Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment Would banning Assault style rifles give gun ownership a better image

Do you think it would improve the image of gun ownership and slow down the introduction of further gun laws. <P>Mike <BR> <BR>

Definitely not, would only fuel the fire for more banning of different types, give an inch and they take a mile. A rifle is a rifle is a rifle. They all do the same thing, some faster, some slower. Next would be any auto, then pumps, until we were down to single shots. How about auto handguns, thanks to Klinton they are regulated down to 10 rounds already and high capacity magazines are banned for both. Wrong board Mike go down to Hunters Campfire where we talk everything around the fire, even trade guns. -- no

Mike,<BR>first it would be illegal to do so as per section 10 USC.Then there would be constitutional issues.As it is 2/3 of the laws concerning firearms are constitutionaly invalid,and would be thrown out if challenged in our supreme court...but who has the time and cash to spend.<BR>Next consider the "Boiling frog" concept that the socialists live by.I.E. nobody hollers when the ugly,nonbathing kid gets kicked out of the club,and next comes the atheist,followed by the Jewish kid,and then the Catholic,who is followed by the Arab,and then the rich kid,and then the girl with the big nose.You live in Australia,you know darn well the anti's and one worlders prefer a disarmed populace so that a minority party can force the majority into subjigation.<BR>BTW don't tell me you "Just gave up auto's and other non-sporting firearms",you gave up the teeth that seperate citizens from subjects.You know what's next on the list to be banned,as you have read of the UK and Canada's situation.<BR>Thank god for brilliant dead white guy's kicking the crap outta King george..twice!<BR>Military rifles of current genre is what was intended to be protected by our second amendment.The reason is to keep a standing army of the govt. in awe of the majority,yet the standing army could overwhelm an uprising of the minority.That way we would never face the injustices of a minority rule,and the rights and freedoms given by god would always be guaranteed.<BR>First comes registration,then cl***ification,confiscation and then subjegation.Hitler,Musolini,Castro,Stallin Amin, all did the same thing as your govt. has,and now as subjects your people are literally at the mercy of less than 100 people.Sure you have freedom of the press,but have you ever paid attention to the screams of a rat in a trap?<BR>To answer your question flatly I have a question for you.Has the ban in your country increased the number of shooters there?Or are you seen as a pariah and a dangerous subculture?<BR>In my lifetime I will never see a ban on military firearms carried through.<BR>And there are a couple million folks that believe as I do,and are prepared to keep it that way.<BR>No flames intended.<BR>E4E

Some of the ads I see give me a bit of an uneasy feeling, but I do believe that more photos like this would help the sporting image of "***ault weapons".<BR> [img]http://albums.photopoint.com/j/View?u=1305003&a=9758335&p=32537494&Sequence=0[/img] <BR><P>------------------<BR><BR><I><B>Critr</B></I><BR> <A HREF="http://www.SaguaroSafaris.com" TARGET=_blank>www.SaguaroSafaris.com</A>

I don't believe it would Mike. We must remember that the underlying aim of those people is to ban the private possession of firearms. They know that right now they can't do that so they will take what ever small steps they can and never loose sight of the ultimate goal. HCI et al will only propose "reasonable" controls and couldn't care less what appearance we have. They like it when we fight for black rifles because, you know, the majority of the population know very little about firearms and about all they see or read about is their miss use. I would guess it is the same in Oz isn't it?<BR>I don't believe I have ever seen or read a positive article about the use of fire arms in the national media here in the USA. Have you seen one in Austraila?<BR>Now here they already have full auto because not many owned them in the first place and no one really "needs" one. Come right on down the time line. Relatively few own black rifles ( I know what they are called and I know the software on this site is doing it but I don't like the *** 's ) so there is a good chance to get them next. If we don't fight for them even though we don't have one and don't want one how long will it be until they are knocking on your particular door? You don't relly need to shoot any thing over a hundred yards away do you Mike? Wouldn't a 22 rimfire and a single barrel shot gun do Mike? You can still shoot can't you? See how it goes.<BR>And never forget the ultimate aim. Ban private possession of all firearms.<BR>BCR<P>------------------<BR>A 45 BEATS 4 ACES EVERYTIME

NO NO NO - once you start with one it is like a snow ball heading south. Exactly how much control do we want to lose? I think we have lost enough as it is. I realize I am VERY new to hunting and every gun issue, but I am not new to losing my rights. Toons

NO! Every banning only encourages the antis to take still another "step in the right direction". Ask any Californian about the ***ault rifle ban, city after city banning the sale of affordable handguns, no gun shows permitted on city or county fairgrounds and exhibit halls in many places, and now this latest madness of a state-approved list of approved "saftey certified" pistols. Once they get rid of all handguns they will be after "sniper rifles"-anything on which a scope can be mounted. You can count on the antis to do two things, relentlessly work for complete disarmament and lie about being the friends of "legitimate sportsmen". curmudgeon

Critr Gitr, I really don't think that picture will help matters. The guy dressed in total camoflauge will only "prove" the notion that they are strictly military rifles, or whatever. If that had a guy dressed in orange that would be much better.<BR> The second amendment is intended to protect military type weapons. We should be allowed to have full autos since the army does. We need to fight for our rights. Give an inch, they take a mile.

I dismiss the notion that wearing total camo has much an impact, as a lot of hunters do so, and they hold bolt action, so does that make bolt actions "ugly?" No.<BR>Banning them "evil" rifles only benifits the anti gunners. <BR>STAND YOUR GROUND! Let them give up the fight, and leave us alone. ~~~Suluuq

It may seem the battle to retain our firearms is a public relations battle. Ugly guns, black rifles, those having no obvious "sporting use" tend to draw the fire of the anti gunners and because they're not politically correct, get little sympathy from the masses. The ignorance that leads to this state of affairs is not just ignorance of the many "sporting uses" to be found for a black rifle. In fact...the type of firearm should have nothing to do with it. The ignorance goes to the very heart of people's understanding of our form of government. <P>That's why our best and strongest argument has to be made to one and all. It's not about hunting or target shooting. It's not about the type of firearm at all. It's about rights and the intent of the poeple who wrote the Constitution. <P>In the United States, we have a view of rights that may differ from other places, where what rights the poeple have are granted by the government. Those "dead white guys" E4E mentioned had an entirely different idea. They recognized there were "inalienable" rights, granted by God, that no government had the authority to grant or to take away. "Life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" are only the tip of the iceburg.<P>Our Constitution and Bill of Rights do not "grant" the people their rights, but a lot of people think that's the way it works. The Constitution recognizes certain rights as being none of the government's damned business and prohibits it from infringing upon them. It also recognizes which powers are rightly those of the federal government and which belong to the states. <P>Article IV of the Bill of Rights says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people." And in Article X, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." <P>This marveolus document recognizes the people as the ultimate source of power in the country. The Constitution is a covenant. Government has only as much power as we, the people, choose to give it. We did not give it the power to disarm us and make us slaves. And to answer the question that began this threat, we are not going to turn over even a little bit of that power...of our rights...as a public relations move to preserve the rest...for a time. <P>It's like a wagonload of people being followed through the woods by a pack of wolves. Every now and then the group can throw one of their members off the wagon and slow the wolves down a bit. But eventually, the wolves are still hungry and you find there's no one left to throw off the wagon. When you start to suggest "no one REALLY needs a gun like that" all you're doing is looking around the wagon to pick out the next dinner for the wolves.<P>Don't look at me. The reason there IS a Second Amendment is to limit the power of government to restrict ANY of our rights. It empowers the people to say "no" and make it stick. It doesn't matter to me if the demand to disarm comes from a red-coated officer at Lexington shouting, "Lay down your arms, ye' da**ed rebels," or from a blue-haired maton calling for "common sense" gun control. The answer is still "No!"<P>Talker

Re-read our Second Amendment and tell me what it is reffering to. That's not my 77 Ruger or your 700 Rem they're talking about, that is military style weapons. If anything is protected, it's an AR-15 And so-on. Besides if we gave in on "black guns", within a year the antis would be after "those deadly bolt action sniper rifles wich have no sporting purpose what-so-ever". <BR> 7mmbuster.<BR> P.S. When they prie my cold dead fingers from around it!

Having an improved image while living as a nation of government slaves would not be a blessing. As much as we enjoy hunting, it is not the purpose of the second amendment.

To regulate ANY firearm on the basis of looks is a direct assault on our second amendment. Not that this even concerns the anti's. who will stop at nothing to achieve <BR>their goal of ALL firearms being illegal.<BR>CONCEDE NOTHING.....EVER!!!! oulufinn<P>p.s. This board is great...the other guys lost a LOT of great people...

I don't mean does the camo turn US off as sportsmen. The answer is no. Many of us use it.<BR> What I mean is if you are Ms. "I Hate FIrearms", wouldn't a picture of a guy in total camo with a black, militaristic looking semi-auto only reinforce your belief that they are strictly military guns and should be banned? Bill Clinton or GOre probably think that guy belongs to a militia (which they so utterly despise)...

Mike ...why compromise Assault Rifles to improve image? There is NOTHING wrong w/ the image now! You ask a question that I will answer a resounding ...NO! It will only establish precident for MORE compromise and forfeitures. Political correctness be Damned...if the militia isn't well-armed, IT is politically incorrect! Sparkman

I like this forum, lots of fellow RKBA types! My answer is NO, and my question is why ban them? The FACT is that assault rifles account for less then 1% of murder in the U.S. So aside from the unconstitional stand point, if we give in on less then 1% it will be even easier for the anti to go after the 10, 20, 30% type guns and they know it.

Yet they feel reassured when they see the ninja tactic, mp3 carrying, kevlar wearing, swat dude kicking down the door of a suspected crack house. What's up with that? The Swiss have it together, they trust their citizens. Anti's never have a good response to- "if it's the weapon, why aren't our soldiers shooting each other?" They have already stated their mission and it is to get ALL of our guns one at a time.<P>------------------<BR>Shoot straight and often!

It's kind of like the .50 BMGs they want to ban. They say they have no sporting use, but long range target matches can be called a sport. They have only been used once for murder, and that was a member of the IRA shooting. Ironically enough, Clinton gave clemency to the IRA. The rifles so chambered are just too big and heavy to do that stuff with them.

What do you mean no sporting use for BMG's ?<BR>Check this out ! <BR> <BR><A HREF="http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1510123&a=11406219&pw=bmg" TARGET=_blank>http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=1510123&a=11406219&pw=bmg</A> <P> <P>Regards: Treeratkiller<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="2">Originally posted by big hunter:<BR><B> It's kind of like the .50 BMGs they want to ban. They say they have no sporting use, but long range target matches can be called a sport. They have only been used once for murder, and that was a member of the IRA shooting. Ironically enough, Clinton gave clemency to the IRA. The rifles so chambered are just too big and heavy to do that stuff with them.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>[This message has been edited by treeratkiller (edited February 20, 2001).]<P>[This message has been edited by treeratkiller (edited February 20, 2001).]<P>[This message has been edited by treeratkiller (edited February 20, 2001).]<p>[This message has been edited by treeratkiller (edited February 21, 2001).]

Those were shot with a .50 bmg, weren't they? That's what I mean. It would ruin too much meat. On the other hand, there would be about ten pounds less to drag than if you shot it wiht something else. [img]https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubb/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]