Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2976102
I love how you assume I look things up. But whatever. I am not the one claiming to know the ins and outs of assault weapons..With that said.....I didn't say I never owned a gun. Grew up on a farm, had a military family...shot more guns by 12 than most people do their entire lives. I owned a .38 snub revolver and a colt .45 semi-automatic. Then I had kids and made the decision I wouldn't ever feel comfortable with the guns in the house with the kids as well. My personal choice and preference....atleast until they get older. Someday I would like to purchase a few assault rifles when they get older (the youngest is 5 now) and teach them the same way my father taught me. But I feel I need to wait 5 more years at minimum.
But just because I do not own one of these weapons does not mean I can not have an opinion and weigh in on them. Saying I can't have an opinion on this is like me saying you can't have an opinion on gay marriage, since you are not gay and don't live the gay lifestyle.....dumb.
I know the basic principals on how guns work and need to be cleaned....can I list every part in an AR-15...no.....but then again, I am not the one claiming to be the gun expert.....like you are.

I never claimed to be a gun expert. Yes. I know quite a bit about them, considering I've own them since I was 8, and my brother owned a gun shop for several years. Do I know the inner workings of most firearms? To some degree. But I've never been a gunsmith.
Wow, teaching your kids how to properly use an assault rifle. Now there's a weapon I see parents use as an introductory to firearms.
Why the grand desire to teach them how to use an AK-47, as opposed to a Remington BDL bolt action, or a revolver? Think it'll give them a rush spraying a target with multiple bullets? Sorry, I don't get the logic behing that reasoning.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
From the CA assault rigle law:
Category I assault weapons are those specifically named by make and model in Penal Code §12276 (and echoed in California Code of Regulation §979.10). These firearms are assault weapons at even the bare receiver/frame level – regardless of any particular characteristic features. Thus an Uzi receiver would be banned by name, but a similar Group Industries receiver would be legal (as long as offending Category III features were not added).
Category II assault weapons consist of the AR15 and AK “series” of firearms. While AR and AK series were named in the original Roberti-Roos laws, due to various key court decisions about “series” membership it’s useful to refer to them as their own category, those these guns really have just fallen back into the Roberti-Roos list once listed by DOJ.
Category III assault weapons are defined by characteristic features listed in PC 12276.1:
RIFLES:
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:
▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action
▪ a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;
▪ a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;
▪ a forward pistol grip.
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches;
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding over 10 rounds.
PISTOLS:
A semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of the following:
▪ a threaded barrel;
▪ a second handgrip;
▪ capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip;
▪ a shroud attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing
bearer to fire weapon without burning his/her hand, except for a slide enclosing
the barrel;
A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine having capacity to accept over 10 rounds.
SHOTGUNS:
A semiautomatic shotgun having both of the following:
▪ a folding or telescoping stock;
▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
a thumbhole stock, or a vertical handgrip.
A semiautomatic shotgun with the ability to accept detachable magazines;
Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Look at the rifle defintion. This include almost all WWII semi auto rifles M-1 Carbine, M1- Garand ( 8 round end block clip). In fact the paratrooper version of the M-1 Carbine is specifically outlawed based on it's folding stock. Again the Carbine would not be much of an "exotic" weapon. Most collectors of WWII guns would have at least 1 of these.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2976166
The political definition of "assault rifle" can include firearms like the WWII era M-1 Carbine. 10's of thousand who own that evil weapon. It even fires a pistol type cartridge. The M-1 Carbine would be considered by most a "standard" gun owned for its historic and collection value.
To answer your question most gun owners would be affected based on the political definition of "assault rifle".
As to abortion and gay marriage, which ammendment gives these "rights"? Given the preamble to the Declaration of Independance, ( Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness) you should throw out abortion, maybe consider gay marriage, but you mention both, and our founding documents do not support abortion.
There's exceptions to every rule. The M-1, the AR-15, I've seen used for many sports-related events - hunting, target shooting, etc. But like I said, design a program for bullet signature for any of these weapons, and you can have as many as you want.
If you really feel your rights are being infringed, CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN AND COMPLAIN. Demand they put this controversial issue up for a national vote. Let Americans choose whether assault weapons should be banned or not. Don't allow a minority group of lobbyists or PAC's determine what over 300 million should have a say in.
Give me your definition of Liberty, as in 'personal liberties'.
What other Constitutional Amendments?
How about the 9th - Unenumerated rights?
Now there's a broad term you can argue about.
the 15th - Suffrage no longer restricted by race
There's always the debate whether gays could be considered a race (they are more of a minority group), but the intentions of the 15th were to no longer restrict a specific group because of their race or personal beliefs.
The point I'm making is you don't want the government to take away your rights as to what type of guns you can buy. You use the 2nd Amendment as your basis, but that amendment has been picked apart so much by both sides, you'll never agree either way how it should be interpreted. So then you base your argument on if they take this right away, what else will they take? That's where the gay community and Pro-Choice advocates could agree with you. You don't want The Government taking away your right to choose how you live your life, and what you can or can't do with it. Neither do these two groups. You may not agree with their views, but you can't have it both ways.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2976173
From the CA assault rigle law:
Category I assault weapons are those specifically named by make and model in Penal Code §12276 (and echoed in California Code of Regulation §979.10). These firearms are assault weapons at even the bare receiver/frame level – regardless of any particular characteristic features. Thus an Uzi receiver would be banned by name, but a similar Group Industries receiver would be legal (as long as offending Category III features were not added).
Category II assault weapons consist of the AR15 and AK “series” of firearms. While AR and AK series were named in the original Roberti-Roos laws, due to various key court decisions about “series” membership it’s useful to refer to them as their own category, those these guns really have just fallen back into the Roberti-Roos list once listed by DOJ.
Category III assault weapons are defined by characteristic features listed in PC 12276.1:
RIFLES:
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of:
▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously below the weapon’s action
▪ a thumbhole stock or folding or telescopic stock;
▪ a flash suppressor, grenade launcher or flare launcher;
▪ a forward pistol grip.
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with overall length of less than 30 inches;
A semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine holding over 10 rounds.
PISTOLS:
A semiautomatic pistol capable of accepting detachable magazines and any of the following:
▪ a threaded barrel;
▪ a second handgrip;
▪ capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside the pistol grip;
▪ a shroud attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel allowing
bearer to fire weapon without burning his/her hand, except for a slide enclosing
the barrel;
A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine having capacity to accept over 10 rounds.
SHOTGUNS:
A semiautomatic shotgun having both of the following:
▪ a folding or telescoping stock;
▪ a pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon,
a thumbhole stock, or a vertical handgrip.
A semiautomatic shotgun with the ability to accept detachable magazines;
Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Look at the rifle defintion. This include almost all WWII semi auto rifles M-1 Carbine, M1- Garand ( 8 round end block clip). In fact the paratrooper version of the M-1 Carbine is specifically outlawed based on it's folding stock. Again the Carbine would not be much of an "exotic" weapon. Most collectors of WWII guns would have at least 1 of these.
Classic example of restrictions at a state level. If this is such a big issue, how many people in the State of California are up in arms about these laws? Why isn't there this national attention about these restrictions? Until you posted them here, I never knew California had a ban of this type. Contact your State Representative. Demand a popular vote on the issue. If Californian's can get Proposition 8 on the ballot, this one should be a no brainer. Unless the majority of Californian's could care less.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976196
Classic example of restrictions at a state level. If this is such a big issue, how many people in the State of California are up in arms about these laws? Why isn't there this national attention about these restrictions? Until you posted them here, I never knew California had a ban of this type. Contact your State Representative. Demand a popular vote on the issue. If Californian's can get Proposition 8 on the ballot, this one should be a no brainer. Unless the majority of Californian's could care less.

You were stating that these restrictions were only affecting about 3% of gun owners. I clearly showed a direct infringement on the 2nd Amendment on many more than 3% of gun owners.
I do not and will never live in the Socialist Republic of California; however, we are trying to take the Ca rules and make them federal regulations and laws. Under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid regime, we are all headed to Ca.
Remember they know better than you.
 
scsinet

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976088
I want to buy dynamite, grenades, nitro glycerine. I imagine I could obtain these devices if I provided the proper documentation. Same thing could happen with these assault weapons.

But of course that means there's CONDITIONS to the purchase of these guns. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. Exactly what right from the Constitution does that infringe?
This is just a twist on your earlier argument... instead of "What's the point of assault weapons anyway," now its "What's the harm in making people 'prove how badly they want it by having to fill out piles of paperwork'"
My response is the same. Unless there is some reason for doing so that can be factually ascertained, then it shouldn't be done.
In the end, you have no facts to back your claims; you're assuming that these things will have a benefit, and since you don't stand to be negatively impacted by implementing them, you support it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... you thinking something or you not seeing the point in something is insufficient. Pass laws based on facts, not on opinions.
I have an opinion that online handles with the word "bionic" in them increase crime and should be banned. I have no facts whatsoever to back them up, nor do I have any interest in ever creating a handle with "bionic" in it myself. Ergo I support a ban.
How much sense does that make?
Like I said towards the beginning of this thread. You want one of these so bad? Make it a requirement to shoot several bullets out of the gun before purchase. Put pictures of the fired bullets in a national database. If your gun is traced back to ANY crime by comparing the bullet at the crime scene, to your bullet in the database, you get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law based on the crime whether it was you or anyone else that used your weapon for that crime. You and your future generations can still buy these weapons, you just better make darn sure it doesn't leave your possession unless you want it to (selling it legally to someone else).
You know as well as I do that this is nothing more than a rose by another name.
Such laws and regulations only serve as a deterrent to law abiders, because we all know full well that it's ultimately impossible to prevent something from being stolen. What's next? If your car is stolen and used for the commission of a crime, you can be changed with that crime?
Ultimately, anything can be stolen. When that happens, you are the victim, not the criminal.
Out of the approximately 97% who buy the traditional guns, probably less than 10% of those would have any interest in purchasing said exotic and non-standard guns. So exactly how many people would actually be affected by this ban?
Typical liberal viewpoint: It only affects a [insert seemingly miniscule figure here]. So a law against it shouldn't be a problem!
It wouldn't matter to me if this ban only affected ONE person. I'd still feel the same way.
At the same time, I find it interesting how on one hand you claim that assault weapons are such a huge problem, yet you also readily flip it around and downplay the number of people who are actually purchasing them...
So which is it... a huge problem or a small problem?

Now I'm sure journey or the other statistitions on this forum will want exact and factual numbers.
OH HORRORS! Facts? Facts are for losers!
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976172
I never claimed to be a gun expert. Yes. I know quite a bit about them, considering I've own them since I was 8, and my brother owned a gun shop for several years. Do I know the inner workings of most firearms? To some degree. But I've never been a gunsmith.
Wow, teaching your kids how to properly use an assault rifle. Now there's a weapon I see parents use as an introductory to firearms.
Why the grand desire to teach them how to use an AK-47, as opposed to a Remington BDL bolt action, or a revolver? Think it'll give them a rush spraying a target with multiple bullets? Sorry, I don't get the logic behing that reasoning.
did I say AK-47? I personally prefer the Ruger mini 14. more practical in it's range of uses, like hunting......yet still classified as an assault rifle.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976196
Classic example of restrictions at a state level. If this is such a big issue, how many people in the State of California are up in arms about these laws?
You are not allowed to use the term "up in arms" as we do not have that right. Many, Many people are trying to change it.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976196
Why isn't there this national attention about these restrictions?
National liberal media WILL NOT give this issue any attention. How much attention is the prop 8 battle receiving. Even though it passed, Prop 8 is tied up in court challenges. The fact that the proposition passed carries no weight. The vote of the people is being challenged and is in danger of being null and void. Liberals in charge at the state level are allowing the liberal courts to suppress the will of the people. WHY EVEN VOTE WHEN THE LIBERAL COURTS OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?!!
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976196
Until you posted them here, I never knew California had a ban of this type. Contact your State Representative. Demand a popular vote on the issue. If Californian's can get Proposition 8 on the ballot, this one should be a no brainer. Unless the majority of Californian's could care less.

California doesn't want you to know. Liberal politicians want to hide this from the rest of the country.
The 2nd Amendment rights taken away by the state of California did not go away in one massive initiative. They were chipped and hacked at little by little so as not to raise eyebrows. "It's all for the good of the people" was rammed down our throats. I contact my reps regularly and the liberal ones send back a pretyped blanket letter stating that while they are sympathetic to my cause, they are considering the greater good. We already know that statistically, gun bans don't work. They are feeding me a lie to make themselves feel better about stripping me of my rights.
Here is a link to a California based gun forum concerning the California legal battle concerning gun rights. These people are the last bastion of hope for the livelihood of the Second Amendment in California. I salute them.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...splay.php?f=71
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2976307
National liberal media WILL NOT give this issue any attention. How much attention is the prop 8 battle receiving. Even though it passed, Prop 8 is tied up in court challenges. The fact that the proposition passed carries no weight. The vote of the people is being challenged and is in danger of being null and void. Liberals in charge at the state level are allowing the liberal courts to suppress the will of the people. WHY EVEN VOTE WHEN THE LIBERAL COURTS OVERTURN THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE?!!
California doesn't want you to know. Liberal politicians want to hide this from the rest of the country.
The 2nd Amendment rights taken away by the state of California did not go away in one massive initiative. They were chipped and hacked at little by little so as not to raise eyebrows. "It's all for the good of the people" was rammed down our throats. I contact my reps regularly and the liberal ones send back a pretyped blanket letter stating that while they are sympathetic to my cause, they are considering the greater good. We already know that statistically, gun bans don't work. They are feeding me a lie to make themselves feel better about stripping me of my rights.
Here is a link to a California based gun forum concerning the California legal battle concerning gun rights. These people are the last bastion of hope for the livelihood of the Second Amendment in California. I salute them.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...splay.php?f=71
How has the gun ban worked out in Compton, South Beach, Watts, or South Central?
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Links for people that are genuinely concerned about California's overly restrictive gun laws...
List of "California approved" handguns deemed safe by every other state in The Union. Ca says ANY other handgun is unsafe and therefore unfit to own. If the handgun is not on this list, I can't go to the sporting goods store and buy one.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12125.php
Please look at this and take note that this rifle DOES NOT COME WITH GREDADES, but a barrel capable of launching a grenade which is not obtainable.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/zastava.php
Banned Rifles...
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/50bmg.php
Banned guns
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf
Banned guns
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf
This makes it LEGAL for any law enforcement personnel OR EMPLOYEES OF CERTAIN AGENCIES to PRIVATELY PURCHASE a weapon that the State of California has DENIED me the right to purchase. This is a private sale to an individual, NOT department use! Why can the guy that mows the lawn for Parks and Rec own a weapon that I cannot?!!
This article discusses the features that make a weapon an "assualt weapon" and how the weapon and the owner are affected.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/0...lly-prohibits/
I could literally spend hours posting links like these. If anyone wants me to continue, just ask.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2976371
It has given hardened criminals free reign over these areas.
Next question please.
Some of you might find this article interesting. I studies the psychology of gun control advocates.
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/0...gun-mentality/

Washington DC?
My dad gave me a Daisy BB gun at 5. I got a long lecture on when and how to use it. My next gun was a Inland M-1 Carbine ( an assault rifle in CA). by the age of 16 I was shooting in the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio. I even won my division in a National Match in 1986 at the age of 17. This is high power rifle open sights with a M-1 Garand. I shot 200,300 and 600 yards. I then bought my first gun through the DCM, a M-1 Garand.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2976272
This is just a twist on your earlier argument... instead of "What's the point of assault weapons anyway," now its "What's the harm in making people 'prove how badly they want it by having to fill out piles of paperwork'"
My response is the same. Unless there is some reason for doing so that can be factually ascertained, then it shouldn't be done.
In the end, you have no facts to back your claims; you're assuming that these things will have a benefit, and since you don't stand to be negatively impacted by implementing them, you support it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again... you thinking something or you not seeing the point in something is insufficient. Pass laws based on facts, not on opinions.
I have an opinion that online handles with the word "bionic" in them increase crime and should be banned. I have no facts whatsoever to back them up, nor do I have any interest in ever creating a handle with "bionic" in it myself. Ergo I support a ban.
How much sense does that make?
You know as well as I do that this is nothing more than a rose by another name.
Such laws and regulations only serve as a deterrent to law abiders, because we all know full well that it's ultimately impossible to prevent something from being stolen. What's next? If your car is stolen and used for the commission of a crime, you can be changed with that crime?
Ultimately, anything can be stolen. When that happens, you are the victim, not the criminal.
Typical liberal viewpoint: It only affects a [insert seemingly miniscule figure here]. So a law against it shouldn't be a problem!
It wouldn't matter to me if this ban only affected ONE person. I'd still feel the same way.
At the same time, I find it interesting how on one hand you claim that assault weapons are such a huge problem, yet you also readily flip it around and downplay the number of people who are actually purchasing them...
So which is it... a huge problem or a small problem?

OH HORRORS! Facts? Facts are for losers!
Read my previous posts. You have your viewpoint on the issue, I have mine. Apparently we'll agree to disagree. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. You have your interpretations, I have mine. Pretty much the norm for any controversial issue that arises in this country (abortion, gay marriage, gun ban, etc.). Next argument please...
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2976408
Washington DC?
DC? That's this link...
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/0...ation-efforts/
"Gun control is the faulty idea that criminals who ignore the laws against murder, ----, or robbery will somehow obey a law that prohibits them from having a gun.
Cities such as the District of Columbia and Chicago have had handgun bans for decades, yet their crime rates have been among the worst in the country. That is because a criminal willing to commit serious felonies such as murder will not be deterred by gun control laws. Instead, these criminals will buy their guns on the black market or steal guns (often from the police). Criminals don’t obey laws, whether it is the law against armed robbery, home invasion, or the laws against gun possession."
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2976409
Read my previous posts. You have your viewpoint on the issue, I have mine. Apparently we'll agree to disagree. I won't change your mind, you won't change mine. You have your interpretations, I have mine. Pretty much the norm for any controversial issue that arises in this country (abortion, gay marriage, gun ban, etc.). Next argument please...

You are willing to give rights to special interests like the gays and abortionists, yet when a right is CLEARLY expressed in the Constitution you stand against it.
 
socal57che

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2976421
You are willing to give rights to special interests like the gays and abortionists, yet when a right is CLEARLY expressed in the Constitution you stand against it.
I think you pretty well summed it up.
 
jp30338

jp30338

Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2976421
You are willing to give rights to special interests like the gays and abortionists, yet when a right is CLEARLY expressed in the Constitution you stand against it.
What is wrong with that?
 
jp30338

jp30338

Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2976316
How has the gun ban worked out in Compton, South Beach, Watts, or South Central?
Yet another sterotypical response from the right...Your speaking from the days of the early 90's, it is not like what you think it is these days...Have you ever even been there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top