heard obama is gonna reinact clintons gun bann?

bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2831813
False.
I own a .22 cal rimfire pistol that I am not able to posess here in Ca because of it's assault weapon classifiation.
It is in storge in Missouri with a couple of my rifles that I was not allowed to bring with me when I moved to Ca.
The factory original design by Walther (out of the box configuration) fits California's description of an assault weapon. You guys need to quit kiding yourselves. This is a GUN ban, not a feature ban. Evil features are just the tool used by liberals to ban the weapon and people found a way around it by reconfiguring an existing weapon. I.E. start building AR15 barrels that are not threaded, permanently affixing magazines that hold no more than 10 rounds, lock the collapsible stock and so on. The weapon as it came from the factory in 1993 was illegal to sell in 1994. Effictively the weapon was banned. Features of the weapon were changed for 1994 models so manufacturers could still sell them.
California bans some weapons by make and model, thus banning the weapon regardless of configuration.
I'll post the list of firearms banned by make and model. Features were not banned, guns were.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf
If anyone thinks that the next AW ban will be as mild as the first needs to wake up and smell the BACON. (CFR, that one's for you)

People in Cali always thought back
wards. Just look how they voted down the Prop 8 bill. You actually mean Governor 'The Predator' Arnuld would allow a .22 rimfire pistol designated as an assault weapon?
Must not want the East LAer's to shoot one another in the foot. If they outlaw that, then they must outlaw any weapon that has a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Sucks to be you. Surprised the NRA hasn't squashed that little law. Guess the big question is why you couldn't bring them with you from Missouri. Last time I looked, there wasn't a Border Patrol on the eastern California border.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831820
People in Cali always thought backwards. Just look how they voted down the Prop 8 bill. You actually mean Governor 'The Predator' Arnuld would allow a .22 rimfire pistol designated as an assault weapon?
Must not want the East LAer's to shoot one another in the foot. If they outlaw that, then they must outlaw any weapon that has a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. Sucks to be you. Surprised the NRA hasn't squashed that little law. Guess the big question is why you couldn't bring them with you from Missouri. Last time I looked, there wasn't a Border Patrol on the eastern California border.
Where do you guys think the Feds are going to look for the framework concerning the new ban?
A previous ban that was allowed to lapse, or an existing ban that has been in effect for 20 YEARS. Schwartzy had nothing to do with it. Kasler v Lockyer helped gun owners by limiting the law so to speak.
All the Mfgs had to do as change the make and model name to be legal.
The GUNS that were banned by name are still illegal to own, posess, buy, sell, etc. unless grandfathered under the original law, but an identical weapon with a different name is OK. The banned weapons that are registered are not transferrable. When you die the weapon will be surrendered to authorities, as will any magazines that are capable of holding moe than 10 rounds.
The gov't. has programmed us to think that 10 rds is standard capacity. People that purchased these rifles 20 years ago remember tha they once came from the factory with magazines that held more than 10 rounds. We are losing this battle for the 2nd amendment an inch at a time, not all at once. That makes it easier to swallow when they finally get down to the collection part of the plan.
I am SO glad the supreme court finally made a ruling supporting the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
BTW, who is telling you that prop 8 failed?
And, felony posession of a banned, unregistered AW in Ca gets you a trip to jail with no questions asked.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The English is plain and simple, i don't know how else the wording can be interpreted."shall not be infringed."PERIOD
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2831839
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The English is plain and simple, i don't know how else the wording can be interpreted."shall not be infringed."PERIOD
If Obama gets his "civilian milita" do you think he will not try to overturn the supreme court decision that determined it to be an individual right?
His "civilian milita" would fit the description, thus trumping the individual's right.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2831841
If Obama gets his "civilian milita" do you think he will not try to overturn the supreme court decision that determined it to be an individual right?
His "civilian milita" would fit the description, thus trumping the individual's right.
I guess it would be up to the citizens of every state to form another militia with a $5 membership fee
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831742
Must be eating all that garbage coming from NYC...
That's uncalled for. Nothing around here is from NYC.
Yea, I heard you people up north like to stalk deer. Sneak up on them and blow their guts out with a shotgun. We make it easy. We just feed them deer corn for a couple of months, setup a blind 100 yards away, and pick them off when they come to eat every morning.
Baiting deer is against the law here. Probably a law passed by NYC people.
I've taken a 250 lb. mule deer down with my AR-15 (.223). Guess if you know where to shoot them, it doesn't take major power to bring them down.

Hunting big game with an AR-15 isn't legal here either. The choices are a bow, a shotgun (using slugs), or black powder/muzzleloader.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2831855
Not to mention, the fact that it's just plain bad form. Bad form Captain Hook, bad form.
We're just lazy here in Texas. However, I never bait for the mule deer. I go out close to Big Bend National Park, and we essentially track using prints and droppings.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831584
I personally don't understand some of you're logic. The issue is about banning guns that are considered 'assault rifles'. Not handguns, not shotguns, not sports rifles. You're concerned about not being able to keep a .50 caliber? What do you need a cannon like that for?
You think it's fun to put a hole the size of coffee can into a 75 pound whitetail deer? A .50caliber is bigger than an elephant gun. Sorry, that's not a sporting rifle. The only use for a .50 caliber is massive firing power to kill multiple targets. And you'd actually use this thing for home protection?
Yea, that's something I'd have sitting next to my bed. Let me fire off a round or two at a would be burglar. Only problem is you'd put a hole big enough to drive your car through in the side of your house,... and your neighbors house. "Oh sorry about blowing your arm off Fred. I was just trying to make sure the guy breaking into my house wasn't going to get away. Made sure he didn't. Blew his leg clean off."
Gun fanatics kill me. I'm all for home protection. I have the right guns to make sure if someone broke in, it would have enough killing power to put them down, but not enough to do major damage to my own property, or worse yet, my neighbor's property. There is absolutely no logic in having a 50-round AK47 for the sole purpose of saying you need it to protect your property. Yea, if someone broke in, you'd have plenty of ammo to kill the guy. But you'd most likely inflict more damage, and possibly injure more than just the burglar in the process.
most muzzle loaders are that big. And basically every shot gun.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Why do I need an AK 47? Because I want one
More people are killed a year in water than by assault riffles. Shouldn't we ban swimming pools?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2832059
Why do I need an AK 47? Because I want one
More people are killed a year in water than by assault riffles. Shouldn't we ban swimming pools?
Why do I need a nuclear bomb? Because I want one. More people have been killed in swimming pools since the last nuclear bomb went off. How about grenades, dynamite, plastic explosives? I have a site where I can buy a silencer for my 9mm. Why not? LOCK AND LOAD BABY. Shoot, let the kids take them to school. They want guns for protection. Why not?
 
sharkbait9

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2832076
Why do I need a nuclear bomb? Because I want one. More people have been killed in swimming pools since the last nuclear bomb went off. How about grenades, dynamite, plastic explosives? I have a site where I can buy a silencer for my 9mm. Why not? LOCK AND LOAD BABY. Shoot, let the kids take them to school. They want guns for protection. Why not?
for a person who claims to owns weapons you sure don't act like you mind the goverment coming in and just taking your right away to own them.
Oh and can you pm that web site to get a nuclear bomb that would be so cool to have sitting in my garage.

and as to a silencer lol
stick around the weapons community long enough you won't need to buy one, you can make one real easy.
but im sure you knew that
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by sharkbait9
http:///forum/post/2832190
for a person who claims to owns weapons you sure don't act like you mind the goverment coming in and just taking your right away to own them.
Oh and can you pm that web site to get a nuclear bomb that would be so cool to have sitting in my garage.

and as to a silencer lol
stick around the weapons community long enough you won't need to buy one, you can make one real easy.
but im sure you knew that

No, I just don't get sucked into the Republican mantra of being paranoid that the Federal Government is going to take your precious guns away. I've seen 5 Presidents's spout the 'ban assault rifle' junk, and none of them got anywhere with it. I still have my AR-15, and most likely will when I kick off.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by sharkbait9
http:///forum/post/2832190
for a person who claims to owns weapons you sure don't act like you mind the goverment coming in and just taking your right away to own them.
Oh and can you pm that web site to get a nuclear bomb that would be so cool to have sitting in my garage.

and as to a silencer lol
stick around the weapons community long enough you won't need to buy one, you can make one real easy.
but im sure you knew that

troll is probably a more accurate definition.
 
sangria

sangria

Member
Originally Posted by MiaHeatLvr
http:///forum/post/2830719
I am all for the right to bear arms,, BUT WHY somebody would want or need a AK 47 or M16 not even for hunting or sport does not make any sense to me.

HA HA!! I love it! There is a Family Guy episode where they are writing the Bill of Rights and they are on the Second Amendment and one of them says "Everyone has a right to own a pair of bear arms. How could that be missunderstood?"
 
tang master

tang master

Member
I fell upon this thread and got a bit of a laugh. Everyone who voted for barack was blind to the fact that his "Change" included an eventual ban of all guns within city limits. Here is what I think about it, I go hunting with an Ak-47 sometimes and then other times I go with my 12-gauge remington, either or, the 2nd amendment gives me the right to own them and the only way the government will get them from me is by my cold dead hands. I have a 10-gauge gas powered shotgun I keep for my protection and some may say, "why would you need that powerful of a gun"; my answer is, "I don't, but I have the right to". So stock up and have fun! A revolution is coming!!!
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Tang Master
http:///forum/post/2832416
I fell upon this thread and got a bit of a laugh. Everyone who voted for barack was blind to the fact that his "Change" included an eventual ban of all guns within city limits. Here is what I think about it, I go hunting with an Ak-47 sometimes and then other times I go with my 12-gauge remington, either or, the 2nd amendment gives me the right to own them and the only way the government will get them from me is by my cold dead hands. I have a 10-gauge gas powered shotgun I keep for my protection and some may say, "why would you need that powerful of a gun"; my answer is, "I don't, but I have the right to". So stock up and have fun! A revolution is coming!!!
Yea, and he's also taking your second born and putting him/her to work in the new Socialist-run auto factory he's about to buy, taking 35% of your salary because you voted for McCain, and making you go to the newly formed National Hospital Of The Americas to get your healthcare needs taken care of...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top