Gun Advocates Ready for Battle on Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Originally posted by lawbringer
I think people should have to pass a gun safety test and and an IQ test before they should be allowed to buy or even handle a gun. The there's a lot better chance there will be less crime and the guns will be in the hands of people who don't make stupid mistakes and aren't mentally ill.

I personally don't know of many gangsters or drug dealers that went to college.

Gangsters didn't go to college but they are still smart enough to find a gun.


On the safety test, that could and should be considered a legal infringement to the second amendment. Its like having to summit a draft of a proposed public speaking engagement for approval.

Remember this is a right not a privilege. State approval is still state approval and amounts to infringement be it freedom of speak or right to keep and BARE.

And the government giving IQ tests? Soon the results and application of the results would be used to apply to all manner of arbitrary nonsense. Wake up man.

Originally posted by spec_ops_wannabe
reply to post by Anonymous Avatar

 

Simple, with foreign military units and the UN. There's already some agreement for mutual military aid between the USA and Canada if I'm not mistaken for domestic stuff.

Well if this is true it represents one of the very reasons our founders put the 2nd amendment into the mix to begin with. Our government should be very suspect if they made such an agreement ie that Canada would use its military to help put down an exercise of the 2nd amendment in this country.

Exercise of the 2nd amendment. Did you like that?

reply to post by Fremd

oh, how noble of you. You're condoning the use of an assault weapon to protect your family?

Personally, i keep a loaded shotgun and pistol. I believe in right to bare arms, but there should be limitations.

Assault weapons are designed to kill people. Thats it.

Got news for you there. All guns are designed to kill people, or are adapted from one designed to kill people. That handgun you have has little hunting value, some, but not much. It's primary use is to shoot people.

So you believe that there should be restrictions. Conveniently, it would seem, restricted at anything more than what you personally choose.

How utterly hypocritical of you. Do you realize the devastation your shotgun is capable of? At close range, a 12ga slug out of the barrel is comparable in energy delivered to a .50BMG. And, if that pistol you have is of a caliber with any kind of stopping power it is probably capable of shooting through the thin walls of most homes and killing an innocent person just like the assault weapon you oppose.

Now, to question a rifle for home defense is fine. Personally, for home defense I could think of drawbacks to a rifle, but this applies to any rifle. To make a distinction between an 'assault rifle' and any other semi auto rifle points to either ignorance or some ulterior motive.

Got some more news for you. The second amendment is not about hunting, sport shooting, or even home defense. As a matter of fact I could argue that it isn't only about defense at all, but both defense and offense. It is in place as insurance against a tyrannical government so as to make the people capable of confronting them and, if necessary, removing them as well as defending against other threats.

IMO, with regards to the 2nd, there should be no restrictions on the type of firearms available to civilians. This does not mean I believe there shouldn't be restrictions on certain people (convicted felons, mentally ill, ...). Nor do I believe there should be no background checks.

Now before we get into the hand grenade and machine gun straw man, they are already regulated and have nothing to do with the assault weapon ban.

if your most sacred document [constution ] says you have the right to bear arms then so be it. it doesnt say what sort of weapon . if the us government get this bill passed then surely they are showing contempt for the constitution . i might be wrong but dont officials swear to uphold the constitution. if so doent that mean that this ban is illegal as he is failing to up keep the constitution.

on a personal note i have done a bit of shooting of different calibers for sport and the pot and whilst i agree with your right to bear arms i do think there are weapons that could be taken out of the equation , namely machine pistols . i have yet to see anybody get 20% of rounds in a target using one of these pistols

Umm fellow gun owners why are we debating these clowns anyway?

We have guns, they don't, they lose by default...

Stop worrying about their opinions, or the little laws they put on paper. Perhaps you fear a gun ban? why? You own a gun, you argue that your right to own it is to protect yourself from government tyranny correct?

Well um when they ban them and come to get them, you'll be facing said government tyranny, so what you have to do shouldn't be that hard to figure out...

Everything comes full circle.

[edit on 20-3-2009 by C0le]

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe

From C-SPAN, I read that most of the guns being sold in the border areas, and the automantic weapons, are being sold by American gun dealers. You can grenade launchers, whatever you need. The drug cartel operators are in 200 major American cities. Last year, the drug cartels on the border and in Mexico were responsible for 4000 deaths, including beheading's and hanging's. Illegal drugs represent a $25 billion dollar business, and that's just the American trade. I hear they now are using fast running underwater submersibles to beat radar and plane interdiction. Let's hope the Coast Guard has sufficient sonar to detect them.

No, nobody wants gun control. It doesn't work. Every American should own guns for self protection, and right now, especially people living along the Southern Border, or any American city with drug dealing gangs. I think I read that there are 7 guns for every American, and still, we are not safe, still the drug problem and demand grows, and the cartels get more powerful financially.

All that will work, slowly, is a change in the mind-altering culture that we live in. Stop the demand (like that's possible), take the drugs away, and the gangs will have to find a new way to operate: legitimate jobs! Put a happy chip, or a masturbatory "master switch" that can # your brain, before you shoot drugs or people. Until then, I guess its a free for all bloodbath, with guns or slingshots, or rocks, because there's always that element of people who like killing, and there's the rest of us who like self-preservation. Smoke up, or shoot up, take the pills, and support gun use! And peace, well that's just the distance between the next high and the next hangover.

How could we ever revamp society to make mind altering substances passe' and useless? It's a personal choice, before the addiction process takes hold. And after, we admire "the needle, the damage done", and seeing the bloody consequences. It gives meaning to our lives, and its a way out for millions, who have lost their spiritual connection to themselvs and the world. Without guns, how could we ensure the "suicide game"? We need guns to be the causation for our own destruction. We are like lemmings with guns. They serve the purpose of being our personal "god of vengence" on Earth. If the drugs don't get you, then the bullets will, if you can buy them. Don't worry, keep shooting...

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Can you really look around you at what is going on just on our continent and not understand why our founding fathers wanted to ensure that no one could take away our weapons? If they had been held to the same constraints as the European peasantry of the time this nation would never have been born. It was only because the citizenry here had access to the same weaponry as their oppressors that they were able to fight for liberty, and for this reason the power elite and international bankers have been doing everything in their power since then to take those guns away. Just look at the totalitarian governments of the world through history. One of their first steps is always to disarm the populace. So when they come to lock you and your family up because you said the wrong thing to someone or wouldn't vaccinate(poison)your kids or you are using conventional light bulbs, which guy do you want to be the one with the guns or the harmless sheep being led to the indoctrination camp?

reply to post by C0le


Two problems with this first is they are now trying to block our access to ammo, second, when they can make it illegal to even have the firearm, they can come after us one at a time like Ruby Ridge and not give the citizenry the time to rise up in a concerted effort. Witness what happened in NOLA after Katrina. They went in small groups, one neighborhood at a time to make sure they didn't set off an uprising with a group of citizens too large to control and with repercussions to large to hide from the public. We have to all be ready at once, but of course for even discussing it we are terrorists subject to detainment incommunicado with no rights so how do we organize ourselves?

reply to post by lawbringer

I personally don't know of many gangsters or drug dealers that went to college.

I happen to know quite a few.

And so far as the IQ test and safety courses go, I feel that it is a sound idea; however good ideas aren't always what's in the best interest of this nation or our freedoms.

The amendment has no such room in it for stipulations or conditions being placed on a persons RIGHTS.

When speaking of gun legislation you must keep in mind that there is already ample gun legislation in effect and very little of it actually works.

Most of which is based upon the supposition that a criminal will listen to an ounce of what is in any law (hence the status of criminality).

The real problems are #1 criminals ignore these laws, #2 gun owners are law abiding so you only serve to restrict the ownership of a firearm in the circle of good people, #3 (I should have made this number 1) WHEN EVER YOU PLACE CONDITIONS UPON THE RIGHTS OF MAN THOSE RIGHTS CEASE TO BE RIGHTS AND HAVE BECOME PRIVILEGES, THAT MAY BE REVOKED AT ANY POINT IN TIME!

I live in Chicago IL where our gun rights are virtually non-existent due to the ideas that laws can stop criminals, and the ban on firearms will stop the murders. THIS IS THE FARTHEST FROM THE TRUTH. We still hold the MURDER CAPITAL AWARD. And we have had a gun ban in this city for over 20 some odd years. You can only have a hunting rifle or a shotgun. And they must be registered every year.

Almost never has a registered gun been used by it's owner in a crime here. Only the criminals.

So I'll say this once, GUN LAWS DO NOT WORK IN ANY CAPACITY!

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Ok, lets start with the language. I'm sure that you have read it before but I think that you need to see it again for good measure.

(2nd Amend.)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


See also the Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776 (XIII which came before the US Bill of Rights 1789)

(XIII. Virg. Dec. of Rights) That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.

So, we now see that part of the idea behind this Amendment is to keep a State Militia (OF THE PEOPLE). And in order to keep a Militia in any State around the world you will need to keep up with the weaponry of the times. You can't have a State Militia armed with a Musket at this point in time, it would be woefully inadequate. Therefore a Militia will require the use and possession of full automatic assault rifles.

A non governmental State Militia would need to keep their own weapons and furthermore would need to keep military weapons comparable to that of a modern army. This is why Full Auto Assault Weapons need to be legalized.

Besides the personal right that is laid out in the 2nd amendment "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

KEEP- (1)to maintain in one's service or for one's use or enjoyment. (2)to hold or retain in one's possession.

BEAR- (1)to hold or carry (2)to have and use

"TO KEEP AND BEAR" or OWN AND CARRY!!!!

NOW LETS GET TO THE REAL ISSUE AT HAND HERE, AND WHY THERE IS A RIGHT TO HAVE AN ASSAULT RIFFLE.

You need to look at the intent of the framers and why they were so worried about standing armies and keeping the Militia with the people.

Virginia Dec. of Rights 1776
II "That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them."

III "That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

US Dec. of Indepen. 1776
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.........."

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep safe the rights and freedoms of the people and if need be overthrow the current form of government and assist in the peoples will to replace it with a more suitable form of government if the PEOPLE should ever see fit to do so.

THAT IS THE TRUE PURPOSE OF THE 2nd AMENDMENT.

HOW COULD AN AMERICAN POPULATION DO SUCH A THING WITH EITHER NO WEAPONS OR OUTDATED ONES.?

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe



An Assault Riffle is not any gun that fires multiple rounds with a single depression of the trigger. That general description is that of a Machine Gun. Lets do what not even the B.A.T.F can't do (define an Assault Weapon Properly)


Here are the type of Machine Guns.

The first is the MACHINE GUN, (M60, MG42, and so on) these are large caliber riffle rounds and are fired with a relatively high velocity and rate of fire. These weapons are used as Infantry support weapons and generally are not used by one man (unless your Rambo).

The second weapon that fits this description is a SUB-MACHINE GUN (Tommy gun, Uzi, Mp40, ect.) These guns use pistol ammo, have a lower rate of fire than most Machine Guns and are compact to be used by one man. They are also not accurate at great distances and are used for close quarters combat.

Now last but not least is the ASSAULT WEAPON (A.K.A. Assault Riffle).

This designation came about in the final throws of WW2 and was from the German Army.

It was coined the "Sturmgewehr 44" Which translates to "ASSAULT RIFFLE MODEL #1944." This gun used an intermediate cartrage that had the general accuracy of a riffle, the rate of fire of a sub-machine gun, and a powerful round that would put the enemy down in the 300meter killing field that studies showed was the necessary distance for a weapon in most battle situations.

More compact than a rifle yet it had the attributes of one including a bayonet. It suited the needs of the average soldier on the offense or defense where as the older infantry riffles where over kill and the sub-machine guns were inadequate. Especially since the new weapon had selective fire between single shot and multi-round burst. Later models that and improvements such as the AK-47 would include the full auto feature.

So now you know what defines an ASSAULT WEAPON.

It is not cosmetics. You can have an AK-47 or M-16 and beyond and if they do not have a bayonet or are not capable of a muti-round burst or full auto then they are just fancy looking riffles with a box magazine.

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe


I think we have to petition Holder's BOSS out of office.

The far left wing of the Democratic Party has decided they're going to impose their views on the rest of us... Both of the senators from my state (Colorado) have been singled out for retaliation because they didn't jump at the chance to help Obama sign us up for generations of indebtedness "stimulating" his political backers with pork from the Federal treasury. Now this.

One other thing I remember from the Clinton Administration - they over-reached and lost Congress in their first term. If the left-loonies think they're going to impose their crap-hat values on us because they stole an election or two, they have another think coming.