LOL..We are talking about a law and people buying them legally, right? 15 year old gangbangers arent registering for these weapons usually bought stolen from people who are able to buy them legally. Get it? here is a great example of why dumb rednecks dont need to get their hands on a weapon of this type.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...dentify_6.html

Interesting video.

I like Chris Rock's idea.. fuck banning the guns.. let people have what ever the fuck they want, but then charge $5k a bullet. You wanna shoot some fucker.. well it's gonna cost you $30k.

:1orglaugh

One of his best jokes for sure.

This bill does not mention full assault rifles, it amounts to making things illegal because they look scary. It has nothing to do with the function or power of these weapons.

And just like the last AWB of the 90's will not accomplish its set goals

The police officer in the video says "Terms like assault rifle are hard to define. I don't know what an assault rifle is." Before making a video, maybe he should be clear on the terms first. Example:

Assault weapon refers to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions.

The ban did not cover "assault rifles" but merely the new category of "assault weapons" which did not include automatic firearms of any type.

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis)

The act did not include ALL semi-automatic weapons. Only those defined by the "assault weapon" category specifically.

Wrong

This would be banned, its just a shotgun but it looks scary!

http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/benelli_m4_1.jpg

This Ruger semi-auto rifle is perhaps the most popular .22 made and all three of my kids got one when they were young:
http://www.impactguns.com/store/medi...ger_1022rb.jpg

This is the exact same gun with a few add-on modifications that make it look like a military weapon:

http://www.pisnnapalm.com/pics/ruger/DSC00392.JPG[/img]

Both guns function the same way...they are semi-autos, not machine guns. Under the new "assault" weapons ban proposals, the latter would be banned, and it's not unreasonable to assume the former would be also.

They did that in Australia, and the did it in the UK. (and violent crime skyrocketed in both countries).


glad to see that Pelosi has come against this bill as has Reid

smax, why did you miss the rest of my post and only quote the part you wanted?

The ban did not cover "assault rifles" but merely the new category of "assault weapons" which did not include automatic firearms of any type.

By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis)

The act did not include ALL semi-automatic weapons. Only those defined by the "assault weapon" category specifically.

Did you read the act or do you just like to imagine it says what you want to believe it says for drama purposes?

because the rest of your post is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is this statement is incorrect

This just proves the whole point of why this law is needed. If people are dumb enough to give young children semi automatic weapons when they cant use a bike correctly..well then you may just be a redneck.

Who else supported the ban? Former President and Attorney General.

He didn't need to sign it, because congress didn't send it to him.

Obama is no different on this issue than Bush was, and no different than McCain would have been either, who voted for the Ban in 1994. No different than all those "conservatives" in congress. This isn't an Obama issue. Who are these conservative representatives of yours in congress? Did you vote them in?

just because you and your children were uncoordinated and could not ride a bike at the age of 8 does not mean the rest of us are the same.

Even though this pic is close to 20 years old, my 8 year old cousin at the time had no problem killing this 60 pound cougar that came into their back yard, with a .22

http://www.digitaljihad.com/images/sc0023cb6f.jpg


Yes they are rednecks but they enjoy their life and who am I to tell them to move out of the country

smax, a .22 isn't on the ban list either. A .22 wouldn't be banned. So you can buy all the .22 semi-automatic rifles that you want. Knock yourself out.

Im thinking the rifle that kid is holding is not on the ban list. I also could care less about idiot parents who put deadly weapons in the hands of kids who dont understand consequences, but these are the kids you hear about taking out kids in school yards and that cannot be denied.

Why not put a crack pipe in your kids hands why dont ya...its far less dangerous and atleast he will be the only person harmed.

Are you sure? In the example I posted above with extended magazine folding stand, it sure could be and that was my point. This ban is not based on functionality of a wepon its based on looks

The uzis and aks you mentioned earlier are not covered under this proposed ban either, they fall under the NFA tax system.



That is just stupid

Yes, I'm sure. That's why I said there was a specific list of weapons. This was not an all-inclusive, every semi-automatic weapon ban. It was not based on the way the weapon looks. Don't make these assumptions.

Even more important though, is who did you vote for and who is going to represent your views if almost all of the Republicans are voting for the ban too? How do you get past the two party system and get a libertarian elected for example?

Nice shooting, kid! :thumbsup

Do you have a link to this list of specific weapons?

I find it strange that the premise behind this seems to be to appease Mexico, a country where guns are illegal unlike here in the US but THEY are the ones with the gun problem.
I can not believe I'm saying this but Pelosi is correct

I voted for Obama and this country will not shy away form a 2 party system in our lifetime, you can take that to the bank

I think we should be allowed to have tanks. I want to get one for my 8 year old daughter too. Fisher Price - My First Tank!

you mean I can't keep an M16 in my car? outrageous!
how will I cope

And you need an assult weapon for? NOTHING that's what. Gun nuts getting a pissy at NOTHING. How come you gun freaks never step up to the plate for my right to possess a fully functioning tank?

I will bet you $1 million that the gun death rate in both countries is SIGNIFICANLY less than the US retard.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090405/...gh_shooting_19

More cops dead from assault weapons.

It's way too convenient that all of these shootings are going on with all the gun ban bills being presented. There were reports all over the place of multiple shooters in the NY incident even witnesses seeing two people being taken away in cuffs. No mention of them ever again and one lone dead shooter.

key word..."Assault"....not handguns to protect property as in your domicile.

if you like Assault Wepons...join the US Military....and you can be RAMBO!

no disrespect to our active duty forces.

because this is the united states, and if i want to own an assault weapon, as a law abiding and responsible citizen i should be able to.

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

if you ask me, telling people what guns they can and can't own is infringement.

this is one of my favorite quotes:

?Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State?

- Heinrich Himmler

hmmm what did Heinrich Himmler do again? i forget. :321GFY

It says "arms"... not guns.
So how about rocket launchers? nukes? torpedos? missile launchers?
Or are your rights being infringed upon?

The "right" to have "arms" doesn't mean you "have" to own anything that can be classified as "arms".

You guys cling to this outdated law like it's last bastion of freedom. Like you can't possibly live without the most powerful guns you can find simply because you're allowed to have them.

You're allowed to have pez dispensers too. Go collect those. Perhaps you won't cry so much then, unless someone tells you that you're not allowed to have the anthrax dispensing ones.

If you want to own a room full of those weapons, you should be allowed to do so. Be it you are a collector or just stocking up for the end of the world. A FREE MAN would be allowed to do that with the weapon of his/her choice.

So go on, let them take your assault weapons (while the cops, military and criminals gets to keep theirs) and sooner or later they will come for your handguns and shotguns. Then when the people are totally disarmed, you will have all deserved the fucking you will get from not being able to protect yourself.

It's not about this type or that type of gun. It's about your right as an American to have them. It's about them taking weapons from citizens who want them, while police, military and criminals will remain to have them. The end result is, YOU lose.

"Arms" mean armaments. It means weapons. A personal weapon. Torpedos and nukes are not personal weapons.

If you can pick it up to shoot it, you should be allowed to own it. :2 cents:

So lets just burn what's left of The Constitution then and start all over with "modern laws" made be honest and trustworthy politicians. Please let me know when you find these people.

That's quite the stretch. How did you get to "personal" in that? If you want to dig into the meaning of armaments, let's not get "personal" and look at the real definition:
ar·ma·ment (ärm-mnt)
n.
1. The weapons and supplies of war with which a military unit is equipped.
2. All the military forces and war equipment of a country. Often used in the plural.
3. A military force equipped for war.
4. The process of arming for war.

The Consitution, like many laws, was written at a very different time than the present. When it was written, the worst "armament" you had to fear was a musket. And one person's differing interpretation of one line in the Constitution from another person's interpretation hardly means that the rest of the Constitution should be burned, no matter how dramatic you make it sound.
But you get points for sensationalism.

Like this for example?

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/200...03_468x354.jpg

Sure, because that's exactly what will happen. Do you wear tin foil on your head too?

i'm glad we stocked up!

http://www.chicasplace.com/samples/chica-wildwest.wmv

It was not just musket vs musket. Even if we do not advance to the mid 1800's when the Gatling gun was available, to think warfare was limited to muskets is funny. Will not go into rifling and how that really changed shit. Seems people forget there was artillery in use. People also used delivered explosives. Not to mention anything from armor to warships.

There really has not been a time when humans did not have weapons that were to be feared, just like there really has not been a time when a government did not have much superior arms over its populace. So simply stating that well they just had muskets so it was outdated is over simplifying it. Weapons have always advanced at an alarming rate, our forefathers knew this and yet they still wanted the citizens to have the right to arm themselves.

Why is Obama trying to take away everything we use to protect ourselves?

Fucking scary.

You better go hide then.

Why? :helpme

What's comical is how this is mostly a political issue for some of the gun nuts. I'm not going to throw out percentages, but i'd be willing to bet a good portion of those resisting this are conservative, voted for Bush and then McCain, and had no problem with the government heading down this crazy slippery slope with our freedoms, as long as it was under the mask of 'keeping the country safe'.

"Go ahead, wire tap me illegally, infringe on the freedom, and basically shit on the Constitution our forefathers fought to protect"

then months later...

"Wait, a black man wants to take my m16? Our forefathers fought for this freedom!" (even though he's not even thinking of taking away handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc)

Good for him! i'm Canadian and not a US basher, but when it comes to guns i am. Americans are obsessed with guns. Here in Canada we have big cities, the same basic tv/culture, yet we don't have a fraction of the gun related crimes that they have in the states, and it's because we have gun laws and people here aren't gun crazy. It's plain and simple, less guns = less crimes. If it were up to me ALL guns would be abolished, there should be nobody in the general public allowed to own weapons, that includes hunters. People don't need to hunt for food anymore, that's the oldest and lamest excuse in the book.

what about airports? They're one of the safest places in the world?

+ noone has a weapon in prison? What?!!

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you. :2 cents::winkwink: