Man in Zorro Costume Detained Ahead of Chaotic Night at LAX

[si-fly]

You know that it was a plastic sword right?? So now people panic and bail out of emergency exits and into secure areas because "plastic toys"?

This is really getting stupid. Whatever happened to common sense and a little tough skin. Instead we have the "safe space" generation scared of their own shadows and moderate noise.

I say we wrap some of these idiots up and ship them over to the Middle East and let them learn what real fear is. Let them try to push this "safe space" crap in Afghanistan. Good grief.

Yeah ok Rambo...

 

[Cptnchia]

This is the internet!

So... I'm a French model?

 

[mshunter]

I may be wrong, but from my reading, it only mentions center fire rifles or pistols with a detachable magazine. Then again, I just skimmed through it.

I think you're right. When I read it the, I must have glossed over the "center fire" part of it.

 

[mshunter]

[Citation needed]

Here.

 

[🦈💜]

It doesn't outlaw all guns with detachable magazines, it's just an expansion of the definition of an "assault weapon".

This is correct, to the best of my knowledge. @mshunter @av8tr1 should read this carefully.

Saying "OMG OMG OMG HE BANNED ALL GUNS WITH DETACHABLE MAGAZINES!!!!11111" is simple hyperbole. Read below for how to hold intelligent dialog on the new legislation:

The new legislation does outlaw any magazines with a capacity higher than 10, the old laws grandfathered in magazines that were in your possesion before the old ban on buying/selling them. It seems like the new laws are specifically written to target AR15 style rifles, other magazine fed semi-automatic rifles like a Ruger Mini 14/30 or M1A won't need to be registered since they are "featureless" (no fwd pistol grip, telescoping stock, thumbhole stock, or flash hider). The assault weapon laws seem to be a reaction to workarounds people came up with when the last round of legislation became law, specifically the Bullet Button (a device that requires a tool to remove the magazine, usually a loaded bullet). No one is really sure how the new laws are going to be implemented yet but there is optimistic speculation that after registration we'll be able to remove the Bullet Buttons altogether since the rifle is now a registered assault weapon. The more disconcerting new laws in my opinion are ones that deal with purchasing ammunition, only licensed dealers will able to sell it and only after a background check at the time of purchase. This is going to obviously reduce availability, and with reduced availability comes increased cost, maybe making it prohibitively expensive. Not sure how it will effect people that reload their own ammunition but I'm sure supplies will get more expensive as well. If you live in CA and think any of this isn't quite in tune with "shall not infringe" there are petitions circulating at just about every local gun shop and range to try and repeal or at least put the new laws up for a vote.

And to that, I can firmly say that I'm definitely not a fan of the new legislation, and would be strongly inclined to support efforts to reexamine or repeal, but it's not the freaking gunpocalypse any more than the previous California assault weapon stuff has been.

Also, while you guys weren't looking, they outlawed nunchucks.

Just sayin'.

-Fox

 

[av8tr1]

This is correct, to the best of my knowledge. @mshunter @av8tr1 should read this carefully.

Saying "OMG OMG OMG HE BANNED ALL GUNS WITH DETACHABLE MAGAZINES!!!!11111" is simple hyperbole. Read below for how to hold intelligent dialog on the new legislation:



And to that, I can firmly say that I'm definitely not a fan of the new legislation, and would be strongly inclined to support efforts to reexamine or repeal, but it's not the freaking gunpocalypse any more than the previous California assault weapon stuff has been.

Also, while you guys weren't looking, they outlawed nunchucks.

Just sayin'.

-Fox

Sigh..... @Acrofox I most certainly did read it and understand it. I never said it outlaws ALL guns. There are still some guns that the public can own. But at this point based on California law, you can not own ANY firearm with either a detachable magazine, or any pistol with a detachable magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammo. This severely limits California's citizens constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It is not legal under the 2nd amendment and I am positive it will be eventually tossed through the federal court system.

But since reading comprehension is an issue here let me walk you though this. I will give you credit that there isn't a clear single answer to what you are looking for. You have to know the law and how to read the law. Much like the FARs you have to go to a couple of different places for the correct answer.

The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA), its augmentation in 1999, and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 have led to many restrictions on semi-automatic firearms. In addition to a list of specific firearms that are banned by name, the following firearms are banned by characteristic (from Penal Code §12276.1):

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

Previously this was by specific name of the gun. This was the original Roberti-Roos assault weapons list. With the new laws passed recently under California Assembly Bill No. 1135, this means ANY center fire rifle with a detachable magazine is now outlawed in the state of California.

Under existing law, “assault weapon” means, among other things, a semiautomatic centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has any one of several specified attributes, including, for rifles, a thumbhole stock, and for pistols, a 2nd handgrip.

This new bill would revise this definition of “assault weapon” to mean "ANY" semiautomatic centerfire rifle or a semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified attributes. The bill would also define “fixed magazine” to mean an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

So if you have a rifle that has a fixed magazine and does not accept more than 10 rounds you are "possibly" legal. But now lets add in a few more laws.

Also under Penal Code §12276.1
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches [762 mm].
(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip.
(B) A second handgrip.
(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.
(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
(A) A folding or telescoping stock.
(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
In addition, (Penal Code §12001.5) bans, by definition, short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles. Defined in Penal Code §12020; a short-barreled shotgun is defined as a firearm (designed, redesigned, or altered) to fire a fixed shotgun shell and has a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches. A short-barreled rifle is defined as a semiautomatic, center fire rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches or an overall length of less than 26 inches.

This means two of my regular carry guns the Judge and the Governor are outlawed as they are considered short barreled shotguns. I think the Judge was named specifically as not legal in the state of California.

(Not yelling here but Highlighted text to have the question stand out)
Now show me what would be considered a legal "Rifle" with a detachable magazine in the state of California. There isn't one that works for home defense. You're certainly not going to want to use a Remington 700 for obvious reasons. So what are you left with?

 

[🦈💜]

Sigh..... @Acrofox I most certainly did read it and understand it. I never said it outlaws ALL guns. There are still some guns that the public can own. But at this point based on California law, you can not own ANY firearm with either a detachable magazine, or any pistol with a detachable magazine that can carry more than 10 rounds of ammo.

So wait, you can't own a firearm with a detachable magazine, but you can own a firearm with a detachable magazine unless it can carry more than ten rounds of ammunition?

Which is it? Or are you trying to imply that a pistol isn't a firearm?

Now, since:

reading comprehension is an issue here

... something I firmly agree with, tell me this:

Is a Ruger P89 now illegal in the state of California?

... you can't have guns with detachable magazines.

Is a Ruger P89 a gun? Does a Ruger P89 have a detachable magazine? What about a .308 semiautomatic hunting rifle with a detachable five-round magazine but without thumbhole grip, threaded barrel, forward grip, prominent pistol grip, grenade launcher, etc? Would that now be illegal? What about a rimfire rifle?

So if you have a rifle that has a fixed magazine and does not accept more than 10 rounds you are "possibly" legal. But now lets add in a few more laws.
.
.
.
This means two of my regular carry guns the Judge and the Governor are outlawed as they are considered short barreled shotguns. I think the Judge was named specifically as not legal in the state of California.

That's nice, and we all like the Judge, but none of these 'added in' laws materially addresses the point in question.

... you can't have guns with detachable magazines ...

... right?

Now show me what would be considered a legal "Rifle" with a detachable magazine in the state of California. There isn't one that works for home defense. You're certainly not going to want to use a Remington 700 for obvious reasons. So what are you left with?

Howabout a nice Ruger P89? Or perhaps a Remington 870?

Perhaps allocate a portion of your firearms budget to the task of moving to a better neighborhood? But this is all distraction from the original point—I'm not defending the laws in question, nor am I directing your home defense strategy.

No, despite all the sarcastic responses I've gotten, I'm still waiting for a single person to tell me where:

... Governor Brown just signed in legislation that you can't have guns with detachable magazines.

This reminds me of the chemtrail people who, when asked for evidence, post pictures of airplanes producing contrails, followed by a whole mountain of text on the effects of barium enemas on the populace... or something to that effect.

There was one simple, absolute assertion @mshunter made that I questioned. I've received a plenty of text in response, but as near as I can tell absolutely nothing supports the initial assertion that:

... Governor Brown just signed in legislation that you can't have guns with detachable magazines.

So again, [Citation needed]. And please don't tell me that I'm missing something if you can't then tell me what it is.

-Fox

 

[bucksmith]

So wait, you can't own a firearm with a detachable magazine, but you can own a firearm with a detachable magazine unless it can carry more than ten rounds of ammunition?

Which is it? Or are you trying to imply that a pistol isn't a firearm?

Now, since:


... something I firmly agree with, tell me this:

Is a Ruger P89 now illegal in the state of California?



Is a Ruger P89 a gun? Does a Ruger P89 have a detachable magazine? What about a .308 semiautomatic hunting rifle with a detachable five-round magazine but without thumbhole grip, threaded barrel, forward grip, prominent pistol grip, grenade launcher, etc? Would that now be illegal? What about a rimfire rifle?



That's nice, and we all like the Judge, but none of these 'added in' laws materially addresses the point in question.



... right?



Howabout a nice Ruger P89? Or perhaps a Remington 870?

Perhaps allocate a portion of your firearms budget to the task of moving to a better neighborhood? But this is all distraction from the original point—I'm not defending the laws in question, nor am I directing your home defense strategy.

No, despite all the sarcastic responses I've gotten, I'm still waiting for a single person to tell me where:



This reminds me of the chemtrail people who, when asked for evidence, post pictures of airplanes producing contrails, followed by a whole mountain of text on the effects of barium enemas on the populace... or something to that effect.

There was one simple, absolute assertion @mshunter made that I questioned. I've received a plenty of text in response, but as near as I can tell absolutely nothing supports the initial assertion that:



So again, [Citation needed]. And please don't tell me that I'm missing something if you can't then tell me what it is.

-Fox

I'd like to think none of my snarky comments were directed at you. I happen to be a big fan of yours.
But I don't understand your question. Unless he edited the copy and paste of the law, it defines assault weapon as , among other things, semi auto center fire rifle with a detachable magazine. I suppose that doesn't mean ALL magazine fed weapons, but I think his statement was pretty darn close, close enough to let him slide on using the word "all" instead of perhaps "most".
I know words mean things, but I think his message was clear and not convoluted.

 

[av8tr1]

So wait, you can't own a firearm with a detachable magazine, but you can own a firearm with a detachable magazine unless it can carry more than ten rounds of ammunition?

Which is it? Or are you trying to imply that a pistol isn't a firearm?

Now, since:


... something I firmly agree with, tell me this:

Is a Ruger P89 now illegal in the state of California?



Is a Ruger P89 a gun? Does a Ruger P89 have a detachable magazine? What about a .308 semiautomatic hunting rifle with a detachable five-round magazine but without thumbhole grip, threaded barrel, forward grip, prominent pistol grip, grenade launcher, etc? Would that now be illegal? What about a rimfire rifle?



That's nice, and we all like the Judge, but none of these 'added in' laws materially addresses the point in question.



... right?



Howabout a nice Ruger P89? Or perhaps a Remington 870?

Perhaps allocate a portion of your firearms budget to the task of moving to a better neighborhood? But this is all distraction from the original point—I'm not defending the laws in question, nor am I directing your home defense strategy.

No, despite all the sarcastic responses I've gotten, I'm still waiting for a single person to tell me where:



This reminds me of the chemtrail people who, when asked for evidence, post pictures of airplanes producing contrails, followed by a whole mountain of text on the effects of barium enemas on the populace... or something to that effect.

There was one simple, absolute assertion @mshunter made that I questioned. I've received a plenty of text in response, but as near as I can tell absolutely nothing supports the initial assertion that:



So again, [Citation needed]. And please don't tell me that I'm missing something if you can't then tell me what it is.

-Fox

Two things here.

I will cede to your point that @mshunter statement was not entirely correct and my own statements in support (but neither are we wrong from a certain point of view). I suspect what he meant was all rifles not all firearms. However he amended his statement in

I think you're right. When I read it the, I must have glossed over the "center fire" part of it.

And then he posted a link to something else that doesn't load so I don't know what he was citing there. But I don't think you're seeing the forest through the trees here. Or maybe you are when you point out "you definitely not a fan of the new legislation"

So you argue that you are not a fan of the new legislation, which clearly outlaws a large swath of very popular guns available to the public. But then spend considerable time attacking someone over the choice of words, poor as they may be. To me that is the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot, if you pardon the pun.

@mshunter has already said he misspoke. I've provided specific examples of what most people refer to as the "gunpocalypse" and it clearly is by any normal person a significant change to gun laws that are not replicated in any other state. So is the debate that there is no "gunpocalypse" or is the debate that @mshunter and I are chemtrail believers?

But the second point is the larger one we are both addressing is an significant over reach of government power that flies in the face of the 2nd amendment. Californians can own guns but only a certain type as approved by the government. This recent legislation bans a pretty significant number of firearms. No other state in the nation has this level of limits on gun ownership. And it severely limits the legal law abiding citizens of California from access to well known and respected self defense tools. This only affects legal law abiding citizens, this isn't going to stop criminals at all. The criminal by definition does not follow the law. So these laws leave most legal law abiding citizens of California from access to well known and respected self defense tools (yes I meant to say it twice). Thats the point of most POTG concern.

Then when you take into account other laws that limit a legal law abiding citizens right to where they can carry that government approved handgun we have even more to be concerned about. It is very difficult in many California localities to get a license to carry concealed. And it is completely unlawful to carry open in the state. So now you are limited to almost nothing to defend yourself with. All because the California government has outlawed through a number of different laws the #1 most successful tool for self defense.

Thats where people see the so called "gunpocalypse". Thats really what this debate is about. So do you want to spend time debating the poor choice of words or the obvious over reach of government power that not only flies in the face of the 2nd amendment but leaves most legal law abiding citizens without the tools for self defense.

 

[mshunter]

This is correct, to the best of my knowledge. @mshunter @av8tr1 should read this carefully.

Saying "OMG OMG OMG HE BANNED ALL GUNS WITH DETACHABLE MAGAZINES!!!!11111" is simple hyperbole. Read below for how to hold intelligent dialog on the new legislation:



And to that, I can firmly say that I'm definitely not a fan of the new legislation, and would be strongly inclined to support efforts to reexamine or repeal, but it's not the freaking gunpocalypse any more than the previous California assault weapon stuff has been.

Also, while you guys weren't looking, they outlawed nunchucks.

Just sayin'.

-Fox

This post is proof that some people come here just to argue. I posted a reply admitting my error, but clearly, you didn't read the entire thread.

 

[🦈💜]

I'd like to think none of my snarky comments were directed at you.

I haven't taken any offense from any of them, nor have I specifically considered your comments snarky.

But I don't understand your question. Unless he edited the copy and paste of the law, it defines assault weapon as , among other things, semi auto center fire rifle with a detachable magazine.

The operative part, as far as I can tell, is this:

... and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

I mean, if I'm missing something I'd love to know what. I've read through all of this before on several occasions, and I have refreshed my knowledge of it on the occasion of this discussion. My knowledge isn't exhaustive, but it's mostly unbiased and, as far as I know, based on fact.

I think his message was clear and not convoluted.

Which is exactly why I stepped forward to challenge it, because as far as I can tell it's clear, simple, and wrong.

Again, I didn't start this by saying "No way", I started it by asking for a citation. I am very much willing to be wrong in my doubt of its veracity, but I first have to be wrong, and at this point I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. If anything, what evidence has been provided thusfar has strengthened my conviction that the original statement was soundly false.

This isn't pedantry—there's a tremendous difference in number of affected weapons between "All firearms with assault-rifle characteristics (as defined) and a detachable magazine" and "All firearms with a detachable magazine."

-Fox

 

[bucksmith]

I haven't taken any offense from any of them, nor have I specifically considered your comments snarky.



The operative part, as far as I can tell, is this:

... and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

I mean, if I'm missing something I'd love to know what. I've read through all of this before on several occasions, and I have refreshed my knowledge of it on the occasion of this discussion. My knowledge isn't exhaustive, but it's mostly unbiased and, as far as I know, based on fact.



Which is exactly why I stepped forward to challenge it, because as far as I can tell it's clear, simple, and wrong.

Again, I didn't start this by saying "No way", I started it by asking for a citation. I am very much willing to be wrong in my doubt of its veracity, but I first have to be wrong, and at this point I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. If anything, what evidence has been provided thusfar has strengthened my conviction that the original statement was soundly false.

This isn't pedantry—there's a tremendous difference in number of affected weapons between "All firearms with assault-rifle characteristics (as defined) and a detachable magazine" and "All firearms with a detachable magazine."

-Fox

Well, they're still trying to take my guns.
(Ironically ignorant statement inserted for mild comic relief, intended to deflect from my small defeat.)

 

[🦈💜]

So you argue that you are not a fan of the new legislation, which clearly outlaws a large swath of very popular guns available to the public. But then spend considerable time attacking someone over the choice of words, poor as they may be.

See @bucksmith 's response to me directly above your post. The words used convey ideas, and those ideas are powerful concepts that continue to exist after the original words have been forgotten. I spent zero time attacking him over his choice of words, and instead used all my time to request a specific citation in support of them. This isn't about people. It's not personal—I've been wrong quite a lot in my life, and while it's natural to resent being called on it, I've tried to get over that as quickly as possible to arrive at the right answer regardless of whose answer it was.

@mshunter has already said he misspoke.

Was that before or after he posted a "Let Me Google That For You" link searching for "gunpocalypse"? Oh right, before. And what exactly did he retract? Oh, right, that he glossed over the "center-fire" portion of it, as pertains to his specific weapon... which is only a minority of the difference between his initial statement and reality.

... So is the debate that there is no "gunpocalypse" or is the debate that @mshunter and I are chemtrail believers? .... [and a lot more]

All distraction. The debate is specifically whether all guns with detachable magazines will be made illegal in the state of California, which is, as near as I can tell, materially false.

That was a specific, absolute statement. It wasn't a gentle mis-wording, nor did his "retraction" say anything about being mistaken in the intent or content of his initial statement... only his followup comments about a particular rifle he owned.

-Fox

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Yaay another gun thread.

And Seggy and I weren't involved.

 

[bucksmith]

See @bucksmith 's response to me directly above your post. The words used convey ideas, and those ideas are powerful concepts that continue to exist after the original words have been forgotten. I spent zero time attacking him over his choice of words, and instead used all my time to request a specific citation in support of them. This isn't about people. It's not personal—I've been wrong quite a lot in my life, and while it's natural to resent being called on it, I've tried to get over that as quickly as possible to arrive at the right answer regardless of whose answer it was.

@mshunter has already said he misspoke.

Was that before or after he posted a "Let Me Google That For You" link searching for "gunpocalypse"? Oh right, before. And what exactly did he retract? Oh, right, that he glossed over the "center-fire" portion of it, as pertains to his specific weapon... which is only a minority of the difference between his initial statement and reality.



All distraction. The debate is specifically whether all guns with detachable magazines will be made illegal in the state of California, which is, as near as I can tell, materially false.

That was a specific, absolute statement. It wasn't a gentle mis-wording, nor did his "retraction" say anything about being mistaken in the intent or content of his initial statement... only his followup comments about a particular rifle he owned.

-Fox

Thanks, now if only things went that well with my wife.
But seriously, I re-read the law and it says, detachable magazine AND ONE of the following attributes.
But really seriously, what do these people think they are protecting? Can anybody here give an intelligent defense to these laws in respect to how they will reduce gun violence?
Maybe I just need to go over to the lav and release this pent up frustration. (Pun intended?)

 

[bucksmith]

Yaay another gun thread.

And Seggy and I weren't involved.

We're have ya been???

 

[av8tr1]

See @bucksmith 's response to me directly above your post. The words used convey ideas, and those ideas are powerful concepts that continue to exist after the original words have been forgotten. I spent zero time attacking him over his choice of words, and instead used all my time to request a specific citation in support of them. This isn't about people. It's not personal—I've been wrong quite a lot in my life, and while it's natural to resent being called on it, I've tried to get over that as quickly as possible to arrive at the right answer regardless of whose answer it was.

@mshunter has already said he misspoke.

Was that before or after he posted a "Let Me Google That For You" link searching for "gunpocalypse"? Oh right, before. And what exactly did he retract? Oh, right, that he glossed over the "center-fire" portion of it, as pertains to his specific weapon... which is only a minority of the difference between his initial statement and reality.



All distraction. The debate is specifically whether all guns with detachable magazines will be made illegal in the state of California, which is, as near as I can tell, materially false.

That was a specific, absolute statement. It wasn't a gentle mis-wording, nor did his "retraction" say anything about being mistaken in the intent or content of his initial statement... only his followup comments about a particular rifle he owned.

-Fox

Didn't see his "let me google that for you" post. That might be the link that doesn't see to work for me.

But ok, let me ask you this. What "gun" (specifically a rifle) is legal and has a detachable or not detachable magazine and does not have at least one of the following

.. and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

But really seriously, what do these people think they are protecting? Can anybody here give an intelligent defense to these laws in respect to how they will reduce gun violence?

Who knows, how about less guns in general. Until the pro-gun side can come up with a solution to keep the mental nutjobs from blasting innocent people away, these kinds of laws will continue to come. Self defense is fine. Building an arsenal for world war III while claiming Obama is coming for your guns..... well, that's just nutty. People like divorced alimony-collecting Mrs. Lanza and her arsenal with a mentally sick kid in her house, and the aftermath. So these laws pass.

Because the country can't take care of the mentally sick.

Because people can't recognize that not everyone is mentally fit to buy and own/operate a weapon.

And because thanks to the NRA, 2Aers, and corrupt politicians, no one is willing to do anything about it except suggest "more guns" and the infamous "only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

Take your picks.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

We're have ya been???

Do you really want me to continue?

 

[🦈💜]

Statement A:

No it's not. Governor Brown just signed in legislation that you can't have guns with detachable magazines. So we're all safe now. Violent crimes are a thing of the past.

Statement B:

One last comment. On Jan 1st, my Ruger 22 LR will be illegal in California, because it has a 10 round detachable magazine. I'll be a criminal. Not really sure what to do about it either.

Comment C:

I may be wrong, but from my reading, it only mentions center fire rifles or pistols with a detachable magazine. Then again, I just skimmed through it.

Comment D:

I think you're right. When I read it the, I must have glossed over the "center fire" part of it.

Reply E:

Here.

This post is proof that some people come here just to argue. I posted a reply admitting my error, but clearly, you didn't read the entire thread.

Comment C invalidated statement B, which you admitted in comment D. However, you never said anything about statement A, and then, immediately after comment D, you posted Reply E, a "Let Me Google That For You" link implying that I hadn't bothered to search for the citation I was requesting.

I did read the entire thread.

I'm not posting this just to argue, but a ban on all firearms with removable magazines would truly be a "gunpocalypse"... and that's not what we're seeing here at all.

This is not personal, but when I read that I was shocked and immediately tried to find out more. I was unable to discover anything in support of your initial statement, and I began to doubt it, so I replied. I'm not looking for an argument, but I do want to establish a factual basis for continuing discussion.

-Fox