It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 11:15 PM
reply to post by stikkinikki

These are getting to be very interesting times to live in indeed.
The only question would be if they are doing it for show or if they have some slightly more underhanded legislation they want to try passing while people get distracted by this.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 04:56 AM
I'd like to render a few of my thoughts on this:

1) The AG's justification for re-instating the ban in the US to prevent Mexico's cartels from recieving semi-automatic weaponry from the US is a little like the Saddam Hussein WMD thing we heard from Bush. I bet its true that most of the weapons they are using originated in the US, but more than likely sold to Mexico's government by ours, and then carried to the cartels by corrupted Mexican officials. Its not hard to beleive when the Zesta's gang core leadership and enforcers are mainly Special Forces guys from the Mexican army, trained at Ft. Bragg by us.

2) I think most democrats, even the way left ones, remember how sucky it got for them politically when the NRA grassroots campaigned them out of control of congress the last time they did this, and probably will toe the water carefully.

3) If they don't fix the economy first, then it wont really matter, as no one will care what they say when social order begins to break down.

4) I find it kind of funny Holder is turning a border security issue into a gun control issue. That's "change" for you. If they would call it what it is and handle it, the whole argument moot to begin with. Its kind of like why is the Justice Department going after "Sheriff Joe" on federal civil rights violations, for enforcing federal immigration law?

5) When and if they ban "assualt weapons" and thereby making them a profitable black market item in the US, I'm sure the cartels wont have any problems with adding weapons and ammunition to their usual northbound coc aine shipments we can't seem to ever intercept with any sort of effect. With the new ammo taxes rumored to be proposed, it would dawn a new nasty chapter of what gun violence means if black market weaponry and ammo ever becomes cheaper than the federally regulated legal stuff.

Anyways, back to the Tequila farm...

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by tothetenthpower

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.

Well, actually, if I were a criminal in one of the scenarios you mentioned I would just shoot my intended victim before he or she even knew my intentions. You see, this idea that having everyone being armed will make society safer is simply idiotic.

Some people will always gravitate toward crime as a means for survival. If these persons know that their intended victims are armed, they will just kill that person and then take whatever it is that they may have taken with only the threat of violence.

Look, I have shot a few assault weapons in my day and they are a lot of fun. I myself would love to own one. However, lets get real for a second.

First, AKs and ARs, whether semi or fully automatic, were designed for one purpose, to kill human beings. In fact, these type of weapons were designed to enable a single user to kill multiple targets in a short amount of time. Why should an untrained civilian be allowed to posses this type of power? For the "fun" of it?

Second, the idea that the possession of an AK or AR will somehow enable you or society to protect itself from our government is pure fantasy. You see, in the days of our founding fathers the gap between the most technologically advanced military and your average well armed militia was very little. Each possessed rifles, horses, and personnel. The WMDs in those days were cannons and with enough rifles, horses, and personnel, a civilian militia could easily capture the WMDs from the military thus enabling a militia to exert an effective resistance against the government. Today however, the gap between the military and your average militia is far greater. I don't care how many AKs, ARs, or other available hardware you have, you do not stand a chance against the WMDs or other military hardware that the government possesses today.

I have heard many people make arguments like "look at what the insurgents have done in Iraq" or "look at what the Afghans were able to do against the Russians." However, in situations such as these the technologically advanced superpowers in question showed some restraint, they held back the "big guns." If this were not the case however, these resistance groups would have had no chance whatsoever of defeating their opponents.

I know some would say that I am a defeatist or have given up. This would be incorrect. I believe that in the face of today's gap between civilian and governmental firepower, our only chance is a nonviolent resistance and the hope that calmer minds will prevail. A violent resistance by a civilian population will only give the government the green light to bring in the "big guns," and that is the last thing any of us want.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by BluegrassRevolutionary]

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:22 AM
I just can't trust Pelosi...somethins fishy when that power hungry mega-lib says she's against a new gun ban....

What do we use AK-47s and AR-15s for? You CAN hunt with them...I plan on hunting with my AR-15 just as soon as I get it built in different calibers...otherwise killing paper and sport shooting/competitions

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:26 AM
94 was pre widespread use of the internet and pre widespread use of cell phones as well. Communication is better now, and the gun issue people are some of the most/best organized, which was in part a response to 94, and partly because they already were among the most organized even back then.

Is Obama really ready to burn through a chunk of his popularity in a difficult fight over guns in the middle of stealing the economy(oh should I say 'helping themselves to trillions, a decade's worth of tax revenue, handing it to their pals for the good of you and me'), which they'd really like to complete before too many people notice?

Ask yourself: has Obama taken the hard road on anything yet? No. Turn up the heat on the issue and he will slink away from it. Or embrace it even.

The ultimate alliance: gun issue people and the drug issue people.

WAKE UP gun issue people. It's time for you to protect your gun rights by protecting the rights of drug users. STOP THE WAR ON DRUGS = STOP THE ONLY MAJOR SOURCE OF GUN CRIME = STOP THE GUN GRABBERS. Really maybe they'd never "stop" but they'd be politically very weak for a long time.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 05:42 AM
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

I generally agree, but I think the threat of a foreign power attempting to seize control of of a weakened nation dealing with armed internal subversion would keep many of the big guns in question reserved for that possibility. Also, one of the drawbacks of say, posessing a nuclear arsenal, or stealth aircraft, or whatever the weapon of the decade happens to be, is that you have to guard them. Not only to keep them from being destroyed, but to keep a third party, not invlolved up-to-this-point, combatant from launching a pre-emptive strike to remove the capability if you lose control of destructive technology. Either that or they try to steal it.
Even today we still have significant numbers of ground forces prosecuting conflicts. Small arms are still very relevant as far as a key factor in military strategy, including threat assements, and personal protection. Its far cheaper to to arm and sustain troops than it is to keep planes flying. Thats not even going into who would fly them if the pilots all quit because they wouldnt participate in a civil war. Even cops have cool stuff like FLIR and night vision, but the beat cops still have pistols and radios. It hasn't changed that much.
To illustrate a relevant point of social anarchy, look at one of the underlying issues in the thread. The cartels battling in Mexico with small arms, not stealth planes and smart bombs. The Mexican government (assuming for the sake of argument that is ISNT corrupt - ha ha ha) COULD theoretically carpet bomb Juarez, but what for?

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 07:56 AM
The gun control discussion is a friggen joke. 1. Since when has making something illegal prevented people from getting it? (see drugs, bootleg cds and dvds, kiddy porn, etc.) 2. Why do my rights have to be restricted? Who the hell are you to say what I can and can't own? So long as I am not bothering anyone with it, why can't I own an "assault weapon?"

reply to post by awake_awoke
Not even the Brady campaign could BS the figures on this huh? You cite a group named after a guy shot with a .22 that uses his injuries as an excuse to ban assault weapons (that's logical right?).

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by skoalman88

You Gun Nuts always love Fear..Just as bluegrassrevolutionary said Automatic weaponary for home use is idiotic, it is made to kill People and Only People.

All of you scared about a assault ban are people who act like children to "have your rights" and enjoy seeing things blown up or shot.

Back in '92, a good friend of mine had all sorts of assault rifles and machine guns.We went out and shot them. We were in a dirt arroyo that created a bowl effect. We set up cans or whatever to target shoot.
Why, I don't know because he just wanted to spray bullets. He only hit half if the targets but created a wall of bullet holes.

I meanwhile shot every target I aimed at, with one shot from a M-16.

Automatic weaponary has only one use.That is to spray out as many bullets as you can, that means you have no control.
Controled semi-bursts used by those who are trained works better but the whole goal is to Kill People.It has no application in hunting.
If citizens need to arm themselves with assault rifles than We need to really fight crime by taking the Money out of Drug Trafficking.

The next goal of that is to eliminate Paper Money because Notes are the currency used by cartels.
The next thing is Guns, they trade Dope for Guns and Ammo, just as good to them.eliminates the money trail.So fighting arms sales is just as important as fighting the drug cartels funding.

It's all the same.

Now all you "patriotic, pry my weapon from my cold dead hands" types need to look at the big picture instead of the tunnel vision of your NEED.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Bruiex]

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Bruiex]

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by awake_awoke

According to the bureau or justice the rifles that make up the "assault" category account for 2% of crimes involving firearms. Far less than shotguns and infinitely less than handguns. If a gun ban was supposed to be for our benefit why go after the least used gun?

And in the years leading up to the 1994 AWB the most popular guns used in crime were:

.380 caliber pistols (20%)
9 millimeter pistols (19%)
.22 caliber pistols (17%)
.25 caliber pistols (13%)
.50 caliber pistols (8%).

BJS Guns Used in Crime (PDF)

None of which are so-called "assault weapons."

An AWB is like the DEA putting all of it's pressure on a high school pothead while letting smugglers and cartels heads run Scot free.

But then, when has any law especially a liberty restricting law made logical sense?

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:21 AM

Originally posted by unknown known
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.

Using the logic of your argument, it could be said that you should have the right to own a nuclear bomb if you could afford it. Do you believe this is the case? I hope not.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
reply to post by stikkinikki

These are getting to be very interesting times to live in indeed.
The only question would be if they are doing it for show or if they have some slightly more underhanded legislation they want to try passing while people get distracted by this.

Maybe public opinion is changing? That is what I think is happening. We have been electing people with better grasp on the 2nd amendment than in the past. Maybe guns are the new Harleys.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:29 AM
reply to post by brengizzle

Why not? If I'm wealthy enough to purchase a nuclear device and have enough desert out in Utah to fire it then why shouldnt I be able to?

Of course this would require the current explosive ordinance provisions to cease to exist.

What a tired question you ask.

The whole "you dont need" argument has been dead for so long I guess the new one is the false threat of infinite escalation where every neighbor with adjoining property commits to their own cold war.

It was stupid the first time I heard it and it's just as stupid this being the 300,000,000th time I've heard it.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:29 AM
Folks have seen this coming. Hence it is still, after months, nearly impossible to find AR, AK, SKS etc. variants in stores.

Most of the proposed AWB's that have been/are being floated no longer have a grandfather clause like the Clintonista ban and require turning weapons in to local law enforcement.

Are all these people buying all these very expensive weapons and magazines so that they can just hand them over to the JBT's?

Fed.Gov has played its hand at this point and exposed its glaring incompetence at the reins of its masters at the "Federal" Reserve. The erasure of rights, granted by birth and sentience of a human being, by a political organization that was created to protect those inalienable rights is becoming untenable and unpalatable to many who have nothing to lose in standing up to the behemoth, fiat money eating monster, that our "elected" government has become.

Confiscation would not go well for the minions of Fed.Gov this time around as it is painfully obvious we lack representative government dedicated to following the very simple rules laid out by the founders.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

All it takes is a few people to stand up to the JBT's and they would think twice about knocking on or busting down that next door.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:32 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Agreed, and I have seen those statistics.
However, when they are used the results are it was said above their only use is to spray as many bullets as possible into one area-hence maximum kill per square foot! And mainly by gangs...

Also, it was mentioned above that difference between yesteryear and today when it comes to "bearing arms" to protect from the tyranny of the government....I mean is it really feasible (pretending you could afford it) to own a tank or a bomb? Sure it would protect you from the government if they ever came after you...

A silly example, I know. But just like it is claimed it is a "slippery slope" when you start regulating gun use toward banning all is also a "slippery slope" in the other direction as well.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:39 AM
Dear Keeper,

In my opinion, you are playing the devil's advocate....more literally than figuratively Those who believe in the New World Order and the conspiracy theories behind that may be cringing at your words. Canada is for all intents and purposes a crown colony of England, which long ago took away the guns of its subjects in order to prevent any rebellions.

Had the Native American Indians had guns, they would have had a better chance in preventing the Europeans from taking the North American continent, which would mean NO Canada and NO United States of America.

Had the every African possessed a musket or gun, most likely they would have not been enslaved by Europeans and sent to the "New World" (North America). For those that want to mince words, yes, I am aware that some african tribal kings help enslave black africans from other tribes.

Had the average German possessed a gun, there may have been a significant resistance to the Nazis, and then no concentration camps and death camps.

In America, "good" people that have guns rarely (if at all) commit crimes and rarely murder. Those that do murder of course are not "good" people. We also know that a person interested in a life of crime can always get a gun. If they cannot steal a gun from an honest person, it wold not be difficult to sneak up behind a policeman, hit him/her on the head and take the gun.

As one that has studied the martial arts, I would prefer to be assaulted by someone with a gun rather than a knife. Shooting accurately at a moving target requires a lot of skill. On the oherhand, being assaulted by someone that knows how to use a knife, one sweep (as opposed to a stab) of the knife can easily incapacitate a person doing much more damage than a single bullet.

It has been quite a while since I actually looked at murder statistics (about 10 years). Last I heard, the golf club was no. 3 on the list of murder weapons.

As many have tried to explain in many posts here, the reason we have the 2nd Amendment in the USA is to ensure that our goverment nor any other government could make us slaves. England had enslaved 1/3 of the world at one time. In modern times, it could be said they don't enslave by force, but instead enslave by using debt. In fact, that is why the American Revolution took place, because King George III was enslaving the people with debt and control of the money supply...and if the early Americans did not pay, then the British used force.

And many of us Americans are already enslaved. Many of us work jobs that we don't really like and pay 65% of our income in some kind of tax(income taxes, property taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, alcohol taxes, cigarette taxes, and so on). And iwe pay higher prices for goods and services because we also pay the taxes for corporations. Corporations do not really pay taxes. They do on paper and tax filings but they don't in reality. If taxes go up on a corporation, that increase is then transferred back to us people who buy the goods and services of the corporation. It is an easy concept...Let's say as an exmaple that you have a restaurant business, and you make 1 dollar profit on every hamburger you sell. That profit is to pay your employees, pay yourself so that you can feed and clothe your family. Then your taxes go up, you need increase the the price of the hamburger so that you continue to make 1 dollar on each hamburger so that you can continue to feed and cloth your family, and pay your employees...right?

Believe it or not, I do not currently own a gun. Considering the political and economic climate, I should, but I don't. Plus, I am getting to the age where I am not as strong nor as quick as once was. I don't intend to go out and kill anyone. I only want to be able to protect myself and my family from anyone that wants to enslave us, murder us, or steal our food.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

It has nothing to do with anyone needing anything, the world and modern life is full of things people don't need. My argument is simply that the power to cause such devastation is especially dangerous when under the control of something as flawed as a human being. I wouldn't trust too many of the rich folk. If the price tag is the only thing that hinders ones ability to obtain massive amounts of firepower, think of the greedy, money and power hungry people that have a leaping head start on anyone else.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by brengizzle

That's the reality. "I would want a nuclear weapon if I had a area to denonate it".Sounds like a justification so He can learn how to use it and make yourself dictator of yourself.Meglomania at it's finestThat fool is truly off his rocker.

[edit on 18-3-2009 by Bruiex]

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 09:53 AM
i was really hoping they were going to focus on the fake plan for the economy atleast for a year or so before going after this. i was hoping the bushmaster ACR would have dropped before the manufacturer got to scared to produce it and get it to the civi market.

it has been said that ak and ar were made for one purpose: kill people.
yea thats obvious. as pretty much guns were invented to kill people, they have been killing people for a couple hundred years and they will continue to do so. no AWB will make them go away or stop people from getting shot. what it will do is stop law abiding citizens from defending their homes and family. i have a couple ar's, one chambered in 6.8 and i dont have them for hunting or any other excuse, i have them to defend myself and my family and friends when the time comes. defend them from any threat. because believe it or not, there are a lot of evil people in the world. its worse than the movies. because bad guys are very capable, very armed, and sometimes they get away with it only to go and hurt another family. these people shouldn't live. real talk. if and when they do come across me and threaten me it will never happen to anyone else again.

yea i like to sport shoot as well. but really just to make sure my headshots at 400 yards are zeroed in. i dont care if the world goes all to hell or not. i am well prepared. so if nothing happens, big deal, atleast i was organized and prepared to survive, and if something does happen keeping my family alive and safe is what i will be doing at any cost, and their are plenty of others just as determined as myself with me.

guns have been around for a couple hundred years. stop crying about how they are bad and the world would be wonderfull without them. because it wouldnt. it will go back to you getting shot with an arrow, stabbed with a sword, or poisen dart, or what have you. point is someone will develope something to kill someone no matter what. atleast you can be equally armed when the bad guys come for you. if you are to scared to protect yourself or your family come stand behind me.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:10 AM
Sources close to me also express that future ammunition shells will be tagged with a code that will be linked to your identification, similar to the purchase of any firearm when you fill out an application to purchase. Lets hope this does not happen. I strongly encourage individuals considering the purchase of semi automatic weapons and handguns to purchase soon, as well as large quantities of ammunition. Right now it is difficult to get certain calibers in the region I live in. The government of the USSA is going to attempt to regulate this strongly. Act while you can. The disintegration of society may be upon us. A few from the "Refresher Course" :

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.

Keep Safe Out There, Stay Alert and Aware.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 10:35 AM

Originally posted by awake_awoke
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I mean is it really feasible (pretending you could afford it) to own a tank or a bomb?

People do own tanks and explosives are regulated by their own set of laws though most of the time having a "bomb" is perfectly legitimate. How do you think stumps get removed?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in