Page 10 of 10

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Thu Oct 05, 2017 3:11 pm
by anygunanywhere
ScottDLS wrote:What we really need is a Federal law banning and confiscating autoloader rifles that are not equipped with a rate of fire slowing device (ROFSD), that keeps you from pulling the trigger more than once every two seconds. All existing semi-rifles must be registered IAW NFA after having ROFSD installed. And if you are discovered pulling the trigger of your semi-auto more than once per 2 seconds you will be guilty, you lose your gun and are guilty of a felony. Most responsible ranges already prohibit rapid fire, so this is a simple, common sense, gun law that even the NRA should be able to get behind.

And why does anyone need drum magazines that hold 50 or 100 deadly bullets? These are unnecessary and illegal for deer hunting so they should be banned.
The snark is strong in you.

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 12:51 pm
by MeMelYup
ScottDLS wrote:What we really need is a Federal law banning and confiscating autoloader rifles that are not equipped with a rate of fire slowing device (ROFSD), that keeps you from pulling the trigger more than once every two seconds. All existing semi-rifles must be registered IAW NFA after having ROFSD installed. And if you are discovered pulling the trigger of your semi-auto more than once per 2 seconds you will be guilty, you lose your gun and are guilty of a felony. Most responsible ranges already prohibit rapid fire, so this is a simple, common sense, gun law that even the NRA should be able to get behind.

And why does anyone need drum magazines that hold 50 or 100 deadly bullets? These are unnecessary and illegal for deer hunting so they should be banned.
A guy and several of his buddies brake into your house wanting anything they can get. Do you want a firearm that will shoot only once every two seconds, or one that will shoot every time you pull the trigger no mater how fast? Would you rather have a five round magazine, or a thirty or sixty? Would you rather have a silencer on your firearm, or a loud ringing in your ears that gets more intense each time you pull the trigger? Not saying the silencer would knockout the noise and ringing, but it would not be as intense, especially with an SRB.

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:06 pm
by BBYC

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:39 pm
by anygunanywhere
MeMelYup wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:What we really need is a Federal law banning and confiscating autoloader rifles that are not equipped with a rate of fire slowing device (ROFSD), that keeps you from pulling the trigger more than once every two seconds. All existing semi-rifles must be registered IAW NFA after having ROFSD installed. And if you are discovered pulling the trigger of your semi-auto more than once per 2 seconds you will be guilty, you lose your gun and are guilty of a felony. Most responsible ranges already prohibit rapid fire, so this is a simple, common sense, gun law that even the NRA should be able to get behind.

And why does anyone need drum magazines that hold 50 or 100 deadly bullets? These are unnecessary and illegal for deer hunting so they should be banned.
A guy and several of his buddies brake into your house wanting anything they can get. Do you want a firearm that will shoot only once every two seconds, or one that will shoot every time you pull the trigger no mater how fast? Would you rather have a five round magazine, or a thirty or sixty? Would you rather have a silencer on your firearm, or a loud ringing in your ears that gets more intense each time you pull the trigger? Not saying the silencer would knockout the noise and ringing, but it would not be as intense, especially with an SRB.
ScottDLS was being sarcastic.

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:59 pm
by canvasbck
anygunanywhere wrote:
MeMelYup wrote:
ScottDLS wrote:What we really need is a Federal law banning and confiscating autoloader rifles that are not equipped with a rate of fire slowing device (ROFSD), that keeps you from pulling the trigger more than once every two seconds. All existing semi-rifles must be registered IAW NFA after having ROFSD installed. And if you are discovered pulling the trigger of your semi-auto more than once per 2 seconds you will be guilty, you lose your gun and are guilty of a felony. Most responsible ranges already prohibit rapid fire, so this is a simple, common sense, gun law that even the NRA should be able to get behind.

And why does anyone need drum magazines that hold 50 or 100 deadly bullets? These are unnecessary and illegal for deer hunting so they should be banned.
A guy and several of his buddies brake into your house wanting anything they can get. Do you want a firearm that will shoot only once every two seconds, or one that will shoot every time you pull the trigger no mater how fast? Would you rather have a five round magazine, or a thirty or sixty? Would you rather have a silencer on your firearm, or a loud ringing in your ears that gets more intense each time you pull the trigger? Not saying the silencer would knockout the noise and ringing, but it would not be as intense, especially with an SRB.
ScottDLS was being sarcastic.
Sadly, it's difficult to tell the difference between sarcasm and the things that the left actually support.

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:23 pm
by ScottDLS
When my daughter was 6 years old she used to make a ridiculous statement, then follow it loudly with the statement "I'M SARCASTIC!". I just depend on people recognizing my rapier sharp wit and Beavis and Butthead avatar.

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:33 pm
by anygunanywhere
ScottDLS wrote:When my daughter was 6 years old she used to make a ridiculous statement, then follow it loudly with the statement "I'M SARCASTIC!". I just depend on people recognizing my rapier sharp wit and Beavis and Butthead avatar.
"rlol"

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:35 pm
by TexasJohnBoy
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... ll-actions
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 224.
Action By: House of Representatives
What in the world does this mean? I can't find that calendar published anywhere...

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2017 11:21 pm
by TexasJohnBoy
SRO1911 wrote:the union calendar is the primary calendar - if it involves $ it goes on it.
So, does that mean it’s scheduled or just that it’s on a list somewhere and might get scheduled maybe?

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:21 pm
by carlson1
Does anyone have any more information about when this might come up for a vote. My thoughts is if this doesn't make it pretty soon it will probably be pushed to the side???

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 7:36 pm
by TexasJohnBoy
carlson1 wrote:Does anyone have any more information about when this might come up for a vote. My thoughts is if this doesn't make it pretty soon it will probably be pushed to the side???
I’m thinking this has been pushed to the side due to gov shutdowns, debt ceilings, immigration, and fisa reauthorizations.

Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:00 pm
by anygunanywhere
Couple of million dreamers are more important.

Re: Hearing Protection Act of 2017

Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:36 pm
by TreyHouston
TexasJohnBoy wrote:
carlson1 wrote:Does anyone have any more information about when this might come up for a vote. My thoughts is if this doesn't make it pretty soon it will probably be pushed to the side???
I’m thinking this has been pushed to the side due to gov shutdowns, debt ceilings, immigration, and fisa reauthorizations.

Maybe I’ll be proven wrong.
This is the type of bill that passes when no one is paying attention...