Originally Posted by Darkland

Hey moron, trying using what little brain cells you have left and try to follow what I am saying... I will keep it short for you.

"It is an absolutely ridiculous idea, and down right lacking in ANY intelligence, to believe that taking guns out of the hands of "LAW ABIDING" citizens will reduce crime. Criminals do not care about laws and will obtain their firearms the way the always have, by stealing them or buying them out of the trunk of an illegal gun runner/dealer."

Banning guns WILL NOT remove them from the hands of the people (criminals) that you are talking about.

Please tell me you are not that stupid and if you DID live in those areas you would already KNOW WHAT THE FUCK I AM TALKING ABOUT. You think that drug dealer went down to the gun store, put his name through the federal background check, and got a gun he KNOWS he will be using in criminal activity?

Originally Posted by Ethersync

This is all besides the point though. Bottom line is the founding fathers put the right to bear arms in our Constitution as the last of our checks and balances. This right is to protect us from our own government if it were to become tyrannical.

Originally Posted by Darkland

Who in their right fucking mind thinks criminals get their "assault weapons" from licensed dealers?

I was in a LE type career for many years and service, trained in multiple uses of various firearms in almost any situation as well as other types of self defense. I dont even OWN an assault rifle. Far from a coward, but hey, you are probably the only person to ever live in a shitty neighborhood or dealt with lowlifes. Something like that?

You do not know me motherfucker so keep you dumb fucking assumptions to yourself.

Originally Posted by vanillaice (Post 15555600)

Again, put down the Keystone Light and re-read what I said. Just manufacturing them and selling them to law abiding people allows the criminals to get them. This isn't meth where dealers can make the shit in their basement. Between the manufacturer and Mr. Keystone Light, the assault weapons have to pass through way too many hands which increases chances of corruption at every stop.

Or do you have your head in the sand and believe guns are made at some factory, and in a completely secure fashion, delivered to 100% lawful gun dealers who all have no intent to grease their pockets on the side? Ahh, what a world you must live in to believe that.

That's reality for you. Every assault weapon some company makes increases the chances of it ending up in the hands of some thug and eventually pointed at you when he's stealing your wallet (or worse).

But shit, even if the entire process was 100% secure, I still don't think retard no-brain Americans should have such power in their house. I mean where do you draw the line? Are you going to be demanding tanks next? Shit, I think every citizen should have a nuke in their house! I guarantee nobody will be breaking in if I have a nuke hanging around.

Originally Posted by Doug E (Post 15556030)

Most of those illegal firearms at one point came from legal sources. If there is no legal source for these guns to be illegally obtained over time there will be fewer and fewer guns for criminals as they fall into disrepair. This may not reduce crime of course, that's more of a social issue, it should however reduce the amount of people killed during crime as there really is no better personal weapon for killing both intended victims and innocent bystanders than a firearm.



Your government became more tyrannical during Bush Jr's first term. What did Americans do? They voted him in for another 4 years. I highly doubt the people that care to own assault rifles would have the collective intelligence or ambition to organize any sort of resistance against a true tyrant if they were even able to recognize one. That's not to say every gun owner is a retard, I know a lot of bright dudes, I just happen to disagree with them on a lot of points, but I gotta say most of the guys I do know or have come across that are gun nuts are not the sharpest individuals. They would likely be the first to be brainwashed into following a tyrannical leader in the name of 'liberty', chanting 'U.S.A.' as they march into Iraq or a like nation that poses no military threat to them. If I was a true tyrant president today, I'd start a little war in say Iran, send over all the patriotic gun happy people and the unemployed lower classes to keep them busy and out of the country fighting for their liberty as I slowly strip it from the people at home that are too busy with their lives to either notice or take to the streets in protest.



What type of LE career did you have that molded your opinion that more guns in homes will help prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns from legal gun owners? I'm curious because most people in law enforcement that I know feel the opposite way you do.

In my country we have stronger gun laws and less gun crime than you do. Our criminals do however get guns as we were once more lax on our gun laws and still have many criminally popular weapons in circulation. Not nearly the number the U.S. has of course. Unfortunately what we have been seeing in the last decade is more and more weapons being smuggled from the U.S., North into our country. We wouldn't have that problem if your country had similar laws to ours. Mexico and Central America too, would have much fewer weapons available to their criminals and gangs if it weren't for all the weapons legally manufactured in the USA and sold to/or smuggled there.

Sure these criminals, the more sophisticated and organized they are will always find a way to obtain firearms, but making it easier for them just means they have access to better weapons and more of them.

The fewer guns available A. the more they go up in price and B. The fewer there are to steal. The average citizen will have to worry less that the crackhead/burglar breaking into his home is armed with a firearm because that weapon is more valuable to the crackhead to sell to more sophisticated criminals. There will also be fewer firearms for that crackhead to steal from homes of citizens so there will be fewer guns in the hands of small time gang bangers and broke ass crackheads, the direct danger to the citizenry. More sophisticated criminals are less concern to the average citizen as their business doesn't usually involve directly harming citizens. So with fewer legal guns available there are fewer guns to be illegally owned by the kinds of criminals who harm normal citizens. Not overnight of course, but over time.

Originally Posted by Doug E (Post 15556030)

What type of LE career did you have that molded your opinion that more guns in homes will help prevent criminals from illegally obtaining guns from legal gun owners? I'm curious because most people in law enforcement that I know feel the opposite way you do.

Originally Posted by notoldschool (Post 15553255)

Good for him. Nothing worse than a dumb redneck with an automatic weapon.

Originally Posted by Darkland (Post 15556095)

You are BOTH fucking idiots, not only are you twisting what I mean you can't even see the much larger picture. You actually think they will shut down the manufacture of assault weapons because of this ban... WAKE UP DIPSHITS, WHO DO YOU THINK SELLS TO THE MILITARY. Even if they DID shut down manufacture in this country, somebody will come along and say, "Hey... You criminals want some guns, I got some good ones I just smuggled in."

Originally Posted by Darkland (Post 15556095)

Not only that but our forefathers put our right to bear arms into place for a reason. Mike South already hit upon it.

Originally Posted by C-Bass (Post 15553800)

FACT - if Russia or China really want to invade the U.S. they will just develop some intercontinental missiles, launch their shit from the Arctic, Canada, or sub's and when shit is in ruins, invade.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls (Post 15552986)

Yup disarming the population and only leaving the drug lords with the guns. Sounds pretty smart to me!

Originally Posted by Angry Jew Cat (Post 15552999)

i don't really see what business the public has owning full on assault rifles.

Originally Posted by vanillaice (Post 15556280)

which ideally would keep perfect inventory of their weapons.

Originally Posted by notoldschool (Post 15553255)

Good for him. Nothing worse than a dumb redneck with an automatic weapon.

Originally Posted by tony404 (Post 15556639)

throwing over the government that worked when it was muskets against muskets. Now it would never work I dont care how many m16s you can buy. Be real.

Originally Posted by Dirty D (Post 15553515)

People kill people.
Mexicans don't obey US law.
An assault rifle ban will not stop the flow of guns in/out of Mexico.

US Citizens have lots of guns and the right to bear arms is in the constitution.

http://www.adultwebmastergathering.c...me_defense.jpg

Originally Posted by Loryn (Post 15556634)

Yeah because it's the rednecks we are worried about. :1orglaugh Are you kidding me??? The whole hip hop/rap world sings songs making these guns a status symbol. I think you need to get out more, or grow up some, so you will then see that rednecks in Arkansas (where Hillary and Bill are from) aren't the only people playing around with these things. Gangsta's, black, white, brown, and yellow, in almost any city in the country are playing with them too, and probably more than these rednecks you are talking about.

Sorry for the interruption on the debate of Obama reaching into our personal lives instead of leaving these things up to the individual states, like the Executive Branch should do with this abortion, gay marriage, and other personal life choices.........continue!!! :thumbsup

Originally Posted by spacedog (Post 15556679)

The Truth About "Assault Weapons"

Originally Posted by crockett (Post 15558725)

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

Originally Posted by Angry Jew Cat (Post 15552999)

i don't really see what business the public has owning full on assault rifles, but fuck it i'd shoot one if i had the chance.

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 15558768)

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.

Originally Posted by smax (Post 15558802)

Wrong


This Ruger semi-auto rifle is perhaps the most popular .22 made and all three of my kids got one when they were young:

Originally Posted by notoldschool (Post 15558868)

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.

Originally Posted by smax (Post 15558919)

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

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 15558943)

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.

Originally Posted by notoldschool (Post 15559006)

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.
.

Originally Posted by smax (Post 15559081)

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.

Originally Posted by smax (Post 15558919)

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

Originally Posted by Brujah (Post 15559366)

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?