Assault Rifle ban coming soon?

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

Originally posted by DrLeary

Your freedom is not limited because you are not allowed to run around shooting your fully automatic death-sticks for fun. It's limited by the politicians who would have you debating this gun-control issue for eternity rather than asking what the hell they are doing passing horrendously inconstitutional laws. These are the laws that take away your freedom and security, and no amount of guns is going to bring it back.

You people are unbelievable. You complain now how bad the government is now! Imagine if you had absoulutely no recourse, no way of putting your foot down.

You should know by now that governments never have the people's interest at heart, do you really trust them to perserve peace and justice if you are truly defenseless?

Do you prefer to be a slave of the government?

do you think a vote is your best weapon? you realise that a vote of a slave means nothing, right? If you have no way to enforce your will on the government, then the government will enforce its will upon you! It's as simple as that.

Beneath this dream world facade you believe in, there is reality. The reality is that if you have no means to remove people from power, then you will be forced to live by their edicts.

This is so simple. I cannot believe any educated person would actually favor strict gun control laws. :shk:

You are right insofar as your votes don't count anymore, but that's because 80% of the votes are counted by machines that are made and operated in secrecy by companys receiving funding from politicians. Watch Hacking Democracy and you'll get what I'm talking about. And it's not just the Bush people. It seems states are up for sale, as some states machines favour democrats and other republicans. But how is guns going to fix this?

This cowboy mentality is what got the US in trouble in the first place. If you want democracy and a government that works for the good of everyone, you must stop this crazy assertion that guns can change any of these problems. Sure you should be able to shoot guns for fun at a shooting range and go hunting and whatnot, but there has to be some restrictions!

I've asked this before, and I'll ask again. WHEN is you beloved militia going to rise up and save the day? WHEN??? And how on earth do you plan on doing this with guns? Democracy was established so you wouldn't have to listen to the guys with the most guns, but rather the majority of the population. Show me how you having a dozen assault rifles make ANY difference to what the politicians pass into law. You can put your foot down all you want, barricade yourself with your guns and demand freedom, but in the end they will simply shoot you and write you off as another loonie no matter if you have RPGs and flamethrowers for that sake!

This is a case of NOT fighting evil with evil in my opinion. The only thing thats going to change your country is if enough people complain loud enough and in a peacefull manner. If lots of people take to the streets with weapons - no matter what their intention - the government will declare martial law and hunt them down. Unorganized, untrained civilians against well trained and equiped professionals? Your scenario just doesn't make any sense to me...

Without posting the quote from above--let me say that Firearms do not insure "the Vote"--but they for darned sure help insure the FREEDOM to vote, and that is because they ARE a recourse. It is a recourse still guaranteed and stated by the Constitution, at least for now--and when it isn't, it won't matter. Now, a persons willingness to use them and that Right also plays a role. I know a lot of people on here talk about it, but, are you truly willing to put your money where your mouth is? Would you take up arms for the cause of your own personal Freedom and that of your Family and Community--your Nation? I have done this, and I will do it again. I don't know about the rest of you, but I still understand the meaning behind the Snake Flag that says "Do Not Tread on Me".

I see a lot of talk, too, about Survival. Have you ever had to do that--and I mean HAD to--no choice? If so, have you ever done that under completely hostile conditions? Do you know what you need as opposed to what you'd like to have? Are you willing to throw creature comfort out the window in favor of continuing to live? Can you produce viable shelter out of nothing? Can you stay warm without fire? Can you take complete care of yourself and be totally alone? I could go on for a very long time.

The bottom line, and my point with all of it is this: What are YOU willing to do, right now, to stop the Theft of your Liberty dead in it's tracks--and pleeeezzzzee don't tell me "Vote".

[edit on 20-12-2006 by Ed Littlefox]

There was a shooting in a New Bedford strip club recently when a man decided to settle a score with a female bar tender that had jilted him. Among other weapons he entered the club with an AR-15. The New Bedford mayor, citing statements by police saying "our guns were no match for that", is seeking a ban of AR-15s now. It's this kind of ignorant grandstanding that is always behind these ban initiatives. Somehow the AR-15 was a more lethal weapon than, say, a mini-14 --- yeah right. The fact of the matter is, this was in an enlcosed space. Had the shooter been armed with a shotgun and a smallish buckshot (like a #3) many, many more people would have been killed and seriously injured. But I'm sure the mayor knows this. It su much easier to cite the 'evil black gun'. I've always contended that if they were painted pink no one would give a rat's tush about them.


[edit on 20-12-2006 by jtma508]

DrLeary, the most obvious example of a successful uprising against the military is in Iraq. The US military is the best in the world at what it does well. Its a sledgehammer, designed to destroy opposing militaries. It does that very, very well. But as Iraq has proven, it is not a law enforcement agency. It is not well equipped or trained to fight an enemy hidden within a civilian population.

You also have to consider supply and the willingness of a western military to fight its own people. On the supply issue, civilian workers provide the food and ammo. If they're resisting the military, eventually that military is going to run into supply issues. It will also likely suffer from high desertion rates, as many will either side with the uprising or will be unwilling to fight their own populace.

Originally posted by vor78
DrLeary, the most obvious example of a successful uprising against the military is in Iraq. The US military is the best in the world at what it does well. Its a sledgehammer, designed to destroy opposing militaries. It does that very, very well. But as Iraq has proven, it is not a law enforcement agency. It is not well equipped or trained to fight an enemy hidden within a civilian population.

You also have to consider supply and the willingness of a western military to fight its own people. On the supply issue, civilian workers provide the food and ammo. If they're resisting the military, eventually that military is going to run into supply issues. It will also likely suffer from high desertion rates, as many will either side with the uprising or will be unwilling to fight their own populace.

I don't think you'll have Iraq conditions in the US any time soon, but okay I see your point. Your second point is much more to my liking however What you are saying is that if the civilians resisted the military by not creating the supplies then the military would come to a halt. This doesn't even mention the use of weapons. A peacefull way of doing it. There are 300 million of you. There's no way they can control all those people, even with guns.

Iraq is proof that no amount of guns can control an angry population, although I have to admit them being armed doesn't exactly make it any easier Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't IED the biggest cause of troop deaths in Iraq? Even if the government took away all your guns, you could make bombs and fight guerilla-style. I don't believe any army has really been able to deal with these kinds of wars, so given enough time you will win anyway. Russia could not win in Afghanistan and the US could not win in Vietnam because they were fighting highly motivated soldiers on their home turf in what they considered to be a fight for their nations freedom and independence. The russians and americans were not really motivated to fight...

Engaging the military in an open fight on their premises however, is a fight you will never win

My big question is that of these "millions" of assualt rifle crimes, how many of the crimes involved an average Joe, with a perfectly legal "assualt rifle" with it bought in his name, and is regestered to him. How many crimes were committed with a legal gun. according to the numbers, most of the weapons were procured illegally. So either way the bad guys are still getting their hands on these weapons. And one question about the assualt rifle ban, Is it banning the guns themselves, or the thirty round mags?

I agree and I do not expect it will ever be necessary for such an uprising to occur. The Iraq example was provided simply to show that it certainly is possible for an armed populace to cause major problems against a modern military that also had to concern itself with collateral damage.

Ford Farmer, some of them do indeed involve legal assault rifles. The thing is, handguns are involved in far more homicides than any other type of weapon. In fact, *knives* are used with the same frequency as non-handgun firearms.

www.ojp.usdoj.gov...

If you think an assault rifle ban will curve crime, THINK AGAIN!

Bad guys will still get weapons off the black market. A ban wont stop anything.


If you all remember that North Hollywood shootout where two men shot the LAPD up, they got there assault rifles from the black market. This was DURING the first assault rifle ban.

If you think an assault rifle ban will curve crime, THINK AGAIN!

Bad guys will still get weapons off the black market. A ban wont stop anything.


If you all remember that North Hollywood shootout where two men shot the LAPD up, they got there assault rifles from the black market. This was DURING the first assault rifle ban.

Okay, to start off my post I got to say a couple of situations of where it is okay to have guns.

- A handgun at your house incase of intruders.

- Shooting ranges.

Definatly not on you in public. Also, you cite one case of people getting guns off the black market and then shooting somebody. Most that I have read, people already own the guns, and then something happens to them that makes them angry and causes them to shoot someone.

Also, you guys keep saying that the constitution gives us the right to a gun. It doesn't.

mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

You woould need to form a group of citizens and then train them once a week to be considered a militia.

Originally posted by wswbkbroiler
Okay, to start off my post I got to say a couple of situations of where it is okay to have guns.

- A handgun at your house incase of intruders.

- Shooting ranges.

Definatly not on you in public. Also, you cite one case of people getting guns off the black market and then shooting somebody. Most that I have read, people already own the guns, and then something happens to them that makes them angry and causes them to shoot someone.

Also, you guys keep saying that the constitution gives us the right to a gun. It doesn't.

mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

You woould need to form a group of citizens and then train them once a week to be considered a militia.

]

Your dictionary definition of 'militia' is not applicable here. It is a modern definition, not one used in 1789. To that end, it is not even applicable in the eyes of US law, which defines the word 'militia' in US Code Title 10 section 13. This again, however, is a modern definition dating from the 1950s.

'...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...'

Are these not the same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments? Note that it does not say 'the right of the militia'.

Not having read through the whole post, what about the AR-15? If I'm' not mistaken, it fires the same .223 round as the M-16 A2 rifle, with a pistol grip and all. This weapon is not illegal, and quite easy to find.

Originally posted by vor78


'...the right of the people to keep and bear arms...'

Are these not the same people mentioned in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments? Note that it does not say 'the right of the militia'.

So many people spend so much time arguing militia this militia that, But they fail to see the section/s which you just highlighted in your comment, "THE PEOPLE" which as you say is mentioned in several other amendments, so either it is our "THE PEOPLE'S" right to keep and bear arms, or None of us have any of the rights or freedoms listed contitution

With that said all americans please shut up now as we dont have the right to speach.


Anyways regarding the issue at hand and THE PEOPLE'S right to keep and bear arms, So many think our constitution and rights are something that can be voted on, or rights can be taken away on the flip of a coin, These rights aren't given to us by man, or in this case "THE MAN" these are our god given rights as human beings, Our founding fathers recognized this, sadly our current leaders and citizens do not.

I'm not going to go off and name dates and places, but people look at our history on this earth, and you should know right then and there why these rights insured by our constitution are so precious and shouldn't be thrown away, This country has changed so much form the time of its founding, THE PEOPLE have all but lost power, this was never supposed to happen, Our police have fully automatic firepower, our leaders are above the law, and don't give a damn about any of us, But thats fine, a FEW nut jobs out of 300 MILLION of us go nuts and everyone wants to piss away there rights, Go ahead piss away your rights, see what happens just like all other people who gave up there rights, Do we civilians with semi automatic weapons stand a great chance against a fully automatic armed force? Directly no, But the one thing that keeps our gov from total control, is the unknown, they don't know what we are capable of at this time, but i promise you this, if we let them take away our only chance leverage to our freedoms, then they will know full well what we are capable of, NOTHING



i don't support many of the things people say in the name of free speach, hell how many people have been killed simply for opening there mouth, i guess we should ban free speach now eh?

Anyways, regardless i still support each and everyones right to that god given right, regardless of rather i agree with there usage of it or not, Why? Because im an American, and more so im a human being,

I own several of what some might consider assault weapons, i collect them its my passion, i don' break any laws and i don't make trouble, so please leave me and my rights alone and ill do the same.

the anti gunners always claim that the second ammendment is only about the military- the official militia which THEY claim is the National Guard. In no way shape or form would that fulfill the criteria. Just leaving out the fact that the Bill of Rights has always been considered the INDIVIDUAL rights measure (and #2 is right up there in front); the National Guard swears an oath to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which automatically takes them out of consideration of defending individual rights and resisting a tyrannical government.

Originally posted by illushad
Not having read through the whole post, what about the AR-15? If I'm' not mistaken, it fires the same .223 round as the M-16 A2 rifle

Careful, .223 Remington and 5.56mm are not quite the same round.

If we followed the constitution or the current amendments verbatim then our world we seem quite unjust. With the constitution Women were given the right to vote, under the amendments. We make changes to these to better suit modern life. We can't simply follow old laws, but create new ones that modernize our society so that we are not barbaric. Times change my friends, so do defintitons. We can't just rely on old laws, otherwise we'd live in a a nation that allows slavery and prohibits working on sundays, and other injustices. And i 'll be damned if im gonna post on a website wiith a bunch of pro-slavery hicks. One more thing it only takes one shot in the head to end someone life, so why must you need an assualt rifle to do so. Uber PWnage

I would just like to say that I looked up Code Title 10 Section 13 and this is what I found.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

Source

How does this relate? Maybe Im missing something. Anyways, please go on. I would also like to say that I agree with what my friend WSWZilla said.

Originally posted by wswbkbroiler
I would just like to say that I looked up Code Title 10 Section 13 and this is what I found.

(13) The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.

Source

How does this relate? Maybe Im missing something. Anyways, please go on. I would also like to say that I agree with what my friend WSWZilla said.

My mistake on the US Code reference. Here is the correct one:

www4.law.cornell.edu...

Originally posted by wswzilla
If we followed the constitution or the current amendments verbatim then our world we seem quite unjust. With the constitution Women were given the right to vote, under the amendments. We make changes to these to better suit modern life. We can't simply follow old laws, but create new ones that modernize our society so that we are not barbaric. Times change my friends, so do defintitons. We can't just rely on old laws, otherwise we'd live in a a nation that allows slavery and prohibits working on sundays, and other injustices. And i 'll be damned if im gonna post on a website wiith a bunch of pro-slavery hicks. One more thing it only takes one shot in the head to end someone life, so why must you need an assualt rifle to do so. Uber PWnage

Better be a little careful with that line of thinking. If the 2nd Amendment is outdated, maybe an argument can be made that that the entire Bill of Rights is outdated. We're all much, MUCH better off if you stick with the idea that gun rights only apply to militias or something. I have a feeling you really don't want to plant the idea that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is obsolete!

As for it only taking one shot, that's absolutely true. The problem is, you've just found the slippery slope. You may as well be in favor of banning ALL semi-automatic weapons. Assault rifles aren't the only ones. Many handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles are also semi-automatic.

Heck, with a little practice, one could fire 10 shots from a lever action .44 rifle, reload, and fire another 10 in about a minute. The same could be done with a magazine-fed bolt action rifle. Maybe we need to get rid of those, too. In the end, you may as well say that single shot weapons are the only ones allowable. Most gun owners feel that this is the real intent of the AWB and its why they are very defensive about the issue.

reply to post by wswbkbroiler


No, citizens who stayed in New Orleans to defend their homes from looters had their firearms confiscated, leaving them vulnerable to the criminals who will obtain firearms regardless of the laws in place.
In situations where you are being threatened or your home, business, etc., is being broken in to, who do you call? The police. Why? They have guns. Remove the middle man. If you don't want firearms, don't buy them, but leave me & my rights the hell alone. I would hate to see what would happen to those who might come into Texas & try to confiscate the population's weapons.