bass806
Member
+1 for Prince Yamoto. Be prepared, not paranoid.
Do you expect a new AWB?
- Thread starter vis-à-vis
- Start date
- Status
XD Fan
Member
Prince Yamato is right. While I might have siad it in slightly different terms, the substance of what he said is dead on! We have to take the fight to thme and let people know the truth.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Jorg:
All of the independent parties together get just 1% of the vote in Presidential elections.
That leaves a possible 99% of votes to split among the two major candidates: Republican and Democrat.
If enough voters followed your advice and voted Libertarian, it might boost the total percentage of independant votes to 2%--or maybe even 3%, 4%, or 5%.
How could such a vote possibly help defeat the Democratic candidate for President? My assumption, of course, is that the largest number of independant voters will be drawn from those who might otherwise vote Republican. Do you have a different insight?
As to the question that started this thread .... Nancy Pelosi has been quoted as saying that she expects to have strict gun control laws beginning the end of this year. The Democratic Party leadership wants it and so do many influential mayors. The United Nations wants "small arms" control. The U.S. is one of the few remaining major countries in which individuals can buy and own semi-automatic guns and guns that shoot military ammunition. For that reason it is looked upon as uncivilized by many civilized people throughout the world. Many people in the U.S. don't understand why anyone but a nut would want to own or use a firearm, and they are frightened by guns and the people who own them. When the last Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to sunset, anti-gun forces expressed anger about having been tricked by its sunset provision: they believed, when the 1994 ban was passed, that their politicians would be strong enough not only to renew it but also to strengthen it into a complete ban on ownership. Now their politicians are strong enough.
Of course it is possible that there won't be a complete ban on the ownership of so-called "assault weapons," that it won't include all semi-automatic firearms, that it won't ban ownership as well as sale of ammunition and magazines, and that it won't require owners to surrender all firearms in their possession. All that is possible because anything is possible. It's even possible that Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, and the Democratic Party will join with the Brady Campaign in giving all Americans tax credits for buying guns and ammunition. I wouldn't bet on that though. New anti-gun bills were introduced in both the House and Senate on the first day they convened this year: January 4, 2007. I expect that more--and much harsher--bills will follow throughout this year and that at least some of them will pass. Others will follow throughout 2008 and will be passed too.
The last election demonstrated that gun owners do not support the NRA en masse: the anti-gun forces, including the president of the Brady Campaign, have already said that politicians need not fear the NRA any longer. I think that they are correct. Read the messages in this forum and other gun forums from gun owners who reject the NRA for one reason or another, including the powerful reason that the NRA sends them videos to raise money to defend their gun rights. When logic such as that gets support on these gun forums, the Brady Campaign is right to think that there's nothing to fear from organized gun owners.
I know something that most people seem not to know, and I'll share it with you. When guns are confiscated, the legislators who passed such laws need not be concerned about the anger of gun owners. The reason is simple: When there are no guns legally in private hands, there are no gun owners to be concerned about. It's an easy equation and every politician with a brain understands it:
No Guns = No Gun Owners = No Gun Owner Vote
All of the independent parties together get just 1% of the vote in Presidential elections.
That leaves a possible 99% of votes to split among the two major candidates: Republican and Democrat.
If enough voters followed your advice and voted Libertarian, it might boost the total percentage of independant votes to 2%--or maybe even 3%, 4%, or 5%.
How could such a vote possibly help defeat the Democratic candidate for President? My assumption, of course, is that the largest number of independant voters will be drawn from those who might otherwise vote Republican. Do you have a different insight?
As to the question that started this thread .... Nancy Pelosi has been quoted as saying that she expects to have strict gun control laws beginning the end of this year. The Democratic Party leadership wants it and so do many influential mayors. The United Nations wants "small arms" control. The U.S. is one of the few remaining major countries in which individuals can buy and own semi-automatic guns and guns that shoot military ammunition. For that reason it is looked upon as uncivilized by many civilized people throughout the world. Many people in the U.S. don't understand why anyone but a nut would want to own or use a firearm, and they are frightened by guns and the people who own them. When the last Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to sunset, anti-gun forces expressed anger about having been tricked by its sunset provision: they believed, when the 1994 ban was passed, that their politicians would be strong enough not only to renew it but also to strengthen it into a complete ban on ownership. Now their politicians are strong enough.
Of course it is possible that there won't be a complete ban on the ownership of so-called "assault weapons," that it won't include all semi-automatic firearms, that it won't ban ownership as well as sale of ammunition and magazines, and that it won't require owners to surrender all firearms in their possession. All that is possible because anything is possible. It's even possible that Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Schumer, and the Democratic Party will join with the Brady Campaign in giving all Americans tax credits for buying guns and ammunition. I wouldn't bet on that though. New anti-gun bills were introduced in both the House and Senate on the first day they convened this year: January 4, 2007. I expect that more--and much harsher--bills will follow throughout this year and that at least some of them will pass. Others will follow throughout 2008 and will be passed too.
The last election demonstrated that gun owners do not support the NRA en masse: the anti-gun forces, including the president of the Brady Campaign, have already said that politicians need not fear the NRA any longer. I think that they are correct. Read the messages in this forum and other gun forums from gun owners who reject the NRA for one reason or another, including the powerful reason that the NRA sends them videos to raise money to defend their gun rights. When logic such as that gets support on these gun forums, the Brady Campaign is right to think that there's nothing to fear from organized gun owners.
I know something that most people seem not to know, and I'll share it with you. When guns are confiscated, the legislators who passed such laws need not be concerned about the anger of gun owners. The reason is simple: When there are no guns legally in private hands, there are no gun owners to be concerned about. It's an easy equation and every politician with a brain understands it:
No Guns = No Gun Owners = No Gun Owner Vote
Jackal
Member
Well, if there is a total weapon ban and confiscation in my lifetime, I will be doing some modifications to my paintball gun.
allmons
Member
Yes - at the very minimum.
Look for new restrictions on the number of weapons you can purchase, as well the types. The ban on magazines will be back first, I predict.
Most importantly, look for EPA restrictions on lead bullets and increased ATF restrictions on all firearms. Worst, look for HUGE tax increase on ammunition and "roll your own " components.
It is official. Congress sucks.
Look for new restrictions on the number of weapons you can purchase, as well the types. The ban on magazines will be back first, I predict.
Most importantly, look for EPA restrictions on lead bullets and increased ATF restrictions on all firearms. Worst, look for HUGE tax increase on ammunition and "roll your own " components.
It is official. Congress sucks.
It seems like there are a lot more AR's and such around now then there were before. Almost every sporting goods chain sells them, which leads me to believe more "sporting" gun buyers must want/buy them.
I think it would be harder to pass an AWB now. I also think that if they did, it wouldn't have as pronounced of an effect since so many people own one or several AR's and dozens of mags. How many people do you know that hoard mags? There is also data now from the CDC that the previous ban was ineffective. This SHOULD make it harder.
Some kind of retroactive ban would be awful though.
I think it would be harder to pass an AWB now. I also think that if they did, it wouldn't have as pronounced of an effect since so many people own one or several AR's and dozens of mags. How many people do you know that hoard mags? There is also data now from the CDC that the previous ban was ineffective. This SHOULD make it harder.
Some kind of retroactive ban would be awful though.
XD Fan
Member
Excellent point, Mr. Hairless.
This reminds me of 1992. The numbers are fuzzy in my head, but I think G.H. Bush would have won handily if the conservatives that voted for Ross Perot had voted for Bush. Then we would never have gotten the glory that was Bill Clinton, and we would not be looking at the possibility of Hillary as president in '08. I may be remembering those figures incorrectly, but that is what is running through my rememberer.
As I think about it, if what I said here is true, we would not have had the '94 AWB either.
This reminds me of 1992. The numbers are fuzzy in my head, but I think G.H. Bush would have won handily if the conservatives that voted for Ross Perot had voted for Bush. Then we would never have gotten the glory that was Bill Clinton, and we would not be looking at the possibility of Hillary as president in '08. I may be remembering those figures incorrectly, but that is what is running through my rememberer.
As I think about it, if what I said here is true, we would not have had the '94 AWB either.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Having an expectation that the CongressCritters (to steal a phrase from LawDog) will try to pass more gun control legislation isn't being paraniod, it's being prudent. No matter what the individual 'Critters may say and how folks may dance around the issue, the platform of the majority party still contains AWB and other gun control as a core goal. From page 22 of the current Democratic Party platform:
The people that drafted that party platform in 2004 are still around, and they are now in leadership positions. They may or may not get to it in 2007, but sooner or later they will try. They simply can't help themselves. And anyone who expects a freshman crop of 'Critters to stand up to the party leadership that drafted the current Democratic Party platform is smokin' something illegal.
Procrastinate as you see fit.
The people that drafted that party platform in 2004 are still around, and they are now in leadership positions. They may or may not get to it in 2007, but sooner or later they will try. They simply can't help themselves. And anyone who expects a freshman crop of 'Critters to stand up to the party leadership that drafted the current Democratic Party platform is smokin' something illegal.
Procrastinate as you see fit.
Bazooka Joe71
Member
If there is an AWB, and a grandfather clause(god I'd hope so) how would they know if your EBR was purchased and assembled before the AWB? Is there something I need to do?
rbernie
Contributing Member
Dunno for sure, but I would imagine that keeping the receipt for the receiver/lower would probably be a good start.
22-rimfire
Member
Some of the laws that have been proposed had no grandfathering clause. It is not outside the relm of possibilities to get the AWB without the grand fathering. The problem that I see in the near future is that George Bush has in the past said he would sign the AWB renewal if it was passed by Congress. You can definitely can't count of GWB.
My cyrstal balls is pretty much what Allmons said:
Not looking forward to any of this. I hope my crystal ball is WRONG and I will work to make it wrong.
My cyrstal balls is pretty much what Allmons said:
Not looking forward to any of this. I hope my crystal ball is WRONG and I will work to make it wrong.
I see them testing the waters first, before they throw out a toad-strangler. I see a ban on .50s as one of the first things, then mag restrictions. I can see them trying to push for another Clinton-esque ban on cosmetics like flash suppressors and what-not if the smaller ones aren't strongly opposed. So if anyone hears of something being seriously considered about a ban, start writing letters. Or better yet, start now.
The very object of the present Marxist Socialist inspired Democrat Party is to eventually confiscate all firearms from all worker peasants in the U.S.
No matter how it is done, or when, that is their goal.
They can not allow anyone to ever physically challenge their Great Brave New Marxist Socialist Police State Utopia.
Besides, it's for the children.
L.W.
No matter how it is done, or when, that is their goal.
They can not allow anyone to ever physically challenge their Great Brave New Marxist Socialist Police State Utopia.
Besides, it's for the children.
L.W.
As for advice ...
If you have a limited budget, this is what I'd advise....
There's a decent chance that another ban is on the way (but certainly not 100%).
If it does, there's a decent chance they'll look to the old ban. If they are looking for basically a repeat, then they only things I'd worry about would be magazines. Other than an infringement of my rights, I really didn't feel any pain without a bayonet lug or flash suppressor (even today, I use a muzzle brake). Mag pricing went thru the roof, but firearm pricing did not. Glock mags were selling for 75-100 routinely, now they are back to ~20-25? AR mags never did get outrageous, I believe that military mags made it off bases often enough where pricing went high but not insane. IIRC, 20-25$ mags are now like 10-12.
So, if funds are extremely tight, get mags for guns you own and guns you'd plan on owning. Worse case is you sell them later (and if banned, make some money).
Next, I'd consider just buying the recievers. They are the regulated part, and if anything is grandfathered it would be the reciever. So, buy an AR lower, you can add uppers to it later. As the "lego" gun, you can build a lot of configs in a lot of different calibers on an AR lower.
Ammo doesn't seem to get cheaper, so it's the third place I'd recommend.
Now, this assumes a copy of the old ban. I don't know if that's likely. The old ban I think was seen as a dismal failure. Anti's likely think that grandfathering firearms and magazines was the weakness, as gun supply really never suffered or dipped, just got a bit more costly.
Also, as we have the last ban as a lesson, I don't think a repeat ban would be as painful because manufactures would certainly tool up and make a ton of recievers and magazines if a ban was to look likely.
Last think I'd "stock up on" would be hunting styled rifles and shotguns, and low capacity hanguns or revolvers.
YMMV.
If you have a limited budget, this is what I'd advise....
There's a decent chance that another ban is on the way (but certainly not 100%).
If it does, there's a decent chance they'll look to the old ban. If they are looking for basically a repeat, then they only things I'd worry about would be magazines. Other than an infringement of my rights, I really didn't feel any pain without a bayonet lug or flash suppressor (even today, I use a muzzle brake). Mag pricing went thru the roof, but firearm pricing did not. Glock mags were selling for 75-100 routinely, now they are back to ~20-25? AR mags never did get outrageous, I believe that military mags made it off bases often enough where pricing went high but not insane. IIRC, 20-25$ mags are now like 10-12.
So, if funds are extremely tight, get mags for guns you own and guns you'd plan on owning. Worse case is you sell them later (and if banned, make some money).
Next, I'd consider just buying the recievers. They are the regulated part, and if anything is grandfathered it would be the reciever. So, buy an AR lower, you can add uppers to it later. As the "lego" gun, you can build a lot of configs in a lot of different calibers on an AR lower.
Ammo doesn't seem to get cheaper, so it's the third place I'd recommend.
Now, this assumes a copy of the old ban. I don't know if that's likely. The old ban I think was seen as a dismal failure. Anti's likely think that grandfathering firearms and magazines was the weakness, as gun supply really never suffered or dipped, just got a bit more costly.
Also, as we have the last ban as a lesson, I don't think a repeat ban would be as painful because manufactures would certainly tool up and make a ton of recievers and magazines if a ban was to look likely.
Last think I'd "stock up on" would be hunting styled rifles and shotguns, and low capacity hanguns or revolvers.
YMMV.
Limeyfellow
Member
I don't think there will be. The only presidential candidate that really brought up support for the awb in the past 6 years as been George W Bush and even though he supported the renewing of the act it didn't go through. It didn't get put back in place even with so noterious antigunners like Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch in office.
I found a large number of the new democratic congressional members te be progun and it hasn't really been mentioned in a manifesto for a fair number of years. They pretty much learnt their lessons from 1994 and only a small number of the party seem intent in firearms bans. I swear half the talk has more to do with certain lobbying groups wanting more members. I don't really see the support needed to get such a law passed.
I found a large number of the new democratic congressional members te be progun and it hasn't really been mentioned in a manifesto for a fair number of years. They pretty much learnt their lessons from 1994 and only a small number of the party seem intent in firearms bans. I swear half the talk has more to do with certain lobbying groups wanting more members. I don't really see the support needed to get such a law passed.
Prince Yamato
Member
Stock up schmock up. Fight the damn ban! All the talk is of how we're going to "prepare" and "get around the ban". The flaw with the first ban was that it presumed those guns were somehow "illegal" or "immoral" to own in the first place. What we really need are spokespeople to go up against the antis. Start hammering on them publicly when they talk about how they support guns because they're "sportsmen" (Oh lord God, how I LOATHE that word). When they say that reply, "who the hell was talking about sports?" Round 1 in the 2A fight is AWs and 50 cals. Don't budge on those. Keep 'em legal. Then in a couple years we'll go on the offensive for getting more of our rights back (*cough* repeal machinegun manufacture ban *cough*).
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
So if not John McCain, who is our best hope?
===========================
Matt,
See http://www.ronpaul.org/ . Best of all, he's a Republican...
lpl/nc
===================
His most recent remarks on gun control:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst110606.htm
Gun Control on the Back Burner
November 6, 2006
For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes.
The gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it's a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last year's hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Gun sales have gone up.
Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.
The media has not been honest in reporting about guns, especially when it comes to statistics about law-abiding individuals who use firearms to prevent or deter crimes. Many of the "assault rifles" vilified by the press are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style fully automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market.
The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.
It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.
Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best-- and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms-- is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond.
===========================
Matt,
See http://www.ronpaul.org/ . Best of all, he's a Republican...
lpl/nc
===================
His most recent remarks on gun control:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst110606.htm
Gun Control on the Back Burner
November 6, 2006
For most Americans, guns are not a political issue. People buy and own guns to protect their families, not to commit crimes. The truth is that even millions of Americans who support and vote for gun control own guns themselves, because deep down they share the basic human need to feel secure in their homes.
The gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it's a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last year's hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Gun sales have gone up.
Most supporters of gun rights take no pleasure in this fact, nor do they trumpet it as a political victory over gun control forces. The time has come to stop politicizing gun ownership, and start promoting responsible use of firearms to make America a safer place. Guns are here to stay; the question is whether only criminals will have them.
The media has not been honest in reporting about guns, especially when it comes to statistics about law-abiding individuals who use firearms to prevent or deter crimes. Many of the "assault rifles" vilified by the press are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style fully automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market.
The gun control debate generally ignores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of that time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms.
It's convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying, "That could never happen here, this is America." But history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish decades from now.
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals.
Gun control may have faded as a political issue, but the mentality that Washington knows best-- and that certain constitutional rights are anachronisms-- is alive and well. Look for gun control advocates to bide their time and look for new ways to resurrect the issue in 2008 and beyond.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Why presume that buying now and fighting any proposed ban are mutually exclusive courses of action?
I intend to fight any ban proposed, and would be delighted to see all future attempts at additional gun control fail. I also have enough realism about me to prepare for the day when, despite my best efforts, the inmates running the asylum fail to see things my way.
And let's be honest; about the time that the ban is proposed is the time when the price increases on potentially banned items begins. If you want it and can barely afford it now, I pretty much guarantee that you will be hard pressed to afford it on/about the time that the 'Critters get around to proposing the ban.
Tommygunn
Member
Well, about a week after the '06 election, I went out and bought a Bushmaster M4A3 (AR-15 with 16.5" barrel, collapsable stock, flat top) just 'cause the Democrats won.
I think it is more likely that the Democrats will wait until they get the white house and then enact a nasty, nasty ban. Maybe one with out a grandfather clause, and maybe including ALL semi autos, not just the evil black rifles they listed in '94.
But ... I could be wrong, too. Remember, Dubya agreed to sign a reauthorized ban back in 2000 when debating AlBore. And he is not a true conservative leader ... he "goes along to get along."
But, if it were up to me, I'd go ahead and buy now. The prices are likely to only go up.
And, stock up on ammo, too. They could ban certain calibers........
I think it is more likely that the Democrats will wait until they get the white house and then enact a nasty, nasty ban. Maybe one with out a grandfather clause, and maybe including ALL semi autos, not just the evil black rifles they listed in '94.
But ... I could be wrong, too. Remember, Dubya agreed to sign a reauthorized ban back in 2000 when debating AlBore. And he is not a true conservative leader ... he "goes along to get along."
But, if it were up to me, I'd go ahead and buy now. The prices are likely to only go up.
And, stock up on ammo, too. They could ban certain calibers........
outofbattery
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 874
We gun owners in MA live under the fear of even more gun control to drop out of the sky with little effective opposition but even though the mayor of Boston continues to make a stink about why guns are the problem and not the criminals themselves,there's not much about it coming from our scary new Gov or AG. Now it's generally recognized that virtually all guns being used in crimes there are coming from out of state and that more laws for us would have little to no effect but of course when nothing effective can be done,going for the cheap " for the children" soundbite and cracking down on lawabiding citizens is the easy route.
My conjecture is that the Dem Party has told our new Gov to back off of the hot button issues that would raise an alarm to the rest of the country as to what happens when liberals take over.He wants illegals to get drivers licenses, free education and healthcare ( as if they pay now) and in-state tution etc. along with of course more gun control but MA scares the hell out of the rest of the country ( often unnecessarily so ) and the prospect of " do you want the US to become like MA? " might be enough to scare away a Dem victory.If the Dem's do get a more firm hand in Congress and win the White House , and I think their chances are more so than not, I can't see us _not_ getting more gun control.They learned their lesson last time and I don't think that thumbhole stocks and the lack of flash hiders are going to cut it as loopholes,likewise I don't see a sunset date.I could see them making a stink about registering all "assault weapons" but reality is there are far too many of them out there and it would be a boondoggle far greater than the Canadian gun registry.Not that liberals have much of a problem pissing good $ after bad to no good end.
In any case,guns have been fairly solid investment,not to say go deep in debt for them but you won't likely lose $ on anything.Even guns that one wouldn't have really considered as desirable or collectable have gained in value,such as Century FAL's and CETME's.Like the $99 FR-8's at Rose's,I wish I had bought a bundle of them when they were $300.Sheesh,look at the price of AR's: a local gunshop had a _Hesse_ XM177ish for $750 used and they'll easily get it.
My conjecture is that the Dem Party has told our new Gov to back off of the hot button issues that would raise an alarm to the rest of the country as to what happens when liberals take over.He wants illegals to get drivers licenses, free education and healthcare ( as if they pay now) and in-state tution etc. along with of course more gun control but MA scares the hell out of the rest of the country ( often unnecessarily so ) and the prospect of " do you want the US to become like MA? " might be enough to scare away a Dem victory.If the Dem's do get a more firm hand in Congress and win the White House , and I think their chances are more so than not, I can't see us _not_ getting more gun control.They learned their lesson last time and I don't think that thumbhole stocks and the lack of flash hiders are going to cut it as loopholes,likewise I don't see a sunset date.I could see them making a stink about registering all "assault weapons" but reality is there are far too many of them out there and it would be a boondoggle far greater than the Canadian gun registry.Not that liberals have much of a problem pissing good $ after bad to no good end.
In any case,guns have been fairly solid investment,not to say go deep in debt for them but you won't likely lose $ on anything.Even guns that one wouldn't have really considered as desirable or collectable have gained in value,such as Century FAL's and CETME's.Like the $99 FR-8's at Rose's,I wish I had bought a bundle of them when they were $300.Sheesh,look at the price of AR's: a local gunshop had a _Hesse_ XM177ish for $750 used and they'll easily get it.
I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but at this point in time I care more about the enviornment than gun laws. We are headed for some very serious enviornmental trouble in the very near future if republicans stay in office. Does that mean I would vote for Hillary Klinton? Good Lord no.
Officialy I don't support or condone breaking any law. But the thing is, the Soviot Union falling saw to it that there would be a substantial black market for generations to come. Not to mention all the smaller countries throughout Asia and Africa that supply the black market. Combine that with a less than canadian level of compliance that US citizens would give the government if draconian gun bans were established, and I'm not very worried.
Officialy I don't support or condone breaking any law. But the thing is, the Soviot Union falling saw to it that there would be a substantial black market for generations to come. Not to mention all the smaller countries throughout Asia and Africa that supply the black market. Combine that with a less than canadian level of compliance that US citizens would give the government if draconian gun bans were established, and I'm not very worried.
Since receivers are the licensed items, I'd stock up on a few AR15 receivers and a boatload of magazines. Nice thing about a modular system is that you can swap calibres pretty easily.
The main items of interest will probably be the "Hi cap clips" as they call them and folding stocks.
Picking up a FAL kit today and then getting a bunch of magazines next week. The AR side is covered for me
The main items of interest will probably be the "Hi cap clips" as they call them and folding stocks.
Picking up a FAL kit today and then getting a bunch of magazines next week. The AR side is covered for me
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked