Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Assault Weapons Ban 2008 bill

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

  • Total voters
    88
Omen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Urban Monk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is this technology even available?
 
Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

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.
 
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.
 
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 bullshit. 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.
 
Jayhawkk said:
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 bullshit.
Click to expand...

:head:
 
Jayhawkk said:
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 bullshit. 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jayhawkk said:
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 bullshit. 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jon671 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed
 
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)
 
futurepilot said:
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.
Click to expand...
i can't believe it i actually agree w futurepilot
buy a phone and dial 911
 
whiskers said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
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
 
Omen said:
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 :rolleyes:

"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.
Click to expand...
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:head: 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:nutkick::nutkick:don't shoot
 
also I am curious, what makes a .223 caliber AR any more dangerous than the .300 Win Mag sitting behind me?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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: Invalid Link Removed
 
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]
 
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.
 
Jayhawkk said:
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.
Click to expand...

So then what is the point of restricting them then? Its just because "they look evil". Is this rifle

Invalid Link Removed

any MORE dangerous than this rifle?

Invalid Link Removed

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?
 
EasyEJL said:
i was thinking more along the lines of bans on sports cars, and speed governors on cars
Click to expand...
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"
 
Omen said:
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....:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

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.
 
GotTest said:
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: Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

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.
 
God damn. This is the first time i'm reading about this. This is absolute bullshit. 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.
 
crawlinmatt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree w/ this. This is why I am for "smart" guns.
 
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
 
DormantFiber said:
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
Click to expand...

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 !:smite:



Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
Jayhawkk said:
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.
Click to expand...

:icon_lol:

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.
 
luke1984 said:
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.
Click to expand...
:goodpost:

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.
 
DormantFiber said:
who needs assault weapons anyway?
Click to expand...

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
 
DormantFiber said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
I very opposed ! so every honest citizen in the United States is going to be disarmed ? who's brilliant idea was that ? I remember back sometime when Hillary Clinton was doing this "Mothers Against Guns" march,..quess whos surrounded by Secret Servicemen,..? maby they where only armed with pepper spray,.? ....sorry but im not giving up mine.
 
MTNMEDIC said:
I very opposed ! so every honest citizen in the United States is going to be disarmed ? who's brilliant idea was that ? I remember back sometime when Hillary Clinton was doing this "Mothers Against Guns" march,..quess whos surrounded by Secret Servicemen,..? maby they where only armed with pepper spray,.? ....sorry but im not giving up mine.
Click to expand...

You remind of a local magazine we have, Rods & Guns, they said the same thing, "Your tax money at work to ensure the personal safety of your senator....while the senators works to deny you the ability to protect yourself" :frustrate




Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed
 
I am torn on the subject. Although I think assault weapons are fun to shoot, I just don't trust most people with them. Even cops sometimes. But that applies to all guns. I don't have a problem with restrictions on such weapons, if it wasn't for the fact that it might lead to banning all of them.

And just look what is happening in Mexico. I am pretty sure that guns are illegal to possess there, but if you have been watching the news lately, Mexican drug cartels are STOCKED with assault weapons (.50 caliber rifles and even grenades). And they have been using them, killing all kinds of people including rival cartel members, cops, politicians, and anyone else in between. They have been finding mutilated and decapitated bodies in Juarez and Tijuana. Scary, scary stuff is happening along our borders.

This violence has spread into Arizona, California, and Texas in the form of home invasions. It's a scary combination - Drugs and Guns. It seems that they have been pushing drugs through the border heavily, as the airway and waterway security was beefed up after 9/11. Now more than ever, border states are major hubs for drug trafficking.

Given that, I am thankful for the 2nd amendment in our country, especially considering the fact that our government has done very little in regards to our borders. If they are unwilling or unable to protect us, then at least give the people the right to protect themselves.
 
Lacradocious said:
I am torn on the subject. Although I think assault weapons are fun to shoot, I just don't trust most people with them. Even cops sometimes. But that applies to all guns. I don't have a problem with restrictions on such weapons, if it wasn't for the fact that it might lead to banning all of them.

And just look what is happening in Mexico. I am pretty sure that guns are illegal to possess there, but if you have been watching the news lately, Mexican drug cartels are STOCKED with assault weapons (.50 caliber rifles and even grenades). And they have been using them, killing all kinds of people including rival cartel members, cops, politicians, and anyone else in between. They have been finding mutilated and decapitated bodies in Juarez and Tijuana. Scary, scary stuff is happening along our borders.

This violence has spread into Arizona, California, and Texas in the form of home invasions. It's a scary combination - Drugs and Guns. It seems that they have been pushing drugs through the border heavily, as the airway and waterway security was beefed up after 9/11. Now more than ever, border states are major hubs for drug trafficking.

Given that, I am thankful for the 2nd amendment in our country, especially considering the fact that our government has done very little in regards to our borders. If they are unwilling or unable to protect us, then at least give the people the right to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

Cops are never able to really protect people.

Though no fault of their own, the average police time in my state/area was 7 minutes and in some areas in America, it can take on average up to 2 hours! I did a report on this in a HomeLand Security course in college.

When seconds count, Police are there in minutes, guns protect people, cops interrogate, maintain presence, apprehend and handle high risk situations(sustained bank robberies, bomb threats, etc....) and other things...

But for self defense, nothing beats a well trained mind armed with a .45 ACP 230grain Federal Hydrashock JHP loaded Handgun.
 
Omen said:
Cops are never able to really protect people.

Though no fault of their own, the average police time in my state/area was 7 minutes and in some areas in America, it can take on average up to 2 hours! I did a report on this in a HomeLand Security course in college.

When seconds count, Police are there in minutes, guns protect people, cops interrogate, maintain presence, apprehend and handle high risk situations(sustained bank robberies, bomb threats, etc....) and other things...

But for self defense, nothing beats a well trained mind armed with a .45 ACP 230grain Federal Hydrashock JHP loaded Handgun.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I have a .45 w/ 2 magazines of that ammo mentioned. I just need to get the well trained mind part down.
 
Lacradocious said:
As a matter of fact, I have a .45 w/ 2 magazines of that ammo mentioned. I just need to get the well trained mind part down.
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed

I have an academy here(FL) that provides courses to private citizens and to restricted government agencies, Armed security, D/G Armed security guard license, patrol techniques, etc....

Fun, worth the money and you meet like minded people, good place to get your CCW/CWP permit course if you haven't already.
 
EasyEJL said:
I beg to differ, a 357 magnum revolver with Glaser Safety Slugs is a better choice :)
Click to expand...

I don't trust them, never seen them proven, like the magsafe...

These days I'm carrying a .357 magnum and 2 speed loaders, I load em up with Federal Hydrashok 158grain.

If you like revolvers, you should look in to the Taurus Judge, fires a .45LC and a .410 shotshell :D....load em up with slugs, not bird/buck shot :D

Invalid Link Removed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top