heard obama is gonna reinact clintons gun bann?

[veni vidi vici]

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
JMO but while protecting yourself with the use of a Firearm the statement "including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people." is kind of a idiotic statement.One doesn't use a pillow to fend off a home invader.The use of deadly force with the assault/defence weapon would be my weapon of choice. And the purpose isn't necessarily to kill but to stop yourself and your family from being harmed.
Assault weapon Is a very broad and undefined description.
"The right to bear arms" PERIOD
I think enforcing current felony gun laws with stricter penalties would be a better deterrent as well as getting those that are a danger off the streets for a longer period of time.BTW most gun crimes are committed with hand guns,not "assault weapons"As far as i can tell any firearm could be described as a assault weapon.

 

[veni vidi vici]

I am curious ,maybe someone could answer this question for me.Did Firearms deaths due to crimes go down after the AWB went into effect?

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2831502
I am curious ,maybe someone could answer this question for me.Did Firearms deaths due to crimes go down after the AWB went into effect?
Actually it went up.

And your post is in line with what I think is more effective for debates.

 

[1knight164]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2831496
JMO but while protecting yourself with the use of a Firearm the statement "including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people." is kind of a idiotic statement.One doesn't use a pillow to fend off a home invader.The use of deadly force with the assault/defence weapon would be my weapon of choice. And the purpose isn't necessarily to kill but to stop yourself and your family from being harmed.
Assault weapon Is a very broad and undefined description.
"The right to bear arms" PERIOD
I think enforcing current felony gun laws with stricter penalties would be a better deterrent as well as getting those that are a danger off the streets for a longer period of time.BTW most gun crimes are committed with hand guns,not "assault weapons"As far as i can tell any firearm could be described as a assault weapon.
Excellent argument. I'm with you on this one. I think DC was substantial proof that gun bans don't work. If criminals have all the guns, they have no fear, unlike states where CCW permits are easily obtained. (Unfortunately for me, Cali is still holding out.)
Does anyone honestly believe stricter gun control will make it harder for criminals to get guns? IMO it only makes it harder to defend you and your family. Gun ownership makes for a great crime deterrent!

 

[yerboy]

the problem with weapon bans is that only the honest people will follow them. You think for one min that if Obama creats a gun ban that the criminals,and gang members ect are going to go turn in there handguns and assault rifles for fear of a felony weapons charge? nope it only takes the weapons out of the homes of the people who wish to protect themselfs leaving the criminals free rain over us. I guess if i have to turn in my AK-47 and my Glock i would just end up protecting my home with my 30-06 or my .270 or even my 12 guage, they dont shoot as fast as my AK but have much much more knock down power.

 

[bionicarm]

I personally don't understand some of you're logic. The issue is about banning guns that are considered 'assault rifles'. Not handguns, not shotguns, not sports rifles. You're concerned about not being able to keep a .50 caliber? What do you need a cannon like that for?

You think it's fun to put a hole the size of coffee can into a 75 pound whitetail deer? A .50caliber is bigger than an elephant gun. Sorry, that's not a sporting rifle. The only use for a .50 caliber is massive firing power to kill multiple targets. And you'd actually use this thing for home protection?

Yea, that's something I'd have sitting next to my bed. Let me fire off a round or two at a would be burglar. Only problem is you'd put a hole big enough to drive your car through in the side of your house,... and your neighbors house. "Oh sorry about blowing your arm off Fred. I was just trying to make sure the guy breaking into my house wasn't going to get away. Made sure he didn't. Blew his leg clean off."
Gun fanatics kill me. I'm all for home protection. I have the right guns to make sure if someone broke in, it would have enough killing power to put them down, but not enough to do major damage to my own property, or worse yet, my neighbor's property. There is absolutely no logic in having a 50-round AK47 for the sole purpose of saying you need it to protect your property. Yea, if someone broke in, you'd have plenty of ammo to kill the guy. But you'd most likely inflict more damage, and possibly injure more than just the burglar in the process.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831584
I personally don't understand some of you're logic. The issue is about banning guns that are considered 'assault rifles'. Not handguns, not shotguns, not sports rifles. You're concerned about not being able to keep a .50 caliber? What do you need a cannon like that for?

You think it's fun to put a hole the size of coffee can into a 75 pound whitetail deer?
Just a couple comments.
I prefer my .50 because the deer goes down instantly. No chasing it down, no chance of it wandering too far and suffering excessively. One shot to the base of the skull and that's it. I'm not using it for sport, I'm using it to harvest venison.
As far as 75 pound Whitetail, I usually go for Does, not fawns.
I agree, it would be a terrible weapon for home protection. That's what shotguns are for.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2831593
Just a couple comments.
I prefer my .50 because the deer goes down instantly. No chasing it down, no chance of it wandering too far and suffering excessively. One shot to the base of the skull and that's it. I'm not using it for sport, I'm using it to harvest venison.
As far as 75 pound Whitetail, I usually go for Does, not fawns.
I agree, it would be a terrible weapon for home protection. That's what shotguns are for.
Where do you live where they grow 75 pound fawns? The whitetails in the Texas Hill Country maybe get as big as 150 (seasoned buck), but that's pushing it. Most does here are 75 pounds tops.
So totally decapitating a deer is your idea of 'going down instantly'?
Guess so. Hope you do kill it. One shot from that cannon will scare the deer off in a 5-mile radius.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831584
I personally don't understand some of you're logic. The issue is about banning guns that are considered 'assault rifles'. Not handguns, not shotguns, not sports rifles. You're concerned about not being able to keep a .50 caliber? What do you need a cannon like that for?

You think it's fun to put a hole the size of coffee can into a 75 pound whitetail deer? A .50caliber is bigger than an elephant gun. Sorry, that's not a sporting rifle. The only use for a .50 caliber is massive firing power to kill multiple targets. And you'd actually use this thing for home protection?

Yea, that's something I'd have sitting next to my bed. Let me fire off a round or two at a would be burglar. Only problem is you'd put a hole big enough to drive your car through in the side of your house,... and your neighbors house. "Oh sorry about blowing your arm off Fred. I was just trying to make sure the guy breaking into my house wasn't going to get away. Made sure he didn't. Blew his leg clean off."
Gun fanatics kill me. I'm all for home protection. I have the right guns to make sure if someone broke in, it would have enough killing power to put them down, but not enough to do major damage to my own property, or worse yet, my neighbor's property. There is absolutely no logic in having a 50-round AK47 for the sole purpose of saying you need it to protect your property. Yea, if someone broke in, you'd have plenty of ammo to kill the guy. But you'd most likely inflict more damage, and possibly injure more than just the burglar in the process.
It is my 2nd Amendment right.No acception.It doesn't matter for any other reason as to why i should be able to own a Assault weapon other that i can .It is a guaranteed givin to me in the Constitution. Attacking the Second Amendment is the wrong way to go about lowering crime,and its been shown banning Firearms doesn't do it.Chicago and DC are prime examples.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Smoking is a much more dangerous assault weapon and causes more deaths than firearms.Why don't politicians go after that instead if they are so concerned? Ban Tobacco not guns! Or better yet ban neither and focus on more important issues.
The government just keep taking away your freedoms and no one seems to care.whats next ?Speech?"Fairness Doctrine".

 

[yerboy]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831584
There is absolutely no logic in having a 50-round AK47 for the sole purpose of saying you need it to protect your property. Yea, if someone broke in, you'd have plenty of ammo to kill the guy. But you'd most likely inflict more damage, and possibly injure more than just the burglar in the process.
I guess im good then i only use 2 30 round magazines.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831603
Where do you live where they grow 75 pound fawns? The whitetails in the Texas Hill Country maybe get as big as 150 (seasoned buck), but that's pushing it. Most does here are 75 pounds tops.
So totally decapitating a deer is your idea of 'going down instantly'?
Guess so. Hope you do kill it. One shot from that cannon will scare the deer off in a 5-mile radius.

OK, I can see that you're prone to exageration. The round doesn't take off the head, and folks around here consider 75 pounds a fawn. I'm in Western New York. The typical Doe I harvest is 130 - 150 pounds. A good buck is anything over 200 pounds. What's your idea of a good hunting rifle for big game? A .22? Maybe a .177 pellet gun. (see, exaggeration doesn't help anyone in a debate) Most people around here actually use a 12 gauge, they're just as loud as a .50 cal, only much less accurate.
Found this at the NY DEC website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/48214.html
"White-Tailed Deer
Despite its shy, elusive nature, the white-tailed deer is a common sight throughout much of New York State. Large animals, adult white-tails measure about 3 ½ feet tall at the shoulder and average about 150 pounds, but some can weigh up to 300 pounds. They tend to be most active in the early morning and evening. White-tails are able to run 40 miles per hour, jump nine foot fences and swim 13 miles per hour."

 

[sharkbait9]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2831593
Just a couple comments.
I prefer my .50 because the deer goes down instantly. No chasing it down, no chance of it wandering too far and suffering excessively. One shot to the base of the skull and that's it. I'm not using it for sport, I'm using it to harvest venison.
As far as 75 pound Whitetail, I usually go for Does, not fawns.
I agree, it would be a terrible weapon for home protection. That's what shotguns are for.
could not have said it better

 

[sharkbait9]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2831199
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIHhEAnce9s&NR=1

Nice video.
glock 17 nice pistol, too not for the limp wrister. Give credit thou, he was able to BF and not collaps his wrist

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2831651
OK, I can see that you're prone to exageration. The round doesn't take off the head, and folks around here consider 75 pounds a fawn. I'm in Western New York. The typical Doe I harvest is 130 - 150 pounds. A good buck is anything over 200 pounds. What's your idea of a good hunting rifle for big game? A .22? Maybe a .177 pellet gun. (see, exaggeration doesn't help anyone in a debate) Most people around here actually use a 12 gauge, they're just as loud as a .50 cal, only much less accurate.
Found this at the NY DEC website: http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/48214.html
"White-Tailed Deer
Despite its shy, elusive nature, the white-tailed deer is a common sight throughout much of New York State. Large animals, adult white-tails measure about 3 ½ feet tall at the shoulder and average about 150 pounds, but some can weigh up to 300 pounds. They tend to be most active in the early morning and evening. White-tails are able to run 40 miles per hour, jump nine foot fences and swim 13 miles per hour."

Must be eating all that garbage coming from NYC...
Yea, I heard you people up north like to stalk deer. Sneak up on them and blow their guts out with a shotgun. We make it easy. We just feed them deer corn for a couple of months, setup a blind 100 yards away, and pick them off when they come to eat every morning.
I've taken a 250 lb. mule deer down with my AR-15 (.223). Guess if you know where to shoot them, it doesn't take major power to bring them down.

 

[sharkbait9]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831742
Must be eating all that garbage coming from NYC...
Yea, I heard you people up north like to stalk deer. Sneak up on them and blow their guts out with a shotgun.
UUMMM thats why its called hunting

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831742
We make it easy. We just feed them deer corn for a couple of months, setup a blind 100 yards away, and pick them off when they come to eat every morning.
Ok

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831742
I've taken a 250 lb. mule deer down with my AR-15 (.223). Guess if you know where to shoot them, it doesn't take major power to bring them down.

Sure on a still target that knows feed is always in the same spot for months on end with out being bothered, does make for an easy target.
I doubt that a .223 round drops them at the MOI with having to follow a blood trail. I'll even give it to you that the deers legs buckled at the MOI did you have rifle on a bench or a rifle pod?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by sharkbait9
http:///forum/post/2831784
UUMMM thats why its called hunting

Ok

Sure on a still target that knows feed is always in the same spot for months on end with out being bothered, does make for an easy target.
I doubt that a .223 round drops them at the MOI with having to follow a blood trail. I'll even give it to you that the deers legs buckled at the MOI did you have rifle on a bench or a rifle pod?
No , it's stalking. Never understood the concept of using a shotgun for hunting deer. Nothing like digging a couple hundred pellets out of good meat.
I've dropped numerous deer with a .223. Didn't move 5 feet from where they were standing when I hit them. I go for under the left front shoulder area. Blow out the heart. I either hunt from a wooden deer blind on the ground, or in a tree stand. In the ground blind, I have a small window that I observe the areas they cross in the mornings. Use a small ledge to prop my arm on to steady my gun. Tree blind is using less than 50 yards from feeding area. If I have a limb to prop my gun on, I do. Otherwise, it's just hold steady.

 

[reefreak29]

oooh I got you all beat I just use my hands and kill em dead with 1 blow ,now thats hunting pansys

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831584
I personally don't understand some of you're logic. The issue is about banning guns that are considered 'assault rifles'. Not handguns, not shotguns, not sports rifles.
False.
I own a .22 cal rimfire pistol that I am not able to posess here in Ca because of it's assault weapon classifiation.
It is in storge in Missouri with a couple of my rifles that I was not allowed to bring with me when I moved to Ca.
The factory original design by Walther (out of the box configuration) fits California's description of an assault weapon. You guys need to quit kiding yourselves. This is a GUN ban, not a feature ban. Evil features are just the tool used by liberals to ban the weapon and people found a way around it by reconfiguring an existing weapon. I.E. start building AR15 barrels that are not threaded, permanently affixing magazines that hold no more than 10 rounds, lock the collapsible stock and so on. The weapon as it came from the factory in 1993 was illegal to sell in 1994. Effictively the weapon was banned. Features of the weapon were changed for 1994 models so manufacturers could still sell them.
California bans some weapons by make and model, thus banning the weapon regardless of configuration.
I'll post the list of firearms banned by make and model. Features were not banned, guns were.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf
If anyone thinks that the next AW ban will be as mild as the first needs to wake up and smell the BACON. (CFR, that one's for you)

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2831795
No , it's stalking. Never understood the concept of using a shotgun for hunting deer. Nothing like digging a couple hundred pellets out of good meat.
That's why you use a slug and push it through a rifled barrel.