Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out!

reply to post by SubTruth


I would have no issue of a person owning an Assault Rifle it it was IMPOSSIBLE to convert it to being able to fire on Full Auto. Split Infinity

reply to post by SubTruth


me i'm actually forpeople owning any type of gun. year or two ago a local gunshop raffled a browning 30 caliber. it was semi automatic with a gatling crank. everybody in my town where i am (a college town by the way) has guns. i'm not worried because where i am is a bad place to try and start collecting everybodys guns because we would fight until whoever wants them will say "fighting them is too hard, they wiped out our army, nato, lets just nuke the place." a gun ban will be a bad idea.

200 years ago, the signers of constitution, with the bill of rights, were talking about muskets when they wrote in "arms"....just think that in another 200 years, that had a "rifle" that could fire a ray that could slice right through hundreds of people at one pull of the trigger...would the NRA still be defending that as being a constitutional right?

reply to post by jimmyx


yes. to give more than a small group of people the power to keep such a ray. we'll walk softly and carry big ray guns

reply to post by jimmyx


I suspect that the founders of this country intended for its citizens to have access to small arms comparable in capability to the military of the citizens' respective time period. Regardless, you might want to be careful with that 'founders intent' argument, considering that it can be applied to almost *anything* invented since 1789. If you allow that precedent to be set, it will not be long before some know-nothing politician applies it to a freedom that you actually do care about.

Originally posted by jimmyx
200 years ago, the signers of constitution, with the bill of rights, were talking about muskets when they wrote in "arms"....just think that in another 200 years, that had a "rifle" that could fire a ray that could slice right through hundreds of people at one pull of the trigger...would the NRA still be defending that as being a constitutional right?

200 years from now the progressives will have won because of apathy, and we will have to take out permits and pay a tax on farting.



I wonder how many people world wide have died because they willingly gave up the right to defend themselves?

so i did the cursory google search of this and sure enough, leave it to good ol' snopes to straighten it out.. I'm pretty sure everyone can calm down. More right-wing hyperbole..snopes link

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by SubTruth

 

I would have no issue of a person owning an Assault Rifle it it was IMPOSSIBLE to convert it to being able to fire on Full Auto. Split Infinity

Gotta love ignorance. With a 200 dollar tax stamp you can legally own a fully automatic weapon in most places in the united states.


So in reality you are for even more taking away of freedom. Way to fight the good fight buddy.



And this law has been on the books for a long time and guess how many crimes you see with fully automatic weapons being committed by lawful gun owners. Think about it.

reply to post by vor78


As a person who believes in the Rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights...I support the Rights of the U.S. Citizen to Remove any Government of the U.S. that no longer abides by the Constitution. This was the main reason behind the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as it is the DUTY of the American Citizen to remove such a Government and by using the mechanisms outlined in the Constitution...to install a New Government that abides by the Constitution.

Using this reasoning one could make a case for Public Ownership of Full Automatic Weapons...but let's be reasonable. Since the U.S. Military is an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE and swears their allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES....NOT the Government or it's Leadership but the CONSTITUTION...it is Highly Unlikely that our Military would EVER back a Government that does not follow the Constitution.

Knowing this to be a Very High Probability it is reasonable to assume that banning weapons that could be modified to fire on Full Auto is not placing our Freedoms in jeopardy. It is my opinion that the threat is sufficient to risk the banning of a type of weapon. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I would have no issue of a person owning an Assault Rifle it it was IMPOSSIBLE to convert it to being able to fire on Full Auto. Split Infinity

The only thing is, 99%+ of the people buying them will never even attempt to convert them. You'd really just be punishing the overwhelming majority because a small handful act of idiots. I can't justify that. I think the solution is to go after the small minority of offenders, rather than turn all 20-30 million of the law-abiding people who own assault rifles into offenders.

reply to post by SplitInfinity


good luck.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by vor78

 

As a person who believes in the Rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights...I support the Rights of the U.S. Citizen to Remove any Government of the U.S. that no longer abides by the Constitution. This was the main reason behind the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS as it is the DUTY of the American Citizen to remove such a Government and by using the mechanisms outlined in the Constitution...to install a New Government that abides by the Constitution.

Using this reasoning one could make a case for Public Ownership of Full Automatic Weapons...but let's be reasonable. Since the U.S. Military is an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE and swears their allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES....NOT the Government or it's Leadership but the CONSTITUTION...it is Highly Unlikely that our Military would EVER back a Government that does not follow the Constitution.

Knowing this to be a Very High Probability it is reasonable to assume that banning weapons that could be modified to fire on Full Auto is not placing our Freedoms in jeopardy. It is my opinion that the threat is sufficient to risk the banning of a type of weapon. Split Infinity

Google is your friend. I will say it again with a 200 dollar tax stamp you can legally own fully automatic weapons in the US. It has been this way for a long time please look it up before you speak.



Many people in the US legally own fully automatic weapons most gun lovers already know this FACT.

reply to post by SubTruth

Look...I am conflicted by my own post. Still...the fact remains that people are converting and using these weapons for various criminal activities and I would not support such a BAN if Gun Manufacturers simply made it impossible to modify Assault Weapons that are Semi-Auto to Full Auto.

If they did this I would have no issue. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
Using this reasoning one could make a case for Public Ownership of Full Automatic Weapons...but let's be reasonable. Since the U.S. Military is an ALL VOLUNTEER FORCE and swears their allegiance to THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES....NOT the Government or it's Leadership but the CONSTITUTION...it is Highly Unlikely that our Military would EVER back a Government that does not follow the Constitution.

I suspect that you're right, but that's no guarantee.

That said, I do not base my position on 'assault rifles' on that premise. I simply see them as rather low risk. Looking at the homicide statistics, rifles of all types are in the single percentages as far as firearm type used. Assault rifles get the attention from the media idiots, but handguns are far and away the weapon of choice for violent crime. And no, I don't believe there should be a handgun ban, either. We need to do a better job of identifying people who are problems and keeping firearms out of their hands, rather than punishing everyone.

reply to post by vor78


The Main Issue is the import of Chinese Built AK's that are easy to modify. The U.S. has been flooded with these imports as it is difficult to modify an AR-15. If the AK's were not allowed to be imported...the problem would be drastically diminished. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by SubTruth

 

Look...I am conflicted by my own post. Still...the fact remains that people are converting and using these weapons for various criminal activities and I would not support such a BAN if Gun Manufacturers simply made it impossible to modify Assault Weapons that are Semi-Auto to Full Auto.

If they did this I would have no issue. Split Infinity

Yea what exactly are you saying. Are you talking about slide fire stocks? Or about new parts to put in a gun to make it fire full auto? Or are you talking about garage mods?




Education is a good thing I think it might be lacking in your argument. No offense but I kinda read the gun forums alot and criminals by and large do not modify to fire full auto. Most crimes are with semi-auto.




And legal gun owners who want full auto buy the tax stamp and factory made full auto or select fire. Also the parts to make a gun fire full auto are covered under the class 3.





I will say it one last time it is legal to own fully automatic weapons in the US. You need a 200 dollar tax stamp and a background check. Many many people own fully automatic weapons LEGALLY.

reply to post by vor78

You are correct but to Ban Handguns would only mean that the Criminals would have them. Statistics show that any Community that has a large percentage of Legal Handgun Owners has a much lower percentage of Violent Crime than Communities that do not. Split Infinity

reply to post by SubTruth

I will not describe how to modify an AK or any other Assault Rifle here as that would be irresponsible. Still the large number of Chinese made AK's are not that hard to modify. I have fired just about every weapon one could think of and if I was Hunting...there is no reason for me to be carrying either an AK or AR-15. Split Infinity

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
The Main Issue is the import of Chinese Built AK's that are easy to modify. The U.S. has been flooded with these imports as it is difficult to modify an AR-15. If the AK's were not allowed to be imported...the problem would be drastically diminished. Split Infinity

You know what? I actually would not have a huge problem with a ban on imported AK-47s as long as it did not impact the domestic firearm industry or the sales of the firearms they produce. As long as a person could still buy a made in the USA AR-15, I could live with it.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by SubTruth

 

I will not describe how to modify an AK or any other Assault Rifle here as that would be irresponsible. Still the large number of Chinese made AK's are not that hard to modify. I have fired just about every weapon one could think of and if I was Hunting...there is no reason for me to be carrying either an AK or AR-15. Split Infinity

And how many crimes do we see with this type of weapon. My point is this you are arguing pro gun and you don't even understand the LAWS.




Because if you did understand the LAW you would not be saying people should not own fully automatic weapons. You are actually for more gun laws not less.




Education is the best weapon. Knowing the laws so you do not break them. And knowing your rights is key.