4
   

The stupidity of "magazine control"

 
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 02:04 am
hey, great idea, oralloy, drive all the gun manufacturers out of business. best idea you've come up with in years
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 02:23 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
hey, great idea, oralloy, drive all the gun manufacturers out of business. best idea you've come up with in years


Not all of them. Just the Quislings who are willing to deal with Obama.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 08:44 am
@oralloy,
Short memory syndrome...

This happened to the English company which had purchased S/W prior to Slick's administration and then made some sort of a deal with Slick which was abhorrent to gun owners. Americans simply stopped buying S/W firearms and the English company ended up selling S/W for something like a penny on the dollar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson

Quote:

In March 2000 Smith & Wesson was the only major gun manufacturer to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration.[6] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards as well as limits on the sale and distribution of its products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns.[6][7][8] After a 40% sales slide,[9] the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.[10]

The success of the boycott led to a Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation's being initiated under the Clinton administration,[8] targeting gun dealers and gun rights groups, which was subsequently dropped in 2003.[11] This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith & Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), which publicly renounced the agreement, was received positively by the firearms community.[12].....
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 11:59 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
You continue to insist that pistol grips were banned even though they weren't. Your arguments make no sense sometimes.


Enough with your silly half truths. Assault weapons bans are primarily bans of pistol grips, any you know it.

My silly half truths?
The Assault weapons ban was primarily aimed at certain named weapons. In fact pistol grips are not the first test of whether it is an assault weapon or not. Any gun with a pistol grip and no detachable magazine would be perfectly legal under the law. The first test for weapons not specifically named is whether it has a detachable magazine. Your pistol grip argument makes no sense in light of the actual law.

This is the first part of the law
Quote:
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 05:40 pm
@farmerman,
You might get a kick out of this:

http://mynortheastoutdoors.com/ruger-withdraws-from-the-esos/

Quote:

RUGER – WITHDRAWS FROM THE ESOS
Ruger has decided not to attend the upcoming Eastern Sports Show. We are very frustrated by Reed Exhibitions’ foolish decision to ban the display of modern sporting rifles.

We feel that, as one of America’s firearms manufacturers, we must withdraw from the show as a commitment to the 2nd Amendment rights of our customers.

Nonetheless, we are very disappointed not to be attending the Eastern Sports Show. We were looking forward to attending the show for the first time this year and meeting and supporting the 200,000+ sportsmen and women that attend this great celebration of the outdoors.

We hope the show will be successful for the many outfitters and other vendors who depend on the show for their annual business.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 06:51 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Short memory syndrome...

This happened to the English company which had purchased S/W prior to Slick's administration and then made some sort of a deal with Slick which was abhorrent to gun owners. Americans simply stopped buying S/W firearms and the English company ended up selling S/W for something like a penny on the dollar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson

Quote:
In March 2000 Smith & Wesson was the only major gun manufacturer to sign an agreement with the Clinton Administration.[6] The company agreed to numerous safety and design standards as well as limits on the sale and distribution of its products. Gun clubs and gun rights groups responded to this agreement by initiating large-scale boycotts of Smith & Wesson by refusing to buy their new products and flooding the firearms market with used S&W guns.[6][7][8] After a 40% sales slide,[9] the sales impact from the boycotts led Smith & Wesson to suspend manufacturing at two plants.[10]

The success of the boycott led to a Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation's being initiated under the Clinton administration,[8] targeting gun dealers and gun rights groups, which was subsequently dropped in 2003.[11] This agreement signed by Tomkins PLC ended with the sale of Smith & Wesson to the Saf-T-Hammer Corporation. The new company (Smith and Wesson Holding Corporation), which publicly renounced the agreement, was received positively by the firearms community.[12].....


I remember it. Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 06:53 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
You continue to insist that pistol grips were banned even though they weren't. Your arguments make no sense sometimes.


Enough with your silly half truths. Assault weapons bans are primarily bans of pistol grips, any you know it.


My silly half truths?


Yes. You are using the fact that assault weapons bans only ban "combinations of harmless cosmetic features" to make it sound like they are not about banning "harmless cosmetic features".



parados wrote:
The Assault weapons ban was primarily aimed at certain named weapons.


Weapons that were named ONLY because of their harmless cosmetic features.



parados wrote:
In fact pistol grips are not the first test of whether it is an assault weapon or not.


Pistol grips are among the harmless cosmetic features that are banned by the law.



parados wrote:
Any gun with a pistol grip and no detachable magazine would be perfectly legal under the law. The first test for weapons not specifically named is whether it has a detachable magazine.


The fact that it focuses only on semi-autos with a detachable magazine, does not change the reality that all it does is ban harmless cosmetic features on those particular guns.



parados wrote:
Your pistol grip argument makes no sense in light of the actual law.


Pistol grips are among the harmless cosmetic features that are banned by the law.



parados wrote:
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;.


Harmless cosmetic features.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 09:29 pm
@oralloy,
It's interesting that left out much of the law and much of the particular section of the law.
Perhaps you want to avoid that part of the law because it shows your argument about a ban is completely false.
Quote:
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 22 Jan, 2013 11:14 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
It's interesting that left out much of the law and much of the particular section of the law.


You mean the part that limits the law to semi-autos with detachable magazines?

Or the part that makes it cover only "combinations" of harmless cosmetic features?

I addressed both those issues when I said:

"The fact that it focuses only on semi-autos with a detachable magazine, does not change the reality that all it does is ban harmless cosmetic features on those particular guns."

"You are using the fact that assault weapons bans only ban 'combinations of harmless cosmetic features' to make it sound like they are not about banning 'harmless cosmetic features'."



parados wrote:
Perhaps you want to avoid that part of the law because it shows your argument about a ban is completely false.


Nah. I feel no desire to avoid anything. My description of the law is accurate, and my argument is therefore completely true.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 06:23 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:

You mean the part that limits the law to semi-autos with detachable magazines?

Actually, you left out the part where it lists specific weapons.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 12:45 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
You mean the part that limits the law to semi-autos with detachable magazines?


Actually, you left out the part where it lists specific weapons.


No, I got that one too:

"Weapons that were named ONLY because of their harmless cosmetic features."
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 08:26 am


Another ‘High-Capacity’ Magazine Ban Would Not Reduce Crime Rates – Get The Facts

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 10:52 am
@oralloy,
Weapons that were named because they are copies of military weapons.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Jan, 2013 11:36 am
@parados,


Only an under-informed individual (group) would accept that they are copies of military weapons
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  3  
Reply Mon 4 Feb, 2013 10:22 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Weapons that were named because they are copies of military weapons.


They are copies of military weapons in a cosmetic sense only.

The fact remains, there is no legitimate reason to ban harmless cosmetic features. And therefore doing so is unconstitutional.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:15:45