Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Pistols are probably in the lead because of portability and their relative ease of concealment. While a big rifle might be scarier, it is far harder to sneak into a crowded place without people noticing.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Pistols are probably in the lead because of portability and their relative ease of concealment. While a big rifle might be scarier, it is far harder to sneak into a crowded place without people noticing.

Indeed, and cost is also a factor. A $400 glock will work fine for the purposes of most drug dealers/gang members/crazies/etc. A $900 AR is hard to justify, especially if they plan on dumping it after use

Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?

I can see that it basically bans semi-automatic long guns.

Very interesting thread. People may or may not know that American history is a hobby of mine (hell, I watched Gettysburg for the 100th time last night ) and I've been reading up a lot about the history of the second amendment, it's a fascinating subject but there are some things that bugs me:

Guns have been around in the USA since day one, and although gun control measures have ebbed and flowed over the years, something has fundamentally changed in the USA, and not for the better in my opinion. These include

1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.

2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?

I think the change of direction in the 1970s by the NRA, when they made gun control a partisan issue, rather than something to defend for every American, be they democrat or Republican, played a big part.

Now, I'm not expecting an in depth reply (but I'll take one anyway )

but why have these changes occurred? Or maybe you think they haven't occurred.

 Ustrello wrote:
Seriously though who needs to milsim out a 9mm rifle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Detachable front grip which can also be use as a weapon Bi-Pod......so if you slap a front grip to a .22 rifle its considered a Assault Rifle now? What about the ole school Bi-pods where you can slide it over a barrel eh

Edit

As for the M60 bit. Way to go there high speed. A M60 a crew serve weapon not an assault rifle

It was a crew weapon? Man I better tell that to my uncle who carried one in vietnam, he would of been pissed that he was using it solo.

You really should because you're coming off looking poorly after this exchange.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 stanman wrote:
Threaded barrels are a big no-no in the list, has there ever been a rash of crimes with people using silenced semi automatic rifles? I don't understand how a threaded barrel makes an impact on a weapon becoming "assault" style.

Tompson weapons are cited, is this the roaring 20's? Do we seriously have lots of murders being committed with 90+ year old vintage Tommy guns? Can we also outlaw wearing pin stripes and fedoras?

They would have to be really wealthy criminals too. Have you seen the going rate for a genuine Chicago Piano these days? More than my parent's house.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
So in an attempt to not create another thread on a similar topic.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/29/california-gun-violence-restraining-order-law-goin/

On its face it doesn't sound absolutely horrible. My concern is how many of these firearms will be "lost" by the police after their "temporary" confiscation. Like this.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/09/right-to-bear-arms-gun-grabbing-sweeping-nation.html

Agreed on both points. This is what I was referring to earlier.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?

I can see that it basically bans semi-automatic long guns.

You can read the text of the law without having to go through pages of arguements. It lists the features that are considered "evil" not far from the top of the OP.

The weirdest part of the pistol section is that, depending on how you read it, it appears to ban pistols with rails (as they can technically accept a forward grip, even though that modification is already covered under NFA law) or any pistol that can accept a threaded barrel. This means that most modern compact/full-size pistols are potentially banned under this law, regardless of if they actually HAVE a forward grip or threaded barrel.

The language "has the capacity to accept" isn't clear to me if it is only covering the detachable magazine part or if it also covers the list of "evil" features.

good point. That eliminates M&Ps, Springfields, but not the bricks that are Glocks.

However any firearm could fall under this because any firearm could have a a threaded barrel inserted.

Forgive my ignorance but why is a threaded barrel important?

How does a threaded barrel turn a firearm into an umlawful merciless killing machine? (tongue in cheek people).

Because...person who wrote it is only familiar with Hollywood?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Very interesting thread. People may or may not know that American history is a hobby of mine (hell, I watched Gettysburg for the 100th time last night ) and I've been reading up a lot about the history of the second amendment, it's a fascinating subject but there are some things that bugs me:

Guns have been around in the USA since day one, and although gun control measures have ebbed and flowed over the years, something has fundamentally changed in the USA, and not for the better in my opinion. These include

1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.

2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?

I think the change of direction in the 1970s by the NRA, when they made gun control a partisan issue, rather than something to defend for every American, be they democrat or Republican, played a big part.

Now, I'm not expecting an in depth reply (but I'll take one anyway )

but why have these changes occurred? Or maybe you think they haven't occurred.

There is hardly a "nihilistic" attitude towards mass shootings. They are horrible, and should be mourned my all. That does not mean though that they should be used as a tool to change one of the most fundamental aspects of our nation. Especially when put into context of the greater picture.

Let me try to lay out my viewpoint on the matter though. I am a member of the US Military. When I was 17 I took an oath, that I have re-affirmed twice in the last 14 years, and will be re-affirming (for the last time) in February.

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is the central charge of all members of the US Military. That has been what my life has been devoted towards for the last 14 years. Our right to own fire arms, our right to bear fire arms, is a central tenent of that Constitution. To those who wrote it, it was such an important tenent that they included it 2nd in a list of 10 items that they considered so inviolate they had to specifically ensure protections for. To me, nothing is more grievous then attacking the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately though, our 2nd Amendment is the only one that is ever under constant attack. Well, I'll back off on that a bit, because there does seem to have been a trend towards the suppression of free speech in the last decade, largely by those of the same political leaning as those who routinely attack our 2nd.

In the end though, I look at it like this. Loss of life is horrible. Loss of liberty is more horrible though. Especially since we've seen time and time again, the more liberty you tend to lose, the more likely those who take it away become more willing to take life as well.

Edit: I hope this makes some sense. I sometimes find it really hard to explain myself on this.

 Frazzled wrote:
Because...person who wrote it is only familiar with Hollywood?

As an outsider to the gun control debate it does seem that most proposals hinge and breakdown on a dogmatic hold to certain minutiae.


Genuinely curious about how the parts and modifications listed in the act affect a firearms utility.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Because...person who wrote it is only familiar with Hollywood?

As an outsider to the gun control debate it does seem that most proposals hinge and breakdown on a dogmatic hold to certain minutiae.


Genuinely curious about how the parts and modifications listed in the act affect a firearms utility.

They don't. Being able to attach a flashlight to my rifle in no way makes it deadlier, period.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Without bothering to read through three pages of gun/PC arguments, does the proposed law ban semi-automatic pistols, or just semi-auto pistols that are tricked out with military type features like a threaded barrel for a silencer, etc?

What do you mean by "military type" feature? Suppressors have many civilian applications

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.

Because for many people it comes down to the fact that after mass shootings we hear the same old script trotted out again blaming an inanimate object for the actions of men, and use the event as a political tool to attack our enemies - see the initial reactions to San Bernardino before the identify of the shooters was confirmed. All the while we ignore the victims and go through the lives of the attackers and publish their manifestos so that in death we give them the audience and validation that they were not given in life. This way when the next socially isolated individual with a mental health condition has had enough of whatever perceived injustice he (and it is almost invariably a he) is suffering then he knows what it will take to have his grievances aired.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?

I only moved here in 2012 so I cannot speak to that with any authority unfortunately, but with the debates on abortion and gay marriage largely settled this may be the next big battleground. Which is unusual as gun control has not been a winning political issues as it very definitely straddles both sides of the political debate.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Forgive my ignorance but why is a threaded barrel important?

How does a threaded barrel turn a firearm into an umlawful merciless killing machine? (tongue in cheek people).

A threaded barrel allows the owner to fit a suppressor to the firearm (suppressors are heavily regulated and require permission from the ATF to own). Suppressors are not commonly used in crimes. The purpose of a suppressor is to suppress, reduce, the report of each shot. Contrary to Hollywood myth it does not make the firearm silent. Suppressors have a variety of civilian applications from hearing protection to hunting as reducing the report of each shot will not spook other animals or disturb people in the vicinity .

I just hope each and every sponsor of this bill faces an expensive primary challenge in the upcoming election cycle. The only way to stop this nonsense is to make the congress critters who attempt it pay for their actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a buddy who loves his suppressor for hog hunting. It allows him to take out several in the pack/herd. If you've seen what wild boar do to crops you would understand why farmers (including my buddy) like the capability a suppressor provides.

Yes, he has the required stamps for his.

 CptJake wrote:
I just hope each and every sponsor of this bill faces an expensive primary challenge in the upcoming election cycle. The only way to stop this nonsense is to make the congress critters who attempt it pay for their actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a buddy who loves his suppressor for hog hunting. It allows him to take out several in the pack/herd. If you've seen what wild boar do to crops you would understand why farmers (including my buddy) like the capability a suppressor provides.

Yes, he has the required stamps for his.

I keep getting stationed in area's that don't really have hog problems. Makes me sad.

Its sponsors are in districts that are protected*. Indeed, its likely they would be primaried by even stronger anti-firearms fanatics. Looking at the list, its party line sponsorship-all D's with the plurality from California, New York, and Massachusetts.

I say bring it to a full vote.

*To be fair, they all are at this point.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
As an outsider to the gun control debate it does seem that most proposals hinge and breakdown on a dogmatic hold to certain minutiae.

Genuinely curious about how the parts and modifications listed in the act affect a firearms utility.

Mainly because the devil is in the details. An assault weapon has traditionally been defined as a man portable weapon firing an intermediate cartridge from a detachable magazine, and is capable of select fire. An AR 15 does not match this definition because it is not select fire - select fire would be a firearm capable of automatic or burst fire (2-3 rounds shot with each pull of the trigger). But politicians advocating for gun control and many journalists will describe an AR as an assault weapon to make it sound scary to those who do not understand firearms.

The definition of assault weapon being proposed goes further than the 1994 ban (expired) as now an "assault rifle" only needs a detachable magazine and the capacity to accept one of the following features; a pistol grip, a forward grip, a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, a grenade launcher or rocket launcher ,a barrel shroud, a threaded barrel.

So what do these features do? A pistol grip lets you hold the rifle. It is not more or less dangerous than a rifle grip. A forward grip allows better control of a firearm when in use as it allows the operator more leverage on the rifle. A folding or telescoping stock allows the rifle's length to be somewhat shortened and is useful if you have people shooting the gun with each with their own stature (the father teaching his daughter to shoot can collapse the stock to allow the daughter to better grip the rifle and manipulate the controls). A grenade launcher or rocker launcher is a complete misnomer. These are considered destructive devices (as is the ammunition) and are highly regulated by the ATF, as well as prohibitively expensive. I am not aware that there is a crime wave involving the use of these weapons. A barrel shroud is a device that goes around the barrel to prevent the operator burning their hands on barrel when they shoot the rifle. A threaded barrel we have already covered.

Reading those list of features you will see that they do not add any additional lethality to a firearm. Instead making those features unlawful actually makes operating a firearm less safe.

So how does this impact owning a firearm? This is an AR15



It is a completely legal semi automatic firearm. If this new law were to pass it would be classed as an "assault rifle" because as well as having the detachable magazine it has;
- a collapsible stock
- a pistol grip
- a barrel shroud
Because it has a rail system it also has the capacity to accept a forward grip, and a grenade launcher or rocket launcher. Also the barrel may be fairly easily switched out or machined to incorporate a threaded barrel.

In short millions of legally held firearms will be made illegal not because they are more dangerous, but because they have certain cosmetic features. If you read the list of firearms that are explicitly named that is almost all of the most commonly owned rifles.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
I just hope each and every sponsor of this bill faces an expensive primary challenge in the upcoming election cycle. The only way to stop this nonsense is to make the congress critters who attempt it pay for their actions.

Quite a few politicians suffered recall defeats over their attempts to degrade the Second Amendment. However the sponsors of this Bill seem to reside in "safe" areas so any punishment from the electorate is unlikely.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its sponsors are in districts that are protected*. Indeed, its likely they would be primaried by even stronger anti-firearms fanatics. Looking at the list, its party line sponsorship-all D's with the plurality from California, New York, and Massachusetts.

I say bring it to a full vote.

*To be fair, they all are at this point.

I'm sure most of the Ds who voted for the ACA and then lost their seats thought they were protected too.

In short millions of legally held firearms will be made illegal not because they are more dangerous, but because they have certain cosmetic features. If you read the list of firearms that are explicitly named that is almost all of the most commonly owned rifles.

Please show me one modern firearm without a barrel made form the frame (some .380 pistols) that couldn't have a replacement barrel put in that is threaded. THATS ALL FIREARMS.

If that were an issue wit would have been better to make suppressors illegal without special government approval. Oh wait, THATS WHAT WE HAVE NOW.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its sponsors are in districts that are protected*. Indeed, its likely they would be primaried by even stronger anti-firearms fanatics. Looking at the list, its party line sponsorship-all D's with the plurality from California, New York, and Massachusetts.

I say bring it to a full vote.

*To be fair, they all are at this point.

I'm sure most of the Ds who voted for the ACA and then lost their seats thought they were protected too.

Actualy turnover barely meets minimum statistical requirements at any time, but thats for the politics thread.
Now you point has more merit in local/state elections, as referencing the trouncing Colorado supporters took in recalls after their little law was put in place.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
A threaded barrel allows the owner to fit a suppressor to the firearm (suppressors are heavily regulated and require permission from the ATF to own). Suppressors are not commonly used in crimes. The purpose of a suppressor is to suppress, reduce, the report of each shot. Contrary to Hollywood myth it does not make the firearm silent. Suppressors have a variety of civilian applications from hearing protection to hunting as reducing the report of each shot will not spook other animals or disturb people in the vicinity .

It's pretty odd that suppressors are regulated at all, IMO. We have very much stricter gun laws here (getting a concealed carry permit is just about impossible for a civilian, for example) but just about anything you'd need to trick out a gun is legal. My .22 plinking rifle is a Sako with threaded barrel right from the factory and the suppressor was bought over the counter no questions asked (because it's a perfectly normal thing to have). Pistols tricked out like that are mostly for guys doing some sort of tacticool practical shooting, and if they ever decided to commit a crime their first choice of tool would probably not be a pistol valued at several thousand € for all the extra customization.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:


It is a completely legal semi automatic firearm. If this new law were to pass it would be classed as an "assault rifle" because as well as having the detachable magazine it has;
- a collapsible stock
- a pistol grip
- a barrel shroud
Because it has a rail system it also has the capacity to accept a forward grip, and a grenade launcher or rocket launcher. Also the barrel may be fairly easily switched out or machined to incorporate a threaded barrel.

Technically, it like virtually all AR-15s already has a threaded barrel; you just need to remove the muzzle device (which is trivial even for a non-gunsmith, you only need a wrench and a replacement crush washer which is less than a dollar). The only time the flash hider is pin welded is when it's needed to bring a 14.5" barrel to 16" (this is sort of uncommon).


Anyway, it's very frustrating when legislators waste time on garbage like this that they know won't pass. It's just as irritating as the dozen or whatever votes on repealing the ACA; we get it, we know. Do something useful instead.

edit: 3 sentences, 10 typos

 djones520 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Very interesting thread. People may or may not know that American history is a hobby of mine (hell, I watched Gettysburg for the 100th time last night ) and I've been reading up a lot about the history of the second amendment, it's a fascinating subject but there are some things that bugs me:

Guns have been around in the USA since day one, and although gun control measures have ebbed and flowed over the years, something has fundamentally changed in the USA, and not for the better in my opinion. These include

1) There seems to a nihilistic attitude prevalent in mass shootings these days - the me me me attitude, that was never there before.

2) Gun ownership and gun control is more politicised than ever before in American history? Why is this?

I think the change of direction in the 1970s by the NRA, when they made gun control a partisan issue, rather than something to defend for every American, be they democrat or Republican, played a big part.

Now, I'm not expecting an in depth reply (but I'll take one anyway )

but why have these changes occurred? Or maybe you think they haven't occurred.

There is hardly a "nihilistic" attitude towards mass shootings. They are horrible, and should be mourned my all. That does not mean though that they should be used as a tool to change one of the most fundamental aspects of our nation. Especially when put into context of the greater picture.

Let me try to lay out my viewpoint on the matter though. I am a member of the US Military. When I was 17 I took an oath, that I have re-affirmed twice in the last 14 years, and will be re-affirming (for the last time) in February.

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is the central charge of all members of the US Military. That has been what my life has been devoted towards for the last 14 years. Our right to own fire arms, our right to bear fire arms, is a central tenent of that Constitution. To those who wrote it, it was such an important tenent that they included it 2nd in a list of 10 items that they considered so inviolate they had to specifically ensure protections for. To me, nothing is more grievous then attacking the Bill of Rights.

Unfortunately though, our 2nd Amendment is the only one that is ever under constant attack. Well, I'll back off on that a bit, because there does seem to have been a trend towards the suppression of free speech in the last decade, largely by those of the same political leaning as those who routinely attack our 2nd.

In the end though, I look at it like this. Loss of life is horrible. Loss of liberty is more horrible though. Especially since we've seen time and time again, the more liberty you tend to lose, the more likely those who take it away become more willing to take life as well.

Edit: I hope this makes some sense. I sometimes find it really hard to explain myself on this.

It makes sense, and I respect your viewpoint.

Before I make my next point, I will say, as a libertarian, I am sympathetic to the idea of law abiding citizens using guns to protect their homes and lives from criminals.

However, it should be said, that democracy is a living, breathing thing, and as a student of American history, I do respect the wisdom that your founders put into the constitution, including the 2/3 clause,

and the day may come when a 2 thirds majority of the American people might decide to scrap the 2nd once and for all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On another note, is it just me, or did I notice the absence of the old German MP44 on that list?

Technically, it's not a AK variant - it's the daddy

Could be time for people to stock up on classic WW2 weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its sponsors are in districts that are protected*. Indeed, its likely they would be primaried by even stronger anti-firearms fanatics. Looking at the list, its party line sponsorship-all D's with the plurality from California, New York, and Massachusetts.

I say bring it to a full vote.

*To be fair, they all are at this point.

I may not agree with them, but I can respect a politicians who puts their money where their mouth is. Too many broken promises these days from politicians.

Don't get me started about Scotland and London's promises!

I'm a gun owner in Canada. I use my gun for hunting, target practice, and every fall we get together and blast vegetables for the giggles.

In Canada, our guns are licensed, either non-restricted, restricted, or prohibited. For example, a weapon with barrel length less than 18.5" would be restricted, including most if not all pistols. If you can't possess the license, you can't possess a firearm. Sound mental health is a requirement, in so much that if you require regular observation, you may not possess a license. "Mild" issues such as depression, anxiety, and the like are not grounds to lose your license. In essence, they take away your license in situations where you'd lose your driver's license, such as incarceration or forced medical confinement.

Acquisition of a license requires that a safety course be taken.

Semi-Automatic, Non-restricted rifles may have an ammunition capacity of 5 cartridges. Non-prohibited semi-auto pistols may have a capacity of up to 10 cartridges. Rifles that fire 0.22 ammo have no limit, other than that the ammo-storage device may not be able to be fitted to a pistol. If that is the case, the 10 cartridge limit applies. So hypothetically, one could have a drum of 100 rimfire cartridges for a rifle, and that would be ok.

In general, automatic weapons are prohibited.


There are exceptions, particularly in regards to requirements for lawful employment [Security, Law Enforcement, Military] and a category called "Protection of Life".


In the last 45 years, we've had 6 instances in which 5 or more people were killed by gunfire. According to... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Canada

Two cases were Biker Gangs, either at war or internal killings. Two were cases of one family member killing other family members. One case was a man that killed 4 police officers and himself, so the "5" mark included a suicide. The only "Mass Shooting" we've had was at the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre, which bears a number of similarities to many of the Mass Shootings in the States.

A single white male goes to a school and starts killing women, more or less at random.

In 45 years, we've had that happen once. I guess Canada is slow, only participating in America's annual pastime only once. Bearing arms, designed only to kill PEOPLE may have been important at one time, in America, but holding onto that in light of the unimaginable loss of life that occurs on a regular basis? It hurts to watch.

 greatbigtree wrote:

In 45 years, we've had that happen once. I guess Canada is slow, only participating in America's annual pastime only once. Bearing arms, designed only to kill PEOPLE may have been important at one time, in America, but holding onto that in light of the unimaginable loss of life that occurs on a regular basis? It hurts to watch.

So our 'national pastime' is mass shootings?

Nice.

As pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, plenty of other things/activities also lead to 'unimaginable loss of life', and many of them lead to that loss of life on a much larger scale than the items the bill being discussed would ban.

Canada is not the US, just as the US is not Mexico. I'd bet good money your other violent crimes are substantially lower as well.

Our violence rates are more in line with the rest of the Americas.

Well, I guess you shouldn't do anything about it, then. I mean, it's OTHER people being killed. Not us. So we'll just say that we don't have to do anything, because other stuff still kills you. It's just a fact of life that people need to have guns, so they can shoot each other. You're just saving them the hassle of living the rest of their natural lives.

Good on you. And it seems the mass shootings are about once a year, no?

 greatbigtree wrote:
Well, I guess you shouldn't do anything about it, then. I mean, it's OTHER people being killed. Not us. So we'll just say that we don't have to do anything, because other stuff still kills you. It's just a fact of life that people need to have guns, so they can shoot each other. You're just saving them the hassle of living the rest of their natural lives.

Good on you.

You're right. We should take over Canada. Your lack of firearms makes you weak and your maple reserves are just too tempting. Since your population is less than California and spread everywhere it will be doubly easy. I'll inform the girl scouts their time has finally come.
As Saruman proclaimed while standing above the massed Uruk Hai - " TO WARRRR!"

Seriously though, its just that sort of preaching from the anti rights folk, especially foreign anti-rights folk, that does nothing but harden positions. I'm sure it felt good to type though.

Oh, the utter relief I felt at expressing myself was delicious! And when you can't make an argument to defend your position, I bet it feels like a pat of butter melting on your gonads, to dismiss the opinions of outsiders. Why listen to someone, when you can just believe in your own self righteousness?

It feels amazing. Let me tell you.

All I'm saying, is that if you'd like to improve one facet of lives, increasing the restrictions upon what and whom can own a firearm would probably be a good idea. It doesn't take away a person's ability to provide for their family. It doesn't even stop you from owning a pistol [see restricted firearms, above] if you're so inclined. It just tries to prevent people from getting tools designed specifically to kill people, at a range at which self defence would be all but impossible.

An over-under shotgun is not designed to kill people. It's designed to hunt small to medium game. It would be nearly impossible to achieve a mass killing with a weapon requiring a manual reload every two cartridges [well, shells in that case]. I don't know. I just can't understand fighting for a right to kill other people, quickly. It doesn't make sense to me.

So, by reading the first part of this bill, your 1911 is to be considered an Semiautomatic Assault Weapon?

Well, so much for "serious" gun control reform.

 Breotan wrote:
So, by reading the first part of this bill, your 1911 is to be considered an Semiautomatic Assault Weapon?

Well, so much for "serious" gun control reform.

Does this mean we're going to see more Americans walking around with muskets?