# Here we go. Bye bye assault weapons



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make" Isnt that just wonderful? "Just a few" is a gateway to just a few more. While we are at violating our rights, why dont we restrict the use of the terms "***" and "queer"? Its just a couple words you cant use anymore. No one will miss them. And now that you have agreed to allow me to limit your freedom of speech, we may take your right to say other words away too (or things about leaders). This is why I joined the NRA last week (finally).

Sorry if the terms listed above offended any of you, but I wanted to illustrate that a term that has been around for years and wasnt originally designated as a derogatory term, could be attacked by these same standards.


----------



## Lycan (Sep 22, 2008)

So, part of Holder's justification for pushing an AWB is to help thwart the violence in Mexico? What a fool! I think the greater issue is not weapons coming from the U.S., but those coming from Colombia, Cuba, Venezuela, etc.. Yeah dude, the semi-auto guns that people legally buy here are a bigger problem than the fully-auto ones they are getting from hostile governments and black market traders. :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

I am honestly not a huge assault weapons fan. Not because they are ASSAULT WEAPONS but because they dont serve a purpose for ME. I enjoy shooting one bullet at a time, and accurately. And most dont serve a practical purpose for hunting (purely from an accuracy standpoint, at least thats my observation), but thats not the point. Shooting is not just limited to hunting. People love to just go out and shoot at tagets, and having an AK-47 or and AR-15 would be tons of fun to shoot at cans of beans. And by limiting our ability to own any type of firearm, they open the door to limit other rights.

Lycan is right- our weapons headed to Mexico arent the problem. The problem is weapons coming from other areas. And by the way - weapons coming from the US were obtained ILLEGALLY so who cares where they are coming from? The problem isnt rifles obtained by law abiding americans, its those who cant legally posess guns that cause the problems


PS: Loke pointed out later in this thread that the AR and AK are two different classes. He is absolutely right. The AR is much more accurate than the AK


----------



## Lycan (Sep 22, 2008)

Bax, I like your attitude and your honesty. The fact that you are not an "assault weapons" fan but oppose such legislation says a lot. There are far too many that sit on the fence with the issue because they don't think it will affect them. It's like what you said in your original post, "Just a few" is a gateway to just a few more, and a few more after that, and .......you get the point.

Any new AWB will be stricter than the last, and will likely give complete autonomy to the attorney general. He or she will be able to outlaw any firearms they choose without going through Congress or any other governing body. That means that the more traditional hunting firearms are at risk as well.


----------



## HuntingCrazy (Sep 8, 2007)

Thus the start of the prophecy...


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

HuntingCrazy said:


> Thus the start of the prophecy...


It's the beginning stages of the revolution, you know the one where we take this country back from the brink of mediocrity and restore it to the greatest it once held in the world.

A great man once said" the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


----------



## Lycan (Sep 22, 2008)

Mojo1 said:


> A great man once said" the tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants."


Thomas Jefferson, probably my favorite president.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to own military or military-like guns in order to function as a citizens militia. Hunting guns just ride on the coattails and are mainly derived from past military weapon designs. Any restriction of this is a direct violation of the Founding Father's intent. So any resumption of an AWB is wrong.
These people pushing the new AWB are not in favor of crime control, are not pro-rights, and wish to strip us of our household guns and the normal capacity magazines they employ, which firearms and magazines we use for self-defense.
We are being stripped of our basic right to self defense a law at a time by radical elitist social engineers both in politics and the media and legal professions.

I see where the anti-gun people through the media have succeeded in brainwashing the American public on what an "Assault Weapon" is. Words have power. Certain words hurt you when you're talking about your rights. People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far. Without even realizing it, you're probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you like "assault rifle". To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you need effective word choices. True assault weapons can only be owned by someone with a Class III license.

An "*Assault Rifle*" must meet ALL FIVE of the following conditions:

*1*) Weapon must be a carbine, for handiness.

*2*) Weapon must be selective fire in order to replace the submachine gun.

*3*) Weapon must fire from a locked breech.

*4*) Weapon must utilize an intermediate-powered cartridge. That is, a cartridge powered somewhere between the full-powered rifle cartridge (7.62x51 etc.) and the low-powered pistol cartridge used by the SMG (9mm Luger, .45 ACP etc.)

*5*) Weapon must utilize a large capacity, detachable box magazine. This allows the high volume of fire critical to the "storm gun" concept.

Effective word choices to regain the high ground: 
_They_ want you to say "assault weapons".
You reply HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS.
_They_ want you to say "high capacity magazines".
You reply FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES.
You and I are a PRO-RIGHTS (not just pro-gun) person who believes in CRIME CONTROL (not gun-control) and are PRO-BILL OF RIGHTS (rather than just pro-2nd Amendment which is too polarizing) who feel that the previously mentioned allows ordinary citizens the right to CARRY (expunge the word "concealed") a SIDEARM (not semi-automatic handgun) and own a HOUSEHOLD FIREARM (the type any household is likely to have - all the firearms you own) as a BASIC SELF-DEFENSE GUN ("Are you anti self defense?"). You should never say "gun control" (i.e. not controlling crime but controlling you), but perhaps reply with "Well, I'm in favor of CRIME CONTROL, how about you?"


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

Frisco Pete said:


> The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens to own military or military-like guns in order to function as a citizens militia. Hunting guns just ride on the coattails and are mainly derived from past military weapon designs. Any restriction of this is a direct violation of the Founding Father's intent. So any resumption of an AWB is wrong.
> These people pushing the new AWB are not in favor of crime control, are not pro-rights, and wish to strip us of our household guns and the normal capacity magazines they employ, which firearms and magazines we use for self-defense.
> We are being stripped of our basic right to self defense a law at a time by radical elitist social engineers both in politics and the media and legal professions.
> 
> ...


Well said "Frisco Pete". I'm on board and thanks for the education.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Thank you Frisco Pete, that was very well said. 
Bax*, I appreciate your honesty, but you are mistaken to compare the AK47 to the AR15 when accuracy potential is concerned. The AR15 (a semi-auto) is much closer to the bolt action than you believe. The AK47 (a selective-fire) is a reliable battle weapon, and will never be known for its accuracy, but rather its lack thereof. AR15s are very popular now in the prairie dog towns. Properly tuned they can shoot as well as most bolt guns, and I find it helpful to spot my own shots and rarely miss the second shot. You don't have to lift you head, or move to work the action. Just make the correction, and send another bullet on its way. I felt much the same way that you do, until I experienced for myself how effective the AR15 is on a varmint shoot. I would bet that if you were to try it, you would be an instant convert to the "black rifles". (Oh, and by the way, three of my bolt actions are black.)


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Loke-
you are absolutely right about the comparison about the AK-47 and the AR-15. The AK is definitely a "spray and pray" gun, and the AR is a great shooter. I actually owned a CMMG AR-15 M4 and sold it just before the election. It really was a fun shooter, but it just didnt fit my needs. So, I sold it and bought a Citori  

But................. the one bit of information that may contradict what I posted earlier, and may make you laugh a bit is that I actually own a Remington R-15 VTR with the free floated barrel. I am just waiting on getting my optics in and I can go shoot it. (but my optics have been back ordered for a month :x ) I bought this one for a couple reasons: the accuracy claim for free floated barrels on ARs is supposedly better, and I wanted something that resembled a HUNTING rifle so as to make the wife a bit more accepting. 

I guess the point of my rambling is that the assault style ARs aren't really for me. I wanted something that was more so a sporter than a black gun. (dont know if that made much sense)


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

Bax* said:


> And most dont serve a practical purpose for hunting (purely from an accuracy standpoint, at least thats my observation), but thats not the point.


Not to take out of context, and I understand your statement - however, here are some examples of WHERE it is practical for hunting and a HIGH capacity clip is needed. Or here is an option for Obama and Holder. If no one needs a semi auto or high capacity clips and we only need a single shot - let the field test begin. Each of them can go hunting with 1 bullet. They can shoot baby pig and stand there when momma pig eats them for lunch. Secret service MAY NOT use full autos or high capacity clips to defend them (because these are NOT needed in a hunting situation).










That means Biden would become President.

I know I do not want to be out there without a high capacity clip in this particular situation. Some autos are pretty accurate, as mentioned before, some are not. Just posting some examples where these can be used for hunting. Again - that's not the point as mentioned, they shouldn't be regulated. Punish the criminals instead.










Look at the cutters on this one...



















I know I don't want to be out there without a lot of potential to take care of a threat.


----------



## Ryfly (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm with Frisco Pete. The bill of rights doesn't make any distinction for "hunting" weapons and neither should we.


----------



## Lycan (Sep 22, 2008)

Nueces said:


> Or here is an option for Obama and Holder. If no one needs a semi auto or high capacity clips and we only need a single shot - let the field test begin. Each of them can go hunting with 1 bullet. They can shoot baby pig and stand there when momma pig eats them for lunch. Secret service MAY NOT use full autos or high capacity clips to defend them (because these are NOT needed in a hunting situation).


....or have them take on a charging bear or a pack of wolves and see how they like having only one shot. How about multiple home intruders? Excuse me sir, I just shot your friend so could you and your other friend please stop raping my wife and daughter while I reload?


----------



## Lycan (Sep 22, 2008)

Ryfly said:


> I'm with Frisco Pete. The bill of rights doesn't make any distinction for "hunting" weapons and neither should we.


FP does make several excellent points. I generally use quotations when talking about "assault weapons" because I agree that it is a villainous term generated by the media. The sad thing is that I know a lot of people who use the word "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" to describe their firearms because it makes them sound tough. One guy I know actually referred to his Mosin Nagant as an "assault rifle" just because it has a bayonet I guess. The only people with actual "assault weapons" are military, law enforcement, criminals, or rich people that can actually afford them, go through the months of red tape and tax fees, and don't mind worn out stuff made before 1986.

So in essence, making further restrictions makes us even more underpowered than the Second Amendment was intended. If you think about it, how is a militia armed with semi-automatic AR-15 variants going to stand a fair fight against a force carrying fully-auto M4 carbines and M16 rifles? Obama and Helder want to hinder our defense capabilities even further?!!!


----------



## Mojo1 (Sep 8, 2007)

Ryfly said:


> I'm with Frisco Pete. The bill of rights doesn't make any distinction for "hunting" weapons and neither should we.


*EXCATLY!!!!! * 

Making distinctions and concessions is what got us in this mess with the anti-gunners/left wing/environmental tree huggers type whack jobs in the first place. :evil:


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Times like these are when its most important to expose new people to firearms. Let them see there is nothing to fear.

Gotta share what we love..... but not our wives....


----------



## Nueces (Jul 22, 2008)

This is a brilliant idea by this administration! I wish someone in Washington DC thought of this years ago, like 1860. We would have never had a Civil War. WWI and WWII would have never happened because if there were not any guns in the United States, Japan would have never killed everyone at Pearl Harbor. Korea would have realized the US is nice and there would not be an continual war that exist today. Iraq and every other place in the world would not have any violence.

At least the drug problems in Latin America and Mexico will come to an end with these bans! :idea:

I knew we needed change.


----------



## Frisco Pete (Sep 22, 2007)

*GOOD NEWS (AT LEAST FOR A BIT)*

*Reid Joins Pelosi in Opposing Weapons Ban Revival* 
The Hill
By J. Taylor Rushing 
Posted: 02/26/09 10:17 PM [ET]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.

"Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future," Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.

It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.

Reid's stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat "no" when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.

"On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. "I think it's clear the Bush administration didn't do that."

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don't want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

Holder said during a press conference Wednesday in Phoenix, Ariz., that Obama had made reinstating the ban one of his campaign promises.

"There are obviously a number of things that are - that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be," Holder said. "It is something, however, that we still think would be an appropriate thing to do."

The news caught Capitol Hill by surprise, immediately pitting Democrats and Republicans against each other and even exposing deep divides among Democrats. A number of House Democrats lost their seats after being targeted by the National Rifle Association for voting for the 1994 ban.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Frisco Pete-

great last post! I'm glad to hear than some of these politicians have their heads in the right place


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

Bax* said:


> Loke-
> you are absolutely right about the comparison about the AK-47 and the AR-15. The AK is definitely a "spray and pray" gun, and the AR is a great shooter. I actually owned a CMMG AR-15 M4 and sold it just before the election. It really was a fun shooter, but it just didnt fit my needs. So, I sold it and bought a Citori
> 
> But................. the one bit of information that may contradict what I posted earlier, and may make you laugh a bit is that I actually own a Remington R-15 VTR with the free floated barrel. I am just waiting on getting my optics in and I can go shoot it. (but my optics have been back ordered for a month :x ) I bought this one for a couple reasons: the accuracy claim for free floated barrels on ARs is supposedly better, and I wanted something that resembled a HUNTING rifle *so as to make the wife a bit more accepting*.
> ...


Ahhhh, the truth comes out. My wife hates my AR15, too. But I'm not giving in on that one.


----------

