Imminent threat to the 2nd amendment right now!

Quote, "Imminent threat to the 2nd amendment right now! NOT assault weapon ban or mag cap, its much worse !

'universal background checks' = requires universal federal firearm registration!

.... and .... registration is the necessary stepping stone to eventual confiscation.

This is exactly what was done in England and Australia. Registration, then confiscation followed.

Please join this fight to stop this.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2123867/pg1

 

We had Registration of guns for a very long time before the ban on certain ones came into force

 

This is part of a new gun bill introduced in the State of Washington. How do you feel about this?

View attachment 1533

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/02/19/wa-gun-bill-includes-police-searches-without-warrants/

 

If you are asking me then I have no time for Assault weapons but again we have had laws stating that all weapons must be secuerly stored and the police have had the right to inspect for years as well

 

First they passed Patriot Act to give themselves the right to monitor people without warrant. Then they enpower themselves with the NDAA to detain citizens for life without due process. To deal with the expected resistence from people, they created Sandy Hook shooting to take over the guns before they perform such law. Don't you realize it?

 

You asked I responded, I dont know if you have ever handled or seen the results of using a Assault weapon (I have) and I would rather they were not in untrained civilian hands (This is simply my view)

 

The problem is you don't know what they are calling an assault weapon and neither do most Americans or even Congress. I posted this picture before (or at least the bottom one);

The bottom one qualifies as an assault weapon. Common name = squirrel gun. Care to tell me what results of using that assault weapon would be?. It has a pistol handle, a collapsible stock and a scope. OOPS! And God forbid if it has a thumb hole.

BTW, I actually happen to agree with you about banning military style assault weapons when they are defined by the damage done by shooting them, but not when defined by what they look like as they are currently doing.

And, to give you more perspective;

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...strikes-than-died-from-assault-weapons-in-us/

 

Define "assault weapon". For that matter, I don't want anything in "untrained" hands, i.e., a scalpel, a car, a gun, a chainsaw, etc...

 

Sure something that takes a mag that holds more than five rounds (if it is bolt action I would allow a larger mag) and can be fired in a continual burst, something that has a built in grenade launcher, something that is belt fed. Hows that for you?
I have no problem with a weapon having a pistol grip, what I have is a problem with certain military grade weapons been in the hands of those who have no idea as to what they can do.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Rifle_xk11.jpg/800px-Rifle_xk11.jpg

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-34.jpg/800px-Izhmash_Nikonov_AN-94_GP-34.jpg

 

I don't agree with the 5. That would exclude the common six shooter and a lot of hand guns have 10 shots. The rest kind of makes sense. The problem is not us. The problem is with Congress and their definition that I object to.

 

I did say for weapons that could be fired in continual bursts as far as I am aware they are yet to make a six shooter that will do that, I am in principle reffering to Assault rifles etc

 

So, you would allow a five-round (but no more than five), continual burst firearm. Some people would consider that an assault weapon, you know...

 

Handgun calibers should be exempt IMHO, they lack the range and accuracy, even when fired from a long-arm style home defense carbine. If not exempt, at least allow magazines below 20 rounds for certain occupations (think armed security), which is pretty standard for many smaller caliber handguns and carbines.

 

No I stated "and can be fired in a continual burst" now if you want to take that out of the context I presented it in that up too you.
I think I have made it quite plain that I advocate the banning of Assault weapons and large capacity mags, I would also ban the ownership of anything that would adapt a single shot rifle into a grenade launcher.
Now you tell me what weapons you think a person should be allowed to own

 

I took nothing out of context. You said, and I quote:

Therefore, you're against a weapon that holds more than five rounds and can be fired in a continual burst. So, the logical conclusion from your statement is that you are opposed to a weapon that can fire a continual burst and holds six rounds or more, but are not opposed to a weapon that holds five rounds or less.​

Tell me what I'm missing.

 

When you say "burst," are you speaking of the traditional military designation "3 round burst, etc.," or are you speaking of fully automatic, semi-automatic, etc? We must be precise in our language if we wish to be understood.

 

Fully Auto, Length of burst is immiterial, a Assault weapon means you simply keep your finger on the trigger unlike a six shot revolver which requiers one to pull the trigger with each shot or a Semi Automatic hand gun that also requiers one to pull a trigger with each shot. He is just trying to split hairs with his silly comments and I notice has failed to tell us what he would allow.
A smaller mag means a person has to manually reload a lot more times than if they have let us say a 30 round mag and that takes time and effort. I am under the impression that he has no experience of Assault weapons other than what he has read about them.