Replies

I would be opposed to adding guns that are not purely designed to kill two legged game, and they better not mess with currently legal handguns or some damn insurance pool that I heard someone advocate.

I will be all over their butts.

Then you ought to be on their butts now, not after they pass the thing, here's the House versions handgun ban language.

`(F) 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) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

Let's see, the (F)(iv) language bans most Olympic style target pistols.

The bill is HR 2038 (That's the GPOs PDF file)

They added the AR-15, and the Bushmaster XM-15, plus an Olymic Arms version. Since lots of folks compete with those weapon, I don't think you can say they are "purely designed to kill two legged game". There really is no such thing anyway.

I sympathize in part with your feelings about the fed's irrational actions regarding this stuff, but the facts are that these companies are marketing a gun that makes the average joe shake his head and say "what the heck would anyone need that for!"

As to the competition angle, that fact just doesn't mitigate the purpose of the device that they are selling and it causes people to be highly skeptical of the motives of the pro gun lobby.

It is a emotional issue and it really doesn't make much sense, but the reality is the emotion.

I just don't think that beating your head up against that brick wall is helping the gun issue with the average non gunner or recreational hunter.

I see your point, believe me. And I hope you understand why I sense that this fight may cause more of a rift between people on both sides of this issue.