GSO/Guilford Pols

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

« No, really, stop | Main | No negative consequences, he means »

Dec 20, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cc33e53ef017c34d0ee34970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Taxonomies:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hartzman

ProMag Saiga Shotgun Drum Magazines

http://www.cabelas.com/magazines-clips-blackhawk-saiga-shotgun-drum-magazines.shtml

RESTRICTIONS THAT MAY APPLY:

Cannot Ship:
APO/FPO addresses
International addresses

Some Items Cannot Ship:
California
New York
New Jersey

Take your Saiga tactical shotgun to the next level with these rugged, reliable drum magazines. Each is constructed of rugged black polymer. Choose between 20- or 10-round magazines.

For use with American-made 2-3/4" shells only.

Available: 10 Round, 20 Round.

Fred Gregory

Saw these arguments this morning. I think the public should be exposed to them anxd not just from conservative talk show hosts

"Obama says he will introduce legislation to close “The Gun Show Loophole.” There IS NO gun show loophole. The federal laws pertaining to purchasing a firearm at a gun show are exactly the same at a gun show as they are anywhere else in this country. When a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. When a private individual at a gun show sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer at a gun show sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. The operation of law is EXACTLY the same at a gun show as it is anywhere else. Therefore, as I said, there is no “gun show loophole.” Now I’m thinking that you haven’t heard this from your mainstream media outlet, have you?

The true purpose behind this “close the gun show loophole” idea is to make the sale and transfer of firearms between individuals impossible by requiring a private individual to conduct a background check before selling a privately owned gun to another individual. Private individuals do not have the legal authority to access the information necessary to perform the background check. This would mean that Americans could only obtain a firearm through a federally licensed firearms dealer. Consider the consequences. Has this angle been covered in the mainstream media? Uhhhhhh ….. no.

In response to the Sandy Hook shootings Obama will introduce legislation calling for more extensive background checks. A more extensive background check would have done nothing to prevent the deaths of these 26 people. The shooter underwent NO background check at all. That’s because he did not purchase the guns. His mother did. By all accounts his mother could have passed any conceivable background check. You’ve already seen this covered in the mainstream media, haven’t you? You haven’t? Golly! I’m just soooo surprised.

Obama wants an assault weapons ban. We had one of those and there is not one bit of empirical evidence that the ban saved one single life. Some weapons are designated as “assault weapons” simply because they look like they should be carried by a soldier, even though they are less powerful than your average hunting rifle. Can you tell me why putting a hole in the stock of a gun for your thumb, or making the stock out of grey plastic, should make it illegal?

The problem we face in this gun control debate bears so many similarities to the problems we face in much of our national political discourse. The media has chosen sides, and contrarian information will be blocked and the public will not have the details necessary to make informed choices."

Grant

"Private individuals do not have the legal authority to access the information necessary to perform the background check."

I bet there's a free market solution to this.

Hartzman

Most private individuals don't want to do a background check.

Background check also theoretically means taxes.

Background checks also provide connections to sellers
of unregistered guns.

When grampa passes, the guns usually pass through probate
without being counted in the value of the estate,
as coins, collectibles are.

How many gun owners in Guilford County are paying property taxes
on their firearms?

Grant

Most private individuals don't "want" to confirm clear title on a car or house, either.

Dale

I sure wasn't snickering about the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. Any time I see the terms misused, I wonder whether the person is really ignorant or outright lying. Either way, it concerns me. Ultimately, we are talking about making laws.

Hartzman

"NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision Mysteriously Stripped From Bill

Congress stripped a provision Tuesday from a defense bill that aimed to shield Americans from the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely without trial by the military. The provision was replaced with a passage that appears to give citizens little protection from indefinite detention."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/ndaa-indefinite-detention_n_2326225.html
.
.
.
I believe our current federal government has no moral authority.

Ed Cone

Dale, accuracy is important, and I appreciate the information shared on these threads.

Just saying that if meaningful distinctions can be made between types of gun, then, well, meaningful distinctions can be made between types of gun.

Dale

My point is that distinctions are not being made where they should be. People are just lumping things together either out of ignorance or for dramatic effect.

Automatic weapons are already highly regulated, so why keep mentioning them? What about hand grenades and flame throwers?

At the same time, I want to know how a bayonet lug converts a semi-automatic rifle into an ASSAULT WEAPON.

Grant

I want to know why all the experts won't acknowledge that "assault weapons" have a military lineage and that the term is not a pinko invention, and why they won't stop the fatuous comparisons to "more powerful" hunting cartridges.

Dale

Knowledgeable people will tell you that assault weapons were developed by the Germans before/during WWII.
They are fully automatic or capable of fully automatic firing.

The cartridges are less powerful than many hunting and full-sized battle rifle cartridges like the .30-06.
By definition, they are more powerful than less powerful cartridges.

Thomas

Hand grenades and flame throwers don't kill people...

Grant

"By definition, they are more powerful than less powerful cartridges."

Now who's zooming whom? You and I both know the intent of such statements is to convey "less lethal." Armies don't stop referring to assault rifles as assault rifles when the selector isn't set to full auto.

Robin

The trrorists at Benghazi who had RPGs, mortars and other automatic weapons got them from Obama who wantys to take away your guns.

Be careful they will be coming after our cross-bows

Hillary wasn't available for coment because a severe case of toe fungus.

Dale

Read my comment again.

True. An assault rifle not set on full-auto is still an assault rifle.
But, if a rifle doesn't have full-auto capability, it isn't an assault rifle. An AR-15 isn't an assault rifle, on purpose.

Whether "power" is measured by momentum or kinetic energy,an assault rifle cartridge will be more powerful than some and less powerful than many others. Seems rather obvious.

Who said "less lethal"? Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

Grant

Uh huh. Haven't come across anyone pointing out that the .223 Remington (which wasn't designed to Army standards nope nosirree) is "less powerful than many others." Come across many that point out the 30-06 Springfield etc. etc. is far more deadly. I.e., Adam Lanza must've been a noob because he was hunting first graders with a varmint rifle.

Hartzman

A .223 is meant to optimally incapacitate while maintaining both defensive and offense capability via relatively more bullets than less, for what may happen after what could happen after initial firing.

If there were larger bullets, fewer would fit in a reliable magazine.

If there were smaller bullets, the efficacy of rendering lessens.

The reason bayonets are illegal, is that that is what would be utilized if one were to run out of bullets, which would probably make it an "assault" rifle.

Brian

I listened to this bit on Fresh Air tonight on my drive back into town. Informative for me as a non gun-owner who didn't understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic, or when automatic guns came into being, and how these guns made it into the civilian markets. I think listening to it rather than reading the snippet is more informative.

The comments to this entry are closed.