THey aren't gonna take your guns

[Article 15]

So basically you are trying to ban them over time.

A manufacture ban is a ban, no matter how you try to spin it.

Of course they will still be manufactured for the agents of the state, so what it really is is a sales ban.

How can gun rights people trust gun control people when you have to lie every time you make a statement?

A well taken care of gun will fire for hundreds of years.

I currently don't own a firearm. However I wish to retain the right to buy one, semi auto, shotgun, whatever, whenever I want to, and without the cost inflation a new sales ban would cause.

Tough shit.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I currently don't own a firearm.

Thank HEAVENS

 

[Spoonman]

The assault weapons ban is on the manufacture of assault weapons for civilian use. If you already have one, you're allowed to keep it. If you don't have one and want one, you'll be allowed to buy one on the market provided it was legal when manufactured (during a period with no ban and otherwise legal). The ban is only on the manufacture.

At least, that is the ban that expired in 2004.

I'm pretty sure Congress has the authority to regulate commerce.

i didn't realize we replaced the stars and stripes with a hammer and sickle

I didn't realize they let the mentally challenged 5 year children of hookers post on here.

if they didn't, who else would there be to support the lunatic liberal agenda here?

 

[g5000]

The assault weapons ban is on the manufacture of assault weapons for civilian use. If you already have one, you're allowed to keep it. If you don't have one and want one, you'll be allowed to buy one on the market provided it was legal when manufactured (during a period with no ban and otherwise legal). The ban is only on the manufacture.

At least, that is the ban that expired in 2004.

I'm pretty sure Congress has the authority to regulate commerce.

Manufacturing and selling midget porn is commerce. Do you think that means Congress can ban it?

 

[martybegan]

I currently don't own a firearm.

Thank HEAVENS

Just for that I feel like going out and buying one, JUST TO PISS YOU OFF.

 

[martybegan]

A well taken care of gun will fire for hundreds of years.

I currently don't own a firearm. However I wish to retain the right to buy one, semi auto, shotgun, whatever, whenever I want to, and without the cost inflation a new sales ban would cause.

Tough shit.

"Guns for me but not for thee?"

 

[Spoonman]

I currently don't own a firearm.

Thank HEAVENS

Just for that I feel like going out and buying one, JUST TO PISS YOU OFF.

i will be buying a few more in two weeks. just becasue i still can

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh no. I heard from a very well informed USMB Conservative that the current Neo-Nazi Regime will be doing a house to house search for all guns when Führer Obama dictates the new law to the Homeland. Anyone who resists will be put in concentration/work camps and worked to death.

Did they show you a nice blog as proof?

Why yes, they did.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The assault weapons ban is on the manufacture of assault weapons for civilian use.

Which never happens. Assault weapons are not seen in the hands of American civilians.

You're a retard.

No jackass, you're a retard. Tell me, what is an "assault" rifle, eh? You don't know. You haven't even the first clue. So let me tell you....An "assault" rifle is a rifle that is capable of automatic fire. So please tell me....give me one example of an automatic rifle that can be readily found in the hands of US civilians, either legally or illegally. You can't. Because they aren't out there. A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle. Now shut up, you uninformed idiot.

 

[g5000]

Which never happens. Assault weapons are not seen in the hands of American civilians.

You're a retard.

No jackass, you're a retard. Tell me, what is an "assault" rifle, eh? You don't know. You haven't even the first clue. So let me tell you....An "assault" rifle is a rifle that is capable of automatic fire. So please tell me....give me one example of an automatic rifle that can be readily found in the hands of US civilians, either legally or illegally. You can't. Because they aren't out there. A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle. Now shut up, you uninformed idiot.

"Assault rifle" is a legal term. So an "assault rifle" is whatever the law says it is.

If our politicians decide a stripped down semi-automatic AR-15 is not an assault rifle, and an AR-15 with a flash suppressor is an assault rifle, then that is just the way it is.

It's an invention of the law. Like someone being killed "execution-style" is an invention of the media. It is whatever they decide it is.

Because of this ridiculous legal ambiguity, the words "assault rifle" conjure up different images in the minds of the perceivers, much the way the word "dog" does.

 

[chikenwing]

So basically you are trying to ban them over time.

A manufacture ban is a ban, no matter how you try to spin it.

Of course they will still be manufactured for the agents of the state, so what it really is is a sales ban.

How can gun rights people trust gun control people when you have to lie every time you make a statement?

A manufacture ban is a manufacture ban. That's not "spin" that's literally what it is.

Wasn't Ronnie Raygun President when they stopped making new, fully auto machine guns for the general public? Ronnie Raaygun, Gun Taker Awayer.

No the full auto ban was years and years befor

 

[g5000]

Continuing on with my previous thought because I have nothing better to do...

If I tell you a story about a dog that attacked and chewed a toddler to death in a public park, this would obviously horrify you.

And despite the fact I have NOT told you what kind of dog it was, you have an image of a very specific type of dog in your mind. A Rottweiler or a pit bull or some other large breed made infamous by Hollywood and the media.

But this story about the kid killed by a vicious dog has gripped the national psyche and a great hue and cry has gone up to ban "attack dogs".

Why "attack dogs" and not dogs in general? Because dog haters know that support for a ban on all dogs would die an instant death. So a tactic of incrementalism must be taken.

Heretofore, the definition of "attack dog" did not specify a breed. It specified the behavior of an attack dog.

But now the legal community includes breeds of dogs in a legal definition of "attack dog", and this is when the law becomes entirely capricious.

Just so with "assault rifle". I say "assault rifle" and you have an image in your mind based on what has been made infamous by Hollywood and the media. And now a great hue and cry has gone up to ban "assault rifles".

Why not guns in general? Because gun haters know that support for a total gun ban would die an instant death. So the incrementalist tactic is deployed.

But we know the ultimate goal is a ban on all guns. We know this because of the underlying conversation about guns being only for state militias, laying the foundation for a much larger and wider scope of future bans after the next tragedy.
'
So while they ar not going to take the guns you already have, they are going to make it harder and harder for future generations to acquire them.

 

[Politico]

For legal civilian use, you dont think criminals will be able to get thier hands on some?

No. Feinstein said so.

 

[Inthemiddle]

"Assault rifle" is a legal term.

Wrong. Just because the government passed a law once upon a time where defined "assault" rifles as such and such does not magically cede definition of the term to the government. The term "assault rifle" existed before there was ever a ban. The ban defined "assault" rifles primarily on cosmetic qualities. Regardless of the Clinton era ban, an assault rifle is defined as a rifle capable of automatic fire, with a detachable magazine, and using an intermediate cardridge.

So an "assault rifle" is whatever the law says it is.

Well, if that's the case, then nobody should be talking about banning "assault" rifles, because there is currently no law defining "assault" rifles. So, what people are saying when they say they want to ban "assault" rifles is that they want to make a pile of whatever random weapons they choose, wave a magic wand over them and define them as assault rifles, and then ban them because they are "assault" rifles. And that is about as good as calling liberals fascists. It's use of meaningless terminology to effect meaningless ends. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[g5000]

"Assault rifle" is a legal term.

Wrong. Just because the government passed a law once upon a time where defined "assault" rifles as such and such does not magically cede definition of the term to the government. The term "assault rifle" existed before there was ever a ban. The ban defined "assault" rifles primarily on cosmetic qualities. Regardless of the Clinton era ban, an assault rifle is defined as a rifle capable of automatic fire, with a detachable magazine, and using an intermediate cardridge.

So an "assault rifle" is whatever the law says it is.

Well, if that's the case, then nobody should be talking about banning "assault" rifles, because there is currently no law defining "assault" rifles. So, what people are saying when they say they want to ban "assault" rifles is that they want to make a pile of whatever random weapons they choose, wave a magic wand over them and define them as assault rifles, and then ban them because they are "assault" rifles. And that is about as good as calling liberals fascists. It's use of meaningless terminology to effect meaningless ends. Garbage in, garbage out.

Exactly.

See my thoughts on "attack dog".

"Assault rifle" may have at one time indicted the behavior of a weapon, but now it means whatever breed the nervous nellies decide it means.

 

[Spoonman]

Picked up an R 700 yesterday, .308

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Not at first but the end game is all about private citizens without guns. Man, are you ever naive if you cant see past the propaganda and lies being put forth.

 

[Spoonman]

Not at first but the end game is all about private citizens without guns. Man, are you ever naive if you cant see past the propaganda and lies being put forth.

they didn't pick up on the agenda after 4 years of this numbnutz and let him get re elected.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The assault weapons ban is on the manufacture of assault weapons for civilian use. If you already have one, you're allowed to keep it. If you don't have one and want one, you'll be allowed to buy one on the market provided it was legal when manufactured (during a period with no ban and otherwise legal). The ban is only on the manufacture.

At least, that is the ban that expired in 2004.

I'm pretty sure Congress has the authority to regulate commerce.

The ban was for the manufacture, selling, transport, and/or transfer of those weapons. Want to tell me how that doesn't amount to taking guns from people? If I passed a law that said no one could make, sell, drive, or give away their car would that ban cars?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The assault weapons ban is on the manufacture of assault weapons for civilian use. If you already have one, you're allowed to keep it. If you don't have one and want one, you'll be allowed to buy one on the market provided it was legal when manufactured (during a period with no ban and otherwise legal). The ban is only on the manufacture.

At least, that is the ban that expired in 2004.

I'm pretty sure Congress has the authority to regulate commerce.

So basically you are trying to ban them over time.

A manufacture ban is a ban, no matter how you try to spin it.

Of course they will still be manufactured for the agents of the state, so what it really is is a sales ban.

How can gun rights people trust gun control people when you have to lie every time you make a statement?

A manufacture ban is a manufacture ban. That's not "spin" that's literally what it is.

Except for the fact that the ban also includes selling, giving them away, dieing and your children inheriting them, transporting them, buying ammunition for them, or even having them in your possession, you actually have a point.

Not that facts matter to para-physicists.