Airsoft Arizona

Off-Topic Forums => Real Firearms => Topic started by: KamikazeSM on September 10, 2004, 04:14:06 PM

Title:
Post by: KamikazeSM on September 10, 2004, 04:14:06 PM: I just checked out that site that Gixser posted, and man, is that new ban proposal scary (the "AWB & LEPA 2003"). I would like to sit back and hope that everything goes well and that it doesn't get passed, but for those of you have been into firearms for much longer than I, what can I do to fight something like this?

Previously, I always saw the AWB and anti-gun measures as a nebulous "bad", but for some reason reading through the anti-gun propaganda really drove home to me how this isn's just a fight for someone else's rights to firearms, but rather that its a fight for mine and fellow Americans, not only for our gun rights, but for our freedom as well. For those of you younger guys who have never really examined this issue in your own personal context, I urge you to fight for your own liberties and examine the propaganda for yourself and see through the lies, so that you can see what's really at stake here.
Title:
Post by: gixser13 on September 10, 2004, 04:28:31 PM: propaganda and lies are the only thing the anti guns guy have to fight us with

Welcome to the fight KamikazeSM
To see the lies Is to see the truth
Title:
Post by: Trashcan on September 10, 2004, 04:35:01 PM: Since when did the 'semi-automatic 30 bullet weapon' kill that man's son? He could have just as easily been killed with a knife, or a shovel, or a peice of glass..
Why are we blaming the tools used to do the killings, and not the killers?
Title:
Post by: Cochise on September 10, 2004, 05:01:24 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by gixser13
 At the same time(1998-2001 ed. cochise), terrorist training manuals found in Afghanistan and available on web sites around the world urge terrorists to come to the United States, obtain assault weapons, and then learn how to use them against us.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Good thing they're banned...oh wait [V]
Title:
Post by: sNiPeRWoLf88 on September 10, 2004, 05:04:29 PM: while i am completely neutral on this whole issue (i dont come from a gun family, and i have never used anything besides a 9mm, .22, and a 30-30), i do think that they take a lot of the stuff to far. this is what got me.

A new analysis of FBI data has found that from 1998 through 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.

FOr some reason, I think thats BS. More than anything, most cops are killed with their own damn glock! And if they are killed with assault weapons, those are the ones that are bought on the black market that the AS Ban couldn't stop anyways.
Title:
Post by: delta_echo on September 10, 2004, 05:45:44 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by KamikazeSM
 for those of you have been into firearms for much longer than I, what can I do to fight something like this?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Join the NRA. Sounds simple, buts its the first thing to do. Those 4-5 million votes represented by NRA members sway politicians minds. Second, write your congressman. Sounds old fashioned and quaint but the very fact that you took time to do it can help sway opinion. Thirdly, let your friends and family know what time of bullcrap this really is. Get some real info on crime rates and gun usage. Influence those in your "sphere of influence". Those are just my thoughts.
Title:
Post by: Under_Fire on September 10, 2004, 06:02:56 PM: What?! They said you can buy an AK47 for $169, where did they find that deal? Must be another twisted fact (or straight out lie) spread to the unsuspecting masses.
Title:
Post by: Firehead on September 10, 2004, 06:20:01 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Under_Fire
 What?! They said you can buy an AK47 for $169, where did they find that deal? Must be another twisted fact (or straight out lie) spread to the unsuspecting masses.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wouldn't buy an airsoft gun ever again, if i was able to get an AK-47 for 169 bucks. And what kind of moron buys a 170 dollar pair of "sneakers"!
Alot of assualt weapons don't do as much damage as some regular weaponry. Load a shotgun with slugs, that is just as dangerous as owning an SKS, in my opinion. Why don't they talk about pistols? Pistols are stolen every day, then gangsters turn around and sell them for 50 bucks. That, in my opinon is more of a problem.
Title:
Post by: Stoli on September 10, 2004, 06:22:13 PM: I'm sure they were talking about illegal guns. Not off-the shelf ones. I've been offered mac-10's & ar-15's for under $300
Title:
Post by: delta_echo on September 10, 2004, 06:25:12 PM: Hmmmm. Selling pistols for $50, what does that remind you of? The Clinton "buy back" program, of course! What a great play on ideas. Since the US government is "buying them back" doesn't that carry the connotation that they were US Government Property in the first place? I love how politicians twist and/or redefine words! Just shows how slick Willy really was!
Title:
Post by: delta_echo on September 10, 2004, 06:32:54 PM: Heres an article from a link on that sight. I find it quite humorous as their main "witness" shows himself to be hypocrytical just in the article!

Demand drives sale of assault-style weapons#65532;

By Mary Beth Schneider
mary.beth.schneider@indystar.com
August 19, 2004
Don Davis has been telling TV audiences for years how he loves to sell guns -- but even he thinks the semiautomatic rifle used to kill an Indianapolis officer Wednesday and wound four others should be outlawed.
"They're terrible," said Davis, owner of Don's Guns, 3807 Lafayette Road.
And, he added, "I sell them like crazy."
In 1993, Davis said he would stop selling the weapons, which have military features allowing rapid, accurate firing. He burned 44 AK-47s in a pit to make his point.
Four years later, he began selling them again. He said politicians bowed to pressure from groups like the National Rifle Association to keep the weapons legal.
He said there was just too much demand for the AK-47, which sells for about $300 and the cheaper $150 knockoff, the SKS -- both of which are imported.
Police say an SKS was used to kill Patrolman Timothy "Jake" Laird early Wednesday.
"They're all legal, and we sell them every day to 18-year-olds," Davis said. "Isn't that terrible?"
Davis said they aren't used for hunting.
But they are used in crimes -- including the slayings of law-enforcement officers.
A study by the Violence Policy Center, a national nonprofit educational foundation based in Washington, found 41 officers, including three in Indiana, were killed in the line of duty from 1998 through 2001 with assault-style weapons such as the AK-47 and SKS.
Wendy Osborne, an FBI special agent for the Indianapolis office, said rifles were used to kill 10 of the 52 officers slain nationwide in 2003 and five of the 32 officers slain this year as of July 31.
Statistics on how often the semiautomatic rifles are used in crimes couldn't be obtained from the FBI or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
But Mike Vergon, acting resident agent in charge of the Indianapolis ATF field office, said they are frequently used in crimes.
The assault-style weapons are banned in Gary and East Chicago. State Rep. Vernon Smith, D-Gary, said he sponsored the ordinance in the 1980s that outlawed them in Gary and has been trying for 12 years to persuade the Indiana General Assembly to follow that lead.
He doubts this latest shooting alone will change minds.
"The NRA and the gun proponents are a strong force," he said. "Unfortunately, it will take these tragic events, and maybe somebody shooting in the Statehouse, to make people understand we don't need to make these types of weapons available."
State Sen. Bob Meeks, R-LaGrange, served 25 years as an Indiana State Police trooper, retiring in 1981.
In his first reaction to the news of the shootings, he said he thought the AK-47 already was illegal in Indiana.
"It ought to be illegal," he said, referring to any assault-style weapon that can pierce an officer's bullet-proof vest. "I don't see any good reason to have one of them."
But Meeks said lawmakers shouldn't overreact by rushing laws onto the books.
He's a gun advocate who owns an M-1 rifle. Last session, he co-sponsored a bill, passed overwhelmingly and signed into law by Gov. Joe Kernan, to protect gun owners from being sued if their weapons are stolen and used in a crime.
Davis, for one, doesn't think Laird's killing will spur lawmakers to ban the weapons.
"Nah," he said. "They'll talk about it a couple of days. The next day they'll be talking about something else."
Title:
Post by: TheCrow on September 10, 2004, 07:18:17 PM: Don Davis is a real POS. He is no friend to gun owners. The man sells gold-plated Ravens...makes you wonder who he makes most of his money from.
Title:
Post by: yellowmonkey on September 10, 2004, 07:25:10 PM: Did you see the part in the "Gun industry's Vision of America" where they said you could get an AK-47 (thiers had a nice banana clip too) for $169?
Where...? Becuase if I can find one for that cheap, I want to go buy it.

I'm certianly glad to see that the gun industry has a vision of affordable firearms for the future. [:)]
Title:
Post by: om3ga on September 11, 2004, 10:42:17 PM: hey, wouldnt it be ironic if we all showed up to their head quarters and stabbed them to death? i think that would be worthwhile. ok but really, i dont understand why someones right to feel unthreatened by me owning a gun should override my right to own one. it's really silly. jesus.
Title:
Post by: gixser13 on September 11, 2004, 10:53:20 PM: More people have been killed for there religious belief and Race by the sword then guns , Doctors kill more people per year then guns,dogs kill more people per year then guns,Drunk Drivers kill more people per year then guns,(not talking wars talking about here in the US OF A ) Do you see my point here.
Title:
Post by: leadmagnet on September 12, 2004, 11:50:46 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sNiPeRWoLf88
 
A new analysis of FBI data has found that from 1998 through 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wouldn't take that stat too seriously as far as the type of weapon used to shoot cops goes. People who take their defense seriously tend to opt for semi-automatic firearms. It is no surprise that the bad guys tend to as well.

As someone who has personal experience in being attacked by armed assailants, I assure you that my minimum requirements revolve around being equipped with a semi-automatic rifle in caliber .223 or higher with a magazine capacity of at the minimum 10 rounds, preferably more. Such standards provide the minimum necessary penetration, range, speed, and magazine capacity for even coming close to being able to address today's threats which often include the presence of body armor.

Lead
Title:
Post by: Firehead on September 13, 2004, 01:50:10 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by delta_echo
He said there was just too much demand for the AK-47, which sells for about $300 and the cheaper $150 knockoff, the SKS -- both of which are imported.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

just to prove whoever wrote this article is a complete moron...the SKS is a completely different rifle...not a $150 knockoff.
Title:
Post by: Harley on September 13, 2004, 08:16:13 PM: All I can say is buy your guns and high cap magazines soon people. The next ban to come down the pike will surely ban any further sales of even "sporterized" versions and could possibly call for a national turn in of certain firearms. Scary stuff.
Title:
Post by: Raith on September 13, 2004, 08:18:26 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Harley
 ...could possibly call for a national turn in of certain firearms...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

MOLON LABE
Title:
Post by: SHIFTY1944 on September 13, 2004, 08:33:36 PM: From my cold dead hands...I WILL never just hand over my guns!
Title:
Post by: Greg on September 14, 2004, 12:29:59 AM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by SHIFTY1944
 From my cold dead hands...I WILL never just hand over my guns!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I've always wondered about our side's understanding of the 2nd ammendment. I mean the whole concept of it being for protection from the government and to have the ability to rebel.

I do agree with this idea and I'm confident that it is what the founding fathers had in mind, but because of the gradual way that the anti-gunners are going at it (nfa->awb->registration->more bans->everything's banned) where do we draw the line? I can sort of see the gun owners of the nation "rising up" if one day everything was legal and the next day the government said to hand over EVERY gun, but the way it is happening, I just can't imagine it being more than a few people here and there.

I also have a big problem personally taking up arms against ATF agents and/or soldiers of our country. We always talk big about never giving up our guns, but how serious are we, really? Afterall, we did let them take away certain guns for the last 10 years. Where do YOU draw the line?
Title:
Post by: Firehead on September 14, 2004, 09:06:42 AM: well, think about it this way: where would we be without guns? we wouldn't have been able to fight for our indepedence, and would still be under the rule of britian. Those anti-gunners fail to realize that the guns they want to remove made us who we are today.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on September 14, 2004, 11:08:28 AM: no, the way most anti gun advocates think is along the lines of, a public with guns was needed then, but now we have an army, its not needed. its just like we used to need bakers, millers, blacksmiths, cobblers, ect, but now big business fills the need. and they tend to have an overwhelming fear of just being blown away. think about it, if you havent had experience with guns, of the fear. imagine someone pulling a small box out of thier pocket, pointing it at you, and your dead. no chance to run, to dodge, you are simply dead in an instant. thats how most anti gun advocates think about it.
Title:
Post by: gixser13 on September 14, 2004, 12:03:52 PM: I think if they ever went door to door taking guns away, It wont be the way you and I think it will be done.
gun owners would be labeled as racsist or terrorist and they would sell it to the rest of the world as good for humanity, I wouldnt be suprised if it was UN troops under the one world goverment act to be the ones to do the dirty deed,
We are in the End of days guys...........

Sorry my spell check is down
Title:
Post by: Stoli on September 14, 2004, 12:51:59 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Firehead
 well, think about it this way: where would we be without guns? we wouldn't have been able to fight for our indepedence, and would still be under the rule of britian. Those anti-gunners fail to realize that the guns they want to remove made us who we are today.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Completely true...but, times have changed since then. We're not breaking free from England, & we're not being invaded. We have a military force that can defend itself, & more technological advancments then we can imagine. The days of "get yer gun the british are coming!" are over man. Not everyone needs to own a gun, especially an ar-15 full auto with bayonette & c-mag. In fact, most people shouldnt own a gun like this.

Lets take Paco's collection for instance. Hes got more firepower then some gun stores Ive seen. Think if someone knew about his guns, & decided to take them. They break into his house one night, take the guns, & go on a rampage killing people. How would you feel? Knowing that your weapon was the last thing innocent people saw as they died...

I'm not saying ban guns completely, but I just dont see a reason for anyone to own an arsenal of assault weapons...You want those, get airsoft.
Title:
Post by: Under_Fire on September 14, 2004, 12:59:54 PM: People who say that private militias are outdated are overconfident. Just because we are the most powerful country now doesn't mean we we will be forever. Should we cease to be a superpower or a global power, we need something besides an army for defense.
Title:
Post by: Stoli on September 14, 2004, 01:03:49 PM: So youre saying we should have people out there stocking up on guns, so in case, the US Military gets completely destroyed we wont die? Youve got to be kidding me...If this ever happens, we'll all be dead too buddy. There will be no one left in the world. If the US gets attacked, or we attack anyone else, its nuclear war, & the end of the world...
Title:
Post by: KamikazeSM on September 14, 2004, 02:19:25 PM: Stoli, where do you draw the line with what guns people 'should' be allowed to own? I think you're missing the point that regardless of what the actual gun is that is being disallowed, it's the government stripping us of a right and invading our privacy even more. If you have the mentality that one type of gun shouldn't be allowed, then how do you get the anti-gun lobby to stop after that type of gun? All they see is that all guns are bad and they won't stop until they have all our guns. And since when should we be regulated by what we need? As a consumer nation, we're not driven by what we need, but rather by what we want. As Gixser pointed out in the other thread, why does anyone need a car that goes faster than 75mph? You don't need a nice steak restaurant, all you need is a handful of rice and some spam. See where I'm going with this? By allowing the mentality that you shouldn't own a certain type of gun because it is more than is necessary for hunting, you're agreeing that we should do away with anything that doesn't serve any purpose greater than necessity. Besides everything it has to do with the "little" stuff like liberty and freedom and rights, have you thought it might just be fun to shoot? More people are killed by cars then by guns, but there's nothing stopping people from owning these 3000lb machines of death... in fact terrorists can come here and get them! If you go by the mentality that a gun is just a tool, then by the same reasoning that states full-auto/assault weapons as overkill, then so is your 4 burner BBQ, your variable RPM table saw, etc. Sure you can make the case that no one gets killed by BBQs, but the point here is that regardless of something's status as a tool, it should never be limited to necessity, as even tools have a recreational purpose. And, any such limiting of our pursuit of happiness is not rightfully done by a government meant to serve the needs of the people and composed by the people.
Title:
Post by: Stoli on September 14, 2004, 02:42:14 PM: Well it seems the people dont want you running around with 50cal sniper rifles, & they won. The point of my arguement is that 50cal sniper rifles are just that, for sniping. Sniping includes the tactics of not being seen, or heard by your enemy. Last time I checked, targets at the range didnt have ears or eyes. Unless youre planning on killing somone, you should not have a 50cal. imo...

I've been shooting. Its not fun. I dont see spending my time shooting at a paper target that just sits there fun. Airsoft is a great way to avoid shooting. I want to use assault weapons, but I'm not gonna join the military, so I joined airsoft...

You could argue that anything man made could be construde as a weapon. So friggin what? Were not talking about how many bbq's kill people each year, were talking about banning weapons that are of no use at all other then hunting people. I'm not an anti-gun nut. I believe guns do serve a purpose, but in the right hands. No one should be allowed to walk into Big 5 & order a 50cal, ever...

As for the comment: why do you need a car that goes over 75mph? Good point, you dont. But that doesnt stop the gov't from restricting cars that could be dangerous. Look at the Autobahn. Youre allowed to drive upwards of 200mph. Now look at I-10. If you took those people & put them on the Autobahn, there would be tons of deaths. Were a nation of dumbasses. Most of us shouldnt even drive a car, let alone continue breathing. Youre telling me you want these people to be able to buy assault weapons, & 50 cals?

And I guarantee that if (god forbid) someone on this forum gets killed by an assault weapon, or 50 cal, every single one of you will change your stance, at least on this issue...

Look guys, my point isnt against gun owners, its against stupid people buying them. I know most of you know how to handle a gun, but there are a lot more that dont. We could argue this point til we're blue in the face, but nothings gonna change. You still have your point of view, & I have mine. I'm simply expressing mine, since we all know yours by now...
Title:
Post by: delta_echo on September 14, 2004, 03:21:40 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Stoli
 
I've been shooting. Its not fun. I dont see spending my time shooting at a paper target that just sits there fun. Airsoft is a great way to avoid shooting. I want to use assault weapons, but I'm not gonna join the military, so I joined airsoft...

You could argue that anything man made could be construde as a weapon. So friggin what? Were not talking about how many bbq's kill people each year, were talking about banning weapons that are of no use at all other then hunting people. I'm not an anti-gun nut. I believe guns do serve a purpose, but in the right hands. No one should be allowed to walk into Big 5 & order a 50cal, ever...

As for the comment: why do you need a car that goes over 75mph? Good point, you dont. But that doesnt stop the gov't from restricting cars that could be dangerous. Look at the Autobahn. Youre allowed to drive upwards of 200mph. Now look at I-10. If you took those people & put them on the Autobahn, there would be tons of deaths. Were a nation of dumbasses. Most of us shouldnt even drive a car, let alone continue breathing. Youre telling me you want these people to be able to buy assault weapons, & 50 cals?

And I guarantee that if (god forbid) someone on this forum gets killed by an assault weapon, or 50 cal, every single one of you will change your stance, at least on this issue...

Look guys, my point isnt against gun owners, its against stupid people buying them. I know most of you know how to handle a gun, but there are a lot more that dont. We could argue this point til we're blue in the face, but nothings gonna change. You still have your point of view, & I have mine. I'm simply expressing mine, since we all know yours by now...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

All of your arguments are basically hypothetical. That the problem. They don't sell .50 cals at big 5, never have to my knowledge. They idea that we'd all change our minds if someone died by an assault weapon is also an assumption. You can't label a person an "idiot" of anything, driving included, until they, BY THEMSELF prove that they are an idiot. Laws like the .50 cal ban in California are driven by the assumption that EVERYONE is an idiot, so the government must "protect" them and everybody else. Lastly, from what I've seen, most idiots don't have the money to buy something like that as their stupidity plays out in the rest of their lives (ex. job).
Title:
Post by: Victor3 on September 14, 2004, 03:26:08 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And I guarantee that if (god forbid) someone on this forum gets killed by an assault weapon, or 50 cal, every single one of you will change your stance, at least on this issue...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Someone could kill my entire family with a .50 BMG or an assault weapon and I would still not advocate banning them. The gun does not kill, the person does.

I would however hope that the police got to them before I did!
Title:
Post by: Raith on September 14, 2004, 03:30:02 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Stoli
 Unless youre planning on killing somone, you should not have a 50cal. imo...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I'm confused... You are in favor of banning 50 caliber weapons, but intent to commit homocide is a validator on ownership?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've been shooting. Its not fun. I dont see spending my time shooting at a paper target that just sits there fun.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think thats too normative of a statement to be using when trying to make your case. There are many, many people in the US and around the world who find shooting firearms extremely fun.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I believe guns do serve a purpose, but in the right hands.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Who would decide whos hands are the "right hands?" I find it hard to believe you would tolerate a similar stance on what you were allowed to say, read, or write.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And I guarantee that if (god forbid) someone on this forum gets killed by an assault weapon, or 50 cal, every single one of you will change your stance, at least on this issue...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

And I guarantee you that would not be the case. First off, that is too blanket of a statement to be applied to such a diverse group of people. Also, I know there are plenty of folks on here who would not reverse their strong held convictions that firearms are most certainly not the cause of such crime and not to be the scapegoats of criminal behavior.

---

I'm curious, what do you think about 50 caliber weapons that are not "sniper rifles?" Are they not to be banned because of they are not "sniper rifles?" What is your criteria here for what is deemed dangerous enough to ban and what is not?
Title:
Post by: leadmagnet on September 14, 2004, 03:31:41 PM: No offense but I find it ridiculous that some of you are even sitting there calling semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons". They're just friggen semi-automatic rifles for cryin out loud.

Lead
Title:
Post by: Firehead on September 14, 2004, 04:23:44 PM: There is always a need for a standing militia, everywhere. Hell, what do you think the national guard is? Militia, with authority. Now our second amendment right says: the right to bear arms and maintain a standing militia. Now, i don't know how many of you know who John Locke is, but he stated the we have a few basic rights, one of them is the "right to revolution". Which means that if our government gets out of control, we can over throw them. Now, if they take all of our guns away, this is impossible. And ain't a damn thing any of us can do about it if we have no way to force them out of office. Now im not trying to say anything about our government, but you NEVER know. Im sure im gunna get flamed or something for saying this, but its okay. Now, my reasoning(the actual reasoning) for owning an assault weapon(my SKS) is home defense, there have been several occasions(1) where i have pulled out my SKS and proceded to load it, and ready myself to fire. This was when some ****head gang bangers decided they wanted to have a war outside(on of them did end up shooting my truck). I was ready do defend my home(my dad was out of town, actually... out of country) and my mom is practically incapable of defending herself. Any other weapon would have been incapable of delivering the amount of damage needed to stop several men(approximately 10-15, but most had fled except 4 or 5 once the shooting had actually started, which continued for about a minute after i heard the first shot) except for an assault weapon(i love the 7.62 x 39 round!). What would you have done?There are pistols which are alot worse than a .223(just an overpowered .22) in my opinion(like a .45), and easier to coneal than an assault rifle, yet they make no attempt to stop people from buying them.
Okay, i think im done ranting, and hell i prolly missed my point. A man without a gun is a subject, a man with a gun is a citizen. Also, like someone else already said, guns don't kill people, people kill people, a gun is simply an instrument. The same thing can be accomplished with a machete. Its all about the will of the person.
Title:
Post by: Ruiner on September 14, 2004, 04:46:57 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leadmagnet
 No offense but I find it ridiculous that some of you are even sitting there calling semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons". They're just friggen semi-automatic rifles for cryin out loud.

Lead
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

well if i remember correctly this topic is about the 'assult weapons' ban.. which banned certain SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons. Lead you know the ASSULT WEAPON ban had nothign to do with full auto right?

as for the 50 cal issue... are you telling me that you honestly feel that a 50cal rifle is more deadly than a .308 hunting rifle? I have a .308 that can hit at upwards of 300 yards... just like a 50 cal. so what exactly makes the 50 cal more deadly in your mind? is it just the fact that the bullet is bigger? im confused. I love how folks are all for banning things that look scary. They go on and on about how the DC sniper used an "assult weapon" he coudl have just as easily used a hunting rifle. Hell hunting rifles are often more accurate and have greater penetration and killing power, but yet nobody complains about them. Why? cus their made of wood? and look purty? or is it cuz good old grandpa used them for hunting and so did dear ol dad?

as for shooting being fun. where the hell do you get off telling us what should be or shouldnt be fun? Im not telling you that Airsoft isnt fun now am i? If my wife went to an airsoft game and was thrown into the mix im fairly sure she wouldnt find it fun. but does that mean that you cant find it fun? thats the most idiotic coment ive read yet in this thread. I find shooting fun.. these guys find shooting fun. MILLIONS of peopel worldwide find shooting fun. Hell, target shooting is in the FREAKIN OLYMPICS MAN! sheesh...

ok.. had to vent on that last one...

im not saying that full auto shold be easy to get... but they should be possible to get IMHO. HOWEVER this thread is about the AWB.. and PLEASE PEOPLE... get educated! the AWB had NOTHING .. i repeat.. NOTHING to do with Full auto guns!!!!!!
Title:
Post by: sNiPeRWoLf88 on September 14, 2004, 05:04:37 PM: poor stolie. your taking all the hits. lol. but you got balls standing up against what would otherwise be a one sidded conversations (pro's only, no con's).
Title:
Post by: Raith on September 14, 2004, 05:22:50 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Ruiner
 well if i remember correctly this topic is about the 'assult weapons' ban.. which banned certain SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons. Lead you know the ASSULT WEAPON ban had nothign to do with full auto right?

...

im not saying that full auto shold be easy to get... but they should be possible to get IMHO. HOWEVER this thread is about the AWB.. and PLEASE PEOPLE... get educated! the AWB had NOTHING .. i repeat.. NOTHING to do with Full auto guns!!!!!!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ruiner, You guys are pointing out the same thing, I think you misunderstood him. [;)]
Title:
Post by: Ruiner on September 14, 2004, 06:59:50 PM: Ahh.. you may be right Raith.. hehe oops. Thats why the comment confused me.. i remember Lead being smarter than that. But the real reason i posted was my coment about finding shooting fun. The other was just added materal :P
Title:
Post by: Stoli on September 14, 2004, 08:43:44 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Ruiner
 as for shooting being fun. where the hell do you get off telling us what should be or shouldnt be fun? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I never said anything remotely like that. I suggest you reread my post...

"poor stoli. your taking all the hits. lol. but you got balls standing up against what would otherwise be a one sidded conversations (pro's only, no con's)."

Thank you Sniper. I knew everyone & their grandma would be all over my ass for posting against guns (oh no!) but I really dont care. I'm tired of people on here labeling everyone that doesnt own an arsenal of weapons an "anti-gun nut" so I spoke up...
Title:
Post by: Mr. Joseph on September 14, 2004, 09:18:36 PM: You sound pretty anti gun. I like hot rods, but I dont own one. I dont go to car shows to give people ****.
Title:
Post by: Greg on September 14, 2004, 10:49:02 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sNiPeRWoLf88
 poor stolie. your taking all the hits. lol. but you got balls standing up against what would otherwise be a one sidded conversations (pro's only, no con's).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're right! We need to give you some flak too! [:D]
Title:
Post by: Stoli on September 14, 2004, 10:57:25 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Mr. Joseph
 You sound pretty anti gun. I like hot rods, but I dont own one. I dont go to car shows to give people ****.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Youre right, except I'm not giving people ****. Unless youre calling my opinion ****. Which I know youre more mature then that. But you do have a point. I just simply wont post about my opinion anymore...Solve everyones problem.
Title:
Post by: Harley on September 14, 2004, 10:58:42 PM: Hey Stoli, have you ever priced a .50 "sniper" rifle? They aren't your average $150 SKS by any means. I'd love to get one myself but I can't justify spending upwards of $5,000 for a nice one. Sure you can get one for around $2,000 but you get what you pay for. And as for the "non sporting use" issue. Do you know how many people there are in this country that participate in long range rifle competition? They've been doing it for many many years and as of today, I have yet to hear of anyone in this county being shot by a .50 caliber "sniper" rifle. YET they'll have you believe that they pose a SERIOUS threat to our countries safety! Show me evidence of one shooting and I'll shut up.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on September 15, 2004, 12:30:17 PM: a few thoughts on both sides of the issue. on teh right to revolution part, guns arent going to do it. if there WERE an armed insurrection, you would need artillery of some sort, ect, to go against the military. improvised rpgs at the least, and i have several friends that have made model rocket engines from household chemichals, and putting a small explosive on it isnt THAT tough. the guns wont win the revolution, explosives and guerrilla tactics will.

yeah, guns get missused. so do many other things. as i stated, the problem is PERCEPTION. most anti gun (hell most pro gun too) are completely unaware that you are 5 times more likely to die from a knifewound than a gun shot. you take a pistol round anywhere but th ehead or the heart, youve got about 30 minutes to make it to a hospital. you take a 4 inch kinfe to the gut, if you arent dead beore you hit the ground from shock, th elikelyhood is you could get stabbed IN THE ER, and you probably wont make it.

need? why is it about need? i dont need 1056 bit encryption, but waste, a file sharing program, has it if you want it.

.50 cals.

they pierce concrete, and body armor. puts a hole in inch thick steel. hence why they say its bad.

the issue here is education. if the majority of antigunners got educated and understood, you woulnd have as much of it.

and i say the best way to promote that is a licensing program. require anyone who wants to own a gun to pass a test showing they know how to use their weapons safely. give provisions for removal of license (in possesion of loaded firearm when drunk, for instance).

you will find gun ownership SKYROCKETING.
Title:
Post by: Harley on September 15, 2004, 12:51:35 PM: Education is the key with firearms safety just the same as it is with driving a car or anything for that matter. The point here is to keep the government out of the loop so they can't do to us what they do in other states. Mandatory firearms purchase cards and restricted carry permits and things of that nature. If the state wants to fund a firearms saftey program that's fine, but so long as they don't make it so difficult to purposely make people fail. Remember, the 2nd amendment gurantees the right and does not stipulate any approval by the government, state or federal.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on September 15, 2004, 01:00:06 PM: harley, personally, the line, well regulated militia, yeah, that gives the right to regulate.
Title:
Post by: leadmagnet on September 15, 2004, 01:02:54 PM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Ruiner
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leadmagnet
 No offense but I find it ridiculous that some of you are even sitting there calling semi-automatic rifles "assault weapons". They're just friggen semi-automatic rifles for cryin out loud.

Lead
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

well if i remember correctly this topic is about the 'assult weapons' ban.. which banned certain SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapons. Lead you know the ASSULT WEAPON ban had nothign to do with full auto right?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You really don't get it, do ya? Of course "assault weapon" doesn't refer to a full auto weapon. We're talking about semi-automatic weapons ergonomically arranged. Ok, well maybe the flash suppressor is a little more than ergonomics.

But my point is, why use the left's demagoguery
to describe a simple semi-automatic firearm?

Lead
Title:
Post by: Harley on September 15, 2004, 01:07:35 PM: Lead is correct. Let's do this, when ever referring to deadly semi auto guns refer to them in quotes, "assault weapon" to emphisize the government and media's labeling and not ours.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on September 15, 2004, 01:30:01 PM: media labeling. remember that. the media is in the business to make a buck. if they cna get people to wacth listen and read by talking about these dangerous weapons (roll eyes) then they will. people believe the media, and thats dumb to do.
Title:
Post by: KenCasper on September 16, 2004, 07:15:48 AM: Hello Again from the Land of the Sand and Camel.

Ok the Basic issue with any legislation the deals with ANY constitutional Right is that there is some wigle room do the the simple fact that Communication is an inprecise art. What I take "we the people..." to mean is different that what you may take it as. For Example.... <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> harley, personally, the line, well regulated militia, yeah, that gives the right to regulate.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> Who is to regulate this?? The goverment? The people? who... I personally DO NOT think that the National Guard is this well regulated militia, yes we (I am a National Guardsman) have our roots in the historic Minutemen, but we have progressed beyond that. But historicly at the time of the birth of our nation the militia was nothing more than any male over the age of 17 and generally below 35 (remember shorter life expectancy) who could be called to duty when and if needed (IE crippled or handicapped would be unable to serve) for protection of village, city, county, state, or nation. Some "anti-gun" groups would have you believe that the only people Authorized by the 2nd Amendment to "Keep and Bear Arms" is the National Guard, Active Military, and the Police.

Now a lot HAS changed since then, no longer can a small group of farmers with squirrel rifles overthrow a tyrinical goverment, before ya flip think about it, with out support of another goverment or the UN. Politics have become an International Thing, a rebelion here may effect economies over there, and next thing you know in walks the UN peacekeepers to help bring a "peaceful" solution. Yes at that point the tyranical goverment may, I'll say it again MAY be abolished, but most likely they will create the stagmire you see in places like Bosnia, Somalia, ect. Notice I didn't even mention Explosives, RPG's, Tanks, Ect above? Those are Items that while weapons that we have been given the constitutional right to own are regulated to the point that most people don't bother, and can't afford to own them (I don't have the 1 mill USD for a M1A1 Abrams myself, do you??)

Now I do believe (based on my understanding of it) that the 2nd ammendment means that every "Citizen" of the USA is allowed to own Arms (which translates to weapons) and Bear (which means use, or display) them when needed. That is one of the laws that our founding fathers believed was the "GOD" given right in odrer to do what was nessicary to ensure your freedom and saftey (ie from robery, murder, or that band of murading natives! And that Opressive Goverment.) Now here is where most people have trouble with the constitution, yes they reconized that these are "GOD" given rights, but they only guaranteed them for US Citizens, so the right to own arms is not afforded to Felons (with our rights restored), immigrants that arn't naturalized, and minors.

That having been said, the next problem is what weapons are we allowed by "god" to keep and bear? Well honestly I don't think there is really a need for everyone to own an M1A1 Abrams, but the constitution didn't specify arms as pistol, rifle, cannon, battleship, ect, it just said arms. So legislation has been passed, and Supreme Court Rulings have been cast defining what "Arms" ment, and because most people see no need for the items that have been regulated the laws have stood todate do to "popular opinion." Unjustly some believe, and to some degree I do agree. Where the "Assult Weapon Ban" comes from is a touchy area, because it is part of an effort by several groups who have admited to wanting to remove all firearms from general public hands, for vairious reasons, thus striping us of an "unalienable right" given by the US constitution. Wiether or not, the AWB and other legislation such as Commiefonia has passed is the first step in confinscation, it still is against our constitutional rights.

Yes Firearms are stolen and often are later used in crimes, but because I own something that someone else steals does that make me a criminal?? If I steal your car because I like it, then go out and get into an auto accident should you be held liable? I chose to take your car, and I chose to drive in a manner that was not propper, and I got into the accident. Those were all my choices, not yours. There is an Old Saying "All Locks do is keep honest people honest" if someone wants what you have bad enough, they will get to it, sooner or later. So why punish someone who has done nothing wrong for a "potental" crime?

The biggest reason to stand against the AWB renewal is it was (and is)WORTHLESS Legislation that didn't stop anything, criminals still got guns, people (unfort) still got shot in crimes, and the only ones who benifited was the Press. Yes the Media's "assualt weapons" may be used in crimes from time to time, but! They are most often used by law abiding citizens in leagal shooting, target practace, and selfdefense, not the commital of crime!

Well I've run on so long I forgot what I was talking about....[V] See what this place does to people? It is making me Senile Afore my time
Title:
Post by: Harley on September 16, 2004, 07:29:40 AM: Thanks Kevin, you reiterated everything I and others have tried to explain here.

Please be sure to give everyone a big thank you for all your sacrifices while over there. We truly appreciate all you guys and gals efforts!
Title:
Post by: Victor3 on September 16, 2004, 09:54:36 AM: Amen to that John!!
Title:
Post by: delta_echo on September 16, 2004, 10:09:46 AM: Quote
Originally posted by KenCasper
 Notice I didn't even mention Explosives, RPG's, Tanks, Ect above? Those are Items that while weapons that we have been given the constitutional right to own are regulated to the point that most people don't bother, and can't afford to own them (I don't have the 1 mill USD for a M1A1 Abrams myself, do you??)
Quote

We have legislation to like the AWB (or had for that one) and the .50 cal law in california which will supposedly protect us. I'd just like to note that a ten year old kid could make high explosives (granted not terribly safely) with chemicals you can get for the most part at a hardware store. Anyone with a high school chem class and a little bit of research can make a delayed fuse hand grenade. Just like cars, though, no one can really outlaw these chemicals because of practicality. So this whole, "make the streets safer and the world a better place" is a bunch of bull when you can figure out how to make a pipe bomb via the internet or, with a little intuition, from your high-school chem book.
Title:
Post by: leakingpen on September 16, 2004, 10:42:18 AM: http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm (http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm)

heres a good link. this is where i seperate from teh mainstream here on gun rights. i believe in requireing someone to prove they can use and store a firearm safely, and a system where someone can lose that right if they abuse it. the 2nd ammendment was more a states rights thing, not an individual rights thing.
Title:
Post by: Harley on September 16, 2004, 10:58:24 AM: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by leakingpen
 http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm

heres a good link. this is where i seperate from teh mainstream here on gun rights. i believe in requireing someone to prove they can use and store a firearm safely, and a system where someone can lose that right if they abuse it. the 2nd ammendment was more a states rights thing, not an individual rights thing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

""Every state ratifying a new constitution during the Revolutionary War save New Hampshire, Georgia, and New Jersey, noted the necessity for the subordination of military to civil authority, proclaimed the right and obligation of free men to bear arms, and denounced standing armies as a threat to the civil liberties of a free society...[C]onstitutional conventions sought to ensure that the states' military capacities could not become the springboard by which ambitious political authorities could subvert the constitutional order for their own political ends. Establishing the primacy of the state assemblies in military affairs provided the principal means of acheiving that goal."
Title: See what the Anti gunners are doing right now
Post by: gixser13 on September 10, 2004, 03:31:36 PM: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get these news letters every few weeks, I like to keep my friends closer and my enemies closer

http://www.banassaultweapons.org (http://www.banassaultweapons.org)
Watch the Flash movie, â€œThe Gun Industry's Vision for America,â€
September 13, 2004 is fast approaching. Unless you take action, on that day the federal assault weapons ban will end. I am writing to urge you to work for passage of the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003", (H.R. 2038 and S. 1431), a bill that will not only renew, but strengthen, the federal assault weapons ban.

The need to renew the ban is clear. There is no need for military style, semiautomatic weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Equally clear is the need to strengthen the ban. Almost immediately after the law's passage in 1994, the gun industry began evading it, manufacturing "sporterized" weapons just as deadly as their banned counterparts: UZIs, MAC-10s, AK-47s, AR-15s, and others. The Bushmaster assault rifle used in the Washington, DC-area sniper shootings is just one example of a "sporterized", post-ban assault rifle used to kill and maim.

A new analysis of FBI data has found that from 1998 through 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. At the same time, terrorist training manuals found in Afghanistan and available on web sites around the world urge terrorists to come to the United States, obtain assault weapons, and then learn how to use them against us.

Mr. President, you have stated that you support the current ban and its goal. That goal is to ensure that America's law enforcement and the general public are protected from assault weapons. To accomplish this, federal law must outlaw both pre- and post-ban assault weapons. I urge you to take a leadership role in working to enact the "Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003." With your support, we can keep our homes and communities safe from assault weapons.

Mr. President, you must act now. Time is running out.

what a crook of ****

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edited by - gixser13 on Sep 10 2004 3:22:25 PM
Title:
Post by: ValleyFever on August 06, 2006, 09:53:40 PM: Quote from: "delta_echo"
...He said there was just too much demand for the AK-47, which sells for about $300 and the cheaper $150 knockoff, the SKS -- both of which are imported...

Funny how they say the SKS is an AK-47 "knockoff" when the SKS came before the AK... :lol:
Title:
Post by: Fish on August 06, 2006, 10:16:31 PM: Read the date of the last post... your only a year late, that's okay ;).
Title:
Post by: HavHav on August 07, 2006, 01:43:13 AM: Just under 2 years, if I did the math right. ;)
Title:
Post by: Fish on August 07, 2006, 08:28:40 AM: Oh well that's even better.
Title:
Post by: ValleyFever on August 08, 2006, 02:48:56 AM: I just thought it was a little too obvious not to point out, sorry.