Government WILL Ban Guns Soon....

[Yes4Prop215]

i did the appleseed shoot, it was fun especially when they let me break out my 30 rounder and do the rapid fire shoot at the redcoat targets....pretty fun stuff.

i found a new "range" near chico, CA...no rangemasters, no rules except clean up your targets, distance out to 500 yards....pretty fun place to shoot and waste ammo.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

thats a pretty common argument ive gotten from gun control loonies as well...

You might be making your own argument or at least ignoring a larger demographic of the debate - gun advocates in favor of gun control.

There aren't many (US) advocates for a total gun ban. If you even find any you're more intellectually curious than imagining every gun control advocate is for a total firearms ban.

 

[medmaker420]

You might be making your own argument or at least ignoring a larger demographic of the debate - gun advocates in favor of gun control.

There aren't many (US) advocates for a total gun ban. If you even find any you're more intellectually curious than imagining every gun control advocate is for a total firearms ban.

gun advocates in favor of gun control?

who is this group you speak of and what is the website especially if it is such a larger demographic.

that is like potheads who favor banning MOST of their weed and using that as an actual debate talking point. Which potheads would allow the banning of MOST, some or ANY of their weed?

Now if the argument then goes to weed doesn't kill people but guns do, then I will happily state so do cars, food, tripping, sleeping wrong and a million other what ifs. It is the person behind the "object" or using the "object" that COULD cause potential harm and not the object itself.

as far as gun activist groups the NRA is terrible however one actually fighting FOR our rights is the GOA

 

[Yes4Prop215]

You might be making your own argument or at least ignoring a larger demographic of the debate - gun advocates in favor of gun control.

im a member of a pretty large pro gun website and that demographic is very very small.....most gun owners do not favor any kind of gun control at all because every little law they pass chips and chips away at our rights. a total gun ban is very unreasonable to even gun control advocates..so a better strategy is to just pass laws that harass and create bureaucratic nightmares for states to enforce..


now on the flip side, yes i do realize that most gun control folks arent for a total gun ban, BUT THE MAIN PLAYERS on the gun control side, the brady campaign, smartgunlaws, bloomberg, ultra leftist media, and most democratic politicians ARE for a gun ban....

for example, recently in CA (the forefront of the gun control debate where laws against the constitution are passed)....we have had several laws passed that chip at gun rights and yet do nothing to solve crime...open carry, mail order ammo, long gun registration, and most recently SB249 which tried to ban bullet buttons, effectively banning all AR15 and AK47 style rifles without actually banning them....they are getting sneaky with their laws. SB249 didnt pass this year, but it will most definately be back next year before Yee gets termed out...they are passing laws that DONT DIRECTLY PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, just laws that limit americans access to guns. to directly prevent gun violence and all the gang shootings and mentally ill massacres takes a different approach..

and if anything, i also advocate for gun control, but ONLY in the sense they we should ENFORCE EXISTING LAWS. there are laws in place that are supposed to prevent mentally ill people from obtaining ar15s, however that system failed by letting people like james holmes get access to them......the only thing that needs to be worked on in this mental health industry and effectively determining who is schizo and cant own a firearm. pussy little bans on 30 round magazines and making life hard for law abiding gun owners does very little to stop gun violence and gun massacres...

 

[iampolluted]

i'm a gun owner, and gun advocate in most cases, but can anyone here seriously justify the purchase of an uzi or rocket launcher for home defense? doubtful, but i'm sure someone here would try to make an argument in favor of having both in their arsenal. while i see the fun in shooting an automatic weapon, there is no practical purpose for justifying it as personal defense.

in essence, while i am an advocate of gun ownership, i'm also for some limited gun control. hell, even our military has steered away from fully auto weapons just for the sake of accuracy. imo those who advocate civilian ownership of automatic weapons are more concerned with the damage they inflict than with common sense. a well placed 3 shot burst is more effective in terms of stopping power, than spraying 300 rounds indiscriminately.

 

[medmaker420]

i'm a gun owner, and gun advocate in most cases, but can anyone here seriously justify the purchase of an uzi or rocket launcher for home defense? doubtful, but i'm sure someone here would try to make an argument in favor of having both in their arsenal. while i see the fun in shooting an automatic weapon, there is no practical purpose for justifying it as personal defense.

in essence, while i am an advocate of gun ownership, i'm also for some limited gun control. hell, even our military has steered away from fully auto weapons just for the sake of accuracy. imo those who advocate civilian ownership of automatic weapons are more concerned with the damage they inflict than with common sense. a well placed 3 shot burst is more effective in terms of stopping power, than spraying 300 rounds indiscriminately.

can you use a rocket launcher for home defense? maybe property defense but good luck fighting that one in court.

the point of the 2nd is not simply for home defense and I believe there is a tool for every job. I wouldn't use a 7 mag for home defense either as it would go through a few walls AFTER it hit the bad guy.

That is the issue with these debates, common sense will never get put in and everyone goes to the extreme case everytime.

I do believe that having an uzi should be COMPLETELY within our rights whether auto or semi. If you have zero ability to control and use the "tool" then NO you should not be using it.

That is like banning a hayabusa because someone completely new tries to buy one. What do they do in those cases? COMMON SENSE.

If you however go into the history at one time Americans could buy rocket launcher, anti tank weaponry and assault weapons. I posted some great gun history on the previous page btw.

Would I use an automatic weapon to stop a burglar in my home? No but someone could if they felt that is what they needed to get the job done but as a gun owner and shooter I know that every bullet that comes out of my gun is accountable by me which I would assume you would agree with so if you can't control or have the capability to use it in that instance then NO BUT having a government dictate based off of others opinions and beliefs the removal of YOUR right to have them is bullshit.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

why do people debate things that they know NOTHING about as if they have been in this situation and know ratios and percentages when it is only based on their OPINION?

Because society is diseased and produces programmed tools that get all their info from TV and the majority around them.

Logic and common sense has been mostly bred out of the population... on purpose.

Stay Safe!

 

[greenmatter]

this may be a stupid question BUT ........ is there really a reason to worry what the government says they are going to do?

look at everything the government touches.

the fucktards in washington have TALKED about gun "control" for three decades now and it's STILL a clusterfuck. and i can get whatever i want

welfare reform for even longer and it's a goat screw.

roe V wade is a long way from "solved".

the separation of church and state aint happening.

equal rights? ...... surewhatever.

immigration? ...... total clusterfuck.

controlling spending? ........ this country has been hemorrhaging cash since before anyone here was born

^^^^^ with that kind of track record why worry about what they say they are going to do? and more to the point (IMHO of corse) why the fuck worry about what alex jones says they are going to do?

in 55 days the election will be over and they will give us something new to worry about. again it will be some bullshit that we can't agree on but at least that will distract us enough that we won't get a thing done

this country has had it's nutsack caught in it's zipper for 30+ years, and all this spin makes it so we can't even solve that problem

it's getting so i fear the power of the political pundits (and what their disinformation spawns) more than the ball scratching apes in washington

 

[Hydrosun]

i'm a gun owner, and gun advocate in most cases, but can anyone here seriously justify the purchase of an uzi or rocket launcher for home defense?

The government has NO power but that of the PEOPLE. If the government may own a tank it is ONLY because ALL MEN may own tanks and therefor THEIR government has the right to own a tank.

I can't imagine you or anyone trying to justify that some men may own tanks and the other slaves must bow down before the tanks treads or be killed by the better men (presumably YOU and YOUR elite government).

The US Government has committed uncountable felonies and murders. No one can dispute that the US Government has killed millions of un armed civilians all around the world. If ANY organization should be precluded from the right to bare arms because of MURDEROUS FELONIES, the first group on the prohibition list is by all rights is the US Government.

I feel so bad for the sheep with their eyes at grass level loving the 18 year old masters driving the 70 year old evil mens' tanks, feeling safe and warm waiting for the day they get turned into chops.

 

[paladin420]

i'm a gun owner, and gun advocate in most cases, but can anyone here seriously justify the purchase of an uzi or rocket launcher for home defense? doubtful, but i'm sure someone here would try to make an argument in favor of having both in their arsenal. while i see the fun in shooting an automatic weapon, there is no practical purpose for justifying it as personal defense.

yeap I can.

Since it will be LEO in full tac gear (that I pay for),who I will most likely have to defend my home against. A rocket launcher would be handy as hell.

 

[Hydrosun]

yeap I can.

Since it will be LEO in full tac gear (that I pay for),who I will most likely have to defend my home against. A rocket launcher would be handy as hell.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/utah-video-police-kill-man-drug-raid_n_810420.html

Utah police shot and killed a man within seconds of storming his parents' home, video of the raid shows. The police had a warrant to search for drugs, but found only a small amount of pot and an empty vial that had apparently contained meth.

Local media report that Todd Blair, 45, was a drug addict rather than a dealer, according to friends and family.

In the video, Blair can be seen holding a golf club above his head as police smash through his door. Within seconds, without demanding Blair drop the iron or lay down, Weber-Morgan Strike Force Sgt. Troy Burnett fires three shots into him.

 

[greenmatter]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/utah-video-police-kill-man-drug-raid_n_810420.html

Utah police shot and killed a man within seconds of storming his parents' home, video of the raid shows. The police had a warrant to search for drugs, but found only a small amount of pot and an empty vial that had apparently contained meth.

Local media report that Todd Blair, 45, was a drug addict rather than a dealer, according to friends and family.

In the video, Blair can be seen holding a golf club above his head as police smash through his door. Within seconds, without demanding Blair drop the iron or lay down, Weber-Morgan Strike Force Sgt. Troy Burnett fires three shots into him.

it's great how the cop tells him to get on the ground after he shoots him.

you have to wonder how a guy with a gun and full gear AND a dozen or so of his buddies behind him could be so afraid of a tweeker with a #3 wood

 

[paladin420]

it's great how the cop tells him to get on the ground after he shoots him.

you have to wonder how a guy with a gun and full gear AND a dozen or so of his buddies behind him could be so afraid of a tweeker with a #3 wood

sure hope i'm able to have more than some 'wood' in my hands..but if i have to I will make a valiant effort to cockclub one or two before they kill me..just for the 'footage'

 

[greenmatter]

i think the cop would have been found guilty if the guy was just standing in the hallway with "his wood" in his hand.


"it looked like he was gonna unload on me your honor" even sounds like a lame excuse for a cop in that situation

 

[paladin420]

i think the cop would have been found guilty if the guy was just standing in the hallway with "his wood" in his hand.


"it looked like he was gonna unload on me your honor" even sounds like a lame excuse for a cop in that situation

Possible plausible(For our justice system) excuses

'I thought it was a giant snake'

'but did you see the size of that thing?'

'Butt I did not have my Kevlar thunderwear on"

'That was just a Dick??'


and last but not least!!!

"I thought it was a rocket launcher"

 

[iampolluted]

^^^^ that's my point....the uzi and rocket launcher would have been useless to an extent. the whole point of having armed police and military is to overwhelm you with numbers. that's how they always win. it's always 1 person against a couple dozen or more. a rocket launcher may take out 4 or 5 but you'll be dead shortly there after, same thing with an uzi. dude who got shot in utah had a golf club. if they want you, they'll get you regardless of the arsenal you have. the cop claimed he thought it was a sword, and then shot him.

go ahead and get a tank, or uzi, or gatling gun....they'll still outnumber you, out gun you and eventually win. look at waco, ruby ridge, ect...

i'm not saying any gun needs to be outlawed or banned, but if they serve no practical purpose in real life situations, what's the point in ownership? shooting off a rocket launcher will get you attention, and so will driving a tank to work. i'm assuming though that the attention you drawn won't be of "awe", but seen as a combatant set to do innocent people harm.

point being...we have a "militia" now, and don't need to rely on ourselves to protect us from foreign invaders. we do need to protect ourselves from one another though, and since that's the case, i am a gun advocate in most instances....with exceptions to those weapons that aren't practical in today's society, a tank or rocket launcher being a couple examples, but certainly not the only things we as citizens just shouldn't own. i say that only because common sense can be thrown out the window at any time, by anyone, and then anyone could become a victim weather you have a ccp or not.

 

[paladin420]

^^^^ that's my point....the uzi and rocket launcher would have been useless to an extent. the whole point of having armed police and military is to overwhelm you with numbers. that's how they always win. it's always 1 person against a couple dozen or more. a rocket launcher may take out 4 or 5 but you'll be dead shortly there after, same thing with an uzi. dude who got shot in utah had a golf club. if they want you, they'll get you regardless of the arsenal you have. the cop claimed he thought it was a sword, and then shot him.

go ahead and get a tank, or uzi, or gatling gun....they'll still outnumber you, out gun you and eventually win. look at waco, ruby ridge, ect...

i'm not saying any gun needs to be outlawed or banned, but if they serve no practical purpose in real life situations, what's the point in ownership? shooting off a rocket launcher will get you attention, and so will driving a tank to work. i'm assuming though that the attention you drawn won't be of "awe", but seen as a combatant set to do innocent people harm.

point being...we have a "militia" now, and don't need to rely on ourselves to protect us from foreign invaders. we do need to protect ourselves from one another though, and since that's the case, i am a gun advocate in most instances....with exceptions to those weapons that aren't practical in today's society, a tank or rocket launcher being a couple examples, but certainly not the only things we as citizens just shouldn't own. i say that only because common sense can be thrown out the window at any time, by anyone, and then anyone could become a victim weather you have a ccp or not.

You sir are missing my point. I have no illusions of winning. I only hope to be as costly to TPTB/LEO as I can. In court if I can. In the smoldering ruins of my home if I must.

and the people I feel the need to protect myself from have unlimited resourses and weapons.

so yeah a couple RPG's would be handy.

not much use for an uzi,until the Zombies start swarmin

 

[supermanlives]

i wouldnt mind having an rpg or bazooka . got everything else i need already. hell ya

 

[iampolluted]

ok, that's all well and good, but you seem to forget that in order for them to even be knocking on your door, you must have committed a crime, or they have reason to believe you had. if you were innocent would you still unload on those knocking? being that you're probably growing and won't go to jail peacefully until the situation is remedied, shooting officers may seem justified in your eyes. keep in mind that should you do so, you risk the lives of those you're protecting too. they could be viewed as hostile possibly and be shot too. mistaken identity has been known to be the demise of many just because of the company they've kept. the whole ruby ridge fiasco is a perfect example. the atf was after his friend and the feds mistakenly tied him to the ordeal and look what happened....his wife was shot in the fucking face, and his son was shot in the back.

i'm not missing the point in this debate whatsoever. it's about what's reasonable and prudent given the times we live in. we're not living in 1791 and the wording of the 2nd amendment was written for their time, not ours. you're holding onto a long standing tradition of not trusting the government, and are entitled to with it's history. i don't trust them either, but the crux of this debate is common sense, the history of the 2nd amendment, and it's implications. it states that individuals should be empowered to own guns for the sake of defense of person, property, and country because the government (at the time) had no way to do it for it's citizens. we do have that protection now (to a degree) in today's society.

when it (the 2nd amendment) was written there were less than 2,000 enlisted men in our "standing army." sometimes as little as 80 men. that same small army was crushed @ the battle of wabash against american indians, who at the time were our only enemies. once that battle had ended congress formed the legion of the u.s. (essentially the forming of the modern u.s. army). state militia's at the time were known for abandonment as soon as shots were fired, thus couldn't be relied on. the founding fathers, after the revolution, knew there was a distrust for any central government and wanted to be sure u.s. citizens could protect themselves from tyranny, either foreign or domestic. there was no army, police, or law enforcement at that time to protect citizens, so they wrote the 2nd amendment to ensure they could protect themselves. it wasn't written so some dipshit could own a rocket launcher in today's society.

the wording of the 2nd amendment was a direct reflection of the needs of the times, not for future generations to use as a crutch claiming they need to own guns to protect themselves from self perceived tyranny. you say the criminals won't follow the rules in when it comes to guns. hate to say it, but according to the federal government, ALL growers are criminals, including you. what would it matter to you then if all guns were banned? you're(/we're) a criminal(s) and don't follow the rules anyway. that doesn't mean you'd go out and commit murder but the possibility to do so is there.

it wasn't until AFTER the writing of the 2nd amendment and loss @ wabash was there an army formed to protect u.s. citizens (1792). at the time it was written,(1791) militia's were our only line of defense, and the founding fathers knew this. they empowered citizens to protect our country until a well regulated militia was formed to do so for us. that army wasn't created until 1792 by george washington and congress since state militia's could not be counted on.

holding onto the traditions of gun ownership doesn't equate with what was originally intended by what was written. it was written for the needs of the day, not for future generations to cling to. cling to em all ya want, i have no problem with that, but when faced with leo/military you won't stand a chance because they ARE the well regulated militia of today. to think the common citizen of today is part of the "militia" the founding fathers were speaking of, is ludicrous. they were speaking of an army of citizens that could defend the country should the need arise. now, we have it. because the army was created shortly thereafter. thus, the militia argument is invalid.

the constitution and bill of rights were written so they could be rewritten as the needs of the country evolved, and it has considerably. take, for example, the bill of rights did not pertain to blacks or indians, or women. cruel and usual punishment is/was ambiguous. the 9th amendment is also ambiguous. but most importantly for those who post here, the 10th amendment is wide open to discussion on almost any topic, including the legality of cannabis.

times change, and the bill of rights was written so citizens could change it's attributes to reflect the needs of the current society and situations we faced. not to hold onto text written 221 years ago, thinking it applies to us now.

 

[OrganicBuds]

I thought both guns and politics were against the TOU's. To be honest, I am tired of the anti American talk in this thread.