Wow. Found the new verbage for the new weapons ban. It ain't pretty...

[TAB]

The tricky key to this comes in two parts:

#1  A military gun can get an exemption if it can be shown that it has a sporting purpose ... Where does it talk about sporting in the Second Amendment?

scope deer rifle... no its not, its a highly accurate sniper rifle.

that 17 rem varment guns is also a bullet proof penatraiting cop killer.( 17 rem, which is tiny goes through a vest like its not even there)

[deepwater]

There is not a gun ( or its dirivatives) that has not been used by miltary or police.

Lets just list some famous and popular guns

1911... mill and LEO
model 70... based on the mouser, mill( all "mouser claw extractors " AKA control round feed fits this bill,)
any push feed bolt rifle... US snipers currently use them... thats out.
win 1894, thats out too.
J frame... out
Model 12, out, so is every other pump shot gun.
1100, out
BAR rifles... out
AR, out
break action rifles and shot guns.  out
muzzle loaders, out.
Single shot bolt action 22s, out

Bows and arrows, out
clubs, out
harsh words, out

Lets see that leaves us with hugs and  good feelings.

this brings up a sore point for me TAB...
I live in Peru, I carry (legally) in Peru.        but I am limited by what I can can own and carry. NO military firearms, rounds etc...
SO....... what does that leave me? I would like to carry something else more effective than my .380 (though I do like my Bersa). but the law says I can only carry short barrel (3 - 3.5") and 9mm or less (non parabellum). so.. my gripe is that ALL rounds have been used by either military or Law enforcement somewhere in the world. So.. if I can carry one round why can't I carry the next? it's slower and heavier, etc...  
       I can see somethig like this happeneing here in MY country in the near future. I want to buy a FN FAL L1A1, will I be able to use it in the future? Peru, only sells carbines, no full size rifle. they're afraid of the terrorists. also they tax the s^!^ out of ammo ($.80 per round of .380). they do this because they don't want it so easy for the criminals and terrorists to get weapons and ammo.
         So.. here we are, the law abiding citizen (or resident, as I am) is shut out by regulations and prices. ouch....
       it is cheaper and easier for me to go to the black market and get everything I want,....... illegaly.
Luckily.. I can afford to buy a gun legally and put up with all the beuracratic bs. I only hope that my own country doesn't end up being this bad or worse.



anyway, my hazarita induced rant is over,
thank you,


Deepwater....

[tt11758]

It is time for us to draw a line in the sand.

[tombogan03884]

It is time for us to draw a line in the sand.

We need to organize !

[DDMac]

Why will any American political administration be less than enthusiastic in support of the Second Amendment?

Deepwater:"I can see somethig like this happeneing here in MY country in the near future. I want to buy a FN FAL L1A1, will I be able to use it in the future? Peru, only sells carbines, no full size rifle. they're afraid of the terrorists. also they tax the s^!^ out of ammo ($.80 per round of .380). they do this because they don't want it so easy for the criminals and terrorists to get weapons and ammo." Substitute :The People: and you have it!

Governments are installed to lead the masses (you and me). Where the political system has tolerated institutionalized elected officials occupying the same office for years and years, less and less respect for us is shown and less input from back home makes their job of managing us easier. Armed constituents? They know where you live?? Oh, my..

The Second Amendment was designed as a direct action response to tyrannical government, which we do not now endure in large measure, but government will never be comfortable resting the final decision as to when enough is enough with an armed citizenry. Government reaction thus far has just been to take the position that the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, and as such, may be legally curtailed as government deems necessary at any time in the future. Government CANNOT abandon that position, as it would actually cede control of power back to the people, like it used to be when the ink of the Constitution was still drying.

Government is continuing to look after it's own best interest. I don't think that will ever change. Just the way it is.

[Sponsor]

[TAB]

Something else to think about... CA has twisted the no ammo that can be used in a hand gun til your 21  to mean every metalic chambering... since you can buy hand guns for them(  not in CA)   I'm pretty sure they will make 410 that way as well since the judge( which you can not buy here) shoots them.


You know its funny, I was all " no back ground checks... no infringment what so every... blah, blah, blah"

until I worked 2 years in a large and active gun store. 

[MikeBjerum]

You know its funny, I was all " no back ground checks... no infringment what so every... blah, blah, blah"

until I worked 2 years in a large and active gun store. 

So ...

What is your stance now, and what was the reason for the change?

[TAB]

my stance is back ground checks are fine, they should be instant( say 15 mins tops) and it should be cash and carry.  CCW should require some training.( which should be provided by the Local LEA at little to no cost)
No weapon signs should have the full wait of law behind them ( texas 30.06 comes to mind)  if a upstanding citz can't own it/ do it, then niether should the police.   States have the right to choose which states CCWs are good in thier state.

I think that pretty much covers the major ones.