White House: Reinstating 'Assault' Weapons Ban to Prevent Terrorism is Common Sense

a reply to: Viesczy
Fair point. Never liked the native American example as they were never treated as americans. They were invaded and ruled but the others are fine examples.

Someone earlier pointed out that isn't the 2nd amendment being violated by "fit for purpose" type laws, background checks, mental state etc etc. Is not a violation of the rights? If I'm correct ( and very rarely in gun threads apparantly..lol) then how come this is rarely mentioned. Thread drift I know but an interesting point I feel, especially when this amendment takes such a stronghold in these debates.

a reply to: rossacus

Speaking as an American with native american ancestry they were denied arms.

So were the slaves, and well the slaves are 'free', but the native americans still live on reservations to this day.

But hey never mind all that I just spew 'short sighted ideas'.

And the gun debate encompasses more than one constitutional amendment.

It's an afront to all of them.

Hell they were specifically written because the British crown denied weapons/rights to the colonials.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neo96

Why doesn't government simply do a gun exchange program.

For every gun they confiscate, they will provide you with a white flag and instructions on how to cower in place and hide.

Don't forget, to bend over and kiss your ass goodby.

a reply to: neo96

Fun fact: Modern gun control efforts started as a means of disarming the Black Panthers and other minority groups.

Or out of fear.

Isn't it ironic how those same efforts have shifted toward the more conservative majority. I won't even say white here because there are many minorities who own their guns legally and won't give them up either.

Or out of the same fear merely shifted toward a different demographic.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: eXia7
I wonder if they plan to ban all bomb making equipment too.

Oh government, you so naive

They already have.

That's why during the 90s ammonia nitrate chemical composition was changed.

No they haven't. You can walk into virtually any kitchen in America and get the stuff you need to make a bomb.

SIgh... he means in the fertilizer form.

a reply to: ketsuko

Fun fact: Modern gun control efforts started as a means of disarming the Black Panthers and other minority groups.

Yep I am well aware of the racist history of gun control.

www.washingtonsblog.com...

www.firearmsandliberty.com...

I hate the term "gun show loophole."

There is no loophole! It is simply one private gun owner selling another private gun owner a firearm. If they did it at home it would be the same exact thing.

The misleading idea is that any yahoo can go and buy a firearm from a gun shop vendor at a show is so ridiculous.

originally posted by: rossacus
It us common sense though. What is the need for an "assault" weapons. You can have your guns, maintain paranoid thoughts of someone breaking in to your homes as justification for the gun in the first place.

Isn't a standard gun enough? Genuine question guys? Is there a possible reason outside constitutional right and amendments, because on the level, it's a poor reason, for owning a gun that can cause maximum damage simply for defensive reasons.

Hunting is different, if you get your kicks out of mutilating animals with multiple bullets then that's your choice, but still not a justifiable reason for high powered automatic weapons.

A standard gun is vastly more powerful than a so called "assault weapon'.The 5.56 is a pipsqueek compared to the standard 30-06 or .303 and damage is also minimal compared to the hunting rounds.
Methinks you need to study up a little,otherwise you end up sounding like an ignoramus.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: neo96

Why doesn't government simply do a gun exchange program.

For every gun they confiscate, they will provide you with a white flag and instructions on how to cower in place and hide.

Better yet they could just make all of us French citizens,you know the cheese eating surrender monkeys.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Plus you also get a French beret and two old baguets

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: rossacus
It us common sense though. What is the need for an "assault" weapons. You can have your guns, maintain paranoid thoughts of someone breaking in to your homes as justification for the gun in the first place.

Isn't a standard gun enough? Genuine question guys? Is there a possible reason outside constitutional right and amendments, because on the level, it's a poor reason, for owning a gun that can cause maximum damage simply for defensive reasons.

Hunting is different, if you get your kicks out of mutilating animals with multiple bullets then that's your choice, but still not a justifiable reason for high powered automatic weapons.

A standard gun is vastly more powerful than a so called "assault weapon'.The 5.56 is a pipsqueek compared to the standard 30-06 or .303 and damage is also minimal compared to the hunting rounds.
Methinks you need to study up a little,otherwise you end up sounding like an ignoramus.

I'm glad someone brought this up. It seems, to me at least, that calibers of weapons and their destructive properties are thrown by the wayside in an attempt to demonize the weapon.

An AR-15 is a .223 ( 5.56mm comparatively ). Generally uses a 30 round magazine and is semi-automatic.
A .22 is a pretty "standard" gun. You can easily get magazines for these in up to 100+ round capacity. Also semi-automatic
There is however, a powder and casing difference. The .223 is larger and packs more power to propel the bullet much faster.

originally posted by: rossacus
It us common sense though. What is the need for an "assault" weapons. You can have your guns, maintain paranoid thoughts of someone breaking in to your homes as justification for the gun in the first place.

Isn't a standard gun enough? Genuine question guys? Is there a possible reason outside constitutional right and amendments, because on the level, it's a poor reason, for owning a gun that can cause maximum damage simply for defensive reasons.

Hunting is different, if you get your kicks out of mutilating animals with multiple bullets then that's your choice, but still not a justifiable reason for high powered automatic weapons.

This is the point of the entire "gun debate", this person's statement here.

How can anyone argue with someone who doesn't understand the argument they are in? Lol.

Sorry, but an entire life of absolute cushion has given some Americans the privilege of not understanding danger. This is why you see warning signs for ridiculous crap.

And to clarify, I do not mean the guns are the dangerous thing we need protection from. Only a complete and utter simpleton would believe this.

a reply to: tinymind

300 meter hits?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: tinymind

300 meter hits?

well us old timers were trained to 300 meters with ghost ring type iron sights within 2 seconds with an M-16. i understand the young-uns are trained to 400+ something meters. hard to believe because at 300 meters the front sight post nearly completely covers the target. I'd imagine at anything longer the front sight would completely obscure a man sized target

ACLU? aren't they among the lib herd that said such lists themselves were unconstitutional last year?

And whats with the hate on the NRA? The NRA was formed in part to prevent Freed black slaves from being denied the right to have firearms to protect themselves from being victims of hate crimes.

There is a term for people that shift their values, "moral" outrage, and principles for tactical political advantage. what was that word i'm looking for...? Hippo...Hippopotamus; -no. Hyponteneuse... nope. Hyper...nope. Hippie... no. almost but not quite... hypocrite. thats it! hypocrite!

a reply to: neo96

So as long as a shooter doesn't use an assault rifle. He/She doesn't
have to worry about any weapons charges on top of mass murder
and suicide by self or cop? What woulde make even more sense is
if the shooter got to keep his gun rights for observing the the law!

a reply to: stormbringer1701

They use optics.
We were also raised with them for the most part in most of the country.
I had a shooting class in Jr High.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: stormbringer1701

They use optics.
We were also raised with them for the most part in most of the country.
I had a shooting class in Jr High.

That's cheating, dammit! Young-uns these days!

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Hardest part of Marksmanship were 3 nasty hills at Knox,Agony ,Heartbreak and Misery.