It's official, Obama to make AWB permanent

, shred the Constitution and call me a criminal because I wont give up the only damn thing I take any real interest in because some control freaks have decided arbitrarily that that the "thing" whatever it is is too dangerous.

If thats the only thing you take interest in, in this great country, then I feel bad for you. When it comes to guns, it should be need for assault rifles to hunt, defend yourself. and thats the only reason the 2nd ammendment is defended.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


You claim people that people own Assault Rifles just to own them. So why the big deal if they were to be banned. It's not as if they are trying to take all firearms away just the ones that are high powered, deadly accurate, and have clips large enough to surpess a hold neighborhood in fire. As you stated you own your AW and will get to keep it.

Going back to the Second Amendment. The ban on AW in no way violates it. If they were to ban all firearms then that's a problem.

Originally posted by TheHunted
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

You claim people that people own Assault Rifles just to own them. So why the big deal if they were to be banned.

So why the big deal if you get over it and just let us own them?

I don't get why you guys have to oppress a whole segment of the population. It some mental disorder that compels you to control?

Having somebody come at you and say "you dont need it, whats the big deal if you just give it up?" has to be one of the creepiest and most Orwellian things imaginable. You don't need that TV or computer you've got there. Why not just give them to me? Whats the big deal? I dare say you don't need those children of yours. Hand them over.

When something is going to be broken down to such a simple level the default natural state is freedom. You have to work to impose your will to spite freedom. Why not just let liberty be?

A loud and proud liberal and a military man pushing for oppression. What a nice couple you two make.

You dont need to oppress and control so why do you do it? Why not just give it up?

Again, attack the people and not the facts... running theme

* In 1993, assault weapons accounted for 8.2 percent of all guns used in crimes; * By the end of 1995, that proportion had fallen to 4.3 percent; and * By November 1996, the last date for which statistics are available, the proportion had fallen to 3.2 percent.

note the ban took effect in 94.

gun stats

The "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted on September 14, 1994. The majority of Democrats voted for it, and the majority of Republicans voted against it. Bill Clinton signed it into law. (24)(19)

* This bill banned the manufacture, possession, and importation of semiautomatic assault weapons for civilian use. Guns manufactured before September 14th, 1994 were grandfathered. Guns manufactured after this date (for use by the military, police, and government agencies) must be marked with the date they are manufactured. (24)(41)(47)

* To identify an assault weapon, this bill uses objective criteria, along with a list of 19 specific guns. (24)

SO the ban doesnt even include fully automatic machine guns


And I leave you with this.

In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

gun control

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 26/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]

Here ar some more for ya...

guns...

"Gun control is a socialist plot to disarm America and 'take our guns away'." This tired old lie has recently been dusted off by the NRA. They seem to ignore the fact that many gun control measures are supported by 91% of the American people. A poll in US News and World Report showed that 42% of gun OWNERS support a gun licensing system. There are many notable conservatives who support gun control measures. Conservative commentator George Will has voiced support for banning semi-automatic assault weapons. Another conservative columnist, James Kilpatrick supports limiting the availability of concealable handguns. Former surgeon general C. Everett Koop, advanced his own proposal for licensing gun owners. Conservative columnist Cal Thomas publicly supports some gun control measures. In March of 1991 a well known speaker issued the following statement: "You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known. But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language. I support the Brady Bill, and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay". The speaker of those words was that famous "liberal" Ronald Reagan. On another occasion, Reagan endorsed the assault weapons ban. These are only a few of the "socialists" who support gun control.

*SNIP*

I have plenty more but ill let that soak in.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by bknapple32]

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.




[edit on 26/9/2008 by Mirthful Me]

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

You are seriously starting to sound like that whiny child in the store who can't have his own way. You totally lost me with the whole TV and PC bit. I haven't read recently of any murders by TV. Not that its never happened before, just haven't heard much of it.

I never said AW owners have them just because they can. Those words came from your post, I just repeated them. I just said if that's the case why are you worried? Obama is not banning them because he can, he would do so because he believes it what's best for the American public.

As I stated before this does not in no way violate the Second Amendment, because not all firearms are being banned. Just those that are deemed to hostile for public ownership.

If these Assault Rifles are not used for protection or to defend against the government, why the tears?

Absolutely none of that applies to me. Jesus the Tooth Fairy and Santa can all come down from heaven riding in a Buick driven by Reagan and fueled by the souls of aborted babies to ban my guns and I still wont support it.

Do you know what is involved in getting a full auto firearm? Money. That's it. Pay the fed 200 some-odd dollars a year for the "right" then cough up 5-50K for the full auto firearm. Theyve been made toys of the rich exclusively thanks to pointless legislation.

Since you never answered me as to why you want to oppress a segment of the population I'll assume through your little post-fest that your reason is to possibly keep less than 1% of crimes committed from being committed with whatever fits the description of "assault rifle." Now I was pretty pissed off when the neo-cons started suspending rights to protect us from some guy in a cave on the other side of the world. I imagine you were as well. You don't see any correlation between what Bush and his buddies have done to what you want to do? Mind boggling.

reply to post by bknapple32


I think we are both being logical here. We are both gun owners, yet they make us out to be anti-firemarms. That's not even the case.

I was qaulified as Sharpshooter with the M-16A2 while in the Army. I know first hand the damage weapons of this magnitude can cause. I do not believe as yourself these weapons should be owned by the public. These weapons were created for offensive attacks, that why the maximum effect range has such a large distance. I'm glad somebody agrees with me.

Originally posted by TheHunted
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

If these Assault Rifles are not used for protection or to defend against the government, why the tears?

Because I thoroughly enjoy collecting and shooting them.

I gave up a whole lot to leave a state that still operates as though the ban never expired. I'm not entirely happy about the possibility that the fed will just flip me one big bird, take my @#$% and tell me to get the @#$% over it.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


You own AW's for collection and sport. So your guns will be grandfathered in so nothing for you to worry about there.

I'm sorry you sacrificed a lot so you can own your guns. Sounds like your priorties are a little out of whack. Just wish people like you were willing to sacrifice more for the crumbling economy, but that's for a different thread.

Originally posted by groingrinder
An armed citizenry is the greatest deterrent to crime there is. Police do not prevent crime. All the police can do is take a report and try to apprehend the perps who will be gone like the wind back to their country of origin.

Here in Arizona, the kidnapping capitol of the United States, we have to worry about home invasions by criminals from Mexico. Once we call in the report, we can wait hours for the police to arrive. We called in a stolen car report and the police never did come in person to investigate, but did say that the car was " Probably in Mexico by now".

It is a pretty slick maneuver by the Democrats to try and classify Semi-Auto repeating rifles as assault rifles.

I do not understand how Biden keeps getting elected. His district must be populated by uneducated fools. Every time he talks he sticks his foot into his mouth. He is like the drunken uncle at your wedding who doesn't know what a joke he is. I will bet that he actually looks up to Ted Kennedy.

Are you serious? Blaming home invasions on people from Mexico? That would be like me blaming all crimes here in Michigan on Canadians.

You claim gun toting citizens deterrs crime, but yet in Arizona you have a lot of kidnappings? So where is the deterring at? Correct me if I'm wrong but in AZ you can carry a pistol if it is visible. So the AWB won't affect you carying your handgun.

Here in Flint we have the third highest crime rate in the U.S. We are allowed to carry pistols if they are concealed. Do the math here and it don't matter how many people are walking around strapped, they will still do the crime when no one is around. Criminal are experienced and smart around these parts.

Assault Rifles are made for long range, most are accurate up to 300 meters. Shooting a target at that distance is no longer self defense. So you shouldn't worry until they threaten to take you handguns and shotguns away. Those are true sef defense weapons....

reply to post by TheHunted


set and match on the self defense argument.

What about people that due to economic circumstance couldn't afford the AW they've been meaning to buy?

Thinking about your own posterior but no one elses is what got Germany in so much trouble in the 30's.

Besides it's clear from the supplemental literature of the time that the INTENT people talk so much about was to give the citizenry a parity with your average Line Infantryman. which is why they use legalese and convoluted logic not supplemental information the founding fathers left us to guide them in this.

Because if they used the literature that proves what the true intent was they'd sure look MALICIOUS or STUPID.

reply to post by bknapple32


You and me started dropping knowledge and they all fled. We are just being real here. Folks are just coming up with some crazy thoughts on AW that don't make no sense.

I keep seeing the 2nd ammendment being listed as a right to self defense... Enemies Foreign AND Domestic... that AND DOMESTIC doesn't refer to Self Defense, it refers to the ability to resist tyrannical rule on an even footing. you may not like assault rifles... simple solution Don't buy one!!

And also just so you know with the blue prints you can assemble an AK 47 with nothing but tools from harbor freight and a couple nights and maybe a weekend worth of work...

well dropping knowledge...

The literature at the time and even well after the time of the writing of the constitution is pretty clear... And yes in constitutional debate situations the prevailing attitudes of the time especially when it's the founding fathers attitudes should be considered.

Originally posted by roguetechie
I keep seeing the 2nd ammendment being listed as a right to self defense... Enemies Foreign AND Domestic... that AND DOMESTIC doesn't refer to Self Defense, it refers to the ability to resist tyrannical rule on an even footing. you may not like assault rifles... simple solution Don't buy one!!

And also just so you know with the blue prints you can assemble an AK 47 with nothing but tools from harbor freight and a couple nights and maybe a weekend worth of work...

I will repeat myself from earlier. Assault Rifles are toy guns compared to the weaponry the government possess. So if you ever plan on defending yourself domestically you should invest in more fire power. Maybe some fighter jets, tanks, and a M204. But I did get a good chuckle out your post. I really admire your heart...

.... I never said it would be easy or without a grievous reduction in the population... That isn't the point nor is a numerically or badly equipped foe. It's the final Balance in the checks and balances... and quite frankly yeah we should be able to buy anti tank rockets and etc as civilians... And beyond that who says what we start with would be what we ended with equipment wise? How secure are the Depots that hold the military's equipment afterall? Sure they might repulse MOST of the attempts at resupply off of the enemy but Most ain't all buddy.

And PS: A good percentage of ex military vets are on the side of the 2nd ammendment... it's nice to think you could stomp untrained rabble from one side of a continent to another but another military thought that too once.... Didn't work out so well for them.

Edit to add: and who exactly is going to build more JDAMS and take care of the innumerable tasks the military no longer has the personnel to do itself? While this is all academic for now... We can't win counterinsurgencies in other countrys the ROE would start out at least as restrictive on home soil. ANd with no one at the factories to make more ordnance while bushmaster chainguns rattle throughout the nation night and day at snipers behind power boxes and picket fences.... Well how long does the logistical tail sustain itself without getting in fresh stuff from a factory?

[edit on 26-9-2008 by roguetechie]

Originally posted by roguetechie
well dropping knowledge...

The literature at the time and even well after the time of the writing of the constitution is pretty clear... And yes in constitutional debate situations the prevailing attitudes of the time especially when it's the founding fathers attitudes should be considered.

I appreciate your dropping of knowledge...

You fail to realize when the constituion was written. It has been over two hundred years, weapons have advanced quite a bit since then. There has to be some type of limit to the firepower an average civilian should have in their possion. Should we be allowed to buy a Howitzer because the constitution says we have the right to bear arms. No no no... There has to be some kind of regulation on firearms and it should be on Assault Rifles....

you do realize people used to buy howitzers and keep them from surplus stocks right? was there ever a mason dixon arty duel that you read about in your history class? Keep in mind also that the gatling guns present on civil war battlefields were almost entirelly bought by private individuals to give their unit an edge in combat. And the technology has changed argument does nothing to answer the question of the FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC clause... Parity is parity whether in 1800 or the year 3000

edit to add: and I'm well aware of how destructive modern weaponry is ... the point where we disagree is that I think if we went back to what it should be there;d be some bad years then the stupid people would pretty much be dead... sorta social darwinism ya know? Far too many people survive to adulthood that would have died before reaching voting age in earlier times and the country is worse off for it.

[edit on 26-9-2008 by roguetechie]