Gun Advocates Ready for Battle on Federal Assault Weapons Ban

There are plenty of studies out there that say that an increase in firearms decrease crime rates. And conversly as well, a decrease in firearms, increases the crime rates.

A living example of this.
news.bbc.co.uk...

Only law abiding citizens will be affected by the law. Criminals don't care, in fact they love it. Because they know anyone they go after isn't likely to be able to retaliate or defend themselves.

It will also make their weapons EASIER to get. There's now a surplus of weapons that are illegal, and a black market for those illegal weapons. They don't have to get a permit, deal with any authority, background check, nothing. Money for guns.

Each major genocide of the 20th century has had its own unique history, says the JPFO in a book called "Lethal Laws: 'Gun Control' is the Key to Genocide" by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice. But each genocide has been preceded by major gun-control legislation that facilitated the confiscation of weapons from the targeted victims. The most important thing we can do to prevent future genocides, say the authors, is to eliminate gun-control laws from the arsenal of government weapons against the rights of the people.

www.bigeye.com...


[edit on 18-3-2009 by djzombie]

reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary


This would be you on the video (at 3:00) the "calmer mind" licking the boots off of hitler.



Are you honestly that naive that you believe that a peaceful resistance would work against power hungry mad men who don't give 2 sh*ts about you and your family? This isn't the 60's anymore, the hippie movement doesn't work against people looking for money in exchange for your blood.

Am I being a tad offensive? Maybe... I like to see it as calling them as I see it, even if people dislike my examples.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
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.

Not to mention that... if the government does indeed decide to go rogue on its citizens (as it has already) then YES we do NEED those weapons in order to fight the govt. and get our country back. Maybe its Brengrizzle who is the one with tunnel vision, and can't see the bigger picture. But then again... I've seen that sort of reaction from many so called "peace loving" hippies.

reply to post by grimreaper797


You calling an AK-47 a cheap piece of crap? It's only the greatest (well not greatest as in a good thing for society) weapon ever devised. It's devilishly simple and cheap to manufacture and operate, and reliable as any weapon out there. Even a simpleton can knock out a soldier with a deadly spray of automatic fire.

I'd love to own one, the real deal full auto, made in the eastern bloc. Mostly for historic value, but also no one is gonna mess with you when TSHTF. If I were in a gang it would unquestionably be my weapon of choice. It is a world apart from some remington or winchester semi-auto hunting rifle.

That said I still think they should be legal because at least the legal ones will be owned by good people. Criminals will own them anyway; they do though it is already illegal to have an automatic weapon. This ban is part of government scare tactics and fear mongering, as well as disarmament of the people which they fear. When they no longer fear us, watch out, it'll be ugly.

reply to post by CapsFan8


Have $11,500 burning a hole in your pocket?

Plus the $200 BATF fee.

www.gunsamerica.com...

reply to post by awake_awoke


If you are going to look at one of the story then your mind is made up. I recommend people to look at this site www.gunfacts.info...

Now i do warn you this is e-book is 94 pages long that covers most to all bradys myths. Thank you

The stupidy of all this is that the ban will NOT stop anything, change anything, or slow down the murder rate with firearms. Anyone who thiks this is a good thing obviously has ZERO common sense, and NO real world experiance on how and where the firearms come from that are used by gangs, murderer's, hate groups, etc....

that and since most murder's and violent firearm encounters are with handguns, this ban is nothing more then the the rejects in DC making it easier to rule over people who actually like this idea.

reply to post by orangetom1999


I never thought of the First ten amendments that way before. That you for putting it into that context.

reply to post by awake_awoke


When our country goes to hell in a hand basket very shortly and everyone of us good old yankees come crashing through your neck of the woods I bet you'll change your mind about owning an AK/47. When someone from the good old US of A sticks his AK in your face and says feed me and my family, I'll bet you had wished you'd come down here and bought some of ours before they banned us from buying them. I'm not threatning you or Canada or anything like that but, seriously we're going to take what we need from whoever we have to get it from. Might be something to think about.

Originally posted by angst18

Second. You make assumptions about the police and military that aren't entirely true. A lot of rifle owners ARE police and military (active and retired). In fact two cops in my area helped me to build my ARs. And there is NOT ONE soldier that I know that does not support the right of civilians to own them.

Let me first say that I agree with a lot of what you said. I do make several assumptions and I agree that many gun owners are completely qualified to own these type of weapons. However, you too have to agree that there are many people who should not own them and the fact that anyone can has presented some major problems for law enforcement in the past.

Originally posted by angst18
Third. If there was mass civil unrest, you assume that the military would be united in it's goal of martial law...I don't think this would be the case, and even if it was, that is just one scenario. There are many others, ranging from regional/ statewide secession, to foreign invasion, bio-engineered plague, the coming shortage of water in the US....,to, the most likely, absolutely nothing at all. Yet. The s**t always eventually hits the fan, it's just a question of when.

I agree, were there to be mass civil unrest causing the government to target its own citizens, divisions within the military would give us our best chances of survival. However, quite frankly if many of the scenarios you laid out were to occur, the last thing I would want is a bunch of yahoos running around with their ARs and AKs. Really, my desire to own one of these weapons stems not from my fear of the government but from my fear of the yahoos.

Look, were I to win the lottery tomorrow, one of the first things I would do is compile an arsenal capable of arming a small army. I would buy anything I could get my hands on, legal or not. However, this is not the point. My post was meant to illustrate that;
1. Assault weapons have one purpose, to kill people.

and

2. That the idea that today a highly armed civilian population really gives us no fighting chance against a government hell bent on our control or destruction.

Lastly, I will say that I am on the fence with this issue. There is a part of me that feels that the ownership of assault weapons by our civilian population is necessary for that population to protect itself. However, the realist in me realizes that we will need these weapons not as a protection against our government, but as a protection against a highly armed and enraged civilian population.

Peace, and God help us if TS ever really does hit the fan.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


We need the semi-autos for when the ZOMBIES ATTACK!!! C'MON!!!

Seriously though, I think fully automatic weapons are not really the best weapon to own. They usually jam more than they should and are not that effective when it comes to aiming. Semi-auto are nice however if you need it. It's a lot quicker to just pull the trigger than cock a bolt action shotgun or something as every second counts but they also jam. Every gun jams sometimes but I think my semi-auto SKS is rather ideal for any necessary combat situations. And with the proper clip I can hold 30+ rounds. Much more ideal than 10.

What bothers me about the assault rifle ban is that they want to ban such weapons and such as banana clips. I don't care about them banning uzi's since I don't really need that or will use it. But some carbines I would like to be able to own. And honestly do you want to be fumbling for another magazine or trying to load it with more ammo while defending whats yours?
Anyone who doesn't have some kind of weapon protection should look into it. Just in case....

OH WELL....... Time to stock up for the horde.

Bottom line is the assault rifle ban is crap and is just an attempt to keep us from protecting ourselves. It's not for the gang members and it's not for the criminals. It's for the average American that is willing to kill for his liberty.

When TSHTF I will be able to fight for my life and my families life. Will you?

[edit on 18-3-2009 by N3krostatic]

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
However, you too have to agree that there are many people who should not own them and the fact that anyone can has presented some major problems for law enforcement in the past.

I understand your concern, but I think like many people you don't fully understand your own concern. What I mean is, yes there sure are people who should NEVER own weapons like this. Criminals, Gangs, Gang Members, Violent types, etc...BUT those type of people you and I DO NOT want to own these rifles, already do, or can easily get them on the street. So a "BAN" on these weapons does ZERO good. The cats already out of the bag and those even after the ban that want these rifles WILL get them.

Who won't get them? Guys like me, and other people who want them for protections, fun, SitX, etc...people with common sense, and no desire to use them for criminal activity are the ones being targeted by this retard Obama. Not the criminals, not the "bad" people. This ban is nothing more the a smokescreen by a man who is not fit to be president, or in government period. But by putting this ban on it makes him LOOK like he's bringing the change he promised...lol..laughable...because I promise you this....the day after this ban is passed, someone in this country will be shot and killed by a weapn from on this list...so what did he solve? NOTHING!

[edit on 3/18/2009 by rcwj75]

Originally posted by Question
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary

 

Are you honestly that naive that you believe that a peaceful resistance would work against power hungry mad men who don't give 2 sh*ts about you and your family? This isn't the 60's anymore, the hippie movement doesn't work against people looking for money in exchange for your blood.

Am I being a tad offensive? Maybe... I like to see it as calling them as I see it, even if people dislike my examples.

Are you so naive that you believe that the possession of assault weapons will protect you if the government wants you dead?

I don't care how many assault weapons you or your community possess, a single tank or plane would lay waste to your highly ineffective resistance and will only justify the government in their actions. Your family and community would be much better served through non-violent resistance because it would, hopefully, not give the government an excuse to kill you (I say hopefully because examples like the massacre at K-State make and illustration to the contrary.)

Basically, IMO the possession of assault weapons in the scenario you laid out gives you a false sense of security and really only serves to inflame and justify a government willing to kill you. Our best bet would be that the soldiers asked to do the bidding of the government are unwilling to murder us all. I feel that this scenario is most likely if we resist in a non-violent manner. An armed resistance only makes it more likely that the soldiers will feel it necessary to kill you if for no other reason, their own self defense.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Basically, IMO the possession of assault weapons in the scenario you laid out gives you a false sense of security and really only serves to inflame and justify a government willing to kill you.

The sense of security is hardly false when they are tens of millions of us.

Guns cause crime like spoons cause fat people.

The unsavory truth is that guns flowing back into Mexico originate primarily from Mexicans in the US, Mexicans who either buy them legally and then sell them for ten times as much to the drug cartels, or Mexicans who steal them from the homes of others.

If Holder was to prohibit Mexicans from owning firearms in the US it would have some impact on the situation, but of course that would be racist, and somewhat too realistic for liberal tastes.

Originally posted by rcwj75

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
However, you too have to agree that there are many people who should not own them and the fact that anyone can has presented some major problems for law enforcement in the past.

I understand your concern, but I think like many people you don't fully understand your own concern. What I mean is, yes there sure are people who should NEVER own weapons like this. Criminals, Gangs, Gang Members, Violent types, etc...BUT those type of people you and I DO NOT want to own these rifles, already do, or can easily get them on the street. So a "BAN" on these weapons does ZERO good. The cats already out of the bag and those even after the ban that want these rifles WILL get them.

[edit on 3/18/2009 by rcwj75]

Oh believe me, I fully understand the argument that an assault weapons ban would only keep law abiding citizens from owning these weapons. In none of my post do you see me state that I 100% feel that this ban is necessary or in fact a good idea.

Again, my posts are meant to illustrate that two of the major arguments put forth (protection against the government and assault weapons having a purpose other than killing people) are quite unrealistic.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Again, my posts are meant to illustrate that two of the major arguments put forth (protection against the government and assault weapons having a purpose other than killing people) are quite unrealistic.

So you're telling me that my 3-gun comps dont exist or are unrealistic or what?

Alright, after thinking a bit over this post and the comments back and forth, let me say that as a American you have the right to bear arms.If we want to get technical are they talking about the 2 appendages with joints and graspers on the side of my body?

many are right about banning assault rifles will only affect the one's who have them legally.

I live in Texas and we have a Right to Carry law here. It hasn't changed anything concerning crime statistics, same amount of people get murdered that we find, the other half are never found and who knows where they are, sold into slavery or six feet under.

point is all this Crime Fighting ability you folks say is needed hasn't changed a darn thing.

Ya'll like guns, you like the empowerment that it brings, you actually think it would make a difference if our supposed martial Law scenario happened, it would be necessary for you to have them.




Guns and Bullets are going to be as Archaic as Swords, still effective but not used because new weaponary is here, with armor you can't pierce that uses electromagnetism to deflect it.Don't ask me to prove it, trust me, it's in development,

The real conspiracy Is Weapon Making and Robotics.
Yea, pull out your big,bad gun on a robot equipped to shoot various lethal and non lethal projectiles,sprays and lasers.

It takes money to develop future weapon systems.The "Drug war and the new Terrorist War" both provide reasoning for their development.

The Ammunition, you speak of is going to have to be retracted from all the shooting sites because bullets themselves are gonna be gone and no one will have enough ammo anyway.

Give it 10 years. Keep your shooters, it will all be for fun then.

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

Basically, IMO the possession of assault weapons in the scenario you laid out gives you a false sense of security and really only serves to inflame and justify a government willing to kill you.

The sense of security is hardly false when they are tens of millions of us.

And how many bombs or tanks or attack helicopters would it take to kill the tens of millions of us? Face it, if the government wants us dead, our assault weapons will do very little to protect us. And, as I stated the possession of such weapons could make it more likely that the soldiers sent in to quell any resistance would feel it necessary to follow their orders.