# Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate bill



## LAM (Mar 20, 2013)

Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate bill


----------



## Valkyrie (Mar 20, 2013)

I'm hoping prices return to more normal I am looking to do some shopping next month :/


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Now they are going to try and pass the other stuff as "sensible measures" we must remain vigilant and continue to harass our representatives to vote against any and all worthless gun control measures.


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 20, 2013)

Told you that shit wasn't going anywhere.  Be ready for the next time they try to wangle your ass.


----------



## jagbender (Mar 20, 2013)

Indeed we need to stay on the Government!  Less Government!


----------



## Ichigo (Mar 20, 2013)

and like bio chem pointed out;

 "Now they are going to try and pass the other stuff as "sensible  measures" we must remain vigilant and continue to harass our  representatives to vote against any and all worthless gun control  measures." 						

We must keep fighting!


----------



## jagbender (Mar 20, 2013)




----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

sweet, more mass murders in the future!


----------



## hypo_glycemic (Mar 20, 2013)

^^ true story


----------



## heavyiron (Mar 20, 2013)

Majority Leader Harry Reid will remove an assault weapons ban from a  package of gun reform legislation, *and offer it separately as an  amendment.*

Its just a tactic to introduce it another way. Nothing has changed.


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 20, 2013)

Bullshit! If one of those feckless politicians kids/grand kids whatever was in school and some maniac killed a bunch of their kids, you could bet your ass there would be some kind of reform.

But it wasn't, it was someone else's kids. 

They just played on this countries heart strings once again.


----------



## CrazyTod (Mar 20, 2013)

hypo_glycemic said:


> ^^ true story



x2


----------



## juicespringsteen (Mar 20, 2013)

jagbender said:


>


phahahahahahaha love it


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

IronAddict said:


> Bullshit! If one of those feckless politicians kids/grand kids whatever was in school and some maniac killed a bunch of their kids, you could bet your ass there would be some kind of reform.
> 
> But it wasn't, it was someone else's kids.
> 
> They just played on this countries heart strings once again.



yup.


----------



## LAM (Mar 20, 2013)

IronAddict said:


> Bullshit! If one of those feckless politicians kids/grand kids whatever was in school and some maniac killed a bunch of their kids, you could bet your ass there would be some kind of reform.
> 
> But it wasn't, it was someone else's kids.
> 
> They just played on this countries heart strings once again.



can't say I ever remember something like this going down at a private school ever in my lifetime.  only in the movie "TAPS" way back in the day in the early 80's.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

It's funny here anyone is so dense as to believe an assault weapons ban or mag capacity limit will protect anyone in an unarmed school. Someone could walk in with a samurai sword and do the same amount of damage.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> It's funny here anyone is so dense as to believe an assault weapons ban or mag capacity limit will protect anyone in an unarmed school. Someone could walk in with a samurai sword and do the same amount of damage.



yeah, because we have seen so many mass murders at schools using samurai sword.

I think I should have the right to buy a tank too.


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 20, 2013)

LAM said:


> can't say I ever remember something like this going down at a private school ever in my lifetime.  only in the movie "TAPS" way back in the day in the early 80's.



Taps, with mark breland, I remember that flick.

Now those cadets would've been burned out of that school or burned alive.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> yeah, because we have seen so many mass murders at schools using samurai sword.
> 
> I think I should have the right to buy a tank too.



And we are back to the irrational emotional response that the liberals use to cloud the issue. No one has argued citizens should be allowed to own tanks. The point being that if you ban assault weapons (all rifles, assault or otherwise only account for about 400 deaths/year in the US. way to protect people  ) they are just going to use some other weapon. Banning assault weapons doesn't protect anyone. These deaths still would have happened had AR's never even been invented. I know this because the kid at Sandyhook also had handguns and shotguns. Banning all firearms doesn't do crap either, as we see England still has plenty of crime and murders. They just use other weapons. Sorry to use common sense. but the discussion needed it


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> And we are back to the irrational emotional response that the liberals use to cloud the issue. No one has argued citizens should be allowed to own tanks. The point being that if you ban assault weapons (all rifles, assault or otherwise only account for about 400 deaths/year in the US. way to protect people  ) they are just going to use some other weapon. Banning assault weapons doesn't protect anyone. These deaths still would have happened had AR's never even been invented. I know this because the kid at Sandyhook also had handguns and shotguns. Banning all firearms doesn't do crap either, as we see England still has plenty of crime and murders. They just use other weapons. Sorry to use common sense. but the discussion needed it



The phrase you're looking for is, "straw man fallacy."

You've nailed it. Once they ban assault rifles, the killing sprees will be done with hand guns. They they're ban those. Then someone will use a hunting rifle. Then they'll ban those. Then people will use knives. Then they'll ban big knives. Then someone'll use a small knife. Ban. Then a baseball bat. Ban or heavily restricted. And on and on... How do I know that's the path? Because that's pretty much what's happened in the UK. And what's happening there now? The gangs of Eastern Europe and the Middle East are beating cops to death, so they're talking about giving guns back to the just the police. That's right, armed police and unarmed civilians. That's exactly what the Founding Fathers did _not _want.

It's hilarious that people who don't trust the government want to go down that path.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

no, I am serious I have some land and I want to exercise my constitutional rights to protect myself and my land, therefore I want to have a tank.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

I would also like some LAW's (light anti-tank weapons), are those legal?

If not they should be I need to blow some shit up! 

Oh, and some hand grenades, those will come in handy too!

Have either of you served in the military? if not STFU because you don't know what you're talking about.

I have driven tanks, shot LAW's, shot M-60's, threw live grenades, etc. *no civilian needs military style weapons*, we have our awesome government to protect us form all of this "terrorism" remember. 

*The days of militias are far gone, the second amendment needs to be revised.*


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 20, 2013)

No one is arguing the strawman argument. Did they ban assault rifles, no. But they did ban lawn darts those killed 3 kids.

see what I mean ?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> no, I am serious I have some land and I want to exercise my constitutional rights to protect myself and my land, therefore I want to have a tank.



ironmaglabs must be doing quite well. I didn't realize you had a spare 8.58M laying around. Good for you


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> ironmaglabs must be doing quite well. I didn't realize you had a spare 8.58M laying around. Good for you



yes it is my friend, I could retire right now if I wanted to. 
but unlike most Americans I prefer to work my ass off everyday rather than bitching about gun laws.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

IronAddict said:


> No one is arguing the strawman argument. Did they ban assault rifles, no. But they did ban lawn darts those killed 3 kids.
> 
> see what I mean ?



I'm sorry were lawn darts protected in the bill of rights? I don't remember reading that part


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> yes it is my friend, I could retire right now if I wanted to.
> but unlike most Americans I prefer to work my ass off everyday rather than bitching about gun laws.



and yet you are spending your time currently bitching about gun laws.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> I would also like some LAW's (light anti-tank weapons), are those legal?
> 
> If not they should be I need to blow some shit up!
> 
> ...


You don't have to have served in the military to understand basic history, and the second amendment. so you can suck my dick. Your precious obama didn't serve and you still support his views.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> no, I am serious I have some land and I want to exercise my constitutional rights to protect myself and my land, therefore I want to have a tank.



You're still doing the straw man fallacy.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> You don't have to have served in the military to understand basic history, and the second amendment. so you can suck my dick. Your precious obama didn't serve and you still support his views.



Obviously you don't now or understand history because you don't know what the second amendment was created for.

I figured you didn't, you're the type that would sit in a political seat and send people to war to die when you yourself have zero experience in the military or war.

You live in Utah, don't you have at least 3 or 4 wives do suck your dick? oh you must be gay, sorry I don't swing that way,

I did not vote for Obama either term, nor am I a liberal or a democrat, I am just logical.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> You're still doing the straw man fallacy.



that was not an argument, it was sarcasm.

my argument is the second amendment is way out of date and needs to be revised to coincide with the world we live in today, not the one hundreds of years ago.


----------



## LAM (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> no, I am serious I have some land and I want to exercise my constitutional rights to protect myself and my land, therefore I want to have a tank.



you need to know some Russians to get that kind of stuff.  a lot of the Russian Generals were selling off tons of heavy equipment after the cold war ended. they started selling some subs to the drug lords in S. America back then.  when were were in Columbia looking for Pablo you would happen upon a lot of russian small arms and light weapons but we never saw anything heavy down there.


----------



## LAM (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> that was not an argument, it was sarcasm.
> 
> my argument is the second amendment is way out of date and needs to be revised to coincide with the world we live in today, not the one hundreds of years ago.



no doubt.  but this is one of the inherent problems with language and it all being open to interpretation.  the US fed gov has never made a formal definition as this would paint them into a corner.  leaving it open allows for changes to be made.  technically an RPG is considered a small arm as it can be carried by a single troop.  so by definition they should be legal for sale to all that can legally purchase them with out the need for a special license.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> that was not an argument, it was sarcasm.
> 
> my argument is the second amendment is way out of date and needs to be revised to coincide with the world we live in today, not the one hundreds of years ago.



And what should that be? No rifles? Okay, say we ban those. What's your stance on hand guns when those are what's used for murderous rampages?


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I'm sorry were lawn darts protected in the bill of rights? I don't remember reading that part




The bill of rights, I think it speaks of natural rights, what's more of a naural right than to enjoy yourself with a game of lawn darts.

But that guy with the great foresightedness, Patrick Henry whom I happen to agree with by the way, he sure called it boy.

and with that, i'm out!


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> I would also like some LAW's (light anti-tank weapons), are those legal?
> 
> If not they should be I need to blow some shit up!
> 
> ...



Yeah, cause since it's inception things sure have changed alright, like not just white men being able to vote.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> And what should that be? No rifles? Okay, say we ban those. What's your stance on hand guns when those are what's used for murderous rampages?



I see no reason for a civilian to possess a fully automatic weapon, maybe if you were at the the theater shooting here in Colorado last year you would feel the same.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> I see no reason for a civilian to possess a fully automatic weapon, maybe if you were at the the theater shooting here in Colorado last year you would feel the same.



So it's not okay to be killed with an assault rifle, but it is okay to be killed with a hand gun or another type of rifle?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> So it's not okay to be killed with an assault rifle, but it is okay to be killed with a hand gun or another type of rifle?



Did I say that?


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> Did I say that?



I was asking. So is it?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> I see no reason for a civilian to possess a fully automatic weapon, maybe if you were at the the theater shooting here in Colorado last year you would feel the same.



As a guy who talks about being former military you know that AR's are *not fully automatic weapons*. don't you? no wonder colorado just passed some ridiculous gun control laws due to knee jerk reactions that will not make you guys safer.

Prince, you are a smart guy. it kills me what side of this issue you are falling on. super surprising.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> As a guy who talks about being former military you know that AR's are *not fully automatic weapons*. don't you? no wonder colorado just passed some ridiculous gun control laws due to knee jerk reactions that will not make you guys safer.
> 
> Prince, you are a smart guy. it kills me what side of this issue you are falling on. super surprising.



An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] *Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies.* Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously while the trigger is pressed; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire one round per press of a trigger. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.

Tell me one reason why you think non-military, US citizens need to have access to or own this type of weapon? and please don't regurgitate the second amendment.

I am all for self defense, I own a 9mm handgun and a 12gauge shotgun, but I think there needs to be limitations put on the type of weapons that are legally available.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> I was asking. So is it?



u r just trying to bait me.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> u r just trying to bait me.



I'm just asking a question. If we ban assault rifles, and people start doing their massacres with other types of guns, do just let those slide? Or do we ban those too?


----------



## FUZO (Mar 20, 2013)

All this Bullshit and I knew it wouldnt pass.Now mabey Finstein will shut up


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] *Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies.* Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously while the trigger is pressed; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire one round per press of a trigger. The presence of selective fire modes on assault rifles permits more efficient use of rounds to be fired for specific needs, versus having a single mode of operation, such as fully automatic, thereby conserving ammunition while maximizing on-target accuracy and effectiveness.
> 
> Tell me one reason why you think non-military, US citizens need to have access to or own this type of weapon? and please don't regurgitate the second amendment.
> 
> I am all for self defense, I own a 9mm handgun and a 12gauge shotgun, but I think there needs to be limitations put on the type of weapons that are legally available.



There are limitations placed upon the type of weapons that are legally available. We aren't allowed to own fully automatic weapons. we aren't allowed to own RPG's either. so it seems that limitations are already placed upon us. The reason why I don't agree we should have more is that they won't make us safer, and taking away more rights is the next step to a full ban. I draw the line here because if we allow this the anti-gun retards will keep pushing for more. 

And by your definition of assault rifle AR's do not meet those requirements. Tell me other than *look* why are AR's so bad while Ruger 10 22 are ok, or Remington model 750? 



AR's make great varmint rifles. They are also used in very popular 3 gun competition. so that's two reasons. 

Tell me something. it seems pretty messed up that an argument for anything would start off with don't use the second amendment. Tell me why you should be able to own this website, but don't use the first amendment. It is outdated and really only covers print media because the founders had no idea that the web would ever be invented.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

FUZO said:


> All this Bullshit and I knew it wouldnt pass.Now mabey Finstein will shut up



she will never shut up. This was a tactical change of direction for the anti-gunners. By getting rid of the assault weapon ban they are going to try and pass the other stuff as a compromise. then try the assault weapon ban from another angle. this is a very minor victory.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

Did the Patriot Act make us safer?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> Did the Patriot Act make us safer?



The Patriot Act, The NDAA, and obama's lawyer saying it's ok to use drones on civilians on US soil are all further proof we need to keep all of the rights in the bill of rights especially the second intact. I've never seen more reason for the United States Citizens to be able to protect themselves from their own government than the time we live in


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> I'm just asking a question. If we ban assault rifles, and people start doing their massacres with other types of guns, do just let those slide? Or do we ban those too?



It's not the fact that its a gun, it's the fact that these types of weapons were designed to kill many people quickly!


----------



## Swiper (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> I would also like some LAW's (light anti-tank weapons), are those legal?
> 
> If not they should be I need to blow some shit up!
> 
> ...



you don't vote, so why don't you stfu?   you have no legitimacy on govt issues.  you're nothing but a hollow voice that doesn't back up what you stand for.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> The Patriot Act, The NDAA, and obama's lawyer saying it's ok to use drones on civilians on US soil are all further proof we need to keep all of the rights in the bill of rights especially the second intact. I've never seen more reason for the United States Citizens to be able to protect themselves from their own government than the time we live in



Exactly, and there are no guns that will save u if u are marked for termination by a drone, u will be dead almost instantly!  

 So I ask u again why do US citizens need to have assault rifles? Not for hunting or self defense, they r overkill for that purpose. And they certainly won't help fighting a drone attack.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you don't vote, so why don't you stfu?   you have no legitimacy on govt issues.  you're nothing but a hollow voice that doesn't back up what you stand for.



Why? Because I own this place and feel like giving my opinion. 

Is that ok with u?


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> It's not the fact that its a gun, it's the fact that these types of weapons were designed to kill many people quickly!



This is the worst argument i've ever heard against AR's. All guns are designed to kill.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> This is the worst argument i've ever heard against AR's. All guns are designed to kill.



Is that really what I just said?


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> It's not the fact that its a gun, it's the fact that these types of weapons were designed to kill many people quickly!



Ergo, you're more tolerant of massacres so long as they're not done with assault rifles.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> Exactly, and there are no guns that will save u if u are marked for termination by a drone, u will be dead almost instantly!
> 
> So I ask u again why do US citizens need to have assault rifles? Not for hunting or self defense, they r overkill for that purpose. And they certainly won't help fighting a drone attack.



open your eyes prince. i've already given 2 reasons. if you missed those go back and read em again. They aren't overkill for varmint hunting. and they are great in 3 gun competition. 

the strength of armed citizens against their government is in their numbers. But take those small arms away and the military force it takes to control the population shrinks significantly. As of right now The US military could not occupy and control the united states. even with all it's drones. Disarm us, and it could easily.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> open your eyes prince. i've already given 2 reasons. if you missed those go back and read em again. They aren't overkill for varmint hunting. and they are great in 3 gun competition.
> 
> the strength of armed citizens against their government is in their numbers. But take those small arms away and the military force it takes to control the population shrinks significantly. As of right now The US military could not occupy and control the united states. even with all it's drones. Disarm us, and it could easily.



So our government/military can't control the entire country but they can disarm us? Hmmm, and that would be enforced by whom and how?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Ergo, you're more tolerant of massacres so long as they're not done with assault rifles.



Nope, did not say that either.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> Why? Because I own this place and feel like giving my opinion.
> 
> Is that ok with u?



you can give your hollow opinions that have no meaning, I'll let you do that for now. if I don't like your future opinions,  im gonna stick your head in a toilet filled with turds and then flush it. maybe that'll  knock some sense into you.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

Swiper said:


> you can give your hollow opinions that have no meaning, I'll let you do that for now. if I don't like your future opinions,  im gonna stick your head in a toilet filled with turds and then flush it. maybe that's knock some sense into you.



Thx


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> Nope, did not say that either.



Your words did. Some massacres were done with assault rifles, so you want to ban them. Some massacres, such as the one in Sandy Hook, did *not* use assault rifles, but you don't appear to want to ban the guns used in those. So if you're truly interested in stopping the massacres done with guns, you'd need to ban those too. Or is not about the massacres? Do you just have something again assault rifles? If so, why? If it's not about killing with those guns, then why ban them?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Your words did. Some massacres were done with assault rifles, so you want to ban them. Some massacres, such as the one in Sandy Hook, did *not* use assault rifles, but you don't appear to want to ban the guns used in those. So if you're truly interested in stopping the massacres done with guns, you'd need to ban those too. Or is not about the massacres? Do you just have something again assault rifles? If so, why? If it's not about killing with those guns, then why ban them?



It's very easy for one person using an automatic assault rifle to take out 50+ people in about a minute.
 So I guess I would feel safer knowing that it's illegal and much harder for a psychopath to get a hold of a military weapon.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

It's not a black or white issue, ban guns or not...it's limiting the type of guns a citizen can legally purchase and posess.

Certain types of knives are illegal, switch blades and angel blades, but that does not mean all pocket knives are illegal to own.


----------



## dogsoldier (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> yeah, because we have seen so many mass murders at schools using samurai sword.
> 
> I think I should have the right to buy a tank too.



I personally think you should be able to own a tank if you want one.  The rub is you can't own one with a functioning cannon or deck it out with ma deuces.  SCOTUS has determined that certain types of weapons are strictly for the military or really have no function other than destruction. That is why in 1936 SCOTUS determined sawed off shotguns, full auto or select fire firearms, explosive devices, artillery are not be held by the regular citizen.

The argument that a ban on AR's or 30 round mags would do anything to stop shootings is false. I shoot IDPA and can change a pistol mag in 1.5 seconds the last time tested.  Think about it. 1911 with ten 10 round mags stuck to my belt.  How many casualties could someone like me rack up?  I for the life of me do not understand how disarming the regular people will make things better. 

All people have the capacity for violence. The sane and "normal" of us keep our violent side in check. What we should be doing is not blaming the tool, but working on the factors that cause people to go off.  People are violent, people are insane, people are capable of horrible things. No one wants to deal with that.  It is just too fucking hard. So the impotent politicians blame an inanimate object to show the sheeple that they are concerned about them.


----------



## troubador (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> It's very easy for one person using an automatic assault rifle to take out 50+ people in about a minute.
> So I guess I would feel safer knowing that it's illegal and much harder for a psychopath to get a hold of a military weapon.



You're doing it wrong. You're suppose to learn about the subject then form an opinion.
National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## troubador (Mar 20, 2013)

I see no reason for a civilian to possess a fully functioning X-wing, maybe if you were at the the Death Star 30 years ago you would feel the same. I also think we should ban crystal meth, Ewoks and sex trafficking. Who really needs an Ewok sex slave?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

troubador said:


> I see no reason for a civilian to possess a fully functioning X-wing, maybe if you were at the the Death Star 30 years ago you would feel the same. I also think we should ban crystal meth, Ewoks and sex trafficking. Who really needs an Ewok sex slave?



Agreed, the Feds should also remove weed and testosterone from the controlled drug list.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

And why the fuck can't I legally own "brass knuckles" unless sold as a belt buckle.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> And why the fuck can't I legally own "brass knuckles" unless sold as a belt buckle.



Can you hunt elk or boar with brass knuckles?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Can you hunt elk or boar with brass knuckles?



No, but I can do more damage with a knife.


----------



## maniclion (Mar 20, 2013)

jagbender said:


>



I'm content with staying put in Hawaii...


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> It's not the fact that its a gun, it's the fact that these types of weapons were designed to kill many people quickly!



I think we should be allowed to own any weapon we choose, whether that be grenade launchers, tanks or nuclear weapons.  The second amendment says we have a right to bear arms and says nothing about not owning nuclear weapons.  Quit stomping on my constitutional right to own nuclear weapons!!! <<<sarcasm


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 20, 2013)

FUZO said:


> All this Bullshit and I knew it wouldnt pass.Now mabey Finstein will shut up



Yeah, you're great at predicting political events.  How much money did you place on Romney? Lmao

http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=160627


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

I don't think the government has the right to tell me which types of plants I can grow, nor how high my test levels can be.


----------



## LAM (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> open your eyes prince. i've already given 2 reasons. if you missed those go back and read em again. They aren't overkill for varmint hunting. and they are great in 3 gun competition.
> 
> the strength of armed citizens against their government is in their numbers. But take those small arms away and the military force it takes to control the population shrinks significantly. As of right now The US military could not occupy and control the united states. even with all it's drones. Disarm us, and it could easily.



guns are false security when it comes to what your talking about.  the shit they have locked up in Ft Dietrich renders all of our small arms obsolete.  when your shitting your intestines out of your asshole and your face is sloughing off, a gun is useless.

it's not the 1700's anymore.  when the end of the US comes and eventually it will they will need to wipe out a sizable portion of the population and they will do that with biological weapons.


----------



## Intense (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> *The days of militias are far gone, the second amendment needs to be revised.*



Really?...


----------



## troubador (Mar 20, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> I think we should be allowed to own any weapon we choose, whether that be grenade launchers, tanks or nuclear weapons.  The second amendment says we have a right to bear arms and says nothing about not owning nuclear weapons.  Quit stomping on my constitutional right to own nuclear weapons!!! <<<sarcasm



You're allowed to own tanks.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> No, but I can do more damage with a knife.



Knives and guns have other purposes than hurting a human being. Brass knuckles don't.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 20, 2013)

troubador said:


> You're allowed to own tanks.



Why not missiles?  No where in the constitution does it say we can't own missiles.  If I'm going to protect myself against an oppressive government, I'm surely going to need missiles, particularly nuclear ones.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Knives and guns have other purposes than hurting a human being. Brass knuckles don't.



Self defense, especially for a female.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Why not missiles?  No where in the constitution does it say we can't own missiles.  If I'm going to protect myself against an oppressive government, I'm surely going to need missiles, particularly nuclear ones.



Agreed.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Knives and guns have other purposes than hurting a human being. Brass knuckles don't.



How about throwing stars, those r legal with no purpose other than hurting someone.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> Self defense, especially for a female.



Right. A buck, fifty chick with brass knuckles is going to take out a much bigger man. A woman with a gun? Sure. A woman with brass knuckles? Not so much.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Right. A buck, fifty chick with brass knuckles is going to take out a much bigger man. A woman with a gun? Sure. A woman with brass knuckles? Not so much.



I'm saving up for a missile for my wife.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

DOMS said:


> Right. A buck, fifty chick with brass knuckles is going to take out a much bigger man. A woman with a gun? Sure. A woman with brass knuckles? Not so much.



Maybe, maybe not, in some cases yes, others no.

But that's okay because tazors  r legal, I just bought a 3.5million volt taser.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> So our government/military can't control the entire country but they can disarm us? Hmmm, and that would be enforced by whom and how?



I'm voting to make sure they don't disarm us. I'm voting to make sure my representatives know that i have no desire to allow my firearms be taken from me under the guise of legality. There terrible thing is when people hand over their rights willingly under the guise of freedom. 

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin
I believe that completely


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 20, 2013)

Honestly Prince as long as you continue not to vote i'm happy with you believing whatever you want.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> Honestly Prince as long as you continue not to vote i'm happy with you believing whatever you want.



I will never vote so u r set. Lol

Voting is for delusional sheep, I need that time for more important things like posting in threads like this.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I'm voting to make sure they don't disarm us. I'm voting to make sure my representatives know that i have no desire to allow my firearms be taken from me under the guise of legality. There terrible thing is when people hand over their rights willingly under the guise of freedom.
> 
> "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin
> I believe that completely



Exactly!!  They'll never take away my nuclear missiles!  It's my constitutional freedom to have them.


----------



## heavyiron (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> Maybe, maybe not, in some cases yes, others no.
> 
> But that's okay because tazors  r legal, I just bought a 3.5million volt taser.



Kinky...

I had a friend who bought a stun gun and he tried it on himself over at my house when I was in high school. It instantly dropped him and he was unconscience for about 15 seconds...no bueno.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 20, 2013)

heavyiron said:


> Kinky...
> 
> I had a friend who bought a stun gun and he tried it on himself over at my house when I was in high school. It instantly dropped him and he was unconscience for about 15 seconds...no bueno.



Lol


----------



## heavyiron (Mar 20, 2013)

I couldn't tell if he was breathing at first. It was freaky to watch. Stun guns are no joke.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 20, 2013)

heavyiron said:


> Kinky...
> 
> I had a friend who bought a stun gun and he tried it on himself over at my house when I was in high school. It instantly dropped him and he was unconscience for about 15 seconds...no bueno.



I bet, I am curious to see what 3.5 million volts can do. lol


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 20, 2013)

Prince said:


> I bet, I am curious to see what 3.5 million volts can do. lol



Video of you trying it out?  I bet saney would volunteer...


----------



## troubador (Mar 20, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Why not missiles?  No where in the constitution does it say we can't own missiles.  If I'm going to protect myself against an oppressive government, I'm surely going to need missiles, particularly nuclear ones.



I believe you're allowed to own missiles subject to certain guidelines. I also don't think there's technically a law prohibiting people from owning nuclear weapons though it would probably violate a treaty or two and they're illegal to import or build.


----------



## LAM (Mar 20, 2013)

heavyiron said:


> I couldn't tell if he was breathing at first. It was freaky to watch. Stun guns are no joke.



no they aren't.  I bought some of the early ones years ago but just recently have picked up a couple of the newer models along with a taser just to have some non-lethal force to use from a distance.

just the sound of it makes my gf almost shit herself, it's pretty funny..LOL


----------



## LAM (Mar 20, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> I'm voting to make sure they don't disarm us. I'm voting to make sure my representatives know that i have no desire to allow my firearms be taken from me under the guise of legality.



you should do what I have just started to do.  bought some 80% AR-15, AR-10 lowers and some 1911 frames and complete them myself.  just so there is no record with the ATF of these weapons even being in existence.  then they go to a very safe place, just in case.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 21, 2013)

troubador said:


> I believe you're allowed to own missiles subject to certain guidelines. I also don't think there's technically a law prohibiting people from owning nuclear weapons though it would probably violate a treaty or two and they're illegal to import or build.



Lol, I'm pretty sure you can't own missiles.  

The question is should anyone be allowed to own any weapon they want? Of course not.  
There has to be a line drawn somewhere, most just disagree where that point is.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 21, 2013)

Prince said:


> I don't think the government has the right to tell me which types of plants I can grow, nor how high my test levels can be and what type of firearm i can own.



fixed.


----------



## juicespringsteen (Mar 21, 2013)

all of you with these liberal views on guns and second amendment are people who have never had there lives depend on having a gun or not. how many of you have been shook down walking to your car, been a victim of a home invasion, etc... every liberal thinks they dont need or want a gun... until they need a gun when it is THEIR life that hangs in the balance. im all for cleaning up the streets and taking guns out of the hands of the wrong people, but that will never happen with out impinging on our rights and taking guns out of the hands of people that need them. next time a criminal is in your home and you're hiding in your closet hoping the police arrive in time, then tell me your liberal view on weapons


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> no they aren't.  I bought some of the early ones years ago but just recently have picked up a couple of the newer models along with a taser just to have some non-lethal force to use from a distance.
> 
> just the sound of it makes my gf almost shit herself, it's pretty funny..LOL



I'm going to wait till the prices inevitably drop then do the private sale thing. at least utah doesn't get involved in the affairs of private citizens.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> you should do what I have just started to do.  bought some 80% AR-15, AR-10 lowers and some 1911 frames and complete them myself.  just so there is no record with the ATF of these weapons even being in existence.  then they go to a very safe place, just in case.



I must admit lam. on probably 95% of issues I think you are a complete loon, but I would love to get together shoot the bull and go shooting with you. Kelju I only disagree with 50% of the time, but I'd like to hang out with him as well.


----------



## DOMS (Mar 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> no they aren't.  I bought some of the early ones years ago but just recently have picked up a couple of the newer models along with a taser just to have some non-lethal force to use from a distance.
> 
> *just the sound of it makes my gf almost shit herself*, it's pretty funny..LOL



No doubt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daAnzArB5UA


----------



## Arnold (Mar 21, 2013)

DAMN! lol


----------



## Arnold (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> all of you with these liberal views on guns and second amendment are people who have never had there lives depend on having a gun or not. how many of you have been shook down walking to your car, been a victim of a home invasion, etc... every liberal thinks they dont need or want a gun... until they need a gun when it is THEIR life that hangs in the balance. im all for cleaning up the streets and taking guns out of the hands of the wrong people, but that will never happen with out impinging on our rights and taking guns out of the hands of people that need them. next time a criminal is in your home and you're hiding in your closet hoping the police arrive in time, then tell me your liberal view on weapons



I am not a liberal and I own two guns, now what?


----------



## juicespringsteen (Mar 21, 2013)

Prince said:


> I am not a liberal and I own two guns, now what?



then my opinion doesnt apply to you


----------



## juicespringsteen (Mar 21, 2013)

assault weapons have their place in the hands of citizens and they have a place in the world of responsible self defense. dont say that there is no reason to have an assault style rifle unless you plan on doing harm with it. there are plenty of applications where a handgun or shotgun is just insufficient and the wrong tool for the job. not to mention there are plenty of people who just own an assault rifle because they shoot for sport and for the fun of it.

it takes anywhere from 4 to 6 well placed hit to stop a determined threat (excluding shots to the head). add drugs to the equation and that number can double. add two threats to the equation and now that number has doubled again. but of course everyone is a professional speed reloader and keeps plenty of magazines at hand  not to mention that a .223 round is actually safer to discharge inside of a house than most common handgun rounds. dont believe me, then look at the ballistic tests on different calibers invloving drywall


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> assault weapons have their place in the hands of citizens and they have a place in the world of responsible self defense. dont say that there is no reason to have an assault style rifle unless you plan on doing harm with it. there are plenty of applications where a handgun or shotgun is just insufficient and the wrong tool for the job. not to mention there are plenty of people who just own an assault rifle because they shoot for sport and for the fun of it.
> 
> it takes anywhere from 4 to 6 well placed hit to stop a determined threat (excluding shots to the head). add drugs to the equation and that number can double. add two threats to the equation and now that number has doubled again. but of course everyone is a professional speed reloader and keeps plenty of magazines at hand  not to mention that a .223 round is actually safer to discharge inside of a house than most common handgun rounds. dont believe me, then look at the ballistic tests on different calibers invloving drywall



Yes, it's called being in the military and all you have is your 45 sidearm while you're being shot at with ak47's. 

Other than that I don't see any need for a person to own an assault rifle.  They're called assault rifles for a reason, and not toys for your hobby.

And that's a false paradigm, it's not a lib or conserv topic, it's a human thing. 

And why are all your god fearing christians, catholics and such all for assault weapons or a weapon to kill your fellow man anyway,  Jesus didn't carry a piece!


----------



## troubador (Mar 21, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Lol, I'm pretty sure you can't own missiles.
> 
> The question is should anyone be allowed to own any weapon they want? Of course not.
> There has to be a line drawn somewhere, most just disagree where that point is.



I believe you can if the explosive inside are less than a certain amount and probably of certain composition. 

Actually the proposition is that assault weapons should be prohibited and the burden of proof is on those pushing that agenda. I'm in no way obligated to defend against strawman arguments or why anyone needs an AR-15, a pistol that weighs over 1.4kg, a shotgun with a pistol grip or whatever silly prohibitions they want to pass.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> then my opinion doesnt apply to you



but I also agree with the assault weapon ban...now that is really confusing, huh? lol


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 21, 2013)

troubador said:


> I believe you can if the explosive inside are less than a certain amount and probably of certain composition.
> 
> Actually the proposition is that assault weapons should be prohibited and the burden of proof is on those pushing that agenda. *I'm in no way obligated to defend against strawman arguments or why anyone needs an AR-15, a pistol that weighs over 1.4kg, a shotgun with a pistol grip or whatever silly prohibitions they want to pass. *


exactly. thank you. we don't have to prove need for alcohol, cigarettes, sports cars, cell phones, or any other number products out there. and none of those is protected by constitutional amendment. well, i guess alcohol is now. hahah


----------



## jay_steel (Mar 21, 2013)

I agree assault rifles should be regulated an restricted. With that being said my AR-15 is not an assault rifle it is a long rifle. It is registered as a long rifle and also assault rifles are regulated by a class 3 license which is not easy to get. Banning the AR-15 because of what it looks like is fucking retarded. My ranch gun Mini-14 shoots the SAME way as my AR-15 but is not on the ban? As for wanting the tank go for it get the proper license and permits and go get one. One of my neighbours owns a tank not sure which class but he has one. He is a HUGE military historian non of the tanks have active weapon systems but he owns them. Drives them allot of our veterans day parade. 

Every city has a shaddy area where you can acquire illegal guns my friend Tony who I have mentioned before about heavy drug use was one of the biggest dealers where I am from (hes recovered and created a non profit to help save lifes and give kids a chance at life) but he use to be able to walk down the street and buy fully auto glocks, AK's, UZI's, MP5's just about any thing for dirt cheap. CA 30 rnd mags are illegal we are subjected to 10rd so tell me why every one owns a 30rd mag lol. Also here AAS is illegal yet EVERY one gets it... So tell me how effective a ban would be? Crime would go up due to black market and people will still get what they want in the long run.


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 21, 2013)

Don't Be a Menace (4/12) Movie CLIP - Do We Have a Problem? (1996) HD - YouTube


----------



## juicespringsteen (Mar 21, 2013)

Prince said:


> but I also agree with the assault weapon ban...now that is really confusing, huh? lol



nothing special there. there are plenty of americans in the same position as you that hold the same as opinions as yourself. people are entitled to an opinion, people arent entitled to create and pass ass backwards legislation that impinges on the rights of those that dont share their opinion however.


an assault weapons ban will never happen again. end of story. hate to rain on everyone's parade.


this debate will go on forever bc nobody will agree. people will justify their opinions no matter what it is. flip a coin, heads im wrong, tails youre wrong..


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> nothing special there. there are plenty of americans in the same position as you that hold the same as opinions as yourself. people are entitled to an opinion, people arent entitled to create and pass ass backwards legislation that impinges on the rights of those that dont share their opinion however.
> 
> 
> an assault weapons ban will never happen again. end of story. hate to rain on everyone's parade.
> ...



Agreed. A false argument, and it doesn't matter what any of us say. Assault rifles will remain legal and weed/gear will remain illegal.

How abhorrent is that ?


----------



## jay_steel (Mar 21, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> Don't Be a Menace (4/12) Movie CLIP - Do We Have a Problem? (1996) HD - YouTube



hahah nigasake


----------



## LAM (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> all of you with these liberal views on guns and second amendment are people who have never had there lives depend on having a gun or not. how many of you have been shook down walking to your car, been a victim of a home invasion, etc...



being a liberal gun owner and being being ex-SF I know quite a bit about weapons and defensive tactics.  and in reality a long gun or rifle is a horrible choice for close distance self defense.  you would want something with a short bolt like an Uzi, Mac-10 etc. that have much higher rate of fires and don't have to be aimed.  I'm all for the 2nd A but rifles for home defense is laughable for those that do not train to use them as such.  shooting a rifle from the hip isn't so easy in a stressful situation is much harder in reality.  and in reality there are a lot of people that can get from one side of the room to where you are in a second.  the typical "home invasion" and not burglary gone wrong is a planned event with more than 1 perp.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> being a liberal gun owner and being being ex-SF I know quite a bit about weapons and defensive tactics.  and in reality a long gun or rifle is a horrible choice for close distance self defense.  you would want something with a short bolt like an Uzi, Mac-10 etc. that have much higher rate of fires and don't have to be aimed.  I'm all for the 2nd A but rifles for home defense is laughable for those that do not train to use them as such.  shooting a rifle from the hip isn't so easy in a stressful situation is much harder in reality.  and in reality there are a lot of people that can get from one side of the room to where you are in a second.  the typical "home invasion" and not burglary gone wrong is a planned event with more than 1 perp.



That's why I bought a 12 gauge shotgun.


----------



## jay_steel (Mar 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> being a liberal gun owner and being being ex-SF I know quite a bit about weapons and defensive tactics.  and in reality a long gun or rifle is a horrible choice for close distance self defense.  you would want something with a short bolt like an Uzi, Mac-10 etc. that have much higher rate of fires and don't have to be aimed.  I'm all for the 2nd A but rifles for home defense is laughable for those that do not train to use them as such.  shooting a rifle from the hip isn't so easy in a stressful situation is much harder in reality.  and in reality there are a lot of people that can get from one side of the room to where you are in a second.  the typical "home invasion" and not burglary gone wrong is a planned event with more than 1 perp.



I ran many CQB missions with an A4 Carbine and NEVER put my gun on 3rd burst. All ways kept it on semi... an AR with a 16 inch barrel eotech and surefire light is a VERY effective home defence gun. You shoot a pistol your not going to be able to squeez another round fast unless your great at a double tap there is a longer delay between shots where a AR there is little to no recoil. A shotgun is great too but I would rather not fuck up my home more then it needs to be lol. But i do keep a 870 with 2 00 buck and rest slugs under my bed at night, a glock and AR also in hands reach. a MAC 10 is a HORRIBLE gun for home defence have you ever shot one? You will be lucky to only hit what your aiming at the bullet spread is ridiculous. I do believe though that the greatest thing any one can own is a surefire flash light. All my friends buy these guns for home defence, how the hell are they going to shoot in the dark. lol are they going to turn on all the lights in the house hahah. If you dont own one get one.

as for them coming in fast thats what alarms are set for, its smart to own a home alarm and a dog. If any thing gets opened up my alarm will go off in a heart beat and if that doesnt wake them up my two pitts will... Well one of them will go after the other will try to play tug a war with them or fetch. There is no better home defence then a 100lbs pissed off dog.


----------



## jay_steel (Mar 21, 2013)

the gun i want to own though is a AUG i used one in my last tour in Iraq. I was worked allot of missions with AUS and I got to wear there uniform with the American flag and US Navy on it which was cool and got to use the AUG. That gun is BAD ASS... no selector switch at all. Light trigger pull is single shot, pull a lil more burst, all the way back full auto. I was also more accurate with it 50 plus more yards then my A4.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 21, 2013)

Prince said:


> I will never vote so u r set. Lol
> .



 felons can't vote. what was the  charge?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> felons can't vote. what was the  charge?



I have no police record, but thx for asking.


----------



## HFO3 (Mar 21, 2013)

State Felon Voting Laws - Felon Voting - ProCon.org


----------



## troubador (Mar 21, 2013)

Prince said:


> but I also agree with the assault weapon ban...now that is really confusing, huh? lol



No, they even have a name for people like that "Fudd".


----------



## troubador (Mar 21, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> exactly. thank you. we don't have to prove need for alcohol, cigarettes, sports cars, cell phones, or any other number products out there. and none of those is protected by constitutional amendment. well, i guess alcohol is now. hahah



Imagine if everything was illegal until proven worthy of being legalized.

The Brady campaign and their ilk have capitalized on the fact that most people are not able to analyze arguments in a logical manner. The reason they want "a national discussion on gun violence" is to shift the burden of proof onto their opposition. It's the same reason they use the strawman about nuclear weapons, to shift the burden of proof, that gun owners must be the ones to justify which arms are covered under the second amendment.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> all of you with these liberal views on guns and second amendment are people who have never had there lives depend on having a gun or not. how many of you have been shook down walking to your car, been a victim of a home invasion, etc... every liberal thinks they dont need or want a gun... until they need a gun when it is THEIR life that hangs in the balance. im all for cleaning up the streets and taking guns out of the hands of the wrong people, but that will never happen with out impinging on our rights and taking guns out of the hands of people that need them. next time a criminal is in your home and you're hiding in your closet hoping the police arrive in time, then tell me your liberal view on weapons



I am liberal on some issues and I own 2 guns, so what's your point?

I have no idea where the line should be drawn, but there needs to be a limit on what kind of weapons you can own.  For instance, a group of radical Muslims should not be able to own grenades, missiles tanks nor submarines.  

Is it the opinion of all conservatives that people should be able to own any weapon they wish?  Probably not.  Not all liberals want all weapons taken away either.  Get it?


----------



## juicespringsteen (Mar 21, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> I am liberal on some issues and I own 2 guns, so what's your point?
> 
> I have no idea where the line should be drawn, but there needs to be a limit on what kind of weapons you can own.  For instance, a group of radical Muslims should not be able to own grenades, missiles tanks nor submarines.
> 
> Is it the opinion of all conservatives that people should be able to own any weapon they wish?  Probably not.  Not all liberals want all weapons taken away either.  Get it?



well if you dont have a liberal view on gun control then what i wrote doesnt apply to you. get it?


----------



## juicespringsteen (Mar 21, 2013)

i merely came into this thread to express my opinions, just as everyone else did. please dont take what i said personally, as i didnt mean to offend or throw any group of people under the bus. i'm just looking to debate and hear other views on the topic. i don't have very many people to talk to about issues such as gun control haha so this is an outlet


----------



## DOMS (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> i merely came into this thread to express my opinions, just as everyone else did. please dont take what i said personally, as *i didnt mean to offend or throw any group of people under the bus*. i'm just looking to debate and hear other views on the topic. i don't have very many people to talk to about issues such as gun control haha so this is an outlet



You'd better not! That's my job.


----------



## LAM (Mar 21, 2013)

Swiper said:


> felons can't vote. what was the  charge?



sure they can, it all depends on the degree of the felony and the state.  depending on those factors voting rights are either automatically restored upon completion of parole or after getting a lawyer, petitioning the court, etc.

sentencing is different in all 50 states as are the terms of probation, parole and rights restoration.  in certain states being a felon disqualifies you from all welfare bennies (TANF, etc.) while others it depends on the charge.


----------



## HFO3 (Mar 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> sure they can, it all depends on the degree of the felony and the state.  depending on those factors voting rights are either automatically restored upon completion of parole or after getting a lawyer, petitioning the court, etc.
> 
> sentencing is different in all 50 states as are the terms of probation, parole and rights restoration.  in certain states being a felon disqualifies you from all welfare bennies (TANF, etc.) while others it depends on the charge.



Check Post 124, it has a link on this.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> well if you dont have a liberal view on gun control then what i wrote doesnt apply to you. get it?



You didn't offend, no worries.  I honestly don't care about this issue so I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but it seems like things are treated like its a black and white issue by both sides.  Conservatives think that if you want to limit certain types of weapons, then you're against all guns, and if you're liberal, you think conservatives want to allow any type of weapon to anyone.

Isn't there a middle of the road?  Shouldn't some weapons not be allowed?


----------



## juicespringsteen (Mar 21, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> You didn't offend, no worries.  I honestly don't care about this issue so I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but it seems like things are treated like its a black and white issue by both sides.  Conservatives think that if you want to limit certain types of weapons, then you're against all guns, and if you're liberal, you think conservatives want to allow any type of weapon to anyone.
> 
> Isn't there a middle of the road?  Shouldn't some weapons not be allowed?



I agree that some weapons should not be allowed, but those revisions were taken care of by the National Firearms Act of 1934. I actually agree with the NFA of 1934, as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. There are ways around that act; however, and automatic weapons still end up in the hands of criminals. We can try to regulate all we want, but blanket legislation doesnt solve individual crimes/massacres.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> I agree that some weapons should not be allowed, but those revisions were taken care of by the National Firearms Act of 1934. I actually agree with the NFA of 1934, as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. There are ways around that act; however, and automatic weapons still end up in the hands of criminals. We can try to regulate all we want, but blanket legislation doesnt solve individual crimes/massacres.



I completely agree.


----------



## LAM (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> I agree that some weapons should not be allowed, but those revisions were taken care of by the National Firearms Act of 1934. I actually agree with the NFA of 1934, as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. There are ways around that act; however, and automatic weapons still end up in the hands of criminals. We can try to regulate all we want, but blanket legislation doesnt solve individual crimes/massacres.



the NFA does no such thing, the original '34 act is all about taxation and registration.  it doesn't address anything really.  person to person firearms sales aren't even required to be reported to the ATF.


----------



## juicespringsteen (Mar 21, 2013)

LAM said:


> the NFA does no such thing, the original '34 act is all about taxation and registration.  it doesn't address anything really.  person to person firearms sales aren't even required to be reported to the ATF.



excuse my vagueness. the NFAof 34 "led" to what i stated


----------



## troubador (Mar 21, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> You didn't offend, no worries.  I honestly don't care about this issue so I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but it seems like things are treated like its a black and white issue by both sides.  Conservatives think that if you want to limit certain types of weapons, then you're against all guns, and if you're liberal, you think conservatives want to allow any type of weapon to anyone.



That stems from the agenda of those introducing the legislation. Many of these people know an AWB has no effect on crime. Biden explicitly stated it will not fundamentally alter the possibility of another mass shooting. We've had an assault weapons ban before, there are no unbiased reports stating that it reduced crime. Also, it seems like it would be obvious but the 94 AWB had no coherence in which guns it targeted except that they looked scary. Nearly all of the features included in the ban have no effect on the lethalality of the weapon. Look it up. Pistol grips on shotguns, barrel shrouds, pistols that weigh a certain amount, forward grips,etc, it seems like they put a bunch of gun features into a hat and started drawing them out...except what they really did was to figure out what was marketable gun control. You're right not all people in support of another AWB want to ban all guns but many of the people actually pushing the legislation do because it is by design a gun ban that they can market to people who don't necessarily want to ban all guns. 



> Isn't there a middle of the road? Shouldn't some weapons not be allowed?


I don't understand your concern. I can't think of anyone attempting to introduce legislation to allow a weapon that is currently illegal to own, much less that all should be allowed.


----------



## troubador (Mar 21, 2013)

juicespringsteen said:


> I agree that some weapons should not be allowed, but those revisions were taken care of by the National Firearms Act of 1934. I actually agree with the NFA of 1934, as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. There are ways around that act; however, and automatic weapons still end up in the hands of criminals. We can try to regulate all we want, but blanket legislation doesnt solve individual crimes/massacres.



I think automatic weapons should be allowed. I'd feel much safer if I were in a mass shooting situation and some idiot was using an automatic weapon; that's more rounds spent per target. An M4 on full auto can empty a 30 rnd mag in 1.8s... 
Well unless it's Arnold with infinity capacity mags.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 21, 2013)

troubador said:


> That stems from the agenda of those introducing the legislation. Many of these people know an AWB has no effect on crime. Biden explicitly stated it will not fundamentally alter the possibility of another mass shooting. We've had an assault weapons ban before, there are no unbiased reports stating that it reduced crime. Also, it seems like it would be obvious but the 94 AWB had no coherence in which guns it targeted except that they looked scary. Nearly all of the features included in the ban have no effect on the lethalality of the weapon. Look it up. Pistol grips on shotguns, barrel shrouds, pistols that weigh a certain amount, forward grips,etc, it seems like they put a bunch of gun features into a hat and started drawing them out...except what they really did was to figure out what was marketable gun control. You're right not all people in support of another AWB want to ban all guns but many of the people actually pushing the legislation do because it is by design a gun ban that they can market to people who don't necessarily want to ban all guns.
> 
> 
> I don't understand your concern. I can't think of anyone attempting to introduce legislation to allow a weapon that is currently illegal to own, much less that all should be allowed.



All valid points that I agree with.  I'm not defending any legislation, just annoyed that people associate any discussion of making certain weapons illegal w trying to take every gun away, even if the legislation is retarded as you pointed out.


----------



## LAM (Mar 21, 2013)

troubador said:


> We've had an assault weapons ban before, there are no unbiased reports stating that it reduced crime. Also, it seems like it would be obvious but the 94 AWB had no coherence in which guns it targeted except that they looked scary. Nearly all of the features included in the ban have no effect on the lethalality of the weapon.



there's far too many already out there for a ban to have any measurable effect.  all the 94 AWB did was drive up prices and gun sales.  when you look at the numbers and see who is buying all these guns it's us pre-existing gun owners buying more guns. the percentage of gun ownership as a percentage of the US population is constantly decreasing.  and the fact that us gun owners increase the number of firearms we have also doesn't make us any more safe.

so what effect do these "laws" and political stunts have?  zero effect on crime but a very positive effect on gun exports from the US to other country's.  it has nothing at all to do with protecting US citizens and everything to do with increasing the profits of gun manufactures.

White House Efforts to Relax Gun Exports Face Resistance 
White House Efforts to Relax Gun Exports Face Resistance - WSJ.com


----------



## Valkyrie (Mar 21, 2013)

The right to bear arms has nothing go do with dead kids. Sorry.  That is our right as Americans to arm ourselves in case we ever want to fight the government.  

Non Americans need not discuss.


----------



## PreMier (Mar 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> guns are false security when it comes to what your talking about.  the shit they have locked up in Ft Dietrich renders all of our small arms obsolete.  when your shitting your intestines out of your asshole and your face is sloughing off, a gun is useless.
> 
> it's not the 1700's anymore.  when the end of the US comes and eventually it will they will need to wipe out a sizable portion of the population and they will do that with biological weapons.



while i dont agree with the assault weapons ban, because i feel the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from the govt, LAM is right on this.  there are so many bio/chem weapons lethal and non-lethal weapons that the military possesses, its scary.  i have to train for cbrne attacks all the time, and i hope i never have to dawn my m50

so i dont know what to think.. at least from a logical standpoint on what should be done.


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 22, 2013)

according to this study by the wall street journel the large majority of murders are commited by blacks, seems the solution would be to ban blacks not assualt weapons
Murder in America - WSJ.com


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 22, 2013)

according to FBI stats more people are murdered with knives than rifles and shotguns, handguns make up the bulk of crime. maybe we should ban knives

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: How People Are Murdered in the United States


----------



## LAM (Mar 22, 2013)

PreMier said:


> while i dont agree with the assault weapons ban, because i feel the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from the govt, LAM is right on this.  there are so many bio/chem weapons lethal and non-lethal weapons that the military possesses, its scary.  i have to train for cbrne attacks all the time, and i hope i never have to dawn my m50
> 
> so i dont know what to think.. at least from a logical standpoint on what should be done.



US government reports & documents, briefings from global think tanks, etc. have all been talking about depopulation since the 60's and 70's.  obviously none of this stuff ever gets reported by the "lamestream media".

here are 2 examples:

* this one an investigative piece about policy co-authored by Henry Kissenger

EIR Special Report
The Haig-Kissinger Depopulation Policy
by Lonnie Wolfe

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792&context=ealr

this text is cut and pasted from the 1st page:

Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating
outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the
world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease, and any
other means necessary.

This apparatus, which includes various levels of the government, is
determining U.S. foreign policy. In every political hotspot-EI Salvador, the
so-called arc of crisis in the Persian Gulf, Latin America, Southeast Asia,
and in Africa-the goal of U.S. foreign policy is popUlation reduction.
The targeting agency for the operation is the National Security Council's
Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy. Its policy-planning group is in the U.S.
State Department's Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by
Henry Kissinger.

This group drafted the Carter administration's Global 2000 document,
which calls for global population reduction, and the same apparatus is
conducting the civil war in EI Salvador as a conscious depopulation project.

"There is a single theme behind all our work-we must reduce popUlation
levels," said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State
Department's Office of Population Affairs (OPA). "Either they [governments]
do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of
mess that we have in EI Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a
political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian
government, even fascism, to reduce it.

"The professionals, " said Ferguson, "aren't interested in lowering population
for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources
and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say
that this country must lower its popUlation-or else we will have trouble. So
steps are taken. EI Salvador is an example where our failure to lower
population by simple means has created the basis for a national security
crisis. The government of EI Salvador failed to use our programs to lower
their population. Now they get a civil war because of it. ... There will be
dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there."

* this document was developed based off the Haig-Kissinger Policy from the Carter Admin:

8-1-1980
The Global 2000 Report to the President
Gus Speth
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792&context=ealr

cut and pasted from bottom of the 1st page:

* The Global 2000 Study, initiated by President Carter in 1977, is a three-year effort by
the federal government to discover the long-term implications of present world trends in
population, natural resources and the environment. The report was prepared by the President's
Council on Environmental Quality of which Gus Speth is Chairman, in conjunction
with the Department of State and eleven other federal agencies. Gerald O. Barney is the
study director. Global 2000 was transmitted to President Carter on July 24, 1980. The following
is an edited version of the report. Copies of the report in its entirety may be obtained
from the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402.


----------



## LAM (Mar 22, 2013)

here's that 2nd link :

The Haig-Kissinger Depopulation Policy
by Lonnie Wolfe

http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1...10310_028-the_haig_kissinger_depopulation.pdf


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> there's far too many already out there for a ban to have any measurable effect.  all the 94 AWB did was drive up prices and gun sales.  when you look at the numbers and see *who is buying all these guns it's us pre-existing gun owners buying more guns.* the percentage of gun ownership as a percentage of the US population is constantly decreasing.  and the fact that us gun owners increase the number of firearms we have also doesn't make us any more safe.
> 
> so what effect do these "laws" and political stunts have?  zero effect on crime but a very positive effect on gun exports from the US to other country's.  it has nothing at all to do with protecting US citizens and everything to do with increasing the profits of gun manufactures.
> 
> ...


I read this all of the time, and yet it doesn't hold up to the real world. Go into any gun store, and i've spent a lot of time in many, and the mix is about 50/50 right now. I can't count the amount of times i've waited in line behind multiple first time gun owners filling out forms.


----------



## PreMier (Mar 22, 2013)

Those population control measures actually don't surprise me one bit.


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> here's that 2nd link :
> 
> The Haig-Kissinger Depopulation Policy
> by Lonnie Wolfe
> ...


  educated and career minded folk usually stop at 1 or 2 children, poor third world folk usually have tons of kids they cant feed. I would think the obvious solution would be education and giving these people jobs so they have something to do all day rather than make babies


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2013)

PreMier said:


> Those population control measures actually don't surprise me one bit.



And yet the damn population continues to go up. 

Guess we need to step up our efforts on the population control. obviously a bullet at a time is not effective enough


----------



## DOMS (Mar 22, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> educated and career minded folk usually stop at 1 or 2 children, poor third world folk usually have tons of kids they cant feed. I would think the obvious solution would be education and giving these people jobs so they have something to do all day rather than make babies



I think it would make more sense to just send them back to their turd-world country.


----------



## PreMier (Mar 22, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> And yet the damn population continues to go up.
> 
> Guess we need to step up our efforts on the population control. obviously a bullet at a time is not effective enough



i dont agree with them by any means, and who knows if they are being legitimately implemented.. i just wouldnt put it past our govt to come up with something like this


----------



## LAM (Mar 22, 2013)

PreMier said:


> Those population control measures actually don't surprise me one bit.



it's one of the reason's how and why you can trace the spread of AIDS in Africa to the WHO & the US.  parts of the virus have signatures directly linked to the SS Gestapo.  many members having been recruited by the CIA post WWII.

many texts and speeches by world leaders the world bank president bank in the 70's ALL talk about population problems and control.


----------



## LAM (Mar 22, 2013)

DOMS said:


> I think it would make more sense to just send them back to their turd-world country.



in a consumption based society a small population in an advanced society equals less GDP.  it's all about the numbers, you should have realized this by now.  all those people you don't like aren't going anywhere.  they serve a specific economic purpose


----------



## IronAddict (Mar 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> it's one of the reason's how and why you can trace the spread of AIDS in Africa to the WHO & the US.  parts of the virus have signatures directly linked to the SS Gestapo.  many members having been recruited by the CIA post WWII.
> 
> many texts and speeches by world leaders the world bank president bank in the 70's ALL talk about population problems and control.



Yup, technology and many of their secrets for immunity.


----------



## LAM (Mar 22, 2013)

heckler7 said:


> educated and career minded folk usually stop at 1 or 2 children, poor third world folk usually have tons of kids they cant feed. I would think the obvious solution would be education and giving these people jobs so they have something to do all day rather than make babies



poor people in the US and in every country through out history has done the exact same thing.  it's one of the inherent problems with a large undereducated class that either lives in poverty or teeters on the brink.  

look at the Irish & Italian Catholics in the US they no longer have the huge families that they used to decades ago.  most of my friends in Philly are either Irish or Italian and they are all 1 of 5-6, 1 of 7, 1 of 8, etc. and now because of the economy and the cost of raising children they only have 1-2 kids.  coincidentally I also have to say I notice a lot less interest in religion with each generation of immigrants so I'm sure that also is a factor.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 22, 2013)

Agentyes said:


> The right to bear arms has nothing go do with dead kids. Sorry.  That is our right as Americans to arm ourselves in case we ever want to fight the government.
> 
> Non Americans need not discuss.



Lol, I'm pretty sure that guns won't help you fight the government.  They have a few fighter jets and nuclear missiles.


----------



## Dark Geared God (Mar 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> it's one of the reason's how and why you can trace the spread of AIDS in Africa to the WHO & the US. parts of the virus have signatures directly linked to the SS Gestapo. many members having been recruited by the CIA post WWII.
> 
> many texts and speeches by world leaders the world bank president bank in the 70's ALL talk about population problems and control.


you really believe that..wow you are fuck up..man get sum meds


----------



## DOMS (Mar 22, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Lol, I'm pretty sure that guns won't help you fight the government.  They have a few fighter jets and nuclear missiles.



You're so right. It'd be a tough fight against a large, better armed, force. Of course there's no point. Wow, it's just like you're channeling the Founding Fathers.

On one hand, you talk about how you don't trust the government, and with the other, you talk about how we should just rollover and take it. ?That's awesome.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2013)

PreMier said:


> i dont agree with them by any means, and who knows if they are being legitimately implemented.. i just wouldnt put it past our govt to come up with something like this



I agree, i put nothing past our government. All the more reason I want to protect my guns.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Lol, I'm pretty sure that guns won't help you fight the government.  They have a few fighter jets and nuclear missiles.



The use of guns is the deterrent. no one wants to fight their government or use guns against them. A military of 500k, used to suppress their own families. vs 350M total armed population. The point is superior numbers even with small arms can work as an effective deterrent. Right now, even with all the planes tanks and weaponry the US government has it could not occupy the entire country while armed. probably a couple of major population centers, though not all. disarm us, and it's all over.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 22, 2013)

Agentyes said:


> That is our right as Americans to arm ourselves in case we ever want to fight the government.



LOL, like we would have a chance in fucking hell against the Federal government.


----------



## troubador (Mar 22, 2013)

Why do people assume it would be civilians versus "the government"? That's not how it happened in the only civil war we've had. The second amendment also symbolizes the willingness of the people to maintain their freedom. I'd be more worried about a time when the people wish to give up their arms than the government forcefully trying to take them.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 22, 2013)

troubador said:


> Why do people assume it would be civilians versus "the government"? That's not how it happened in the only civil war we've had. The second amendment also symbolizes the willingness of the people to maintain their freedom. I'd be more worried about a time when the people wish to give up their arms than the government forcefully trying to take them.



how can civilians fight the power of the US military, not to mention these new drones.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2013)

Prince said:


> how can civilians fight the power of the US military, not to mention these new drones.



How can the federal government expect to occupy an armed civilian population of 350M?  drones, or not? To occupy you have to have boots on the ground. Every war in history has taught us that. Drones or not there isn't the manpower to do it, unless we are unarmed and unable to defend ourselves when boots are on the ground. Kinda like how it only took a few men with box cutters to control a plane of hundreds on 9/11. same principle.


----------



## troubador (Mar 22, 2013)

Prince said:


> how can civilians fight the power of the US military, not to mention these new drones.



Good point but why do people assume it would be civilians versus the US military? That's not how it happened in the only civil war we've had.


----------



## troubador (Mar 22, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> How can the federal government expect to occupy an armed civilian population of 350M?  drones, or not? To occupy you have to have boots on the ground. Every war in history has taught us that. Drones or not there isn't the manpower to do it, unless we are unarmed and unable to defend ourselves when boots are on the ground. Kinda like how it only took a few men with box cutters to control a plane of hundreds on 9/11. same principle.



In the event a majority of the population rebels, so will military members. This all the people versus all the military scenario will never happen.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2013)

troubador said:


> In the event a majority of the population rebels, so will military members. This all the people versus all the military scenario will never happen.



I was thinking about before the rebellion began. More in the events leading up to a hypothetical rebellion. When an agency is expanded, or federal police is created and either given expanded powers like a gestapo.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 22, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> How can the federal government expect to occupy an armed civilian population of 350M?  drones, or not? To occupy you have to have boots on the ground. Every war in history has taught us that. Drones or not there isn't the manpower to do it, unless we are unarmed and unable to defend ourselves when boots are on the ground. Kinda like how it only took a few men with box cutters to control a plane of hundreds on 9/11. same principle.



blow the fuck out of everyone they want to get rid of first, then take over all areas of the US that they don't blow up.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2013)

Prince said:


> blow the fuck out of everyone they want to get rid of first, then take over all areas of the US that they don't blow up.



damn, why didn't we think of that outstanding and simplistic strategy in Iraq, and Afghanistan?


----------



## Arnold (Mar 22, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> damn, why didn't we think of that outstanding and simplistic strategy in Iraq, and Afghanistan?



good question, might as well have.


----------



## Swiper (Mar 22, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Lol, I'm pretty sure that guns won't help you fight the government.  They have a few fighter jets and nuclear missiles.



that's why we should be allowed to have the same weapons as the govt.


----------



## Arnold (Mar 22, 2013)

Swiper said:


> that's why we should be allowed to have the same weapons as the govt.



Exactly, in the beginning of this thread I said I wanted to buy a tank and other military weapons.


----------



## Valkyrie (Mar 22, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Lol, I'm pretty sure that guns won't help you fight the government.  They have a few fighter jets and nuclear missiles.



It doesn't matter and I didn't say beat the government.  I would rather fight with a gun that without one whether or not I have a chance of winning.  The founders of our country preferred that for me as well - to the extent that they wrote it into our constitution.  


I will not give up this right willingly.


----------



## heckler7 (Mar 22, 2013)

Prince said:


> blow the fuck out of everyone they want to get rid of first, then take over all areas of the US that they don't blow up.


I vote we start with those who oppose gear abuse


----------



## Swiper (Mar 22, 2013)

Prince said:


> Exactly, in the beginning of this thread I said I wanted to buy a tank and other military weapons.



yeah the only difference is i mean it, you said it as a joke.


----------



## exphys88 (Mar 22, 2013)

DOMS said:


> You're so right. It'd be a tough fight against a large, better armed, force. Of course there's no point. Wow, it's just like you're channeling the Founding Fathers.
> 
> On one hand, you talk about how you don't trust the government, and with the other, you talk about how we should just rollover and take it. ?That's awesome.



Roll over and take what?  I want a gun to protect myself from other Americans is all I was saying.


----------



## LAM (Mar 22, 2013)

troubador said:


> In the event a majority of the population rebels, so will military members. This all the people versus all the military scenario will never happen.



UN peacekeepers.  out of almost 95K troops 117 of them are from the US for the grand total of .12%.  and if you look at the majority of the country's whose member states comprise the largest percentage of troops.  they will have ZERO problems firing on Americans.

http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2013/jan13_1.pdf

there are also dozens of private global security firms out there with tens of thousands of personnel.  that would also have zero problems with firing on American's.  don't be so naive as to think what the US government wouldn't do to those in the now growing underclass.  as US history shows they can and will do anything they want.

lots of people talk a good game until the bullets start buzzing by their heads.  and anybody that has been in combat knows exactly what I'm talking about.  and all of those cheap ass papermache houses that they have built all over the country don't stop bullets for shit.  and don't forget that 50% of the country is obese.  wtf are a bunch of fat stupid, lazy, junk food and reality tv watching bastards going to do when the shit hits the fan?  die...


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2013)

exphys88 said:


> Roll over and take what?  I want a gun to protect myself from other Americans is all I was saying.



And from that perspective i believe americans should be just as well armed as the police as we face the same dangers they do, but we face it before the call comes in. So by that regards I want an AR just like they carry.


----------



## bio-chem (Mar 22, 2013)

LAM said:


> UN peacekeepers.  out of almost 95K troops 117 of them are from the US for the grand total of .12%.  and if you look at the majority of the country's whose member states comprise the largest percentage of troops.  they will have ZERO problems firing on Americans.
> 
> http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/contributors/2013/jan13_1.pdf
> 
> ...



so in your scenario the US government invites foreign soldiers on US soil to contain the revolting population? damn, and i thought i was a radical on this issue


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 23, 2013)

It's dropped.  For now.


----------



## LAM (Mar 23, 2013)

bio-chem said:


> so in your scenario the US government invites foreign soldiers on US soil to contain the revolting population? damn, and i thought i was a radical on this issue



not my scenario the leaders of this country....

U.S Dept of State
Joint Statement by the India - U.S. Joint Working Group on UN Peacekeeping


U.N. peace keeping troops in U.S. Soil, BUT WHY? - YouTube

* there is never a smoking gun in regards to half of this stuff but if you put all the pieces together, there's nothing good coming in the future for the majority.  if you've ever read any of the UN resolutions from the website of which i've read every single one since the UN was formed.  90% of the text and verbiage is in regards to natural resources.  which ultimately are the basic building blocks of the means of production and economy's.  same thing goes for the federal reserves beige book.  they are texts filled with the coldest language you could imagine.  basically breaking down the global population into one of two groups, producers or consumers.  now which one are you?


----------



## dogsoldier (Mar 29, 2013)

LAM said:


> you should do what I have just started to do.  bought some 80% AR-15, AR-10 lowers and some 1911 frames and complete them myself.  just so there is no record with the ATF of these weapons even being in existence.  then they go to a very safe place, just in case.



Where you finding the 80% receivers LAM? They have pretty much dried up.  I bought a couple AR15's and just finished machining a 80% Commander sized 1911 receiver.  Those things are getting pretty scarce with all the panic buying.


----------



## Zaphod (Mar 30, 2013)

dogsoldier said:


> Where you finding the 80% receivers LAM? They have pretty much dried up.  I bought a couple AR15's and just finished machining a 80% Commander sized 1911 receiver.  Those things are getting pretty scarce with all the panic buying.



That is what I would like to know.  Where to get the 80% complete receivers and who do you have finish them up?


----------



## LAM (Mar 30, 2013)

dogsoldier said:


> Where you finding the 80% receivers LAM? They have pretty much dried up.  I bought a couple AR15's and just finished machining a 80% Commander sized 1911 receiver.  Those things are getting pretty scarce with all the panic buying.



I got mine at Guns for Sale - Online Gun Auction - Buy Guns at GunBroker.com but you can also find them at:

AR-15 RECEIVERS

https://colfaxtactical.com/products.html

KT Ordnance - Dillon, MT - Order Page

Lower Receivers


how did you get your rails to match up on the 1911?


----------



## LAM (Mar 30, 2013)

Zaphod said:


> That is what I would like to know.  Where to get the 80% complete receivers and who do you have finish them up?



in order for it to be all legal with the ATF you have to complete the millwork yourself.  you can do it with a drill press and the right bits and a jig from cncguns below.  I bought the jigs and am going to send them off to one of my buddies when I'm done with them and we are going to pass them around to our other friends.

CNCGUNSMITHING - www.cncguns.com - AR15 80% Lower Receiver Tutorial

great instructions at this site, I also have a more complete PDF I can email to you.


----------



## MDR (Mar 31, 2013)

Even the term "assault weapon" is misleading.  There is no such category of weapon.  All guns are weapons capable of assault.  Guns are here to stay in the U.S.


----------

