Obama wants to make AWB permanent

[dynamicck]

"They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

Urban Policy (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/)


When will people get over the fact that most murders are not caused by assault weapons. Damn media hypes it up because it's called "assault"

Government should enforce gun education vs gun control.

[renegade_ewok]

My question is, do you really need anything more than a handgun in 90% of situations? A .45 will drop almost anybody. I'm all for gun ownership and use... but really, you can have a handgun to carry and a rifle or two at home and no one is going to fuck with you.

[water]

Good time to worry about guns Obama. :mepoke:

I agree w/ the op here.

[dynamicck]

My question is, do you really need anything more than a handgun in 90% of situations? A .45 will drop almost anybody. I'm all for gun ownership and use... but really, you can have a handgun to carry and a rifle or two at home and no one is going to fuck with you.

You also dont need to modify or turbocharge your car.

I might not need an assault weapon, but it's the fact I can have it.

[RaceBred 17]

My 45 sleeps with me every night.

[HyperTek]

people kill people with guns... alot of times because they had access to em

Im not for guns btw.. Just dont see no purpose in owning one.. *i know people are gonna say its for defense*.. but if you even take away guns from the criminals, they gonna attack you with a knife? at least you would have a better chance fighting against a knife than a bullet.

Gun education will do nothing.. people with intent to kill, will kill regardless.

[VROOOM]

people kill people with guns... alot of times because they had access to em

Im not for guns btw.. Just dont see no purpose in owning one.. *i know people are gonna say its for defense*.. but if you even take away guns from the criminals, they gonna attack you with a knife? at least you would have a better chance fighting against a knife than a bullet.

there is no way to take guns away from criminals. even if you outlaw them criminals will still be able to get them. just like drugs.

[Marc240]

Its not the point in taking a gun away from all the criminals. Do you really think that all the guns used in crimes are legit?

No.

Theres always someone there to pull the trigger, sometimes people tend to forget that guns also save peoples lives.

[VROOOM]

found on Craigslist, thought it would be appropriate here.



To the Guy Who Mugged Me Downtown (Downtown, Savannah)

Reply to: [email protected] [?]Date: 2009-01-06, 3:43AM EST

I was the white guy with the black Burrberry jacket that you demanded I hand over shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message.

I'd like to apologize. I didn't expect you to crap your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. Truth is, I was wearing the jacket for a reason that evening, and it wasn't that cold outside. You see, my girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber 1911 .45 ACP pistol for Christmas, and we had just picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. Beautiful pistol, eh? It's a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn't it?

I know it probably wasn't a great deal of fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse since you also ended up leaving your shoes, cellphone, and wallet with me. I couldn't have you calling up any of your buddies to come help you try to mug us again. I took the liberty of calling your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, and explaining to her your situation. I also bought myself some gas on your card. I gave your shoes to one of the homeless guys over by Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all of the cash in your wallet, then I threw the wallet itself in a dumpster. I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell. They'll be on your bill in case you'd like to know whi ch ones. Alltel recently shut down the line, and I've only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don't know what's going on with that. I hope they haven't permanently cut off your service. I was about to make some threatening phone calls to the DA's office with it. Oh well.

So, about your pants. I know that I was a little rough on you when you did this whole attempted mugging thing, so I'd like to make it up to you. I'm sure you've already washed your pants, so I'd like to help you out. I'd like to reimburse you for the detergent you used on the pants. What brand did you use, and was it liquid or powder? I'd also like to apologize for not killing you and instead making you walk back home humiliated. I'm hoping that you'll reconsider your choice of path in life. Next time you might not be so lucky.

If you read this message, email me and we'll do lunch and laundry. Peace!

- Alex

[theronin]

rofl, so owned.

[Om1kron]

found on Craigslist, thought it would be appropriate here.



To the Guy Who Mugged Me Downtown (Downtown, Savannah)

Reply to: [email protected] [?]Date: 2009-01-06, 3:43AM EST

I was the white guy with the black Burrberry jacket that you demanded I hand over shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I hope you somehow come across this message.

I'd like to apologize. I didn't expect you to crap your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. Truth is, I was wearing the jacket for a reason that evening, and it wasn't that cold outside. You see, my girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber 1911 .45 ACP pistol for Christmas, and we had just picked up a shoulder holster for it that evening. Beautiful pistol, eh? It's a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head, isn't it?

I know it probably wasn't a great deal of fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge flopping about in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse since you also ended up leaving your shoes, cellphone, and wallet with me. I couldn't have you calling up any of your buddies to come help you try to mug us again. I took the liberty of calling your mother, or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, and explaining to her your situation. I also bought myself some gas on your card. I gave your shoes to one of the homeless guys over by Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all of the cash in your wallet, then I threw the wallet itself in a dumpster. I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell. They'll be on your bill in case you'd like to know whi ch ones. Alltel recently shut down the line, and I've only had the phone for a little over a day now, so I don't know what's going on with that. I hope they haven't permanently cut off your service. I was about to make some threatening phone calls to the DA's office with it. Oh well.

So, about your pants. I know that I was a little rough on you when you did this whole attempted mugging thing, so I'd like to make it up to you. I'm sure you've already washed your pants, so I'd like to help you out. I'd like to reimburse you for the detergent you used on the pants. What brand did you use, and was it liquid or powder? I'd also like to apologize for not killing you and instead making you walk back home humiliated. I'm hoping that you'll reconsider your choice of path in life. Next time you might not be so lucky.

If you read this message, email me and we'll do lunch and laundry. Peace!

- Alex

Yeah what a dumbass, he turned around and brandished a firearm in public when self defense could've been used as his alibi but now he can have charges pressed against him for assault and battery, robbery, and intent to kidnap if he really made the guy call his mom...

This is why pussies shouldn't carry guns, they instantly become fucking bad asses.

I wouldn't mind owning an M4 if I was all into guns, but seriously when would I find the time to use it? I went and shot guns with my buddy, I didn't feel manlier after shooting guns. I was just like, oh this is kind of cool, still a waste of 500 bucks if you ask me.

[SHIFT_*grind*]

*i know people are gonna say its for defense*.. but if you even take away guns from the criminals, they gonna attack you with a knife? at least you would have a better chance fighting against a knife than a bullet.

there is no way to take guns away from criminals. even if you outlaw them criminals will still be able to get them. just like drugs.

Yep. You cannot get rid of guns without un-inventing them entirely. It is not possible. Criminals will have them, and shoot people with them, no matter what you do or what laws you pass.

Outlaw guns, and you have much fewer law-abiding citizens with them, while just as many criminals are still walking around with them. Because they don't care about getting charged with illegal gun ownership when they'd be facing robbery, murder, or rape charges if they're caught anyway.

Someone is a lot more likely to bust in your house if he knows you're not armed, and a lot less likely to do it if he thinks he might get shot. It's not rocket science.

I do think there should be more education required when buying a gun for personal protection.


And that's a GREAT craigslist posting.

[Marc240]

If guns were to be taken away, crime would be at its overall highest. Criminals would know that not alot of people would nothing to defend themselves in certain situations.

[Pank]

you realize the AWB doesn't mean they're taking away guns, right?
You can still have your slightly modified AR's, AK's (or WASR-10's if you're not rich or you really really like romania), your halfass tec-9's etc.

You wont be able to buy a fully automatic .50 minigun with a belt feed, though.
No threaded barrels, flash supressors, large capacity mags, etc.
Just like it was in 2007 and 2008, mostly cosmetic.

do i agree with it? no
is it that big of a deal? not really.

Obama haters forget that the assault weapons ban was in place since 1994, then lifted briefly.
the vast majority of gun related deaths are with standard, legal spec handguns anyway.

I'm sure RJF will come in here and use this as an example of how Obama is going to use all the spare guns to blow up the sun, though.

[yota man]

Ok I agree that guns shouldn't be completely taken away. That would never solve any thing and would just not work. People in Washington know that too. But really who needs an assault rifle to "protect" them selves or their family? I would much rather use a shot gun or something that is less likely to go through multiple walls and put more people at risk.

[Flicktitty]

If you read this message, email me and we'll do lunch and laundry. Peace!

- Alex
fucking awesome!

but seriously...is there TRUE NEED for an ASSULT Weapon? i mean really?

[aziankingz]

If guns were to be taken away, crime would be at its overall highest. Criminals would know that not alot of people would nothing to defend themselves in certain situations.

yeah because we all carry assault rifles in our back pockets?

[LongGrain]

Yeah what a dumbass, he turned around and brandished a firearm in public when self defense could've been used as his alibi but now he can have charges pressed against him for assault and battery, robbery, and intent to kidnap if he really made the guy call his mom...

This is why pussies shouldn't carry guns, they instantly become fucking bad asses.


i'm glad i'm not the only one who thought this.

[sileighty83]

I think either way you look at it, it wont make a difference... you either leave things as they are now or take it away, and people start black marketing weapons. we all want what we cant have.

[SHIFT_*grind*]

I'm sure RJF will come in here and use this as an example of how Obama is going to use all the spare guns to blow up the sun, though.

And then ignore the "democrat propaganda" that he'll get from people as a response, which most of the rest of us refer to as "common sense."

[xs240]

This all has to do with population control, and paving the way for the new world order.

[!Zar!]

Why does a civilian need an AW in the first place?

[drift freaq]

This all has to do with population control, and paving the way for the new world order.

oh man . Please leave your dumb ass conspiracy theories home. Population control? LOL ya they can't even control illegal immigration.

Do us all a favor, put down the crack pipe, step away from the computer. Seek a treatment center for idiocy.

[sr-20]

The guy was doing good UNTIL he posted that ad. Like someone else said, he can have charges brought up against him. The situation happened and he handled it. I don't see why he felt compeled to make it public. It would not be so funy if it back fired against him. Some people just do not know how to keep their mouths shut.

[!Zar!]

The guy was doing good UNTIL he posted that ad. Like someone else said, he can have charges brought up against him. The situation happened and he handled it. I don't see why he felt compeled to make it public. It would not be so funy if it back fired against him. Some people just do not know how to keep their mouths shut.

I wouldn't be surprised if that ad was fake.

[VROOOM]

I wouldn't be surprised if that ad was fake.

i bet it is, but its a good read.

[cc4usmc]

Yeah what a dumbass, he turned around and brandished a firearm in public when self defense could've been used as his alibi but now he can have charges pressed against him for assault and battery, robbery, and intent to kidnap if he really made the guy call his mom...

This is the stupidest thing I have EVER heard on Zilvia. I don't even know where to being lol.

Umm, lets start with brandishing a firearm in public. Why do you think the public has become so afraid of seeing pistols out in the open? Because they took our right to carry exposed pistols. Look at it as censorship. A hundred years ago, do you think people were as afraid of seeing guns as they are now? No, because it wasn't that big of a deal. Now it's the complete opposite. People fear guns, when they should only fear the people that use them to commit crimes.

On to the self defense. Maybe I missed something, but does everyone out there know how to defend themselves against an aggressor with a knife? It's really silly to assume that the man in that story knew any kind of self defense, and it is even more silly to assume that the average person walking around knows anything too. If they did, do you think crime would be so high? And if you knew what you're talking about, which you don't seem to, you would understand that drawing a pistol on the would be thief would be a smarter decision. If you read, you'll understand that the man was with his girlfriend. Its one thing if its just you and the thief, but now you're adding a person to the situation who makes things more complicated for you....unless you're a ninja or the best hostage negotiator ninja. If you don't put that man down in an instant, he's gonna grab up your gf and put a knife to her throat. Do you know how to handle that? And..for all we know, the guy that wrote that message ( fake or not fake) could have been a skinny 140lb man and the thief could have been a 220lb man. We don't know, but that just adds the disadvantages for the Burrberry jacket man.

Now to those charges. It's pretty sad that people these days can be charged with those offenses when they're just trying to defend themselves. I'm even more hesitant to defend myself and my family just because I know that today, you can get fucked in the ass for doing the right thing. Because these are the times when someone can break into your house, hurt themselves and sue you. But as far as the story goes, I'm sure that's the last thing he's thinking about when someone draws a knife, and it should be. Nobody should have to fear the repercussions of defending themselves and loved ones, or anyone for that matter.

And he didn't make the guy call his mom, he called the guys mom and told her what her son was up to. I don't where you came up with the thief being forced to call his mom.

Now, I understand that the ad could be fake. And you're probably thinking "Wow, look at this dumb ass throw a fit over something that was said over a story". But it's even if it is a story, it's a true story all over the country. And the sad thing is, as time goes by, we're loosing our advantage over criminals.

[fromxtor]

^^Mtl it is a fabricated story, honestly I enjoy shooting the M-16/AR-15/M-4. But don't see the need for the 3 round burst function unless you are military.

[Matej]

The only purpose guns should be sold to civilians for is suicide. Free bullet included.

[TheWolf]

For one... I don't see assault weapons as bad or good. There are certainly things that serve no purpose other than for just sheer mayhem. Incendiary ammo comes to mind. It's not good for hunting. It's not self defense. It's good for shooting shit at night and setting stuff on fire. Is that a use of guns? well it can be. can it kill someone? probably somewhere accidentally. Are gang's running around with AK47's in the streets? nope.. almost all gun violence is committed with a hand gun! does wackjob montana boy need a barrett 50cal for "hunting". Not really but again I don't think many americans in america have died from one either. Sure these people are a little crazy. maybe paranoid. but they always have had the interests of the country at heart as well. There arn't to many people who tote assault weapons that arn't some how die hard americans and ususally they have very good gun safety rules. Sure these weapons are extremely leathal in the wrong hands but unfortunatly there hasn't been any real instances where someone has gone to town on civilians with these guns either so it very much self polices itself. Now if you ban their guns you ruffle their feathers and aggravate a situation that no one cares about. let sleeping dogs lay.

[TheArkitekt]

I own a gun for the impending zombie attack.

[VROOOM]

For one... I don't see assault weapons as bad or good. There are certainly things that serve no purpose other than for just sheer mayhem. Incendiary ammo comes to mind. It's not good for hunting. It's not self defense. It's good for shooting shit at night and setting stuff on fire. Is that a use of guns? well it can be. can it kill someone? probably somewhere accidentally. Are gang's running around with AK47's in the streets? nope.. almost all gun violence is committed with a hand gun! does wackjob montana boy need a barrett 50cal for "hunting". Not really but again I don't think many americans in america have died from one either. Sure these people are a little crazy. maybe paranoid. but they always have had the interests of the country at heart as well. There arn't to many people who tote assault weapons that arn't some how die hard americans and ususally they have very good gun safety rules. Sure these weapons are extremely leathal in the wrong hands but unfortunatly there hasn't been any real instances where someone has gone to town on civilians with these guns either so it very much self polices itself. Now if you ban their guns you ruffle their feathers and aggravate a situation that no one cares about. let sleeping dogs lay.

the north hollywood bank robbery. body armor and AK's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

[driven_]

why i dont have a gun?
because if i did, i would do bad things.
if i didnt, i could live with it.
plus i'm not of legal age. :P

[japslapsilvia]

I own a gun for the impending zombie attack.

:stupid:


msglngth

[GSXRJJordan]

YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT

The reason gun-owners/enthusiasts like myself are upset about the Assault Weapons ban is 2-fold:

1) I owned an AR-15 in 1994 - my grandpa bought it for me at a gun show, and as a collector, knew how valuable they'd be if they were out-lawed. Fish & Game tracked him/me down and had the Sheriffs confiscate it. This makes people angry. Do you think they gave me $2000 (it's street value at the time, so I'm told) when they took it?

2) THE BIG DEAL - It's the "slippery slope" thing all over again. If they can take assault weapons away, WHAT WILL THEY TAKE AWAY NEXT? CC4USMC has it exactly right here, the public has been made to be afraid of guns by the media and the government, especially in urban environments where the chance of you coming across and armed assailant is actually high enough to worry about. This fear makes it easier for the majority to accept the confiscation of legal firearms because some Congressman/woman wants to make a name for themselves.

I'm embarrassed to come from Senator Feinstein's state - she was one of the OG writers of the Clinton AWB, and still supports that crap tooth and nail today.

The reason we don't have as much to worry about now is that the "slippery slope" has been stopped in regards to the 2nd Amendment's application on personal handgun ownership - remember that Washington DC-based Supreme Court decision a few months back? Looks like the "big 9" decided that we do have a right to personal firearm ownership.

So relax, all. We'll have much bigger Obama complaints in the next few months.

[illvialuver]

My question is, do you really need anything more than a handgun in 90% of situations? A .45 will drop almost anybody. I'm all for gun ownership and use... but really, you can have a handgun to carry and a rifle or two at home and no one is going to fuck with you.

This would be like someone saying, "do you really need a 350 whp 240sx, a bone stock civic will still get you from a to b"

It is not do you need it, it's fuckin America man! it is the nation of want! If we all got just what we need we would be Communist !

It is about having the freedom of choice to say, "hey. I want to shoot an assault rifle at the gun club today" and being able to do it.
But if it was just what we need and not of our choice it would be like " oh, yeah I get to go shoot this same old lame handgun that I have used for the past five years" B-O-R-I-N-G!

It is about choice, when the gov starts passing laws taking away our choices, that is when we lose some of our freedoms.
Passing this law will not make drive bys happen less, or make the rate of violent gun crimes deminish.

[Matej]

The government needs to stop taking away our freedoms.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00092/TTH192gsrhrh511CC_92865a.jpg

[cc4usmc]

^ I assume that's supposed to be a sarcastic post? It's a poor example of whatever you were trying to get across.

the north hollywood bank robbery. body armor and AK's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

That happened 12 years ago. Has there been anything close to that scale since then? Nope. How come? Surely not because nobody can get there hands on an ak and body armor.

[JRas]

for self defense you don't need anymore than a pistol and or shotgun..

for or against.. not sure

[GSXRJJordan]

for self defense you don't need anymore than a pistol and or shotgun..

for or against.. not sure

As much as I agree with you, I have to play "devils advocate" - like Illvia said, who am I to tell you what to do? As long as you're not shooting me or doing anything "illegal" with your assault weapons, what the fuck right do I have to take them away?

It's not like we don't already have laws against doing dumb shit with guns - don't point them at people, don't use them to threaten people into giving you stuff, don't shoot them randomly at your house, etc etc.

I have this argument with my dad (votes democratic just to piss me off I think) about once a week - I always use the "fast car" analogy... I think it's stupid and reckless that you have a supercharged Corvette capable of going 200mph... I think you could do dangerous things with it... I'm going to push for a law to take it away. Would that piss you off? yes.

[!Zar!]

Next week there will be a thread about how everyone hates Obama because he put a ban on civilian owning nuclear arms.

[cc4usmc]

Next week another topic in which many members take seriously will be subjected to Zar and his "Been there, done that, being deal,stop crying" posts.

[GSXRJJordan]

Next week another topic in which many members take seriously will be subjected to Zar and his "Been there, done that, being deal,stop crying" posts.

Issue pushed up, thead starting this week. Oh, and Zar left me my first neg-rep, too, 3 years ago. I still remember. I'm adding that to the thread.

[BustedS13]

there are far more accessible weapons that are more commonly used in an illegal manner. nobody should come between me and my desire to plink cans with an ak47.

[!Zar!]

Next week another topic in which many members take seriously will be subjected to Zar and his "Been there, done that, being deal,stop crying" posts.
Truth is I don't see what the huge need for one to own an AK, M4, whatever is. They are cool and fun, don't get me wrong. But everyone is acting like something crazy is about to change.

Pank already summed everything up.

But since you want to talk about my posts, don't you have another state ref thread to make?
Issue pushed up, thead starting this week. Oh, and Zar left me my first neg-rep, too, 3 years ago. I still remember. I'm adding that to the thread.

I neg repped you? hah.

I don't remember.


Why am I taking this thread so lightly? Because it's yet another political thread bitching about how thing, "Should be".

Sure we can ban all guns. All that would do is make the ones already out there in illegal use more expensive to buy.

But at least it makes it harder for some people. That's what I see the whole issue at hand as.

With the same logic since we can't stop drug sales we should just stop illegal narcotic investigation, no?

[cc4usmc]

Truth is I don't see what the huge need for one to own an AK, M4, whatever is. They are cool and fun, don't get me wrong. But everyone is acting like something crazy is about to change.

Pank already summed everything up.

But since you want to talk about my posts, don't you have another state ref thread to make?

So because Pank "summed everything up", we might as well quit talking about it? My mistake. Sorry Pank.

Oh, you can go ahead and check, I never made any state ref threads. Have a nice day.

[!Zar!]

Yes, I did see this thread in a different light before Pank posted.
After I saw that I noticed that this is being turned into a bigger issue than it really is.

You guys are acting like this ban is affecting you.

That's the WHOLE reason to my nuclear arms post.

It affects some people but a mass majority of the rest aren't affected.

Sorry it was not a lengthy reply for you.

I find it pointless to take something serious that isn't of huge importance to me.

There will always be people who want more freedom. But sadly there are even more people who abuse that freedom and make it worse for the rest of us.

I'd love to own a crazy ass gun just for the hell of it.

But now that I can't, I'm not going to be hugely upset over it then start blaming people and claiming that america sucks or whatever; not saying any of you did.

You know I love you guys.

<3!

[ESmorz]

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ATA/26188DC~Cat-Fight-Posters.jpg

Who the fuck cares. It's not a slippery slope, there are still enough gun nuts around to keep your small arms safe for a good number of years.

So shut the fuck up and deal with it.

[!Zar!]

Cat fight?

Where?

$100 on Wonder Woman.

[cc4usmc]

You guys are acting like this ban is affecting you.

First off, you seem pretty confident that Pank knows what he's talking about. Confident enough to think that people like me are blowing this out of proportion. And nuclear arms? You're going the wrong direction, the next thing they will take is our shotguns, because they are "inhumane". Then its pistols, because of things like this..

LA man upset over job kills wife, 5 kids, himself - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090127/ap_on_re_us/bodies_found)

It effects everyone that wants to purchase something that they end up banning. And they want to expand the list..

"The gun control wish list includes: bans on semi-autos, bans on centerfire rifles (by calling them “sniper rifles”), bans on .50-caliber guns, bans on small handguns, bans on hunting ammunition (of course, they won’t say that, but don’t be fooled), gun rationing (“one gun a month”), national registration, national licensing and repeal of the ban on predatory lawsuits designed to put gun manufacturers and gun stores out of business."

Gun BaN Obama (http://www.gunbanobama.com/Default.aspx?NavGuid=e7a4e2d7-1dff-47cd-9d6e-ef10cbb9623b&ID=336)

It may not be important to you, but it's important to me, as well as other people on the forum. Violations of our rights start off just like this. They take a little, and then a little more... and then even more. Then we're stuck here to reply on the police to protect us against criminals who don't follow the rules, who don't give a shit. People who don't think guns are important are the same people that end up getting their ass saved by someone with a gun.

[airsoft]

Fine, screw guns.

We'll just do this shit OG Taiwan / Hong Kong style.

Protect ourselves Machetes... That will be some bloody shit

Machetes vs Machetes!

[!Zar!]

I agree with you Cc4usmc.

I have guns myself.

But even if there is a, "ban" I'm not getting rid of any particular ones just because of such.

It's not like I'm just toting them around with me at any particular time.

[cc4usmc]

The ban isn't to make you get rid of them, it's to make them unavailable to civilians anymore. I'd fucking own one right now if I didn't have to take the money I got from selling my Altia's and spend it on bills lol. But, I don't own a damn thing and I'm kicking myself in the ass for it, especially when I lived in Washington for two years and could have bought all sorts of stuff that you can't get here in Cali.

[jskateborders]

people kill people with guns... alot of times because they had access to em

Im not for guns btw.. Just dont see no purpose in owning one.. *i know people are gonna say its for defense*.. but if you even take away guns from the criminals, they gonna attack you with a knife? at least you would have a better chance fighting against a knife than a bullet.

Gun education will do nothing.. people with intent to kill, will kill regardless.
Because criminals run around with registered guns right?

And does anyone remeber how big of a controversy it was when they enacted the patriot act? Now they've got there foot in the door and are pushing more and more, and the average citizen no longer cares. First overzealous security, now open access to hacking personal equip and spying on citizens (not saying they didn't do it before, but now they dont have to hide it) and next will be cameras everywhere watching everything you do (been to dc lately?). And dont come at me with the "well if your not doing anything wrong" bullshit.
The amount of threads coming up about "loss of freedoms" should tell you something.
And most of you are cattle, being led away from your open feilds into your paddocks, blindly.
Others of you are so insecure and scared of the world around you that you feel "safe" being controlled.
But I personally like the land of the free, home of the brave. Yea, we have crime, yada yada. But shit, criminals arent going to stop if we lose our freedoms. If you cant handle thinking and acting for yourself, go to china, but fuck you if you want to take away my freedom.
If we lose guns (THEY ARENT TAKING OUR GUNS WITH AWB, NO SHIT, but this is where it starts, and yes understand that they have had assult weapons banned, but thats not all this entails)
one of two things will happen
a. Police state (v for vendetta anyone) authoritarian, dictatorship, slice it anyway you like
b. crime lords start running things (dont think criminals are only scared of cops, they are also scared of armed citizens)
and one thing will definitely not occur
c. citizens running the country (democracy)

Call it conspiracy theory if you want, but how do you think the government will treat you when you cant touch them?

In the real world ( I dont know what dream land some of you are living in ) the one with the weapons is in control. The wonderfull thing about america is, everyone has weapons, so no select group is in control. Lets keep it that way.

[Matej]

Guns are like track-only cars. :zzz:

[raz0rbladez909]

Because criminals run around with registered guns right?

:rofl: i don't think he thought that through before he posted it

oh and +1 for the impending zombie attack hah

[fromxtor]

^^ Only you can defend your house better with a gun, a car...not so much. I think we should uphold the constitution on which our country was started. Not take away from it, oh and btw if you dont take the issues in which threads are started seriously dont post. It's a very simple concept.

[jskateborders]

And one more thing to add to this thread
The original awb was put in place with an expiration why?
As a trial to see if the murder/crime rate went down with that ban in place
Did it?
FUCK NO, if anything it went up.

That was the whole agreement that allowed that in the first place.
THEN
"were just going to try it for a little bit, if it doesn't help, we wont make it permanent."
and eh, what can it hurt, well try it for a little bit.
NOW
it didnt make things better, but um, we want to keep it anyways...

[!Zar!]

Don't most legislations have an expiration date?

[jskateborders]

for that same purpose

[GSXRJJordan]

It's called a "sunset clause", and it helps more 'radical' legislation get passed. AKA, helps those on the "other side" pass off on it.

It's kind of a joke in Washington though, because they almost always get re-signed, usually more stringent than when they were enacted in the first place. Also, it's an opportunity to sneak new "riders" into the bill at the re-signing as well.

[RJF]

First the guns...next freedom of speech.....

[KA24DESOneThree]

Your conservative party is against the First, RJF.

Hell, the conservative candidate, McCain, was practically a posterboy for handgun control.

The fact of the matter remains this:
"A well-regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

An assault weapons ban is an infringement. The NFA of 1934 is an infringement. Handgun registration and background checks are infringements.

I have said it once and I will say it a thousand times:

Private citizens should be able to acquire any weaponry their bank account can afford without registration.

My Sig and my Bushmaster, neutered as they are by a corrupt "justice" system in Kalifornia, remain my sole means for being self-reliant and ensuring I can defend myself.

I will not depend on a corrupt police system, understaffed, undertrained and underfunded. I will not depend on a corrupt justice system, concerned not with protecting its constituents but with oppressing them. I will not depend on anyone or anything to save my life but steel, copper and lead in my own hands.

This is my life, why must you insist I not be able to protect it?

From my cold, dead hands you will take my rifle. From my cold, dead hands you will take my pistol.

[ESmorz]

I like spears.

They are way more badass.

Any way we could get a FOX reality show called Gitmo Gladiators. BRING BACK THE SPECTACLE!!!!

Two birds, one stone.

[jyon9689]

Jesus, I'm not going to call anyone out personally but some of you are reading way to far into all of this. Yes, I own guns. I own a lot of them. I was given my first one when I was 14 for squirrel hunting. If an assault weapons ban comes back, we won't be able to buy them for a few years, and that's the worst case scenario. There are not going to be bans on hunting ammunition. If you think that, well go right on ahead. Eat Ramen noodles for the next 6 months so you can stock up on cases of 30-30 rounds. I'm an avid sportsman, and I know America's government will protect game hunting.

I own a couple of assault weapons, an SKS and a MAK-90. I mean, why not? Cheap ammo, don't have to worry about cleaning regularly like I do my Parker shotgun. If they get banned, I'm not going to cry about it. Those NRA guys that are obsessed with militarizing themselves by pouring over tactical defense techniques and shit scare me. If you care about shooting an M4 that much, join the military.

Oh, and as for the NRA. I never even thought of joining. They scare their members (with BS like the hunting ammo ban) into believing that if they don't vote for Republican candidates, our country will go to shit. Those stereotypical NRA people give gun owners a bad name, and are an embarrassment to true sportsmen.

In conclusion, with all this Obama hatred I see circulating, wouldn't you rather take an AWB over shit like the "Patriot" Act? I want a more transparent goverment, no more of that GOP shit that's got us in this mess. That's why this gun owner voted for Obama. I'll put the best interest of our country over a trivial gun matter any election year.

[mrmephistopheles]

I'm a fan of firearms, and this news makes me wring my hands with anxiety. This country has been misled to believe that guns are bad things and should only be in the hands of police and the military. Things have gotten so bad that kids can be suspended from elementary school for pointing their fingers at one another and saying 'bang', much less bringing a toy gun to school. Even saying the word 'gun' gets them interrogated by counselors and principals.
How is it that we've gone from being a country in which guns were a part of many people's lives to now, where even open carrying a firearm makes people nervous?


When will people get over the fact that most murders are not caused by assault weapons. Damn media hypes it up because it's called "assault"

As long as the uneducated and reactionary media exists and as long as uneducated and reactionary politicians exist, so will poor and restrictive legislation.

My question is, do you really need anything more than a handgun in 90% of situations? A .45 will drop almost anybody. I'm all for gun ownership and use... but really, you can have a handgun to carry and a rifle or two at home and no one is going to fuck with you.

To me, it's less about self-defense (although that is a factor) than it is a matter of unnecessary restriction. Just because Gun A is adequate doesn't mean I should be prevented from owning Gun B.

people kill people with guns... alot of times because they had access to em

Im not for guns btw.. Just dont see no purpose in owning one.. *i know people are gonna say its for defense*.. but if you even take away guns from the criminals, they gonna attack you with a knife? at least you would have a better chance fighting against a knife than a bullet.

Gun education will do nothing.. people with intent to kill, will kill regardless.

Restricting law-abiding citizens from purchasing firearms for self-defense and sport only serves to make life easier for criminals. If someone is intent on committing a crime with the aid of a firearm, they'll obtain it through whatever channels are available. While you don't see a purpose in owning a gun, maybe people see no purpose in modifying cars. Would it be unfair to be outlawed from modifying your car to any extent? Would you enjoy having your car seized and destroyed without compensation for it being modified?

I agree that persons intent on killing will do so, with or without firearms. Gun education is a GOOD thing, and can have positive outcomes.

found on Craigslist, thought it would be appropriate here.



WORST gun owner of the year, although I sincerely doubt the veracity of the story. Why would you mug someone who is mugging you? Ugh. Seriously, that's a terrible and irresponsible gun owner.


but seriously...is there TRUE NEED for an ASSULT Weapon? i mean really?

Is there a need for a 480hp twin turbo'd car capable of reaching near 200mph? Really?

Why does a civilian need an AW in the first place?

Why does anyone but a racecar driver need more than 150hp? Most people who don't know anything about firearms automatically assume that 'assault weapons' have no place in a civilian's life. It's too easy to assume that that evil-looking black rifle has nothing but negative purpose. In reality, a semiautomatic shotgun can be a more devastating weapon than an AR15, but both are equally useless in the hands of a novice. I want an AR15 because I like shooting, and I'm familiar with the system. I like that parts are readily available and easily interchangable, to the point where I can change calibers as I please. I love that you can reconfigure them to your heart's content, changing from a target rifle, to an M4gery, etc.

I own a gun for the impending zombie attack.

Of course. Gotta have some sort of melee weapon for when you can't reload in time though.

the north hollywood bank robbery. body armor and AK's
North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout)

WORST EXAMPLE IN ARGUMENT TO EXTEND AWB EVER.

Seriously, that Cho dude at VT KILLED nearly twice the number of people that those two dudes injured. Hell, he injured more than they did.
North Hollywood guys fired ~1100 rounds from 3 AK47 copies, one AR15 variant, an HK91 (which is essentially a G3) and two Beretta 9mms.

That's 5 of what you'd call 'Assault Weapons'.

Cho had TWO PISTOLS, one of which was a .22 caliber.

I'm not saying any of them were any less culpable in doing wrong, but the fact remains that firepower was NOT a deciding factor in the amount of human devastation rendered. For sure, it helped that the bank robbers were firing at cops wearing at least some form of ballistic vest, and that police were generally their main targets. Cho just wanted to kill people (defenseless at that).

YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT

The reason gun-owners/enthusiasts like myself are upset about the Assault Weapons ban is 2-fold:

1) I owned an AR-15 in 1994 - my grandpa bought it for me at a gun show, and as a collector, knew how valuable they'd be if they were out-lawed. Fish & Game tracked him/me down and had the Sheriffs confiscate it. This makes people angry. Do you think they gave me $2000 (it's street value at the time, so I'm told) when they took it?

2) THE BIG DEAL - It's the "slippery slope" thing all over again. If they can take assault weapons away, WHAT WILL THEY TAKE AWAY NEXT? CC4USMC has it exactly right here, the public has been made to be afraid of guns by the media and the government, especially in urban environments where the chance of you coming across and armed assailant is actually high enough to worry about. This fear makes it easier for the majority to accept the confiscation of legal firearms because some Congressman/woman wants to make a name for themselves.

I'm embarrassed to come from Senator Feinstein's state - she was one of the OG writers of the Clinton AWB, and still supports that crap tooth and nail today.

The reason we don't have as much to worry about now is that the "slippery slope" has been stopped in regards to the 2nd Amendment's application on personal handgun ownership - remember that Washington DC-based Supreme Court decision a few months back? Looks like the "big 9" decided that we do have a right to personal firearm ownership.

So relax, all. We'll have much bigger Obama complaints in the next few months.

Thank you for the light you've shed upon this confused and uninformed thread.


The fact of the matter remains this:
"A well-regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

An assault weapons ban is an infringement. The NFA of 1934 is an infringement. Handgun registration and background checks are infringements.

I have said it once and I will say it a thousand times:

Private citizens should be able to acquire any weaponry their bank account can afford without registration.

My Sig and my Bushmaster, neutered as they are by a corrupt "justice" system in Kalifornia, remain my sole means for being self-reliant and ensuring I can defend myself.

I will not depend on a corrupt police system, understaffed, undertrained and underfunded. I will not depend on a corrupt justice system, concerned not with protecting its constituents but with oppressing them. I will not depend on anyone or anything to save my life but steel, copper and lead in my own hands.


While I agree with the salient points you make, I can't say I'm as vigorous a believer in full firearm freedom. I don't think civilians have any reasonable need for shoulder-fired heat-seeking missiles or such things.
To be sure, I like the idea of having my own M2 .50cal machine gun, as well as a CheyTac Intervention sniper rifle, but until we can get politicians to recognize that restriction of LAW-ABIDING citizens does not equal restriction of CRIMINALS, we're boned.

I appreciate that you mention the fact that police are not obligated to protect or defend you. If anyone else is reading this and is confused by it, look it up for yourself. A high court (can't remember which one and I don't want to cite false info) ruled that it was NOT the responsibility of the police to protect the lives of citizens.

So out of curiosity, how'd you get banned from Calguns?

[ESmorz]

As long as the uneducated and reactionary media exists and as long as uneducated and reactionary politicians exist, so will poor and restrictive legislation.

Holy doubley deja-vu.

[Mr. Camshaft]

I wouldn't mind, mine would become worth more. I could makes tens of dollars on it. TENS OF DOLLARS

[Pank]

First the guns...next freedom of speech.....

Every democrat is wrong, and ruins america every time they're in office and every republican makes america great and perfect and nothing goes wrong.

I'm not saying Obama is perfect because he's not. And i'm not saying Bush is the devil, because he's not. but its hilarious how you only attack Obama's administration (which is in its extreme infancy), when the last republican in the white house is literally the most hated American president in the entire fucking world. I agree with a LOT of republican policies. I'm not the biggest fan of a huge federal govt, but you act like Obama is going to steal babies from their cribs and rape them on live tv.

the world isn't as black and white as you seem to act like it is. The presidency has ALWAYS been a contest of the lesser of 2 evils.



edit: not that it matters, I live in NC, its 4:00am and i'm 90% sure i could go to walmart right now and buy a grenade launcher in my PJ's

[dynamicck]

the north hollywood bank robbery. body armor and AK's
North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout)

other than the assailants... who was killed? While one asshole on christmas killed more people with one handgun than the hollywood bank robbery.


People believe that assault weapons = more deaths. Wrong.
Handguns kill more people than assault weapons. It's the same type of fear of modifying cars.
That assumption is the same as Modified cars = street racing = deaths.
But drunk driving kills more people per year than street racing has in 10 years.

Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons.Assault Weapons (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html)




It is my freedom of choice to protect myself whether I use a handgun or AR15 with a 30 round mag. Whatever I feel necessary to protect me and my family.

[KA24DESOneThree]

So out of curiosity, how'd you get banned from Calguns?

A long record of anti-current-government posts, mixed in with posts about how anti-gun the CalGuns candidate of choice was and head-butting with Kestryll. I refused to tone down what I believe, which is not exactly kosher on a board filled with Neocons.

I have no ill will toward them for banning me, as it is their decision to make, but I have nothing but contempt for people who claim to be vehemently pro-2A but stump for a candidate who did commercials for Americans for Gun Safety and introduced the McCain-Lieberman Gun Show Bill (an issue he brought up twice, by the way).

If I am arrested for my open carry and off-list lower efforts, I will take no money from the CalGuns Foundation.

Jesus, I'm not going to call anyone out personally but some of you are reading way to far into all of this. Yes, I own guns. I own a lot of them. I was given my first one when I was 14 for squirrel hunting. If an assault weapons ban comes back, we won't be able to buy them for a few years, and that's the worst case scenario. There are not going to be bans on hunting ammunition. If you think that, well go right on ahead. Eat Ramen noodles for the next 6 months so you can stock up on cases of 30-30 rounds. I'm an avid sportsman, and I know America's government will protect game hunting.

I own a couple of assault weapons, an SKS and a MAK-90. I mean, why not? Cheap ammo, don't have to worry about cleaning regularly like I do my Parker shotgun. If they get banned, I'm not going to cry about it. Those NRA guys that are obsessed with militarizing themselves by pouring over tactical defense techniques and shit scare me. If you care about shooting an M4 that much, join the military.

Oh, and as for the NRA. I never even thought of joining. They scare their members (with BS like the hunting ammo ban) into believing that if they don't vote for Republican candidates, our country will go to shit. Those stereotypical NRA people give gun owners a bad name, and are an embarrassment to true sportsmen.

In conclusion, with all this Obama hatred I see circulating, wouldn't you rather take an AWB over shit like the "Patriot" Act? I want a more transparent goverment, no more of that GOP shit that's got us in this mess. That's why this gun owner voted for Obama. I'll put the best interest of our country over a trivial gun matter any election year.

In California, they banned hunting rounds in hunting areas where condors are present because they fear the lead caused bird deaths and reproductive harm. There is no hard science proving this.

Sportsmen are NOT protected by the Second Amendment. If you think that it guarantees you a gun to hunt with, you are both naive and mistaken.

If you think that an AWB would last a few years, you are mistaken. Look at the NFA of 1934... I'm sure some gun owners figured the exact same thing, but here we are, 75 years later. Have you even read the wording of the current assault weapons ban bill?

Oh, and Obama voted for the extension of the USA PATRIOT Act and has promised another $1.1+ TRILLION in so-called "bailouts" filled with pork.

Be a little less-informed next time.

[TheWolf]

the north hollywood bank robbery. body armor and AK's
North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout)

12 years ago, ak's and body armor, bombs, and even with over 2000 Rounds of armor piercing ammo, no one was killed except the two bank robbers. SO the most famous use of assault weapons. no one died except the bad guys. It's because of the engagement distance a rifle presents. The average distance between a pistol firefight is 7 feet. The average rifle engagement is over 55 feet.



FACT:In 2005, there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:

* 12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).


Over 70% of all deaths are from hand guns although they only represent 30% of the "gun" market. People aren't taking hunting riffles and assault weapons and mowing people down. People are taking pistols and shooting cops with them.


In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.

From 1977 to 1996, the U.S. firearm industry produced 85,644,715 firearms, 39,024,786 handguns, 26,651,062 rifles and 19,969,867 shotguns in the United States.

As of 1994, 44 million Americans owned more than 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25% of adults owned firearms. Seventy-four percent (74%) of gun owners possessed two or more firearms.

Clearly rifles are not the killers. Let alone a subset of rifles assault carbines. The amount of guns produced shows how many there are and how safe the average american is with their guns.

[VROOOM]

i posted the bank robbery as an example of what could happen. those guys were not out to kill people, they were out to rob a bank. Cho's only goal in his ordeal was to kill people. there is a huge difference.

what if Cho was armed like the men in the bank robbery. do you think he would have killed more people?

[RJF]

Your conservative party is against the First, RJF.

What flavor is that kool-aid that you are drinking?

The Dems want to kill free-speech, especially if there is any criticism of the Messiah or the Dem policies. Just look at all the talk of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Plus, I guess it was OK to criticize Bush for four years? He was bashed from Day One because the left kooks said he stole the election and only got a small break after 9/11. Meanwhile, now anyone who criticizes Obama is called a racist.

Obama just wants to shape this country with his leftist and socialist agenda.

Just look at the stimulus bill in front of Congress, it will not do anything for the economy except hurt in the long run because of the increased debt.

[KA24DESOneThree]

What flavor is that kool-aid that you are drinking?

The Dems want to kill free-speech, especially if there is any criticism of the Messiah or the Dem policies. Just look at all the talk of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

Plus, I guess it was OK to criticize Bush for four years? He was bashed from Day One because the left kooks said he stole the election and only got a small break after 9/11. Meanwhile, now anyone who criticizes Obama is called a racist.

Obama just wants to shape this country with his leftist and socialist agenda.

Just look at the stimulus bill in front of Congress, it will not do anything for the economy except hurt in the long run because of the increased debt.

The Neocons are the ones with the Kool-aid, not I.

Yes, neoliberals do have a tendency to limit free speech more than neoconservatives, but the Republican party needs to stand up for ALL free speech.

It was/is ok to bash Bush for eight years, and is ok to bash Obama for however many he is in office. It is absolutely not racist to question one's leader, even if he is not white.

I dislike Obama likely as much as you, but the difference is that I disliked McCain as much.

Gun ownership is not a conservative or liberal topic. It is a freedom topic.

[LongGrain]

This is the stupidest thing I have EVER heard on Zilvia. I don't even know where to being lol.

Umm, lets start with brandishing a firearm in public. Why do you think the public has become so afraid of seeing pistols out in the open? Because they took our right to carry exposed pistols. Look at it as censorship. A hundred years ago, do you think people were as afraid of seeing guns as they are now? No, because it wasn't that big of a deal. Now it's the complete opposite. People fear guns, when they should only fear the people that use them to commit crimes.

On to the self defense. Maybe I missed something, but does everyone out there know how to defend themselves against an aggressor with a knife? It's really silly to assume that the man in that story knew any kind of self defense, and it is even more silly to assume that the average person walking around knows anything too. If they did, do you think crime would be so high? And if you knew what you're talking about, which you don't seem to, you would understand that drawing a pistol on the would be thief would be a smarter decision. If you read, you'll understand that the man was with his girlfriend. Its one thing if its just you and the thief, but now you're adding a person to the situation who makes things more complicated for you....unless you're a ninja or the best hostage negotiator ninja. If you don't put that man down in an instant, he's gonna grab up your gf and put a knife to her throat. Do you know how to handle that? And..for all we know, the guy that wrote that message ( fake or not fake) could have been a skinny 140lb man and the thief could have been a 220lb man. We don't know, but that just adds the disadvantages for the Burrberry jacket man.

Now to those charges. It's pretty sad that people these days can be charged with those offenses when they're just trying to defend themselves. I'm even more hesitant to defend myself and my family just because I know that today, you can get fucked in the ass for doing the right thing. Because these are the times when someone can break into your house, hurt themselves and sue you. But as far as the story goes, I'm sure that's the last thing he's thinking about when someone draws a knife, and it should be. Nobody should have to fear the repercussions of defending themselves and loved ones, or anyone for that matter.

And he didn't make the guy call his mom, he called the guys mom and told her what her son was up to. I don't where you came up with the thief being forced to call his mom.

Now, I understand that the ad could be fake. And you're probably thinking "Wow, look at this dumb ass throw a fit over something that was said over a story". But it's even if it is a story, it's a true story all over the country. And the sad thing is, as time goes by, we're loosing our advantage over criminals.


youve GOT to be kidding me.

that guy STOLE dude's wallet, shoes, and cell phone at gun point. thats NOT trying to defend yourself, thats called mugging someone. whether they tried to mug you first or not...

[jskateborders]

There are two major points against awb

- all that will do is take the weapons out of the hand of law abiding citizens. Criminals generally use weapons gained off of the black market, assult weopons have always been and always will be available on the black market.

- Putting restrictions on a right is rediculous. Its like saying you have the right to freedom of speech, you just cant say this, this, or this.

Points for the awb

- safer streets.... by giving criminals an advantage over law abiding citizens?

If you think Im lying, look up the statistics of homicides with guns, registered vs unregistered weapons.

Also, firearms were banned in dc. The murder rate was definitely lower, in fact, no one ever gets shot there.


Also put this in there for arizona, an open carry state, where people walk around with registered guns.
83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens. (couldnt purchase firearms legally.... for those of you "not so bright" individuals, those people would still have guns wether they were legal or illegal.) (statistics as of july 07).

[dynamicck]

i posted the bank robbery as an example of what could happen. those guys were not out to kill people, they were out to rob a bank. Cho's only goal in his ordeal was to kill people. there is a huge difference.

what if Cho was armed like the men in the bank robbery. do you think he would have killed more people?

What if??? He didnt. He could've used an assault weapon...but he didnt.
What if does not prove anything.
You are assuming that assault weapon = more death. The statistics show more death by handgun.
What if the DC sniper used an assault weapon. He didn't. He used a hunter/sniper rifle.
Argue facts...not what if statements.






Also, firearms were banned in dc. The murder rate was definitely lower, in fact, no one ever gets shot there.



Where are you getting your statistics? No one gets shot there????

"Critics, citing numerous statistics, have questioned the efficiency of these restrictions. The combination in Washington of strict gun-restriction laws and high levels of gun violence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence) is sometimes used to criticize gun-restriction laws in general as ineffective."
Crime in Washington, D.C. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.)

DC has the HIGHEST murder rate per 100,000.
StateMaster - Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000)


Gun control laws are deemed ineffective. Check London (guns are illegal) murder rate with guns per 100,000. VS Switzerland (where every male is required to own a hand gun and assault weapon.)

You will find that Switzerland has a lower murder rate by gun per 100,000 than England. Hmmmm.... Even though guns are illegal, there are still MORE murders than a country with every male citizen owning a firearm.

BBC News | EUROPE | Switzerland and the gun (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg/450px-Caroline-Migros-p1000507.jpg

[VROOOM]

What if??? He didnt. He could've used an assault weapon...but he didnt.
What if does not prove anything.
You are assuming that assault weapon = more death. The statistics show more death by handgun.
What if the DC sniper used an assault weapon. He didn't. He used a hunter/sniper rifle.
Argue facts...not what if statements.



DC sniper used an Bushmaster .223 (basically a semi auto M4)which is an assault weapon.

[BOROSUN]

lol
Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

[dynamicck]

DC sniper used an Bushmaster .223 (basically a semi auto M4)which is an assault weapon.

I stand corrected, it was a bushmaster.

lol
Switzerland is one of the world's richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.

England's an island.

[TheWolf]

DC sniper used an Bushmaster .223 (basically a semi auto M4)which is an assault weapon.

Converted illegally to 3 round burst. All shots under 100 yards. Wow you've found the two best wackjobs in the last 10 years or more. Should pipe be illegal because of the unabomber. your looking at outliers not the statistics.

[VROOOM]

Converted illegally to 3 round burst. All shots under 100 yards. Wow you've found the two best wackjobs in the last 10 years or more. Should pipe be illegal because of the unabomber. your looking at outliers not the statistics.

I was just correcting the person who said the DC sniper did not use an assault weapon. i never even brought the DC sniper up.

[jskateborders]

Where are you getting your statistics? No one gets shot there????


DC has the HIGHEST murder rate per 100,000.
StateMaster - Firearms Death Rate per 100,000 (most recent) by state (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000)



Seriously, did you not read my entire post, or are your comprehension skills lacking? It was sarcasm, because dc, the place that banned firearms is still the murder capitol of America, proving the whole rest of my point that taking guns from good guys does not take guns from bad guys, it only gives the bad guys an advantage over the good guys. <----- you should be able to comprehend that.
Lets break it down, if guns are illegal, Anyone with half a brain can still get a gun, it would just be illegal, so bad guys who already get guns this way will still get guns this way... Only with guns illegal, they know that the odds of them getting shot breaking into a house are slim, so they would be more willing to do so. In fact, if citizens cant have guns, whats stopping break ins while people are home. Anyone who has ever called the cops knows it takes at least 30 minutes to get help. It only takes 5 minutes to walk into a house take shit and leave. And if you have a gun and no one else does, no one will oppose you.
But knowing that hey, there is a possibility that if I break into that house and someone is there, they might shoot me kinda of detracts from someone wanting to break into your house.
And to the response I know is coming "that's what police are for"
As Ive already stated, police response is generally slow, hardly very helpful in most situations. And If the police cant even find my stolen car, (hell I'm positive if I wasn't full time student with a full time job and had the time, I could find my car) I do not trust them with protecting my life or the lives of my loved ones. Period.

[Geno750]

We're next...

YouTube - The British called - They want their guns back! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE)

I was living in GB when the first anti-gun measures were put in place, and was able to read all the reports of how badly it backfired. Gun restrictions effect 1 set of people, the law abiding citizens, not the criminals. Its simply an awesome idea to remove all the guns from the people who are not inclined to use them in illegal activities. /sarcasm

[mRclARK1]

I agree, no one NEEDS an assault weapon, but I don't know if a ban would do anything at all anyway. If a criminal wants one, they will get it, and it's not like if they are legal every other house on the block will have one for them to steal, so don't try that BS argument on me. 90% of people don't even know what to do with an actual assault weapon and likely couldn't even get it to fire... So why own one?

I've never seen a firearm shoot a person without there being a second person holding the firearm... Guns make it easier to kill people if you're so intending. If you're willing to commit murder, you don't care if your gun is illegal.

I'm all for gun ownership, but I'm even more for common sense in that ownership. Then again, we're talking about people here. Common sense is like a super power today.

[Matej]

FACT:In 2005, there were 30,694 gun deaths in the U.S:

* 12,352 homicides (40% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 17,002 suicides (55% of all U.S gun deaths),
* 789 unintentional shootings, 330 from legal intervention and 221 from undetermined intent (5% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
Wow, that's a lot of gun deaths. Please post how many of the guns used for homicides and unintentional shootings were purchased legally.

[Zerolift Autolab]

If you actually read the original Ban -
it covered FAR more than just "Rifles"
There is a reason that every handgun produced was only offered with a 10rd magazine, and suddenly the length of barrels with both rifles and handguns were banned also.
So to say that you only need a handgun in most scenarios you are probably true, however if my family were to be in danger, i sure as hell would not want to stop and reload twice as many times if the situation called for it.
As everyone has stated - putting this ban into effect will do ZERO for the criminals that are out there, it will only put law abiding citizens at further risk and or create a whole new category of "criminals" .... meaning those of us that have acquired a firearm second hand that is on the "banned" list or has features that are listed will be associated with persons who clearly defy the laws.

Slippery slope is a great term, did you know that in england if you want to buy a set of steak knives - you have to sign for them.... because of home invasion crimes taking place with "Knives" ???

[mrmephistopheles]

Holy doubley deja-vu.

I didn't have a better way to phrase it.

A long record of anti-current-government posts, mixed in with posts about how anti-gun the CalGuns candidate of choice was and head-butting with Kestryll. I refused to tone down what I believe, which is not exactly kosher on a board filled with Neocons.

I have no ill will toward them for banning me, as it is their decision to make, but I have nothing but contempt for people who claim to be vehemently pro-2A but stump for a candidate who did commercials for Americans for Gun Safety and introduced the McCain-Lieberman Gun Show Bill (an issue he brought up twice, by the way).

If I am arrested for my open carry and off-list lower efforts, I will take no money from the CalGuns Foundation.



In California, they banned hunting rounds in hunting areas where condors are present because they fear the lead caused bird deaths and reproductive harm. There is no hard science proving this.

Sportsmen are NOT protected by the Second Amendment. If you think that it guarantees you a gun to hunt with, you are both naive and mistaken.

If you think that an AWB would last a few years, you are mistaken. Look at the NFA of 1934... I'm sure some gun owners figured the exact same thing, but here we are, 75 years later. Have you even read the wording of the current assault weapons ban bill?

Oh, and Obama voted for the extension of the USA PATRIOT Act and has promised another $1.1+ TRILLION in so-called "bailouts" filled with pork.

Be a little less-informed next time.

I hear ya. The NFA is def. something that needs to be reexamined, AT LEAST.

i posted the bank robbery as an example of what could happen. those guys were not out to kill people, they were out to rob a bank. Cho's only goal in his ordeal was to kill people. there is a huge difference.

what if Cho was armed like the men in the bank robbery. do you think he would have killed more people?

Anything COULD happen. Outlawing certain types of weapons won't make the outcomes any less. A determined criminal/psychopath will murder as many people as possible by whatever means they have available, whether it means chemical weapons, explosives, knives, rocks, etc. Cho may have been able to kill more people, but I have a counter-question for you - what if some of Cho's victims had been armed?

I'd like you to watch this video and tell me your answer.
M1u0Byq5Qis
(Feel free to ignore the stills inbetween and after the videos. They aren't representative of my feelings, and I think they're a bit much)

Also, for your edification, here's her response to Cho's massacre:
2ggg0LwhrH0


Also, firearms were banned in dc. The murder rate was definitely lower, in fact, no one ever gets shot there.


Based on the rest of your post, this is sarcasm, but there's no context to explain that. For anyone not realizing this, the DC gun ban did not help curb gun-based crime in DC. Since '93 there has been a large general trend in the US of falling crime rates, including gun-related crime. Many proponents of the DC gun ban will claim that it did work and ignore this SOCIETAL trend which occurred throughout the rest of the nation without regard to imposed laws.

What if??? He didnt. He could've used an assault weapon...but he didnt.

Gun control laws are deemed ineffective. Check London (guns are illegal) murder rate with guns per 100,000. VS Switzerland (where every male is required to own a hand gun and assault weapon.)

You will find that Switzerland has a lower murder rate by gun per 100,000 than England. Hmmmm.... Even though guns are illegal, there are still MORE murders than a country with every male citizen owning a firearm.


Interesting point you make. I can't find any restrictions on certain firearms for Virginia, so why DIDN'T Cho get an AR15 or AK47? Maybe he was more comfortable with pistols, maybe he couldn't afford a pricey rifle, who knows? I don't know that he'd have been more effective with it. He was in close range with people, and swinging a rifle around is more difficult than swinging a pistol around. Also, rifles make far louder reports than pistols (generally), so it's likely he didn't want that sort of attention-drawing capability. Plus, pistols are far more easily concealed.

Fact remains that people will kill if they want to, regardless of what's available.

[VROOOM]

Oh i dont doubt that if one of the students was armed that Cho would have gotten so far. but none of those students or faculty would be carrying an assault rifle. they would have been carrying a pistol most likely. which i dont think there is anything wrong with. i just dont feel that anyone needs an assault weapon. they are a military firearm. just like i dont think people should be driving around in a tank.



BTW i own an "assault rifle"(i dont consider it one but it would probably be included in this ban) so take this with a grain of salt.

[cc4usmc]

youve GOT to be kidding me.

that guy STOLE dude's wallet, shoes, and cell phone at gun point. thats NOT trying to defend yourself, thats called mugging someone. whether they tried to mug you first or not...

Sounds like he was teaching him a lesson the good ol' American way. If the other guy hadn't tried to mug him in the first place, he'd still have his Air Force 1's. What would you have him do? Slap the guy on the wrist? Oh wait.. that would be assault...

[ESmorz]

I didn't have a better way to phrase it.

I was just making sure I wasn't going crazy.

:fruit:

[Phatz]

About the CL posting....

We CA people have to remember gun laws are different in other states. In AZ you can walk around with a pistol on your hip like its the wild west. In some states you can obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon I believe, not sure about that one tho.

.. anyways, Ill bet its a fake, some kid for sure... and if its not, I hope the guy wasn't dumb enough to leave his real info.

AS far as gun control and AW....

This country was founded and liberated by the protection of the minute men at the will and finance of a bunch of rich fucks who didn't want to pay taxes anymore. That is why the right to bear arms is in the fundamental Bill of Rights.

I understand having a 9mm in case some fool breaks into your house. You better be carefull where those bullets fly tho and not hit someone through a wall or window. My ex's dad shot a burglar with a magnum in his house. when the cops showed up they asked, "why didn't you finish him off?"

But with the advancement and protection of todays US Army do we still need to have stockpiles of guns or AWs in our homes and neighborhoods? In case the redcoats are coming? Rr from ze Germans, Tommy? Maybe, considering so many of our forces are wrapped up in foreign affairs that the even National Guard was deployed from the Nation it's suppost to protect.

At the current state, an enemy would never lead a successful land war in the US because every gun toting citizen would love the chance to dust off their rifles and unload rounds on some fucks trying to invade our shit! And that is why terrorist blow up our buildings and kill innocents instead.

I know my best friends dad around the corner, a retired sherif, has a locked closet with enough firepower to overthrow the city. Thats where I would run if the shits going down.

But does that justify the sale and ownerships of AW to citizens? Or just normal weapons?

[jskateborders]

About the CL posting....

We CA people have to remember gun laws are different in other states. In AZ you can walk around with a pistol on your hip like its the wild west. In some states you can obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon I believe, not sure about that one tho.

.. anyways, Ill bet its a fake, some kid for sure... and if its not, I hope the guy wasn't dumb enough to leave his real info.

AS far as gun control and AW....

This country was founded and liberated by the protection of the minute men at the will and finance of a bunch of rich fucks who didn't want to pay taxes anymore. That is why the right to bear arms is in the fundamental Bill of Rights.

I understand having a 9mm in case some fool breaks into your house. You better be carefull where those bullets fly tho and not hit someone through a wall or window. My ex's dad shot a burglar with a magnum in his house. when the cops showed up they asked, "why didn't you finish him off?"

But with the advancement and protection of todays US Army do we still need to have stockpiles of guns or AWs in our homes and neighborhoods? In case the redcoats are coming? Rr from ze Germans, Tommy? Maybe, considering so many of our forces are wrapped up in foreign affairs that the even National Guard was deployed from the Nation it's suppost to protect.

At the current state, an enemy would never lead a successful land war in the US because every gun toting citizen would love the chance to dust off their rifles and unload rounds on some fucks trying to invade our shit! And that is why terrorist blow up our buildings and kill innocents instead.

I know my best friends dad around the corner, a retired sherif, has a locked closet with enough firepower to overthrow the city. Thats where I would run if the shits going down.

But does that justify the sale and ownerships of AW to citizens? Or just normal weapons?
The whole basis of the country is that everyone is a citizen, at equal level, president, police, military, ect. Thats the whole point of "citizens arrests" (which dont work btw). That means that no one should have rights to carry a weapon someone else does not.

[98s14inaz]

My question is, do you really need anything more than a handgun in 90% of situations? A .45 will drop almost anybody. I'm all for gun ownership and use... but really, you can have a handgun to carry and a rifle or two at home and no one is going to fuck with you.

I'm going to say my part and back out of this conversation slowly, I hate these things. When the constitution was written the government and the people had equal firepower, the musket was the weapon everyone used. The founding fathers believed that everyone should have one so that if the government got out of hand again the people would have the means to defend themselves against tyranny. The final check and balance if you will.

The same holds true today. The assault rifle is the weapon of the government, so the people should have equal weapons...just in case. We still out number them. I pray to God it never comes to that, I would never want to kill an American. Why do you think our government is so dead set on taking away our arms? Why do all the statistics show that most firearm related murders are with unregistered weapons and not assault rifles? Why do all the gun grabbing politicians (including Ted Kennedy) have security with full auto weapons guarding them 24/7?

Question authority :hide: Remember, an unarmed citizen is a subject.

[jskateborders]

I'm going to say my part and back out of this conversation slowly, I hate these things. When the constitution was written the government and the people had equal firepower, the musket was the weapon everyone used. The founding fathers believed that everyone should have one so that if the government got out of hand again the people would have the means to defend themselves against tyranny. The final check and balance if you will.

The same holds true today. The assault rifle is the weapon of the government, so the people should have equal weapons...just in case. We still out number them. I pray to God it never comes to that, I would never want to kill an American. Why do you think our government is so dead set on taking away our arms? Why do all the statistics show that most firearm related murders are with unregistered weapons and not assault rifles? Why do all the gun grabbing politicians (including Ted Kennedy) have security with full auto weapons guarding them 24/7?

Question authority :hide: Remember, an unarmed citizen is a subject.
Wow, you said that much better than I did, but EXACTLY!

[98s14inaz]

Wow, you said that much better than I did, but EXACTLY!

I'm a social studies teacher lol

[SHIFT_*grind*]

Rr from ze Germans, Tommy?

YES.

"THIS. Is a shotgun, Sol." "It's a fucking anti-aircraft gun, Vincent!"

[HalveBlue]

The same holds true today. The assault rifle is the weapon of the government, so the people should have equal weapons...just in case. We still out number them.

True.

BUT...

The government also has supersonic jets, aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons. Do you advocate private citizens be allowed access to those in the name of keeping the government in check?

It's one of the obvious pitfalls of a document that was written over two centuries ago.

Besides, what good are weapons if people aren't willing to use them?

After all, for all those people complaining about the government infringing upon, taking away, their rights, how many are actually taking a stand and using their weapons to combat this government tyranny?

The government doesn't need to take away the peoples' weapons. It just need to take away their will to fight.

That's not to say I don't support the rights of the people to own guns. I do.

I just think the "gun issue" tends to be dominated by hyperbole and theories; on both sides.

Just a little food for thought.

[98s14inaz]

True.

BUT...

The government also has supersonic jets, aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, and nuclear weapons. Do you advocate private citizens be allowed access to those in the name of keeping the government in check?

It's one of the obvious pitfalls of a document that was written over two centuries ago.

Besides, what good are weapons if people aren't willing to use them?

After all, for all those people complaining about the government infringing upon, taking away, their rights, how many are actually taking a stand and using their weapons to combat this government tyranny?

The government doesn't need to take away the peoples' weapons. It just need to take away their will to fight.

That's not to say I don't support the rights of the people to own guns. I do.

I just think the "gun issue" tends to be dominated by hyperbole and theories; on both sides.

Just a little food for thought.

That is a typical left wing liberal response ^ I'll lose my will to fight tyranny about the same time I stop breathing. If you think our government wouldn't turn on us to save itself you are ignorant. Read up on the hurricane in NO and how the people were disarmed and not allowed to defend themselves or their businesses against looters etc. This is a slippery slope, I feel every law abiding American should own a gun...just in case. I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it.

[VROOOM]

That is a typical left wing liberal response ^ I'll lose my will to fight tyranny about the same time I stop breathing. If you think our government wouldn't turn on us to save itself you are ignorant. Read up on the hurricane in NO and how the people were disarmed and not allowed to defend themselves or their businesses against looters etc. This is a slippery slope, I feel every law abiding American should own a gun...just in case. I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it.


everyone should have a gun in case the govt trys to attack us? we have the strongest military in the world and you think us citizens could take them down? that would be a joke.
if the govt wanted to take over they would assault weapons or not.

[98s14inaz]

everyone should have a gun in case the govt trys to attack us? we have the strongest military in the world and you think us citizens could take them down? that would be a joke.
if the govt wanted to take over they would assault weapons or not.

At the time the British had the most powerful military in the world...how did that revolution end up?

How is the most powerful military in the world faring in Iraq and Afghanistan? We have a never ending battle on our hands, not bad for a bunch of civilians with a cause and assault rifles.

[VROOOM]

At the time the British had the most powerful military in the world...how did that revolution end up?

How is the most powerful military in the world faring in Iraq and Afghanistan? We have a never ending battle on our hands, not bad for a bunch of civilians with a cause and assault rifles.

at the time of the revolutionary war the military and civilians used the same weapons. the military used rifles maybe at the most they had a gatling gun, they didnt have tanks, jets or nuclear weapons. if our army was made up of just assault weapons then yeah we stand a chance.

the Iraqis have more than just assault weapons, are trained to fight they are also funded by terroists. in iraq we have to worry about killing civilians. if the govt was taking over the country do you think they would care if they killed civilians. hell no.

[ESmorz]

George Washington, fetch thy Gatling Gun!

[98s14inaz]

at the time of the revolutionary war the military and civilians used the same weapons. the military used rifles maybe at the most they had a gatling gun, they didnt have tanks, jets or nuclear weapons. if our army was made up of just assault weapons then yeah we stand a chance.

the Iraqis have more than just assault weapons, are trained to fight they are also funded by terroists. in iraq we have to worry about killing civilians. if the govt was taking over the country do you think they would care if they killed civilians. hell no.

Gattling gun was not developed until the 1860's. If all those kick ass weapons are so effective why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those rag heads are using technology from before the cold war. All I hear is "blah blah blah I'm a dirty liberal" lol

[VROOOM]

All I hear is "blah blah blah I'm a dirty liberal" lol


because thats all you want to hear

[murda-c]

Gattling gun was not developed until the 1860's. If all those kick ass weapons are so effective why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan? Those rag heads are using technology from before the cold war. All I hear is "blah blah blah I'm a dirty liberal" lol


lol raghead is an ethnic slur.

[jskateborders]

Technically not if they actually do have a rag on their head....
But what would make the government want to take weapons away from law abiding citizens hmmm? Because we are a threat to them. The government is supposed to fear its people, not the other way around (yes, v for vendetta, but true). That keeps things fair. As long as the are afraid of an uprising or revolt, they will give us what we as a people want (which is democracy btw, you know, what the country is founded on). But if we dont have any weapons, they dont have any fear, if fact, we become afraid of them, and then, they dont care what we want. If they said no more elections tommorow, you'd better believe a shitload of armed rednecks would march into washington by sunday. If we didnt have guns and they said no more elections? "thats not right" is pretty much all we'd be able to do.

[Tearlessj]

YouTube - Bringing In the New Year With a Bang!!! AR-15 style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTlpQVnqEmA)

Actually going shooting Saturday.

[jyon9689]

A long record of anti-current-government posts, mixed in with posts about how anti-gun the CalGuns candidate of choice was and head-butting with Kestryll. I refused to tone down what I believe, which is not exactly kosher on a board filled with Neocons.

I have no ill will toward them for banning me, as it is their decision to make, but I have nothing but contempt for people who claim to be vehemently pro-2A but stump for a candidate who did commercials for Americans for Gun Safety and introduced the McCain-Lieberman Gun Show Bill (an issue he brought up twice, by the way).

If I am arrested for my open carry and off-list lower efforts, I will take no money from the CalGuns Foundation.



In California, they banned hunting rounds in hunting areas where condors are present because they fear the lead caused bird deaths and reproductive harm. There is no hard science proving this.

Sportsmen are NOT protected by the Second Amendment. If you think that it guarantees you a gun to hunt with, you are both naive and mistaken.

If you think that an AWB would last a few years, you are mistaken. Look at the NFA of 1934... I'm sure some gun owners figured the exact same thing, but here we are, 75 years later. Have you even read the wording of the current assault weapons ban bill?

Oh, and Obama voted for the extension of the USA PATRIOT Act and has promised another $1.1+ TRILLION in so-called "bailouts" filled with pork.

Be a little less-informed next time.

That's CALIFORNIA, they'll attempt to outlaw anything. Yet medical marijuana is legal.:rofl: That's not the best state to use as an example for something being outlawed without proper cause.

I DO believe that hunting with firearms will never be be in danger of being outlawed, given plentiful game. It's too deeply rooted as an American past time. I never said sportsmen like myself are protected by the 2A, only that the government wouldn't keep us from hunting with guns.

You don't seem to get the point that I'm not for an AWB. It's just not that big of a deal to me. I enjoy hunting, and an AWB isn't going to affect that. It might mean I can't buy anymore "assault" weapons, but that's not enough to affect my choice in presidential candidates.

Mis-informed? No. People love to pull up voting records, but this is American politics. Anyone can find descrepancies in voting records. Legislature is not a clear-cut or efficient process. I'm not defending Obama by saying that. It's just the nature of the system.

I felt he'd be a better candidate. That's why I voted for him. It was either him or McCain, and I damn sure wasn't going to vote the dismal Repub. ticket we had on the ballot this year.

On that note, you have made a few good points. I respect the fact that you call out both candidates though. I can't understand why so-called Republicans were so quick to accept McCain.

Not to get off topic though, I do not think that an AWB would neccessarily decrease crime, and I do support concealed carry. I just don't think that an AWB is such a huge issue as to affect who someone should vote for, but then again I guess that's for individuals to decide.

[Matej]

I'm a social studies teacher lol
You sound more like a socialist studies teacher.

Oh snap oh snap.

Sizzle sizzle.




If the government ever decides to turn against the citizens, they'll outlaw weapons long before that, long before anyone even sees anything coming. The US government operates on shady moves behind the curtain, by taunting and sicking its "enemies" against each other through diplomacy, and always waiting for someone to slip up and fall so they can walk over them.

[jskateborders]

If the government ever decides to turn against the citizens, they'll outlaw weapons long before that, long before anyone even sees anything coming.
Thats pretty much the whole point of everything he and I have said....

[HalveBlue]

That is a typical left wing liberal response ^ I'll lose my will to fight tyranny about the same time I stop breathing. If you think our government wouldn't turn on us to save itself you are ignorant. Read up on the hurricane in NO and how the people were disarmed and not allowed to defend themselves or their businesses against looters etc. This is a slippery slope, I feel every law abiding American should own a gun...just in case. I'd rather have one and not need it than need one and not have it.

Whatever, bro. You keep believing what you want.

Fact is, the federal government has enacted a series of legislation limiting and regulating access to firearms by private citizens. This, according to many people in the pro-gun lobby, is an egregious violation of the Constitution.

I'm still waiting on these people to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right and combat this terrible government tyranny.



I'm not opposed to gun ownership. But I'm not blind either. Gun crime and accidents are a huge public health issue in the States, whether you want to admit it or not.

Instead of having a sensible public discourse on the topic, the issue is almost always derailed by exaggerated hypotheses and paranoid delusions.

P.S. Public participation in government is a much better way to keep the government in check than an armed populace.

[98s14inaz]

Whatever, bro. You keep believing what you want.

Fact is, the federal government has enacted a series of legislation limiting and regulating access to firearms by private citizens. This, according to many people in the pro-gun lobby, is an egregious violation of the Constitution.

I'm still waiting on these people to exercise their 2nd Amendment Right and combat this terrible government tyranny.



I'm not opposed to gun ownership. But I'm not blind either. Gun crime and accidents are a huge public health issue in the States, whether you want to admit it or not.

Instead of having a sensible public discourse on the topic, the issue is almost always derailed by exaggerated hypotheses and paranoid delusions.

P.S. Public participation in government is a much better way to keep the government in check than an armed populace.

I'm not your bro. The statistics say otherwise. Most gun crimes are done with unregistered "illegal" weapons. The criminals will always have guns no matter how much restriction the libs lay down. Crime actually went down in DC once the citizens were allowed to defend themselves again, look up that statistic. In fact crime goes down pretty much any place that gun ownership is encouraged. Crime also goes up in areas where guns are suppressed...England, Australia, etc.

Nothing violent is going to happen until the system breaks down and the majority of the population is effected. Talking to those in power never works unless you can back it up with lots of money. When the colonies "talked" with the king of England he laughed and raised taxes, quartered soldiers in their homes, etc. This awb nonsense is more of an inconvenience, baby step if you will at this point. I know for a fact that the people in NO were pissed when the soldiers/police went door to door taking the firearms away..."don't worry, we'll protect you" lmfao. Imagine that on a larger scale. Just like an animal, the population won't get fed up until they are backed into a corner with no other options. Again, I pray it never comes to that.

We put up with the British for a very long time, then we reached our breaking point and had a revolution...the rest is history.

"those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn't"

I don't see how any of what I am saying is "paranoid", "delusional", or based on theory. History repeats itself, that is a fact. I'm stating actual factual points in history. This is exactly why I hate these conversations, no matter how much sense I make the liberals run around like the sky is falling. I'm done, have at it :cj: :faint:

[jyon9689]

I don't see how any of what I am saying is "paranoid", "delusional", or based on theory. History repeats itself, that is a fact. I'm stating actual factual points in history. This is exactly why I hate these conversations, no matter how much sense I make the liberals run around like the sky is falling. I'm done, have at it :cj: :faint:

It seems like it's the people who are pitching a hissie-fit over a POTENTIAL AWB are the ones that think the sky is falling. Just listen to what some of the above people are saying. Conspiracy threories and all...:keke: And why target liberals, shouldn't you be targeting people who actually have a certain opinion on this issue that you care so much about? If you cut it out with all that die-hard Red vs. Blue shit, people will take you a lot more seriously.

I probably own more guns than most anyone in this thread, and hang out with A LOT of right-wingers. From a completely objective standpoint, Republicans misunderstand the whole 2A issue just as much as some far-leftists.

These conversations do tend to go in cirlcles haha.

EDIT: I just ordered my Doublestar AR-15 stripped lower, $90. If anyone really is paranoid about an upcoming ban, go buy yours. Can't beat that price, with all this people rushing out to buy up all the guns.

[fckillerbee]

wow...I don't even know where to start with what I would like to add my 2 :2c: .

I agree and disagree about this move. I agree that people should be able to go out and buy an assault rifle for personal use, I dont think it should be a matter of walking into a store and just buying one. And are you serious? " we should be able to buy anything without having to have background checks and what not" I understand personal space....and your rights. but what about mine?

what about the woman who put her husband in jail cause he beats her, and he said "your dead when I come out"...he should be able to walk to the nearest gun shop and pick one up...no registration...no background check..go ahead and murder someones mother, daughter, whatever. serious...think about it.

Taking away assault rifles? yes..we had the thing in LA 12 years ago. cho shot his wife and kids with a handgun. if people want to kill people...they will do it in any means necessary.

drunk drivers kill people too...where's the ban on alcohal? oh we tried that and it didn't work. so what do they do for people who have too many dui's? put a breatalizer test in their steering wheel before they start the car. it'll save a life..why don't we think of trying that route with weapons? find a way to prevent the possibility.

Imagine if 12 years ago...everyone in that bank had a handgun. there were 2 dudes. that's 30 people with a handgun, and 2 guys with full armor. and ak's....umm..reload...BAAAAM. there goes 2 guys trying to kill people. FUCK!!! THANK GOD no one was killed other than them. but there were many police officers gunned down...if they died would you be more against assault rifles...probably. "what if" is a huge question.

shit...give everyone a gun. If I were a robber knowing that this dude had a gun...fuck...I would have a second thought about robbing them. that's the hunter being afraid of the hunted.

how about this...up security for illegal weapons traffic, every person that has to purchase a gun...also has to take classes on safety, and precaution, as well as a damn insanity test. Whats the intent of having the weapon...oh, for display..why do you need bullets. I guarantee if you make it a longer and harder process to go out and buy a weapon to kill someone, there will be less people buying guns. they will say fuck it and get a knife. that's umm...a lot of time to run compared to being shot and that's it. giving us a better chance at living.

Cho was a mentally instable person. no one thought he was crazy. wife..kids...everything was fine. if it were a longer process for him to purchase a handgun, maybe that instable 2-3 weeks of him thinking about killing his family would change. you never know. what if right.
(cho worked for the same company I did.....people saw him getting depressed before he bought the gun. what if they investigated people to that extent? hmmmm.... we can deny a federal agent cause a teacher said he was bad at age 6, yet we check what...criminal records? so you're buying the gun for security, yet your crazy...mk...heres a "stun gun" works for 5 seconds at a time. wont kill someone. you pull that out and fire it off. have fun...your safe. no ones dead...hopefully. can't kill 5 people.

With that said..do you honestly think we are outlawing assault rifles cause they are "assault" rifels. c'mon...our country knows what they are doing. Get too many crazy people in office, next thing you know you have another hitler....smart person bad intentions. you know how many people I know that I have joking around said fuck obama, and they get super personal as if i'm attacking them. could this be a beggining..haha jk. people...i vote for obama, and I'm republican.
(here comes the conspiracy comments...)

I think this is the wrong route for the US if they are honestly trying to lower death rate by weapons.

[jskateborders]

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry
/thread

[98s14inaz]

You sound more like a socialist studies teacher.

Oh snap oh snap.

Sizzle sizzle.




If the government ever decides to turn against the citizens, they'll outlaw weapons long before that, long before anyone even sees anything coming. The US government operates on shady moves behind the curtain, by taunting and sicking its "enemies" against each other through diplomacy, and always waiting for someone to slip up and fall so they can walk over them.

SHHHHHHHH, keep your voice down while the grown ups are talking. How am I promoting socialism? I am for smaller government, pretty much everything I have said supports smaller govt :duh:

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry
/thread

Brilliant quote. I forgot about that one.

[OptionZero]

I'm going to say my part and back out of this conversation slowly, I hate these things. When the constitution was written the government and the people had equal firepower, the musket was the weapon everyone used. The founding fathers believed that everyone should have one so that if the government got out of hand again the people would have the means to defend themselves against tyranny. The final check and balance if you will.

The same holds true today. The assault rifle is the weapon of the government, so the people should have equal weapons...just in case. We still out number them. I pray to God it never comes to that, I would never want to kill an American. Why do you think our government is so dead set on taking away our arms? Why do all the statistics show that most firearm related murders are with unregistered weapons and not assault rifles? Why do all the gun grabbing politicians (including Ted Kennedy) have security with full auto weapons guarding them 24/7?

Question authority :hide: Remember, an unarmed citizen is a subject.

An uneducated citizen is a subject.

With or without "assault weapons," what are you gonna do? Go rambo on cops, national guard, and military forces? Please.

"citizens should have the same weapons as the government?" You want a F-22 parked in everyone's drive way?

This is not the 18th century. If you don't like the government, no weapon is going to change your mind or the way the government is run.

Get an education, be active in politics and your community. . . be a true citizen, not a relic from the past.

As for gun control generally, KA24DEEEESSONETHREE and I hashed the entire argument out already. Dig up the thread and read it.

In summary, however:

Guns are a tool, nothing more and nothing less. They are not inherently good or evil, they are merely ridiculously effective at what they do. What they do is kill or seriously injured.

Government regulation of assault weapons is no different than government regulation of anything else, whether its cars, chemicals, or even other consumer goods with any sort of potency, all the way down to food that can cause health problems.

Ironically, people that resist any form of "gun control" typically assert that those imposing the "gun control" are irrationally scared of guns as some sort of magically, evil force. Yet by fighting so vehemently to defend the "right to bear arms," pro-gun ownership groups themselves are placing a mystical quality upon guns as well, because they believe guns represent a form of independence and self-governance.

Guns no longer do. Our society is far denser and pluralistic; our guns are too good at what they do. It is a different world.

While gun regulation/legislation is NOT THE ENTIRE SOLUTION to violence in our society . . . it is certainly not the sign of the end individual rights and beginning of fascism that so many in this thread seem to think.

No gun is going to protect you from Big Brother; no one's going to keep an automatic weapon under the bed for self-defense. Even a police station has their most potent weapons locked away in an armory until needed.

Comprehensive gun laws combined with consistent and effective enforcement of them is what we need. Loopholes in laws and lax enforcement (primarily in the gun shows arena) is what allows illegal weapons to filter in society, and eventually, into the hands of evil people.

Guns don't kill people, true . . . but dumbasses use guns to kill people. At least without a gun the dumbass will have to get his hands dirty.


To the conspiracy theorists who live in fear of impending, unprovoked government intrusions . . . stop. I have worked in pretty much every facet of state government - trust me, it's far more interesting productive to learn how the government works and see how it can be improved than to bitch about it from behind a computer. If you're so worried, get involved and make a difference. It can be a simple as volunteering at a public school or local community center or as hard as getting a law degree writing new legislation/regulations. Whatever you choose, it's far better than moaning about what you've never participated in or studied.

[OptionZero]

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
Patrick Henry
/thread



Like all short quotes, that remark is taken out of context and sounds better than it's actual meaning is accurate.

The Constitution was written out of the recognition that the government is made up of people, of citizens.

As a result, the Founding Fathers wrote numerous safeguards into the very structure of the federal government so that it could not be turned into a overbearing force by those within it. Why do you think we have three branches of government with a system of checks and balances? Why do you think we have an electoral college instead of direct voting?

The small group of people who created this country did not fear "government" - they feared PEOPLE . . . people who were too stupid, too reactionary, too selfish to be entrusted with a government that could effect swift change and exert too much power.

Nothing is more pathetic than taking potshots at "the goverment this" or "the government that."

May I ask what you do? How have you ever participated in YOUR government, if at all? Do you know how it runs? Have you tried to learn? Have you ever served in any capacity? Major in political science? Anything? If not, sir, I ask what right do you have to mock it? If you're going to just be an irrelevant pebble content to be swept away, then at least shut the fuck up.

[OptionZero]

I'm not your bro. The statistics say otherwise. Most gun crimes are done with unregistered "illegal" weapons. The criminals will always have guns no matter how much restriction the libs lay down. Crime actually went down in DC once the citizens were allowed to defend themselves again, look up that statistic. In fact crime goes down pretty much any place that gun ownership is encouraged. Crime also goes up in areas where guns are suppressed...England, Australia, etc.

Nothing violent is going to happen until the system breaks down and the majority of the population is effected. Talking to those in power never works unless you can back it up with lots of money. When the colonies "talked" with the king of England he laughed and raised taxes, quartered soldiers in their homes, etc. This awb nonsense is more of an inconvenience, baby step if you will at this point. I know for a fact that the people in NO were pissed when the soldiers/police went door to door taking the firearms away..."don't worry, we'll protect you" lmfao. Imagine that on a larger scale. Just like an animal, the population won't get fed up until they are backed into a corner with no other options. Again, I pray it never comes to that.

We put up with the British for a very long time, then we reached our breaking point and had a revolution...the rest is history.

"those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who didn't"

I don't see how any of what I am saying is "paranoid", "delusional", or based on theory. History repeats itself, that is a fact. I'm stating actual factual points in history. This is exactly why I hate these conversations, no matter how much sense I make the liberals run around like the sky is falling. I'm done, have at it :cj: :faint:

Pure ignorance.

"history repeats itself"? Seriously, you're going to rely on some half-hearted quotations to make your argument? Use some actual thought, man. If the U.S. government decides to take over your life, I'll buy you any gun you want, just to see how that fight ends.

We did not win the revolutionary war because we had "guns,", we won because we were fighting opposition based overseas that couldn't be bothered to devote enough forces to kill us all. It didn't hurt that France chipped in. Are you suggesting that we should invite the French in because you don't get to own an assault right? Moreover, you would not be fighting a colonial-era opponent, you'd be fighting . . . well, guys with way bigger guns and more organized communications. Get over it, guns aren't an answer to government problems and haven't been for over a century. Welcome to 2009, man.

Have you ever even watched an episode of CSI? Violent crime is committed by:

a) someone you know

or

b) someone insane

If your problem is someone you know, the problem is with your relationship, not with how well armed you are.

If your attacker is someone insane, then they probably aren't logical enough to appreciate any firepower advantage you have or don't have. That's kinda the point of someone insane.

The only people who would be deterred by a sharp increase in the armament of the community are assailants who are strangers that have no real reason to attack you except profit AND who are rational enough to make a cost-benefit analysis and decide if its "worth" fighting you to get what they want. I submit to you that the number of potential threats fitting that description is pretty small. Remember, people who are so addicted/hungry/insane that they want to break into your house to steal your stuff and kill you probably aren't that logical to begin with.

I'd also point out that Australia and England are less populated countries, and those populations are far less concentrated and diverse than we are. That means there are fewer societal pressures that might trigger violence in general.

As I mentioned above, gun laws themselves are not the entire answer; the other half of the equation is enforcement, particularly in gun shows which are the source of distribution for most illegal weapons. Wanna know who makes it really hard to enforce laws at gun shows by sapping resources and creating restrictions on regulatory agencies like the NRA? People who fight gun laws, like the NRA and like-minded individuals.

It is no coincidence that the same people who oppose gun control are those that undermine the enforcement of existing gun regulation. Sure comes in handy when you want to point out how "ineffective" a gun control regulation/law is.

That's roughly equivalent to me running over to PHLIP's house, beating him on the head with a stick and torching his computer, then going on zilvia and posting a few threads about how he never bothers to do his moderator duties. Not that I would do that.

[98s14inaz]

Pure ignorance.

"history repeats itself"? Seriously, you're going to rely on some half-hearted quotations to make your argument? Use some actual thought, man. If the U.S. government decides to take over your life, I'll buy you any gun you want, just to see how that fight ends.

We did not win the revolutionary war because we had "guns,", we won because we were fighting opposition based overseas that couldn't be bothered to devote enough forces to kill us all. It didn't hurt that France chipped in. Are you suggesting that we should invite the French in because you don't get to own an assault right? Moreover, you would not be fighting a colonial-era opponent, you'd be fighting . . . well, guys with way bigger guns and more organized communications. Get over it, guns aren't an answer to government problems and haven't been for over a century. Welcome to 2009, man.

Have you ever even watched an episode of CSI? Violent crime is committed by:

a) someone you know

or

b) someone insane

If your problem is someone you know, the problem is with your relationship, not with how well armed you are.

If your attacker is someone insane, then they probably aren't logical enough to appreciate any firepower advantage you have or don't have. That's kinda the point of someone insane.

The only people who would be deterred by a sharp increase in the armament of the community are assailants who are strangers that have no real reason to attack you except profit AND who are rational enough to make a cost-benefit analysis and decide if its "worth" fighting you to get what they want. I submit to you that the number of potential threats fitting that description is pretty small. Remember, people who are so addicted/hungry/insane that they want to break into your house to steal your stuff and kill you probably aren't that logical to begin with.

I'd also point out that Australia and England are less populated countries, and those populations are far less concentrated and diverse than we are. That means there are fewer societal pressures that might trigger violence in general.

As I mentioned above, gun laws themselves are not the entire answer; the other half of the equation is enforcement, particularly in gun shows which are the source of distribution for most illegal weapons. Wanna know who makes it really hard to enforce laws at gun shows by sapping resources and creating restrictions on regulatory agencies like the NRA? People who fight gun laws, like the NRA and like-minded individuals.

It is no coincidence that the same people who oppose gun control are those that undermine the enforcement of existing gun regulation. Sure comes in handy when you want to point out how "ineffective" a gun control regulation/law is.

That's roughly equivalent to me running over to PHLIP's house, beating him on the head with a stick and torching his computer, then going on zilvia and posting a few threads about how he never bothers to do his moderator duties. Not that I would do that.

WOW, you went off on a tangent. I'm not going to even respond to that. Talk about taking things out of context :jerkit: :rofl:

[KA24DESOneThree]

Here's the deal: you take away guns, you take away choice. You create two societies: those willing to break the law to protect themselves and those willing to break the law to prey on others. Guess which group of people is more willing to break the law?

You take away the ability of the woman to use anything but mace to protect herself from robbery and rape. You take away the ability of the octogenarian to protect himself from younger and stronger assailants. You take away the ability of the citizen to stand up for himself and say, "I will not be victimized. Not this way."

The "assault weapon" is simply a more efficient way of self-defense. It carries more rounds (in a state other than California and a couple others), has more energy, has a longer range and sight radius, and can defeat assailants with body armor. AWs also distribute recoil more efficiently despite their increased power and allow very quick reacquisition of the target.

Guns have never been the problem. Society has always been the problem. When people started ignoring personal rights, "guns" became the problem. There's an entire culture in the US that has never been taught the ethics and morality of personal rights, so they ignore those rights.

That's all I will write for now.

[dynamicck]

Pure ignorance.

"history repeats itself"? Seriously, you're going to rely on some half-hearted quotations to make your argument? Use some actual thought, man. If the U.S. government decides to take over your life, I'll buy you any gun you want, just to see how that fight ends.

We did not win the revolutionary war because we had "guns,", we won because we were fighting opposition based overseas that couldn't be bothered to devote enough forces to kill us all. It didn't hurt that France chipped in. Are you suggesting that we should invite the French in because you don't get to own an assault right? Moreover, you would not be fighting a colonial-era opponent, you'd be fighting . . . well, guys with way bigger guns and more organized communications. Get over it, guns aren't an answer to government problems and haven't been for over a century. Welcome to 2009, man.

Have you ever even watched an episode of CSI? Violent crime is committed by:

a) someone you know

or

b) someone insane

If your problem is someone you know, the problem is with your relationship, not with how well armed you are.

If your attacker is someone insane, then they probably aren't logical enough to appreciate any firepower advantage you have or don't have. That's kinda the point of someone insane.

The only people who would be deterred by a sharp increase in the armament of the community are assailants who are strangers that have no real reason to attack you except profit AND who are rational enough to make a cost-benefit analysis and decide if its "worth" fighting you to get what they want. I submit to you that the number of potential threats fitting that description is pretty small. Remember, people who are so addicted/hungry/insane that they want to break into your house to steal your stuff and kill you probably aren't that logical to begin with.

I'd also point out that Australia and England are less populated countries, and those populations are far less concentrated and diverse than we are. That means there are fewer societal pressures that might trigger violence in general.

As I mentioned above, gun laws themselves are not the entire answer; the other half of the equation is enforcement, particularly in gun shows which are the source of distribution for most illegal weapons. Wanna know who makes it really hard to enforce laws at gun shows by sapping resources and creating restrictions on regulatory agencies like the NRA? People who fight gun laws, like the NRA and like-minded individuals.

It is no coincidence that the same people who oppose gun control are those that undermine the enforcement of existing gun regulation. Sure comes in handy when you want to point out how "ineffective" a gun control regulation/law is.

That's roughly equivalent to me running over to PHLIP's house, beating him on the head with a stick and torching his computer, then going on zilvia and posting a few threads about how he never bothers to do his moderator duties. Not that I would do that.

CSI? LOL :ddog:

[jskateborders]

Like all short quotes, that remark is taken out of context and sounds better than it's actual meaning is accurate.

The Constitution was written out of the recognition that the government is made up of people, of citizens.

As a result, the Founding Fathers wrote numerous safeguards into the very structure of the federal government so that it could not be turned into a overbearing force by those within it. Why do you think we have three branches of government with a system of checks and balances? Why do you think we have an electoral college instead of direct voting?

The small group of people who created this country did not fear "government" - they feared PEOPLE . . . people who were too stupid, too reactionary, too selfish to be entrusted with a government that could effect swift change and exert too much power.

Nothing is more pathetic than taking potshots at "the goverment this" or "the government that."

May I ask what you do? How have you ever participated in YOUR government, if at all? Do you know how it runs? Have you tried to learn? Have you ever served in any capacity? Major in political science? Anything? If not, sir, I ask what right do you have to mock it? If you're going to just be an irrelevant pebble content to be swept away, then at least shut the fuck up.
Im sorry but your an idiot. So in order to know my rights and want to maintain my freedoms, I have to be a politician or major in political science. Really?

What do I do, really doesnt matter but I work full time for sprint finance, and I go to school full time as an engineering major.... Why, because america is the land of the free, home of the brave where you can become anything you want to be and do what you want to do as long as it does not infring on the freedoms of others, and I plan on living my life to the fullest and being able to enjoy all of my freedoms.

Im taking the time to educate myself, so for you to say I have no right to be upset when they start enfinging upon my freedoms because I am not a polysci major is like me saying you have no right to work on your car if you dont have any automotive degrees. I pay my fucking taxes, I vote.

What the fuck more do I need to do to "be allowed to have a voice and opinion on whats going on. To care that we are losing freedoms at an alarming rate, but not gaining any more" huh??

Btw, its very childish to attack the opponent because you dont have a valid argument.

[ericcastro]

Good time to worry about guns Obama. :mepoke:

Thankgod we now have a President that can multi task.

people kill people with guns... alot of times because they had access to em.

there is no way to take guns away from criminals. even if you outlaw them criminals will still be able to get them. just like drugs.
HyperTek is right.
And VROOOM.
Most guns Criminal's use are stolen. So by tightening gun laws and the amount of guns people own, and the amount of guns in the united states, we linit the amount of guns criminals have access too.

If your fire arms cost 10 times the amount they do, you sure as shit would keep em in a safe or something.
But since handguns are a couple hundred, its not a big loss if its stolen. and criminals can afford to buy that shit. so illegal gun access is easy.

Hell, when i was a 14 year old wanna be gangsta in WA in 1992, me and my homie had a Mac 10, 30 round clip, hollow points.
Guns are too abundant.

you realize the AWB doesn't mean they're taking away guns, right?
You can still have your slightly modified AR's, AK's (or WASR-10's if you're not rich or you really really like romania), your halfass tec-9's etc.

You wont be able to buy a fully automatic .50 minigun with a belt feed, though.
No threaded barrels, flash supressors, large capacity mags, etc.
Just like it was in 2007 and 2008, mostly cosmetic.
.
So we basically would be fighting homeland terrorism and malisha???:keke:
Yeah, though fun, military weapons should probably stay in the military.
Otherwise you get fuckers like the BOA/north hollywood robbery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-cMIVNntHs

and to music,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCDuTg4pvnc

[GluedMyNuts]

Assault weapons dont kill people. It's STUPID PEOPLE with weapons that kill people. If they apply this ban, then might as well ban all vehicles so we won't have drunk drivers, speeders, senior drivers, and all other stupid crap.
Obama is so great!:rolleyes:

[OptionZero]

Here's the deal: you take away guns, you take away choice. You create two societies: those willing to break the law to protect themselves and those willing to break the law to prey on others. Guess which group of people is more willing to break the law?

You take away the ability of the woman to use anything but mace to protect herself from robbery and rape. You take away the ability of the octogenarian to protect himself from younger and stronger assailants. You take away the ability of the citizen to stand up for himself and say, "I will not be victimized. Not this way."

The "assault weapon" is simply a more efficient way of self-defense. It carries more rounds (in a state other than California and a couple others), has more energy, has a longer range and sight radius, and can defeat assailants with body armor. AWs also distribute recoil more efficiently despite their increased power and allow very quick reacquisition of the target.

Guns have never been the problem. Society has always been the problem. When people started ignoring personal rights, "guns" became the problem. There's an entire culture in the US that has never been taught the ethics and morality of personal rights, so they ignore those rights.

That's all I will write for now.

How often do you get armored assailants bursting through the windows when you're at home? C'mon.

Guns have never been the entire problem . . . but given how effective they are, they can magnify a problem in society. What might have been a fist fight escalates into a shooting; a person with a grudge becomes empowered to do more damage than they otherwise would have.

Again, a gun is just a tool, but it's a highly effective tool for killing. That's all.

[OptionZero]

CSI? LOL :ddog:

I thought it would be an example that most people would understand. If that does not suffice, walk into a criminal court room and sit there for a few hours. Tell me that most victims aren't related to the defendant in some way or that the defendant isn't a nutjob/dumbass.

[OptionZero]

Im sorry but your an idiot. So in order to know my rights and want to maintain my freedoms, I have to be a politician or major in political science. Really?

What do I do, really doesnt matter but I work full time for sprint finance, and I go to school full time as an engineering major.... Why, because america is the land of the free, home of the brave where you can become anything you want to be and do what you want to do as long as it does not infring on the freedoms of others, and I plan on living my life to the fullest and being able to enjoy all of my freedoms.

Im taking the time to educate myself, so for you to say I have no right to be upset when they start enfinging upon my freedoms because I am not a polysci major is like me saying you have no right to work on your car if you dont have any automotive degrees. I pay my fucking taxes, I vote.

What the fuck more do I need to do to "be allowed to have a voice and opinion on whats going on. To care that we are losing freedoms at an alarming rate, but not gaining any more" huh??

Btw, its very childish to attack the opponent because you dont have a valid argument.

I never said you had to be a politician or a poli sci major - you've mistaken what I meant by education. The type of learning I'm talking about is learning about the society to which you belong as a citizen. The laws and regulations that structure the society you live in give you privileges and responsibilities; what you do affects other people, what other people do affects you. It is all connected.

I applaud you for going through engineering school; many of my friends and family are in it. It's quite the bitch, but learning how to design a bridge, or a circuit, or whatever is not the same as learning about how government and society work.

You are right that you are a free man, but if you really care about the freedom you've been given to be an engineer and to own a 240 and post on Zilvia, shouldn't you also care about the government?

Too many people have the attitude that, hey I live in America, I'm free to do whatever the fuck I want, so why should I care about what's going on around me. Then they sit around and comment about what happens in the world, in the country, in their community when they don't have a clue. That is the attitude I'm inferring (see that, drift freaq?) from what you've written.

Anyone can bitch when they feel like their "freedom" is being taken away, just like a kid will always bitch when their parents don't let them eat cookies all day or play in the street. It's a true citizen that cares about why the government is doing what they do and is willing to weigh their own happiness against what's best for the community as a whole. That is not to say that one has to surrender to a fascist government, but rather to recognize that in order for ANY civilized society to work, especially one that's as complicated, diverse, and large as ours, everyone's going to have to give up a little.

The American wasn't founded on the notion that everyone gets to do whatever they want; it was founded on the notion that if everyone bands together then they can have something better than they otherwise would if they ran around doing their own shit. In surrendering some freedom, they gained more of it because they accomplished nation-building.

[OptionZero]

Assault weapons dont kill people. It's STUPID PEOPLE with weapons that kill people. If they apply this ban, then might as well ban all vehicles so we won't have drunk drivers, speeders, senior drivers, and all other stupid crap.
Obama is so great!:rolleyes:

An assault weapons ban is not a total weapons ban.

Glad you mentioned drunk drivers, speeders, senior drivers, etc - vehicles are already highly regulated by the government. The laws affecting cars are broad and regularly enforced.

That same level of government regulation is not found in gun ownership - gun laws have tons of loop holes and enforcement is, as a result, very difficult.


Moreover, vehicles are intended to transport, not to kill. Guns don't take you to school or the grocery store; they are built to severely hurt or kill. Why shouldn't guns be subject to additional regulation then?

[jskateborders]

The ones that get caught are. How many murders happen without catching the "bad guy"? The reason you see so many where the victims knows the assailant is because that makes the assailant eisier to track down. Seriously. If I went and killed some random person on the side of the street Ive never seen before during a robbery who would catch me? The odds are slim, unless I left hair or fingerprints. and was in that states database of course. Ski mask and gloves? They dont usually catch those ones.

[OptionZero]

The ones that get caught are. How many murders happen without catching the "bad guy"? The reason you see so many where the victims knows the assailant is because that makes the assailant eisier to track down. Seriously. If I went and killed some random person on the side of the street Ive never seen before during a robbery who would catch me? The odds are slim, unless I left hair or fingerprints. and was in that states database of course. Ski mask and gloves? They dont usually catch those ones.


If you ran around killing random people on the street, i think you've qualify as a nutjob.

And if you were that crazy, would you really be calculating the likelihood each victim might be armed?

The only people deterred by increased gun ownership are the people who are rationale enough to measure the risk and patient enough to be selective about their targets.

Tell me you think that the majority of criminals are:
a) sane
b) rational
c) patient

[imotion s14]

Some zilvians commented that all you need is a shotgun and a pistol.

So what does the government consider an "assault weapon"?

Here is the content of the original banned.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding stock
pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine



How did they come up with reasoning behind these bullet points?

[GluedMyNuts]

An assault weapons ban is not a total weapons ban.

Glad you mentioned drunk drivers, speeders, senior drivers, etc - vehicles are already highly regulated by the government. The laws affecting cars are broad and regularly enforced.

That same level of government regulation is not found in gun ownership - gun laws have tons of loop holes and enforcement is, as a result, very difficult.


Moreover, vehicles are intended to transport, not to kill. Guns don't take you to school or the grocery store; they are built to severely hurt or kill. Why shouldn't guns be subject to additional regulation then?
I somewhat agree to what you said. I think a lot of people are into motorsport instead of just using vehicle as a transportation mean. Why should we be affected just becasue others abuse their rights? I think we should move towards communism so everyone can be truly equal and no one can complain about anything.

[jskateborders]

If you ran around killing random people on the street, i think you've qualify as a nutjob.

And if you were that crazy, would you really be calculating the likelihood each victim might be armed?

The only people deterred by increased gun ownership are the people who are rationale enough to measure the risk and patient enough to be selective about their targets.

Tell me you think that the majority of criminals are:
a) sane
b) rational
c) patient
No. But a Majority of the ones that dont get caught are,
a) sane
b)rational
c) patient
d) detached from victim
e) (just to stay on topic) dont use guns that can be traced, ie(registered).

And the whole criminals use stolen guns, if we didnt have the guns to be stolen in the first place argument is weak.
In countries where citizens arent allowed to have guns have a booming illegal gun market. Why? Because criminals will get guns, no matter what we do. Only with illegal gun markets, that kind of narrows weapons possesions to criminals... Seems like an excellent Idea. Also, Most of the "relational murders" (know the person) are premeditated, which means that they wanted to kill them, and will kill them. You cant have an sr in your street car incali. How many people have them. Its because they wanted to go fast. You cant stop those people who want to go fast. Yea there are some people who dont have an sr because of this fact, true. Doesnt that prove the point about making guns illegal. Not really, because that can be compared to people not murdering because they dont want to go to jail.

[KA24DESOneThree]

How often do you get armored assailants bursting through the windows when you're at home? C'mon.

Guns have never been the entire problem . . . but given how effective they are, they can magnify a problem in society. What might have been a fist fight escalates into a shooting; a person with a grudge becomes empowered to do more damage than they otherwise would have.

Again, a gun is just a tool, but it's a highly effective tool for killing. That's all.

How often do commercial jetliners fly into thousand-foot-tall buildings in the middle of American skylines? C'mon.

What might have been a fist fight will remain a (very short) fist fight if the people fighting understand both responsibility and rights.

You cannot take legally-owned/used guns to change the actions of a group of people. You cannot simply punish those who obey others' rights to property and prosperity in order to keep guns out of the hands of those who disobey. Guns, like knives, like any other weapon, are never the problem.

I am sick of my government treating me like a potential suspect every single time I want to buy a firearm. I am sick of my government's agents eyeballing me suspiciously when I am within the law by carrying my firearm in condition four.

People like me have done nothing to warrant these laws. Where is the justice in treating me this way?

Tonight I will sleep with my Bushmaster next to me, like I do every night, and I will dream of a day where I can walk in Wal-Mart and pick up an M249 without having to even show my driver's license.

...shall not be infringed

[98s14inaz]

...
Again, a gun is just a tool, but it's a highly effective tool for killing. That's all.

So are knives and cars...care to check the statistics on those two items? Put an idiot behind the wheel of a car and you have the same thing. Any idiot can get a car and a licsense. Regulations worked real well there.

[98s14inaz]

An assault weapons ban is not a total weapons ban.

Glad you mentioned drunk drivers, speeders, senior drivers, etc - vehicles are already highly regulated by the government. The laws affecting cars are broad and regularly enforced.

That same level of government regulation is not found in gun ownership - gun laws have tons of loop holes and enforcement is, as a result, very difficult.


Moreover, vehicles are intended to transport, not to kill. Guns don't take you to school or the grocery store; they are built to severely hurt or kill. Why shouldn't guns be subject to additional regulation then?

We know that this is not banning all weapons but this is how more serious bans start.

Do you know how hard it is to get a sbr, suppressor, or full-auto permit/tax stamp? To have one legally you fill out a bunch of paperwork and submit to a full background check. Then when you are approved and get the tax stamp you give up a lot of your constitutional rights. For example, when you have the tax stamp to own one of the items I listed above law enforcement can enter your home to "check" your items with out a warrant any time they like. People are obtaining these items legally but because a few idiots they risk losing more rights just because they followed the rules.

These bans seem malicious to me. With all the problems our country faces why are we wasting resources and time fixating on such petty non-sense. I for one have had enough of the Clinton's, Kennedy's and Bush's screwing up my country and taking away my rights.

Why is our government for the people by the people so scared of armed civilians with semi-auto rifles and hand guns?

Someone brought up the "Hollywood shootout" a few posts back. All the weapons used by the accused were illegal and unregistered. They were also illegally converted to full-auto. Definitely criminals who went around the rules. A few years back, iirc, Ted Kennedy's body guard was nabbed in the D.C. capitol building with either a Mac10 9mm or a Mac11. Illegally converted to full-auto or lacking any paperwork making it legal. Criminal? I thought old Ted wanted gun control? I guess he's ok with weapons like that as long as "he" is safe and protected. Must be nice being able to defend yourself in DC.

[98s14inaz]

Some zilvians commented that all you need is a shotgun and a pistol.

So what does the government consider an "assault weapon"?

Here is the content of the original banned.



How did they come up with reasoning behind these bullet points?

Paranoia :ddog: They are terrified of us. When was the last assassination attempt? Reagan? Was it done with an assault rifle? Were any of the Kennedy's killed with an assault rifle? Were any assassinations in US history done with assault rifles? I don't get why they are so fixated on this issue.

[Matej]

So I'm looking for a full-auto assault rifle with suppressor, in case the redcoats come back or an indian tribe decides to pillage my house at night and I don't want to wake up the neighbors. What would you guys recommend?

[OptionZero]

How often do commercial jetliners fly into thousand-foot-tall buildings in the middle of American skylines? C'mon.

What might have been a fist fight will remain a (very short) fist fight if the people fighting understand both responsibility and rights.

You cannot take legally-owned/used guns to change the actions of a group of people. You cannot simply punish those who obey others' rights to property and prosperity in order to keep guns out of the hands of those who disobey. Guns, like knives, like any other weapon, are never the problem.

I am sick of my government treating me like a potential suspect every single time I want to buy a firearm. I am sick of my government's agents eyeballing me suspiciously when I am within the law by carrying my firearm in condition four.

People like me have done nothing to warrant these laws. Where is the justice in treating me this way?

Tonight I will sleep with my Bushmaster next to me, like I do every night, and I will dream of a day where I can walk in Wal-Mart and pick up an M249 without having to even show my driver's license.

...shall not be infringed

Are you comparing the likelihood of a terrorist attack with hijacked airlines to the likelihood of you being randomly attacked by guys in body armor and automatic weapons in your own home?

Seriously?

People like you may have done nothing to warrant "those laws", but we don't live in a society where you ONLY LIVE IN UNDER LAWS THAT AFFECT YOU.

Being an American citizen means being a part of a society with all sorts of people, some of who may be rational and trustworthy, others who are the opposite, and some who are inbetween. Law makers are not making laws with just KA24DEESSONETHREE and the like in mine, they do make laws based on what is supposed to be best for as many as possible.

Unless you want to claim that the vast majority of people are intelligent, trusthworthy, rationale, and generally as good a person as you are, your argument must fail. This is the reality of living in a large, diverse nation.

If you can't handle that, move to some backwoods area and live in isolation with few or no neighbors.

[OptionZero]

We know that this is not banning all weapons but this is how more serious bans start.

Do you know how hard it is to get a sbr, suppressor, or full-auto permit/tax stamp? To have one legally you fill out a bunch of paperwork and submit to a full background check. Then when you are approved and get the tax stamp you give up a lot of your constitutional rights. For example, when you have the tax stamp to own one of the items I listed above law enforcement can enter your home to "check" your items with out a warrant any time they like. People are obtaining these items legally but because a few idiots they risk losing more rights just because they followed the rules.

These bans seem malicious to me. With all the problems our country faces why are we wasting resources and time fixating on such petty non-sense. I for one have had enough of the Clinton's, Kennedy's and Bush's screwing up my country and taking away my rights.

Why is our government for the people by the people so scared of armed civilians with semi-auto rifles and hand guns?

Someone brought up the "Hollywood shootout" a few posts back. All the weapons used by the accused were illegal and unregistered. They were also illegally converted to full-auto. Definitely criminals who went around the rules. A few years back, iirc, Ted Kennedy's body guard was nabbed in the D.C. capitol building with either a Mac10 9mm or a Mac11. Illegally converted to full-auto or lacking any paperwork making it legal. Criminal? I thought old Ted wanted gun control? I guess he's ok with weapons like that as long as "he" is safe and protected. Must be nice being able to defend yourself in DC.

OMG! you have to wait and fill out paper work to get what you want! it's the end of the world because I can't buy the gun I want NOW NOW NOW! You know what, since you're an American citizen and you should be able to have whatever you want since you're "free", why don't we have your local gunmaker send you a brand new shiny gun of your choosing, paid for on the government's dime. Afterall, the government is here to do whatever you want for your convenience . . .

The government for the people by the people is "scared" of armed people because those armed people sometimes kill EACH OTHER PEOPLE (armed or not.)

A weapons ban is "malicious" only because it infringes on your CONVENIENCE and ENTERTAINMENT.

What are you gonna do with a gun? Go to the range and have fun? Your motivation is self-interest.

I highly doubt the government is worried that giving you a gun will make you "harder to oppress."

The rhetoric here is ridiculous.


For people who:
- have no criminal history
- are sane
- can afford a gun
- know how to handle and maintain and secure a weapon

you can still get a gun.

The only question is which weapons you can buy, how much it's gonna cost, how much paperwork you have to fill out, and how long you have to wait. Your bitching about INCONVENIENCE, or worse, how you might have less fun because you don't get to take any gun you want to the shooting range anymore. This doesn't sound to you like an 8 year old brat whining to his parents about not getting the toy he wants when he wants it?

If you seriously think the government is out to take over your life, get a government job and see if those people are planning imminent domination. Sorry to break it to you, but running the society that exists is alot more pressing than taking over the world.

I'm gonna have to step away from this thread.

[ESmorz]

So I'm looking for a full-auto assault rifle with suppressor, in case the redcoats come back or an indian tribe decides to pillage my house at night and I don't want to wake up the neighbors. What would you guys recommend?

Supressors are for wannabe ninja bitches.

I want to go Elk hunting with an MK48. Make that thing look like the cover of Holes.

[jyon9689]

How often do commercial jetliners fly into thousand-foot-tall buildings in the middle of American skylines? C'mon.

What might have been a fist fight will remain a (very short) fist fight if the people fighting understand both responsibility and rights.

You cannot take legally-owned/used guns to change the actions of a group of people. You cannot simply punish those who obey others' rights to property and prosperity in order to keep guns out of the hands of those who disobey. Guns, like knives, like any other weapon, are never the problem.

I am sick of my government treating me like a potential suspect every single time I want to buy a firearm. I am sick of my government's agents eyeballing me suspiciously when I am within the law by carrying my firearm in condition four.

People like me have done nothing to warrant these laws. Where is the justice in treating me this way?

Tonight I will sleep with my Bushmaster next to me, like I do every night, and I will dream of a day where I can walk in Wal-Mart and pick up an M249 without having to even show my driver's license.

...shall not be infringed

Was all that a joke? This thread's getting pretty strange.

[98s14inaz]

Was all that a joke? This thread's getting pretty strange.

I'm out, you can't reason with liberals and I am not going down to their level. Congrats :rofl:

[KA24DESOneThree]

Are you comparing the likelihood of a terrorist attack with hijacked airlines to the likelihood of you being randomly attacked by guys in body armor and automatic weapons in your own home?

Seriously?

People like you may have done nothing to warrant "those laws", but we don't live in a society where you ONLY LIVE IN UNDER LAWS THAT AFFECT YOU.

Being an American citizen means being a part of a society with all sorts of people, some of who may be rational and trustworthy, others who are the opposite, and some who are inbetween. Law makers are not making laws with just KA24DEESSONETHREE and the like in mine, they do make laws based on what is supposed to be best for as many as possible.

Unless you want to claim that the vast majority of people are intelligent, trusthworthy, rationale, and generally as good a person as you are, your argument must fail. This is the reality of living in a large, diverse nation.

If you can't handle that, move to some backwoods area and live in isolation with few or no neighbors.

Yes, I was comparing the two as proof that stranger things have happened and proving that if we fail to prepare against even the most unlikely of scenarios, we could die.

I was born here. I consider myself an American. However, I do not consider myself a member of society. I am an individual in a collection of individuals, who creates his own beliefs based on the facts he is given.

Laws that are made on what is "supposed to be best for as many as possible" are socialist bullshit based on the idea that we're all members of a collective society. We aren't.

The vast majority of people will make a decision if you give them the chance to make it. Punish them if their decision infringes on the rights of others, but don't punish them before they have a chance to make it.

Why shouldn't I be able to get a gun I want when I want it? Do you want necessity to be the order of the day? When you need a gun and don't have one, the police are only minutes away. (Weak argument, but a fact that I like to point out as often as possible.)

Selfishness is my sole reason for seeing every single ban or restriction on any firearms struck down. I want to be able to protect myself against any and all and I want to plink with a full-auto weapon. I don't care about anyone else.

I never joke about freedom.

[Devil Man]

here is my thought on something, everyone should have a gun. here is a good senerio were if everyone had a gun things could have gone differently. If the passaengers of the planes from the 9/11 attacks were all handed guns when they boarded there plane do you think that the terriost would have gotten anywere? sure you might have lost a life, but imagine 200+ people on those planes drawing there guns on those ass hat fucking terriost... and i feel that if you could put this in any and every senerio of one person doing something bad in the middle of a huge group of people, baddies will think twice about tripping up, cause they will know that they will have quite a hand full of guns drawn on them

[!Zar!]

here is my thought on something, everyone should have a gun. here is a good senerio were if everyone had a gun things could have gone differently. If the passaengers of the planes from the 9/11 attacks were all handed guns when they boarded there plane do you think that the terriost would have gotten anywere? sure you might have lost a life, but imagine 200+ people on those planes drawing there guns on those ass hat fucking terriost... and i feel that if you could put this in any and every senerio of one person doing something bad in the middle of a huge group of people, baddies will think twice about tripping up, cause they will know that they will have quite a hand full of guns drawn on them

Not really.

I mean they had box cutters.

I'm much more afraid of a gun than I am of someone with a box cutter.

If a bullet manages to break through the skin of the plant, the loss of cabin pressurization creates a problem for everyone on the plane.

Why is this turning into a thread about how people should be able to carry guns around?

I know some states still have the law in effect, but in California I see WAY too many high strung people. I could only imagine what would happen if they were allowed to carry a gun around.

Now if they applied for a concealed weapons permit and then were allowed to carry one, I could see that being ok.