Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban (PPR Version)

Post Reply New Topic

It's also illegal for people in Mexico to own weapons, how well has that worked for them?

Those were either raided from the defunct Iraqi military or smuggled in by incoming militants, there was no legal civilian gun ownership under Saddam. We just did a really crappy job securing the Iraqi arsenal when we invaded, and are currently reaping the consequences of that failure. Think how bad it would have been if the average Iraqi had personally owned weaponry and known how to use it. That's why the US is still effectively invulnerable to invasion, any occupation would be a bloodbath.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pel ... 02-26.html

Er.....Whaaaaat?

Who cares what some third world government (Mexico) wants. Their needs, be they real or imagined, should not be used as a reason to curtail the rights of American citizens.
Well, it’s not really a reason, more like an excuse. The underlying reason is as old as the opposition to private gun ownership.
I seriously doubt Mexico's claims having to do with arms coming from the U.S. have any merit, anyway.

The gun show “loophole” is nothing more than an individual selling a privately owned firearm to another. It’s not any different than selling one at a garage sale.
Most all gun show vendors are FFL holders and have to go through the legal process of transferring a firearm. Very, very few licensed dealers are willing to jeopardize their license to sell a gun without going through the legal process.
I’ve been to a lot of gun shows so I know this to be fact.

Cop killer bullets; WTF is that supposed to mean? It’s a very ambiguous term that can apply to any round of ammunition as deemed convenient. It typically applies to armor piercing rounds that can defeat body armor but it’s not hard to imagine it being used to define any type.
A regular .308 non-armor piercing centerfire rifle round can defeat several types of body armor.

Assault weapons; another ambiguous term. Maybe you'd feel better being killed with a 6.5mm bullet from my 1904 Swedish Mauser which is every bit as capable, more accurate, and in most cases more powerful.
The goal to ban assault weapons is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is to ban ALL privately owned firearms, one type at a time.
Start with the scary looking ones first and go from there.

Any ban would prove ineffective as they always do. About all it would do is restrict the rights and personal security of average citizens.
Give me an example of any kind of firearms restrictions or bans have been of benefit in the United States.
Using Japan as an example won’t work. You could have all of them carry a loaded handgun daily and it wouldn’t affect their crime rate. There’s too much of a cultural difference between them and us.
No other country can really be accurately compared to the United States.

As before, argument you can make for gun control can easily be shot down.

The amendments to the U.S. Constitution are a like a chain and a chain is no stringer than its weakest link. If we’re going to allow the government to pick and chose which rights we can exercise then we don’t really have any rights.

I don't think I've ever been happier to hear something come out of Nancy Pelosi's mouth, if even she thinks this is a bad idea, what should that tell you? Also, does it strike anyone else as odd how little play this has gotten in the media? It's almost as if they don't want it to be a major story, now why would they do a thing like that?

I've heard of a PP sha
a PPD
and an RPD

but what's a PPR?...

Actually, there's a lot of evidence that many firearms are bought here and shipped to Mexico. The narcos there have AK-47s (probably AKS-74s and AKMs, and whatever the latest one is...I forget) and RPGs, and actually have more firepower than the Mexican Military.

There is actually a classification of assault weapon; in terms of range, clip capacity, etc. I just don't have it memorized...

on with the show, this is it.

well, they damn sure didn't get THOSE from the US... not without BATFE approval anyway...

No, there is not. It is strictly a cosmetic description. That is what POed the Anti's so much with the last one. They made this list of what "defined" an "assault weapon" and found out that by canging the cosmetic features the same guns suddenly became "legal".

It's all about how "scary" the LOOK - because if they started trying to ban guns "in terms of range, clip capacity, etc" (BTW, it's magazine, not "clip") they would end up banning hunting rifles... which would be political suicide to try. THey don't want to try that until after an "assault Weapon" and Handgun ban has failed. THen and only then will they think they can ban granpaw's 30-30, or your bolt-action .30-06 "sniper rifle".

Gun owners should be allowed to defend themselves from killer wolves.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUcyphPxcVY[/youtube]

Toots, maybe your wolves are demon-given hallucinations, but I've had to drive a pack of feral dogs off of a flock of sheep.

You're damned skippy I was glad to have a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine (Feinstein & Boxer would call it an "assault weapon"...)

Just because the majority of US voters live in Urban Cesspools doesn't mean there isn't a valid reason to own and USE these firearms elsewhere.

Yeah, most people don't even know what an Assault Rifle really is (especially the people that want to ban them), they just assume "If it looks scary, it's an assault rifle".

To make my point, out of the following, which ones are actual assault rifles? (hint: there's only one)

As with the saying "Guns don't kill, people do!" but that's actually the problem. I mean, that statement doesn't seem to do much to argue in favor of gun ownership to be honest, rather it can be argued against it, as it is actually about the people and how they would use them, the issues about responsability and all that that can be argued against.

Last edited by greenblue on 01 Mar 2009, 12:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Because a renewed AWB is not only immaterial to the objective of disarming everyone but the Criminals & the Cops, but is actually counterproductive. Witness the uptic in gun sales.

No, there are plenty of other ways they have to effectively disarm Jane average without even touching the 2nd amendment... The AWB is a distraction gined up to get the RKBA community riled, so that when the AWB goes away and folks relax, then they generate the regulations that congress/POTUS don't even have to sign that will effectively destroy non-military Firearms Manufacturing & Sales. Te 2nd Amendment won't even need to be touched.

Well, the MP5 has an SEF trigger group, but that doesn't really count since it's 9x19mm para, hmmm. Maybe the M14? Although, strictly speaking, it isn't really an 'Assault Rifle" either as it fires a full power cartridge .308 Win/7.62x51 NATO. Rather, it would be considered a Battle Rifle.

Technically the M14 is an assault rifle (good job), since it's a rifle with the selector switch between automatic and semiautomatic. The MP5's just a submachine gun. I suppose I could have thrown it up by putting in a Ruger AC-556 instead of the Mini-14 in place of the M14 (replace that with a regular M1A).

MrMisanthrope wrote:

Toots? Skippy?

Where did they teach you to talk like that? In the gun club?

Well, like I said strictly speaking, the M14 would be a battle rifle that happens to have a selector switch, as the definition of an assault rifle generally is that it fires an intermediate cartridge like the 7.92x33 or the 7.62x39, but that might be splitting hairs just a bit too fine.