Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,439 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Look at the idiocy of the proposed Senate gun ban. A Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle with the fixed stock is OK, but would be banned if it has a folding stock.

I have BOTH models, and I can definitively state that the folding stock does NOT make the rifle any more lethal. This should NOT be used as an excuse to ban either model, or any other brands or models.

NEWS STORY:
Gun ban would protect more than 2,200 firearms - Yahoo! News

First few lines (click on link above for full story):

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congress' latest crack at a new assault weapons ban would protect more than 2,200 specific firearms, including a semi-automatic rifle that is nearly identical to one of the guns used in the bloodiest shootout in FBI history.

One model of that firearm, the Ruger .223 caliber Mini-14, is on the proposed list to be banned, while a different model of the same gun is on a list of exempted firearms in legislation the Senate is considering. The gun that would be protected from the ban has fixed physical features and can't be folded to be more compact. Yet the two firearms are equally deadly.

"What a joke," said former FBI agent John Hanlon, who survived the 1986 shootout in Miami. He was shot in the head, hand, groin and hip with a Ruger Mini-14 that had a folding stock. Two FBI agents died and five others were wounded.

Hanlon recalled lying on the street as brass bullet casings showered on him. He thought the shooter had an automatic weapon.

Both models of the Ruger Mini-14 specified in the proposed bill can take detachable magazines that hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. "I can't imagine what the difference is," Hanlon said.

President Barack Obama has called for restoring a ban on military-style assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition magazines.

A bill introduced last month by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. would ban 157 specific firearms designed for military and law enforcement use and exempt others made for hunting purposes. It also would ban ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Yet there are firearms that would be protected under Feinstein's proposal that can take large capacity magazines like the ones used in mass shootings that enable a gunman to fire dozens of rounds of ammunition without reloading.

Feinstein said in a written response to questions from The Associated Press that the list of more than 2,200 exempted firearms was designed to "make crystal clear" that the bill would not affect hunting and sporting weapons.

(click on link above for full story)

Gun Firearm Rifle Trigger Air gun

(this is an evidence photo from the infamous Mimi shootout that left several FBI agents dead)
This undated evidence photo, provided by retired FBI agent Edmund Mireles, shows the Ruger Mini–14 used by one of the shooters in the deadly April 11, 1986 bank robbery shootout in Miami that left two FBI agents dead and five others injured. New models of this firearm that have folding stocks and pistol grips would be banned under proposed gun control legislation under consideration in Congress. But a similar model without a folding stock would be exempted. Both models can take detachable magazines that hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. Mireles was among the five agents injured. (AP Photo/FBI)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Yeah it's just plain BS.I love my 581 ranch series and did have it in a scary black Troy MCS stock. I think this go's to show the level of intelligence we are dealing with.
A mini-14 may not be a sub MOA rifle,but it is no different in operation,function,etc then a AR.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,101 Posts
Fortunately, I don't rely on Sen. Dianne Feinstein for any information related to firearms. And, my 2nd Amendment rights do not concern hunting and sporting pursuits.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,208 Posts
I'll go out on a limb here and remind everyone that the gubmint has NO Constitutional grounds to go a whackin on our rights. There is nothing in the Constitution which opens the door for the gubmint to do a damn thing and several specific clauses/Amendments which specifically forbid them from taking any actions with one of our protected freedoms.

Gubmint attacks on gun rights are kinda like the whack-a-mole game. You beat one down and they come back from another angle . .

Sorry, but bottom line is she can whine all she likes; she can make allowed and disallowed lists all she wants - but she has no authority to do a damn thing!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,314 Posts
We all know this is a clear and deliberate attempt to deprive persons of their property by the Gov't. So here's a hypothetical question.
Should you encounter one of the many legislators, etc knowing they are in the act of committing a crime against you, do you still retain the right to defend and protect yourself? (please dont act on that until we get a legitimate legal answer as I really dont want someone from here being dragged out through the LSM as why they need the ban)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,204 Posts
I propose a ban on all legislation that interferes with our constitutional rights. Violation of your office oath gets you 20 years of federal prison time maximum security with hard labor. Also your cell mate will be one of those feared crotch biters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
As I understand the Second Amendment, We, that is you, me and very other physically
capable American, are the militia and our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The NeoCommunists are steadfast in their endeavor to disarm the American people.
They shall succeed in this effort only over my dead body.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,328 Posts
so i guess that would include my sks with houge folder attached which i found will hide under my carhart rancher jacket on its single point sling, my mini 30 is non folder its too long
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,347 Posts
As has been stated already they have no justification to take away this right and it was stated in the BoR to make sure that we could protect ourselves from govt ! They admit that it will not change the very situations that they say it deserves a vote on anyway !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,174 Posts
I'll go out on a limb here and remind everyone that the gubmint has NO Constitutional grounds to go a whackin on our rights. There is nothing in the Constitution which opens the door for the gubmint to do a damn thing and several specific clauses/Amendments which specifically forbid them from taking any actions with one of our protected freedoms.

Gubmint attacks on gun rights are kinda like the whack-a-mole game. You beat one down and they come back from another angle . .

Sorry, but bottom line is she can whine all she likes; she can make allowed and disallowed lists all she wants - but she has no authority to do a damn thing!
Very well said. We need to drain the DC swamp and find real working people to replace the idiots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,933 Posts
The absolute only way that they can get their way is spelled out in the Constitution itself - Proposal is passed by a 2/3 majority in each house, then ratified by 3/4 of the States.

As Larry Potterfield would say, "And that's the way it is".
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top