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.
It's not so much that it failed, it failed to make a difference. "Assault weapons", as defined in the '94 ban, are simply not used in enough crimes to be significant. Most years more people are killed with knives than "assault weapons".
What is really hilarious is that these loons don't even know what the gangbangers REALLY use. Most use cheap Saturday night specials. Raven .25s, Jenning J-22s, Davis .380s, Tec-9s, old beat up illegally sawed off shotguns, rusted up Smith model 10s etc...etc..
Funny funny thread! Pure BS, but still funny! I have a TS/SCI clearance and work for a DoD contractor, and also am a Reservist in the Navy. Deployed to Iraq, and fired off close to 8-10,000 rounds in combat training. So I am a VERY law abiding person, sharp mind, well trained! I own an AR-15 for fun! I am also going to buy an AR-10 because of all the whack jobs (tons in this post alone) who are trying to take my rights away! And the media is right beside them in most cases! For every 1 nut job in CT. there are probably close to 500,000 citizens who are very gun safety cautious! Just a ridiculous argument! I guess I would be ok with tougher standards to acquire one!
Yeah, but we have always had higher rates before Britain started banning firearms, correct?
Their society is controlled and monitored to a greater degree as well.
That's the same nation that considers elderly people protecting themselves against burglars and thugs murders for defending themselves. No thanks.
Look at society at large. Look all around you. We promote violence everywhere. If we were on a equal footing with others that have banned most firearms my guess is we would still be ranked the same.
Horrible things are going to continue to happen regardless of banning guns. The only thing that you will insure is the stronger will win or those that still have them will on a individual or group level.
A woman will always lose to a gang-rape, a elderly person will always lose to a mugging, innocent people will always lose to a criminal with a gun bent on killing. The strong will win and the weak will always die. Police are good after the fact but they don't magically appear at the scene before the death or crime. You propose to take the one thing that gave everyone a equal chance away.
People will still die if you take guns away. You can't save anyone but you can strip more and more freedom away.
The only way you can start making a dent is to monitor society as whole with cameras on every corner watching in real time (like in England), punishing every little political incorrect statement made like in the whole of Europe. Strict control of population at every moment is the ticket.
Sure you become safer at the cost of everything that Americans consider a inalienable right.
You can chip away at gun rights all you want but there will come a time when those who want to protect everyone (control) will push to far. Were not Europe, Australia or any other place. What we consider a given freedom isn't the same.
That freedom of arms is rooted in our very creation as a nation. It will not be given up even if your opinion becomes majority. You'll need to attempt to amend the Constitution and that will come with great tragedy to this country. The minority will then be ones with the fire power.
You are still the minority. I know it doesn't seem like when you are packed into a city with like minded people but this is a big country and you still are.
What is really hilarious is that these loons don't even know what the gangbangers REALLY use. Most use cheap Saturday night specials. Raven .25s, Jenning J-22s, Davis .380s, Tec-9s, old beat up illegally sawed off shotguns, rusted up Smith model 10s etc...etc..
Bu.. but ignorance and blind emotion + somebody charismatic who claims to be able to fix it for you has lead people to such wonderful things in the past!
No he didn't have any clips, as he had magazines and they have been altered by LAW as it is so no you can't do that either.
This isn't a gun problem it is a evil spawn problem and the spawn went off his meds. His mother is accomplice to the crime and a victim of the crime at the same time.
he is a minor so far as i know by Ct law.... His mother bought these guns for him breaking the law, as these are not the type of guns most civilian females would buy. And the camo clothing he wore was not hios mothers either.
Mags do not make WMD's but thanks for the laugh.....
if you read back and see the 4473 form I posted and read it, you will see he could never have bought these guns in the first place.
Demand the laws are enforced not to make new laws that still won't be enforced.... We don't need more laws we need to enforce the law there are.
Of course you can make new laws that will never be enforced until the Moon turns blue if you want.... You will waste time and money doing both...
making schools Gun Free Zones is another law that was broken what about just enforcing the laws we have?
That law didn't work out very well did it, and you would make more laws? Seems kind dumb to me.
We do not own (yet) a ranch in Montana. Nor do we own a vineyard/orchard/ranch in California (although lawlessness in California is driving down prices, making such a purchase sorely tempting). Nor do we own guns.
But say we bought a fancy ranch in Montana. I won't list the countries who have sent us immigrants who have organized into armed gangs. But there are more than a few. For law enforcement to reach the ranch will take at least half an hour: IF we are able to call for help. One of the gangs surrounds our house, and we have to fend them off (at this point, we, or someone in our employ, has acquired "assault weapons"). I think this would give us a better chance of survival.
During Katrina, an armed gang actually DID take over a nursing home, forcing the residents out. This happened, because the staff did not have assault weapons for defense.
More and more, we are going to have times when law enforcement is overwhelmed, and it will be incumbent upon law abiding citizens to defend themselves from large and well-armed gangs.
Considering that Mexico's so-called 'Military' has already made incursions onto American soil, in order to defend the interests of human traffickers and drug cartels, it is even conceivable that law abiding Americans may have to fight off paramilitary groups.
It may well be that gangs have not begun to rob isolated gated communities and estate homes, because they know that those residing there are likely to be able to respond with deadly force. Should Americans be disarmed, though...
I don't know anything about guns. Don't want to know. But it's a comfort to think that our neighbors are well-armed.
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.
