I define an assault weapons ban as attempting to regulate firearms by banning certain 'features' or aesthetics on firearms.(e.g. flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc.)
I define an assault weapons ban as attempting to regulate firearms by banning certain 'features' or aesthetics on firearms.(e.g. flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc.)
So should the clinically insane have the right to own a gun or not? Don’t ignore that part lol
Hopefully the clinically insane would be in an institution...
How can somebody advocating for our gun rights be a prick?
This is a discussion, we need to have this conversation without calling names, and I'm not taking sides on this issue.
We ALL need to chill and think about what's best for the 2A.
These threads can become contentious, and I hope this one gets back to the discussion and not fall the OSA way.
Agreed but technically speaking and using strict interpretation they should still have the right to keep and bear arms we the second ammendmant doesn’t expressly forbid the insane, or prison inmates from keeping or bearing arms, right ?Hopefully the clinically insane would be in an institution...
I think people can disagree amicably. These internal squabbles amongst 2A supporters are inevitable and divide our community.
But we've got a lot more important issues than bumpfire stocks and when they come for an AWB again, which they inevitably will do, we have to be united.
you're not going to attract the broad coalition necessary to defend our rights by being an ideologue. you're only going to drive folks away.
So i'd say that sort of mindset harms the entire 2A community.
if you've got a point to make and an argument, then bring it forth and maybe you'll convince people to change their mind on the issue.
in my humble experience, name-calling just reinforces peoples' beliefs and makes them defensive and harms your cause.
In fact, even if someone who does not support the 2A came here, i'd still have a conversation with him and try to be amicable about it. He probably isn't going to change my mind, and i might not change his, but being a prick about it isn't going to help our cause.
The flintlock was an assault weapon in it's day. You know that don't you? It was a military weapon that all have evolved from to this day.
When the rifled barrels came about vs the smooth bores, the Britt's called that war crimes because they were "too accurate".
You see where I'm coming from?
Where do you call it an assault weapon? Your description is exactly what the leftist and gun grabbers hope the American public sees so they can remove "scary looking guns" from the market.
The 10-22 has the same action.....a self loading action since the 80's
Remington 742 Deer Gun has a self loading action since the 70's.
All have the capability of 100 round magazines.
You can modify a 10-22 to look as "scary" as an AR just by changing the stock. I have one. Does it change the operation of the gun, or does it just make it look "scary". Is "scary" more dangerous than a 10-22 off the shelf?
Well, when i say i don't support an 'assault weapons ban', how should i refer to it?
Scary weapons ban?
Okay, then. I don't support a liberal 'scary weapons ban'.
i'm just not sure what the point is you're trying to make. i agree with you.
We aren't dividing the community, but by being amicable, we are sharing ideas and educating those that don't agree with me 100%.
OK, that last statement was to put some humor into the discussion and not to make anybody mad. I do have a sense of humor far greater than most think. Chill all.
No, and you know better than that. No criminals ever incarcerated were provided weapons by their keepers, unless more criminal activity was involved.
When the constitution was written, common sense wasn't near so uncommon as it is today.
Similar threads
