BigHink66 wrote:
FD,
Show me how you are right. It says in plain english
`(42) Pistol Grip- The term `pistol grip' means a grip, a thumbhole stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.
[color=CC0000]they are making a distinction between the stock and a grip. You can grip a stock, but it is not a pistol grip unless you can wrap your hand around it. Look at it this way. You can wrap your had around a strait stock as well, it still isn't a pistol grip. they are making a distinction. I agree that this part is written vague, but i also know that when a document is written vague, it goes agains the people who wrote it. unless you have an activist judge (which could happen). But there is other evidence. For one thing, a whole lot more guns would be specifically called out as being banned under the proposal. An AR 15 has a pistol grip. An AK-47 has a pistol grip. A Remington 1187 does not. If you think they do, then we will have to agree to disagree. [/color]
Another thing,
Show me a bolt action rifle that is not threaded to the reciever.
[color=FF0000]You need to look at the definition provided for threaded barrel, and follow it through where it references another document. Threaded barrel means for attaching a firearm as described in that other document. It means for attaching a silencer (for one example). You have to read it all the way through. They clearly do not mean for attaching the barrel to a rifle.[/color]
Show me a semi auto shotgun that doesn't have a 5 shot capacity. Plugged doesn't count since anyone can remove a plug in 3 minutes.
[color=CC0000]The rule says more than 5, as in 6 or more. How many are out there that hold 6 or more, currently in production?[/color]
Nothing in this bill is very descriptive, and by not being so, blankets many sporting arms that should not be considered "assault weapons". It is a waste of tax payers dollars and time since it doesn't in any manner have an effect on the real issue which is violent crime. And in being so vague, should be considered a sneak attack by anyone who has a horse in this race.
[color=FF0000]I agree that it is a waste of tax payers money. i said that about the last one. I also agree that much if it is written vague, but definitions are out there that explain much of it. It would be even more of a waste of money if they had to redefine these things every time they wrote a bill, and it is just not the way things are done. It is not the way bills are written, and not the way international standards are written (trust me on that second one). [/color]
It is my personal opinion that these laws are initiated by legislators who don't know what they are talking about, are influenced by uninformed constituents, and are looking for "easy" solutions to problems that cannot be solved with this manner of legislation just so that they can say that they tried something. Even if it doesn't work and has no chance of working.
[color=CC0000]agree 100 percent[/color]
The whole purpose that they will say this ban is needed is for the protection of american citizens and to make the streets safer.
[color=CC0000]agree 100 percent[/color]
The only way to feasibly accomplish that is through increased penalties for actual criminals, education of children so as to rise from poverty, harsh enforcement of drug violations, and to keep the economy on the upswing and creating new jobs. Not through increased legislation or programs that give hand outs instead of hand ups. But as you can tell accomplishing these things is more difficult.
[color=CC0000]That is one opinion. I also think it is the best way. My opinion is that they are treating the symptom, not the desease.[/color]
So again we have a legislator who introduces a bill that by disguise of at first seeming to be harmless to the honest Joe, but in reality takes his rights away and aligns them to be more reliant on their government an thus giving said legislator more power while putting his foot on honest Joes' head and holding him down. It also leads the way for further and increased restriction on OUR rights.
[color=CC0000]I shouldn't comment on this one, but i can't help myself. I doubt that is their intention in most cases, but it is all too often the result. So, in other words, I partially agree. SURPRISE!!! [/color]
If anyone thinks that gun bans work just look to England, Wash. DC, and other places where they have initiated bans.
[color=CC0000]It is a losing argument. We shouldn't go there. Englands crimes involving guns are way lower than ours. Washington is not a good example because of close proximity to areas with less regulation.[/color]
Anyways, I am starting to run long.
I apologize FD if I made a personal attack to you. That is not my intention. I merely wanted to put an issue in front of people that I thought they should be concerned about.
[color=CC0000]Well, when you said Jack was way more smarter than me, I took it personal (not really, he's a smart guy). No offense taken. I thought I deleted that part. I meant to.[/color]
Even though I think we could disagree on a whole slew of topics, I don't see how your debate has been validated by your evidence.
[color=CC0000]All I said was the original message was misleading. It was an opinion. I felt i supported it fairly well, but agree i didn't at first (my bad). You can argue all you want with it, but it is still just an opinion. You may still feel that I haven't supported it, and that is your opinion. If we still disagree, then we can at least agree to disagree on this. I will tell you though that you and I are basically on the same side on the overall issue. If anything i may have helped you better support your views on this subject. i hope I did. It is often the outcome of discussions like this. I know it helped me. i learned from it. this one seems to have more restrictions than the last ban. i could be wrong.[/color]
I'm outta here... for now
[color=CC0000]I hope not permanent.
Take care.
p.s. Forgive me for not using spellcheck. :-D [/color]
