mac5155 wrote:so, anyone know anywhere that still has AR-15s? I can't seem to find one..anywhere.
mac5155 wrote:I figured I could wait until Saturday since I don't have much time with work. I had my eye on a DPMS Oracle for $600. It's gone-zo.
DelPen wrote:mac5155 wrote:I figured I could wait until Saturday since I don't have much time with work. I had my eye on a DPMS Oracle for $600. It's gone-zo.
Going to be for a while. Checking the gun genie at gallery of guns there looks to be absolutely nothing available on the AR platform.
As one of your many constituents who is also a gun owner, I was as shocked and horrified as I am sure you were by the events of Friday, December 14. Many of us are still trying to come to terms with the magnitude of evil we saw on display. Our hearts go out to the people in Connecticut, and we hope their hearts and minds can heal from the losses inflicted by that madman.
But the politicization of this monstrous act and the accompanying scapegoating of lawful gun owners only makes this pain more difficult. Instead of grieving along with the nation, gun owners are being told we should surrender our rights. Pundits and politicians demonize us and say we should be ashamed of ourselves. They demand the return of laws that have already proven themselves to be ineffective at reducing crime. Some politicians are even demanding that we surrender our lawfully owned firearms. Right here in Pennsylvania, State Representative Steve Santarsiero (D-Bucks Co.) has promised to introduce a bill that would not only ban the purchase of what he calls “assault weapons,” it would also ban possession. A law of that type can only be enforced through forced confiscation.
I am writing to you today to ask that you oppose any efforts to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and in particular any implementation of a law similar to the so-called Assault Weapons Ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004. We’ve had plenty of time to reflect on what that law did and did not accomplish, and by all counts it was a complete failure. Crime did not significantly decrease following the implementation of that law, and crime did not significantly increase following its 2004 sunset. The so-called assault weapons that were the subject of the law were—and still are—only used in a small percentage of crimes involving firearms. Neither did the restrictions on magazine capacity have any significant effect on crime. And contrary to what President Obama suggested in his press conference of December 19, the guns affected by that law were not “military” rifles. Semiautomatic pistols and rifles come in all shapes and sizes and are extremely common in the United States. They have been used by law-abiding citizens for more than a century for hunting, target shooting, self-defense, and other lawful purposes. The very term “assault weapon” was coined as an intentional effort to create confusion between semi-automatic rifles and fully-automatic machine guns, which have been strictly regulated for decades.
I know I am asking a lot. The pressure to cave in and accept gun bans and restrictions will be extreme. The media and anti-gun proponents like the Brady Campaign are howling for new laws and restrictions. But I am asking you to stand up. I know you have been supported by and approved by entities such as the National Rifle Association (of which I am a Life Member), Gun Owners of America, and Firearms Owners Against Crime. Speaking on behalf of the Pennsylvania gun owners who are your constituents, neighbors, and friends, we have supported you, and it is time for you to return the favor and support us. There will never be a better time for you to demonstrate that you are worthy of the endorsements we gave you. We will neither forgive nor forget if you fail to do so.
Gun owners like myself are willing to talk about solutions, and we see no problems with having an honest conversation about America’s problems with violence. But we want to see solutions that have a prayer of working. Gun bans, magazine restrictions, gun-free zones, and similar efforts are premised on a lie: that criminals and murderers will follow the rules. But criminals don’t follow the law. That’s why they’re criminals. Banning “assault weapons” and restricting magazines has already been demonstrated to have essentially no impact on violent crime, and new laws enforcing those restrictions will only serve to place more burdens on law-abiding people. They are not the solution. I ask you to stand in opposition to those who are trying to exploit this horrible tragedy in order to advance an agenda that will do nothing more than further burden those who already follow the law.
I am aware that you have already indicated your support for renewed bans and restrictions. I am reminding you that you were endorsed and supported by entities like the National Rifle Association (of which I am a Life Member) and Firearms Owners Against Crime. You have an “A” rating from the NRA. Speaking on behalf of the Pennsylvania gun owners who are your constituents, neighbors, and friends, we have supported you, and it is time for you to return the favor and support us. We will consider a vote for a new gun ban to be a betrayal of our trust. We will neither forgive nor forget if you do so. If you vote for another failed gun ban, I and many of your other constituents will make it our mission to make sure you are never again elected to office in Pennsylvania. I remind you that the passage of the last gun ban in 1994 is widely seen as one of the leading reasons your party was crushed in the 1994 elections and swept out of control of both houses of Congress.
redwill wrote:OK, I just did a test with my SR9c handgun. The loaded mag was in my shirt pocket. I took about 4 seconds to switch mags, rack the slide, and re-establish shooting position.
With an AR, whose magazine would not fit in my shirt pocket, I think, it would take longer -- in my estimation. I'd like to see a 1.5 second AR reload/repositioning.
redwill wrote:I admit that that's damn fast. I had no idea.
mac5155 wrote:Well, you figure your SR9 has a mostly plastic magazine, and probably weighs maybe 2 oz empty, and its sliding out of the grip. This one is sliding out of a 1/2 inch slot, weighs considerably more, and is easier to slap on the gun. Heck, even with a 4 round magazine, you could still do a ton of damage with an AR, which is why I think mag size is a stupid pointless limitation
pittsoccer33 wrote:after that someone shoots up a church service with pair of revolvers. now what? ban all handguns? what happens when a kid takes his dad's .22 rifle to school? i shot those in scouts.
Shyster wrote:Troy Industries is seriously ticked off at Dick’s Sporting Goods. Apparently, Troy entered into an exclusive agreement with Dick’s to sell those rifles, and Troy made a multi-million dollar investment to supply them. Dick’s not only didn’t tell Troy before it decided to stop selling MSRs, and Dick’s canceled all of the back-orders it took on those rifles without telling Troy. Press release here:
http://kitup.military.com/2012/12/state ... dicks.html
redwill wrote:mac5155 wrote:Well, you figure your SR9 has a mostly plastic magazine, and probably weighs maybe 2 oz empty, and its sliding out of the grip. This one is sliding out of a 1/2 inch slot, weighs considerably more, and is easier to slap on the gun. Heck, even with a 4 round magazine, you could still do a ton of damage with an AR, which is why I think mag size is a stupid pointless limitation
Haha. So I guess an assault weapons ban is the answer after all, eh?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests