# In Preperation of the BAN.



## arnisandyz (Apr 11, 2006)

I fully expect the Democratic Party to be in office come election time. As you guys probably know, history has shown most are anti-gun are for the most part the ones who come up with all of the regulations and bans concerning firearms available to US citizens. I hope it doesn't happen, but I expect to see regulations similar to California probably targeting Hi-Capacity Assault Rifles (AR, AK, HK, etc) and probably another 10 round limit on handguns (remember Clinton?)

I'm putting this out for those who are new to firearms and probably are not aware of previous bans. Those of you who have been around for a while can back me up. I'm telling all of my friends that if they have any intention of wanting to own one of these types of weapons GET IT SOON. In addition, accessories like Hi-cap magazines will sell at a premium as no more will be made after the BAN. Telescopic or folding stocks, flashhiders, etc. may also be affected.

I hope I'm wrong, but history tends to repeat itself.  If a ban never comes at least it was a good excuse to buy some guns!


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 11, 2006)

Why do you say this? Have any politicians hinted at this?


----------



## lenatoi (Apr 11, 2006)

Yikes! I didn't think about that. Sadly I don't have the $ to get ready for the, *GULP*, impending ban. :xtrmshock


----------



## arnisandyz (Apr 11, 2006)

History. Do some research on the Democratic party and thier views towards gun control. I believe the Democratic Party will be in office mostly because the way Bush has been running things. People are generally unhappy about the war situation, rising gas prices, etc. its a political cycle.

Here's a starter...

"The Democratic Party has introduced various measures of gun control over the last 100 years. Most notable of these is the National Firearms Act of 1934 (signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt), the 1939 Gun Control Act (also signed into law by FDR), the 1968 Gun Control Act (introduced by Sen. Dodd and endorsed by Sen. Edward Kennedy), the Brady Bill of 1993 (signed by President Bill Clinton), and the Crime Control Act of 1994 (also signed by Clinton)."


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 11, 2006)

I'm sure there are plenty of Dems that would love to repeat some history, but they've got bigger fish to fry at the moment.


----------



## arnisandyz (Apr 11, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> I'm sure there are plenty of Dems that would love to repeat some history, but they've got bigger fish to fry at the moment.



Unfortunately one of "fish to fry" is National Security. As odd as it seems, some politicians may feel that regulating firearms to US citizens will reduce terrorism and in effect make the Nation more secure.  Sad but true.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 11, 2006)

RoninPimp said:
			
		

> I'm sure there are plenty of Dems that would love to repeat some history, but they've got bigger fish to fry at the moment.


 
I agree, and in fact, I think that the dems are turning against gun control.  There are more and more people like me out there, very socially liberal, but strong protectors of the 2nd amendment.  So, if I have anything to say about it...


----------



## arnisandyz (Apr 11, 2006)

Believe me, I hope you guys are right...but it really wouldn't hurt to have an extra AK47 (or whatever) just in case while you can get it. If there IS a Ban it might be while before you'll be able to get one if ever or you'll have to settle for a neutered one. I'm still "relatively young" and I can remember the 10 round limit (had a Glock 17 with a bunch of hicaps to hold me over), regulations on pistol grips on rifles and shotguns, folding stocks, flashhider no-nos, current bans on importation of "kit" guns. did I miss any?  I really don't think things will get any better.

Take a look at California...

What are AK and AR-15 series weapons and how are they controlled?

Any firearm which is a variation, with minor differences, of the AK or AR-15 type (i.e., series weapon), regardless of manufacturer, is an assault weapon under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. These assault weapons are listed by the Department of Justice in the California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Chapter 12.9, Section 979.11 (11 CCR 979.11)

How is the 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) affected by the Kasler v. Lockyer decision?

The 2000 assault weapons law (SB 23) identified assault weapons by specific characteristics. Those weapons so defined must have been lawfully possessed on or before December 31, 1999 and registered on or before December 31, 2000. Penal Code section 12276, subdivisions (e) and (f), reaffirmed by the Kasler v. Lockyer decision, make AK and AR-15 series weapons unlawful for sale after August 16, 2000, even if their assault weapon characteristics are removed. Persons owning these weapons on this date were required to register them with the DOJ on or before January 23, 2001.


----------



## RoninPimp (Apr 11, 2006)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> Unfortunately one of "fish to fry" is National Security. As odd as it seems, some politicians may feel that regulating firearms to US citizens will reduce terrorism and in effect make the Nation more secure. Sad but true.


-I worry about this too. A pro-gun control prez and a still in effect Patriot Act is scary to think about...


----------



## Lisa (Apr 11, 2006)

You guys going to turn into Canada?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Apr 11, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> You guys going to turn into Canada?



Take off!! No way, eh?

Seriously though,  if they enact something akin to the assault weapons ban/hi cap magazine ban, that would be bad.  What I'm afraid of though is Federal licensing.  Historicaly, that has always been what happens before the government comes to take whatever you have.  Many democrats, and a few republicans have voiced thier support of such licensing.  But I don't think it will happen after the next elections.  The anti gun politicians and lobbyists seem to have taken a more Fabian approach to the matter as of late.  So not tomorrow, but within the next twenty to fifty years if we let them.

Jeff


----------



## Cruentus (Apr 11, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I agree, and in fact, I think that the dems are turning against gun control. There are more and more people like me out there, very socially liberal, but strong protectors of the 2nd amendment. So, if I have anything to say about it...


 
The growing trend right now seems to be a decline in gun regulation, regardless of party affiliation. Here in Michigan we have a democratic governer as well as many democratic legislators, yet due to advocacy groups like GLSDA, we are getting rid of gun regulation and making things better for the law abiding citizen to defend himself.

My suggestion is that you get involved in a gun/self-defense advocacy group and send the message to legislators in your state that many constituents will not tolerate unreasonable regulation on firearms or self-defense. If you send this message, they will listen, regardless of party affiliation.

This issue should cross all party lines, in my opinion.


----------



## Marvin (May 4, 2006)

arnisandyz said:
			
		

> History. Do some research on the Democratic party and thier views towards gun control. I believe the Democratic Party will be in office mostly because the way Bush has been running things. People are generally unhappy about the war situation, rising gas prices, etc. its a political cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let us not forget that G. Bush Sr. signed into law the biggest ban of guns ever. And that G.W.Bush was in favor of extending the "Assult Weapons" ban.


----------



## Carol (May 5, 2006)

Lisa said:
			
		

> You guys going to turn into Canada?


 
What do you mean "turn into"?  We're stricter than you are over here in the People's Republic.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 12, 2006)

Carol Kaur said:
			
		

> What do you mean "turn into"? We're stricter than you are over here in the People's Republic.


 
Ain't THAT the truth. Massachusetts will likely *NEVER* be a gun friendly state by this point.

Only thing you can do is get an active membership in whatever pro firearms associations you can, keep abreast of goings on in your legislature, and fight them if you care. *shrug*.


----------



## arnisandyz (Feb 23, 2007)

This is one case when I really hate to say "I TOLD YOU SO." Hopefully everyone listed to me and is fully stocked on thier "Assault Weapon" needs.

READ BELOW, Its in committee NOW to bring back the 94 BAN AND even stiffer regulations. Please contact your local Representative and help FIGHT this BAN and support our 2nd Ammendment Rights!!!!  Believe me now?

http://www.topglock.com/catalog/actionalert0207.htm


----------



## LawDog (Feb 23, 2007)

In our good ole Republic of M***achusetts there are already restrictions on hi cap. mags, flash suppressors etc. etc. In our Republic there is a permit for both handguns and hi cap firearms, it is called a "license to carry". This license has different levels, A, B, C. An A level is for the hi cap. type firearm, it is usually issued to law enforcement and security personel only. The B class license is for possession of the under 10 round firearm.
Anyone who owned a hi cap. firearm prior to these new regulations and the new license were "grandfathered in" and allowed to keep their hi cap weapons. However, you may not re-sell them to another person. This is how the Republic plans of getting, for good, rid of hi cap. firearms for civilian use.
I have two vaults full of assorted pre banners. :jediduel:


----------



## grydth (Feb 23, 2007)

Which means soon they will designate you an "Arsenal" and levy a fee of $100 per gun or so...... proceeds to be used "for the children"


----------



## evenflow1121 (Feb 23, 2007)

I am not particularly sure the federal congress could if they wanted to, ban all guns that is I thought that was a state issue, with each state determining as to whether it should ban fire arms.  Though banning non traditional fire arms, I am sure they can, however, as to the part where the Attorney General gets to decide which weapons are considered assault and which are not I am not too certain he or she depending on the case has the power to do so, for doing so would mean that the attorney general is writing up legislation. I dont know I get caught up in these things too much. I am sure that the pundits in my party can try, but I would think it be unconstitutional.


----------



## flashlock (Feb 23, 2007)

I'm from Michigan, one of the most beautiful States to hunt in (many hunters come from all over the world to hunt there).  My father has a large arsenal of guns, including Glocks and Chinese AK47s.

I've almost been shot twice.  Once by a cousin who was fooling around with a loaded rifle, and once by my brother who accidentally pulled the trigger while we were tromping through the woods (this was a few days after hunter's safty courses).

Since those days, I have moved to Melbourne, Australia.  No one is allowed to have guns except police and farmers who own so much land, you could not walk across their properties if you had three days to spare (for the dingos).

I've never felt safer!  I moved from S. Chicago to Melbourne, and you can walk out at night and not fear that you could get shot.  It is INSANE that we allow so many people to have guns in the United States.  The Democratic party will not ban all guns, but I sure wish they did.  It's complete madness.  Our country would be so much safer without them.  Wake up!


----------



## grydth (Feb 23, 2007)

Mr Allen, I sincerely wish you a safe and fulfilling life in your new country. But please realize that type of relocation is not an option for the vast majority of us. 

Here, I'm not worried about dingos, but rather two legged predators..... and these cannibals would like nothing more than to see average folks rendered defenseless.

While I regret you were almost shot by accident, would you suggest we ban cars because I was almost run off the road tonight by an idiot? Or because of the number accidental deaths in auto accidents?

 I guess I'd rather see the bad drivers off the road and the violent felons in jail for life....... until then, no sir, I do not feel safer being less able to defend my family.

Please do not imagine that the politician seeking to take my firearm today will not be seizing your katana and your sai tomorrow, and closing your dojo the day after. All in the name of making us safer. Yeah.


----------



## flashlock (Feb 24, 2007)

I'm sorry, but the world would be a lot safer if criminals had less access to guns.  Lock your doors, get a security system and a dog if you're so scared of B and Es.  Most burglars wait for you on vacation, they don't want to shoot anyone in their house.

Most gun fights and school shootings relate to drugs.

Most guns in a house are used on the ownders of the house, not on criminals.


----------



## grydth (Feb 24, 2007)

<Tsk tsk> Don't think you're going to draw me into an emotional response with the "so scared" affront to my manhood.

With 4 children to raise, violent criminals are but one danger my wife and I need to assess and take precautions against. For our children only the best will do. 

How is it that you are so familiar with the (allegedly) simple motivations of criminals? What experience do you have?

How is it that you feel a dog is a better choice, a higher and safer choice? After all, unlike a gun, the dog can take off after even an innocent person all on its own?  Ask your mail man. You mention two near shootings - but you've never had a dog come after you.... and have you read of the dog maulings? 

My Ginger would and could kill an intruder just as dead as my rifle could - so how is it we get to keep our big dogs in your utopian society? 

Or, will poor Ginger be classified as an "Assault Pooch", the quadroped of choice of drug dealers blah blah blah..... and will I have to turn her in to receive instead a CEWA..... Chihuahua Early Warning Alarm?

I bet they wouldn't even keep the dingos away.....


----------



## Jdokan (Feb 24, 2007)

flashlock said:


> I'm sorry, but the world would be a lot safer if criminals had less access to guns. Lock your doors, get a security system and a dog if you're so scared of B and Es. Most burglars wait for you on vacation, they don't want to shoot anyone in their house.
> 
> Most gun fights and school shootings relate to drugs.
> 
> Most guns in a house are used on the ownders of the house, not on criminals.


Thank GOD we are in a country where we all have an opinion.  My grandfather came from one where if you offered yours the SS would impose THEIR opinion....  BUT opinions don't create policies good judgment and COMMON (I stress common) sense...Though a few valid points are brought up but Mr Allen they are in some sense a little inaccurate...I will not take up valuable space here re-addressing points and facts pasted over everyone personal agenda pages.....I do want to point out that it a criminal entered my home he would not make it to my guns as he would find various kitchen utencils protruding from his body.....With regards to drug dealers killing themselves...less chance of them shooting a cop...ruining a childs chance to see Dad....England like Australia has had the same anti-gun program for years....they have been issues guns to their officers due to the increase in armed assailants.....
I am a sporting gun owner...but I don't I have the right to infringe on their rights....My brother & I were hit by a drunk driver (how took off) my brother was almost killed...I don't hold the automotive companies or the liquer industries responsible....I blame our liberals that don't want to deal with the issue (because it was their son who did the driving???) blame somebody else.....When I broke my fathers rules I PAID!!! I had no recourse..couldn't blame the dog or the sunlight or whatever....I PAID THE PIPER!!!  Forgive me I could go on & on but as I said somewhere in this post...I won't.....


----------



## KenpoTex (Feb 24, 2007)

As to the original topic...my plan is to buy as many "evil black rifles" and hi-cap mags (both rifle and pistol) as I can while they're still available. I may be wrong but even though there is a bill in committee right now, I don't see it moving very far before the '08 pres-election. The democrats should be smart enough to realize that their stance on gun-control has cost them a lot in recent years. However, if Billary gets elected...watch out.




flashlock said:


> I've never felt safer! I moved from S. Chicago to Melbourne, and you can walk out at night and not fear that you could get shot. *It is INSANE that we allow so many people to have guns in the United States. The Democratic party will not ban all guns, but I sure wish they did. It's complete madness. Our country would be so much safer without them. Wake up!*
> 
> I'm sorry, but the world would be a lot safer if criminals had less access to guns. Lock your doors, get a security system and a dog if you're so scared of B and Es. Most burglars wait for you on vacation, they don't want to shoot anyone in their house.
> 
> ...


 
Well first of all...ah, never mind, it's not worth my time


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 24, 2007)

Good ole Democrats.


----------



## Lisa (Feb 24, 2007)

Oh dear me, Brad.  Don't take this as me attacking you but I just gotta put my two cents in here.



flashlock said:


> I'm sorry, but the world would be a lot safer if criminals had less access to guns.



AGREED!  100% ++++++

So lets make legislation that makes sense.  Lets get the guns away from those who shouldn't have them.  Let's not place the law abiding citizen in the same pot as those who can't be trusted.



> Lock your doors, get a security system and a dog if you're so scared of B and Es.  Most burglars wait for you on vacation, they don't want to shoot anyone in their house.



hhmmm...although I may agree with most, I still think anyone who falls victem to a crime is too many.  I do believe that your victemization rate on "household crime" which is defined as "*Household crime* consists of break and enter, attempted break and enter and motor vehicle theft" has stayed steady since the implimentation of your gun laws.  I will have to do some research on that when I have time.  I pulled what I could from this link.



> Most gun fights and school shootings relate to drugs.



The gun fights where?  Do you have stats to support this summation?

Inside schools, well I found this link.  Seems to me the majority of them are gang related.  Which is another problem but tha can all be stemmed back to have proper legislation instead of "ban all evil guns" mentality.



> Most guns in a house are used on the owners of the house, not on criminals.



I need to google this and think on this more.  Me thinks you have taken a big jump on this one.  Most home owners I am familiar with that have guns in their homes, know how and when to use them.  Is it a possibility that this could happen, absolutely.  But to make a bold statement as this and not back it up with some stats makes it hard for me to believe.

And on that note...stats are not the be all and end all.  I can link you something and you can rebutt it.  I respect the fact that you don't believe that you need a gun to protect yourself.  I just hope you can respect those on this forum that believe they have the right to carry.

nuff said for tonight.


----------



## LawDog (Feb 24, 2007)

*Many b & e's occur during the night time when the home owners are asleep in the house,
*Violent home invasions occur when someone is in the house,
*Many assaults on woman occur in their own home,
*Many shootings are turf related, drugs are also a factor,
*Many of the rapid fire guns come from over the border,
*Shooters will kill no matter what, if they do not have a gun they will us anything at hand,
*Our children are being taught that violence is ok and shooting someone is fun. They are trained to do this by the video games that are found in their homes, (children grow up to be adults).
*Our movies, sometimes the real bad guy is the hero.

Guns do not kill, the mind behind the trigger finger does.


----------



## Grenadier (Feb 26, 2007)

flashlock said:


> I'm sorry, but the world would be a lot safer if criminals had less access to guns.


 

Criminals will get them one way or the other.  However, simply put, keep them locked up behind bars, and they can't commit gun crimes.  




> Most guns in a house are used on the ownders of the house, not on criminals.


 
Referring to Arthur Kellerman's debunked statement, are you?  

His study was so flawed, that the CDC ended up getting millions of dollars slashed from their budget, after using such garbage data in their "studies."

To put it this way, it's so flawed, that even Kellerman himself has backed off from the statement.  The only people who still even use that statement are either gun grabbers, or people trying to formulate arguments based on pure emotion.


----------



## evenflow1121 (Feb 26, 2007)

flashlock said:


> =Most burglars wait for you on vacation, they don't want to shoot anyone in their house.


 

I am sorry but I must say I disagree with this statement, if a person is willing to break into my home, then they must be willing to accept any consequences that may arise as a result.  And that being, that they may have mistakenly thought I was on vacation or at work or out and that I may be at home and that I may be armed, and then what?

I am not so sure that most burglars would wait for a person to be on vacation, moreover; I think they just look for the best opportunity they can to break in and take your stuff, however.  Its my opinion that if a person is willing to break into your house then they are for the most part capable of anything, because that person must accept that there is a possibility that someone that lives in that house may be there, and then what?  Banning guns doesnt solve anything, it wont make you safer criminals will always have access to them, chances are they are not going to go through the legal means that you and I and everyone else on this forum went through.


----------



## K31 (Feb 27, 2007)

The facts are that you are safer in states that have the least gun grabbing laws than the ones with the most.


----------



## LawDog (Feb 28, 2007)

Today most states have guns laws of some sort. Built into most of these laws is a requirment for jail time for any violations of the law. When a person is brought into court one of the first charges that will be dismissed during a plea bargan hearing is the firearm charge.
Check your own states records, see how many were charge with a firearms violation then see how many are convicted, did they do the required time?
Taking away a firearm from law biding person is nothing more than a cosmetic approach for gun control. If the courts followed the law there wouldn't be as many criminals on the streets with illegal firearms.


----------



## arnisandyz (Feb 28, 2007)

Check this out...A city that MANDATES homeowners to own a gun.

KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house. In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ordinance states the gun law is needed to protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants. ...veryone "went crazy." "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case. In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Full story: http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm



Alarming Statistics...
Number of physicians in the US: 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year: 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician....0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the US: 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) 1,500.
Accidental deaths per gun owner....0.0000188

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.


----------



## arnisandyz (Oct 29, 2008)

Thread revival.  I posted this in 06...well before anyone knew that Obama might be elected into office.  I'm not really one to say I told you so, (ok..maybe I am!) but here we are on the verge of having one of the most gun-unfriendly presidents in office.  I won't go into detail on Obama's stand on gun-control or the 2nd Amendment as you can do your own research, but guns in the hands of citizens and marxist socialism just don't mix.


----------



## CoryKS (Oct 29, 2008)

I've had my eye on a nice rifle for some time now, and have considered 'jumping the gun', so to speak, in buying one because of the impending election.  But I have to wonder:  if a party was going to impose a ban on weapons, are they likely to let you keep the ones you bought prior to the ban?


----------



## arnisandyz (Oct 29, 2008)

Personally I'm set as far as firearms and reloading components are concerned to last me well into the next 5 or so years but I'm still stock piling as much as I can.

IMHO it would be difficult to confiscate guns, that would totally go against the 2nd amendment. There is speculation that the Democratic party may eventually hold a majority and with Obama's somewhat radical stances they very well could try to do a "Constitutional Reform". Its very scary that something COULD happen here like what happened in Australia. (It's mentioned that Obama has ties with Peters and has received financial backing from Soros)...scary stuff.

I would at first expect a very strict ban and maybe taxes on guns and ammunition to make it prohibitive for the average person to be able to afford to shoot recreationally. Obama is also said to be AGAINST using a firearm in your own home for self-defense and Concealled Carry. A ban is the least of our worries, more at stake is our rights as US citizens.

Disclaimer: These are just my thoughts...please do your own research and form your own opinions!


----------



## Deaf Smith (Oct 29, 2008)

RoninPimp said:


> Why do you say this? Have any politicians hinted at this?


 
Oh yea they have. Obama says he supports the 2nd Amendment except in Gettos and where ever he feels they are not needed. He is on record for banning concealed handgun licenses. His track record in Chicago is one of total anti-gun. Biden has even a worse track record. Pelosi and Reed? Totaly anti-gun track record. Sponsors of the last assault weapon ban.

So I'd say that's a hint. Looks like a duck, walkes like a duck, quacks like a duck. Yep, it's an anti-gun President and Congress.

Deaf


----------

