AW thought; barring people from modern technology is good.

[aileron]

Okay everyone, I was thinking about all the cool weapons out there and how so many are not allowed to us Californians in all their glory, and then I had a mini epiphany. Really it was small. More like a boil down.

Isn't the assault weapons bans really just an assault by anti-gunners to ban "modern weapons?"

Think of this.... The pistol grip really is a logical improvement of bringing down the neck of the stock to a more comfortable shooting angle. They (Anti's) have basically coined a term that really is blaming the progressive improvement of firearm ergonomics and functioning.

If their logic was applied to cars we would all be stuck with a 57 chevy or there abouts, with no electronic fuel injection, no overhead cams, no electronic ignition, no engine control units. In fact they would say that mechanical fuel injection would require the proper taxes paid to the federal government before you could use one, and you could only use one on certain roads.

So really, they have infringed on our right to modern firearms by barring us access to the latest technology in firearms.

They have not banned assault weapons just coined a term frightening the uninformed about modern weapons to keep access to them forever barred from this day forward.

Maybe I have read this before somewhere and am now just regurgitating it. But it hit me and I wanted to get it out there. Someone with a sounder mind might be able to run with it and create a nice little article.

[VeryCoolCat]

Well an anti would argue that a pistol grip would let you continuously fire without reloading

Though true gun owners won't go postal, there are the few non-gun owners that do and although I believe something could be done about this. Full on gun bans won't work. If you ban guns, they'll use other guns, if you ban those guns, they'll illegally import guns and ammo.

We obviously can't stop the influx of hardcore drugs like extasy, coke, and many items. Throwing in a stack of fully automatic ak47s into that pile wouldn't be too hard and boom... new market.

We tried to ban alcohol, didn't work and that created the mafia.

If theres a need, theres a way, and though many countries do have guns it has less to do about the per capita of guns available but the criminal enterprises need for it. If theres a market for it, theres someone who will profit from it.

[dixieD]

Isn't the assault weapons bans really just an assault by anti-gunners to ban "modern weapons?"

It's a lot worse than that. In this month's America's Freedom there is an article about the "Panic over the "Black Powder Gun Loophole"" There have been repeated attempts to classify antiques and muzzleloaders as modern weapons. They are after any and all firearms.

[troyus]

It's a lot worse than that. In this month's America's Freedom there is an article about the "Panic over the "Black Powder Gun Loophole"" There have been repeated attempts to classify antiques and muzzleloaders as modern weapons. They are after any and all firearms.

I don't get it what are they worried about drive by musketing?

Does anyone else think that if the government would open it's eyes up and LEGALIZE and REGULATE drugs and prostitution, just like alcohol, you wouldn't have all these big gang problems? That's where the money comes from and the fighting is over. It's just like prohibition in the 30's.

[rue]

LMAO @ "I don't get it what are they worried about drive by musketing?"

Anyone using a musket to commit a crime is likely to blow his own head off cause he overloaded it is my first thought.

[tyrist]

Then they will have to ban bags that carry more than 10 musket balls

[tophatjones]

Isn't the assault weapons bans really just an assault by anti-gunners to ban "modern weapons?"

Yes. The true nature of gun control is the thought that citizens should not have the right to firearms, and only qualified individuals, such as military and le, are competent enough, properly trained enough, and have the sole need for them. At the heart of their thought is that we are interpreting the 2nd amendment either incorrectly or applying an out of date mind thought with modern weapons.

Modern weapons present both the greatest threat to them (widespread accessibility to us and top of the line technology) and the seemingly easiest fodder for their argument. They can say that a hunter doesn't need an ar15, etc. When we get right down to it, past the propaganda, past the secret personal campaign motives, we are looking at the right to bear and keep arms; like we've always been looking. We are trying to interpret and apply our constitution to our ever growing and evolving society, and the government that we create (afterall, our govt is "for the people"). I hope for the sake of this country that we still have rational and just people willing to fight for their rights.

[milsurpshooter]

hunter may not need an ar-15 but what about a 308 ar-10. with all the setups today you could bag a deer with one.

[tophatjones]

hunter may not need an ar-15 but what about a 308 ar-10. with all the setups today you could bag a deer with one.

I'm with you. The mindset I was outlining in my previous post was that of someone pro gun control, not of mine.

[milsurpshooter]

no i know i was just saying that their argument for hunters not having these guns is crap. and besides if you were anti-gun you would been tared and feathered and run off this site

[dixieD]

I don't get it what are they worried about drive by musketing?

Does anyone else think that if the government would open it's eyes up and LEGALIZE and REGULATE drugs and prostitution, just like alcohol, you wouldn't have all these big gang problems? That's where the money comes from and the fighting is over. It's just like prohibition in the 30's.

They're 50+ cal and can shoot down planes or so goes the crazy argument. Its not about gun control it is people control.

[TheMan]

no i know i was just saying that their argument for hunters not having these guns is crap. and besides if you were anti-gun you would been tared and feathered and run off this site

No, we wouldn't do that to an anti gunner. We'd be nice, debate things rationally, listen to them, and convince them to come out to the range to actually learn about and shoot some of the guns they feel need to be banned.

Then when we got them to the range, we'd tar and feather them

[Fjold]

LMAO @ "I don't get it what are they worried about drive by musketing?"

Anyone using a musket to commit a crime is likely to blow his own head off cause he overloaded it is my first thought.

What goes: clop, clop, clop, clop, clop, clop, Bang! clop, clop, clop, clop, clop, clop, clop?

















An Amish drive by

[troyus]

hahahahaha

[BobD]

It's a lot worse than that. In this month's America's Freedom there is an article about the "Panic over the "Black Powder Gun Loophole"" There have been repeated attempts to classify antiques and muzzleloaders as modern weapons. They are after any and all firearms.

And ,the anti-gunners also rant about "the newspaper loophole"

http://www.gunloophole.com/