So... You want to ban 'assault weapons'...?

Im debating if I should just get a new 6.5 rifle or just swap the barrel on my .308 for .260.

I will be going with a long tube-not so much for the velocity but for the fact that I can burn less powder to get to specific velocity.

 

No one can give an argument to ban a legal gun. If you could.....it would be an illegal gun. The rifle in question is not a fully automatic firearm.
To answer the question.....Yes, I do support a ban of fully automatic firearms. Look, unless you have one made before 1986, they are illegal anyway so why not ban them. Again, what do you need one for? Your right? Give me a break. Let's look at smoking and car safety. We have been taking small steps and cancer and vehicle deaths have been greatly reduced so why can't we do small steps with guns? Why, because Americans are gun crazy.
"Americans are so uniquely violent, so paranoid and hate-filled, so incurably homicidal, that they will keep killing each other no matter what laws exist—to believe that the same simple social restraints that have ended epidemic gun violence elsewhere won’t work here. "
People on these forums like to talk about common sense for things like bathrooms but with guns...not so much.
" Of course, to say that the social science is settled is exactly not to say that one or two authority figures are in dogmatic possession of the truth—that’s not what makes it science—but that a broad community of people who have taken the trouble to study the evidence and open their data to each other have come to something close to a consensus. More guns mean more homicides. More guns mean more gun massacres. More guns mean more death. Common sense confirms what social science demonstrates:" less guns = less deaths.
So yes, I would ban fully automatic weapons.

 

Wait...
The Ruger in the OP is unsuitable for hunting because bolt-rifles are better than AR15 based rifles -- and thus, AR15 rifles should be banned?

 

Nosler .26 looks impressive but I believe it is based on a .416 case, so it terribly overbore.

I have a long-action 700 w/ a 28:" Krieger bull barrel -- heavy as hell, but steady.

 

But fully automatic firearms never really caused a problem, they were banned because people thought they were scary.

And no, more guns does not mean more homicides.

The U.K. Leaves out all "unsolved crimes, crimes committed by the mentally ill, and suspicious deaths" from there reports while the US adds all of those in + lawful defensive usage of a firearm.

Australia seen a sky rocket in violent crime following their firearm grab, oh but what's this... The firearms black market in Australia is booming? Damn..

We have more firearms now than in anytime in our history, logically (using your logic) we should have he highest homicide rates and the highest crime rates in our history, we do not, we have the lowest amounts.

So why do you want to ban things that are, "Scary"?

 

Do you realize that the adoration for inanimate objects with the sole purpose of killing displayed in your posts (comparable to that of a little kid in a candy store) doesn't exactly inspire confidence in "responsible" gun owners?

It rather points to the accumulation of a gun stash being some sort of sick hobby, possibly involving the killing for enjoyment and sport of some small rodents, as implied by another poster, rather than the oft-peddled excuse of "self defense".

 

Why shouldn't I have a 20 round magazine? If the police and military can have them, paid for by our tax dollars, why shouldn't a citizen be allowed to have one? Do you think citizens are less trustworthy or trainable than those former civilians in the police and military? How about military veterans and ex-police, do we all automagically become criminals and incompetent just because we take off the uniform? What, specifically, is the danger to society from a civilian with a firearm that has a 10, 20, 30 or bazillion round magazine?

 

Based on this opinion that any gun that is capable of killing "many in a short period":

How many shots should any firearm be limited to fire before reloading? Only 1? 5? 6? 10?

Should all semi and full-autos be banned for civilian use? Are revolvers that have been around since the 1830's okay because they are slow?

[video=youtube;lLk1v5bSFPw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw[/video]

 

The Thompson sub-machine gun had restrictions put on it because it was scary?
Pretty much everything you have as facts are wrong.

 

Wait...
What firearm discussed here has the sole purpose of killing?
How so?

 

Not trying to be a smart ass, but with me, it can be summed up as the ability to flip anyone and everyone off and not caring what anyone thinks except you.

 

Dang, maybe we should ban automobiles than have gas tanks over a gallon or so. Even then, how many people could I run down, maim and kill with even one gallon at 15mpg? We may need to have another energy efficiency metric for cars...PHPG (People Hit Per Gallon).

 

Yes, I think it's a fact that citizens are less trustworthy or trainable than those former civilians in the police and military.
" What, specifically, is the danger to society from a civilian with a firearm that has a 10, 20, 30 or bazillion round magazine?"...see above

 

Unresponsive.

I'll take your post to mean you want to eliminate semi-automatic guns and replace them with revolvers and similar weapons. That a NASCAR driver can drive at over 200 MPH doesn't mean you can and doesn't mean you should have his car to take to the grocery.

 

Show us the documentation to support your alleged facts. Good luck with that, considering that if your nonsense were fact, where did we get all those folks who are currently or have been in law enforcement and the military if the civilians are so untrustworthy and trainable? Mars?

As with most people with irrational fears, logic isn't on the side of you hoplophobes...but thanks for letting us know that you consider YOURSELF less trainable and trustworthy than our cops and military. I'm sorry you have such low self-esteem.

 

Because the grabbers call many weapons to be "assault weapons" that are not. Invented by the gun grabbing group VPC back in the late 80's, early 90's specifically to convince an unknowledgable public that the weapons in question had some fantastic power to do more damage than others commonly in use at the time. In the 1994 "assault weapons" ban, the AR-15 was banned, but the Ruger "ranch rifle" which fired the exact same round, had the exact same functionality as a semi-auto, could use 30 round magazines was not because it had a wooden stock.. Used by the media and activists to classify a whole category of weapons because of features they felt were scary. (Go on YouTube and watch Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney talk about "the thing that goes up").

I have seen them use the term "assault pistol" referring to certain handguns that have large magazines. I have seen them use the term "assault knives" (no, really, one fool called a Marine WWII KBar an "assault knife"). The grabbers will append the term "assault....." to anything they deem to be scary that they think citizens should be banned from having.

- - - Updated - - -

Probably needs to be one of the ones banned from possessing firearms if he considers himself that incompetent.

 

*L* You had to admire that Col. Rosenberg (6+1) - always leading from the front where the fighting was the thickest.

Each to his own, I guess... give me a SAKO 85 LR sighted to 600 and Lap .338's any day - it's about as close as you get to throwing down lightning from Olympus as you can get.

It's not responsible gun-owners I have a problem with.... I'd waive the three-day requirement if you're already a registered gun-owner. What I'm trying to stop is the guy who's trying to buy that .38 to kill his ex in a fit of rage.

I don't see the problem with licensing.... if you want to be a registered gun-owner, why shouldn't you have to take a couple of hours out of your life to get some safety instruction? About the only argument I've seen against it is that it makes it harder to overthrow the Government (??!?). My little brother is a cop... I've got to figure it makes his job a little safer the next time he walks into a domestic dispute if he knows going in what guns are likely on the premises. Again, I don't know all of the legal ramifications from Heller, but if we're going to have a well-organized militia, shouldn't we have ready access to know who's got what when the crap hits the fan? And shouldn't we expect they'd have a minimum of training instruction at some point in their lives?

 

Did you know that this particular firearm was only introduced to the market recently? It may not be on lists of "best of". The "best of" lists are people's opinions.

Who gets to decide who needs anything? YOU??? Why are you to be able to decide on what I need. That fact that I want one of the Ruger Precision Rifles (I REALLY want one) is enough to define need.

If we want to get to deciding what people need. I vote for motorcycles. They should be banned because I don't like them, don't think anyone NEEDs a Harley to get to work. Backyard swimming pools are on the list to be banned too. Rec center pools are much larger and safer, Backyard pools consume all that precious water, they cost a lot to maintain, sometimes fall into disrepair and attract mosquitoes and I don't like them and don't believe anyone needs one to go swimming.

 

I don't support ANY gun control measures since 1789 in America. I do not support any gun control laws that were outside what was common and customary for Colonial Americans during this time (1790's).

I'm not the one giving a link to their peers (the Brady Campaign).

I support honest, American citizens having any small firearm they can carry and shoot that they choose. Full-auto, unlimited magazine capacity, no registrations, no background checks.

I support slamming hard anyone who uses a gun or does any other violent act. I support criminal control. Not gun control.

 

Isn't it funny how those were the times prohibition was in full effect? When you have a massive criminal organization created by the ignorance of a few women who created a movement which our government adopted you will see criminals using the best weapons to kill each other with. Kind of why RPG's were found on our southern border last year.

Now for a reality check.


"Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. "

Hmmm...

Fully automatic weapons serve a purpose as stated in the 2A, a well regulated militia (AKA private gun owners across America, ask any instructor at a shooting range who he would trust more with a firearm a legal carrier or a LEO)

Private owners practice more than LEO and they do it on their own will, they are not trying to meet a requirement.

The Caeto vs Massachusetts case sides with my standing on the above.

 

Registration?
None of my guns are registered - in fact, the huge majoity of guns are not registered.
There mere fact that I already legally own x number of guns negates any argument for the necessity of having to wait to buy another.

It is a precondition to the exercise of a right not inherent to same; said precondition is constitutionally unacceptable to any constitutionally protected right.

I'll quote Heller if you want, but suffice it to say that the ruling negates every part of this.

 

Agreed except for registration. If you want criminal control, it helps to have a paper trail. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing.

 

"What happened,"

"the gun was stolen"

*Really sold it to some guy downtown.

That paper trail right? Because it's going to change hands rapidly after that.

 

And if a some guy "wants" a bucket of anthrax? 20 pounds of polonium-210?

See? "Arms" is such a fluid word and we already ban stuff that could be called "arms" because of its danger.

Of the dozens of types of assault style weapons on the market the only one to make that list did so with a caveat that it was not a very good hunting rifle.

The weapon in question and similar weapons have a single purpose. To kill people, to kill lots of people and to do so very quickly. A weapon capable of achieving cyclic firing rates of 600-900 RPM is not a hunting weapon. It is not a personal defense weapon. It is not a target shooting weapon. It is a killing machine. Its sole purpose is to kill, to kill many, and to kill quickly.

 

And as state in the 2A, the militia is entitled to "killing machines", for the proper defense of a country the militia must be capable of defense.