Advertisements
Home

New Glock commercial sure to infuriate liberals everywhere

Leave a comment

This is from Cain TV.

There is no doubt in my mind this commerical will

give the anti gunners apoplexy.

 

“Somebody picked the wrong girl.”

You’d think the party that claims to support strong, independent women would love her. OK, no you wouldn’t. Because they don’t. The party in question loves a woman who knows where to go to get government benefits. A woman like this is doing it all wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2gCFOtaZPo

dramatic and intense than you might have expected. Every time she goes back to the couch (what is she watching, by the way?) and sits down, only to hear that ominous knock on the door once again, you’re really starting to get concerned that the perp might get in before she’s armed and ready.

The first time I watched (spoiler if you haven’t already hit play), I was actually expecting her to shoot him dead. Now that would have been attention-getting, but it is a commercial after all, and I don’t suppose that’s really the association Glock is looking for. It’s about protecting yourself, not about killing someone. Granted, without the threat of the latter you can’t really do the former, but I do think it’s accurate that in the circumstances envisioned here, it would not be necessary to ever pull the trigger the vast majority of the time. The perp is either going to run or put his hands on his head and give up.

A lynchpin of the liberal argument against gun rights is that the average gun-toting citizen is more likely to get shot by his/her own gun than to use in successfully in self-protection. This ad really exposes the thinking that drives that argument. The left simply doesn’t believe that a young woman like this could handle herself in the situation depicted. In their minds, there is no way she’s pointing the gun at the door when the bad guy gets it open – poised and ready. And that goes for a 40-year-old dad looking to protect his family too. These dopes would just end up getting shot by their own gun, so they’re better off not being allowed to own it in the first place. That’s the argument.

I will say this: If I’m her, I’m not waiting until the third time I hear the noise to get the gun. The first time I might write it off as something harmless, but the second time I’m getting the Glock. Why does she wait so long? Just for the ad’s dramatic effect?

Anyway, if that’s the strongest criticism of the ad (and it would be mine), that’s not an anti-gun control argument. It’s an argument for getting that thing in your hands sooner.

 

 

Advertisements

A New “And I Carry” Commercial Shows It Does Not Make You A Bad Person To Carry A Firearm

2 Comments

Hat Tip to The Resistance Untied.

The video was not linked properly on reblog.

2013-12-05-19_12_13-And-I-Carry-The-real-face-of-permit-to-carry-holders-in-MN-YouTube

We need commercials like this to be made in every city in America!

A commercial that shows the real face of gun owners, not the menacing and maniacal face the anti-gunners make us seem like, has been making a buzz lately.

 

SOURCE: MAJOR FIREARM CONGLOMERATE CANCELS CO EXPANSION BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL

1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Stupid and panic gun control in the dead of night has come back to

bite Governor John Hickenlooper and the state of Colorado in their arses.

Now possible future taxes from these firearm manufacturing companies

will not got else where because of the gun laws that was passed.

Actions have consequences that cost millions of dollars from tax revenue.. 

 

Gun control laws passed by Democrat state legislators and signed by Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) in March have missed an opportunity for Colorado to gain millions economically from any expansion of the Freedom Group Family of Companies (FGI).

FGI includes Remington, Marlin, Bushmaster, DPMS, Barnes Bullets, Para, and AAC among others.

An anonymous source familiar with FGI told Breitbart News that this year’s “passage of anti-gun legislation in Colorado has taken the Centennial State out of contention for expansion opportunities.”

There are many reasons for this, one of which is the foolishness of building or expanding manufacturing plants in Colorado for rifles and pistols that hold magazines that became illegal when Colorado’s strict new gun control laws went into effect on July 1.

For example, rifle or pistol magazines with a capacity beyond 15 rounds are now banned in Colorado. But Bushmaster and DPMS are among the companies owned by FGI, and these companies manufacture AR-15s and pistols for which they sell 26 and 30 round magazines and beyond. Selling these magazines would be illegal within Colorado.

Moreover, another gun control measure that did not pass but was pushed by Democratswould have made “assault rifle” manufacturers, sellers, and owners liable for the misuse of their weapons. Even if the gun were sold to a legitimate, law-abiding gun owner, the manufacturer, seller, and owner would have been open to liability had the gun been stolen and misused.

Why would a company that owns AR-15 manufacturers want to spend tens of millions to expand in a state where lawmakers are looking for ways to make their products a liability?

Make no mistake–tens of millions of dollars are what is at stake. Just weeks ago, FGI announced a $32 million expansion in Arkansas. Who knows how many jobs that will create within the state?

FGI has 20 properties across 12 different states, and they will focus on states that are friendly to them and their products, as any reputable business would do.

Looks like gun control is proving costly to Colorado.

 

At Home Self-Defense Tips for Any Invasion

Leave a comment

This is from Girls Just Wanna Have Guns.

Indiana has a castle doctrine law so your not obligated to

retreat.

I promise you if you invade my home you will get a chance to

meet God face to face courtesy of my Remington 870.

The bad part about escaping is there may be others outside.

 

by Tim Dearwester, Founder and President of Second Defense Alliance:

FOLLOW GIRLS JUST WANNA HAVE GUNS ON FACEBOOK!

Home invasions occur at an alarming rate of one every 15 seconds in the United States, and that statistic is enough to spur many homeowners into action. Many people have already created action plans, secured an insurance policy, and installed an alarm system. Even with these steps taken, however, a home is not immune from a real home invasion.

If someone does manage to successfully get past security systems and reinforced doors, a home’s occupants need to know how to escape, how to defend themselves, and how to reduce the likelihood of injury or even death. By following some basic tips and guidelines, homeowners will give themselves a fighting chance at surviving the worst possible effects of a burglary that compromises their home.

1. Know More than One Escape Route

Most families have prepared an “action plan” for a home invasion, identifying what each member of the family should do and how they should secure their own safety as part of the broader group’s plan. Many times, however, families give themselves just one escape route from the home and away from harm. This is a mistake. Home invasions are fluid and fast-changing. Criminals are unpredictable, and they could easily block the plan’s identified escape route and place the family’s safety at risk.

Instead of identifying just one escape route for the home’s occupants, make sure that at least three routes to safety are identified and known by everyone in the home. This will act as a type of insurance, giving families multiple ways to bypass criminals and secure their own safety without the threat of a violent confrontation in many cases.

2. Have a Gun Ready as a Last Resort

Not all home invasions have to end with the use of a firearm, and homeowners are encouraged only to use their gun as a last resort if their life or the lives of their family members are in immediate danger. Even so, having a firearm prepared for the prospect of a home invasion is an excellent idea and one of the leading home invasion protection tips offered by experts in the field. Having a firearm ready constitutes at least the following few tips:

– Be sure the firearm is locked away in a central location, accessible via a numerical code of biometric verification process that only family members can complete

 

Have the firearm cleaned, lubricated, and loaded, ready to be fired in the interest of self-defense at a moment’s notice

– Ensure that each family member who may need to use the gun has received the proper training so that they can use the firearm safely and actually hit their target with an increased level of accuracy

3. Seek Self-Defense Training that Covers Several Key Bases

One of the best ways to ensure safety and survival during a home invasion is to seek self-defense training from a local professional. This allows for self-defense at home that can be conducted in several ways, since great training will show homeowners and their families how to both fight with their hands and how to create makeshift weapons for self-defense against exceedingly dangerous criminals.

Best of all, many self-defense classes and training programs are offered by community groups and nonprofit organizations, many of which are concerned more with promoting safety than with turning a profit. That means many programs are free of charge to the public, making this one of the most affordable self defense at home techniques currently available to the typical homeowner.

4. Designate a Safe Room in the House if Escape is Not Possible

The first priority of a family during a home invasion should be to remove themselves from the situation and therefore remove or reduce their risk of serious injury or other consequences. If this is not possible, however, it’s a good idea for the family to have an identified safe room where they can all gather during a burglary. Though this room will not necessarily keep the family safe, it will keep them together and give them the ability to fight back against threats to their personal safety as a group.

5. Learn the Best Positioning for Self-Defense with a Weapon in the Safe Room

If a robber attempts to enter the safe room, putting the family at harm, the homeowner with the gun should understand the proper positioning to defend the family and wound the intruder. Generally, this is called the “fatal funnel.” It involves the family backing into the corner furthest from the door, giving them maximum response time to decide whether or not a gun wound is their only chance of survival and self-defense.

If so, this farther distance will allow for a more accurate shot and one that wounds, rather than kills, the intruder.

Be Sure to Consider all Options and Possibilities When Creating a Plan.

Self-defense against a home invasion requires a great deal of planning and training, but it can absolutely pay off when family members are safe, their home is protected, and their escape plan works seamlessly. With great training that involves firearm accuracy, hand-to-hand self-defense, and even improvised safety plans, each family can ensure that a home invasion causes minimal loss of money, life or property.

About SDA Founder and President

Tim Dearwester

Mr. Dearwester has always wanted to help others. In high school he tutored inner-city children and children with learning disabilities. During college, he continued to help others by volunteering as a mentor and big brother. Today he continues to give back and tries to live each day by The Golden Rule.

After college, his career began in home building and land development of residential communities. He has successfully owned and operated his own businesses since 1985 and has always been involved and given back to the community.

Recently he purchased a fishing lake so that families can fish, camp, and create great lasting memories. He is an avid hunter and sportsman, a firm believer in the Second Amendment, and values his friends and family above all else.

Read more at http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/08/at-home-self-defense-tips-for-any-invasion/#cZ3ZvkL8j9BxAKVU.99 

 

A Rural Jewish View of Home Protection

Leave a comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

Your options are real clear you can do the following.

Use the state sponsored Dial A Prayer aka 911 and die.

Or you can get a gun learn how to use it and live.

 

 

How long does it take for the police to get to your door? It is a fair question. When I ask some of my friends who live in urban areas or suburbia, I often get a response like, “Well, I live a little further away from a station, so it takes as long as 10 minutes.” Hmmm, not bad.

How about the rest of us? There are a great many who do not live in areas that have municipal police protection. How long does it take for the state or county police to respond to an emergency in areas like that? Areas that have increasingly become the target of home invasions because of this lack of police patrol? Areas that often have to pay the same amount of state and county taxes for fewer benefits from the state and county? I live in an area like that. I would be happy if the state police, who do an outstanding job with limited resources, could make it in 20 minutes. In reality it usually means a little longer.

It takes an intruder 6-10 seconds to kick in my door and make it to my bedroom. That is a gap of around 19:54 minutes of potential life-altering, or ending, horror. Try it on your house. Stand outside and time how long it would take to break a window, unlock a door, and run to your master bedroom. Then stand there for the rest of the 20 minutes it would take for the police to arrive, assuming whoever was inside had the time to call 9-1-1. This is one of the many reasons I fight to defend the rights of firearms owners.

The 2nd Amendment of the United States says that a person has the right to arm themselves against the predations of a tyrannical government. My home state of Delaware takes that one step further by saying, “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.” Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987). Police carry semi-automatic firearms with large capacity magazines because they may need to defend themselves from multiple attackers. Home owners in my state, especially in rural areas, are often finding themselves in the same situation. For a little extra firepower in case they are dealing with a more serious threat, the police turn to tactical rifles or shotguns. Home owners in my state, especially in rural areas, often are increasingly faced with a very similar threat.

As a Jewish man who lives in a rural area, I am often at odds with my urban and suburban Jewish friends and family who often see their world as representative of the country as a whole. They often believe that the gun restrictions that have been placed on some of America’s biggest (and, ironically, most dangerous) cities must be applied universally. These places have police and fire protection that is, in comparison, nearly instantaneous. These friends and family often say that I am pro-gun because I simply cannot understand their “plight” when it comes to firearms in the inner-cities. I think it is the opposite. I think they cannot see the need for my rights in my rural home.

Jeff Spiegelman is a Representative in the Delaware 11th District. www.jeffspiegelman.com,www.jeffderepresentative.com

 

 

Obama Hat-Wearing Anti-Gun Protester Says She’d Rather Be Murdered Than Use a Gun in Self-Defense

1 Comment

This is from The Blaze.

Look closely and listen closely at this sorry specimen of a life form.

Then you will see how Obama was elected then reelected.

Half wits like this will destroy America along with Obama.

The brain and eye bleach are in the second cabinet on the right.

 

Anti Gun Protester Says Shed Rather Be Killed Than Use a Gun in Self Defense

A crowd of people rallied against gun violence at the Georgia State Capitol in honor of Trayvon Martin Tuesday, the one year anniversary of his shooting death. Many of the protesters were speaking out against so-called “stand your ground” laws, which allow gun owners to use deadly force if they feel as if their lives are in danger.

During the rally, one female protester — wearing an Obama hat — told WGCL-TV that using a firearm in self-defense “is not an option.”

“It’s not an option,” she repeated.

The reporter then asked her, “But what if someone is trying to kill you?” She replied, “They’ll just have to kill me.”

“What an incredible admission on this woman’s part,” CNSNews.com’s Stephen Gutowski writes. “She’s willing to let everybody know that she’d rather be murdered than use a gun in self defense. She’d rather be a victim than be armed.”

Another protester said gun control only hurts law-abiding gun owners, not criminals.

“I think that people should have the right to defend themselves. It’s our Second Amendment right and any sort of legislation on guns or any sort of gun control, all it’s doing is hurting the victim

Assessing New Gun Control Proposals

1 Comment

This is from The Cato Institute.

The Cato Institute gives many reasons while gun control will not work.

Gun grabbers are not rational logic will not work for them.

American Gun Owners will not be unarmed by liberal ignorance.

 

Gun control is once again at the center of the national debate. As usual, following tragedies like Newtown, gun-control advocates hope to seize the opportunity to push through long sought-after reforms. The pro-gun rights crowd should be skeptical about the efficacy and constitutionality of such reforms.

 

Assault Weapons” Ban: You can often tell the difference between a gun-rights advocate and a gun-control advocate by whether they place scare quotes around the term “assault weapon.” Under both the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and newly recommended bills an “assault weapon” is defined by cosmetic features, not by whether the gun has uniquely dangerous functions. Assaultrifles, on the other hand, which are produced for military applications, have selective rates of fire, usually a choice between single shot semi-automatic (each trigger pull discharges one round) and fully automatic (rounds will discharge rapidly for the duration the trigger is pressed). Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since the New Deal.

Assault weapons were defined under the 1994 law by features that have little or nothing to do with lethality. One such feature, a folding stock, allows people of different heights use of the weapon. Another feature, a “barrel shroud,” protects the user from touching a hot barrel. Collectively, these features make the guns look more dangerous, meaning they look more like guns used in movies, but they do not make them more dangerous.

Moreover, assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes. In 2011, nearly 13,000 people were killed by violent acts, yet only 343 were killed by rifles of any type. By comparison, blunt objects (hammers, bats, etc.) killed 500. Furthermore, if assault weapons are banned, it does not follow that those 343 people would still be alive. The killers would just choose a different weapon.

Rather than being used for violence, assault weapons are more often used for self-defense (as occurred in Rochester, NY in January) and sport. Supporters often agree that little crime will be stopped by the ban, yet they often say “it’s a start.” The question must be asked: Banning one of the most responsibly used weapons, one that is used less often for violence than are bludgeons, is a “start” to what?

Magazine Limits: Any limit on magazines must comply with the standards of Heller. Firearms that are in “common use” for the purposes of self-defense are strongly protected, and the government must offer sufficient justification if they wish to take those weapons away from law-abiding citizens.

New York’s recent ban on magazines that hold over seven rounds comes very close to unconstitutionality. First, magazines between 12-19 rounds are certainly in “common use.” Most semi-automatic pistols, the most popular type of gun in America, come with a magazine between 12-19 rounds. Second, at some point a low limit on magazine size compromises the right to self-defense. Even experienced shooters will not hit their target every time, and it often takes many shots to bring down an active shooter.

In the face of these considerations, the government must sufficiently demonstrate that magazine limits would curb gun violence while not unduly infringing on Second Amendment rights. Because magazine limits will do little or nothing to curb gun violence, this is a difficult showing to make. Those who want to commit large-scale gun violence, or even common street crime, will not be deterred by magazine limits. A moderately experienced shooter can change magazines in seconds, and anyone who can’t get one of the hundreds of millions of high-capacity magazines already in circulation will simply carry more magazines with him. The Virginia Tech shooter carried a bag with 19 magazines.

Mental Health and Expanding Background Checks: Currently, Brady Bill background checks do not apply to private sales between individuals. Expanding background checks to all sales could be a reasonable move, but we should not expect it to do much to curb gun violence.

The storied “gun show loophole” only accounts for a tiny fraction of guns used in crimes. According to a 2001 Justice Department survey of state and federal prisoners, only 0.7 percent of weapons used by the prisoners were acquired at gun shows. Extending background checks to sales that take place outside of guns shows would be unfeasible without a gun registry that documents transfers, and a gun registry is not only a political impossibility, it is prohibited by the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Furthermore, gun-rights advocates should resist a registry, not only because it will do little to stop gun violence, but because law-abiding Americans should not have to wade through a bureaucratic labyrinth in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

A better proposal would strengthen the communication between the mental health system and the Brady background check. Those with qualifying mental-health issues are already prohibited from purchasing a firearm, but records of mental disorders are often missing from the system. Again, however, we should be aware that this will do little to reduce gun crime. Most people who commit gun crimes are not crazy, they’re merely criminals.

Three principles must guide our thinking on mental health issues. First, firearms should be prohibited only to those with dangerous mental health problems. Merely being depressive or bi-polar is not enough. Second, we should not increase record-sharing in a way that violates therapist-patient privacy. If therapists are required to report every person with violent thoughts, then many people may be reluctant to seek help. Third, we must respect the civil liberties of those who may be mentally troubled. People should not be deprived of their Second Amendment rights based on hunches, but rather through proper adjudicatory channels.

Conclusion and Other Considerations: A serious debate about gun violence in this country should not focus on mass shootings, which are a tiny, albeit horrific, part of gun violence. Many commentators bring up America’s “culture of violence” while ignoring government policies that help create that culture. First and foremost is a failed but perpetual drug war that turns nonviolent people into criminals and helps create a network of black markets where violence is necessary part of doing business. Those black markets are also conduits for illegal weapons. Approximately 20% of guns used in crimes come from these markets.

Second, we must address a failed public school system, particularly in inner cities, that helps perpetuate poverty and crime. Nearly 66 percent of African-American males who drop out of high school will spend at least a year in prison. Schools must be adaptive to these situations rather than locked in to a failed model because of bureaucratic and political inertia. School choice is the only viable option for fixing those problems.

We must pursue well considered laws if we want to lessen America’s gun violence. However, the desire to just “do something” in the wake of a tragedy like Newtown must be tempered by a realistic assessment of the efficacy and constitutionality of the proposals.

 

Medical Malpractice Deaths Nine Times Higher Than Gun Homicides – Let’s End the AMA

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

The amount malpractice deaths is unacceptable. 

I am calling on Congress to do the right thing and ban the AMA.

Roughly 98,000 people die each year at a cost of about $29 Billion Dollars.

Malpractice Deaths are nine times higher the gun deaths.

My idea is a wacked as the gun grabbers wanting to ban guns.

But sadly the gun grabbers have the poser in chief in their corner.

 

I admit that I’m worked up over the advance by the liberals in our country who are out to repeal the Second Amendment, calling for weapons bans, the murder of the National Rifle Association’s president and its members. As a result, I want to turn the table on them a bit. Because medical malpractice causes far more deaths each year than guns do, I’d like to demand that we shut down the American Medical Association (AMA.)

Understand, I am merely making this argument tongue in cheek, but listen to the facts.

Justice.org reports,

The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) seminal study of preventable medical errors estimated as many as 98,000 people die every year at a cost of $29 billion. If the Centers for Disease Control were to include preventable medical errors as a category, these conclusions would make it the sixth leading cause of death in America.

Further research has confirmed the extent of medical errors. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that there were 181,000 severe injuries attributable to medical negligence in 2003. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement estimates there are 15 million incidents of medical harm each year. HealthGrades, the nation’s leading healthcare rating organization, found that Medicare patients who experienced a patient-safety incident had a one-in-five chance of dying as a result.

In the decade since the IOM first shined a light on the dismal state of patient safety in American hospitals, many proposals for improvement have been discussed and implemented. But recent research indicates that there is still much that needs to be done. Researchers at the Harvard School of Medicine have found that even today, about 18 percent of patients in hospitals are injured during the course of their care and that many of those injuries are life-threatening, or even fatal. The Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that one in seven Medicare patients are injured during hospital stays and that adverse events during the course of care contribute to the deaths of 180,000 patients every year.

This is an outrage! I can’t believe the liberals are not calling for a complete end to the practice of medicine completely with 98,000 people dying each year from basically medical malpractice. Why is something not being advanced by the federal government? Oh wait, there is. It’s called Obamacare, or we know it as “more government.” Inevitably this will not lead to less malpractice or deaths. I’m betting long term it will lead to greater numbers of both.

Now, compare the numbers of medical malpractice and the deaths associated with it to those of guns used in homicides.

According to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention in a 2009 report it was discovered that 11,493 people died in the United States as a result of being shot with a firearm.

There’s almost nine times the number of people dying in this country from medical malpractice and the answer we have to that is to put big, ineffective, inefficient government behind more legislation, more control and more funding, but when it comes to guns, well, we can’t have people with scary looking weapons in their possession. We have to create more laws to control them by. In the meantime the liberals never tell anyone that the laws will stop the lawbreakers from obtaining those firearms that they ban. Nor will they tell people that laws do not stop the bullets that comes from the firearms that lawbreakers obtain. People just think that a law is signed and it magically stops bad guys, but it doesn’t quite work that way.

So with these simply statistics, perhaps we should begin petitioning the White House to shut down the AMA since they seem to be responsible for far more deaths than anyone with a gun has been.

By the way, yes you can also call for the closing down of auto manufacturers since people are killed in cars many times over each year. Of course, the scary thing is that if we were to do such a thing in a sarcastic way, the liberals would only get a light bulb to come on in their heads on how they could accomplish it.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/medical-malpractice-deaths-nine-times-higher-than-gun-homicides-lets-end-the-ama/#ixzz2FN6iRwrn

 

Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Is Just Another Word.

Now it begins we need to join guns rights groups.

I will list some gun rights organizations and links to them. 

Please join one or more of these organizations.

So you can join the fight for freedom.

The National Rifle Organization.

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

Gun Owners Of America.

The Second Amendment Foundation.

Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep and Bear Arms.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

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.
Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”

 

So You want to Own A Gun

2 Comments

 

Bob Owens from PJ Media has a five-part series.

They are long articles so I will just link to all five.

They are worth our time to read them.

So you want to own a gun part one

So you want to own a gun part two

So you want to own a gun part three

So you want to own a gun part four

So you want to own a gun part five.

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: