1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Feinsteins ban bill is HR 437

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by 548, Feb 4, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 548

    548 Guest

    It looks like a pretty responsible piece of Legislation with exemptions as long as your arm for all the common sporting weapons. From what I read, which was the entire bill, I saw one common theme from the list of banned weapons; they were designed solely for the purpose of killing human beings. While I concede that this bill has no chance of passing, I must admit, I read nothing in it that I found offensive or over reaching.

    Rick, aside from the obvious answer, what did you read in the bill that you had the most trouble with?
     
  2. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,971
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    "they were designed solely for the purpose of killing human beings."

    There is where your totally wrong as usual 548.

    There is not ONE firearm made with the "purpose" of killing anyone!! The person pulling the trigger with the muzzle pointed at a human being is the one/thing "killing" another human being.

    Again your lack of "education" is showing again! or has your indoctrination fogged your ability to think on your own??
     
  3. oz

    oz Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,817
    SENATOR feinstin's bill has a house designation?
     
  4. 90Tshooter

    90Tshooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    329
    548,

    So a where does a Remington or Ruger AR fit in? Are you saying that it was designed to kill people so any manufacturer of this weapon system can no longer manufacture them? And you're OK with this?

    Joe
     
  5. 548

    548 Guest

    Timber, please educate me. Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish.... Well, you know the rest.

    Please tell me what the M16 was designed to be used for.
     
  6. Kevin Fleming

    Kevin Fleming Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    449
    Defending Freedom.
     
  7. 548

    548 Guest

    Joe I would have to know more regarding your question. Are you using the definition of an assault weapon as outlined in the Bill or some other definition? What specific Remington or Ruger are you referring to based on the definition in the Bill?
     
  8. Rick Barker

    Rick Barker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    14,394
    oz

    Her office wrote it, a House member introduced it.

    Reid would not have brought it up for a vote, but it will look better for the libs if it does not make it through the Republican controlled House, instead of failing in the Democrat Senate. And if it did make through the House, then there would be a lot of pressure for the Senate Dems to pass it.

    Optics are everything.
     
  9. BT-100dc

    BT-100dc Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2008
    Messages:
    1,487
    548: What part of the 2nd Amendment don't you understand? It is not negotiable with me. The Founding Fathers used the word "infringed". Look it up in the dictionary. This bill should be named "Infringement on Your 2nd Amendment Rights". Today, a 30 round magazine is legal, if this passes it is not. What has changed? Why would you force people to engage in social disobedience because of a belief? This Bill does nothing in eliminating crime; it's a power grab by the government. No shooting sport participant should support this kind of sh$t. The people will not respond to this kind of tyranny. BT100dc
     
  10. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,971
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    Your kidding 548 right??

    Military firearms are built per military contracts, The Ruger Mini 14 was not a military contact. It was Ruger being Ruger, a company interested in supplying a consumer need.

    Just about any military firearm ends up in a civilian version or the real things end up being sent home by the users.

    The "design" of the Colt AR was per contract. Based on weight, caliber and battle function. No different then what the M14 or the M1 Garrand were designed to be. Battle Field reliability.

    Soldiers were the ones "trained" to kill with whatever means available to them. The firearms were there as a option to use!

    The AR has become a great "platform" for building accurate target rifles, Great "pest" control firearm and hunting rifles.
     
  11. 90Tshooter

    90Tshooter Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    329
    548,

    The specific models are the Remington R-15 and Ruger SR-556. They are models NOT exempt according to the list. Again my question is this, these firearms were originally designed for military use but now are manufactured by these companies as sporting firearms for sportsman. Are you OK with the government banning these firearms?
    As long as we're on this road, what firearm in existence wasn't originally designed in one form or another as a military arm designed to kill people?

    Joe
     
  12. skeezix

    skeezix Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2006
    Messages:
    578
    The second amendment is not about hunting.

    The second amendment is not about trapshooting.

    The second amendment is about the right to defend yourself, whether you choose to exercise that right or not. The courts have said that you have the right to own weapons equal to those that you may have to face. Technically we should all have access to full auto AK 47's and / or M16's.
     
  13. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,247
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    Makes a lot sense, a Mini 14 passes mustard, but not a Bushmaster, talk about splitting hairs

    It is stupid legislation so it figures 548 would like it
     
  14. scooterbum

    scooterbum Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,193
    Why bother talking to a commie?
     
  15. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,254
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    If 548 is a gun owner, which I doubt, he's the worst kind. He believes the Bill of Rights is something you wipe your backside with.
     
  16. wayneo

    wayneo Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,002
    Well I see my Nylon 66 got exempted in the Center-fire Rifle Autoloader category!! Glad to see they are on top of this bill.

    Wayne
     
  17. 548

    548 Guest

    Link to Minneapolis Star Tribune article reporting Obama's 2/4/13 visit to the twin cities. ^





    [​IMG]


    And my favorite photo from today. ^
     
  18. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,971
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    I think 548 is none other then a commie named "damanie" from another shooting site.

    More "un-educated" bunk from 548 He/she is truly indoctrinated into the socialist realm!!

    I guess this clown holding up the sign along with 548 doesn't want me to own a Ruger Old Army!!
     
  19. KS-OKIE

    KS-OKIE TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,509
    Location:
    Gladstone, Missouri
    Wow,I guess ole 548`s (the mental pigmy)true colors are showing brightly today...KS-OKIE.
     
  20. 548

    548 Guest

    I didn't write the Bill, Timber. I didn't even say I would vote for the Bill if I was in a position to. What I am saying is that the Bill is nothing like the fear mongors have been reporting.

    On a side note, what is everyone so afraid of? The second amendment hasn't been repealed or amended.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.