Assault Weapons Ban 2008 bill
- 11-09-2008, 01:41 AM
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.
- 11-09-2008, 02:31 AM
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)
11-09-2008, 02:43 AM
11-09-2008, 02:48 AM
11-09-2008, 03:08 AM
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
11-09-2008, 03:35 AM
also I am curious, what makes a .223 caliber AR any more dangerous than the .300 Win Mag sitting behind me?
11-09-2008, 06:46 AM
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.
11-09-2008, 06:56 AM
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.
11-09-2008, 07:53 AM
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
11-09-2008, 08:01 AM
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
11-09-2008, 09:05 AM
11-09-2008, 09:12 AM
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.
11-09-2008, 09:24 AM
11-09-2008, 09:25 AM
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?
11-09-2008, 01:50 PM
11-09-2008, 02:00 PM
11-09-2008, 02:07 PM
11-09-2008, 02:09 PM
11-09-2008, 02:29 PM
11-09-2008, 02:37 PM
God damn. This is the first time i'm reading about this. This is absolute bull****. Gave me ****ing goosebumps, i'm so mad. It better not pass. I think I need to buy a couple assualt rifles in the near future.
11-09-2008, 03:18 PM
11-09-2008, 04:04 PM
11-09-2008, 04:28 PM
who needs assault weapons anyway?
they're designed for one thing and one thing only to kill people, you kill someone rightfully or wrongfully and you end up in prison, not a good ending
maybe this outlaw will keep a few people alive and others out of trouble/prison.
11-09-2008, 05:39 PM
I think cars are weapons too and should be banned, I think the government should either ban all cars or control all cars/trucks/ because civilians are retarded!
Look at those numbers! for cars!
45,800 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2005, and 2,400,000 were injured
The monetary result of these fatal and nonfatal unintentional injuries amounted to $625.5 billion in 2005. This is equivalent to about $2,100 per capita, or about $5,500 per household. Every American household pays in one way or another, through higher prices for goods and services, or through higher taxes
Now, look at guns!
52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004
In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.
None of the guns used against me in crimes were legal, not a single one , let alone possession by a person, which tells me one thing, laws do not for criminals, they don't know what the laws are they don't give a f**K.
ON THE OTHER HAND, every car I've been hit by, was LEGAL, 3 times I got hit by people not paying attention and breaking laws, on my motorcycle, 3 times, no charges filed, idiots still free, driving, even though I had broken bones, fractures, pain that still shows out of the blue somedays.....nothing filed against them....
Next time, if someone hits me with their car, I'm going to "accidentally" shoot them with my gun....if no charges were filed for criminal negligence everytime I got hit by the car, none should be filed for me being negligent with the gun, how about some equality mutherf**kers !
11-09-2008, 05:54 PM
Well, every single round you fire, you're accounted for, I'm good with my guns, I don't carry anything I can't fire accurately, once a month atleast I make sure I qualify with what I carry, both hands.
But, I do carry 1 15 rouns magazine and 2 20 rnd magazines, why? why not? more rounds=more killing points if I have to, I'd rather carry my 55 rounds in mags and 100rnds (loose) with me everyday and NEVER use them, then carry a 10 round mag+1 in the chamber and happen to need 12 or more.
The odds of having a big fire in your house are low, but do you keep a car extinguisher or the biggest one you can afford/carry around reasonably? I go for the latter.
11-09-2008, 10:16 PM
11-09-2008, 10:44 PM
11-10-2008, 06:58 AM
11-26-2008, 04:37 PM
I voted against the ban because if we stop importing 7.62 caliber guns the ammo will become less common and more expensive. It's already gone up a lot since last time I bought.
11-28-2008, 06:07 PM
Similar Forum Threads
- By JudoJosh in forum AnabolicsReplies: 15Last Post: 10-06-2009, 06:55 AM
- By milwood in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 05-23-2008, 04:03 PM
- By RobInKuwait in forum PoliticsReplies: 37Last Post: 10-12-2004, 12:17 AM
- By windwords7 in forum AnabolicsReplies: 10Last Post: 12-07-2002, 01:27 AM
- By true_c in forum General ChatReplies: 4Last Post: 10-26-2002, 07:37 PM