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 6 First 12345 ... Last

  1. 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


  2. 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)
    •   
       


  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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]
    •   
       

  11. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    a majority of crimes + murders are done with 38 special revolvers...
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  12. 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.

  13. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    a majority of crimes + murders are done with 38 special revolvers...
    COMPLETELY agree!
  14. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    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?
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  15. 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.
  16. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    i was thinking more along the lines of bans on sports cars, and speed governors on cars
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  17. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    i was thinking more along the lines of bans on sports cars, and speed governors on cars
    On star can turn your car off for you, should you unintentionally try to run from the police.

    Maybe someday cars will be limited down to a minimal number of cylinders under the guise of "saving the environment"

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Omen View Post
    That's what the people who are too scared, too irresponsible, too cowardly to own/carry/use one, they think just because they can't then, everyone else can't either....
    MONEY! people are so afraid of guns but in all reality its people who you should be afraid of. If someone wants to kill you they will, just look at prison, those dudes kill each other by trying to saw off heads with a rope made from parts of a cotton sheet. the point being that people always have and always will be afraid of the unknown and the vast majority will always be irresponsible......just look at all the jackasses that come in here and say i wanna be huge and i dont want to be responsible, i just want the majic pills i know you guys are hording.

  19. Quote Originally Posted by GotTest View Post
    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: North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Everyday police were not trained to out gun somebody back then. their training was more to serve and protect. Those police made plenty of mistakes in that shoot out. Once SWAT showed up it was over. I speak out personal experience form having been in more firefights than i care to remember including one over 10 hours and i can tell you they lost their wits because of the noise and the confusion (just listen to the radio traffic) not from the volume of well aimed fire. Who in their right mind hides behind a locksmith keyosk (sp?) with tons of glass windows and plywood walls. By no means am i all for auto weapons or drum magazines but i think if you are a law biding citizen you should get what ever the **** you want and if its stolen and a crime is committed its your ass going to jail. Force the responsibility on the owner not the system. Some items are just not practical such as Armor piercing ammo or anti aircraft cannons but with all the hoops you jump through to get a weapon from a dealer they should be able to hold the original owner responsible and you cant say the serial numbers will be filed off because there is a huge list of ways to tell everything about the weapon like keeping a balistics record for example.

  20. 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.

  21. Quote Originally Posted by crawlinmatt View Post
    Everyday police were not trained to out gun somebody back then. their training was more to serve and protect. Those police made plenty of mistakes in that shoot out. Once SWAT showed up it was over. I speak out personal experience form having been in more firefights than i care to remember including one over 10 hours and i can tell you they lost their wits because of the noise and the confusion (just listen to the radio traffic) not from the volume of well aimed fire. Who in their right mind hides behind a locksmith keyosk (sp?) with tons of glass windows and plywood walls. By no means am i all for auto weapons or drum magazines but i think if you are a law biding citizen you should get what ever the **** you want and if its stolen and a crime is committed its your ass going to jail. Force the responsibility on the owner not the system. Some items are just not practical such as Armor piercing ammo or anti aircraft cannons but with all the hoops you jump through to get a weapon from a dealer they should be able to hold the original owner responsible and you cant say the serial numbers will be filed off because there is a huge list of ways to tell everything about the weapon like keeping a balistics record for example.
    I agree w/ this. This is why I am for "smart" guns.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Orangepeel View Post
    also I am curious, what makes a .223 caliber AR any more dangerous than the .300 Win Mag sitting behind me?
    YOU

  23. 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.

    my 2cents

  24. Quote Originally Posted by DormantFiber View Post
    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.

    my 2cents
    I agree 100%!

    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.[6] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[7] 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 !



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vio..._United_States

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Jayhawkk View Post
    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.


    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.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by luke1984 View Post
    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.
    Agree.

  27. Quote Originally Posted by luke1984 View Post
    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.


    And gun free zones? Seriously?
    Last time I checked someone planning on carrying out a school shooting doesnt give a sh!t about the law.
  28. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by DormantFiber View Post
    who needs assault weapons anyway?
    the problem with that sentiment is (as my pictures earlier illustrate) that an "assault weapon" is defined by how a gun looks, not by how it functions. No different than making it illegal for anything but commercial vehicles to have over 150hp or 150ft/lb of torque because no one other than commercial vehicles needs more than that
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum
  29. dpfisher
    dpfisher's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by DormantFiber View Post
    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
    You might want to check into what an assault weapon is. Nearly any gun can be an "assault weapon" simply by adding parts that make it no more deadly than it already was. I've gone through about 2000 rounds of "assault weapon" ammunition this year and not killed anybody!

    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.

  30. i just got home with my new DPMS AP4!!!
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Weapons Of Mass Construction
    By oush in forum Workout Logs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-29-2007, 06:45 AM
  2. Top Ten Best Video Game - Weapons !
    By anabolicrhino in forum General Chat
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 04-10-2007, 04:54 PM
  3. Prosthetic weapons!!!
    By gixxman in forum General Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-25-2006, 08:26 PM
  4. Sadam's Powerful Chemical Weapons
    By Sheesh in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-02-2004, 04:42 AM
  5. Chemical Weapons Factory FOUND!!
    By dez/null in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-05-2003, 06:20 PM
Log in
Log in