Hillary: Ban weapons of war; Bye bye pistols, deer rifles, shotguns....muskets...

[bucs90]

2 libs responded and try to change the topic.


IS THIS A WEAPON OF WAR:
View attachment 78202

Even Colonial muskets were weapons of war - at some point in time.

True. But this isn't a colonial musket. This is sold in every gun store in America.

Is it a weapon of war?

 

[bucs90]

In all honesty, gun enthusiasts along with the NRA, every single time there was a gun tragedy in the last 15 years, blew off any and all talk about any kind of discussion, meeting, hearing, study, recommendation, law, regulation, statute, bill, rule, or ordinance. As far as they were concerned there would be no discussion at all about gun laws or regulation of the sport. So here we are, people of both sides are itching for a fight. Where does this go now?

The NRA is standing by old predictable, the 2nd Amendment is untouchable, but I read two articles in the last couple of days saying that maybe it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it should be brought to a national vote. Now before I go any further, I don't think that will happen but if we are unfortunate enough to experience more tragedies like Orlando, we certainly could. People do want something done. So what do we do?

Previously there has been a question about mental health and it has gone nowhere. I know that some veterans boost their incomes by saying they have PTSD. Now most veterans who genuinely suffer from PTSD deserve our support, care and human warmth and respect, those other few and I do emphasize few, are very vocal on veteran message boards about losing their rights to guns because of mental health. So there is a deliberate block to that kind of legislation. I know I would not want to be a legislator responsible for taking someone's guns. So here we are.

The most prevalent problem that exists with guns is violence, specifically men and violence. Some will blame Muslims or religious fanatics, but it still remains an anger issue. That, I think may be the best way to solve our problem without hurting the 2nd Amendment irreparably. Hot heads and guns don't mix, it is ruining the 2nd Amendment and it needs to be fixed. In all seriousness, if you cannot control your anger you shouldn't own a gun. I don't think that means you can't go to the range, and I don't think that should be a barrier to some hunting. But if you like to drink and get mean or if you have a natural inclination to be a bully, let's be honest they shouldn't have control of a weapon until they have been certified safe. So at some point you can own a gun again, but if you have a certifiable problem you either get with the program or forget it.

Those are fair points. I think we need mental health problems listed on all background checks but medical privacy laws forbid it.

 

[Lakhota]

2 libs responded and try to change the topic.


IS THIS A WEAPON OF WAR:
View attachment 78202

Even Colonial muskets were weapons of war - at some point in time.

True. But this isn't a colonial musket. This is sold in every gun store in America.

Is it a weapon of war?
View attachment 78206

Good sniper rifles, but I mostly use them for deer and elk hunting.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

In all honesty, gun enthusiasts along with the NRA, every single time there was a gun tragedy in the last 15 years, blew off any and all talk about any kind of discussion, meeting, hearing, study, recommendation, law, regulation, statute, bill, rule, or ordinance. As far as they were concerned there would be no discussion at all about gun laws or regulation of the sport. So here we are, people of both sides are itching for a fight. Where does this go now?

The NRA is standing by old predictable, the 2nd Amendment is untouchable, but I read two articles in the last couple of days saying that maybe it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment and it should be brought to a national vote. Now before I go any further, I don't think that will happen but if we are unfortunate enough to experience more tragedies like Orlando, we certainly could. People do want something done. So what do we do?

Previously there has been a question about mental health and it has gone nowhere. I know that some veterans boost their incomes by saying they have PTSD. Now most veterans who genuinely suffer from PTSD deserve our support, care and human warmth and respect, those other few and I do emphasize few, are very vocal on veteran message boards about losing their rights to guns because of mental health. So there is a deliberate block to that kind of legislation. I know I would not want to be a legislator responsible for taking someone's guns. So here we are.

The most prevalent problem that exists with guns is violence, specifically men and violence. Some will blame Muslims or religious fanatics, but it still remains an anger issue. That, I think may be the best way to solve our problem without hurting the 2nd Amendment irreparably. Hot heads and guns don't mix, it is ruining the 2nd Amendment and it needs to be fixed. In all seriousness, if you cannot control your anger you shouldn't own a gun. I don't think that means you can't go to the range, and I don't think that should be a barrier to some hunting. But if you like to drink and get mean or if you have a natural inclination to be a bully, let's be honest they shouldn't have control of a weapon until they have been certified safe. So at some point you can own a gun again, but if you have a certifiable problem you either get with the program or forget it.

Those are fair points. I think we need mental health problems listed on all background checks but medical privacy laws forbid it.

If congress deems it it can be so, and I think that this is a good way to help the 2nd without letting others tear it apart.

 

[oreo]

Yall saw the speech. Hillary says "Weapons of war have no place on our streets."

Nevermind the 2nd Amendment guarantee arms...which were weapons of war in 1776 (muskets and pistols).

Pistols...used in all wars.
Deer rifles....the founding father of battlefield sniper rifles...USMC and Army snipers to this day use bolt action single shot sniper rifles that are identical to grandpa's deer rifle.
Shotguns....also used in wars.

AR-15s.....actually not used much in war. M16 and M4 yes. AR-10 yes.


So libs....when she wants to ban "Weapons of War"....which ones? And how far back?

Because in 1776 there were only 2 firearms. Pistols and Musket rifles. All military infantry carried them. And the Founders granted citizens the right to them.

That's an assault weapons ban, not your pistols, nor your rifles and shot guns for hunting. Exaggeration always creams someone's credibility.

Now you explain to me why someone who was on a FBI Terrorist watch list was able to go into a gun store and buy an assault weapon and ammo? Do you agree with that?

 

[bucs90]

2 libs responded and try to change the topic.


IS THIS A WEAPON OF WAR:
View attachment 78202

Even Colonial muskets were weapons of war - at some point in time.

True. But this isn't a colonial musket. This is sold in every gun store in America.

Is it a weapon of war?
View attachment 78206

Good sniper rifles, but I mostly use them for deer and elk hunting.

Is it a weapon of war? Hillary wants to ban Weapons of War. We have to identify them.

 

[Valerie]

post 911 political cowardice allowed an existing assault weapons ban to expire and gun manufacturers have since been greatly enriched, while American communities have become more volatile...


Clinton calls for a new ban on assault weapons, 12 years after the last one expired


Hillary Clinton on gun violence prevention



the second amendment presupposes what is necessary to the security of a free state, and states have the right to regulate what it means for the people to bear arms.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Valerie]

The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992...
Police Chief Magazine - View Article



New York Times Publishes First Front Page Editorial In Nearly 100 Years
New York Times Publishes First Front Page Editorial In Nearly 100 Years

"It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.


But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation."


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0



A Tally Of Mass Shootings In The U.S.

 

[bucs90]

Yall saw the speech. Hillary says "Weapons of war have no place on our streets."

Nevermind the 2nd Amendment guarantee arms...which were weapons of war in 1776 (muskets and pistols).

Pistols...used in all wars.
Deer rifles....the founding father of battlefield sniper rifles...USMC and Army snipers to this day use bolt action single shot sniper rifles that are identical to grandpa's deer rifle.
Shotguns....also used in wars.

AR-15s.....actually not used much in war. M16 and M4 yes. AR-10 yes.


So libs....when she wants to ban "Weapons of War"....which ones? And how far back?

Because in 1776 there were only 2 firearms. Pistols and Musket rifles. All military infantry carried them. And the Founders granted citizens the right to them.

That's an assault weapons ban, not your pistols, nor your rifles and shot guns for hunting. Exaggeration always creams someone's credibility.

Now you explain to me why someone who was on a FBI Terrorist watch list was able to go into a gun store and buy an assault weapon and ammo? Do you agree with that?

She didn't say assault weapons ban. She said "Weapons of War". Is the rifle I showed a Weapon of War???

I'll answer your question directly. He shouldn't have been able to do it. I 100% support the No Fly List being used to stop a gun sale. Make it appealable to a judge for cases of mistaken listing.

 

[Valerie]

As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

“We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,” the letter said.

“While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons,” the letter said concluding.

The Assault Weapon Ban Would Have Never Passed If It Wasn't For Ronald Reagan

 

[bucs90]

post 911 political cowardice allowed an existing assault weapons ban to expire and gun manufacturers have since been greatly enriched, while American communities have become more volatile...


Clinton calls for a new ban on assault weapons, 12 years after the last one expired


Hillary Clinton on gun violence prevention



the second amendment presupposes what is necessary to the security of a free state, and states have the right to regulate what it means for the people to bear arms.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Still didn't answer.

Is this a Weapon of War

 

[Valerie]

The expiration Monday of a 10-year federal ban on assault weapons means firearms like AK-47s, Uzis and TEC-9s can now be legally bought — a development that has critics upset and gun owners pleased.

The 1994 ban, signed by then President Clinton, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it, which it did not.


Studies done by pro- and anti-gun groups as well as the Justice Department show conflicting results on whether the ban helped reduce crime. Loopholes allowed manufacturers to keep many weapons on the market simply by changing their names or altering some of their features or accessories.

Congress lets assault weapons ban expire

 

[Lakhota]

2 libs responded and try to change the topic.


IS THIS A WEAPON OF WAR:
View attachment 78202

Even Colonial muskets were weapons of war - at some point in time.

True. But this isn't a colonial musket. This is sold in every gun store in America.

Is it a weapon of war?
View attachment 78206

Good sniper rifles, but I mostly use them for deer and elk hunting.

Is it a weapon of war? Hillary wants to ban Weapons of War. We have to identify them.

No, asshole, Winchester Model 70 bolt-action type rifles aren't classified as assault weapons. President Reagan didn't ban them - he only banned assault weapons.

When Ronald Reagan Embraced Gun Control - The New York Times

 

[Valerie]

The IACP has been a strong supporter of the assault weapons ban since 1992, and our membership approved a resolution calling for its reauthorization at our 2003 conference. The membership took this action because we, as law enforcement executives, understand that semiautomatic assault weapons pose a grave risk to our officers and the communities they are sworn to protect.

It is deeply troubling that Congress and the administration have so far failed to reauthorize this critically important legislation.

Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against our officers. In fact, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon, according to "Officer Down," a report from the Violence Policy Center. The weapons in question—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.

Opponents of the assault weapons ban often argue that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons. This is simply not true.

While most rifles are designed to be fired from the shoulder and depend upon the accuracy of a precisely aimed projectile, semiautomatic assault weapons are designed to maximize lethal effects through a rapid rate of fire. Assault weapons are designed to be spray-fired from the hip, and because of their design a shooter can maintain control of the weapon even while firing many rounds in rapid succession.

The cosmetic features opponents of the ban point to are actually military features such as silencers, flash suppressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets that were designed specifically to increase the lethality of these weapons and make them more concealable. Many come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing 50 or more bullets to be fired without reloading.

Weapons of this nature serve no legitimate sporting or hunting purposes and have no place in our communities. Unless Congress acts, the firearms of choice for terrorists, drug dealers, and gang members will be back on our streets—where, once again, our officers will be outgunned by criminals.

If Congress and the administration fail to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, it will be up to the law enforcement community to demand that it be reinstated. Over the last decade, we have made significant progress in our efforts to reduce violent crime rates. The ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been a crucial component of our national crime-fighting strategy.

We must not surrender the gains that we have made.

It is vital that we, as police chiefs, take a leading role in this effort. We know the tremendous harm that these weapons can inflict on our communities and we know what the proliferation of these weapons will mean to our officers. We need to be leaders, both in word and in deed, and we must make every effort to ensure that our elected officials understand that failure to reauthorize the assault weapons ban is a significant step back for law enforcement and public safety

Our communities and the officers we lead expect this of us; our duty demands it.

Police Chief Magazine - View Article

 

[bucs90]

2 libs responded and try to change the topic.


IS THIS A WEAPON OF WAR:
View attachment 78202

Even Colonial muskets were weapons of war - at some point in time.

True. But this isn't a colonial musket. This is sold in every gun store in America.

Is it a weapon of war?
View attachment 78206

Good sniper rifles, but I mostly use them for deer and elk hunting.

Is it a weapon of war? Hillary wants to ban Weapons of War. We have to identify them.

No, asshole, Winchester Model 70 bolt-action type rifles aren't classified as assault weapons. President Reagan didn't ban them - he only banned assault weapons.

THANK YOU....first one to actually answer. You said NO...it is not a Weapon of War....right?

 

[bucs90]

Valerie...you're now on ignore. You're just cut and pasting shit and not debating.

 

[Valerie]

As the assault weapon ban vote neared, Reagan — who as president had signed 1986 legislation loosening restrictions on guns — wrote a letter with former Presidents Ford and Carter to the House of Representatives urging them to vote in favor of the ban.

“We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety,” the letter said.

“While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons,” the letter said concluding.

The Assault Weapon Ban Would Have Never Passed If It Wasn't For Ronald Reagan

rethuglicans lie and fear monger waaa hussein obama is conspiring to take your guns!!

while gun manufacturers profit and gun lobbyists go cha-ching*

 

[Lakhota]

Even Colonial muskets were weapons of war - at some point in time.

True. But this isn't a colonial musket. This is sold in every gun store in America.

Is it a weapon of war?
View attachment 78206

Good sniper rifles, but I mostly use them for deer and elk hunting.

Is it a weapon of war? Hillary wants to ban Weapons of War. We have to identify them.

No, asshole, Winchester Model 70 bolt-action type rifles aren't classified as assault weapons. President Reagan didn't ban them - he only banned assault weapons.

THANK YOU....first one to actually answer. You said NO...it is not a Weapon of War....right?

No, it's not an assault weapon - which is what Hillary meant. Even spears are "Weapons of War"...

Why do you waste so much of your life on meaningless semantics?

 

[bucs90]

True. But this isn't a colonial musket. This is sold in every gun store in America.

Is it a weapon of war?
View attachment 78206

Good sniper rifles, but I mostly use them for deer and elk hunting.

Is it a weapon of war? Hillary wants to ban Weapons of War. We have to identify them.

No, asshole, Winchester Model 70 bolt-action type rifles aren't classified as assault weapons. President Reagan didn't ban them - he only banned assault weapons.

THANK YOU....first one to actually answer. You said NO...it is not a Weapon of War....right?

No, it's not an assault weapon - which is what Hillary meant. Even spears are "Weapons of War"...

Why do you waste so much of your life on meaningless semantics?

That isn't what she said.


But...apples to apples.....

That rifle is FAMOUS as a Weapon of War....one of the most legendary weapons in Marine Corp history. The weapon used by Carlos Hathcock to kill 93 Vietnamese enemies before they even saw him coming. If THAT isn't an "Assault Weapon" then please....tell me what it is???

But...not a Weapon of War apparently.

 

[Norman]

All weapons are weapons of war. Ban everything*!

*Exclusions apply for Hillary Clinton protection force, and the Crooked Hillary government operation. They can have as many guns as they wish.