It may be now-or-never to buy certain guns

[Ban Hammer 13,659]

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

They are nice for deer hunting, rather than gutting that deer and having to haul it back, you just bring along zip lock bags and pick up the hamburger like stuff off the ground.

quite a bit of exaggeration there........

Gee, can't I have any fun with my comments, but no exaggeration that this kind of weapon is a close range meat chopper, but intended for humans rather than deer.

tbh a 12 gauge would be a better fit for that description.

Edited August 17, 2009 by charles!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Gee, can't I have any fun with my comments

That always seems to be the case whenever gun ownership comes up.

Its as though clarifying the technical details of different weapons has something to do with the arguments about gun control. It really doesn't.

[natty bumppo 297]

No right thinking man would go on a weekend camping trip without a 50 cal. machine gun mounted on his jeep, and a combat shotgun slung across his back. Grenades can come in handy for fishing too.

although this is usually an illegal method of fishing ... certain commercially available fireworks work well too.

when they catch you doing this ... don't call me

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I wonder if you can get batteries of artillery guns for use in farming. I imagine the blasting is good for tilling the soil.

[natty bumppo 297]

I wonder if you can get batteries of artillery guns for use in farming. I imagine the blasting is good for tilling the soil.

where is doc? pike is off the meds again ...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Presumably I should have used a smiley - because apparently some people need them as cues to determine which comments are "serious".

[natty bumppo 297]

Presumably I should have used a smiley - because apparently some people need them as cues to determine which comments are "serious".

guess I should have used one too ...

[NickD 203]

There are serious gun collectors that appreciate the historical value of these weapons that are hurt equally as well by legislation, not to mention registration costs in some states or even locally. The right to bear arms is a very powerful part of our freedom, a few abuse these rights and it turns out to be mass punishment that was yet another characteristic of our military that I detested.

But the worse part of this, gun control has never resolved the problem with poverty in this country and lack of opportunity, but the a$$holes in charge keep on going back to it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Speaking of which - why do even have fireworks?

Surely it would be much more exciting and colorful if we used shells, missiles and anti-aircraft guns.

[My Name Is Nobody 3]

Presumably I should have used a smiley - because apparently some people need them as cues to determine which comments are "serious".

Note to MNIN (myself) pretend there is a smiley at the end of all PP"s post........logged and recorded.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Presumably I should have used a smiley - because apparently some people need them as cues to determine which comments are "serious".

Note to MNIN (myself) pretend there is a smiley at the end of all PP"s post........logged and recorded.

How's about you worry about you, and I'll worry about me.

[natty bumppo 297]

Presumably I should have used a smiley - because apparently some people need them as cues to determine which comments are "serious".

Note to MNIN (myself) pretend there is a smiley at the end of all PP"s post........logged and recorded.

fixored ....

[Danno 1,228]

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

Your opinion is common among people who have little experience with guns.

Understandable, The "appearance" misleads you a bit.

In a serious attempt to make confusing gun type easy I will post this vid made by a cop, to help the average person understand Guns and assault weapons to help better know what we are talking about.

This is not expected to change anti-gun people but they will know better what they are talking about.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

[Danno 1,228]

I posted an excerpt from an article about Obama allowing licensed firearms in national parks & it was completely ignored. Most of you would rather trade baseless rhetoric back & forth than actually discuss the facts.

Speaking of "facts" I think if you check you will see this thing is a lot older than Obama's time in the whitehouse (and maybe in Washington DC).

In fact, I thought the thing was already signed!

By the way.. it only deals with those with a conceal-carry license.

Here read for yourself and then respond back.

Gun ban in national parks is eased

Concealed-weapons permits, state permission will be required

The Associated Press

updated 7:45 p.m. ET, Fri., Dec . 5, 2008

WASHINGTON - People will soon be able to carry concealed, loaded guns in most national parks and wildlife refuges.

The Bush administration said Friday it is overturning a 25-year-old federal rule that severely restricts loaded guns in national parks.

Under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms.

The new rule goes further than a draft proposal issued last spring and would allow concealed weapons even in parks located in states that explicitly ban the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.

"If you can carry (a gun) on Main Street, you are allowed to carry in a national park," said Chris Paolino. a spokesman for the Interior Department.

The Interior Department rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

NRA likes the change

Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.

The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.

The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called inconsistent and unclear.

Opponents say change will bring confusion

A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.

The park rule will be published in the Federal Register early next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, said no decision had been made on the gun rule.

"President-elect Obama will review all eleventh-hour regulations and will address them once he is president," he said.

Bipartisan push in Senate

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, hailed the new rule. Crapo and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., had organized letters to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne complaining about the gun restrictions. The letters were signed by half the Senate — 41 Republicans and nine Democrats.

"I congratulate Secretary Kempthorne for taking this stand. The rule as it has come out is what we asked for with regard to handguns," Crapo said. "It's a very, very significant improvement."

Crapo called the current rule confusing and complex and said it "literally resulted in different standards as you traveled through the same state."

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the new rule was a mistake.

"The Reagan-era rules have stood the test of time and make our national parks safe for all who visit them," Feinstein said. "The Bush administration changes will make our national parks more dangerous and will upset the delicate balance that exists between park visitors and wildlife."

Interior Department spokesman Chris Paolino said the rule would not affect a ban on guns in federal buildings. Guns will still be prohibited in national icons such as Independence Hall and the Statue of Liberty, he said. Guns also will be banned in visitor centers and other buildings at national parks.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28072607/

Edited August 17, 2009 by Danno

[NickD 203]

Firearm in question (in one of its variations)...(the 'older brother' to the M16/M4)

Not a big fan of so-called gun control but I do kind of have to wonder about just who is buying this type of weapon...

Your opinion is common among people who have little experience with guns.

Understandable, The "appearance" misleads you a bit.

In a serious attempt to make confusing gun type easy I will post this vid made by a cop, to help the average person understand Guns and assault weapons to help better know what we are talking about.

This is not expected to change anti-gun people but they will know better what they are talking about.

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350">

That gets way too complicated when pulling the trigger once fires the weapon twice or more, let's keep this discussion simple.