# Obama to ban so-called assault rifles by Executive Order?



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The rumor is popping up all over the internet including the tidbit that Obama asked the justice dept to do a study on this months ago. 

He may also be considering including the rifles under the National Firearms Act meaning there will be a grace period for everyone owning them to register them with the ATF. If you don't register them, you'd automatically be a considered as having committed a felony. There's some what of a precedence since the streetsweeper and the stryker shotguns were declared destructive devices in the past under the NFA by then Secretary of the Treasury Bentsen.

They would still be available for new purchasers the same as machine guns if the purchaser paid the $200 tax and went through the procedure required by the act. That law has never required any kind of psyche testing.

Google: Obama Executive Order Assault Weapon Ban

Check it out for yourself. At this point it looks like politics will win out over a real solution to more tragedies like Newtown with the very real possibility that Americans not complying would be considered criminals.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

If bloomberg was potus, you might have something to worry about.
But Obama will use his co-horts to push thru something. That way he doesn't get blamed.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

yeah.. gonna use Biden to do his bidding...

No matter what happens, we the people are the ones that are gonna get screwed, and nothing will have been done to prevent another shooting..


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> The rumor is popping up all over the internet


 Yeah, the internet is pretty good for that.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Yea...we've been hearing this for 4 years. Believe it when you see it. The pot stirrers will keep on tossing scare tactics into the proverbial stew we call the internet.


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

This is one of the reasons I didn't vote for Obama. 
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/12/obama-backs-feinsteins-assault-weapons-ban/60128/


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

I don't think with Heller that would be constitutitonal.

I think they could severely regulate the fantasy guns like AR's and AK's or limit mag capacity but I dont' think that an AWB like the one in the 90's would be constitutional now.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I know that in this area they are selling them like crazy. Just about every place sold out of them. Some on the base have said they've even seen little old ladies buying up multiples.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

We are going shopping tomorrow.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

No longer a rumor children . . . .

The conniver-in-chief is on tv right now and has been using trigger words like "weapons of war"

and then used emotional hot topics by listing off all the police officers, ect. , who have been shot

and killed in the last 5 days SINCE the shootings in Connecticut.

Instead of handling it 'directly', he's passing off this hot potato to his flunky boy, Joe Biden. 

Welcome to the F.E.M.A. camps comrades. . . .


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Brave new world..


----------



## wendle (Feb 22, 2006)

I just listened to it on the radio. Something will be done no later than January he says. There was no mention of a way to better defend children. It has been blamed on the guns. Biden is in charge of the whole deal as he was the one who was mainly responsible for the 94 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

In other words common folks are not good enough to defend themselves with the same weapons the Secret Service, Police, Military, and Mexican Drug Cartel have.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Amazing how fast they can ban some guns, but they can't work out this fiscal cliff thing..


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Hollowdweller said:


> I don't think with Heller that would be constitutitonal.
> 
> I think they could severely regulate the fantasy guns like AR's and AK's or limit mag capacity but I dont' think that an AWB like the one in the 90's would be constitutional now.


I don't think the Obama "administration" cares much about being constitutional


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Guess i'm gonna be a felon...

.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Guess I'm gonna see about getting me a Draco pistol ordered and bought real fast...


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Hollowdweller said:


> I don't think with Heller that would be constitutitonal.
> 
> I think they could severely regulate the fantasy guns like AR's and AK's or limit mag capacity but I dont' think that an AWB like the one in the 90's would be constitutional now.


Fantasy guns?
Clarify please?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

simi-steading said:


> Guess I'm gonna see about getting me a Draco pistol ordered and bought real fast...


Better hurry


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

simi-steading said:


> Amazing how fast they can ban some guns, but they can't work out this fiscal cliff thing..


Amazing that the dems haven't passed a budget since they took over.
The one job they are supposed to do and they are too corrupt or incompetent to manage it


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

Haven said:


> Yea...we've been hearing this for 4 years. Believe it when you see it. The pot stirrers will keep on tossing scare tactics into the proverbial stew we call the internet.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-connecticut-towns-idUSBRE8BD0U120121219

Is this your idea of us crazy gun nuts "tossing scare tactics into the proverbial stew"?

I THINK I CAN SEE IT NOW! It's amazing that YOU can't!


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

If anyone needs even 25 round 10/22 mags, you better start buying them now...


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

Hollowdweller said:


> I don't think with Heller that would be constitutitonal.
> 
> I think they could severely regulate the fantasy guns like AR's and AK's or limit mag capacity but I dont' think that an AWB like the one in the 90's would be constitutional now.


That's odd, I thought that banning AR's and AK's and magazine limits was the very intent of the AWB. Exactly what part of the old AWB do you think would now be unconstitutional?

I'm asking your specific opinion, because our idea of "unconstitutional" obviously differs. I believe a ban on AR's and AK's is specifically prohibited by the second amendment, and is thus unconstitutional! I'd love to hear your definition of "arms" and "infringed" as it applies to the 2nd amendment.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

All I know is my pre ban guns I have are worth a lot more than they would have been if it had not been for the previous ban... 

I'd rather have access to more of those guns though.. .the ones that came out after the ban aren't made worth a darn..


----------



## cjean (May 1, 2007)

Our local gun stores are EMPTY, even of ammo. We picked up a few boxes of .22 cal.at Bi-Mart yesterday, for DD's Xmas present, and the shelves were nearly bare. The cashier lady commented, "What, are you getting ready for a war?" (we had a lot of muzzleloader supplies in the cart, as DH has found a new hobby). 

Does anyone else feel the tension, like our society is about to implode in a serious way?


----------



## Ozarks Tom (May 27, 2011)

The race is on. I tried for 2 hours this morning to find Ruger mini-14 mags in stock with no success. Had to settle for the shortest backorder I could find for aftermarket mags.


----------



## oth47 (Jan 11, 2008)

Unfortunately,I don't have the money to buy more guns right now..I wish I did.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

cjean said:


> Our local gun stores are EMPTY, even of ammo. We picked up a few boxes of .22 cal.at Bi-Mart yesterday, for DD's Xmas present, and the shelves were nearly bare. The cashier lady commented, "What, are you getting ready for a war?" (we had a lot of muzzleloader supplies in the cart, as DH has found a new hobby).
> 
> Does anyone else feel the tension, like our society is about to implode in a serious way?


Seriously? The cashier said that to you? I manage a small retail store (no we don't sell guns), and any of my employees would be fired for a crack like that. It's not up to a cashier to judge, or even care about, what you are purchasing. :smack


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

I see that Walmart has removed Bushmaster from its website, and many other Walmarts and other gun suppliers have taken them off their shelves. Cerbrus Capital announced yesterday that they're selling their company and the subsidiary that includes it. Some major retail chains have announced they are suspending sales of Bushmasters or similar rifles, partly as a gesture of respect to the Connecticut dead, but also to insulate themselves from public censure.

.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Cornhusker said:


> Amazing that the dems haven't passed a budget since they took over.
> The one job they are supposed to do and they are too corrupt or incompetent to manage it


Dictators don't need no stinken budget.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

cjean said:


> Our local gun stores are EMPTY, even of ammo. We picked up a few boxes of .22 cal.at Bi-Mart yesterday, for DD's Xmas present, and the shelves were nearly bare. The cashier lady commented, "What, are you getting ready for a war?" (we had a lot of muzzleloader supplies in the cart, as DH has found a new hobby).
> 
> Does anyone else feel the tension, like our society is about to implode in a serious way?


Today I heard,one place had 120 people inline to buy a gun.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

naturelover said:


> I see that Walmart has removed Bushmaster from its website, and many other Walmarts and other gun suppliers have taken them off their shelves. Cerbrus Capital announced yesterday that they're selling their company and the subsidiary that includes it. Some major retail chains have announced they are suspending sales of Bushmasters or similar rifles, partly as a gesture of respect to the Connecticut dead, but also to insulate themselves from public censure.
> 
> .


Cowards
Obama is trying to bully them out of business like the vile dirtbag Chicago thug he is


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I see that Walmart has removed Bushmaster from its website, and many other Walmarts and other gun suppliers have taken them off their shelves. Cerbrus Capital announced yesterday that they're selling their company and the subsidiary that includes it. Some major retail chains have announced they are suspending sales of Bushmasters or similar rifles, partly as a gesture of respect to the Connecticut dead, but also to insulate themselves from public censure.
> 
> .


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lled-bystander-car-chase-boyfriend-lover.html

About halfway down in this story they state that a Ford Focus was used in this attack. Where is the outrage? Now that the Focus has been proven to be a lethal weapon in the hands of a mad-woman should there be regulation?

Knee-jerk reactions are never good news.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

7thswan said:


> Today I heard,one place had 120 people inline to buy a gun.


All of them need to start calling Congress.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Cowards
> Obama is trying to bully them out of business like the vile dirtbag Chicago thug he is


Ya think?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/18/cerberus-freedomgroup-idUSL1E8NI8H620121218



> The secretive private equity firm risked the ire of investors, which include some of the largest U.S. public pension funds, after its investment in Freedom Group Inc, owner of Bushmaster Firearms International that makes the rifle, came under *public scrutiny*.
> 
> The pressure on Cerberus to sell the firearms maker comes as it seeks up to $3.5 billion from investors for its latest buyout fund.
> 
> ...


.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Sure isn't the time to be selling a company that makes AR15's,,, that's about as bad an investment as you could make right about now... You know they are on the list of bad guns.. 

Makes a person wish they had a big pile of 80% receivers....


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

7thswan said:


> Today I heard,one place had 120 people inline to buy a gun.


I think what you're seeing is a lot of panic buying by people who just aren't thinking too clearly.

.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Or a lot of people that had eventually planned to get a black ugly gun, and decided better do it now while you can...

I'm glad I picked up some more magazines a few weeks ago... I think I'll be getting a couple more next weekend too... 

I'm still seriously considering a Draco now too... I've wanted one, but just never thought I'd be put in a place so fast to have to make the decision... Gonna have to talk it over with the wife though just because of the cost.. .

I don't think it's panic buying.. it's reality buying... the reality is, if you don't get it now, you're never gonna have it...


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Just got off the phone with the place we do business with, he had already set aside what I had told him I was getting after Christmas. Picking up my goodies tomorrow. They are also swamped and down to the bare shelves.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

simi-steading said:


> I don't think it's panic buying.. it's reality buying... the reality is, *if you don't get it now, you're never gonna have it*...


That's what I call panic buying. Kind of like what happened with the panic buying of Hostess Twinkies because Hostess was saying they were going to go out of business - right up until Hostess came to a new settlement with the unions and started up business as usual again.

People are in a panic buying all manner of guns because they think they won't be able to buy them later, all the while having no evidence that any such thing is going to happen. That's not reality, that's imagination and panic running away with them. Not too bright in my estimation. 

.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

It has happened before. I would rather take care of things now.. No panic just plain rational thought.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

simi-steading said:


> If anyone needs even 25 round 10/22 mags, you better start buying them now...


 *'* ' * * * * * * 
Pay cash and pick them up at a place where you aren't "normally" known.

(athough there is no doubt, video of each firearm transaction in most places.)


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

naturelover said:


> I think what you're seeing is a lot of panic buying by people who just aren't thinking too clearly.
> 
> .


Well, 2 of my coworkers just bought AR's, and neither needs them or plans to use them. Both told me that they are an investment, purchased today for $900, to be sold in 6 months for $1500. It's what happened with the last AWB. Nice ROI, if the laws go through.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

naturelover said:


> I see that Walmart has removed Bushmaster from its website, and many other Walmarts and other gun suppliers have taken them off their shelves. Cerbrus Capital announced yesterday that they're selling their company and the subsidiary that includes it.  Some major retail chains have announced they are suspending sales of Bushmasters or similar rifles, partly as a gesture of respect to the Connecticut dead, but also to insulate themselves from public censure.


* * * * * * * * *
and you are in complete agreement with these decisions?


(BTW : Still awaiting that challenge that was given you to prove that claim

that I hate you, in ANY previous postings on HT. . . . going to drag it out to the 

end of the year, or is it that the task will never be done due to lack of evidence?!!!)


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Ambereyes said:


> It has happened before. I would rather take care of things now.. No panic just plain rational thought.


I agree.. I picked up a couple guns before the last ban... Glad I did.... the prices are good and high on them now, and the two I got are early models.. .good luck finding anyother early models for sale.. ,, and if you do, be prepared to pay dearly for them.... 

So, that's why I'm not afraid to go out and buy another.. it IS going to happen... Too many have wanted a ban, but didn't have a reason.. Now they do, and a lot of people are on the ban bandwagon... Even many NRA members... that sux...


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

naturelover said:


> That's what I call panic buying. Kind of like what happened with the panic buying of Hostess Twinkies because Hostess was saying they were going to go out of business - right up until Hostess came to a new settlement with the unions and started up business as usual again.
> 
> People are in a panic buying all manner of guns because they think they won't be able to buy them later, all the while having no evidence that any such thing is going to happen. That's not reality, that's imagination and panic running away with them. Not too bright in my estimation.
> 
> .


You keep repeating this, but Diane Feinstein is on the talk circuit discussing her new AWB. Please explain why anyone should not believe that the government is planning new restrictions in the wake of Sandy Hook? It seems prudent to believe that they are telling us the truth, and that they actually intend to move forward with these new regulations. Nobody is making this stuff up. What evidence are you waiting for?


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Home Harvest said:


> What evidence are you waiting for?


The knock on his door...

"Your weapons please!"


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Home Harvest said:


> What evidence are you waiting for?


New regulations in black and white, of course.



simi-steading said:


> The knock on his door...
> 
> "Your weapons please!"


Ha! I'm not worried about anyone knocking on my door demanding my weapons.

.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

If you are going to wait until you see the law in black and white, then it's too late to buy anything you need or want... 

This is in no way a maybe thing that is about to happen.. It is going to happen.... There are WAY too many people behind this now...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Home Harvest said:


> You keep repeating this, but Diane Feinstein is on the talk circuit discussing her new AWB. Please explain why anyone should not believe that the government is planning new restrictions in the wake of Sandy Hook? It seems prudent to believe that they are telling us the truth, and that they actually intend to move forward with these new regulations. Nobody is making this stuff up. What evidence are you waiting for?


Obama and the Democrats need the cooperation of the House. The longer this process takes, the more likely anything new won't be draconian.

Senator Manchin (D) of WV soon after Newtown said he would consider anything. He just did an about face. Reports indicate his office is being swamped by calls. West Virginians by a large majority don't support additional firearms regulation. If Manchin didn't know it before, he knows it now. 

Now's the time for all of us to call Congress. If you can't get through, call a local office in your state and talk to that staffer. Here's some points to consider:

1. The rifle used in Newtown was already illegal under CT law. 
2. What are we doing about the mental health aspects?
3. Why not allow teachers and staff in schools to carry concealed to protect themselves and their students like some districts in Texas have done for years.
4. The previous ban was ineffectual.
5. Violence in society.

Might as well get gaming software companies and Hollywood mauled too. Possibly you can add others.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Hey.. and don't forget.. Remind them a Ford Focus was used in this crime.. .Those cars are a crime in their own right.. we need them banned too..


----------



## cjean (May 1, 2007)

Home Harvest said:


> Seriously? The cashier said that to you? I manage a small retail store (no we don't sell guns), and any of my employees would be fired for a crack like that. It's not up to a cashier to judge, or even care about, what you are purchasing. :smack


Yep, that's what she said. We just smiled, and DH said "I think Obama's going to shut it all down pretty soon". She laughed and said, "Probably so...stock up while you can!".

It did weird me out a bit, since I agree that cashiers should be very careful of their comments.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> The rumor is popping up all over the internet


Talk about unreliable and biased sources.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Home Harvest said:


> Well, 2 of my coworkers just bought AR's, and *neither needs them or plans to use them*. Both told me that they are an investment, purchased today for $900, to be sold in 6 months for $1500. It's what happened with the last AWB. Nice ROI, if the laws go through.





simi-steading said:


> If you are going to wait until you see the law in black and white, then it's *too late to buy anything you need or want*...


Simi-steading, see Home Harvest's post above?

For a lot of people all this buying now is all about the money that's in it for them from future sales at a marked up price of what could likely become illegal firearms, it's not about what they actually need.

I doubt there are many civilians who actually have a need for AR's or high capacity magazines. They just want them.

.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Why not allow teachers and staff in schools to carry concealed to protect themselves and their students like some districts in Texas have done for years.


This; from the American Federation of Teachers.

******Dear Gov. Snyder:

On behalf of the 1.5 million members of the American Federation of Teachers, including the 35,000 members of AFT Michigan, we ask you to veto Senate Bill 59, which would rewrite Michigan&#8217;s gun laws to permit persons to bring concealed firearms into schools, college dorms, churches, hospitals, bars and sports stadiums.

Firearms have absolutely no place in our schools&#8212;the Dec. 14th tragic massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., is a chilling and heartbreaking reminder of this. Twenty innocent young children have been robbed of their lives, many shot multiple times. Six public servants, who were trying to save these children, were murdered in an environment that should be considered a safe sanctuary for students, educators and school visitors.

We&#8217;ve witnessed other horrendous tragedies in our lifetime involving gunfire at schools and universities with devastating consequences &#8212; 32 innocent people cut down at Virginia Tech, 16 murdered at the University of Texas at Austin, and 13 students and faculty executed at Columbine High School.

Permitting firearms in schools &#8212; visible or concealed &#8212; enables a dangerous set of circumstances that can result in similar tragic outcomes. We should be doing everything we can to reduce the possibility of any gunfire in schools, and concentrate on ways to keep all guns off school property and ensure the safety of children and school employees.

Gov. Snyder, please show the kind of leadership that students, families, educators and community members need to be as safe as possible in their schools. You can set an example for Michigan and the nation by taking this small but significant step to reduce gun violence by vetoing S.B. 59.

Sincerely,
Randi Weingarten, President
David Hecker, President, American Federation of Teachers AFT Michigan
http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-b...into-schools/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog​


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

naturelover said:


> Simi-steading, see Home Harvest's post above?
> 
> For a lot of people all this buying now is all about the money that's in it for them from future sales at a marked up price of what could likely become illegal firearms, it's not about what they actually need.
> 
> ...


You bet we want them! It's also our "right" to have them if we choose. Some of us have studied history and see the need to be able to respond to drastic situations. The government desided they have the power to regulate what could be their undoing. Their wrong. The 2nd amendment is "very" clear about their ability to regulate weapons - they can't! The reason they do is because their afraid of the people.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

naturelover said:


> Simi-steading, see Home Harvest's post above?
> 
> For a lot of people all this buying now is all about the money that's in it for them from future sales at a marked up price of what could likely become illegal firearms, it's not about what they actually need.
> 
> ...


I don't need a lot of things I have but if I want them and can afford them it is no one's business what I buy. I also probably didn't need that ice cream cone I bought..


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

naturelover said:


> New regulations in black and white, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're trying to have a discussion about what can be done to prevent new restrictive gun control laws, and nothing will convince you that there will be any... not until they are signed, sealed, and delivered.

It's like we are speaking different languages.


----------



## PistolPackinMom (Oct 20, 2012)

Darren said:


> (snipped)
> ... with the very real possibility that Americans not complying would be considered criminals.


There is a saying that if the government cannot find criminals, then they must make them. Law abiding citizens are not really considered profitable, unless they can be taxed or jailed.


----------



## MushCreek (Jan 7, 2008)

A quick google search shows that about 32,000 people die every year in car crashes, with about 2,000 being children. About 20% are caused by drunk drivers. Interestingly, roughly 3,000 people die every year due to 'distracted' driving (cell phones and the like). Why aren't all these people's names plastered all over the news? Where is their memorial? Why do so many states still allow using a cell phone while driving? We sensationalize a mass murder, especially of children, and so of course, it will be politicized. A shooting of this kind is so statistically rare, but it gets all of the attention, and all of the action, when tens of thousands of people die in other (preventable) ways with little fanfare.

Maybe they should outlaw drunk driving. Oh wait, it IS illegal. Maybe they should outlaw texting and driving. Oh wait, it already IS in many states. Maybe they should have child car restraint laws- oh wait, they already do. There's only so much that you can do to prevent tragedies. People will go on ignoring the laws, and nut jobs in particular will ignore the law. There are so many ways for a disturbed person to wreak havoc that anything you ban is only going to make the tragedy take on another form. If a healthy young man first killed the teacher, do you think the children would stand a chance if he was using a knife? A baseball bat? His bare hands?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

Why not hire unemployed Veterans to guard our schools? Give jobs to those that served our country and protect our children at the same time.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

Cornhusker said:


> Fantasy guns?
> Clarify please?


Stuff like AK's and AR 15's. Stuff that people who like to play soldier but who are afraid to join the army have.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

and the wounding of their 29 unarmed comrades at Ft. Hood, 
by a 'domestic islamic terrorist'; barely 3 years ago! 
One would think,that if anyone had an expectation of
eing "safe" on a military base, it would be here. 
Conversely, having seen with our own eyes, 
the evidence that if they'd ALL been armed, 
the final body count would have been much less and possibly 
never might have happened at all. But of course, the gov caved to the teacher' union . . . .
tossing them this enormous bone after clipping the other unions last week with the signing of his right to work bill. Personally, I think we all got screwed on this last veto . . . especially our children.

Expect 'another' Newtown somewhere in Michigan's future.
* * * * * * * * * * *


Nevada said:


> This; from the American Federation of Teachers.
> ******Dear Gov. Snyder:
> 
> On behalf of the 1.5 million members of the American Federation of Teachers, including the 35,000 members of AFT Michigan, we ask you to veto Senate Bill 59, which would rewrite Michigan&#8217;s gun laws to permit persons to bring concealed firearms into schools, college dorms, churches, hospitals, bars and sports stadiums.
> ...


----------



## PistolPackinMom (Oct 20, 2012)

MushCreek said:


> A quick google search shows that about 32,000 people die every year in car crashes, with about 2,000 being children. About 20% are caused by drunk drivers. Interestingly, roughly 3,000 people die every year due to 'distracted' driving (cell phones and the like). Why aren't all these people's names plastered all over the news? Where is their memorial? Why do so many states still allow using a cell phone while driving? We sensationalize a mass murder, especially of children, and so of course, it will be politicized. A shooting of this kind is so statistically rare, but it gets all of the attention, and all of the action, when tens of thousands of people die in other (preventable) ways with little fanfare.
> 
> Maybe they should outlaw drunk driving. Oh wait, it IS illegal. Maybe they should outlaw texting and driving. Oh wait, it already IS in many states. Maybe they should have child car restraint laws- oh wait, they already do. There's only so much that you can do to prevent tragedies. People will go on ignoring the laws, and nut jobs in particular will ignore the law. There are so many ways for a disturbed person to wreak havoc that anything you ban is only going to make the tragedy take on another form. If a healthy young man first killed the teacher, do you think the children would stand a chance if he was using a knife? A baseball bat? His bare hands?


Because this isn't about stopping tragedies. The real goal is to disarm/criminalize law abiding citizens. It's all about CONTROL.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Home Harvest said:


> It's like we are speaking different languages.


* * * * * * * * *
You betcha you're speaking a different language; #1) she's a canook who 

has no skin in this game, history-wise and #2) more importantly, as a global liberal,

it's NOT in their best interest for us to be armed and able to resist the UN mandates.

Eh?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Hollowdweller said:


> Stuff like AK's and AR 15's. Stuff that people who like to play soldier but who are afraid to join the army have.



Well those are some of my favorites, so oh yeah they are my fantasy and they shoot like dreams.. :spinsmiley:


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

I got a fantasy gun.. I don't play army or soldier and have no desire to... I've got it because I knew the first ban was about to hit.. It's been an investment. It's worth a lot more than I paid for it... And I also take it out and shoot it... and not like I'm a soldier... 

It can also be used for hunting... 

Also many AR's are also used for long range shooting competitions professionally..


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

naturelover said:


> New regulations in black and white, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They must have asked you to give them up or took them long ago in Canada.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> You bet we want them! It's also our "right" to have them if we choose. .......... The 2nd amendment is "very" clear about their ability to regulate weapons - they can't! The reason they do is because their afraid of the people.


Jeffrey, your constitution says you have the right to bear arms but it doesn't say anything about what types of arms. It's a mistake to take it for granted and assume from what's written that it paints all firearms for all people with the same broad brush. It says nothing about the types of modern-day firearms that are being manufactured today and it says nothing about whether or not people have the right to manufacture them, or for whom. That can all change - rights may not be taken away but they can still be changed - and there's lots of wiggle room left in the constitution to allow for plenty of changes and more detailed specifications about what kinds of arms people may have a right to own or bear.

I bet that in the not too distant future the constitution will get new amendments written to keep up with modern times and then next after that there will be all manner of regulations about what kinds of arms people will be allowed to own as well as regulations about what kinds of firearms and accessories manufacturers can make and regulations about who they can sell them too.



Possum Belly said:


> They must have asked you to give them up or took them long ago in Canada.


That's a really odd thing to say. :huh: 

Why would someone have asked for them or taken them away? There's never been a reason for anyone to ask for them or take them and I'm not concerned that is ever going to happen. In any case, they're all legal and within regulations and I still have all of them.

.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

In a way it does say what kind of arms.. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I read that as telling anyone what kind they can or can't have is infringing...


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

naturelover said:


> I think what you're seeing is a lot of panic buying by people who just aren't thinking too clearly.
> 
> .


Sure they're thinking clearly, and I'm glad they also have the $$$ to do it.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Looks like Obama FINALLY figured out how to stimulate the economy..... Just takes a simple threat of stealing more freedom.....


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

I have a couple of retorical questions.
How long have humans walked this Earth?
How long ago did our Founders write the Constitution?
Why do people seen to think the Constitution is Out of Date, when you look the awnsers to the above questions. I think their thinking is very up to date. 
Leave my Constitution alone.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

Great question. Man has always been killing each other for one reason or another.. 

Why do we need rules to tell us what we can or can have? Might as well allow those of us who are good people to have a fighting chance against the people that aren't so great...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Jeffrey, your constitution says you have the right to bear arms but it doesn't say anything about what types of arms. It's a mistake to take it for granted and assume from what's written that it paints all firearms for all people with the same broad brush. It says nothing about the types of modern-day firearms that are being manufactured today and it says nothing about whether or not people have the right to manufacture them, or for whom. That can all change - rights may not be taken away but they can still be changed - and there's lots of wiggle room left in the constitution to allow for plenty of changes and more detailed specifications about what kinds of arms people may have a right to own or bear.
> 
> *I bet that in the not too distant future the constitution will get new amendments *written to keep up with modern times and then next after that there will be all manner of regulations about what kinds of arms people will be allowed to own as well as regulations about what kinds of firearms and accessories manufacturers can make and regulations about who they can sell them too.
> 
> ...


Fortunately neither the President, Congress, nor the courts can amend the Constitution. FWIW, there are more red states than blue states. The Second Amendment isn't going to be changed simply because it's up to the pesky sovereigns known as the states.

As one of the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights it is an individual right. That was confirmed by the Supreme Court. That decision, Washington D.C. vs Heller and more recently McDonald vs. Chicago stopped the arguments about what militia meant and to whom the law applied. It applies to the feds and the states. Chicago learned that the hard way. FWIW, A city or county or other political subdivision is a division of the state.

The Second Amendment is one of the third rails of American politics. It has killed many political careers. IMNSHO, several office holders in Congress are about to get a refresher.

One of our two senators opened his mouth after Newtown and immediately fell over himself doing a 180. He got the message loud and clear from the emails, phone calls, and state newspaper articles.

I'll take that bet, if it's still available.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Hollowdweller said:


> Stuff like AK's and AR 15's. Stuff that people who like to play soldier but who are afraid to join the army have.


Sounds like someone is projecting their personal problems...but mental projections of everyone else IS the trait of a libleft.....:spinsmiley:


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

simi-steading said:


> I got a fantasy gun.. I don't play army or soldier and have no desire to... I've got it because I knew the first ban was about to hit.. It's been an investment. It's worth a lot more than I paid for it... And I also take it out and shoot it... and not like I'm a soldier...
> 
> It can also be used for hunting...
> 
> Also many AR's are also used for long range shooting competitions professionally..


Don't ever justify owning your gun.

That's like apologizing for breathing.

They are both your right. I don't care what you have it for, as long as use it legally. Legally meaning you're not infringing on other people's rights.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

CDNNsports.com is having some great deals on mags right now.....


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Hollowdweller said:


> Stuff like AK's and AR 15's. Stuff that people who like to play soldier but who are afraid to join the army have.


So does that mean I joined the Marines and volunteered for three combat tours because I was afraid to join the army?
Statements like this are just proof people will gladly spout off any ignorant opinion. Fact is most of the Marines, sailors and soldiers I know own some kind of gun and many own AR10, AR15 & AK variants. Combat vets make up a fair number of them. The only reason I sold my AK was because I felt I could handle any fight brought to my door w/my pump shotgun, bolt action Mauser & my spear.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

simi-steading said:


> Hey.. and don't forget.. Remind them a Ford Focus was used in this crime.. .Those cars are a crime in their own right.. we need them banned too..


Just as well ban all fords. Never been much of a ford man myself. 



naturelover said:


> I doubt there are many civilians who actually have a need for AR's or high capacity magazines. They just want them.
> 
> .


Ditto!



JeffreyD said:


> You bet we want them! It's also our "right" to have them if we choose. Some of us have studied history and see the need to be able to respond to drastic situations. The government desided they have the power to regulate what could be their undoing. Their wrong. The 2nd amendment is "very" clear about their ability to regulate weapons - they can't! The reason they do is because their afraid of the people.


Might also study the bible too! Those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword!



dixiegal62 said:


> Why not hire unemployed Veterans to guard our schools? Give jobs to those that served our country and protect our children at the same time.


Most small rural school districts can barely budget in support personel such as janitors, teachers aids, bus drivers. Where they gonna get the money for a highly paid armed security officers?



Hollowdweller said:


> Stuff like AK's and AR 15's. Stuff that people who like to play soldier but who are afraid to join the army have.


Yep, we'll even send you to the mid east and you can shoot all you want!


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Pops2 said:


> So does that mean I joined the Marines and volunteered for three combat tours because I was afraid to join the army?
> Statements like this are just proof people will gladly spout off any ignorant opinion. Fact is most of the Marines, sailors and soldiers I know own some kind of gun and many own AR10, AR15 & AK variants. Combat vets make up a fair number of them. The only reason I sold my AK was because I felt I could handle any fight brought to my door w/my pump shotgun, bolt action Mauser & my spear.


Now there you go Pops, you just proved that a person doesn't need military type weapons to defend theirselves. They can do quite well by improvising with other weapons. Glad to see your eyes are opening!:clap:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Most small rural school districts can barely budget in support personel such as janitors, teachers aids, bus drivers. Where they gonna get the money for a highly paid armed security officers?


And where will they get the money to pay the armed teachers extra hazard pay? Who will pay for the firearms and ammunition and training for the teachers? I guess it would have to be paid for by the parents who want teachers to take on the extra responsibility as armed guards for their children.

Maybe the parents could hire armed guards to work at the schools.

.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Hollowdweller said:


> Stuff like AK's and AR 15's. Stuff that people who like to play soldier but who are afraid to join the army have.


No offense, but that doesn't make sense.
I have ARs and AKs, and I don't "play soldier"
I have them because I like them, because I like shooting them, and an AR is a great varmint gun.
AKs are fantastic pieces of engineering, history and just good looking guns.
Despite the idiotic rhetoric coming from the left, most gun owners are not a bunch of drooling hillbillies in camo pants.
Don't buy into the Obama type lies that paint American gun owners with a broad brush.
The Obama fan boys and girls said "Obama doesn't want to take your guns", and now they were proven wrong...again.
Obamaco is out to take away our right to defend ourselves.
Obama is backing every rapist, crazy killer and child molester in this country, he wants them to have power over us, and for that, I despise him, and you should too.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

naturelover said:


> And where will they get the money to pay the armed teachers extra hazard pay? Who will pay for the firearms and ammunition and training for the teachers? Maybe the parents could hire armed guards to work at the schools.
> 
> .


 You worry too much about your southern neighbor.
Many establishments have already volunteered weapons instruction for free to all teachers and administraitors.
The principle at sandy hook could have saved a few lives had she taken the course and was carrying. She took on the dude totally clueless. She also showed she was tough enough to pull the trigger if need be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The secretive private equity firm risked the ire of investors, which include some of the largest U.S. public pension funds, after its investment in Freedom Group Inc, owner of Bushmaster Firearms International that makes the rifle, came under *public scrutiny*.


LOL
The "public scrutiny" came from the *CALIFORNIA* TEACHER'S* UNION*, who threatened to withdraw their $155 BILLION investment.
Now who else do we know that gets BIG *UNION support*?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/california-teacher-cerberus-capital_n_2325981.html


> The California State Teachers' Retirement System, which manages $155 billion in assets, was reviewing whether those investments comply with the fund's own social and ethical standards.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> =naturelover;6332035
> That's what I call panic buying. Kind of like what happened with the panic buying of Hostess Twinkies because Hostess was saying they were going to go out of business - right up until Hostess came to a new settlement with the unions and started up business as usual again.
> 
> People are in a panic buying all manner of guns because they think they won't be able to buy them later, all the while *having no evidence* that any such thing is going to happen. *That's not reality, that's imagination* and panic running away with them. Not too bright in my estimation.


Surely you're not *serious*?
Have you LOOKED at the news lately?
"Gun control" and "assault weapon" is on EVERY headline around the world


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> This; from the American Federation of Teachers.


The LEADERS of such organizations often write such letters that imply ALL their members feel the same way.

It doesn't mean it's true, and many teachers WOULD like the RIGHT to *protect themselves*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Jeffrey, your constitution says you have the right to bear arms but it doesn't say anything about *what types of arms*


The Supreme Court has ruled it applies to weapons used by the MILITARY



> Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in _United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934.
> 
> In _Miller_, we determined that *the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment"* that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178.
> 
> The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> And where will they get the money to pay the armed teachers *extra hazard pay*?
> 
> Who will pay for the firearms and ammunition and training for the teachers?
> 
> ...


Really?

Isn't it ALREADY a "hazard" to be forced to work in a "GUN FREE ZONE"?

The GOVT can pay for anything they want.
A few guns is nothing if its *FOR THE CHILDREN*

Take the $4 MILLION they are going to spend so BO & MO can vacation in HI. 
BO can spend some of the MILLIONS he has in his "campaign" fund

I'm sure there are HUNDREDS of highly qualified people who would gladly train them FREE of charge

Police officers get a* 6 week *BLET course
The actual *firearms* portion takes just a few *DAYS*
Then THEY are turned loose on the streets with guns

It's not "extra responsibily"
It's *COMMON SENSE*

You're REALLY not coming up with good questions


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

I plan to wait until Friday to hear what the NRA lobby has to say about it since they are respecting the families right to grieve as privately as the sensationalizing media will allow before they go in conference with lawmakers to address future firearm regulations and proper enforcement of existing regulations to seek the most effective middle of the ground plan to avoid tragedies of the type that have occurred this year while preserving the rights of legal firearm owners .


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Isn't it ALREADY a "hazard" to be forced to work in a "GUN FREE ZONE"?


I spent my career working in a gun-free oil refinery.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

Ahh, the refreshing voice if reason.



Shrek said:


> I plan to wait until Friday to hear what the NRA lobby has to say about it since they are respecting the families right to grieve as privately as the sensationalizing media will allow before they go in conference with lawmakers to address future firearm regulations and proper enforcement of existing regulations to seek the most effective middle of the ground plan to avoid tragedies of the type that have occurred this year while preserving the rights of legal firearm owners .


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I spent my career working in a gun-free oil refinery.


Did they let just ANYONE walk into the facility? 
Did they have NO Security at all?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> You worry too much about your southern neighbor.


I know, it's true. I really wish you folks would get your act together once and for all and stop being so disturbing. :hohum: 

If you can suggest something better to worry about I'll try that instead. I'm open to suggestions about more worthy things to worry about.

.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

naturelover said:


> I know, it's true. I really wish you folks would get your act together once and for all and stop being so disturbing. :hohum:
> 
> If you can suggest something better to worry about I'll try that instead. I'm open to suggestions about more worthy things to worry about.
> 
> .


From what I've read recently, your violent crime rate isn't any lower than ours and in some places is dramatically higher right over the border. for example you're prairie provinces apparantly have violent crime rates 2-3X higher than our prairie states just south of them. The difference seems to be your media doesn't sensationalize it like ours does.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> From what I've read recently, your violent crime rate isn't any lower than ours and in some places is dramatically higher right over the border. for example you're prairie provinces apparantly have violent crime rates 2-3X higher than our prairie states just south of them. The difference seems to be your media doesn't sensationalize it like ours does.


It's true our media (and our entertainment culture) doesn't sensationalize or glorify guns and violence the same way as happens there. The news people are usually pretty good about sticking to facts without elaboration and speculation. As to what you said about the crime rate I don't know if that is true but I tend to doubt it so I'd be interested to know what stats you've been reading about that if you ever have the time to spare. I think the cultures are far too different for there to be a comparison. One thing's for certain, there's never been a suggestion for a need for "gun free zones " or interest in having teachers be armed in schools. That's a fine how do you do if ever there was one and I'm glad it's not something for me to worry about here. In the meantime I'll just continue to observe your daily dramas that you've got happening there and hope it all doesn't bleed over and impact us here too much. And of course I'll continue to make comments about it all because I'm just such a terribly opinionated person.

.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

I see a pattern here of people obsessing about Obama will supposedly do in the future, while completely ignoring the gun control and assault weapon bans that have been carried out by Republicans. 

To me, this appears to be a conversation that is lacking in reality, much like a fairy tale.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Darren said:


> Fortunately neither the President, Congress, nor the courts can amend the Constitution. FWIW, there are more red states than blue states. The Second Amendment isn't going to be changed simply because it's up to the pesky sovereigns known as the states.


Will that all still be applicable when some of the states secede from the union?

.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

naturelover said:


> And where will they get the money to pay the armed teachers extra hazard pay? Who will pay for the firearms and ammunition and training for the teachers? I guess it would have to be paid for by the parents who want teachers to take on the extra responsibility as armed guards for their children.
> 
> Maybe the parents could hire armed guards to work at the schools.
> 
> .


In many schools, high and middle schools in my area, there is already an armed cop. I don't know if the school pays the police for that security. But one cop in uniform is an easy target for bad guys. Take him out with the first, surprise shot and the school is yours. When all teachers may or may not be armed, that''s much more difficult for Columbine type terrorists to plan for.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

naturelover said:


> Will that all still be applicable when some of the states secede from the union?
> 
> .


The link below explains the process. Getting an amendment approved by two thirds of the states can be done. The fact that there are amendments going back to the 1860s that have not been approved shows the difficulty.

Two thirds is a significant hurdle. If you consider the fifty states to be split equally between red and blue, you can understand the difficulty of amending the Constitution even if the most likely candidate for secession, Texas, left the union. If all of the red states left the union, it's not likely that the remaining blue states would survive as one country due to their separation. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

naturelover said:


> Jeffrey, your constitution says you have the right to bear arms but it doesn't say anything about what types of arms. It's a mistake to take it for granted and assume from what's written that it paints all firearms for all people with the same broad brush.
> .


When the CONS was written, the right to bear arms was interpreted to mean the most modern and destructive weapons of the day. Private citizens could own war ships that carried the biggest cannons available. Citizens could own every weapon in the army or navy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I see a pattern here of people obsessing about Obama will supposedly do in the future, while completely ignoring the gun control and assault weapon bans that have been carried out by Republicans.
> To me, this appears to be a conversation that is *lacking in reality, much like a fairy tale.*


I see a pattern of BO's defenders in a state of denial.
I'm surprised you noticed it too, even though we *tried to tell you* this was coming before you voted him back in


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I spent my career working in a gun-free oil refinery.


That was before the country was so divided?
Before Obamanation?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now there you go Pops, you just proved that a person doesn't need military type weapons to defend theirselves. They can do quite well by improvising with other weapons. Glad to see your eyes are opening!:clap:


Do you understand WHY the 2nd Amendment was written......who the people needed to be able to protect themselves from?


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Darren said:


> He may also be considering including the rifles under the National Firearms Act meaning there will be a grace period for everyone owning them to register them with the ATF. If you don't register them, you'd automatically be a considered as having committed a felony. There's some what of a precedence since the streetsweeper and the stryker shotguns were declared destructive devices in the past under the NFA by then Secretary of the Treasury Bentsen.


Can executive orders be given contrary to the constitution (second amendment)?
I have to be honest. I would highly approve of banning assault weapons. But I wouldn't want him to do something against the rights of the people. So, I would wonder about legal precedent in this area? Is it legal. If not, then it is wrong.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

simi-steading said:


> yeah.. gonna use Biden to do his bidding...


And how effective would that be? I mean, this is biden not hillary. He could have made a better choice.


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

simi-steading said:


> Amazing how fast they can ban some guns, but they can't work out this fiscal cliff thing..


That is the fault of the GOP. He can't fix the fiscal cliff by executive order.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

mekasmom said:


> That is the fault of the GOP. He can't fix the fiscal cliff by executive order.


Because the GOP won't give in to his higher taxes and no spending cuts?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mekasmom said:


> That is the fault of the GOP. He can't fix the fiscal cliff by executive order.


AFAIK, you can blame the lack of a budget on the Democrats in the Senate. Harry Reid needs to recalled by the people of Nevada.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

There are some really naive people in this forum...


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

MushCreek said:


> A quick google search shows that about 32,000 people die every year in car crashes, with about 2,000 being children. About 20% are caused by drunk drivers. Interestingly, roughly 3,000 people die every year due to 'distracted' driving (cell phones and the like). Why aren't all these people's names plastered all over the news? Where is their memorial? Why do so many states still allow using a cell phone while driving? We sensationalize a mass murder, especially of children, and so of course, it will be politicized. A shooting of this kind is so statistically rare, but it gets all of the attention, and all of the action, when tens of thousands of people die in other (preventable) ways with little fanfare.
> 
> 
> If you think that's bad, do a google search on deaths caused by doctors and hospitals mistakes each year. Maybe we should ban doctors and hospitals...
> ...


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mekasmom said:


> Can executive orders be given contrary to the constitution (second amendment)?
> I have to be honest. I would highly approve of banning assault weapons. But I wouldn't want him to do something against the rights of the people. So, I would wonder about legal precedent in this area? Is it legal. If not, then it is wrong.


There are aspects of the second that have not been ruled on by the Supreme Court. As an example, the case which involved a machine guns was very peculiar in that the defendant or his representative wasn't present. As pointed out in another post, citizens in the early days of our country owned any weapon the military had available including cannons. While some weapons are disallowed by reguations, it has never gone to the Supreme Court.

The two most recent decisions that clarified the second amendment were setbacks for cities and states that had very restrictive gun control. The only possible comparison was the secretary of the treasury declaring some shotguns to be class 3 weapons which include machine guns, when Clinton was in office. That wasn't a presidential executive order.

That's a long way of saying I don't know. Obama is reported to have directed the justice department to study the issue. Since he appointed Biden to do the blue ribon panel thing, I think he and Congress are ducking for cover. They used a similar tactic for military base closings so that no member of Congress was held responsible.

All of the actions after Newtown are telling Congress the second amendment is still one of the third rails of American Politics. I was shocked that the NRA that has four million members has been getting 8,000 new members per day. We're also seeing law enforcement go public to advocate allowing school personnel concealed carry in schools.

The biased media has stirred something up. Hopefully people will redirect their attention from so-called assault weapons and consider the actual causes of Newtown.

Th news has yet to report that the mother's so-called assault rifle used by her son was banned in CT and in NJ where her other son lived. Clearly banning so-called assault rifles doesn't work.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I see a pattern of BO's defenders in a state of denial.
> I'm surprised you noticed it too, even though we *tried to tell you* this was coming before you voted him back in


Tried to tell us what was coming? The only thing that has come so far, is another school shooting and more people talking about guns. Most of the rest is all internet gossip at this point.

Why is no one talking about the Republicans who passed gun laws and banned weapons? That's all I asked, but no one seems to have an answer?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Tried to tell us what was coming? The only thing that has come so far is another school shooting and more people talking about guns. Most of the rest is all internet gossip at this point.
> 
> *Why is no one talking about the Republicans who passed gun laws and banned weapons?* That's all I asked, but no one seems to have an answer?


Because it's a fantasy.
The original Assault Weapons Ban passed by ONE VOTE
The Demoncrats had a *majority* in the House, the Senate, and had Clinton as President

If you think the upcoming push for a ban is "internet gossip" your sadly misinformed, and should check the news more often


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Pops2 said:


> So does that mean I joined the Marines and volunteered for three combat tours because I was afraid to join the army?
> Statements like this are just proof people will gladly spout off any ignorant opinion. Fact is most of the Marines, sailors and soldiers I know own some kind of gun and many own AR10, AR15 & AK variants. Combat vets make up a fair number of them. The only reason I sold my AK was because I felt I could handle any fight brought to my door w/my pump shotgun, bolt action Mauser & my spear.


Yea my 6 years active duty with the Army (82nd Airborne) must mean I just want to run around with an AK or an AR etc and pretend to play soldier...

That foolish statement of opinion that was made also tells me some would have been very afraid of "the prettiest skirt I've ever looked under"

That is a reference to our 'chutes..

It still holds true today...That training from over 30 years ago has saved my life and limbs on more than one occasion..


----------



## therunbunch (Oct 5, 2009)

What's wrong with owning a weapon you're comfortable with, have been trained on tirelessly, and have been asked to defend others with? I'm a vet too and definitely confident in my skills with the weapons the military trained me with. I was a military chaplain's bodyguard for years and there were few big weapons the marines didn't give me to play with. Military vets don't own those weapons because they are playing soldier or trying to prove themselves. They own them because they've been highly trained to use them and are comfortable with them for protection.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

naturelover said:


> *I see that Walmart has removed Bushmaster from its website, and many other Walmarts and other gun suppliers have taken them off their shelves*. Cerbrus Capital announced yesterday that they're selling their company and the subsidiary that includes it. Some major retail chains have announced they are suspending sales of Bushmasters or similar rifles, partly as a gesture of respect to the Connecticut dead, but also to insulate themselves from public censure.
> 
> .


 
That's odd since Wal-Mart just released this statement:

"Walmart, the world's largest retailer, announced *it will not be pulling the type of weapon used in the Newtown school massacre off its shelves,* while another major retailer announced it would. 

*Walmart confirmed Tuesday that it does sell the Bushmaster Sporting Rifle at its stores and plans to continue to do so. *"We have made no changes to the assortment of guns we sell in our stores," Walmart spokesperson Kory Lundberg said in a written statement.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2970705/posts

.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *naturelover*
> _*I see that Walmart has removed Bushmaster from its website, and many other Walmarts and other gun suppliers have taken them off their shelves*_


It's highly likely they have sold all they have* for the year*
All the stores I know of have sold them as fast as they can write up the paperwork.

The *CUSTOMERS* "took them off the shelves"


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

Home Harvest said:


> . Exactly what part of the old AWB do you think would now be unconstitutional?
> 
> I'm asking your specific opinion, because our idea of "unconstitutional" obviously differs. I believe a ban on AR's and AK's is specifically prohibited by the second amendment, and is thus unconstitutional! I'd love to hear your definition of "arms" and "infringed" as it applies to the 2nd amendment.


 
Well I'm not well versed in this Home, but in Heller the Supremes basically said that DC could not ban a whole class of weapons (handguns) and I believe that the same could be true of AK's and AR's.

So I think any law like the old one would be found unconstitutional. 

I think that limiting the size of clips would pass that muster. I also think that they could simply move so called assault weapons up into the same categories as machine guns and be in compliance with Heller though.

In my mind the greatest impediment to preventing mass shootings and gun crime is #1 the belief on the right that any regulation of guns is the path to confiscation. #2 the belief on the left that guns should be banned.

For instance there are a lot of things that could be done to reduce mass shootings and gun crime that have nothing to do with actually banning guns that could be done if gun owners were assured that they would not lead to the actual confiscation of their guns. However as long as people on the left are talking about gun banning and repealing the Second Amendment, even with Heller you will never get the gun community to support it.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

Haven said:


> Tried to tell us what was coming? The only thing that has come so far, is another school shooting and more people talking about guns. Most of the rest is all internet gossip at this point.
> 
> Why is no one talking about the Republicans who passed gun laws and banned weapons? That's all I asked, but no one seems to have an answer?


 
I don't see any real gun control passing this time either. Congress is MORE divided than before.

During Brady AWB public was for it just like now, but what was the end result??

The dems lost the majority and the presidency, 2 wars, elimination of the surplus, economic collapse.

I have no reason to assume that it would be any different now. If any serious gun control gets passed they will have a heck of a lot better issue than repealing Obamacare to run on.

As a democrat I'd personally like to see nothing pass because I predict the dems after working on gaining a majority will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You're exactly right. What is emerging is that the media hit a big nerve as did the politicians that jumped on banning the so-called assault rifles. The NRA is seeing new members sign up in unprecedented numbers. The media has been a disgrace because they've made the possibility of rational discussion almost impossible.

Piers Morgan on CNN is one example of someone who's views should be kept to himself. When China pipes up and demands Americans be disarmed, the rift grows larger. 

Baying at the moon about magazines ignores the real causes of the tragedy. I'd rather see Congress deadlock on any firearms regulation changes and focus on the the reasons the killer did what he did. Then we may make progress.

Otherwise Congress with its short attention span will declare their job finished and go home. the government has affected mental health treatment in this country and deleted funds for school security. I'd like to see them face the music. You are 100% right about the Democrats hanging themselves. They grabbed the third rail and haven't let go yet with the exception of a WV senator that suffered a huge onslaught of outrage from his constituents. After crapping his pants, he backed off.


----------



## greg_n_ga (May 4, 2012)

ninny said:


> Guess i'm gonna be a felon...
> 
> .


 
Me too !!


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

> *I see that Walmart has removed Bushmaster from its website*





ninny said:


> That's odd since Wal-Mart just released this statement:
> 
> "Walmart ... announced it will not be pulling the type of weapon used in the Newtown school massacre off its shelves, .... Walmart confirmed Tuesday that it does sell the Bushmaster Sporting Rifle at its stores
> 
> .


It's my understanding there are several types of weapons that are similar and I found at least 7 similar types on Walmart's website but not Bushmaster.

Can you find the Bushmaster type on their website (not the airsoft electric rifle) and post a link for it?

.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

> The rumor is popping up all over the internet including the tidbit that Obama asked the justice dept to do a study on this months ago.


And you believe everything you read on the internet?
The Fact is that he has asked Joe Biden to head a panel to come up with specific recommendations to be ready when Congress starts back up in January.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> And you believe everything you read on the internet?
> The Fact is that he has asked Joe Biden to head a panel to come up with specific recommendations to be ready when Congress starts back up in January.


LOL

The "fact" is this has been his plan all along.
Feinstein said she wrote her bill *a year ago*
The panel is a sham


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

naturelover said:


> It's my understanding there are several types of weapons that are similar and I found at least 7 similar types on Walmart's website but not Bushmaster.
> 
> Can you find the Bushmaster type on their website (not the airsoft electric rifle) and post a link for it?
> 
> .


They probably* sold* all they had:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-at-wal-mart-as-magazine-prices-surge-on.html


> According to Bloomberg, a day after Walmart said it would continue to sell guns, searches of five kinds of semi-automatic rifles like the one used to kill 26 people â most of them kids aged 6 or 7 â at Sandy Hook elementary school in Connecticut showed them to be *out of stock at stores in five states.*
> 
> Those states included Pennsylvania, Kansas and Alabama, identified by the Walmart requirement that customers input a zip code to see if their local store carries a specific weapon.


All the guns say* "In store only"*
The Sigs will be the last to go because they cost more


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Just as well ban all fords. Never been much of a ford man myself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm good with that!


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Just back from local wally picking up wifes meds-ARs in stock-ammo in stock


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They probably* sold* all they had:
> 
> All the guns say* "In store only"*
> The Sigs will be the last to go because they cost more


So why isn't the Bushmaster listed on the general website with notification that it's sold out or in store only or online sales only? Even if it is sold out or in store only or sold only online, shouldn't it be listed on the Walmart website if Walmart sells it?

.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

naturelover said:


> So why isn't the Bushmaster listed on the general website with notification that it's sold out or in store only or online sales only? Even if it is sold out or in store only or sold only online, shouldn't it be listed on the Walmart website if Walmart sells it?
> 
> .


Sounds like a good question to ask of their corporate office.. Let us know what you hear back..


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

The government now realizes that the people will never resist, no matter what, as long as they follow the play book. The play book is that they create a crisis ( a mass shooting, a terror attack ), and then they offer 'the solution' ( take away 2nd amendment rights, 4th amendment rights, etc ).

As long as they do these things in stages, and with some type of moral justification behind them the people will never resist. In fact they will APPLAUD the dissolution of their own liberty.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

...and that's why all the things they knew before 9/11 never got the attention it should have... just let things keep on playing out.. "We'll own the citizens yet..."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darntootin said:


> The government now realizes that the people will never resist, no matter what, as long as they follow the play book. The play book is that they create a crisis ( a mass shooting, a terror attack ), and then they offer 'the solution' ( take away 2nd amendment rights, 4th amendment rights, etc ).
> 
> As long as they do these things in stages, and with some type of moral justification behind them the people will never resist. In fact they will APPLAUD the dissolution of their own liberty.


Ya think!

Sorry, but that ship sailed after 9/11.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Ya think!
> 
> Sorry, but that ship sailed after 9/11.


So then why do you come here and argue 'left vs right' politics and 'my team' vs 'your team'... when you know the whole thing is a sham and they are conspiring against our liberty...doesn't that pretty much trump everything?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Ya think!
> 
> Sorry, but that ship sailed after 9/11.


Do you believe that enough that you didn't vote for the current administration that is carrying it further than the past administration did?


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

seedspreader said:


> Do you believe that enough that you didn't vote for the current administration that is carrying it further than the past administration did?


It isnt about voting. Romney would be doing exactly the same thing. They all feed from the same trough and take their marching orders from the same elites...there is one party and 'we the people' are not invited.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So *why isn't the Bushmaster listed* on the general website with notification that it's sold out or in store only or* online sales* only? Even if it is sold out or in store only or sold only online, shouldn't it be listed on the Walmart website if Walmart sells it?


I would guess that with the surge in buying, *the holidays*, and the end of the year coming up, they aren't wanting to deal with backorders.

They are listing *what they HAVE* in the stores

The can't "sell it" if they don't* have* it.

I'd be surprised if they anticipated the increased demand, and they don't DO "online sales" of firearms.

Another factor is most stores don't place orders daily, or sometimes even weekly, depending on the distributors.

They may not have a delivery scheduled until after the first of the year, and I feel certain there will be price increases


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Ya think!
> 
> Sorry, but that ship sailed after* 9/11*


:hijacked: :nono:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> It isnt about voting.
> Romney would be doing exactly the same thing


That's speculation
We all KNEW BO and Biden would *lead* the gun ban charge.
I don't think the same could be said about Romney and Ryan


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Darntootin said:


> It isnt about voting. Romney would be doing exactly the same thing. They all feed from the same trough and take their marching orders from the same elites...there is one party and 'we the people' are not invited.


Sure it is.

Who said anything about what Romney would do or wouldn't do?

The point is that anyone who wants to complain about it happening "since 9/11" and continuing to VOTE for people who have actively made it WORSE since then is both ironic... and insincere.

You're the one mentioning parties... I was against the patriot act no matter WHO signed it.


----------



## unregistered168043 (Sep 9, 2011)

seedspreader said:


> Sure it is.
> 
> Who said anything about what Romney would do or wouldn't do?
> 
> ...


. 

You were against the Patriot Act so who did you support for president? As far as I recall none of the candidates were against it...except maybe Ron Paul or Gary Johnson but you dont strike me as a Ron Paul supporter...am I wrong?

So its about voting? Show me the candidate that was pro-2nd amendment ( it wasnt Romney, he wanted "assault weapons" off the market ), anti patriot act, and pro-liberty?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Darntootin said:


> .
> 
> You were against the Patriot Act so who did you support for president? As far as I recall none of the candidates were against it...except maybe Ron Paul or Gary Johnson but you dont strike me as a Ron Paul supporter...am I wrong?
> 
> So its about voting? Show me the candidate that was pro-2nd amendment ( it wasnt Romney, he wanted "assault weapons" off the market ), anti patriot act, and pro-liberty?


Of course you're wrong... most of the people who've been here the previous decade could have told you that. 

I still don't know why you keep bringing up Romney.

I don't know how to say it any clearer. 

Nevada and I have known each other for the last decade or so. The point is simple (for most people)... If you didn't support the Patriot act during the last administration and agree that the government has been stealing rights sing 9/11... then you SURELY wouldn't vote for the CURRENT administration.

But since I must have "Striken" you some way or the other, please feel free to go back and find a "Pro-Romney" post from me.

I'm pro-real conservatism.

Here... go read a bit:
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/politics/394185-ron-paul-launches-presidential-campaign-2.html



seedspreader said:


> I'm sort of interested what "accomplishments" qualify him for President.
> 
> How about we play this game... what is an accomplishment that a Congressman should have?
> 
> ...


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Now there you go Pops, you just proved that a person doesn't need military type weapons to defend theirselves. They can do quite well by improvising with other weapons. Glad to see your eyes are opening!:clap:


The Mauser IS a military weapon and has killed more people than the M16 has.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because it's a fantasy.
> The original Assault Weapons Ban passed by ONE VOTE
> The Demoncrats had a *majority* in the House, the Senate, and had Clinton as President
> 
> If you think the upcoming push for a ban is "internet gossip" your sadly misinformed, and should check the news more often


That isn't entirely accurate. George Bush first put the restrictions on full military style semi autos & ordered the ATF to stop permitting their import. The law passed under Clinton made it "street legal" & long standing.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

naturelover said:


> So why isn't the Bushmaster listed on the general website with notification that it's sold out or in store only or online sales only? Even if it is sold out or in store only or sold only online, shouldn't it be listed on the Walmart website if Walmart sells it?


* * * * * * * * * *
don't want a real answer (just pot stirring) or more likely, are members of the

pseudo-elite (or so they think) and feel 'entitled' to have the work (and answers)

handed to them on a silver platter. So here's your info (minus the platter) and you

will also have to spring for the long distance charges. Too bad I can't do the dialing

for you either. Like simi-steading says, let us know what you find out.

http://corporate.walmart.com/our-story/


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Maybe all the manufacturers just need to rename their products muskets, then any limits on access by the law abiding could be challenged as a violation of the second militia act of 1792.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Do you understand WHY the 2nd Amendment was written......who the people needed to be able to protect themselves from?


So your saying, those 26 school children and teachers were working for the government?



therunbunch said:


> What's wrong with owning a weapon you're comfortable with, have been trained on tirelessly, and have been asked to defend others with? I'm a vet too and definitely confident in my skills with the weapons the military trained me with. I was a military chaplain's bodyguard for years and there were few big weapons the marines didn't give me to play with. Military vets don't own those weapons because they are playing soldier or trying to prove themselves. They own them because they've been highly trained to use them and are comfortable with them for protection.


Now there you go, another reasonable post! If you want to play with all those assult weapons with high capacity ammo clips, go join the military. They'll even let you shoot at a few bad guys in the middle east. 



Hollowdweller said:


> For instance there are a lot of things that could be done to reduce mass shootings and gun crime that have nothing to do with actually banning guns that could be done if gun owners were assured that they would not lead to the actual confiscation of their guns. However as long as people on the left are talking about gun banning and repealing the Second Amendment, even with Heller you will never get the gun community to support it.


Yep, and that's what I'm shooting for, "Banning high capacity weapons before they ban all rifles and handguns". They should have never allowed these on the market to begin with, our chances of having all our firearms banned is greater now then ever before. And I believe so long as they keep allowing assult weapons, then the chance of having all our firearms banned will get even worse. One of these days we might wake up and wished we had been more reasonable.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Oldcountryboy said:


> So your saying, those 26 school children and teachers were working for the government?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See that's the flaw in your thought. It's not negotiable. It's a right. No one gets to change that.

It would be like supporting taking away Everyone who wore a Pink Shirt's Freedom because a man broke the law (forfeiting his freedom) wearing a pink shirt.

It's the second amendment. You don't get to decide what's ok for me...


----------



## EDDIE BUCK (Jul 17, 2005)

oldcountryboy said:


> so your saying, those 26 school children and teachers were working for the government?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


"infringed"
(infringe) Break or violate a treaty, a law, a right etc; Break in or encroach on something
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infringe

*I don't have and probably never will, own one of these so called assault rifles.but that said if they ban me from owning one,they infringed on my constitutional right,whether I ever buy one or not *


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> George Bush first put the restrictions on full military style semi autos & ordered the ATF to stop permitting their import.


Stopping the *import of foreign guns* isn't the same as stopping the SALE and MANUFACTURE of guns


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Stopping the *import of foreign guns* isn't the same as stopping the SALE and MANUFACTURE of guns


If they couldn't be imported they couldn't be sold could they? So while not of the same magnitude, it was still an infringement. Even more so when you consider that all AKs were imported at the time, also the HKs, FALs, SKS, etc.
In fact the bush action & the original AWB are the reason you now have 100% American made AKs, G3s, FALs and others.
The important point is that neither demoncrats nor republicons can truly be trusted to guard ANY constitutional right.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Oldcountryboy said:


> So your saying, those 26 school children and teachers were working for the government?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




By the same token then I should be able to infringe on your Right of Freedom of Speech.. 

As such we could ban "stupid" speech as shown above.. We could also ban political speech if it doesn't agree with the current admin...

sarcasm off..


So you would give up Freedom for security?

Well if you look it up that has been addressed by our Founding Fathers also..

As I posted in another thread;

Compromise; Verb
1. Surrender on the Installment Plan.


Sorry I won't compromise my god given Rights or your god given Rights..Even if you try to force me to surrender my Rights..

Oh and some of us have served in the military and are well trained..

But I do understand, some people would cower before they fight for their Rights..

*I'm not one of them!*


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If they couldn't be imported they couldn't be sold could they? So while not of the same magnitude, it was still an infringement. Even more so when you consider that all AKs were imported at the time, also the HKs, FALs, SKS, etc.


Nothing in the law prevented them from being MADE here


----------



## jaredI (Aug 6, 2011)

Oldcountryboy said:


> Yep, and that's what I'm shooting for, "Banning high capacity weapons before they ban all rifles and handguns". They should have never allowed these on the market to begin with, our chances of having all our firearms banned is greater now then ever before. And I believe so long as they keep allowing assult weapons, then the chance of having all our firearms banned will get even worse. One of these days we might wake up and wished we had been more reasonable.


 The framers of the constitution, and many others, made it very clear, not only in the constitution but in other writings of the time, that it would be necessary to maintain arms to keep the freedoms they so valiantly fought and died for. They didn't specify muskets, single shots, or any thing else. They specifically said "ARMS" 
âTo preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.â
- Richard Henry Lee
âGuard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruinedâ¦The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.â
- Patrick Henry
In my opinion anyone allowing anti-gunners any leverage or justification to INFRINGE on those rights, should be held to about the same standard as a TRAITOR.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing in the law prevented them from being MADE here


Just like I wrote in the post you partially quoted. They will probably not ban manufacture as most AR manufacturers supply the American military & police departments. Plus they have military & LE sales outside the USA so they will likely only ban civilian sales.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Pops2 said:


> Just like I wrote in the post you partially quoted. They will probably not ban manufacture as most AR manufacturers supply the American military & police departments. Plus they have military & LE sales outside the USA so they will likely only ban civilian sales.


The police ARE civilians! They may like to think their not, but they are. If it's good enough for the feds, it's good enough for the people too!


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> The police ARE civilians! They may like to think their not, but they are. If it's good enough for the feds, it's good enough for the people too!


Yeah,I always get a kick out of idiot cops that think they're not civilians...hate to tell them-they are......

AK,AR,HK,etc rcvrs are made in USA in US by non-original manufactures..


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Just like I wrote in the post you partially quoted. *They will probably not ban manufacture *as most AR manufacturers supply the American military & police departments. Plus they have military & LE sales outside the USA so they will likely only ban civilian sales.


Evidently you haven't *read* the bill, and don't know your guns either
The MILITARY* doesn't* *use* *AR-15's*


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Evidently you haven't *read* the bill, and don't know your guns either
> The MILITARY* doesn't* *use* *AR-15's*


Are you turning liberal? You keep arguing w/half of what I post while ignoring the other half that makes the post perfectly logical.

The only difference between the two rifles is the sear & the lettering engraved on the lower receiver. Most police ARs I've seen we're marked by the manufacturers' (bushmaster & dpms mostly but also olympic & rock river) model designations. Some were full auto colt products marked AR-15.
So yeah, since most major manufacturers provide products to various military & LE agencies including federal ones like HUD, the bill will likely gain an exemption for filling govt needs. If it doesn't they'll likely add it to another bill once those agencies complain to congress about their stupidity. Either way it's just you & I they will try to keep unarmed.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Are you turning liberal? You keep arguing w/half of what I post while ignoring the other half that makes the post perfectly logical.


Nothing makes the incorrect portions "logical"

The bill SAYS it *bans " sale, transfer, possession and manufacture" *of at least 100 named weapons, and the* military* has never used an *AR-15*

What you "have seen" is just hearsay :shrug:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing makes the incorrect portions "logical"
> 
> The bill SAYS it *bans " sale, transfer, possession and manufacture" *of at least 100 named weapons, and the* military* has never used an *AR-15*
> 
> What you "have seen" is just hearsay :shrug:



Just a coincidence, but I just read a history of the M16 in American Rifleman.
While it's correct to say the military doesn't use them now, the AR15 was the prototype and was first distributed to our armed forces in Viet Nam.

http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/us-m16/

In 1958, the ArmaLite Division of Fairchild Aircraft Corp. introduced the first prototype of its .22-cal. select-fire center-fire rifle called the AR-15 Model 01 (the &#8220;AR&#8221; stood for ArmaLite Rifle). Weighing barely more than 7 pounds with a loaded 20-round magazine and easily controllable in fully automatic, the AR-15 seemed like the perfect arm for the small-statured soldiers of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) who were fighting-off a growing communist insurgency. That being the case, a full-scale test of the AR-15 was conducted during the first half of 1962 using 1,000 new Model 01 rifles. They were distributed among several ARVN units and American advisors and carried into the field to be used against the Viet Cong. The comments that came back from the American advisors were &#8220;extremely favorable&#8221; of the AR-15 and the lethality of the .223 cartridge. One report related an encounter between ARVN Rangers and three Viet Cong in heavy jungle on June 16, 1962. One of the rangers fired a burst from his AR-15 at one of the VC, hitting him with three rounds at a range of only 15 meters: &#8220;one round in the head took it completely off&#8212;another in the right arm, took it completely off, too&#8212;one round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter.&#8221;
Although lurid, such accounts of the unforgiving effectiveness of the AR-15 and the .223 cartridge exerted convincing influence on the American military. Soon after the tests in South Vietnam, the U.S. Air Force officially adopted the rifle followed by the U.S. Navy, which ordered a small number of rifles to arm its SEAL teams. But the remarkable lethality of the high-velocity .22-cal. bullet was about to change. The Model 01 AR-15s that were used for the test had 20-inch barrels with rifling that made one complete twist in 14 inches (1:14 inches). That rate provided adequate accuracy but imparted the marginal gyroscopic stability on the bullet that permitted tumbling on impact. Continued testing by the U.S. Air Force determined that, because of the 1:14-inch rifling, the AR-15 Model 01 did not group as well in dense arctic air. The AR-15&#8217;s rifling was therefore changed to one twist in 12 inches, which imparted greater stability to the bullet but may have resulted in a reduction in its lethality.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Nothing makes the incorrect portions "logical"
> 
> The bill SAYS it *bans " sale, transfer, possession and manufacture" *of at least 100 named weapons, and the* military* has never used an *AR-15*
> 
> What you "have seen" is just hearsay :shrug:


You really think someone won't write in an exemption to supply military & law enforcement? Right now it's just a rough draft bill, it'll have changes & additions made. The final version that goes to the WH will almost certainly make allowances to keep the govt well armed.
Again the ONLY difference between an AR-15 & an M-16 is the sear & the lettering engraved on the weapon. I have personally seen bushmaster, FN & colt marked weapons issued to Marines. All were marked as M-16 or M-4. When supporting LE training I've seen Olympic, bushmaster, colt, dpms & rock river marked weapons some were marked as M16/M4 and some were not. All had 3 position sears.
So yeah, I'm sure after the various agencies talk to their friends in congress all the manufacturers will still be allowed to supply their military & LE contracts when the final bill hits the WH.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You really think someone won't write in an exemption to supply military & law enforcement?


*ONE company* will get a contract to supply all the military requirements.
All the rest will be out of business



> I have personally seen bushmaster, FN & colt marked weapons issued to Marines. *All were marked as M-16 or M-4*.





> All had *3 position sears*





> Again the ONLY difference between an AR-15 & an M-16 is *the sear *


They aren't *AR-15's* if they have those parts.
They aren't *LEGAL* AR-15's if the receivers have the HOLES for those parts to fit in

The guns you're talking about are all Class III weapons that can't be sold to the public anyway


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Just a coincidence, but I just read a history of the M16 in American Rifleman.
> While it's correct to say the military doesn't use them now, the AR15 was the prototype and was first distributed to our armed forces in Viet Nam.


You're correct.
I wasn't thinking about the very *first* ones still being called AR-15's
I always think of them as Colts, and they always called the *select fire* versions 
M-16's


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Pops2 said:


> That isn't entirely accurate. George Bush first put the restrictions on full military style semi autos & ordered the ATF to stop permitting their import. The law passed under Clinton made it "street legal" & long standing.


Ah no he didn't...he allowed the Clinton ban to sunset.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> Just a coincidence, but I just read a history of the M16 in American Rifleman.
> While it's correct to say the military doesn't use them now, the AR15 was the prototype and was first distributed to our armed forces in Viet Nam.
> 
> http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/us-m16/
> ...


 Absolutely correct-The FIRST AR platform was sold to the USAF in 7.62x51-it was called the AR16.....then when 5.56 came along AR15....it was'nt until it was adopted officially that it was called a M16...I have read alot of interviews/tech papers by Stoner/Sullivan-that's where true info comes from........and NEITHER wanted the stupid "forward assist"-it was forced on them by bureacrats..


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *ONE company* will get a contract to supply all the military requirements.
> All the rest will be out of business
> 
> 
> ...


Being class III doesn't make them not ARs. Maybe you need to learn something about the weapons, the auto sear on the M16 is a drop in part. On the "civilian" AR15, the exact same spot is taken by a two position sear (fire & safe) instead of the three position sear. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the receivers except engraving. I can put a two position sear in a three position marked receiver and all that happens is the switch can't go to the burst position. Likewise I can put a three position sear into a two position marked receiver and the selector will move into the unmarked burst position and fire burst/auto.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

wannabechef said:


> Ah no he didn't...he allowed the Clinton ban to sunset.


His father


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

zant said:


> Absolutely correct-The FIRST AR platform was sold to the USAF in 7.62x51-it was called the AR16.....then when 5.56 came along AR15....it was'nt until it was adopted officially that it was called a M16...I have read alot of interviews/tech papers by Stoner/Sullivan-that's where true info comes from........and NEITHER wanted the stupid "forward assist"-it was forced on them by bureacrats..


That was the AR10


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Pops2 said:


> That was the AR10


I thought that as well, but it was actually called an AR16...the newer .308 is the AR10.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The part that was interesting to me, the part I quoted from The Rifleman article, was the lethality of a .22 caliber before they changed the rifling to stop it from tumbling.
You don't necessarily need large calibers or large magazine capacity to be lethal.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Pops2 said:


> That was the AR10


Like I said AR16...that's why I reference the original designers builders of the firearm....

And yes there are "drop in auto sears" legal without registration before 1981...unless you have a rcvr with a "DIAS block" which is just a narrower opening which does'nt allow the DIAS to "drop in"...other wise holes must be drilled.And DIAS must have m16 parts to run properly...or you could have a "Lightning Link" which is a flat piece of metal with a tail on it that blocks the semi-auto disconnector on a semiAR15...they fire FA only with a semi selector.A Lighting Link takes about 1/2hr to make with a dremel(DO NOT MAKE ONE-$$$$+prison).Original price was $25+$200tax stamp-now $2-5000.00.................You will see Pre-1981 DIAS for sale but if you buy one and possess an AR15-you're going to jail.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

wannabechef said:


> I thought that as well, but it was actually called an AR16...the newer .308 is the AR10.


Negative ghost rider. The AR10 was designed in 1954, the first prototype produced in 1955 & production begun in 1956 and competed directly w/the T-44(M14) and T48(FAL) in tests to replace the Garand. It was scaled down in 1957 to produce the AR15 to compete in tests of a 22 caliber battle rifle. The AR16 was designed after armalite had already sold the AR15 to colt. It was based on the earlier AR12. It was designed and prototypes produced in 1960. It never entered full production needed to compete for contracts & in point of fact never competed for any. It was then scaled down to become the AR18 which was first produced in 1963.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> *ONE company* will get a contract to supply all the military requirements.
> All the rest will be out of business.


One company isn't remotely close to enough now, even w/the loss of civilian sales one company still won't be enough for all the police & govt agencies plus all the military.
While it is theoretically possible that our govt could go to foreign sources (initial M16A2s were contracted from a Canadian firm), it would be a hard sell in the current economy & a potential violation of current law to not permit the manufacturers to continue supplying the fed.


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

zant said:


> Absolutely correct-The FIRST AR platform was sold to the USAF in 7.62x51-it was called the AR16.....then when 5.56 came along AR15....it was'nt until it was adopted officially that it was called a M16...I have read alot of interviews/tech papers by Stoner/Sullivan-that's where true info comes from........and NEITHER wanted the stupid "forward assist"-it was forced on them by bureacrats..


The first and only AR rifle sold exclusively to the USAF was the AR-5, which was a bolt action survival rifle for aircrews. It chambered the 22 hornet. Other than this the USAF didn't buy any armalite rifles that weren't adopted by the DOD as a whole.


----------



## zant (Dec 1, 2005)

Well Pops2,I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...I'll stick with the writings of Stoner/Sullivan..


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

And I'll stick with the production & sales records of armalite.


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

zant said:


> Like I said AR16...that's why I reference the original designers builders of the firearm....
> 
> And yes there are "drop in auto sears" legal without registration before 1981...unless you have a rcvr with a "DIAS block" which is just a narrower opening which does'nt allow the DIAS to "drop in"...other wise holes must be drilled.And DIAS must have m16 parts to run properly...or you could have a "Lightning Link" which is a flat piece of metal with a tail on it that blocks the semi-auto disconnector on a semiAR15...they fire FA only with a semi selector.A Lighting Link takes about 1/2hr to make with a dremel(DO NOT MAKE ONE-$$$$+prison).Original price was $25+$200tax stamp-now $2-5000.00.................You will see Pre-1981 DIAS for sale but if you buy one and possess an AR15-you're going to jail.


An LL is about $7000 now and a registered DiAS is about $14,000...I remember seeing them in the backs of magazines!!!


----------



## wannabechef (Nov 20, 2012)

Pops2 said:


> His father


I saw that after I posted...


----------

