Should citizens in the United States be banned from possessing assault weapons?


Had you not broken the law the issue wouldn't exist. So the problem starts at the source.

Criminals are the excuse for gun control. So i guess they are the real problem.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

This isn't about me moron, it's about the fact that every free man has the right to firearms for the protection of themselves and their families.

I have no desire to argue minute points with an idiot.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 

This isn't about me moron, it's about the fact that every free man has the right to firearms for the protection of themselves and their families.

I have no desire to argue minute points with an idiot.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

A convicted felon that openly admits to possessing firearms in violation of state and federal laws thinks I'm an idiot and a moron.

Not going to shed tears on that one.

But hey.... if I ever need advice on how to keep from dropping the soap in the prison showers I will look you up.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
 
A convicted felon that openly admits to possessing firearms in violation of state and federal laws thinks I'm an idiot and a moron.

Not going to shed tears on that one.

But hey.... if I ever need advice on how to keep from dropping the soap in the prison showers I will look you up.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Quit fantasizing.

And get ready to protect your family with sticks and rocks when you turn in your weapons when they come for then.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
Quit fantasizing.

And get ready to protect your family with sticks and rocks when you turn in your weapons when they come for then.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I though you had no interest in arguing.... can't trust a felons word for anything.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
 
The very first assault weapon was handfull of rocks. This assult weapon is still in use today, most pointedly in the Middle East.
If assault weapons are banned, it would only be a matter of time untill those in power will work their way down to laws governing the limitation on how many rocks an individual may carry on their person.
These laws will of course not apply to those in power. They will be exempt. They are already exempt from the new health care bill.
 
There are NO .... "assault weapons " or "assault rifles" ...... there are semi-automatic sporting rifles. Nothing more, nothing less.
There are assault rifles and there's a legal definition for them. But assault rifles are select fire weapons covered under NFA, and not part of the debate over so-called 'assault weapons', except that the anti-gunners often depict assault rifles to the public as part of their disinformation campaigns, which is just another reason why the public isn't aware of what is supposed to be banned and what isn't.
 
The very first assault weapon was handfull of rocks. This assult weapon is still in use today, most pointedly in the Middle East.
If assault weapons are banned, it would only be a matter of time untill those in power will work their way down to laws governing the limitation on how many rocks an individual may carry on their person.
These laws will of course not apply to those in power. They will be exempt. They are already exempt from the new health care bill.

Wait, what? Where do you get that those in power are exempt from the healthcare bill.
I despise the healthcare act, but I think you may be mistaken on that point.
 
An assault weapon, by definition, is a fully automatic weapon. End of discussion.

I agree that my above definition is not correct. Quick post, brain fart, it happens with age, lol.

I cannot agree with end of conversation. If I would say I have a Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) WW II vintage would this be an assault weapon? A point in case a Pre 1899 firearm does not need to be registered, the Gatling Gun was developed in 1861. Would this be counted as an Assault weapon?
 
Link Removed

Saw this somewhere. Think it explains this thread pretty well. So to answer the OP. NO! No weapon should be banned. I want to own my KRISS super V!
 
I really do wish I could afford a BAR WW II 30 caliber, although I have seen the newer models starting at $600.00 up t0 $3000.00. The collectors I have spoken to said, first you have to find one and there just is not that many around for sale. Then if you did find one, would the person be willing to sell the 1918 BAR, and if he were to sell it to you, you better be as well off as Donald Trump. He told he seen one at an auction sell for $150,000.00. I figure I can still dream
 
Got a question guys n girls. Earlier this month I attempted to purchase a long gun at a Chattanooga dealership only to be denied by the TBI's new system. I filled out the appeals form and faxed it to the TBI along with the disposition form from the arresting department in Georgia with it stating not guilty due to self defense. This charge/case is almost 18 yrs old and has never come up before. I contacted the court in Georgia and was told "our system has been down 4 months and our IT department has yet to fix it". For some reason the charge is showing up but not the disposition.

Any advice on how I should proceed in this case?
 
Banning a constitutional right one piece at a time and allowing it to happen only shows that we'd be tolerant of more bans and more limitations. No weapon "assault" or other wise should be banned, ever. Who trusts the government and or police to take care of them and protect them? Just as any Native American how that's worked out.
Also, I'm new here, hello & cheers.
 
Why does everyone forget Vermont when they speak of Constitutional Carry or states with very open and relaxed gun statues?

People forget Vermont because Vermont's lack of a permit system makes it unqualified to enjoy all the benefits of the Reciprocity Law that was being salivated over earlier this year. It's the one state that exposes the fatal flaw of that law, when the most constitutional carry law in the nation forces US citizens under its jurisdiction to maintain the least 2nd Amendment rights when traveling out of that jurisdiction. So many people are so hungry for some semblance of a "win" against the burgeoning tyranny, that they are willing to impose it on Vermont so that they can travel more freely than before.

That's why.

Blues
 

The comments that followed this initial thread were spot on. It is ironic that we are living thru an American/Constituional nightmare in this country where 2A is not about hunting and where the people who understand what this country is about and what made it great and who contribute to its very existence are afraid of its government. Hitler did it,Stalin did it and it is clear that the narcissistic moslem trash in the whitehouse and his brownshirt supporters are sure trying to do it--you disarm the citizenry you have a highway to total fascism/socialism/tyranny/dictatorship--you name it that is what it is. I do believe that in a perfect democracy and maybe back in the 1950s, when life was about morals and responsibility etal, assault weapons owned by citizenry were not necessary and should never have been an issue but today's America, where this garbage finds the constitution, congress and the supreme court to be irrelevant to his twisted sense of social justice, the 2A words ring very true to whatever limit the citizenry wants it to be; we need this government to be very afraid of those of us who value this country unlike those who are running this country. When the brownshirts ala Hitler begin to arrive, we need a citizenry that can convince this government that we are willing to send them to hell before they send us to heaven.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,258
Members
74,964
Latest member
sigsag1
Back
Top