Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 12/17/2001 3:46:29 AM EST
So I read over and over that you can't have a flash hider, bayonet (lug), telescoping stock, blah blah blah. When congress passes these laws, what was the reasoning behind them? I don't see how any of those restrictions makes a AR rifle any less deadly.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 4:28:50 AM EST
That is the same question AR owners have been asking for years. The only answer I can think of is that in the eyes of anti-gunners, these added features are supposed to make the rifle more dangerous. I don't understand it either. I already have a semi-auto rifle. How much more harm would my rifle be with a bayonet lug or flash hider. [b]ArmaLiter[/b]
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 4:32:01 AM EST
flash hider = the "law" can't see where the bullets is coming from. bayonet (lug) = makes the rifle that much more dangerous. telescoping stock = easy to cary/hide. Stupid laws from those that fear what they do not understand.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 4:41:17 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2001 4:39:46 AM EST by reidry]
Let us not kid ourselves .... The reason the anti's tried to ban features is that they believed that they could remove the evil black rifle by making it impossible to produce a civilian version. They blew it. We just lost some features. The one that really gets me is the 10 rnd magazine limit. Hmm ... fear and hate mongering - more bullets = more carnage BS. Spawned by ignorant people who thing that the gun guys only know how to spray and pray. Ryan
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 4:43:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2001 4:37:17 AM EST by ErickM]
Laws need to be made very vague and in great numbers so that it is impossible to be on the right side of all of them at once. Just in case you need to "get got." If your creating some type of distrubance to the man or he has a need to force you into doing something you wouldn't normally do, the threat of prison is usually a great coercion tool. A lot of these laws are not "actively" enforced, just done on an as needed basis.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 4:48:23 AM EST
I always thought these stupid laws were a compromise. The anti's decide an AR is too dangerous because it has some of the same features as military firearms and they try to ban this class of weapons entirely. The pro-gunners in an attempt to stop them suggest the elimination of these features. The final law is a feel good bill for both sides and we the public are left confused. When was the last time you heard of a armed robber fixing bayonets?
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 4:51:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2001 4:43:12 AM EST by OLY-M4gery]
Last time? I'm waiting for the FIRST time. I think if we really delved into it those evil "hunting weapons" get used in crimes more than .50 cals, AR's, and target rifles combined.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 4:54:28 AM EST
A collapsable stock on a Post-ban AR, has to be pinned into one position, and can't be "adjustable"! BUT, can't you pin it into any position, including the shortest one? If so, what is the f'ing point!
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 5:11:40 AM EST
there is no f_ing point.. they just want to make our lives difficult so that we "might" give up gun ownership for all the hassles. they underestimated my tenacity.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 5:12:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By jboze: A collapsable stock on a Post-ban AR, has to be pinned into one position, and can't be "adjustable"! BUT, can't you pin it into any position, including the shortest one? If so, what is the f'ing point!
View Quote
There is no point. I once read that a wise man once said (I don't recall the originator's name) "Arbitrary laws lead to general contempt for all laws". It's called "incrementalism", gentlemen. The commie libs take as much as they can, then they come and take the rest later...when the opposition (us) is weak. This is why it is so important for those who truly wish to defend the Second Amendment to oppose their advances. The law, as it stands, is just one small step from making the AR-15 illegal. It's senseless.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 7:09:44 AM EST
soylentgreen has it right. The only rationale is that nobody should be allowed to own or have rights for firearms.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 8:30:24 AM EST
[b]Testing the waters for additional laws[/b] If the socialists can pass meaningless laws, then they can either add on to existing laws, or promote additional laws. They have to find ways of passing anti-constitution laws, with public approval.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 8:32:01 AM EST
They are EVIL! thats all nothing else! [beer]
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 2:42:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By FullRange: flash hider = the "law" can't see where the bullets is coming from.
View Quote
Flash hiders don't work that well. They just tone down some of the "oh my god, I'm blind" aspect. Maybe we can get the optometrists to lobby for flash hiders.
bayonet (lug) = makes the rifle that much more dangerous.
View Quote
Well, this one, I agree with. The number of drive-by bayonettings has dropped markedly since the enactment of this ban... [;D]
telescoping stock = easy to cary/hide.
View Quote
Nope. They enacted this because they go to Thunder Ranch every year, and as you know, no collapsing stock can possibly survive Thunder Ranch...
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 2:49:33 PM EST
Originally Posted By FullRange: flash hider = the "law" can't see where the bullets is coming from.
View Quote
You know, I've always had a problem with this one. The flash hider does not eliminate muzzle flash. Anyone who's fired an M16, especially on full auto, knows this. Sure, there is not too much going forward of the muzzle but, that distinctive fiery "star" pattern going a foot in all directions perpendicular to the barrel is a dead giveaway. (no, that is not just in the movies, but its not so pronounced) Just seems silly to ban it, that's all.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 3:02:28 PM EST
people u forget that where the bastard red headed stepchild as far as a lot of people think the point was to divide and conquer. since theres alot of morons out there who think WTF would anyone want one of those? and thats why this crap keeps passing
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 3:28:09 PM EST
There is rationale behind the laws?
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 3:29:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2001 3:22:31 PM EST by Happyshooter]
To ban guns is the only reason. "We don't want to ban guns, we just care about people's safety...the ...that's all we care about, we aren't against all guns, just the bad ones" Hunter Bob then joins hands with Soccer Mom and nods in approval as sensible guns laws are passed for the children. Next election cycle they will be just as happy when it is magazines over 5 rounds, and iron "combat killer sights" and the cycle after that when it is the "mass death assault" semi autos with anything but a straight stock a few will care, but not many. The next cycle whan anything with a scope or more than a 30/30 is banned they will care, but by then it will be too late.
Link Posted: 12/17/2001 3:37:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/17/2001 3:31:27 PM EST by Morpheus]
Try this one on for size: In California it is illegal to participate in ANY type of hunting using an AR-15, even if the AR-15 is registered. A bolt action .223, a .308 M1A, or even a Ruger Mini-14 are OK, but you cannot hunt with "assault weapons." Since these "assault weapons" therefore have no legitimate hunting (sporting) purposes, they're just that much easier to outright ban somewhere down the line. Nice, eh?
Top Top