It’s embarrassing when I spout off on a topic that I have limited knowledge of and then be proven wrong. But that’s also one of the strengths of the internet.

If my husband weren’t such a liberal and an anti-gun freak, this would be a great subject for the two of us to enjoy together. I envy those couples who can go out shooting together.

If I ever actually buy an AR-15 or whatever, it will be a signal that law and order in Chicago have totally broken down. If I can make it alive to the suburbs, then I’ll begin my new life as a shooter.

Right now, I’m just shooting off my mouth, waiting for the economy to collapse. If it doesn’t, then we’re all lucky.

It’s true; some people build their own out of parts, just as audiophiles assemble high-end sound systems.

A “stripped lower” is just a rectangular metal box with holes in it, but the ATF treats it like a whole gun.

Which group discussed the logistics of murdering 25 million Americans, who refused to be re-educated?

Future historians will treat point as a juncture, for good or ill. This is the critical time.

I agree. I’ve been thinking for a while that this is an historical moment.

On the one hand, we have the radical left completely triumphant in every sphere of society, and through education, the media, and immigration, are poised to permanently cement their unchallenged rule in place.

Opposing them is the spineless and ball-less Republican Party, whose leaders couldn’t elucidate a principle if their lives depended on it.

Interesting times, all right.

This is the final test. Should the Marxist regime succeed in disarming the law-abiding populace, it will spell the end of the Great American Experiment and the putting out of the world’s brightest beacon of freedom and model of liberty. Future historians will treat point as a juncture, for good or ill. This is the critical time.

A case in point, the provision that, in addition to paying a $200 “registration fee” (read fine), registering your weapon and any high capacity magazines and being fingerprinted, the bill would allow only the original owner to have possession of the weapons. Moreover, now that the state knows that you have this or that “registered weapons” it is in a position to enforce the provision of Feinstein’s legislation that mandates that such weapons could not pass down by inheritance, but would have to be turned in to the State upon their owner’s death.

My guess is that this legislation is so draconian to, first, please Feinstein’s far left anti-gun base and, second, as a bargaining ploy.

They start out with an extremely harsh, likely un-passable bill as a beginning point, and then give up or soften various parts of it in “negotiations” with opponents. By this means arriving at a softened “compromise” bill that would have never been passed had it been offered originally, but whose provisions–some or all of them–could now be sold as a “compromise,” and would now have a much better chance of passing vs. the original outlandishly harsh original legislation.

The solution to this ploy, of course, Is for opponents to refuse to consider any legislation restricting gun purchase, ownership, or licensed carry in any shape or form, regardless of all the names they would be called, and the TV comedians or newspaper editorials excoriating them.