Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Stealhead]

An interesting fact that many people even pro gun rights folks tend to forget; Back in the day when the 2nd amendment was written a musket was the most powerful hand held firearm in the world.

In fact at that time most armed forces carried a smooth bore musket a civilian could likely carry a musket with a rifled barrel actually a more accurate firearm and therefore better than what the typical solider would be armed with.Though it is harder to ram a musket ball down a rifled barrel.Some from a rapidity of engagement stand point a civilian could be armed with the same weapon as a military force would have.

Needless to say the musket was the best firearm available equal to any firearm in military hands.This implies to me that they did intend for citizens to own a weapon viable for combat against an enemy armed with military grade weapons.Why would the right change over time? If they had wanted the right to be limited to a certain time span they would have worded it that way.

I other words when comparing the firearms technology at the time of the 1770s' and 1780s' and the technology today an AR-15 (or any other magazine fed select fire rifle) is on par with what a military armed force would be armed with at both dates in history the people according to the word could own the same small arm that a military force would be armed with.If a person is only allowed to own a substantially inferior firearm than what those who might attempt to oppress he or she according the the 2nd Amendment that is a violation of rights.The same would apply from a self defense stand point.

In the old day to make up for the single shot and slow reload nature of firearms one would carry more than one loaded firearm and they would also carry a knife and yet a hatchet like Rogers Rangers would do.

My last ditch weapon for late 18th century life would be an Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake in a sack toss that at an attacker and see what he makes of it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

No they aren't that discriminating Duc. After all these laws were written by people who know little or nothing about firearms and motivated by ignorance and fear.

I think you can say that concerning quite a few laws.

[August]

It should also be noted that when the 2A was written people had lot more than just rifles. They had cannon and carronades and swivel guns too. Civilian ships were often outfitted with dozens of them.

All those things, as well as automatic weapons and short barreled shotguns have already been surrendered in the name of compromise. Now the anti-gunners want another compromise, universal registration and semi-automatic bans.

If we let them get away with it next it'll be "high powered sniper rifles" and "easily concealed handguns" that we are asked to surrender in the name of compromise.

No compromise on civil liberties.

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I think you can say that concerning quite a few laws.

Yep.

[Ducimus]

What was that old say... oh yes. "Best to be thought of a fool then to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."

Rep. Diana DeGette has removed all doubt she is a fool.
Here's what she has to say about magazine bans.

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

What she didn’t appear to understand is that a magazine can be reloaded with more bullets. According to the Shooter’s Log, only early on were magazines for AR-15s designed to be disposable, but the military changed that and now magazines are used several times. In handguns, a magazine is designed to be reused hundreds of times.

Here's a link to the denver post if your interested.

As lead sponsor in House on gun legislation, Rep. Diana DeGette appears to not understand how they work

Apparently, intelligence, knowledge, and education aren't necessary requirements to be a legislator of law in our country.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Apparently, intelligence, knowledge, and education aren't necessary requirements to be a legislator of law in our country.

Or indeed, any country.

[Ducimus]

This really deserves its own thread.

President Obama visited Denver on April 3, 2013 to push his excessive gun legislation. Not one sheriff in the state of Colorado was included in the event. The sheriffs of Colorado representing 62 counties were kept out of the event because their legislative needs were not useful to the president. Obama's purposeful shunning of the state sheriffs could not silence them. Listen as Sheriff Shayne Heap from Elbert County Colorado responds to the president's comments

.

[Father Goose]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Apparently, intelligence, knowledge, and education aren't necessary requirements to be a legislator of law in our country.

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, Rep. Diana DeGette said:
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

OMG!
This woman is what needs to be banned.

[AVGWarhawk]

Rep. Diana DeGette
She is not the brightest crayon in the box.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Rep. Diana DeGette
She is not the brightest crayon in the box.

She should be removed from the crayon box. Hopefully next election she will be.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

She should be removed from the crayon box. Hopefully next election she will be.

I'm thinking the odds of that are pretty good. Look what happened to the anti-gun side the last time they pushed through such infringing legislation. The lost control of Congress. Pro-2A people have been lulled to sleep for the past 4 years but no more. I think our weight will definitely be felt in the next election.

[Feuer Frei!]

Following link outlines the majority of the new Connecticut Gun Law Package, ie Bill.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/BA/2013SB-01160-R00-BA.htm


If, or more than likely when this takes effect on July 1, 2013, it will make Connecticut one of the worst states in the nation.
There's a lot of gun-related companies there: Colt, Winchester, Marlin (which recently shut down after 141 years of operation in Connecticut), Mossberg, Sturm-Ruger, H&R, Stag Arms, A.H. Fox, US Fire Arms, Wildey, Shelton Ammunition, Okay Industries, Ronan/NHMTG, C-Products, Mec-Gar, G.T.B, amongst others.

Where will they go? Gun-friendly states like Texas or Arizona?

[Armistead]

I'm sure criminals will agree to abide by all the new laws and regulations.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I'm sure criminals will agree to abide by all the new laws and regulations.

Of course. Rules are made to be broken

Originally Posted by Feuer Frei!

Where will they go? Gun-friendly states like Texas or Arizona?

Isn't Texas the state that has some nut pushing a bill to remove people that don't enforce federal laws?