250 miles north of the Twin Cities and there are no authorized dealers up here. I don’t like the idea of buying a gun on-line so I guess I will need to make the trek to the big city.
IMHO, the scariest part is that the bereaved Mrs. Pendleton truly believes that a law prohibiting private transfers without a background check would have helped in this situation. She and many, many others are under informed and make decisions based on emotion, and end up focusing on all the wrong things.
Herp derp SCARY!!!1!1!11!!!111one!!1
I can just see the po-po coming around on their “visits” with their flak jackets, face masks, helmets and battle rifles at the ready. It seems like the only purpose for this legislation is so that everybody — white and black, rich and poor — can all hate the police with equal vigor.
There are a lot of police on this site and they’re all good guys. Still, cops are the assault troops of the radical left whether they want to be or not. In order to defeat the left, we must take away its power, and that power grows out of the barrels of police guns.
There are two options, both unsavory. Either the cops have to say to the politicians, “f^ck no, we’re not doing it,” or the citizens have to say to the police, “come and get them, but don’t think you’re going home to your family tonight.”
The first option is bad, but tolerable. The second is simply horrible.
I got a laserlyte target for Christmas which I’ve been using every day. Ive saved at least it’s original cost in ammo and can practice shooting on the moving as we’ll. I also have a couple of less than popular calibers (357 sig and 45 long colt) whos price and availability havent been affected by the shortage.
This doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out.
The Ruger Mini-14 is one of the go-to examples that we use to say “this would be an assault weapon under their legislation, and it’s functionally identical (or only different cosmetically) from this one, which their law specifically exempts.” We use it to show the ludicrousness of the AWB.
By reversing the example “this average-looking rifle is almost the same as this scary-looking black one” while throwing in the “deadly 1986 FBI shootout,” it’s clear that their aim is to increase support for gun regulation. They would call it “just giving all the facts.” I would call it fearmongering.
“Just what are they trying to say here? ”
They are coming to an inevitable realization.
Remember how we all argued that banning firearms on the basis of cosmetics makes no sense and then used the Mini14 as an example?
What was that about chickens coming home?…..
This is kind of like the scenario where an assailant takes a victim’s weapons and uses it against them….
It’s not so much the lack of ammo that is tripping me up, it’s the lack of JOBS .
Practice Dry firing…. IPSC holster draw and magazine changes. Wishing I could find a set of 9mm dies for my reloader. cant believe reloading dies are all sold out. Starting to think about casting bullets again. 10 years ago I decided it wasn’t worth it. Changing my mind.
“Whether she died via negligent discharge or murder…”
Umm…considering that the latest reports around the ‘net indicate multiple wounds, through a bathroom door no less, I think the N can be ruled out of the ND.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/oscar-pistorius-called-best-friend-1714199
No rifle ammo available, so I’m shooting the scatter guns. Sporting clays, and range time with slugs.
The Mini 14 was marketed to military and Law Enforcement from day 1.
That, along with the “A” indiscriminately spraying rounds thru em for decades,
has ensured that the Mini 14 in all of its furniture is going to be on the to be banned list right after the AR.
This is an unreasoning assault on anyone who enjoys weapons, that is not LEO or Military.
Make no mistake, there can be no compromise on our part
3. Tighter Penalties for Straw Purchasers
I guess that would mean Holder, Obama and a lot of ATF guys are going to jail.
I am never going to be on-board with background checks. No one should ever be permanently banned from owning a firearm. Committing a felony or misdemeanor domestic violence, is not even close to proof that you are a danger to society. The fact is, we have all committed felonies and everyone has most certainly committed misdemeanor domestic violence. And anyone who thinks they haven’t is simply ignorant, naive, or is just lying to themselves.
Considering 99 percent of “existing laws” regarding guns are unconstitutional infringements on the 2A, I don’t see how you can support enforcing them.
Been different if she was able to have a gun.
very good logic Nick. I agree 100%
Came for a gun review. Watched for a while then had my wife show me how to post. Mostly, it’s been fun. Thanks RF and crew and commentators.
Happy Birthday!!!! Keep it up. Always enjoy checking in several times a day.
I have been working on getting my wider than before silhouette slimmer. Not a-lot slimmer but slimmer none the less.
Thats why true gun owners must keep calling there Reps and say kill the ban bills.
I totally disagree with Mr. Leghorn regarding background checks. If someone is walking the streets, there are three possibilities:
(1) They are NOT criminals and have no criminal record.
(2) They are criminals and have no criminal record.
Background checks will do nothing because these people have no criminal record.
– or –
(3) They are released from prison for a previous conviction.
If we do not trust these people to possess firearms, why are they walking out on the streets? They can harm good people just as easily with a match and a container of gasoline, a pipe, a knife, a car, etc. etc. etc. Of course a felon who wants to acquire a firearm can easily purchase one illegally or even make one with $20 in parts available at local hardware stores.
Why apply resources on a system that will not stop anyone from acquiring firearms and/or harming others? Let’s use those resources to actually accomplish something.
I also disagree about suppressors. Why do I need a government permission slip to purchase anything?
And I disagree with concealed carry licenses for the exact same reasons as background checks. The only people that would not qualify for a concealed carry license are felons. And the same question applies, why are they walking the streets freely if we as a society do not trust them?
Rather than all of this government oversight, licensing, and permission slips, simply prosecute people for harming others. For example, make it a felony if someone carries a firearm — concealed or openly — in the commission of a crime. Everything else is a waste of time, income, tax revenue, and man-hours and accomplishes nothing.
I’m a so called “violent felon.” These tags, non-violent felon versus no violent felon are really just political buzzwords, and frankly, shortcuts to thinking. My “violent” felony stems from a bar fight. Some jackass took a swing at me, and I beat him up. This was 16 years ago. I was 21 years old. In that time, I have earned a degree in engineering technology, bought a home, and property in several states. I am married and have a 10 year old son. I am lawfully barred from obtaining the means with which to defend my life, the lives of my family and my property. The restrictions on rights, and social stigmatization felons face everyday in America is nothing short of creating a second class citizenry and is wholly evil.
Self defense is an innate characteristic of life, it is biologically hardwired into all of us. A law barring felons from owning firearms affects ONLY felons who have no wish to break the law. By definition, this makes them law abiding citizens. The felon who wishes to return to a life of lawlessness? He already has a gun, because he doesn’t care about breaking the law. Once a person’s sentence is completed – to include incarceration, probation/parole, and restitution – they should automatically restored to full citizenship, including the right to own firearms.
To believe that barring felons from owning firearms is justice is to believe it is the item which is evil. The American legal system states that one is innocent until proven guilty. The sheer possession of a piece of property should not be a crime. To believe that a prior convicted felon will commit a crime simply because he/she owns a firearm is to believe them guilty with no evidence. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and logically fallacious.
It is the right of every human being to defend themselves, their families, and their property. Thusly, it is their right to be armed in what way they so choose.
I have to come down on the side of those who believe that RTKBA is not a negotiable or nuanced position for any company which distributes or manufactures those “arms.”
When the legislature of NYC wanted to limit serving sizes on soda to 16 oz Coca Cola didn’t support that, they also didn’t say well how about just limit it to 20 oz. Nor did Coca Cola say: “what a hot button issue, in deference to the emotional nature of this issue we’ll go ahead and limit our soda sales in NYC to diet soda only until this issue is resolved.”
The reasoning is obvious, Coca Cola sells soda. If they don’t support soda wholly even in the face of localized negative public opinion then they lose money. The same is true of firearms companies or companies which facilitate the distribution of firearms.
CTD failed to recognize that if the market for guns goes away then the market for all that tacti-cool gear and ammo that comprises the rest of thier business model goes away with it. Therefore they never should have wavered in their full and unconditional support of the Second Amendment, since it is the only thing that allows them to stay in business.
No rational business could look at CTD’s actions and blame the customers which chose to withdraw their patronage, these rational businesses instead must take note of the demands of their chosen demo and adjust accordingly.
That’s the message here, we have no onus to offer anyone a “road back” from a self-destructive business practice or political endorsement; put more simply “The customer is always right.”