TexasCHLforum.com

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.

It seems like that'd be easier without a pistol grip...

Any politician who is serious should start with their bodyguards. Easy. 1-2-3. No laws required.

The next step is banning guns and body armor for the police and military and other public servants. Give that experiment a few decades and then we can look at the results and talk about private citizens. However, if a politicians is not willing to start the disarming with the public servants (and their bodyguards) it's 100% GUARANTEED PROOF they're not opposed to guns. What they're opposed to is freedom and the United States Constitution.

Every military veteran knows how to deal with enemies of the constitution, right?

Heartland Patriot wrote:The truth of the matter is that IF he had wanted to, the evil excuse for a human who accomplished this tragic attack could have used a old Mini-14 and 10 round magazines, and done the same damage...even in the dark, he could have changed magazines in a couple of SECONDS and had a pocket full of them...and the lack of a pistolgrip, flash hider or adjustable stock would have made ZERO difference.

You are right. I am not positive, but I think the guy was using a 100 round mag. That might of actually saved lives. Everyone knows those are notorious for jamming and it did just that. I was unaware that the ban mostly outlawed those items. Those are mostly aesthetic and comfort items. Weird.

yea ban guns, kneee jerk reaction of the ignorant. the only thing I have heard about the supposed "grenades" is that the perp threw 2 green canisters. first all smoke"grenades" and CS "grenades" do not fall under the gestapo's definition of a destructive device and therefore are completely legal to own without a tax stamp and a 200 dollar fee. so a legal to own item, hmm no reason to have a cow over that, second the color described by the news(yea I know) does not indicate a CS device it indicates white smoke, can be obtained at a large number of surplus stores while CS cannot as it is regulated. there is a color difference to white smoke and CS that I will NOT explain here and white or colored smoke cannisters are considered to be an irritant respiratory, mucosal and skin, thats why the cannisters say to use in a well ventillated area. so until they describe a CS cannister they were white smoke generators not Grenades of any sort

Bart wrote:Any politician who is serious should start with their bodyguards. Easy. 1-2-3. No laws required.

The next step is banning guns and body armor for the police and military and other public servants. Give that experiment a few decades and then we can look at the results and talk about private citizens. However, if a politicians is not willing to start the disarming with the public servants (and their bodyguards) it's 100% GUARANTEED PROOF they're not opposed to guns. What they're opposed to is freedom and the United States Constitution.

Every military veteran knows how to deal with enemies of the constitution, right?

Wow!! This should be carved in stone and placed right in front of the Statue of Liberty. Also on every podium they stand behind swearing their oath.

Dave2 wrote:

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.

It seems like that'd be easier without a pistol grip...

Its NOT about rationality...but about what liberals FEEL makes a weapon more dangerous...because what MOST of them know about weapons is what the Brady Campaigners tell them, or what they learn from movies.

Assault weapon = evil, should be banned per the antis.

Patrol rifle = same as assault weapon except used by LEO so it's ok.

My BCM M4 5.56mm semi-auto is a Personal Defense Rifle so it should be ok with all.

RPB wrote:EVERY MASS SHOOTING HAD THIS IN COMMON ... IF YOU WANT TO BAN ...

Seriously, not every mass shooter wears body armor, uses Glocks or them foot-long "clips" or rifles with a pistol grip "handle"

Every one though ... wore shoes. YES, EVERY SINGLE ONE of these mass murderers trying to kill others wears shoes. These shoes which every evil person gets access to easily, help them get from place to place to hurt MORE people, and sometimes are used in escapes.

Ban shoes.




.
Spoons made me fat.

Right you are I'll get that fax machine humming!

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.

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.

What, like strapping on iron skillets before they do their thing? That's impossible, nobody would consider that!

Nobody would ever think of adding a few layers of duck tape to deaden the clanking, either.

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.

They should issue it free at least as book covers and kevlar back packs to school kids for making them sit in "gun free" (target rich) zones.

Dave2 wrote:

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.

What, like strapping on iron skillets before they do their thing? That's impossible, nobody would consider that!

Nobody would ever think of adding a few layers of duck tape to deaden the clanking, either.

Kevlar oven mitt sweater vest

Feinstein (or whatever her STUPID name is........
Was on Fox (Fox News Sunday - Chris Wallace) today talking about 100rd "Clips" and saying that there is no purpose for them in Hunting.

Unfortunately, there was a Republican there that pointed out that there is in fact a purpose in Hunting (which was lame) and he should have simply informed her (and the Public) that NO WHERE IN THE 2nd DOES THE WORD HUNTING APPEAR!

Also, what DOES APPEAR is "Shall Not Be Infringed".

Why didn't he just tell her that and inform her that HER and HER stupid ideas is EXACTLY why the 2nd was designed, to protect the public against the Govt. idiots.

AEA wrote:Why didn't he just tell her that and inform her that HER and HER stupid ideas is EXACTLY why the 2nd was designed, to protect the public against the Govt. idiots.

She might consider that a threat, because she's a forsworn enemy of the United States Constitution.

How true.......
Not a threat though.........
A Constitution........a word she probably cannot even spell, much less comprehend!