11-10-2008, 08:59 PM
Chad, I agree with you 100%. It disturbes me that someone says they are gun owners, or for the 2nd Amendment but in the same sentence state that they are willing to limit our rights just because they don't see a need for a particular type of weapon.
By the way the Assult Weapons Ban that is sitting on the House floor as we speak, includes more guns than an AR-15 or an AK. Anyone here have a Ruger 10-.22, or a .17 HMR that has a clip that holds more than 5 rounds? Or does anyone have a rifle that has a thumbhole stock? Well if so those guns would be illegal under the new ban if it were passed. Usually bills will grandfather in ownership based off of Serial # manufacture date and only limit future sales, but not this one. This bill does not have a grandfather clause, it just makes it illegal to posses any of the guns that fall under the "Assult Weapon" category, no matter when you purchased the gun.
[signature]
By the way the Assult Weapons Ban that is sitting on the House floor as we speak, includes more guns than an AR-15 or an AK. Anyone here have a Ruger 10-.22, or a .17 HMR that has a clip that holds more than 5 rounds? Or does anyone have a rifle that has a thumbhole stock? Well if so those guns would be illegal under the new ban if it were passed. Usually bills will grandfather in ownership based off of Serial # manufacture date and only limit future sales, but not this one. This bill does not have a grandfather clause, it just makes it illegal to posses any of the guns that fall under the "Assult Weapon" category, no matter when you purchased the gun.
[signature]