It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gun Advocates Ready for Battle on Federal Assault Weapons Ban

page: 1
45
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+13 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Gun Advocates Ready for Battle on Federal Assault Weapons Ban


www.foxnews.com

Get ready for a gunfight.

Attorney General Eric Holder is using the drug violence in Mexico to "confuse and mislead" Americans in an attempt to reinstate the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, gun advocates claim.

Holder revealed his intention to reinstate the ban last month while announcing more than 700 arrests in connection with a crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the United States.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Pfft. Yeah it's from Fox News (or faux news like some of you say).
But anyways this is majorly outlining what many people are saying and thinking about Mr. Eric Holder's proposition to reinstate the "assault weapons" ban from the Clinton years.
We all know what a load of crap this is with people thinking semi-automatic rifles are actually assault weapons.
An actual assault weapon is a firearm that at the single pull of the trigger fires multiple rounds or multiple rounds when the trigger is held down. A semi-automatic does not qualify as such since it is one trigger pull means one round until you pull back the trigger again.

And do we really think that the drug cartels are actually using American made semi-automatics when in fact they laugh at that notion. They use actual automatic weapons.
Is there anyway we can vote or petition the Attorney General out of office?

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Come on people, flag this and get some discussion going.

We all know what this assault weapons ban is about. Most of us lived through it and had to deal with it. We really don't want to deal with it again with this administration (pretty much the same exact administration if you ask me, just a different name).
Come on, let's give some opposition to the idea. I know the people here on ATS most of all aren't the types who like to sit by idly and wait for the storm.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I say let them use some crap automatic weapons. Poorly maintained cheap pieces of equipment, I bet they wouldn't get off more than half dozen shots off before the gun jams. Then they are screwed.

This idea that automatic weapons increased the violence is obviously illogical. People in D.C. may pretend to be illogical, but they aren't. They just have their own agenda. He doesn't honestly believe what he is saying, its just a nice excuse to throw to the public.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Well..not to play devil's advocate or anything (actually I look forward to it) but why do civilians need automatic and semi-automatic weapons?

Now I can understand shotguns, handguns the occasional rifle, you know, normal guns. But I really don't think it should be legal for anybody to own an AK-47. Just seems like over kill to me.

That being said, I would like to point out that since you've had to right to do so all of these years, you should very well be able to continue owning them.

IMO, If the Constitution says it, it should be done. I don't believe in changing any Constitutional Rights especially when they are put in place to protect the people from their own government.

I just can't fathom walking into a store and purchasing a M-16 Carbine or something. Maybe it's cause I am Canadian and these things are a little hard to find if you are not part of a certain group.

~Keeper



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by grimreaper797
 


Actually the AK-47 is pretty reliable and cheap. And it is in major use no doubt by the drug cartels. And many of the drug cartels have military trained hit-men. So they do likely know how to maintain their firearms.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
I hope the people actually do stand up to this ABSURD bill, the right to bear arms is sacred no one should have the power to take that away from people when to defend oneself sometimes you need an AK-47, I know I'd take that fire power over someones 9 milli, or a 12 gauge, or an XM8. IF THE GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY CAN HAVE THEM, SO CAN WE.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Yeah, that is to be expected more or less for Canadians I honestly believe. We do have higher crime levels here in the US than in Canada and the criminals pack more heat.
If you ever get the chance to fire off an AK-47(semi-auto) I am sure you would find out how fun they are. I'm starting to favor the AK-47 semi-auto over the AR-15 simply because of how much easier they are to maintain and how much more rugged they are.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Gun owners didnt stand up against this crap in 1994 why would stand up against it now?


+2 more 
posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


The Constitution says right to bear arms without intrusion or interference.. the Government has no right to tell me what kind of gun I can and cannot have. If the Government can have, I should be allowed to have. Meaning fully automatic weapons if I so choose..

the Constitution says nothing about authorizing the Empire to dictate the Free States that they can have guns, but only if they are weaker than the Empire's army.

If everyone carried a gun how much crime would there be? .. Would you think of robbing a bank where everyone inside was armed? .. Would you mug a man on the street if you knew for a fact he was packing, and all the witnesses that usually run away are also packing? Would you car jack someone if you knew their hand was 6 inches away from a pistol?

Nope. Didn't think so.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   
thisguyrighthere
Well, we do have a chance to make it right this time. We already dealt with it once, no reason to deal with it again since we didn't care for it too much.
By educating fellow gun owners who didn't care for the original ban when it was around, we can get enough needed support to cause an uproar against it.

Isn't that what ATS is about, Denying Ignorance?



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe
 


I can certainly agree with what you all are saying, like I said, I completely agree that the law is the law and nobody should be changing it regardless of their convictions.

However as I said, being Canadian, (and I have fired off a few awesome guns in my time) It just goes against my belief that humanity shouln't be shooting at eachother for anything.

Just my 2cents.

But really, you guys own all the guns you want, it's your right, and should stay that way


~Keeper



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Ok-and I'm half-playing devil's advocate here as well:


In the five-year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the Assault Weapons Act, assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) crime gun traces nationwide. After the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF had traced to crime - a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate

www.bradycampaign.org...

Well, theres a statistic you really can't deny!

As well as another good link:
THE TOP 10 NRA MYTHS ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS

The jury's still out for me when it comes to banning Uzi's and AKs...I really don't like the conversation that begins with me asking someone how they would feel if a madman or a gang member walked into a public area with an Uzi as opposed to a shotgun and began shooting "oh well I'll have a gun so no big deal!" Fine. But then everyone has to have a gun or seven and then you have a whole world with people running around with deadly weapons. Is that really the answer?

Its kind of like with hazardous materials...Theres a legal amount you can own but when you have gallons or pounds of it are your intentions really benign?

IMHO, the Constitution clearly says we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves but does "bearing arms" really constitute military-grade weapons? Besides the battlefield I have not seen them do much good whatsoever, but in recent days nothing but suffering.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Right now they classify a semi-automatic rifle that looks cool as an Assault Weapon. That's pretty ridiculous. Fully Automatic Weapons have been barred from common use since 1938 I think.

Also, people ask why we need these so-called "Assault Weapons" or any weapons at all, really. People often debate the Second Amendment, saying it was meant for militia, not the common man. I prefer to let Thomas Jefferson answer the debate, seeing as how he wrote it. Later in life he clarified his sentiments with these words:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe


Pfft. Yeah it's from Fox News (or faux news like some of you say).
But anyways this is majorly outlining what many people are saying and thinking about Mr. Eric Holder's proposition to reinstate the "assault weapons" ban from the Clinton years.
We all know what a load of crap this is with people thinking semi-automatic rifles are actually assault weapons.
An actual assault weapon is a firearm that at the single pull of the trigger fires multiple rounds or multiple rounds when the trigger is held down. A semi-automatic does not qualify as such since it is one trigger pull means one round until you pull back the trigger again.

And do we really think that the drug cartels are actually using American made semi-automatics when in fact they laugh at that notion. They use actual automatic weapons.
Is there anyway we can vote or petition the Attorney General out of office?



Exactly. Too many misinformed (or purposely ignorant individuals) hear the term "Assault Weapon", and they immediately have images of Three Round Bursts from an M4, or belt fed "Ma-Deuces". The truth could not be further from such, and to even own a Fully Automatic Firearm, one must attain a Class III Permit from the ATF.

Also, as I stated in another thread involving a similar issue, the Mexican Cartels are hardly procuring RPG-7's, M2 .50 Cal Machine Guns, Fully Auto M-16's, and M203 Grenade Launchers, along with HE and Frag Hand Grenades, from anywhere within the United States.

If this was not enough of an insight, I heard from a MIL commander the other day who flat out stated that the Mexican Cartel Small Arms and Munitions are coming from Colombia, and other Overseas Sources (i.e., Russia and China).



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


This question has been asked so many times. Why do we need weapons to match that of the government?

So we can hand them their asses when it needs to happen.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
I like this website.



* Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2


Then:


* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America"—a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.3



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe
 


Home made Sawed off shotguns are very effective, relatively cheap, and easy to maintain.

IMO, automatic weapons, semi auto, even bolt, it makes no difference. A weapon is a weapon.

If they want to kill somebody, they are dead. A anti assault weapons ban isn't going to stop them.

Its not like "Oh man, they outlawed assault rifles. There goes are multi-billion dollar business. Lets all go home now." Let them have their automatic weapons. Fine by me. It only takes one well placed shot to get rid of them when they go to use it.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_awoke
 


Those statistics are a great example of why there should never be another 'assault' weapons ban. Less than 5% of firearm related crimes were being committed by perpetrators using this class of weapon. If I had to guess, its likely that this was offset by a corresponding increase in the usage of other classes of firearms.

Whatever the case may be, it's a drop in the bucket and not worth stripping away the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners.



posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I am not sure how much of a battle it is going to be if Congressional Democratic leadership is not going to back such an effort. I've included two recent articles of interest:




Reid joins Pelosi in opposing ban revival


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.

PELOSI IN SYNC WITH NRA?


That's right, Pelosi is using talking points which used to be standard NRA talking points regarding gun laws for years... "start with enforcing the law" on the books.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join