Assault Rifle ban coming soon?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
An AR15? Isnt that chambered in .223? No way that woke him up 2 miles away.
Thats bull.




posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Yes, the AR-15 is chambered in .223, although some manufacturers also make rifles with the same styling in different calibers. Whether the inner workings are the same, I have no idea. Most of these are .308s, but at least one manufacturer builds a .50 caliber.



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I guess in the back of my mind I know some type of ban will come within under 5 years or so. It's just how scrict it's going to be is what im worrying about. You dont think they would outlaw owning the ones you already have or target shooting with them do ya?



posted on Dec, 12 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
Yes, the AR-15 is chambered in .223, although some manufacturers also make rifles with the same styling in different calibers. Whether the inner workings are the same, I have no idea. Most of these are .308s, but at least one manufacturer builds a .50 caliber.


Yes, AR's have alot of conversions out there, but they all use the same lower receiver... Most of the time it is hard to tell the diff. unless you look down at the barrel.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Is it just me or has this thread taken a wrong turn somewhere. I think it should be my wright to own whatever kind of "arms" I want be it a full auto AK-47 or a Full auto pistol. I don't think that the DEMS will try again with the ban but you never know, people tend to forget the past.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Full_Auto77
I guess in the back of my mind I know some type of ban will come within under 5 years or so. It's just how scrict it's going to be is what im worrying about. You dont think they would outlaw owning the ones you already have or target shooting with them do ya?



Honestly, I don't think they'll try any type of confiscation, especially at a national level. It would be an enormous undertaking, and given the attitudes of many (most?) gun owners, it would be quite dangerous for those who actually had to go door-to-door collecting the weapons. That is assuming, of course, that state and local police agencies would even enforce it. Many of those police are strong gun rights advocates themselves, and enforcement would likely be a huge problem, especially in the southern and western US.

No, I think the gun grabbers try a different approach this time. My guess is that they'll try to ban the sale of certain types of ammunition to the public. Military caliber ammo would be the most likely to be banned, but it wouldn't shock me if they tried to ban all centerfire cartridges.



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Full_Auto77
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?


They never complained when I lit up a target up at charlie elliot.
not only that if they tried to take my guns away, they would have to get through a safe



after they go through me of course


[edit on 16-12-2006 by Ford Farmer]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I wouldnt worry to much about an assualt rifle ban. Plus thats against the second amendmant. Just to echo some ppl here. Guns dont kill ppl. Stupid ppl kill ppl.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Well to be fair, we shouldn't even be allowed to have guns in the first place. The second amendment says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia. So really the only people who should have it are cops, national guard, things of that nature. Besides, why do you need an assault rifle anyways? It can only lead to bad things.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
It has never lead me to bad things?
Have you ever fired an "assualt rifle"?
It's alot of fun I am just not sure why I shouldn't be able to have one.



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wswbkbroiler
Well to be fair, we shouldn't even be allowed to have guns in the first place. The second amendment says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia. So really the only people who should have it are cops, national guard, things of that nature. Besides, why do you need an assault rifle anyways? It can only lead to bad things.


YOu went to public school and never got over it right??

The militia has always been ordinary people banding together for thier purposes..not the purposes of the State. Also the State or Government is the people..not some seperate entity. To have a seperate entity not representing the people they claim to represent is Feudalism...Royalty.
You should already know this. THe Government is the people...for the people by the people. Not for the Government by the Government. Such an abomination is Fuedalism and we are back to the hated European System of Feudal Lords.

Find public education today teaching you this truism. They will stay away from it ..get shed of it...in favor or more government. Why is this ..because Government pays for public education ..they will not teach you to put light on their doings.

Did you take a good look at who some of the looters were in New Orleans after the hurricane?? The police!!

Think further than ones public school/television education please.

It is known but not made public by our politicians and media that in states where the public is mostly unarmed the local constabulary have a unhidden contempt for the public, their rights, and thier property.

THe shootings over the last three to five years of unarmed peoples in New York City make this quite clear. Notice that this is not the political slant shoveled out to the public by the news media.
THere have been similar shootings by the constabulary here in this town.
It will not be long before this happens by way of the National Guard too.
You are going to see more of this happening. Much more.

This is America...we have private property...notice the usage of the word "Private." This means "Private Property" not public property. YOur person is also private property. The goods and services produced by your person or private property. This implys at law with the right to protect and dispose of our private property according to our will and direction. Not by default cede it over to a government entity for thier use or misuse.

THe common fingerprint of governments,federal, state, and local is to give the "appearence " of law and order while this type of thing is happening and yet many other types of crime run rampant. Watch for this too. You are going to see this repeated and accelerated. It gaurantees people will vote according to a pre programmed schedule and predictability....in accordance with their public education.

Only public education can dumb a people down so far that they lose sight of this "Right."

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 17 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
[edit on 17-12-2006 by orangetom1999]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

The militia has always been ordinary people banding together for thier purposes..not the purposes of the State. Also the State or Government is the people..not some seperate entity. To have a seperate entity not representing the people they claim to represent is Feudalism...Royalty.
You should already know this. THe Government is the people...for the people by the people. Not for the Government by the Government. Such an abomination is Fuedalism and we are back to the hated European System of Feudal Lords.


So, where you live, people form together into groups, with guns, train and basically have a full time job of watching your neighborhood? You must feel so safe. Unfortunatly nothing like that has ever happened near where I live. In fact, all incidents with guns have been murders and shootouts with the police.



Did you take a good look at who some of the looters were in New Orleans after the hurricane?? The police!!


Oh, so this way if people had guns, they could have fought back. Great, another way for people to die from the after math of hurricane Katrina. I could just imagine it, the citizens with guns fighting the police over some plasma tvs. I know it sounds cruel, but at least when only the cops have guns, no one will try to fight them and no one will die, right?



Think further than ones public school/television education please.


Oh boy that one stung. Actually, I do a lot of research and learn on my own. And just so you know, my high school, J.P. Stevens High School in Edison, New Jersey sent 8 yes that is right EIGHT kids to HARVARD. That is unheard of for a public school.



THe shootings over the last three to five years of unarmed peoples in New York City make this quite clear. Notice that this is not the political slant shoveled out to the public by the news media.
THere have been similar shootings by the constabulary here in this town.
It will not be long before this happens by way of the National Guard too.
You are going to see more of this happening. Much more.


Like I said before, this way the citizens can fight back, so if they die, they can at least take out a couple of pigs with them right?



This is America...we have private property...notice the usage of the word "Private." This means "Private Property" not public property. YOur person is also private property. The goods and services produced by your person or private property. This implys at law with the right to protect and dispose of our private property according to our will and direction. Not by default cede it over to a government entity for thier use or misuse.


Cool, so if the annoying neighbor comes over, just take out my trusty shotgun and boom!!! So thats legal where you come from?



THe common fingerprint of governments,federal, state, and local is to give the "appearence " of law and order while this type of thing is happening and yet many other types of crime run rampant. Watch for this too. You are going to see this repeated and accelerated. It gaurantees people will vote according to a pre programmed schedule and predictability....in accordance with their public education.


Yes, I know that police have shot unarmed victims. But I kinda feel safer with the police only have the guns, and not being nervous going out after sunset.



Only public education can dumb a people down so far that they lose sight of this "Right."


Once again, 8 to Harvard

And finally


The militia has always been ordinary people banding together for thier purposes..not the purposes of the State.


There is actually a very specif purpose in the 2nd Amendement. It says

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


To keep you safe. Not for recreational purposes.



Thanks,
OrangeTom

Your welcome



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by wswbkbroiler




Oh boy that one stung. Actually, I do a lot of research and learn on my own. And just so you know, my high school, J.P. Stevens High School in Edison, New Jersey sent 8 yes that is right EIGHT kids to HARVARD. That is unheard of for a public school.


No one cares, unless you are one of these 8.



Like I said before, this way the citizens can fight back, so if they die, they can at least take out a couple of pigs with them right?


No, they can prevent a tolitarian government, thus ensuring your freedom.



Cool, so if the annoying neighbor comes over, just take out my trusty shotgun and boom!!! So thats legal where you come from?


That isn't legal anywhere, pal.





Yes, I know that police have shot unarmed victims. But I kinda feel safer with the police only have the guns.


Ah! yes! ask the people in Nazi germany and the old soviet union how this turned out.
.



Once again, 8 to Harvard


Once again, no one cares unless YOU went to Harvard. It isn't a real wonder why you didn't



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   




Like I said before, this way the citizens can fight back, so if they die, they can at least take out a couple of pigs with them right?


No, they can prevent a tolitarian government, thus ensuring your freedom.


Yea, because those cops that they shot were going to form a totalitarian government. Yea, the cops where going to form it, not the guys in congress or the senate or the white house.





Cool, so if the annoying neighbor comes over, just take out my trusty shotgun and boom!!! So thats legal where you come from?

That isn't legal anywhere, pal.


No kidding. I was making a point. If you read what orangetom said, it was in response to that. It was sarcasm, I know that murder is a crime.





Yes, I know that police have shot unarmed victims. But I kinda feel safer with the police only have the guns.


Ah! yes! ask the people in Nazi germany and the old soviet union how this turned out.
.


Yea, but then again Germany also didn't have the bloods, crips, and crazy rednecks running around.





Once again, 8 to Harvard


Once again, no one cares unless YOU went to Harvard. It isn't a real wonder why you didn't


Well I know Im going to a good school, so go ahead and laugh I dont care.



I also like how you avoided to respond to my other two points



THe common fingerprint of governments,federal, state, and local is to give the "appearence " of law and order while this type of thing is happening and yet many other types of crime run rampant. Watch for this too. You are going to see this repeated and accelerated. It gaurantees people will vote according to a pre programmed schedule and predictability....in accordance with their public education.


Yes, I know that police have shot unarmed victims. But I kinda feel safer with the police only have the guns, and not being nervous going out after sunset.



and



There is actually a very specif purpose in the 2nd Amendement. It says
External Source


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


To keep you safe. Not for recreational purposes.


What about them?


I also like the ad hominen propraganda that you sprinkle into your post to try to invalidate my opinion. Please just stick to the topic.

[edit on 19-12-2006 by wswbkbroiler]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by wswbkbroiler
Well to be fair, we shouldn't even be allowed to have guns in the first place. The second amendment says
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A well regulated militia. So really the only people who should have it are cops, national guard, things of that nature. Besides, why do you need an assault rifle anyways? It can only lead to bad things.


Are police and National Guard units not direct extensions of government? How does that mesh with the 'rights of the people'???

I would also be interested in hearing your definition of 'assault rifle'. Not examples, mind you, but a true definition.

[edit on 19-12-2006 by vor78]



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I was watching NBC news tonight and they had the scariest segment you've ever seen about a spike in crime (not an epidemic, they allow) and of course, one of the reasons for the spike in crime--GUNS!

Get ready.

If you value the Second Amendment, join the NRA, or some other Second Amendment advocacy group, because the Democrats never met a gun they didn't want to ban and the truth never got in the way of their gun-banning efforts.

You can find it in the video section of the MSNBC site near the bottom of the page.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 2006/12/19 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 03:12 AM
link   
I just want to say that I agree with you, wswbkbroiler, and I have the same problem that you have trying to argue this case... Pro-gun people seem to think that having lots of guns is a good (indeed the only) way to secure their freedom and liberties, but they never really explain how this works.


Looters being police? If that was the case I would rather "shoot" them with cameras and hold on to the pictures until it calms down and simply present it in court, than trying to go into a gunfight with the police. Why would you even care if they were looting stores in the middle of a big disaster like Katrina? I think I'd be more concerned about geting out alive. I know that in disaster movies you have to have lots of guns in this scenario, but real life is not like the movies!


Shooting at the police is never a good idea. And the more guns that are around, the more edgy the police will be. I totally agree that some of the police shooting of innocent people is horrible, but had these people been carrying assault rifles (or even handguns) everyone would have said they brought it on themselves!

Your freedom is not limited because you are not allowed to run around shooting your fully automatic death-sticks for fun. It's limited by the politicians who would have you debating this gun-control issue for eternity rather than asking what the hell they are doing passing horrendously inconstitutional laws. These are the laws that take away your freedom and security, and no amount of guns is going to bring it back.

And what about these people saying the goverment is the people, for the people, by the people in one sentence and then saying the people should not trust the government in the next. Make up your minds.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by wswbkbroiler
No, they can prevent a tolitarian government, thus ensuring your freedom




Yea, because those cops that they shot were going to form a totalitarian government. Yea, the cops where going to form it, not the guys in congress or the senate or the white house.


Who the hell do you think will enforce the government's will once it becomes totalitarian? the congressmen?


Do you think the police will simply refuse out of their own good conscience? Do you think they will give up their comfortable living to do the right thing? Id rather not take that chance, and thanks to second admendment, I never will. Unless fools keep lobbying to change a fundemental right.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrLeary

Your freedom is not limited because you are not allowed to run around shooting your fully automatic death-sticks for fun. It's limited by the politicians who would have you debating this gun-control issue for eternity rather than asking what the hell they are doing passing horrendously inconstitutional laws. These are the laws that take away your freedom and security, and no amount of guns is going to bring it back.


You people are unbelievable. You complain now how bad the government is now! Imagine if you had absoulutely no recourse, no way of putting your foot down.

You should know by now that governments never have the people's interest at heart, do you really trust them to perserve peace and justice if you are truly defenseless?

Do you prefer to be a slave of the government?

do you think a vote is your best weapon? you realise that a vote of a slave means nothing, right? If you have no way to enforce your will on the government, then the government will enforce its will upon you! It's as simple as that.

Beneath this dream world facade you believe in, there is reality. The reality is that if you have no means to remove people from power, then you will be forced to live by their edicts.

This is so simple. I cannot believe any educated person would actually favor strict gun control laws. :shk:





top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join