If by some miracle Feinsteins new AWB gets passed which I highly doubt, the most fun rifle S&W has ever produced will be banned. That is a scenario I can't imagine but then I never thought Obama would get reelected so you just never know. Let's see, the M&P15-22 has
1. A collapsible stock
2. A threaded muzzle in most cases
3. A pistol grip
4. And take a large capacity magazine
Our only hope is that cooler minds prevail and this latest AWB never sees the light of day. I'd really hate to have my favorite semi auto become an NFA weapon.
Rant to follow. Moderators, if this is inappropriate here, then either delete it or move it.
There are many proposals being floated, but the anti-gun people want as much as they can get, and they are using the tragedy in Connecticut to try to accomplish goals they would not have been otherwise able to accomplish.
They want to declare certain guns "contraband." Like marijuana. Thus, you can't sell them, you can't pass them to your heirs and the government does not have to pay you if they take it from you. Is that version likely to pass? I don't know. They want much more than the NFA of 1934. For once, they don't want to create a bureaucracy. Don't pass "go." Don't collect $200. Just collect the contraband. And prosecute those in possession. Lesser versions would be permanent (without sunset provision) versions of what we had before under the Clintons.
The media is helping by fanning the flames with phrases like "more guns in school" to make pro-gun people sound insane.
The media has also been on a campaign to convince us that pro-gun legislators like Harry Reid (can you believe that anyone thinks he is pro-gun) are now ready to take away the Second Amendment because "assault weapons" are not for hunting.
Talk to Suzanna Gratia Hupp about whether the Second Amendment has anything to do with hunting. If you haven't seen it lately, go and watch the video of her testimony before the "Clowns in Congress" after her parents were executed in front of her at Luby's Cafeteria. Watch as Chuck Schumer smirks at her while she describes the horrifying scene that she is powerless to stop because she obeyed the stupid law.
Perhaps the "Clowns in Congress" should agree to a compromise - pass your law further restricting guns, but the next mass murder each one of the Clowns who sold us that bill of goods is prosecuted as an accessory to murder. Any takers?
If you took the "reasoning" of the anti-gun people to its extreme, and believe that "more guns" is NOT the answer, then you would expect the anti-gun people to propose unilateral disarmament for police. In fact, I imagine that some fringe types want just that. Along with unilateral disarmament of our military.
I may be too negative, but it seems to me the anti-gun people never compromise and the pro-gun just roll over for fear of losing their elected office. Any bets on who compromises on the "fiscal cliff?"
Let us hope that cooler heads prevail because what we all know, whether we admit it or not, is that a "ban" on anything will not prevent the next mad man.
We are paying the price for a generation of de-institutionalizing the insane and for not being proactive with obviously sociopathic kids who thrive on the make-believe violence of video under the guise of "politcal correctness" or so we will not "hurt the feelings" of the misunderstood child or his parent. The disaffected child who lives in a fantasy world in front of a computer game, with no friends, no activity and no respect for whatever relative or foster parent is trying to raise such kids.
It is already against the law to commit murder, isn't it? Twenty-six times? Perhaps we need some more "hate crime" legislation.
I note that Israel just does not have these problems, even though within spitting distance of people who have sworn to wipe them off the face of the earth. I understand that Israel has pretty much wiped out incidents of hijacking of aircraft and of school shootings. They don't seem to have felt the need to ban anything. Self-defense is encouraged - as it should be.
The worst part of it is that in England and here in the U.S., there seems to be a mentality that a constitutional right should stand or fall based upon the unpredictable acts of a madman. Who is crazier, the madman or the people who use such reasoning in the mistaken belief we will all be safer?
End of rant.
Second note to moderators: If you feel the need to delete this or to move it, ok. I would rather not be kicked off the forum.
Note to readers: Sorry for the diversion, and I hope you will forgive me for interrupting you normal good time discussing our favorite hobby.
