Poll: What do you think about the 2008 Permanent Assault Weapons ban bill?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Assault Weapons Ban 2008 bill

Page 3 of 7 First 12345 ... Last

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Omen View Post
    What if you're wearing gloves?

    What if it's your wife's gun and your wife just got shot in the head?

    What if your hands are dirty(oil, food, etc...) and you need to use the gun but it can't identify you?

    What if you can take a gun from one attacker, thinking you can defend yourself against the others, but nothing happens? And this is not unlikely to happen, within arms reach, I can disarm anyone of their firearm and place two rounds in them with their own firearm in less than 2 seconds.

    Stupid idea.
    If they are wearing gloves, the gun won't work.

    If your wife got shot, boo hoo? Should've bought your own.

    I guess pick up better hygiene habits?

    The gun used by the attacker will be tracked down to its owner, and justice will be wrought.

    Good idea.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by Urban Monk View Post
    If they are wearing gloves, the gun won't work.

    If your wife got shot, boo hoo? Should've bought your own.

    I guess pick up better hygiene habits?

    The gun used by the attacker will be tracked down to its owner, and justice will be wrought.

    Good idea.
    Is this technology even available?
    •   
       


  3. From a press release in 2004:

    Smith & Wesson has announced their partnership with American Security Co. to add safes and biometric guns to their product line.



  4. OhGizmo! Archive A Biometric Smart Gun

    Looks pretty cool. One thing about this biometric gun, is that its your grip that determines whether it fires. Not sure how useful it will be to law enforcement for tracking down people, as there is no grip database out there. It would be good for verifying you have the right guy tho.

  5. I've seen some other implementations too. One where the user wears a magnetic ring, which is tied to a magnetic responder in the gun itself. Only the person w/ the ring could fire the gun. Not a perfect solution, but a step forwards.

    This would also ensure gun reliability. NJIT has a program dedicated to "smart" guns, which work off dna, grip, and numerous other factors that help to authorize a user.
    •   
       


  6. I'm a firearms instructor(getting that out of the way before my next statement)

    I find no reason what-so-ever to own fully automatic weapons. Outside of being a collector but I really don't care if you're a collector. There are plenty of people out there that would love to collect things but can't because they're illegal. I find no modern day reasons to have fully auto weapons other than the argument of 'i want my guns'. While I don't find it a good argument I accept the fact that people feel strongly about it.

    You're not stopping thieves/rapists/burglers any better with an ak47 than you can with any other semi-auto weapon that wouldn't be banned. The argument of protecting yourself from your government is bull****. There's not a militia alive in the US today that can stand up to the military of their state/country. In the days it was written it made sense but today it doesn't.

    I also believe that banning fully auto weapons isn't going to lead to some kind of reduction in crime either.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    I find no reason what-so-ever to own fully automatic weapons.

    You're not stopping thieves/rapists/burglers any better with an ak47 than you can with any other semi-auto weapon that wouldn't be banned.

    The argument of protecting yourself from your government is bull****.

  8. I find most cops are opposed to fully automatics.

    Understandably so...most would be overpowered.

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    I'm a firearms instructor(getting that out of the way before my next statement)

    I find no reason what-so-ever to own fully automatic weapons. Outside of being a collector but I really don't care if you're a collector. There are plenty of people out there that would love to collect things but can't because they're illegal. I find no modern day reasons to have fully auto weapons other than the argument of 'i want my guns'. While I don't find it a good argument I accept the fact that people feel strongly about it.

    You're not stopping thieves/rapists/burglers any better with an ak47 than you can with any other semi-auto weapon that wouldn't be banned. The argument of protecting yourself from your government is bull****. There's not a militia alive in the US today that can stand up to the military of their state/country. In the days it was written it made sense but today it doesn't.

    I also believe that banning fully auto weapons isn't going to lead to some kind of reduction in crime either.
    I was under the impression that semi-auto assault weapons would be banned too. Maybe I am wrong. I am a firm believer of being over prepared rather than under prepared. Fully auto is illegal, but you can buy a conversion kit you just cannot install it. Good to have though.

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post

    You're not stopping thieves/rapists/burglers any better with an ak47 than you can with any other semi-auto weapon that wouldn't be banned. The argument of protecting yourself from your government is bull****. There's not a militia alive in the US today that can stand up to the military of their state/country. In the days it was written it made sense but today it doesn't.

    I also believe that banning fully auto weapons isn't going to lead to some kind of reduction in crime either.
    This would include all civilian purchasing of ANY assault weapons, semi-auto AND full auto AND handguns with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, extend below the grip or have threaded barrels!

    So if you want 12-15 round mags for your .45, Forget it! even active LE and Military cannot purchase them personally! only through the agency IF they authorize it and/or deem it necessary for work!

    To purchase a full auto assault weapon, you need a $200 tax stamp, background check(3 months wait), tons of paper work, same thing for a silencer.....too much work and money for me, not to mention the actual weapon itself is $5000 Minimum.

    What boggles me is that this is to be enforced and reduce crime......yet, last time I checked, criminals never cared about any law, let alone an assault weapon ban, a lot of people I know in the hood and around my neighborhood have guns, most of them illegal and carry without a permit(illegal here, only legal in Alaska) some of the guns have 15-20 round mags, I doubt they even know that there's an assault weapon ban bill going on, the people it's intended for don't give a rats ass.

    The only people that suffer from gun control are law abiding citizens, well because they abide by the law, criminals don't.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by jon671 View Post
    I was under the impression that semi-auto assault weapons would be banned too. Maybe I am wrong. I am a firm believer of being over prepared rather than under prepared. Fully auto is illegal, but you can buy a conversion kit you just cannot install it. Good to have though.
    Don't forget, this will also repeal the tiahrt amendment, which even the national president of the FOP (Faternal Order of Police) is against and for good reasons!

    In media reports last year, law enforcement sources cited that as many as four cases were compromised and an additional 14 were put at risk by private investigators employed by New York City who acted on the basis of trace data.
    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Article...=243&issue=022

  12. Who the F*ck thinks this Sh!t up!?!? - The only before and after difference from this will be that when a criminal shoots at me with his AR-15 (and surely criminals will still buy and sell whatever guns they so choose to) I cannot shoot back.

    An out of curiousity, is this proposed bill, or this bill WILL be happening? (So I can go by the AR I've always wanted before it goes through)

  13. Quote Originally Posted by futurepilot View Post
    Nobody goes squirrel hunting with an Ar-15, or an ak-47. You dont need them. There is no infringement on your 2nd amendment rights because the 2nd amendment refers to a well regulated Militia. There is no precedence for those out there who imagine defending their home with an assault weapon rambo style, its just not reality.
    i can't believe it i actually agree w futurepilot
    buy a phone and dial 911

  14. Quote Originally Posted by whiskers View Post
    The whole point of the second amendment is so you can protect yourself if the government gets out of line.
    For that reason, it is unjustifiable to allow the state to posses superior weapons.

    I plan to have an AR15 by the end of the week
    that old lady in atlanta tried and guess what she still got shot down
    my advice lay down cross ur legs and put ur hands behind ur head

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Omen View Post
    Do you live in a really good neighborhood?

    2 houses I lived in have been burglarized when I was not there(this includes the one I live in now) 2 attempted robberies that I stopped on myself, 1 I stopped for someone who knew someone was coming after them and I stayed with them for 3 days and DID stop them from attacking them, while the cops did NOTHING to protect this person "we can't do anything, till something happens..." how comforting

    "Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases, property. Anyone is free to quote or reproduce these accounts." Armed Citizen


    Have you ever been shot? shot at? I have, luckily, the only injury I had was from a hollow point of a 9mm fragment that grazed me, you know how dead I would've been without my gun?

    Ever been stabbed? bad f**king feeling, I defended myself just with my knife, you know if the guy had a gun and I didn't or 1 or 2 more guys had a knife how dead I would've been?

    I hate people who say retarded sh*t like that, I always hope people like you and your families get raped and robbed then you can consider firearm laws because honestly, people's opinion's on gun laws do change after that.

    If something I'm doing now, perfectly legal(carrying my sidearm which has 15 rounds) suddenly becomes illegal, I'm still gonna carry it, I'm not a criminal, but this f**king country wants me to be one, I'll be one.
    what a patriot should probably volonteer for the red cross and change neighborhood or better yet its a war going on and guess what they allow you to carry gunz and you can kill as many bad guyz as you want wishing on people to get rape because they don't share your opinion please tell me you do not have kidz
    as of those 2 KIDS from texas they had a crow bar probably for the window a guy like you would have no shouldn't have no problem kicking their as* why not just shoot them witch i can understand but call him american HERO ? seriously ? maverick hein ?
    the law will pass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!don't shoot

  16. also I am curious, what makes a .223 caliber AR any more dangerous than the .300 Win Mag sitting behind me?

  17. We've already had a ban on large cap magazines etc etc. If you find yourself in a situation where you need to have a magazine over 10 rounds and can not kill what you're aiming at you need to look around for a few things...
    1. Are you in Africa(the continent) and trying to kill a Bull Elephant with a 40cal pistol?
    2. Did you join a police force and end up on a raid?
    3. Was the draft re-established and make you carry in your own firearm into battle?

    Plus you can always option for a second or third magazine if your answer to any of the above, was yes. I also find no reason to have a silencer. I'm not basing my opinion of stats of crime going up or down or having to gun battle criminals who will stock up on assault rifles while you're stuck to owning a stock pile of completely inferior, yet more accurate weaponry. I'm basing it off of the fact that I can't find any reason that anyone would actually want to own these things and actually have a use.

    I personally don't care one way or another on this.

  18. This only affects citizens that respect the law. Criminals will still have weapons, because they're criminals. This is as stupid and anti-intellectual as the war on drugs.

  19. Like I stated earlier...
    The only reason they want to limit the mag capacity is to not overpower law enforcement. I am NOT an antigovernment, conspiracy guy either.
    It's just the simple truth. I am also friends with several LEO and a SS agent.

    This is one of the best scenarios: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

  20. Taken from bradycampaign.org FAQs section (though I think some data is inaccurate):

    Q: Does law enforcement support the ban on assault weapons?

    A: Every major national law enforcement organization in the country supported the federal assault weapons ban and worked for its passage. Among the many law enforcement organization that supported the ban are the Law Enforcement Steering Committee, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs Association, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the National Black Police Association, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the Police Foundation.

    Q: Why did police support the ban so strongly?

    A: While there are no exact numbers of assault weapon incidents, police across America in the 1980s reported that semi-automatic assault weapons had become the "weapon of choice" for drug traffickers, gangs and paramilitary extremist groups.

    Law enforcement officers are at particular risk from these weapons because of their high firepower and ability to penetrate body armor. In addition, limiting civilian access to such weapons lessens the need for law enforcement to carry assault weapons themselves in order to match the firepower capability that criminals with assault weapons would have. Law enforcement officers do not want to have to carry M-16s as their standard service weapon. In 1997, after a North Hollywood, CA shootout in which police were outgunned by two men with assault weapons, Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police stated

    An AK-47 fires a military round. In a conventional home with dry-wall walls, I wouldn't be surprised if it went through six of them...Police are armed with weapons that are effective with criminals in line of sight. They don't want and don't need weapons that would harm innocent bystanders.[2]

    Ray Kelly, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for enforcement at the time, noted that police departments have specially trained officers who use high-powered weapons. "It takes a lot of training to be proficient at it," he said. "I don't think you can issue high-powered weapons to every patrol officer."[3]

    Prior to the ban's passage, assault rifles were used to kill and injure dozens of innocent people in some particularly heinous crimes, including:
    I BELIEVE MORE DEATHS OCCUR FROM SMALL CAPACITY WEAPONS MYSELF

    The Stockton schoolyard massacre - On January 17, 1989, Patrick Purdy killed 5 small children, and wounded 29 others and 1 teacher at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California, using a semi-automatic version of the AK-47 assault rifle imported from China. That weapon had been purchased from a gun dealer in Oregon and was equipped with a 75-round "drum" magazine. Purdy shot 106 rounds in less than 2 minutes.[4]

    The San Francisco Pettit & Martin shootings - On July 1, 1993, Gian Luigi Ferri killed 8 people and wounded 6 others at the San Francisco law offices of Pettit & Martin and other offices at 101 California Street. Ferri used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons had been purchased from a pawnshop and a gun show in Nevada.[5]

    The CIA headquarters shootings - On January 25, 1993, Pakistani national Mir Aimal Kasi killed 2 CIA employees and wounded 3 others outside the entrance to CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Kasi used a Chinese-made semi-automatic AK-47 assault rifle equipped with a 30-round magazine, purchased from a Northern Virginia gun store.[6]

    The Branch-Davidian standoff in Waco, Texas - On February 28, 1993, while attempting to serve federal search and arrest warrants at the Branch-Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, four ATF special agents were killed and 16 others were wounded with an arsenal of assault weapons. According to a federal affidavit, the cult had accumulated at least the following assault weapons: 123 AR-15s, 44 AK-47s, 2 Barrett .50 calibers, 2 Street Sweepers, an unknown number of MAC-10 and MAC-11s, 20 100-round drum magazines, and 260 large-capacity banana clips. The weapons were bought legally from gun dealers and at gun shows.[7]

  21. a majority of crimes + murders are done with 38 special revolvers...

  22. The two most devastating attacks in US history occurred from box cutters and farming chemicals. Getting rid of the guns does not alleviate the potential for crime.

    That being said, as an LEO I understand how getting weapons off the street would be a positive for law enforcement. However, I think going after popular handguns as espoused in the bill is way over the top. Theres no reason I can think of handguns should be limited to a 10 round capacity.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    a majority of crimes + murders are done with 38 special revolvers...
    COMPLETELY agree!

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    You're not stopping thieves/rapists/burglers any better with an ak47 than you can with any other semi-auto weapon that wouldn't be banned.
    .....

    I also believe that banning fully auto weapons isn't going to lead to some kind of reduction in crime either.
    So then what is the point of restricting them then? Its just because "they look evil". Is this rifle



    any MORE dangerous than this rifle?



    the answer is no, because its the same rifle in different stocks. But the rifle in the upper picture would be banned because it looks evil.... Whats next after this?

  25. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    Whats next after this?
    I hopes its a curfew and checkpoints


    ....actually that's not funny. The RFID cards are a done deal, they're just slow getting them implemented.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. pro-hormone ban bill info
    By JudoJosh in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-06-2009, 06:55 AM
  2. UPDATES regarding the ban of June, 2008???
    By milwood in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-23-2008, 04:03 PM
  3. Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-12-2004, 12:17 AM
  4. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-07-2002, 01:27 AM
  5. Uh-Oh...Prohormone Bill
    By true_c in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-26-2002, 07:37 PM
Log in
Log in