Obama and Firearm Ban Agenda... this sadens me

**~~Cecil900~~** · 11-27-08, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by Ruukil

Umm...the article at the beginning is bull shit. It did not cite studies done by groups that had anything to do with guns. I'll ask you to dismiss it as utter crap.

Aside from that, where do you stand on the 2nd amendment?

**PowerCock** · 11-27-08, 11:32 PM

Anti-Squeaker: Quoting Wikipedia? Come on now. Really back up your point, find out if there is anything on FN's website, find out how many of these "layers" of kevlar are in a bulletproof vest.

**33knight33** · 11-27-08, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Ruukil

It did not cite studies done by groups that had anything to do with guns.

okay well, that is why i gave the disclaimer that i had not personally verified it.

and @ squeker, i guess i understand what you meant by an ak single shot look alike, but i still do not understand how it is any more acceptable than an ak with the fire selector on single shot, and the assault weapons ban would still not allow either of those
and as for "auto shotties", do those fire successively for one trigger pull or do you have to re-pull the trigger each time?

but to label one as a cop killer is just plain silly.

Originally Posted by Anti-Squeaker

[b]And no. I support the right to bear arms. But i don;t support the right of people to be able to buy weapons that can easily punch through bulletproof armor.

.
yes btw, i do know what kevlar is, did you know that the very same kevlar will not stop most rifle cartridges?

how does that make any 30-06 hunting rifle less of a "Cop killer"
or being able to aim and make a shot to a non-armored part of the body make a weapon any less of a "cop killer" than having a pistol with enhanced penetration capabilities?

idk, it is obviously silly to squabble about an individual weapon being more dangerous than another if we dont first establish that it is people that make them dangerous. so ill give up on that.

**33knight33** · 11-27-08, 11:51 PM

Originally Posted by jason_jinx

Its not going to happen.
------
the rumor that guns are going bye bye.

but it [b]has[b] happened...

its not so much that a total ban on firearms is at stake (yet), it is people trying to justify one type of gun as less harmful than another without recognizing that people make firearms deadly, not the gun. then once they act on this ignorance, bans and restrictions are placed that takes away from those who enjoy firearms for no good reason.

**ninja|oaklandr** · 11-27-08, 11:53 PM

Don't forget there is still a bill out there started by 5 republicans to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257

fixed

**33knight33** · 11-27-08, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by ninja|oaklandr

Don't forget there is still a bill out there started by 5 republicans to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:

that link isnt showing up right for me... just a blank search query.

without seeing it though, i dont mind if they are republican or democrat... just dont take my pastime and heirlooms away

**flame** · 11-28-08, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by DancingCorpse

Was thinking. If guns are banned, and somebody has a gun during the ban and someone breaks into that persons house, and that person retaliates by shooting them with their illegal gun, does that mean the robber could get out of charges because of the fact that they were shot by an illegal weapon?

If a woman breaks into a man's house, and the man rapes her, is she free of the B&E charge because the rape was illegal?

That is how much sense your question makes.

WOW I laughed so hard at that response... I really wasn't expecting that one.

And yes AK and sks rifles do have armor piercing bullets. Thing is one of those is probably less lethal than a .22 round. You may say I'm crazy, but I work as a first responder and have seen shooting victims. Pistol rounds go in but damage just a small area. Rifle rounds(depending on individual round) go through. A .22 round goes in bounces around and tears up more than you care to imagine. A gut shot with a 22 is a very bad thing. None of it is pretty, shot placement is a big factor. No gun is less lethal, some just require less precision.

**TehSpaz** · 11-28-08, 01:25 AM

weapons assembled into a bannable state BEFORE the ban takes place remain legal as long as you do not majorly modify them...

that's why ALOT of guns from the clinton bans were labeled as "preban"

**triggerhappy2005** · 11-28-08, 01:47 AM

Personally I could care less about guns. I live in Europe where I have no fear of someone entering my home to kill me. It's just so rare here, but unfortunately not in the U.S. it isn't. That aside, I do believe that if it's in the constitution then it should be protected. This thread is how rumors start and at the beginning the poster tips you of to this by sayng "i have not verified it as fact". Again, I could care less about guns but I do care about hearsay and rumormongering so heres a link that might help those interested learn the facts. -> http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...for_obama.html

**DancingCorpse** · 11-28-08, 02:03 AM

Originally Posted by Veovis

Originally Posted by DancingCorpse

Was thinking. If guns are banned, and somebody has a gun during the ban and someone breaks into that persons house, and that person retaliates by shooting them with their illegal gun, does that mean the robber could get out of charges because of the fact that they were shot by an illegal weapon?

If a woman breaks into a man's house, and the man rapes her, is she free of the B&E charge because the rape was illegal?

That is how much sense your question makes.

Well excuse me for only having a High School perspective of law.

Why the hell do you think I put that last line in my post, which you blatantly edited out in your quote, that I already know I sounded stupid if I was wrong.

Rock is right, go change your tampon, maybe get a new brand.