Government WILL Ban Guns Soon....

[FreedomFightr]

I don't trust them either. Everyone has an agenda.,

"I should have a 100 round drum if I want. Not that I would want one, To heavy and jams to much"

Get the right spring in it and it'll work better. Factory springs in the drums suck. Plus you have to bend your wrist a bit funny to work the trigger. Rather tape 30 round mags together.

Nice, Yes. Very True. Now would u tape them both right side up or one up and the other down?

I have a video by Magpul it's called The Art Of Tactical Carbine. Oh my is this video a gem. To see how fast some of these tactical guys are is amazing. This guy could clear a dbl feed drop the mag and re-load in like 3-5 sec. its amazing.

Thats another things guys, If your not trained with your weapon its really hopeless. Do you know how to clear a dbl feed? or a jam during battle? How to effectivley carry your ammo and Mags? How to switch to your secondary side arm? How to even shoot it out against an enemy with people right next to you with out killing your partner?

 

[Hazed]

Do you really think your handguns, shotties, hunting rifles and even AKs and AR15s are going to be of any use whatsoever against the drones, helicopter gunships, and tanks, that would inevitably be used if there ever was an uprising in the US.
They dont really do the Taliban much good when all's said and done, do they. The average citizen is at a massive disadvantage compared to the US gov.
How many Apaches(and associated armaments) are on sale at you local gunshop.

You do know where a majority of them Taliban soldiers came from right? And that a human being that dies from a IED is just a dead as one that had 10,000.00 spent to insure that only he died, and video evidence was collected to back that up.

IF our military was used against us, we would then have a situation somewhat similar to Afghanistan. Where you see men defecting from the military to go home and protect theyre loved ones, or all out "turn coats" fighting for America and American ideals, and then of coarse the ones that would say nothing and simply lob a grenade into the mess hall!
You might see some Military people turning theyre heads while the enemy blows up a bunch of sht or steals arms or steals intel.
American people would be willing to give they're lives just as they always have throughout American history (I would!).

~Anti gun people would discover just how minute theyre little group is once separated from politics, because the Republicans are not ignorant enough to back them, and the Democrats are not arrogant enough~

Were not going to start a civil war over this bs. Although it is the fanatics and arrogant loud mouths making a good share of our laws that take our freedoms away, and it is true they have the loudest voices for the most trivial bullshit non issues.
Gun laws are an issue that a majority of folks have and always will take the time to address. So I believe there would be very strong opposition.

Some day we will learn to stop making terrorists and start dealing with the real issues and help unhappy depressed, addicted people bcome happy and productive, rather than outlawing fucking EVERYONE into padded cells!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Wait for it....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

HERE IS 100% of the WORDS::::

AMENDMENT II

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.

Now that I have re-read it for the millionth time. Which words am I misinterpreting when I claim the right to own a stinger missile or fully operational tank? Which WORDS allow ANY limitation?

One interpretation limits the individuals right to freely carry. According to this interpretation "militia" infers "armory". I don't believe this interpretation includes all firearms considering so many hunted game for sustenance. Then again, one doesn't typically hunt with military weapons.

I watched an interesting take from Anton Scalia. When asked what "reasonable" gun restrictions entail, Scalia inferred "the right to keep and 'bear' arms" (bear being the key word) means one may not justify "cannon" etc as the individual's right. Not sure I agree, as Anton's interpretation might allow grenade launchers and or shoulder-fired AA missiles. Good ol' literal interpretation.

Mitigating gun violence requires more than ideological perspective. If you draw a line to represent the gambit of opinion, (with "1" representing a total-gun-ban and "10" representing zero-gun-controls, the pragmatic solution lies somewhere between. I don't pretend to know the answer but taking either of the two extremes is what keeps the debate in it's defensive corners versus considering solutions aimed at reducing violence.

The NRA is one representative approaching the "10" category, despite some IC members' opinions that NRA is too moderate.

I'm not exactly sure who's advocating a ban on weapons. Even the Brady lobby draws the line at assault-type firearms. You won't see Brady trying to take your shotgun away until the NRA gains your legal right to saw it in half. At a certain point it's obvious to see what's intended to kill more people and reasonable restrictions should apply.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

One interpretation limits the individuals right to freely carry. According to this interpretation "militia" infers "armory". I don't believe this interpretation includes all firearms considering so many hunted game for sustenance. Then again, one doesn't typically hunt with military weapons.

I took a chance and read your post, you're on my ignore list for being a tool and I should have known better.

In what fantasy do you live in where you read 'hunting' into that phrase? Where in that paragraph do you see "For military purposes" or otherwise? Militia (at the time) meant a group of individuals trained to protect the populace... with any available weapon or items that could be fashioned into weapons. Their purpose is to preserve the people from tyrants, within and without... weapon restriction was the furthest thing from their minds. Wow. The programming is strong in this one.

I'll not be making the mistake of reading your posts again. Shoulda known better. *sigh*

Stay Safe!

 

[187020]

I took a chance and read your post, you're on my ignore list for being a tool and I should have known better.

I'll not be making the mistake of reading your posts again. Shoulda known better. *sigh*

Stay Safe!

Take a peep here hydro-soil, then put it back on ignore!!

 

[gaiusmarius]

i sometimes get the feeling people don't really read posts properly. i'm careful with wording and i find it annoying when things are assumed that are not said or inferred. there is a difference between talking about what the founders meant regarding the second and what is ideal in some perfect world. or even whats practical in this day and age. while i do believe the founders meant for every man of sound mind to have any arms in existence at the time, it's clear your average Joe has no need of a tank or such heavy weapons today.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I took a chance and read your post, you're on my ignore list for being a tool and I should have known better.

Like I give a flying fuck.

In what fantasy do you live in where you read 'hunting' into that phrase?

I referenced the (not my personal) argument that "militia" infers armory. I included my personal opinion that our founders never intended to lock up all weapons, for example, hunting weapons.

Gun nuts like you equate protecting yourself to hoarding the most ordinance and or toting the deadliest devices. Says less about your own personal confidence and more about wishing what hangs on yer belt was hanging between yer legs.

Part of the problem with your literal interpretation involves adding or removing context. If you don't get that part straightened out you'll never amount to more than gum bumping.

"Where in that paragraph do you see "For military purposes" or otherwise? Militia (at the time) meant a group of individuals trained to protect the populace... with any available weapon or items that could be fashioned into weapons. Their purpose is to preserve the people from tyrants, within and without... weapon restriction was the furthest thing from their minds. Wow. The programming is strong in this one.

You're making your own argument, fuckhead.

I'll not be making the mistake of reading your posts again. Shoulda known better. *sigh*

Stay Safe!

Nobody cares. Stick that bubble wand up your ass and blow your mind.

 

[supermanlives]

wow. now i want a tank. storage would be an issue here. and i aint modding my classic ride with armor.my homies in mexico are making some badass bulletproof rides. checked out a badass one the other day. pointed out a few vunerable areas for em lol.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

09-10-2012, 03:54 AM
Remove user from ignore list
DiscoBiscuit
This message is hidden because DiscoBiscuit is on your ignore list.
Nice try. Not falling for that anymore.


The one thing they've not beaten out of the public is creativity when it comes to a crunch. Seriously, tanks and helicopters and whatnot? Useless when you're trying to actively incarcerate/incinerate the population.

Look at history. Time and again the mechanisms of war are no match for the general public in an uproar. Ignoring it isn't going to help them.

Stay Safe!

 

[Treetops]

Democratic Platform Calls for More Gun Control, Omits Awkward Reference to “What Work

Democratic Platform Calls for More Gun Control, Omits Awkward Reference to “What Work

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2012/09/07/democratic_platform_calls_for_more_gun_control_omits_awkward_reference_to_what_works_in_chicago

While many were focused on the controversy of initially omitting God and Jerusalem in the Democratic platform, language that affirms the Obama administration’s ‘death by a thousand cuts’ strategy for the Second Amendment went largely unnoticed. This year’s platform relating to the Second Amendment reads:

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition, and we will preserve Americans’ Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole – so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

So on the one hand they recognize gun violence is a problem - with recent mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado and at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, it’s no surprise. The problem lies, however, with their belief that gun control will help rather than hinder the ultimate goal: saving lives. The Second Amendment affirms one's inherent right to self-defense and proof that Americans exercise it to that end is ubiquitous, it’s just not reported in the MSM. See here and here for examples.

An inconvenient example of their illogical thinking points to a certain omission in the platform involving Obama’s hometown of Chicago. NRA-ILA’s Executive Director Chris Cox with the details:

Recall back in 2008, Democrats attempted to downplay then-candidate Barack Obama’s hostility toward gun owners and our Second Amendment freedoms by putting this line in their party’s platform (emphasis added):

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.

In this year’s platform, however, Team Obama has shortened this passage to read:

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation.

Gone is any mention of Chicago. That’s because life in the criminal utopia that Obama helped build there is not pretty.

When he was a candidate and lawmaker from Southside Chicago, Barack Obama endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

He also voted to ban most commonly owned rifles and shotguns, and even voted against legal protections for people who used firearms to defend themselves or their families from deadly attacks.

Despite a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that declared Chicago’s gun ban unconstitutional, the city’s stifling restrictions on gun ownership make it nearly impossible for law-abiding citizens to use a firearm for self-defense.

So far this year, 369 people have been murdered in Chicago despite the city’s draconian gun control laws. That’s roughly a 30 percent increase from this same time last year.

In fact, Chicago is on pace for a record 490 homicides in 2012, which would not only make it the deadliest big city in the United States, but also as deadly as notoriously crime-ridden Bogota, Colombia.

So, a newsflash to all the Dems advocating for gun control – criminals don’t abide by laws. They will find a way to obtain and use a firearm regardless of the regulations, which will in turn do nothing more than disarm law abiding citizens who have the ability to prevent bad situations from becoming worse. Is Chicago really the model we want exported to cities across America? This election could decide.

Mitt Romney’s positions on the Second Amendment coming soon…

 

[gaiusmarius]

whats up with all the anger DiscoBiscuit? name calling is really not useful, we are adults and should be able to discuss this without calling people that have a different opinion fuck heads or telling them what they should be putting in their assholes! i mean really!

 

[mrwags]

well then this sportsman is glad that ammo was cheap and available enough when he was a kid to properly enjoy the sport of shooting and hunting.

If my kids don't get the same opportunity, I'm gonna be pissed

Amen brother and why I try to teach mine the importance of a few simple rules.

1. What other people think of you is none of your business.

2. You simply cannot get where you are going if you forgot where you came from.

3. The last man that was perfect and knew everything got crucified so never EVER try to walk in his shoes.

and the most Important

4. If it's in YOUR house and should not be there Shoot First and then turn on the lights.

I say if they EVER try to ban guns John Wayne and those of his nature will come back as ghost storm the Hill and scream at the top of their ghost lungs to "Kiss Their Asses If You Want My Guns"


Be Safe
Mr Wags

 

[Hydro-Soil]

We recognize that the individual right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition

They said it all with the first statement. Tradition? The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with "tradition" and they know it. People fail to realize how undermining the subtle use of phrases like this are to the public mindset.

Crowd psychology is ALL about subtlety and peripheral perception.

Stay Safe!

 

[rives]

I'm not exactly sure who's advocating a ban on weapons. Even the Brady lobby draws the line at assault-type firearms. You won't see Brady trying to take your shotgun away until the NRA gains your legal right to saw it in half. At a certain point it's obvious to see what's intended to kill more people and reasonable restrictions should apply.

Actually, the ban on short-barreled shotguns has never made sense to me. They are far better for home defense than virtually any other option - they have more manageable recoil than large-bore handguns, are not subject to over-penetration (a .357 in a sheetrocked apartment is a recipe for disaster), and novices can become proficient with them far more easily than a pistol. An 18" barrel with a full stock is too long for usage in most hallways, and the pistol-gripped versions are difficult to shoot. Yes, their intended use is obvious - so what?

 

[iampolluted]

anyone ever think to consider at the time of the writing of the constitution the militia's were our army? we didn't have a formal or unified army after the revolution. in the year the bill of rights was adopted (1791), we did not have a "suitable" army. in fact in the same year, our "army" was squashed by american indians at the battle of wabash.

the framing of the 2nd amendment was in case the federal government did not form a national army, and to prevent a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which was possible if congress had passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens. it wasn't until the 1792 militia act that the u.s. started to form state militia's.....which ultimately led to the national guard of today.

from wikipedia....
"Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress, together with various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist Militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[38http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second...itution#cite_note-isbn0-472-03370-0pg91-92-37]"

"Second Militia Act of 1792
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8]"

the authors of the 2nd amendment were trying to make it possible for individuals to protect themselves from foreign or indian rule since we did NOT have a federal army to do so. it was not written so any dipshit with a grudge can light up a movie theater or church. it was for individual/national protection since there were no other ways to protect either of them back then.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

whats up with all the anger DiscoBiscuit? name calling is really not useful, we are adults and should be able to discuss this without calling people that have a different opinion fuck heads or telling them what they should be putting in their assholes! i mean really!

i sometimes get the feeling people don't really read posts properly. i'm careful with wording and i find it annoying when things are assumed that are not said or inferred. there is a difference between talking about what the founders meant regarding the second and what is ideal in some perfect world. or even whats practical in this day and age. while i do believe the founders meant for every man of sound mind to have any arms in existence at the time, it's clear your average Joe has no need of a tank or such heavy weapons today.

You carefully word annoyance and I say fuckhead.

 

[GetUpStandUp]

Amen brother and why I try to teach mine the importance of a few simple rules.

1. What other people think of you is none of your business.

2. You simply cannot get where you are going if you forgot where you came from.

3. The last man that was perfect and knew everything got crucified so never EVER try to walk in his shoes.

and the most Important

4. If it's in YOUR house and should not be there Shoot First and then turn on the lights.

I say if they EVER try to ban guns John Wayne and those of his nature will come back as ghost storm the Hill and scream at the top of their ghost lungs to "Kiss Their Asses If You Want My Guns"


Be Safe
Mr Wags

I know people are going to say I am a bible thumper, or Jesus freak, thats fair, now I am not starting sht with, no I believe in two out of four what you say for rules, the 4th one being I would not just kill, I mean If my loves ones in danger yes, Shooting blind No, but thats cool too, aint even a prob. I just always had a view of how Jesus always gets to be the bad guy all the time. I really know the answer, but I dont see how just Jesus and what he spoke or represented is bad in any degree. The CHURCH, and RELIGION on the other hand well thats way more understandable to not trust or believe in.

See I hope even this dont start a angry fight, thats not my intention, I love the principals of Jesus so much, and they apply to my life more than anything on this earth, its so hard to turn from it. I dont go to church, I hate em, and anyone who follows such lies, the followers of church are no different than people who follow politics now a days, just saying, not attacking the individual, just the principals of LIFE. Kinda the same madness that this thread is proving our country is, but yet claim superior in everything.

I am all with self defense, I stop at the teaching of hand to hand, once guns get involved, its not longer life principals, but deaths, and yes when someone enters my home, even if they have a gun, chances are they will not walk out on their own, I carry no gun. If one uses a gun in their defense, then I also agree, but murder, and Denial of a man, the only man who have claimed to do what he did wether one believes in him or not seems harsh, and wild to instill in a child, I mean we would all think teaching a child to kill would constitute failed to a degree. If death happens in hand to hand, as long as one owns his disapline, and controls his self will that choice of death be from the attacker who will not accept life. Just saying, not something to say to the world or the situation in a attempt to keep guns in the common citizens hands. Dont know, but in this situation of just asking I know, I know I can also read rule number one, hopefully this is taken with kindness.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Actually, the ban on short-barreled shotguns has never made sense to me. They are far better for home defense than virtually any other option - they have more manageable recoil than large-bore handguns, are not subject to over-penetration (a .357 in a sheetrocked apartment is a recipe for disaster), and novices can become proficient with them far more easily than a pistol. An 18" barrel with a full stock is too long for usage in most hallways, and the pistol-gripped versions are difficult to shoot. Yes, their intended use is obvious - so what?

Yeah, the Aurora shooter would have been more effective with sawed-off shotguns. He could have sawed-off the stocks too, been like Rooster Cogburn... one in each hand.

Great thing about the sawed-off version is you don't have to ready-aim-fire, you only have to ready-level-fire and that's a major advantage when folks are trying to run away or duck behind something. Shooting toward crowds with the right load could kill several folks per shot.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

09-10-2012, 03:54 AM
Remove user from ignore list
DiscoBiscuit
This message is hidden because DiscoBiscuit is on your ignore list.
Nice try. Not falling for that anymore.

drive-by shooter.

 

[rives]

Yeah, the Aurora shooter would have been more effective with sawed-off shotguns. He could have sawed-off the stocks too, been like Rooster Cogburn... one in each hand.

Great thing about the sawed-off version is you don't have to ready-aim-fire, you only have to ready-level-fire and that's a major advantage when folks are trying to run away or duck behind something. Shooting toward crowds with the right load could kill several folks per shot.

Disco, you are obviously deeply knowledgeable about firearms. <sarcasm off>. How many shots do you think a sawed-off would have available? A Remington 870 pump with a 12" barrel could hold no more than 5 rounds at most unless the magazine tube extended beyond the end of the barrel, which would render the short barrel's benefits useless. It also requires two hands to operate. An unchoked barrel of 12" length is not going to pattern substantially differently than an unchoked 18" barrel. By far the biggest change between the two, other than the handling characteristics, is that the velocity of the shot is going to be much lower and fall off much more quickly, thereby reducing penetration.

And yes, actually my preference for home defense would be a side-by-side, exposed hammer version - the action is substantially shorter than a pump, reducing the overall length even more, and it is very apparent when they are "safe". Your impression of the sawed-off shotgun's tremendous coverage area, the lack of need to aim properly, and it's lethality are ludicrous. The reality of it is that it would serve it's purpose much better, the neighbors would be safer, and the number of shots would be limited. Sounds like it would be something that you would advocate.