probably, but at some point the focus of gun policy has to go from keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people to putting bullets into crazy people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hmac
Printable View
probably, but at some point the focus of gun policy has to go from keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people to putting bullets into crazy people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hmac
The Speaker of the House has said it ain't happening.
He has the power to stop something like this cold all by himself.
For all intents an purposes, nothing comes to the floor for a vote unless the Sepaker allows it.
Playing Devil's Advocate here for a second:
We can only speculate what a new ban would bring- it may look nothing like the 1994 model. There may or may not be a grandfather clause to permit owners of standard capacity mags to even keep or use them legally (think NJ with the Florio gun ban of 1990).
I agree with Heavy Metal on this one, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy Metal
Considering there are likely 50-100 million hi-caps in circulation, any ban without a Grandfather clause would be an enforcement and litigation nightmare.
They weren't being nice when they grandfathered them the last time, they were being relaistic. Now, the number of hi-caps are proabally triple what they were pre-94 at a minimum.
Yeah, you're probably right. The almost total lack of current political furor and debate on the issue and the ongoing silence from the NRA pretty much tells the whole story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavy Metal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hmac
While this is a horrible tragedy, the population is not blaming guns, lack of gun restrictions, or even Sarah Palin for the event. There is also a very strong mood to oppose any further govt expansion in any area. Now that doesn't mean they won't try and jam anything down our throats, after all hardly anyone wanted Obamacare...but it certainly seems highly unlikely, esp with a more a conservative House.
I actually switched to the 1911 towards the end of the AWB... from a S&W 1006. :D
As for AR magazines? Why, I don't even KNOW how to spell "AR!" http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-f...-whistle-2.gif
Now, the slimes at the VPC are condemning the NRA for refusing to speak out. If the NRA would have spoken out, these same pissants would be crying about that too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hmac
The NRA took the high road while they danced in the victims still-warm blood and it didn't work.
I guess it is back to rolling winos to make the light bill at Brady and th eVPC.
In the unlikely event of that scenario I'd probably stop buying new guns and would spend exclusively on ammo.
Due to the last ban I have a minimum of 10 mags per gun, and in case of Glocks, ARs and AKs I have hundreds of them. When we got the sunset I basically purchased a lifetime supply.
When certain mags like G3, AK and Uzi mags were incredibly cheap I bought several hundred of them. More than I will ever need and future trading stock if we ever do get a ban.
I also don't believe this will pass....fingers crossed.
I had the unfortunate pleasure of seeing a video of Rachael Maddow of pMSNBC interview Caroline McCarthey of NY (D). She's the one thats been reintroducing the assault weapon ban every year since '04. She's also the one that told Tucker Carlson on CNN after the Virginia Tech shooting that a barrel shroud is "this thing that goes up". :rolleyes: Anyway, she and Maddow didn't say crap about assault weapons other than mentioning the original '94 ban. What they want is a just a ban on the magazines, and McCarthey said she wants no grandfather clause or sunset this time. From what she described it would be just like it is in CA. You keep what you have but your not allowed to give/sell them to anyone and if you die they must be destroyed. :rolleyes:
BTW: my choices also wouldn't change....Glock 9mms and Smith J frames.