Burning_Ember Posted February 27, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 2,009 Content Per Day: 0.29 Reputation: 100 Days Won: 3 Joined: 09/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2009 Mindlessly following the letter of the law of the constitution is probably a bit much. Don't take that out of context people. I don't need a fully Auto AK-47 to defend myself with, nor do I need Military Grade Anti-Air or Anti-tank Missiles to defend myself with. Even in Canada after getting the proper certifications, you can still acquire and legally own a Kalashnikov, so long as its a semi-auto version limited by a ten round clip. Specifically used for gun competitions and hunting. Guns should be used reasonably in self defence. I certainly, without specialized military training would be perfectly able to defend myself with a Walther P99, and I cant see a situation that I could ever be in that would require more than a semi-auto rifle with a 10 shot clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing Posted February 27, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 400 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 1,903 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/20/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/19/1942 Share Posted February 27, 2009 From wikipedia.com : Definition The term assault rifle is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally meaning "storm rifle"), "storm" used as a verb being synonymous with assault, as in "to storm the compound". Sturmgewehr was coined by Adolf Hitler[1] to describe the Maschinenpistole 44, subsequently re-christened Sturmgewehr 44, the firearm generally considered the first true assault rifle that served to popularize the concept. The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for similar firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4] It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock); It must be capable of selective fire; It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle; Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine. Semi-automatic rifles that share designs with assault rifles such as the AR-15 (which the M-16 rifle is based on) and semi-automatic-only versions of the AK-47 are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus not selective fire. Belt-fed weapons (such as the M249 SAW) or rifles with fixed magazines are likewise not assault rifles. The term "assault rifle" is often more loosely used for commercial or [[Assault rifle#Assault weapons vs. Automatic weapons|political reasons] to include other types of arms, particularly arms that fall under a strict definition of the battle rifle, or semi-automatic variant of military rifles such as AR-15s The US Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".[5] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refugepsa91 Posted February 27, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 5,961 Content Per Day: 0.75 Reputation: 61 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/25/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted February 27, 2009 do you think there should be any restrictions at all on who can own and what can be owned in the realm of arms. Theres already restrictions on WHO can own/purchase a handgun. A background check is completed before every purchase. Is it perfect...probably not, but its already used. Will more restrictions stop a "criminal" from acquiring a weapon? NO...because a criminal does NOT go through the proper paperwork etc...to get their guns. So how would any type of BAN on assault weapons work? No law-abiding citizen that I know of is going to go out and be able to buy an atom bomb. No law-abiding citizen I know can go out and buy dynamite. No law-abiding citizen I know can even go out purchase a large amount of fertilizer or other chemicals used to make bombs. I guarentee a criminal could though. The gun restrictions are getting out of hand. Way out of hand. With the rumor of having to put a 1 million dollar insurance policy on all guns you own floating around in IL right now, it just makes me cringe. This would cause alot of law-abiding citizens to go broke just trying to "insure" their weapon. Its just plain stupid...what are they thinking, that Joe Criminal is going too go in and insure his weapons? NO, they have to know better, I refuse to believe that gov is that stupid. So if they aren't that stupid then the ones they are after are the law abiding citizens.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted February 28, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Author Share Posted February 28, 2009 The gun restrictions are getting out of hand. Way out of hand. With the rumor of having to put a 1 million dollar insurance policy on all guns you own floating around in IL right now, it just makes me cringe. This would cause alot of law-abiding citizens to go broke just trying to "insure" their weapon. Its just plain stupid...what are they thinking, that Joe Criminal is going too go in and insure his weapons? NO, they have to know better, I refuse to believe that gov is that stupid. So if they aren't that stupid then the ones they are after are the law abiding citizens.... The government isn't stupid, they just think we are. This is obviously just a way to control us right out of our 2nd amendment rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refugepsa91 Posted March 1, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 5,961 Content Per Day: 0.75 Reputation: 61 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/25/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2009 Heres the problem. Law abiding gun owners are NOT out selling and buying outrageous arms, trading atom bombs etc....it just doesn't happen. Leave the constitution alone, period....the only people that if effects when they tinker with it, make up new gun restrictions, are law abiding americans! A restriction on automatic weapons (aka..assault weapons) is stupid. Again, no more new restrictions on gun ownership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refugepsa91 Posted March 1, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 5,961 Content Per Day: 0.75 Reputation: 61 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/25/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2009 Thats an unfair question RG. With the restrictions on gun ownership NOT just anyone can own a firearm. Its an unanswerable question with the restrictions already in place. I am not asking for ALL restrictions to be lifted, I'm saying that applying more is crazy and a slap in the face to law abiding citizens. *****edited to add***** For example, you have to go through a background check to purchase firearms.....that doesn't bother me. So I can't answer "yes" to your question...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterpoet Posted March 1, 2009 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 128 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,704 Content Per Day: 0.43 Reputation: 25 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/29/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/08/1950 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Heres the problem. Law abiding gun owners are NOT out selling and buying outrageous arms, trading atom bombs etc....it just doesn't happen. Leave the constitution alone, period....the only people that if effects when they tinker with it, make up new gun restrictions, are law abiding americans! A restriction on automatic weapons (aka..assault weapons) is stupid. Again, no more new restrictions on gun ownership. This version of the Connecticut law is representative of most all state and federal laws and thinking. Sec. 53-202a. Assault Weapon. Definition. Any selective fire, firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic weapons: the following list was large included mostly rifles and pistols...further along in the specifications of this law, shot guns are also included if they have a folding stock, pistol grip or can receive a magazine. The automatic feature of a weapon is not the only criteria, this is where all the objections lay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refugepsa91 Posted March 1, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 5,961 Content Per Day: 0.75 Reputation: 61 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/25/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1, 2009 Thanks Hunter ....and the agenda thickens.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massorite Posted March 1, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 38 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,973 Content Per Day: 0.32 Reputation: 36 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/26/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/13/1953 Share Posted March 1, 2009 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1 When will these people get it thru their heads that this isn't going to cut down on crime?? Not that that is the motive anyway, tho. I'm surprised we didn't see this before now. That is correct kat. I got this email some time ago and it was about gun laws in Australia. Apparently the country banned all guns and it cost 14,000,000 for the government to collect all of the guns or implement the law because they thought it would cut down on crime. Unfortunately the criminals did,t give up there guns so crime skyrocketed. The single greatest rise in crime was in burglaries when the people were in the house at the time of the crime. Why/ Because no body had any guns to defend themselves but the criminals did. Call me peranoid if you like but I believe that the democrates are actually trying to usher in a socialistic government and taking away our guns and silincing the Christian voice is at the top of their agenda of things to do on the way to meet their goal. We are a government within a government because we have our own set of rules and regulations not to mention our morales. That makes us dangerous to them. We had the same problem in the early church. The Romans considered us to be trouble makers, seditious, and enemies of the state or rebels who rebeled against the government of Rome and I see this happening again even now as we are speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing Posted March 1, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 400 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 1,903 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/20/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/19/1942 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Always keep this thought in mind: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. also to leagally own a fully auto. weapon all you have to do is pass a federal background check and pay $200.00 for a tax stamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts