Proposed Anti-Gun, Anti-2nd Amendment Bill in the works

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dmw16
To start that website looks inflammatory and has little information (at least on the main page) about the bill.

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

Our rights are not defined by our needs. There is no need to own a 60 inch tv but we are not going to ban them are we?

 

[JDub02]

When you hear that JDub's guns have been taken, you'll know that JDub is dead.

<- proud, gun-toting, redneck American

The commies are really trying to hammer away at the things that make America great: self-preservation, private property, and religous expression.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
What exactly is in this bill? It looks like it's just a re-enactment of the assault weapon ban. If that's the case, you're making too big of a deal out of it.

when you actually look it over, it tries to look just like the awb of 94, but it is much worse. there is a thread at ar15.com where people have analyzed it and cross all the references - it is much worse than than the 94 ban. this particula bill is worded in a way which can be deciphered differently by many different people, which is not what are 2nd amendment was meant to be, it is very clear.

"It doesn't say that the firearm in question has to be currently in use by the military, just that the military purchased it (no time limit given on how long ago the purchase was made), or a firearm it is based on, or a similar firearm."

quote from a post from the ar15.com thread

which basically can be any type of firearm from a musket forward.....

even if it was just like the 94 awb, why should it be on the books as it is shown by numerous statistics, including fbi stats that the awb of 94 didn't do anything to curb crime and it never will because the theif that is going to rob or kill you doesn't care about the law so will get their weapon on the street. there are over 22,000 gun related laws - there doesn't need to be more that oppress the honest, law abiding citizen

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: nweaver

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jjsole
This is sure to make the hackles stand up on every redneck in America.

Do you try to be ignorant or does it just happen?

Sorry if the generalization was offensive, I'll rephrase:

This is sure the make most hackles stand up on every redneck in America.

Are you implying that only rednecks in America care about their freedoms and rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution?

Don't get your hackles up, I'm simply implying that this is sure to make most hackles stand up on every redneck in America.

Looks like you answered my question, it seems to just happen for you doesn't it?

Whatever I say seems to offend you, and that's regrettable. Perhaps I shouldn't even have assumed "most hackles".

Tell me what percentage of hackles are up on you right now, and I'll go with that, because these incessant questions are rather childish.

I guess I should have got the hint that you were just trolling by your first response. :roll:

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: bob4432
our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment knowing the issues and consequences of a tyrannical government, now it seems that is closer than we ever could have imagined.

history has shown us what an unarmed popualation is in for - the jews in europe in the wwII era, china, russia etc. you can find a lot of information here, Jews fo the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JFPO, i would say the jewish people know, as does the world at their expense what an unarmed population has dealt with.

some of our "leaders" seem to want this for our very country....here is a link to see what reps are supporting this new anti-gun bill

we can not allow this freedom to be taken away.

here is a link to find your reps

There's a significant difference between banning all weapons and firearms and banning certain types. It is quite excessive for most people to have assault weapons. And in my experience, the people who want to have them are the people I'd be most scared of having them because they're loonies. Having the right to bear arms is different than having the right to bear every single arm you're ever gonna want.

Even the first amendment has limitations. Threats and any speech intended to incite violence are not protected. So it makes sense that when something as important as the First amendment has limitations, so should the Second.













oh, and P&N ----------->

 

[JDub02]

Originally posted by: dmw16
To start that website looks inflammatory and has little information (at least on the main page) about the bill.

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

There's no real need for alot of things. That's what makes America great. We can have things we want .. like AR-15's.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmw16
To start that website looks inflammatory and has little information (at least on the main page) about the bill.

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

Our rights are not defined by our needs. There is no need to own a 60 inch tv but we are not going to ban them are we?

And look at how dangerous the 60" televisions are compared to the 27" ones are as well.

Thank God for the freedoms afforded to us by the constitution.

 

[dmw16]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmw16
To start that website looks inflammatory and has little information (at least on the main page) about the bill.

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

Our rights are not defined by our needs. There is no need to own a 60 inch tv but we are not going to ban them are we?

That is a pretty dumb analogy...but most arguments by analogy are pretty weak. I have no issue with most people owning firearms. The issue is I think that some people let a firearm inflate their ego. You are usually better off letting the police fight crime.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmw16
To start that website looks inflammatory and has little information (at least on the main page) about the bill.

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

Our rights are not defined by our needs. There is no need to own a 60 inch tv but we are not going to ban them are we?

And look at how dangerous the 60" televisions are compared to the 27" ones are as well.

Thank God for the constitution.

And look at how dangerous that scary gun is sitting on the table, be careful, it might jump up and shoot you!!

In case you can't see the quote in my sig......"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: loki8481
doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of going anywhere, so there's really no need to get your panties in a bunch... no politician outside of CA or the North East would ever be willing to get on NRA's **** list.

look at the tracker, i live in az, which has about the most relax gun laws around - i can carry wherever i want - in wal-mart even, i can get a concealed weapons permit, i can ride around town with my glock on my dash in a holster if i want, i could walk into a store with a rifle slung to my back and there are people from here that are co-sponsoring this bill. also there are texans on the co-sponsor list....

 

[jdoggg12]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmw16
To start that website looks inflammatory and has little information (at least on the main page) about the bill.

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

Our rights are not defined by our needs. There is no need to own a 60 inch tv but we are not going to ban them are we?

And look at how dangerous the 60" televisions are compared to the 27" ones are as well.

Thank God for the freedoms afforded to us by the constitution.

Thank God people can't extract the meaning out of analogy. It makes it so much easier to not take them seriously. :disgust:

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dmw16

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: dmw16
To start that website looks inflammatory and has little information (at least on the main page) about the bill.

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

Our rights are not defined by our needs. There is no need to own a 60 inch tv but we are not going to ban them are we?

That is a pretty dumb analogy...but most arguments by analogy are pretty weak. I have no issue with most people owning firearms. The issue is I think that some people let a firearm inflate their ego. You are usually better off letting the police fight crime.

Justifying a ban on assault weapons by saying that we don't need them is also pretty dumb...

By the way, Police are there mostly after the fact....I was a cop for 3 years. You really shouldn't be worried about the people that legally own and carry firearms......

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: dmw16
To start that website looks inflammatory and has little information (at least on the main page) about the bill.

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

look deeper into the website - it shows what can happen when citizens are unarmed...not a good situation. the site has a lot of information, all documented.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: bob4432
our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment knowing the issues and consequences of a tyrannical government, now it seems that is closer than we ever could have imagined.

history has shown us what an unarmed popualation is in for - the jews in europe in the wwII era, china, russia etc. you can find a lot of information here, Jews fo the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JFPO, i would say the jewish people know, as does the world at their expense what an unarmed population has dealt with.

some of our "leaders" seem to want this for our very country....here is a link to see what reps are supporting this new anti-gun bill

we can not allow this freedom to be taken away.

here is a link to find your reps

There's a significant difference between banning all weapons and firearms and banning certain types. It is quite excessive for most people to have assault weapons. And in my experience, the people who want to have them are the people I'd be most scared of having them because they're loonies. Having the right to bear arms is different than having the right to bear every single arm you're ever gonna want.

Even the first amendment has limitations. Threats and any speech intended to incite violence are not protected. So it makes sense that when something as important as the First amendment has limitations, so should the Second.













oh, and P&N ----------->

How many crimes are committed by people that legally own and carry an assault weapon?

 

[brandonb]

I'm sure glad I just bought my "assault weapon" last weekend as I heard about the ban a few weeks ago.

Here it is! http://www.tacticalcustoms.com/images/AR15%20big4.jpg (without the crappy gun holder that is)

 

[MiniDoom]

define assault weapon? if I duct tape a steak knife to my hunting rifle, will I go to the federal PMITA penitentiary? that's why this law will suck donkey balls.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: bob4432
our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment knowing the issues and consequences of a tyrannical government, now it seems that is closer than we ever could have imagined.

history has shown us what an unarmed popualation is in for - the jews in europe in the wwII era, china, russia etc. you can find a lot of information here, Jews fo the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JFPO, i would say the jewish people know, as does the world at their expense what an unarmed population has dealt with.

some of our "leaders" seem to want this for our very country....here is a link to see what reps are supporting this new anti-gun bill

we can not allow this freedom to be taken away.

here is a link to find your reps

There's a significant difference between banning all weapons and firearms and banning certain types. It is quite excessive for most people to have assault weapons. And in my experience, the people who want to have them are the people I'd be most scared of having them because they're loonies. Having the right to bear arms is different than having the right to bear every single arm you're ever gonna want.

Even the first amendment has limitations. Threats and any speech intended to incite violence are not protected. So it makes sense that when something as important as the First amendment has limitations, so should the Second.













oh, and P&N ----------->

How many crimes are committed by people that legally own and carry an assault weapon?

Apparently you don't consider assault weapons trafficking a crime, which of course is done by many 'legal owners'.

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: dmw16
To start that website looks inflammatory and has little information (at least on the main page) about the bill.

If it just bans assault weapons that's fine. And I think on the topic of defending our rights, it is important to remember that the Constitution evolves and that the world has changed since the founding fathers wrote it. There is nothing wrong with responsible gun owners. But there is no need for people to own assault rifles.

What is an "assault rifle?" It is basically a ban on guns that LOOK scary. But they won't kill you any better or easier than a hunting rifle will. The whole term "assault weapon" is a scare tactic, pure and simple.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: bob4432
our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment knowing the issues and consequences of a tyrannical government, now it seems that is closer than we ever could have imagined.

history has shown us what an unarmed popualation is in for - the jews in europe in the wwII era, china, russia etc. you can find a lot of information here, Jews fo the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JFPO, i would say the jewish people know, as does the world at their expense what an unarmed population has dealt with.

some of our "leaders" seem to want this for our very country....here is a link to see what reps are supporting this new anti-gun bill

we can not allow this freedom to be taken away.

here is a link to find your reps

There's a significant difference between banning all weapons and firearms and banning certain types. It is quite excessive for most people to have assault weapons. And in my experience, the people who want to have them are the people I'd be most scared of having them because they're loonies. Having the right to bear arms is different than having the right to bear every single arm you're ever gonna want.

Even the first amendment has limitations. Threats and any speech intended to incite violence are not protected. So it makes sense that when something as important as the First amendment has limitations, so should the Second.













oh, and P&N ----------->

How many crimes are committed by people that legally own and carry an assault weapon?

Apparently you don't consider assault weapons trafficking a crime, which of course is done by many 'legal owners'.

Have any links to back that up?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: bob4432
our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment knowing the issues and consequences of a tyrannical government, now it seems that is closer than we ever could have imagined.

history has shown us what an unarmed popualation is in for - the jews in europe in the wwII era, china, russia etc. you can find a lot of information here, Jews fo the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JFPO, i would say the jewish people know, as does the world at their expense what an unarmed population has dealt with.

some of our "leaders" seem to want this for our very country....here is a link to see what reps are supporting this new anti-gun bill

we can not allow this freedom to be taken away.

here is a link to find your reps

There's a significant difference between banning all weapons and firearms and banning certain types. It is quite excessive for most people to have assault weapons. And in my experience, the people who want to have them are the people I'd be most scared of having them because they're loonies. Having the right to bear arms is different than having the right to bear every single arm you're ever gonna want.

Even the first amendment has limitations. Threats and any speech intended to incite violence are not protected. So it makes sense that when something as important as the First amendment has limitations, so should the Second.













oh, and P&N ----------->

How many crimes are committed by people that legally own and carry an assault weapon?

Apparently you don't consider assault weapons trafficking a crime, which of course is done by many 'legal owners'.

Do you have a link to support your claim? Does worrying about assault weapons trafficking keep you up at night?

Anyways, I guess I should have been more clear, how many violent crimes are committed with assault weapons that are legally owned?

 

[Kirby64]

P&N is one floor down. Whoever says it's left or right, you all fail at looking.

 

[Auggie]

I'm actually buying my first AR-15 this week (should ship today or tomorrow!), so I've been thinking a lot about "assault rifle" ownership - is it necessary?

Consider the following:

In every state where concealed carry (CCW) laws have been enacted - even in liberal, East-Coast states - crime statistics have fallen. I believe this shows that an armed civilian population is a better crime deterrant than an unarmed population. Assault weapons only shift this beneficial demographic further towards lower crime.

If the government outlaws the owning of specific guns or all guns, a criminal who's intent is already set to violate the law will not be deterred. He might have to pay twice as much money for a gun on the black market if the government really went all out in an attempt to remove guns from the US, but they will ALWAYS be there. I don't want my hands tied when I know the opponents' hands will not be tied.

Assault rifles are used in an exceedingly small number of violent crimes.

Assault rifles make excellent home-defense weapons (assuming .223 models, of course) - greater natural aiming and less over-penetration, meaning it's much safer to use in close-quarters defense, as inside a home.

Assault rifles are really one of the best ways that the population has of ensuring that they would be able to throw off a tyranic governtment. Pistols are no match against 21st century soldiers, should it ever come to that.

Assault rifles make great hunting rifles.

I add all that up my head and come to the conclusion that not only is it not irresponsible to have an AR-15 rifle, it's actually pretty beneficial, mature, and responsible.

 

[thraashman]

Originally posted by: Kirby64
P&N is one floor down. Whoever says it's left or right, you all fail at looking.

If you hit the right arrow when at the end of a line, you'll go down to the next line. Same concept.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: thraashman

Originally posted by: bob4432
our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment knowing the issues and consequences of a tyrannical government, now it seems that is closer than we ever could have imagined.

history has shown us what an unarmed popualation is in for - the jews in europe in the wwII era, china, russia etc. you can find a lot of information here, Jews fo the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JFPO, i would say the jewish people know, as does the world at their expense what an unarmed population has dealt with.

some of our "leaders" seem to want this for our very country....here is a link to see what reps are supporting this new anti-gun bill

we can not allow this freedom to be taken away.

here is a link to find your reps

There's a significant difference between banning all weapons and firearms and banning certain types. It is quite excessive for most people to have assault weapons. And in my experience, the people who want to have them are the people I'd be most scared of having them because they're loonies. Having the right to bear arms is different than having the right to bear every single arm you're ever gonna want.

Even the first amendment has limitations. Threats and any speech intended to incite violence are not protected. So it makes sense that when something as important as the First amendment has limitations, so should the Second.













oh, and P&N ----------->

How many crimes are committed by people that legally own and carry an assault weapon?

Apparently you don't consider assault weapons trafficking a crime, which of course is done by many 'legal owners'.

and you have stats to back this up? this is the type of mindset that makes no sense. you just throw down words and don't back it up. come on, keep this conversation going with some type of statistic to back up your allegations. this statement is ridiculous...

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Auggie
I'm actually buying my first AR-15 this week (should ship today or tomorrow!), so I've been thinking a lot about "assault rifle" ownership - is it necessary?

Consider the following:

In every state where concealed carry (CCW) laws have been enacted - even in liberal, East-Coast states - crime statistics have fallen. I believe this shows that an armed civilian population is a better crime deterrant than an unarmed population. Assault weapons only shift this beneficial demographic further towards lower crime.

If the government outlaws the owning of specific guns or all guns, a criminal who's intent is already set to violate the law will not be deterred. He might have to pay twice as much money for a gun on the black market if the government really went all out in an attempt to remove guns from the US, but they will ALWAYS be there. I don't want my hands tied when I know the opponents' hands will not be tied.

Assault rifles are used in an exceedingly small number of violent crimes.

Assault rifles make excellent home-defense weapons (assuming .223 models, of course) - greater natural aiming and less over-penetration, meaning it's much safer to use in close-quarters defense, as inside a home.

Assault rifles are really one of the best ways that the population has of ensuring that they would be able to throw off a tyranic governtment. Pistols are no match against 21st century soldiers, should it ever come to that.

Assault rifles make great hunting rifles.

I add all that up my head and come to the conclusion that not only is it not irresponsible to have an AR-15 rifle, it's actually pretty beneficial, mature, and responsible.

The AR-15 is such a great weapon...there's a gun show this weekend and I hope to pick one up. Hopefully with a high capacity 30 mag clip, collapsable stock, hand grip, and bayonet lug. Up yours, assault weapons ban!