Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She cant ban assault weapons, they'v been illegal since the 30's. Also there are no real 50 cal assault weapons. An assault weapon is a medium calibre select fire battle rifle.
You do realize that the most common military sniper rifles are the same guns that millions of people hunt deer with each fall right?
You can rationalize how you see fit, but clear thinking people, both democrat & republican, liberal & Conservative, all know that she would ban them if she could.
Maybe you or someone else can explain what she hoped to acomplish, if as you assert she only wanted to ban 50 cal rifles? How much crime is committed useing them? How many deaths or injuries can be attributed to them?
Why is it ok for them to force people to forfeit legally aquired property simply because it makes some small minded folks nervous?
What about the dozens of non military centerfire 50 calibre rifles? You do know she meant guns chambered for the 50 cal BMG cartrige right? Yet she wants to ban all 50 calibre centerfires, some of which date to the late 1800's meaning that people with antuques worth 10's of thousands of dollars need to GIVE away their legally owned & aquired private investments simply because she has not a clue about anything except how to get clueless control freaks to vote for her.
Great civil servant she is, ought to be in prison.
Ban 50 caliber rifles? Have you seen these things (like the Barrett 82)? They would be about as useful to a typical criminal as a seventeenth century musket would. They are completely unwieldy. Can anyone seriously think that the bad guy is going to be packing around a 50 cal weapon like that? Another example of government incompetence. They want to disarm us and they can’t even figure out which guns present the biggest threat to their agenda. It certainly isn’t a 50 caliber.
Well, first off, I almost flew in the face of one of my own cardinal rules abou debating others, and I momentarily forgot the wisdom of SCGranny here: "Consider the source.". Why lose any sleep over nonsense responses and irrelevant personal attacks, eh? As in:
AH* #1: jtur: "Do me the favor to go into Rifleman's chaotic, disorganized, rambling, excessively long post,"
Yah thought so, huh? Apparently it was, for you. Again, you do like those short answers, don't you? Sorry; I forgot.
You are good at the Ad Hominems* though, I'll grant you that! A good thing to be known by.
So; here's my quicky come-back: your responses fall into the category of re-cycled trash, which is de rigueur these days amongst the flam-lib BSMs*.
AH* no. 2 from the erudite jtur:
There are more important things in my life than guns, which must seem like a strange defect to you.
Again, since you don't know me, and your ideas are so far off base about what's important to me (such as The Constitution), I'll just let this one stand as a typical irrelevant AH*
But now, back to our regular audience!
As Cowgirl15 said so well: "Ever heard of that saying about how if you put a frog in boiling water he'll jump right out, but if you slowly increase the temp he won't and will allow himself to be boiled alive since it is gradual."
That is, of course, the problem here. The liberal gun-grabbing strategy is obvious to anyone with a perceptive mind. They do not seek some minor legislative revision in the interests of the American citizen's safety. Rather, it's a relentless nibbling at our freedoms until they are all gone, and the private ownership of ANY effective firearm flies in the face of government tyranny.
True in 1776; true now.
Thanks for the efforts, Robert_J. To wit: "I've been searching for the same thing. It was Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, etc (they all start to look the same to me) that said something to the effect that if they could, they would go door to door disarming everyone in the US. As much as I like Google, there are too many common key words in the speech to narrow down the search."
But then, not just reffing 50 cals, obviously:
Jeepjeep found it (thx!): "It was Feinstein. Here's the direct quote:
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."
-Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, discussing the 1994 "crime bill", one of the largest gun control bills of the last 30 years."
I know, it's all too organized and consistent for some. Others, it's too much so. Well, I'm happy with what's been provided on our side. We're obviously not dealing with people who care to examine the truth. The overall tone and strategy of the liberal anti-gunner types already listed is patently obvious to any interested audience. We'll only have to watch for another few months; I heard this very afternoon that the AWB will be re-tried, as well as the ammo serial numbering debacle.
It'll be like trying to serial-number Mcdonald's big Macs to control overeating by teenagers. "Our records clearly show that your son ate the following s/n'd burgers in the past week!"
To some: have a good, restful night:" I got your six!
Last edited by rifleman; 05-14-2009 at 08:55 PM..
Reason: typoz
for a nra member you seem to lack any ability to reasearch. try gunscholar.com. it gives quotes by many different politicians saying that the brady bill is a start, but there needs to be a complete ban on them all. do alittle reasearch and STOP THIS CHILDISH SHOW ME BS. you want a challenge ? show me where you support the 2nd. not your interpetation, but support the supposed nra understanding. you are not a pro-gun owner are you? if you support alittle more registration, then you are the problem. you and your ilk will not stop till guns are banned, right. put up or shut up tell me that you support my rights to own any and all guns and my rights shall not be infringed.
jtur88, I guess you're getting to me. you have repeatedly posted that nobody canshow where anybody wants to ban all guns, BS. you are wrong. show us where they only want to register and leave it at that. look up gun ban quotes. janet reno in 91 states that the most effective way to fight crime is to outlaw possesion of any type firearms from the civilian populace. cant find my notes for a congressmans name, but in 93 on cnn he states if it was up to him he would ban all firearms. this stuff is out there. not made up by the the high ranking in the nra. if you are pro-gun then act like it. but I doubt you are. anti-guns want to take it one step at a time not all at once. wake up or be apart of those fooled. a world with no weapons is not a dream, its a joke.
Thank you. Now, where is the quote from the liberal who wants to take all guns away from all civilians?
Part of your answer:
"As has been reported all week, in 1996 Obama filled out a candidate questionnaire where he revealed his true beliefs on all sorts of subjects, from abortion to school choice.
One question that has not gotten much attention, however, asks if Obama supports legislation to, “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” His one-word answer—uncommonly direct and lacking the flowery eloquence we’ve come to expect from him—was “Yes.”"
John Lott is an accredited professor and researcher who started out doing a PhD thesis on the problems with guns in America, but, being intellectually honest, has completely reversed his perspective, once the light of truth shone on thru. From a review of his latest book, The Bias Against Guns, these notes (my highlights in blue, to help you out):
"Lott himself is persuaded that the disarming of America is the conscious intention of the leading handgun control groups and politicians, despite their protestations to the contrary. He quotes, for example, Pete Shields, the founder of Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, run by Sarah and Jim Brady): "The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition—except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors—totally illegal."
Lott also tells of serving on a panel to debate the merits of cities' suing gun makers and hearing Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell (now governor of Pennsylvania) deny that he wanted to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. Later, however, Rendell, not realizing that Lott was standing behind him, put his arm around an anti-gun activist and said, "I just can't say publicly what we want to do, we have to take these things slowly.""
Another brief paragraph from this same review points to another huge bias within the media and the special-interest, hysterical anti-gunner crowd:
"In January 2002, a former student of Appalachian Law School in Virginia, who had flunked out the year before, returned to discuss his academic suspension. Unable to achieve reinstatement, he went into the office of the school's dean and shot him fatally with a .380 semiautomatic handgun from point-blank range. He then did the same to one of the school's professors. On his way out he shot four female students, killing one and wounding the others in the abdomen, the throat, and the chest.
The carnage ended, according to nearly all the news accounts, when several students tackled the offender as he exited the building. According to John Lott, however, 204 of 208 news stories on the incident somehow failed to mention a telling fact about the offender's apprehension: two male students ran to their cars to get their guns, and by brandishing one at him forced the killer to drop his weapon. Then they tackled him."
Guess that's an OK omission though, huh? After all, why fill in all the blanks when there's an agenda to be served....
Lessee what else I can find, since it's not so hard if you're open-minded and have access to a laptop...
But now a question for you, jtur: The following link...
...goes to an article with a number of simple one-liners towards the end. I challenge you to pick out a few; you'll see them, and defend the charges.
You'll see, such items as:
"They say they're not prohibiting gun ownership, they're prohibiting buying and selling.
They're not prohibiting guns; they're prohibiting bullets and gun reloading materials and gunpowder and holsters.
They're not prohibiting guns. They're merely requiring people who own guns to have child-proof trigger locks. And criminal-proof homes so their guns can never be stolen.
They say they're not prohibiting gun manufacture. They're merely prohibiting manufacture of certain bad guns, wrong guns, or dangerous-looking guns.
They're not prohibiting gun manufacture. They're just prohibiting how guns can be transported to gun stores.
They're not prohibiting gun possession. They're merely prohibiting how you carry it when you carry it, and where you carry it.
Chapter 180 is not prohibiting your guns. It's merely prohibiting other people's guns.
Anti-gun politicians say they're not prohibiting guns in your town. They're prohibiting guns in some other town.
They're not prohibiting gun owners who can get a statement from their doctor saying that they're sane. They're prohibiting gun owners who can't get a statement from their doctor saying that they're sane. Or who refuse such indignity.
They're not introducing new gun laws right at the moment. They're calling for stepped up enforcement of Draconian anti-gun laws already on the books."
Oh, and sorry for the pretty fonts and colors again; just wanted to make sure you differentiate between my own and others' thoughts.
Now, git to work, young man, and comment, beyond one-liner deflections, about some of these ideas.
Last edited by rifleman; 05-15-2009 at 02:52 AM..
Reason: additions for obvious clarity
To end on a Cheery Note this evening; This Just In:
To those who dream of seeing the end of most all firearms in the hands of fun-loving, honest Americans ; this just in:
Pro-gun Democrats oppose new "assault weapon" ban
Sixty-five House Democrats said Wednesday that they would oppose any attempt by the Obama administration to revive a ban on military-style weapons that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994 and President George W. Bush let expire.
The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., wrote Attorney General Eric Holder that they would "actively oppose any effort to reinstate the 1994 ban, or to pass any similar law."
(We note that the AWB/Assault Weapons Bill in fact sunsetted when a joint intensive review by The Justice Dept, The FBI and two independent Universities could find ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT IN REDUCING CRIME as a result of the bill when it was in effect for 5 years.
In fact, a side-statistic was that criminals generally preferred smaller, lighter, more concealable firearms. The most un-concealable firearm imaginable, a Barrett "Light 50" single-shot bolt-action rifle of 38 lb weight and an overall length of about 4.5', is now banned in California, despite the fact that one has NEVER been used in the commission of a crime.
Of course, it's scary looking to the "ballistically illiterate", but then I'm pretty scared of a bunch of marching liberals as well, even when they tell me that there's nothing to fear, 'cause They Know Best about everything...
Try again. According to the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, Feinstein was referring to a bill that would only ban certain assault weapons:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein`s (D-Calif.) "Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act" (S. 505) proposes to subject all ".50 caliber" center-fire rifles to the National Firearms Act (NFA), requiring owners to forfeit their rifles to the federal government.
Her exact quote, that you used, appears in this website from the NRA-ILA with particular reference to Senate Bill 505.
And to use another favorite quote by the hopolophobes " This is just the camels nose under the tent". She's gotta start somewhere, right? And as others have posted over and over, The "assault weapons" she and all the others want to ban are NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS.
As for the dreaded .50 caliber weapons they are a total non-issue. If you knew anything at all about guns, you'd know these things are about the most non-practicle weapon for a criminal to use.
In fact, a side-statistic was that criminals generally preferred smaller, lighter, more concealable firearms. The most un-concealable firearm imaginable, a Barrett "Light 50" single-shot bolt-action rifle of 38 lb weight and an overall length of about 4.5', is now banned in California, despite the fact that one has NEVER been used in the commission of a crime.
Since these guys like to pick your posts apart, let me post a correction. You linked to the new 98B rifle from Barrett. You really wanted to link to the main Barrett site - Barrett Rifles (http://www.barrettrifles.com/index.aspx - broken link) . If you follow that link and look at the model 99 you will find that it is also available in California banned .50 BMG and the still legal in CA, .468 caliber. Energy of the round is exactly the same out to 1,000M and the .460 has better flight characteristics than the .50. Basically, they have banned a class of weapon while leaving an equally powerful and more accurate version that is perfectly legal. But then again, these are the type of people writing the laws - YouTube - What is a barrel shroud?
-Robert
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another disorganized rant:
Again, you ask; I provide. Then, you deflect....
To end on a Cheery Note this evening; This Just In:
; this just in: