Assault Rifle Ban

[tnip23]

The items in the Bill of Rights were written as a protection for the people from the Gov't. The Bill of Rights limits the gov't and what it can do to the individual citizen and that's why each one is so important. If those who support gun control viewed the 2nd amendment as they do the 1st, guns wouldn't be banned, there ownership would be mandatory. Thomas Jefferson is quoted ad infinitum by those on the left side of the political spectrum, yet even Jefferson viewed the gov't as a necessary evil, i.e. something that should be limited in scope and power and subordinate to the rights of the individual.

coffeemoney is + 1


Nicely put.

[elderboy02]

Originally Posted by ahc4353

coffeemoney is + 1


Nicely put.

Yep. Nicely said coffeemoney!

[croatan]

My thoughts on "assault weapons":

1. Just because a firearm looks scary, doesn't make it so. "Assault rifles" aren't automatic weapons--they just look like 'em.

2. A bolt action rifle with a scope in the hands of anyone who's a halfway decent shot is far more deadly than a AR15 with a full magazine.

3. And at close range, give me a pump-action shotgun full of 00 Buck over my MAC-91.

I see as much utility in an "assault weapons" ban as I do in taking my shoes off to get on an airplane. I think prohibitions like that basically come down to making folks feel more safe and secure--even though that feeling is merely illusory. I haven't read about any proposed new legislation or initiatives and hope that they don't appear because, ultimately, I believe that they're pointless.

[elderboy02]

Originally Posted by croatan

My thoughts on "assault weapons":

1. Just because a firearm looks scary, doesn't make it so. "Assault rifles" aren't automatic weapons--they just look like 'em.

2. A bolt action rifle with a scope in the hands of anyone who's a halfway decent shot is far more deadly than a AR15 with a full magazine.

3. And at close range, give me a pump-action shotgun full of 00 Buck over my MAC-91.

I see as much utility in an "assault weapons" ban as I do in taking my shoes off to get on an airplane. I think prohibitions like that basically come down to making folks feel more safe and secure--even though that feeling is merely illusory. I haven't read about any proposed new legislation or initiatives and hope that they don't appear because, ultimately, I believe that they're pointless.

Agreed on all accounts. Very nicely put!

[Genetic Defect]

I'm staying out of this thread

[Ashcan Bill]

Originally Posted by Tombstone

What does everyone think about the inevitable assault rifle ban. After this ban is passed do you think that there will be a slippery slope in regards to banning all firearms?

As far as the original post, I see:

2009-2010 - Congress starts passing gun bans again.

2011 - Congress has a new look as a result of the 2010 elections.

They seem to have a very steep learning curve.

[M1903A1]

Originally Posted by Ashcan Bill

As far as the original post, I see:

2009-2010 - Congress starts passing gun bans again.

2011 - Congress has a new look as a result of the 2010 elections.

They seem to have a very steep learning curve.

Reminds me of something I read in a political mag years ago. In essence:

Gun control grants temporary points, but earns permanent enemies.

Owning a rifle or handgun is a fundamental right but not sure what is right about owning an assault rifle? If you agree with an automatic weapon then where is the line? RPG's, grenades, etc.? I seriously doubt they will ever outlaw the guns but as was said, ammunitions will be targeted. Sheesh,,,I need my own island!

[Starchild]

Originally Posted by Cigary

Owning a rifle or handgun is a fundamental right but not sure what is right about owning an assault rifle? If you agree with an automatic weapon then where is the line? RPG's, grenades, etc.? I seriously doubt they will ever outlaw the guns but as was said, ammunitions will be targeted. Sheesh,,,I need my own island!

This a major misconception on the "Assault" weapons issue. We are not talking about automatic weapons. Those are illegal for all but a few specially licensed people. What we are talking about is semi-automatic weapons that LOOK like their automatic brethren. If you read the definition of "assault" weapon that was used in the previous ban, the only difference between a hunting rifle and an "assault" weapon is how it looks (i.e. two or more features including grip, stock, etc.) and the capacity of the magazine. They function the same as a semi-automatic hunting rifle. The term assault weapon is very subjective and many people believe that it refers to full automatic "machine guns". It does not. Those are already very heavily regulated.

With that clarification, I am totally against the talked about ban. I don't feel the need to own one, but I should have the right if I so choose.

[Smokin Gator]

Originally Posted by Starchild

With that clarification, I am totally against the talked about ban. I don't feel the need to own one, but I should have the right if I so choose.

Well said and that is exactly how I feel.

I have a number of weapons in my house. I have a loaded Mossberg 500 right next to my bed. I have a Ruger 357 in my truck. I carry a SW 38 nearly all the time. I have a concealed weapons permit. I certainly feel like in today's climate that is MORE than enough to defend my property and my family. I see no need to have an "assault" rifle. I certainly hope the day never comes when, in our country, I see the need to have one.

I can't sleep so I might as well chime in.

I think the 2nd is pretty simple, it's no if ands or buts. I know some people like to argue well advancements in power have changed that, but back then it was musket to musket. If the gov pulled something that caused a revolt it was a fair match.

Now, pretend tomorrow something that bad goes down, you got your Rem 700 from wal mart vs a F22? Yea, not a fair fight.

I think the founding fathers saw how great ideas even their own were not perfect and if they were wrong with the idea of a democratic republic, the people can fix that if it gets that nasty.

I know things have changed so much by then and I think a ICBM is still a bit much to compete against and the cost kinda keeps it out of the hands of well anyone.

I think it was a way to keep the government in check and through changes in technology culture etc that right has been whittled away.

I think instead of the government spending so much time and effort trying to keep themselves safe from us, how about run well you'd have nothing to feel if so many of us didn't feel trampled on.

I think we all know or can find out about the CA 50 cal ban. They admit it's not been used in a crime ever but still a no no. So what good does that too? Where do you want to draw that line? Why even draw a line? Should we out law the common cold, it's killed a lot of people this year.

I'm trying to expand on the short sightedness of gun bans as you've seen in countries that have had them. Let's pretend, you ban all guns and magically they are gone not even crooks can get them. Now Joe thief comes with a ninja sword, out law them, then he's there with a base ball bat....

Please forgive me if this is a ramble but It's 0320 and I can't sleep lol.

[elderboy02]

Just for the people that didn't know... the Supreme Court of the United States ruled this summer that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES an individual right to posess a firearm.

[WyoBob]

Originally Posted by elderboy02

Just for the people that didn't know... the Supreme Court of the United States ruled this summer that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES an individual right to posess a firearm.

Are these the same guys who ruled that we don't really have any personal property rights? Hmm, I'm not going to sleep any better tonight.

Misc. ramblings. Answer to the question, "Why do you feel it's necessary to carry a gun." Answer, "Because I can't stuff a cop in my pocket".

If I give up my guns, will the president, vice. pres, movie stars, ceo's and all of the other "anointed" give up their Secret Service agents and body guards?

If you were the present Congress with a 20 percent (give or take) approval rating, would you want the "people" to be armed?

If total government control equals "safety" why are prisons such dangerous places?

WyoBob

[Sancho]

Wyobob, I think I read that same handout somewhere once before Of course all are valid points, and I certainly have made my own decisions on this a while ago.

[spectrrr]

I have a few things to say. They are different enough that I will put them in seperate posts, to break it up and make it a little easier to read for folks. This is an issue that I feel fairly strongly about, so I will probably ramble a bit.

Originally Posted by elderboy02

Just for the people that didn't know... the Supreme Court of the United States ruled this summer that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES an individual right to posess a firearm.

unfortunately, now they are just going around the back door. if something like the previously disscussed 500% tax were to go into effect, it would have a very similar effect.

Guns work because people have them. LOTS of people. Make it a rich man's hobby, and now the common person will not be able to afford it, even if "technically" he is still allowed it.

same end result.

Just a quick note on the CA 50cal ban. This is ridiculous and is already bypassed by a gun that has identical ballistics. Another rich man's toy, but useful for shooting through concrete walls.

My View on automatic weapons :
Waste of ammo, there is always more air than meat....unless the zombies are really really close. but if you want to own one, pay the fee's and you can have your M2.

Q:Why do I need a collapsible stock carbine commonly referred to as an "assault rifle"
A: it's the weapon I have spent the majority of my time with, it can touch 300 meters* if needed, yet I can clear my house with it and ballistic ammunition and not worry about hitting my neighbors
*anything beyond this. Savage Bolt Action .308, you pick which eye.

I have long attempted corrected people's belief that the second Amendment refers to hunting, grocery shopping in the woods, I feel it has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, but the protection of my land, property and family from those that would do them harm. When referencing the "savages attacking settlers" how are they any different than the man who kicked down the door of the woman living 2 blocks from me and she shot him 3 times with a .38.

The MAN himself said this:

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”-Jeff Cooper Meaning, you try and hurt my family or me, Mel Gibson in all of his Braveheart/The Patriot fury will seem like childs play when I'm done.


Thomas Jefferson said:
The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government.

Da Klugs you have got to be kidding me!?!?! you're telling me you wouldn't own an F-15 given the money and the option!?!? Personally I'd go for an A-10.

As far as *THE BAN* goes.. I don't think anyone dressed in black with sunglasses is going to come knock on my door to take my guns, do I think that within the next four years a reprise of the '94 ban' will make a come back? yes. Am I burying my some of my guns and ammo in a concrete bunker hidden in my backyard? no. but now that i think about it...

The right of free speech, assembly, quick trial by jury. They are not considered outdated, why would owning a weapon be?

[M1903A1]

Originally Posted by theycallmedan'lboone

Da Klugs you have got to be kidding me!?!?! you're telling me you wouldn't own an F-15 given the money and the option!?!?

Is it pre-embargo?

I don't like the encroachment on the second amendment but it doesn't effect me really. I've never been a gun guy.