Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Hillary being a cunt on gun control

Recommended Posts

Guest

 

I don't think bequeathing invulnerability to industries with particularly effective lobby groups is the right approach.

 

 

Imagine if that were the case. IMAGINE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think bequeathing invulnerability to industries with particularly effective lobby groups is the right approach.

Imagine if that were the case. IMAGINE!

 

Special protections then.

By your response I gather you are a proponent of frivolous lawsuits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And a manufacturer has not been negligent just because one person failed to learn how to use his gun. Ignorance of how to use your gun is your fault, not anyone else's.

Remember they did a survey. nearly 40% of people were unsure or wrong.

Including the police officer owner of this gun, and the shooter.

 

When Beretta agreed in court that the behaviour was a safety/education issue and undertook to mention it in their materials, they were unbelievably stupid not to do so.

Even though there was a previous frivlolous lawsuit. The previous lawsuit is part of the pattern of these lawsuits that are intended to effect the goals of gun controllers without the hassle of actually winning elections.

As I have said, frivolous lawsuits are a good thing to clamp down on.

I don't think bequeathing invulnerability to industries with particularly effective lobby groups is the right approach.

 

 

You earlier said "it was found that the users did not understand how their guns worked" but the survey was general, not specific to "users" of semi-auto's. There are lots of people in the population at large who are ignorant about how guns work but I suspect the number would be much smaller if you surveyed people who have actually shot one.

 

As for invulnerability, you challenged us to show someone who was claiming that and I did. Now I can do it again. Go find a mirror.

 

I see you have now backed it down to "special protections" and my answer is that special frivolous attacks justify them. If we considered pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger to be a crime in all circumstances, the law would have protected Beretta in the case we're talking about.

 

Do you think the kid who shot his friend committed a crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You earlier said "it was found that the users did not understand how their guns worked" but the survey was general, not specific to "users" of semi-auto's. There are lots of people in the population at large who are ignorant about how guns work but I suspect the number would be much smaller if you surveyed people who have actually shot one.

If the lawyers felt this would have had any baring on the case, I'm sure they would have brought up your perfectly valid criticisms at the time.

I note that they didn't.

As for invulnerability, you challenged us to show someone who was claiming that and I did. Now I can do it again. Go find a mirror.

I felt it was clear I was not referring to the ravings of irrelevant people on an internet forum, but people in positions of responsibility who appeared to know what they were talking about.

I see you have now backed it down to "special protections" and my answer is that special frivolous attacks justify them. If we considered pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger to be a crime in all circumstances, the law would have protected Beretta in the case we're talking about.

But, then all that syg stuff goes out the window because isn't it supposed to save people a trip to court when the police think it's obvious?

Do you think the kid who shot his friend committed a crime?

Society gives children lots of leeway to do stupid shit because we judge they are not good at thinking things through until they reach some arbitrary age at which they become enlightened.

This kid wasn't charged with anything, and from what I have read I think that was appropriate.

 

In my opinion the father committed a crime. The police thought so too, and he was prosecuted (unsuccessfully).

I have asked many times, but noone has yet managed to turn up a court record explaining how he got off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't view "enlightenment" as an on/off switch. More of a process.

 

And by the time you're a teenager in that process, you should darn well know not to point guns at people and pull the trigger. The kid did something wrong, whether or not we call it a crime.

 

The PLCAA was intended to protect manufacturers from lawsuits resulting from criminal misuse of guns. I'd expand it to wrongful misuse so that it covers kids.

 

His dad did something wrong long before he committed any crime. He insulated his kid from guns instead of teaching him about them. That's like having a swimming pool and not teaching your kid to swim in my book.

 

The reports conflict on whether he left the gun accessible but even if we assume he's telling the truth about locking it up, a keyed lock is not much of a barrier to a teen who can find the key.

 

I suspect he got off because no one could prove whether he locked up the gun and locking it up would be considered OK under the law. It's not OK to me. Should have been preceded by training and should have been a lock that is not so easy to defeat.

 

But the fact that the dad and kid both did things wrong doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible for their misdeeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Tom, that's just crazy talk right there. Holding individuals accountable for their own behavior??? What fucking rock did you just crawl out from under?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the fact that the dad and kid both did things wrong doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible for their misdeeds.

The manufacturer wasn't found to be responsible.

They were found to have contributed by negligently failing to warn their users about a feature of the weapon which they had acknowledged in a previous case was confusing and potentially dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But the fact that the dad and kid both did things wrong doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible for their misdeeds.

The manufacturer wasn't found to be responsible.

They were found to have contributed by negligently failing to warn their users about a feature of the weapon which they had acknowledged in a previous case was confusing and potentially dangerous.

 

 

Most semi-auto's function in that same "confusing and dangerous" way and the ones that manufacturers have offered that are NOT "confusing and dangerous" tend to flop in the marketplace because people don't want them and police forces won't buy them. Exactly where did Beretta acknowledge that normal guns are "confusing and dangerous" anyway?

 

That previous case, like this one, was a frivolous attempt to use the legal system to cost gun manufacturers money because they deliver what gun buyers want and expect: guns that actually fire when they have a round in the chamber. These cases are exactly why the PLCAA was passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nj's gun laws have saved the life of a computer screen today-

 

If I lived elsewhere there'd be blood on my hands-

 

There ya go- a gun law saved a life-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

But the fact that the dad and kid both did things wrong doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible for their misdeeds.

The manufacturer wasn't found to be responsible.

They were found to have contributed by negligently failing to warn their users about a feature of the weapon which they had acknowledged in a previous case was confusing and potentially dangerous.

 

Most semi-auto's function in that same "confusing and dangerous" way and the ones that manufacturers have offered that are NOT "confusing and dangerous" tend to flop in the marketplace because people don't want them and police forces won't buy them. Exactly where did Beretta acknowledge that normal guns are "confusing and dangerous" anyway?

 

From your favourite link: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1101052.html

David also was unaware of a settlement by Beretta in a different case that included an agreement to include either magazine disconnect safeties in all guns sold after January 1, 2001, or a warning label that the firearm is capable of firing when the magazine is not engaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

But the fact that the dad and kid both did things wrong doesn't mean the manufacturer is responsible for their misdeeds.

The manufacturer wasn't found to be responsible.

They were found to have contributed by negligently failing to warn their users about a feature of the weapon which they had acknowledged in a previous case was confusing and potentially dangerous.

 

Most semi-auto's function in that same "confusing and dangerous" way and the ones that manufacturers have offered that are NOT "confusing and dangerous" tend to flop in the marketplace because people don't want them and police forces won't buy them. Exactly where did Beretta acknowledge that normal guns are "confusing and dangerous" anyway?

 

From your favourite link: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1101052.html

David also was unaware of a settlement by Beretta in a different case that included an agreement to include either magazine disconnect safeties in all guns sold after January 1, 2001, or a warning label that the firearm is capable of firing when the magazine is not engaged.

 

 

A "warning" saying that the gun behaves just like virtually all semi-auto's is not saying it's confusing and dangerous. There's really nothing confusing about the idea that if you pull a trigger with a round in the chamber, the gun will go boom. It's what they do by design. It's what customers want and expect.

 

Unless the idea is to say that virtually all semi's are confusing and dangerous and probably should not be sold. I think that's exactly the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey BC - is this warning label sufficient for you?

 

Imgp5371.jpg

Grip safety, trigger safety, AND a warning label! Does it have a magazine disconnect? It now needs a pouch to contain the safety manual.

The next lawsuit will be about not having the manual readily available.

 

Random thought - Don't auto accidents kill far more than firearm accidents? Why isn't there a similar warning on my truck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defective Glock Does Exactly What It Was Designed To Do

 

The plaintiff in the case, Larry Jones, of Cherry Valley, Arkansas, was injured when his Glock 19C pistol discharged unexpectedly at the shooting range in June 2013, the lawsuit says. At the time he was trying to attach a tactical light.

According to the complaint, the pistol had not been modified or changed since he bought it in December 2000. The lawsuit alleges Glock sold the pistol “in a defective condition which rendered (it) unreasonably dangerous.”

The Glock pistol’s lack of a manual safety and other similar features are the subject of what the lawsuit characterizes as defects that led to the injury. Also, Glock did not give “a reasonable and adequate warning of dangers inherent and/or reasonably foreseeable in the use” of the pistol, the lawsuit says.

 

 

There's no way the "pistol discharged unexpectedly" as alleged.

 

I'm certain it had something to do with a finger and a trigger.

 

If you use a finger to pull the trigger on a Glock, it will fire. It's a desirable feature, not a bug.

 

If you're a fucking idiot, you work on loaded guns. If you're even dumber than the average fucking idiot, you fail to keep your finger away from the trigger while working on a loaded Glock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/13/2016 at 8:36 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Is trying to start the BS attack on gun manufacturers up again.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/us/politics/hillary-clinton-ad-seconds-obama-on-guns-rebuking-bernie-sanders.html

 

How can you hold a manufacturer liable when someone misuses their perfectly functioning product? It would be like suing GMC if a drunk guy kills a busload of nuns with his Yukon. Or a better analogy is suing GMC if a deranged guy deliberately plowed into a crowd on the Vegas strip.

 

It pure political cuntery.

hmmmm.  this was a fun thread.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
15 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Jeff should resign now.

Resign from what, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

hmmmm.  this was a fun thread.  

One aspect of the fun does continue for me. This one:

On 1/29/2016 at 8:06 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

 

So getting back to the thread topic, it looks like Hillary and Obama won this round as Bern has reversed his position

I guess Bern must figure there are lots of Obama's single issue voters out there during primary season. Or he dares not piss off the Brady Bunch.

 


Even the famously independent Sanders could not break the TeamD tribal taboos surrounding gun control. Something that continues today, as Eva Dent from comments like these about Conor Lamb.

On 3/14/2018 at 11:16 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

From the little bit I've heard about this race, it sounds like the D candidate is more of an R.  He openly says that Pelosi should be out of leadership positions, is anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, etc. 


and

On 3/20/2018 at 10:16 AM, kent_island_sailor said:

I haven't studied him in detail, but in general he is to the right of a lot of current Democrats. The more lefty-urban branch of the Ds would never vote for this:

3_142018_beltway-conor8201_c0-78-950-631

If you want to be a POTUS contender like Kamala Harris, your name had better be on a list like this one:

"We’re introducing an updated (Assault Weapon, Ordinary .22) Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon or ordinary .22, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. 

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first (Assault Weapon, Ordinary .22) Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. 

“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job."

....................................................... 

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

LIAR .

3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Assault Weapon, Ordinary .22)

Bullshit , doesn't exist in the original 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mid said:

^

 

LIAR .

Bullshit , doesn't exist in the original 

While it's true that they overlooked battlefield .22's like my wife's gun in the original, she was talking about the failed renewal.

Quote

(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has-- ``(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

And her gun somehow snuck in there when renewal time came, didn't it?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's true is you are a LIAR .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mid said:

what true is you are a LIAR .

Yep. 

Quote

No, I have never advocated arming anyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't advocate arming anyone.

But I have updated this in light of Mid's constructive criticism. Better?

"We’re introducing an updated (Assault Weapon, Ordinary .22) Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon or ordinary .22, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. 

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Scary Looking Weapon Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its expansion to cover ordinary .22's in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these (assault weapons, ordinary .22's) in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. 

“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job."

....................................................... 

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).
 
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kRist you make tRump look like an amateur , you are a LIAR .

 

 (Assault Weapon, Ordinary .22) 

 

This is not in your quoted cite .

 

LIAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Mid said:

kRist you make tRump look like an amateur , you are a LIAR .

 

 (Assault Weapon, Ordinary .22) 

 

This is not in your quoted cite .

 

LIAR

Hah! And the image in post 356 might not be exactly what you see if you visit Senator Feinstein's website.

I guess we need a parody font?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no , just stop LYING .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, OK, here's the unaltered original. But it's not as funny and is less accurate than mine.

On 11/10/2017 at 4:46 PM, badlatitude said:
"We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. 

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. 

“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job."

....................................................... 

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

Lets not forget that many of these senators are firm believers in states rights when it comes to some gun laws (like national reciprocity), but believe in federal laws for other gun laws (like Feinsteins latest AWB)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

hmmmm.  this was a fun thread.  

 The North Koreans are probably in awe of the NRA's mad skilz.The NRA and associated groups have demonstrated an ability to brainwash the Real Americans into continuing to believe only Democrats grab gunz, and to the point of not being able to see the R behind the names of Don Trump and Rudy "The NYC Gungrabber" Giuliani, his BFF. I've been told the Norks, whose brainwashing techniques in the Korean War gave rise to the term, were able to get people to honestly see only what they had been conditioned to see. A conditioning so thorough they make someone look at red stop sign and honestly report that it was green and said "Go!". 

 

  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mark K said:

 The North Koreans are probably in awe of the NRA's mad skilz.The NRA and associated groups have demonstrated an ability to brainwash the Real Americans into continuing to believe only Democrats grab gunz, and to the point of not being able to see the R behind the names of Don Trump and Rudy "The NYC Gungrabber" Giuliani, his BFF. I've been told the Norks, whose brainwashing techniques in the Korean War gave rise to the term, were able to get people to honestly see only what they had been conditioned to see. A conditioning so thorough they make someone look at red stop sign and honestly report that it was green and said "Go!". 

 

  

 

I've said before that I trust Trump on guns exactly as long as he thinks leaving me alone is good for Trump, and then would expect him to revert to his NE  ways and return to his past support of bans on (assault weapons, our .22's).

As for Giulianio, I just always still see him this way:

giuliani-handgun-control.jpg

Citing stuff like that as reasons both halves of the Duopoly are pretty much the same used to really make TeamR guys crazy. But it was true.

It's no longer true. For now at least, Trump says he doesn't wish to return to his prior support of a ban on (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

And it's not the NRA saying that this list is only TeamD:

Quote

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).

How about you, Mark? Do you have a position on TeamD's primary gun control goal of banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I've said before that I trust Trump on guns exactly as long as he thinks leaving me alone is good for Trump, and then would expect him to revert to his NE  ways and return to his past support of bans on (assault weapons, our .22's).

As for Giulianio, I just always still see him this way:

giuliani-handgun-control.jpg

Citing stuff like that as reasons both halves of the Duopoly are pretty much the same used to really make TeamR guys crazy. But it was true.

It's no longer true. For now at least, Trump says he doesn't wish to return to his prior support of a ban on (assault weapons, ordinary .22's).

And it's not the NRA saying that this list is only TeamD:

How about you, Mark? Do you have a position on TeamD's primary gun control goal of banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's)?

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. Perhaps someone who has been horribly brain-washed, I dare not guess.  I think it best to leave such in the hands of professionals.    

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I do know the difference.

The TeamD Senators, apparently, do not. Which is  why my wife's Ruger 10/22 is specifically included in the ban I asked you about.

They may be too stupid to discuss, but they're powerful US Senators and people are talking about some as Presidential prospects.

Haven't had enough of Presidents who are too stupid to discuss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But I do know the difference.

The TeamD Senators, apparently, do not. Which is  why my wife's Ruger 10/22 is specifically included in the ban I asked you about.

They may be too stupid to discuss, but they're powerful US Senators and people are talking about some as Presidential prospects.

Haven't had enough of Presidents who are too stupid to discuss?

Just keep pushing back against reasonable measures to keep our streets and schools safe. You’ll lose in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I truly don't think that the intention of the (proposed?) bill has any intention of restricting .22 cal. rifles. We're talking about .223, .220 Swift .222 Remington, etc. These are not the honey bee sized bullets that your wife shoots.

But while we're on the subject..... Are you any worse for calling Hillary a cunt than Samantha Bee is for calling Ivanka a cunt, or Roseanne is for calling Valerie Jarret the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood, and "Planet of the Apes"...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mrleft8 said:

I truly don't think that the intention of the (proposed?) bill has any intention of restricting .22 cal. rifles.

Then you truly haven't read it. I truly have.

And I cited the section covering my wife's gun in what seemed the appropriate thread.

Here it is again:

On 2/19/2018 at 7:43 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

n fairness, Feinstein's bill doesn't cover ALL Ruger 10-22 squirrel assault rifles.

The proposed law says:

Quote

 

‘‘(36)   The   term   ‘semiautomatic  assault  weapon’ means any of the following, regardless of country of manufacture or caliber of ammunition accepted:


 ‘‘(A)  A  semiautomatic  rifle  that  has  the  capacity  to  accept  a  detachable  magazine and any 1 of the following:

   ‘‘(i) A pistol grip.

   ‘‘(ii) A forward grip.
                                                                                                               
   ‘‘(iii)  A  folding,  telescoping,  or  detachable stock.
   ‘‘(iv)  A  grenade  launcher  or  rocket  launcher.
   ‘‘(v) A barrel shroud.
   ‘‘(vi) A threaded barrel.

 ‘‘(B)  A  semiautomatic  rifle  that  has  a  fixed magazine  with  the  capacity  to  accept  more  than  10 rounds,  except  for  an  attached  tubular  device  designed  to  accept,  and  capable  of  operating  only  with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

 

That last bit exempts my assault weapon.

There is also a list of exemptions for various models of rimfire rifles. It says, in part:

Quote

‘‘Ruger  10/22  Autoloading  Carbine  (w/o folding stock)
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Compact
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Sporter
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Target

The bolded part is the problem. My wife put a telescoping stock on her gun, indicating her disdain for the lives of children.

They specifically exempt a whole bunch of Ruger 10/22's but NOT the one with the telescoping stock.

Arguments that they didn't intend what they clearly wrote just don't hold water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Then you truly haven't read it. I truly have.

And I cited the section covering my wife's gun in what seemed the appropriate thread.

Here it is again:

They specifically exempt a whole bunch of Ruger 10/22's but NOT the one with the telescoping stock.

Arguments that they didn't intend what they clearly wrote just don't hold water.

Then, to be perfectly honest, bring this to their attention, not ours. Otherwise you just sound like another whining asshole (Which I don't think you are).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Then, to be perfectly honest, bring this to their attention, not ours. Otherwise you just sound like another whining asshole (Which I don't think you are).

 

But I'm trying to help.

On 11/10/2017 at 4:46 PM, badlatitude said:
"We’re introducing an updated Assault Weapons Ban for one reason: so that after every mass shooting with a military-style assault weapon, the American people will know that a tool to reduce these massacres is sitting in the Senate, ready for debate and a vote. 

“This bill won’t stop every mass shooting, but it will begin removing these weapons of war from our streets. The first Assault Weapons Ban was just starting to show an effect when the NRA stymied its reauthorization in 2004. Yes, it will be a long process to reduce the massive supply of these assault weapons in our country, but we’ve got to start somewhere. 

“To those who say now isn’t the time, they’re right—we should have extended the original ban 13 years ago, before hundreds more Americans were murdered with these weapons of war. To my colleagues in Congress, I say do your job."

....................................................... 

Joining Senator Feinstein on the bill are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tom Carper (D-Del.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.).


They went to all that trouble to create a tool to get weapons of war like my wife's .22 off the streets and so I figured it would be OK to read it and talk about it.

My sources here are badlat quoting Senator Feinstein. It's not like I'm bringing in evil propaganda. They think we should discuss DOING SOMETHING.

Through such discussion, people such as yourself can learn interesting facts, like the fact that they definitely intend to cover our .22's.

What's so wrong about learning such things? Were you better off not knowing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the least bit afraid that they'll take my .22s away.

 And I seriously doubt that even Diane Feinstein intends to inconvenience your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

I'm not the least bit afraid that they'll take my .22s away.

 And I seriously doubt that even Diane Feinstein intends to inconvenience your wife.

Actually, my wife is the only person she does not intend to inconvenience. Because her bill is not just about banning .22's, but about background checks too.

As I detailed in the appropriate thread, anyone else who shoots her assault weapon in our back yard must first go to town for a background check.

On 2/19/2018 at 5:08 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The law DiFi proposed says this:

Quote

 

‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a temporary transfer of possession for the purpose of participating in target shooting in a licensed target facility or established range if—

 ‘‘(A) the grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon is, at all times, kept within the premises of the target facility or range; and

                                                        
 ‘‘(B) the transferee is not known to be prohibited from possessing or receiving a grandfathered semiautomatic assault weapon.

 

Like every background check law, it doesn't just cover sales. It covers transfers. And some transfers are exempt from the background check requirement.

Like handing a gun to someone at a range.

But what kind of range? Well, she says, "a licensed target facility or established range."

My back yard isn't a licensed target facility but might be an established range. If you start digging in an area and find lots of shell casings, does that area then qualify as an "established range" for purposes of background check exemption?

Any fans of "universal" background checks want to chime in?


I think the answer to my question is obvious. There's no way in hell that DiFi would recognize my yard as an "established range" so anyone wanting to shoot my wife's battlefield .22 would need a background check. Except, of course, my wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well come on up here Tom. I have a shooting range that the cops and prison officials all know about, and occasionally use. You and your wife can shoot as much as you like w/o fear of molestation, as long as you leave the turtles and the dog, and the cat alone...... Oh and the wife.... I don't let her near guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn’t the name in the thread title be changed to Nailing Malarkey Too??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

Well come on up here Tom. I have a shooting range that the cops and prison officials all know about, and occasionally use. You and your wife can shoot as much as you like w/o fear of molestation, as long as you leave the turtles and the dog, and the cat alone...... Oh and the wife.... I don't let her near guns.

That's in Florida, right? There's this other gun ban that could be a problem too.

Just like at the federal level, their intent to ban .22's is obvious from the bill text that I posted in that thread. That one is worse, in my view, because it also includes my .22 with fixed tubular magazine and because it prohibits transferring the guns, in effect requiring confiscation upon our deaths.

It's strange to me that you, Mark, and others are unaware of the legislation banning our .22's as assault weapons. I'd think you might have read it yourself, or at least noticed some of my posts on the subject and wondered if what I was saying was true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's in Florida, right? There's this other gun ban that could be a problem too.

Just like at the federal level, their intent to ban .22's is obvious from the bill text that I posted in that thread. That one is worse, in my view, because it also includes my .22 with fixed tubular magazine and because it prohibits transferring the guns, in effect requiring confiscation upon our deaths.

It's strange to me that you, Mark, and others are unaware of the legislation banning our .22's as assault weapons. I'd think you might have read it yourself, or at least noticed some of my posts on the subject and wondered if what I was saying was true.

Florida, correct. Nothing in that bill you posted will affect my .22s, so you can borrow one of them.

Also remember that this is NORTH Florida, which is very different from South Florida. Think cowboys and mud trucks, peanut farms and Daisy Dukes on women weighing 400lbs. We're not talking South Beach here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

 

Also remember that this is NORTH Florida, which is very different from South Florida. Think cowboys and mud trucks, peanut farms and Daisy Dukes on women weighing 400lbs. We're not talking South Beach here.

We live in the CSA. I tend to get more potato, cabbage and corn farmers over this way, but I do see guys on vacant lots selling “Boiled P-Nuts” out of the back of their truck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

We live in the CSA. I tend to get more potato, cabbage and corn farmers over this way, but I do see guys on vacant lots selling “Boiled P-Nuts” out of the back of their truck. 

Oh there's corn..... But it's all (mostly) silage corn, not sweet corn. North Florida Peanuts farm is about 2 miles east of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Florida, correct. Nothing in that bill you posted will affect my .22s, so you can borrow one of them.

Also remember that this is NORTH Florida, which is very different from South Florida. Think cowboys and mud trucks, peanut farms and Daisy Dukes on women weighing 400lbs. We're not talking South Beach here.

I have a single shot .22, so I have one that is not covered by the federal or FL bans.

I just want to keep our other assault weapons, which include a couple of other .22's. And if I get a .22 handgun assault weapon, I will want to keep that one too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

You seem manically obsessed with 22’s.  You probably shouldn’t be allowed near them.

Not sure why it seems that way to you. It just so happens that the assault weapons we own include .22's. If we had some other kinds of assault weapons, I'd probably talk about those.

.22's are good, though, because even people without much clue about gunz know that they're not weapons of war. So they're useful for illustrating the BS of the primary TeamD gun control goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mrleft8 said:

I truly don't think that the intention of the (proposed?) bill has any intention of restricting .22 cal. rifles. We're talking about .223, .220 Swift .222 Remington, etc. These are not the honey bee sized bullets that your wife shoots.

But while we're on the subject..... Are you any worse for calling Hillary a cunt than Samantha Bee is for calling Ivanka a cunt, or Roseanne is for calling Valerie Jarret the offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood, and "Planet of the Apes"...?

The road to hell is paved in good intentions. That's the point that Tom is beating into the ground, the people authoring such bans have intentions but wind up drawing in other guns as well. How can you govern something when you can't describe it properly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I own a car it’s a pretty nice car.  I like it.   You won’t see me droning on about it even on car forums,  I bet over 50% of your posts include references to guns or 22’s.

its disturbing

Is the government trying to take you car away or make it illegal to own because a senator decided she doesn't like the way it looks? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, chinabald said:

The road to hell is paved in good intentions. That's the point that Tom is beating into the ground, the people authoring such bans have intentions but wind up drawing in other guns as well. How can you govern something when you can't describe it properly. 

By fighting every reasonable policy to keep the guns out of the hands of kid killers, the alternatives are going to be even less palatable to you. Too fucking bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

By fighting every reasonable policy to keep the guns out of the hands of kid killers, the alternatives are going to be even less palatable to you. Too fucking bad.

So you think it's reasonable to ban a gun simply because of some sort of adornment and not based on its performance? Yeah that's good legislation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
3 hours ago, chinabald said:

So you think it's reasonable to ban a gun simply because of some sort of adornment and not based on its performance? Yeah that's good legislation. 

What you guys have not picked up on yet is that razr, BL, jocal and their elk don’t care if ordinary .22s are banned. Or cosmetic features are banned that have any relevance to making children safer. They have given up on “reasonable “ - or more correctly never bothered to start there - and are instead lashing out out of emotion at anything and everything that they perceive is dangerous. It’s “Pad the Corners” time. They don’t care what rights they trample in the process. They just knows what they knows. 

What they don’t get is that the American public isn’t buying it. The more extreme they become, the more powerful the NRA and such becomes. They CREATED the NRA. THEY made the monster the NRA is now. 

America is sick of the killings. But America sees through the BS narrative that it’s only gunz at fault. Guns were in plentiful supply and far easier to get not too long ago and we didn’t have mass killings like this. Society changed for the worse and now liberals want to blame guns for their failed social policies. And the GOP has plenty of share of the blame in the killings too, so don’t take this as a partisan jab. Society is sick at the moment and taking guns away is not going to address those root causes. 

I think people like Razr, BL, jocal, etc have as much or more children’s blood on their hands as they claim the NRA has for their role in stopping sensible compromise on addressing the underlying causes of this endemic violence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

But I do know the difference.

The TeamD Senators, apparently, do not. Which is  why my wife's Ruger 10/22 is specifically included in the ban I asked you about.

They may be too stupid to discuss, but they're powerful US Senators and people are talking about some as Presidential prospects.

Haven't had enough of Presidents who are too stupid to discuss?

How did you manage to convince yourself it was about the round and not mag capacity? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

How did you manage to convince yourself it was about the round and not mag capacity? 

It's about the scary stock. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, chinabald said:

So you think it's reasonable to ban a gun simply because of some sort of adornment and not based on its performance? Yeah that's good legislation. 

We tried the first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I rest my case.  How did that work out for you the first time???

It didn’t, because your elk gutted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:
On 6/2/2018 at 8:35 PM, Uncooperative Tom said:

But I do know the difference.

The TeamD Senators, apparently, do not. Which is  why my wife's Ruger 10/22 is specifically included in the ban I asked you about.

They may be too stupid to discuss, but they're powerful US Senators and people are talking about some as Presidential prospects.

Haven't had enough of Presidents who are too stupid to discuss?

How did you manage to convince yourself it was about the round and not mag capacity? 

I didn't. Instead, I read the law. It's about the round (whether it's rimfire or centerfire, not size) and the mag capacity and the telescoping stock and the threaded barrel and the background check before anyone can shoot my wife's assault weapon in my yard.

In our case, a rimfire gun that accepts a detachable magazine and has a telescoping stock is an assault weapon. That's my wife's battlefield Ruger 10-22. You have some history in the armed forces, right? Did you ever come up against a soldier wielding a Ruger 10-22 with a telescoping stock? If so, how did you ever survive?

As I discussed in another thread, my next assault weapon is likely to be a Ruger handgun in .22lr. It's an "assault weapon" because of the threads. I intend to fuck them up so that they can't be used, but they'll still be illegal.

I think that calling my wife's gun and my soon-to-be gun weapons of war is BS and will continue to say so. Do you have some reasons why those guns are weapons of war that are inappropriate for civilians to own? I'll be happy to consider them. BTW, "you're insane" and "shut up" are not reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

They did?  How was the original 1996 AWB "gutted"???  I used the googles with the search term "how was the assault weapons ban gutted?" and couldn't find anything that said how it was gutted before it went into effect.  Can you provide me some cites please?  

Instead that search only brought up mostly articles that talked about its abject failure.  Here, try it yourself

That's what they say. What they mean is: it grandfathered existing guns instead of confiscating them. As always, confiscation is the preferred option. That's why the California confiscation program is going to be effective. (On the 20% or so of gun owners who are Cooperative.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark K said:

Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness.

Where did you get the idea that I can't tell the difference?

My ability to read the law and see that it covers my wife's .22 doesn't mean I am unaware of other rounds. It just means I'm aware that TeamD considers her Ruger 10-22 a weapon of war because of the telescoping stock.

Asking me not to mock something that stupid is just asking too much. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2018 at 1:29 PM, Mark K said:

Not really. Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. Perhaps someone who has been horribly brain-washed, I dare not guess.  I think it best to leave such in the hands of professionals.    

Great post, Mark. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretending that I don't know what a .22 is instead of addressing the fact that TeamD treats guns that shoot both rounds the same way.

Yep, great work, if a really lame messenger attack is your goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 1:34 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Where did you get the idea that I can't tell the difference?

My ability to read the law and see that it covers my wife's .22 doesn't mean I am unaware of other rounds. It just means I'm aware that TeamD considers her Ruger 10-22 a weapon of war because of the telescoping stock.

Asking me not to mock something that stupid is just asking too much. Sorry.

Look at your own posts. Assault weapons are obviously ordinary .22's, in your mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mark K said:

Look at your own posts. Assault weapons are obviously ordinary .22's, in your mind. 

That's because, prior to posting, I look at TeamD gun control bills.

I think my wife's Ruger 10-22 is a pretty darn ordinary .22, even though it has a telescoping stock. A group of TeamD Senators disagree and wrote a law saying it's an assault weapon. This one:

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

Similarly, FL grabberz think my .22 rifle is an assault weapon and wrote a law saying so.

This one:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/0254/BillText/Filed/HTML

Again, I think a .22 rilfe with a tube magazine is pretty darn ordinary. But again, the definition in the law says mine is an assault weapon.

If you can't trust TeamD politicians as to what is or is not an assault weapon, who can you trust? I thought I was going with a reliable set of sources.

Or is your position that these are not ordinary .22's that we own? If that's the case, what do you think is so extraordinary about them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

That's because, prior to posting, I look at TeamD gun control bills.

I think my wife's Ruger 10-22 is a pretty darn ordinary .22, even though it has a telescoping stock. A group of TeamD Senators disagree and wrote a law saying so. This one:

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

Similarly, FL grabberz think my .22 rifle is an assault weapon and wrote a law saying so.

This one:

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2017/0254/BillText/Filed/HTML

Again, I think a .22 rilfe with a tube magazine is pretty darn ordinary. But again, the definition in the law says mine is an assault weapon.

If you can't trust TeamD politicians as to what is or is not an assault weapon, who can you trust? I thought I was going with a reliable set of sources.

Or is your position that these are not ordinary .22's that we own? If that's the case, what do you think is so extraordinary about them?

 The docs you linked to state the reasons. What part, to you, bans .22?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

 The docs you linked to state the reasons. What part, to you, bans .22?   

Are you asking about the federal (assault weapon, ordinary .22) ban or the FL one?

And are you trying to create another strawman by saying I think either of them "bans .22" when they clearly don't?

I hope so because lame strawmen amuse me and "you don't know what a .22 is" in a forum where I'm supposedly obsessed with them is a winner, narrowly edging out Steam Flyer's "you must think .22's are harmless."

"You must think these bills 'ban .22'" would be a distant 3rd behind those, but you take what you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Are you asking about the federal (assault weapon, ordinary .22) ban or the FL one?

And are you trying to create another strawman by saying I think either of them "bans .22" when they clearly don't?

I hope so because lame strawmen amuse me and "you don't know what a .22 is" in a forum where I'm supposedly obsessed with them is a winner, narrowly edging out Steam Flyer's "you must think .22's are harmless."

"You must think these bills 'ban .22'" would be a distant 3rd behind those, but you take what you can get.

It's your twenty two caliber strawman, not mine.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2018 at 4:29 PM, Mark K said:

Discussing the question with someone who can't tell the difference between these two rounds...

 22_223a.jpg

 

...would be a discussion with either a moron or a victim of mental illness. Perhaps someone who has been horribly brain-washed, I dare not guess.  I think it best to leave such in the hands of professionals.  

I agree that the words "regardless of caliber" in her bill indicate that Senator Feinstein is either a moron or a victim of mental illness, or maybe she's just been trapped in the left wing noise machine too long and has been brain washed, as you suggest.

I'm not sure what her problem is, but she's your Senator and she treats guns that fire those two rounds the same. So it's pretty evident that she can't tell the difference.

She may be mentally ill, a moron, or brainwashed, but for whatever reason, she wants to ban ordinary .22's as assault weapons.

Have you written your Senator or her staff to express your concern about her mental condition? Or at least to tell her that banning .22's as assault weapons is stupid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2018 at 10:47 PM, Mark K said:

 The docs you linked to state the reasons. What part, to you, bans .22?   

With respect to the federal (assault weapon, ordinary .22) ban, I was just following TeamD suggestions again.

My Cooperative nature is well-established, so I tend to look at a press release when they want me to and I use the terms they want me to use.

Specifically,

Quote

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Assault Weapons Ban of 2017"

Because I consider the shortened title misleading with respect to the ordinary .22's banned by the law, I call the latest version the "(Assault Weapons/Ordinary .22's) Ban of 2018"

For some reason, people think "assault weapon" refers to guns a bit scarier than this one, though the definition in the law makes it plain that this .22 is an assault weapon:

SWVictory22silver-flower.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2018 at 7:08 AM, jocal505 said:

Great post, Mark. 

That posts proves Toms point. Someone who can’t tell the difference between those shouldn’t be in the discussion of banning guns. And yet they are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, chinabald said:

That posts proves Toms point. Someone who can’t tell the difference between those shouldn’t be in the discussion of banning guns running gov't. And yet they are. 

FIFY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, chinabald said:

That posts proves Toms point. Someone who can’t tell the difference between those shouldn’t be in the discussion of banning guns. And yet they are. 

 Only for those who can imagine the thing being targeted wasn't large cap mags...so just imagine!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mark K said:

 Only for those who can imagine the thing being targeted wasn't large cap mags...so just imagine!  

Actually its collapsible stocks. But carry on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chinabald said:

Actually its collapsible stocks. But carry on.  

 Yet another way to not see the mentioning of mag cap size! That's the spirit!

 Problem with that red herring is it also refutes Tom's red herring of it being about type of ammo.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just curious, did Hillary lose yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the title of this thread, it's clear Jeff had a great relationship with mom.  Explains a lot actually.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

just curious, did Hillary lose yet?

OK...O---Kaaaayyyy then... if you're gonna be that way... 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

 Only for those who can imagine the thing being targeted wasn't large cap mags...so just imagine!  

Those are among the things targeted, but far from alone.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f/d/fdca734c-4855-49f3-aa1d-2ed02e791d6d/E5ECBD1B1D722D5C4AEDAEBB6276AB36.awb-bill-text.pdf

In the case of my wife's .22, the law makes no mention of the magazine size. Just that it can accept a detachable magazine.

As I'm sure someone with a military background knows, a Ruger 10-22 with a telescoping stock is a battlefield weapon that's not appropriate for civilians. An "assault weapon."

That's why it is banned, not because of anything to do with the size of the magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mark K said:

 Yet another way to not see the mentioning of mag cap size! That's the spirit!

 Problem with that red herring is it also refutes Tom's red herring of it being about type of ammo.  

Another lie.

I have never said it was about type of ammo. It's not, and I quoted the part of the law that says "regardless of caliber" above.

You know, the part that proves your Senator is a moron or unstable in your view? Have you contacted her or her staff about that situation yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mark K said:

OK...O---Kaaaayyyy then... if you're gonna be that way... 

 

 

 

Ah, the days of Duopoly unity!

It was fading by that point. His father was the one who was "for" banning (assault weapons, ordinary .22's). W just said he would sign such a ban if it arrived on his desk. It was one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for him and I delighted in telling TeamR people at the time that I was going to vote for someone who did not want to ban ordinary rifles.

They reacted just about like people here react to such talk today. It pissed them off almost as much as when I told them their precious drug war was stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites