m16ty

It's hard to say what Reid has on his mind. The only reason he got reelected was because of NRA backing. I'm sure the NRA is reminding him of this. I'm sure publicly he's going to try and play both sides. Who knows what's going on privately.

I was talking to a friend of mine at Craker Barrel the other night. He's kind of on the fence about arming teachers. I asked him if he thought there were any armed people at Cracker Barrel, he said there would probably be several. He didn't mind taking his kids to Cracker Barrel that night.   Why people think it's ok for there kids to be around HCP holders in just about every other public place but don't want them to be around them in schools blows my mind. I just don't understand why somebody thinks "a good guy with a gun" in a school is so scary.   If nothing else, at least arm the willing principles.     I've also heard the arguement that they are afraid a kid my find out where the teacher hides the gun and take it. I suspect most teachers are smart enough to keep the gun on their person and not just thrown into a desk drawer.

Most shows I've been to, they ask you if you have any firearms on you. If you're carrying you either lie and say you don't or check your gun.   I normally just don't CC at gun shows. I think every gun brought to the show to be sold or traded should be empty and checked at the door.   I also will always check a gun I pick up on a dealer's table at shows or even at a gun store. It's just a good habit anytime somebody hands you a gun (they should also check it before they hand it to you).

Al has his own show on MSNBC? I knew they were bad but didn't know they'd sunk that low.

Some teachers should be allowed to carry. I'm sure there are several at each school that would take on the responsiblity. Require them to take some extra training and pay them a little more.   SROs do help but they aren't the complete answer. If somebody goes in to shoot up a school, the SRO is going to be the first one to get shot if they can. Another fact is the government is pretty well broke on all levels. One SRO per school isn't going to do it and it's going to cost a pile of money to put several SROs in each and every school.   There's really no way to make a school 100% safe. Look at prisons. The inmates are under constant surveillance and have gaurds everywhere. They routinely have assaults, rapes, and killings. They also have (make) all kinds of weapons.

Feinstein's bill will never pass as written. A bunch of dems wouldn't even vote for it.   Now there are a bunch of parts of the bill that could very well pass but the "AW" registration part is one of the things that wouldn't pass.

That's the main reasons.   It would be a little extra pain for the trust holders to submit fingerprints and pics but that's basicly it.   I don't have a trust and do everything personal. To me, it's easier to get the LEO sign off, fingerprints, and pic than it is to deal with a trust. Now if I didn't have a willing sheriff, I'd change my mind.

I don't know of any oil filter that would be small enough to use the sights on something like a pistol. You may find something small enough to work with something like a AR where the sights are quite a bit higher than the barrel.   Another thing to think about is the smaller dia. filters tend to be fairly short also. I bet sound suppression whould suffer.   I guess you could make your own supperssor that would thread onto the registered adaptor.   Also, the more I think about it the more I wonder if this is really legal. Basiclly all they are selling is a thread adaptor and calling it a registered suppressor. I'm no lawyer but you'd think the part that actually does the suppressing would be the registered part.

  I know, my wife is a teacher. She's not a member of the teacher's union.

I've seen all kinds of conflicting reports on this. Who knows what to believe.   I really don't know why it's so complicated unless they are trying to cover something up. The shooter died inside the school. Look at the brass and count the guns inside the school, these are the firearms he used (or at least took into the school to use). Go out to his car and count the guns inside his car, these are the guns he left in his car. Any 10 year old that's ever been around firearms can do that.

State Rep. David Shepard is leaning toward being against arming teachers. His reasoning is that the NEA is against it. Typical Democrat, bowing down to the teacher's union.   Why is the NEA against arming teachers? Do they not trust their own membership to be smart enough to handle a gun?   I'm all for the safety of teachers but they aren't my biggest concern, the kids are.

  You can do a Google search and find out the provisions on the '94 ban.   It goes without saying thought that if a gun is built post-ban (that is, after the ban takes place), for the firearm to be legal it has to meet post-ban standards.   Durring the '94 ban (1994-2004) makers were able just to change a few features of a ar15 to comply with the ban (no threaded barrels and no bayonet lugs). You can bet if a new ban is passed it will cover much more.

You could turn almost any firearm into a "AW" if you go by '94 standards. All you'd have to do is find a old junk gun, paint it black, cut off a old broom handle screw it to the stock for a pistol grip, cut the bottom of the reciever to accept some sort of box that can be called a magizine, and glue or weld on a flash hider to the end of the barrel.   Turn it in, collect $2,000

A bunch of people are donating and signing up new members to the NRA. I've been thinking about signing up people like Feinstein and Schumer or any other anti that you know. It should be easy enough to find their address for the form. I can just imagine the look on their face when that shiny new membership card comes in the mail with their name on it.   Does anybody think this is a good idea? I also wonder if there are any legal problems with doing this?

I think the guy about crapped his pants when Kieth Morgan told him he was carrying during the interview. Priceless.   That Keith Morgan fellow knows his stuff and how to articulate it. We need to hear more of him.

  That's a good question. It wouldn't suprise me if the taxpayers aren't.

The only way to enforce ending private sales it through gun registration.   You are also kidding yourself if you think this will keep the guns out of bad guy hands. The black market is already around but it would be much bigger if you end private sales.   With all that said, IMO the measure would be much better than any bans as long as registration wasn't included with it.   For what it's worth, I voted "no" in the poll

If the article is true, I wish he hadn't changed the speach. If he wants to do a all out ban and confiscation, he should tell it in his speach. Not just make a speach that people want to hear, all the while privately trying to push a for more bans.

I'm on the "easy pay" lifetime membership. When I signed up it was $750 total and you make it in $25 every three months installments. I think I still owe about $300.   I've been thinking about going ahead and paying them off  because they need all they can get right now but I wonder if a donation to NRA-ILA would be better at this time.

If something passes federally, most arresting will be done by local and state police. Sure, they will call the BATF when somebody is found with a "illegal" gun and let them handle it from there but if they don't call the person wouldn't be charged.   I'd be willing to bet most of the arrest of people with guns that are illegal now are done by local police. After the arrest they call the BATF to file federal charges. If they don't arrest in the first place or notify the BATF, there will be no charge.   BATF investigations would also be hampered without cooperation of state and local police.

Does he actually think any gun dealers (even one) will go along with this?   Even though he'd like for this to happen, he's as dumb as a box of hammers for proposing it.   The administration was already going to go after our guns in the second term. Then Sandy Hook fell in thier lap. I'd be willing to bet some of them jumped for joy privately when Sandy Hook happened.

I've heard some of the talking heads that are a little soft on gun rights even saying he shouldn't go the EO route. It's not that they don't want to ban guns, it's that they fear the backlash it will cause.   The way I see it, a lot gun owners will be up in arms if some gun control passes through congress. If he signs a EO, all gun owners (and some that aren't) will be up in arms. It becomes more than a gun issue then, it also becomes a power issue.   Republican lawmakers are starting to get tired of BHO thumbing his nose at them. This will just add to that and hopefully push them to action.

He also blames gun groups like the NRA for panic buying. What?   The NRA has said very little about all of this. He's the one that has everybody stirred up.   This is all just part of the plan. He's been trying to get NRA members (and the general public) to think the NRA only represents gun manufacurers and is actually against gun owners. The gun grabbers have been saying this since all this started. He tries to paint himself as the champion of law abiding gun owners and the gun rights groups are the enemy. It may work for some of the general public but I hope most gun owners aren't buying it.

I've had several "AWs". I've done a lot of things with them but have never killed anybody with them and don't plan to.

How would congress work? If congress passed a bill to nullify it would the pres still have to sign it? If so, it all falls back on the current president.   You are right about the SCOTUS but they've had 23 years to take it up. I'm really not sure if this would fall under a 2nd amendment issue or a importation issue.