Time to Blow Off Some Steam!
HMM? I wonder if they would ban my compound bow,you know i'm sure my carbon arrow with a 100 grn thunderhead blade at 300 fps would "penetrate" a kevlar vest.Just a thought,maybe a week one, but a thought all the same.
Speedshooter -- Don't give the "anti's" any ideas!
I have suspected that the FN fiveseven eventually would be on the anti's hit list after reading a newspaper article a few months back that reported the fiveseven as "a high-capacity automatic pistol that uses high powered rifle ammunition and is a favorite weapon of the drug cartels because it can penetrate a protective vest."
What they don't report is that the ammunition with the penetrator is not sold on the civilian market; ammo for commercial sale is loaded with either a 28- or 40-grain Hornady V-Max bullet.
After the terrorist murdered those soldiers at Fort Hood, the media reported that he had two guns, one of which was "an automatic that used rifle cartridges," accompanied by a photo of the fiveseven. I have never read any mention of the other gun.
I have also read letters to the editor condemning the commercial availability of the fiveseven and declaring that "nobody should be allowed to own such a weapon."
I have never had much interest in the fiveseven, other than it is different, but I will buy one because I can imagine it will become a victim of the herd-mentality hysteria that surrounded the so-called "assault" weapons during the 1990s.
As an aside, I also read a fairly recent article in one of the major newspapers that condemned bolt action rifles as "long-range, high-powered sniper rifles," and questioned anybody's "need" for such a weapon. We will have to keep an eye out for that, too.
Time to rant: What really pulls my pin is when people argue in favor of restricting military-style weapons because "nothing the Second Amendment protects them," or "they aren't any good for hunting," or "people don't need that type of weapon." The Second Amendment is not about "need" (think communism -- "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
need.") and it is not about hunting. The Second Amendment is about our right to own arms. It is not framed in terms of hunting or need!
Rant No. 2: The other comment that gives me a mental wedgie is when someone, like Greenie Gore, declares that "people register their cars, why not their guns?"
This correlation is false. Vehicles are registered, and their operators are licensed, to operate them in
public. Firearms, however, are kept and maintained on
private property; Federal, state, and local laws already address firearms' transportation, carry, and use in public. How anyone came up with the "register your car, ergo register your gun" is beyond me.
As for the ongoing bromide that registration doesn't lead to confiscation, the following URL highlights what happened in California 10 years ago. The confiscation letters were the result of a court ruling that post-deadline registrations were illegal. California's Roberti-Roos "assault" weapon ban had a registration requirement for existing privately owned weapons, but it was largely ignored. In an attempt to gain compliance, the deadline was extended, with not much success.
The state attorney general, in an attempt to encourage compliance, allowed post-deadline registrations. An anti-gun group sued, and the judge ruled that nothing in the Roberti-Roos legislation allowed post-deadline registrations, and that post-deadline registrants were in possession of illegal weapons. A letter of confiscation was sent to those owners.
CALIFORNIA ORDERS STATE-WIDE CONFISCATION
