• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Fienstein to introduce Assault Weapon Ban

Re: Connecticut School shooting.

BryanForbes said:
oli700 said:
Rossignol said:
Oli, I agree with you, completely and in truthfulness have been selling firearms recently because, well, you can't eat a firearm and if the price is right, it makes ends meet.
Click to expand...
I hear you my brother, been there done that.....hell my wife just found another job thank god. I wasnt starving but I was selling things to get things.....dont forget that a good firearm can feed you in the right place.....dont need 20 but just one good one

Rossignol said:
I agree you don't need a .223. I'm just illustrating its usefullness and effectiveness in my situation as an argument that the rifle has no use outside of killing and murdering. Its been a good fit in our enviroment.
.
Click to expand...
And I agree with you 100% The rifle has a place in recreation and food gathering. I love an auto loading 223. Hardly anything offers such capability with such little trade off.


NEED is going to be such a key word in our future.....so many people in this country are soft. We don’t need so many things in life, just accustomed to having thing we want because in our society of working hard to get things we want is acceptable and fun and something to work towards.

Brother……step back for 2 seconds and look into how pathetic it is…..people literally going into debt for these rifles for no better reason then “because I might never get to buy one”. ….
Droves of people petrified to stand at the gun counter…..I have seen them.
Fish out of water, on the local news they were interviewing people at a LGS. The man they found was a normal looking guy holding an AR. “why are you here today?”…..”because I might not be able to buy one someday” as he holds up the rifle he points it down the aisle way, packed with people just like him, literally huddled up together with a lost look on their faces. The man grabbed the grip with his left hand , the forend with his right hand and brought the rifle up to his right shoulder and looked down the flat top with his left eye…probably didn’t know it didn’t have sights.
The camera panned at the counter at a line of about 25 background checks with ID and a credit card sitting on all of them….for no better reason then they might not get to buy one in their life. SO WHAT you never had one, never had an interest and didn’t care.
The gun store was literally packed with awesome firearms….30-30’s, any bolt action you want, ton of handguns, shotguns…..but people who never shot a bullet in their pathetic lives NEED an AR because they may never get the chance to buy one, they don’t deserve one IMHO I don’t care if they were born Americans or not. There is a difference in being an American And being born in America……sorry rambling now
Click to expand...

You're right on the money here. I have what I need to defend my family right now. I don't need any more, although I'd like more. An AR is on my list, but there are other things that come first (like bills, food, and diapers). On another note, because of this gun banning scare, we're going to have way more irresponsible gun owners out there who bought a weapon out of fear with no proper knowledge or respect for firearms. Hopefully this isn't the anti-gun agenda's plan: put weapons into untrained hands to increase the chance of deaths.

oli700 said:
BryanForbes said:
The "need" argument is bogus. Who gets to determine what I need? If someone else can determine that I don't "need" an AR-15, do I get to determine that they don't need a smartphone, cable, satellite, kids, French tipped nails, Botox, gold teeth, booze, cigarettes, an SUV, a $300,000 house, or any number of other things? The only person who determines my family's and my needs is me and my God. End of story.
Click to expand...
I understand where you are coming from and agree but I also know you don’t need an AR 15 to kill a chicken.
Technicalities are fun on the internet and in arguing point with your friends but when it comes to laws and big government you will not need an AR to kill a chicken …….you don’t need to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle, but you do because the government tells you too. You don’t need to wear a seat belt to drive a car but you do because the government tells you need to do it.



and your right, no one needs cigs,booze,tatoos,300,000 hoses or even cars for that matter. There are very few things one needs if you want to split hairs
Click to expand...

I completely understand what you're saying here. And given what you said above, you're right: an AR is not really a "need" for most people when a .30-30 or another gun would do. When Rossignol brought up using an AR for a varmint gun, I immediately thought that a .17 would be much cheaper and probably better suited (since it was, as I've been told, as a varmint gun) in most cases. However, who am I to determine someone else's need? ;) Living in a free society (and as a Libertarian), I can't make those decisions for someone else (except my wife and kids).

Also, even with laws, I don't "need" to wear a helmet or seatbelt; I am coerced by force of law to do so. I think that's what you're getting at, but I'm just making sure we're on the same page. Plus, I like splitting hair and arguing semantics. Just ask my wife! :)
Click to expand...

We’re on the same page. Need is so subjective, need and happiness go hand and hand. Is there a need for happiness?
Or is there only need to exist ?
A human would need very very little to exist.......a human might need a whole lot more to exist happily, depending on the human.......it can go on and on. It’s what makes humans so unique ....the need for happiness and the need to have a problem to solve, always stickn’ our nose where it don’t belong.
So many times I thought I needed something only to find out I when I couldn’t have it or get it I didn’t need it so bad after all
But I am a problem solver by nature, I like to solve problems that people throw their hand up at…….dare I say I like a little chaos……it’s the spice of life to overcome adversity……just who I am. I don’t like this entire deal man, but I embrace the adversity it brings.
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

oli700 said:
We’re on the same page. Need is so subjective, need and happiness go hand and hand. Is there a need for happiness?
Or is there only need to exist ?
A human would need very very little to exist.......a human might need a whole lot more to exist happily, depending on the human.......it can go on and on. It’s what makes humans so unique ....the need for happiness and the need to have a problem to solve, always stickn’ our nose where it don’t belong.
So many times I thought I needed something only to find out I when I couldn’t have it or get it I didn’t need it so bad after all
But I am a problem solver by nature, I like to solve problems that people throw their hand up at…….dare I say I like a little chaos……it’s the spice of life to overcome adversity……just who I am. I don’t like this entire deal man, but I embrace the adversity it brings.
Click to expand...

I, too, am a problem solver. It's why I got into software: I like a challenge. Chaos isn't a bad thing; in fact, it can be quite lucrative!
 
I think it was BryanForbes who posted the link from the lefty guy who is also a firearms enthusiast. In the link was a video, an interview with Sen. McCarthy who wanted to include "barrel shrouds" in things which should be banned. When asked what a barrel shroud is, she said "its the shoulder thing that goes up". No clue what's even bein proposed.

Sorry if that's been talked about here already, its hard to keep up from my phone.
 
John A. said:
I guess I shouldn't be taking this too lightly because it is a serious matter. I am really concerned of what they're concocting.
Click to expand...

No one said anyone was taking it lightly, I know better than that from either of us ......better to laugh then cry bro. We'll take it standing up either way and I would rather show them a smile and not giving them the satisfaction of a frown
 
Istricmo, I think they've released another since the one you linked. Though neither never made it out of committee, but I think they'll try to add as much of what you have linked as they can.

And then some.
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Raven weren't we just talkin, you said tbhat guy at work approached you and mentioned he had a friend who would pay handsomely for your rifle. I thought you already sold it? ;)
Click to expand...

LOL. Definately not. My 930 is part of the family. And I don't really believe that it would make a list of assault weapons because the idiots drafting the proposed new laws don't have a clue what an assault weapon is. (which is the part that scares me) Hell, I'm sure many gun owners couldn't really define it. It's certainly not as simple as saying any semi-auto because that would probably make up about 75% of the guns sold today. Large clips? Even in California, 10 rounds is allowed. We all know how long it takes to change a clip or magazine. So even though we know it's all bogus, the fact that they could get it wrong to the extreme and actually pass some of it is enough for me to worry about.

Paul
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Right on raven. scares the hell outta me too. It's not like politicians have very good track records concerning laws that are beneficial. It's like the blind leading the blind up there.
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

And I don't really believe that it would make a list of assault weapons
Click to expand...
You should be ok based on the capacity.

This is from Feinsteins website:
A summary of key provisions in the updated bill:
Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of more than 100 specifically-named firearms as well as certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Stops the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines, strips and drums) capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by: grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
exempting more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes; and
exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

It looks like her big thing is still semi auto operation, 10+ round capacity and box magazines.

This line bothers me the most: Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by: grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment; By saying it protects the rights of existing gun owners she freely is admitting that it denies the rights of potential future gun owners. She is also trying to get hunters to separate themselves from other gun owners.
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

It is also saying some arms can't be legitimately used for hunting or sporting purposes and that's bogus as well as bein none of their damn business.

Heck, for the record I've shot birds with a 9 round 590A1 which would be banned based on the wording of the proposal back in 07.
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

All the talk of "hunter's rights" is freakin driving me nuts. Here's an interesting read on the definition of the rights protected under the 2A as supported by judicial precedent set by the US Supreme Court...

Cornell University Law School: Second Amendment

An excerpt from the United States vs. Miller...

The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Click to expand...

...these days it doesn't get much more common than the AR-15...

Here's a dive into the rights of individuals, again supported by legal precedent set by the US Supreme Court...

It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.
Click to expand...

Not once in the Cornell Law School's entire in-depth legal analysis of the 2A does the subject of hunters or hunting come up. This is something the media keeps throwing in the mix to make uninformed citizens think that hunters are the only ones who have a legal right to keep and bear arms...
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

I did a quick google for the right to hunt in the constitution and bill of rights.

Sorry,

Didn't get any results.

What they're trying to do is throw in a screwed up wording in the 1968 gun act that basically says the attorney general has the responsibility to enact laws based on SPORTING PURPOSES, which honestly should be a clear infringement to the 2A in and of itself.

Just look at what they were trying to do to shotguns a year or so ago banning certain shotguns from importation based on nothing more than their personal interpretation of Sporting and Non-Sporting.

There's not even a clear legal definition of what that even means.
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Some people can’t eat any other way. There are clauses for cooking fires in fire season because some folks need to make a fire to cook, and people need to eat wether camp fires are leagal or not at the time, if they let the fire get away they are responsible……there might be something said for folks that can’t eat any other way….and for you city slickers there are lots
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

Not arguing or making light of that at all oli,

Only pointing out the fallacy of making 2A disussion about hunters when there is no mention of hunters or hunting outlined or implied within the text itself...
 
Re: Connecticut School shooting.

LAZY EYED SNIPER said:
Not arguing or making light of that at all oli,

Only pointing out the fallacy of making 2A disussion about hunters when there is no mention of hunters or hunting outlined or implied within the text itself...
Click to expand...


oh I know man, I took it just as you meant it
 
There is some BULL SH*T stuff in this.. Shotguns with revolving cylinders or more than 5 round capacity?!?!

Does this rule count for the Rossi Circuit Judge?
What about magazine extensions? 8rnd 590's?
Shotty Mags aren't removable they are stuck on there... I am more deeply troubled than before
 
Itsricmo said:
Shotguns with revolving cylinders
Click to expand...

Last time around this particular bit was aimed at the Armsel Striker, better known as the street sweeper...



This was another case of a "hollywood bad guy" weapon being banned that was so scarcely distributed in the US it was silly. That being said, it could very well be made to include the Rossi Circuit Judge now.

Itsricmo said:
What about magazine extensions? 8rnd 590's?
Shotty Mags aren't removable they are stuck on there... I am more deeply troubled than before
Click to expand...

If you own it already you should be good, but this will definitelty effect what we might be able to buy in the future...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top