Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama's bloodbath ban on semi automatic rifles,shotguns and pistols.

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 05:40 PM
link   
[edit on 8/8/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]




posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Here in Florida there is no such thing as a registered gun unless you get into Class 3 stuff. There are no database and you can legally own a gun without there ever being a trace amount of info on the purchase.


Aside from class 3, you need a permit to carry concealed weapons. It's also worth noting that Florida is somewhat of a special case when it comes to gun laws.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
I'm going to qoute Charlton Heston on my view here fella's.


"
"From my cold, dead hands!"

No one is taking my Second Amendment rights from me. But you can fight me for it. Ill win just too let you know.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I think you guys are jumping to too many conclusions.

Here in Australia they banned semi automatic firearms back in 1997. No semi auto rifles, pump action shotguns or the like.

They initiated a huge buyback scheme to get law abiding firearm owners to return the firearms that were to become illegal in a big amnesty.

www.guncontrol.org.au...


Gun Buy Back - Wednesday 29th July 1998
About 640,000 guns were taken in under the amnesty and buy-back scheme which operated soon after the Port Arthur massacre. Victoria was been the most successful state to call in its prohibited weapons. Before the scheme started the Victorian Firearms Registry records showed that there were about 750,000 registered guns in Victoria. About 210,000 were handed in because they became prohibited weapons. These were mainly military style rifles, semi-automatic and pump action shotguns and .22 low power rifles with 10 shot magazines. About 20% of those guns however were unregistered.


Yeah, many gun owners complained about it and you will never get the illegal firearms away and out of the community. But as it stands at the moment to get a firearm here now, you must do a short safety course and pass a small test at the end of it, to obtain your liscence.

Police database checks are done on you to ensure you do not have any sort of criminal convictions against you.

You then apply by filling in a form stating your details and a legitimate reason why you should have a firearm, eg. hunting, pest control, sport etc.

when you go to purchase the firearm at the gunstore, you leave a deposit and fill out a "permit to aquire" form that gets sent to the Firearms Registry, and they process it. Your first firearm permit to aquire will take a monthas a cooling of period in case you decided to purchase it whilst fired up over an incident. They hope you may change your mind.

When you get your firearm, you must store it in a locked metal safe. Your ammunition must be stored away in a seperate locked metal safe.

The police have the right at any time to come round and ask to inspect your storage of the firearm. If you are in breach in anyway, they will remove your firearms and fine you.

Its not as bad as it seems. we dont go around with guns in our vehicles here, loaded ready to go just in case.

if you follow the rules theres absolutely nothing to worry about.

Below is a link that explains pretty much how our liscencing laws are at the moment for those interested-
www.rurallaw.org.au...



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   
If you are going to initiate Sharia or Martial Law, then it would be necessary to have unarmed civilians as to avoid any "uprisings".

Couple this with Obama's police force, and you have a recipe for strict control when the Constitution is changing on a daily basis to that of a Marxist one.

When you get angered your individual liberties are being taken from you and have to be off the streets by 10 pm, you will have no choice but to tuck-tail and do as instructed.

Avoid Marxism and group control by keeping Obama out of office.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 



And you think all those hoops and jumps and BS databases are OK? I was a UK pistol owner until the law took away our use of them at ranges. They went mental, far far worse than OZ... they took all of them from us. Even UK pistol team has to practise abroad.

What did it do? NOTHING. Jack Squat nothing to reduce fire arms offences in the UK. Why? Criminals didn't hand any thing in.

The UK Gov were sh1tting bricks about even pistol armed population saying 'enoughs enough'. As did the aussies and created a problem reaction solution in port arthur.

I hope Obama gets his arse kicked to the moon over this issue, and the only thing he gets to be president over is a losers badge.


[edit on 8-8-2008 by Dan Tanna]



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
I hope Obama gets his arse kicked to the moon over this issue, and the only thing he gets to be president over is a losers badge.


I wish he would back away from it as well, but unfortunately for the most part, gun ownership and gun rights in this country are very odd topics. On one hand you have these "liberals" (they call themselves) that align with the left, and despite pretending to stand for freedom, argue gun control. Then you have the republicans which are currently more aligned to the other side, but unfortunately the republicans are also the ones seem as storm troopers and intolerant fascists. Even worse, most gun-rights advocates are look at as rednecks or pugilists for even wanting a gun.

It's amazing how people react when they learn I am against war, against torture, against police corruption, but am FOR guns. They are confused that I would want weapons around to hurt others, and I am confused why they seem to abandon all logic and reason when it comes to such topics.



It's like the war on drugs. You make it illegal, it goes underground, and gets linked to all other sorts of black markets. What's safer - getting a gun from a reputable dealer, or getting one from a drug dealer? Again, confusion is a massive understatement.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
The first thing that would happen would be the NRA-ILA camping out on the steps of every courthouse in the nation, filing lawsuits over this ridiculous, unconstitutional move. The next 4 years would be filled with enough challenges to Obama's stupid move to keep him busy enough defending it that he would be impotent in any other area.

Then after Obama's 4 years were up, we'd run him and his stupid liberal socialist agenda out of Washington on a rail.

No bloodshed, no revolt. The legal owners of guns are not that stupid.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia...

Here in Australia they banned semi automatic firearms back in 1997. No semi auto rifles, pump action shotguns or the like.
...
Its not as bad as it seems. we dont go around with guns in our vehicles here, loaded ready to go just in case.

if you follow the rules theres absolutely nothing to worry about.
...

Criminals also follow the rules down under?
Amazing!

Here in the states, criminals go around with loaded guns in their pockets and in their vehicles.
They file sear pins of stolen semi-autos to make them full-auto and saw-off barrels to make short rifles and shotguns to rob and kill with.

We can call 911 and stay on hold for a while, then wait 45 minutes for
cops to arrive and draw chalk lines around our dead bodies,
or,
defend ourselves.

Our courts have even set a precedent that cops have no responsibility to defend citizens.
We Americans are on our own in trying to survive.
Most of us never become crime victims, but:
Those crime victims who are unarmed become casualties.
Those crime victims who are armed become survivors.


I follow the rules here: Concealed carry permits from several states.
Cops trust me to carry a loaded gun in my pocket, because I have proven to be a law abiding citizen, jumped through all their 'flaming hoops' to get the permits, learned the laws and obey them.
**********************************
Gun confiscation?
I will give up all registered guns in my posession rather than shoot a cop.

Then dig up more and make more for sale to the black market.
btw: Obama , when an Illinios State Senator, Barack Obama voted against expanding the death penalty for gang-related murders.

He supports criminals instead of law abiding citizens.

If it looks like Obama is about to be appointed next NWO figurehead...
Report your guns lost or stolen, or sell them to eliminate having to give them to the police state Obama will impose.
Who'd thought anyone could possibly be worse than Bush?
But, that's how it's done.
"Change" turns out to be guided by the same ruling elite no matter which label is attached to their spokespersons.



posted on Aug, 8 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist

Originally posted by AndrewTB
Here in Florida there is no such thing as a registered gun unless you get into Class 3 stuff. There are no database and you can legally own a gun without there ever being a trace amount of info on the purchase.


Aside from class 3, you need a permit to carry concealed weapons. It's also worth noting that Florida is somewhat of a special case when it comes to gun laws.


Calling Florida a "special case" is pretty misleading. There are quite a few states with laws similar to Florida's. The tough gun laws are mostly concentrated in the northeast, north, and California.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 02:16 AM
link   
B. At least for me. If he bans guns I go to war. End of story. I am willing to give up my life, and many others for my rights. They were given to me and you to protect. Better to die a soldier than a coward.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
...yeah
cause you can go hunting with an AK47 or an Uzi

you can go skeet shooting with an M4A1...


you CAN do all those things

you can also go shoot squirrels with a Sherman Tank and trap pheasents with hand grenades

personally - i think bow hunting is the only true sport left in all of hunting. Thats why i go every year



And you people wonder why others laugh when you "stick to your guns"

Its not about your shotguns, handguns, and rifles, that can be used for recreation and sport.

:shk:




[edit on 8/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


For hunting purposes, what's the difference between firing one to two shots from a civilian-legal AK-47 to kill a deer and firing one to two shots from a Marlin 336 to do the same thing? Not much. Ballistically, 7.62x39 and .30-30 are roughly equivalent and are at best medium power rifle cartridges. Of course, most .30-30s are lever action, but you can certainly find semi-automatic 'hunting' rifles that are more powerful on a per-shot basis than either of these. Easily.

If you want to ban something, make it illegal to own magazines larger than 10 rounds. I am not in favor of that solution, but I'm also more willing to listen to that argument than the ban on the weapons themselves. Afterall, most of these 'assault' weapons don't fire a particularly powerful round. The only thing that makes them potentially more dangerous than a typical 'hunting' rifle is rate of fire. An AK-47 limited to a 10 round magazine is no more or less dangerous than a 'hunting' rifle with a 10 round magazine.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


You correct its about all guns including Rifles shotguns and handguns. Obama is a traitor the the American people and has been for his entire political career. There is no denying that. His stand on gun control will be the key issue in the next election.

As for rifles the AK is commonly used in both hog and deer hunting across America right now. It has the exact same cartridge characteristics as the 30.30 round. The uzi is used in sport shooting events around the country. Just because one does not attend does not mean it isn't a daily activity across the country.

People choose to back someone without having a clue as to their policies is what is insane. Oh yea i like him because hes' black and is a change for things...yeah right. There is nothing I would like to see more in my lifetime than a minority president, but not at the expense of my rights.

Now that we are way off topic you can try to answer the topic in the OP.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   
There has been plenty of bans and controles on such weapons up here in Canada, and there has been no significant backlash as far as I know. Shure, there have been some people grumpy about the whole buisness, but nothing like the preditions the OP made has whent down.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 




For hunting purposes, what's the difference between firing one to two shots from a civilian-legal AK-47 to kill a deer and firing one to two shots from a Marlin 336 to do the same thing?

Have you ever been hunting? I say this seriously - because if you have ever been slug hunting during deer season - you see the size of the hole left by a deer slug...from less than 100 yards away.

It can be rather large.
Thats a deer slug. A piece of lead rolled up into something that wishes to some day resembled a ball.

An AK-47 ? There'd be NOTHING left. There's no point to hunt with an AK-47 because a NON-AUTOMATIC shotgun will accomplish the same thing.

If you "gutshot" a deer, you can pretty much kiss all of the meat good bye. Unless your a trophy hunter, rupturing the gutsack of a deer is a 100% no-no. A weaon as powerful as an AK47 or an M4A1 is guarantee'd to ruin the meat.


If you are a trophy hunter, the chances of you going after white-tail deer are pretty unlikely. You're more after moose, elk, and mule deer (try hunting a mule deer.....they are smart as tacks)

A bow will accomplish the same thing and leave you with a much greater feeling of satisfaction.

You really should find a better argument to support the use of automatic weapons in the hunting field.

If you were a hunter, you'd know its not JUST about killing the animal. Its about fair game.

Which is why i bow hunt
The only thing "fairer" would be fist to hoof.....and i'll loose that



[edit on 8/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Graber
 


The predictions of the OP are called desperation.

Gotta find anything you can to attempt to discredit Barack Obama, because his policies and issues surely can't be beat.

Sure - you can consider his opposition to letting religious fanaticals carry compact reverberating carbonizers with mutate capacity a little...shall we say appropriate....but what they fail to reveal to you about Barack Obama is that he is 100% for letting the states decide for themselves. He does not support a federal ban on any weapon. He thinks the STATES should decide.


* Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
* FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Source

Note the date on ANY of the above that mentions where he supports a ban of any type. During those instances, he was an Illinois senator. Thats a state senator. He still sticks to his guns (pun intended) as a state senator by saying "states should decide" He was part of the state of Illinois, and he made a decision.
I, and anyone ever affected by a gun crime, would agree with him.
Ever been mugged?
I have. Not fun.


Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.


Source





There is a reason that the OP specifically requested that we leave out FACTS in this thread.

Because facts make him look WRONG.

Plain and simple.


Lets hear your opinions (no facts, they are already verified in the link above) as to how you think the abandonment of the second amendment will play out on the streets of America under Obama's leadership.


Need i say more?

What if your opinion is that the facts make you, and the other post, 100% wrong?

Thats not wanted here, right?



Atleast i get to start the day off on a good laugh.




[edit on 8/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


A civilian AK-47 is not an automatic weapon. It is a semi-automatic weapon and as stated, fires a projectile with similar performance to a .30-30. Of course, the .30-30 has probably killed more deer than any other firearm ever in the US. In fact, the SKS, which fires the same round as the AK-47, is also widely used as a hunting rifle in the southern US. There's nothing wrong with the 7.62x39 round as a hunting round. It certainly isn't as powerful as many of the other calibers used in 'hunting' rifles.

And yes, a 12 gauge shotgun slug will make a sizeable hole in a deer and is plenty effective, as is a bow. I never said that they weren't.

As an additional, but important note: many states ban the use of magazines larger than 5 rounds for hunting use. So if you want to take that AK-47 hunting, you need a 5 round clip, anyway. That certainly levels the playing field vs any other semi-automatic hunting rifle, such as the Browning BAR series (which includes chamberings that make the AK-47 look like a pop gun).



[edit on 9-8-2008 by vor78]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 



Here is a .30-30

Here's a few differences:

1.) The AK can go fully automatic and has no intentions of being used as a hunting device.

2.) The 30/30 cannot go fully automatic. It has always been used as a means of taking game. You do need some power to take down something like a mule deer. Why? Because you can't get close to those elusive bastards.



And the AK47 comes from the manufacturer as semi-automatic, indeed.
But a simple manual is all you need to make it a fully automatic advocate of death.

So, if even by your own standards, a 30/30 is sufficient, then why do you need a more powerful and more lethal weapon in the AK 47?
Whats the point?

Should i be allowed to collect nitro glycerin and C4?
I want to go trapping.



[edit on 8/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin
 


The AK-47 CANNOT be fully automatic in its civilian form without a federal firearms license. If you own a militarized AK-47 without a FFL (or if you take steps to make it fully automatic), the BATF will give you about 10 years in a federal lockup.

Here's a comparison of several firearm rounds:

img144.imageshack.us...

As you can see, the 7.62x39 round is rather average in size. By comparing both photos to the .308 round, you can see that it is indeed very similar to a .30-30. It is dwarfed by the .30-06 round that is also a fairly popular hunting round. The damn shockwave from that thing heading downrange will probably kill a deer
. Note also that a simple 12 gauge slug is massive compared to that fired by the AK or SKS.

You'll even find some hunters online that will argue that 7.62x39 is too light for anything larger than whitetail deer. I'd definitely want something heavier if I were hunting bear, for instance.

My position isn't that the AK-47 is what everyone should carry into the woods for hunting, simply that its an acceptable choice as long as its used responsibly. And any firearm can be abused. Even that .30-30 lever rifle is capable of putting 6 large holes in a deer in about 5 seconds. So can a .357 magnum revolver (which is being used increasingly for hunting purposes).





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def