POLITICS: California Sniper Rifle Ban Goes Into Effect

Originally posted by grimreaper797
its pointless to ban a gun because it doesnt effect the majority who ILLEGALLY buy guns.

So, which way should we go then, make all guns legal, then they can't be bought ILLEGALLY

or

Start somewhere...

It's pointless to have traffic fines, there are too many drivers driving illegally...

The people were supposed to have rebelled at this point with their 2nd Amendment armaments.

But for the last 100 years the militia has been disarmed. Now we have what we have now. The gradual encroachment on civil rights. First it will be sniper rifles in California, in 10 years it will be another assault weapons ban. Noone will stand up for their rights.

People just dont get it. They think they live in neverneverland where there is no need for weapons and they walk around as immortals like they could never get shot, enslaved, or kidnapped. They never think of the possibility that the powers that be are going to decide that the peons have no use for freedom of speech, or religion, or of the press, or any other right other then being a slave. They love fascism. Their brains are poisoned. They don't think right.

[edit on 11-3-2006 by ImplementOfWar]

no maybe its that we should crack down on illegal gun crime instead of legal gun buying....hm? maybe that would work a bit better to lower the crime.

As an NRA member my entire life and a avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment I do believe that the 2nd Amendment is really the only one that keeps the others intact. Without it the Constitution and Bill Of Rights have no teeth and are more or less meaningless. In addition if a person has read anything about Jefferson and the founding fathers it was clearly meant to keep the governing bodies in check as a lost resort. Many have said that it has no place in the modern world, that "our" government would never supress it people...I am sure that was also the feeling in Germany in the late 1930's and Russia in the 1920 & 30's.

oh boy.
they will get them, they'll get em all.

how many "snipers" have run amuk on the streets with a 50 cal?

the 2 instances of "snipers" that pop in my head instantly are the JFK shooter and the beltway sniper. both were common guns not some mythic supergun that can shoot down police helicopters.


if ANYONE can find me a place where gangsters are applying for concealed weapons permits, or submitting to background checks at the local gun shop i will support gun bans..
if someone can find me a place that has outlawed guns that saw a DECREASE in crime i will immediately move there and submit my guns to the government and disarm. until then i will stay armed because the people who care not for my property or life are still armed.

and you folks in europe of australia have alot of balls talking about banning guns, we can all see its working for you..

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban


A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

www.worldnetdaily.com...



[edit on 20-1-2009 by turbokid]

double post..

[edit on 20-1-2009 by turbokid]

I'd love to see someone try to take my rifles. Even my 270, depending on ammo used, could be a sniper rifle. Trust me, you don't need .50 BMG to kill someone from over a mile away.

The argument that no one "needs" a .50 is crap. I don't "need" my 1967 427 three-deuce Corvette either. I want it. KIds don't "need" a cell phone. They want them.

One other thing about the "militia" is that the militia in our founding fathers terms, was that on a moment, every able-bodied adult male (this was before equal rights) was to be able to show up, locked and loaded, to defend the Constitution of the US, and its territories.

IMO, this of course would include access to full auto, full military weapons. Now, because S. California has so many illegals and powerful gangs, they created a lot of their own problem.

A number of us here in Florida are trying to get our State Legislature to pass a law, per the Constitution, that the Federal Government may pass no law affecting the regulation of any firearms, components, ammunition, manufacturing, or use of any firearms by any Florida resident.

The Federal Government does not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate firearms in any shape, form, or fashion. That right is up to the states.

Besides, the folks can get the Barrett .416, shoot flatter, shoot harder, and with more accuracy than it's big brother, the .50.

And when they knock off the .416, they'll go after another. And another. Soon, only the gangs and criminals will have weapons in California.

Of course, there's a mass migration out of California right now. Let the fruits, pansies, and illegals have it.

[edit on 20-1-2009 by dooper]

reply to post by dooper


I know that no one NEEDS a 50 BMG. I was just illustrating a point. Sniper rifle can mean anything. Secondly, I'd like to see the ATF abolished. As there is no authority for it.

I'll weigh in on this one too. I agree that no one has a legit use for the Barret .50 cal. during our current state of peace in the US. That being said, I also agree that it is of utmost importance for the citizens of the US to maintain sufficient armament to repel a domestic invasion or, heaven forbid, unseat a tyrannical government.

I totally agree that the lack of use is no reason for a law made by the government to ban it.

There are already laws against murder, what does it matter if they are shot or pushed out of windows? I could kill someone with the cord to my iron but is that a reason to ban power cords? No, the act of killing someone with one is already banned. It is already illegal.

There is only one reasonable objective to these bans and that is to promote a defenseless population, now who'd want to do a thing like that?