In England and Australia, firearm confiscation worked because the government knew who had the guns. But confiscation will never work in this country because the govt doesn't know where the guns are. NFA registration will solve that problem.
Feinstein has explicitly stated she's in favor of outright confiscation. So when I'm unwilling to compromise on this point, it's because I don't think viewing this ban as part of an eventual attempt at confiscation is crazy.
In reply to Will:
There are also just way to many firearms in the US. I doubt the government would be capable of confiscating 10%.
Anyway here is a neat video of a fully automatic Glock 17.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2xxKIqy6l8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I took a break for as long as I could but this E36 M3 is getting spooky. Just about everything I own under the new rules would be an NFA item and require registration and a $200 stamp. People need to open their eyes and see what the government is trying to do and fight this. We are actively loosing our rights in what is supposedly the freest country on the planet. If we allow them to remove our weapons we will have no way to fight back when the rest of our freedoms are stripped away for "our own good".
Also remember it was not our military that stopped the threat of enemy troops hitting our shores in the past it was the fact our people were armed and would fight any invading force that attempted to attack us.
rebelgtp wrote: ....Also remember it was not our military that stopped the threat of enemy troops hitting our shores in the past it was the fact our people were armed and would fight any invading force that attempted to attack us.
Which troops are you referring to here? Are you referring to the quote misattributed to Yamamoto? If so, that wasn't even relevant even if he did actually say it. The Japanese had no capability or intent to invade the continental US. Yamamoto was well aware Japan could not beat the US and it was not because of the armed civilians, it was the US's industrial might.
Germany? Uhmm, no, not even remotely possible.
Spanish American War? Grenada? Boer war?!? (we weren't in that one BTW) War of 1812?... opps, well I guess it couldn't be that one.
It's funny you mention this point. I just heard the same one today on the radio. Not really a good argument to use in my opinion.
aircooled wrote: it was the US's industrial might.
Which is all but non existent these days as we produce very little in this country any more.
If the armed citizens of this country are not a deterrent then why is China so hot on us disarming our citizens? I am sorry but there is nothing that you can say that will convince me that the fact our citizens have the right to be armed has not deterred other nations that have it in for us. All they have to do is strike up a deal with Mexico to return the land Mexico lost in the past and there they have a foot hold on the continent. In many invaded countries the civilian population is poorly armed at best. Many Americans have firearms that would make any soldier happy to carry.
rebelgtp wrote: All they have to do is strike up a deal with Mexico to return the land Mexico lost in the past and there they have a foot hold on the continent.
^^^this is not hyperbole
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/16/20060416-122222-1672r/
rebelgtp wrote:aircooled wrote: it was the US's industrial might.Which is all but non existent these days as we produce very little in this country any more.
Please spare me your Red dawn fantasies. They are about as good as the revisiting an oppressive government fantasies. I work in the defense manufacturing sector. If you think a bunch of chubby guys running around with red jacket tacticool machines are a deterrent to the government, you need to do some reading on current satellite surveillance and something called a predator drones. This isn't Syria were the military is held together by a bunch of Russian Cold War cast offs.
Also as a proud member of the manufacturing sector in the US, I think you should educate yourself. http://mercatus.org/publication/us-manufacturing-output-vs-jobs-1975
More jobs does not mean more productivity. We produce 18% of the worlds manufactured goods right now. Sure that percentage has fallen as a while, but the actual amount of stuff produced has steadily increased. Your comment about producing very little in this country is poorly worded and plain wrong.
The British Medical Journal is asking for a ban on kitchen knives. Violent crime is still higher than here, and stabbings are on the rise. (interestingly, their rhetorical question - "such knives have little practical value in the kitchen" is quite similar to the misguided What hunter would use an assault weapon to get his game" stuff we're hearing right now in the USA;.)
And remember, Massad Ayoob says, "in soft tissue a knife can stab to a depth roughly twice its blade length." They'll have to ban anything over 1/2" if they want to prevent all murders.
JoeyM wrote:rebelgtp wrote: All they have to do is strike up a deal with Mexico to return the land Mexico lost in the past and there they have a foot hold on the continent.^^^this is not hyperbole http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/16/20060416-122222-1672r/
I have run into people with this mentality up in Oregon and some of them have gotten down right violent about their views on the subject and have started fights. It is no shock that people in Mexico (including members of their government) want to restore their borders to what they once were. Honestly I believe the only way that they could manage something would be with help from another country as Mexico just does not have the force to pull something off by themselves.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/122812-638766-more-killed-by-knives-hammers-fists-than-with-rifles.htm
rebelgtp wrote: Just about everything I own under the new rules would be an NFA item and require registration and a $200 stamp. People need to open their eyes and see what the government is trying to do and fight this.
It is probably worse than than you think
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/nra-ila-on-difis-rkba-full-frontal-assault/#more-183415
Adopts new lists of prohibited external features. For example, whereas the 1994 ban applied to a rifle or shotgun the “pistol grip” of which “protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,” the new bill would drastically expand the definition to include any “grip . . . or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.” Also, the new bill adds “forward grip” to the list of prohibiting features for rifles, defining it as “a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip.” Read literally and in conjunction with the reduction from two features to one, the new language would apply to every detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle. At a minimum, it would, for example, ban all models of the AR-15, even those developed for compliance with California’s highly restrictive ban.
rebelgtp wrote: If the armed citizens of this country are not a deterrent then why is China so hot on us disarming our citizens? I am sorry but there is nothing that you can say that will convince me that the fact our citizens have the right to be armed has not deterred other nations that have it in for us. All they have to do is strike up a deal with Mexico to return the land Mexico lost in the past and there they have a foot hold on the continent. In many invaded countries the civilian population is poorly armed at best. Many Americans have firearms that would make any soldier happy to carry.
China is hot to disarm US citizens? That's a pretty serious claim to have no source for.
How about, China (or anyone else) isn't going to invade us because it isn't in their best economic interest. The U.S. economy is the largest in the world. It is a huge stabilizing force. We also like to buy things from other countries, like China, and so send them our money. What would China gain by attempting to invade the US? Not really anything. What they would get is a horrendously costly war which they would almost certainly lose against us, and even if they won would succeed only in destabilizing one of the largest consumers of things they produce. And that's only if the only people they were going to fight was us. That says nothing of pretty much every other major country in the world rushing to our defense because they don't want us to get destabilized or to see the balance of world power shifted from the US to China.
though it doesn't elaborate on what those so-called military features are.
She thumbed through a berkeleying catalogue and said "Eeeww that one looks SCARY! Ban it!"
last time the feature list was
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally). Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds Detachable magazine.
damn, she would have had a cow if she'd known about the riot control set-up we had at the Philly Naval Yard Armory while I was stationed there in '68 ...
it was a jeep mounted, belt fed, 12 gauge shotgun (this in the place of the .30 or .50cal that was usually mounted on a jeep...) we didn't get to take it to the range while I was there, but some of those that were permanently stationed there ( I was transit, waiting for transport to my ship ) said it was a blast ( sorry 'bout the pun ) to shoot
I remember seeing a ~50 round magazine drum fed shotgun many years ago. I'm guessing that wouldn't fly either... 
JoeyM wrote: And remember, Massad Ayoob says, "in soft tissue a knife can stab to a depth roughly twice its blade length." They'll have to ban anything over 1/2" if they want to prevent all murders.
That's gonna kill the nail business. A 60d nail in the end of a 2x2 handle could really wreck your day.
Crap, what about a No. 2 pencil? Sharpened, that bad boy could really put someone's eye out.
It still goes back to the operator, not the tool.
Curmudgeon wrote:JoeyM wrote: And remember, Massad Ayoob says, "in soft tissue a knife can stab to a depth roughly twice its blade length." They'll have to ban anything over 1/2" if they want to prevent all murders.That's gonna kill the nail business. A 60d nail in the end of a 2x2 handle could really wreck your day.
This holds about 250 rounds and can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. Admittedly... hauling the compressor around limits your options... but a nitrogen cyl on your back could change that.
JoeyM wrote: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/122812-638766-more-killed-by-knives-hammers-fists-than-with-rifles.htm
the 2011 data drops that number to 353 deaths while the others don't drop as far.... I posted a link to that data a few pages back.
But when has someone with an agenda ever let things like FACTS get in the way?
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Curmudgeon wrote:JoeyM wrote: And remember, Massad Ayoob says, "in soft tissue a knife can stab to a depth roughly twice its blade length." They'll have to ban anything over 1/2" if they want to prevent all murders.That's gonna kill the nail business. A 60d nail in the end of a 2x2 handle could really wreck your day.
Goddamnit I love you.
There ya go. Nail guns will have to be banned as well. I'm gonna bury my Porter Cable in cosmoline...
This warning from the Brits brings up some very valid points about disarming a society and how it does not make it safer.
Thanks, ECM. For those too lazy to watch the video, here's the cliff notes version: the UK banned all handguns, and since then both gun and knife attacks have gone through the roof.
The video also talks about a guy in the UK serving time for shooting home invaders. Apparently that's a no-no over there
You'll need to log in to post.
