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.
During the last so-called assault gun ban I made a pretty penny selling over priced "assault weapons" to desperate gun buyers. I wish I had done the same this go round. At the time, some of my friends couldn't understand why I would sell the weapons that I had because, "I was going to need them, when the SHTF." Which was silly since if anyone took the time to read the actual bill banning assault weapons they would have known that there were gaping loop holes in the law which wound up not banning anything.
One would think that past experience and the Supreme Courts very clear decision in Heller v District of Columbia that the ability of the Federal government to "take away" one's guns are severely restricted. So what is the result of the hysteria... over the top sales for weapons in an industry that has for a long time been struggling to survive.
In short, its a great way to get fools to part with their cash.
So why exactly did you have these guns if you are not one of us "gun igits?"
I don't have any golf balls because I don't play golf. I don't have a surfboard because I don't surf.
Moderator cut: personal attack
Last edited by katzenfreund; 04-09-2009 at 09:36 AM..
Not to be confrontational, it seems you do not wish to discuss the topic of gun control, but only wish to impress others with your knowledge about guns.
No, but I thought it important to put my bona fides about firearms out front, so as not to be confused with a liberal "gun grabber" (who do exist in in great numbers) who has no understanding of firearms.
I am a gun owner, who carries concealed when I feel a need to, but who actually believes that there are good reasons for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and a need for such restrictions.
With Obama backing the IMF and the global dollar at the G-20 meeting. The panel that is set up is a group of 12 nations with 6 European nations basicially having contorl and they are socialist. With the way it is being set up if you don't play ball then you won't get to play in the global market. Guns do not play well with socialist.
Funny how you guys can't address the issue at hand. Dudes if you can face me down, what are you going to do when you have to go up against a well trained SWAT team much less a infantry unit.
The issue is not whether once can adapt or not to the AWB. The issue is that despite the Hellier ruling certain members of Congress continue to push forward with the Bill. The obvious implication is that there is a hidden agenda. Lets discuss it.
The Bill in its current form lists numerous weapons by name. These weapons, while menacing in appearance, contribute little in the way of crime, but in the event of a real rebellion, national emergency, outside invasion, or other SHTF scenario would be central in the nation's defense.
Pelosi argues that the founders of our nation could not envision the technology of today - they could not imagine the power of an AK. The logic is flawed. The founders did not grant to the populace weapons that were any more or less powerful than the military itself had at that time. The founders granted the populace the right to bear arms equal in firepower to the standard arms of that time. The goal was to ensure that the government was kept in check. It seems fitting, then, that if the Army is armed with M-16s today, the people should have the right to bear arms at least as powerful as the standard issue weapon of the average troop. Musket vs. Musket if you will.
Today's citizen "army" is of course vastly outgunned. Superior air power, 50 cal machine guns, 30mm cannons deployed from C-130's 25,000 feet high - hardly a fair fight. The assertion that the citizen army should be happy with a single-shot shotgun is laughable at best. The second amendment was never about hunting. The mere proposal to ban weapons which are not remotely close in terms of the firepower the government has is about control - its about the restriction of rights, and has nothing to do with public safety. Certain segments of the government fear an armed electorate.
Democrats are the party of control. They want to control every aspect of your life. Through a combination of taxation and legislation, they have hijacked this nation. I find it beyond ironic that the party of free speach, the party of personal freedom (abortion) is far more controlling than the GOP. The GOP wants to cut your taxes and give your money (and control) back to you. The GOP wants to deregulate many industries (returning control to you). The GOP wants to let you decide how to run your life. The GOP is the party of personal freedom. The Left will argue the antics of the "religious right". Red Herring.
The AWB is bigger than just a 20 shot magazine. It is a metaphor for the Democrat's agenda: control all aspects of the populace, and ensure that everybody is equal - except themselves. America, the Soviets tried that once and it worked: everybody was poor except the political elite.
With Obama backing the IMF and the global dollar at the G-20 meeting. The panel that is set up is a group of 12 nations with 6 European nations basicially having contorl and they are socialist. With the way it is being set up if you don't play ball then you won't get to play in the global market. Guns do not play well with socialist.
The dollar is already the global reserve currency. Perhaps you had something else in mind (hopefully something that exists outside of your fantasies).
As for socialist, what countries might those be?
Gun ownership per 100,000
France 32.0 2007
Finland[5] 32.0 2008
Canada 31.5 2007
Sweden 31.5 2007
Austria 31.0 2007
Germany 30.0 2007
The United States , Yemen, Switzerland, Iraq and Serbia which ought tell you a lot.
The AWB had no measurable effect on crime, the government studied it and found that. It's not about crime at all, that's the excuse used to strip people of their rights.
So it comes down to, as I expected, not the ability to defend one's self or the right to own a firearm, but just a matter of consumer taste.
That's not a right, that's a privilege and since we have finally established that fact, all the yelling and screaming has nothing to do the needs of the state to make reasonable restrictions on firearms.
ooook, lol, the "state" has put "reasonable" (and unreasonable) restrictions on firearms in place. And the right to bear arms is just that...a right, put in place for a reason. My main purpose for owning firearms is an interest in shooting as a hobby, but they are there for utilitarian purposes as well. I have used firearms in defense of my home and my person, I have a CCW, and am fortunate to live in a state that sees no need for further"reasonable restrictions" on my RIGHT to own firearms , for whatever purpose I determine appropriate. Now would you mind clarifying the "facing down" comment? I find that to be a rather inaapropriate statement from one who claims to be so well versed in the use of weapons. It rather imparts an attitude of having something to prove...So what say you Horatio?
No, but I thought it important to put my bona fides about firearms out front, so as not to be confused with a liberal "gun grabber" (who do exist in in great numbers) who has no understanding of firearms.
I am a gun owner, who carries concealed when I feel a need to, but who actually believes that there are good reasons for reasonable restrictions on gun ownership and a need for such restrictions.
I also own guns, and have for many decades. I like guns. Any kind, from rifles to handguns and shotguns. I don't kill for sport, but do hunt for food. Guns are for protection: self, family and property. Guns are a tool to discourage trespassers, unwanted individuals or other entities.
People watch too many movies. Killing is not glamorous, whether it is an animal or a person. I don't know many who could dispassionately take someone's life. If the situation arises, I can, and will. The caliber of the gun is not nearly as important as the willingness to use it.
<edit>. There are plenty of restrictions on the sale of guns. Enforce the laws already on the books.
The Bill in its current form lists numerous weapons by name. These weapons, while menacing in appearance, contribute little in the way of crime, but in the event of a real rebellion, national emergency, outside invasion, or other SHTF scenario would be central in the nation's defense.
But here is the the thing, there is no current bill.
Quote:
Pelosi argues that the founders of our nation could not envision the technology of today
Pelosi also argues, and Reid agrees;
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Quote:
Today's citizen "army" is of course vastly outgunned. Superior air power, 50 cal machine guns, 30mm cannons deployed from C-130's 25,000 feet high - hardly a fair fight.
And your semi-auto citizens army with a cache of M4's isn't?
Quote:
Certain segments of the government fear an armed electorate.
Certain segments of the government could careless about an armed electorate because your citizens army is the least of its problems, as you have so ably pointed out, you are no match under any circumstances to face down the local PD much less the Federal government, but gun violence on American streets is another matter all together.
And here in lies my beef. In the effort to thwart any heretofore reasonable restrictions on firearms the gun lobby has made this an all or nothing proposition, lunatics like Beck and Bachmann calling of armed revolution haven't helped issue much either. If the absolutist absurdum argument is to hold sway, then don't be surprised that the gun banners raise the stakes. If we, the gun owners, wish to preserve our legitimate rights then he absolutist absurdum position has to be jettisoned, because at some point the public (the people) are going to get tired of witnessing the senseless slaughter that is going on our streets every damned day.
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.
. It rather imparts an attitude of having something to prove...So what say you Horatio?
