Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/2969952
Gimme a break Doc...I own a pistol, I don't even know what the hell it is, but it is for protection....You are going to tell me you need an "assault" weapon to protect yourself because of 9/11??? C'mon.
And spare we the founding fathers stuff too, its not 1787 anymore.

What do we need freedom of the press and speech for, it isn't 1787 anymore. Our government is very trust worthy.
What do we need the right to a fair trial for, after all the police do a bang up job in catching the correct person that committed the crimes with today's advances in tech. Lets skip this part. after all, it is 1787 anymore and times have changed.
Why do we need the fifth amendment for that matter, it is stupid. Nothing you say or do will ever be used against you anyway. People are trust worthy and don't judge.
And while we are at it, lets do away with the third as well. I mean after all no soldier has ever forced their way into our homes, obviously times have changed.
Let's get rid of the tenth as well. Times have changed and the federal government is paying for everything in the states currently anyway, so states no longer need rights.
Hope and Change.....................
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by keish24
http:///forum/post/2969793
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said
out of that article this is definately my favorite. so now we have our rights taken away in order to impact mexico.
This argument about mexico makes absolutely no sense what so ever. Has anyone ever walked into a bank in mexico and seen what the guards are carrying. It isn't a 45. They have assault shot guns, AK's, AR's all kinds of fun stuff. For them to say that it is easier to buy an assault rifle in the US and get it into mexico completely blows my mind.
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by JDL
http:///forum/post/2969880
I doubt the forefathers ever imagined weapons to be this advanced. It isnt a matter of why do you need one. I have one and i love it.
Assault weapons arent the weapon of choice for crime. Sure some are used, but the lovely handgun rules the criminal world. Banning assault weapons from the general public will do one thing, keep them in the hands of criminals only. There are many illegal weapons and other arsenal that is banned, yet easy to get or alter.
I'll turn the question around, why do you think anyone has the right to ban them?
I wanted to expand on this. I really, just don't see the point. As a percentage, assault rifles are probably the most illegally traded weapon out there (sure handguns have more volume, but as a %). If people wanted assault rifles, they could have easily got them.
Anyone remember Columbine? On April 20, 1999, five years after the ban on "assault weapons" went into effect, we had the Columbine massacre.
Or On February 28, 1997, three years after the law went into effect and supposedly "banned" these weapons from ownership, we had the North Hollywood Shootout, between the entire Los Angelas Police Department, and two bank robbers covered in body armor and armed with illegally procured AK-47s, M16s and at least one H&K-91, all with banned features like flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, folding stocks and pistol grips.
Or just like in 2007, without the ban, does anyones honestly think it would have prevented T.I. from the 47 weapons charges or whatever he had?
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2969797
2 points here...
(1) Why do you think that you have the "right" to have an assault weapon? Do you really think that this is what our forefathers contemplated when they drafted the 2nd amendment?
(2) This ban was already in place until its expiration in 2004. It was in place under Bush.
Please stop whining and crying like a bunch of children at every move the guy makes.

You really have no clue

Correct me if im wrong Crimzy,but arent you Jewish?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/2969809
Sorry VVV, but this might be the first thing of his I support....I see no reason for civilians to have "assault" weapons.
This is where I have a problem. There is no "reason" for the government to tell me what I can and can't have. Think about it this way. There is no reason for me to buy a car that goes 180 mph. I can buy a car that goes 85. And that is all I really "need" but I do it anyway. Should the government come in next and tell us there is no reason to buy a corvette and ban them?
Think about it, the similarities are there.
We don't need an AR-15.
We don't need a car that goes 180 mph.
Both can kill if not properly used.
both can be used by criminals.
The simple fact is, in all reality most "assault weapons" are nothing more than a semi-auto with a big clip and a long barrel. Unless you have special prohibitively EXPENSIVE licensing, almost impossible recommendations from local law enforcement. right now you for practical purposes can't have a fully auto weapon.
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2969813
Absolutely, read the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it explains it quite clearly. The citizenry is the final "check & balance", an unarmed citizenry cannot fulfill this role. Am I a pushing a revolution? no.
And it was a worthless law to begin with, served absolutely no purpose other than to satisfy a few control freaks (politicians)
Would you have said same to our Founding Fathers regarding every move King George III made? This is not about O, it's about any person(s) who tries to take my rights away, for any reason, at any time.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
The people you are addressing dont think the US Constitution is important anymore.
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2969986
This is where I have a problem. There is no "reason" for the government to tell me what I can and can't have. Think about it this way. There is no reason for me to buy a car that goes 180 mph. I can buy a car that goes 85. And that is all I really "need" but I do it anyway. Should the government come in next and tell us there is no reason to buy a corvette and ban them?
Think about it, the similarities are there.
We don't need an AR-15.
We don't need a car that goes 180 mph.
Both can kill if not properly used.
both can be used by criminals.
The simple fact is, in all reality most "assault weapons" are nothing more than a semi-auto with a big clip and a long barrel. Unless you have special prohibitively EXPENSIVE licensing, almost impossible recommendations from local law enforcement. right now you for practical purposes can't have a fully auto weapon.
FWIW, the 'standard' Corvette goes 186mph. The ZO6 goes 198mph, and the ZR-1 goes 205mph.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2969994
FWIW, the 'standard' Corvette goes 186mph. The ZO6 goes 198mph, and the ZR-1 goes 205mph.

180 or 186, my point is still the same. Either way going that fast on the hwy you're going to jail... I thought it was 188 for the "standard" corvette. But you are way more into modern cars than I am. So you're probably right.
 
kjr_trig

kjr_trig

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2969986
This is where I have a problem. There is no "reason" for the government to tell me what I can and can't have. Think about it this way. There is no reason for me to buy a car that goes 180 mph. I can buy a car that goes 85. And that is all I really "need" but I do it anyway. Should the government come in next and tell us there is no reason to buy a corvette and ban them?
Think about it, the similarities are there.
We don't need an AR-15.
We don't need a car that goes 180 mph.
Both can kill if not properly used.
both can be used by criminals.
The simple fact is, in all reality most "assault weapons" are nothing more than a semi-auto with a big clip and a long barrel. Unless you have special prohibitively EXPENSIVE licensing, almost impossible recommendations from local law enforcement. right now you for practical purposes can't have a fully auto weapon.

This is actually a good argument you have Rueben....I could care less about guns and weapons and blah blah blah, they are of no real interest to me. As a car nut I would certainly love to have a 911 Turbo that goes 180 mph, I could never use it for that other than to take it to the track, but under improper use it can also be highly dangerous....I'm not changing my mind completely, as I think an idiot redneck with an "assault weapon" is more dangerous than a millionare with a fast car, but a fair argument none the less.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/2970011
This is actually a good argument you have Rueben....I could care less about guns and weapons and blah blah blah, they are of no real interest to me. As a car nut I would certainly love to have a 911 Turbo that goes 180 mph, I could never use it for that other than to take it to the track, but under improper use it can also be highly dangerous....I'm not changing my mind completely, as I think an idiot redneck with an "assault weapon" is more dangerous than a millionare with a fast car, but a fair argument none the less.

That is all I ask. For most people, these are guy toys.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
None of my guns have ever assaulted anyone. How can an inanimate object assault somebody? This is just a word that these guns were given to make them sound evil in the eyes of the uninformed public. BAD GUYS DON'T OBEY LAWS!!!! It's crazy to think that removing a person's right to own a certain object will curb crime.
I have a .22 pistol that is classified as an "assault weapon" by the state of California because of the way the barrel is attached to the frame. I have to leave it in storage in Missouri.
Gun bans do not curb crime by civilians and there is plenty of data to back it up. Gun bans do, however, precede crimes committed by governments. This is undeniable, historic fact.
 
aquaknight

aquaknight

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2970009
180 or 186, my point is still the same. Either way going that fast on the hwy you're going to jail... I thought it was 188 for the "standard" corvette. But you are way more into modern cars than I am. So you're probably right.
Were you thinking 188mph is for the LS3 or LS2 powered Corvette?
186mph, is for the 400hp LS2 vette (2005-07). The new (08-current) 436hp vette, with LS3 w/DI cracks an even 190mph.
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/2970011
This is actually a good argument you have Rueben....I could care less about guns and weapons and blah blah blah, they are of no real interest to me. As a car nut I would certainly love to have a 911 Turbo that goes 180 mph, I could never use it for that other than to take it to the track, but under improper use it can also be highly dangerous....I'm not changing my mind completely, as I think an idiot redneck with an "assault weapon" is more dangerous than a millionare with a fast car, but a fair argument none the less.

Just doesn't take a millionare. That same redneck could also have a 86 Camaro, with $4,000 into a smallblock and go just as fast, if not faster (only straight line, of course), and be just as lethal.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/2970011
This is actually a good argument you have Rueben....I could care less about guns and weapons and blah blah blah, they are of no real interest to me. As a car nut I would certainly love to have a 911 Turbo that goes 180 mph, I could never use it for that other than to take it to the track, but under improper use it can also be highly dangerous....I'm not changing my mind completely, as I think an idiot redneck with an "assault weapon" is more dangerous than a millionare with a fast car, but a fair argument none the less.

Actually an idiot redneck usually has the ultimate respect for guns. You'd be surprised to see how people change their demeanor when handling a gun. There have been people that I'd said heeelll not I'm going shooting with you. Then go shooting and them be the guy who follows all the rules to a T.
what about a woman millionaire with a fast car....
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2969983
To shoot the SOB that tries to take away my rights given to me by our forefathers.
You are a prison sentence waiting to happen. Curious, what does being Jewish have to do with disliking assault weapons?
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970033
Curious, what does being Jewish have to do with disliking assault weapons?
Um...Hitler enacted gun bans on the premise of public safety. After the people were disarmed, he herded them like cattle to slaughter.
History needs to be taught in school. Obviously, our teachers are missing something.
This page shows a chart regarding disarmament and government atrocities...
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm
2nd amendment info...
http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970033
You are a prison sentence waiting to happen. Curious, what does being Jewish have to do with disliking assault weapons?
Maybe so ,but I wouldnt be violating any law that wherent set forth by "MY FOREFATHERS"If we continue taking a big left turn i may be forced to exercise my rights.
I think socal answered your question.Thats what i was referencing.
Here is some more words that you can play the what is the definition of "IS" with
Shall Not Be Infringed
infringe
One entry found.
Main Entry:
in·fringe Listen to the pronunciation of infringe
Pronunciation:
in-ˈfrinj
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology:
Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date:
1513
transitive verb1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>2obsolete : defeat , frustrateintransitive verb: encroach &#8212;used with on or upon<infringe on our rights>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top