Slippery Slope of Banning Military Style Guns

Printable View

12-23-2012, 10:13
Colorado Osprey

Slippery Slope of Banning Military Style Guns

Got into a discussion with people talking about the probable new weapons ban.

There has been a lot of speculation that Military Style weapons will be ones the gun banners are after.

This is a very slippery slope as most firearm developments have been in military arms and therefore military style arms.
Right now there has been a lot of focus on semi auto rifles. But in a wording of a new weapon ban if the loose term military style is used this could also include thing like:

1911- designed to be used by the Calvary
Beretta 92F- used by our own military as the M9
M1 Carbines
M1A
M14

Many can see how these might be included.. but lets see how this gets slippery fast.

Remington 870- again used my out military
Mossberg 500's- again used my our military

Or how about stretching the military style a step further.

The Mauser bolt action is the most copied bolt action design.
This could lead to banning almost all bolt action rifles.

A little further- anything with a rifled barrel... heck even smooth bores and muskets... pretty much anything that goes bang.

These concessions to our firearm rights are going to happen because "if we can save just one child," people are willing to give up their rights.
I see this getting much worse and firearm ownership becoming a taxed privilege instead of a right.
12-23-2012, 10:36
Bailey Guns

More simply put, basically every firearm ever designed is based in principle on the operation of a firearm originally designed for military use. The entire argument is absurd and shows the ignorance of most in the government and media on the subject of guns.
12-23-2012, 10:42
Great-Kazoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colorado Osprey

Got into a discussion with people talking about the probable new weapons ban.

There has been a lot of speculation that Military Style weapons will be ones the gun banners are after.

This is a very slippery slope as most firearm developments have been in military arms and therefore military style arms.
Right now there has been a lot of focus on semi auto rifles. But in a wording of a new weapon ban if the loose term military style is used this could also include thing like:

1911- designed to be used by the Calvary
Beretta 92F- used by our own military as the M9
M1 Carbines
M1A
M14
Side, under or collapsible stocks, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, are all included in the 94 crime Bill. A ruger 10/22 or Mini (14/30) with p/grip, flash hider, folding stock and or more than 10 rd mag was banned. Once again COSMETICS. You could not buy a folding stock of any kind that actually folded/

Many can see how these might be included.. but lets see how this gets slippery fast.

Remington 870- again used my out military
Mossberg 500's- again used my our military More than 3-5 rds unless it had a p/grip stock

Or how about stretching the military style a step further.

The Mauser bolt action is the most copied bolt action design.
This could lead to banning almost all bolt action rifles.

A little further- anything with a rifled barrel... heck even smooth bores and muskets... pretty much anything that goes bang.

These concessions to our firearm rights are going to happen because "if we can save just one child," people are willing to give up their rights.
I see this getting much worse and firearm ownership becoming a taxed privilege instead of a right.

Speculation?????? granted you put his topic up for "discussion" However there has never been a time since the mid 80's the anti gun mind set hasn't been in favor of removing not only military (COSMETIC) looking guns but every and any they can get public opinion AND legislatures to support.

With all due respect to you the OP and other board members (who were either to young or not born) READ the 94 Crime Bill READ the descriptions / designation of what they considered a BANNED / Restricted firearm.
For handguns ANY MAGAZINE THAT HAD THE CAPACITY TO HOLD MORE THEN 10 ROUNDS AND OR PROTRUDE PAST THE HAND GRIP. THIS SHIT HAPPENED, IT IS GOING TO BE MUCH WORSE THIS FINAL TIME AROUND, MUCH WORSE.
TODAY THE 2ND, TOMORROW THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION
12-23-2012, 11:27
Byte Stryke

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim

TODAY THE 2ND, TOMORROW THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION

Just go ask an Indian or Chinese journalist about freedom of speech/the press and right to assemble
12-23-2012, 11:39
BushMasterBoy

I'm military and I am just going to keep mine. What did Nikita Khrushchev say? "We will bury you".

Now if they want to draft me to the "National Security School Guard Corp". I will gladly volunteer.

If the .gov thinks they can delete the Second Amendment, then let the political war begin...
12-23-2012, 11:54
Skully

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

................

If the .gov thinks they can delete the Second Amendment, then let the political war begin...

POLITICAL war?

[Coffee]
12-23-2012, 12:16
Great-Kazoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

I'm military and I am just going to keep mine. What did Nikita Khrushchev say? "We will bury you".

Now if they want to draft me to the "National Security School Guard Corp". I will gladly volunteer.

If the .gov thinks they can delete the Second Amendment, then let the political war begin...

You are a Citizen of the United States of AMERICA, First and Foremost. You took an oath upon entering the .mil to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AND the President. How you choose to prioritize those oaths is up to you.
12-23-2012, 12:48
skortch

How could a new ban pass the Republican-controlled House? In '94 the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of congress - not the case today.
12-23-2012, 13:00
Great-Kazoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by skortch

How could a new ban pass the Republican-controlled House? In '94 the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of congress - not the case today.

Easy PUBLIC OPINION.
do your homework regarding the 9/94 bill. look at the votes, then rephrase your question.
12-23-2012, 13:53
ChunkyMonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by skortch

How could a new ban pass the Republican-controlled House? In '94 the Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of congress - not the case today.

In 2008, few republicans were trying to pass a new AWB without one Democrat co sponsor... Welcome to AmeriKa

Ref: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hr6257
12-23-2012, 14:27
skortch

I've already looked at the votes. Roughly 75% of the Democrats voted for the ban and roughly 75% of Republicans voted against it.

Public support for a ban was higher at the time than it is now. There has been a shift to more support after Sandy Hook but not to the level seen after the Virginia Tech shooting.
12-23-2012, 15:01
BushMasterBoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skully

POLITICAL war?

Yes, thats where you give speeches and campaign...and then you eff the other guy up!
12-23-2012, 19:38
Great-Kazoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by skortch

I've already looked at the votes. Roughly 75% of the Democrats voted for the ban and roughly 75% of Republicans voted against it.

Public support for a ban was higher at the time than it is now. There has been a shift of more MEDIA BIAS after Sandy Hook BEYOND the level seen after the Virginia Tech shooting.

FIFY
12-23-2012, 19:40
alxone

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim

FIFY

what the hell does "fify" mean ?
12-23-2012, 21:28
jerrymrc

Quote:

Originally Posted by alxone

what the hell does "fify" mean ?

Fixed it for ya.

When your kids start to grow up send them over to Uncle Jerry and Linette's place and we can teach them to program the VCR.[LOL][dig][Flower]
12-23-2012, 21:43
alxone

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerrymrc

Fixed it for ya.

When your kids start to grow up send them over to Uncle Jerry and Linette's place and we can teach them to program the VCR.[LOL][dig][Flower]

is that the new gizmo that is supposed to replace my super8 ?
12-23-2012, 21:44
alxone

oh and thanks , i dont speak in text [Coffee]
12-23-2012, 21:55
jerrymrc

Quote:

Originally Posted by alxone

oh and thanks , i dont speak in text [Coffee]

I don't as well. Matter of fact I have never sent one but I do speak Internet and acronyms. And i do have a dual 8/super 8 projector if ya need it. [werdo][Beer]
12-23-2012, 21:59
alxone

Quote:

Originally Posted by jerrymrc

I don't as well. Matter of fact I have never sent one but I do speak Internet and acronyms. And i do have a dual 8/super 8 projector if ya need it. [werdo][Beer]

[Beer]
12-23-2012, 22:00
spqrzilla

If we work hard, and all get on our representatives hard core, it is possible that we could turn this around. If we turn it around, we can turn it into the complete defeat of the Brady Campaign/VPC.

But it will take very hard work. And a better turnout that we delivered for Romney, that's damn sure.
12-23-2012, 22:10
Great-Kazoo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spqrzilla

If we work hard, and all get on our representatives hard core, it is possible that we could turn this around. If we turn it around, we can turn it into the complete defeat of the Brady Campaign/VPC.

But it will take very hard work. And a better turnout that we delivered for Romney, that's damn sure.

AND Willing to Donate Time & MONEY.