Assault Rifle Ban

[Smokin Gator]

Originally Posted by Starchild

With that clarification, I am totally against the talked about ban. I don't feel the need to own one, but I should have the right if I so choose.

Well said and that is exactly how I feel.

I have a number of weapons in my house. I have a loaded Mossberg 500 right next to my bed. I have a Ruger 357 in my truck. I carry a SW 38 nearly all the time. I have a concealed weapons permit. I certainly feel like in today's climate that is MORE than enough to defend my property and my family. I see no need to have an "assault" rifle. I certainly hope the day never comes when, in our country, I see the need to have one.

[gettysburgfreak]

I really hope they don't ban assault rifles as I would like to get one once I get a job.

Just a quick note on the CA 50cal ban. This is ridiculous and is already bypassed by a gun that has identical ballistics. Another rich man's toy, but useful for shooting through concrete walls.

[WyoBob]

Originally Posted by elderboy02

Just for the people that didn't know... the Supreme Court of the United States ruled this summer that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES an individual right to posess a firearm.

Are these the same guys who ruled that we don't really have any personal property rights? Hmm, I'm not going to sleep any better tonight.

Misc. ramblings. Answer to the question, "Why do you feel it's necessary to carry a gun." Answer, "Because I can't stuff a cop in my pocket".

If I give up my guns, will the president, vice. pres, movie stars, ceo's and all of the other "anointed" give up their Secret Service agents and body guards?

If you were the present Congress with a 20 percent (give or take) approval rating, would you want the "people" to be armed?

If total government control equals "safety" why are prisons such dangerous places?

WyoBob

[Sancho]

Wyobob, I think I read that same handout somewhere once before Of course all are valid points, and I certainly have made my own decisions on this a while ago.

My View on automatic weapons :
Waste of ammo, there is always more air than meat....unless the zombies are really really close. but if you want to own one, pay the fee's and you can have your M2.

Q:Why do I need a collapsible stock carbine commonly referred to as an "assault rifle"
A: it's the weapon I have spent the majority of my time with, it can touch 300 meters* if needed, yet I can clear my house with it and ballistic ammunition and not worry about hitting my neighbors
*anything beyond this. Savage Bolt Action .308, you pick which eye.

I have long attempted corrected people's belief that the second Amendment refers to hunting, grocery shopping in the woods, I feel it has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, but the protection of my land, property and family from those that would do them harm. When referencing the "savages attacking settlers" how are they any different than the man who kicked down the door of the woman living 2 blocks from me and she shot him 3 times with a .38.

The MAN himself said this:

“One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that ‘violence begets violence.’ I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure—and in some cases I have—that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy.”-Jeff Cooper Meaning, you try and hurt my family or me, Mel Gibson in all of his Braveheart/The Patriot fury will seem like childs play when I'm done.


Thomas Jefferson said:
The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against the tyranny of government.

Da Klugs you have got to be kidding me!?!?! you're telling me you wouldn't own an F-15 given the money and the option!?!? Personally I'd go for an A-10.

As far as *THE BAN* goes.. I don't think anyone dressed in black with sunglasses is going to come knock on my door to take my guns, do I think that within the next four years a reprise of the '94 ban' will make a come back? yes. Am I burying my some of my guns and ammo in a concrete bunker hidden in my backyard? no. but now that i think about it...

The right of free speech, assembly, quick trial by jury. They are not considered outdated, why would owning a weapon be?

I don't like the encroachment on the second amendment but it doesn't effect me really. I've never been a gun guy.

[M1903A1]

Originally Posted by theycallmedan'lboone

Da Klugs you have got to be kidding me!?!?! you're telling me you wouldn't own an F-15 given the money and the option!?!?

Is it pre-embargo?

[DPD6030]

If it hasn't been said already...I can tell you from the LEO standpoint that no matter if it is passed or not the criminals will find a way no matter what if they really want to. The criminals have more powerful guns than the police force. A wise officer once told me, if we got it the criminals had it a year ago. I hunt and carry a firearm for work. I too agree that if there is an "assault" weapons ban then it is not fair to lawfully abiding citizens. I used to have an AR-15 but I sold it and wished I didn't.

Read the following in my local paper today.

I know it's not about assault rifles but I thought it still "fit" the thread. This has to be the only positive piece of press I have seen in print in my local papers in many years. Made my day, thought I would share.

From the Courier News 11/20/2008

There are a lot of people in New Jersey with open minds and open eyes, but the majority of us have been mentally conditioned to be afraid of guns. The media in general have done an excellent job of demonizing firearms and the law-abiding citizens who own them.

A two-year study by the Media Research Center concluded that television reporters are overwhelmingly opposed to Second Amendment rights. Broadcasts of major networks from July 1, 1995, to June 30, 1997, covering 244 gun policy stories showed the ratio of anti-gun to pro-gun bias was 16 to 1. That means for every one story of someone using a firearm in self-defense or to save the life of another, 16 stories of criminals using their guns to hurt the innocent were aired. That ratio still remains the same today. It seems one-sided and unfair, does it not?

Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than shootings. In a recent three-year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke and other bizarre injuries as compared with students who were murdered by firearms during that same time period.

Why do the majority of our lawmakers think that making it more difficult to own and carry a concealed firearm is going to help quell the rate of violent crime in New Jersey? It's been proven time and time again that criminals in New Jersey do not care about gun restrictions or gun bans. The vast majority of the illegal guns used in crimes come from a few corrupt gun dealers outside the borders of the Garden State.

It seems most of our legislators have this unfounded fear that if A1282 is enacted, everyone will rush to get their concealed carry permit and there will be millions of guns on our streets that will result in a bloodbath the likes of which we have never seen. History shows that after concealed carry legislation was passed in Florida in 1987 only an estimated 3 percent of Floridians chose to obtain a concealed carry permit.

Now, let's return to New Jersey. The latest census estimates the population of New Jersey is 8.7 million. If 2 percent of citizens are granted a concealed carry permit, that would be approximately 174,000 people. That also means there would only be two people per square mile who would have permits to legally carry weapons. There are 10 times more criminals and street gang members in our cities who are illegally carrying concealed weapons right at this very moment. So what exactly are we afraid of?

The majority of us who live in and around urbanized areas in New Jersey believe guns are the problem. We seem to believe this because the mainstream media has trained us to think that way. The truth is there is an estimated 50.6 million households having at least one gun in the United States, totaling approximately 228 million firearms. The total number of firearms that are used by criminals to commit their violent acts is approximately 450,000 nationwide.

Ninety-seven percent of people in Florida have not chosen to obtain their concealed carry permits, but they are getting a huge benefit from the 3 percent who do. Since Florida passed concealed carry legislation, crime has dropped to 4 percent below the national average from 36 percent above the national average before 1987.

Most of us in New Jersey will choose not to apply for a gun, because we have been convinced by our government and the media that guns are evil. But for those upstanding law-abiding citizens who feel differently, they should not be denied their constitutional right to defend themselves, if they feel the need to do so.

Great article. That is so true.

[elderboy02]

Originally Posted by Tombstone

Great article. That is so true.

Thank you for sharing that article.

Great article, and coming from someone who also lives in Jersey I'm very surprised to see an NJ media outlet allowing something like that to be printed. I am one of the individuals who does not listen to our media and does not support the ban or the denial of our right to own one. Interesting facts in those studies. Thank you for sharing.

[Sauer Grapes]

Originally Posted by MithShrike

I don't like the encroachment on the second amendment but it doesn't effect me really. I've never been a gun guy.

What about when they do take away a right you care about? Who all stand up for your right if you don't stand up for others'?

[spectrrr]

I have a few things to say. They are different enough that I will put them in seperate posts, to break it up and make it a little easier to read for folks. This is an issue that I feel fairly strongly about, so I will probably ramble a bit.

Originally Posted by elderboy02

Just for the people that didn't know... the Supreme Court of the United States ruled this summer that the 2nd Amendment GUARANTEES an individual right to posess a firearm.

unfortunately, now they are just going around the back door. if something like the previously disscussed 500% tax were to go into effect, it would have a very similar effect.

Guns work because people have them. LOTS of people. Make it a rich man's hobby, and now the common person will not be able to afford it, even if "technically" he is still allowed it.

same end result.

[spectrrr]

Originally Posted by MithShrike

I don't like the encroachment on the second amendment but it doesn't effect me really. I've never been a gun guy.

Matt, no intention to pick on you here, your post just did the best job summing up some of the other opinions along the same vein in this thread. I'll prolly say "you" from time to time in the post, but I'm addressing everyone.

most of you have probably seen this poem before. It was written after the Nazi rise to power and their purging of certain groups.

---------------------------------------------------
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
---------------------------------------------------


(this is a ramble, forgive me)
We live in an instant use society. Entire epic stories are told in a 2 hour movie. Solutions to social problems are generally accepted only if they will produce results instantly, or within a year. The American people as a whole do not think long term. We always think about the here and now, but not about how things will affect us in the future.

Why don't more Americans pay attention to their health, eat right, excercise more, etc? Certainly some of the problems can be attributed to limited time, money, etc.... BUT the fundamental issue to ask is WHY is there limited time and money? you had time to play that xbox or watch Dancing with the Stars... but not the gym, and not the 20 extra minutes it would have taken to prepare something for dinner that isnt "instant". CLEARLY in many cases, the issue is not time, but our prioritization of it. HEALTH is not a priority for most people because health is a LONG TERM goal, and people do not think about that. Its not important. I don't have diabetus NOW, so I'll continue to cram my face. We far prefere to choose an instant pleasure now and just dont think about the future consequences (why should I, it is not affecting me now)

What the hell does that have to do with gun control? get your ass back on target! ok ok...

The slow and steady erosion of our rights does not happen quickly. It happens very slowly, very methodically. It always seems reasonable to abolish the most extreme thing of a group of items. It is something most people will agree on. So they talk about banning whatever class of weapons that are at the top of the LEGAL food chain at the moment.... and once those are banned and forgotten about, they'll go after the next biggest gun, and so forth.

I'm not fighting for my right to keep and carry a bolt action rifle NOW. I'm fighting for my right to keep and carry a bolt action rifle in 20 years. There's plenty of other guns they'll outlaw first, before turning their eyes on a bolt action.... but it will happen. Dont believe me? for all you history buffs, do a little research on the history of other countries that have been down that read and report the statistics back to us (PLEASE NOTE, that is not meant as a dig at the earlier folks talking history.. I love history)

Every time that someone says "well, I'm not in that group of people" and does nothing, they are harming themselvesin the long run. because when the witchunt is done with me, they'll come for something YOU love.

OR you'll just be more likely to get mugged on the street or in your own house... because when they're done taking my guns away, the criminals will now know that EVERY house or person on the street is safe to rob, instead of the current game of russian roulette they play everytime they choose to commit a crime.

You may not like guns yourself, and thats ok. If you don't like em, I dont want you to have them! Really.. thats what RESPONSIBLE gun ownership is all about. BUT please recognize that my willingness to own, train with, and use a gun DOES make significant contributions to YOUR safety, and in so recognizing that fact, please support those people for doing their part.

----------------------------------------------------------------
We support the troops because they keep us safe, but most of us are not soliders. We support the police because they keep us safe, but most of us are not officers. Why then do we not support the many gun owners in this nation that keep us safe, even if many of us do not ourselves own guns?
----------------------------------------------------------------

[spectrrr]

Again, I can't post my thoughts on every post, nor would you want to read them. Mikey's post just summs em up, I'm not picking on him.

Originally Posted by MikeyC

I just feel there needs to be further legislation on top of the 2nd ammendment limiting the types of firearm available to the public and limiting who in the public gets their hands on them.

Said legislation actually does exist... but for some reason, most of the people that are committing crimes don't seem too inclined to follow it...

Originally Posted by MikeyC

Guns are a powerful tool and in the end the tool does what the user makes it do, but often tools end up in the wrong hands. Sometimes those hands have bad intentions....

Amen brother. I would even take it a step further and say that its not "often" that the tools end up in the wrong hands, its "always".

Originally Posted by MikeyC

....and sometimes they are just inexperienced hands and an accident happens. So, why not limit the amount of damage that can be done with a gun. Does anyone really need a gattling gun?

Food for thought. I've met a lot of people on both sides of fence, people that grew up with guns, people that didn't, etc. 99 times out of 100, the people that are "inexperienced" or "foolish" around guns and then get into accidents are the people that have been relatively sheltered from guns for most of their life.

A firearm is something that must be treated with the utmost in respect at all times, and damned near anyone who shoots often now or grew up shooting when they were younger knows this. People that live in a house that just tries to ignore their existance, those are the majority of the "inexperienced" people that you refer to.

whats my point? my point is, as you limit guns and drive them further away from the common public eye, and make it less socially acceptable for people to be involved with guns, I would argue that you will see an INCREASE in the number of accident related shootings because the number of inexperienced people will be rising.

[spectrrr]

a few closing ramblings...

In this post I will say the word "utopia" a bit. By that, I am talking about the "end" goal of betterment that most of us would like to see in society. Even though we do not talk about it like this (I certainly don't use the word utopia in my everyday thought and speach), WE ALL, to one extent or another, use this as an unconcious foundation in shaping many of our thoughts and opinions. bear with me, because I think it is important that we recognize where some of our oppinions come from, because then we can judge their merit based on that.

------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone wants a utopian society. I want one. You want one. We all do. Nobody wants crime, no sane person wants violence. Everyone wants to live happily ever after.

Unfortunatly, this goal is NEVER attainable. we can take measures to reduce crime, this is easy. Tougher penalties for breaking the law, more police to catch a guy if he does break the law, better schools so fewer people to turn crime, more armed citizens to deter people that do turn to crime from risking the confrontation, etc.

There are lots of things we can do to lower the number of people committing crimes. BUT there is an inherent evil in this world that will never be fully eliminated. A certain portion of the population will always try to commit a crime against their fellow man. You can never control people to such an extent that it would be possible to eliminate all crime... and if you could, we would have far more troubling things to discuss, if at that point we even had the right could discuss anything....

Trying to take guns away from the hands of private, law abiding citizens by making them difficult and a pain in the ass to own, all in the hopes that you can prevent someone from misusing the gun, or prevent it from falling into the wrong hands, is in my oppinion, an offshoot of the quest for utopia that we often unconciously persue.

We think that if can just get the guns out of the wrong people's hands, we can prevent crime, and we can be one step closer to a perfect, better world. But when we fail to see, accept, and treat the cause of the problem rather than the tool, we are undertaking an excercise in futility. And when our atempts then result in the removal of guns from private citizens (either by legislative banning, or taxing it out of reach), we take one step forward and 5 steps backwards, destableizing more than stableizing, killing more than saving. (Which is NOT what you wanted in the first place when you passed the legislation!)

limiting, banning, or removing guns will never change the people that will laways commit crime (they've been there since Cain and Able, they're not going anywhere). Distrubiting guns into the hands of responsible private individuals however WILL serve to contain the damnage done by those who do not see fit to play by the rules of society.

Utopia simply is not availlable, because utopia at any cost ceases to be a utopia.



It's late, I'm probably making less and less sense here... I'll retire to bed before my thoughts lose all cohension whatsoever.

-Francis

[elderboy02]

Wow Francis! Nice posts! You make way too much sense. I am sure the heads of the Brady Campaign would be hurting because you are making too much sense. Good job sir!

P.S. I wish I could bump your rep for all your hard work, but it says I have to spread it around again.

[SeanGAR]

Originally Posted by spooble

The 2nd amendment guarantees a right... it doesn't address a need. There is a distinct difference.

I didn't realize that assault rifles were available when the second amendment was written.

Just as an fyi, I see no problem with law abiding citizens owning automatic weapons if they want to play with them at the range. I admit they'd be a little much for hunting though.