Assault Weapons Ban 2008 bill
- 11-05-2008, 02:04 AM
Assault Weapons Ban 2008 bill
This time, it will not expire in 10 years, it will be permanent.
This also includes handguns over 50oz, handguns with more than 10 rounds, handguns with magazines that extend below the grip, handguns with a threaded barrel, etc....
Not to mention, the "usual suspects" a lot of shotguns, rifles, all AKs, All ARs, etc....
However, you can buy as much as you want and keep it before they ban them, you need not turn them in.
Support or Oppose?
If you vote, please post why you oppose it support it.
Full text here, I read it all, completely retarded.
Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
- 11-05-2008, 03:08 AM
Im a democrat. But I firmly oppose this. Im about to graduate college and get a job.. . eventually I will buy a house and I sure as **** would like to be able to protect it
11-05-2008, 03:08 AM
11-05-2008, 04:26 AM
11-05-2008, 05:00 AM
I oppose it because anytime you ban something like this from people, you are only taking it away from the law abiding citizens.
11-05-2008, 05:44 AM
11-05-2008, 10:22 AM
11-05-2008, 12:53 PM
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.
11-05-2008, 01:18 PM
Well...........actually an AR style weapon is awsome for squirrel and other varmit hunting. I take it you think an AR style weapon in .223 caliber form is more dangerous than a semi-auto .30-06. why because the military has them? well news flash the .223 or 5.56mm caliber sucks for killing humans. they are very far from high powered. Im against any gun law especially since criminals will always use what ever they want anyway. Besides would you rob a convience store knowing that the possibility of more than one person is concealed carrying in it. I agree about RAMBO its a hollywood thing not a real life thing.
Last edited by crawlinmatt; 11-05-2008 at 01:27 PM. Reason: mispelling
11-05-2008, 01:44 PM
11-05-2008, 02:26 PM
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Keep in mind, that the Bill of Rights is protects the liberties of INDIVIDUALS from that of the Federal Government (now increased to State and Local governments). In no way was the Bill of Rights created to protect the freedoms of groups like MILITIAS.
11-05-2008, 02:50 PM
11-05-2008, 02:56 PM
I will say that many popular handguns such as Sig Sauers and Glocks carry more than 10 bullets in their standard models and this ban would outlaw those weapons.
I disagree. Most violent criminals focus on the immediate repercussions of their actions, while losing sight of the possible long term consequences of their behavior. Knowing that anyone around you may have a gun, is definitely an immediate consequence.Anyone robbing anything/anywhere obviously isnt worried about possible reprecussion, so no, I dont think they would be detered.
11-05-2008, 02:57 PM
I think you may be mis-interpreting something. The 2nd amendment does not say "any body who want a gun can have one." It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Thats plain english to me: because a well regulated militia is neccesary, the government can not take away it members guns. No reference to individuals not part of a regulated militia.
11-05-2008, 04:07 PM
That neighbor in Texas who shot the two young men robbing his neighbors house, American Hero.
NSCA - CSCS
11-05-2008, 04:15 PM
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.
11-05-2008, 04:19 PM
It is f**king retarded how hey want to enforce more laws.....when the gun issues stem from criminals.......which don't care about existing laws....what makes em think, more laws will help? f**king idiots
Hell, the incident above where I stayed with that guy for 3 days, the attacked was a convicted felon! he had a firearm, he committed:
-Felon in possession of a firearm
-Carrying concealed firearm
-Aggrevated assault with a firearm
Not to mention other charges not related to me/my friend, do you think more laws will stop that kinda ****...please..
11-05-2008, 04:32 PM
Sorry if I came all jacked up on this post.
BUT, you people don't understand that there are people who really need their guns because of where they live and work and don't give me that BS about cops being there to protect you.
So by you voting away our gun rights and carry rights, you endanger our lives, therefor, I wish the worst most horrible to be committed on you as you vote them, to be committed on us.
11-05-2008, 05:05 PM
11-05-2008, 05:13 PM
Completely agree with Omen.
If you think it's extreme, then you are obviously not thinking much of this whole thing through.
When it comes down to your life, I think I would rather have my gun. This won't stop criminals, only the innocent citizens. Criminals are criminals because they break the law(s), what makes people think they will stop doing it because our oh-so-great government passes a pathetic law?
11-05-2008, 05:20 PM
I only wish upon you what's happened to me and other people so you can change your mind....however I have no intention or desire to do that to you, I'm sure there are people out there who will though, the UCR, NIBRS and other crime reporting systems statistics support my views.
John Lott and David Mustard, in connection with the University of Chicago Law School, examining crime statistics from 1977 to 1992 for all U.S. counties, concluded that the thirty-one states allowing their residents to carry concealed, had significant reductions in violent crime. Lott writes, "Our most conservative estimates show that by adopting shall-issue laws, states reduced murders by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. If those states that did not permit concealed handguns in 1992 had permitted them back then, citizens might have been spared approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and 12,000 robberies. To put it even more simply criminals, we found, respond rationally to deterrence threats... While support for strict gun-control laws usually has been strongest in large cities, where crime rates are highest, that's precisely where right-to-carry laws have produced the largest drops in violent crimes."
A gun is responsible for murder as much as a car is for murder, the issue at hand here is to make sure guns stay out of the wrong hands and stay in the right ones.
11-05-2008, 06:08 PM
The problem with your argument is this: ok, so I don't need an assault rifle. Why do I need a shotgun? Why isn't a revolver enough? Why do I need a gun at all?
Tell me? Why do you suppose I 'imagine' myself defending my property with an 'assault rifle' like 'Rambo'? Why those terms? If I use a revolver, will I defend it like a cowboy? Do you think I'm salivating, dreaming, just WAITING blow someone away, because, well, I own guns, I MUST think like that?
Are you sure I don't 'imagine' myself finishing the rest of my days in peace and quiet with my two baby girls, never having fired a shot? Are you sure that if I use a legal non-assault weapon to defend my kids, I won't do so in a 'rambo-ish' manner? Does the gun dictate my 'attitude'? Will I kill less without a pistol grip or hicap mag? If I kill someone with a .32, is it somehow different than if I killed him with an AR?
The 'Assault weapon' bans are written by utter retards.
11-05-2008, 06:12 PM
Proven fact. /thread.I disagree. Most violent criminals focus on the immediate repercussions of their actions, while losing sight of the possible long term consequences of their behavior. Knowing that anyone around you may have a gun, is definitely an immediate consequence.
11-05-2008, 06:17 PM
11-05-2008, 06:21 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