If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Since when is a Hi-Point Carbine an 'AR style weapon'?
I see they got my Beretta cx4 storm on there too, even though it is rather obscure. Obviously they went through lists, and got anything that was black or non traditional. Has anyone ever heard of a violent crime with a cx4? Didn't think so. Not that that should matter one bit of course, but that is their argument.
Not what you asked. If you are going to use that kind of point to argue about it, get your facts straight. I do you no favors by not pointing out the holes in your argument before you trot out that line to a non.Canadians.... And he used a gun already illegal there. Proof outlawing a specific gun does not work.
As I've been saying, either they are going to listen to us and follow the Constitution or they are not. If they listen - fine. If they don't - Civil Disobedience is in order.
I'm going to see Niki Tsongas and see if she can explain how the congress believes it can violate the Constitution and some other good questions - I'll have to see how long she takes questions for or if she even does.
Umm they are considered NOTHING at the moment, unless of course I missed the vote?
In the proposed ban this thread is discussing. Feinstein has publicly stated thumbhole stocks would be on "the list" in the ban - Assault Weapons Ban summary - Assault Weapons - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
Understood. This whole thread is about the proposed ban. Meaning is contextual, and like all contexts, you have to enter it to win.Understood...Proposed, I was referencing your use of the words ( no longer considered "OK". ) I Just want to make sure we don't confuse the Audience as nothing has been voted on. All this ( proposed )Legislation up to this point is Feel good propaganda.
Not what you asked. If you are going to use that kind of point to argue about it, get your facts straight. I do you no favors by not pointing out the holes in your argument before you trot out that line to a non.
I clearly pointed out in my question that I was not making the argument you claim I did. I actually don't care how often a gun is used in crimes when deciding what to ban (I would ban none).