Plenty of people on here said this wouldn't happen. Granted the bill hasn't been passed, but I think this should dispel the notion the some on the left aren't pushing confiscation.

MO confisication bill

It sounds great to libs, a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. The problem is how "assault weapon" is defined.

Quote:571.023. 1. As used in this section the following terms shall mean:
(1) "Assault weapon", any:
(a) Semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
c. A folding or telescoping stock; or
d. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(b) Semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;
© Semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
a. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
b. A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
c. A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
d. The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(d) Semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
a. A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
b. Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
c. A folding or telescoping stock;
d. A fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; or
e. An ability to accept a detachable magazine;
(e) Shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or
(f) Conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.

There you have it. Democrats calling for confiscation of firearms they deem "assault weapons". The silly part is that most of their definitions deal with how the firearm can be held, not its lethality.

Gotta hand it to the lefties, when they go for something, they go big.

Sadly, there's whack-jobs in every party. Just be thankful that this will in no way pass in Missouri.

I don't think it passes in MO either, but the mere fact that it has been proposed and may come to a vote will only embolden lawmakers in states more receptive to gun confiscation.
In 2010 there over 9870 murders in the US committed with a firearm, most by those already with a criminal background. Less than 1/3 of those murders were committed with something other than a handgun. Less than 750 were committed using a rifle or shotgun, the remaining were committed using an unidentifiable firearm.
Repeat criminals commit most of the murders in the US using a common handgun. Its true that most massacres involve a shotgun or rifle (not necessarily an assault weapon) but massacres make up an extremely small percentage of the overall murders in any given year. Anyone capable of looking at this from a purely statistical standpoint should be able to see that time, effort, and money are being wasted attacking a weapon that is responsible for saving many more lives each year than taking them.

More food for thought. On Jan 28th DHS put in an order for 7,000 fully automatic AR style weapons, calling them "personal defense weapons."

Quote:DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and / or when maximum concealment is required.

This is a department that operates mostly within the US borders. Surely they don't feel their agents need to be patrolling American streets with such weapons when the president himself had this to say about such firearms.

Quote:"AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals; that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities."

I completely understand the need for DHS and other agencies to be properly armed, including fully automatic weapons, but fail to see how the government would justify limiting the law abiding public from owning a less lethal version of the same weapon for our own defense. Those of us on the pro-gun side of the argument are fighting for our rights to own a semi-automatic version of the weapon for our own personal defense and are being told repeatedly its not necessary.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038844_DHS_as...z2Ku8BDrKm

All Democrat aholes:

http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?year...strict=072

http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?year...strict=082

http://www.house.mo.gov/bio.aspx?year=2012&district=081

http://house.mo.gov/member.aspx?year=2009&district=078

Help me understand this:

Quote: .......or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

Does this actually say that in MO, for instance, that a Marlin Model 60 .22 caliber would be confiscated? Cause a Marlin Model 60 can hold 13 rounds in a fixed magazine.

(02-14-2013 04:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Help me understand this:

Quote: .......or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

Does this actually say that in MO, for instance, that a Marlin Model 60 .22 caliber would be confiscated? Cause a Marlin Model 60 can hold 13 rounds in a fixed magazine.

Yes.

As a Missouri native, yeah, this has no chance of passing. GOP has a big majority, no way it comes close, although I guess this is symbolic for the Dems. I would say that it's political suicide to do this, but the inner city districts that many of the Dems come from in St. Louis and KC are some of the bluest in the country.

(02-14-2013 04:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Help me understand this:

Quote: .......or any semi-automatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than ten rounds of ammunition;

Does this actually say that in MO, for instance, that a Marlin Model 60 .22 caliber would be confiscated? Cause a Marlin Model 60 can hold 13 rounds in a fixed magazine.

No, .22 caliber rifles are exempt. Read the bill linked.

(02-14-2013 05:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  [quote='Lord Stanley' pid='8967913' dateline='1360877537']
No, .22 caliber rifles are exempt. Read the bill linked.

Apparently because .22 caliber bullets are not capable of killing.

(02-14-2013 05:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-14-2013 05:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  [quote='Lord Stanley' pid='8967913' dateline='1360877537']
No, .22 caliber rifles are exempt. Read the bill linked.

Apparently because .22 caliber bullets are not capable of killing.

But a .223 is. Got it.

You want a quiet gun? Get a bolt or pump action .22 that can handle shorts. That is a quiet gun.

(02-14-2013 06:01 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(02-14-2013 05:57 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(02-14-2013 05:24 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  [quote='Lord Stanley' pid='8967913' dateline='1360877537']
No, .22 caliber rifles are exempt. Read the bill linked.

Apparently because .22 caliber bullets are not capable of killing.

But a .223 is. Got it.

You want a quiet gun? Get a bolt or pump action .22 that can handle shorts. That is a quiet gun.

I actually own and shoot my father's bolt action .22 Short that he purchased in 1956 from a Sears on the south side of Chicago.

Anyone that doesnt consider a .22 a lethal gun is nuts. A scoped .22 with a large magazine would be very effective in the hands of a capable shooter. Its just an illustration of nonsensical this whole assault weapons ban is.

Friggin tired of being told what we can do or not do.
What happened to all men are created equal?
When did they let me chose to have a group of people tell me what I can do or not do?
Should I even care what they say?

(02-14-2013 07:50 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Friggin tired of being told what we can do or not do.
What happened to all men are created equal?
When did they let me chose to have a group of people tell me what I can do or not do?
Should I even care what they say?

?

One of my guns is a semiautomatic .22 handgun that accepts magazines > 10. They would confiscate that?

Red Ryder better watch out.

(02-14-2013 04:52 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  As a Missouri native, yeah, this has no chance of passing. GOP has a big majority, no way it comes close, although I guess this is symbolic for the Dems. I would say that it's political suicide to do this, but the inner city districts that many of the Dems come from in St. Louis and KC are some of the bluest in the country.

In this instance, blue is another word for dumb.

No worries, it will never pass.
No worries, it was only a joke.
No worries, it will never happen.
No worries, that is not what he meant.

The left keeps floating these balloons and then quickly denying when attention is called. You can say no worries all you want. I will remain worried--and vigilant.

The end game here for Obama and his ultra lefties is absolutely confiscation of all "assault weapons". Never forget that, they will absolutely chip and chip away at the 2nd amendment until there is nothing left and then they will go for the guns themselves.

Anyone who denies that is their "end game" is utterly f.cking clueless.