> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 19:29:21 -0500, "Scout" wrote:
>>Objection: That sale may not have occurred if the information was entered
>>it should have been. But the assertion that he would not have obtained
>>another gun by illegal means, or simply changed to another means of mayhem
>>is an unfounded assertion.
> I see your point. However, the only remedy I've heard from the left so
> far is we need background checks. The few that understand we DO have
> them call for stricter reporting of more things.
Yea, they call for background checks, because they feel, as you implied,
that if ONLY we can keep them from buying a gun....then they can't possibly
do any harm.
The truth is that background checks are largely worthless, do nothing about
the criminal black market, or address all the other means of mayhem that
readily exist. For example, this man apparently put a lot of time and effort
into his assault.
Now consider, he was a licensed pilot, with a lot of wealth. As such he
could easily have rented a twin engine loaded it up with an explosive
incendiary set to go off on impact, and then crashed into the crowd on a
fast low angle approach.....
Now tell me again, how keeping him from getting a gun, even if successful,
would have ended the danger?
> That does zero to prevent a criminal getting a gun. Report the guy got
> a $3 parking ticket at an overdue meter in 1952 because he got back
> two minutes too late and it still does zero.
> The other call from the left this past week have been we need to
> outlaw assault weapons. Please consult any dictionary. They aren't
> banned but getting one is long and costly and the damn thing has to be
> 50 years old.
Actually you're thinking of assault rifles. Assault weapons is a purely
fabricated term made up for the express purpose of confusing people by
getting them to think machine guns rather than ordinary semi-automatics. The
first defining characteristic of ANY assault weapon in any legislation
proposed or enacted is that it's a semi-automatic.....
What they can't explain is how an AR15, an assault weapon, is so much more
dangerous than a Mini14, ordinary sporting rifle.....
The answer, is they aren't concerned about function, but purely a matter of
In the federal AWB, the liberals got all upset when 'manufacturers changed
the names (from those that were banned by name) and the cosmetic features so
that they were no longer assault weapons under the law. They claimed that
the gun manufacturers were avoiding the intent of the law........which
wasn't to ban guns with such features, but to ban a lot of semi-automatics
that looked dangerous.
They still looked dangerous just not in the manner that they claim made them
so dangerous to have.
Be that as it may, ANY semi-automatic could have been made to function in
that manner, and it wouldn't have mattered if the stock was wooden, or
dangerous evil black plastic.
>Now guns that "look" like military rifles for marketing
> purposes is another story but I honestly believe most of the yammering
> left actually thinks what they are saying is strictly accurate.
Some are made that way just to have the appearance, but again, does how
something look make it dangerous?
For the rest, there is a reason that military rifles have such features, and
civilian shooters have discovered the benefits as well.
Standardized modular mounting and ready conversion to different cartridges
without having the expense of a whole new rifle, With a modest investment
you can buy one single lower, and adapt that readily in a short period of
time from a plinking rifle, to a varmint rifle, to a tack driving
competition rifle, to something you can take hunting........
Indeed the AR platform is the most popular civil shooting platform in
history and for the very reasons of it's adaptability and convertibility.
Features in demand not just in the military.
> Hell, my Ruger 10-22 might be illegal in California because of the
Yep and that's the WONDERFUL part of the assault weapons definition...you
can make a gun into an evil dangerous assault weapon simply by changing the
stock....or change that evil dangerous assault weapon into an acceptable
hunting rifle by another stock change.
Functionally, they are absolutely identical, but the shape of a hunk of
plastic or wood apparently has the ability to transform the rifle from the
benign to utter evil and back again in a matter of moments.
> I guess I'm ready to take on a company of pissed off Marines.
> I'm sure my stock will impress them. <grin>
Maybe, but it clearly can scare the piss out of ignorant liberals.