Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What do you think?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Reddbecca, Apr 1, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Reddbecca

    Reddbecca Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    422
  2. cheygriz

    cheygriz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,245
    Location:
    High up in the Rockies
    Man if you're trying to apply logic to politicians, what kinda kool aid you drinking?????:evil:
     
  3. thedpp

    thedpp Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2007
    Messages:
    95
    They have no clue... its a fact no reason beating a dead horse :banghead:
    G Washington must be frowning right now on what the united states has become
     
  4. Mr White

    Mr White Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,207
    Location:
    Central PA
    Its "Root Canal", not "Route Canal".
     
  5. Archie

    Archie Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    1,978
    Location:
    Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
    Makes sense to me.
     
  6. wdlsguy

    wdlsguy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2004
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    TX
    I don't like this one, because it implies that terrorists are actually attempting to shoot down planes with .50 caliber rifles.
     
  7. Vairochana

    Vairochana Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    331
    Location:
    Brisneyland; Australia
    I like them- a bit wordy but then they have a lot to say:)
     
  8. NailGun

    NailGun Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Gone fishing....
    Reddbecca, I think the pics. are nice. I think the wording should be more subtle...delicate...balanced.

    It depends entirely on your intent. Is the purpose to persuade and win folks over, or shock value.

    While shock value is persuasive, it may not yield the result you desire.

    Nailgun.
     
  9. Reddbecca

    Reddbecca Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    It's a rough one, but I don't know how else to make it look like the politicians have their heads up their butts while they talk.

    The only other thing I could think of is "25 years after it was introduced, not one plane has been shot down yet."
     
  10. Jorg Nysgerrig

    Jorg Nysgerrig Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,823
    I'm still not clear on how HR 1022 would ban that revolver.

    The bill says, "A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General".

    It seems pretty clear to me that it is referring to "such a firearm" based on the design of a "semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use". Where does a revolver figure into that?
     
  11. KINGMAX

    KINGMAX Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    Messages:
    1,166
    Location:
    Central North Carolina
    I want one

    I want one pictired in post # 1
     
  12. ctdonath

    ctdonath Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,618
    Location:
    Cumming GA
    Maybe the revolver figures in because if "gun people" can't figure out what the bill bans, then a lot of good people are going to get hurt by a law no reasonable person can understand because ignorant bigots didn't understand what they were writing.
     
  13. Reddbecca

    Reddbecca Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    Going by the text of the legislation itself.

    "In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."

    The text is ambiguous enough that it could easily be used to ban single-action revolvers, because the military had them first in 1873. It makes no mention of the firearm needing to be from a certain era to be brought up for a vote of banning.

    All firearms technology we have today was first introduced for use in the military, and then adapted over for civilian and police use.
     
  14. Reddbecca

    Reddbecca Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    422
  15. Jorg Nysgerrig

    Jorg Nysgerrig Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,823
    I think you're misreading that section.

    But, to move on, where does this come from? "currently held models would be confiscated and destroyed"?

    This bill is bad enough without adding any extra "scare factor" to it.
     
  16. Reddbecca

    Reddbecca Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    Not my fault the section is overly vague and easily misconstrued.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

    The text of the "grandfather provision" suggests that NO previously owned firearms will be exempt from the ban. That would mean all currently held models would be confiscated. And since they're illegal under the law, they'd be destroyed.
     
  17. Jorg Nysgerrig

    Jorg Nysgerrig Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,823
    Perhaps not, but you certainly seem willing to base your pictures off of what you misconstrue. Here's how I read it:





    You may wish to read your own link.

    Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.

    That pretty clearly says that paragraph 1 (which says: It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.) will not apply to firearms that are own when it is enacted.

    I suppose that actually understanding what it says doesn't make for quite so dramatic statements.
     
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2009
  18. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,632
    Location:
    Calirado
    Ms. Feinstein, keep your damned finger off the damned trigger.

    OK?

    Thank you.
     
  19. clarkford

    clarkford Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Arizona
    i saw an anti-gun website that stated terrorists could shoot at planes with the .50. well no duh, but thanks for throwing that idea up in the air you liberal hypocrit punks.
     
  20. Colt46

    Colt46 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    862
    The over/under, Ruger bolt action section

    is brilliant. It brings the whole ludicrous aspect to .50 cals bringing down jetliners into sharp focus.
     
  21. jt1

    jt1 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,008
    Location:
    WA State
    HR 1022 - We may differ on the language, but not the intent. Let's all contact our elected representatives and make our voice heard outside this thread.
     
  22. Dr. Dickie

    Dr. Dickie Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,186
    Location:
    Jacksonville Beach, FL
    And the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY says that our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but once you get lawyers reading it all bets are off.
     
  23. Damien45

    Damien45 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    279
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of Monterey, CA
    I suggested a letter to each individual candidates coming up for election (or re-election) that clearly states my (our?) intent to vote on the issue. Not multiple, not party dedication, but rights issue. I fully intend to vote for the Presidential Candidate who will fight to protect, and restore our 2A rights. That includes Congress, HR, Senate, and local (Gov, District, ect.) electees in 2008.

    I say send it to all the candidates. Let's draft a letter that we can all use that states that intent clearly. Then see if any respond (maybe not with a letter back, but through campaigning).
     
  24. Reddbecca

    Reddbecca Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    422
    Exactly. My ads are operating under a worst case scenario, to get people motivated against it.

    The bill states that anything used by the military and police will be declared "non sporting" in nature and banned. It also states that a fiream won't be determined "sporting" in nature simply because its suitable for use in a sporting event. That means ANY gun can be declared "non sporting" and banned from civilian ownership.

    The language of the grandfather clause is highly dubious too. Don't think for a minute that it couldn't be read and construed to mean that "no semi-automatic firearms will be exempt from this bill".
     
  25. DF357

    DF357 Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    326
    Location:
    PR Mass
    I'll send my letters of to Kennedy and Kerry right away ! :banghead:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page