The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

I see the NRA as trying best to ensure the right of a hunter/enthusiast/self defense owner stays strong.

You don't want to get me going on the NRA. Prior to researching them after the Sandy Nook shooting I figured that they were great for supporting firearms owners rights but after some digging all is not what it appears to be.

Now, I think that they are simply a lobby for firearms manufacturers and firearms owner's rights is secondary to their main goal of helping firearms manufacturers make more money. There's a reason that they won't support background checks, banning sales of firearms to people on the terrorist watch list and anything else that would reduce the sale of firearms.......$$$$$. Last year firearms manufacturers gave the NRA $71M in funding! You don't go biting the hand that feeds you when that kind of money is involved. That IMO is the reason that you'll never find them supporting anything that will limit the sale of firearms (ie background checks) and always support anything that would require the sale of more guns (ie guards in all schools).

The NRA is not about protecting firearms owners rights, it just happens that by doing so they help the gun manufacturers make $$$$......IMO.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by tri777

Alrighty then..let's just pretend the assault weapons ban has passed into law..gee.."so what's the next best thing available now?(asks mr.insane crimminal) Ah yes, a semi automatic glock with 5-10 clips loaded to the hilt (replies mr.insanity)...now then what do we have? Ah yes, the newly improved, 'ban the pistol' crowd!

(P.S. Did'nt the theatre shooting blast alot of peoples away with a shotgun?..hmm,might want to ban those too while were at it..so much insanity on both sides-the crimminal & the anti's!)

P.S.S can some kind soul please tell me who the others were that got arrested in the sandy hook shooting? (helicopter footage)

I think that you need to read what the Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004 involved because obviously you have no idea. (replies Mr. Sanity)

The ban was law for a period of 10 years. What other guns were banned during that period of time?

[tri777]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

you need to read what the Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004, you have no idea.

Your right,i have not read it and it doesn't matter anyhow. Banning guns will just be like speeding limits..speeding tickets anyone?
It'll never work,just will arm the wrong dudes,watchNlearn mr.sanity.

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

You don't want to get me going on the NRA. Prior to researching them after the Sandy Nook shooting I figured that they were great for supporting firearms owners rights but after some digging all is not what it appears to be.

Now, I think that they are simply a lobby for firearms manufacturers and firearms owner's rights is secondary to their main goal of helping firearms manufacturers make more money. There's a reason that they won't support background checks, banning sales of firearms to people on the terrorist watch list and anything else that would reduce the sale of firearms.......$$$$$. Last year firearms manufacturers gave the NRA $71M in funding! You don't go biting the hand that feeds you when that kind of money is involved. That IMO is the reason that you'll never find them supporting anything that will limit the sale of firearms (ie background checks) and always support anything that would require the sale of more guns (ie guards in all schools).

The NRA is not about protecting firearms owners rights, it just happens that by doing so they help the gun manufacturers make $$$$......IMO.

thats a fairly biased opinion.any organization in the ANTI,s eyes that is pro gun is evil right dave?who cares who gives them money.these people realized a long time ago that giving an inch to the ANTI,s results in them taking a mile.or should i say 10 miles.people like you who sit on the fence will always see it this way.next you will be saying our nfa and cssa are taking donations from pro gun people!shame on them!how dare they!wonder what the gun laws in both our countries would be like without these organizations fighting for?you guessed it!law abiding gun owners.might not be so pretty when they come to your house and take your hunting rifles.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by 6.5x47 lapua

thats a fairly biased opinion.any organization in the ANTI,s eyes that is pro gun is evil right dave?who cares who gives them money.these people realized a long time ago that giving an inch to the ANTI,s results in them taking a mile.or should i say 10 miles.people like you who sit on the fence will always see it this way.next you will be saying our nfa and cssa are taking donations from pro gun people!shame on them!how dare they!wonder what the gun laws in both our countries would be like without these organizations fighting for?you guessed it!law abiding gun owners.might not be so pretty when they come to your house and take your hunting rifles.

I'm not sitting on the fence, I have given a lot of thought and done a lot of research to come up with where I sit wrt the gun control issue. IMO there are 3 types of people in the gun issue in the US. NRA sheeple, pro-gun control sheeple and people like me that are individual thinkers. It's easy to be a sheeple, just let someone else do your thinking for you.

Most of what Obama proposed/ordered I agree with and I think that it is very reasonable. Re-instating the Assault Weapons Ban the way that it was originally written will never work though IMO. If everything is grandfathered and it's so full of loopholes that gun manufactures merely have to slightly modify a rifle to make it legal how could it ever work? That's why it wasn't very effective the first time. There's just too many guns out there already to make any difference.

Like I previously stated, prior to researching the NRA I thought that they were a great organization because they protected gun owner's rights. Opposing background checks to ensure that criminals and mentally ill people don't acquire firearms is a perfect example, it would limit the number of firearms purchased and that's why the NRA opposes it. How the hell could something like that infringe on anyone's rights? Oh yeah, the old NRA fear mongering......It'll lead to total gun confiscation! Whatever.

I don't know anything about the NFA or the CSSA but Canada is different from the US so I'd assume that they are a little different than the NRA.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

Actually not really. The School Sherriff was out of the school at the time and when he arrived the shooting had already started. His training was to contain and call in that situation. Which is what he did. And with all the shooting, they had to wait even longer for a SWAT type team.

AW, there you go again!

Mixing facts into a perfectly good emotional soup.

I would dare say that if that deputy was actually in the school when the shooting started, there may have been a totally different result. New age training or not.

I'd take it a step farther - I daresay if a couple or three teams of armed parents, grandparents or other trained volunteers had been in that school with 1911's, the outcome would have been totally different, too.

In fact, I doubt it would have got started.

[doetracks]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

AW, there you go again!

Mixing facts into a perfectly good emotional soup.



I'd take it a step farther - I daresay if a couple or three teams of armed parents, grandparents or other trained volunteers had been in that school with 1911's, the outcome would have been totally different, too.

In fact, I doubt it would have got started.

[6.5x47 lapua]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I'm not sitting on the fence, I have given a lot of thought and done a lot of research to come up with where I sit wrt the gun control issue. IMO there are 3 types of people in the gun issue in the US. NRA sheeple, pro-gun control sheeple and people like me that are individual thinkers. It's easy to be a sheeple, just let someone else do your thinking for you.

Most of what Obama proposed/ordered I agree with and I think that it is very reasonable. Re-instating the Assault Weapons Ban the way that it was originally written will never work though IMO. If everything is grandfathered and it's so full of loopholes that gun manufactures merely have to slightly modify a rifle to make it legal how could it ever work? That's why it wasn't very effective the first time. There's just too many guns out there already to make any difference.

Like I previously stated, prior to researching the NRA I thought that they were a great organization because they protected gun owner's rights. Opposing background checks to ensure that criminals and mentally ill people don't acquire firearms is a perfect example, it would limit the number of firearms purchased and that's why the NRA opposes it. How the hell could something like that infringe on anyone's rights? Oh yeah, the old NRA fear mongering......It'll lead to total gun confiscation! Whatever.

I don't know anything about the NFA or the CSSA but Canada is different from the US so I'd assume that they are a little different than the NRA.

no dave there is a fourth kind of people; "the sheep dogs"; that see the whole picture for what it really is.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

Absolutely true. This is also one of the catalysts to the upgrading of the firearms in a standard cruiser. Now a good chunk of police will have almost immediate access to a carbine ( the percentage will vary from service to service though)

Do you believe police should be up against armor piercing bullets? I notice there is a proposal to make "cop killer" bullets restricted.

[Unregistered user]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Do you believe police should be up against armor piercing bullets? I notice there is a proposal to make "cop killer" bullets restricted.

Now you're getting silly.

[Unregistered user]

And here's a little piece of lieberal repellant.



TED NUGENT’S GUN COUNTRY-SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?


by Ted Nugent

The jury is not still out on whether or not young Ted was uppity beyond compare. My youthful energy level was measured in ballistic Richter Scale increments. The term “whirling dervish” was created in an attempt to explain my indefatigable life’s velocity. I didn’t have ADD, I had GSFS, known in the Nugent household as Gonzo Sniper Focus Syndrome. Aim small miss small was not a casual consideration, but a driving force in our quality of life obsession through a learned, disciplined higher level of awareness that is derived from gungho triggertime.

Can you say “bulls-eye!”?

Video games and Smart phone electronics would not have then and cannot now compete with the joys of marksmanship fun in all its forms. My father, Warren Henry Nugent, was a hero warrior drill sergeant in the US Army Cavalry during WWII, and he brought that maniacal disciplinarian charge home with him without missing a beat, straight into his parenting regimen. Dad didn’t tolerate no fooling around, especially with firearms.

Thank you dad.

Every human being ever born is programmed to be fascinated by projectile management. Rocks, spears, arrows, fastballs, marbles, Hail Mary 100 yard touchdown passes, grenades, Fat Man, Little Boy and ultimately, the hand-eye, triggerfinger, breathing, sight control, spirit harnessing perfection of super accurate bullet placement.

There are only two kinds of people in this world; those of us who celebrate the thrills of marksmanship and those wishing they could.

Based on our driveway of spent brass, I would challenge any family alive to a shootout with my shootemup tribe of gun nuts.

In a world strangled by the curse of politically correct denial, a media and academia of dopey liberals have brainwashed a strange subspecies of beings into accepting and embracing the pathetic condition of unarmed and helpless. And the slaughter rages on in gun free zones around the world. Shame.

Here’s a life saving alert to the dependent masses; unarmed and helpless is unarmed and helpless, and the evil running amok here, there and everywhere appreciate you very much, for they are assured in your gun free zones that you are incapable of doing a damn thing when they decide to eat you alive, beat you to death, rape,rob, assault, torture and do with you as they wish, for you, my poor pathetic sheep, have chosen to be unarmed and helpless. To bend over to evil is as soulless as soulless gets. No thank you.

For those of us who dearly appreciate the precious gift of life, we follow our powerful instincts for self preservation and have made it a priority to be ready to defend ourselves. The lunatic fringe can squawk and moan all they want, the rest of us need no interpretation of “keep and bear”.

“Keep” means it’s mine and you can’t have it, and “bear” means one thing and one thing only; I have one or two on me, and they’re loaded. Drive safely.

So when Discover Channel asked if we would like to produce a TV show titled TED NUGENT’S GUN COUNTRY, I told them it is already in progress so just bring the cameras and push the record button.

Our new show airs Wednesday October 10 at 10pm ET, and it simply celebrates and promotes the self evident truth how 99.999% of American gun owning families use our guns on a regular basis for all the right reasons. The same 99.999% of Americans with guns that will never use our guns in a crime or for any negative misuse whatsoever.

We train, we plink, we shoot, we compete, we hunt, we have unlimited fun perfecting the use of these wonderful tools for the most pragmatic, utilitarian functions. We shoot billions and billions of rounds of ammo each year, and we own more firepower today than any society in the history of planet earth.

And for the brainwashed cult of denial drooling in the shadow of a gun hating media and White House, with all this unprecedented increase in guns and ammo in American citizens’ hands, the use of guns in crime is at an alltime low.

It’s not just Ted Nugent’s Gun Country, it’s working hard, playing hard America’s Gun Country and we could not be more proud of it. Tune in to the Discovery Channel, for like our award winning Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild on Outdoor Channel, witness how real Americans enjoy the great outdoors and peace through superior firepower.

[greylynx]

Hunter Dave;

After thousands of words why don't you come clean.

You want a bunch of guns banned.

Why do you want them banned in just a few words instead of useless paragraph after useless paragraph?

I will not insult you in any manner upon your response.

This sort of stuff demands respect for one another.

Please just tell us what you think and why in short.'

Please do not bandi about the bush.

[Cyclops]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

TED NUGENT’S GUN COUNTRY-SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

by Ted Nugent

The jury is not still out on.......

......superior firepower.

You gotta love the Great Gonzo!!

[carpediem4570]

Very Interesting discusion:

I would like to backup and discuss the concept of citizen versus subject.

The people in the U.S. are citizens as provided by their constitution. They are free men with rights, such as the second ammendment.

The people in Canada are subjects and are chattle of the Crown, ie Queen Elizabeth and her representitive, the Government of Canada. Subjects do not have rights, rather they are governed by laws that invriably tell them what they cannot do. Look at the laws. It does not tell you what is legal, it tells you what is illegal.

For instance, it is illegal to own a firearm, period, end of story. However, if you apply to the Crown for special dispensation in the form of a PAL, you will be able to own said firearm. This is not a right, it is a privilage, which can be revoked by the Crown, for whatever reason, at any time.

Further, you may have special dispensation in the form of a PAL to own a shotgun, but is illegal for you to own a hand gun; unless you get, again, approval from the crown, and so on and so on down through restricted, prohibited, special prohibited etc, etc.

Be under no illusion. You are a subject with no rights or freedoms and any charter you have can be disbanded through primeministerial decree. Its called War measures act. Remember Pierre Treadeau and the FLQ?

How does this apply to high cap mags? In Canada, it would take a full scale uprising of the subjects to thwart the crown and nothing less. Otherwise, the crown will take it away whenever and wherever it feels like.

Kind regards,

Carpediem

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by greylynx

Hunter Dave;

After thousands of words why don't you come clean.

You want a bunch of guns banned.

Why do you want them banned in just a few words instead of useless paragraph after useless paragraph?

I will not insult you in any manner upon your response.

This sort of stuff demands respect for one another.

Please just tell us what you think and why in short.'

Please do not bandi about the bush.

First of all, I could care less what you or anyone else thinks of my opinion about what I think about a "fix" for what's going on down in the US with guns so I don't really care if you or anyone else tries to insult me. Worrying about what you think is NOT a weakness of mine.

For people that believe that there isn't a gun problem in the US then no solution is required......do nothing......carry on like everything is normal. For those of us (meaning me and anyone else) that think that someone walking into a movie theatre and killing or wounding +70 people and someone going into a school and killing 20 little kids and 6 teachers is an issue then we look for answers that might help for it not to happen again.

Do I want a bunch of guns banned like you said? If I thought that it'd do any good then I'd say hell ya, no doubt about it, without any hesitation whatsoever. Unfortunately the horse has already left the barn and any bans now are useless without confiscating them and that'll never happen. Whatever is already out there will be grandfathered, just like the last time, why do you think everyone is buying them up......LOL!

Alex Jones doesn't appeal to me nor does Reverend Rockhead on the AO forum. Both like to bully people and spew crap (but only one of them gets paid to do it) that would only appeal to the most ignorant forms of human life that exist.

Hey, If you say that there's no gun issue in the US then good for you. I say that there is and they ought to look for ways to fix it. If you have a problem with that then so be it but you'll never convince me that the systems are normal there and everything is A-O-K.

[silver]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

In Canada no such right exists. Owning a firearm is a privilege not a right and that privilege can be taken away similar to the privilege of driving.

You are wrong, get used to it.

5(1) SAVINGS Nothing in Part 1 shall be construed to abrogate or abridge any human right or fundamental freedom not enumerated therein that may have existed in Canada at the commencement of this Act.

In other words, just because it is not listed in the Canadian Bill of Rights does not mean it doesn't exist. It is like having a jury trial, it isn't in the Bill but it still exists. It goes back to English common law.

A priviledge like a drivers license can be taken away by a bureaucrat,a right can only be taken away by a judge.

[Bazz]

:

Originally Posted by winger7mm

It has been proven that no rifle was used in the newtown shootings, the moron that did the shootings used 4 handguns. Aside from that no matter the weapon of choice, whether it be a 6 shooter or an m-16, if a crazy wants to kill they will find a way to do it. we need a crazy person ban not a gun ban
my .02

here here,i agree,but why do honest law abiding citizens need assault rifles for anyway?

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by silver

In other words, just because it is not listed in the Canadian Bill of Rights does not mean it doesn't exist. It is like having a jury trial, it isn't in the Bill but it still exists. It goes back to English common law.

That is correct. In fact, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically says so:

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

It is considered generally useful to read some of this stuff before pontificating on it.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Bazz

: here here,i agree,but why do honest law abiding citizens need assault rifles for anyway?

Welcome to Canada.

If you think that your freedom is limited to what you "need", then you need to study your own history.

[doetracks]

Originally Posted by Bazz

: here here,i agree,but why do honest law abiding citizens need assault rifles for anyway?

Law abiding citizens are not allowed to have "assault rifles". They are deemed "assault weapons".

Why they would like to own one isn't the question. One of my best friends is ex-military and owns one. She loves it. She doesn't need to answer to anyone why she owns one. I would love to have one myself.

You would do well to follow Rocky's suggestion

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

Welcome to Canada.

If you think that your freedom is limited to what you "need", then you need to study your own history.

Rocky already agreed to the fact a bushmaster WAS used to kill the kids in the school. He won't correct anyone because misinformation continues to assist his opinion.

[Rocky7]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Rocky already agreed to the fact a bushmaster WAS used to kill the kids in the school.

What's your point ..... or ..... do you have a point?

[doetracks]

Status quo, Rocky. Status quo.

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by Rocky7

That is correct. In fact, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically says so:

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

It is considered generally useful to read some of this stuff before pontificating on it.

And although I agree with you in this, I fear the Supreme Court of Canada does not. They have ruled that we do not have the absolute right to firearms in Canada.

http://www.law.ualberta.ca/centres/ccs/news/?id=358

[bigbadjoe108]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Do you believe police should be up against armor piercing bullets? I notice there is a proposal to make "cop killer" bullets restricted.

You can ban all sorts of ammo, but laws will never keep up with the design. Keeping bad guys in jail, and strictly monitoring the ones on the three lists I wrote about earlier would do more to keep society safe.

Also more strict regulations on alcohol and driving would as well. That is if you want to keep citizens safe anyways.

Don't get me wrong, I get it. The murders that we are writing a out here of ransoms children is horrific. I don't want to see cold, crazy or aloof. That said there are better measures that people, through their government, can put in place and none of those involve restricting the rights of honest citizens.

[bigbadjoe108]

Can any of the ones supporting the banning of the AR platforms tell me how they differ from my buddy's old mini-14 ranch rifle?

How about a cz-858?

[tri777]

Originally Posted by Bazz

: here here,i agree,but why do honest law abiding citizens need assault rifles for anyway?

I am so burdened by these responses..ok, well then why does any law abiding citizen need a labourgini? a 1300cc suzuki? shall i go on? I don't own no AR-15,BUT would love to because they ARE a beautiful piece of art!! However all these DRUGGED up & stupid mental cased teeny boppers &Co/Piers Morgan types are doing their damnest to make me believe they are the most ugly violent pieces of fabricated shaped metal..heck if everyone started messing with their natural gas pipes in their houses as weapons that blow up their neighbourhoods..are we then gonna start see piers morgan ranting every other night to "banning all multi-roomed houses over 1000 SQ feet" too!?
The root to All these gun shootings is simply found right here:

> Inside the absent minded parents and their keyless and carelessly unlocked cabinets and gun keeping skills and the absolute UNinterest in what their nutcased offspring are up to everyday<!
These are teenager-parental issues NOT not lawful abiding adult issues with their assault collections!!
Please get this straight!(it is like banning ALL 40% alcohol beverages because so many college students are binge drinkers)

[doetracks]

Originally Posted by bigbadjoe108

Can any of the ones supporting the banning of the AR platforms tell me how they differ from my buddy's old mini-14 ranch rifle?

How about a cz-858?

I know the Mini-14 Tactical is in Feinstein's Ban Bill. No other Mini-14. I didn't see the CZ-858 (which, I like, btw!).

My guess: cosmetics and a couple inches.

Oh, oops! I don't support the ban My bad.

[CNP]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Do you believe police should be up against armor piercing bullets? I notice there is a proposal to make "cop killer" bullets restricted.

So what do you know about so called "cop killer" bullets.

Nothing I suspect.

Pretty much any rifle bullet will penetrate the vest worn by street cops. Their vests protect them from handgun rounds only. Banning "cop killer" bullets is a promise to ban all rifle ammunition.

Cdn Mil use a Fragmentation Pretection Vest containing ceramic tiles that are extremely heavy and affect mobility for protection from armour piercing rounds (rifle rounds)..........not suitable for a street cop.

link to a Canadian Affiliation you should join: http://nfa.ca/armour-piercing-ammunition

a cop on "cop killer" bullets: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html

[tri777]

How pathetic,bloomberg is anti gun, yet..all of a sudden,guns ain't so bad after all..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCC-r...layer_embedded