Print

[thesideinguy]

I just found out about this yesterday, the word needs to get out. Please sign the petition

http://www.thepetiti...ction/409898348


It looks like a prety ugly ban this time. worse than before. Get the word out.
the bill to pass
http://www.govtrack....?bill=h110-1022

[BoNg420]

Psshh, whatever happened to the right to bear arms?

What am i gonna do if there is a criminal in my house and I'm not allowed to have my Uzi!

BS

[pug_ster]

And people need Uzi's to defend themselves....  If you want to shower a crowd with bullets, then uzi would be good.  But a rifle would be good enough to take out a criminal.

[BCfosheezy]

The problem here is I think everyone agrees but some people are less educated on the situation. Uzi's were used as an example. Nobody wants criminals to own Uzis. The difference is some of us know that legislation won't effect whether criminals can get uzis or not. Do you think just anyone can legally buy an uzi? The answer is no absolutely not. It is very difficult to get an assault weapon such as this. You have to have a background check done by the ATF. VERY few people will be approved. Then they have to pay the ridiculous price for this class 3 license. Then the government knows who has what and where. Next, you can only buy so much ammunition for that weapon.

Outlawing these weapons will have no positive effect. It will likely have a negative effect. It cannot keep the firearms from coming here. The illusion is that the weapons are brought here, sold legally and then criminals get their hands on them. So here's what you do to test this theory. Go buy a weapon. Sell it to a criminal. Wait for him to use it in a crime. Then I'll write you in prison. The firearm will be traced back to you. Since you're the legal owner, you're stupid to let your firearm slip out of your possession. Without a proof of sale and proof that the buyer is approved to own the weapon, the sale is unlawful and you will go to prison. That is not how this is happening. It doesn't even make sense.

The weapons that are causing problems are here illegally. The government does not know about them. This law will not have any effect on them. Now with all this being said who does this law hurt to remove assault weapons? Very few people are directly effected. Only collectors and hobbyists. Who cares about them?

The part that concerns me is, the movement to destroy America. It is a phased process. First the liberals slam the military and our defense. They make us out to look like the enemy. Now we enter a phased program of gun control. First take away the "assault weapons" that nobody can get anyways. Then the rest will be outlawed. The real problem here is, law abiding citizens will not have guns anymore. The people who don't care about the law will still have the weapons. These are the people using them for wrongdoing now, and they will still be using them then. Is shooting someone not illegal now? Then what makes you think that these same people will see that it is illegal to own a weapon and magically abide by the law? It is ridiculous to think this.



This post has been edited by BCfosheezy: Mar 5 2007, 04:39 PM

[damam]

i must say that out of all the assault weapons i have fired (admittedly not that many), uzi's are by far my favorite.  They are incredibly intuitive and but most importantly incredibly fun.  

Give it a try someday . . .

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(damam @ Mar 7 2007, 10:03 PM)

i must say that out of all the assault weapons i have fired (admittedly not that many), uzi's are by far my favorite. They are incredibly intuitive and but most importantly incredibly fun.

Give it a try someday . . .

 

It's funny that recently people have been mentioning Uzis here as about about 2 weeks ago I got to shoot one. The Sheriff's office here has one and we took it out. It's rate of fire is extremely fast but I found it to be sort of cheap feeling. I wouldn't recommend one. It jammed on me a couple times and its open-breach style is really strange to say the least. It seems susceptable to dirt and foreign objects. I don't know, but I didn't like it.

[rms2001]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Mar 5 2007, 10:06 AM)

The problem here is I think everyone agrees but some people are less educated on the situation. Uzi's were used as an example. Nobody wants criminals to own Uzis. The difference is some of us know that legislation won't effect whether criminals can get uzis or not. Do you think just anyone can legally buy an uzi? The answer is no absolutely not. It is very difficult to get an assault weapon such as this. You have to have a background check done by the ATF. VERY few people will be approved. Then they have to pay the ridiculous price for this class 3 license. Then the government knows who has what and where. Next, you can only buy so much ammunition for that weapon.

I don’t know about your state, but mine is different. My local gun guru happens to have several Uzi’es. Most are semi-auto and any Joe off the street can buy one with a simple ATF check. He also dose have a class III full auto model as well. Harder to get, but not that hard. They take three copies of your finger prints and do what ever it is they do with them, ATF dose a check, you pay a $200 federal tax stamp, pay for your new toy and away you go. This is over simplified but its about how it works.

Its really not that difficult at all to get a class III any thing. Of cores, state laws are always different from state to state. Mine is pretty straight forward and simple about buying any kind of firearms. There is nothing stopping me from walking into any gun store and buying every last bullet they have either. I once bought 10,000 rounds of 7.62x39 for mine and a few friends AK-47s and SKS, they didn’t even ask for ID.

[grim_d]

QUOTE(BoNg420 @ Mar 3 2007, 05:06 AM)

Psshh, whatever happened to the right to bear arms?

What am i gonna do if there is a criminal in my house and I'm not allowed to have my Uzi!

BS

well you could always do what we do here where guns are banned.

use your fist to turn his face into a pizza.

or if your a wimp theres always baseball bats/cricket bats/frying pans

[w2kj]

Texas had the right idea a couple of weeks ago...we have joined several other states to invoke the "Castle Doctrine".  We Texans now have a stronger legal right to defend ourselves with deadly force against intruders.

"Don't mess with Texas"

I say; let us have our assault weapons...for every criminal we shoot...is one less that we put on death row.

[Spency234]

QUOTE(rms2001 @ Apr 12 2007, 08:50 AM)

I don’t know about your state, but mine is different. My local gun guru happens to have several Uzi’es. Most are semi-auto and any Joe off the street can buy one with a simple ATF check. He also dose have a class III full auto model as well. Harder to get, but not that hard. They take three copies of your finger prints and do what ever it is they do with them, ATF dose a check, you pay a $200 federal tax stamp, pay for your new toy and away you go. This is over simplified but its about how it works.

Its really not that difficult at all to get a class III any thing. Of cores, state laws are always different from state to state. Mine is pretty straight forward and simple about buying any kind of firearms. There is nothing stopping me from walking into any gun store and buying every last bullet they have either. I once bought 10,000 rounds of 7.62x39 for mine and a few friends AK-47s and SKS, they didn’t even ask for ID.

Nice post!

BC, you going to just ignore this one?

[[H8]Wal-Mart]

QUOTE(Spency234 @ Apr 13 2007, 05:11 PM)

Nice post!

BC, you going to just ignore this one?

Uh, he got banned. Way to beat a dead horse.

Edit: I will add my opinion though. That post was misleading. A semi-automatic Uzi is just a non-accurate handgun/rifle hybrid at that point. There's nothing any more dangerous about it than any other weapon that shoots similar rounds of ammunition. So why SHOULD it be more difficult to get than something else? Next, he went on to say that it was easy to get a class III weapon because of a "simple ATF check". There is nothing simple about it. They do a full-background search as well as register this person with this weapon. This way if a similar weapon is involved in the crime, this person will be in the list of suspects. Then things like motive, and opportunity come into play. In the opportunity portion comes geographic location.

Also, the Shooting this morning in Virginia. Let's think about it. Everyone is arguing GUN CONTROL would have solved this problem. That's ridiculous. He wasn't supposed to have a gun there in the first place. So if rules stop things like this then it already wouldn't have happened. The guns are out there. People don't just go buy guns and then commit crimes because they will very easily be caught. Shows like CSI over-dramatize this sort of thing but it really is very easy to trace assault weapons. It's the weapons that the government doesn't know about that are the ones you need to worry about. These are the ones that no law will protect you against. These are the ones in the hands of criminals who don't care about your laws. If the gunman this morning would have thought that he would have been met with resistance of someone weilding another firearm he wouldn't have done it. Furthermore if one other person would have been carrying they could have put an end to the conflict. There is no way to get rid of them anymore. Our country was founded on them and our rights and liberties are guaranteed by them and our forefathers wanted us to have them to keep our government from becoming too oppressive and so we could overthrow it if need be. The solution is not to disarm the good people. The bad people are already armed.

[pug_ster]

Our forefathers who drew the constitution never thought up of an efficient killing weapon like an semi-automatic weapon came into existance.  At that time, you are lucky if you can fire 10 rounds per minute.

By all means, give some raving madman the same weapons that a person have in the 1776 and see how many people he can kill before he gets taken down.

[[H8]Wal-Mart]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Apr 16 2007, 08:41 PM)

Our forefathers who drew the constitution never thought up of an efficient killing weapon like an semi-automatic weapon came into existance.  At that time, you are lucky if you can fire 10 rounds per minute.

By all means, give some raving madman the same weapons that a person have in the 1776 and see how many people he can kill before he gets taken down.

Even if he had a FULLY automatic weapon he'd be alive a very short time afterwards because everyone else was armed then as well. You didn't do things like this back then.

Also, around 60 years before the constitution was ratified this was around. So they not only imagined it, it existed.

http://inventors.about.com/od/militaryhist.../a/firearms.htm

This post has been edited by [H8]Wal-Mart: Apr 16 2007, 09:37 PM

[pug_ster]

Yes it was invented 60 years ago before the constitution was written.  But you don't see widespread use of it until after 1800.

[_iffy]

a little story...

Someone buys an assault weapon legally.
They bring it home and store it legally.

Someone else breaks into the house and steals the assault weapon.
The original owner reports it stolen.

Now you have an untraceable assault weapon on the street, which can be sold to anyone.


CSI can't do shit.