Gun enthusiasts stocking up over fears of Democratic crackdown

[Hilbert]

MIDLOTHIAN, Va. – When 10-year-old Austin Smith heard Barack Obama had been elected president, he had one question: Does this mean I won't get a new gun for Christmas?
That brought his mother, the camouflage-clad Rachel Smith, to Bob Moates Sports Shop on Thursday, where she was picking out that special 20-gauge shotgun — one of at least five weapons she plans to buy before Obama takes office in January.
Like Smith, gun enthusiasts nationwide are stocking up on firearms out of fears that the combination of an Obama administration and a Democrat-dominated Congress will result in tough new gun laws.
"I think they're going to really try to crack down on guns and make it harder for people to try to purchase them," said Smith, 32, who taught all five of her children — ages 4 to 10 — to shoot because the family relies on game for food.
Last month, as an Obama win looked increasingly inevitable, there were more than 108,000 more background checks for gun purchases than in October 2007, a 15 percent increase. And they were up about 8 percent for the year as of Oct. 26, according to the FBI.
No data was available for gun purchases this week, but gun shops from suburban Virginia to the Rockies report record sales since Tuesday's election.
"They're scared to death of losing their rights," said David *******, manager of Bob Moates, where sales have nearly doubled in the past week and are up 15 percent for the year. On Election Day, salespeople were called in on their day off because of the crowd.
Obama has said he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms, but that he favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault and concealed weapons.
As a U.S. Senator, Obama voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to lawsuits; and as an Illinois state legislator, he supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on all firearms.
During an October appearance in Ohio, Obama sought to reassure gun owners. "I will not take your shotgun away," he said. "I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."
Gun advocates take some solace in the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 this summer to strike down the District of Columbia's 32-year ban on handguns. For now, gun rights supporters hold a narrow edge on the court, but Obama could appoint justices who would swing it the other way.
Franklin Gun Shop outside Nashville, Tenn., sold more than 70 guns on Tuesday, making it the biggest sales day since the shop opened eight years ago. Guns & Gear in Cheyenne, Wyo., also set a one-day sales record on Tuesday, only to break that mark on Wednesday.
Stewart Wallin, owner of Get Some Guns in the Salt Lake City suburb of Murray, Utah, said he sold nine assault weapons the day after Obama was elected. That same day, the gun store Cheaper Than Dirt! in Fort Worth, Texas, sold $101,000 worth of merchandise, shattering its single-day sales record, store owner DeWayne Irwin said.
One Georgia gun shop advertised an "Obama sale" on an outdoor sign, but the owner took it down after people complained that the shop appeared to be issuing a call to violence against the country's first black leader.
The president of a Montana gun manufacturer stepped down last month after word that he supported Obama led to calls for a boycott of the company.
While Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, attributes some of the sales boom to the tanking economy, he thinks the Democratic sweep is the top reason why guns are suddenly a hot commodity.
"I don't think he'll be able to stand up to that anti-Second Amendment wing of the Democratic party that's just been spoiling for chance to ban America's guns," LaPierre said of Obama.

During the campaign, the NRA warned that Obama would be the "most antigun president in American history." And while Vice President-elect Joe Biden owns shotguns, he has supported a ban on assault weapons and has said private sellers at gun shows should be required to perform background checks.
But Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor who has written a book about the gun debate, said new firearms regulations will be a low priority for an Obama administration and Democratic Congress facing a global economic crisis and two wars.
"Maybe the gun-show loophole will be closed, but not much else," he said in an e-mail. "I'd be surprised, for example, if Congress enacted a new assault gun ban."
Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said his organization will continue to press for what he calls "sensible" restrictions — background checks at gun shows, a ban on military-style assault weapons and cracking down on illegal gun trade. He believes he has the backing of the new administration on those issues, but any fears of a broader crackdown are unfounded.
"The one thing that they agree strongly with us on is that it's too easy for dangerous people to get guns in this country," Helmke said. "I guess if you're a dangerous person you might want to run out there and buy some more, but otherwise you should be OK."
___ Associated Press writers Lara Jakes Jordan in Washington, Angela K. Brown in Fort Worth, Texas, Kate Brumback in Marietta, Ga., Joe Edwards in Nashville, Tenn., Don Mitchell in Denver, Matt Joyce in Cheyenne, Wyo., and Paul Foy in Salt Lake City contributed to this report.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081107/ap_on_re_us/obama_gun_sales

I'm hoping that given the current economic situation and other matters, Obama will have attacking the 2nd Amendment lower on his list of priorities. However, I'm not taking any chances; already have ammunition and 30 round magazines for my AK and AR on order and considering purchasing a new rifle or two.

[lightcav]

I can't believe people are that crazy they think their guns are going to be taken away.

There are a lot more important things going on right now than taking grandpa's hunting rifle away.

[Lt. James Anderson]

A lot of people are doing that, even the ones that never owned a weapon. Better have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[Buckeye67]

I can't believe people are that crazy they think their guns are going to be taken away.

There are a lot more important things going on right now than taking grandpa's hunting rifle away.

Now why would we think that?


"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

––Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007

[lightcav]

Personally I'd rather hunt with a remington 700 in .30-06 rather than a tricked out SKS, M16 derivative or a submaxhine gun of some sort.

I don't understand why you need an assualt rifle to defend yourself. Are you that poor of a shot? I can defend myself just as well as anyone with my 12gauge pump.

Call me an optimist but I seriously doubt we would ever be in a situation where anyone would need an assault rifle or submachine gun to defend one's self. If the world was that bad, would you want to live in it? And even if you survived one battle you probably wouldn't survive the next. There's always somebody bigger and stronger.

Its just not realistic to own so many assault type weapons.

[p$ycho+log!cal]

why would u need a full auto AK anyway?

12gau is so powerfull it can take down a freaking bear why would u need .50cal n such?

[Behan]

Nobody NEEDS a Ferrari...

[lightcav]

I'm not taking any chances; already have ammunition and 30 round magazines for my AK and AR on order and considering purchasing a new rifle or two.

Don't you feel any kind of responsibility towards your fellow citizens about hoarding all these dangerous weapons? What if they fell into the wrong hands and were used to kill children, or law enforcement officers? Where do you think most of the illegal weapons that are used to commit crimes come from? Here's a thought, maybe they were stolen from someone. I own firearms but I'm not stupid, I recognize that just by owning them others can steal them and use them to commit crimes or even use them against me. I keep them hidden, locked up and don't have any ammunition for them however where there is a will there is a way and no one can gaurantee with complete certainty that their firearms are completely safe from theft. This sounds incredibly stupid and obvious but not everyone that legally owns a firearm is responsible.

[Thor]

Obama sure going to take away any weapons that he can. What that will include remains to be seen.

[Laworkerbee]

Personally I'd rather hunt with a remington 700 in .30-06 rather than a tricked out SKS, M16 derivative or a submaxhine gun of some sort.

Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, sport or anything else. It exists solely to defend against tyranny of government.

[lightcav]

Obama sure going to take away any weapons that he can. What that will include remains to be seen.

don't believe everything a gun manufacturer or lobbyist says. Don't you know its all political and they are just using you for their own gains and power grabbing not to mention all the money they make selling stupid people guns they don't need.

If your not a criminal and you only want something to hunt with or go plinking around with you don't need to worry.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Don't you feel any kind of responsibility towards your fellow citizens about hoarding all these dangerous weapons?

NO! I'm probably more competent at using weapons than huge majority of cops.


What if they fell into the wrong hands and were used to kill children, or law enforcement officers?

It's always about children ...


Where do you think most of the illegal weapons that are used to commit crimes come from?

If they are illegal, where do you think they came from??


Here's a thought, maybe they were stolen from someone.

Maybe. But they can be bought on the street even easier.


rearms but I'm not stupid, I recognize that just by owning them others can steal them and use them to commit crimes or even use them against me. I keep them hidden, locked up and don't have any ammunition for them however where there is a will there is a way and no one can gaurantee with complete certainty that their firearms are completely safe from theft.

Good for you!


This sounds incredibly stupid and obvious but not everyone that legally owns a firearm is responsible.

Your statement does sound incredibly stupid. Why do you want to punish responsible owners instead of making sure the other ones are not approved to own weapons?

Why are you even on this website??

[Thor]

don't believe everything a gun manufacturer or lobbyist says. Don't you know its all political and they are just using you for their own gains and power grabbing not to mention all the money they make selling stupid people guns they don't need.

If your not a criminal and you only want something to hunt with or go plinking around with you don't need to worry.
Yeah, guns are for stupid people. Smart people let the government handle such things.

[lightcav]

Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, sport or anything else. It exists solely to defend against tyranny of government.

Oh yeah lets all rise up in the streets and shoot back at the tanks, laser guided bombs, and UAVs with our handguns.

I'm sure at the first sign of any tyrannical action by the government half the so called supporters of the 2nd amendment would wet their pants and run and hide.

[lightcav]

Yeah, guns are for stupid people. Smart people let the government handle such things.

Oh well I guess you support organized crime. The mafia was a way for people to take care of business without the government. Somehow that doesn't seem very American to me. I guess the next time you think you have a problem with somebody you should just shoot them since the government can't help you.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Oh yeah lets all rise up in the streets and shoot back at the tanks, laser guided bombs, and UAVs with our handguns. If our government was tyrannical I seriously doubt we could do anything about it unless we had serious military hardware.

An armed man is a free man. Been that way since the dawn of time.

[Thor]

Oh well I guess you support organized crime. The mafia was a way for people to take care of business without the government. Somehow that doesn't seem very American to me. I guess the next time you think you have a problem with somebody you should just shoot them since the government can't help you.
Quoted for posterity.

[Bia]

When 10-year-old Austin Smith heard Barack Obama had been elected president, he had one question: Does this mean I won't get a new gun for Christmas?

I call bullsh1t.

Using kids to sell a point is hella-lame.

[Laworkerbee]

Oh yeah lets all rise up in the streets and shoot back at the tanks, laser guided bombs, and UAVs with our handguns. If our government was tyrannical I seriously doubt we could do anything about it unless we had serious military hardware.

You miss the point entirely.

Tanks & LGB's have been proven to work so great against rebelling citizens eh? :roll:

Beyond what ever your opinion is. The 2nd amendment isn't there to protect hunters and sportsmen, to think otherwise is just ludicrous.

[California Joe]

I call bullsh1t.

Using kids to sell a point is hella-lame.


Yeah you're right. That was really gay. And his "camo clad mother" WTF? Lets get the reader thinking about poor little redneck kids that just want a Red Ryder BB gun for Christmas....

[lightcav]

You miss the point entirely.

Tanks & LGB's have been proven to work so great against rebelling citizens eh? :roll:

Beyond what ever your opinion is. The 2nd amendment isn't there to protect hunters and sportsmen, to think otherwise is just ludicrous.

I seriously doubt most people that buy assault style weapons are strict constitutionalists. Most of the people I've seen that are into assault weapons would amend the constitution in a heartbeat to make abortion illegal, take away voting rights from women and blacks, as well as round up and exterminate anybody they didn't like.

Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He taught constitutional law at the university of chicago Law school. So if you support the constitution than Obama seems like someone you would like since interpreting and preserving the integrity of the constitution has been his life work so far.

The second amendment may not be there to protect sportsman but that is the argument that is used to stop any kind of gun control laws even ones that are just plain common sense.

[Thor]

^

Are you for real?

[Laworkerbee]

It is funny how two people who voted for the same guy can have such divergent views.


I seriously doubt most people that buy assault style weapons are strict constitutionalists. Most of the people I've seen that are into assault weapons would amend the constitution in a heartbeat to make abortion illegal, take away voting rights from women and blacks, as well as round up and exterminate anybody they didn't like.

Jesus H Christ, so because I don't want to use 10 round magazines I have become the most disgusting vile creature ever. Nice picture you paint there buddy. :cantbeli: I support control, but unlike you I'm not willing to pull the rug out from under my fellow citizens. To me, you're just ****ing flat out scary.

[Hilbert]

Personally I'd rather hunt with a remington 700 in .30-06 rather than a tricked out SKS, M16 derivative or a submaxhine gun of some sort.

I have a Marlin MR-7 in .30-06 for hunting.


I don't understand why you need an assualt rifle to defend yourself. Are you that poor of a shot? I can defend myself just as well as anyone with my 12gauge pump.

Indeed, when it comes to house defense my shotgun is the first choice. I do not own an AK because I feel it's necessary for house defense, I own it because I like to shoot it.


Call me an optimist but I seriously doubt we would ever be in a situation where anyone would need an assault rifle or submachine gun to defend one's self. If the world was that bad, would you want to live in it? And even if you survived one battle you probably wouldn't survive the next. There's always somebody bigger and stronger.

To be honest, from all of this I'm more tempted to call you a pessimest than an optimist.


Don't you feel any kind of responsibility towards your fellow citizens about hoarding all these dangerous weapons? What if they fell into the wrong hands and were used to kill children, or law enforcement officers? Where do you think most of the illegal weapons that are used to commit crimes come from? Here's a thought, maybe they were stolen from someone. I own firearms but I'm not stupid, I recognize that just by owning them others can steal them and use them to commit crimes or even use them against me. I keep them hidden, locked up and don't have any ammunition for them however where there is a will there is a way and no one can gaurantee with complete certainty that their firearms are completely safe from theft. This sounds incredibly stupid and obvious but not everyone that legally owns a firearm is responsible

I'm more than aware that my firearms can be stolen (as any other possession can be). Which is why I go to lengths to keep them secure. The ones I use frequently are kept in a safe at my house and others are kept in a safe inside storage. Your right that noone can guarantee with complete certainty that they're safe from theft; but at the same time, you can't guarantee with complete certainty that you aren't going to get hit by a car while walking on the sidewalk? Yet, we still walk outside, don't we? Sometimes you just take chances, sometimes it just can't be helped.


Oh yeah lets all rise up in the streets and shoot back at the tanks, laser guided bombs, and UAVs with our handguns. If our government was tyrannical I seriously doubt we could do anything about it unless we had serious military hardware.

Would you rather have kitchen knives and pitchforks? Honestly, if the founding fathers took this attitude there would've been no Revolution, no United States, and we wouldn't even be able to enjoy what they fought for.

-Hilde

[lightcav]

It is funny how two people who voted for the same guy can have such divergent views.



Jesus H Christ, so because I don't want to use 10 round magazines I have become the most disgusting vile creature ever. Nice picture you paint there buddy. :cantbeli:

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. I said most not all. I'm sure there are people who just like assualt weapons because they look cool. unfortunately I don't think that is a good enough reason to own one given the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. I own firearms too but not because I think I need something to defend myself. I just like skeet shooting and plinking. I'm 100% sure Obama won't take away my shotgun.

[Thor]

I'm 100% sure Obama won't take away my shotgun.
No, he needs you to defend him against all the NRA members who want to reintroduce slavery.

[lightcav]

Anyway I'm not arguing to defend myself. I just think its silly and completely unfounded for people to think they need to run out and buy as many guns as they can becauase Obama is president. Like I said before if your not a criminal and just want something to hunt with and go plinking I don't think you have much to worry about.

[Hollis]

I can't believe people are that crazy they think their guns are going to be taken away.

There are a lot more important things going on right now than taking grandpa's hunting rifle away.


I guess you missed the past assault weapon ban. No so much taking away, but creating two classes of firearms and accessories. Post and Pre-ban. Per-ban going for 5 times or more than post ban. Also there is speculation that like the first AWB, there will be no sunset clause.

[Buckeye67]

Anyway I'm not arguing to defend myself. I just think its silly and completely unfounded for people to think they need to run out and buy as many guns as they can becauase Obama is president.

I think it's silly and completely unfounded for people to complain about how other people want to spend their money.

[lightcav]

No, he needs you to defend him against all the NRA members who want to reintroduce slavery.

Ha ha that is kind of funny. but seriously I would never use my gun to harm a human being even for self defense. i would think of a peaceful solution.

[Hilbert]

I seriously doubt most people that buy assault style weapons are strict constitutionalists. Most of the people I've seen that are into assault weapons would amend the constitution in a heartbeat to make abortion illegal, take away voting rights from women and blacks, as well as round up and exterminate anybody they didn't like.

Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He taught constitutional law at the university of chicago Law school. So if you support the constitution than Obama seems like someone you would like since interpreting and preserving the integrity of the constitution has been his life work so far.

The second amendment may not be there to protect sportsman but that is the argument that is used to stop any kind of gun control laws even ones that are just plain common sense.

Yet this is the same Barack Obama who says that people have the right to healthcare; interestingly, I've never seen anything about healthcare in the Bill of Rights or the entire Constitution. Just because someone stuided and taught about the Constitution doesn't mean they believe in or it or even respect it.

In regards to "interpreting and preserving the integrity of the Constitution has been his life work" I think you have President-elect Obama confused with Ron Paul.

[Laconian]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. I said most not all. I'm sure there are people who just like assualt weapons because they look cool. unfortunately I don't think that is a good enough reason to own one given the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. I own firearms too but not because I think I need something to defend myself. I just like skeet shooting and plinking. I'm 100% sure Obama won't take away my shotgun.

You think that the anti-gunners are going to stop when they have eliminated semi-auto assault rifles/handguns/shotguns and not come after your precious skeet and plinking guns? Your wrong. There are people in the Congress of the US that want all guns banned, period. There are lobby groups that want hunting and all types of firearms recreation stopped NOW. You choose not to want to buy an assault-looking rifle, don't. That's got nothing to do with my preferences to own whatever I want within the confines of the laws. In almost 20 years of LE work, mostly on the street working violent crime, I've never had to disarm a rightful citizen. If we outlaw guns to save the children, gun crime and accidents will not go away. Ever.

[SGMGSG9]

I guess you missed the past assault weapon ban. No so much taking away, but creating two classes of firearms and accessories. Post and Pre-ban. Per-ban going for 5 times or more than post ban. Also there is speculation that like the first AWB, there will be no sunset clause.


Hollis what would "Chesty" do in a similar circumstances?!? B)

[Hilbert]

Ha ha that is kind of funny. but seriously I would never use my gun to harm a human being even for self defense. i would think of a peaceful solution.

I pray your being sarcastic; I cannot help but consider this an exceedingly naive way of thinking.

[SoCalEMT]

Ha ha that is kind of funny. but seriously I would never use my gun to harm a human being even for self defense. i would think of a peaceful solution.

Gimme your wallet...

[lightcav]

I think it's silly and completely unfounded for people to complain about how other people want to spend their money.

I don't. Think about the drug trade. People spend their money to buy illegal drugs and that funds a lot of criminal activity. I think its part of my duty as a citizen commited to a peaceful safe society to be concerned about that.

[Supplanter]

Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, sport or anything else. It exists solely to defend against tyranny of government.

I've got a question, it's 50% serious & 50% me being a **** :)

If the government made it that the only legal weapons allowed were the ones available when the 2nd amendment was written would that be an affront to the 2nd amendment?

[Alfacentori]

Ha ha that is kind of funny. but seriously I would never use my gun to harm a human being even for self defense. i would think of a peaceful solution.

Quoted for pure idiocy....

Alfa

[Buckeye67]

I don't. Think about the drug trade. People spend their money to buy illegal drugs and that funds a lot of criminal activity. I think its part of my duty as a citizen commited to a peaceful safe society to be concerned about that.

Here, let me fix it for you:

I think it's silly and completely unfounded for idiot trolls like you to complain about how law-abiding citizens want to spend their money in completely legal ways.

[Mikebla]

Anyway I'm not arguing to defend myself. I just think its silly and completely unfounded for people to think they need to run out and buy as many guns as they can becauase Obama is president. Like I said before if your not a criminal and just want something to hunt with and go plinking I don't think you have much to worry about.


Quote, from Nancy Pelosi concerning her "disarm america" policies -
"If we can't get the guns, lets go after the ammo"

Another quote, from one of Nancy Pelosi's proposed bills:
"Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition"
What does she define as armor piercing ammuniton? Any round that can penitrate minimal body armor. What types of rounds go through minimal body armor? Uh-oh, and if you don't understand what this means, ask yourself why your on these forums.

So there's a lot more to worry about that just the ban of semi-automatic weapons. In addition to that, It's not Obama people should be worried about, its Nancy Pelosi. While Obama focuses on the economy, you better bet shes going to be pushing her anti-gun anti-second ammendment bills.

[Hollis]

Ha ha that is kind of funny. but seriously I would never use my gun to harm a human being even for self defense. i would think of a peaceful solution.


That has got to be the most naive statement I have read in a long time. When do you live.

Maybe you could tell this gal about a "peaceful solution" she should have used.



The time crept by so slowly and painfully that the 23-year-old Columbia University journalism student had decided it was time to end her life.

Over many torturous hours, she had been repeatedly raped, sodomized and forced to perform oral ***, a prosecutor told a jury on Thursday. The accused, Robert A. Williams, 31, had doused the woman’s face and body with boiling water and bleach, forced her to swallow handfuls of pills and to chase them with beer, sealed her mouth with glue, and bound her wrists and legs with shoelaces, cords and duct tape, said the prosecutor, Ann P. Prunty. And now, Ms. Prunty said, he was asking the woman to gouge out her own eyes with a pair of scissors.
And so the woman, sitting on the floor of her studio apartment in Hamilton Heights and holding a pair of scissors between her knees — the blade pointing toward her face — tried to stop the suffering. She lowered her face to the blade, but turned her head at the last moment, trying to stab herself in the neck instead of her eyes.

The scissors slipped from her grasp, the suicide attempt failed, and the woman suffered several more hours of torture, Ms. Prunty said.

[Hilbert]

Anyway I'm not arguing to defend myself. I just think its silly and completely unfounded for people to think they need to run out and buy as many guns as they can becauase Obama is president. Like I said before if your not a criminal and just want something to hunt with and go plinking I don't think you have much to worry about.

I'm only (possibly) going to buying a few weapons that I've wanted for a while now. I look at it like this: if indeed new anti-Second Amendment legislation is passed, then I have them when I may no longer be able to get them; if my worrying turns out to be for nothing, and nothing happens like you believe, then I still have them and can sit back and laugh at myself for being paranoid. And as an investment, if a new Assault Weapons ban is introduced, that will increase the value of the weapons.

[lightcav]

Gimme your wallet...

ha, ha. I don't keep cash in my wallet and I don't go walking around in parts of town where I shouldn't be.

[Hollis]

ha, ha. I don't keep cash in my wallet and I don't go walking around in parts of town where I shouldn't be.



What? You live where? You cannot go to public places? You shouldn't go to public places?

[Alpheus]

ha, ha. I don't keep cash in my wallet and I don't go walking around in parts of town where I shouldn't be.

Racist. :roll:

[wigon]

An armed man is a free man. Been that way since the dawn of time.



Or a very dead man...been that way also since the dawn of time. A lone armed man is no match against an Army unless he organizes into a militia.
Today, you can do this, but at the risk of being arrested for anything seen as anti-government in the name of fighting terrorism. Thank both Clinton and Bush for making it easier for the FBI to infilitrate all militia organizations. Thats not necessarily a bad thing however given that some of these groups are truly made up of a bunch of wack jobs looking for an excuse to use all their high power weapons. Basically one of the problems with paramilitary organizations is that they tend to sometimes abuse their power and become led by cults of personality who get their members believing in all kinds of paranoia and craziness. The reason? Firearms = power. Lots of firearms in the hands of an organized group = lots of power. That is how civil defense groups in 3rd world countries often become death squad organizations and terror groups led by warlords.


Personally I think the whole issue is plain stupid. Obama is NOT going to take away our guns. He can't without violating blatantly the Constitution. Even after the last assault rifle ban, it didn't do much at all because we already had hundreds of thousands of assault rifles being bought, sold, and traded inside this country along with new U.S.A. made parts being sold for them.

So people need to calm down. The only real reason to get an assault rifle is as a secondary home defense weapon. I don't keep mine locked up but rather in a obscure, but easily accessible places where a thief who's in a hurry, normally would not look. I'm also a big believer in states allowing civilians to own body armor as well. Nevertheless the #1 security system for a home is not the gun. It is simply a good guard dog. That along with security system stickers and large "BEWARE OF DOG" signs usually makes thieves go look for an easier target.
If you live in an apartment, a good alarm system on the doors and windows along with locks on your bedroom doors will give you enough time to call 911 and to reach for your prefered firearms and body armor.
It takes me all of 15 seconds to throw on my vest and lock and load my primary firearm taped under a desk in my bedroom.

As for my secondary backup firearm (an SKS), it also makes a great hog gun if you have your 5-round magazine (as most states require) and are a fairly good shot. If you hunt feral hogs with dogs, a 12 guage shotgun with slugs is usually better so you don't accidentally get over-penetration and hit one of your dogs.
But for normal deer hunting, yeah there are far better civilian rifles available.

Wigon

[lightcav]

I'm only (possibly) going to buying a few weapons that I've wanted for a while now. I look at it like this: if indeed new anti-Second Amendment legislation is passed, then I have them when I may no longer be able to get them; if my worrying turns out to be for nothing, and nothing happens like you believe, then I still have them and can sit back and laugh at myself for being paranoid. And as an investment, if a new Assault Weapons ban is introduced, that will increase the value of the weapons.

Well, to each his own. I just don't see the practicality of owning an assault weapon. I like to target shoot just as much as anyone but I don't need an assault type weapon to have fun.

[p$ycho+log!cal]

sooo hmm i have learned alot from reading on this thread.
this is what i concluded:

1-Rocketlaunchers n anti-tank mines infront of my yard (to defend my family of course read 2nd Amendment.....)
2-I can bring my childrens to shooting range and blow up explosives but its ok...as long nobody's hurt its ok, just a "sport"
3-THE CONSTITUTION...THE CONSTITUTION, i guess i should read the whole thing cuz u guys seems to go crazy about it

ah i got it "Amendment II

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. "

i understand now your point of view but u got to understand ours
thanks

[Alpheus]

sooo hmm i have learned alot from reading on this thread.
this is what i concluded:

1-Rocketlaunchers n anti-tank mines infront of my yard (to defend my family of course read 2nd Amendment.....)
2-I can bring my childrens to shooting range and blow up explosives but its ok...as long nobody's hurt its ok, just a "sport"
3-THE CONSTITUTION...THE CONSTITUTION, i guess i should read the whole thing cuz u guys seems to go crazy about it

Your definition of "reading" is way off.

[Will938]

Ha ha that is kind of funny. but seriously I would never use my gun to harm a human being even for self defense. i would think of a peaceful solution.

Troll detected. There are far too many logical disconnects in your posts for any one person to believe.

[perdurabo]

lightcav afaik in USA you need to be gun shop owner with license to be able to purchase automatic guns, hile rest is semi auto, so whats the difrence beatiwn horris AK semi auto and hunting semi auto? from mechanical point of view there is none. Only diffrence is in your head because semi auto AK looks menacing and huntng rifle dosen't.

[Hilbert]

sooo hmm i have learned alot from reading on this thread.
this is what i concluded:

1-Rocketlaunchers n anti-tank mines infront of my yard (to defend my family of course read 2nd Amendment.....)
2-I can bring my childrens to shooting range and blow up explosives but its ok...as long nobody's hurt its ok, just a "sport"
3-THE CONSTITUTION...THE CONSTITUTION, i guess i should read the whole thing cuz u guys seems to go crazy about it


Okay, a few things: 1.) If you don't have anything intelligent to add to this discussion but simple trolling, please go away. 2.) If your an American (I don't know), and you haven't read the Constitution shame on you, you don't even know your damn rights.

[Laconian]

sooo hmm i have learned alot from reading on this thread.
this is what i concluded:

1-Rocketlaunchers n anti-tank mines infront of my yard (to defend my family of course read 2nd Amendment.....)
2-I can bring my childrens to shooting range and blow up explosives but its ok...as long nobody's hurt its ok, just a "sport"
3-THE CONSTITUTION...THE CONSTITUTION, i guess i should read the whole thing cuz u guys seems to go crazy about it

1. Regulated by the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and the SEA of 2002.
2. There is no Federal prohibition of bringing children to a range, only range rules. The explosives industry is regulated, as is the use of explosives by state, local and federal laws.
3. If you are an American adult and haven't read the Constitution, yeah, you should read it. It's an amazing document.

[lightcav]

the problem is there are two extreme sides. One wants to get rid of all the guns. the other wants to get rid of all the gun laws. And the people in the middle like me just want their sporting arms, like bolt action rifles and birdguns.

[Hadamar]

Just before the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban my college housemate and his friend went on a preemptive buying spree at some regional guns stores. He bought a Chinese AK-47 replica and a heavy-barrelled FN FAL with a bipod and maybe some others that I haven't remembered. He said he saw the scariest looking people in his life at the crowded gun stores--and this on the periphery of a small college town. On the drive home he and his friend sang "God Bless America" for the first time since elementary school.

My housemate and other students would go out in the county to this rock quarry to do their shooting, since it was free. On one of the times I went with them we encountered this elderly gentleman teaching his grandson how to shoot. They were firing, at a leisurely instructional pace, a meek little .22 rifle that sounded like a toy, which was drowned out by the AK-47 and other assault rifles and shotguns. Later on a couple of guys arrived and planted themselves a knight's move, about 30 feet, in front of us. Then they started firing their pistol in the fashion of cheesy action movies, with the iron sights uselessly to the side, and in a direction that was perpendicular to our firing direction. Fortunately, they didn't have much ammunition and left soon afterward. The guys in my friend's shooting party angrily joked that if those idiots had hit anywhere near them they were ready to take them out. The old guy laughed and said he had a shovel in the back of his pickup truck.

I only took photographs and didn't do any shooting since I have poor vision and depth perception. But I wanted to give an example of how assault weapons can provide good memories to those who don't even possess or shoot them.

[California Joe]

sooo hmm i have learned alot from reading on this thread.
this is what i concluded:

1-Rocketlaunchers n anti-tank mines infront of my yard (to defend my family of course read 2nd Amendment.....)
2-I can bring my childrens to shooting range and blow up explosives but its ok...as long nobody's hurt its ok, just a "sport"
3-THE CONSTITUTION...THE CONSTITUTION, i guess i should read the whole thing cuz u guys seems to go crazy about it

ah i got it "Amendment II

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. "

i understand now your point of view but u got to understand ours
thanks

You're a f*cking moron. Don't post in here again.

[Alfacentori]

Hey Lightcav

Seriously, do you know what happened in Australia after they banned our Semi Autos in 1996?

Gun violence with registered firearms continued to decline at the same rate it had before, didnt change at all, crime with illegal firearms has actually stayed the same.

They destroyed 600,000 odd firearms and now there are actually around 3 times that many more guns in Australia as everyone just went out and bought ones they were allowed to have and yet no crime wave.

If the people who claim they hate guns for saftey reasons really thought that they would spend there time arguing for better storage laws, not banning this type or that type. Here your guns have to be kept locked up in an approved gun safe, ammunition separate and bolts/magazines separate.

Not all illegal guns used in crime start out legel either, several crimes committed here have been with automatic 12 guage drum fed shotguns that were never available here, even before 1996, if they can get people, drugs etc in they can get illegal guns into the country, easy.

If you don't like semi auto's that's fine, no one says you have to, but don't impose your ideas on others.

Alfa

[EZFEED]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. I said most not all. I'm sure there are people who just like assualt weapons because they look cool. unfortunately I don't think that is a good enough reason to own one given the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. I own firearms too but not because I think I need something to defend myself. I just like skeet shooting and plinking. I'm 100% sure Obama won't take away my shotgun.

How old are you?????????:roll:

[Mikebla]

okay nobody said anything concerning my earlier post but its a big issue, what about nancy pelosi and her insane ammunition bans she wants to put through? look back on my previous post, 3rd page

[Hilbert]

okay nobody said anything concerning my earlier post but its a big issue, what about nancy pelosi and her insane ammunition bans she wants to put through? look back on my previous post, 3rd page

That's why I'm buying not just a few guns which I've had my eye on for a while, but plenty of ammunition.

[Calanen]

Ha ha that is kind of funny. but seriously I would never use my gun to harm a human being even for self defense. i would think of a peaceful solution.

You da man. They should disarm all Police and militaries worldwide, and just implement your peaceful solution in the event of conflict.

You do have one, right?

[Wall]

Yeah, guns are for stupid people. Smart people let the government handle such things.
Yeah, like in Soviet Union.

[Alpheus]

Thank god I live in Canada where we don't have these kinds of problems. :)

and Wall, I think Thor was being sarcastic.

[Will938]

the problem is there are two extreme sides. One wants to get rid of all the guns. the other wants to get rid of all the gun laws. And the people in the middle like me just want their sporting arms, like bolt action rifles and birdguns.

People who fight to get rid of all gun laws feel that when you give up on 1% of them you lose 100% of the principle. Which opens the way for 10%, then 50%, then 100%. If we can't have assault rifles then why have semi-automatic hunting arms? etc etc

We'll never get rid of all laws on them so it doesn't hurt to fight the most questionable ones. Then only the truly effective ones will remain.

[wigon]

The main thing I worry about is not so much law makers passing anti-gun laws but more about severe economic recession that leads to a massive spike in crime. That is the main reason why I'm stocking up in ammunition as I already have enough guns along with body armor (vest and helmet).

Wigon

[Wall]

and Wall, I think Thor was being sarcastic.
I know that.-

[lightcav]

How old are you?????????:roll:

Why looking for someone of a certain age group? I'm over 25.

[Alpheus]

The main thing I worry about is not so much law makers passing anti-gun laws but more about severe economic recession that leads to a massive spike in crime. That is the main reason why I'm stocking up in ammunition as I already have enough guns along with body armor (vest and helmet).

You have body armor? Please, do tell. And include pics.

[brainplay]

Personally I think the whole issue is plain stupid. Obama is NOT going to take away our guns. He can't without violating blatantly the Constitution. Even after the last assault rifle ban, it didn't do much at all because we already had hundreds of thousands of assault rifles being bought, sold, and traded inside this country along with new U.S.A. made parts being sold for them.

So people need to calm down. The only real reason to get an assault rifle is as a secondary home defense weapon.
Wigon

Wait, you just contradicted yourself. The assault weapons ban could have easily been tailored to banning current and past "assault" weapons. And yes, Obama has traditionally supported that kind of legislation. His little quip about gun ownership "with limitations" was all fine and dandy until you look at his record. The chances of a new assault weapons ban are not high but they aren't low either. I wish I could say that politicians learn from their mistakes but it sure doesn't look like it.

Once again, the anti-gun or Obama apologists have to use the "you don't need" line again. How do you know? What if I want? I could use a shotgun on an intruder. I could also use a Bagdad special twin-gold plated AK-47s with 20inch Dante rims mounted on a jet powered gimbled trolley to get the job done. Do I need to use a .243 on a deer instead of an SKS in 7.62x39? Nope, heck lets gold plate that too. Can't really say who's in a position to say what gun owners "need". So please stop using that lame ass line.

[lightcav]

You da man. They should disarm all Police and militaries worldwide, and just implement your peaceful solution in the event of conflict.

You do have one, right?

Thats crazy, I never said such a thing. your just being silly now. I said I'd rather use a peaceful solution than use a firearm to defend myself.

[Gravelhead]

Talking as a humble Brit , your laws as far as fireaems go , are archaic to say the least , from this side of the atlantic most of you are still percieved as gun toting red neck muppets...blue on blue is a matter of course.(ESPECIALLY TO OUR TROOPS IN THE MODERN THEATER OF OPS)
Why do you need to own an M16/ AK47 ..Pistols of god knows what calibre ! WE HAVE HAVE MANAGED TO DEFEND OUR ISLE BY GUTS AND SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS..

[Mikebla]

Wait, you just contradicted yourself. The assault weapons ban could have easily been tailored to banning current and past "assault" weapons. And yes, Obama has traditionally supported that kind of legislation. His little quip about gun ownership "with limitations" was all fine and dandy until you look at his record. The chances of a new assault weapons ban are not high but they aren't low either. I wish I could say that politicians learn from their mistakes but it sure doesn't look like it.

Once again, the anti-gun or Obama apologists have to use the "you don't need" line again. How do you know? What if I want? I could use a shotgun on an intruder. I could also use a Bagdad special twin-gold plated AK-47s with 20inch Dante rims mounted on a jet powered gimbled trolley to get the job done. Do I need to use a .243 on a deer instead of an SKS in 7.62x39? Nope, heck lets gold plate that too. Can't really say who's in a position to say what gun owners "need". So please stop using that lame ass line.

Exactly, and THAT'S the issue. It's not that were not going to be able to purchase what some deem to be "useless" weapons, it's that someone one doesn't like that we want to own "useless" weapons is trying to take away our freedom to own such things.

Using someone else's example, just because I don't like people driving ferraris because they tend to drive them fast, does not mean I have the right to make a law baring people from buying ferarris.

[Alpheus]

I said I'd rather use a peaceful solution than use a firearm to defend myself.

Tell that to the crack junkie as he stabs you.

[Mikebla]

Talking as a humble Brit , your laws as far as fireaems go , are archaic to say the least , from this side of the atlantic most of you are still percieved as gun toting red neck muppets...blue on blue is a matter of course.(ESPECIALLY TO OUR TROOPS IN THE MODERN THEATER OF OPS)
Why do you need to own an M16/ AK47 ..Pistols of god knows what calibre ! WE HAVE HAVE MANAGED TO DEFEND OUR ISLE BY GUTS AND SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS..

Simple, because we want to and we can, no reason is needed. I say this because the same mentality I use for this aspect of the constitution, I use for all aspects for the constitution.

[Zoomie]

Thats crazy, I never said such a thing. your just being silly now. I said I'd rather use a peaceful solution than use a firearm to defend myself.Actually you did:

Ha ha that is kind of funny. but seriously I would never use my gun to harm a human being even for self defense. i would think of a peaceful solution.




Talking as a humble Brit , your laws as far as fireaems go , are archaic to say the least , from this side of the atlantic most of you are still percieved as gun toting red neck muppets...blue on blue is a matter of course.(ESPECIALLY TO OUR TROOPS IN THE MODERN THEATER OF OPS)
Why do you need to own an M16/ AK47 ..Pistols of god knows what calibre ! WE HAVE HAVE MANAGED TO DEFEND OUR ISLE BY GUTS AND SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS..
http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/9909/picardheadeskme6.jpg

[Indiana Jones]

Talking as a humble Brit , your laws as far as fireaems go , are archaic to say the least , from this side of the atlantic most of you are still percieved as gun toting red neck muppets...blue on blue is a matter of course.(ESPECIALLY TO OUR TROOPS IN THE MODERN THEATER OF OPS)
Why do you need to own an M16/ AK47 ..Pistols of god knows what calibre ! WE HAVE HAVE MANAGED TO DEFEND OUR ISLE BY GUTS AND SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS..
Yours is a remarkable lot. :cantbeli:The Wehrmacht had nothing on your bad breath...firearms played no role in the fray.

[Hilbert]

Talking as a humble Brit , your laws as far as fireaems go , are archaic to say the least , from this side of the atlantic most of you are still percieved as gun toting red neck muppets...blue on blue is a matter of course.(ESPECIALLY TO OUR TROOPS IN THE MODERN THEATER OF OPS)
Why do you need to own an M16/ AK47 ..Pistols of god knows what calibre ! WE HAVE HAVE MANAGED TO DEFEND OUR ISLE BY GUTS AND SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS..

Quite frankly, as a law abiding American gun owner, I don't give a damn what brits or ANYONE thinks of our ways; acknowledging the right of individuals to possess arms for the common defense and protection against tyranny is a fundamental part of our Constitution.

[Alfacentori]

Thats crazy, I never said such a thing. your just being silly now. I said I'd rather use a peaceful solution than use a firearm to defend myself.

I'm still curious how this 'peaceful solution' will come into play when some nutter ODing on Meth starts breaking down your door because the voices in his head are telling him too kill the demons inside of you and your family?

Think it can't or won't ever happen, prepared to stake your life on it?

Alfa

[Laconian]

Thats crazy, I never said such a thing. your just being silly now. I said I'd rather use a peaceful solution than use a firearm to defend myself.

I'd rather use peaceful solutions, too. However in the real world, that isn't always practical, safe or possible.

[Hilbert]

I'd rather use peaceful solutions, too. However in the real world, that isn't always practical, safe or possible.

Quoted for truth.

[Mikebla]

Quoted for truth.

Seconded, He speaks the truth

There are just some people you can't reason with, or negotiate with. We shall witness such people when Obama and tries to experiment with foreign policy.

[lightcav]

Using someone else's example, just because I don't like people driving ferraris because they tend to drive them fast, does not mean I have the right to make a law baring people from buying ferarris.

Well taking the ferrari example, if because people drive their ferraris fast most of the time and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens then maybe they should not be allowed to drive ferraris.

[Wall]

Quite frankly, as a law abiding American gun owner, I don't give a damn what brits or ANYONE thinks of our ways; acknowledging the right of individuals to possess arms for the common defense and protection against tyranny is a fundamental part of our Constitution.
Good text. Too many people think "what they are thinking about us?".

[Alfacentori]

Talking as a humble Brit , your laws as far as fireaems go , are archaic to say the least , from this side of the atlantic most of you are still percieved as gun toting red neck muppets...blue on blue is a matter of course.(ESPECIALLY TO OUR TROOPS IN THE MODERN THEATER OF OPS)
Why do you need to own an M16/ AK47 ..Pistols of god knows what calibre ! WE HAVE HAVE MANAGED TO DEFEND OUR ISLE BY GUTS AND SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS..

Right...........................studied much history before?

And while your doing that consider this, your gun free society has on average 28 Gun crimes a day............something just doesn't add up....what could it be.........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html

Alfa

[Gravelhead]

Yours is a remarkable lot. :cantbeli:The Wehrmacht had nothing on your bad breath...firearms played no role in the fray.
the Wehrmacht were the regular German standing army , not all Germans were Nazis..

[lightcav]

I'm still curious how this 'peaceful solution' will come into play when some nutter ODing on Meth starts breaking down your door because the voices in his head are telling him too kill the demons inside of you and your family?

Think it can't or won't ever happen, prepared to stake your life on it?

Alfa

Oh yeah I always try to find where the meth addicts live and move in next door. This is such a thing as common sense. Oh and I guess you never heard of a calling the Police for help.

[Mikebla]

Well taking the ferrari example, if because people drive their ferraris fast most of the time and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens then maybe they should not be allowed to drive ferraris.

That would be a selective ban. In relation to the topic, convicted felons cant acquire firearms. Your response does not apply. What we're talking about, again using the example, is banning EVERYONE from purchasing a ferrari because they MIGHT go out and speed, then kill someone. I have no problem with not allowing felons to purchase weapons.

[Wall]

Oh and I guess you never heard of a calling the Police for help.
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_protection.jpg

[Alfacentori]

Oh yeah I always try to find where the meth addicts live and move in next door. This is such a thing as common sense. Oh and I guess you never heard of a calling the Police for help.

News flash crimes don't always happen next door to where crimminals live, and 2nd Police have a 'response time', most people don't live next door to a police station either.

Did you think before you replied?

Alfa

[Alpheus]

Oh yeah I always try to find where the meth addicts live and move in next door. This is such a thing as common sense. Oh and I guess you never heard of a calling the Police for help.

Yeah, because we all know that cops arrive at your door within 20 seconds of being called. And BTW meth addicts and their ilk pick "better off" neighborhoods to rob because they are less likely to own a gun.

[Zoomie]

Oh and I guess you never heard of a calling the Police for help.
So, what will you do in between the time you call them, talk to the operator, and wait for them to arrive? Try to negotiate some peaceful solution with the intruder?

[Laconian]

Well taking the ferrari example, if because people drive their ferraris fast most of the time and endanger the lives of law abiding citizens then maybe they should not be allowed to drive ferraris.

That's right, an individual loses their right own a Ferrari because they could not use the tool properly(or more accurately their DL would be revoked/suspended); not all Ferraris get banned or seized. The same applies to firearms: an individual's right to firearm ownership/possession revoked by their actions; society at large is not disarmed.

[Alpheus]

the Wehrmacht were the regular German standing army , not all Germans were Nazis..

And that has what to do with firearm laws?

[Hilbert]

Oh yeah I always try to find where the meth addicts live and move in next door. This is such a thing as common sense. Oh and I guess you never heard of a calling the Police for help.

Noone is advocating going out and looking for trouble, but it's a sad fact of life that sometimes trouble finds you; and when that happens, you do what you have to do in order to protect yourself and those you love. As far as the police, unless there's a squad car on patrol in my area I'll be lucky to have a police unit arrive in five minutes; more likely they'd arrive in around ten minutes.

[Gravelhead]

Right...........................studied much history before?

And while your doing that consider this, your gun free society has on average 28 Gun crimes a day............something just doesn't add up....what could it be.........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576406/28-gun-crimes-committed-in-UK-every-day.html

Alfa
i do not need to study history smart mouth .. just day to day facts .

[Hilbert]

i do not need to study history smart mouth .. just day to day facts .

Are you even reading what you type or are you just that ignorant?

[lightcav]

Noone is advocating going out and looking for trouble, but it's a sad fact of life that sometimes trouble finds you; and when that happens, you do what you have to do in order to protect yourself and those you love. As far as the police, unless there's a squad car on patrol in my area I'll be lucky to have a police unit arrive in five minutes; more likely they'd arrive in around ten minutes.

I'm sure the odds are much greater that I would be killed by some A-hole driving an SUV while on the way to work. I also live down the street from a cop.

[Alfacentori]

Are you even reading what you type or are you just that ignorant?

Don't worry man, people who are anti gun just think and act on illogical emotion.

You can point out the facts, figures and logical reasons behind gun ownership all you want and all you'll get is 'danger to society' and 'you don't need' arguments.

Alfa

[Gravelhead]

Are you even reading what you type or are you just that ignorant?another gramaticaly correct asshole, what are you my teacher !

[MichaelF]

Anyway I'm not arguing to defend myself. I just think its silly and completely unfounded for people to think they need to run out and buy as many guns as they can becauase Obama is president. Like I said before if your not a criminal and just want something to hunt with and go plinking I don't think you have much to worry about.


Ah. Well, actually, I want firearms so I can shoot other people. If I have to. If I don't, I've just bought some cool toys. If I need to shoot other people and don't have them, it's much more of a lose/lose proposition.

The hunting and plinking is just recreational.

The Constitution reserves to the People the right to arm themselves for personal and collective defense. At no juncture was there mention of "hunting weapons" being all we were entitled to. Hint: When the Constitution was written, the civilian population had firepower parity with the military. Think about that.

While the various levels of government may (and it is arguable) be empowered to regulate what forms of weapons are available, all evidence points to that empowerement being of the very, very limited type.

Arguably, Citizens should be able to purchase and use any level of weaponry up to that of mass area-effect ordnance. While I'm willing to concede that autocannons and ATGMs are probably subject to common-sense regulations, the banning of the possession, sale and manufacture of certain weapons entirely due to their potential rate of fire (iow, select-fire) is completely unreasonable.

[Zoomie]

I'm sure the odds are much greater that I would be killed by some A-hole driving an SUV while on the way to work. I also live down the street from a cop.
So when are you going to actually address the issue at hand instead of making up excuses and the like? Does the the cop live in his house 24/7? Does the cop keep an eye on your house 24/7? I thought not. :roll:

[Atlantic Friend]

Don't worry man, people who are anti gun just think and act on illogical emotion.

To be fair, in this respect they do sound a tad like those saying "oh noes the Dems are going to seize our weapons"

[Hilbert]

another gramaticaly correct asshole, what are you my teacher !

How old are you?

[Alfacentori]

So when are you going to actually address the issue at hand instead of making up excuses and the like? Does the the cop live in his house 24/7? Does the cop keep an eye on your house 24/7? I thought not. :roll:

x2 and what about the vast majority of people who don't live next to a cop or in a 'better' area?

Alfa

[Alpheus]

I'm sure the odds are much greater that I would be killed by some A-hole driving an SUV while on the way to work. I also live down the street from a cop.

Yes, getting run over by an SUV is a risk everyone faces, and there isn't much you can do about it. Preparing to defend yourself isn't that hard to do.

As for the cop down the street, is he always home? Isn't he ever on duty? Maybe he's out shopping, or taking the kids to a movie. You would trust your safety to the hope that a cop who lives down the road is in his home?

EDIT: Dammit you lot, quit posting faster then me!!! :D

[lightcav]

Don't worry man, people who are anti gun just think and act on illogical emotion.

You can point out the facts, figures and logical reasons behind gun ownership all you want and all you'll get is 'danger to society' and 'you don't need' arguments.

Alfa


I'm not anti gun but I don't see why someone needs an assault type weapon with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I mean if you can't hit your target by ten rounds you probably should just let the purpetrator shoot you for being so pathetic. Natural selection.

[Laconian]

Oh yeah I always try to find where the meth addicts live and move in next door. This is such a thing as common sense. Oh and I guess you never heard of a calling the Police for help.

Have you ever called the police during an in-progress crime? With computer aided dispatch from the time the call went into dispatch and out to the prospective responding unit your area we're talking several minutes. Unless the unit (and back-up) is sitting in front of your house when the call comes in, there is travel time. Let's say it took seven minutes from 911 call to arrival(and I'm being really generous). If I was armed with nothing more than ill intent and a fuc**** crayon, in seven minutes you, your family, dog, cat and goldfish would be over.

Criminals travel. I still remember the female attorney that lived in a swanky part of the city I worked. The bad guy came in, raped and sodomized her for hours, raped and sodomized her with a knife and then cut her throat leaving her to die in the bathtub. He then took her car, re-locked up her house. Neighbors called the police. I was the first responder. Remarkably, this brave woman (she crawled out of the tub to be near a window to try to gurgle for help), survived. The scumbag was caught, luckily.

The police have no obligation to protect you. They are there to protect society.

[Alfacentori]

To be fair, in this respect they do sound a tad like those saying "oh noes the Dems are going to seize our weapons"

Hey no argument here, there are a small number of hardcore pro gun types too who are irrational.

Alfa

[Hilbert]

I'm not anti gun but I don't see why someone needs an assault type weapon with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I mean if you can't hit your target by ten rounds you probably should just let the purpetrator shoot you for being so pathetic. Natural selection.

We don't need an "assault type weapon" with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, we want them. I don't plan on defending my home with an AR15 or Saiga AK; I have a shotgun for that. I enjoy target shooting with my AK, and I like being able to shoot thirty rounds without having to reload rather than then.

[lightcav]

Have you ever called the police during an in-progress crime? With computer aided dispatch from the time the call went into dispatch and out to the prospective responding unit your area we're talking several minutes. Unless the unit (and back-up) is sitting in front of your house when the call comes in, there is travel time. Let's say it took seven minutes from 911 call to arrival(and I'm being really generous). If I was armed with nothing more than ill intent and a fuc**** crayon, in seven minutes you, your family, dog, cat and goldfish would be over.

Criminals travel. I still remember the female attorney that lived in a swanky part of the city I worked. The bad guy came in, raped and sodomized her for hours, raped and sodomized her with a knife and then cut her throat leaving her to die in the bathtub. He then took her car, re-locked up her house. Neighbors called the police. I was the first responder. Remarkably, this brave woman (she crawled out of the tub to be near a window to try to gurgle for help), survived. The scumbag was caught, luckily.

The police have no obligation to protect you. They are there to protect society.

I still think the odds are greater I'd be killed in a traffic accident. Your in law enforcement. Most peace officers do not like people defending them selves with firearms. There's to much risk of panicing and not doing it "right" then later on you go to jail and get gang raped for protecting yourself from a meth addict.

[Alfacentori]

I'm not anti gun but I don't see why someone needs an assault type weapon with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I mean if you can't hit your target by ten rounds you probably should just let the purpetrator shoot you for being so pathetic. Natural selection.

Sorry wasn't referring to you in that post

As for magazine capacity, once you start where does it stop, magazines for bolt actions, lever actions, calibre size, a skilled shooter with a bolt action centrefire and a high powered scope dangerous, maybe we should limit scope power.

Personally I think the key is in better background checks, storage laws and maybe cooling off periods on purchases like we have in Oz, but not banning types, a firearms is only as dangerous as the skills/motivations of the shooter.

Alfa

[Zoomie]

I still think the odds are greater I'd be killed in a traffic accident. Your in law enforcement. Most peace officers do not like people defending them selves with firearms. There's to much risk of panicing and not doing it "right" then later on you go to jail and get gang raped for protecting yourself from a meth addict.
So when are you going to actually give us a straight answer to the prior questions? How do you know what most LEOs think? You're clearly not one. The odds may be greater for an accident, but what happens when the odds aren't in your favor? Going to sweet talk them into leaving you alone?

[Gawel1410]

No the government won't take your guns away, they don't want to and plus what would they do with them? I do believe that background checks are necessary, but really people, think about it, they won't take their guns or ban them.

[Zoomie]

No the government won't take your guns away, they don't want to and plus what would they do with them? I do believe that background checks are necessary, but really people, think about it, they won't take their guns or ban them.
So, you're telling me that the DC Handgun ban was just a figment of our imaginations???? :cantbeli:

[Laconian]

I'm not anti gun but I don't see why someone needs an assault type weapon with a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. I mean if you can't hit your target by ten rounds you probably should just let the purpetrator shoot you for being so pathetic. Natural selection.

The cop you live down the street from, can you vouch for him and his training? Are you willing to risk the life and safety of you and your family, because the guy down the street is a cop?

As for magazine capacity, I suggest you do a bit of reading on terminal ballistics, and performance under combat stress. A South Carolina Trooper was killed by a POS with single .22 round during a traffic stop. The trooper had shot the guy 5 times with a .357. The bad guy lived.

In all seriousness, you are beginning to sound like an idiot. You have a "but, but" answer for every overwhelming and relevant fact that proves you wrong.

[Hilbert]

I still think the odds are greater I'd be killed in a traffic accident. Your in law enforcement. Most peace officers do not like people defending them selves with firearms. There's to much risk of panicing and not doing it "right" then later on you go to jail and get gang raped for protecting yourself from a meth addict.

And just how do you know how "most peace officers" feel?

[lightcav]

So when are you going to actually give us a straight answer to the prior questions? How do you know what most LEOs think? You're clearly not one. The odds may be greater for an accident, but what happens when the odds aren't in your favor? Going to sweet talk them into leaving you alone?

I don't think I would ever be in that situation, i think thats pretty extreme to think that one day you would have to deal with someting like that.

[Hilbert]

I don't think I would ever be in that situation, i think thats pretty extreme to think that one day you would have to deal with someting like that.

Still waiting for your explanation for knowing how LEO's think; please stop dodging questions.

[11 Bravo]

Ha ha that is kind of funny. but seriously I would never use my gun to harm a human being even for self defense. i would think of a peaceful solution.


Here's a peacful solution when a couple homies kick in your door...offer them your anus for playtime and maybe they'll leave with the valuable , your car and you'll be half beaten to death and need your ass stictched up. Not a bad trade off for a complete sod.
Reading your comments makes me want to throttle you -, but I do have control and realise some citizens just flat out don't get it. Go back to eating your fancy cheese and sophisticated wine , I'll stick with room temp good quality beer and ale.
Oh ; I'll enjoy my many rifles and pistols and shotguns of all types on my acreage....far away from the urban light in the loafers crybaby types .... like you .

[lightcav]

The cop you live down the street from, can you vouch for him and his training? Are you willing to risk the life and safety of you and your family, because the guy down the street is a cop?

As for magazine capacity, I suggest you do a bit of reading on terminal ballistics, and performance under combat stress. A South Carolina Trooper was killed by a POS with single .22 round during a traffic stop. The trooper had shot the guy 5 times with a .357. The bad guy lived.

In all seriousness, you are beginning to sound like an idiot. You have a "but, but" answer for every overwhelming and relevant fact that proves you wrong.

I just think its pretty extreme and depressing to live your life thinking one day some crackhead is going to try and break into your house and kill you. I don't think thats going to ever happen to me.

[Laworkerbee]

I don't think I would ever be in that situation, i think thats pretty extreme to think that one day you would have to deal with someting like that.

Myself, when I think someone is breaking into my car, I don't bring a firearm to with me but instead a flashlight.

My reasoning is I'd rather not take a life over my car or any valuables, but once again this is all mute. My argument stands; he 2nd amendment was put into place to protect the people against tyranny in government and nothing more.

This thread really exploded by the way, wow!

[Zoomie]

I just think its pretty extreme and depressing to live your life thinking one day some crackhead is going to try and break into your house and kill you. I don't think thats going to ever happen to me.Says the one expecting to be killed by an SUV. rofl
Does everything in life happen the way you expect it? Well, does it?

[MichaelF]

Talking as a humble Brit , your laws as far as fireaems go , are archaic to say the least , from this side of the atlantic most of you are still percieved as gun toting red neck muppets...blue on blue is a matter of course.(ESPECIALLY TO OUR TROOPS IN THE MODERN THEATER OF OPS)
Why do you need to own an M16/ AK47 ..Pistols of god knows what calibre ! WE HAVE HAVE MANAGED TO DEFEND OUR ISLE BY GUTS AND SHEER BLOODY MINDEDNESS..

ISTR that the last time someone decided he didn't want Britons running around without German supervision, HM Government couldn't hand out rifles fast enough. To include pre-emptively buying up a huge chunk of the US civilian market.

So, no, Great Britain was not defended by guts. It was kept free by men (many of whom were just civilians) with rifles (and pistols of God knows what caliber).

[Hilbert]

I just think its pretty extreme and depressing to live your life thinking one day some crackhead is going to try and break into your house and kill you. I don't think thats going to ever happen to me.

I don't think it's going to happen to me either, but if it does, I'm prepared and equipped to do whats necessary to protect what I love.

There's an old proverb: "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."

[Alfacentori]

I don't think I would ever be in that situation, i think thats pretty extreme to think that one day you would have to deal with someting like that.

Its a sad fact of life though that bad stuff happens, even to good people, the won't happen to me argument is no defence and the fact is it could happen and does happen, murders, home invasions, rapes etc aren't imagined by the victims.

Alfa

[Laconian]

I still think the odds are greater I'd be killed in a traffic accident. Your in law enforcement. Most peace officers do not like people defending them selves with firearms. There's to much risk of panicing and not doing it "right" then later on you go to jail and get gang raped for protecting yourself from a meth addict.

Do you wear your seatbelt in your car to help prevent injury during in case you are in an accident? Do you have insurance? The odds may be greater, but the Boy Scouts say, "Be Prepared."

I don't know what peace officers you are talking about. I consider it your personal duty to defend yourself and your family from violence by whatever means necessary if it comes your way. Whether you use a gun, screwdriver or lawnmower, if the facts present themselves and the action is justified, it's justified.

If you use any force, it will be investigated. Your life will change. Sad but true, you may become criminally or civilly liable, that's true. I'm not telling you what to do, that's for you and your conscious. Personally, with badge or without, I refuse to be prey for some scumbag predator.

[Laconian]

I don't think I would ever be in that situation, i think thats pretty extreme to think that one day you would have to deal with someting like that.

There is a spot for you and people like you on every police form in the world. It's called VICTIM.

[MichaelF]

I mean if you can't hit your target by ten rounds you probably should just let the purpetrator shoot you for being so pathetic.

As someone who actually has shot and killed people (while dodging same), hostile targets:

#1: Tend to fire back.

#2: Tend to move around quite quickly.

#3: Often need to be suppressed.

#4: Occasionally arrive in numbers greater than 1 or 2.

#5: Seldom stop moving around when struck with one bullet.

That was true when I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's true here.

[11 Bravo]

I don't think thats going to ever happen to me.

Good , great.. really swell you "think" that. So that being your sole reasoning if I may call it that why don't you just bugger off Mr community I know better for the love of peace tripe , so I say again just go away and don't worry about the 2nd amendment if you'll never need it.Simply ignore it like you already do. If it's such a non thing for you as you say then why are you so god awful in a hissy fit against it...some ulterior motives methinks. Anyhow you'll never fess up and go with symbolism over substance as you do...it makes you warm and snug and safe and all.

[Zoomie]

Hey, your guys' gun laws still aren't as bad as Russia's.....So, does that mean that we should wait till they are, or stop it before they can start?

[EZFEED]

Why looking for someone of a certain age group? I'm over 25.

Nah, just trying to determine whether you’re even worth the time to argue with. Your posts up to the most recent have verified the fact that you are just another one of those brainwashed kids incapable of formulating your own decisions without the input of others. Stick with parading around in your Che Guevara T-shirt and red shoelaces to make a statement instead of trying to pass your mindless drivel as well thought out input to this topic.:roll:

[LineDoggie]

Personally I'd rather hunt with a remington 700 in .30-06 rather than a tricked out SKS, M16 derivative or a submaxhine gun of some sort.

I don't understand why you need an assualt rifle to defend yourself. Are you that poor of a shot? I can defend myself just as well as anyone with my 12gauge pump.

Call me an optimist but I seriously doubt we would ever be in a situation where anyone would need an assault rifle or submachine gun to defend one's self. If the world was that bad, would you want to live in it? And even if you survived one battle you probably wouldn't survive the next. There's always somebody bigger and stronger.

Its just not realistic to own so many assault type weapons.

If thats the Case, why not rid yourself of Centerfire weapons and go Flintlock?

After all, your an Optimist and a good shot why would you need to work the bolt for a second round?

A Nice Charleville Musket would be all you need......

I would like you to point out to me where the Constitution says anything about Sporting Firearms being the only ones allowed to Americans?

[11 Bravo]

i do not need to study history smart mouth .. just day to day facts .

Day to day fact is the violence is up in your sweet utopia..... getting shanked is fairly common from all I have read in your beautiful only criminals have guns society. No thanks I'll bring the gun to a knife fight ...but what can you do...cry at the CCTV when some yob puts a cap in yer yap , or a shank in your guts..... god forbid you defend yourself.

[LineDoggie]

There is a spot for you and people like you on every police form in the world. It's called VICTIM.

Quoted for Truth...

[LineDoggie]

I just think its pretty extreme and depressing to live your life thinking one day some crackhead is going to try and break into your house and kill you. I don't think thats going to ever happen to me.
Victims never do, thats the Point

[11 Bravo]

If thats the Case, why not rid yourself of Centerfire weapons and go Flintlock?

After all, your an Optimist and a good shot why would you need to work the bolt for a second round?

A Nice Charleville Musket would be all you need......

I would like you to point out to me where the Constitution says anything about Sporting Firearms being the only ones allowed to Americans?

Linedoggie ; I have the feeling that lighty horsey would abhor the smell and grime of black powder...it would definately affect his cheese and wine tastebuds not to mention what it might do to his fingernails... and the clothes oh dear god.

[EZFEED]

Hey, your guys' gun laws still aren't as bad as Russia's.....

This perks my interest. What are the regulations there RS?

[CG51]

There is a spot for you and people like you on every police form in the world. It's called VICTIM.

HAHA Gold Jimmy Gold!

[EZFEED]

This perks my interest. What are the regulations there RS?

LOL! OK nevermind I see your location now sorry, this crappy PC here is showing me red X's every other page.

[Lt. James Anderson]

Smoothbore rifles only, after a series of tests such as vision, criminal backround check etc, (lots of tests and going to many offices and paying many fees.)

Then you need 2 safes I think, installed into your home, a safe for weapon (dissassembled), and a safe for ammo. In a home invasion, you are DEAD, by the way. Once they see those safes installed and you get all the documents and you can own a smoothbore rifle. For a non-smoothbore rifle you have to hunt for a handfull of years. All other weapons, and all pistols are illegal. Heavy sentences for those in possession of them.

What about criminals? Any restrictions on guns they own??

[EZFEED]

Smoothbore rifles only, after a series of tests such as vision, criminal backround check etc, (lots of tests and going to many offices and paying many fees.)

Then you need 2 safes I think, installed into your home, a safe for weapon (dissassembled), and a safe for ammo. In a home invasion, you are DEAD, by the way. Once they see those safes installed and you get all the documents and you can own a smoothbore rifle. For a non-smoothbore rifle you have to hunt for a handfull of years. All other weapons, and all pistols are illegal. Heavy sentences for those in possession of them.

Cool, this pretty much jives with what of of my Russian co-workers told me. I want to say that he told me there were caliber restrictions of sorts too.

[Ought Six]

I just purchased an M1A Squad/Scout and 1000 rounds of German milsurp 7.62mm NATO ammo. Now I need to order a dozen or so 20-round GI M-14 mags for it. Then more ammo.

[EZFEED]

I need to stock up on some more 30X210mm
http://www.multiagro.cz/zbrane/zn_64.jpg
Hehehe p-)

[lightcav]

Says the one expecting to be killed by an SUV. rofl
Does everything in life happen the way you expect it? Well, does it?

I never said that. I said my chances are probably better that I'd be killed in a traffic accident than by a crackhead breaking into my house. Its pretty extreme to think, "one day a crackhead is going to try and break into my house to rape my family and kill me so I better buy a AK47 to defend myself"

[lightcav]

Linedoggie ; I have the feeling that lighty horsey would abhor the smell and grime of black powder...it would definately affect his cheese and wine tastebuds not to mention what it might do to his fingernails... and the clothes oh dear god.

BTW you forgot all the shaved supermodel p***y I get and my flashy luxury sportscar.

[Hilbert]

So I guess your just going to keep dodging my qustion and I can forget about getting an answer, lightcav?

[lightcav]

Hmm, I think in the face of danger, the last thing I would be thinking is if the law enforcement would like it or not about what I am about to do. To save your life, you got to do what you got to do, simple as that. I doubt you would care, either, about any laws, etc, in such a situation. And if you think police arrive in 5 seconds, right on time like in the movies, then you can go ahead and try to rely on the cops to always protect you. But I won't. And as for your saying that people don't need weapons that hold more then 10 rounds, what if the person needs more then 10 bullets in a situation? By the time they reload, they are dead. Its rare, but it can happen. Why not be prepared for the worst so you won't regret it when it actually happens?

Be prepared for the worst.

Yeah well go ahead and kill somebody with out thinking the next time your emotions tell you to. When your in prison getting gang raped by a bunch of crips maybe you'll realize there was another alternative. The law is not clear enough about using deadly force to protect yourself. There's always room for a hotshot lawyer trying to make a name for himself to paint you in the worst picture. But I digress, this is getting so ridiculus I seriously doubt most people would ever be in that situation.

[Hollis]

Yeah well go ahead and kill somebody with out thinking the next time your emotions tell you to. When your in prison getting gang raped by a bunch of crips maybe you'll realize there was another alternative. The law is not clear enough about using deadly force to protect yourself. There's always room for a hotshot lawyer trying to make a name for himself to paint you in the worst picture. But I digress, this is getting so ridiculus I seriously doubt most people would ever be in that situation.



I want you to completely understand what I am about to say,

DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD ANY MORE,



it is not about you and you inane BS.

[EZFEED]

So I guess your just going to keep dodging my qustion and I can forget about getting an answer, lightcav?

Why even bother with him, I'm sure in his mind he is looking out for our better interest and ensuring the proliferation of worldwide safety:roll:

Best of wishes on your crusade light horsey dude, dont expect me to shed a tear when your defensless a*s is abducted by some "big scary guys with guns" and your face winds up on a milk carton. rofl

[Laconian]

I never said that. I said my chances are probably better that I'd be killed in a traffic accident than by a crackhead breaking into my house. Its pretty extreme to think, "one day a crackhead is going to try and break into my house to rape my family and kill me so I better buy a AK47 to defend myself"

Lightcav,
You've written a lot of things, several of them were contradictory of previous posts, others, in the face of fact and qualified opinion, border on nonsensical. I have lost my humor with you. Keep/use the guns you have that fit your needs for as long as you have them. Others of us will do the same.

I'll assume any further argument is for argument sake, a.k.a. trolling, and I'll infract as appropriate.

Aw, HOLLiS beat me to it.

[iLikeFlickerstick]

Lightcav,
You've written a lot of things, several of them were contradictory of previous posts, others, in the face of fact and qualified opinion, border on nonsensical. I have lost my humor with you. Keep/use the guns you have that fit your needs for as long as you have them. Others of us will do the same.

I'll assume any further argument is for argument sake, a.k.a. trolling, and I'll infract as appropriate.

Aw, HOLLiS beat me to it.

You people infract way too much here. Just because someone expresses their own opinion, its sad. No flaming, no trolling, what ??? speak english.

[Hollis]

Lightcav,
You've written a lot of things, several of them were contradictory of previous posts, others, in the face of fact and qualified opinion, border on nonsensical. I have lost my humor with you. Keep/use the guns you have that fit your needs for as long as you have them. Others of us will do the same.

I'll assume any further argument is for argument sake, a.k.a. trolling, and I'll infract as appropriate.

Aw, HOLLiS beat me to it.


I am not that slow.............. as rumor would have it. :)

[Hollis]

You people infract way too much here. Just because someone expresses their own opinion, its sad. No flaming, no trolling, what ??? speak english.


Wow, you earned a reward, Read the forum rules, if you are rescinding your agreement to abide by the rules, please let me know.

There are probably millions of other forums on the WEB, you probably can find one more to your liking, or even create one.

Have a Nice Day.,

H.

[lightcav]

Nah, just trying to determine whether you’re even worth the time to argue with. Your posts up to the most recent have verified the fact that you are just another one of those brainwashed kids incapable of formulating your own decisions without the input of others. Stick with parading around in your Che Guevara T-shirt and red shoelaces to make a statement instead of trying to pass your mindless drivel as well thought out input to this topic.:roll:

For your info I hate Che Guevara. Che's philosophy was that violence and militancy was an effective solution. I do not believe that. Try reading a history book once in a while it might expand your mind.

[Laconian]

You people infract way too much here. Just because someone expresses their own opinion, its sad. No flaming, no trolling, what ??? speak english.

Is there something about my post you don't understand? I typed it in English.

[Hollis]

For your info I hate Che Guevara. Che's philosophy was that violence and militancy was an effective solution. I do not believe that. Try reading a history book once in a while it might expand your mind.


Seems your reading comprehension skill are not working tonight. I hope that in 2 weeks you will take the time to improve on them,

Have a Nice Day. :)


H.

[Gawel1410]

So, you're telling me that the DC Handgun ban was just a figment of our imaginations???? :cantbeli:

Well, it was repealed, right? Well my point is that like lets say for instance a bad neighborhood, the police would not want guns there, but come on like americans living in rural areas, that have a good clean record, they won't intentionally go door to door looking for your guns. As a country we have to worry about the major issues ie, our economy, security, and so on. Taking guns and dissarming citizens through out the country just won't happen.

[Hollis]

Well, it was repealed, right? Well my point is that like lets say for instance a bad neighborhood, the police would not want guns there, but come on like americans living in rural areas, that have a good clean record, they won't intentionally go door to door looking for your guns. As a country we have to worry about the major issues ie, our economy, security, and so on. Taking guns and dissarming citizens through out the country just won't happen.


Basically I agree with you. Problem as I see it is; The hard-core anti-gun people will use any means necessary to outlaw all guns. They have a lot of tactics to make it as difficult as possible.


Part of it is a trust issue, can we really trust the politicians? Look at all the political promises in the past that have never been fulfilled.

[Laconian]

Gawel, it took almost 40 years to repeal the DC gun ban. Other cities have similar bans and/or prohibitions. One of them is Chicago, Pres.-elect Obama's adopted hometown. Sen.s Feinstein and Schumer are big anti-gun senators, Rep. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, is a big anti-gun supporter.

I can't speak for all police, but all but 1 of the cops I know - and I know a lot - in a lot of states, are not for keeping guns out of neighborhoods, but for keeping guns out of the hands of people who aren't supposed to have them. I'm sure the disarmed Aussies and Brits on the board thought their guns were safe, too.

[Marshall_Nord]

Oh yeah lets all rise up in the streets and shoot back at the tanks, laser guided bombs, and UAVs with our handguns.

I'm sure at the first sign of any tyrannical action by the government half the so called supporters of the 2nd amendment would wet their pants and run and hide.

It’s much easier to confront the supporters of the tyranny than the tyranny itself. I doubt the supporters would have tanks, laser-guided bombs, UAV’s or the guts to fight for their beliefs. Besides, some of us still remember how to operate military machinery so the “handguns” are only necessary to capture equipment and material in order to build the barbarian horde.

All hypothetically speaking, of course. p-)

[EZFEED]

And don’t forget that their hopes to expand on the duration of this bill with the ultimate goal of instating it as law.
Someone also said something about Biden being a sportsman on this forum at one point. Well lets not forget his hand in the VCCLEA and the 94 ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

So with Obama, Biden, Pelosi, etc......what exactly do we have to look forward too concerning guns...

[MichaelF]

Besides, some of us still remember how to operate military machinery so the “handguns” are only necessary to capture equipment and material in order to build the barbarian horde.


Use the handgun to get the long gun.


Secondly, you are correct. The "target" of the notional armed civilian populace is not the (again, notional) Oppressing Army (given the makeup of the US Armed Forces, not at all a sure bet), but the civilian leaders behind it.

Ask an SS (Secret Service, not the other guys) Agent how much it takes to guard one guy from a few nutcases.

Imagine trying to run a functional government with your lower- and mid-level LEO and bureaucrats dropping like flies and half of the ones still in place cooperating with the rebels.

The resulting chaos limits the ability of the government to...well, govern outside of rifleshot of a dependable security force.

Look at Iraq (where the security force to civilian ratio is much, much higher than the US, and there are fewer places to hide). Armed and angry civilians can do quite a lot.

That said, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to derail this before it happens. If legislators have to ask themselves the question "are lots of people going to actively try to blow my **** away for this?"...hopefully we'll have few people actively trying to undermine the Constitution.

The Continental Congress was quite familiar with the principle of the civilian population reserving to itself the right to use violence to ensure their rights (the Revolution was, initially, all about making sure the Colonists enjoyed the traditional "Rights Of Englishmen").

The Constitution is all about the Government being afraid of the People. Whether by them voting at the polls (the ordinary form), or from the rooftops (the extraordinary form). It's the People who get to decide when that line gets crossed.

Old Chairman Mao was a wild and crazy guy, but he was right that all political power derives (at its source) from the barrel of a gun (or bomb).

[phigment]

So with Obama, Biden, Pelosi, etc......what exactly do we have to look forward too concerning guns...
It depends on the terms they use to redefine the term "assault weapon". Most likely higher prices and taxes for ammunition since that's what people seem to be targeting now, and if they pass another assault weapons ban, someone else said already, a lot of firearms will go up in value very quickly. I don't think they have much chance of outright banning and confiscating certain weapons simply because there are so many of them and there's no realistic way to do it.

But then when have gun-banners made sense when proposing legislation anyway?

[Marshall_Nord]

Secondly, you are correct. The "target" of the notional armed civilian populace is not the (again, notional) Oppressing Army (given the makeup of the US Armed Forces, not at all a sure bet), but the civilian leaders behind it.

Given this scenario (an unwilling military to oppress the populace) the tyrannical government would have to toy with the idea of accepting foreign military assistance; a move that would surely hasten its demise.

[Laworkerbee]

Gawel, it took almost 40 years to repeal the DC gun ban. Other cities have similar bans and/or prohibitions. One of them is Chicago, Pres.-elect Obama's adopted hometown. Sen.s Feinstein and Schumer are big anti-gun senators, Rep. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, is a big anti-gun supporter.

The funny (or ironic) part about that is Sen. Diane Feinstein has had a concealed weapons permit forever. p-)

@ MichaelF,

Great post man.

[Alpheus]

I wonder what Joe Biden will say when Obama takes his Beretta away?

[BugHunt]

Is enthusiasts the new euphemism for nutjobs?


Is that some PC thang? p-)


http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=60471&d=1225959868

[MichaelF]

Given this scenario (an unwilling military to oppress the populace) .

Worse. You always have a certain percentage (given the random nature of military recruiting) who'll go along with illicit activities (witness the Heer in Nazi Germany), but the real worry for the .gov is a split in the ranks.

That could result in anything, from a paralyzed "we'll be in the barracks, don't call us" military to outright civil war within the Armed Forces (as units split along political lines and superiors and subordinates start trying to eliminate one another IOT pull the rump of the unit to one side or another).

That sort of uncontrolled situation is the nightmare of every control freak government, as it could easily result (for example) in the Military District of Washington moving against the government (about a 5 minute march).

[Laconian]

It could be the first mission of the civilian security force or whatever he called it.

[EZFEED]

I wonder what Joe Biden will say when Obama takes his Beretta away?

Nothing because he'll frame it just like he did VCCLEA......

The whole Joe Biden and his beretta thing is probably all misconstrued anyway.
He's probably a politician by day and a hard core air-softer by night and the said gun is one of those plastic toys. rofl

Nobody with any sense could beleive he is even remotley pro-gun given his repeatedly anti-gun voting record. :cantbeli:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Joe_Biden_Gun_Control.htm

[MichaelF]

It could be the first mission of the civilian security force or whatever he called it.

(Note: we don't know exactly what he meant, given the context and lack of any real followup, but....)

Be a bit fun watching that get up and running. Most of the people with the requisite experience are (at least former) military. So it may be "revenge of the unpromotable Majors" (IOW, guys who couldn't/wouldn't make it in the real military).

Political (para)militaries never draw the best personnel. Likely just Party Stalwarts, True Believers (idiots/fanatics) and a stiffening of actual police and military (malcontents).

A better tactic would be to monopolize Officer Accessions and NCO promotion boards. Have to be a Party Member (having jumped through all the hoops) to get a Commission or pass the Board for Sergeant. Inner Party (or whatever you call them) status required to make Field Grade or Sergeant Major.
There's a dozen (legal) ways to achieve that. Especially since the ordering (administration and structure) of the Armed Forces are entirely within the authority of the POTUS (with some rubber stamping by Congress).

[Flavius22]

Personally I'd rather hunt with a remington 700 in .30-06 rather than a tricked out SKS, M16 derivative or a submaxhine gun of some sort.

I don't understand why you need an assualt rifle to defend yourself. Are you that poor of a shot? I can defend myself just as well as anyone with my 12gauge pump.

Call me an optimist but I seriously doubt we would ever be in a situation where anyone would need an assault rifle or submachine gun to defend one's self. If the world was that bad, would you want to live in it? And even if you survived one battle you probably wouldn't survive the next. There's always somebody bigger and stronger.

Its just not realistic to own so many assault type weapons.

then dont own them

[Flavius22]

Oh yeah lets all rise up in the streets and shoot back at the tanks, laser guided bombs, and UAVs with our handguns.

I'm sure at the first sign of any tyrannical action by the government half the so called supporters of the 2nd amendment would wet their pants and run and hide.

somehow taliban has no problem tying up all your tinker toys for years

[XShipRider]

I like how the desire to own a gun makes one a "gun enthusiast." The article was obviously written to sway opinion against gun owners per this "check out the redneck in her camo's" quote:

That brought his mother, the camouflage-clad Rachel Smith, to Bob Moates Sports Shop on Thursday, where she was picking out that special 20-gauge shotgun — one of at least five weapons she plans to buy before Obama takes office in January.
Why was it important to point out what she was wearing? (rhetorical, please don't bother)

Frankly, I'll believe the first sentence of the DNC Platform 2008 if in four years the Second Amendment remains unmolested, essentially turning the Bill of Rights into a Bill of Maybes.



Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.

Maybe I just think wrong on the whole issue.

[Neptune_43rd]

hope all the stockpiling doesnt result in driving the prices up of assault rifles and high capacity magazines..

[drunken sailor]

It could be the first mission of the civilian security force or whatever he called it.

I am afraid thats exactly what he will do, Thats the only way it could happen as most of our military is overseas and well the police could not handle it.

[wigon]

Wait, you just contradicted yourself. The assault weapons ban could have easily been tailored to banning current and past "assault" weapons. And yes, Obama has traditionally supported that kind of legislation. His little quip about gun ownership "with limitations" was all fine and dandy until you look at his record. The chances of a new assault weapons ban are not high but they aren't low either. I wish I could say that politicians learn from their mistakes but it sure doesn't look like it.

Once again, the anti-gun or Obama apologists have to use the "you don't need" line again. How do you know? What if I want? I could use a shotgun on an intruder. I could also use a Bagdad special twin-gold plated AK-47s with 20inch Dante rims mounted on a jet powered gimbled trolley to get the job done. Do I need to use a .243 on a deer instead of an SKS in 7.62x39? Nope, heck lets gold plate that too. Can't really say who's in a position to say what gun owners "need". So please stop using that lame ass line.




WTF? I didn't say jack **** about what people NEED nor did I say I supported an assault rifle ban. All I said was that an assault rifle is best used as a secondary weapon for home protection and are not the best hunting weapons. So please don't put words in my mouth. If you want to use an AK47 as your primary home defense weapon then go for it. If you are ever unfortunate to have to use it, God help you if your bullets overpenetrate and go through your house and into your neighbor's house hitting someone innocent.
However for stopping a thief's vehicle as he tries to leave, something like an AK or SKS does a great job of penetrating an engine block.

Likewise during any period of civil unrest where you can potentially get mobs of armed individuals, having some longer range, semi-auto, large magazine capacity weapons (along with body armor) can help a person defend both their home and business if they are a small business owner.
So no, I don't think there will be an assault rifle ban and we already have plenty of regulations that haven't exactly taken away our freedom to own massive firepower.

If you want to take your logic to the extreme and deregulate all explosives and weapons like RPG's, then um... good luck having your neighbors lobbing RPG's and playing with home-brew explosives in their backyards.
There are reasons why we have some regulations. It prevents a hell of alot of problems in our society. That is what ALL laws are designed for...regulating society. Yes, REGULATE. I know its a dirty fascist sounding word in this day and age in America, but its the truth when you think about it. Most aspects of your life are regulated in some way by local, state, and federal governments.



Wigon

[wigon]

You have body armor? Please, do tell. And include pics.


No pics, but I own a Level IIA police type vest and an Army surplus PASGT flack vest. Helmets include 80's era M1 steel pot with nylon ballistic liner, Army surplus PASGT kevlear helmet, and a British Mk6 combat helmet.

Wigon

[Hollis]

A small note, The "Assault Weapon" in it's current sense is a made up word to instill a negative feeling in a person. The problem with the AWB, was the definition of what a Assault Weapon is.

Among those ignorant of firearms, it seemed to do the job in defining what mysterious weapon of destruction. The definition was based on looks not mechanical design. If it was based on mechanical design, all semi-auto firearms would have been banned, all firearms with detachable magazines would be banned and so on.


Historically, the military standard arm has provided the hunter, the recreational shooter, the competitive shooter a fire arm to use.

My oldest original. "assault weapon" is a 1818 Springfield military issued rifled musket. I have a reproduction of a 1763 version too.


In the world of assault "Weapons" bans let us add, chains, baseball bats, knives, shovels, pitch forks, pikes, sticks, cars, airplanes, pencils, pens, telephones, books, book cases, 2 x 4s, or anything that can be manipulated by a human to assault another human, just to be fair. We do want to be fair and safe, don't we?

[California Joe]

The entire gun control movement is based on that spurious name, purposely penned to instill fear and deceive the ignorant. "Mass Murder Tool" must have been taken already. :roll:

[wigon]

Use the handgun to get the long gun.


Secondly, you are correct. The "target" of the notional armed civilian populace is not the (again, notional) Oppressing Army (given the makeup of the US Armed Forces, not at all a sure bet), but the civilian leaders behind it.

Ask an SS (Secret Service, not the other guys) Agent how much it takes to guard one guy from a few nutcases.

Imagine trying to run a functional government with your lower- and mid-level LEO and bureaucrats dropping like flies and half of the ones still in place cooperating with the rebels.

The resulting chaos limits the ability of the government to...well, govern outside of rifleshot of a dependable security force.

Look at Iraq (where the security force to civilian ratio is much, much higher than the US, and there are fewer places to hide). Armed and angry civilians can do quite a lot.

That said, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to derail this before it happens. If legislators have to ask themselves the question "are lots of people going to actively try to blow my **** away for this?"...hopefully we'll have few people actively trying to undermine the Constitution.

The Continental Congress was quite familiar with the principle of the civilian population reserving to itself the right to use violence to ensure their rights (the Revolution was, initially, all about making sure the Colonists enjoyed the traditional "Rights Of Englishmen").

The Constitution is all about the Government being afraid of the People. Whether by them voting at the polls (the ordinary form), or from the rooftops (the extraordinary form). It's the People who get to decide when that line gets crossed.

Old Chairman Mao was a wild and crazy guy, but he was right that all political power derives (at its source) from the barrel of a gun (or bomb).


That is not likely to happen considering that the US Army swears an oath of allegiance to the US Constitution and to defend it against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. So you'd have a civil war if elements of the Army sided with a President or government who violated the constitution and refused to back down.
However you are correct that the 2nd Ammendment was indeed put into the constitution as a last resort defense against tyranny. But a bunch of ya'all think the Obama administration will be the end of the world and that he's going to go nuts on gun control. It just won't happen. There would be armed revolt nation wide and there is not enough gun-control support right now.

Those that compare the US to Britain are making a false comparison. American was FOUNDED upon the firearm. Guns (often military grade) in the hands of civilians were key in settling this country and in developing grass roots law enforcement in places where there was a lack of it.
You simply don't have that history and tradition of firearms in the UK.
The UK likewise has not exactly fallen apart or turned into some horrible tyranny. The civil war in Northern Ireland have shown that people in that region can and will get military assault weapons (full-auto often) if and when they needed it.
I am not advocating that we follow the example of the UK and ban guns. Just that it most likely would never happen in America without bloody civil war.
So all in all people need to chill and not get so damn paranoid. Also keep in mind that advocating armed revolution is a great way to get on the no-fly list along with Joe Mohammed (something that is highly unconstitutional that I hope Obama reforms at least).

Wigon

[Marshall_Nord]

So all in all people need to chill and not get so damn paranoid. Also keep in mind that advocating armed revolution is a great way to get on the no-fly list along with Joe Mohammed (something that is highly unconstitutional that I hope Obama reforms at least).

If speaking of a hypothetical situation and the potential reaction to it brands one a terrorist, then we have already lost other Constitutional guarantees: freedom of speech and assembly.

This is different than saying "I'm going to f*** kill that <insert person here> on <insert time, date and location here> who's with me?"

[wigon]

If speaking of a hypothetical situation and the potential reaction to it brands one a terrorist, then we have already lost other Constitutional guarantees: freedom of speech and assembly.

This is different than saying "I'm going to f*** kill that <insert person here> on <insert time, date and location here> who's with me?"


It's a fine line and the government often doesn't distinguish. It's like Wahhabi Muslim preachers who rant about how America will be destroyed and Islam will triumph and how Jihad is the sacred obligation of all Muslims....but then they stop short of saying, "Pick up your weapons, make bombs, and go kill Americans." There are some very subtle differences but one tends to lead to extremist action. For that reason, monitors of hotbeds of political activism can flag such people. You are right also, that in that type of environment, constitutional rights for freedom of speech can be compromised. But keep in mind that here in America we have limits on freedom of speech like it or not. You can not, for example, threaten to kill people. That is illegal. Advocating action that could potentially lead to people hurting others, is in a blurry legal area especially when it comes to talk about the need to potentially overthrow the government using violence. You may not be arrested, but you can certainly become the victim of government harrassment and intimidation.
A key example is the leftist organization, "Food Not Bombs" who are on the FBI's domestic terror watch list with absolutely zero evidence or public statements as to why they are on the list. I've worked with members of that group and they are a bunch of vegan hippies who hand out vegan sandwhiches to homeless people. I can not imagine how they could be targetted by the FBI for observation and scrutiny, yet they are.
There are some groups that do definitely bear monitoring however such as the RCP (Revolutionary Communist Party) who are extremely militant. I've had members of them come up to me at academic conferences trying to convince me that armed revolution is the only way to change things. Those guys are wack-jobs and most definitely need to be monitored.

Wigon

[XShipRider]

A small note, The "Assault Weapon" in it's current sense is a made up word to instill a negative feeling in a person. The problem with the AWB, was the definition of what a Assault Weapon is.



Agreed. From the viewpoint of a deer, any gun is an "assault weapon."

[XShipRider]

That is not likely to happen considering that the US Army swears an oath of allegiance to the US Constitution and to defend it against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

Wigon

A very similar oath is sworn by all government employees (http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp).

[brainplay]

If you want to take your logic to the extreme and deregulate all explosives and weapons like RPG's, then um... good luck having your neighbors lobbing RPG's and playing with home-brew explosives in their backyards.


Wigon

http://www.cannon-mania.com/images/Strong/strong%20ad-1.jpg


p-)

[EZFEED]

Yeah.........2nd to the above! Little bubba and I played in the backyard just last week!p-)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/EZFEED/House/Picture037.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/EZFEED/House/EZFEED008.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v425/EZFEED/House/35DF4497.jpg

now wat??????????

[DreadNaught]

personally i think guns don't kill people because after all the gun isn't traveling through the air and killing the person unless it hit them in the throat. but guns don't kill people bullets kill people. plus extremely strong gun laws would only led to drive bye shootings with crossbows.rofl

[Bia]

A small note, The "Assault Weapon" in it's current sense is a made up word to instill a negative feeling in a person. The problem with the AWB, was the definition of what a Assault Weapon is.

Among those ignorant of firearms, it seemed to do the job in defining what mysterious weapon of destruction. The definition was based on looks not mechanical design. If it was based on mechanical design, all semi-auto firearms would have been banned, all firearms with detachable magazines would be banned and so on.


Historically, the military standard arm has provided the hunter, the recreational shooter, the competitive shooter a fire arm to use.

My oldest original. "assault weapon" is a 1818 Springfield military issued rifled musket. I have a reproduction of a 1763 version too.


In the world of assault "Weapons" bans let us add, chains, baseball bats, knives, shovels, pitch forks, pikes, sticks, cars, airplanes, pencils, pens, telephones, books, book cases, 2 x 4s, or anything that can be manipulated by a human to assault another human, just to be fair. We do want to be fair and safe, don't we?
OK cool I actually learned something there... I thought it meant all weapons w/ detachable magazine only.
Didnt know it adds any semi auto... that sucks too because a 22 squirrel rifle isnt an assault weapon... unless you're a squirrel.

[MichaelF]

That is not likely to happen considering that the US Army swears an oath of allegiance to the US Constitution and to defend it against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.

You quit reading before you got to where I made that point.

[Flagg]

A small note, The "Assault Weapon" in it's current sense is a made up word to instill a negative feeling in a person. The problem with the AWB, was the definition of what a Assault Weapon is.

Among those ignorant of firearms, it seemed to do the job in defining what mysterious weapon of destruction. The definition was based on looks not mechanical design. If it was based on mechanical design, all semi-auto firearms would have been banned, all firearms with detachable magazines would be banned and so on.


Historically, the military standard arm has provided the hunter, the recreational shooter, the competitive shooter a fire arm to use.

My oldest original. "assault weapon" is a 1818 Springfield military issued rifled musket. I have a reproduction of a 1763 version too.


In the world of assault "Weapons" bans let us add, chains, baseball bats, knives, shovels, pitch forks, pikes, sticks, cars, airplanes, pencils, pens, telephones, books, book cases, 2 x 4s, or anything that can be manipulated by a human to assault another human, just to be fair. We do want to be fair and safe, don't we?

You might want to add my wife's cooking when she's having an off day.

[Flagg]

The entire gun control movement is based on that spurious name, purposely penned to instill fear and deceive the ignorant. "Mass Murder Tool" must have been taken already. :roll:


Yes......I tademarked Mass Murder Tool to adequately describe my wife's meatloaf....sorry 'bout that

[Mr.K]

Nobody NEEDS a Ferrari...

Ferraris are not designed to kill people.

[phigment]

Ferraris are not designed to kill people.Neither are any of my rifles, but one was covered under a new attempt at a ban last year called H.R.1022 because it was semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. A lot of people who support this don't care whether or not a weapon was designed for hunting or killing people. It's just an excuse they use to gain ground in their goal to eliminate firearms.

Same logic, nobody actually needs a gun to kill an animal either. There are other tools you can use, but some people like it just like some people like to drive cars that they don't need to get from place to place.

[TheOpposition]

Poor hillbilles have to give up thier 50.cal beretta used for "home defense". Or even better the few [forgot how they word it] destructive weapon owners that have Anti-tank guns ect in thier posession. Yet somany people push to get guns out of gangbangers hands. Just btween me and you the idiot kid running around with a 9mm doesnt worry me nearly as much as the active government hateing neo-Nazi sitting outside city limits with a Fully loaded mortar.

[phigment]

I'm pretty sure you mean Barrett...and that doesn't worry me because it's easier to spot a huge sniper rifle on someone than a 9mm handgun. Plus most of those weapons owned by civilians have been deactivated.

[Hot Lips]

Yes......I tademarked Mass Murder Tool to adequately describe my wife's meatloaf....sorry 'bout that

Improvised Explosive Meatloaf

[Thor]

Poor hillbilles have to give up thier 50.cal beretta used for "home defense". Or even better the few [forgot how they word it] destructive weapon owners that have Anti-tank guns ect in thier posession. Yet somany people push to get guns out of gangbangers hands. Just btween me and you the idiot kid running around with a 9mm doesnt worry me nearly as much as the active government hateing neo-Nazi sitting outside city limits with a Fully loaded mortar.
You want to rather hand weapons to criminals?

The problem with democracy are numbnuts like you.

Gun owners are very law-abiding. In fact, they aren't allowed to own weapons if they aren't.

[TheOpposition]

You want to rather hand weapons to criminals?

The problem with democracy are numbnuts like you.

Gun owners are very law-abiding. In fact, they aren't allowed to own weapons if they aren't.



The term Law-abiding seems to be a fleeting one now a days. Sure I suport thoes that own guns truely because it is thier right, soon and so forth. but the very well sized portion that don't have criminal records per-se but are very well criminal minded is what strikes me as blatantly stupid.

[DreadNaught]

Something thats funny is in the US your more likely to get killed by eating McDonald's or by getting hit by a car. Well i guess we need to make fast food and fast moving vehicles illegal to.

[phigment]

The term Law-abiding seems to be a fleeting one now a days. Sure I suport thoes that own guns truely because it is thier right, soon and so forth. but the very well sized portion that don't have criminal records per-se but are very well criminal minded is what strikes me as blatantly stupid.That's not a very solid argument. You're basing the whole decision off of one remote possibility that has no way of actually being proven.

[ronnieraygun]

Something thats funny is in the US your more likely to get killed by eating McDonald's or by getting hit by a car. Well i guess we need to make fast food and fast moving vehicles illegal to.

_how 'bout that Mexican hot sauce. For ****'s sake if Cholula is not trying to kill me. Stop those importers, too. They really ****ed me up. The Democrats better "crack" down on whatever drooled out my asscrack, but they won't do that because they will lose votes from that hot and spicy demographic that supports them.

[EZFEED]

Poor hillbilles have to give up thier 50.cal beretta used for "home defense". Or even better the few [forgot how they word it] destructive weapon owners that have Anti-tank guns ect in thier posession. Yet somany people push to get guns out of gangbangers hands. Just btween me and you the idiot kid running around with a 9mm doesnt worry me nearly as much as the active government hateing neo-Nazi sitting outside city limits with a Fully loaded mortar.

Actually us poor hilbilies that own machineguns, rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, mortars, taks, etc have been behaving ourselves for the last 74 years.
There have been only 2 crimes commited by NFA weapons and one of them the perp was a COP!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

If another ban comes, if it doesn't, NFA weapons are exempt and wil not be affected whatsoever....NANANANANA!

http://autoweapons.com/

You wanna do something proactive? The answer is punishment for violent offenders and actually using the death penalty.

[LRPV]

With all this talk of buying guns, I hope some attention is being paid to ammunition. It's worth noting that lead-free primers don't have the shelf life of conventional primers.

[Mr.K]

Neither are any of my rifles, but one was covered under a new attempt at a ban last year called H.R.1022 because it was semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine. A lot of people who support this don't care whether or not a weapon was designed for hunting or killing people. It's just an excuse they use to gain ground in their goal to eliminate firearms.

Same logic, nobody actually needs a gun to kill an animal either. There are other tools you can use, but some people like it just like some people like to drive cars that they don't need to get from place to place.

I haven't read the H.R.1022 so i won't debate about your rifles. And the complexity of gun laws in united states. I'm sure there are clauses that are injust for some.

When Kalashnikov or Stoner designed their rifles they didn't design them for hunting but for killing, or let's say "fighting".

[phigment]

When Kalashnikov or Stoner designed their rifles they didn't design them for hunting but for killing, or let's say "fighting".
Point taken. The people that propose these bans take a lot of liberty in defining assault weapons though.

[Mr.K]

Point taken. The people that propose these bans take a lot of liberty in defining assault weapons though.

From what I read here , i can't disagree.

[Hyde]

Our right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting, sport or anything else. It exists solely to defend against tyranny of government.

Damn right. If you didn’t have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around.

Or this one time, some punk tried to rob my store, it coulda been a real ugly situation, but, I managed to shoot him in the spine. Yeah. I guess the next place he robs better have a ramp!

I'm just joking, self-mockery is an important ability i think, 2nd Amendment for the stay!

[wigon]

Actually us poor hilbilies that own machineguns, rocket launchers, anti-tank guns, mortars, taks, etc have been behaving ourselves for the last 74 years.
There have been only 2 crimes commited by NFA weapons and one of them the perp was a COP!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

If another ban comes, if it doesn't, NFA weapons are exempt and wil not be affected whatsoever....NANANANANA!

http://autoweapons.com/

You wanna do something proactive? The answer is punishment for violent offenders and actually using the death penalty.


My worries about neghbors with those types of weapons are not the same as a bunch of gun-loving rednecks out in the rural areas who collect guns and WWII memorabilia and who have to go through extensive background checks and get letters signed by their local sherrifs (and bunch of other legal crap and fees). The NFA weapons are HEAVILY regulated. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem is no decreasing the regulation so that anybody can get ahold of such heavy weaponry without any type of oversight. If you me my neighbors you'd be worried trust me.
I'm also not worried about .50 cal sniper rifles because they are so damn expensive very few people can afford them. Because of how rare they are, their owner could likely be easily tracked down if they are used in a crime unless they are stolen.

Any criminal who wants to take up sniping to murder people (and who can actually shoot) can do the job with any quality scoped hunting rifle but just at a bit reduced range. Still someone who is a good shot can take someone out with a good .308 scoped bolt-action rifle at 600 meters probably without too much of a problem if the target is stationary. The D.C. sniper showed the mayhem that could be caused even with a scoped .223 semi-auto weapon generally just using single well-aimed shots that could have been done just as easily with a bolt action.
Aside from range, the only real advantage of a rifle firing .50 cal BMG is penetration power.
But yeah... overall, I'm not too worried about .50 can sniper rifles. Nevertheless a bit more regulation to ensure they are registered would not hurt anyone's freedoms.

Wigon

[Lt. James Anderson]

but the very well sized portion that don't have criminal records per-se but are very well criminal minded is what strikes me as blatantly stupid.

Who gets to decide if somebody is criminally minded (thought crime, right?)??You? Get a f-ing life, communist wanna-be.

[California Joe]

The term Law-abiding seems to be a fleeting one now a days. Sure I suport thoes that own guns truely because it is thier right, soon and so forth. but the very well sized portion that don't have criminal records per-se but are very well criminal minded is what strikes me as blatantly stupid.

Shut up dummy.

[Laconian]

Who gets to decide if somebody is criminally minded (thought crime, right?)??

That would be The Dream Police

[Kilgor]

Shut up dummy.

CJ hates freedom. :(

[Lt. James Anderson]

That would be The Dream Police

I suspect that the NKVD would be more to his liking.

[11 Bravo]

I suspect that the NKVD would be more to his liking.

No no ... the coming of the oblahmanot Schwarz Korps...that's what cabin fever is waitng for !.

[Bia]

Was going to buy some boots a while ago and car radio NPR was on doing story in Orlando at major gun shop there. Owner gave an interview and was happy over last 3 weeks sales but added and I quote, "90% of our sales of weapons are ones that would never be effected by any assault weapons modification in the law."

He mentioned in his personal view the new administration gives this issue way less priority than the Clinton administration did and implied people in general are over reacting.

[LineDoggie]

That would be The Dream Policethey Live inside of My Head.......

[Flagg]

That would be The Dream Police

Operation Cheap Trick

[CreepingDeath]

for my 2 cents:

here's a bible qoute barack HUSSEIN needs to read:

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." - Luke 22:36

God didnt outlaw a weapon.

[Ought Six]

If you were stuck in a lawless situation like the people trapped in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, what would you choose to defend yourself again gangs and armed looters with: a single-shot .22 rifle, or an AR-15? Think about that next time someone says that there is no legimate purpose for people to own 'assault rifles'.

[Macs.]

for my 2 cents:

here's a bible qoute barack HUSSEIN needs to read:

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." - Luke 22:36

God didnt outlaw a weapon.

Because the Bible is such a EXCELLENT book to get advices from.

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB) If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

(Hosea 13:16 NLT) "The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their littles ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

There is alot more of these gems. God loves you.

[Bia]

Indeed... works in any direction

Mathew 5:39 - But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[Spaz]

Because the Bible is such a EXCELLENT book to get advices from.

(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB) If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

(Hosea 13:16 NLT) "The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their littles ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords."

There is alot more of these gems. God loves you.



WTF does the Bible have to do with any of this? Stick to the discussion at hand.

[wigon]

for my 2 cents:

here's a bible qoute barack HUSSEIN needs to read:

"He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." - Luke 22:36

God didnt outlaw a weapon.



"The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied." Luke 22:38

So only two swords for all the apostles was enough apparently.
Furthermore when they actually used their swords to cut off the ear of a servant of the high priests Jesus said, "...No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him." Luke 22:51

In other words the swords were to serve a specific purpose that was part of the fullfillment of scripture. He healed the ear of one of the men who was there to take him away to his trial and ultimately, execution. The point of that section of scripture was not to say that everyone needs to be armed. The swords were simply a necessary part of scriptural fullfillment. But I suppose you can pull stuff out of context and make it mean whatever you like.

So before you mouth off about what President Elect Obama (who's middle name is Hussein but who is a Christian) needs to read in the Bible, you should read it a bit more yourself. Also if you read a bit more about Obama's background you would know that he is regarded as one of the top constitutional scholars in the country. I think he'd be the last person to ban guns. There might be some more gun regulation but thats about it. There constitution is pretty clear about the right to bear arms and there is no way they can go house to house collecting guns without a civil war breaking out.

Now if you want some hardcore pro-weapon stuff I could bust out some quotes from the Qur'an!!! ALLAH'U AKBAR! lol!

Wigon

[Calanen]

If you were stuck in a lawless situation like the people trapped in New Orleans after hurricane Katrina, what would you choose to defend yourself again gangs and armed looters with: a single-shot .22 rifle, or an AR-15? Think about that next time someone says that there is no legimate purpose for people to own 'assault rifles'.

No you should patiently wait by the telephone and dial 911. Guns are bad. And the people that would come and rob you are just desperate people who mean no harm and just want some cookies....

[Calanen]

about Obama's background you would know that he is regarded as one of the top constitutional scholars in the country


LOL!!!!!!

Sorry dude, he was a senior lecturer in constitutional law at a university, yes. Top constitutional scholar in the country, sorry, that's just spin. He likes to say he was a 'Professor' but he wasnt. It's like saying you were a commissioned officer when you were an E-6. Yeah you were in the military, but your rank was not of an officer. And he was not a "Professor', just a lecturer.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Hmm guns guns guns guns!

Minardiau's 5 point plan for effective yet fair gun control.

1. Any firearm maybe owned by any person who does not have a violent criminal conviction.
2. Semi and fully automatic weapons are to be stored at a government operated armoury. However such an armoury will be opened 24 hours each day.
3. Weapons stored at home must be fitted with trigger locks, ammunition stored in a seperate bio-metric secured safe
4. All firearm owners to attend yearly safety courses.
5. All firearms need to be registered.

This could work very well IMO. It would keep the anti-gun crowd happy since the "assault weapons" are off the streets except when needed by the shooter and every god loving redneck from Vermont (looking at you CJ) can still own and go shooting with their .50 cal sniper rifle.

[Calanen]

2. Semi and fully automatic weapons are to be stored at a government operated armoury. However such an armoury will be opened 24 hours each day.


Said armoury will have guns regularly go missing from it in suspicious circumstances.

[T3ngu]

Hmm guns guns guns guns!

Minardiau's 5 point plan for effective yet fair gun control.

1. Any firearm maybe owned by any person who does not have a violent criminal conviction.
2. Semi and fully automatic weapons are to be stored at a government operated armoury. However such an armoury will be opened 24 hours each day.
3. Weapons stored at home must be fitted with trigger locks, ammunition stored in a seperate bio-metric secured safe
4. All firearm owners to attend yearly safety courses.
5. All firearms need to be registered.

This could work very well IMO. It would keep the anti-gun crowd happy since the "assault weapons" are off the streets except when needed by the shooter and every god loving redneck from Vermont (looking at you CJ) can still own and go shooting with their .50 cal sniper rifle.

Most sensible thing from you...

EVA...

Real.

Certain biometrics can be beaten though (i.e. tests on myth busters the other night for fingerprints).

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Said armoury will have guns regularly go missing from it in suspicious circumstances.

But then it allows for easier tracking of the whereabouts of said firearm, creates a paper ect when it's used in the next 7-11 robbery in Petersham

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Most sensible thing from you...

EVA...

Real.

Certain biometrics can be beaten though (i.e. tests on myth busters the other night for fingerprints).

I think the the biggest problem with gun control and pretty much an issue in politics is that politicians, lawyers and so forth come up with massively complicated bs instead of simply keeping things simple and using common sense.

[budgie]

for my 2 cents:

here's a bible qoute barack HUSSEIN needs to read:


The 'Hussein' stuff is really juvenile, just so you know.

[Laworkerbee]

The 'Hussein' stuff is really juvenile, just so you know.

I consider it more racist than juvenile.

[Calanen]

I think the the biggest problem with gun control and pretty much an issue in politics is that politicians, lawyers and so forth come up with massively complicated bs instead of simply keeping things simple and using common sense.

It wasnt lawyers or politicians who came up with the current laws, it was the Police in all states and territories.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I'm referring to laws/legislation in general mate not just in gun control.

[SilentType]

Personally I'd rather hunt with a remington 700 in .30-06 rather than a tricked out SKS, M16 derivative or a submaxhine gun of some sort.

I don't understand why you need an assualt rifle to defend yourself. Are you that poor of a shot? I can defend myself just as well as anyone with my 12gauge pump.

Call me an optimist but I seriously doubt we would ever be in a situation where anyone would need an assault rifle or submachine gun to defend one's self. If the world was that bad, would you want to live in it? And even if you survived one battle you probably wouldn't survive the next. There's always somebody bigger and stronger.

Its just not realistic to own so many assault type weapons.

Do you really think the Founding Fathers thought that hunting or defense from thugs was so important that it warranted placement as the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution? Come on...you're not that dumb...nobody is that dumb.

The Supreme Court via Heller stated clearly that firearms that are in "common useage" can not be taken away from law abiding U.S. Citizens. Semi-Automatic rifles are among the most popular and highest selling firearms and are in "common useage." If you don't like the Second Amendment and the Heller decision the Constitution allows for you through the First Amendment to ask your representatives to Amend the Constitution.

Pretty damn simple to understand.

[SilentType]

I seriously doubt most people that buy assault style weapons are strict constitutionalists. Most of the people I've seen that are into assault weapons would amend the constitution in a heartbeat to make abortion illegal, take away voting rights from women and blacks, as well as round up and exterminate anybody they didn't like.

Barack Obama is a constitutional lawyer. He taught constitutional law at the university of chicago Law school. So if you support the constitution than Obama seems like someone you would like since interpreting and preserving the integrity of the constitution has been his life work so far.

The second amendment may not be there to protect sportsman but that is the argument that is used to stop any kind of gun control laws even ones that are just plain common sense.

Wow, do you even think before you post?

Obama should be someone who interprets now the Constitution? That's funny, because nowhere in Article II of the U.S. Constitution does it say that the President "interprets the Constitution." I believe you should maybe READ the Constitution and pay special attention to Article III. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution through Judicial Review of government actions. The Supreme Court has ruled on the Second Amendment.

[SilentType]

ha, ha. I don't keep cash in my wallet and I don't go walking around in parts of town where I shouldn't be.

WOW..just about the most racist thing I've seen in awhile posted here.

Sorry now I even posted response to this person.

[WARPIG]

I thought there was good material in that article for some Blue Collar Comedy jokes. But, I know a handful of people "stocking" up myself. Most of them lament about the coming of the social order now that Obama has won. I try and reassure them that we are not going to become China, Venezuela or the old USSR. We might become very similar to Europe however. That didn't seem to reassure them. I think Obama will get a sense of what topics are safe for him to use as a platform and which topics will burn him. Gun right are a flammable subject he'd be smart to play safely with. His little "guns and religion" gaffe created enough tension by itself.

My bet is that he lets his replacement supreme court judges worry about gun law while he speaks out against gun violence in a public way. The first lady will have a bigger impact on gun violence than he will. Michelle Obama leads a crusade on "the view" and "Oprah" about video games and gun violence.. and now it's big issue. Popular opinion will affect the change.

[Calanen]

http://volokh.com/posts/1227228105.shtml
Eric Holder, new Obama AG, no good for firearms laws..no sirree...

Eric Holder on firearms policy:

[/URL]Earlier this year, Eric Holder--along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice--co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief was filed in support of DC's ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home. The [URL="http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/BriefforFormerDOJOfficialsasAmiciCuriae.pdf"]brief (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacFormerSeniorOfficialsoftheDepartmentofJustice.pdf) argued that the Second Amendment is a "collective" right, not an individual one, and asserted that belief in the collective right had been the consistent policy of the U.S. Department of Justice since the FDR administration. A brief filed by some other former DOJ officials (including several Attorneys General, and Stuart Gerson, who was Acting Attorney General until Janet Reno was confirmed)took issue with the Reno-Holder brief's characterization of DOJ's viewpoint.

But at the least, the Reno-Holder brief accurately expressed the position of the Department of Justice when Janet Reno was Attorney General and Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General. At the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the Assistant U.S. Attorney told the panel that the Second Amendment was no barrier to gun confiscation, not even of the confiscation of guns from on-duty National Guardsmen.

As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that "Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence"--a statistic is true only if (http://davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/Guns-Gangs-Preschools.htm) one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as "children."(Sources: Holder testimony (http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/dag/testimony/dagcrime052799.htm)before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; Holder Weekly Briefing (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/11/18/202950/27), May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper "Unfair and Unconstitutional (http://davekopel.org/2A/IP/unfair.htm).")

After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, "Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists" arguing that a new law should give "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities. (In an Issue Paper (http://davekopel.org/2A/IB/New-McCarthyism.pdf)on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)

After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003611216_gunban10.html)that the decision "opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets."

Holder played (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11295.html)a key role in the gunpoint, night-time kidnapping of Elian Gonzalez. The pretext (http://davekopel.org/NRO/2000/Is-Miami-Another-Waco.htm) for the paramilitary invasion of the six-year-old's home was that someone in his family might have been licensed to carry a handgun under Florida law. Although a Pulitzer Prize-winning photo showed a federal agent dressed like a soldier and pointing a machine gun at the man who was holding the terrified child, Holder claimed (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/06/13/obama-vp-committe-member-helped-enable-2000-elian-gonzalez-seizure) that Gonzalez "was not taken at the point of a gun" and that the federal agents whom Holder had sent to capture Gonzalez had acted "very sensitively." If Mr. Holder believes that breaking down a door with a battering ram, pointing guns at children (not just Elian), and yelling "Get down, get down, we'll shoot" is example of acting "very sensitively," his judgment about the responsible use of firearms is not as acute as would be desirable for a cabinet officer who would be in charge of thousands and thousands of armed federal agents, many of them paramilitary agents with machine guns.

[Calanen]

After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, "Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists" arguing that a new law should give "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities. (In an Issue Paper (http://davekopel.org/2A/IB/New-McCarthyism.pdf)on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)


1. Terrorists dont use firearms much in the West.

2. If they did, they wouldnt buy them from gun stores. The LAST thing you want as a terrorist is anyone to notice what you are doing.

[Calanen]

3. Weapons stored at home must be fitted with trigger locks, ammunition stored in a seperate bio-metric secured safe


Martin Bryant killed a few more people because a gas station owner had to go get his gun out of the safe, get the ammo out of a different locked container, load it, come back out the front..by that time....Bryant had driven away with the hostages who later died. He was a crack shot too, and would have wasted Bryant.
For those of you who dont know, Bryant was the guy that got all guns banned in Australia pretty much by killing 30 or so people.

What people also forget is that Bryant never held a gun license and bought his weapons illegally.

Guns can be in safes, but if they are, they need to be ready to go.

[Bia]

WOW..just about the most racist thing I've seen in awhile posted here.

Sorry now I even posted response to this person.
No.. that isnt racist. It's common sense. Look into it.

[LRPV]

Guns can be in safes, but if they are, they need to be ready to go.

A gun in a safe is a secure paperweight...

[Mackie]

I thought there was good material in that article for some Blue Collar Comedy jokes. But, I know a handful of people "stocking" up myself. Most of them lament about the coming of the social order now that Obama has won. I try and reassure them that we are not going to become China, Venezuela or the old USSR. We might become very similar to Europe however. That didn't seem to reassure them. I think Obama will get a sense of what topics are safe for him to use as a platform and which topics will burn him. Gun right are a flammable subject he'd be smart to play safely with. His little "guns and religion" gaffe created enough tension by itself.


I would wonder if Obama will have any time to think about gun right.
2009 becomes the year of the real recession and nobody will cut any rights in bad years. Not in the US, Europe or elsewhere.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Question.

What if Obama gets the support he needs to amend the constitution thus bringing the US gun control laws into line with most other places in the world?

[Fiber]

Then thousands of hog farmers across the US will have to redesign their pigpens.

[phigment]

Question.

What if Obama gets the support he needs to amend the constitution thus bringing the US gun control laws into line with most other places in the world?
Then the people who pressured for the laws in the first place will come to realize they were misguided all along, and not want to admit it.

[Kaplanr]

Then thousands of hog farmers across the US will have to redesign their pigpens.

Or just get some ZSU-23s and Stingers. ;)

[LRPV]

Question.

What if Obama gets the support he needs to amend the constitution thus bringing the US gun control laws into line with most other places in the world?


I am beginning to hate you. If the 'messiah' starts anti-firearm lobbyists off on their high horse...nah...its not worth arguing with a disenfranchised leftist in a cheap vinyl skirt.

..at least wear leatherp-)