Replies

I really don't like things being called a BAN unless it IS A FLAT OUT BAN. We don't need 'the boy who cried wolf' out there. This time KABA is off the mark.

And I never said I liked the study. For the record, I will take that in exchange for the ban on gun lawsuits. Same with the trigger locks(unless the CPSC clause is there - that's a dealbreaker). Those are PITA's. The lawsuits can break the business.

And an ammo ban(Kennedy's), gun show ban through red tape or otherwise, or AW ban will be a dealbreaker for me.

And an ammo ban(Kennedy's), gun show ban through red tape or otherwise, or AW ban will be a dealbreaker for me.

I'm glad you will draw the line somewhere.

I really don't like things being called a BAN unless it IS A FLAT OUT BAN. ... And I never said I liked the study.

What do you think the purpose of the study is? They plan to use the results for something.

I really don't like things being called a BAN unless it IS A FLAT OUT BAN. We don't need 'the boy who cried wolf' out there. This time KABA is off the mark.

And I never said I liked the study. For the record, I will take that in exchange for the ban on gun lawsuits. Same with the trigger locks(unless the CPSC clause is there - that's a dealbreaker). Those are PITA's. The lawsuits can break the business.

Making all rifle ammunition illegal can break the business just as easily as making rifles illegal.

This is a "kinder, gentler" approach to the goal. Rather than put a ten thousand dollar per bullet tax on ammunition sales (I forget which idiot legislator proposed that abortion a few years ago), this one simply quietly redefines the ground out from under the entire rifle market.

Sure, the guns will be legal. But, try to find ammunition for them...

I guess the .223 rifles can be converted to take .22 rimfire, for only a few hundred dollars per rifle, but the big question is why bother?