Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership

Los Angeles Times. ^ | January 14, 2008 | WND

[William Tell]

Nevermind. I'm on a slow dialup and didn't see that you posted a picture of a DPMS pump action AR. I see that it does take what appears to be standard AR magazines.

Since it is not semi-automatic, I presume that it is Kalifornia legal. It's ironic that we have the FFL infringement in Kalifornia to help keep us out of trouble with respect to all the other infringements. It takes a lot of expertise to know what's legal here anymore.

[shibumi]

That’s still plenty to transport a wide range of Gatling guns, Rotary Cannons, an Automatic Mortar or even an M119A1 Light Howitzer (4,250lbs.)

Think BIG.....like the Powell Doctrine of Overwhelming Firepower.....(of course that was before he got sissified in the State Department.....)

[DuncanWaring]

I thought that a pump-action required a blunt-nosed round ...

You're thinking "tubular magazine".

[William Tell]

DuncanWaring said: You're thinking "tubular magazine".

You're correct. I don't think I had ever seen a pump action gun without a tubular magazine. Are there many others that you are aware of?

Being familiar with the AR design, as soon as I saw the picture of the DPMS version it was clear just how easy to design it would be.

I'm not sure I need one. I have a "pistol-grip-deficient" version that works well enough. I'm surpised at the $1700 price shown on the DPMS web site. That's pretty pricey. Almost what I paid for my Armalite AR-10.

[DuncanWaring]

I don't think I had ever seen a pump action gun without a tubular magazine.

Nor do I.

I can think of at least two non-pump guns with tubular magazines, but no pump guns with non-tubular magazines.

[servantboy777]

I can’t bring myself to hate anyone, but I really really really would like to see him go.

My fear...Americans are so blind, we are going to have another just like Bush in office next year.

This whole slate of candidates just plain stink.

Where are all the conservatives? Where are all the statesmen?

All we get are career politicians....and everyone is rushing to embrace them. Just makes me ill.

McCain???? Huckabee???? Romney???? Thompson????

This nation is in deep ca-ca.

[Oberon]

Everyone says that we have to vote for the republican nominee no matter what, no matter who he is, no matter what he believes in, no matter what kind of record he has, no matter what!! Well, I don't go along with that. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you simply elect evil. It also tells our side that evil is okay, and the NEXT TIME, the evil gets just a little worse, and it continues to grow. Just give it an inch and it takes a foot, then a yard, then a mile. That is what has happened to the republican party. People started to allow a little more and a little more, then RINOS like Bush, Arnold, McScream, Rummnie, the Hulkster, and a bunch of other senators. We allowed them in, and like a cancer, it continues to grow. Now, it has taken over. We vote a RINO in this time, next election it is not a RINO, but a full LIBERAL as the republican nominee. We allowed it. Thus, I will not vote for a lesser evil. I will not be a party to voting for this kind of slime. Do I vote for Stalin over Hitler?? One evil over another? People here keep saying that if I don't then Hillary wins. Do you tell me that if we vote in a RINO that we win? I don't think so.

...and when presented with a truly conservative candidate, one who believes in and tries to do his job according to the ideals of the founders, the party won't have him.

I very much do not understand this.

[William Tell]

In several other threads, I have pointed out just how weak the legal argument is in the US brief. I have let that weakness lull me into believing that no action need be taken.

Now, I have changed my mind. Though weak, the US brief is treason.

The argument in the US brief is that the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms is no more than the common law right to use arms in defense of self and state.

This is equivalent to stating: "The protection of the right to keep and bear arms of the citizens of Boston in 1791 under the US Constitution was no different than the protection of the right of those same citizens of Boston on April 19th, 1775; the date when government troops killed their own citizens while attempting to disarm them."

The weakness of the argument lulled me into believing that the Supreme Court would view such an argument with the scorn that it deserves. Unfortunately, I am guilty of assuming the best when I should be preparing for the worst.

I will be writing letters explaining the above to both the President of the United States and to the Solicitor General of the United States. The issue is too important to permit this brief, however weak and wrong, from going unchallenged by those who know better.

[Mr. Mojo]

Public 'threatened' by private-firearms ownership

Nope, but gun-grabbing tyrants sure are. ...and for good reason.