Assault Weapon Ban Expired !

[Torog]

" FROM BATF............

Semiautomatic Assault Weapon Update

By statute, the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices expired on September 13, 2004. As a result, certain sections of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, and its implementing regulations, 27 CFR Part 478, are no longer in effect. "

Well pisshead,seems that you were wrong..as I figured you might be-but I was waiting till I knew for sure-which is why I didn't debate the subject with ya much.

Yeeehhhaaawww !!! The gun shops will be busy this week !

Probably be hard to find high-capacity clips soon,so I urge those of you who can-to git em..along with plenty of ammo of course..because if,God forbid,Kerry gits elected,the war on terror will be fought in our streets-time for all American's to git armed and stock up on ammo and hi-cap mags.

Have a good one....Torog

[Button Basher]

Wicked, lets all shoot eachother!

[Torog]

Wicked, lets all shoot each other !
Howdy Button Basher,

Better yet,let's all go to the firing range and improve our aim,for when the muslim hordes start gittin too uppity !

Don't ya have something better to do-like gittin on yer knees and kissing the Queen's royal behind -euroweenie ?

[Button Basher]

Forget it mate, no offense meant. :cool: But what's up with the picture of the grieving frogs? :confused:

Have fun with your Ak's and your SPAS12's and your.... I dunno.... RPG's? :confused:

Peace (kinda)!

[clevemire]

This is why rednecks aren't taken seriously.

[Lulu]

Wow Torog
You berating me for helping a teen get High :p
And you inciting the whole country to violence :rolleyes:

Have a good one........Lulu

[maryjanemama]

Ahhhh, it's all fun and games until someone you love gets shot by some idiot with a semi-automatic weapon.....:( Yahooo, God bless America, where you free to shoot one another at 300+ rounds a minute!

Just remember, for every person who knows how to properly handle a gun and shoots for sport at a firing range, there's 5 morons who don't know how to use to the gun they may be waving in your kid's face.

[Lulu]

Ahhhh, it's all fun and games until someone you love gets shot by some idiot with a semi-automatic weapon.....:( Yahooo, God bless America, where you free to shoot one another at 300+ rounds a minute!

Just remember, for every person who knows how to properly handle a gun and shoots for sport at a firing range, there's 5 morons who don't know how to use to the gun they may be waving in your kid's face.
Go Girl xxxxx :D

[Sedater18]

Why would you use a semi-automatic for hunting reasons and it seems a little to intense for self defense purposes. After all you can kill an attacker with using a pistol in a couple shots I don't see any reason why you would need to be able to unload on him and blast him threw the wall.

[sawleaf]

Glad the ban is finally gone! The assault weapons ban did nothing to stop crime at all. Almost zero crime is commited with "assault" weapons at all. This law only effected the law abiding citizens that obeyed it. Criminals still could get and use them. The law only stopped the importation and construction of one. It was a law that targeted weapons that looked scary and threatening. That is all it did! You could still build the same rifles! Just without a flash suppressor, bayonet lug, folding stock, or pistol grip. But they bullets and rate of fire stayed the same. Oh the AK-47 is illegal now, but the MAK90 isn't, because it doesn't have a pistol grip. It is the same rifle. Laws like these are ridiculous!

[sawleaf]

Why would you use a semi-automatic for hunting reasons and it seems a little to intense for self defense purposes. After all you can kill an attacker with using a pistol in a couple shots I don't see any reason why you would need to be able to unload on him and blast him threw the wall.


But I'm sure you would want that firepower option if it was your life that was on the line wouldn't you? There are plenty of semi-auto pistols as well. It is not a matter of why, but it is a matter of being able to arm yourself at your choosing, not at someone elses. Who is anyone to say how you can or can't protect yourself. I have many of these "assault" style weapons. I love them they are fun to own and shoot, but if someone breaks into my house am I coming at them with my M4 or AK. Nope, I do think that is excessive for home defense, but I am not going to say someone else shouldn't be able to do just that.

[Sedater18]

eh, seems like an unreasonable amount of firepower to allow on the streets to me. I think they are highly more likely to be used as assult weapons then home defense. Some of them look pretty tight tho. Shoot guns gets you mad ripped.

[Sedater18]

shooting*

[sawleaf]

eh, seems like an unreasonable amount of firepower to allow on the streets to me. I think they are highly more likely to be used as assult weapons then home defense. Some of them look pretty tight tho. Shoot guns gets you mad ripped.

What you think and what is fact are two different things. If you look at crime data and surveys you will find that over 80% of firearms used in criminal activity are handguns. The assault weapons ban was a ban on weapon cosmetics. The same firearms were readily available for people wanting to buy them minus the banned cosmetic features. All it did was make firearm companies modify their products slightly. If you look into the law it really was very silly. For example, why ban bayonet lugs? When was the last time you heard on the news of someone getting robbed with an AK-47 let alone someone getting stabbed by a bayonet!?? Hey if bayonets are so bad then why not ban all antique civil war rifles and old flintlock muskets from ther revolutionary war???

[gs8778]

http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/thread.shtml?22x116491

[clevemire]

Eh.. It's an open issue that could go on forever. Tabboo as racism and religion.

There are people who advocate weapons, and those who don't.

I just get nervous when inbreds like Torog get their hands on them...

[sawleaf]

http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/thread.shtml?22x116491

That article leads people to believe that the market will be flooded with these weapons and that crime will spike. The market is already flooded with them. The ban was idiotic, all it did was get rid of certain features on these weapons that mean nothing at all. The firearm companies just made slight modifications to the weapons(such as changing the name and putting a different stock on them) and kept on making them. These so called assault weapons have been readily available and easy to get for the past 15 years! Nothing is going to change, we are not going to have people running around tomorrow shooting everything up. There were also plenty of other just as deadly, if not more, firearms available on the market which were not even targeted. Well, it's no use making a deal of it now. The ban is dead.

[gs8778]

Totally agree with you, just posted it so others could see what other stoners thought about the issue. You read the posts besides the 1st one with the article, right? Now gimmee my tec-9 :D

[sawleaf]

Totally agree with you, just posted it so others could see what other stoners thought about the issue. You read the posts besides the 1st one with the article, right? Now gimmee my tec-9 :D

lol You could buy Tec-9s during the ban. The ban just made the price increase. Hopefully it will drop now.

[rufusthestuntbum]

All guns should be banned, outside of hunting rifles. Assault weapons are made to kill people, thats the only purpose they serve. Handguns should be banned to. Protection/home defence? Give me a break, if you shoot a person for any reason you should go to jail. I have a shotgun, but if i hear a bump in the nite i grab louisville slugger. Grabbing a gun is barbaric. Its even funnier that you need a gun for protection from other peoples guns, yeah thats a reason not to ban them. Whatever moron said assault rifles arent used to rob 7-11, wow you are a quick one. These guns are the guns of choice for drive bys and gangland murder. Why do you need a muzzle that supresses flashes? It is a device to conceal murder, like a silencer or fringer proof gun handles, hardly fucking "cosmetic"
America is the only place on earth stupid enough for this to even be a debate

[sawleaf]

If you banned all weapons but hunting firearms, then of course people would want to ban those also. And if all law abiding citizens didn't have guns, because they were illegal, then who would have them then? Maybe the people who don't obey the laws??? hmmm Well if you knew what a flash supressor was, then you would know that hiding the flash is not the purpose of one. You can't hide the flash of any firearm in the dark. A flash supressor directs the flash forward, so the shooter is not blinded by the flash. Like a camera flash blind. The ban was first introduced by ignorant people like you who banned cosmetic features of firearms. If you don't like guns that's your opinion, but I sure hope this country is never lead by people with your opinion wanting to take my firarms away. I also hope that you never have a situation where you'd need to use your shotgun or your baseball bat. But what gives people like you the right to say I can't use what I want to protect myself and my family? I'm sorry but my family comes before your opinion of what is right and wrong in this world.

[Imotep]

Dude, when my country is attacked I'll be using ammonium nitrate to car bomb your humvee.
NO BULLSHIT MISSLE DEFENCE FOR OZ
yeah yeah i can hear it now,,,we saved your arses in ww2.
And we're thanking you for every war scince.

[maryjanemama]

I'm all for hunting, I'm all for protecting your family, but do you really need a semi automatic weapon to do it? What's wrong with a regular hand gun? Semi automatic weapons should only be used by the military. I doubt that your home is going to be invaded by 30 or 40 robbers at a time. Unless your like Torog, who thinks a group of Muslims is coming for him, because we all know that when terrorists want to attack America's intelligence, they'll go straight for some guy in Texas. After that, they'll head to another real threat, a trailer park in Arkansas....

[clevemire]

I'm all for hunting, I'm all for protecting your family, but do you really need a semi automatic weapon to do it? What's wrong with a regular hand gun? Semi automatic weapons should only be used by the military. I doubt that your home is going to be invaded by 30 or 40 robbers at a time. Unless your like Torog, who thinks a group of Muslims is coming for him, because we all know that when terrorists want to attack America's intelligence, they'll go straight for some guy in Texas. After that, they'll head to another real threat, a trailer park in Arkansas....LOL
Well said.

[Torog]

I'm all for hunting, I'm all for protecting your family, but do you really need a semi automatic weapon to do it? What's wrong with a regular hand gun? Semi automatic weapons should only be used by the military. I doubt that your home is going to be invaded by 30 or 40 robbers at a time. Unless your like Torog, who thinks a group of Muslims is coming for him, because we all know that when terrorists want to attack America's intelligence, they'll go straight for some guy in Texas. After that, they'll head to another real threat, a trailer park in Arkansas....
Yup,with crackheads and meth heads and those on pcp,a semi-auto in a large caliber,is a good thing to have handy,because anything less than a head shot-may not stop them. Ever hear of home invasion robberies ? It usually consists of several sob's coming in at the same time..in that instance,it is usually best to have all the firepower you can muster.

I don't believe that a group of muslims ,is coming for me,although,if they found out that my girlfriend is Jewish,they just might.

The military,prefers to have real assault weapons,which are select-fire,with single,semi and auto fire selectability..the Founding Fathers,believed that the citizenry should be equivocably armed as the military,so that we are capable of reserving the in-alienable right to alter or abolish our goverment,as we see fit.

I'm not advocating violence,but I do believe in the in-alienable right to self-defense,those who don't-are not citizens,they are subjects and sheeple.

Stay Safe--Stay Armed !

[sawleaf]

I don't use my assault rifles for home defense. I have them because I like shooting them. Who has the right to say I can't arm myself with what I choose? I have no right to say what someone can or cannot use to protect themselves. The assault weapons ban was the most misunderstood firearm law ever. It did absolutely nothing at all except increase prices on some ammo and firearms. That is it. If you think it really did anything and actually stopped these weapons from being purchased then you are gravely misinformed. All my assault weapons were purchased legally during the ban! Now I will be able to put some minor cosmetics on them, but they are still the same firearms. There are plenty of semi-auto weapons used in hunting and for home defense also, that were not even on the ban. Why use a baseball bat, that is excessive force, just use a broomstick. That is pretty much the argument I am hearing. You have the right to your beliefs and the right to not arm yourselfs, but don't interfer with other people's rights.

[Libertarian Toker]

Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target

http://www.badnarik.org/Issues/GunControl.php

If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. Allow me to point out some fallacies in the arguments frequently used by the anti-gun movement.

First, it is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a "community right", because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.

Second, the phrase "well regulated militia" is frequently misconstrued to mean:
a) lots of government regulations; and,
b) only the National Guard is allowed to carry guns.


It is necessary to understand the definitions common in America during the time of our war for independence. "Well regulated" used to mean "well prepared". Every man was expected to have a rifle, one pound of gun powder, and sixteen balls for his weapon. He was also expected to be ready to USE that rifle within sixty seconds of the alarm being sounded. Hence the term "minute man".

It is disingenuous for anyone to promote the argument that "militia" refers only to the National Guard in light of the fact that the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and the National Guard wasn't formed until the early 1900's. This argument is totally without merit, unless you want to imply that our founding fathers were able to predict the future.

I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control policies in the United States. The cities with the highest murder rates are Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to draw the proper conclusion from this evidence. England and Australia have recently instituted strict gun control measures, and both countries have seen the statistics on violent crime quadruple. In contrast, I am told that the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a municipal ordinance that requires homeowners to have a firearm available. Home invasions have dropped to less than 10% of their original rate, indicating to me that criminals value their lives more than they value your property.

I have no doubt that members of the anti-gun crowd would be happy to offer statistical data which appears to contradict the numbers I have just mentioned. Even if they could, their alternate statistics are not enough authority to strip me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. My rights are non-negotiable. I don't care if someone else doesn't like it. I don't care if they toss and turn at night, anxiously worried about what I might do with my firearm. My rights are not predicated on whether or not you LIKE what I'm doing. You only have a complaint when I present a "clear and present danger", which is not the case if I have my firearm in a holster.

Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions---to give you answers that really work!

[Sedater18]

If you banned all weapons but hunting firearms, then of course people would want to ban those also. And if all law abiding citizens didn't have guns, because they were illegal, then who would have them then?

The military, the swat team, and the police?


What you think and what is fact are two different things. If you look at crime data and surveys you will find that over 80% of firearms used in criminal activity are handguns
Oooooh sawleaf you are cold as ice. Maybe because you couldn't buy them during the ban is why they used other weapons. You're saying that you could still buy them during the ban but you'd have to go to alot more trouble and risk getting caught with an illegal weapon. Even tho in the ghetto there are some illegal guns. Even with several SOB's coming at you, you could still take them out with a shotgun or a light pistol quickly, but now its more likely that those SOB's have the assult weapons too, seems more like a change for the worse because you're more likley to catch your daughter, son, wife, or dog with a stray bullet. Dude you're a redneck you should know it's not that hard to get a headshot.

[Sedater18]

bakedbakedbakedbakedbakedbaked

[Libertarian Toker]

[QUOTE=Sedater18]The military, the swat team, and the police?QUOTE]

If a head shot is so easy, why would the swat team and police need semi-auto, and even full auto weapons? If all law abiding people gave up their guns, why would the police need fully automatic weapons? I'll tell ya why, because like now with all the laws against guns, criminals still have guns. As with the drug war, prohibition only creats more crime, not less. The more you prohibit, the bigger the black market gets. Violence levels follow right along with that. Gun laws are creating more violence then they are trying to get rid of.

Toker

[sawleaf]

The military, the swat team, and the police?

Oooooh sawleaf you are cold as ice. Maybe because you couldn't buy them during the ban is why they used other weapons. You're saying that you could still buy them during the ban but you'd have to go to alot more trouble and risk getting caught with an illegal weapon. Even tho in the ghetto there are some illegal guns. Even with several SOB's coming at you, you could still take them out with a shotgun or a light pistol quickly, but now its more likely that those SOB's have the assult weapons too, seems more like a change for the worse because you're more likley to catch your daughter, son, wife, or dog with a stray bullet. Dude you're a redneck you should know it's not that hard to get a headshot.

You obviously didn't read my posts very well. During the ban you could still get the exact same guns. I bought all mine during the ban no problems at all. You can say maybe this and maybe that. Did you even look up any crime statistics? Yeah you know a lot about combat shooting don't you? I was a Marine Corps pistol and rifle instructor. It is very easy to miss a man iszed target at 5 yards even if you are standing still, let alone if you are scared and shitting your pants. You even resort to trying to insult me and call me a redneck. Just shows that you are ignorant using the sterotype of rednecks and guns. Send all the insults you want kid, you're the one who seems to be getting upset. It's not going to make me throw my guns away.

[sawleaf]

This seems to be the same argument that people use against cannabis. Saying it is bad and ruins your life. They really ignore the facts. Exactly like anti-gun people. Guns create violence like flies create shit. If we didn't have guns then people would be trying to ban swords

[Sedater18]

Hey I called torog a redneck, because,well he diffenitly fits the stereo type. He seems to think muslims are always coming for him, hates socialism because it isnt what he uses, dislikes other countries that arent helping the "war"in iraq because they dont like us. big big big bush supporter even agreeing with the war in iraq because bush said "it's a war on terror" and that kind of shit even tho terrorist have very little to do with Iraq. Does enjoy getting loads of guns secretly hopeing one day someone will come onto his property at night in a secret fashion so he can shoot at them, hates liberals and uses insults that dont make any sense to anyone but him and maybe his brainwashed kids.

I know didnt read your statement fully, im just fucking with you :p

[Sedater18]

I havent ever heard someone say "cannabis is an assult weapon that can hit you from 200 yards, equiped with a flash surpresser and a silincer"

[Imotep]

Rise up my well armed people and overthrow your dictatorship! :D
They are poking the beast and when it comes for you, your guns wont help you.
Did they help on 9/11?
Did they help in vietnam?
This is an unconventional war isnt it? They are using unconventional methods and you are not.
Sure defend your home, they may target you to steal your extensive and valuble weapon collection.

[GHoSToKeR]

i got half way down this thread, and couldnt read anymore


torog, you think its ok to fuckin shoot someone whos tryin to rob your house? fuck no, why are you possessions more important than a persons life?

you people think u need guns to protect yourself from people who have guns? come on u fuckin idiots think about it logically.. fuck

as for ur right to have a gun, and that ur rights r non negotiable, thats bullshit.. i think peoples right to livin in a gun free society is more important than ur right to carry guns

but fuck it, none of u listen, ur all fuckin narrow-minded, twats who think theyre gonna get attacked and murdered by a bunch o fuckin muslims, grow the fuck up and go torture a cat or sumthin

peace, to those who deserve it

[pisshead]

oh yeah? because people in DC and NYC and chicago are much safer without guns.

you're an idiot. have you ever read history? do you know why governments want their citizens disarmed? it's not for their safety.

just like drugs, banning guns causes a black market and puts the guns in the hands of criminals. but i guess you like that idea.

[clevemire]

Hey I called torog a redneck, because,well he diffenitly fits the stereo type. He seems to think muslims are always coming for him, hates socialism because it isnt what he uses, dislikes other countries that arent helping the "war"in iraq because they dont like us. big big big bush supporter even agreeing with the war in iraq because bush said "it's a war on terror" and that kind of shit even tho terrorist have very little to do with Iraq. Does enjoy getting loads of guns secretly hopeing one day someone will come onto his property at night in a secret fashion so he can shoot at them, hates liberals and uses insults that dont make any sense to anyone but him and maybe his brainwashed kids.Amen.

[pisshead]

actually, the US is a socialist (communist) country already, and torog loves bush, despite the fact that he's more 'liberal' than clinton was, he out clintons clinton on almost everything.

same actions, different rhetoric. torog listens to the rhetoric and totally ignores the actions.

socialism doesn't work.

[Sedater18]

turn that last post into something that makes more sense. ;)

[pisshead]

ARE Americans practicing Communism?
Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy...

Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as the Ten Planks of The Communist Manifestoâ?¦ The following brief presents the original ten planks within the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in 1848, along with the American adopted counterpart for each of the planks. From comparison it's clear MOST Americans have by myths, fraud and deception under the color of law by their own politicians in both the Republican and Democratic and parties, been transformed into Communists.

Another thing to remember, Karl Marx in creating the Communist Manifesto designed these planks AS A TEST to determine whether a society has become communist or not. If they are all in effect and in force, then the people ARE practicing communists.

Communism, by any other name is still communism, and is VERY VERY destructive to the individual and to the society!!

The 10 PLANKS stated in the Communist Manifesto and some of their American counterparts are...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Americans call it government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986); Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process. Asset forfeiture laws are used by DEA, IRS, ATF etc...).

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Americans call it the Federal Reserve which is a privately-owned credit/debt system allowed by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) another privately-owned corporation. The Federal Reserve Banks issue Fiat Paper Money and practice economically destructive fractional reserve banking.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
Americans call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Americans call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agricultureâ?¦ Thus read "controlled or subsidized" rather than "owned"â?¦ This is easily seen in these as well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Americans call it Minimum Wage and slave labor like dealing with our Most Favored Nation trade partner; i.e. Communist China. We see it in practice via the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Federal Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
Americans call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136. These provide for forced relocations and forced sterilization programs, like in China.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
Americans are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, but are actually "government force-tax-funded schools " Even private schools are government regulated. The purpose is to train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" . These are used so that all children can be indoctrinated and inculcated with the government propaganda, like "majority rules", and "pay your fair share". WHERE are the words "fair share" in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26)?? NO WHERE is "fair share" even suggested !! The philosophical concept of "fair share" comes from the Communist maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need! This concept is pure socialism. ... America was made the greatest society by its private initiative WORK ETHIC ... Teaching ourselves and others how to "fish" to be self sufficient and produce plenty of EXTRA commodities to if so desired could be shared with others who might be "needy"... Americans have always voluntarily been the MOST generous and charitable society on the planet.

Do changing words, change the end result? ... By using different words, is it all of a sudden OK to ignore or violate the provisions or intent of the Constitution of the united States of America?????

The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America... KNOW YOUR ENEMY ...Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America.


None are more hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free....


we are a socialist country.

[Sedater18]

I dont really care dude. Torog is the one who loves america but is insulting socialism at the same time when you me to say we are socialist. You saying socialism doesnt work and we are socialist but it does work for us. I dont know how well but we're still the most powerful nation and everyone is pretty much our bitch. I personally think very few political systems work (rome was pretty good, besides all the slaves and christians getting thrown into pits of lions, but the morals back then were alot different then they are now, The UK has pretty good laws now (hey they did alot of bad shit a long time ago too). The police dont even have to carry guns because guns arent a big problem there at all.

[pisshead]

we aren't a socialist country , we are a constiututional republic.

there's a history with socialism, and the elites who implement it usually don't share their wealth, it's a command and control system, period. it's dictatorship.

[pisshead]

guns aren't a big problem in the UK? you've got to be kidding.

all one has to do is look at the history of gun control.

[Sedater18]

not as bad in england as they are here

[Imotep]

Interesting points Pisshead. :cool:

[Sedater18]

If a head shot is so easy, why would the swat team and police need semi-auto, and even full auto weapons? If all law abiding people gave up their guns, why would the police need fully automatic weapons? I'll tell ya why, because like now with all the laws against guns, criminals still have guns. As with the drug war, prohibition only creats more crime, not less. The more you prohibit, the bigger the black market gets. Violence levels follow right along with that. Gun laws are creating more violence then they are trying to get rid of.

the normal police dont need semi-auto guns. The swat team does incase they need to deal with a terrorist threat or some kind of gang packing some serious illegal heat. S.W.A.T. Special weapons and tactics. The swat team would only be deployed if the situation possibly required the kind of force and heat that they are packing, like actually needing to take out a group of SOB's. Just because it would make those kind of situation less common doesn't mean the violence and those kind of situation would just disapear. The police would only take on things that wouldn't need that kind of shit. I never said the police needed fully auto and semi-auto weapons. I said they should have the guns. Like the colt 45. with rubber bullets that they have now.

[Button Basher]

i got half way down this thread, and couldnt read anymore


torog, you think its ok to fuckin shoot someone whos tryin to rob your house? fuck no, why are you possessions more important than a persons life?

you people think u need guns to protect yourself from people who have guns? come on u fuckin idiots think about it logically.. fuck

as for ur right to have a gun, and that ur rights r non negotiable, thats bullshit.. i think peoples right to livin in a gun free society is more important than ur right to carry guns

but fuck it, none of u listen, ur all fuckin narrow-minded, twats who think theyre gonna get attacked and murdered by a bunch o fuckin muslims, grow the fuck up and go torture a cat or sumthin

peace, to those who deserve it

Told. I'm gonna toast to you next time i'm smoking a fatty Ghost ;) !

[Ed Ward MD]

For individual protection and protection from their own government. Rights to Firearms were not only Granted. They were encouraged.

You make a nice addition to these boards BB.

Ed

[GHoSToKeR]

Told. I'm gonna toast to you next time i'm smoking a fatty Ghost ;) !
lol appreciated

peace

[Libertarian Toker]

"torog, you think its ok to fuckin shoot someone whos tryin to rob your house? fuck no, why are you possessions more important than a persons life?"

So defending yourself is no good? I see. So when a dick head picks up your bag of weed, your stereo, takes a turn with your wife, smacks your kid, kicks your dog, your saying you would do nothing and hope the intruder didn't kill you? What if he did kill? What if he killed your wife, and then started for the kids? What if you could not stop him? What if he wanted to take a turn with you? Guns are not always life takers. I had a guy come in on me and my old lady, and had I not had a gun to subdue him with it more then likely would have been a lot uglier then it was. As it was, I was able to make him leave rather quickly. A naked man with a 45 will make a criminal reconsider very fast.

"you people think u need guns to protect yourself from people who have guns? come on u fuckin idiots think about it logically.. fuck"

Guns don't kill, people do. That's not just a catch phrase. It really has meaning if you think about it. Long before there was guns, people killed each other. People would still kill today even if you got rid of every last gun.

"as for ur right to have a gun, and that ur rights r non negotiable, thats bullshit.. i think peoples right to livin in a gun free society is more important than ur right to carry guns"

What right do you have to live in a gun free society? I have a right to defend myself. What right do you have to tell me I can't defend myself?

"but fuck it, none of u listen, ur all fuckin narrow-minded, twats who think theyre gonna get attacked and murdered by a bunch o fuckin muslims, grow the fuck up and go torture a cat or sumthin"

Well, now theres some constructive BS. I think I'll return the favor. You anti-gunnuts are a bunch of constitution hating, Freedom loathing, fuckwits that think an object can kill all on it's own without any help from a human. Grow the fuck up and go stone a christian or something.

"peace, to those who deserve it"

Bang bang! Ben Franklin once said that those that would give up Freedom for a little temporary safety deserve neither. I believe that your call for peace for only those that agree with you is a sign that you really don't deserve peace yourself.

Toker

[GHoSToKeR]

dude, fuck it, go shoot whoever the hell you want

and i'll stay over here, thankin the powers that be for being born in the UK and not the US

[Libertarian Toker]

I don't want to shoot anyone. I don't want to lose the Freedom to defend myself either. Don't let your emotions over power your reason. In other words, don't close your mind.

Toker

[GHoSToKeR]

Toker, I didn't and don't wanna get into an arguement with you.. I may not agree with everything you say, but you're a cool guy.. I was just in an extremely bad mood when I posted that, as you may have gathered from that post along with many others. Anyway, I just don't like guns. I'm not an "Anti-gun nut", I just don't like them.. Sure, guns don't kill people, people kill people, but guns were designed to kill!.. anyway, I know where you're coming from


the laws on guns are similiar to the drugs laws.. its a question of "well, its dangerous if used irresponsibly, so do we let them have the right to choose and to take responsibility for their own actions, or do we take that freedom of choice away from them??" It's a tricky subject, one that the governments often get wrong..

And one more thing, if I had a gun and someone tried to break into my house, i'd do my best to stop them taking my stuff.. but if I couldn't stop them, I'd let them take the stuff because I wouldnt want to shoot them.. I would still value their life over my possessions.. BUT, and it's a big BUT, if they put my life or the life of someone else in danger, then I would use 'any means necessary' to protect them... So, again. I see where you're coming from

peace :)

[Button Basher]

You make a nice addition to these boards BB.

Ed

Great, and what's that supposed to mean?

[pisshead]

toker, some people obviously are totally ignorant of history. they think the world started when they were born, and don't know that the tyranny we're facing is classical, it goes back hundreds and thousands of years.

textbook tyranny.

history is repeating. but some people don't take the time to learn history and to recognize corruption and scams and be well informed about what's going on, like during the founding of the country. and it didn't take long for people to forget.

the national bank for instance, and then the federal reserve. these are concepts people who've gone through the socialized, commie, world government detention centers (public schools) who've been so dumbed down with vaccines and TV, they'll probably never understand.

[Sedater18]

no shit history has been fucked up. I dont recall ever saying it wasn't. I'm talking about the present.

[pisshead]

and i said that history is presently repeating itself.

[Libertarian Toker]

"Toker, I didn't and don't wanna get into an arguement with you."

No worries mate. Just remember that if i get on ya over an issue it is not personal. Arguing is a good way to learn about things from different perspectives. It doesn't mean anything on a personal level, and I would gladly smoke my last joint with anyone, or everyone on this thread.

Toker

[GHoSToKeR]

"Toker, I didn't and don't wanna get into an arguement with you."

No worries mate. Just remember that if i get on ya over an issue it is not personal. Arguing is a good way to learn about things from different perspectives. It doesn't mean anything on a personal level, and I would gladly smoke my last joint with anyone, or everyone on this thread.

Toker
hey thats nice to hear.. i wish more people were like that.. i generally prefer to agree to disagree, but not all people can do that :)

[Libertarian Toker]

If we agree to disagree, does that mean we agree or disagree? I disagree that we agree if we agree to disagree, do you agree?

Toker

[sawleaf]

the normal police dont need semi-auto guns. The swat team does incase they need to deal with a terrorist threat or some kind of gang packing some serious illegal heat. S.W.A.T. Special weapons and tactics. The swat team would only be deployed if the situation possibly required the kind of force and heat that they are packing, like actually needing to take out a group of SOB's. Just because it would make those kind of situation less common doesn't mean the violence and those kind of situation would just disapear. The police would only take on things that wouldn't need that kind of shit. I never said the police needed fully auto and semi-auto weapons. I said they should have the guns. Like the colt 45. with rubber bullets that they have now.

News flash for you. Normal police officers carry semi-auto firearms all the time. Over 90% of police forces have switched to them from revolvers. What do you think a colt .45 is!? It's a semi-automatic pistol. Police have been using the colt .45 since 1911! It's obvious now that you don't know what you are talking about. SWAT teams are deployed for all sorts of BS now, from guys trying to kill themselves to people like us smoking a joint on the porch. How often do you hear of SWAT teams battling terrorists and gangs on the news? Are you saying they should use rubber bullets so as to not kill anyone. Rubber bullets are lethal at close ranges. And most cops are concerned with stopping power. They look for the most powerful devestating ammo. They want a round to stop and kill with the minimum amount of shots. A dead criminal is not a threat to them in court. This is why most officers are switching from 9mm to .45 as their choice of ammo. A lot of officers also carry so called "assault weapons" in their squad car trunks as a backup weapon if needed. I think it is good that they are better armed. I am not concerned, I am not a criminal so I'll keep my weapons, thank you.

[heartsurgerysurviver]

Guns don't kill, people do. That's not just a catch phrase. It really has meaning if you think about it. Long before there was guns, people killed each other. People would still kill today even if you got rid of every last gun.

Actually, it's the bullets that kill people.
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
Restrictions on weapons, strick control over people entering and leaving the country, propaganda in the media, civil liberties out the door, and the government spying on it's own people, all these happened in germany in the 20's-40's, geeee isn't that what is happening here now too?
Time to revolt.
peace
heart

[GHoSToKeR]

If we agree to disagree, does that mean we agree or disagree? I disagree that we agree if we agree to disagree, do you agree?

Toker
ummmmm yes





:confused:

lol I just meant we may disagree on alot of stuff, but we can lok past our differences and not have to fight and argue and hod grudges, and agree that we dont err agree....... (hopefully) lol

peace :)

[Button Basher]

There was a documentary on Sky One (that's the UK equivalent to Fox) yesterday called 'Lethal obssession: Why Americans love guns' and it really changed my opinion on the subject.

It would indeed seem that there are a select group of Americans who buy a single gun for protection, store it somewhere away from their kids but close by just in case of an emergency, and a group who watch an action movie, charge into their local gun store and shout 'GIMME THAT GUN THAT MEL GIBSON WAS USING IN THAT THAR LETHAL WEAPON PIK-CHUR' or whatever, then go home and cap their wife by accident.

I think the only reason gun violence is so high in America is simply because guns can be obtained just as easily as a CD album or computer game. It's definitely wrong to say 'Jesus, Americans are so dumb, why do they love guns?'. Everyone loves guns, that's why we have movies of people shooting eachother to shit, and if the wrong person get's influenced by said movies, they're gonna want a gun simply for the cool factor they just experienced in a make believe film, and then accidents happen. If guns were legal and readily available in the UK, we'd be exactly the same. The decision to make guns legal and easily obtainable in America can't be solely blamed for the gun violence, it takes an idiot to want to buy one so he can be Bruce Willis and end up killing someone by accident.

I wouldn't really consider the protection factor an argument on the other hand, after all, what do you need a gun to protect yourself from but another person with a gun?

[sawleaf]

True Button Basher, a lot of people love guns. America does have a love of guns. There are a lot of stupid people, but there are also a lot of smart, law abiding people as well. I see no reason to punish the law abiding citizens for the actions of the few stupid ones out there. I have quite a few firearms in my collection. 2 are for security and the rest are just fun to shoot. A gun for protection and home security is a tool that gives you an advantage over an intruder, whether they are armed with a firearm or not. Of course I don't advocate shooting first and ask questions later. Using deadly force should only come as a last ditch effort after all other resources have been used. You have no right to shoot someone that is not an imediate threat to your life. This means you can't shoot someone that is running through your living room with your TV. Let them take the damn TV. It is not worth a death on your hands or standing infront of a judge. There is a stereotype of gun owners in america as redneck idiots, militia people, or right wing crazy nuts, all eager to shoot someone. Yeah there are people like that out there, but 90% of gunowners I've met are your average everyday people. I am not against anyone's beliefs, but I am against people trying to take away from me and infringe upon my rights. Just like I am against people trying to claim I am a criminal for smoking cannabis. Some laws are unjust and need to be removed or disobeyed. :)

[Button Basher]

Cool Sawleaf, your the kind of sensible American that I think is given a bad rap by the few dumbasses that want a gun to turn the TV on with ¬.¬ !
But then again, after I posted I remembered the original topic of this thread, assault weapons.
Now if you want or need a gun for protection, you DEFINITELY don't need a fucking M16 or SPAS12 propped up against your wardrobe. One of the interviews in the documentary I spoke of was with some proper weird, fat, redneck dude who owned a gun shop in Nevada. When the interviewer asked him what the most powerful gun he sold was he pulled out some huge rifle and started talking about how it could take down elephants and hippos. I couldn't believe it! Where are you gonna find elephants and hippos in Nevada?? It's ridiculous. Presumeably if you shot a human with it it would just fucking destroy them, what kind of reason would you ever have for wishing that upon another human being? The interviewer asked the store owner what he'd do if he tried to take his gun off him and his exact reply was 'it'd be the last thing you ever did'! These are the kind of people that are considered just your average, gun-thirsty American by most people here in the UK and that's a sad fact.

Handguns? Sure, but your kidding yourself if you think you need some fucking AK for security.

[pisshead]

historically, people are not disarmed for their safety by the loving government, it's usually because they're slaves.

look at the cities in the US with gun bans, and compare the crime statistics with those with the most lax gun laws. far more people use their guns for protection and aren't gun nuts than those who are.

there's a good UN quote, try looking it up, where someone stated that 'gun ownership threatens the legitimate power monopoly of the state' (unidir)...gun ownership threatens the dictatorship.

http://www.gunowners.org/

the assault weapons ban bans more than just assault weapons. we should all realize by now that just because legislation has a fluffy name, doesn't mean it just pertains to what the title is...patriot act (the opposite of what a patriot would do), partial birth abortion, assault weapons...federal reserve...

[pisshead]

what the assault weapons ban does

http://www.gunowners.org/fs9403.htm

fact sheet:
http://www.gunowners.org/fstb.htm

http://www.gunowners.org

[pisshead]

2004 gun control facts:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

what will it take for peole to understand that control doesn't work. how many hundreds of years of this type of action will it take.

[sawleaf]

Button Basher, it's cool to talk to someone that isn''t going to scream and say I'm evil because I have firearms. Though our opinions are different, we can still hear each other out without anger and insulting posts that seem to be too common on the boards. You are right about the assault weapon for security in my opinion. It is funny, because I actually own an AK-47 and a AR-15(the civilian version of the M-16), both are semi-auto and not the military versions, but would never think of using them for home security. I never want to see the day that I have to pull out my pistol and point it at another person let alone think of shooting someone. And I can imagine that I'd be crapping my pants if I had a situation on my hands where I had to use the AK-47 instead. It just doesn't seem possible in the neighborhood I live in and the current life we live here. But I am not against anyone owning them as long as they are not criminals. It is certainly tons of fun to go shooting on my friends land. No I don't hunt with "assault weapons", but it is a hobby of mine to shoot them. What is so wrong with that? Here in the USA, we have many gun laws on the books already, that are not inforced strictly at all. With continued problems people see more laws as the answer when the current laws are being ignored. My problem with the assault weapon ban was that it didn't ban anything really but weapon cosmetics. It didn't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns. I am against gun control, but for enforcing current gun laws and harsher laws that punish misuse of firearms.

[sawleaf]

2004 gun control facts:
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

what will it take for peole to understand that control doesn't work. how many hundreds of years of this type of action will it take.

Thanks for the fact post Pisshead. Another fact that I didn't read on that page is that most of the situations where criminals were stopped with firearms, the firearm was not even shot. Displaying a gun can stops most crimes. But a firearm should never be pulled out unless there is full intent to use it. Also adding a laser sight to a firearm can double the intimidation factor of a firearm. Situations resolved with no violence are the best ones. That's why next to my security .45 is a huge can of pepper spray. Non-lethal force is always the best, but you should go into any encounter prepared for the worst. :)

[pisshead]

exactly, that's why we need to repeal all gun laws. you'd watch the crime rate go straight down. it's one of the reasons why we have the 2nd amendment.

check out the whole 2004 fact sheet, and it should be clear why. gun control has never worked and will never work, ever.

[Sedater18]

history isn't repeating itself to the full extreme.

I was going to reply but im to lazy to read all the shit you guys said. You guys are hardcore with this shit.

[sawleaf]

history isn't repeating itself to the full extreme.

I was going to reply but im to lazy to read all the shit you guys said. You guys are hardcore with this shit.

Well you should at least click on the links Pisshead posted and read some facts about firearms. Damn right I'm hardcore about firearms. The same as I am about cannabis. Though I never go shooting high at all. I treat all firearms with a high degree of respect. If I can give a rat's ass about what the government says about me using cannabis, why the hell would I care what people have to say about my gun ownership? I am not a criminal. I didn't purchase my firearms to rob or kill people. Therefore why should anyone say what I can or cannot own? Why should I be punished for what others do?