How long until our 2nd amendments rights are stomped to death?

[Judah Ben-Hur]

Originally Posted by rorytsm

looks like she needs some man moisturizer on that wrinkled ass face of hers

Looks like she already has a pearl necklace.

[InfinitiR1]

I got my AR and I convinced quite a few of my civilian friends to get ARs. All my prior service guys have ARs. Everytime there's a sale on ammo at Dick's, I spend at least 100 bucks on 5.56. Everytime. Almost everyone in my cirlce have ARs. There are many of you and others out there who have your own circle that mirrors mine. To anyone who tries to trample on our 2nd Amendment rights...good luck.

[TwistedSprocket]

Originally Posted by MANOWAR

How many guns did you lose in 94? I lost exactly zero.

Regardless I'd still like to buy more rifles without the hassle of finding preban receivers and paying outrageous prices for them. That's if they allow prebans to be transferable of course. I can see them clamping down quite hard on us by the time I'm ready for retirement.

whatsaR1? ^^^^ Dont do that! You scared me when I was scrolling down!

[WarMachine]

Originally Posted by MANOWAR

How many guns did you lose in 94? I lost exactly zero.

I was 16 then, pu$$y was on my mind. Doesn't mean someone didn't have the same thought then as you do now does it?

[ko66]

I thought the assualt rifle ban expired.

[Xanderby]

The assault rifle ban did expire in 2004, but it can be reinstated. When Obama was initially running for president he said he was in favor of reinstating the bane. Since then he has singed legislation making it legal to carry firearms in national parks and on passenger trains.

In July 2004, then-Governor Romney signed legislation into law that made Massachusetts' assault weapons ban permanent and not reliant on a federal ban that expired at the end of 2004. The state issued a press release at the time, in which Romney described assault weapons as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Gun manufacturers, dealers, and clubs should love Obama he boosts sales and memberships more than any other us president ever has.

food for thought...

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ves-obama-an-f

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10...apons-b/190681

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.UJs8ecXA_nj

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35484383.../#.UJs8dsXA_nj

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...control-2012-9

[Rex1585]

On the part about the gun companies starting the rumors to drum sells. They honestly don't need to. Try to find a bolt carrier assembly under 200 assembled for an AR in 5.56.


You probably can't for another 3-4 weeks.

Xanderby, thanks for posting that info. Seems everyone in this country thinks that Republican = good for guns.

[InfinitiR1]

just so we're on the same page here, the assualt rifle ban by legal defintion is fully auto/3 round burst with collapsible butt stock and mil-spec flash suppresor with bayonet holder right?

[ko66]

Thanks xanderby!!!

[ko66]

Originally Posted by InfinitiR1

just so we're on the same page here, the assualt rifle ban by legal defintion is fully auto/3 round burst with collapsible butt stock and mil-spec flash suppresor with bayonet holder right?

Pretty much!

[KMac]

Before everybody gets all giddy over Obama "signing a law to allow guns to be carried in National Parks" you should also understand all the facts:

1. The Bush Administration originally lifted the ban on firearms carry in National Parks due to the difficulty of traveling between state and federal lands because of the differences in their gun laws.
2. A Federal Judge blocked the lifting of the ban by the Bush Administration.
3. Obama's administration declined to appeal the judge's ruling.
4. Congress passed the law allowing it, but the focus of the law was NOT gun carry in national parks; it was a Credit Card Reform Act, which was BIG political points at the time due to the bailout packages and related financial issues at the time. Carrying guns in nat'l parks was simply an item shoe-horned into this act, of which the Pres would have never even considered striking down due to the actual credit card issues the law primarily focused on.
5. Obama signed it into law with no mention whatsoever that it had anything to do with allowing gun carry in nat'l parks. The media lept on that, then Obama subsequently made passing mentions of it because of the political value, nothing more.

Same story for being able to carry on Amtrak trains, it was tagged onto a transportation appropriations bill.

Do you really think the President who disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling on gun bans would have ever passed a law that was solely aimed at allowing gun carry in nat'l parks or on trains? Please.

Romney is no better, in spite of his recent, questionably timed cuddling up to gun rights advocates.

[WarMachine]

Originally Posted by InfinitiR1

just so we're on the same page here, the assualt rifle ban by legal defintion is fully auto/3 round burst with collapsible butt stock and mil-spec flash suppresor with bayonet holder right?

Technically yes but we also know politicians are dumbasses

Sent from my Rooted S3 fool

[Creeping Death]

Originally Posted by Rex1585

Mittens said that he wanted to put a ban on the "assault style weapons" in the final debate. Neither were good choices in this area of discussion.

He made this comment right around the time he said "binder full of women" Cut the crap.

New guy is paying attention, glad somebody is.

Rmoney is anti-gun, he only joined the NRA for an endorsement to get elected.

[drjak]

The fear tactics. I've been hearing this bullshit for four years and I'm tired of it.

Worry about something else.

[Fikays]

Originally Posted by InfinitiR1

just so we're on the same page here, the assualt rifle ban by legal defintion is fully auto/3 round burst with collapsible butt stock and mil-spec flash suppresor with bayonet holder right?

The uneducated keep using the term "assault rifle", which is wholly incorrect regarding the limitations of gun sales for the average citizen.

Civilians cannot own an "assault rifle" without the proper license. Everyone else, the 99% of those who do not have such a license, own or wish to own semiautomatic rifles that resemble military grade hardware in appearance only. These are not "assault rifles".

So what the purveyors of the so called "assault weapons ban" wish to to
do with the re-instatement of the ban is to prevent civilians from owning simple semi-automatic rifles. Everyone needs to understand what the word means and what it represents because the ban shouldn't affect these normal semi-automatic rifles, yet they include them in the ban.

That's the issue with those against the ban, for those of you who obviously cannot understand what is going on here.

Originally Posted by KMac

Before everybody gets all giddy over Obama "signing a law to allow guns to be carried in National Parks" you should also understand all the facts:

1. The Bush Administration originally lifted the ban on firearms carry in National Parks due to the difficulty of traveling between state and federal lands because of the differences in their gun laws.
2. A Federal Judge blocked the lifting of the ban by the Bush Administration.
3. Obama's administration declined to appeal the judge's ruling.
4. Congress passed the law allowing it, but the focus of the law was NOT gun carry in national parks; it was a Credit Card Reform Act, which was BIG political points at the time due to the bailout packages and related financial issues at the time. Carrying guns in nat'l parks was simply an item shoe-horned into this act, of which the Pres would have never even considered striking down due to the actual credit card issues the law primarily focused on.
5. Obama signed it into law with no mention whatsoever that it had anything to do with allowing gun carry in nat'l parks. The media lept on that, then Obama subsequently made passing mentions of it because of the political value, nothing more.

Same story for being able to carry on Amtrak trains, it was tagged onto a transportation appropriations bill.

Do you really think the President who disagreed with the Supreme Court ruling on gun bans would have ever passed a law that was solely aimed at allowing gun carry in nat'l parks or on trains? Please.

Romney is no better, in spite of his recent, questionably timed cuddling up to gun rights advocates.

Originally Posted by drjak

The fear tactics. I've been hearing this bullshit for four years and I'm tired of it.

Worry about something else.

That's up to you to "worry about something else". The rest of us are free to worry about whatever we wish to worry about. I don't remember any law preventing disagreement.

[InfinitiR1]

Originally Posted by Fikays

The uneducated keep using the term "assault rifle", which is wholly incorrect regarding the limitations of gun sales for the average citizen.

Civilians cannot own an "assault rifle" without the proper license. Everyone else, the 99% of those who do not have such a license, own or wish to own semiautomatic rifles that resemble military grade hardware in appearance only. These are not "assault rifles".

So what the purveyors of the so called "assault weapons ban" wish to to
do with the re-instatement of the ban is to prevent civilians from owning simple semi-automatic rifles. Everyone needs to understand what the word means and what it represents because the ban shouldn't affect these normal semi-automatic rifles, yet they include them in the ban.

That's the issue with those against the ban, for those of you who obviously cannot understand what is going on here.

It's been a while since constitutional law, but I did read and brief the case on D.C and Illinois banning assualt rifles. I don't feel like digging up old school work, but I'm sure they defined assualt rifles as we both mentioned above. You're making me want to dig it up now.

[Fikays]

Originally Posted by InfinitiR1

It's been a while since constitutional law, but I did read and brief the case on D.C and Illinois banning assualt rifles. I don't feel like digging up old school work, but I'm sure they defined assualt rifles as we both mentioned above. You're making me want to dig it up now.

Go take a gander.

That is the problem with this whole "assault" weapons ban. Those wanting to enact the law have no clue as to what "assault" means and what Joe Blow buys at his local gun shop.

It is ridiculous and a slap in the face of those of us who can comprehend simple English and understand the difference between a weapon any military or LEO carries versus the typical civilian that uses a semi-automatic rifle for sport or hunting.

[sobeRone]

Originally Posted by MANOWAR

How many guns did you lose in 94? I lost exactly zero.

LOL - I may have lost a super soaker or two that year, in all honesty.

[Meister37]

I'm good, I've got all I need for me and my family and friends- about 30 years worth. So, from here on out I could give a shit what everyone else gets fvcked out of. Bunch of fvcking lemmings who will go out and buy a couple guns, a couple boxes of ammo and shoot them twice over the next month and never really get proficient enough to use them. IT sounds harsh, but I've seen it time and time again and it's not what we should be doing. If you buy the gun, learn to use it. Appleseed, NRA, Gunsight, local MSG's, whatever it takes to become a rifleman.

That being said, disarming those who would resist is the current government's responsibility now that we have become subjects over the past 20 years of regulations to chip away at our freedoms. They will need to ensure we cannot campaign a successful revolution. This Idea stems from the fact that most people will be happy to give up their guns for food the first time they get hungryWhen your belly is rumbling, that FEMA camp won't look so bad. Unsupplied armies get defeated, as did unsupplied militias of the first revolution.

Don't think that you will be able to survive out in the woods, won't happen because everyone else will be out there doing the same and there will be no food in a very short period of time. Buy food and guns to protect your food. This is going to get really bad people, and I'm not talking about the depression in the 20's. I'm talking about anarchy embodied. Martial law will be a reality when the fiscal cliff is reached. The government will have no interest in protecting you or I, it's just not worth it.

2 years or less. Get ready people.

[Fikays]

Originally Posted by Meister37

I'm good, I've got all I need for me and my family and friends- about 30 years worth. So, from here on out I could give a shit what everyone else gets fvcked out of. Bunch of fvcking lemmings who will go out and buy a couple guns, a couple boxes of ammo and shoot them twice over the next month and never really get proficient enough to use them. IT sounds harsh, but I've seen it time and time again and it's not what we should be doing. If you buy the gun, learn to use it. Appleseed, NRA, Gunsight, local MSG's, whatever it takes to become a rifleman.

That being said, disarming those who would resist is the current government's responsibility now that we have become subjects over the past 20 years of regulations to chip away at our freedoms. They will need to ensure we cannot campaign a successful revolution. This Idea stems from the fact that most people will be happy to give up their guns for food the first time they get hungryWhen your belly is rumbling, that FEMA camp won't look so bad. Unsupplied armies get defeated, as did unsupplied militias of the first revolution.

Don't think that you will be able to survive out in the woods, won't happen because everyone else will be out there doing the same and there will be no food in a very short period of time. Buy food and guns to protect your food. This is going to get really bad people, and I'm not talking about the depression in the 20's. I'm talking about anarchy embodied. Martial law will be a reality when the fiscal cliff is reached. The government will have no interest in protecting you or I, it's just not worth it.

2 years or less. Get ready people.

Better to have and not need than to need and not have.