federal assault weapons ban

d00d, you should try watching the news.

i do. but i switch it off of fox once in a while.

get a clue. the "insurgents" i.e. resistance is only getting away with any of this crap because we didn't plan for the peace.

i'm the one that get's called liberal, but you're the one that thinks that a bunch of idiots with aks can hold off the most powerful military on the planet.

sounds un-patriotic to me, dude.

Yes, I'm sure. But switching from "Fox Kids" to Nick at Night" isn't really watching the news is it?



lmao Maybe you should add a history class or two to your course load.

that's it?

Some info about the Assault Weapons Ban (aka The 'Scary Looking Weapons' Ban)
HERE

Think the 2nd Amendment is about the right to hunt?
Check out:
Here

Speech never killed anyone? Look:
Here

So what guns do they want gone?
Look

A little Anti Gun 'Logic':
Here

Just a thought:
Here

Think the 2nd Amendment is outdated? Look:
Here

A little about your 2nd Amendment Rights:
Here

A little hypocracy from the 'gun hating left':
Here

Please keep in mind also, the Militia as it was described in the 2nd Amendment was 'The People' NOT the National Guard, not the Army, simply every man who could muster with his musket.

Also keep in mind that the Government of the time didn't object to the ownership of the most modern weapons of the day (Cannons and rifled muskets) by 'The People'

The reason the insurgents, Sadr and the rest of the gang is getting away with it in Iraq is the US is fighting with one hand tied behind our back. While in Afghanistan we are concentrated around Kabul and the rest of the nation is ruled by warloards. The plans [that is a joke son} were formulated by the greatest military mind in government. Rumsfeld and approved by Cowboy George Our "Commander in Chief"

The reason the insurgents, Sadr and the rest of the gang is getting away with it in Iraq is the US is fighting with one hand tied behind our back. While in Afghanistan we are concentrated around Kabul and the rest of the nation is ruled by warloards. The plans [that is a joke son} were formulated by the greatest military mind in government. Rumsfeld and approved by Cowboy George Our "Commander in Chief"

OOPS Duplicate posting.

Hey, Fedral's back! How's the weather down there, dude?

Duplicate post.

Well, 12 days after getting power back after Hurricane Charlie, I lost power again due to Hurricane Frances. Just got power back a few hours ago (3 days without power in Florida summer without air conditioning is hell). I got power back in time to see Hurricane Ivan heading my way LOL I just can't win.

Everyone is ok though, spanish tile roofs hold up very well to wind, so I count myself lucky.

Could have been a LOT worse, flooding is pretty bad though...

Thanks for asking 8))))

One thing which doesn't seem to have been mentioned here...

The one thing involving an assault rifle which really got people's attention recently was the thing with the two black slammite snipers in the D.C. area with their M16.

Funny thing is, however, that those two guys were using absolutely none of the assault weapon type features of the weapon. They were going for single shots from around 100 - 200 feet away, and any normal sort of centerfire bolt-action rifle from WW-I would have worked just as well.

Regardless of other factors that may be brought into the discussion, the framers believed that it was a real possibility that any government could drift into tyranny, and that the people needed tools to cast it off when it did. The Delaration reads in part:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security."

They wanted the people to have every advantage that might help them forcibly evict a despotic government, including arms. Whether the people would be likely to succeed of not doesn't change the fact that this is what they wanted their descendants to have. Anyway, in a real revolution, things might be complex with some persons in government sympathetic to the people and providing assistance. The idea that they wanted us to have the guns only for hunting is untrue. They wanted us to have them in order to defend our liberties from all foes domestic and foreign.

I'll borrow this great quote:

"And what country can preserve their liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

--Thomas Jefferson

If you act to except weapons which can actually be used to resist dictators from the 2nd Amendment, you will be acting directly opposite to the framers' expressed desires.

"could begin flooding our streets again". The streets are flooded pilgrim...the law just makes it illegal. But let's not drag facts into your lttle obsession and apparent excuse for life and carrying on.

Know what you mean, Fedral. Hurricane Donna passed through around 1960, when I was in high school in Miami. It was not a direct hit, and we sustained no property damage, but the lack of air conditioning was terrible. At that time, there were commercial ice machines all over town - all empty. And our power was back on about two weeks after FP&L announced all service had been restored.

Sorry for the digression, folks.

Speaking of the small arms vs tanks issue, now, anyone remember the war, or whatever it was called in Vietnam? Before the addition of North Vietnamese regulars, the VC were doing quite well with rifles - most of them semi-automatic - as was the M-1 Garand used at the onset by the US. Visualize a main battle tank, flanked by a few APCs clattering down the street if you wish, but the reality might be quite different.

Now, if the 2nd amendment were amended out of existance, I'm sure I would turn in my few handguns. I have this respect for the law, you see. Yet, I would resist such an amendment in any way possible.

I have to disagree with you on this one roger.

I feel the 2nd Amendment is the one Amendment that helps guarantee that no one takes away our rights to all the other Amendments.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It has been proven throughout history, that an unarmed people have no way of guaranteing their right to speech when the government is the only one that has the guns (Just look at Tienamin Square)

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Although somewhat outdated in its meaning, a government would be loath to try and violate this one if every home might have a few armed citizens to stop them.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

If the day comes that the government decided to allow searches and seizures without warrant, it will be a suicidal officer that kicks in the door of the gun owner (Unlike the unresisting populous of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union and every other totalitarian regime that bars it's citizens the possesion of firearms.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

As above, being taken away for crimes and having your property confiscated without due process is no problem for the society that has disarmed it's people. It is a recipe for revolution and resistance in the armed country.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
All the above Rights, and all the ones that follow are NOT gifts given to us as privileges by our government. They are the RIGHTS that are guaranteed to us by the Constitution and 'We the People' must be vigilant to ensure that those Rights are not infringed by ANYONE. That is why the 2nd Amendment exists, to ensure that we do not have to rely in the 'goodwill' of our government to ensure our liberties.

There is absolutely no logical reason for a citizen to have an assault weapon except to kill a lot of people in the quickest amount of time possible. The feeble excuse that people like them in their dumb gun collections, is well, transparent.

As for the trite arguement that because people have them they may as well make them legal, people break laws all the time, should we do away with all laws?

I live in a mostly red neck part of Kentucky, even some of the rich are red necks. My own husband has a couple of guns. I personally wish that guns were illegal period regardless of the "founding fathers" and the unpopularity of such a belief. But that is just because I don't like guns; I really don't think the law needs to go that far. There is a story along these lines that I want to tell to make a point.

My husband a few years ago before his health started slowing him down in his alcholic activities so to speak once started a fued in our neighborhood that still continues to this day inspite of the fact that my husband regrets having started it.

We had a female boxer once who was in heat so we put her in her cage to keep her safe. (we thought) Anyway, a bunch of male dogs came around and was really trying to get at her. My husband got mad one night when he was drunk and got his rifle out and started shootin at the dogs from the neighborhood and shot one and killed it. It was a our next door neighbor grandson's full breded dog. (I forgot exactly what kind; I think it was some kind of hunting dog) My husband said that he just couldn't stand it because our dog couldn't protect herself from all those dogs trying to get at her. Anyway after she got out of heat we let her loose (we live in the country so that is ok even though there is technically a law that saids they have to be tied up) and our next door neighbor shot our dog. My husband let it go even though he loved that dog but that wasn't enough. We got another dog and it was killed too. And now it is like the whole neighborhood has taken to dog shootin because we just had another dog (it was my daughter's palmarainian; we just told her that probably someone stole it) shot a few weeks ago by these unrurly kids who go around shootin everything in sight with their daddy's guns. They even shot some ducks in a pond accross the street. It is dangerous, but no one calls the cops or anything. That kind of a thing is just not done around here. One day something awful is going to happen. My daughter got another little dog, a scottish terrier but this time we are not letting him out of the house. That is a shame that it has gotten to that point.

For that matter there a bunck of red necks who have taken over a favorite place that I used to like walk. It was an old coal mind feild. I used to walk up the hill and on top you could see for miles. The wild flowers and the birds and the quiet was so peaceful. But now these huntin red necks in their awful four wheelers have made it a place where it is unsafe for a single woman to just go and have a nice quiet walk on a hill. So I just don't like red necks and their guns and their bigoted attitudes in general. (my husband still has his and still gets it out. in fact there is another story, but I think I more than made my point probably past the point of interest.)

Yeah, it would be a tough call, Fedral, but I said amended, not overturned by executive fiat. The constitution is so difficult (intentionally) to amend that it just must represent the long term will of the people. That's the form of government I have to believe in.

I've enjoyed this thread alot. It has certainly opened my eyes to just how strongly Americans feel about guns - either pro- or anti-private ownership.

We (Britain) don't have guns, have never had guns, and will (hopefully) never had guns. I get the impression that some would say this means I am more likely to be tyrannised by my government. The method in place here to prevent Blair from becoming Hitler, Sadddam or Napoleon is HM Queen Elizabeth II. All the armed forces and police swear an oath to serve her, not the government. In theory, that makes us safe from tyranny from anyone (apart from her).

Some in this topic would call this view naive, but it is shared by practically all Britons, whether they admit to being royalist or not.

Sorry to digress.