Gun Advocates Ready for Battle on Federal Assault Weapons Ban

automatic only means the type of ACTION that a gun has. there are semis-tri burst- 5 burst and fully automatics. i have an ak-47(semi) and it's a fun gun to shoot but when you figure in the recoil i can work my 30/06 bolt action almost as fast. anyone who has ever shot a full auto will understand what muzzle jump is- its not like in the movies where there is no recoil. "spraying" doesn't do anything unless you can actually hit the target on the FIRST shot or if in a situation where you need cover fire. and they use alot of ammo too. personally i prefer a semi- teaches me to make every round count-and you aren't weighed down by god knows how many pounds of ammo
i carry my 45 acp (s&w) everywhere. he is my buddy. it's automatic-does that mean i can just "spray" with it? no. have i ever used it to kill someone? no. it is to protect me and other people from evil people. do i hope i ever have to use it? no. but i will if need be.
and on another note- all caliber means is the diameter of the projectile. by saying this gun shoots 30 caliber 45 caliber etc tells me nothing but the bullet size.
so if someone says someone got shot with a 45 cal what was it? for all i know it could have been a 45/70 govt cartridge

I saw a propaganda piece on the Communist News Network on this topic last night.

THINK! Why would Mexican criminals want US Made firearms when they can obtain less expensive weapons form another country.

Also going through the NICS is the only way a citizen in the US can purchase a firearm.

A lot of these firearms are full auto. To get a full auto, legally in the US you must have a class III firearm license, then the BATF knows you.( knows you like in the Bible)

If weapons are coming into Mexico form the USA, then these weapons are coming to the USA from Mexico then back to mexico.

Originally posted by brengizzle
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

My argument is simply that the power to cause such devastation is especially dangerous when under the control of something as flawed as a human being.

The world is a dangerous place.

Is it better to have that power to cause such devastation solely under the control of the government?

I fear the machine of inherently flawed government with its enforcement policy of "do as we say, we will break our own laws whenever we wish and you can sort it out in court after the fact," far more than the risk posed by flawed individuals.

I am prepared for either contingency.

It's important to keep in mind that this isn't the only front they are attacking on. I'm sure most of you are aware of the DOD canceling contracts with ammo manufacturers to sell them back shell casings for remanufacture. Instead, the DOD wants the casings destroyed. This would wreak havoc on ammo supplies and the price of ammo.

However, I just found an article this morning that says the DOD changed their minds. I don't know if it's true yet or not. Will have to keep checking and see what comes up in alternative news, cause we all know that these attacks take place behind the scenes and are usually not reported in msm.

worldnetdaily.com...

They are working hard behind the scenes to end our 2nd amendment rights, one way or the other. They will not stop. It's up to us to keep informed and push back when required.

reply to post by JohnHolmes


Thanks to public outcry the DoD has gone back on that.

At least they claim they will go back on that.

sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by Baracas


1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
***So those who choose not to "arm" themselves are by default denied their personal soverignty? Some people just really don't like guns-they don't want them in their house. They don't hunt. They don't believe they have anything they need to "kill" and chances are they won't need one for self-defense. They are somehow "lesser" than those with guns?

4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
***No, I'm pretty sure its about guns. Perhaps "controlling" their tendency to harm other private citizens and law enforcement?

24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
***I'm sure a fair amount of citizens from gun-free countries would not consider themselves slaves because of their lack of weaponry. You're "slaves" regardless of whether you have a gun or not!

25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
***What!!! That was a war...France sent us most of the weapons we needed along with mercenaries. Nobody would suggest fighting a war without weapons...that one is just silly.

12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
***Hehe- this one I like.

13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
***Thats right! Focus on the positive....

16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
***No..I'm pretty sure any gangmember with an assault weapon is shooting to kill-that one sounds a little too poetic for me.

17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
***????

18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
***Well its a verb and an adjective in this case. However, the difference between a deadly weapon and a deadly weapon in someone's hands is the real key to any arguement here.

19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
***Again, instead of me having to carry a gun in my diaper bag-can we just make my day easier and prevent them for having guns? Pretty please?

Keep Safe Out There, Stay Alert and Aware.
***I'm trying!

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by JohnHolmes

 

Thanks to public outcry the DoD has gone back on that.

At least they claim they will go back on that.

sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com...

Thanks for confirming that. But I wish it wouldn't end there. I wish these two senators who helped stop this madness would get some air time to raise bloody hell and expose this situation for what it really is. It's pretty outrageous.

People are definitely buying while they still can. I went to my local Gander Mt. store on Sunday and they were cleaned out of all Black Rifles and Ruger Minis. The only rifle left was an FN PS90 that someone will eventually pick up. Tactical shotguns were also picked over. I only saw one 870 marine magnum left. Their selection of used guns was also the lowest that I have ever seen it.

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary

First, AKs and ARs, whether semi or fully automatic, were designed for one purpose, to kill human beings. In fact, these type of weapons were designed to enable a single user to kill multiple targets in a short amount of time. Why should an untrained civilian be allowed to posses this type of power? For the "fun" of it?

Second, the idea that the possession of an AK or AR will somehow enable you or society to protect itself from our government is pure fantasy. You see, in the days of our founding fathers the gap between the most technologically advanced military and your average well armed militia was very little. Each possessed rifles, horses, and personnel. The WMDs in those days were cannons and with enough rifles, horses, and personnel, a civilian militia could easily capture the WMDs from the military thus enabling a militia to exert an effective resistance against the government. Today however, the gap between the military and your average militia is far greater. I don't care how many AKs, ARs, or other available hardware you have, you do not stand a chance against the WMDs or other military hardware that the government possesses today.


[edit on 18-3-2009 by BluegrassRevolutionary]

Okay, first off, you're absolutely right, big black rifles are meant for the purpose of killing people that are far away as fast and as dead as possible. That is why I own them. You never know when you may need that particular ability.

Second. You make assumptions about the police and military that aren't entirely true. A lot of rifle owners ARE police and military (active and retired). In fact two cops in my area helped me to build my ARs. And there is NOT ONE soldier that I know that does not support the right of civilians to own them.

Third. If there was mass civil unrest, you assume that the military would be united in it's goal of martial law...I don't think this would be the case, and even if it was, that is just one scenario. There are many others, ranging from regional/ statewide secession, to foreign invasion, bio-engineered plague, the coming shortage of water in the US....,to, the most likely, absolutely nothing at all. Yet. The s**t always eventually hits the fan, it's just a question of when.

Look, it doesn't take formal training to become comfortable with an AR or an AK, so the "leave it to the professionals" argument is lacking. I know every aspect of my rifles and it doesn't take a degree in rocket science...I mean come on, we've got 18 yr olds in Iraq diffusing road side bombs.

Oh great more slug-thrower propagandists.

Really now? Do all of you think that arms mean just guns? How many of our weapons were taken away with little fight from the people?

It says right to bear arms, not guns. Where were you all when they banned the peoples right to own and bear an ICBM? No one bitched one little bit about that. But no, take someones slug-thrower away and it's all "boo hoo they are stomping on my rights!"

Bitch and complain about your right to keep a M-16 but no one says a word when they banned the right of the people to own a cruise missile.

All I am sayin is if your gonna go for a fight go for the BIG WIN!

reply to post by jibeho


It's not only firearms...ammo is in really short supply and very expensive too. At the recent Gun Show at the Cow Palace in San Francisco the line to get in was insane. It took 2hrs to get to the Miwall ammo booth and that was AFTER waiting in the line to get into the show.

It was crazy...they had at least 10 people working the booth and the lines were shoulder to shoulder all around the booth and 8 people deep.

I've also noticed that completely stripped lower receivers that were selling for $120 a year ago are now selling for over $345...

reply to post by whatukno


I've been doing some research and I'm not entirely sure it is against the law for a private citizen to own a missile. You'll have to jump through a bunch of hoops with the "Destructive Devices" boys over at the ATF but it looks like the only real obstacle to owning something like that is the cost.

It's amazing that people try so hard to ban stupid things like rifles and handguns when all you need to own a tank, a machine gun and possibly a missile is a lot of cash.

reply to post by angst18


Same here. I stopped going to the range in order to protect my stock of 9mm. Pretty sad. What little ammo is left at the range has gotten expensive. I am thinking about buying a high quality gas operated Airsoft pistol, Sig226, just keep my skills sharp. Best of all, I can shoot it in my basement and I have plenty of paper plates on hand.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Aparently you can even build your own tank...



Marvin John Heemeyer built one.

But what I am trying to illistrate is that arms in this country covers a lot more than just guns.

Again of course thisguyrighthere, money talks and crazy guys in armored killdozers take out half of towns.

Originally posted by awake_awoke
Ok-and I'm half-playing devil's advocate here as well:

In the five-year period (1990-1994) before enactment of the Assault Weapons Act, assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) crime gun traces nationwide. After the law’s enactment, however, these assault weapons made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF had traced to crime - a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate

www.bradycampaign.org...

Well, there's a statistic you really can't deny!

As well as another good link:
THE TOP 10 NRA MYTHS ABOUT ASSAULT WEAPONS

The jury's still out for me when it comes to banning Uzi's and As...I really don't like the conversation that begins with me asking someone how they would feel if a madman or a gang member walked into a public area with an Uzi as opposed to a shotgun and began shooting "oh well I'll have a gun so no big deal!" Fine. But then everyone has to have a gun or seven and then you have a whole world with people running around with deadly weapons. Is that really the answer?

Its kind of like with hazardous materials...There's a legal amount you can own but when you have gallons or pounds of it are your intentions really benign?

IMHO, the Constitution clearly says we have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves but does "bearing arms" really constitute military-grade weapons? Besides the battlefield I have not seen them do much good whatsoever, but in recent days nothing but suffering.

awake_awoke,

There is a very serious problem with yours and others attempts to play devils advocate here.

The problem not spoken about and attempted to cover/hide by emotional confetti and fluff...is that nowhere in the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment does it ever mention anything concerning the right to keep and bear arms for sporting/hunting purposes.

The great scam and deception/deflection of the anti gun people is that it is never mentioned in the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment that guns in the hand of Americans is for sporting/hunting purposes. This is a very stark political deception and deflection off the main issue while conspiring to disarm the American public in every avenue...mentally, spiritually, as well as physically disarm.

THere is nothing in The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which states that firearm ownership is exclusively for the purpose of sportsmanship or hunting. IT is not there.

The limits of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are limits on the Government ..not on the people.

All the limits of the first Ten Amendments are on the Government .. not on the people.
These limits are to restrain a runaway government.

IT is called Liberty...

So I will repeat myself again...for those who like to use fear tactics on those unawares of the method to instill placebo/phoney arguments and issues on the public.

No where in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States does it say or imply that ownership of arms is for hunting or sporting purposes.

Most of the attempts to limit public ownership of firearms is under the placebo issue that these arms have no sporting/hunting application.
This is a lie..deception and a phoney/placebo issue. This is not the issue in the 2nd Amendment.

Though It has been awhile since I have watched it ..Suzanna Gratia-Hupp's
video ..it is appropriate and tells of this very concept...that the 2nd Amendment makes no reference to hunting or sportsmanship in the keeping and bearing of arms.

The political argument of sporting and hunting uses for arms is a phony/placebo rationale and issue to keep Americans unawares of and ignorant of the real reason for owning arms.

Here is the link to Suzanna Gratia-Hupp's video if someone else has not already posted it.

video.google.com...

The bulk of the anti gun positions have in them the placebo/rationale that the public does not need this or that type of firearm for hunting and sporting purposes. This never was an issue or point of contention in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Any organiztion or politicain usind or implying such an argument or position is lying and deceiving you about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

Think further than the common drama/fear political tactics so often used when watching this video.

Thanks,
Orangetom


[edit on 18-3-2009 by orangetom1999]

reply to post by whatukno


Thank you very much for agreeing with my previous posts.

Like I said earlier-there are substances in which you can have a certain amount that is legal but if you have 900lbs of it then its a big problem. You can have some knives but if you have 4000 of them you are obviously up to no good. You can have guns of all shapes and sizes but if you own a large number of assault rifles I'm sorry, I'm going to raise an eyebrow.

reply to post by whatukno


You can build one. There arent any laws saying you cant weld some plates to a bulldozer.

Where this guy went wrong is the whole "rampage" thing.

Just because it's against the law to destroy other peoples property and harms or maim individuals doesnt mean it's against the law to have the means.

Originally posted by awake_awoke
reply to post by whatukno

 

Like I said earlier-there are substances in which you can have a certain amount that is legal but if you have 900lbs of it then its a big problem. You can have some knives but if you have 4000 of them you are obviously up to no good. You can have guns of all shapes and sizes but if you own a large number of assault rifles I'm sorry, I'm going to raise an eyebrow.

With the exception of the explosives, why? Say I have 4 trillion knives. I only have two arms. Say I have 10 b'zillion guns. I only have two arms.

Logic would dictate that as an individual owner having millions of anything is no more "dangerous" than having two.

I guess I could rent a helicopter and float a crate of thousands of knives over a football game and just dump them on the crowd.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


No, nobody should be shooting at anyone.....but they are, they do, and they always will. The human species has learned how to make firearms. If all guns and gun manufacturers were to suddenly and magically disappear from the face of the Earth, people would learn to make them in their garages, basements, etc. We can't "un-learn" this knowledge. Just please understand that there are evil people out there who will use guns against you, me, my brother, etc. It is your responsibility as a good person to stop them. It's my responsibility. We are all responsible.

Our right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. No government can ever take it away. If they do, *THEY* must be destroyed as enemies of the people. I have too much respect for myself, my family, and all of my dead ancestors to allow this country to go the way of Brittain, Australia or Canada. Disarm the populace and the people are no more than slaves.

Originally posted by awake_awoke
reply to post by whatukno

 

Thank you very much for agreeing with my previous posts.

Like I said earlier-there are substances in which you can have a certain amount that is legal but if you have 900lbs of it then its a big problem. You can have some knives but if you have 4000 of them you are obviously up to no good. You can have guns of all shapes and sizes but if you own a large number of assault rifles I'm sorry, I'm going to raise an eyebrow.

awake_awake,

See my above post. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about the number of or types of ams one can own..nor ammunition.

You, like many out here, are operating on the presumption of guilt before any crime has taken place. This is not an American concept. It is however a Foreign and New Age concept.

Furthermore ..if one can imply that one is suspect because one owns such property and it can be removed from them against their will...this too is an unAmerican position. Guilty without having committed any crime and ones property removed from them. No trial by jury of peers..no guilty verdict.

The American system of Government is based on the "Private" ownership of property. Arms are property. If you can take ones Property...ie..arms ..you can take any other property under the same guise or argument ...this is a very slippery slope.

It has the very basis within it to overthrow the Constitution of the United States by virtue of getting rid of "Private Property."

Something for every American to think about ..not emote in fear.

By the way..Awake_awake...I will be leaving here this afternoon..and going to a location where I will be preparing Nuclear fuel cells to be installed in Nuclear Reactors...for the purposes of generating steam.
Are you still worried about me with arms and or ammunition??
Doesnt make good nonsense does it??
Try thinking ..not emoting in fear or transfering such fear to others.

Thanks,
Orangetom