• Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
    Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
  • Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex

Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate bill

the gun i want to own though is a AUG i used one in my last tour in Iraq. I was worked allot of missions with AUS and I got to wear there uniform with the American flag and US Navy on it which was cool and got to use the AUG. That gun is BAD ASS... no selector switch at all. Light trigger pull is single shot, pull a lil more burst, all the way back full auto. I was also more accurate with it 50 plus more yards then my A4.
 
but I also agree with the assault weapon ban...now that is really confusing, huh? lol

No, they even have a name for people like that "Fudd".
gun-control-elmer-fudd.png
 
exactly. thank you. we don't have to prove need for alcohol, cigarettes, sports cars, cell phones, or any other number products out there. and none of those is protected by constitutional amendment. well, i guess alcohol is now. hahah

Imagine if everything was illegal until proven worthy of being legalized.

The Brady campaign and their ilk have capitalized on the fact that most people are not able to analyze arguments in a logical manner. The reason they want "a national discussion on gun violence" is to shift the burden of proof onto their opposition. It's the same reason they use the strawman about nuclear weapons, to shift the burden of proof, that gun owners must be the ones to justify which arms are covered under the second amendment.
 
all of you with these liberal views on guns and second amendment are people who have never had there lives depend on having a gun or not. how many of you have been shook down walking to your car, been a victim of a home invasion, etc... every liberal thinks they dont need or want a gun... until they need a gun when it is THEIR life that hangs in the balance. im all for cleaning up the streets and taking guns out of the hands of the wrong people, but that will never happen with out impinging on our rights and taking guns out of the hands of people that need them. next time a criminal is in your home and you're hiding in your closet hoping the police arrive in time, then tell me your liberal view on weapons

I am liberal on some issues and I own 2 guns, so what's your point?

I have no idea where the line should be drawn, but there needs to be a limit on what kind of weapons you can own. For instance, a group of radical Muslims should not be able to own grenades, missiles tanks nor submarines.

Is it the opinion of all conservatives that people should be able to own any weapon they wish? Probably not. Not all liberals want all weapons taken away either. Get it?
 
I am liberal on some issues and I own 2 guns, so what's your point?

I have no idea where the line should be drawn, but there needs to be a limit on what kind of weapons you can own. For instance, a group of radical Muslims should not be able to own grenades, missiles tanks nor submarines.

Is it the opinion of all conservatives that people should be able to own any weapon they wish? Probably not. Not all liberals want all weapons taken away either. Get it?

well if you dont have a liberal view on gun control then what i wrote doesnt apply to you. get it?
 
i merely came into this thread to express my opinions, just as everyone else did. please dont take what i said personally, as i didnt mean to offend or throw any group of people under the bus. i'm just looking to debate and hear other views on the topic. i don't have very many people to talk to about issues such as gun control haha so this is an outlet
 
i merely came into this thread to express my opinions, just as everyone else did. please dont take what i said personally, as i didnt mean to offend or throw any group of people under the bus. i'm just looking to debate and hear other views on the topic. i don't have very many people to talk to about issues such as gun control haha so this is an outlet

You'd better not! That's my job. :paddle:
 
Muscle Gelz Transdermals
IronMag Labs Prohormones
felons can't vote. what was the charge?

sure they can, it all depends on the degree of the felony and the state. depending on those factors voting rights are either automatically restored upon completion of parole or after getting a lawyer, petitioning the court, etc.

sentencing is different in all 50 states as are the terms of probation, parole and rights restoration. in certain states being a felon disqualifies you from all welfare bennies (TANF, etc.) while others it depends on the charge.
 
sure they can, it all depends on the degree of the felony and the state. depending on those factors voting rights are either automatically restored upon completion of parole or after getting a lawyer, petitioning the court, etc.

sentencing is different in all 50 states as are the terms of probation, parole and rights restoration. in certain states being a felon disqualifies you from all welfare bennies (TANF, etc.) while others it depends on the charge.

Check Post 124, it has a link on this.
 
well if you dont have a liberal view on gun control then what i wrote doesnt apply to you. get it?

You didn't offend, no worries. I honestly don't care about this issue so I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but it seems like things are treated like its a black and white issue by both sides. Conservatives think that if you want to limit certain types of weapons, then you're against all guns, and if you're liberal, you think conservatives want to allow any type of weapon to anyone.

Isn't there a middle of the road? Shouldn't some weapons not be allowed?
 
You didn't offend, no worries. I honestly don't care about this issue so I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but it seems like things are treated like its a black and white issue by both sides. Conservatives think that if you want to limit certain types of weapons, then you're against all guns, and if you're liberal, you think conservatives want to allow any type of weapon to anyone.

Isn't there a middle of the road? Shouldn't some weapons not be allowed?

I agree that some weapons should not be allowed, but those revisions were taken care of by the National Firearms Act of 1934. I actually agree with the NFA of 1934, as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. There are ways around that act; however, and automatic weapons still end up in the hands of criminals. We can try to regulate all we want, but blanket legislation doesnt solve individual crimes/massacres.
 
I agree that some weapons should not be allowed, but those revisions were taken care of by the National Firearms Act of 1934. I actually agree with the NFA of 1934, as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. There are ways around that act; however, and automatic weapons still end up in the hands of criminals. We can try to regulate all we want, but blanket legislation doesnt solve individual crimes/massacres.

I completely agree.
 
I agree that some weapons should not be allowed, but those revisions were taken care of by the National Firearms Act of 1934. I actually agree with the NFA of 1934, as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. There are ways around that act; however, and automatic weapons still end up in the hands of criminals. We can try to regulate all we want, but blanket legislation doesnt solve individual crimes/massacres.

the NFA does no such thing, the original '34 act is all about taxation and registration. it doesn't address anything really. person to person firearms sales aren't even required to be reported to the ATF.
 
the NFA does no such thing, the original '34 act is all about taxation and registration. it doesn't address anything really. person to person firearms sales aren't even required to be reported to the ATF.

excuse my vagueness. the NFAof 34 "led" to what i stated
 
You didn't offend, no worries. I honestly don't care about this issue so I haven't put a lot of thought into it, but it seems like things are treated like its a black and white issue by both sides. Conservatives think that if you want to limit certain types of weapons, then you're against all guns, and if you're liberal, you think conservatives want to allow any type of weapon to anyone.

That stems from the agenda of those introducing the legislation. Many of these people know an AWB has no effect on crime. Biden explicitly stated it will not fundamentally alter the possibility of another mass shooting. We've had an assault weapons ban before, there are no unbiased reports stating that it reduced crime. Also, it seems like it would be obvious but the 94 AWB had no coherence in which guns it targeted except that they looked scary. Nearly all of the features included in the ban have no effect on the lethalality of the weapon. Look it up. Pistol grips on shotguns, barrel shrouds, pistols that weigh a certain amount, forward grips,etc, it seems like they put a bunch of gun features into a hat and started drawing them out...except what they really did was to figure out what was marketable gun control. You're right not all people in support of another AWB want to ban all guns but many of the people actually pushing the legislation do because it is by design a gun ban that they can market to people who don't necessarily want to ban all guns.

Isn't there a middle of the road? Shouldn't some weapons not be allowed?
I don't understand your concern. I can't think of anyone attempting to introduce legislation to allow a weapon that is currently illegal to own, much less that all should be allowed.
 
I agree that some weapons should not be allowed, but those revisions were taken care of by the National Firearms Act of 1934. I actually agree with the NFA of 1934, as automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians. There are ways around that act; however, and automatic weapons still end up in the hands of criminals. We can try to regulate all we want, but blanket legislation doesnt solve individual crimes/massacres.

I think automatic weapons should be allowed. I'd feel much safer if I were in a mass shooting situation and some idiot was using an automatic weapon; that's more rounds spent per target. An M4 on full auto can empty a 30 rnd mag in 1.8s...
Well unless it's Arnold with infinity capacity mags.
 
That stems from the agenda of those introducing the legislation. Many of these people know an AWB has no effect on crime. Biden explicitly stated it will not fundamentally alter the possibility of another mass shooting. We've had an assault weapons ban before, there are no unbiased reports stating that it reduced crime. Also, it seems like it would be obvious but the 94 AWB had no coherence in which guns it targeted except that they looked scary. Nearly all of the features included in the ban have no effect on the lethalality of the weapon. Look it up. Pistol grips on shotguns, barrel shrouds, pistols that weigh a certain amount, forward grips,etc, it seems like they put a bunch of gun features into a hat and started drawing them out...except what they really did was to figure out what was marketable gun control. You're right not all people in support of another AWB want to ban all guns but many of the people actually pushing the legislation do because it is by design a gun ban that they can market to people who don't necessarily want to ban all guns.


I don't understand your concern. I can't think of anyone attempting to introduce legislation to allow a weapon that is currently illegal to own, much less that all should be allowed.

All valid points that I agree with. I'm not defending any legislation, just annoyed that people associate any discussion of making certain weapons illegal w trying to take every gun away, even if the legislation is retarded as you pointed out.
 
We've had an assault weapons ban before, there are no unbiased reports stating that it reduced crime. Also, it seems like it would be obvious but the 94 AWB had no coherence in which guns it targeted except that they looked scary. Nearly all of the features included in the ban have no effect on the lethalality of the weapon.

there's far too many already out there for a ban to have any measurable effect. all the 94 AWB did was drive up prices and gun sales. when you look at the numbers and see who is buying all these guns it's us pre-existing gun owners buying more guns. the percentage of gun ownership as a percentage of the US population is constantly decreasing. and the fact that us gun owners increase the number of firearms we have also doesn't make us any more safe.

so what effect do these "laws" and political stunts have? zero effect on crime but a very positive effect on gun exports from the US to other country's. it has nothing at all to do with protecting US citizens and everything to do with increasing the profits of gun manufactures.

White House Efforts to Relax Gun Exports Face Resistance
White House Efforts to Relax Gun Exports Face Resistance - WSJ.com
 
The right to bear arms has nothing go do with dead kids. Sorry. That is our right as Americans to arm ourselves in case we ever want to fight the government.

Non Americans need not discuss.
 
guns are false security when it comes to what your talking about. the shit they have locked up in Ft Dietrich renders all of our small arms obsolete. when your shitting your intestines out of your asshole and your face is sloughing off, a gun is useless.

it's not the 1700's anymore. when the end of the US comes and eventually it will they will need to wipe out a sizable portion of the population and they will do that with biological weapons.

while i dont agree with the assault weapons ban, because i feel the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from the govt, LAM is right on this. there are so many bio/chem weapons lethal and non-lethal weapons that the military possesses, its scary. i have to train for cbrne attacks all the time, and i hope i never have to dawn my m50

so i dont know what to think.. at least from a logical standpoint on what should be done.
 
according to this study by the wall street journel the large majority of murders are commited by blacks, seems the solution would be to ban blacks not assualt weapons
Murder in America - WSJ.com
 
while i dont agree with the assault weapons ban, because i feel the 2nd amendment is there to protect us from the govt, LAM is right on this. there are so many bio/chem weapons lethal and non-lethal weapons that the military possesses, its scary. i have to train for cbrne attacks all the time, and i hope i never have to dawn my m50

so i dont know what to think.. at least from a logical standpoint on what should be done.

US government reports & documents, briefings from global think tanks, etc. have all been talking about depopulation since the 60's and 70's. obviously none of this stuff ever gets reported by the "lamestream media".

here are 2 examples:

* this one an investigative piece about policy co-authored by Henry Kissenger

EIR Special Report
The Haig-Kissinger Depopulation Policy
by Lonnie Wolfe

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792&context=ealr

this text is cut and pasted from the 1st page:

Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating
outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the
world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease, and any
other means necessary.

This apparatus, which includes various levels of the government, is
determining U.S. foreign policy. In every political hotspot-EI Salvador, the
so-called arc of crisis in the Persian Gulf, Latin America, Southeast Asia,
and in Africa-the goal of U.S. foreign policy is popUlation reduction.
The targeting agency for the operation is the National Security Council's
Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy. Its policy-planning group is in the U.S.
State Department's Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by
Henry Kissinger.

This group drafted the Carter administration's Global 2000 document,
which calls for global population reduction, and the same apparatus is
conducting the civil war in EI Salvador as a conscious depopulation project.

"There is a single theme behind all our work-we must reduce popUlation
levels," said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State
Department's Office of Population Affairs (OPA). "Either they [governments]
do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of
mess that we have in EI Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a
political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian
government, even fascism, to reduce it.

"The professionals, " said Ferguson, "aren't interested in lowering population
for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources
and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say
that this country must lower its popUlation-or else we will have trouble. So
steps are taken. EI Salvador is an example where our failure to lower
population by simple means has created the basis for a national security
crisis. The government of EI Salvador failed to use our programs to lower
their population. Now they get a civil war because of it. ... There will be
dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there."

* this document was developed based off the Haig-Kissinger Policy from the Carter Admin:

8-1-1980
The Global 2000 Report to the President
Gus Speth
http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1792&context=ealr

cut and pasted from bottom of the 1st page:

* The Global 2000 Study, initiated by President Carter in 1977, is a three-year effort by
the federal government to discover the long-term implications of present world trends in
population, natural resources and the environment. The report was prepared by the President's
Council on Environmental Quality of which Gus Speth is Chairman, in conjunction
with the Department of State and eleven other federal agencies. Gerald O. Barney is the
study director. Global 2000 was transmitted to President Carter on July 24, 1980. The following
is an edited version of the report. Copies of the report in its entirety may be obtained
from the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
20402.
 
there's far too many already out there for a ban to have any measurable effect. all the 94 AWB did was drive up prices and gun sales. when you look at the numbers and see who is buying all these guns it's us pre-existing gun owners buying more guns. the percentage of gun ownership as a percentage of the US population is constantly decreasing. and the fact that us gun owners increase the number of firearms we have also doesn't make us any more safe.

so what effect do these "laws" and political stunts have? zero effect on crime but a very positive effect on gun exports from the US to other country's. it has nothing at all to do with protecting US citizens and everything to do with increasing the profits of gun manufactures.

White House Efforts to Relax Gun Exports Face Resistance
White House Efforts to Relax Gun Exports Face Resistance - WSJ.com
I read this all of the time, and yet it doesn't hold up to the real world. Go into any gun store, and i've spent a lot of time in many, and the mix is about 50/50 right now. I can't count the amount of times i've waited in line behind multiple first time gun owners filling out forms.
 
Those population control measures actually don't surprise me one bit.
 
Back
Top