crackwilly21 Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 I doubt there will be an assault weapons ban, BUT I think this whole thing is a little bit ridiculous. If Feinstein were able to get this bill through and signed into law (which I seriously doubt will ever happen), I believe it might lead the US into a second civil war or revolution. I don't believe our constitutional rights have been in such danger since Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus in 1862. Here is a link to Feinstein's proposal. Just looking to see what you guys might think about this whole thing. I've been keeping pretty close tabs on it and am bombarded with it every single day since the shooting in Connecticut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 http://forum.theforsakenlands.org/showthread.php?t=30431 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 So... internment of Japanese Americans, Jim Crow, DOMA, the Patriot Act, drone execution of American citizens without trial... these were/are lesser threats to constitutional rights than a bill that will not pass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Disarmament is always the first step in the rise of a tyrannical government. In those terms, nothing else is nearly as dangerous to the rights of free men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 No one's going to take your pinky daisy pellet gun, relax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trick Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Disarmament is always the first step in the rise of a tyrannical government. In those terms' date=' nothing else is nearly as dangerous to the rights of free men.[/quote'] Because Canada, UK, Singapore, Australia, and Japan are in danger of tyrannical governments? I am so tired of hearing about this gun ban stuff or reading about it on every redneck's facebook post. It's not going to pass. And if it did, GOOD. There is ZERO reason a standard citizen needs to carry such heavy duty weaponry. The end of the world is not happening. Zombies are fake. Our military is strong enough to keep everyone else at bay. That right was created in time when our military was not yet strong enough to withstand the armies of our enemies. That is no longer the case. Yes, guns are kinda cool. I enjoy shooting them from time to time. I only ever really fire because I am required to by the military. You want to carry an assault rifle? Join up. We need the soldiers. You'll even get your own M4 carbine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 A ban on assault weapons is about as likely to stop gun-related deaths as a ban on abortions is to stop sex. EDIT: Japan doesn't count. They just recently got their military back after being fanatics to the Emperor as God. Fascism. Another tyrannical government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trick Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Assault weapons are simply not needed. A pistol is enough to protect your house. A rifle you can hunt with. An automatic weapon is used for...? Oh yeah, war. We use them in war..Awesome. So, why does the average citizen need one? " Because its our RIGHT! " (Said in a hick, redneck accent). Okay, sure. It's your right. What else ya got? "Making guns illegal only means that criminals will have'em!" Really? Because the kids were murdered with weapons that were legal..What else ya got? " If the government decides to turn on us! " (Another redneck accent) Yeah? Then what..? You're gonna go all Sylvester Stallone/Commando and take'em on with your AR-15? Get serious. The government won't do this. How do I know? Because I'm not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crackwilly21 Posted December 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Assault weapons for private ownership were banned in 1986, with the exception of ones that had already been registered. The term assault rifle and assault weapon is thrown around a LOT. By definition an "assault weapon/rifle" is a rifle capable of fully automatic fire. Personally I think you should be within your legal rights as an American citizen to go into ANY store that sells guns and buy a full auto m-16 or uzi if you want to. Also, Trick, its not about NEED. It is a birthright of the American citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Because Canada, UK, Singapore, Australia, and Japan are in danger of tyrannical governments? I am so tired of hearing about this gun ban stuff or reading about it on every redneck's facebook post. It's not going to pass. And if it did, GOOD. There is ZERO reason a standard citizen needs to carry such heavy duty weaponry. The end of the world is not happening. Zombies are fake. Our military is strong enough to keep everyone else at bay. That right was created in time when our military was not yet strong enough to withstand the armies of our enemies. That is no longer the case. Yes, guns are kinda cool. I enjoy shooting them from time to time. I only ever really fire because I am required to by the military. You want to carry an assault rifle? Join up. We need the soldiers. You'll even get your own M4 carbine! I didn't say the bill was likely to pass... my post was a response to Pali's question. However, to respond to this, there is plenty of reason for the average citizen to own heavy weaponry. Honestly, the average citizen should be able to purchase own absolutely any piece of hardware that a police force has access to. Some may claim its for hunting or simply a hobby, but it's most important use is as a deterrent.... not against other armies, but against out own government overstepping its bounds. You may say that that's a ridiculous idea, and I hope it would never come to that, but its naive to say it's an impossibility. Thomas Jefferson: The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government. Walter E. Williams: The framers gave us the Second Amendment not so we could go deer or duck hunting but to give us a modicum of protection against congressional tyranny. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman: Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. Robert H. Jackson: It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Also, the wording of that specific bill makes assault weapons out to be more than just something like a machine gun, which is what most people think of. I own a Glock .45, which holds 14 rounds. Anything over 10 rounds is considered a high capacity ammunition clip. Suddenly, my handgun is an assault weapon. BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trick Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 I don't know why I even posted. I really don't want to get into this argument, mainly because I am not educated enough on the topics. I am just a person that is against it. Ease of access means ease of abuse to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Disarmament is always the first step in the rise of a tyrannical government. In those terms' date=' nothing else is nearly as dangerous to the rights of free men.[/quote'] Quite so. That the US govt. will not allow me my own personal nuclear arsenal I find very tyrannical. I was just making a joke at what I view as hyperbole, not attempting to re-open the gun control discussion. Bills that will not pass I see as examples of govt. inefficiency more than as a real threat to my rights, else I'd have long ago provided examples of such from theocratic House Tea Party members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Trick, never give up your right to be wrong. It's a way to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trick Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Trick' date=' never give up your right to be wrong. It's a way to learn.[/quote'] I don't believe I am wrong in the slightest. I just don't care enough anymore. This argument will never really be over and all the people will demand weaponry they have no use for. Arguing on these forums, after my years of doing it, is pointless. Everyone will always have another comeback until the thread slowly disappears. Unfortunately, the ban will not be passed and all you end of the world fanatics will continue to have all the weaponry you want for whatever reason you want them for. Unfortunately, they will lead to more deaths. But, hey, as long as you have YOUR AR -15 right, Valek? Not going to add anything mean that will get me banned..but..hey..have fun bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 My beef is that I don't agree with the slack regulations. I agree people should be able to own whatever gun they want. But those people need to be well regulated (read: very well educated, trained, monitored, etc). Not just "oh, hey, u just turned 21 and havent killed anyone, yet, here's your fully automatic rifle with armor piercing rounds." People get so focused on what their rights are they neglect the heavy responsibilities that rights come with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imoutgoodbye Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 Re Trick: You said you weren't going to post here because you lacked the education to get into it. This was taken as you didn't have enough facts/research and were afraid of being rebuffed for this. This is your right to be wrong and learn from it. Also, if other people say you're wrong about the right to automatic weapons, that would also be your right to be wrong. If you say I'm wrong about owning one, then that's my right to be wrong. Since we both believe we're right, talking it over will lead to someone learning something at some point. Which is a smaller, more local version of what it means to have a right to be wrong. Chill out. There wasn't anything personal there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 27, 2012 Report Share Posted December 27, 2012 I say we make owning a gun as regulated a right as voting - you need an ID, must register, wait in lines for hours and can only buy on one day of the year every couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aulian Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 Just someones perspective thats not from the states. The rest of the world looks at your gun culture and laughs - you're all bat**** crazy. You look at these tradgedies where 5-12 year olds are shot dead and the guns used didnt even have trigger locks? Or were kept in a gun safe? Are you all retarded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 Easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inscribed Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 Just someones perspective thats not from the states. The rest of the world looks at your gun culture and laughs - you're all bat**** crazy. You look at these tradgedies where 5-12 year olds are shot dead and the guns used didnt even have trigger locks? Or were kept in a gun safe? Are you all retarded? Similar tragedies have happened in other countries with far stricter gun control than we have. One irresponsible gun owner doesn't represent everyone! Honestly, we will probably never know all of the details of what happened there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 Similar tragedies have happened in other countries with far stricter gun control than we have. One irresponsible gun owner doesn't represent everyone! Honestly' date=' we will probably never know all of the details of what happened there.[/quote'] All true, though the incident rate is significantly higher here than in other mostly-comparable nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreir Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 Aulian's point is these "retards" didn't own guns that are not responsible enough for them to happen, then perhaps the rate of these issues happening here in our country would go down. I'm not naive enough to think that just because a kid can't access his parents guns doesn't mean he's not going to find them somewhere else...but a deterrent would help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aulian Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 Well then reform the laws around selling guns to a minor. Selling a glock for $150 bucks on the corner wont seem worth it if they (if they can prove it) have a chance to go to jail for 25-life. How about this, all guns have a serial number right? Every gun sold must have that serial number registered. (And it will be registered to the shop until it is sold.) If it is lost or stolen and you dont report it - YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. You will be charged along with the murderer. (If you do loose the weapon you should be fined etc. If you think you are responsible enough to own a weapon, you should be responsible enough to KEEP that weapon.) If it is registered to your name and the weapon is used in a crime - YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE. You will be charged along with the armed robber etc. How long will it take for people to start protecting their weapons? Storing them in locked safes. Getting rid of them because suddenly the risk became too much to keep 10 - 12 automatic rifles and 25 hand guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 Frankly, I find the prevalence of guns in the US on its own to be far less of an issue than the fact that we've created a society where so many of us are so afraid of our fellow countrymen that we feel we need to be lethally armed at all times... and that the former issue gets far, far more attention than the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.