All firearms, short barrel shotguns, short barrel rifles, silencers, and firearms with a bore under 1.5" are deemed exempt from the NFA if they're made in MT.
Oh, and they're exempt from the 1968 GCA as well, which means no serial numbers and no NICS check either.
Oh, and this means that you can make and sell armor piercing pistol rounds (9mm) as well as AP 5.56 and AP 7.62x39.
IP: Logged
10:03 AM
PFF
System Bot
hklvette Member
Posts: 1439 From: Roanoke, VA Registered: Nov 2007
My understanding of the "right to bear arms" is to allow us to protect ourselves against (for lack of better words) bad government, not following the will of the people. If my understanding is accurate, we must be allowed access to weapons that are "competitive" with those owned by the government (military). THat would mean, if they can have it, we can have it. I do understand the concern over criminally minded individuals having such weapons, but our government should be submissive to the greater will of the people. And if their weapons are significantly better, bigger, etc. than ours, then we would always be in "fear" of their power rather than they being fearful (submissive) to us.
I own only one gun, a Glock 17. I have NO interest in hurting, killing, or scaring anyone with my little gun. I just like target shooting and feeling more secure as we have a very nice home in a questionable area.
just my .02!
IP: Logged
08:21 PM
jimbolaya Member
Posts: 10652 From: Virginia Beach, Virginia Registered: Feb 2007
So allowing people to have armour piercing untraceable weapons is a good thing. Right.
A typical hunting round will defeat commonly worn armor. It won't go through the heavier versions, but most police do not wear that type. It's also not all that hard for a criminal to obliterate a serial number, and in some states there is no gun registration (Arizona is one of them). If I buy from a private party (legal in this state), there is no record anywhere that I have purchased that gun.
The vast majority of gun laws do nothing to actually deter or prevent criminals from acquiring guns. Most of the laws simply serve to restrict the law-abiding gun owner.
IP: Logged
03:11 AM
DRA Member
Posts: 4543 From: Martinez, Ga, USA Registered: Oct 1999
------------------ Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: you've solved the wrong problem, work hard to improve.
[This message has been edited by DRA (edited 04-18-2009).]
IP: Logged
03:30 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
Originally posted by GT86: The vast majority of gun laws do nothing to actually deter or prevent criminals from acquiring guns. Most of the laws simply serve to restrict the law-abiding gun owner.
That is a load of crap. Some criminals will still get guns yes. Most wont as if they are regulated properly it jsut makes it way to hard for the average criminal to even find them. I am sick of seeing this type of BS when you dont even live in a country where they work. How can people constantly state these so called facts when it has never ever been tried where they live? No benchmark, no fact. They also protect people from those who have guns and then in a fit of rage use them instead of fists or another lesser weapon. You cant outrun someone who has gone temporarily over the edge when he is shooting at you. You can outrun his fists, or knife, or bat etc.
Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway? Is the USA that screwed up that so many seem paranoid and feel they must have a gun to survive? I am quite happy living in a place where I dont feel I need a gun just to survive, which is the impression I get of many pro-gun people on this forum.
Work out some trends of your own with these statistics.
Stats talk. Compared to the countries of the western alliance like Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand etc America is in a bad way with or without firearms. Regulating firearms is only going to improve it. Regulating is not banning guns, it is putting proper ownership guidelines in place and banning weapons designed for purely killing people. Handguns really have no use for anything but the intention of killing people. Does anyone here go hunting with a hand gun? Come to think of it we still have hand guns here. But we cant carry the damn things around as they are locked away in safes in the pistol clubs where they are able to be used.
Of all these stats we all have a lot to learn from Canada. They don't seem to even rate in any of the lists involving murder and gun deaths at all.
IP: Logged
06:05 AM
DRA Member
Posts: 4543 From: Martinez, Ga, USA Registered: Oct 1999
That is a load of crap. Some criminals will still get guns yes. Most wont as if they are regulated properly it jsut makes it way to hard for the average criminal to even find them. I am sick of seeing this type of BS when you dont even live in a country where they work. How can people constantly state these so called facts when it has never ever been tried where they live? No benchmark, no fact. They also protect people from those who have guns and then in a fit of rage use them instead of fists or another lesser weapon. You cant outrun someone who has gone temporarily over the edge when he is shooting at you. You can outrun his fists, or knife, or bat etc.
Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway? Is the USA that screwed up that so many seem paranoid and feel they must have a gun to survive? I am quite happy living in a place where I dont feel I need a gun just to survive, which is the impression I get of many pro-gun people on this forum.
Work out some trends of your own with these statistics.
Stats talk. Compared to the countries of the western alliance like Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand etc America is in a bad way with or without firearms. Regulating firearms is only going to improve it. Regulating is not banning guns, it is putting proper ownership guidelines in place and banning weapons designed for purely killing people. Handguns really have no use for anything but the intention of killing people. Does anyone here go hunting with a hand gun? Come to think of it we still have hand guns here. But we cant carry the damn things around as they are locked away in safes in the pistol clubs where they are able to be used.
Of all these stats we all have a lot to learn from Canada. They don't seem to even rate in any of the lists involving murder and gun deaths at all.
Looking at statistics based on Country really don't show a clear picture in my mind, there are other factors that have to be considered. Population density of specific areas within a country have much more to do with crime/homicide rates and lumping it all together by Country is kind of like "stereotyping" or making a blanket statement about a specific race. For example I lived in Idaho for a while, everyone in Idaho owned a gun, I don't think I'm exagerating. But the state has a lower per capita murder rate than say New York. Why is that? My guess would be that there is not a lot of overcrowding in Idaho, people have room, and people seem to know one another. May not be that way in Boise and more populated areas but up near Princeton and Deary where I lived thats the impression I got. Don't lump me in with New York, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Detroit, or any other major city in the United States. Big cities are kind of like foreign countries to me, I'll gladly keep my distance from the concrete jungle. LOL
As far as handgun hunting, there are two people in my household alone who hunt with handguns. They also hunt with bows, rifles, shotguns, and are avid fishermen.
And banning firearms designed primarily for killing people? All guns have the potential for killing people, what specific action designs and calibers would you choose to allow people to own? As far as I know you are required to have a class III license to own full auto weapons (of coarse that doesn't stop criminals from getting their hands on them whether they are illegally purchased or illegaly converted) and I doubt anyone wants to risk their license and associated penalties by selling full autos to anyone that is not licensed. The BAD BAD guys will get their hands on guns if they have to make them theirselves, and an unarmed populance is ripe for the picking if you are armed and they are not.
I fail to see why the gun gets the bad rap for the irresponsible or illegal actions of an individual or group.
------------------ Dealing with failure is easy: work hard to improve. Success is also easy to handle: you've solved the wrong problem, work hard to improve.
IP: Logged
07:52 AM
dsnover Member
Posts: 1668 From: Cherryville, PA USA Registered: Apr 2006
Originally posted by AusFiero: Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway? Is the USA that screwed up that so many seem paranoid and feel they must have a gun to survive?
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is meant to protect our right to own weapons. The reasons for owning a weapon vary. Also, keep in mind that many Americans do NOT own or carry a weapon. But nevertheless, we value our right to do so if we choose.
Just because YOU don't value that right, it does not make US screwed up.
IP: Logged
01:05 PM
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
The right to bear arms is a right under our constitution. It doesn't matter if banning guns will make society a safer place. Having a one-sided government ran religion and press would make things more civil, wouldn't you think? Why have freedom of religion, speech and press if all that does is piss people off, offend people, make people angry who disagrees with it and so on?
The Right to Bear Arms is a Right, regardless of the outcome. Just like Speech, Press and Religion.
IP: Logged
01:13 PM
OKflyboy Member
Posts: 6607 From: Not too far from Mexico Registered: Nov 2004
Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway? Is the USA that screwed up that so many seem paranoid and feel they must have a gun to survive? I am quite happy living in a place where I dont feel I need a gun just to survive, which is the impression I get of many pro-gun people on this forum.
A lot of it has to do with how our independence was won... with guns... that the government of the time didn't want us to have...
[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 04-18-2009).]
IP: Logged
01:14 PM
PFF
System Bot
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
That is a load of crap. Some criminals will still get guns yes. Most wont as if they are regulated properly it jsut makes it way to hard for the average criminal to even find them. I am sick of seeing this type of BS when you dont even live in a country where they work. How can people constantly state these so called facts when it has never ever been tried where they live? No benchmark, no fact. They also protect people from those who have guns and then in a fit of rage use them instead of fists or another lesser weapon. You cant outrun someone who has gone temporarily over the edge when he is shooting at you. You can outrun his fists, or knife, or bat etc.
Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway? Is the USA that screwed up that so many seem paranoid and feel they must have a gun to survive? I am quite happy living in a place where I dont feel I need a gun just to survive, which is the impression I get of many pro-gun people on this forum.
Work out some trends of your own with these statistics.
Stats talk. Compared to the countries of the western alliance like Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand etc America is in a bad way with or without firearms. Regulating firearms is only going to improve it. Regulating is not banning guns, it is putting proper ownership guidelines in place and banning weapons designed for purely killing people. Handguns really have no use for anything but the intention of killing people. Does anyone here go hunting with a hand gun? Come to think of it we still have hand guns here. But we cant carry the damn things around as they are locked away in safes in the pistol clubs where they are able to be used.
Of all these stats we all have a lot to learn from Canada. They don't seem to even rate in any of the lists involving murder and gun deaths at all.
Your idea of proper regulation seems to be the complete banning of guns. How has that worked with drugs? And don't use the tack of mocking something you don't understand. We're not screwed up simply because we value freedom. Just because you don't place a high importance on personal freedom doesn't mean that freedom should be taken away.
IP: Logged
03:08 PM
DustoneGT Member
Posts: 1274 From: The U.S. Superstate Registered: Dec 2002
That is a load of crap. Some criminals will still get guns yes. Most wont as if they are regulated properly it jsut makes it way to hard for the average criminal to even find them. I am sick of seeing this type of BS when you dont even live in a country where they work. How can people constantly state these so called facts when it has never ever been tried where they live? No benchmark, no fact. They also protect people from those who have guns and then in a fit of rage use them instead of fists or another lesser weapon. You cant outrun someone who has gone temporarily over the edge when he is shooting at you. You can outrun his fists, or knife, or bat etc.
Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway? Is the USA that screwed up that so many seem paranoid and feel they must have a gun to survive? I am quite happy living in a place where I dont feel I need a gun just to survive, which is the impression I get of many pro-gun people on this forum.
Work out some trends of your own with these statistics.
Stats talk. Compared to the countries of the western alliance like Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand etc America is in a bad way with or without firearms. Regulating firearms is only going to improve it. Regulating is not banning guns, it is putting proper ownership guidelines in place and banning weapons designed for purely killing people. Handguns really have no use for anything but the intention of killing people. Does anyone here go hunting with a hand gun? Come to think of it we still have hand guns here. But we cant carry the damn things around as they are locked away in safes in the pistol clubs where they are able to be used.
Of all these stats we all have a lot to learn from Canada. They don't seem to even rate in any of the lists involving murder and gun deaths at all.
Governments killed at least 262,000,000 people during the 20th century.
I'd rather deal with the miniscule deathrates from the stats you linked to than the massive death caused by overly powerful governments against unarmed citizens.
No government should be trusted with the power to regulate the ability of the citizenry to protect themselves. The 20th century proves this. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc---all of them took the guns before they killed their millions.
I'd rather die defending my right to keep and bear arms than die in a death camp. And yes, it can happen again. Mankind has not grown past this.
LOL!! You know, now that I think of it, my driveway is long...WHO WANTS TO GO F-16 SHOPPING!!!!
ANd btw, anyone living on a lake, beach, river or even a small creek, lets see your new war ships!
Seriously though, there are of course limits...right...
I wonder if I may be able to buy a suitcase nuke from one on the sleeper cells here? Don't know if one made in Iran or North Korea is of better quality?
IP: Logged
03:40 PM
Phaeton Member
Posts: 1437 From: Interior Alaska Registered: Dec 1999
For those who did not click on dsnover's link, Alaska has joined in. We can own any firearm manufactured in Alaska. Not a large number of those available just yet, but I like the idea.
Just as an aside, my ex wife (before the ex) came home one night, late an afraid, after having ripped of a drug dealer. At that time I did not own a firearm and it looked as if bad stuff was going to happen soon. Not knowing what else to do I went downtown Fairbanks, pop. 30,000, with $200. An hour and a half later I had a .357 pistol and a box of ammunition. So much for keeping them out of the hands of criminals.
IP: Logged
06:13 PM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
Your idea of proper regulation seems to be the complete banning of guns. How has that worked with drugs? And don't use the tack of mocking something you don't understand. We're not screwed up simply because we value freedom. Just because you don't place a high importance on personal freedom doesn't mean that freedom should be taken away.
And wher exactly I say that. I said regulation. Bans on anything never work. Freedom has nothing to do with firearms, so stop blowing that trumpet. I place a high importance on personal freedom and I have it, so agains top trying to twist my words. I dont have to be armed to protect it. How do I not understand living with and without guns? In my lifetime I have had both options in my country so I have personally experienced both options, something you yourself cant claim. I have a benchmark to work from.
So you think having one of the higest murder rates in the world isn't screwed up? Apparently killing fellow countrymen is freedom huh? I have travelled a lot of the world and can tell the difference between freedom and the variety of alternatives. America is getting very paranoid from within. You only have to read a lot of the political threads here to see that. When you are paranoid about your own rulers you have already lost your freedom.
Look how many posts in off topic mention stocking up on more guns and ammo. Freedom is having trust in your own rulers and not having to worry abotu them. Hell my own government does some screwed up things I dont agree with at times but I dont think I need to overthrow them at any point, or that they will start rounding us up into concentration camps etc. All that sort of stuff gets mentioned here about your government. Paranoia.
I see so many people say they need to be armed to protect temselves from their own government. That is pretty screwed up. For the government to have the power they worry about they need armed men. The armed men are your own citizens, not some magical government puppets. There comes a point when those in the military know what their government is asking is pretty screwed up and just refuse to do it.
So in summary sit back, have a read of lots of the threads around here then honestly tell me that you think you have freedom. Then look north to your Canadian neighbours. Hell their government has some screwed up rules at times to but all in all they are a pretty happy bunch and you don't see them posting constantly about needing more guns, needing to rise against their own government or paranoia that their own government is going to start locking them away or killing them. Even when it is only a minority doing those sort of posts you have trouble that needs sorting.
IP: Logged
06:36 PM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
Originally posted by Phaeton: Not knowing what else to do I went downtown Fairbanks, pop. 30,000, with $200. An hour and a half later I had a .357 pistol and a box of ammunition. So much for keeping them out of the hands of criminals.
That is twisted logic. If there wasn't so many of them around you wouldn't be able to do that. I wouldn't even know where to start looking for a firearm illegally here. Which is a good thing as it means a majority of the criminals (who really arent that intelligent anway) have an equaly slim chance of finding firearms illegally. That is how it works. Don't try to claim otherwise and back it up with conjecture. Go to any country that doesn't have a glut of firearms and you will find it equally hard to buy weapons that people seem to think criminals just buy from anywhere.
In fact here is a good example. Yes their is hard core criminals who have firearms. You know who they are using them on? Equally hard core criminals with bikies fighting each other and gangs of Asians and Lebanese fighting each other. It is rare for anyone not involved in crime themselves to be involved in a firearm related incident. Yes there is the odd bank robbery etc but not on a huge scale. That is going to happen anywhere.
IP: Logged
06:44 PM
ARFiero Member
Posts: 1262 From: Savannah, GA Registered: May 2008
That is a load of crap. Some criminals will still get guns yes. Most wont as if they are regulated properly it jsut makes it way to hard for the average criminal to even find them. I am sick of seeing this type of BS when you dont even live in a country where they work. How can people constantly state these so called facts when it has never ever been tried where they live? No benchmark, no fact. They also protect people from those who have guns and then in a fit of rage use them instead of fists or another lesser weapon. You cant outrun someone who has gone temporarily over the edge when he is shooting at you. You can outrun his fists, or knife, or bat etc.
Why do people feel they need to own guns anyway? Is the USA that screwed up that so many seem paranoid and feel they must have a gun to survive? I am quite happy living in a place where I dont feel I need a gun just to survive, which is the impression I get of many pro-gun people on this forum.
Aus I will tell you that gun regulation doesn't work. The United States ban on Assult Weapons was enacted in 1994 where assauly weapon were illegal to obtain. These weapons we only sold as semi-automatic weapons according to law but even those were banned by the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
The definition is -Assault weapon refers to firearms that had been developed from earlier fully-automatic firearms into semi-automatic civilian-legal versions. Semi-automatic firearms, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again; they do not fire automatically like a machine gun, rather, only 1 shot comes from each trigger pull.
This included this statement: By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:
A semi-automatic AK-47 rifle. An Intratec TEC-DC9 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Bayonet mount Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock Pistol grip Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds Detachable magazine Now it specifically mentions the AK-47 but in 1997 two individuals attempted to rpb a Bank of America bank in Los Angeles. When they walked in they were brandishing AK-47 rifles and proceeded to take the money. When they came outside the ploice had the place surounded and told the ment o drop thier weapons. Imagine their suprise to see not only AK-47's but fully automatic AK-47's which had been banned for even sale or import into America. So you tell me when a guy comes out with a fully auto AK-47 when they are banned is gun control working???? I think not. I would rather have my pistol than not. As was stated by Thomas Jefferson: "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
Shelby
IP: Logged
06:46 PM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
So why didnt the regulations work? How did the government go about getting hold of the guns they didn't want on the streets anymore?
Assault weapons and hand guns are really the ony ones that got banned here. The others are regulated. Well even handguns aren't totally banned. Also those in rural areas with a need for a semi auto do still have them. Because lets face it, you don't want to have to reload when you have a pissed off 4 foot high wild pig coming at you. Fully auto, no way.
I know our government did a buy back, with an amesty. It worked pretty damn good as even those with illegal weapons were lured by cold hard cash.
I would be interested to know some opinions on what went wrong with it.
Thanks for the level headed debate on this.
[This message has been edited by AusFiero (edited 04-18-2009).]
IP: Logged
06:51 PM
PFF
System Bot
Phaeton Member
Posts: 1437 From: Interior Alaska Registered: Dec 1999
I'm not really a good criminal, not overly bright and lack the required mindset. But I knew a guy that hung with some folks I would not. One of them hung with folks he was reluctant to be pals with. I was very upfront with what I wanted, medium pistol, and why, wife pissed of a drug dealer. These kind of people seem to respect honesty and good faith as much as anyone, strange as that may seem. Besides, I'm sure they can spot BS better than I can spout it.
The point is, it did not take a lot of smarts on my part, or to be in a circle of criminal enterprise. I advertised a need and it was filled, nothing special out of the ordinary involved anywhere. Government agents need not apply.
IP: Logged
07:10 PM
pokeyfiero Member
Posts: 16233 From: Free America! Registered: Dec 2003
Originally posted by AusFiero: I know our government did a buy back, with an amesty. It worked pretty damn good as even those with illegal weapons were lured by cold hard cash.
I'll offer amnesty too. Bring me your guns I got cold hard cash.
Out here it costs more to get an unregistered gun. Legal guns are considered useless anymore. I have been told that most cops keep an unregistered gun. I don't know if most do but I'm confident a large amount of them do.
IP: Logged
07:21 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
And wher exactly I say that. I said regulation. Bans on anything never work. Freedom has nothing to do with firearms, so stop blowing that trumpet. I place a high importance on personal freedom and I have it, so agains top trying to twist my words. I dont have to be armed to protect it. How do I not understand living with and without guns? In my lifetime I have had both options in my country so I have personally experienced both options, something you yourself cant claim. I have a benchmark to work from.
So you think having one of the higest murder rates in the world isn't screwed up? Apparently killing fellow countrymen is freedom huh? I have travelled a lot of the world and can tell the difference between freedom and the variety of alternatives. America is getting very paranoid from within. You only have to read a lot of the political threads here to see that. When you are paranoid about your own rulers you have already lost your freedom.
Look how many posts in off topic mention stocking up on more guns and ammo. Freedom is having trust in your own rulers and not having to worry abotu them. Hell my own government does some screwed up things I dont agree with at times but I dont think I need to overthrow them at any point, or that they will start rounding us up into concentration camps etc. All that sort of stuff gets mentioned here about your government. Paranoia.
I see so many people say they need to be armed to protect temselves from their own government. That is pretty screwed up. For the government to have the power they worry about they need armed men. The armed men are your own citizens, not some magical government puppets. There comes a point when those in the military know what their government is asking is pretty screwed up and just refuse to do it.
So in summary sit back, have a read of lots of the threads around here then honestly tell me that you think you have freedom. Then look north to your Canadian neighbours. Hell their government has some screwed up rules at times to but all in all they are a pretty happy bunch and you don't see them posting constantly about needing more guns, needing to rise against their own government or paranoia that their own government is going to start locking them away or killing them. Even when it is only a minority doing those sort of posts you have trouble that needs sorting.
Did you or did you not say that handguns should be banned?
quote
Originally posted by AusFiero: Regulating is not banning guns, it is putting proper ownership guidelines in place and banning weapons designed for purely killing people. Handguns really have no use for anything but the intention of killing people. Does anyone here go hunting with a hand gun?
Firearms and freedom go hand in hand. Freedom is guaranteed only by having the power to exercise it. Why you fail to realize that, and why you fail to realize the threat an abusive govt poses is beyond me. Would you care to address the post made by DustoneGT? That might explain why so many do not trust their govt. Govt of any type needs constant monitoring, and if the governed are truly to remain the holders of power (as in our system), then govt must be kept under strict checks and balances. And the ultimate check is the ability of a population to resist. Take that away, and your freedom is an illusion--the only question is how long it will be until you lose it all.
Perhaps you should study history, and see what happens (almost without exception) when the governed lose their ability to resist. You don't even have to go back very far, the 20th century is full of examples.
Don't try and hide under some sort of moral superiority. You're afraid of guns and what they represent, so instead of addressing that fear you'd rather see them banned.
IP: Logged
07:24 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Because it was a stupid law. The only things banned were certain cosmetic features, like bayonet lugs, or features like a collapsible stock and flash hiders (which BTW do not hide muzzle flash from anyone but the shooter, and even then not completely). They did limit magazine capacity to 10, because I guess we could be trusted with 10 in a mag but not 11. The "assault rifles" were targeted simply because they looked evil, and hence the law had to address the evil looking features, not the gun itself. And an "assault rifle" is technically a select-fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge. Select fire means you can choose between full or semi auto. Full-auto weapons have been highly regulated since 1934, and since 1986 new ones can't be legally purchased by civilians. The "assault rifles" available for civilians look like their full-auto cousins, but have numerous differences. Kind of like a street car looks kind of like a NASCAR racer, but there are big differences.
The two most popular "assault rifles" are the AR-15 patterns and the AK-47 patterns. In both cases, the average hunting rifle fires a far more powerful cartridge. Many hunting rifles also use a semi-auto loading mechanism, just like the "assault rifles". This gun: and this gun: operate in identical fashion, and fire the exact same round. Guess which one was banned? But it wasn't really banned, you could buy the exact same gun, it just didn't have the flash hider or the bayonet lug. As such, the so-called ban did absolutely nothing but increase the demand for "assault rifles". And now Obama and his cronies would like to bring back that worthless ban. They know it didn't do anything to reduce crime, since criminals don't obey laws, and in your own words "bans on anything never work". They only want to reinstate it because it's yet another step towards disarmament.
Which again, is about control, and the loss of freedom.
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 04-18-2009).]
IP: Logged
07:35 PM
ARFiero Member
Posts: 1262 From: Savannah, GA Registered: May 2008
So why didnt the regulations work? How did the government go about getting hold of the guns they didn't want on the streets anymore?
Assault weapons and hand guns are really the ony ones that got banned here. The others are regulated. Well even handguns aren't totally banned. Also those in rural areas with a need for a semi auto do still have them. Because lets face it, you don't want to have to reload when you have a pissed off 4 foot high wild pig coming at you. Fully auto, no way.
I know our government did a buy back, with an amesty. It worked pretty damn good as even those with illegal weapons were lured by cold hard cash.
I would be interested to know some opinions on what went wrong with it.
Thanks for the level headed debate on this.
The ban didn't work because it was a legal means to a criminal problem. Criminals don't care about the law. They know what they want and can get it...be damned with the consiquenses. These bank robbers I spoke of knew that the police had to play by the law books and couldn't defet them with the small caliber hand guns they had been provided. The common statement is this: Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns. This true in so many ways Hitler banned guns then became an outlaw when he decided to commit genocide yet he carried a Lugar on his hip at all times (good show of Do as I say not as I do). Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, and Saddam Hussien outlawed guns then became criminals by abusing their people or killing them outright. If you don't have a populace with firearms then you have a government that is usually on it's way to becoming criminal if it is not already. Thats my thoughts. The reason I went from the criminals to Dictators was that it proves that evil people don't mind breaking the law if the odds are in their favor (the bank robbers) or don't have to worry about the people rising up against them (dictators).
Shelby
IP: Logged
07:58 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Originally posted by AusFiero: Freedom is having trust in your own rulers and not having to worry abotu them.
Not trying to pick on you with multiple posts, but this really struck me. Do you honestly feel this way? Freedom to you means not having to pay attention?
IP: Logged
08:16 PM
Fallman Member
Posts: 156 From: College Place, Wa USA Registered: Sep 2001
So why didnt the regulations work? How did the government go about getting hold of the guns they didn't want on the streets anymore?
Assault weapons and hand guns are really the ony ones that got banned here. The others are regulated. Well even handguns aren't totally banned. Also those in rural areas with a need for a semi auto do still have them. Because lets face it, you don't want to have to reload when you have a pissed off 4 foot high wild pig coming at you. Fully auto, no way.
I know our government did a buy back, with an amesty. It worked pretty damn good as even those with illegal weapons were lured by cold hard cash.
I would be interested to know some opinions on what went wrong with it.
Thanks for the level headed debate on this.
okay ill wade in here, Do i believe that a military and or self defense force has a place? YES. DO i completely agree with the 2nd Amendment? Yes Have i ever owned a gun? NO Has anyone in my family owned a gun? Yes (shotgun for starling's that rob cherries) Why do i agree with the 2nd amendment? because i believe the government should always answer to its citizens and should never force a unpopular law or agenda. Politicians should be afraid for there LIVES if they aren't doing whats right. okay so thats a bit extreme but u know what im saying there should be consequense
AusFiero
U need to read thru the article at the following link. If u read it completely, with an open mind, u will understand that we in the US and specifically STATES, with the most lax rules regarding guns actually have lower violent crime rates per capita then any other country specifically those with gun prohibitions. The example the proves the point was the recent (couple years ago) passage of texas style property protection laws in FLORIDA sponsored by the POLICE ASSOCIATIONS because they were tired of responding to petty crimes that happend very infrequently in areas that let citizens protect there property.
Amazing part of the above posted link to article is that the research institute that originated the article is not based in the US. but is a Canadian Outfit.
BTW u all probably know now but the SUPREME COURT recently just came back ruling in our favor that the 2nd amendment doesnt refer to STATE militias (aka state guard since 193? something) but guarantees the right to every CITIZEN. this was in regards to the Washington DC gun ban.
That in itself should prove that gun bans dont work since the most crime ridden city in the country is the capital. and it had a basically COMPLETE Gun ban till last year. Of course it might have something to do with the fact that they have a perfect example of how to get away with crime from our national politicians.
IP: Logged
09:15 PM
Apr 19th, 2009
DustoneGT Member
Posts: 1274 From: The U.S. Superstate Registered: Dec 2002
Some people put too much faith in SCOTUS. They are not the final arbiter, we are.
Read the Declaration of Independence and other documents from that time period. Our rights are natural rights, not rights bestowed upon us by a loving government. We already had them and government is tasked with protecting those rights.
SCOTUS is the entity that gave us stuff like Plessy v Ferguson.
When government violates our natural rights there are consequences, not matter how compliant the population or powerful the government. Things go wrong. Economies tank. People quit working when they realize they are slaves. Criminals start taking over because they actually have a superior means of governance when compared to the greater criminals in the government.
The government cannot break natural laws, they can only break themselves against those laws.
IP: Logged
12:05 AM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
Not trying to pick on you with multiple posts, but this really struck me. Do you honestly feel this way? Freedom to you means not having to pay attention?
No it means not having to worry. Worry and attention are 2 totally different things.
