JohnRich 4 #1 April 13, 2009 News:A Renewed Assault Weapon Ban: Will They or Won't They? Asked by "60 Minutes's" Lesley Stahl if trying to renew the assault weapons ban would start a culture war and pose a distraction for an already overburdened Obama Administration, Feinstein replies, "I agree with you." "So you are going to hold off?" asks Stahl. "That's correct. I'll pick the time and the place, no question about it," Feinstein tells Stahl.Source: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/132845.html Hope springs eternal for the gun grabbers. They never give up. They may lay low for a while, but they don't ever cease their desire to ban guns. Obama, Biden, Emanuel, Holder, Pelosi, Feinstein... Nah, gun owner's don't have any reason to be worried! FUCK FEINSTEIN! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #2 April 13, 2009 Here's an interesting question, with the preface that I don't really support any gun legislation at all. Keep thy guns, so sayeth the lord! Q: Would you use a black rifle as your primary weapon for home/personal defense (or even secondary, for that matter)? I certainly understand that the 2nd amendment doesn't speak specifically to self protection, but I believe it is interesting that a common line thrown out is, "taking away my right to protect myself". Thoughts? .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #3 April 13, 2009 QuoteQ: Would you use a black rifle as your primary weapon for home/personal defense (or even secondary, for that matter)? It's actually not a bad choice. Loaded with light bullets, the penetration is less than most other options (like handguns or shotguns). (Source). A rifle is easier to hit things with, and in a home defense scenario you're likely to be sitting still and waiting for the cops, so you don't need to worry about difficulties getting around corners and such. Bottom line: Everyone gets to decide what they would personally use. Some people will choose to use EBRs.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #4 April 13, 2009 QuoteQ: Would you use a black rifle as your primary weapon for home/personal defense (or even secondary, for that matter)? Until they start making periwinkle AR-15s, I will.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #5 April 13, 2009 I suppose I'm not questioning logistically if it makes a good choice or not, and I agree that it should be the individual's choice. I'm still curious as to what percentage of people actually look to that type of weapon as their primary for home defense. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #6 April 13, 2009 Indeed. .jim "Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #7 April 13, 2009 Feinstien is a fucking crackpot.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #8 April 13, 2009 QuoteI'm still curious as to what percentage of people actually look to that type of weapon as their primary for home defense. Are you asking what percentage of people use AR-15's as their primary home defense weapon? Or (and I'm suggesting that you should ask this instead) are you asking what percentage of people use a weapon that would be banned by the previous AWB (or some new variation) as their primary home defense weapon? My primary home defense weapon is not an AR-15. My primary home defense weapon would be included in both the previous AWB and in the various versions of a new ban that I've seen floated.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #9 April 13, 2009 QuoteOr (and I'm suggesting that you should ask this instead) are you asking what percentage of people use a weapon that would be banned by the previous AWB (or some new variation) as their primary home defense weapon? That is a more refined question. I suppose a lot of what I hear seems to be aimed at ARs, hence the initial direction of the question. So. What percentage of people look to a weapon for their primary home/personal defense that was either previously affected by AWB, or would be affected by future AWB? .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #10 April 13, 2009 QuoteWhat percentage of people look to a weapon for their primary home/personal defense that was either previously affected by AWB, or would be affected by future AWB? Me. My primary home defense weapon is a Benelli M4 with (a) a pistol grip, (b) a collapsible stock and (c) a 6 round capacity. Having any two of those things would qualify it for the ban.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #11 April 13, 2009 Same here, except its a no-stock pistol grip Mossberg 500 Special. And then there's the "work" gun, my beloved AR...nope, it wouldn't make it pass the ban stock. It definitely won't make it pass the ban how I have it setup (although it doesn't have a bayonet lug anymore). --"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #12 April 13, 2009 Yeah, but your work gun would be exempt. They trust you with it while you're at work--just not on your own time.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #13 April 13, 2009 My "work" gun is personally bought, owned and kept. That's the kicker.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 April 13, 2009 QuoteKeep thy guns, so sayeth the lord! See the attached image. QuoteQ: Would you use a black rifle as your primary weapon for home/personal defense (or even secondary, for that matter)? I certainly understand that the 2nd amendment doesn't speak specifically to self protection, but I believe it is interesting that a common line thrown out is, "taking away my right to protect myself". You certainly could. It all depends upon personal circumstances. If you can only afford one rifle, and you want it to serve for home defense, as well as be fairly cheap to shoot for recreation, then an AR is just the ticket. If you can afford multiple firearms, something else might serve better. It depends upon what you can afford, and what other types of shooting you like to do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #15 April 13, 2009 QuoteWhat percentage of people look to a weapon for their primary home/personal defense that was either previously affected by AWB, or would be affected by future AWB? I don't see "home defense" as being relevant to the issue of banning so-called "assault weapons". So I don't know why people here are trying to frame this question in that manner. It implies that the only legitimate reason to own one is for home defense, and that's not true. Go look at the firing line at the national shooting matches in Camp Perry, Ohio, and you'll see thousands of them being used to punch holes in paper. They are used for sport shooting, hunting, plinking, competition, and self defense. It's not a one-trick gun. If you allow the gun-grabbers to set the allowable firearms as only those which are good for home defense, then 95% of all firearms will be outlawed under that scheme. It's a really bad idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #16 April 13, 2009 QuoteQuote If you allow the gun-grabbers to set the allowable firearms as only those which are good for home defense, then 95% of all firearms will be outlawed under that scheme. It's a really bad idea. So you're now saying that 95% of firearms are no good for home defense. OK. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #17 April 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote If you allow the gun-grabbers to set the allowable firearms as only those which are good for home defense, then 95% of all firearms will be outlawed under that scheme. It's a really bad idea. So you're now saying that 95% of firearms are no good for home defense. OK. You twist more than Britney Spears. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #18 April 14, 2009 Quote Me. My primary home defense weapon is a Benelli M4 with (a) a pistol grip, (b) a collapsible stock and (c) a 6 round capacity. Having any two of those things would qualify it for the ban. Feinstein For Feinstein, it's a .38. Quote Feinstein was accused of hypocrisy when it became public information that despite her stringent anti-gun record, the Senator maintained a Concealed Weapons permit and actively carried a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver for her personal safety. Quote When challenged, she stated "I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." Really? Quote In 1999, Jill Labbe, of the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, recounted Mrs. Feinstein's actions at an anti-gun press conference, where Mrs. Feinstien displayed an AK-47 assault rifle. Despite her assertions of being trained in handling firearms, after picking it up, she broke multiple basic and commonly known firearms handling safety rules; placing her finger on the trigger, and then sweeping the muzzle across the room, pointing at people who were present." I missed the part of training where they say to sweep the audience with the muzzle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #19 April 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote If you allow the gun-grabbers to set the allowable firearms as only those which are good for home defense, then 95% of all firearms will be outlawed under that scheme. It's a really bad idea. So you're now saying that 95% of firearms are no good for home defense. OK. You twist more than Britney For those of us who understand English, we understand that there was no need to twist JohnRich's words. Capt.Slog interpreted them correctly as written. If that's not the intended meaning, then perhaps JohnRich should have chosen his words more carefully so that they would accurately convey his intended message.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites n23x 0 #20 April 14, 2009 I wasn't trying to frame the question for any setup, and agree that weapons for home defense or otherwise isn't a terribly relevant to AWB. Simply curious how the AWB affects a person's choice for the home defense. Or not. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #21 April 14, 2009 Quote Simply curious how the AWB affects a person's choice for the home defense. Or not. The California variant, which includes the 10 round limit for magazines, has pushed some people up to higher calibers in handguns. If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,109 #22 April 14, 2009 > If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? That seems akin to the argument "well, if I can't drive drunk, why not drive while doing nitrous?" Presumably if someone wanted a .45 they would get one with or without any other restrictions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #23 April 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you allow the gun-grabbers to set the allowable firearms as only those which are good for home defense, then 95% of all firearms will be outlawed under that scheme. It's a really bad idea. So you're now saying that 95% of firearms are no good for home defense. OK. If you ever understood correctly anything I said it would be a miracle. Note how I used the word "scheme". The definition of "scheme" is this: "a plan or program of action; especially a crafty or secret one." So, I'm saying that's the way the anti-gun politicians would construe it. Just look at what they've done with the "sporting purposes" requirement in gun import policy. Got it now, kallend? But of course you do. You're just back to playing your little disingenuous games again, after pretending to slip quietly away after xmas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #24 April 14, 2009 Quote> If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? That seems akin to the argument "well, if I can't drive drunk, why not drive while doing nitrous?" Presumably if someone wanted a .45 they would get one with or without any other restrictions. I think you're confused, Bill. I certainly have no idea what you're trying to say. What does caliber selection have to do with driving under the influence? As the bullets are larger, the capacity of .45s tends to be lower than a comparable 9mm. Nothing, thus far, forces one to buy one or the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #25 April 14, 2009 QuoteQuote> If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? That seems akin to the argument "well, if I can't drive drunk, why not drive while doing nitrous?" Presumably if someone wanted a .45 they would get one with or without any other restrictions. I think you're confused, Bill. I certainly have no idea what you're trying to say. What does caliber selection have to do with driving under the influence? As the bullets are larger, the capacity of .45s tends to be lower than a comparable 9mm. Nothing, thus far, forces one to buy one or the other. In California, a wide-body 9mm holds 10 rounds. In California, a wide-body .45 or .45 Super holds 10 rounds. No capacity trade-off so why not get the more powerful gun? 10 round single stack .45 magazines were introduced in response to the original crime bill. Why not mate one of those to a 1911 in .460 Rowland? Browning's Best with .44 magnum ballistics. In the absence of such silly laws, there are 9mm guns that hold 17-19 rounds in their fat little bellies and you get to choose more little bullets or fewer big ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
warpedskydiver 0 #17 April 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote If you allow the gun-grabbers to set the allowable firearms as only those which are good for home defense, then 95% of all firearms will be outlawed under that scheme. It's a really bad idea. So you're now saying that 95% of firearms are no good for home defense. OK. You twist more than Britney Spears. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #18 April 14, 2009 Quote Me. My primary home defense weapon is a Benelli M4 with (a) a pistol grip, (b) a collapsible stock and (c) a 6 round capacity. Having any two of those things would qualify it for the ban. Feinstein For Feinstein, it's a .38. Quote Feinstein was accused of hypocrisy when it became public information that despite her stringent anti-gun record, the Senator maintained a Concealed Weapons permit and actively carried a .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver for her personal safety. Quote When challenged, she stated "I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." Really? Quote In 1999, Jill Labbe, of the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, recounted Mrs. Feinstein's actions at an anti-gun press conference, where Mrs. Feinstien displayed an AK-47 assault rifle. Despite her assertions of being trained in handling firearms, after picking it up, she broke multiple basic and commonly known firearms handling safety rules; placing her finger on the trigger, and then sweeping the muzzle across the room, pointing at people who were present." I missed the part of training where they say to sweep the audience with the muzzle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #19 April 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote If you allow the gun-grabbers to set the allowable firearms as only those which are good for home defense, then 95% of all firearms will be outlawed under that scheme. It's a really bad idea. So you're now saying that 95% of firearms are no good for home defense. OK. You twist more than Britney For those of us who understand English, we understand that there was no need to twist JohnRich's words. Capt.Slog interpreted them correctly as written. If that's not the intended meaning, then perhaps JohnRich should have chosen his words more carefully so that they would accurately convey his intended message.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites n23x 0 #20 April 14, 2009 I wasn't trying to frame the question for any setup, and agree that weapons for home defense or otherwise isn't a terribly relevant to AWB. Simply curious how the AWB affects a person's choice for the home defense. Or not. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #21 April 14, 2009 Quote Simply curious how the AWB affects a person's choice for the home defense. Or not. The California variant, which includes the 10 round limit for magazines, has pushed some people up to higher calibers in handguns. If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,109 #22 April 14, 2009 > If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? That seems akin to the argument "well, if I can't drive drunk, why not drive while doing nitrous?" Presumably if someone wanted a .45 they would get one with or without any other restrictions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #23 April 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you allow the gun-grabbers to set the allowable firearms as only those which are good for home defense, then 95% of all firearms will be outlawed under that scheme. It's a really bad idea. So you're now saying that 95% of firearms are no good for home defense. OK. If you ever understood correctly anything I said it would be a miracle. Note how I used the word "scheme". The definition of "scheme" is this: "a plan or program of action; especially a crafty or secret one." So, I'm saying that's the way the anti-gun politicians would construe it. Just look at what they've done with the "sporting purposes" requirement in gun import policy. Got it now, kallend? But of course you do. You're just back to playing your little disingenuous games again, after pretending to slip quietly away after xmas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #24 April 14, 2009 Quote> If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? That seems akin to the argument "well, if I can't drive drunk, why not drive while doing nitrous?" Presumably if someone wanted a .45 they would get one with or without any other restrictions. I think you're confused, Bill. I certainly have no idea what you're trying to say. What does caliber selection have to do with driving under the influence? As the bullets are larger, the capacity of .45s tends to be lower than a comparable 9mm. Nothing, thus far, forces one to buy one or the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DrewEckhardt 0 #25 April 14, 2009 QuoteQuote> If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? That seems akin to the argument "well, if I can't drive drunk, why not drive while doing nitrous?" Presumably if someone wanted a .45 they would get one with or without any other restrictions. I think you're confused, Bill. I certainly have no idea what you're trying to say. What does caliber selection have to do with driving under the influence? As the bullets are larger, the capacity of .45s tends to be lower than a comparable 9mm. Nothing, thus far, forces one to buy one or the other. In California, a wide-body 9mm holds 10 rounds. In California, a wide-body .45 or .45 Super holds 10 rounds. No capacity trade-off so why not get the more powerful gun? 10 round single stack .45 magazines were introduced in response to the original crime bill. Why not mate one of those to a 1911 in .460 Rowland? Browning's Best with .44 magnum ballistics. In the absence of such silly laws, there are 9mm guns that hold 17-19 rounds in their fat little bellies and you get to choose more little bullets or fewer big ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
n23x 0 #20 April 14, 2009 I wasn't trying to frame the question for any setup, and agree that weapons for home defense or otherwise isn't a terribly relevant to AWB. Simply curious how the AWB affects a person's choice for the home defense. Or not. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #21 April 14, 2009 Quote Simply curious how the AWB affects a person's choice for the home defense. Or not. The California variant, which includes the 10 round limit for magazines, has pushed some people up to higher calibers in handguns. If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,109 #22 April 14, 2009 > If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? That seems akin to the argument "well, if I can't drive drunk, why not drive while doing nitrous?" Presumably if someone wanted a .45 they would get one with or without any other restrictions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #23 April 14, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you allow the gun-grabbers to set the allowable firearms as only those which are good for home defense, then 95% of all firearms will be outlawed under that scheme. It's a really bad idea. So you're now saying that 95% of firearms are no good for home defense. OK. If you ever understood correctly anything I said it would be a miracle. Note how I used the word "scheme". The definition of "scheme" is this: "a plan or program of action; especially a crafty or secret one." So, I'm saying that's the way the anti-gun politicians would construe it. Just look at what they've done with the "sporting purposes" requirement in gun import policy. Got it now, kallend? But of course you do. You're just back to playing your little disingenuous games again, after pretending to slip quietly away after xmas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #24 April 14, 2009 Quote> If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? That seems akin to the argument "well, if I can't drive drunk, why not drive while doing nitrous?" Presumably if someone wanted a .45 they would get one with or without any other restrictions. I think you're confused, Bill. I certainly have no idea what you're trying to say. What does caliber selection have to do with driving under the influence? As the bullets are larger, the capacity of .45s tends to be lower than a comparable 9mm. Nothing, thus far, forces one to buy one or the other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #25 April 14, 2009 QuoteQuote> If they can't have 15 with their 9mm, why not get a .40 or a .45 instead? That seems akin to the argument "well, if I can't drive drunk, why not drive while doing nitrous?" Presumably if someone wanted a .45 they would get one with or without any other restrictions. I think you're confused, Bill. I certainly have no idea what you're trying to say. What does caliber selection have to do with driving under the influence? As the bullets are larger, the capacity of .45s tends to be lower than a comparable 9mm. Nothing, thus far, forces one to buy one or the other. In California, a wide-body 9mm holds 10 rounds. In California, a wide-body .45 or .45 Super holds 10 rounds. No capacity trade-off so why not get the more powerful gun? 10 round single stack .45 magazines were introduced in response to the original crime bill. Why not mate one of those to a 1911 in .460 Rowland? Browning's Best with .44 magnum ballistics. In the absence of such silly laws, there are 9mm guns that hold 17-19 rounds in their fat little bellies and you get to choose more little bullets or fewer big ones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
