Assault Weapons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

Lets make this easy--

I suggest we round up ALL gays/muslims/mentally ill, and send them to Guantanamo--Then in 100 years, this country will be better.

---

Of course this could not and should not happen. My point is that all citizens in the US are protected from this by a combination of the 1st,7th,9th, 14th amendments.
So if it's important to protect these peoples RIGHTS, why is it not equally important to protect the freedom of law abiding gun owners? Who's RIGHTS are guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment.
I've said it before--the BOR's is not an al-lacarte menu. It's an ALL encompassing framework that has and does protect all citizens. When it becomes inconvenient to back an Amendment that does not affect you,think how inconvenient it will be when your cause is under attack.

Early gun buy back in L.A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqsnV_kdWIM&sns=em

My take all along is if you believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights you must defend them all, not just the ones that you like.

:cool2:

Heres the cliff notes on feinsteins gun BAN

Pretty much all inclusive of ANY semi automatic, by stating banning any semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun that "CAN" accept larger mags.

ANY semiautomatic firearm is capable of being used with clips in excess of 10 rds. But hey, it's only words.

And of course continuing to own a firearm requires registration and fingerprinting along with a note from local law enforcement that they think it's o.k. for you to own a firearm.


[COLOR=#000000][FONT=tahoma]Summary of 2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Legislation

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:

 120 specifically-named firearms

 Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a
detachable magazine and have one military characteristic

 Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept
more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:

 Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test

 Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from
the characteristics test

 Banning firearms with

Los Angeles mayor looks like an underground mob boss thug. Kinda smells like one too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

Los Angeles mayor looks like an underground mob boss thug. Kinda smells like one too.

---

Ah I see you met Tony Villar... He is a local hero around these parts. Him and Schwarzenegger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Holden

Ah I see you met Tony Villar... He is a local hero around these parts. Him and Schwarzenegger.

---

Kinda looks like he made it into office the Latin America way....nepotism, connections, and blood money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

You are never going to be able to put the gun genie back in the bottle.

---

Rockgremlin, it is this kind of statement that i was talking about before ("rehash"). Ice, why do you say this? No-one is discussing anything like the points you keep making. Can we have a discussion here or will you keep tossing out strawmen? This is an honest question to you. Maybe we can't have a discussion, and that's cool. LMK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

My take all along is if you believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights you must defend them all, not just the ones that you like.

:cool2:

---

Can you explain precisely how the 2nd amendment (individual right to own and bear arms) is under threat? It should be obvious that this right does not include the right to own and bear any kind of weapon whatsoever. If you choose to draw the line at semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, can you explain why? I do not accept "slippery slope" arguments as they are based in supposition.

IF you seriously think you can't live w/o an AR-15, I am totally open to hearing that viewpoint, 'cuz I honestly don't understand it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hank moon

Rockgremlin, it is this kind of statement that i was talking about before ("rehash"). Ice, why do you say this? No-one is discussing anything like the points you keep making. Can we have a discussion here or will you keep tossing out strawmen? This is an honest question to you. Maybe we can't have a discussion, and that's cool. LMK.

---

Yeah I see your frustration Hank, and I share in it to an extent. I am somewhat divided on the issue. I refuse to agree with either extreme -- IOW, I reject an outright ban, but I also believe that current gun laws may be improved. There has to be a reasonable middle-ground. To bury your head in the sand on either side of the fence is not forward progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rockgremlin

Yeah I see your frustration Hank, and I share in it to an extent. I am somewhat divided on the issue. I refuse to agree with either extreme -- IOW, I reject an outright ban, but I also believe that current gun laws may be improved. There has to be a reasonable middle-ground. To bury your head in the sand on either side of the fence is not forward progress.

---

Yes, there is some middle ground. Lemme see if I can dig it up here...must be under this pile of moldy strawmen. :haha: WHat do you mean by "outright ban"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hank moon

IF you seriously think you can't live w/o an AR-15, I am totally open to hearing that viewpoint, 'cuz I honestly don't understand it

---

I get it that you are honestly trying to understand the problem and I really appriciate that.


First off you really need to read this as it will save me hours of trying to explain the sutle differences in firearms:
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/...-ill-tell-you/

My problem is basically this.... there is absolutely no difference between a nasty looking AR-15

Attachment 62274


And the cute pink gun I gave my daughter for her birthday.

http://www.bogley.com/forum/attachme...5&d=1356137420


Unless you are going to outlaw guns painted black, there is absolutely no method of legislating one out of existence and not outlawing the other.

For the record... The picture below is the exact same rifle (Ruger 10-22) that Sierra is holding in the picture above. It just has a different stock and is painted black instead of pink

Attachment 62275

The pink gun looks cute and fun to shoot, the black gun looks evil and scary. But they are the same gun, both just as deadly, or fun.... Does that help you understand the problem?

FWIW: That Ruger 10-22 Sierra is holding is one of the most popular sporting rifles on the planet. I would be hard to find a gun owning family in Utah that doesn't have at least one in the family. Last time I looked thay had sold over 5 million of them.

Ice...that is outstanding. Hank, I'm eagerly awaiting your reply.

http://www.americanhunter.org/Webcon...emington_m.jpg

http://www.mossyoak.com/absolutenm/a...048-R%2025.jpg

http://www.oa2.org/Ar15Hunter/images...ravis_buck.jpg



http://www.grousecreek.com/Images/Hu...erKimber-2.JPG


:phew: Good thing finestine doesn't want to take away my hunting rifles. [sarcasm]{

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...73390119_n.jpg

So, for you "gun toters" is there ANY acceptable limit on what type of arms a private citizen can own? RPGs, claymore mines, nuclear bombs?
It seems we have to draw a line somewhere. If so, the question becomes where.

No right is without limits. Try yelling "fire" in a crowed theater then arguing with the judge that you were just exercising your first amendment right. If the right to free speech, perhaps our most cherished, has limits, why is the second amendment without limits?

There is nothing wrong with the current line. Just enforce the laws already on the books.

Currently you can't own automatic weapons, claymores, tanks etc without a lot of paperwork, money, background checks etc.... they are not within reach of the average citizen....

Sent using Tapatalk

At some point somebody in pro ban arena needs to provide compelling evidence of how changing the current gun laws will improve the safety of the citizens. Nothing based on an emotional decision or a hope that it can become better. There is plenty of evidence that correlates strict gun laws with high crime rates. I'm here to listen if something intellectual can be said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2065toyota

At some point somebody in pro ban arena needs to provide compelling evidence of how changing the current gun laws will improve the safety of the citizens.

---

There is none. The UK and Australia are the two models held up by the anti gun crowd. And both have had major increases in violent crimes since their gun bans.

The assault weapons ban being proposed to congress is the same one we had 10 years ago... and every study to date says that ban had no measurable effect.

The gun genie is out of the bottle. Its not something you can magically put back in the bottle.

Every proposal I have seen to date only takes rights away from law abiding citizens and does nothing to stop crime or criminals.

The only new gun law I can think of that might have some effect is to require gun owners to store weapons in a secure place (gun safe). And hold those that don't accountable.


Sent using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2065toyota

At some point somebody in pro ban arena needs to provide compelling evidence of how changing the current gun laws will improve the safety of the citizens. Nothing based on an emotional decision or a hope that it can become better. There is plenty of evidence that correlates strict gun laws with high crime rates. I'm here to listen if something intellectual can be said.

---

But ya gotta love it when someone considers the 2nd Amendment a strawman.

And BC, respectfully, just as Shane mentioned, the laws are already in place for what you see as a problem.

Look at Chicago's murder rate for 2012 thus far and they have the strictest gun laws!

Lots of EVIDENCE showing compelling reasons why taking something away from law abiding citizens, is bad policy.