Assault Rifle ban coming soon?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2006 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I hear more and more talk every day about the chance of an assault rifle ban happining here in the U.S. soon. They will probly do away with any mag bigger than 10 rounds. Then the assault rifles will go. It will surely be against the law to buy and sale them, but what about target shooting with them? I know a lot of us here like to target shoot with our assault rifles, will that to soon be asinst the law?




posted on Dec, 6 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I think this is an extremly serious issue. This could really happen now that the Democrats control congress. A bill could be passed in just a few months!


So no cares if Federal Agents come into your house to take your AK or AR???



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Don't worry, it wont happen, the first assault weapons ban was a disaster and nearly cost the democrats the house and senate.

The gun lobbiest agreed to a compromise once but realised it was a mistake and wont let it happen again, the only thing I see happen is a magazine restriction being passed but no out right ban of certain guns.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Its definitely coming. Every night on the news now theres a story about somebody robbing a bank and suddenly they feel it necessary to state "with an AK-47", "a high-powered assault rifle", "out-gunning police" etc...

For years I havent heard anyone mention the weapons used in the crime recaps of the day but now they wont tell the story without fitting in the standard "it was a big scary assault rifle" line.

This coupled with the stockpiling of U.N vehicles on U.S. soil freaks me out.

www.greaterthings.com...



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Well, there was a ban on assault weapons until relatively recently. It just expired earlier this year.. I am sure that if the Demofreaks have their way about it, there will be a renewed one. The Republipukes won't do anything to stop it from happening either.



posted on Dec, 7 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I wouldn't worry too much about it - the Dems aren't really pushing gun control at the federal level anymore - the original AWB was politically quite costly for them. Outside urban areas gun control is a political liability and the Dems are starting to figure this out finally.

With Howard Dean (a vocal gun control opponent) as chair of the DNC, I don't expect to the the party making a big push for new gun control laws.

[edit on 12/7/06 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Pardon my ignorance, but do you actually believe that civilians having assault rifles is a good thing??
What on earth would you need it for? And don't say to protect yourself, because if you start shooting at police, military or anyone else for that matter, with an assault rifle you will be taken down! Fast! Just about every case I've read about in the news lately where some guy has gone around blazing - even with shotguns - the cops put a sniper on him and took him down. Big guns don't make you bulletproof!


And don't think for a second that the politicians won't use this as an excuse to arm the police with even more powerfull weapons. After all, they need to stay ahead of whoever is shooting at them.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Thats exactly why responsable citizens are supposed to form militias for defence of life, liberty and property. If the government want to wipe out entire states then so be it.
Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Or you could look at whats happening in Iraq right now. Whats been happening with Chechnyans for decades now. Even lightly armed the mass of citizens can defeat a government and its military. Hell, we did it to the British. What would the government do? Nuke New Jersey?

Not only is it our right to bear arms. Its our responsability to do so. Every home needs a good dog and a good gun.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Just to clear up some confusion, Assault rifles are heavilly restricted in the US.

Assault Weapons are a political term for a semi-automatic rifle that has military style features like a vertical pistol grip, hi-capacity magazine, muzzle brake, bayonet and all that stuff.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Thats exactly why responsable citizens are supposed to form militias for defence of life, liberty and property. If the government want to wipe out entire states then so be it.
Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Or you could look at whats happening in Iraq right now. Whats been happening with Chechnyans for decades now. Even lightly armed the mass of citizens can defeat a government and its military. Hell, we did it to the British. What would the government do? Nuke New Jersey?

Not only is it our right to bear arms. Its our responsability to do so. Every home needs a good dog and a good gun.


Okay so what are you waiting for? I mean how far do they have to go before these militias deside it's time to take action? With all the guns you have in the US, you'd think it would be easy to arm a group big enough to storm the white house or whatever. Hostile takeover... You'd have to be sure it's the right thing to do though! You'd be shooting your own citizens...fellow americans...

And when you've killed enough people to gain control of the white house, you'd have about an hour maybe before SWAT storm in and shoot all of you... There's ALWAYS somebody with more guns or bigger guns or more soldiers or whatever.

But then again, if Bush desides to become a dictator you'd need all the guns you can get!



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Something funny about CT's ban.

I can go buy a Ruger Mini-30 (7.62x39) semi-auto rifle.

I cannot by an AK-47 (7.62x39) semi-auto rifle.

Figure that one out.

I can get the same capacity for both weapons. They shoot the same round at the same rate.

The AK is illegal because some sheltered city folk just assume its a menacing, evil rifle used by criminals. The media taught them that. The same fear is what makes the little old white lady freak out if a big black guy comes up behind her at the ATM.

Its all fear mongering bull and prejudices toward what people dont understand. People in CT by and large dont understand guns. Go to Nebraska and they, by and large, dont understand CT.

People like the guy who thinks "civilians" shouldnt have them doesnt understand anything.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Something funny about CT's ban.

I can go buy a Ruger Mini-30 (7.62x39) semi-auto rifle.

I cannot by an AK-47 (7.62x39) semi-auto rifle.

Figure that one out.

I can get the same capacity for both weapons. They shoot the same round at the same rate.

The AK is illegal because some sheltered city folk just assume its a menacing, evil rifle used by criminals. The media taught them that. The same fear is what makes the little old white lady freak out if a big black guy comes up behind her at the ATM.

Its all fear mongering bull and prejudices toward what people dont understand. People in CT by and large dont understand guns. Go to Nebraska and they, by and large, dont understand CT.

People like the guy who thinks "civilians" shouldnt have them doesnt understand anything.


Well I don't know about understanding the need for these things, but over here we've never been allowed to carry assault rifles or automatic weapons in general. We have very strict rules on carrying weapons, and I for one am glad we do.

Like once every couple of years somebody gets hold of a AG-3 from a military warehouse or something and goes on a killing spree. Most people who have guns don't go around killing people, but the ones that do get a lot more killing done in a lot less time with automatic weapons...

I'm all for the right to bear arms and protect yourself, but you don't need frikkin' assault rifles for that!
I know this is a very sensitive subject that most americans feel very strongly about, but at some point you must look at the following:

-If you want to shoot someone, you need a gun.
-The more guns you have the more people are going to get shot, regardless of the intentions.
-Most guns used in criminal cases are legal guns stolen from people "protecting themselves".

Do you go hunting with AK-47's ?
I'm sure it's great fun to shoot it at a shooting range, but what if your kid (or some random punk burgling your house) runs off with it and shoot someone? Having such powerfull weapons is a great responsibility!



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Your over in the UK? I remember that knife ban last year. When will you guys ban cricket bats? You know someone could get beat to death with a cricket bat, right?

Then youre banned from picking up rocks off the ground or clentching your fingers to make a fist. No more hammers or nails. No more oranges or pillow cases. You could beat someone to death with that too.

I feel bad for you guys. No right to arm yourselves. Video cameras everywhere. You guys are a hop, skip and a jump away from 1984. Watch your thought crimes.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
What...again???

There was a Federal Assault rifle ban and then it was allowed to fall off the books.

Only California still has this draconian law in effect...as of now.

The real funny thing is that they-the Federal Government as well as the California government are constantly changing the definition of what an assault rifle is


[edit on 12/8/2006 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   
They had an assault rifle ban here - I kept my assault rifle. I've just purchased another. They can institute a new ban and I will kepp BOTH of my rifles because the Constitution says I can. I will keep my other 10 or so guns as well - regardless of what the "law" says. There can be no "law" that violates the Bill of Rights and that Bill allows me to be armed!

This is my new girlfriend! Ain't she a bitch! They can take this baby from me when I am dead and cold and not a second before!



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
They had an assault rifle ban here - I kept my assault rifle. I've just purchased another. They can institute a new ban and I will kepp BOTH of my rifles because the Constitution says I can. I will keep my other 10 or so guns as well - regardless of what the "law" says. There can be no "law" that violates the Bill of Rights and that Bill allows me to be armed!


The Bill of Rights allows the citizens to be armed, correct. However, it doesn't place any definition to limit the term "arms." Bearing that in mind, why stop with full-automatic rifles (or semi-auto that can be modified with household tools) capable of holding 30-40 rounds in a clip? Let's go all the way--we can "arm" ourselves with RPGs, mortars, land mines. You know, I'm sure we can search for a few minutes and find the specs for small nuclear devices. Then we can claim that radioactive material restrictions are unconstitutional, because we want to arm ourselves with nukes. It's our right to bear armaments, correct? Doesn't say conventional arms.

Or is that just "taking it too far"? Hell, the constitution was written at a time when you were lucky your musket didn't backfire and kill you. I really doubt they had any idea of the weaponry we'd come up with--I'm pretty sure the thought of having to limit a rifle to three-shot bursts was all but inconceivable at a time when reloading your gun after every single shot was just the nature of war.



This is my new girlfriend! Ain't she a bitch! They can take this baby from me when I am dead and cold and not a second before!


Seriously, what is the purpose of that weapon? What do you need something like that for? I'm not trying to be a jackass or anything, I'm honestly curious. Hell, you could have a missile launcher, and someone with a piece of buckshot and a slingshot could still take you out without you even knowing they were around. What benefit does a weapon like that have over a regular semi-auto pistol? Just seems like a bunch of extra weight to me...



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
She weighs less than 9 pounds fully loaded and combat ready! Why do I have it? Because you (And others) apparently don't. Gives me a firepower advantage now doesn't it? And if someone with a simple slingshot could kill me just as easily, then what's the point in getting yourself all worked up that I have one? Better ban slingshots too then, eh?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Why not let all of us have RPG's, mortars, land mines and nukes?

Youve never built a mortar or land mine? I thought every kid did?
I still have my land mine designs from when I 14.
My mortats were nice too. Theyd launch 1 litre soda bottles full on shot, nails, nuts, whatever.

I like that Sig hes got. I fired one at a gun show here recently. Its smooth and accurate.

Alot of the "unecessary" guns people own are just because they like to shoot. Why buy a bike with 12" travel dual crown fork unless youre going to huck 50'? Why buy a Viper unless youre going to race? No speed limit in the US is above 65. Why buy anything you dont need? Because this is America and its our damn right to do so. Nobody should ever limit anything. Should never outlaw anything. If we want it, can build it and can afford it we should be able to get it. Thats freedom. It doesnt limit your freedoms if I have an AK or a Dodge Viper, does it? It might make you uncomfortable but thats your problem.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by kozmo
She weighs less than 9 pounds fully loaded and combat ready! Why do I have it? Because you (And others) apparently don't. Gives me a firepower advantage now doesn't it?


I don't own any guns; I don't trust myself with them--too much of a klutz. You could have a pellet rifle and have a fire power advantage over me. But the advantage over someone else with a gun is minimal in my opinion anyways--a .22 or a .38 could still make that cannon of your's pretty much useless if the person's a halfway decent shot.



Better ban slingshots too then, eh?


I know my post didn't sound like it, but I'm not really for the ban. I'm not against it either. I just don't understand the vehement fervor with which people fight to keep a weapon that is an overkill (no pun intended) in virtually any self defense situation. If I want to protect my family and my home, I could do so much easier with a pistol kept under my pillow than a rifle kept in the closet. If I'm getting raided by some kind of SWAT team or militia, then I'm dead no matter what I'm holding, and taking one or two of them with me won't put food on the table for my family if they survive.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
About the UN vehicles it's a company that rehabs and resells them. Somebodys gotta do it might as well be AMERICAN'S

mikell





top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join