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.
Yeah I took a look at it.. I was STUNNED that they include the Ruger 10/22 and Remington 870. These have been two of the most common firearms sold for decades. The Ruger 10/22 is perhaps the best target and small varmint hunting rifle in history, and the Remington 870 is perhaps the best home defense shotgun in history. Neither are "assault" weapons or pose much danger in the hands of gangs. There's no way a bill like this would fly with these two on it, as one is a very valid defensive firearm, and the other has so little stopping power that criminals aren't going to choose it over a revolver.
I also noticed they want to ban the Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30, two rifles that were never manufactured for the battlefield. They're ranch rifles used to protect livestock from packs of coyotes.. good luck defending your property from packs of wolves with a revolver or bolt action 5-round rifle. Just because gun control advocates don't see any positive benefits of firearms doesn't mean they should ban everything they deem not reasonable for defense.
Criminals frequently work in groups, and limiting one's self defense to 10 round magazines is ridiculous when there's a huge black market for illegal weapons for criminals to choose from. The US can't make a dent in the international drug trade across US borders with billions of dollars in funding, so what makes them think that banning firearms from legal owners is going to prevent fully-automatic rifles from not landing in the hands of criminals?
It's a simple fact that the only times "assualt" weapons are used in crime that they appear on national news - like Columbine. The reality is that they represent less than 2% of crimes, and a ban will hurt more innocent people that it will help.
none of the guns listed in the entire bill are true Assault Rifles. it just goes to show that the liberal and republican gun banners dont want to ban a certain type of gun, they just want to ban all guns, and your right of self defense.
I think if the government really goes 'that bad' to the point where they would be trying to ship half the population off to death camps, then they very well could decide to drop a nuke. Note, I don't think this will ever happen, but the idea that people with home arsenals are going to stop it if it ever does come to that point is ludicrous.
Also, not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but there have been cases where the parts of the government have deliberately harmed innocent civilians as well as uninformed military personnel in experiments on non-consenting people. The Tuskegee Experiment and Projects SHAD and MK-ULTRA, for example.
There have also been cases where they knew about leaks that exposed people to radiation and tried to cover it up, such as the radioactive iodine-133 leaks from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in WA that went on for almost 30 years. Check out the map they have on the following page. It's more than half the state as well as parts of Idaho and Oregon:
Health Bulletin: Radioactive Materials Released from Hanford, 1944-1972 - Hanford Health Information Network - WA State Dept. of Health (http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/overview/bulletin.html - broken link)
The government also experimented with biological weapon dispersions from the 1940s to the 1960s by spraying harmless bacteria in places like airports, subway systems, and even the Pentagon. You can read about those tests here:
Don't talk to me about how people won't harm other Americans. And I still say that people who think having firearms is going to make a difference are deluding themselves. Having a huge stockpile of weapons didn't do squat for the Branch Dividians or Ruby Ridge folks.
You completely missed the point. We're talking about a revolution, not Waco.
If a third or more of the country decided to take up arms against the government, the government wouldn't stand a chance. That's how the framers wanted it, and that's why we have the 2nd Amendment.
Having a huge stockpile of weapons didn't do squat for the Branch Dividians or Ruby Ridge folks.
you do know that it was the BATF that asked for the cease fire after they got their butts shot off in waco dont you?
if the branch davidians would have wanted to keep firing, there could have been more than 4 dead batf goosesteppers there, there could have been dozens instead of just 4.
I have never been a gun owner. However I strongly believe in the right to bear arms.
I have thought about getting a shotgun in the house for home protection. But I never got around to it. I believe with Obama I better do something about it now while I still can. I believe this right may go to the way side in the future.
In addition if this country falls into a Depression like it did before when Taxes were raised in a Ressession we could be looking at the next Great Depression and again home protection would be vital
I personally feel my first objective though is to get a gun safe. Then I can think about getting the home protection.
I wonder how many others may be spured to do like wise with an Obama Presidency.
check out my post about Obama being the "Gun Saleman of the Year"....his shop has done more business since Obama's election than in the entire month previous.....this man scares a LOT of people!
I'm gonna buy a gun cause I need to be protecin myself. From dem strandgers thet be watching me fromder winow sill.
it's exactly that attitude that 80 million people choose to arm themselves with their 2nd Amendment Right. You think it's all rednecks that have guns? Get an education and do your research before spewing your ignorance.
I don't mind people owning guns but why on earth do you need an arsenal? Really think that will do you any good if the government does ever decide to take over? Considering their tanks, planes, missiles and bombs....your AR15 isn't going to stand a chance.
Considering the losses lightly armed guerrilla groups have inflicted on regular armies (and receiving very high losses themselves) in the past century, I wouldn't dismiss it.
I think some kind of coup or dictatorship in the near future in the US is very unlikely, but if history has shown us anything, it is that thing can go to **** very, very fast.
There are plenty of countries that have much more restrictive legislation on firearms than the US. I don't see Canada, Australia, and the UK rounding up their citizens for mass exterminations.
I own several handguns, but I think that those who are saying that their guns are going to protect them from the government if it goes bad are deluding themselves. Have you all forgotten that the US government has far more potent weapons than firearms? All the guns on Earth are not going to make a **** bit of difference if they decide to drop a nuke.
Not every country that has harsh gun control laws will start oppressing or killing its own citizens. However, every oppressive reigme has made an effort to disarm its population to make sure its power is secure. By means does gun control mean tyranny, but tyranny usually means gun control.
Considering nuclear weapons have only been used twice in history and during a World War to boot, I wouldn't count on ANY government that is not the Khmer Rouge to do something as extreme or stupid as to use atomic weapons on its own people.
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.
