Assault Weapon Ban

You're right, the British aren't coming, but the govt IS! Also, the U.S. is getting so liberal that there are many terrorist cells on U.S. soil already. The U.S. has altered so many laws and doesn't enforce many more, that we're being over run by enemy combatants that we don't even know about yet. Ever seen the movie "Red Dawn"? I don't run around with guns and don't look for trouble, but if you had seen what happened during Katrina, you'd understand the reason for an assault weapon. "Oh, just pistol will do, you don't need an assault weapon". Yeah, when the guy is 20' away from you that's fine. What if there's several? I'm not waiting until there in my face. A 22 does work, but even a guy with a 9mm hole in him has quite some time left. That's why the military started reissueing .45 because 9mm didn't do the job in Iraq. Many think that you need to look at the Columbine perspective, I'm not opposed to that, as far as my kids know, I only have a .22 rifle and a deer rifle. They know about respect for firearms. My guns are locked in a safe that they can't get to.

 

Darn that pesky constitution. Liberal gun grabbers foiled again. Nevermind, W threw the constituion in the toilet and Obama is flushing it. Once we get the next generation of judges who dont remember what the constitution was you will get your longed after gun control.

 

You didn't see the link I posted, did you?

 

gun control thru bullet control IS happening now.Went to buy .38 bullets yesterday,every gun store incl. gander moutain and walmart didn't have any and said would be weeks before they would be available.Finally had a friend who works part time at a gun store set a couple boxes aside for me when they came in,the rest were sold out before I got there,AND the price was double what I paid last time.I'll bet the criminals have as much as they need.
gary

 

The thing is, gun control is pretty well dead after the Supreme Court tossed the DC handgun restrictions. Change at that level will take at least ten years, probably twenty, and even then the Suprteme Court is loathe to rev-visit their own precedent.

Limited restriction on things like assault rifles -- yeah, that can happen. But I don't find laws like that either unconstitutional or unreasonable.

Hey, I can't own a hand grenade, or a grenade launcher, or a whole bunch of weapons that, truth be told, I could conceivably use for self defense and which certainly can be considered "arms". So obviously society has agreed that some limit on "arms" is acceptable, even given what the constitution says. I just feel the limit should include various guns and ammunition that are intended for nothing more than killing people in drive-bys, and aren't really needed for hunting or defending you property.

You want a rifle or a shotgun? help yourself. Assualt rifles, uzzis, things like that -- I say ban 'em.

-- Steve

 

I'm definitely not a bleeding heart liberal by any means and I'm not judging anyone, but seriously, who the flip needs an assault rifle???o No: It's not a "rights" issue to me it's merely a "why the hell does someone need an assault rifle in their house?" issue.

In case people have forgotten, we now have a military. Have had one in place for over 200 years. The reason we had the right to bear arms in the first place was because this new nation didn't have a military to protect itself, so we the people were the military, hence, we needed to be armed. Ok, I know you didn't need a history lesson but I said that just to make my simple point. People miscue what this "right" was really intended for.

So exactly what would one do with an assault rifle? To hunt? No. That is unless its humans, which is why they are made. Sorry but the argument for the right to own assault rifles seems so illogical it confuses me why people don't understand why assault rifles don't need to be sold to ordinary citizens.o No:

:blast: Go ahead and tear into me and call me a liberal or idiot. That's where our first amendment comes into play, "Freedom of Speech".:rant:

 

We will when they eventually come to take them away. :blast:

 

Do any of you guys even know what an "Assault" rifle is?

Who are any of you to decide what someone else needs?
The majority of the population probably dont think you need a hi powered muscle car capable of doubling or tripling the speed limit. How will you feel when they decide you dont need your muscle car.

 

BEST POST SO FAR!!:TU:

 

:idea2: they just don't get it....that sooner or later the grabbers will get around to something they do care about......:idea2:

:rant: once they take any what I care about..... why the hell would I care about what they take away from you......:rant:

WAKE UP PEOPLE......:spank: :spank: :spank:

 

Exactly my point. People look at these issues one by one, instead of in a wide view, where precedent will ultimately be set to go one step further and take more and more away. Take off the blinders people. They are not just going to come for your assault weapons, they will come for them all.

Anyone who thinks we are immune to having our rights taken away in this country are in a state of mass confusion. The government can do all it wants to do. They will do it slyly, and slowly while we are all asleep at the wheel thinking nothing will ever happen.

It scares the crap out of me.

If you are against assault weapons then make law enforcement enforce the laws when people steal them, import them illegally and when people use them in armed robberies send them away. But don't take mine away because someone else misused theirs. That's like if my kid wins and it offends all the other kids then all of the sudden nobody wins because we can't upset little joey if he loses. A drastic comparison, but still a good relationship in subject because it is broad brush thinking.

 

Well,if anything,gun manufacterer stocks are going through the roof.

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/t...5/fear-of-obama-drives-gun-stocks-higher.aspx

And this would be a good reason for citizens to keep assault weapons on hand.Amazing how Homeland security and FBI allow places like these to exist in our nation.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494424,00.html

 

LMAO.. yeah, back then flint locks and cannons were all they had.. and the 2nd allowed EQUAL levels of armaments.

NOW.. to make the 2nd apply like it did back then.. we should have unrestricted access to EVERYTHING the military has, that we can afford to buy or build.

 

You keep saying "gun control" but the DC law was a gun ban. There's a lot of gun control these days. The DC Gun Ban was overturned by the Supreme Court. Now DC has about the most restrictive gun control in the nation in a round a bout effort to effectively ban them.

Where are all crimes committed with so called assault rifles. Oh that's right. There's almost none so let's ban them!

Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his Oldsmobile than I have with my assault rifles. We should ban Oldsmobiles!

 

After WW1 the government, through the NRA, started the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It was created because very few enlistees and draftees had any idea of which end of the gun a bullet comes out of. The CMP distributed surplus military rifles for a small fee to civilians to promote marksmanship.

The point is that today is no different from 200 years ago. WE are still the military. Having an armed population to defend the country is still valid.

 

Unless I'm missing something, I don't see any correlation in the statistics.

It can't be hard to find some correlation of gun laws and a spike in crime, can it?

 

True, "We" are the military, but in a private, voluntary, controlled and tactical setting (for lack of a better definition). I certainly do not want a bunch of paranoid yahoo's running around with automatic weapons protecting me or my country. e.g., the militia. Which is what it sounds like some people are on the verge of joining.

BTW, I see you had a 66 Charger. I love mine. Also, have a friend who has a 67 Coronet R/T.:beer

 

Your right, it isnt.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=247&issue=007

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

 

Why is this at 4 pages???:blast: