m16ty

The list is just to make the gun grabbers feel good so they can brag about specific gun models they will ban. It really doesn't matter and is a non-issue. The other parts of the proposed ban already bans most guns on the list and many others will be banned that aren't on the list.   If the list was all there was to it, all the makers would have to do is change the model number of their gun. The problem lies in the other parts of the bill where they ban guns by features and not model numbers.

The NRA sends me "polls" all the time. I think they are just fundraisers that are made to look like polls. They ask a series of questions about your stance on gun regs and then at the end they ask for money.   That's ok because right now they need all the money they can get but I've always had the feeling that they take the check out of the envelope and throw the rest of it in the trash when they get it.

I know people (myself included) have had problems with the NRA in the past. I'll have to say I think they've seen the light and they are standing their ground firm this go around.   I can say I'm proud to be a NRA life member and have been actively signing other people up. Let the MSM keep trying to run them into the ground, every time they do membership spikes.

  That would be fine too. The end result would still be a armed teacher.   I don't care how they get there but a certain amount of teachers at each school need to be armed. I'm not saying they would replace the SRO but compliment them.

It's hard to say what Reid has on his mind. The only reason he got reelected was because of NRA backing. I'm sure the NRA is reminding him of this. I'm sure publicly he's going to try and play both sides. Who knows what's going on privately.

I was talking to a friend of mine at Craker Barrel the other night. He's kind of on the fence about arming teachers. I asked him if he thought there were any armed people at Cracker Barrel, he said there would probably be several. He didn't mind taking his kids to Cracker Barrel that night.   Why people think it's ok for there kids to be around HCP holders in just about every other public place but don't want them to be around them in schools blows my mind. I just don't understand why somebody thinks "a good guy with a gun" in a school is so scary.   If nothing else, at least arm the willing principles.     I've also heard the arguement that they are afraid a kid my find out where the teacher hides the gun and take it. I suspect most teachers are smart enough to keep the gun on their person and not just thrown into a desk drawer.

Most shows I've been to, they ask you if you have any firearms on you. If you're carrying you either lie and say you don't or check your gun.   I normally just don't CC at gun shows. I think every gun brought to the show to be sold or traded should be empty and checked at the door.   I also will always check a gun I pick up on a dealer's table at shows or even at a gun store. It's just a good habit anytime somebody hands you a gun (they should also check it before they hand it to you).

Al has his own show on MSNBC? I knew they were bad but didn't know they'd sunk that low.

Some teachers should be allowed to carry. I'm sure there are several at each school that would take on the responsiblity. Require them to take some extra training and pay them a little more.   SROs do help but they aren't the complete answer. If somebody goes in to shoot up a school, the SRO is going to be the first one to get shot if they can. Another fact is the government is pretty well broke on all levels. One SRO per school isn't going to do it and it's going to cost a pile of money to put several SROs in each and every school.   There's really no way to make a school 100% safe. Look at prisons. The inmates are under constant surveillance and have gaurds everywhere. They routinely have assaults, rapes, and killings. They also have (make) all kinds of weapons.

Feinstein's bill will never pass as written. A bunch of dems wouldn't even vote for it.   Now there are a bunch of parts of the bill that could very well pass but the "AW" registration part is one of the things that wouldn't pass.

That's the main reasons.   It would be a little extra pain for the trust holders to submit fingerprints and pics but that's basicly it.   I don't have a trust and do everything personal. To me, it's easier to get the LEO sign off, fingerprints, and pic than it is to deal with a trust. Now if I didn't have a willing sheriff, I'd change my mind.

I don't know of any oil filter that would be small enough to use the sights on something like a pistol. You may find something small enough to work with something like a AR where the sights are quite a bit higher than the barrel.   Another thing to think about is the smaller dia. filters tend to be fairly short also. I bet sound suppression whould suffer.   I guess you could make your own supperssor that would thread onto the registered adaptor.   Also, the more I think about it the more I wonder if this is really legal. Basiclly all they are selling is a thread adaptor and calling it a registered suppressor. I'm no lawyer but you'd think the part that actually does the suppressing would be the registered part.

  I know, my wife is a teacher. She's not a member of the teacher's union.

I've seen all kinds of conflicting reports on this. Who knows what to believe.   I really don't know why it's so complicated unless they are trying to cover something up. The shooter died inside the school. Look at the brass and count the guns inside the school, these are the firearms he used (or at least took into the school to use). Go out to his car and count the guns inside his car, these are the guns he left in his car. Any 10 year old that's ever been around firearms can do that.

State Rep. David Shepard is leaning toward being against arming teachers. His reasoning is that the NEA is against it. Typical Democrat, bowing down to the teacher's union.   Why is the NEA against arming teachers? Do they not trust their own membership to be smart enough to handle a gun?   I'm all for the safety of teachers but they aren't my biggest concern, the kids are.

  You can do a Google search and find out the provisions on the '94 ban.   It goes without saying thought that if a gun is built post-ban (that is, after the ban takes place), for the firearm to be legal it has to meet post-ban standards.   Durring the '94 ban (1994-2004) makers were able just to change a few features of a ar15 to comply with the ban (no threaded barrels and no bayonet lugs). You can bet if a new ban is passed it will cover much more.

You could turn almost any firearm into a "AW" if you go by '94 standards. All you'd have to do is find a old junk gun, paint it black, cut off a old broom handle screw it to the stock for a pistol grip, cut the bottom of the reciever to accept some sort of box that can be called a magizine, and glue or weld on a flash hider to the end of the barrel.   Turn it in, collect $2,000

A bunch of people are donating and signing up new members to the NRA. I've been thinking about signing up people like Feinstein and Schumer or any other anti that you know. It should be easy enough to find their address for the form. I can just imagine the look on their face when that shiny new membership card comes in the mail with their name on it.   Does anybody think this is a good idea? I also wonder if there are any legal problems with doing this?

I think the guy about crapped his pants when Kieth Morgan told him he was carrying during the interview. Priceless.   That Keith Morgan fellow knows his stuff and how to articulate it. We need to hear more of him.

  That's a good question. It wouldn't suprise me if the taxpayers aren't.

The only way to enforce ending private sales it through gun registration.   You are also kidding yourself if you think this will keep the guns out of bad guy hands. The black market is already around but it would be much bigger if you end private sales.   With all that said, IMO the measure would be much better than any bans as long as registration wasn't included with it.   For what it's worth, I voted "no" in the poll

If the article is true, I wish he hadn't changed the speach. If he wants to do a all out ban and confiscation, he should tell it in his speach. Not just make a speach that people want to hear, all the while privately trying to push a for more bans.

I'm on the "easy pay" lifetime membership. When I signed up it was $750 total and you make it in $25 every three months installments. I think I still owe about $300.   I've been thinking about going ahead and paying them off  because they need all they can get right now but I wonder if a donation to NRA-ILA would be better at this time.

If something passes federally, most arresting will be done by local and state police. Sure, they will call the BATF when somebody is found with a "illegal" gun and let them handle it from there but if they don't call the person wouldn't be charged.   I'd be willing to bet most of the arrest of people with guns that are illegal now are done by local police. After the arrest they call the BATF to file federal charges. If they don't arrest in the first place or notify the BATF, there will be no charge.   BATF investigations would also be hampered without cooperation of state and local police.

Does he actually think any gun dealers (even one) will go along with this?   Even though he'd like for this to happen, he's as dumb as a box of hammers for proposing it.   The administration was already going to go after our guns in the second term. Then Sandy Hook fell in thier lap. I'd be willing to bet some of them jumped for joy privately when Sandy Hook happened.