TexasCHLforum.com

JeepGuy79 wrote:I wish it had been guns from the whole fast and furious ATF fiasco used in this tragedy.

tommyg wrote:Ban Body armor you take it away from the guy that has to walk home at night in a bad neighborhood
the crooks will find a way to get it.

Heartland Patriot wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

A-R wrote:I'm no expert on the 1994 ban, but I believe it only limited the specific parts used to define the made-up term "assault weapon" - thus flash hiders, magazines holding more than 10 rounds, etc. would have been illegal except for the grandfathered pre-94 versions. Not too many other "parts" that I can think of - collapsible/folding stocks, perhaps the pistol grip itself?

Speaking of which, does anyone know why pistol grips, flash hiders, or adjustable stocks making something an "assault weapon"? It seems to me that those are cosmetic issues.

Yes, in many ways those are cosmetic features. However, the liberal gun-banner types consider those features to be the things that allow the firearms to be used in a "spray and pray" mode...they (Carolyn McCarthy, etc.) either think or they (His Imperial Highness Mayor Bloomberg, etc.) want to convince others, that the term "assault weapon" = assault rifle = full machinegun, rock-n-roll action like in some Hollyweird war movie with a dude holding it down low, finger on the trigger, swinging it back and forth, a thousand bullets coming out of it nonstop and a tongue of flame shooting out of the barrel...THAT is the image they want to portray to the uninformed voter.

A-R wrote:I'm no expert on the 1994 ban, but I believe it only limited the specific parts used to define the made-up term "assault weapon" - thus flash hiders, magazines holding more than 10 rounds, etc. would have been illegal except for the grandfathered pre-94 versions. Not too many other "parts" that I can think of - collapsible/folding stocks, perhaps the pistol grip itself?