TexasCHLforum.com

RPB wrote:

Bitterclinger wrote:What a bunch of hogwash! It won't pass in this form. I think the registration thing is just a red-herring designed to look like a compromise when it comes to negotiations. Even an idiot like Feinstein can't hope that will fly.

...and exactly what the heck is a "military characteristic ?" I know the bureaucrats will come up with five hundred pages of definitions about how many whats have to be how many inches away from whatever..., but i reject the whole concept at its bedrock. The 2nd amendment makes no distinction between military and civilian arms, and neither should we.

If the Dims were honest, they'd just draw up a bill to repeal the 2nd amendment. I'd like an amendment to say that you can't enact a law or ordinance that overrides the clear and simple intent of any constitutional provision or amendment without following the constitutional amendment process. We still might end up in Feinstein's police state, but at least we'd deserve it.

Freaking lawyers!

Characteristics of military weapons:
black, green, blued, stainless, or camo colors

OR
a magazine release button

OR
sights

Kythas wrote:The government has no reason to need to know what types and quantities of firearms I own, unless they need a count of them to know what to confiscate.

Blindref757 wrote:Legislation is all about compromise. If they are determined to reenact the ban, the GOP should at the very minimum fight for a 20 round max on handgun magazines, and no federal registration.

I don't think that a Glock 19 or an XD that hold <20 in the standard magazines should be included in the ban. And you can't recall current AR's unless you are willing to pay fair market value for them.

But here is a better idea. They shouldn't even spend one second discussing guns until they can assure me with a Balanced Budget Amendment, that we will not have an economic collapse in this nation like Greece. Because if Greece happens in the USA, I will need and will use my AR-15 and my XD if necessary.

APynckel wrote:

Kythas wrote:The government has no reason to need to know what types and quantities of firearms I own, unless they need a count of them to know what to confiscate.

We passed legislation back in the 80's making that type of data collecting by the government illegal.

anygunanywhere wrote:

APynckel wrote:

Kythas wrote:The government has no reason to need to know what types and quantities of firearms I own, unless they need a count of them to know what to confiscate.

We passed legislation back in the 80's making that type of data collecting by the government illegal.

And we all know that the government always obeys those laws.

Anygunanywhere

Kythas wrote:What is considered a "military characteristic"?

Happily Ever After wrote:

Kythas wrote:What is considered a "military characteristic"?

Shoots bullets.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Happily Ever After wrote:

Kythas wrote:What is considered a "military characteristic"?

Shoots bullets.

Thank you! I asked exactly the same question in another thread. I'm SO glad to know that all of my guns have a military characteristic. I thought it meant that the gun had sterling character, could cuss fluently, and was underpaid for the job.....or something along those lines!

Beiruty wrote:Piers and his folks and that Senator from CA do not make sense, not even "common sense".

Here is a fresh video Gov. Ventura vs Liberal. Morgan (ended 10 vs 0, in a knock-off punch):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation ... 28xnk0H3B0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sookandy wrote:Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Maybe I am having a brain fart, but what the heck would fall into this category?? Tube fed .22 maybe? That's all I can think of.