Gun owners poll

[MyBlueHeaven]

Hey, just curious people. Times are getting crazy with the new possible gun legislation under consideration. If you haven't heard, the following weapons(currently legal) are slated to be banned if the bill passes.......





Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine,

Sturm Ruger Mini-14,

AR-15,

Bushmaster XM15,

Armalite M15,

AR-10,

Thompson 1927,

Thompson M1;

AK,

AKM,

AKS,

AK-47,

AK-74,

ARM,

MAK90,

NHM 90,

NHM 91,

SA 85,

SA 93,

VEPR;

Olympic Arms PCR;

AR70,

Calico Liberty,

Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,

Fabrique National FN/FAL,

FN/LAR, or FNC,

Hi-Point20Carbine,

HK-91,

HK-93,

HK-94,

HK-PSG-1,

Thompson 1927 Commando,

Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

Saiga,

SAR-8,

SAR-4800,

SKS with detachable magazine,

SLG 95,

SLR 95 or 96,

Steyr AU,

Tavor,

Uzi,

Galil and Uzi Sporter,

Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

Calico M-110,

MAC-10,

MAC-11, or MPA3,

Olympic Arms OA,

TEC-9,

TEC-DC9,

TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,

Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

Armscor 30 BG,

SPAS 12 or LAW 12,

Striker 12,

Streetsweeper.



Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below),

(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.



Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles)…



A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has:

(i) a second pistol grip,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a barrel shroud or

(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and

(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.



A semiautomatic shotgun with:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),

(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and

(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.


.....what do you think?

[Lawdog]

I am currently waiting for my concealed weapons permit. If they want to ban guns, they should take a good look at the countries that have already banned them especially Britain. Crime with weapons SKYROCKETED there. And it is unlawful to defend yourself with a weapon under their laws. Completely Asinine. If they think for one minute that I'm going to give up my family's and my home's only REAL defense, they are wasting their time.
The Constitution says I have a RIGHT to have a weapon. I'm not going to let the criminals be the only people with a gun. That's like saying "time out" in a gun fight.
On a lighter note, I would love to have an M-1!!!

[stagger]

I guess I'm weird, I'm pro concealed weapons but I'm not big on assault weapons period (especially for non-registered folks).

[Administrator]

Uncle Ted tells us all about it.

[Cody KP]

Owned non-registered guns when I lived in KY. That wouldn't fly in CA and in all honestly there's no need for me to own a gun.

I'm all for people being able to keep a gun in their house... for hunting or personal safety, but I see no need why anyone would need to own an assault weapon.

[MyBlueHeaven]

My biggest problem is in the government's consideration of what constitutes an "assault weapon". If you look at the proposed ban list, the majority of the weapons are defined as assault solely because of the appearance, not performance.

[Lawdog]

Aug 26, 2009 20:51:50 GMT -5 MyBlueHeaven said:

My biggest problem is in the government's consideration of what constitutes an "assault weapon". If you look at the proposed ban list, the majority of the weapons are defined as assault solely because of the appearance, not performance.

Great point !!!!!

[WildcatnCarolinas]

Have both. Have at least one weapon for every window in house all 25 of them. So when they decide they are illegal they had better bring the calvary because we will defend our rights.......

WildcatnCarolinas

[BlueCat]

My brother once owned a bazooka; yes a bazooka. Now that to me is a bit over the top, but no one has a right to tell me that I'm not allowed to own a gun for personal protection. What constitutes an assault weapon anyway. Wouldn't that be any weapon you can use to assault people with. Banning certain types of weapons isn't going to cut down on crime it's only going to change the weapon used. If the government wants to cut down on certain types of weapons then ban the manufacture of those weapons and and ban any weapon maker from selling in the U.S. that manufactures them elsewhere or is linked to companies that make them. Just don't think you are going to keep me from protecting my family.

[ukfanfromeku]

Aug 26, 2009 18:29:28 GMT -5 Cody KP said:

Owned non-registered guns when I lived in KY. That wouldn't fly in CA and in all honestly there's no need for me to own a gun.

I'm all for people being able to keep a gun in their house... for hunting or personal safety, but I see no need why anyone would need to own an assault weapon.

the purpose of the 2nd amendment was for the case of a tyrannical government appearing allowing citizens to organize a militia. Sure it doesn't seem like this is happening, but it could happen. ask Germany and Cuba.

[UK_CATS_3]

you ban weapons then only the criminals will have them because they do not care about laws anyway