Assault Rifle ban coming soon?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
It's all good, man! I fight for my right to have this weapon because I don't believe that government should have the right to limit me in my choice of arms. And "arms" is meant to cover small arms (As defined by modern legal precedent). In the "old" days, even a farmer could own a cannon if he so desired.

Now, all joking and sarcasm aside - why do I have THAT gun? Because different guns are designed to accomplish different things. This is my "Ranged" assault weapon. That means that it is designed to concentrate alot of firepower on hostile targets that are at a distance (In my case, pop cans, coffee cans, milk jugs, etc... Those things can be VERY hostile!) - particularly multiple hostile targets. At close range I would either choose my Mossberg 590A-mil 12 guage shotgun or my SigArms P229 .40S&W handgun. I would use different rifles if I were hunting deer and probably something different yet if I was hunting rabbit. It's kinda like having a set of golf clubs - each one has a different use!




posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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...




You know what I can't stand about those reports? Most police now have M4's/M16's and combined with their training and military training can totally outgun and outperform the criminals.

If you remember back to the LA bank robbers back in the 90's, those police officers didn't have weapons to compete. The handguns and shotguns didn't do much to those criminals in full body armour and AK's with box magazines. They had to go into a gun store and take 5.56 rifles to take them down. From what I understand, that was straw that broke the camels back, and now most big police departments issue their officers carbines.

If I were writing the law, i'd make it so you had to go through the background checks, mandatory training in advanced operation, and making it a law that you can't use a high powered rifle for home defense UNLESS you own a certain amount of land and your closest neighbor is out of range for the rifle. I'd make it a law that if you own an assault rifle, you must also own a shotgun for home defense. We don't want some robber coming into a house, and then the homeowners bullets flying into our houses and killing our kids or even us.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
If I were writing the law, i'd make it so you had to go through the background checks, mandatory training in advanced operation, and making it a law that you can't use a high powered rifle for home defense UNLESS you own a certain amount of land and your closest neighbor is out of range for the rifle. I'd make it a law that if you own an assault rifle, you must also own a shotgun for home defense. We don't want some robber coming into a house, and then the homeowners bullets flying into our houses and killing our kids or even us.


HAHAHA!! Thats funny. I pictured some douche trying to use a 30-06 for home defense.

Most high-power rifles are completely useless for home defense. Unless you can see the invading horde coming over the horizon. Urban combat situations where walls and hallways create a labrynth, much like dense jungle, are best defended with shotguns and handguns. Even a knife will defend you better than a long rifle.

Now if you want to consider bullpup style stocks and short carbines, those will work better. But nothing beats the 12 gauge .45 auto combo for home defense. Make sure even if you arent terrible accurate your attacker is going down.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarmike
You know what I can't stand about those reports? Most police now have M4's/M16's and combined with their training and military training can totally outgun and outperform the criminals.

If you remember back to the LA bank robbers back in the 90's, those police officers didn't have weapons to compete. The handguns and shotguns didn't do much to those criminals in full body armour and AK's with box magazines. They had to go into a gun store and take 5.56 rifles to take them down. From what I understand, that was straw that broke the camels back, and now most big police departments issue their officers carbines.


Look at it this way. The only place that could have happened is in California. Try to pull that robbery in Pennsylvania (where I'm from) somebody grabbs a deer rifle out of their truck and it is over in 60 seconds.

As far as the laws you want to pass, consider one thing. The people who obey the laws and get their training and certification are the ones that you wouldn't have to worry about in the first place. I am 100% in favor of holding people responsible for their actions. I like to shoot and do so alot, but I am careful about where and when I shoot and the safety of myself and those around me is always the primary issue. People like the ones you are concerned about are few and far between, but they always get the press. They give careful shooters who obey the laws a bad name. We don't need more laws, just enforce the ones we have.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
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.


I thought that ban expired earlier in the year?



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
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, 8 2006 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
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.


Agreed, It wont happen.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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.


No, I'm in Norway, but I kind of agree with you on the UK bit


But seriously, when the constitution was written "arms" ment pretty much swords and single shot guns. It doesn't give you the right to have a nuke. What do you need these weapons for? What hordes are gonna come raiding your house? I just don't see it happening. If you wanna be a man, get a sword or an axe or something and do it the old way
When the end of the world comes your gun will only do you any good as long as you have bullets, and those things blaze em' away pretty fast.

So I say you can keep your assault rifles if you stop talking the talk and start walking the walk. Show me that your milita can remove Bush, Cheney and the rest of the bastards and turn this country around. But noooo, your all looking out for number one right? Locked in your houses. Scared of everybody. I don't get it.



posted on Dec, 8 2006 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The "assault rifle" description is a misnomer anyway.

The weapons these "assault rifle" bans address are not the same as true military "assault rifles": they lack the ability to fire full-auto, they are semiautomatic rifles only.

Possession of fullly-automatic weapons is already heavily restricted by the Firearms Act of 1934.



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary
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.


I guess you may have never heard of the Waco seige of 1993. A federal Assault Force was shot to peices when they tryed to take assault rifles away from these people. 20+ ATF agents where shot and had to retreat from the raid, then a seige went on for 51 days.

But if an Assault Rifle ban does take place, will you have to turn in the ones you bought before the ban?



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full_Auto77
I guess you may have never heard of the Waco seige of 1993. A federal Assault Force was shot to peices when they tryed to take assault rifles away from these people. 20+ ATF agents where shot and had to retreat from the raid, then a seige went on for 51 days.

Yeah,or so we're told. I have studied the whole Waco affair,and I can tell you, it didn't go down the way the feds would have you believe. Believe that!!

By the way, only four federal agents were shot,not 20!!

[edit on 9-12-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Well, let's say we do have a ban. Im against it of course, but if it happens how will it be? What was the 94'-04' ban like? Was it even legal to own and target shoot with them?



posted on Dec, 9 2006 @ 05:06 PM
link   
This is a political discussion, I don't see much to do with weapons here.

Wrong forum anyone ??



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
This is a political discussion, I don't see much to do with weapons here.

Wrong forum anyone ??


Actually it is the correct forum. If laws like the ones discussed here are passed then there will be no need for a Weapons Forum. As far as some of the other issues here are concerned, I can't think of a better place to discuss weapons safety.



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   
If the ban does come back, will police take away peoples rifles?



posted on Dec, 10 2006 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retseh
This is a political discussion, I don't see much to do with weapons here.

Wrong forum anyone ??


THis is the correct forum considering the topic stated. Weapons and an assult rifle ban.

I could debate the weapons used by the body politic. Ignorance and fear...carte blanche. This is the new weapon used across the board. This type of emotional appeal to those ignorant I tend to catalogue under a crudity for which I term "Public Masterbation." How to emotionally jerk the public off so that they are malliable, pliable, and dependable when they enter the voting booth. After election day..forget them.

This too is a weapon..make no doubt about it.

I am aware for many many years now that there will be a weapons ban. They will be coming for our slingshots....eventually. It will be done very similar to the method used for removing the gold from the public hands back in 1932/1933....under the guise of a emergency. They will claim they must have them because of the emergency ..then afterwords a law will be passed saying they wont give them back. YOu dont think we would give them up if the law was passed first do you??? Emergencys and fear. Works most of the time. Particularly on a people raised on a steady mind diet of television and movies.

Think this through carefully and what one must do about it.??? Carefully!!!

This is the correct forum.

The political forums are full of the most liberal peoples who would have humans suborned/subjected to and give up anything and everything....especially to their emotions.

This topic would be wasted there.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 11 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Well wither you are for or against it, does anyone think the police will actully walk into your house and take your rifle?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by MCory1

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.


It's basically a hobby for some people... Some people love shooting and collecting high power rifles and other people like collecting high end cars....

Ak is popular among criminals because it's powerful and dirty cheap to buy... It usually go for $300

I personally think they should just raise prices on assualt rifles, like the price tags on those 50 BMG, you don't see those big boys being use in crimes...

[edit on 12-12-2006 by IspyU]



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Full_Auto77
Well wither you are for or against it, does anyone think the police will actully walk into your house and take your rifle?


If a law is passed saying they have to, yes that is exactly what they will do. They're not going to do it for fun, they're going to do it if it becomes the law because enforcing the law is their job.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 10:56 AM
link   
The total ban is on the way. Here in Ma. there was a shooting in a nude bar. The loser had body armor and a AR15. The mayor of the city just had a press conference. He went off big time on the gun. He said he lives two miles from the shooting and the sound of the shots woke him up. Said it was like a cannon going off. He said there is no way anybody should have a gun like this. First they will ban the gun,then the strip club.





top topics
 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant