Old Glock guy

Thanks for asking that, because I have kind of subconsciously wondered the same thing, but never thought to ask about it. There's no limit to what one can learn on this forum!

Holy crap, I never had any idea that there are so many of us shooters in Wayne! Where are all of you hiding? I'll bet some of us know each other, but I have no idea how we're going to figure it out. Oh, and olderguy, welcome to the forum. Lots of great info and good people here.

Brilliant! That guy is great. Thanks for posting the video.

Considering that according to FBI statistics, ALL rifles account for only about 3% of gun murders; while handguns account for around 75%, why is the big legislative push being aimed at so-called "assault weapons" and not handguns? It has become clear that our anti-gun foes are largely ignorant about firearms. But they are not stupid. So what's really going on here? The only explanation I can come up with is that they realize that a ban on handguns would be extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible at this point. On the other hand, it's relatively easy to demonize evil, "military-style assault weapons." With the help of an eagerly complicit media, they have many among the general, non gun owning populace chanting things like, "No one needs to own an assault weapon," or "You don't need more than ten bullets to kill a deer." Hell, even among the hunters, who should be our allies, some are saying "You black rifle guys brought this on." So this would appear to be just the first step in a long range strategy. If the anti-gunners are successful in getting another AWB, of course they will not see much of a drop in the gun murder rate. (See the 3% note above). At that point they can come back and claim that they need even stricter laws, perhaps then going after handguns and/or trying for severe limits on capacity. Eventually, they will be able to round up the hunting rifles and shotguns, since there will be few people left to resist. I believe that is approach successfully employed to ban guns in England. Thank god, in this country we have our gun rights enshrined in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, at least for now. We need to remind people that our government is a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy where the majority can vote away the rights of minorities at their whim. Ben Franklin famously said, "A democracy is two wolves and a lamb sitting around discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." What do the rest of you think about this?

So basically he wants to be able to just make laws up as we go along. Last I checked, we are a consitutional republic, not a pure democracy.

If you're thinking about a full-sized Glock in 9mm, be sure to take a look at the G34. I love mine. As much as I like my Glocks, I would have to concede that my Beretta 92A1 is probably the best looking, sexiest gun in my collection. I believe it's pretty similar to the FS that a few posters have mentioned, perhaps with an additional rail.

Politicians/legislators will often say that "high capacity" magazines capable of holding 100 rounds are not needed. So even if we concede that point (not that we should, mind you), how do we go all the way from there to ten or even seven? Why don't they go to 20, and then we in NJ could make a case for increasing our capacity, and hence our ability to defend ourselves, by five rounds.

Sorry if this sounds like another case of LEO bashing. It's certainly not meant to be. This is aimed more at the government hypocrisy that tells us that police cannot be everywhere at once (no kidding!), while telling us that we are not allowed to protect ourselves.

You probably should have headed this, "...testifies AGAINST gun control." But good to hear that someone involved is thinking rationally.

Why do politicians all believe that criminals are going to be restrained by mag capacity? If they're not going to obey laws against murder and robbery, why would they be concerned about limiting their ammo capacity? And worse, why can't polticians understand that?

That's a funny image! Thanks for the laugh.

Could you picture our guys, Menendez or Lautenberg, saying something like that?

Wishful thinking on the CCW. But if the police don't have to protect us, and we are not allowed to protect ourselves, where does that leave us?

Yes, and that despite the fact that they try to influence the voters by referring to AR's as "high powered weapons."

I have a G19 and a G34 (among others), and I think I'm a little more accurate with the larger G34. The downside of it is that I'm limited to 10 rounds, as it uses the same mags as the G17.

Damn good question! Certainly of interest to this old guy. Cold morning, lots of coffee, and uh oh! To those taking the train, do you know if the station is anywhere near the State House?

So if Biden is recommending a double-barrel shotgun, is he going to make it illegal for three or more bad guys to attack an individual?

I'm taking a friend tomorrow who has never shot before. Not sure if it's fortunate or unfortunate, but he is already on our side.

Are we supposed to come on here and say that if we complete a transaction where the guy shows up on time (actually he was early, but he waited around for me), pays in cash, completes the paperwork uneventfully, and seems like a good guy?

Mods, can we move the thread on this subject from Politics to here so everyone can get in on the discussion?

That list is truly horrifying. Has she supplied any data as to how she arrived at those selections? Are those particular guns used a lot in inner city crime? Is she aware that according to FBI statistics, more people are killed with clubs and hammers than with ALL rifles? Or she just hoping to get those scary "assault weapons" banned first; then when gun murders continue (due almost exclusively to illegal guns), she will come back to ban handguns?

Yes, I had kind of forgotten that. And indeed, that is a pretty horrifying list.

I had lunch with an old friend yesterday who is a hardcore liberal. He is extremely knowledgeable about many subjects, and better informed that most people I know. At one point our conversation turned to the current gun debate. Of course, he asked me why anyone would need to own an assault weapon. When I explained to him that AR's just look like military rifles, but that they don't spray a hail of bullets with a pull of the trigger, he was incredulous. Not only did he confess that he had no idea that was the case, but he said that he would guess that 95% of people he knows think the same thing. I told him that of course they think that, because that is the message the media are putting out. I think more people would side with us if they had some idea of what is really going on. How do we get our messaage out despite a hostile mainstream media?

Easy guys! My feelings for her are also somewhat less than loving, but this is a public forum, and we can't have the antis using statements like that as ammunition against us.

Then why are the media and almost everyone else still saying he used an AR15? It's weird stuff like that that gives rise to conspiracy theories.