Assualt weapon ban voted down..

[Southpaw]

..In the Senate today in a vote of 90-8!! For more news look here http://www.awbansunset.com/

[Rooster]

Its about time this unconstitutional "law" was voted down. Unfortunately I voted for Mike Dewine in the last election, and all he has done to date is vote like a liberal. Hopefully someone worth the air they breathe will step up to oppose him for the seat.

[CasingBill]

Awesome...finally something goes our way!!:)

[Sir_Brass]

good thing. at least it shows congress isn't as liberal as we thought it was.

Now all that needs to be done to secure America for another 4 years is to see that Bush is reelected, and not that treasonous peace-nik Kerry.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass
good thing. at least it shows congress isn't as liberal as we thought it was.

Now all that needs to be done to secure America for another 4 years is to see that Bush is reelected, and not that treasonous peace-nik Kerry.

Yeah - Vietnam veteran is treasonous and a peace-nik

Lets see...

Son of a volunteer WWII pilot flying DC 3.

A Swift Boat officer who serving on a gunboat in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam.

Recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts for his service in combat.

But go ahead and label him as you see fit. Perhaps you call that 'supporting our troops'...

[Sir_Brass]

it's due to his most recent actions that I call him a traitor. I'm not questioning his military service. I question what he did AFTER he served.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass
it's due to his most recent actions that I call him a traitor. I'm not questioning his military service. I question what he did AFTER he served.

Yeah...we wouldn't want differing opinions in politics would we.....;)

[impostal22]

lol i love people who use the "think about what the founding fathers meant when creating this amendment" argument, but throw it out completely when it comes to gun control. right on.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass
it's due to his most recent actions that I call him a traitor. I'm not questioning his military service. I question what he did AFTER he served.

I vote we resurrect Patton, and run him for office. :p

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by impostal22
lol i love people who use the "think about what the founding fathers meant when creating this amendment" argument, but throw it out completely when it comes to gun control. right on.


If you had any idea what the amendment actually says, I'd listen to you.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife



If you had any idea what the amendment actually says, I'd listen to you.

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.

[bleachit]

Those flying squirells and electric eels better watch out now!! w00t

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by impostal22


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.



That's what it says. What does it mean? Any clue?

[bleachit]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife




That's what it says. What does it mean? Any clue?


it means that I, as a US citizen, have a constitutional right to own guns. I dont want the king of England barging into my house telling me what do to, do you?

[impostal22]

Originally posted by bleachit



it means that I, as a US citizen, have a constitutional right to own guns. I dont want the king of England barging into my house telling me what do to, do you?

lol..xactly

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by bleachit



it means that I, as a US citizen, have a constitutional right to own guns. I dont want the king of England barging into my house telling me what do to, do you?


And the clueless award of the day has been awarded. No more entries please...

[impostal22]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
And the clueless award of the day has been awarded. No more entries please...

so you're saying the amendment wasn't created in an effort to stop possible foreign invasion by the british?

then explain why the quartering of troops amendment is in there...which is obviously DIRECTLY linked to foreign invasion.

[LudavicoSoldier]

Yeah, ok, thats great and all, but when will the restrictions be lifted? If the restrictions actually ARE lifted, I wonder if Boston will follow suit and no longer require assault rifles to be individually approved by the police chief. Man...I want an match AR-15 so bad... Its gonna be tough enough to get my Class A license, even though I have absolutly no priors, and have been a resident of MA all my life. The law says that target shooting is a perfectly good reason to own an AR-15, and to obtain a Class A, but I have a feeling that its not going to be easy. Might have to have my GFs bro sponser me (he's a police officer).

[845]

Why do we need assault rifles again?

[Southpaw]

As I understand if no new legislation is entered either as a rider or if possible new bill it will come to sunset September. Let me tell you I have wanted to buy some new clips and will have to wait. The funny thing is the Democrats added a rider to an existing bill and then voted down the bill directly after :mad: but what can you do?

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by 845
Why do we need assault rifles again?
Why do we need paintball markers, toasters ect? :rolleyes: Do me a favor and go HERE (http://www.awbansunset.com/whyown.html) those are from the first link that you didnt go to go there and read how many crimes these SCARY guns are used in :rolleyes:

[bleachit]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife



And the clueless award of the day has been awarded. No more entries please...

and the "I am not a Simpsons' fan" award, has also been awarded. :rolleyes:


"Why do we need assault rifles again?"

doesnt anyone watch the simpsons around here??!!

"To hunt today's modern super animals, like the flying squirrel, or electric eel."
- Lenny


edit: thanks aaron, I only edited 4 times before I thought my post was clean. sigh..
edit: spelled aaron's name wrong too. sigh, again

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by bleachit


and the "I am not a Simpsons'" fan award, has also been awarded. :rolleyes:


"Why do we need assault rifles again?"

doesnt anyone watch the simpsons around here??!!

"To hunt today's modern super animals, like the flying squirrel, or electric eel."
- Lenny

It would actually be:

"I am not a Simpson's fan" award. ;)

And yeah....that was funny!!!! :D

[845]

Some of those reasons are valid but this one strike me as pretty dumb.



Full capacity magazines, (also banned by the 1994 act) are a requirement for this type of competition since every re-load costs a couple of seconds.

They arent a requirement..if everyone in the competition is at the same disadvantage it makes no difference.


Also another question since I do not wanna read this whole thing. Are they trying to make as easy to buy an AR as say buying shotgun?

[Southpaw]

They are now for the most part 845 :rolleyes: Do us all a favor and go to the link and read or do a search there are a TON of pages on both sides! Also AR was never banned! Not to be mean but I dont want to spoon feed it to you.

[Rooster]

Bush served as well. No he didn't destroy a village full of women and children, but he did serve.

[Machina123]

Originally posted by Rooster
Bush served as well. No he didn't destroy a village full of women and children, but he did serve.

how can u call serving in the natiional guard service, when his service is even questionable. Kerry went and fought in vietnam and bush hid behind his father in the reserves. bush is a coward, And why do u need an assault rifle. It is totally un-neccesary. Saying you need a assault rifle to target practice is just plain stupid. Use a hunting rifle.

[Rooster]

Kerry destroyed a village of woman and children, and you don't call that questionable?

[Rooster]

And why do I need an assault weapon? To kill anyone who tries to break into my house more effeciently.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

As of current day, the 2nd amendment makes less sense, then it did when this nation was formed.

Simply because there is no longer the need for a militia to protect the US.

Assualt rifles to me, seem like overkill, there just doesn't seem to be a practical use.

But the fact is, say we abolished the 2nd amendment and made it illegal to own a firearm. I highly doubt there would be a noticeable decrease in shootings, etc.

Because most of those guns are bought illegaly anyway, thus doing nothing to keep guns out of criminals hands. But there would be a decrease in accidental shooting, which are caused by stupid people not locking their gun away safely, and letting their kids get to them.

in short I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, besides the fact is all gun-trafficking should be closely regulated, and we should do everything in are power to try to stop illegal gun trafficking.

[govnamac]

You forgot that we also need guns to keep the king of england out of here. Come on, thats the best line of that Simpsons episode.


Originally posted by bleachit


and the "I am not a Simpsons' fan" award, has also been awarded. :rolleyes:


"Why do we need assault rifles again?"

doesnt anyone watch the simpsons around here??!!

"To hunt today's modern super animals, like the flying squirrel, or electric eel."
- Lenny


edit: thanks aaron, I only edited 4 times before I thought my post was clean. sigh..
edit: spelled aaron's name wrong too. sigh, again

[Southpaw]

On the topic of why the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution remember that we had to revolt against the old gov and had to steal weapons to do so. No I do not believe that that is the only reason but could be a plausible one.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Southpaw
On the topic of why the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution remember that we had to revolt against the old gov and had to steal weapons to do so. No I do not believe that that is the only reason but could be a plausible one.

If we tried to revolt now, it would be utterly destroyed,

tank vs man with a machine gun

place your bets now

[cris8762]

And why do I need an assault weapon? To kill anyone who tries to break into my house more effeciently.

Why would you need a assault rifle?! It has been proven that the sound of a shotgun being pumped will make anyone trying to break into a house turn around very quickly and leave. I wouldnt want a freakin assault rifle with high velocity rounds punching through walls in my house and killing my nextdoor neighbors in their sleep!!!!!

[mcveighr]

I'll go with Tank, but what if the tank drivers were revoulutionarys!?

AHHH!

Anyway, I don't see the need for Assault Rifles, but whatever, it doesn't care what I think.

Edit: haha I meant matter.

[Southpaw]

And why do u need an assault rifle. It is totally un-neccesary. Saying you need a assault rifle to target practice is just plain stupid. Use a hunting rifle. that is why you use a pump and not a e-blade cocker right! seems kind of odd:D

[alkafluence]

Originally posted by Machina123


how can u call serving in the natiional guard service, when his service is even questionable.

Wrong:

From the Washington Post:
"We were phasing out his equipment at the time, and he would have had to train for six to nine months to get into the new aircraft," said Maurice H. Udell, of Friendswood, Tex., who was Bush's flight instructor. "He had a full-time job outside of the Guard, and people often left to pursue their jobs elsewhere. He was not disciplined. There was no incident."



bush hid behind his father in the reserves. bush is a coward,

Wrong again. G.W.B. requested a transfer to a reserve unit in Alabama in order to work on a political campaign there. His father had nothing to do with that.



And why do u need an assault rifle. It is totally un-neccesary. Saying you need a assault rifle to target practice is just plain stupid. Use a hunting rifle.

Needs and wants are different things. No one NEEDS an assault rifle - but perhaps a person may want an assault rifle for the same reason you want/have a paintball gun. Perhaps it is the simple reason of a recreational involvement/enjoyment as a hobby. Just because you don't consider firing an assault rifle to be a hobby doesn't mean someone else doesn't find it to be so.

[Machina123]

u can say wat u want but there will be a day when assault rifles will be band like they should be. And on the topic of bush i dont know how u can accuse kerry of being a baby killer. When bush goes and bombs iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction. WHERE ARE THEY?!?! oh yeah they didnt find any, isnt that funny, and its also peculiar how there is millions of drums of oil under iraq as well. Yah bush is a great president:rolleyes:

[bleachit]

Originally posted by govnamac
You forgot that we also need guns to keep the king of england out of here. Come on, thats the best line of that Simpsons episode.




Le Sigh. posted on the first page.

"it means that I, as a US citizen, have a constitutional right to own guns. I dont want the king of England barging into my house telling me what do to, do you?"

I dont forget Simpsons' quotes :p

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by alkafluence


Wrong:

From the Washington Post:
"We were phasing out his equipment at the time, and he would have had to train for six to nine months to get into the new aircraft," said Maurice H. Udell, of Friendswood, Tex., who was Bush's flight instructor. "He had a full-time job outside of the Guard, and people often left to pursue their jobs elsewhere. He was not disciplined. There was no incident."




Wrong again. G.W.B. requested a transfer to a reserve unit in Alabama in order to work on a political campaign there. His father had nothing to do with that.



Needs and wants are different things. No one NEEDS an assault rifle - but perhaps a person may want an assault rifle for the same reason you want/have a paintball gun. Perhaps it is the simple reason of a recreational involvement/enjoyment as a hobby. Just because you don't consider firing an assault rifle to be a hobby doesn't mean someone else doesn't find it to be so.

Bush's national guard duty is questionable at best, and lets just leave it at that, its not going to make any noticeable effects on the election.

Also in a recent TIME there was an article about his service it did a good job going over both points of view, I suggest taking a look at that.

[RecklessFable]

Originally posted by 845
Why do we need assault rifles again?

There are two very important responses to this most common of questions:

One: In a supposedly free country, why do we have to prove a need to own something. The true question should be "Why should we ban assault weapons?" Which is a much more difficult arguement, considering you are trying to take (another) freedom away from law-abiding citizens.

Two: A large part of the definition of assult rifle is basically "A rifle that looks scary" Many legal hunting rifles can lay down as much fire as the weapons that were banned, they just have wood grain stocks so they must be OK...

A final word:
I've never been threatened by someone with a licensed firearm, but I have been threatened by someone with an unlicensed baseball bat.

[sgt_easton]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
As of current day, the 2nd amendment makes less sense, then it did when this nation was formed.

Simply because there is no longer the need for a militia to protect the US.


I'm in the militia. National Guard. Therefore, I need an assault rifle.

....not quite sure what I'm going to "assault" yet, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

[bleachit]

Originally posted by sgt_easton


I'm in the militia. National Guard. Therefore, I need an assault rifle.

....not quite sure what I'm going to "assault" yet, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

I am a US citizen, therefore I need an assault rifle. I dont know what I want to assault either, but when I figure out what it is, Id rather have the assault rifle and be like "This is totally bad arse, I am assault rifling this motha." as opposed to "Damn, I wish I had an assault rifle to assault this motha, sigh, I guess I will just have to stick with my good ol model 1911."

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by impostal22


so you're saying the amendment wasn't created in an effort to stop possible foreign invasion by the british?

then explain why the quartering of troops amendment is in there...which is obviously DIRECTLY linked to foreign invasion.


No it wasn't. It was put there so that citizens couldn't be disarmed by their OWN government.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by bleachit


and the "I am not a Simpsons' fan" award, has also been awarded. :rolleyes:


How horrible of me to not be one of the mindless sheeple to know every line from a tv show.

And to think, all those wasted hours actually accomplishing something.


oh the humanity.

[Barfly]

assault rifles are cool. I own a mak-90. Haha it is funny you can't import AK-47 variants, but you can buy new ones made in the U.S. that are far superior. Silly people make silly rules. My Mak-90 is stamped in '94 making it own of the last ones to get imported. Now I just need to sell it, because I am poor and want money for paintballing. Hopefully some hick will overpay for it. :D

[Mateo]

Why does America need assault rifles? Just in case Mexico or Canada invade us...well more like just Mexico, Canada doesn't have any firearms:p

Look that law was taking steps in the wrong direction. Just look where gun control laws have put the UK, Canada, and Austrailia. Their violent crime rates involving guns have gone way up. You wanna know why? Here's a scenario:

Burglar before gun control law:
"That old lady Aunt Jamima is known for having a shotgun. I ain't stealing anything from her."

Burglar after gun control law:
"WEEEEEE!!! STEALING SPREE!!"

Also have any of you shot a firearm? Know the responsibilites of a firearm? Or how cool firearms are?:confused:

[LudavicoSoldier]

Originally posted by RecklessFable


There are two very important responses to this most common of questions:

One: In a supposedly free country, why do we have to prove a need to own something. The true question should be "Why should we ban assault weapons?" Which is a much more difficult arguement, considering you are trying to take (another) freedom away from law-abiding citizens.

Two: A large part of the definition of assult rifle is basically "A rifle that looks scary" Many legal hunting rifles can lay down as much fire as the weapons that were banned, they just have wood grain stocks so they must be OK...

A final word:
I've never been threatened by someone with a licensed firearm, but I have been threatened by someone with an unlicensed baseball bat.

Exactly! A law abiding citizen should not be denied owning the weapon of his choice, as long as it is properly registered, stored, and used. THe obvious exceptions are silencers (though they are cool) and fully automatic guns.

Just because a particular rifle (AR-15 for example) looks scary, it does not mean that it is any more deadly than a Ruger Mini-14 or that it should be banned simply because it scares you? People being pansies shouldnt affect my exercism of my constitutional rights. Say I had a Rottweiler, and it scared you, should it then be banned?

Personally, I want an AR-15 because it is as if not more customizeable as a paintball gun. I like guns, and it sounds like a cool project.

The simple fact is that a determined person can kill you just as well with a 5 shot semi (or bolt) .308 as they could a 30 shot semi .223. If you are looking to kill someone using ANY type of high powered rifle, the likelyhood of killing them is VERY high regardless of the particular rifle or calibur.

I shouldnt have to make excuses for owning a gun that in most aspects (aside from cosmetic scaryness) is just as lethal as a legal rifle. I love shooting, an the AR-15 is quite an addictive gun to shoot. That and a long barrel .44 Colt Anaconda.

Now take off that skirt and grab yourself an AK! :D Dont be a sally!

[sgt_easton]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife
How horrible of me to not be one of the mindless sheeple to know every line from a tv show.

And to think, all those wasted hours actually accomplishing something.


oh the humanity.

"Wasted hours?" Who has <b>1,698</b> posts?

[Rooster]

"Why would you need a assault rifle?! It has been proven that the sound of a shotgun being pumped will make anyone trying to break into a house turn around very quickly and leave. I wouldnt want a freakin assault rifle with high velocity rounds punching through walls in my house and killing my nextdoor neighbors in their sleep!!!!!"

My neighbors don't live that close. And the pain of being shot is very scary.

[Lohman446]

LOL - well, my neighbor (who lives a touch over a 1/4 mile away) raises pitbulls, he has like 50 of the SOBs. I know that noone raises that many pitbulls for anything but one purpose. I also now that my Mac-11 has two 50 shot clips, no big deal.

My ex called me one day and tells me "one of the neighbors pitbulls is on teh porch growling".

Im at work, call animal control, there first words to me "DO you have a gun?"

LOL - lady, if I was home, I wouldn't have called you.

[Coal-Cracker]

Originally posted by spleefstylez


Exactly! A law abiding citizen should not be denied owning the weapon of his choice, as long as it is properly registered, stored, and used. THe obvious exceptions are silencers (though they are cool) and fully automatic guns.

....

Select fire (fully automatic) and suppresors (don't call them "silencers" - that term is "Hollywood" ;)) ARE prefectly legal for law abiding citizens to own. I'm not sure why you mention them as an "obvious exception". Granted, they are very expensive and heavily regulated, but as long as you have the money, are 21, have a clean record and am willing to wait over 3 months for the federal background check you can own a full auto, suppresor or both.
I'm not picking on you, spleefstylez - I pretty much agree with everything else you said in you post.
Here's a little fact: Since the 1934 NFA Act there has not been one crime committed with a legally owned select fire firearm. Not one. How about that? Guess we law-abiding citizens can be trusted with them.

I have issues with gun registration as well. Background checks if you must settle your nerves, but keeping records on what firearms I own - well, that don't sit well with me.

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by bleachit


I am a US citizen, therefore I need an assault rifle. I dont know what I want to assault either, but when I figure out what it is, Id rather have the assault rifle and be like "This is totally bad arse, I am assault rifling this motha." as opposed to "Damn, I wish I had an assault rifle to assault this motha, sigh, I guess I will just have to stick with my good ol model 1911."
The 1911 is part of this ban so that is not a logical example. It is probally all way over your head.

[bleachit]

Originally posted by Southpaw

The 1911 is part of this ban so that is not a logical example. It is probally all way over your head.

probably.. or I just have never read the details of the ban, and really didnt care enough to.

[mcveighr]

Why does America need assault rifles? Just in case Mexico or Canada invade us...well more like just Mexico, Canada doesn't have any firearms

Trust me, you wouldn't need assualt rifles to take care of us.

I think we do have more guns per person though, and less gun related deaths. Not sure though.

I have shot firearms before, compound bow, shotgun, rifle, pistol. Not much hunting, more trap/skeet and pistol club type thing. Its fun, but not really my cup of tea. I suck at the pistols I've got shaky hands, much better at skeet.

I know my dad probably makes up for the some canadians that don't have guns, he's kind of a collector and has 70+. Two full browning safe's

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by sgt_easton


"Wasted hours?" Who has <b>1,698</b> posts?


I can multitask.

[f3rr3+]

whoa whoa whoa the M1911 as in the pistol?!?!?! wtf...

that gun is kick ***... wish i had one... (not really but a airsoft real steel would be cool)


yeah i think assault rifles arnt nessacary for anything... and most guns for that matter... but it is impossible to regulate it on this planet... maybey when we colonize mars...

[FutureMagOwner]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
As of current day, the 2nd amendment makes less sense, then it did when this nation was formed.

Simply because there is no longer the need for a militia to protect the US.

protection from ourselves? our own government (assuming it goes way of dictatorship or something of the like not "omgz no weed i go shoot up the man!")

hmmm i wish i could by a minigun that would be cool to bring to the firing range lol ;)

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by FutureMagOwner


protection from ourselves? our own government (assuming it goes way of dictatorship or something of the like not "omgz no weed i go shoot up the man!")

hmmm i wish i could by a minigun that would be cool to bring to the firing range lol ;)

I really would like to see a completely US civilian militia go up against the US military.

It would not be pretty,

tank vs man with assualt rifle.

[than205]

How can you protect yourself from the TV? (for example the Simpsons)

Anybody remember the '80's stickers "Shoot your TV!"

[than205]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


Because most of those guns are bought illegaly anyway, thus doing nothing to keep guns out of criminals hands. But there would be a decrease in accidental shooting, which are caused by stupid people not locking their gun away safely, and letting their kids get to them.

in short I'm not really sure where I stand on this issue, besides the fact is all gun-trafficking should be closely regulated, and we should do everything in are power to try to stop illegal gun trafficking.


But in the meantime there are things we can do. From what I have read, the manufacturers can get lists of dealors that sell guns that ultimately end up in criminals hands. The manufacturers choose to turn a blind eye to this.

On another point, I'll buy into the idea of "Let's just enforce the laws we have". (I'm not against guns)
"IF" that doesn't work. What can we do next? Honestly, what should we be doing to deal with the problem?

[than205]

Originally posted by Miscue


I vote we resurrect Patton, and run him for office. :p

Nahh, I'd settle for McCain. I think the Republicans made a bad choice with Bush.

[FutureMagOwner]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata
I really would like to see a completely US civilian militia go up against the US military.

It would not be pretty,

tank vs man with assualt rifle.


i know what you mean but if the need arrised if rather fight and die for what i believe in (which is basically freedom not "because taking away a little freedom for a whole lotta safety" crap that turbo tool soccer moms push on people) rather than lose what i love in life (besides women) if it got to that point i really wouldnt care if it would be impossible to win really. (and would want to make as much damage as possible on the deserving party hint hint ;) )

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by than205


Nahh, I'd settle for McCain. I think the Republicans made a bad choice with Bush.


Right McCain who basically destroyed the first amendment.


Hooorah.

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by than205



But in the meantime there are things we can do. From what I have read, the manufacturers can get lists of dealors that sell guns that ultimately end up in criminals hands. The manufacturers choose to turn a blind eye to this.

On another point, I'll buy into the idea of "Let's just enforce the laws we have". (I'm not against guns)
"IF" that doesn't work. What can we do next? Honestly, what should we be doing to deal with the problem?

I completely agree, and what we can do is have stricter gun regulations, increasing background checks, etc..

It may be a pain, but if it helps keeps guns away from criminals or potential criminals, who can argue?

[Southpaw]

Every one that wants more gun control and even no legal guns check out these links http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
and
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_cap
what is Great Brittan doing above the US?? I thought we were the lawless country!

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


I completely agree, and what we can do is have stricter gun regulations, increasing background checks, etc..

It may be a pain, but if it helps keeps guns away from criminals or potential criminals, who can argue?


Right. Please give me one example where a criminal has ever been stopped by a gun law from obtaining a firearm and using to to commit a crime.


Potential criminals????????????????

[Rooster]

"I really would like to see a completely US civilian militia go up against the US military.

It would not be pretty,

tank vs man with assualt rifle."

Maybe you forgot the lesson of Vietnam. If a military isn't willing to level a country to go after insurgents, they won't stop them. A civil uprising is a very real threat against a dictatorship.

[Southpaw]

Originally posted by MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata


I completely agree, and what we can do is have stricter gun regulations, increasing background checks, etc..

It may be a pain, but if it helps keeps guns away from criminals or potential criminals, who can argue? WOW POTENTIAL criminals :eek: that is some of the crazyest :eek: EVER. Do you have few Minority report kids in your basement so you can tell who is going to commit crimes? :D Honestly what is a potential criminal? WOW WOW WOW that sounds bad!!!

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by FutureMagOwner



i know what you mean but if the need arrised if rather fight and die for what i believe in (which is basically freedom not "because taking away a little freedom for a whole lotta safety" crap that turbo tool soccer moms push on people) rather than lose what i love in life (besides women) if it got to that point i really wouldnt care if it would be impossible to win really. (and would want to make as much damage as possible on the deserving party hint hint ;) )


This is even supported historically ;). Anyone remember what happened to all those texans who stayed and fought at the alamo ;).

[Slimm Jimm]

IMHO, anyone is a potential criminal, it just depends on what pushes you there.

There is a movie that illustrates this, I can't think of the exact name right now. John Doe, maybe:confused:

[Coal-Cracker]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass



This is even supported historically ;). Anyone remember what happened to all those texans who stayed and fought at the alamo ;).

...or the Warsaw Uprising in '43, where a few hundred armed Polish Jews held off the heavily armed and well trained German Army. The insurgency was crushed in about a month, but at least they were able to put up a fight. A point was made. Those men and women were able to die standing on their feet, rather than sent off to die in a camp. Tell me, which would you choose?

I don't doubt that an open revolution would probably be pretty one-sided, at least initially anyway. (Here is one thing to consider: Would U.S. soldiers be able to fire upon their own neighbors?)

" We have four boxes used to guarantee our liberty: The soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and when those three fail - the cartridge box."

...not to sound like a radical. ;)

[FutureMagOwner]

well i wouldnt put my point quite with the alamo since they were under the impression most of the time they were going to be reinforced sorta like william wallace (atleast in brave heart i dont know the behind the movie facts as well as id like)

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

Originally posted by Southpaw
WOW POTENTIAL criminals :eek: that is some of the crazyest :eek: EVER. Do you have few Minority report kids in your basement so you can tell who is going to commit crimes? :D Honestly what is a potential criminal? WOW WOW WOW that sounds bad!!!

maybe i should have rephrased that , or in all actuality not said it at all.

And Rooster Jungle warfare is a wee bit different then Urban.

I dont even believe we used tanks in Vietnam.

[FutureMagOwner]

i think we did not sure what kinda role it held im guessing more of an escort to other vehicles more than accual combat

[Rooster]

"And Rooster Jungle warfare is a wee bit different then Urban."

Contrary to ignorant beliefs, the whole of the US isn't covered by cities. You are also assuming the whole military would back whomever was trying to crush an uprising. There are pleanty of places that tanks can't travel, and far more people than tanks. A tank is the same as useless as a firing platform in an urban setting.

So what was the point you never made?

[Koosh]

Originally posted by Rooster
Kerry destroyed a village of woman and children, and you don't call that questionable?

You mind letting me know where that was stated?

With my Dad being a Vietnam Vet (2 Purple Hearts, Silver Star and a Bronze Star among others), I take offense to that.

US Soldiers didn't kill and destroy for fun, no matter what the movies make you believe. IF that villiage was destroyed, there was probably a good reason for it at the time.

[Southpaw]

:rolleyes: Evil evil bad stuff happens in war to deny that fact is VERY naive! In all wars Innocent people are killed and maimed. My father too was in the army, and my mom and dad work for the VAMC the stories that vets tell are unbelievable. Most make the movie Platoon look very tame!!

[Rooster]

"I take offense to that. "

And I take offense to people calling Kerry a war hero and Bush a draft dodger, especially when Kerry's record in Vietnam is questionable.

Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

[Mateo]

Originally posted by Sir_Brass



This is even supported historically ;). Anyone remember what happened to all those texans who stayed and fought at the alamo ;).


Amen. Took more than half the Mexican army.:eek: I dare ya to take away our guns communist bastards!:mad::D

[Koosh]

Originally posted by Rooster
"I take offense to that. "

And I take offense to people calling Kerry a war hero and Bush a draft dodger, especially when Kerry's record in Vietnam is questionable.

Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

Thanks for not answering my question too.

I never called Kerry a war hero, but I certainly never called him a Baby Killer either.

I was simply asking where the hell you got the information that Kerry destroyed a villiage and killed women and children...

[Southpaw]

Try this kerry tells you himself!!! His I was orderd (http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3) speech!

EDIT: He is a self admitted baby killer but he was just doing what everyone else did so thats OK is that who you want as President? I knew it was against the Geneva convention, but I didn't want to look like the Nancy boy that I am until I get back to the US.

[Konigballer]

guys, we used LOTS of tanks in Vietnam. Mostly M48 Pattons and M551 Sheridans. We used our whole conventional army to fight an unconventional war. They just wer'ent very effective in that enviornment.

FutureMagOwner got it right though, they were mostly used for infantry support and as a strike force to try and flush out more conventional NVA units to fight and kill.

TheFlamingKoosh, some US soldiers DID kill and destroy for fun in Vietnam. Just like some soldiers on all sides have done in every war.

Some people really LIKE war. My ucle Pat's one of them. He did three tours over there. He actually liked fighting, combats like a drug and it is well documented over several wars that a some proportion of soldiers on all sides love the adrenalin rush of combat and have no qualms about killing the enemy. If you've read Band of Brothers or seen the series you could probably include Lt. Spears in this bunch as an example. Their in every war. Its just that other wars had better PR coverage to obscure this from the folks at the homefront than Vietnam did, it was broadcasted on TV here every day.

[Rooster]

"but I certainly never called him a Baby Killer either. "

You should. Your little poster boy is everything your little party rails against. The only thing the Democrats have is a hatered of Bush. They lose on every single issue across the board. People are not in favor of gay marrige, they are not in favor of increased gun control, they are not in favor of increased taxes, and the war in Iraq was very popular.

This election will be very amusing, and I will take personal pleasure in reminding the moronic minority of their failings.

[Koosh]

"You should."

I just don't get it... I've never said that Kerry was "my boy", or hell I've never ONCE even made it clear that I'm voting democrat! I just didn't think its right for you to call a man who fought for our country a "baby killer"... its war man, this stuff happens.

What you are doing is pissing on every person who served in Vietnam by holding Kerry in contempt. He admitted what he did, and there are probably HUNDREDS if not thousands of servicemen who did the exact same thing. (thanks for the link Southpaw, thats what I was asking Rooster for)...

"and the war in Iraq was very popular "

So we can only cruicfy vet's of unpopular ones?

[Rooster]

Kerry could have carried a baby's head around on a pike for all I care. But I'm not a liberal. I'm not one of the people who moaned and wailed when we went to Iraq when a few civilians got hurt. Collateral damage doesn't bother me.

But if you are going to attack one man on his service record, be ready for a attack in kind. Bush's vietnam service is questionable. So is Kerry's. Both are as clean a snow falling on the interstate during rush hour. Just don't fool yourself into thinking Kerry is some kind of all american hero. He just as dirty as Bush, if not worse.

[Dragonfd3s]

how can u call serving in the natiional guard service, when his service is even questionable. Kerry went and fought in vietnam and bush hid behind his father in the reserves. bush is a coward, And why do u need an assault rifle. It is totally un-neccesary. Saying you need a assault rifle to target practice is just plain stupid. Use a hunting rifle.

So why do you need a semi automatic paintball gun when you can use a PGP or a Pump?

[shartley]

good thing. at least it shows congress isn't as liberal as we thought it was.

Now all that needs to be done to secure America for another 4 years is to see that Bush is reelected, and not that treasonous peace-nik Kerry.

Yeah - Vietnam veteran is treasonous and a peace-nik

Lets see...

Son of a volunteer WWII pilot flying DC 3.

A Swift Boat officer who serving on a gunboat in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam.

Recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts for his service in combat.

But go ahead and label him as you see fit. Perhaps you call that 'supporting our troops'...
Now…. with that said…. Who here saw the Press Conference with a good deal of the officers who served with (I use this term loosely since Kerry’s actual “service” is more questionable than Bush’s at this point) Kerry in Vietnam.

I saw it the other day on CSPAN2. It was very interesting to say the least.

These where men who served along side Kerry in his short and very questionable service in Vietnam. They outlined the lies he told, his actual service record, his “purple hearts” (which at least one of them was only a scratch and his commanding officer didn’t feel it even warranted medical attention… and it was caused by Kerry himself, not he enemy.), his character at the time and after, and more.

I will also add that it does not matter who Kerry’s father was. Because Kerry is not his father.

I also find it distressing that those in government who now call for the resignation of Rumsfeld are the same ones who are going to vote for Kerry for president. The irony and complete hypocrisy in that is astounding.

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.
Very good…

it means that I, as a US citizen, have a constitutional right to own guns. I dont want the king of England barging into my house telling me what do to, do you?
Not true. It means that as a US citizen we have a constitutional right to own guns so we may be a part of a well regulated militia. Keep in mind that when this was written, the average person owned the same firearms that the Military did. Times have changed.

I will however admit that we have extended the meaning of this to personal protection, and other things that really don’t apply to what was actually written in the Constitution. But heck, the same thing is being done all the time with the “Freedom of Speech”, and even “Separation of Church and State” (which NEVER existed in the Constitution). And I personally believe that every citizen has the right to own firearms for personal protection against other citizens who may want to do them harm or commit crimes against them…. but that is not what the Constitution says. I say AMEND IT to say so. ;)


how can u call serving in the natiional guard service, when his service is even questionable. Kerry went and fought in vietnam and bush hid behind his father in the reserves. bush is a coward, And why do u need an assault rifle. It is totally un-neccesary. Saying you need a assault rifle to target practice is just plain stupid. Use a hunting rifle.
What is questionable is HOW Kerry served and what he did and didn’t do. As posted above, his metals are questionable at best, and his character of service seems to be far less than “honorable”. Also it seems he lied about not only what HE did, but what others did as well.

And guess what? You NEED people to serve in the reserves. You also need people to serve in other places around the world while conflict is happening in another place. So I would think very carefully about who you call a coward and why. After all… Kerry’s use of “wounds in combat” to get shipped back to the States is VERY much in debate.


Kerry destroyed a village of woman and children, and you don't call that questionable?
From what I understand (from watching the CSPAN2 conference with those who served with Kerry) this claim (made by Kerry) may not be accurate. Another service member who was on this “raid” claims it never happened. Which brings to question why Kerry would even claim this at all……. And the answer is clear… better to have done something “bad” than to admit that he didn’t do anything at all. And it gives him a platform for his anti-troops, anti-government, anti-war, stance, which he used to jump into politics…. His meal ticket.


Assualt rifles to me, seem like overkill, there just doesn't seem to be a practical use.

And what kind of paintball marker do you shoot? What is its ROF? Is it a pump marker? Stock Class? ;)

Why would you need a assault rifle?! It has been proven that the sound of a shotgun being pumped will make anyone trying to break into a house turn around very quickly and leave. I wouldnt want a freakin assault rifle with high velocity rounds punching through walls in my house and killing my nextdoor neighbors in their sleep!!!!!
It is also proven that the sound of a DOG will do the same thing. ;) So then, one could argue that we should not even own shotguns, but be forced to own big dogs instead.

If someone chooses to use any given weapon to protect themselves, they are still held accountable for anything that happens while using it. And yes, that includes collateral damage (i.e. killing a neighbor next door by accident). AND, contrary to popular belief, you can not simply kill someone because they have entered your house… even if their intent was to rob or even kill you. It is not that simple any more. And there have been more than one case in recent history where someone defending their home and family have gone to jail.

And how about this? When I lived in Oklahoma, I had to put visible KEEP OUT/PRIVATE PROPERTY, and DOG signs on all sides of my property.. in a manner that no matter where you stood you could see at least one set of these signs. And if someone STILL entered my property or house, and my dogs attacked them, I was STILL libel for their injuries…. That’s right, even if their intent was to rob or kill me and my family.

The laws covering self and property protection are not what most think they are. So no matter what form of protection you choose (and I absolutely believe that the choice SHOULD be up to the individual, and yes that includes assault rifles ), make sure you are within the law, and that it is indeed what was needed to enforce the level of protection required at the time.


u can say wat u want but there will be a day when assault rifles will be band like they should be. And on the topic of bush i dont know how u can accuse kerry of being a baby killer. When bush goes and bombs iraq because they have weapons of mass destruction. WHERE ARE THEY?!?! oh yeah they didnt find any, isnt that funny, and its also peculiar how there is millions of drums of oil under iraq as well. Yah bush is a great president:rolleyes:
Actually as I stated… I don’t think Kerry is a baby killer at all. I think he is a bold face liar.

And the WMD argument is getting very old. That is NOT the only reason we went into Iraq.

No it wasn't. It was put there so that citizens couldn't be disarmed by their OWN government.
This is true, but it also covers invaders as well. But what a good deal of the Constitution is about is protection from OURSELVES (i.e. our own government). The founding fathers saw how power can corrupt and how easy it is to step on the rights of citizens, so they put in protections to prevent that from happening.

Nahh, I'd settle for McCain. I think the Republicans made a bad choice with Bush.
I don’t think they made a “bad” choice with Bush, I just think they would have made a “better” choice with McCain. ;) I supported McCain in the last one, and would do so again if he chose to run. I do think though that Bush should go another round. Then have McCain run again.


You mind letting me know where that was stated?

With my Dad being a Vietnam Vet (2 Purple Hearts, Silver Star and a Bronze Star among others), I take offense to that.

US Soldiers didn't kill and destroy for fun, no matter what the movies make you believe. IF that villiage was destroyed, there was probably a good reason for it at the time.
(this was in response to the “baby killer” and “burned villages” issue)
Actually, while I support our troops and general action of them in times of War, they HAVE committed crimes such as these. However, they have also been punished for them as well. No military force on earth has gone through a conflict and not had some of its troops commit crimes. But in the case of the US (on foreign soil) those who committed these crimes are a very small percentage of our troops. And as such our entire military should not be judged by the actions of a few.

But to think things like this didn’t happen would be just as bad as to think it was SOP.


Try this kerry tells you himself!!! His I was orderd (http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/Kerry2.mp3) speech!

EDIT: He is a self admitted baby killer but he was just doing what everyone else did so thats OK is that who you want as President? I knew it was against the Geneva convention, but I didn't want to look like the Nancy boy that I am until I get back to the US.
And like I said, those “orders” and his stories of what happened are very much in debate. Again, I don’t know which is worse… if it HAPPENED, or if it DIDN’T and he is claiming it did… and for what real purpose.

[Stix]

I hope I'm not getting in over my head on this, but some evolutionary biologists have proposed that in general, arms are nessecary for the propogation of freedom and democracy. He who has the guns controls the government basically. Sufferage, according to these biologists, correlates highly with the ability to fight back. A good example of this is Annie Oakely, teaching women in mass amounts how to shoot all kinds of guns. And during this revolution, guess what? Women acquired sufferage.

On a smaller scale, taking a look at small tribes around the world, basically the only members that can participate in government are the ones that can handle the atatl, bow and arrow, etc. In more advanced tribes, everyone has arms such as these, and guess what? They all participate in governance...

The reverse is true as well, take guns away and the government brings on the smack down. Take pre-Nazi Germany for instance. All gun owning citizens were required to register w/ the government (A very similar bill was put forth by Bill Clinton; thankfully it was struck down). When it came time for war, using these records, Nazi regieme came and took all firearms away from it's citizens so no one could resist. When the Communists took over China, what did they do? Take all the guns away... the list goes on.

It is interesting to note that dictatorships are always displayed to the public with weapons of war. Look at the statues of the old Caesars and Emperor's of Japan. They are always in war regalia; some believe this is to remind their slaves that they hold the keys to life and death. A more modern day example would be Saddam Hussien almost always appearing in a military outfit or shooting off some sort of firearm. Democratic governmental leaders would never display themselves as such. Why? It is proposed that because if they did, we might shoot them =)

Any thoughts? I figured since we are on the topic already I'd just throw this up for discussion.

[Stix]

I was under the impression that you would rather have a high powered pistol to protect yourself in your home. A long rifle would be rather unwieldy in a CQB situation. Crooks have long stated that they would rather go against a man w/ a big as rifle he had swing around then a guy with a pistol that could line up shots faster.

I also thought getting shot by a handgun in close range sucks more, mainly because

1. The bullet doesn't alway come out
2. The bullet if it does come out, comes out as a big flatened mass that makes a big *** exit wound.
3. Rifles go out cleaner at close range.

Is this right?

[cphilip]

I was under the impression that you would rather have a high powered pistol to protect yourself in your home. A long rifle would be rather unwieldy in a CQB situation.

Not really. Its long been held that the Best home defense weapon is a short barreled Shotgun. With about #2 shot (if 12 ga but OObuck works fine as well and needed in 20 ga.). effective range is about the distance of a large room. And the pattern of a shotgun in Modified choke or open choke makes accuracy a bit less critical. Patterns out to a half a foot at say 10 feet is what you are looking for. Wider as it travels furhter. Over a foot at 30 feet. Total range less than 100 yards but you don't need any more in the house. And the density and speed of the pellets is less apt to penetrate walls and cause injury to someone in another room. So this makes, for instance, and Improved choke 12 gauge pump shotgun of legal length (16 inches or so I think) with a pistol stock and loaded with #2 shot shells about the best weapon going for home defense. You can normaly get 7-9 or so rounds in it with the right lower tube. Its fairly light and just point to shoot. No real fine aiming needed. And won't kill your kids in the next room while you blow the intruder away. Plus you can use it as a club.

[Stix]

Hrmm... the not blowing your kids away thingie sounds good =) I'm sold.

[cphilip]

Hrmm... the not blowing your kids away thingie sounds good =) I'm sold.

Its kind of a good idea... ;)

[FactsOfLife]

You need to watch shot size in that shotgun if you live in a subdivision.

00 buck can and will easily penetrate walls and can go through your neighbors house.

You're better off with #5-6 shot. Still lethal up close, less likely to have penetration problems.

[cphilip]

You need to watch shot size in that shotgun if you live in a subdivision.

00 buck can and will easily penetrate walls and can go through your neighbors house.

You're better off with #5-6 shot. Still lethal up close, less likely to have penetration problems.

Most people will disagree with that. More often they feel #5 or #6 shot will not penetrate skin enough to be effective. Its penetration is about 6 inches which is felt that its not lethal enough. Remember you are not shooting them to piss them off. Of cause a nasty welt. You want to take them out. So you have to balance the concern of penetration with the purpose of what your doing. And also remember that this is not truely a "Scatter gun". It all will be within a pattern of where you aim thats no larger than 18 inches or less by the time it crosses even a fairly large room and strikes a wall. Larger shot like a BB is closer to 12 inches of skin penetration. So thats closer to lethal penetration range you need. And most often even if OO or BB goes through a wall its velocity is so impeded by that time that it is not going to cause a serious wound. It may injure. But not likely kill. More often in that shot size debate (oh yea it goes on all the time) the compromise choice is at least #2 if you can find it. Minimum. Not easy to find #2 though. But BB size if you cannot. A tad easier to find this shot and a good second choice. They close to the same size and pellet count. 00 is often easier to find and while getting risky for wall penetration in most cases does not penetrate with enough velocity left to be fatal. I personaly prefer #2 shot. And will take a BB if I can find it.

However a Rifle or Handgun single bullet will penetrate and still be at a lethal velocity. Even a shotgun with a slug will. So those are not good choices.

[Bluestrike_2]

just to clarify a statement someone made earlier.

The Constitution states that we shall not be forced to quarter soldiers.

This was because of the COERCIVE ACTS passed by Parliament in the early 1770's due to the Boston Tea Party.

The coercive acts had multiple acts within it.

One was "that Colonists should have to quarter British soldiers."

Needless to say, back then, fathers "lock up your daughters." The colonists hated it. That is why it was included in the Constitution. Not some of the "reasons" people listed.


so you're saying the amendment wasn't created in an effort to stop possible foreign invasion by the british?

then explain why the quartering of troops amendment is in there...which is obviously DIRECTLY linked to foreign invasion.
IT was NOT linked to foreign invasion. Go back to American History 101. :D

[WingMan13]

Ah, and lets not forget the awsome selection of shotgun ammo found in Firequest.com. It would make Batman proud!

I find it amazing to find this many people against assault weapons when we play a sport that is always trying to find higher rates of fire power...

[cphilip]

I was reading with some interest the issues of Shotguns in war. Seems the Allieds first decided to use shotguns in trench warfare way back as superior to rifles for the effectiveness of close quarters combat. Similar to home defense in a way. And in fact the Germans protested the use of them as "barbaric". Ironic isn't it?

Police use them all the time. The alltime favortie being the Remington 870 Pump in 12 guage and almost always they load with OO buckshot. Lots of cheap upgrades for this gun to turn the average 870 into a riot/urban fighting arm are out there. Magazine extentions, pistol stocks, forearm grips and lots of attachements like White lights and lazer lights and all that sort of cool stuff. Very effective weapon in urban warfare.

[RoadDawg]

Honestly IMO I don't think we need "assault weapons". Yes they are fun to shoot but just like fast cars aren't really necessary for the every day home. Although a ban isn't gonna keep criminals from getting these types of weapons, if they choose to get one. Police agencies use these for a reason. They can't afford to be out gunned. Good people do go bad though. So just because someone has a clean record doesn't mean they won't go shoot up a place or whatever. If this were to happen they could have a VERY lethal and deadly weapon. Of course they can also have anything they choose. But if a clean record is present and they already own a AR then they have that as a possible weapon to cause harm. A ban would keep average joe schmoe from buying it but the criminals will have their ways of getting around that. So a ban isn't really gonna solve much. Especially since so little crime is commited with them (according to the link in the first page), although that source seems to have their own agenda just like anyone against/for something. In the end I don't think a ban is the way to go and I think A.W's are overkill.

By the way comparing these to paintball is like comparing Nascar to Indy racing. They have similarities but are two totally different things and styles.

[Buff]

uhm, saying bush was a coward in the Air guard as a pilot is stupid. You know how many people get killed in training accidents etc as pilots, ecspecially in single engine fighters? people die all the time in fighters.......

[Dragonfd3s]

Take a AR15, it looks bad *** and uses a .223 *5.56mm round that in the hunting world is considered a small game round. It has decent penetration for its caliber, but will not even penetrate a piece of 1in bullet proof glass.
Now go buy your self a 7mm Magnum hunting rifle and watch it tear a hole threw that same glass and kill the person standing behind it. Just because it looks like a military assault weapon doesn't mean anything. It's the person behind the weapon who does what he does. Ignorant people only judge things by the way they look and have no knowledge of what they are judging. These people are usually democrats.

[RoadDawg]

Take a AR15, it looks bad *** and uses a .223 *5.56mm round that in the hunting world is considered a small game round. It has decent penetration for its caliber, but will not even penetrate a piece of 1in bullet proof glass.
Now go buy your self a 7mm Magnum hunting rifle and watch it tear a hole threw that same glass and kill the person standing behind it. Just because it looks like a military assault weapon doesn't mean anything. It's the person behind the weapon who does what he does. Ignorant people only judge things by the way they look and have no knowledge of what they are judging. These people are usually democrats.

That last sentence your judging w/o much knowledge. I know several Democrats that love their guns. I know I'm not the only one in this country either. Yes there are some democrats that are for this ban, I bet there are some republicans (in office or not) that might be for it. In fact I'm quite often considered a liberal (minority on this board) but what people fail to realize is that not all liberal's are the same. No matter what some of you might think.

[Rooster]

"Yes there are some democrats that are for this ban, "

Far too many of them are in favor of it.

[Target Practice]

He does have a good point though. I mean, just look at an M1 Garand (the favorite in my collection). Here is a rifle with 8 shots of semi-auto .30-06. If your good at it, you can reload a Garand very quickly. This, to me, is scary as all hell. Well, it would be if I was on the recieving end of it. These aren't illegal, and I would rather take my chances with a .223 than with a .30-06. Uh oh. Time to go to Art, gotta run!

[RoadDawg]

He does have a good point though. I mean, just look at an M1 Garand (the favorite in my collection). Here is a rifle with 8 shots of semi-auto .30-06. If your good at it, you can reload a Garand very quickly. This, to me, is scary as all hell. Well, it would be if I was on the recieving end of it. These aren't illegal, and I would rather take my chances with a .223 than with a .30-06. Uh oh. Time to go to Art, gotta run!
I love M1's. My Uncle has one and the thing is smooth. My only problem with his is that it's not always working. I think it has something to do with the slide but I'm not positive as I'm not a gun tech. By the way my bro (now in afghanistan) owns a Chinese SKS. That thing is cool but overkill IMO.

[Dragonfd3s]

That last sentence your judging w/o much knowledge. I know several Democrats that love their guns. I know I'm not the only one in this country either. Yes there are some democrats that are for this ban, I bet there are some republicans (in office or not) that might be for it. In fact I'm quite often considered a liberal (minority on this board) but what people fail to realize is that not all liberal's are the same. No matter what some of you might think.

Perhaps you didn't see the "Usually" ie. "Majority" ie. "Not all but a larger %age of"

I was in the Army Reserves for 4 years and Active duty Army for 11 1/2 years. I was a Armorer for the last 8 of my active duty years and when I move back to the USA I intend to buy a AR15 because it is based on the M16. I put out groups the size of a dime with it at 25 meters and the size of a pie pan at 300 meters with open sights. It's light weight, accurate and would make a excellent small game rife. People only want to ban it because it looks like what the military uses, not because of what it really is.

Anything that throws a bullet can kill and more people are killed every year by wussy .22 long rifle rounds in cheap handguns and rifles than any other round there is. For this reason banning a rifle because it has a bayonet lug or heat shroud on the barrel is about as dumb as the people who though it up. When was the last time you saw somebody run in to a public place with a bayonet attached to a assault (military looking) rife and start stabbing people or thought to your self "O my god he can shoot a couple hundred rounds out of that thing and not burn his hand" or "If they shoot at me during the night I won't be able to tell where it's coming from because he has a flash suppressor". It all comes down to one thing "Ignorant People."

[Muzikman]

so you're saying the amendment wasn't created in an effort to stop possible foreign invasion by the british?

then explain why the quartering of troops amendment is in there...which is obviously DIRECTLY linked to foreign invasion.


Actually, the quartering of troops is in there because of the British, but from what happened in the past, not what will happen in the future. Think about it... It means that the US governament would not forcefully tell a civilian that they have to house US troops. If the British were to invade and want to take up quarters in some US civilians house, do you think they are going to go...oh no, we can't do that it's in THEIR constitution. Think about it for a minute...

[FactsOfLife]

That last sentence your judging w/o much knowledge. I know several Democrats that love their guns. I know I'm not the only one in this country either. Yes there are some democrats that are for this ban, I bet there are some republicans (in office or not) that might be for it. In fact I'm quite often considered a liberal (minority on this board) but what people fail to realize is that not all liberal's are the same. No matter what some of you might think.


If he had said Brain Dead Liberals he'd have been spot on.

99% of the Dems in congress voted for the ban.

The only Republicans that voted for it are borderline Democrats...

[rehme]

You need to watch shot size in that shotgun if you live in a subdivision.

00 buck can and will easily penetrate walls and can go through your neighbors house.

You're better off with #5-6 shot. Still lethal up close, less likely to have penetration problems.


well i would rather prefer milo loaded in a 12 gauge. of coarse it is not as deadly but you will keep them alive with an extreme amount of pain because the milo splits under the skin and is undeteable.

[Southpaw]

I was under the impression that you would rather have a high powered pistol to protect yourself in your home. A long rifle would be rather unwieldy in a CQB situation. Crooks have long stated that they would rather go against a man w/ a big as rifle he had swing around then a guy with a pistol that could line up shots faster.

I also thought getting shot by a handgun in close range sucks more, mainly because

1. The bullet doesn't alway come out
2. The bullet if it does come out, comes out as a big flatened mass that makes a big *** exit wound.
3. Rifles go out cleaner at close range.

Is this right?



Hand guns ARE part of this ban too. The ban limited the manufacture and importation of any clip that can hold more than 10 rounds. Now the funny thing is that handgun manufactures decided to make smaller handguns that could only accept 10 rounds. So when they banned "assault weapons" they indirectly made handguns MORE concealable.

[trains are bad]

Gun control is evil. I mean that in a very serious way.

So many are willing to trade loads of very real and important freedoms for the illusion of safety.

[Army]

Just to clarify;
An Assault Rifle, by definition, MUST have the ability to switch from semi (or single shot) auto mode, to fully automatic.

Anything else is simply a semi automatic, military look-alike rifle.

Technically, any bill or law that calls these rifles "Assault", is moot and unenforceable. Full-auto weapons have been federally controlled since 1934, requiring a permit and license for citizens to own, sell, and/or possess them in any manner.

Someone brought up the point of a hunting rifle is all we should have. All bolt action hunting rifles in regular use today, came from the original genius of Peter Paul Mauser, who designed the famous Mauser rifles for MILITARY USE. The ability to rapidly re-load a rifle was revolutionary, and was considered the "assault rifle" of it's day.....130 years ago.

The 2nd Amend says "arms", not guns. This means ANY weapon you use to defend home and country is included. Remove the 2nd, and all knives, swords, axes, picks, baseball bats, and shovels can legally be taken from you.