Gun Legislation

[Mad American]

Whether intentional or by accident due to the mindset you posted the AR has in fact becoem one of the most widely used sporting rifles out there today. I would be interested to see if you have a link to that piece. I'm curious if that was a F&S author or one of the public comments that said that.

[O Really]

Whether intentional or by accident due to the mindset you posted the AR has in fact becoem one of the most widely used sporting rifles out there today. I would be interested to see if you have a link to that piece. I'm curious if that was a F&S author or one of the public comments that said that.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga ... yle-rifles

[Mad American]

Whether intentional or by accident due to the mindset you posted the AR has in fact becoem one of the most widely used sporting rifles out there today. I would be interested to see if you have a link to that piece. I'm curious if that was a F&S author or one of the public comments that said that.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga ... yle-rifles

Thanks. That was what I thought. It was a public comment on the article and not written by F&S staff. Bless their hearts, some folks make public comments on the articles but really need to stop and think first. However, like I said whether by accident or intentional marketing the AR is one of the most used sporting arms today.

So the argument by the gun ummm, "enthusiasts" really is, "we wouldn't actually hunt with this thing first choice, but if we let the feds outlaw it, then next they'll be coming for the rest of our guns so hunt with it we will."

I found something last night after reading this and found it interesting. The proposed California gun control legislation includes a ban on future sales of semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazines. That includes the Browning BAR:
http://www.browning.com/products/catalo ... flag_=002B

and the Remington 750:
http://www.remington.com/product-famili ... l-750.aspx

Now do either of those represent an "assault rifle"? This is the prime example of why "gun enthusiasts" as you say are so vehemently opposed to weapons restrictions. It starts the slippery slope of eliminating common sense.

[Mad American]

Three more quote and reply posts by vrede and still no effort to discuss "irrelevant details" or "firearms specifics". Just more of the usual tripe in a lame attempt to cover his ignorance.

Run away some more vrede.....run away

[Mad American]

The error in your logic is that no one here has been posting that guns should be restricted because they look scary, etc.

It's a rhetorical habit of yours that I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed - You either get confused about what someone has posted or you invent a straw man out of thin air. Then, you proceed to trash that straw man for page after page while patting yourself on the back for your "victory" over what was really just a figment of your own imagination.

For example, his next post:

...I found something last night after reading this and found it interesting. The proposed California gun control legislation includes a ban on future sales of semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazines. That includes the Browning BAR:
http://www.browning.com/products/catalo ... flag_=002B

and the Remington 750:
http://www.remington.com/product-famili ... l-750.aspx

Now do either of those represent an "assault rifle"? This is the prime example of why "gun enthusiasts" as you say are so vehemently opposed to weapons restrictions. It starts the slippery slope of eliminating common sense.

If you are presenting the CA proposal accurately it doesn't matter whether they are "assault rifles". Wise idea or not, they are debating banning "future sales of semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazines," not "assault rifles".

You friggin idiot....a very large portion of the Feinstein plan is based on accessories and APPEARANCE. If you support that proposal then you support restrictions based in APPEARANCE not technical operation. There are some operational aspects of "Feinstein" semi-auto action being the biggest, but most are appearance oriented. Is not the title of this thread "Gun Legislation"? Kinda figured since we were talking about legislation that is largely based in appearance it was a valid point.

Apparently you are also to stupid to realize that every semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine is now on California's list. That is the entire point. California has now labeled the entire family of semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines as "bad". That family includes the two I linked as well as countless others. See how easy it was to switch from scarey looking "assault rifles" to EVERYTHING that is semi-auto and has a detachable magazine? Again if you had an ounce of knowledge about guns you would have been able to see that.

[Mad American]

Mad American has made a huge deal out of advancing the historical, semantic and legal fallacy that any gun that fires one non-exploding round per trigger pull is so similar to 18th Century muskets that it is constitutionally protected. Now, we have:

Add-ons let semi-autos fire like military weapons

..."FIRE AT WILL," invites the website of Slide Fire Solutions, a maker of the devices, known as slide or "bump" stocks. "Unleash 100 rounds, in 7 seconds."

...If Slide Fire's claims are taken at face value, the rate of fire possible with a slide stock is roughly comparable to that of a fully automatic M16 military assault rifle. Real machine guns cost many thousands and require an expensive, hard-to-get federal permit that makes them, if not entirely illegal, largely unavailable to most civilians. But about $350 and a few minutes' installation time will give you what many fans of slide or "bump" stocks call a "legal full-auto."

..."This replacement shoulder stock turns a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of 400 to 800 rounds per minute," she said...

The recoil causes the gun to buck back and forth, "bumping" the trigger.

So, technically, the finger is "pulling" the trigger for each round fired...

According to his YouTube channel, Jeffrey Zimba has spent more than two decades "in the Military Firearms industry." Over the years, he's tested many devices and gadgets intended to simulate the rush of firing a machine gun, but hadn't found "anything that really gave you something that you would think was close to a full auto.

"Not," he said, "until now."...

That's a mighty fine "musket" you got there, Bubba.

Completely stock UNMODIFIED Remington 1100 12 gauge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGuL-p7zz3g

Whats your point again, other than your idiotic stance that technological advances are valid in all constitutional rights except guns?

[Mad American]

If you are presenting the CA proposal accurately....

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Weeks after New York enacted the nation's toughest gun laws, California lawmakers said Thursday they want their state to do even more in response to recent mass shootings, particularly the Connecticut school massacre.

Democrats who control the state Legislature revealed 10 proposals that they said would make California the most restrictive state for possessing firearms.

They were joined at a Capitol news conference by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, along with several police chiefs.

"California has always been a leader on the issue of gun safety," Villaraigosa said. "New York has stepped up and stepped forward. California needs to answer the call."

Among the measures is one that would outlaw the future sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The restriction would prevent quick reloading by requiring bullets to be loaded one at a time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... 42204.html

I'll be taking that apology now.

[Mad American]

You friggin' idiot, we're discussing your description of a CA proposal, Feinstein is a US Senator.

I'm capable of discussing more than one point at a time. I was discussing CA with O'really...sorry you got confused. Nice attempt at a spin though.

Still waiting on that apology

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Weeks after New York enacted the nation's toughest gun laws, California lawmakers said Thursday they want their state to do even more in response to recent mass shootings, particularly the Connecticut school massacre.

Democrats who control the state Legislature revealed 10 proposals that they said would make California the most restrictive state for possessing firearms.

They were joined at a Capitol news conference by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, along with several police chiefs.

"California has always been a leader on the issue of gun safety," Villaraigosa said. "New York has stepped up and stepped forward. California needs to answer the call."

Among the measures is one that would outlaw the future sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The restriction would prevent quick reloading by requiring bullets to be loaded one at a time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... 42204.html

[Mad American]

What's your point? That did not look like "100 rounds, in 7 seconds"/"a rate of 400 to 800 rounds per minute" to me.

You must also fail at math then. Five rounds in .93 seconds.....just for ease of math lets say that was 5 rounds in 1 full second.....5 x 60 seconds (1 minute) 300 rounds a minute in a completely unmodified stock shotgun with 3 1/2 inches bolt travel per round. Another one of those "irrelevant details" that you are ignorant of....the longer the bolt travel the slower the cycle thus lower rounds per minute fired. What caliber is being fired to get your 100 rounds in 7 seconds or your 400 to 800 per minute???

[Mad American]

What's your point? That did not look like "100 rounds, in 7 seconds"/"a rate of 400 to 800 rounds per minute" to me. Maybe if you put a Slide Fire on it.

You must also fail at math then. Five rounds in .93 seconds.....just for ease of math lets say that was 5 rounds in 1 full second.....5 x 60 seconds (1 minute) 300 rounds a minute in a completely unmodified stock shotgun with 3 1/2 inches bolt travel per round.

You fail at math. 300 is less than 400 and a lot less than 800. Plus, I suspect that the video guy is an expert.

Another one of those "irrelevant details" that you are ignorant of....

Another one of those elementary school subjects that you are ignorant in.

the longer the bolt travel the slower the cycle thus lower rounds per minute fired. What caliber is being fired to get your 100 rounds in 7 seconds or your 400 to 800 per minute???

I don't know or care. It's the Slide Fire claim, not mine, write them and ask.

Of course you don't know. You looked up a neat little accessory with no practical purpose, other than making a nuisance of yourself on the range, and thought you had another valid point. You don't and just further proved your ignorance. As I said the 12 gauge has about 3 1/2 inches of bolt travel which dictates cycle speed and rate of fire. Cut the bolt length in half (1 3/4 inches...much more than needed for a 17 Remington or 22 LR and just a bit less than a 223) that doubles the cycle speed and you have 600 rounds per minute out of an unmodified stock weapon.

Back to the real point that went sailing over your head - Is there any conceivable rate of fire limit to your historical, semantic and legal fallacy that any gun that fires one non-exploding round per trigger pull is so similar to 18th Century muskets that it is constitutionally protected?

In a word.....NO! As I have said many times before technology decreased loading and lock time. It still fires a single round per trigger pull.

[Boatrocker]

???

I admit I've not followed this pissing contest very closely; there doesn't seem to be room for more than two in the mudpit. But having read the last few pages and, trying to winnow out the JYIS filler and process the rest, I have to say that I can't quite get a handle on the point you're trying to make here. Could you back up a little and punt your point, concisely and clearly for us, please?
Sorry to intrude.

[Mad American]

...It's a rhetorical habit of yours that I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed - You either get confused about what someone has posted or you invent a straw man out of thin air. Then, you proceed to trash that straw man for page after page while patting yourself on the back for your "victory" over what was really just a figment of your own imagination.

For example:

If you are presenting the CA proposal accurately it doesn't matter whether they are "assault rifles". Wise idea or not, they are debating banning "future sales of semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazines," not "assault rifles".

You friggin idiot....a very large portion of the Feinstein plan is based on accessories and APPEARANCE.

You friggin' idiot, we're discussing your description of a CA proposal, Feinstein is a US Senator.

I'm capable of discussing more than one point at a time.

Recap:

Mad American posted about CA. To O really
I responded about CA. My post about CA to O'really did not require a response from you. You stuck your nose in...again
Mad American nonsensically introduced a Feinstein straw man to rebut me. You and I were not discussing CA.....you made a stupid statement about appearance not being a factor when it is a very large factor in the proposed federal legislation

I was discussing CA with O'really (sic)

O Really hasn't posted for 4 hours and your response was to me.

Really? Lets see about that:

Whether intentional or by accident due to the mindset you posted the AR has in fact becoem one of the most widely used sporting rifles out there today. I would be interested to see if you have a link to that piece. I'm curious if that was a F&S author or one of the public comments that said that.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga ... yle-rifles

Thanks. That was what I thought. It was a public comment on the article and not written by F&S staff. Bless their hearts, some folks make public comments on the articles but really need to stop and think first. However, like I said whether by accident or intentional marketing the AR is one of the most used sporting arms today.

So the argument by the gun ummm, "enthusiasts" really is, "we wouldn't actually hunt with this thing first choice, but if we let the feds outlaw it, then next they'll be coming for the rest of our guns so hunt with it we will."

I found something last night after reading this and found it interesting. The proposed California gun control legislation includes a ban on future sales of semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazines. That includes the Browning BAR:
http://www.browning.com/products/catalo ... flag_=002B

and the Remington 750:
http://www.remington.com/product-famili ... l-750.aspx

Now do either of those represent an "assault rifle"? This is the prime example of why "gun enthusiasts" as you say are so vehemently opposed to weapons restrictions. It starts the slippery slope of eliminating common sense.

Do you see your name ANYWHERE in the above quoted exchange where I first inject California? Didn't think so? Your ego lead you astray again.

...sorry you got confused.

[Mad American]

???

I admit I've not followed this pissing contest very closely; there doesn't seem to be room for more than two in the mudpit. But having read the last few pages and, trying to winnow out the JYIS filler and process the rest, I have to say that I can't quite get a handle on the point you're trying to make here. Could you back up a little and punt your point, concisely and clearly for us, please?
Sorry to intrude.

1. proposed federal legislation has a large basis on appearance not operation
2. proposed California legislation has now labeled EVERY semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine as an "assault weapon"
3. totally stock unmodified firearms are capable of high rates of fire.
4. ignorance of guns, their technical specs and operation, leads to mistakes like #'s 1 & 2

[rstrong]

Ted Nugent: "Obama says he respects the Second Amendment. And, I am a gay pirate"

Aye Aye Captain! Good to see that you finally came out.

Tell us more about being a true patriot, you racist, draft dodging, fear mongering chickenhawk of a talentless has-been musician!

[Stinger]

2. proposed California legislation has now labeled EVERY semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine as an "assault weapon"

They didn't label it an assault weapon. They just proposed to ban it by description -- semiautomatic rifle with detachable magazines," no matter how many rounds, what kind of grips, and what kind of accessories. Clean and simple. They're not getting caught up in your little game of semantics -- "Well, if we can just prove that it's not really an assault weapon, then you can't ban anything." They're just banning weapons. At least my Browning T-Bolt's still going to be legal.

[Mad American]

...It's a rhetorical habit of yours that I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed - You either get confused about what someone has posted or you invent a straw man out of thin air. Then, you proceed to trash that straw man for page after page while patting yourself on the back for your "victory" over what was really just a figment of your own imagination.

For example:

1. proposed federal legislation has a large basis on appearance not operation

I'm not sure about the federal proposals but the CA proposal, as stated and linked by you, is based on operation, not appearance.

Nice spin. I was not aware that the California legislative branch could pass federal law.

2. proposed California legislation has now labeled EVERY semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine as an "assault weapon"

Could be, but your link does not mention "assault weapon", not once. You added that to your own discussion of the CA proposals all on your own.

Restrictions would include a ban on possession of all high-capacity magazines. Such magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition and that were purchased before the state banned them in 2000 are currently legal.

Also, lawmakers proposed a ban on the sale of any long gun with a detachable magazine, classifying such guns as assault weapons.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Stat ... z2KPGAnOnw

3. totally stock unmodified firearms are capable of high rates of fire.

Not as high as the Slide Fire, back to your arithmetic flub.

Slide Fire is a modification. You fail firearms again.

4. ignorance of guns, their technical specs and operation, leads to mistakes like #'s 1

Then you whine when a proposal is based on operation, not appearance. We get it, you'll screech regardless of what limits are placed on your toys.

When it is a blanket law that covers hundreds of "normal" sporting rifles...you bet I will

& 2

From what's been presented so far, by you, #2 is your mistake. Is it ignorance of guns or English?

Ooops! Let that big mouth override your ass again. Your ignornace requires no question..it just keeps showing up

[Mad American]

You must also fail at math then. Five rounds in .93 seconds.....just for ease of math lets say that was 5 rounds in 1 full second.....5 x 60 seconds (1 minute) 300 rounds a minute in a completely unmodified stock shotgun with 3 1/2 inches bolt travel per round.

You fail at math. 300 is less than 400 and a lot less than 800. Plus, I suspect that the video guy is an expert.

1st grade arithmetic fail ducked.

Another one of those "irrelevant details" that you are ignorant of....

Another one of those elementary school subjects that you are ignorant in.

the longer the bolt travel the slower the cycle thus lower rounds per minute fired. What caliber is being fired to get your 100 rounds in 7 seconds or your 400 to 800 per minute???

I don't know or care. It's the Slide Fire claim, not mine, write them and ask.


Hmmm? Really?? It was "the slide fire claim"??? Here is the whole story, from your own link, which you deceptively edited out of your copy and paste:

"Since the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban expired, we have seen a rapid rate of technological improvements in assault weapons, and that concerns me," Feinstein, a California Democrat, said in an email response to questions from The Associated Press.

"This replacement shoulder stock turns a semi-automatic rifle into a weapon that can fire at a rate of 400 to 800 rounds per minute," she said. Noting the strong existing federal regulation of machine guns, she added, "I strongly believe that devices allowing shooters to fire at similar rates should also be outlawed."

Your "slide fire claim" was actually made by none other that Dianne Feinstein and we all know how knowledgeable she is about guns. Why do you feel the need to be so dishonest in an effor to make a point. I also browsed slide fire's website and did not see that claim made there. Some neat videos and such but no claim.....However, it is possible that I missed something buried in one of the multiple pges that sight has

Comprehension - Another one of those elementary school subjects that you are ignorant in.

Honesty...another trait you do not have

Of course you don't know.

If you do know, why did you ask me? And, how is it that your comprehension is so poor that you missed that it wasn't my claim?

Wasn't slide fire's either but that didn't stop you from saying it was. However, I did not claim to know but after watching the videos it looks like several different calibers have been used 223, a strait walled short action possibly a 358, and a long action maybe a 30-06 equivalent.

Got it, you don't know that technology can take things to unacceptable extremes.

Define unacceptable?

[Mad American]

Vrede you will twist anything in order to argue. I swear you would argue the sky was green with pink polka dots if you thought it would continue to pad your post count and garner you responses on here in order to stroke your fragile ego. You were caught lying about the "slide fire" claim.....it was made by Feinstein. You have tried to twist words and I have proven you over and over an ignorant fool when it comes to guns. You have made dishonest claims about my links and when proven a liar on that tried to spin out of it. You butted in on a converstaion between O really and myself then lied about my response being to you. You must lead a pitiful existence for a computer forum to play such a large part in your life and to have such a need to receive a response. I would pity you....if you had not already proven just how pathetic you are.

[O Really]

Yo, Mad - would you have an interest in explaining what reasonable civilian purpose there might be in a kit that turns two of those Ruger 10/22's into a Gatling gun? Available at Sportsman's Guide for $400.
http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/1 ... ?a=1104846

(Fending off the feds when they come fer yer guns doesn't count)

[Mad American]

Keep spinning vrede. The posts are there for all to see....they see the order in which things have happened..and they see which one is the forum liar and narccisit. What a pathetic existence you lead....your life revolves around a computer forum.