re: They aren't coming for your guns, right? (for the 8,432nd time)

I don't reckon I mind that. Now dont mess with the yellow head woodpecker and mind your business!

I know that the introduction of this legislation is cause for concern for everyone and as a gun owner, I share everyone's concern on congressional overreach on such things. But this bill is cosmetic. This isn't an actual attempt at banning or confiscating anything. Its capitalizing on the ignorance of the average American's understanding of the legislative process. (not you guys, just everyone else)

The simple fact of the matter is that this was introduced in November of 2023. It has been referred to the Finance Committee and read twice, but not marked up at committee or subcommittee level, which is step one for this thing to move an inch. The legislative text has weeds growing on it at this point. The sponsors and co-sponsors can go home and campaign and be able to say that they introduced something on guns, but when they come back in September and again in November, there won't be time on the legislative calendar to actually move this bill through committee, to the floor, and through the house before the end of this congress (wouldn't see the light of day in the House anyway). If a member of congress is serious about moving legislation, then they negotiate for time in committee to at least publicly discuss it. Senator Heinrich has done this on numerous other bills this year, but not on this one. Introducing the bill and releasing an accompanying press release was enough. If it doesn't move by the end of this congress, it will have to be reintroduced next congress which will come with similar fanfare.

Bottom line, this was just a political stunt...so if by "they" you mean the US Senate, then no..."they" are not coming for your guns.

...which kind of hints at my overall point.

quote:

---

I have very little respect for the conventional Army and the way they do almost everything, including training and fighting.

---

Meh. While my comrade is a little off on his interpretation of automatic weapons training (and you must admit that I am generally with you in gun control threads), this USMC/special operator arrogance you give off remains off-putting, too broad and, ultimately, bullshite.


"Since 1775, the USMC makes headlines, while the Army makes history."


As a refresher, rifles and carbines are poor automatic weapons. They are ill-suited for sustained fire, very difficult to fire accurately in any select fire mode and riflemen's basic load is limited. Legitimate automatic weapons (i.e. machineguns) are designed for this mode (and no other).

However, if your only automatic weapon is a rifle or carbine, then that is the weapon you have to use to do the heavy lifting for suppression and area control with small arms (along with your mortars, grenades, fire support, etc.)

The fact that civilians have access to, essentially, "military grade" AR-15 models with every feature except select fire is of no moment. The intention of the 2nd Amendment is for the citizenry to be competently armed for individual and collective self-defense. If these are "weapons of war", so be it. In fact, all the better, because that is what is needed for individual and collective self-defense.

Period. Full stop.

quote:

---

However, if your only automatic weapon is a rifle or carbine, then that is the weapon you have to use to do the heavy lifting for suppression and area control with small arms

---

Incorrect. There is only a finite number of resources. 210 rounds.

Synchronized and continuous return of fire as a unit with quality shots is how to return fire. Not spraying and praying. Not the whole unit dumping rounds and reloading all at the same time. As long as someone is shooting at all times someone is laying down suppressive fire. Lastly, there are usually squad members carrying suppressive fire, area-target insruments such as the SAW (squad automatic weapon). Why turn a rifle that can shoot a point target into an area target instrument when you already have someone inherently shouldering that responsibility.



Even with the 3 round burst you are shooting 3 bullets at one drifting, increasingly inaccurate sight picture. To what reason?

quote:

---

but the fact remains that politicians want to make them seem more dangerous by calling them weapons of war. The fact of the matter is that they just aren't.

---

Good point also and I agree. I’m aware of the gun grabber tactics. They play with semantics and generally try to make it harder to own guns. Particularly they don’t want conservative men to own guns. It’s why they’re so obsessed with suburban dads with ARs.

quote:

---

sounds like you got called out and now you are lashing out

---

This is what we’re dealing with here…

quote:

---

I apologize for knowing more about what makes up an M4 Carbine / M4A1

---

You should apologize to your father for growing up to become a Karen that cares about "clone correctness" bullshite. You are talking about off brand quad rails and I dont give af about any quad rails brand. You are a looney tune.

quote:

---

I bet you shoot your “M4” with one eye closed, too, don’t you?

---

Ive shot more weapon systems than you can dream of.

You can crawl into your hole now.

So, you think AndrewL is all knowing things of M4?

Can I buy an M4 that is the exact same gun that’s issued by the military?

I mean the exact gun.
Answer that question.