# U.S. gun laws.



## Tukaar (May 2, 2009)

What are your thoughts on the possible reinstatement and revision of the 1994 "Assault Weapons Ban"?


Personally, I don't like it. Because it's coming up so much in politics lately, I am going to be purchasing a lot of ammunition and modifications in the very near future for the SKS.


----------



## Dusty201087 (May 2, 2009)

I don't mind it. I think you should have to be certified to buy the guns that go under the "assult weapon" category. I don't think people really need to have most of the weapons you can buy (and this is coming from a gun-owner). I also think there needs to be background checks on EVERYONE that buys a gun, EVERYTIME, regardless of what type of gun it is. Why? Because if I really want a gun, I would go take a course, do my best, pass, let my country background check me, and THEN buy a gun. I don't like the fact that in many places you can just waltz in and buy a gun. I know guns don't kill people, but christ, a gun is a very serious thing and a very deadly weapon when used correctly (or wrong, depending on the situation).

The thing I think is bullshit? The law that says if someone is in my house I can't shoot them. I'm sorry, I won't resort to violence until it's my only option, but if I find myself or my family in serious danger and I have a gun, who ever is putting me or them in danger is going to die. Period. That's not "murder" that's protecting yourself.


----------



## D-EJ915 (May 3, 2009)

There are a lot more dangerous guns than those tiny 5.56mm ones, only bad part is they keep going...and going...lol. The only guys who buy them are mall ninjas.


----------



## Zoltta (May 3, 2009)

Stupid and pointless. Data and facts prove that the 1994 assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing to diminish crime or keep illegally purchased guns off the streets. All the ban did was ruin law abiding collectors.

On any given day, a large caliber hunting rifle or hunting shotgun can be more dangerous than these so called "assault weapons". If you dont know what i mean by that then you are ignorant of the situation and firearms in general.

As far as people think you dont NEED these weapons, well you dont NEED anything else then. You dont NEED 5-6 guitars, but you WANT them anyway. Ive owned, shot, sold and traded dozens and dozens of assault rifles for many of my "NEEDS". Different situations for different rifles. Each has their own unique feel, look and way they shoot. Its the reason why anyone collects anything. 

There is one thing i will agree on Dusty is the fact that some states DO let you walk out with a rifle, cash in hand with nothing but a drivers license. Nothing wrong with a NICS/background check to make sure.....well of course the bullshit fee they charge for it, but yeah. Here in NJ, you have to get a Fireman's ID card, pay a fee and undergo a background check, fingerprints and a bunch of other BS just to get it. Then when you buy a rifle you need to fill out a bunch of retards papers and undergo a background check. Thats for any firearm. I dont agree with paperwork or ID cards, but i do agree with background checks. Its harmless


----------



## poopyalligator (May 3, 2009)

I agree with zoltta, I dont think they should prohibit people from buying assault weapons. For the most part it is mostly collectors and hobbyists who own them anyway. I think as long as a good background check is done on somebody before they purchase a firearm then things will be ok. To be honest though i do like the fact that there are some hurdles you have to go through and provide finger prints. I think it is a good way to level it out, but i think they shouldnt have so many fees for it, because they are already purchasing a pretty expensive item. 

I dont know about the rest of the country, but it is almost impossible for me to find ammunition for even a pistol over here. I only have one pistol and i go to the range every couple of months. I havent been able to go in a long time lately.


----------



## HaGGuS (May 3, 2009)

I am not having a go at anybody ok.. please keep that in mind.
But I dont understand why a civi needs an assault rifle.
I have shot rifles most of my life, and my dad was a fire arms dealer.
And for the life of me, I could not justify owning an assault rifle. 
I do not have a problem bolt action rifles, or pistols, but anything capable of throwing a 30 shot clip down range in under a few seconds makes me nervous.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 3, 2009)

HaGGuS said:


> I am not having a go at anybody ok.. please keep that in mind.
> But I dont understand why a civi needs an assault rifle.
> I have shot rifles most of my life, and my dad was a fire arms dealer.
> And for the life of me, I could not justify owning an assault rifle.
> I do not have a problem bolt action rifles, or pistols, but anything capable of throwing a 30 shot clip down range in under a few seconds makes me nervous.



The problem is WHAT they consider to be an "Assault Weapon". Their definition in 1994 was FAR beyond broad, and included a lot of things that were NOT assault weapons. Under the current administration, that definition is only going to get broader.

And like Zoltta said, it does nothing for crime, because the criminals aren't using assault rifles.

The BIG problem with the law is it does not prohibit the police from having such weapons. Or the military.



poopyalligator said:


> I dont know about the rest of the country, but it is almost impossible for me to find ammunition for even a pistol over here. I only have one pistol and i go to the range every couple of months. I havent been able to go in a long time lately.



My cousin reloads, and that's starting to look like the only way to go now, but even that's showing a shortage. Someone around here is going around buying up all the primers, So my cousin is stuck trying to load some .223 for his AR-15, with no primers. 

Also, you cannot find hardly any .22lr, 9mm, .38spl, .357mag, (and I'm sure there's other calibers), anywhere.


----------



## Dusty201087 (May 3, 2009)

HaGGuS said:


> I am not having a go at anybody ok.. please keep that in mind.
> But I dont understand why a civi needs an assault rifle.
> I have shot rifles most of my life, and my dad was a fire arms dealer.
> And for the life of me, I could not justify owning an assault rifle.
> I do not have a problem bolt action rifles, or pistols, but anything capable of throwing a 30 shot clip down range in under a few seconds makes me nervous.



This is pretty much a sum up of how I feel. Yes, many people who have these guns are "collectors", but you can't claim you're going to use something like these for hunting. I've hunted big game in Africa before, and the most I ever used was a 396 high powered rifle. And to be honest, I wouldn't have needed anything bigger unless I was going after an elephant/rhino or something of equivalent size.

And just to get one thing strait with my last post (I was really tired when I wrote it) I don't support the BAN of these weapons, I just think people should have to jump through lots and lots.... and lots of hoops before you can buy one. Now some of the weapons that fall under this ban I don't think need to be there, but I wouldn't mind seeing as I have a few guns already and if I wanted to buy a new one I would jump through the "hoops" I mentioned before if I really wanted it.


----------



## Carrion (May 3, 2009)

Legalize all weapons.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 3, 2009)

Carrion said:


> Legalize all weapons.



This. ^


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 3, 2009)

Carrion said:


> Legalize all weapons.



Yes! I want a Abrams M1A1 and I'll be damned if anyone can give me a good reason why I shouldn't own one!


----------



## Carrion (May 3, 2009)

Because they cost $4.35 million.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 3, 2009)

Carrion said:


> Because they cost $4.35 million.



No matter...


----------



## Zoltta (May 3, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> The problem is WHAT they consider to be an "Assault Weapon". Their definition in 1994 was FAR beyond broad, and included a lot of things that were NOT assault weapons. Under the current administration, that definition is only going to get broader.
> 
> And like Zoltta said, it does nothing for crime, because the criminals aren't using assault rifles.
> 
> ...



Fucking A man, dont even get me started on reloading. I bet you any amoutn of money right now, you walk into ANY shop in the COUNTRY and you wont find powder or primers or brass anywhere. I went to my monthly gun show yesterday and immediately as soon as doors opened, ammo, and reloading equipment got swarmed and was sold out in minutes. I might have been part of that swarm  but fucking shit, i got what i wanted. 

Just be careful with reloading if you do go down that road. Shit is nothing to fuck around with. Get the right equipment and training first


----------



## Zoltta (May 3, 2009)

HaGGuS said:


> I am not having a go at anybody ok.. please keep that in mind.
> But I dont understand why a civi needs an assault rifle.
> I have shot rifles most of my life, and my dad was a fire arms dealer.
> And for the life of me, I could not justify owning an assault rifle.
> I do not have a problem bolt action rifles, or pistols, but anything capable of throwing a 30 shot clip down range in under a few seconds makes me nervous.



It might make you nervous but that doesnt mean they will use it in a crime. Criminals wont be walking down the street with an assault rifle and a 30 round mag hanging out of their shirt. Its just not practical for concealment and thats what criminals want. 

When i get into an argument with people im more concerned about them pulling out a handgun than an assault rifle.


----------



## MTech (May 3, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Stupid and pointless. Data and facts prove that the 1994 assault weapons ban did absolutely nothing to diminish crime or keep illegally purchased guns off the streets. All the ban did was ruin law abiding collectors.



Exactly.



Dusty201087 said:


> I don't mind it. I think you should have to be certified to buy the guns that go under the "assult weapon" category.


There's nothing about being certified in the constitution. Most of the guns they're trying to ban aren't actually "assault weapons" by definition to begin with.


----------



## Zoltta (May 3, 2009)

MTech said:


> Exactly.
> 
> 
> There's nothing about being certified in the constitution. Most of the guns they're trying to ban aren't actually "assault weapons" by definition to begin with.



While there is nothing in the constitution about being certified, that doesnt mean each state cant make their own laws. Like NJ, you need to have a firemans ID card to purchase a firearm. Thats basically a certification and you need to go through alot of shit to get one. Its a crock of shit. 

Also what the feds and politicians define as an assault rifle, it can be anything THEY want. Bullshit yes i know. NJ thinks a semi automatic shotgun is an assault rifle lol...........but oh wait we can still hunt with one rofl


----------



## Zoltta (May 3, 2009)

On a side note, i just bought a Semi Auto Browning 1919, currently being transfered. EAT A HUGE DICK ANTI GUN ASSHOLES OF AMERICA


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 3, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> On a side note, i just bought a Semi Auto Browning 1919, currently being transfered. EAT A HUGE DICK ANTI GUN ASSHOLES OF AMERICA



Wow. What a great showing for the pro gun population of America...


----------



## JakeRI (May 3, 2009)

Assault weapons I can understand, because you they're a type of "offensive weapon." You really dont need to justify having one for self defense, because a regular gun can do the job. They are obviously pointless for hunting, as they would destroy the game, so i can understand where they are coming from.

However I would not be the least bit surprised if 6 months from now we hear about the "Non-Assault Weapons Ban"


----------



## Carrion (May 3, 2009)

^

Huh? What do you consider to be an assault weapon? An assault weapon and a "regular gun" both fill the same role, they kill things. 

"they would destroy the game" How so?


----------



## Zoltta (May 3, 2009)

JakeRI said:


> Assault weapons I can understand, because you they're a type of "offensive weapon." You really dont need to justify having one for self defense, because a regular gun can do the job. They are obviously pointless for hunting, as they would destroy the game, so i can understand where they are coming from.
> 
> However I would not be the least bit surprised if 6 months from now we hear about the "Non-Assault Weapons Ban"



Wrong on the fact that you cant use assault weapons for hunting

Alot of states, one being for example NY State, you can hunt with semi automatic, or "assault rifles" if you will. Only restriction is you are only permitted to use 6 rounds max. One being in the chamber and a 5 round magazine.

You might not think its practical but if you ever hunting in the mountain areas, half the time its impossible to get a follow up shot with a bolt action if you were to miss. Semi Autos are very practical for hunting, especially varmint hunting


----------



## Zoltta (May 3, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Wow. What a great showing for the pro gun population of America...



Whats that supposed to mean? Semi Auto Belt Fed guns are VERY popular in the USA and are legal in all 50 states


----------



## Lucky Seven (May 3, 2009)

MTech said:


> Exactly.
> There's nothing about being certified in the constitution. Most of the guns they're trying to ban aren't actually "assault weapons" by definition to begin with.



This



Zoltta said:


> Also what the feds and politicians define as an assault rifle, it can be anything THEY want. Bullshit yes i know. NJ thinks a semi automatic shotgun is an assault rifle lol...........but oh wait we can still hunt with one rofl



And this

I don't really see the problem with having guns that are effective at killing people anyway.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 3, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Whats that supposed to mean? Semi Auto Belt Fed guns are VERY popular in the USA and are legal in all 50 states



I was referring to the childish manner of your post and how it made you come across.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 3, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> I was referring to the childish manner of your post and how it made you come across.



I'm pretty sure he was just joking.


----------



## Zoltta (May 3, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> I was referring to the childish manner of your post and how it made you come across.



Yeah i guess, doesnt matter though because the Government thinks gun owners are terrorists anyway. Childish remarks in the gun community are a common thing. Its to remind them that there is something called the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

For example "Molon Labe" aka "&#924;&#927;&#923;&#937;&#925; &#923;&#913;&#914;&#917;", "Come and Take it", and "Dont Tread on Me" with the snake logo. Just a few examples. Childish yes but its a fraction of the things we do to show that we are serious about protecting our rights.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (May 3, 2009)

I would have come down firmly on the side of restricting assault weapons, until a guy I know in the States basically cleared this one up for me - the "assault weapons ban" is a load of bullshit designed purely for the purpose of fearmongering. As I understand it, actual machine guns are very heavily restricted anyway - the sale of new machine guns has been banned for years, and the only ones allowed are those which were sold before the ban came in - and they are highly registered and controlled. What I am told the "assault weapons ban" is is a ban on certain guns which resemble military weapons, but which aren't really any more effective than any other rifle... sort of like a car covered with spoilers, fake air intakes and big exhausts, and all the trimmings of something really powerful, but which still has the stock 1.4 in it... 

If that's indeed the case, then I can't see any point in this ban.

What I think you guys need to do about guns though is to enforce a mandatory licence to buy or own a gun, which is conditional on knowing how to handle one safely and storing it correctly... I really don't like seeing stories of fuckwits leaving a loaded gun about and their kid picking it up and shooting himself or someone else.

The self defence thing I'm in two minds about, on the one hand I see the point of people wanting the right to use everything they can to protect themselves if they get attacked - but on the other, I hear too much of guys running out with a gun to protect their property (i.e. if they hear their car being stolen) and risking getting hurt or killed, hurting or killing someone completely unrelated (bullets don't just stop dead when they miss someone, after all) or getting landed with the psychological results of having just killed a man... and all for protecting what's essentially their insurance company's bottom line? Fuck that if I'm getting in a gunfight to save my car insurance firm's profit margin a few grand...

I guess one other thing would be to enforce very strict penalties (like 15 years automatic jail sentence) for using a gun in the commission of a crime, irrespective of what that crime is: you pull a deadly weapon on some guy to threaten them or steal their wallet? Fuck you, you're going away. I imagine that would sort out some of the cunts who carry weapons to think they're hard (like all the chavs with knives over here, who really need the same treatment...)


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 3, 2009)

Carrion said:


> Because they cost $4.35 million.



This may prevent me from owning one this year...

But next year... KABOOM!


----------



## Dusty201087 (May 3, 2009)

MTech said:


> There's nothing about being certified in the constitution. Most of the guns they're trying to ban aren't actually "assault weapons" by definition to begin with.



I'm sorry, but society has changed since the constitution has been written. Many parts of the original constitution don't really apply to the population now, that's why we've changed it. If we went by the original constitution, we'd be pretty much fucked.

And upon reading up on this "assault weapons ban" I have to say it's a load of shit. Seems to me it's basically saying "Okay, this looks like an M-16, so you can't have that... and no pistols". Which is crap. I don't care what it LOOKS like, I care what it does. Do I think people need to have an M-16? No, but I would have fun with one . Should I be able to go out and buy something that fires like a normal rifle and looks like an M-16? Duh .

And my feelings on pistols (which I have many of, some legal... Some... legal ) is the jump through the hoops thing I mentioned before. Will it cut down crime? Fuck no, people are still gonna do it, they might just do so with a knife rather than a gun. And stab wound >>> gun shot wound any day.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (May 3, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> Should I be able to go out and buy something that fires like a normal rifle and looks like an M-16? Duh









ZOMG ARREST HIM.


----------



## Zoltta (May 3, 2009)

Im starting to think some of you dont know that "assault rifles" NOWADAYS strictly refers Semi automatic rifles. Those are sporting rifles. Yes they might be AK47, AR15, and various out type of rifles but they are still sporting rifles.

When some of you say you want people to jump through hoops for these rifles you might be thinking of the wrong weapons. I think you are leaning more towards "Machine Guns" and those are a COMPLETELY Different class of weapons. Different parts and different mechanisms. 

If your state allows NFA Weapons AKA Machine Guns, Short barreled rifles, Suppressors, Destructive Devices or AOW's you do have to jump through hoops to get them.

Lets say i wanted a Full auto MP5. First i better save up 15-20 THOUSAND dollars. Then find a Class III FFL. Pay in cash. Fill out a BATFE Form 4, fork over an extra 200 dollar tax stamp and send it in to the ATF. Wait a shit load of time, maybe 3-4 months, then when you get that back you can legally have the rifle transfered into your possession. Thats how you obtain a registered NFA Weapon.

BUT THATS NOT IT. The MP5 is a Short barreled rifle, you need to Fill out a Form 1 ontop of that Form 4, pay another 200 dollars and send that in also. If you want suppressor on that puppy, you better get TWO copies of Form 1's and another 200 dollars. Suppressors can also run anywhere from 600-1200 dollars depends on model and caliber.

Thats just a piece of it, so if you REALLY think thats NOT jumping through hoops, think again.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 3, 2009)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> I guess one other thing would be to enforce very strict penalties (like 15 years automatic jail sentence) for using a gun in the commission of a crime, irrespective of what that crime is: you pull a deadly weapon on some guy to threaten them or steal their wallet? Fuck you, you're going away. I imagine that would sort out some of the cunts who carry weapons to think they're hard (like all the chavs with knives over here, who really need the same treatment...)



This is what i think, pretty much.


----------



## JakeRI (May 3, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> I'm sorry, but society has changed since the constitution has been written. Many parts of the original constitution don't really apply to the population now, that's why we've changed it. If we went by the original constitution, we'd be pretty much fucked.
> 
> .



If society has changed, then change the constitution accordingly. otherwise you are saying the constitution doesn't matter, meaning all your liberties aren't guaranteed. You can say its wrong, thats fine, but change it accordingly


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (May 3, 2009)

Actually... fuck it. I've just had a little think, and what I've come up with in the way of gun control is... this. 

Fuck restricting machine guns, just ban everything else! You want to carry a gun around with you? Fine, have 30 pounds of gun, heavy bipod, and ammo belts... you'll be cured of your desire for personal armament in a few hours


----------



## MTech (May 3, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> I'm sorry, but society has changed since the constitution has been written. Many parts of the original constitution don't really apply to the population now, that's why we've changed it. If we went by the original constitution, we'd be pretty much fucked.




Society is always changing but the constitution was laid down as a guideline which works by keeping things in check and the power to the people....those who are messing with what the constitution laid down for us are fucking things up..Crime rates go up when you take away the defenses of the people. Government grows and takes control when you take away the freedoms/rights of the people just look at the economy etc... last I checked the constitution was about freedom not socialism.


----------



## Dusty201087 (May 3, 2009)

JakeRI said:


> If society has changed, then change the constitution accordingly. otherwise you are saying the constitution doesn't matter, meaning all your liberties aren't guaranteed. You can say its wrong, thats fine, but change it accordingly



That's what amendments to the constitution are. The constitution was written so the exact text COULD NOT be changed, so unless we're switching governments (which is treason, and technically what our forefathers [the signers of the constitution] did). If we could change the constitution, I'm sure we would have. But that's not how it was written. 



> Society is always changing but the constitution was laid down as a guideline which works by keeping things in check and the power to the people....those who are messing with what the constitution laid down for us are fucking things up..Crime rates go up when you take away the defenses of the people. Government grows and takes control when you take away the freedoms/rights of the people just look at the economy etc... last I checked the constitution was about freedom not socialism.



I'm not saying we should take away the defenses of the people, I'm saying we should make it so the people who are mentally sane enough to have a gun can get them.


----------



## MTech (May 3, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> I'm not saying we should take away the defenses of the people, I'm saying we should make it so the people who are mentally sane enough to have a gun can get them.



Which would be fine if that were the case (which is the way it is now), but the laws we have aren't enforced so rather than enforce them they try and take it out on the people and strip them of more of their rights...but instead you're coming off in a manor which shows you want the gun laws..the laws that are keeping the innocent sane citizens from legally obtaining guns and affording guns/ammo. Especially with the govt. trying to dig their hands into health care in which they can rule out the masses from owning them from a medical standpoint. They than wouldn't need to rid us of the 2nd amendment because they can set their own ridiculous standard for who can/can't have a gun just like they're doing with ammo pricing.


----------



## TemjinStrife (May 3, 2009)

The Constitution is deliberately vague enough to allow reinterpretation of specific clauses. Thus, it is possible to interpret several clauses (including the right to bear arms itself) in a number of different ways. It is generally up to the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution in whatever way they see fit, and interpretations have changed in the past, or been clarified through amendments.

/USgovernment101


----------



## Dusty201087 (May 3, 2009)

MTech said:


> Which would be fine if that were the case (which is the way it is now), but the laws we have aren't enforced so rather than enforce them they try and take it out on the people and strip them of more of their rights...but instead you're coming off in a manor which shows you want the gun laws..the laws that are keeping the innocent sane citizens from legally obtaining guns and affording guns/ammo.


 
Okay, I'm going to try to lay out exactly how feel, so here goes:

Everyone *SHOULD HAVE THE CHANCE TO OWN A GUN *(in my opinion, of course)*. PERIOD.* What I think is that you should have to be subject to background checks/other forms of testing. Make a gun training camp one day of the week throughout the year. Make people AWARE of what a gun is, how it works, and what it can do when used correctly and incorrectly. Then, when you pass a test (like the test you have to take to get your hunters license, driving license, teaching permit, nursing license, etc.) you can go BUY A GUN. This is not a new concept. We do it with the aforementioned activities and guess what? It creates jobs. Is the system flawless? No. Will there still be gun violence? Yes. But at least some people will sit in on the class and realize "hey, this isn't a BB gun. This can take a life".

I DO NOT support the "Assault Weapons Ban" I support raising the awareness of what a gun actually is.


----------



## Zoltta (May 4, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> Okay, I'm going to try to lay out exactly how feel, so here goes:
> 
> Everyone *SHOULD HAVE THE CHANCE TO OWN A GUN *(in my opinion, of course)*. PERIOD.* What I think is that you should have to be subject to background checks/other forms of testing. Make a gun training camp one day of the week throughout the year. Make people AWARE of what a gun is, how it works, and what it can do when used correctly and incorrectly. Then, when you pass a test (like the test you have to take to get your hunters license, driving license, teaching permit, nursing license, etc.) you can go BUY A GUN. This is not a new concept. We do it with the aforementioned activities and guess what? It creates jobs. Is the system flawless? No. Will there still be gun violence? Yes. But at least some people will sit in on the class and realize "hey, this isn't a BB gun. This can take a life".
> 
> I DO NOT support the "Assault Weapons Ban" I support raising the awareness of what a gun actually is.



Although i would never want have to go through testing and shit since i was handling firearms since i was 5 and wouldnt need training, i would have to agree on what you said. Ive had a few people tell me they want to buy a gun for home protection or other uses but not as a hobby. First thing i told them is when they DO get a firearm, take some sort of training course. Did they? Probably not. Should they have? Of course, they are inexperienced. Having them be forced to have training before hand isnt such a bad idea but like someone said earlier about the Constitution, all it says is we have a right to bare arms and our rights shall NOT be infringed. Doesnt mean States cant make their own laws though. NJ did and i have to deal with all the BS.

Although currently you dont need to have training or certification to buy a firearm, some CCW Carry permits require proof of training to obtain the license. Like the Florida and Utah non resident Carry permit that is valid to 29 states, needs you to have valid proof of ANY kind of firearm training. Even hunting licenses count because its still training. Also requires fingerprints and shit.

Right now the ONLY thing i support is background checks and nothing else. Training is a good idea but sometimes not necessary.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 4, 2009)

E Lucevan Le Stelle said:


> Actually... fuck it. I've just had a little think, and what I've come up with in the way of gun control is... this.
> 
> Fuck restricting machine guns, just ban everything else! You want to carry a gun around with you? Fine, have 30 pounds of gun, heavy bipod, and ammo belts... you'll be cured of your desire for personal armament in a few hours



I would happily carry around my cousins Barrett. 

If I could afford it. ($9000+)


----------



## auxioluck (May 4, 2009)

Dusty201087 said:


> I DO NOT support the "Assault Weapons Ban" I support raising the awareness of what a gun actually is.



This. 

Banning Assault Weapons is fine with me, but the definition needs to be set that assault weapons are not the semi-automatic AR-15's, AK47's, or SKS's. They are the fully auto Uzis, MACs and Glocks that dipshits get hold of to commit crimes. Ban the right types of weapons and I could care less. But start banning things that are not within the parameters of the ban, and that's when I get pissed.


----------



## Zoltta (May 4, 2009)

auxioluck said:


> This.
> 
> Banning Assault Weapons is fine with me, but the definition needs to be set that assault weapons are not the semi-automatic AR-15's, AK47's, or SKS's. They are the fully auto Uzis, MACs and Glocks that dipshits get hold of to commit crimes. Ban the right types of weapons and I could care less. But start banning things that are not within the parameters of the ban, and that's when I get pissed.



Why would it matter which type gets banned when criminals can get anything they want off the street anyway?

There is nothing wrong with full auto weapons considering the people who acquire then legally have to jump through hoops to get one


----------



## HaGGuS (May 4, 2009)

Please correct me if I am wrong.
But is it not possible to convert a semi auto into fully auto just buy buying a conversion kit for some of these rifles?
If that is the case, maybe they should look at banning the conversion kits?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 4, 2009)

HaGGuS said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong.
> But is it not possible to convert a semi auto into fully auto just buy buying a conversion kit for some of these rifles?
> If that is the case, maybe they should look at banning the conversion kits?



Too late to ban the conversion kits. My father can MAKE the conversion kit from plans that I have.

As for some rifles, like the AR-15, it's basically a semi-auto version of the M16, and has a different receiver which does not accept drop-in parts. The receiver itself needs to be milled to go full auto. Not hard, but inconvenient. Glocks I am under the impression, (though I could be wrong), simply need a full auto sear. A very easy part to mill.

Full-auto is blown out of proportion anyway. People act as if genocidal maniacs are going to run down the streets spraying anything and everything if full-auto guns are de-restricted, but the fact is, a full auto gun is very impractical for a killing spree, especially in this economy.

The pragmatic maniac today is going to be using less expensive ammo, and less of it. Think a semi-auto .22, with good shot placement.


----------



## Æxitosus (May 4, 2009)

Tukaar said:


> "Because it's coming up so much in politics lately, I am going to be purchasing a lot of ammunition and modifications in the very near future for the SKS."


you and everybody else

seriously, it's getting hard to find ammo these days. I usually just went to Walmart for my stuff, but they have been running low lately, because a lot of people are scared that Obama is going to take guns away. 

I personally think banning guns would not do much of anything at all. What it would do would limit the people who use it for self defense, nd make it easier for people who have ill intent to get what they want. Think about it - marijuana is illegal, but people who want it still manage to get it. Same with firearms and otherwise, people who want them that badly will still be able to get them, but the law abiding people won't have any self defense whent ehy are confronted with these people. 

It's not the gun, it's the carrier.


----------



## Zoltta (May 5, 2009)

HaGGuS said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong.
> But is it not possible to convert a semi auto into fully auto just buy buying a conversion kit for some of these rifles?
> If that is the case, maybe they should look at banning the conversion kits?



Yes and No. First to manufacture NFA weapons, you need a 07FFL 02SOT. SOT is Special Occupational Class AKA Class II License which is to manufacture. Im sure you heard of Class III license but thats for dealing NFA Weapons. Class II is for making

There really is no Drop in Conversion Kit to make things full auto in most of the rifles out there. For example, as a regular person you CAN buy a M16/Full auto Bolt assembly and trigger pack for your Semi Auto AR15, but in order to obtain your Full auto needs, you need to have a registered Lower Receiver capable for full auto. They are machined differently than semi auto receivers. 

BUT there is something for the ARs called a Drop In Auto Sear. Its basically a drop in piece that fits into your semi without the extra machining. Provided you have the FA fire control groups, you can make it auto.

BUT you still need to have the DIAS registered as an NFA item, do the Forms and transfer bullshit and pay a shit ton to get one because they are extremely rare. Get caught with one illegally and say goodbye.

As for other guns there really arent "drop in" conversion kits. HK rifles have the same Auto Sear deal that require a special fire control group, bolt assembly and what not. Either way its going to cost you a fortune.

This is funny because Prior 1981, you can make your own Sears with a simple milling machine and wasnt require to register them. The BATFE finally caught on. Basically if you possess a pre-81 autosear and get caught, say goodnight sweetheart. The ATF actually used to set up STINGS trying to sell pre-81 sears to people, and catch them. Pretty funny

Gotta ask yourself though, is buying an illegal drop in sear or something stupid like that just to have a little more fun worth the risk of 10 years in prison and a 10,000 dollar fine, with the right to vote and own a gun taken away permanentely? Because thats what people face when they get caught. Not worth risking my gun rights for


----------



## HaGGuS (May 5, 2009)

Thankyou for explaining that.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 5, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Full-auto is blown out of proportion anyway. People act as if genocidal maniacs are going to run down the streets spraying anything and everything if full-auto guns are de-restricted, but the fact is, a full auto gun is very impractical for a killing spree, especially in this economy.



Er... do you realise what you said? I don't think money is an object when you are talking about someone with the kind of mental illness that drives you to walk into a school/shopping centre/what-have-you and open fire on random people and then most likely take your own life.

They're the kind of things that have caused other countries to ban guns in the first place. A legal gun owner going absolutely apeshit with his "collection" of guns in tow.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 6, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Er... do you realise what you said? I don't think money is an object when you are talking about someone with the kind of mental illness that drives you to walk into a school/shopping centre/what-have-you and open fire on random people and then most likely take your own life.



The quoted sentence is intended to be funny, leading into the joke you did not quote... 

But in all seriousness, it's a different kind of mental illness than people are thinking of. Most people think of the mentally ill as raving lunatics, who just don't care what they hit. But what we see in these massacre's, is a calculated desire to rack up a huge body count before being stopped. One can only carry so much ammo, and when that's used up, that's it.

I know if I were to do that I certainly wouldn't use a full-auto gun.



Zoltta said:


> Gotta ask yourself though, is buying an illegal drop in sear or something stupid like that just to have a little more fun worth the risk of 10 years in prison and a 10,000 dollar fine, with the right to vote and own a gun taken away permanentely? Because thats what people face when they get caught. Not worth risking my gun rights for



Wait, you've now got the full-auto weapon, why are you getting caught again?


----------



## Zoltta (May 6, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> The quoted sentence is intended to be funny, leading into the joke you did not quote...
> 
> But in all seriousness, it's a different kind of mental illness than people are thinking of. Most people think of the mentally ill as raving lunatics, who just don't care what they hit. But what we see in these massacre's, is a calculated desire to rack up a huge body count before being stopped. One can only carry so much ammo, and when that's used up, that's it.
> 
> ...



i dont understand your question


----------



## synrgy (May 6, 2009)

In my little fantasy world, I'd like to see all guns/gunpowder erradicated and people who want to fuck each other up 'reduced' back to swords, maces and the like.

Or maybe I just want an excuse to carry a samurai sword I don't know how to use.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 6, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> i dont understand your question



You have a full-auto weapon, or 2 or 3, and the feds are closing in on you... I think I see a way out of this.


----------



## Zoltta (May 6, 2009)

synrgy said:


> In my little fantasy world, I'd like to see all guns/gunpowder erradicated and people who want to fuck each other up 'reduced' back to swords, maces and the like.
> 
> Or maybe I just want an excuse to carry a samurai sword I don't know how to use.



Id like to Conceal Carry one of those spiked maces on a chain that swings.


----------



## ShadyDavey (May 6, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> They're the kind of things that have caused other countries to ban guns in the first place. A legal gun owner going absolutely apeshit with his "collection" of guns in tow.



Michael Ryan, amongst others. 

People can, to be fair, rack up substantial body counts without full-auto firearms but realistically the UK move to make those kinds of weapons only available to those with a full Section 5 licence was a good move. Its just the rest of the legislation they made too draconian...


----------



## Zoltta (May 6, 2009)

ShadyDavey said:


> Michael Ryan, amongst others.
> 
> People can, to be fair, rack up substantial body counts without full-auto firearms but realistically the UK move to make those kinds of weapons only available to those with a full Section 5 licence was a good move. Its just the rest of the legislation they made too draconian...




Thats the major problem with some of these gun laws states and countries come up with. They are all based on what CAN happen and not HAS happened. People are just too paranoid. Some of the shit they ban and put restrictions on are not practical even slightly


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 6, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Thats the major problem with some of these gun laws states and countries come up with. They are all based on what CAN happen and not HAS happened. People are just too paranoid. Some of the shit they ban and put restrictions on are not practical even slightly





Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dunblane massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 6, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Dunblane massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Would it make me seem odd that I noticed the article says he was carrying SEVEN-HUNDRED AND FOURTY-THREE cartridges, and fired only 109 before killing himself? I mean really, if you're going to go to all the trouble of loading THAT many cartridges the least you would think to do is use them all...

But anyway, my question is, why wasn't the gym teacher able to end this prematurely? Or perhaps someone else in the school? I notice in all the gun topics people want to say "let's take away the guns!" whenever something like this happens, but then fail to realize that this could also have been STOPPED, COLD IN IT'S TRACKS, by a gun-holding teacher.


----------



## Zoltta (May 6, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Dunblane massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Im not talking about stuff to that extent really. 

For example, here in NJ, we cannot have Bayonet lugs on semi automatic rifles. SERIOUSLY? Whos going to use that? No one has before and never will. If i have a bayonet to put on a rifle i would probably just take it off the rifle and use it like that. Its dumb shit like that im talking about


----------



## Metal Ken (May 6, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Gun politics in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Dunblane massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Then, there's shit like this that happens:

College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader - News Story - WSB Atlanta


----------



## wannabguitarist (May 7, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> Why would it matter which type gets banned when criminals can get anything they want off the street anyway?
> 
> There is nothing wrong with full auto weapons considering the people who acquire then legally have to jump through hoops to get one



This

I actually know a guy that used to make some fully auto AK47 replicas in his metal shop for shits and giggles.


----------



## Origins (May 7, 2009)

Sorry guys to interrupt the debate,
but I´ve been quite chocked to see that so many people in U.S own a gun.
Some are ready to shoot people if they feel like being in danger.
No wonder why there is so much crime in America.
Where there is weapons, there is unsecurity.
A guy with a firearm thinking about protecting himself and his family is way more dangerous than anybody else in my opinion. And this, with or without apropriate training.
Weapons shouldn´t even be legalized for non-professional purpose.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 7, 2009)

Origins said:


> Sorry guys to interrupt the debate,
> but I´ve been quite chocked to see that so many people in U.S own a gun.
> Some are ready to shoot people if they feel like being in danger.
> No wonder why there is so much crime in America.
> ...



Nah, There's just as many guns in Canada and they have a way lower murder per capita. They also have less crime. people with concealed carry permits have an astoundingly low crime rate. fewer than 1/2%. and most of those were forgetting to not carry their gun to a gun free zone.
Conversely, banning guns doesnt make things safer. DC banned handguns in the 70s and the murder/violent crime rate skyrocketed. 

I own two guns right now. I'm not all "Unsecure". I just like going to the target range. Its a great stress relief, and i like target shooting. Like i've said in other threads about it, my owning a gun doesnt affect anyone, and therefore, its a freedom i should be allowed to have. My freedom ends where another person's begins.


----------



## TheJMachine (May 7, 2009)

Ban guns in general.
Easy fix.


----------



## Origins (May 7, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Nah, There's just as many guns in Canada and they have a way lower murder per capita. They also have less crime. people with concealed carry permits have an astoundingly low crime rate. fewer than 1/2%. and most of those were forgetting to not carry their gun to a gun free zone.
> Conversely, banning guns doesnt make things safer. DC banned handguns in the 70s and the murder/violent crime rate skyrocketed.
> 
> I own two guns right now. I'm not all "Unsecure". I just like going to the target range. Its a great stress relief, and i like target shooting. Like i've said in other threads about it, my owning a gun doesnt affect anyone, and therefore, its a freedom i should be allowed to have. My freedom ends where another person's begins.


 
Mentality of people represents an important part of crime issues.
That´s why it is so low in Canada, as here in Finland for example.
People just let their front door unlocked, because they are not afraid of anything.
Of course there is a few people in US who have a sens of responsabilities and are totally aware of the seriousness of having a firearm, but unfortunately this is not the majority case.


----------



## ShadyDavey (May 7, 2009)

There are so many arguments pro and con gun ownership that sadly the voices of the resonable get lost in the tumult. The perfectly legitimiate uses and reasons for ownership (target shooting, home defence etc) are overshadowed by the fact that the old adadge holds true - "Guns don't kill people - people kill people" and if those people are inclined towards acts of violence they don't neccessarily need a gun - or if they do there are plenty of illegal firearms on the streets (a fact which applies to the UK and the US). 



> Thats the major problem with some of these gun laws states and countries come up with. They are all based on what CAN happen and not HAS happened. People are just too paranoid. Some of the shit they ban and put restrictions on are not practical even slightly



Sadly, Dunblane happened before the law was changed as a result. I don't see many reasons for the private ownership of full-auto weapons anyway, but the UK went too far in their witch-hunt.


----------



## MFB (May 7, 2009)

TheJMachine said:


> Ban guns in general.
> Easy fix.



Clearly you haven't read _anything_ in this thread and would do better to just not speak


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 7, 2009)

TheJMachine said:


> Ban guns in general.
> Easy fix.



 

This fixes nothing, and introduces a whole slew of new, much more Orwellian problems.


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 7, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> This fixes nothing, and introduces a whole slew of new, much more Orwellian problems.



How so? I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that someone had a knife on their person, let alone a gun.

EDIT: Although, I will agree that his comment was utterly useless.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 8, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> How so? I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that someone had a knife on their person, let alone a gun.



Just a little friendly advice: Never visit a butcher shop. 

But in all seriousness, I personally wouldn't have any feeling one way or the other about someone having the knife on their person, it's what they do with it. Point in case, one of my cousins has a switchblade, and knows how to use it, too. I've never felt the least bit uncomfortable around him.

He, like myself, also conceal carries with him everywhere he goes...

</serious>

I should try an experiment. A week in the life of a gun-toting American. I invite people to stay with me for a week, and they get their choice out of my personal arsenal, and get to carry it concealed for a week as we otherwise go about our normal business, just to show them how transparent a gun really is, at least in this society. It's brilliant!


----------



## Zoltta (May 8, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Just a little friendly advice: Never visit a butcher shop.
> 
> But in all seriousness, I personally wouldn't have any feeling one way or the other about someone having the knife on their person, it's what they do with it. Point in case, one of my cousins has a switchblade, and knows how to use it, too. I've never felt the least bit uncomfortable around him.
> 
> ...



Ive actually converted quite a few people into the Firearms Lifestyle. They were skeptics like everyone else. Didnt like guns and were scared of them and didnt think people should have them. Brought them to the range once, gave them a safety course, history lesson and showed them how to use multi styles of weaponry ranging from handguns, to shotguns, hunting rifles and "assault rifles". They were pleased to find out how harmless these things really were. And when i say harmless i mean when not in the hands of a mental case killer. 

Needless to say, they LOVED it and have asked to go back. Some actually began purchasing their own and getting into the lifestyle of firearms. These were the people who would cower from sheer mention of the word Gun.

But one thing us for sure, they realized the fact that average people own such weapons. He couldnt believe some of the things i had but truth is, none of it is hard to get LEGALLY. You never know if the guy across the street from you has an arsenal bigger than yours that you claim to be untouchable.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 8, 2009)

Just for the hell of it, I'll post up this bad boy...

Barrett Rifles

My cousin has one. It costs him $5 every time he pulls the trigger.


----------



## Zoltta (May 8, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Just for the hell of it, I'll post up this bad boy...
> 
> Barrett Rifles
> 
> My cousin has one. It costs him $5 every time he pulls the trigger.



Shot one before, not as exciting as i thought it would be tbh. Shot 2 other 50s, one being an Armalite bolt and the other a Barret bolt. Was cool to finally shoot one but its just a big boom. 

I think the reason why i didnt like it is because i couldnt just squeeze off rounds like an AR without pissing the guy off and spending a ton of his money. 

On a side note, i should be getting my Browning 1919a4 either tommorow or Sunday depends on when it was shipped to my dealer. Ill post pics


----------



## philkilla (May 14, 2009)

They aren't taking my weapons.




TheJMachine said:


> Ban guns in general.
> Easy fix.



Every time I see this response I laugh. There will ALWAYS be guns on the streets. If all the guns are taken away from citizens than you have only criminals and cops with guns....save a few crazies that won't give them up...


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 14, 2009)

philkilla said:


> save a few crazies that won't give them up...



I think we resemble that remark.


----------



## philkilla (May 14, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I think we resemble that remark.



Seriously...I remember talking with an old timer about if the time came where police tried to take his guns, he would unload the Armor Piercing rounds...

Americans don't like to lose their rights and should be willing to fight for them.

Isn't that the american way?


----------



## Zoltta (May 14, 2009)

philkilla said:


> Seriously...I remember talking with an old timer about if the time came where police tried to take his guns, he would unload the Armor Piercing rounds...
> 
> Americans don't like to lose their rights and should be willing to fight for them.
> 
> Isn't that the american way?



You have rights for a reason, they should not be taken away or should not be called RIGHTS.

Owning a firearm is not a privilege, its a RIGHT. Fuck anyone who wants to take ANY Right away


----------



## philkilla (May 14, 2009)

Absolutely.


----------



## renzoip (May 15, 2009)

philkilla said:


> Seriously...I remember talking with an old timer about if the time came where police tried to take his guns, he would unload the Armor Piercing rounds...
> 
> Americans don't like to lose their rights and should be willing to fight for them.
> 
> Isn't that the american way?



Idk...probably not. There are plenty rights (both granted by the constitution and by the declaration of human rights) that are taken away by the government. Just look at the past 8 years. People don't do anything about it. In fact, they would not since God knows what the government will do to them in retaliation. Of course, all of these violations of rights are justified when they are endorsed by a party that support your ideology. It interesting how many gun enthusiasts give people all their happy gun talk and praise the constitution as if it were some kind of holy book. In reality all this enthusiasms about rights only seems to show when it comes to the rights that are convent for you!


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 15, 2009)

renzoip said:


> Idk...probably not. There are plenty rights (both granted by the constitution and by the declaration of human rights) that are taken away by the government. Just look at the past 8 years. People don't do anything about it. In fact, they would not since God knows what the government will do to them in retaliation. Of course, all of these violations of rights are justified when they are endorsed by a party that support your ideology. It interesting how many gun enthusiasts give people all their happy gun talk and praise the constitution as if it were some kind of holy book. In reality all this enthusiasms about rights only seems to show when it comes to the rights that are convent for you!


----------



## Origins (May 15, 2009)

philkilla said:


> Americans don't like to lose their rights and should be willing to fight for them.
> 
> Isn't that the american way?


 
Sorry, a bit off topic but it came in my mind..
American people don´t like to loose their rights, thinking that they stole their land from Native Americans..? 
So if that is being American then..


----------



## renzoip (May 15, 2009)

Origins said:


> Sorry, a bit off topic but it came in my mind..
> American people don´t like to loose their rights, thinking that they stole their land from Native Americans..?
> So if that is being American then..



It's sad but


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 15, 2009)

Origins said:


> Sorry, a bit off topic but it came in my mind..
> American people don´t like to loose their rights, thinking that they stole their land from Native Americans..?
> So if that is being American then..



Let's not get started on the PATRIOT Act. Where were you gun owners when that was imposed? You sure as hell weren't protecting your freedoms, that's for sure...


----------



## philkilla (May 15, 2009)

renzoip said:


> Idk...probably not. There are plenty rights (both granted by the constitution and by the declaration of human rights) that are taken away by the government. Just look at the past 8 years. People don't do anything about it. In fact, they would not since God knows what the government will do to them in retaliation. Of course, all of these violations of rights are justified when they are endorsed by a party that support your ideology. It interesting how many gun enthusiasts give people all their happy gun talk and praise the constitution as if it were some kind of holy book. In reality all this enthusiasms about rights only seems to show when it comes to the rights that are convent for you!



That's a pretty vague statement for someone who doesn't even know me first off.

Decisions and policies go into play every day that make mine or my coworkers lives difficult all the time.

I am passionate about guns though, I will not deny that. Totally restrictive laws against so called "assault weapons" does affect me directly. If you want to know what other policies I am passionate about as well, just ask.

What exactly would you have done to stop the Patriot Act?

I think it is total bullshit that civilians should their privacy compromised. 

Besides that, I'm not exactly in a good position to oust my employer...


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 17, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Let's not get started on the PATRIOT Act. Where were you gun owners when that was imposed? You sure as hell weren't protecting your freedoms, that's for sure...



You would be appalled, I mean really APPALLED, to find out how few people in the U.S. even know that there is a Patriot Act. There was a gag going around after the 2004 elections that more people voted in American Idol than in the presidential election.

Half the voting-age population in this country doesn't even vote, much less follow the issues, and among the half that does vote, I would wager more than half vote on ONE issue alone. People just don't care here anymore.

Those of us that do care are waiting for a right time and trying to organize in the meantime. 



renzoip said:


> Idk...probably not. There are plenty rights (both granted by the constitution and by the declaration of human rights) that are taken away by the government. Just look at the past 8 years. People don't do anything about it. In fact, they would not since God knows what the government will do to them in retaliation. Of course, all of these violations of rights are justified when they are endorsed by a party that support your ideology. It interesting how many gun enthusiasts give people all their happy gun talk and praise the constitution as if it were some kind of holy book. In reality all this enthusiasms about rights only seems to show when it comes to the rights that are convent for you!



I think it would probably help me understand your point better if you were to clean up the sentence structure and spelling of your post, but from what I can tell I believe I disagree with what you said.


----------



## Metal Ken (May 17, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Let's not get started on the PATRIOT Act. Where were you gun owners when that was imposed? You sure as hell weren't protecting your freedoms, that's for sure...



Man, i dunno. I was too busy being _too young to vote_, and thus not being able to do anything about it anyway.


----------



## wannabguitarist (May 17, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> Man, i dunno. I was too busy being _too young to vote_, and thus not being able to do anything about it anyway.







Origins said:


> Sorry, a bit off topic but it came in my mind..
> American people don´t like to loose their rights, thinking that they stole their land from Native Americans..?
> So if that is being American then..



So our ancestors were a bunch of assholes and took land, rights, and a way of living from a bunch of people? What does that have to do with this conversation? It's not like America is the only country that has done that


----------



## The Dark Wolf (May 17, 2009)

So, since the early American government had some corrupt assholes, along with a whole bunch of misguided policies, which unfortunately deprived Native Americans of their rights (the same rights they enjoy in this day and age as the rest of us, since all Native Americans are US citizens), we should all give up our Constitutionally protected rights?

That doesn't compute, Chief.


----------



## Zoltta (May 17, 2009)

This thread turned into shit thus too boring for me to type out a decent reply so ill leave with this


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 17, 2009)

My point kinda was that a lot of American gun owners seem to spout the "if the government tries to take away our rights then we can retaliate with our weapons, therefore they would never dare to do so on pain of armed insurrection" rhetoric. And yet I never saw anyone shooting anyone over the USAPATRIOT Act.

Maybe they're just full of hot air, or maybe they simply give their gun ownership a higher value than their personal freedoms?

I think I know which I'd be more willing to fight to defend...


----------



## renzoip (May 17, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I think it would probably help me understand your point better if you were to clean up the sentence structure and spelling of your post, but from what I can tell I believe I disagree with what you said.



Thanks. I did check for spelling and grammar in Microsoft Word and I only found one spelling error and one grammatical error. Still, I would be shocked if you actually agreed with me.



Zoltta said:


> This thread turned into shit thus too boring for me to type out a decent reply so ill leave with this



I thought "The Lounge" was for serious discussions...


----------



## Zoltta (May 17, 2009)

renzoip said:


> Thanks. I did check for spelling and grammar in Microsoft Word and I only found one spelling error and one grammatical error. Still, I would be shocked if you actually agreed with me.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought "The Lounge" was for serious discussions...



It is a serious discussion, except now people are arguing about grammar and Patriot Acts and shit that isnt about the OP's arguement.


----------



## renzoip (May 17, 2009)

philkilla said:


> That's a pretty vague statement for someone who doesn't even know me first off.
> 
> Decisions and policies go into play every day that make mine or my coworkers lives difficult all the time.
> 
> ...



I was talking about gun enthusiasts in general. When I say "you" I not mean literally "you" but gun enthusiasts. About the Patriot Act, there was nothing people could really do to stop it. It's not about what they would have done to stop it. But the fact is that many right wing gun enthusiasts actually supported this act although it deprived people from constitutional rights.

Sometimes laws are imposed and there is nothing people can do about it. But there is a difference between supporting it and not supporting it.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 17, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> This thread turned into shit thus too boring for me to type out a decent reply so ill leave with this



But what does it mean? 



ZeroSignal said:


> And yet I never saw anyone shooting anyone over the USAPATRIOT Act.



Like I said, a WHOLE LOT of people just don't even know about the Patriot Act. Unfortunately this includes a LOT of gun owners.

Then there's the dumb fucks here who know about it, but going by the name assume it's to 'protect' our freedoms without knowing what it actually says. *gag*


----------



## Zoltta (May 17, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> But what does it mean?



It means "COME AND TAKE THEM!"


Its the Special Operations Command motto that derived from what the Spartans said to the Persian Army demanded they surrender their weapons. Its a common expression throughout the gun community whenever there is something involving the government taking your shit away or wanting to.


----------



## Origins (May 18, 2009)

wannabguitarist said:


> So our ancestors were a bunch of assholes and took land, rights, and a way of living from a bunch of people? What does that have to do with this conversation? It's not like America is the only country that has done that


 
Did you see that I said "a bit off topic" ? 
Doesn´t mean because other countries did shits that US is out.
And I only spook about colonisation..
If I would start on topics like "US uses about 2/3 of Earth´s resources..".
Sorry but it just upset me that some people think they have the right to do and own everything they want, to dump their trash in poor countries, to go to war in other countries to get their fucking oil, etc..


----------



## wannabguitarist (May 18, 2009)

Origins said:


> Did you see that I said "a bit off topic" ?
> Doesn´t mean because other countries did shits that US is out.
> And I only spook about colonisation..
> If I would start on topics like "US uses about 2/3 of Earth´s resources..".
> Sorry but it just upset me that some people think they have the right to do and own everything they want, to dump their trash in poor countries, to go to war in other countries to get their fucking oil, etc..



I saw that and still thought it was a bit odd to bring it up. Bob did a far better job saying what I meant to say anyways.

I do agree with the last part of your post though, but that's for another thread


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 18, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> It means "COME AND TAKE THEM!"
> 
> 
> Its the Special Operations Command motto that derived from what the Spartans said to the Persian Army demanded they surrender their weapons. Its a common expression throughout the gun community whenever there is something involving the government taking your shit away or wanting to.



...like your rights?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 18, 2009)

Zoltta said:


> It means "COME AND TAKE THEM!"
> 
> 
> Its the Special Operations Command motto that derived from what the Spartans said to the Persian Army demanded they surrender their weapons. Its a common expression throughout the gun community whenever there is something involving the government taking your shit away or wanting to.



Nifty. Umm, how do you pronounce it?


----------



## Zoltta (May 18, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Nifty. Umm, how do you pronounce it?



lol Molon Labe


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 18, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> My point kinda was that a lot of American gun owners seem to spout the "if the government tries to take away our rights then we can retaliate with our weapons, therefore they would never dare to do so on pain of armed insurrection" rhetoric. And yet I never saw anyone shooting anyone over the USAPATRIOT Act.
> 
> Maybe they're just full of hot air, or maybe they simply give their gun ownership a higher value than their personal freedoms?
> 
> I think I know which I'd be more willing to fight to defend...



So, no one is going to bite?


----------



## silentrage (May 18, 2009)

renzoip said:


> Sometimes laws are imposed and there is nothing people can do about it.



I thought this was called communism or totalitarian government.


----------



## renzoip (May 18, 2009)

silentrage said:


> I thought this was called communism or totalitarian government.



Yes, it can. But it can also be called democracy, specially when it's representative and not direct. Things like this happen (or have happened) in all types of governments everywhere. Everyone likes to brag about "freedom" and "justice" but at this point I just don't buy it anymore regardless of which side such claims come from.


----------



## silentrage (May 18, 2009)

renzoip said:


> Yes, it can. But it can also be called democracy, specially when it's representative and not direct. Things like this happen (or have happened) in all types of governments everywhere. Everyone likes to brag about "freedom" and "justice" but at this point I just don't buy it anymore regardless of which side such claims come from.



Yeah, can't argue with that.

I'm bored so I'm just gonna babble for a while. This is kinda off topic, so only read if you're bored like me. ^^



ZeroSignal said:


> So, no one is going to bite?



Psst, this is me biting! 

It seems "Free market" has been so successful for a few elites that they can effectively manipulate the economy through corporate/political influence. 

This results in a government or at least a portion of the representatives who govern with self interest and profit in mind. 

I can't say I know what the real reason for the Iraq war was but I know 2 things:
A. The reasons they fed you through their puppet media is bullshit in its purest undiluted forms, and B: No disaster on the scale of the Iraq war and the collapse of wall street leading to the global economic crisis goes by without someone getting extremely fucking loaded off them.

Whether these events were engineered, deliberately allowed to happen, or were failed to be prevented is pretty irrelevant, because whichever way it happened, it shows you have a government that's too evil, apathetic or incompetent to protect you, let alone govern in your interest, be it economical, social or physical well being. I'm no expert in any of those areas but IMO the outing of a veteran CIA operative, firing of high level federal attorneys both for political reasons, and the whole shooting people in the face while HUNTING QUAIL all point to the first possibility, that you have some evil fucks running your country or should I say ran.(if you're lucky)

And they didn't do this by rounding up people in the streets, or holding people and gun point in demand of their money and possessions. They did this by using media manipulation and blatantly lying to your face while passing legislations, referendums, acts, etc that slowly took away your freedoms and corroded your highest held ideals without most people even giving a fuck. 

So here's the big question, how does having guns help you at this point? 
If you didn't have the wits, wealth, investigative abilities, connections, or motivations to preserve your civil liberties for the last 8 years, what makes you think you can defend yourself if it comes to a fire fight?

p.s. No condescension implied, because I wasn't exactly up in arms about it either. I have an excuse though, I'm Canadian.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (May 19, 2009)

silentrage said:


> p.s. No condescension implied, because I wasn't exactly up in arms about it either. I have an excuse though, I'm Canadian.



That's a perfect excuse. 

I'll admit the intrigue of the elite is something rather new to me. The concept of it was only introduced to my mind last fall, and I've been gleaning an enormous amount of information on what has happened thus far, and what is suspected to happen in the future. It's quite a LOT to take in.

Coincidentally, I moved out of my parents house last fall, and as a result have not watched TV since. I'm starting to wonder if that has anything to do with the apathy of the general public in this country to it's major problems.


----------



## JBroll (May 20, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> Let's not get started on the PATRIOT Act. Where were you gun owners when that was imposed? You sure as hell weren't protecting your freedoms, that's for sure...



Along with Metal Ken, I was off protecting my freedoms by trying to talk people out of being ignorant asshats because I was too young to vote or have a gun.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (May 20, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Along with Metal Ken, I was off protecting my freedoms by trying to talk people out of being ignorant asshats because I was too young to vote or have a gun.
> 
> Jeff



So, that's 2 out of 230 odd million accounted for... Anyone else?


----------



## JBroll (May 20, 2009)

That's probably closer to 100 million, actually, given our voting age of 18 and usual CCL age of 21. The other people who weren't blinded by nationalistic bullshit were helpless anyway, since nobody actually read the bloody thing and elections for congressmen wouldn't come around until the year after.

Jeff


----------

