New Assault weapon Ban

coaledsweat wrote:You guys remember the bank robbers in North Hollywood?

Yeah, they had illegal full auto weapons, another law that did nothing to stop crimminals.

Exactly right. Seems a lot of people get confused over this and think you can go to Wal-mart and buy a full auto weapons. The media tends to call a lot of weapons "automatic".

coaledsweat wrote:You guys remember the bank robbers in North Hollywood?

Yeah, they had illegal full auto weapons, another law that did nothing to stop crimminals.

My concern is NOT criminals.......It is suicidal teens who have caused the worst gun related tragedies in this country for many years. (Like Columbine, et al)

The North Hollywood incident involved 2 desperate bank robbers, wearing full body armor & carrying full auto AK-47's.......who's intent was to steal money, not kill innocent people. They were obviously quite willing to kill, but, in reality, the only 2 people to die in that incident were the 2 bad guys themselves! There are no gun laws that will ever be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of real criminals & terrorists, imo.

BUT

Gun laws can be effective in keeping the most lethal weapons out of the hands of crazies & suicidal teens, who seem to present the worst threat to the average innocent bystander.

There is no right to FUN guaranteed by our Constitution

Does "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell with you?

SAU wrote:Does "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell with you?

Sure does....That's a statement of intent from our "Declaration of Independence", not a right guaranteed by our Constitution.


......."Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man..."

http://www.ask.com/web?q=%22life+libert ... &o=0&l=dir

I dont know guys, I love my 75 round drum for my ak and have stacks of 30 rounders for more than a few guns in the doomsday closet. I dont want any more restrictive bans because I believe one thing WILL lead to another(law). I cant hunt with these either nor would I want too. But they are just plain old fun to have, I hope I never have the privaledge of lighting up some poor bastard who comes to my home looking for trouble. I guess my point is there are alot of things out there related to people hobbies that are dangerous, If your a troubled teen hell bent on killing and dont have guns available, your fathers SUV will work just fine in the school courtyard. I dont have to have 30 rounders and you dont have to have 300 horsepower. That happened not far from here last winter when a guy got into a bar fight left then ran through a crowd of people involved, Killing 2, if he had a small import box car with a puny 4 cylinder those people may have lived. Thats the same thing to me. It been said so many times on other threads and on TV we need to enforce the laws we have not make more. That is only gonna hurt guys like me who have tiny peckers and need big guns to compensate.


Jim

Devil505 wrote:

SAU wrote:Does "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" ring a bell with you?

Sure does....That's a statement of intent from our "Declaration of Independence", not a right guaranteed by our Constitution.


......."Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man..."

http://www.ask.com/web?q=%22life+libert ... &o=0&l=dir

Uh huh and the Declaration is the basic premise on which this country was founded. You might recall, they kind of started a war over it.

Believe me, I understand the history of this nation far better than you.

Devil505 wrote:

We have to collectively agree on an admittedly "arbitrarily" set limit to weigh a sportsman's/homeowner's rights vs societal rights of self defense. If I was giving my personal opinion, it would be that a 20 rnd mag is more pref referable than a 30 rnd one but then a 10 rnd mag would be more preferable to a 20 rnd one.

And then a 5 round would be preferable to a 10 round one. And then...............

This is an "Argument" often used by the NRA with a sort of........Don't let the camel get his nose into the tent type of logic, meaning that: While this law may be ok, we should vote it down because it may lead to other, more limiting laws in the future. I never bought that argument.

I see that.

Devil505 wrote:As far as your argument about 22 caliber weapons is concerned,there's a reason why no military on earth uses 22 caliber as it's main infantry weapon's ammunition......It's just not as lethal as the heavier calibers........Thus an individual has a much greater chance of surviving a 22 cal wound.

Not true, the military doesn't use .22lr rounds because they are basically ineffective at long ranges of say 100 yards or more. The .22 will go over a mile but it loses most of it's energy after 100yds. Not too many people that get shot with a .22 live, it is an extremely deadly cartridge. When it hits a human it tumbles around inside of you and causes massive damage. A .308 or .223 round in FULL METAL JACKET, BALL, or ARMOR PIERCING evil military configurations passes right through, making war more fair as you have to hit the enemy a few times for him to bleed to death from all the holes. I know special forces guys that use 12 gauge shotguns with #2 or #4 shot for inner city work over in the sandbox, it is much more effective than spraying rifle bullets through walls and less collateral damage as well. Maybe they should ban shotguns, no? You can kill 15 people at once with some #2 shot, times 5 rounds that's 75 people dead without reloading. Or even better load that bad boy 12 gauge up with some readily available incendiary ammo, one shot will take out a city block easy and with 4 more shots just a pump away some nut could easily burn down a whole neighborhood. My point being is that you can't stop the crazies from doing crazy things. All the restrictive gun laws do is restrict honest Freemasons' fun and make upper middle class liberals feel safe.

Maybe they should ban shotguns, no?

Actually the Japanese tried ( I know, the gall is just.. ) to have them banned under the Geneva conventions.....DURING THE WAR.

e.alleg wrote:Not true, the military doesn't use .22lr rounds because they are basically ineffective at long ranges of say 100 yards or more. The .22 will go over a mile but it loses most of it's energy after 100yds. Not too many people that get shot with a .22 live, it is an extremely deadly cartridge. When it hits a human it tumbles around inside of you and causes massive damage.

You have a link backing up those claims?

1. From a physics standpoint, the heavier the round the harder would be it's striking power at velocity, right? Every weapons expert I have ever talked with says the 22 cal is just too light to have the same lethality as larger rounds.

2. I know the .223 round tumbles in the human body, but I have never heard the normal 22 cal round does so.

3. where do you get this info: ..."Not too many people that get shot with a .22 live,".... Are you sure you're not talking about the 223 round? (& obviously WHERE you get shot has a major impact on your surviving...ie a head shot with almost any caliber is usually lethal, whereas being shot in the ankle would rarely be lethal if you applied a tourniquet in time)

Australian Gun Law Update

Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the now available data from Down
Under. It has now been one year (12 months) since gun owners in Australia were
forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by
our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million dollars.

The first year results are now available:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent;

Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent;

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent);

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent
as compared with the last one year period when private ownership of a firearm
was legal.

(NB: the law-abiding citizens did turn in their personal firearms, the criminal
element did not and thus criminals in Australia still possess their guns.)

While data for the 25 years preceding the confiscation of privately owned guns
showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed
drastically upward in the past 12 months as criminals now are assured their
victims will be unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has
decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
'successfully ridding Australian society of guns.'

This story of well intentioned government intervention in the rights of lawful
individuals to own and possess firearms won't be seen in the mainstream US
media or on the American evening news. Senator Obama who advocates a similar
confiscation in the US will not be reporting any of this to you.

But, the Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest
citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the
law-abiding citizens.

Americans may want to take note before it's too late!

FORWARD TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST.

DON'T BE A MEMBER OF THE SILENT MAJORITY.

BE A PARTICIPANT IN THE VOCAL MINORITY WHO DOESN'T WANT TO SEE WHAT
HAPPENED IN AUSTRALIA HAPPEN IN THE US !

Fully auto isn't good for much of anything except fun or installation in helicopters and vehicles. Spraying bullets is for Hollywood, we learned a long time ago that changing out barrels or running out of ammo is a fast way to get dead. I would like to have one for when the time comes when I can say "say hello to my little fren" but that's about it

samhill wrote:single shot 22s as an assinings weapon of choice, nothing is easier to hide or as sure to kill as a well placed 22.

I know many intelligence agencies (like Mossad) will use a .22 for assassinations strictly due to it's ability to be silenced so effectively. It's ability to kill is less effective than heavier rounds but it obviously will get the job one with a few well placed shots.
I make no claim to be a firearms expert but this is what I have been told by people "in the know."