Alert,Assault Weapon Registration/Confiscation!

a reply to: Ohanka

You did.

The infamous assault revolver, it was some California state legislator, I believe. There's a thread about around here somewhere...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Ohanka

You did.

The infamous assault revolver, it was some California state legislator, I believe. There's a thread about around here somewhere...

Why do we need 30+ round rapid fire guns?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Ohanka

You did.

The infamous assault revolver, it was some California state legislator, I believe. There's a thread about around here somewhere...

Why do we need 30+ round rapid fire guns?

Why do the police?

The police are not another order of beings; they aren't angels or supermen. They are not geniuses merely because they are on the government time-clock. They make mistakes. In fact you are 11 times more likely to be shot by the police in a gunfight than you are by a legal firearm-bearing civilian who is responding to the threat.

I own guns for hunting and for self defense. My home is in a rural area, and the police are at least 15 minutes away. When assailants attempt a home invasion in my area, they usually are Ina group of more than 3.

The cops have assault rifles, every last one of them. And supposedly the criminals do too. So why can't I?

The fact is most cops who have families want their spouses to have every kind of gun the cops themselves use.

There is something that sets the US military above every other armed force on earth. Our soldiers are imbued with gun culture from birth, especially in the south. It's why the majority of US soldiers are from the south, why most bases are in the south. In fact, the NRA was founded post-war, in the north, by Civil war commanders who worried that draftees from the north were inferior because they were not as familiar with guns as southern conscripts were. True story--look it up. Wikipedias article on the NRA mentions this.

US soldiers are more accurate shooters than other troops; they specialize in coordinated movement and fire in ways that many other units do not. There are excellent units, brave units, in every nation's military. But there are more of them in the US, and they can be counted on, in battle, in ways that set them apart. America's gun culture is part and parcel of that excellence.

America's most famous soldiers grew up in that tradition of hunting and general gun use. As recently as Chris Kyl and going back far past Audie Murphy. If you talk to members of police swat teams, the vast majority of them grew up shooting rifles, most often a variation of the .30 military cartridge.

Once you say there are kinds of guns that American citizens cannot own, but the police can, the 2nd amendment is finished. And you have the start of a caste system in society, where police as individuals have rights that civilians don't. You've basically set up a peasant class for the "rest of us." We're already too far down that road as it is.

a reply to: InTheLight

Quite simple. Because people hate to reload. Oh, and they don't need, they want, so they can.

originally posted by: soundguy
Long overdue. a reply to: mamabeth

So you're volunteering for door to door gun confiscation?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: InTheLight

Quite simple. Because people hate to reload. Oh, and they don't need, they want, so they can.

Not a very good reason.

a reply to: Graysen

I too live in a rural area where it takes the police up to 15 minutes to arrive (via experience) and you know that there are other means by which you can make your home intruder safe, or at the very least make it so difficult to break in that the police will arrive why they are still trying, but they won't because most intruders are looking for an easy target.

The police are there to protect us, so your comparison with them being the enemy does not fly. And when they do arrive, I would hope they are well armed and trained.

An "assault weapon" is anything, one could use to "assault" somebody with. Could be a sharp butter knife, fork, hammer, pencils or a "law"...etc.

These people ("Democrats", "progressives" politicians), take an "oath".."to uphold and defend the C.O.T.U.S. and the constitutions of this Republic's "States". Then when "sworn in"? They seak to "democratically",.. "pass law" to subvert the laws of the "Republic", State and Federal? That is the very definition of a "traitor"! But they've controlled the "public education" for so long, they've got everyone believing we're a "democracy" and that the educated can be governed by "critical thinking" fools. Most of which, never had to bleed, unaided.
The kind of "democracy" they rally for. Is the same kind of "democracy" that got Hitler "elected".
A bunch of "educated" idiots!

There is no greater freedom than to be able to live free, respect your neighbor, live by the golden rule, love your government. Or be able to vanquish them if they do not respect your freedom. Over 6 million jews had to wear gold stars/register, because of a "legal", ..."law".
The idea of a democracy is based on the belief that a "majority" will/would be, of sound mind. They are not. We are a "Republic". Ruled by law. Any law to the contrary, is not a "law" and is a threat to our Constitution, our customs and American heritage.

History doesn't repeat itself. But it does rhyme. -Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)

a reply to: InTheLight

The "police" have no "legal" duty to "protect" you. This has been decided in many a "court case ". They're not there, never have been, or ever will be. When evil is choking the life from your mortal embodiment. They make a "report" and have somebody put a toe tag on your corpse... Then go home and be thankful "they made it home" that night.
A "police officer" doesn't even make the top ten list of "most dangerous jobs".

You libs.

a reply to: InTheLight

That is, of course, your opinion.

I find having to reload magazines while at the range to be annoying.

...and because they can, is the only reason necessary. Whether you like it, or not.

a reply to: InTheLight

The police are under no obligation to protect. Several court decisions have proven that. They're the clean up crew.

The responsibility to protect you belongs to you. No one else.

I'm an adult--more or less-- and live in the adult world, which can be damned scary sometimes. I take precautions to protect myself, my family, and my stuff--such as it is. I lock my doors. I have a couple of yappy dogs living with me who think they're badass Dobermans--they're actually a bad ass Terrier, and Chihuahua--who will eat intruders. I also have tools with which to defend me and mine should someone(s) decide to ignore those clear warnings.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Graysen
you know that there are other means by which you can make your home intruder safe, or at the very least make it so difficult to break in that the police will arrive why they are still trying, but they won't because most intruders are looking for an easy target.

What if I don't have the money for bullet-proof windows? What if there's a regional crisis, like Katrina, and the police don't come at all?

You are convinced the police are on your side, and will be there for you in a crisis.

The police mean well, and most of them are virtuous servants of the public good. But You cannot afford to place your safety and the safety of your family in someone else's hands. The local police in New Orleans fled when Katrina landed. They left their jobs and went to get their own families. Its why they had soldiers seizing people's guns from their homes, the police were gone.

The police are there to protect us, so your comparison with them being the enemy does not fly. And when they do arrive, I would hope they are well armed and trained.

What your question boils down to, is "why do you need military-style firearms?"

The answer is actually in the 2nd amendment itself:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"well-regulated" has the meaning of being "regular." Jefferson didn't want the people showing up at a national emergency, holding only torches and pitchforks. A regular militia is one where all the members have some uniformity in their gear. The most effective example in the Revolutionary War was Ethan Allen's "Green Mountain Boys,"

Some New Englands states used to have an annual "Muster Day" when all males of fighting age were supposed to show up on the village green and shoot some target practice, and practice drill.

Muster day was allowed to lapse after the civil war, because once a year was seen as not being effective enough. Instead, it was replaced by a new institution called "The National Rifle Association," responsible for making sure that American men could shoot well enough to be an effective fighting force in a national crisis.

Look, This whole thing of confiscating arms and stripping away rights that our ancestors have had for the last 7 generations is not about guns being no longer necessary. Or even about "assault rifles" killing so many people (more people are killed with hammers in the USA each year, than are killed with semiautomatic rifles).

Guns are about power. And you don't like other people having power.

Disarm the angry old white males.

It was never about anything else.

It's not enough to wait for them to die of old age. We need to put them in nursing homes NOW, and take away guns or anything else that makes them a force in society.

Gun control is never about guns

It's always about control.

a reply to: Graysen

What's next? Everyone should get out there and buy themselves machine guns? Will a belt-fed 1000-round be enough? I am questioning the reloading laziness and round numbers for hunting and target shooting.

a reply to: Graysen

Disarm the angry old white males.

I agree with you reply, but its about a bit more than that.
Its about making people dependent upon the government.
And its also about making everyone an equal opportunity victim, prey for their degenerate client caste.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Graysen

What's next? Everyone should get out there and buy themselves machine guns? Will a belt-fed 1000-round be enough? I am questioning the reloading laziness and round numbers for hunting and target shooting.

I don't know anyone who hunts with a 30 round magazine. I stalk on foot, and carrying an extra pound and a quarter adds up once you pack on the miles.

Target shooting is a different story. If I'm sighting in a hunting rifle, I want to shoot the gun cold, because the temperature of the barrel affects accuracy. so I let the barrel cool down for a couple of minutes between each shot. It takes all day.

But if you want to see how a gun would behave in a firefight, you need to run the rounds through pretty quick, just as you would in a crisis. LEOs generally practice with full mags for this reason. So would a police officer not be allowed to possess a 30rd magazine, when he's off the clock? The agency where I worked didn't pay you to target practice--you did that on your own time!(lol) And as I said in an earlier post, police are not going to manifest more proficiency than a good amateur; so forbidding his spouse or kids to use a 30rd magazine is only going to reduce an officer's effectiveness with a firearm.

When I do go to the (paid) range, I burn through a lot of ammo. 200-500 rounds for rifles and pistols, at least a hundred with a pump action shotgun. am I supposed to load the rifles & handguns 4 rounds at a time????

Are you comfortable having the government tell people how they may or must do target practice? There's a lot of different ways to responsible own and use firearms. I've never been into target shooting, unless the target will fit in my freezer. Some people get off on "old west competition." A lot of people enjoy a range with a lot of moving targets. shooting them 4 shots per session is going to waste a lot of time for the other folks standing in line.

The point is, target practice is highly personalized, and varies a lot between enthusiasts. It's not realistic for the govt to tell people there is only one way to practice shooting and here's how you do it.

The whole problem with both political parties is they have a blueprint for your life and how you are supposed to live it. They know where you should live (in the city, on a paved road--you shouldn't drive an SUV), Where you should get your food (from the grocery, not the tits of your own non-pasteurized cow or non-vaccinated chicken's butt.). Hell it is illegal to slop your hogs in America! You're only supposed to use feed you bought a big transnational...

"Freedom" means freedom from government.

Look, I know you don't trust me. You don't even know me, but you don't trust me. (Unless my peace officer's commission is active. Then you trust me. Which means that you still don't trust me, but you put your faith in my government ID card.)

I don't trust you either. I don't trust you to know more about what guns I need or want or should be "allowed" to own or use or do whatever I damn well want to as long as you don't have to know about it.

You don't trust me to control my guns.

And I don't trust you, to control me.

a reply to: Graysen

Odd, I was just thinking about this topic and the Wild Wild West, then I saw your avatar pic. (lol)

a reply to: InTheLight

Technically, anything that loads with a spring (or from the force of the prior discharge) is semi-automatic. Bolt actions, pump action shotguns, and some revolvers are not included ... but all else is pretty much semi auto these days.

a reply to: InTheLight

I would love a machine gun, btw. They should be completely legal.

The reason to bear arms is for citizens to remain on par with the armaments of federal troops. The feds have machine guns, for sure.

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: InTheLight

I would love a machine gun, btw. They should be completely legal.

The reason to bear arms is for citizens to remain on par with the armaments of federal troops. The feds have machine guns, for sure.

What are you expecting to occur, another revolution?

a reply to: InTheLight

That definitely seems possible ....

As long as citizens can stay on par with the feds though, I think another revolution will be less likely.

If the feds can guarantee to outgun the citizens, then it becomes more dangerous, because potential opposition is a healthy thing to prevent federal over-reach, IMHO.