Gun control

samhill wrote:Ok SB, if I get this right just because Obama said he was forming a bi-partisan group to address the gun control issue it caused the price of guns to rise. Now if gun dealers had say 10 AR15s in their inventory that they normally sold for X it was Obama & not them that made them sell that same gun for Y instead to increase their (not Obama) $ to Z. That also could be applied to all the manufacturers of guns & ammo along the way except I don't think they will go up as much since they pretty much probably have to announce price increases ahead of time to keep their mass purchasers happy. Personally I would put the increase more to greed by fear.

Yes Sam that's right Obummer ran his mouth and prices went up. Had he kept his mouth shut it never would have happened. I have Bushmaster AR 15 if you'd like to buy it. My price is what ever I can get for it and right now it's over double what I paid. It's all about supply and what the market will bare. Hell I wish I had bought 10 of 'em.

Got no use for a weapon like that, like I said I'm a lib & we can't afford those con toys when I had my chance to play war it was for real & I got paid for it to boot.

I'm not playing war. If you think that then you have no idea who I am or what I stand for. I chose to buy this weapon and some others simply because of the Clinton ban. Maybe you'd like the Mini 14 instead?

Nah, got a surplus 14 & the M-1, from time to time the Gov. you distrust so has programs where you go & qualify & have the clearances you can get one fairly cheap except I guess it's Obama that's driving the cost up on that as well. Didn't mean to imply that you were playing war, as I have said many times I see no other use for those weapons other than war or making a lot of noise. You'll notice that they aren't the least bit ideal for hunting IMO & you don't see too many snipers that use them unless it's all they have, it's just an expensive hobby if that's what you like or believe you need I don't have money to shoot or smoke so I do neither, to each their own.

Shot my first deer with a friends AK-47, though I forget the civilian name for the weapon. 7.62X39 is a good round, and as any hunter/farmer around here will tell you; most of the taken deer are shot at less than 100 yards. I suppose if you deer stand upon a powerline or have lots of open fields you might need a better long range rifle, but statistically and practically speaking, you don't need much to smoke an animal.

This was a reply to someones letter to there congressman in Alabama. He gets it.



Thank you for contacting me to share your views concerning Second Amendment rights.
I am a firm believer that Second Amendment rights must be preserved. Several dozen gun control-related proposals were introduced in recent Congresses, but only a handful of those bills received votes on the floor of the House.
As with any protection granted in our Bill of Rights, there are costs to pay for those guaranteed freedoms. Criminals run free because of self-incrimination and search and seizure protections. People are hurt by false statements made pursuant to freedom of speech. And innocent people are sometimes killed by the wrongful exercise of Second Amendment rights; such are the costs of freedom.
On balance, however, the Second Amendment may have done more to keep America free and democratic than any other provision in our Bill of Rights. Hence, we must protect the right to bear arms despite recent tragedies.
Please be assured I will keep your views (and those of our founding fathers) in mind should legislation regarding gun rights come to the floor of the House for a vote. I have no intention of supporting the weakening of our right to bear arms. To the contrary, I intend to defend our Second Amendment rights with my vote.
Please feel free to contact me again in the future. You may wish to visit my website athttp://brooks.house.gov/ for additional information about issues and legislation before Congress.
Sincerely,
Mo Brooks
Member of Congress
MB/cc

Clearly this is a very sensitive subject for many people. I dont think anyone proposes to ban guns or the right to bear arms. I think what most of us who have no guns cant accept or understand is why assault weapons should be handed out and sold to anyone who is not either in the military or law enforcement. Lets remember that the right to bear arms was drafted back when we were at war for our homelands AND their was no such things as assault weapons but merely single shot rifles and such things like that. If people say today "we have the right to bear arms" and your right is to buy, use and own assault weapons then why not get some hand grenades and missile launchers while your at it??? where does your "rights" stop, If its truly your right then how can anyone say its not your right to have Missile launchers too??? THIS IS THE DISTINCTION WE ARE TRYING TO GRASP A HANDLE OFF!

Im not sure what purposes assault weapons are for other then killing people in a fast, efficient manner OR simply because they are "fun" (Im very sure missile launchers would be "fun" too) but that does NOT mean anyone should have the right to own and use them! Their needs to be limits on this madness (even the pro gun people know this or they would be asking for missile launchers....which they aren't because they know its "unreasonable"). Most of us are basically saying that assault weapons fall into this category as well (they always should have)! Nobody is saying that we should ban hunting guns or personal protection guns or target guns... (Nobody is going out their a ripping apart their deer or ducks with an AK47 )

If assault weapons who's only purpose is for war and fast, efficient killing of humans are your right to own and use then your rights should equally be to own and use hand grenades and missile launchers and everything ELSE!!!

As is per the norm. The government and the left says all we want is to ban this, and before you know it they have banned everything. Feinstein's ban bill eliminates things like thumb hole stocks,folding stocks, vertical fore grips, ect. ect... What does the stock that's on a gun have to do with a assault weapon? It just makes it LOOK EVIL. If you don't know what the make up of a gun is you have no business passing laws about them. Give them a inch they will take a mile. As a lot of gun toters say (From my cold dead fingers!)

plumb-r wrote:As is per the norm. The government and the left says all we want is to ban this, and before you know it they have banned everything. Feinstein's ban bill eliminates things like thumb hole stocks,folding stocks, vertical fore grips, ect. ect... What does the stock that's on a gun have to do with a assault weapon? It just makes it LOOK EVIL. If you don't know what the make up of a gun is you have no business passing laws about them. Give them a inch they will take a mile. As a lot of gun toters say (From my cold dead fingers!)

true enough... current laws are stupid because i could care less how "evil" a gun looks as long as it shoots only 1 bullet at a time and holds no more then 10 rounds in it. Im hopeful politicians wake up to this current BS about stocks and for-grips and start getting into the "real" attributes that make an assault weapon an "assault weapon". This is going to happen... the writing is on the wall! as sure as marijuana will be legalized, assault weapons in everyone's hands will be illegal in my opinion.

dcrane wrote:
true enough... current laws are stupid because i could care less how "evil" a gun looks as long as it shoots only 1 bullet at a time and holds no more then 10 rounds in it.

Does holding 11 bullets make it more deadly than 10? One question will these laws keep these guns you are for banning, out of the hands of the criminals?

All this banning things is just a feel good measure that lets people smile as if they accomplished something, when in turn nothing has been accomplished



Eric

dcrane wrote:
true enough... current laws are stupid because i could care less how "evil" a gun looks as long as it shoots only 1 bullet at a time and holds no more then 10 rounds in it. Im hopeful politicians wake up to this current BS about stocks and for-grips and start getting into the "real" attributes that make an assault weapon an "assault weapon". This is going to happen... the writing is on the wall! as sure as marijuana will be legalized, assault weapons in everyone's hands will be illegal in my opinion.

What's with the 10 rounds? I just don't get that. I can change a clip pretty damn quick. All of my guns only shoot "1 bullet at a time". Exactly what are the "real" attributes of an assault weapon? I've never killed anything with an "assault weapon". I have killed a lot of things with a single shot rifle, a single shot pistol, and a muzzle loader as well. If you opinion is correct then my opinion is that there are going to be a lot of "illegal" gun owners then.

SuperBeetle wrote:

dcrane wrote:
true enough... current laws are stupid because i could care less how "evil" a gun looks as long as it shoots only 1 bullet at a time and holds no more then 10 rounds in it. Im hopeful politicians wake up to this current BS about stocks and for-grips and start getting into the "real" attributes that make an assault weapon an "assault weapon". This is going to happen... the writing is on the wall! as sure as marijuana will be legalized, assault weapons in everyone's hands will be illegal in my opinion.

What's with the 10 rounds? I just don't get that. I can change a clip pretty damn quick. All of my guns only shoot "1 bullet at a time". Exactly what are the "real" attributes of an assault weapon? I've never killed anything with an "assault weapon". I have killed a lot of things with a single shot rifle, a single shot pistol, and a muzzle loader as well. If you opinion is correct then my opinion is that there are going to be a lot of "illegal" gun owners then.

5 rounds even better.... the reason.... their is NO NEED for MORE (unless your at WAR).... theirs just no reason or need for it so WHY have it?

To protect myself. It would appear that you don't understand the 2nd amendment in any way, shape, or form.

If assault weapons who's only purpose is for war and fast, efficient killing of humans are your right to own and use then your rights should equally be to own and use hand grenades and missile launchers and everything ELSE!!!

You are incorrect in your assessment of assault weapons being killing machines. They are designed to be light, handy, accurate, easy to reload and shoot. Accuracy is in the eye of the beholder as they are not easily made into rapid fire sniper rifles. The military has many configurations for specialized uses. In addition, they were designed to be used by everyone with minimal training.
The military found in past wars that the average American was horrible with a rifle in their hands, they loved country boys that could hit a moving deer or rabbit. That is why the NRA was formed, to promote marksmanship more broadly, as it is to late to teach it when the need is already upon you.
In case you havn't noticed, the pirates in Africa have RPG's and Grenades and other such weapons. So do drug cartel's in Mexico. IF a gang or drug cartel or whatever you want to label them start using them in the US, are you going to call for them to be banned? They already are just like REAL assault weapons(full auto) It does not deter the criminals one bit, they just don't care.
You are just lashing out as YOU don't see the NEED for one. I havn't fired a full auto or ridden in a tank. But I could own them both if I had enough money, LEGALLY.

I should add that they were found to be lacking as a weapon in the open areas in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sniper corps made a big comeback and the need for a more powerful round at extended ranges was identified. The old 7.62 Nato(.308) was more desirable then the 5.56 Nato(.223) as the ranges were beyond the effective range of the 5.56.

So you see, all weapons are assault weapons, in a certain time and place. Just like arguing about what someone would or wouldn't do in a shooter situation. No to situations are the same. You gotta dance with the girl you brought to the dance.

Kevin

Some people want their government to protect them from everything (including a 32oz. soda) . There are those of us how want the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones, not only from criminals but from our government as well. I don't want my government to be responsible for everything. I want them to get out of my way so I can live my life FREE.