Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment My son collects assault weapons !

The Henry of that period would have been considered an assault weapon in it's day! I wouldn't think it would take a rocket scientist to figure that out. It appears to to me, from your arguements, that they don't hold water and are a joke in this so called civilized society. From the looks of it you should've kept your opinion of this matter to yourself or taken it to a site where there are people like you.

Here's my point guys, back in the 60's there probably wasn't any gun control laws to speak of and because of the amount of new hunters entering the woods untrained., it became necessary to create safety courses. That's the only reason I don't support background check on hunting rifles today. And to my knowledge the sportsmen community has always supported hunting safety courses. That being said, the only real threat that exists in hunter's ever losing their rights to bear arms is not supporting good commonsense laws about assault weapons and handguns. Frankly, the sooner the weekend warriors find another bandwagon to fight their fights the better off the real hunter's will be in pursuing their love of sport. Maybe a good place for them (the weekend warriors) to start would be joined the military pick up a weapon and go to Iraqi and they'll have my total support. As we used to say , don't let the door hit them in the *** on the way over. LOL



best regards

Larry Martin

[quote I'm curious, what part of the Second Amendment would be or is denied with background checks? [/quote]

".....shall not be infringed."

Main Entry: in�fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): in�fringed; in�fring�ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK
transitive senses
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE
intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
synonym see TRESPASS

Main Entry: en�croach
Pronunciation: in-'krOch, en-
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: Middle English encrochen to get, seize, from Middle French encrochier, from Old French, from en- + croc, croche hook -- more at CROCHET
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits <the gradually encroaching sea>

And that's just Websters! Go to Blacks and its even better.

It is my belief that we don't need to add more to these background checks. And I've noticed around here that it's not the guys that are passing the background checks and buying assault rifles whose names I'm reading in the papers. It's your crackheads, wannabe gangsters and various other low-life. Those are the ones that need to have more gun control and punishment thrown at them. Not any law-abiding gun owner, whatever their chose of weapon may be.

".....shall not be infringed."



Main Entry: in�fringe

Pronunciation: in-'frinj

Function: verb

Inflected Form(s): in�fringed; in�fring�ing

Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK

transitive senses

1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE

intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>

synonym see TRESPASS



Main Entry: en�croach

Pronunciation: in-'krOch, en-

Function: intransitive verb

Etymology: Middle English encrochen to get, seize, from Middle French encrochier, from Old French, from en- + croc, croche hook -- more at CROCHET

1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another

2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits <the gradually encroaching sea>



And that's just Websters! Go to Blacks and its even better. [/quote]



".....shall not be infringed."



I'm curious about something here, whose rights am I infringing upon? Are you not infringing on other rights by allowing felons and the incompetent to have access to these kinds of deadly weapons , Then except no responsibility for their actions or make excuses, like the person did it not the weapon? The only people that benefit by not having background checks on assault weapons is dealers / manufacturers and those who profit from the sale of them, be it advertising money or otherwise. Also it would be interesting to know how many that support these weapons being freely distributed have ever been on the receiving end , money and the bullets.



If you're so worried about someone infringing your rights under the Constitution, then by all means join the military, until that time take a back seat.



best regards

Larry Martin

All right bud, I have about had it with your moronic drivil. It is not a matter of background checks now. Felons or the adjudged mental incompetent are allread BARRED from owning, in fact TOUCHING any kind of firearm. Where have you been for the past 20 years, under a rock?



That is even more ridiculous! I for one have been on the receiving end more than once from assault weapons to RPG's and machine guns not to mention mortars and arty. In civilian life I have traded shots with the BG's a couple of times as well, in my 26 years as a sworn Peace Officer. I think you make way too many assumptions. and no comments based in any fact. Either that or you are a 15 year old with too much time on your hands.

Ah I see Barak, well we thought you might have been hauled off or something!

I finally see the light after 20 years, another Barney that's going to protect us from losing our Second Amendment rights. What a joke! LOL

Mr. Martin, you say that all you want is handgun-style background checks for military-style rifles (I double checked, and you did say that). It has been correctly pointed out that such is already the case (If you are indeed a second-amendment activist, you should have already known that).

You claim that the problem with "assault rifles" is that they can defeat armor, and it has been pointed out that common hunting rifles and ammo will do the same (I'm thinking fondly of my old .300mag with Barnes bullets). If you are truly an accomplished big-game hunter, you should already know that.

Yet you continue to ignore/refute these facts, without justification.

Either you have fallen hard (and without much of a fight, I might add) for the "divide and conquer" strategy of the anti-gun left, or you are simply a troll. Why would you expect anyone to buy any of your nonsense here?

Maybe you should spend more time listening and researching before you dare to lecture.
Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt...

-FreeMe

Hey Barak - good to see ya!

-FreeMe

Interesting , it's been a little over a year ago that my son purchased the AK47 in another state with only the showing up his drivers license and no background check. He also knows of others who have purchased his weapon with invalid identification. So who is the fool ?

LarryMartin, your argument sounds so identical to the arguments put forth by the left wing gun grabbers, I almost believe you're either in the employ of Diane Feinstein, Babs Boxer, HillaryBillary Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Chuckie Schumer, or last, but not least, John Kerry & George Soros, Inc. Or, you've allowed yourself to be completely brainwashed by their Big Lies.



They all push for more laws, more laws, more laws! with the object being gun confiscation by incrementalism... not only of your son's "made only to kill babies assault" semi-auto rifles, but eventually your granpap's ol' 12 bore you use to murder poor Bambi. For the "gun controllers," there are NEVER enough gun control/confiscation laws. They are NEVER satisfied, and will NEVER be satisfied unitl they achieve that final law demanded by (your boss??) Sen. Diane Feinstein, "Turn them ALL in, America, or we'll have our police come get them!" (Interview on CBS "60 Minutes.") That's their goal, but to be achieved incrementally.



If your really believe that by Big Brother putting even more restrictions on buying semi-automatic firearms, hunting for you will be "saved," you are either profoundly ignorant, or extremely disingenuous. The same people who demand "more gun control," are also the very same people who seek to eventually ban hunting.



Their argument is precisely your's. "Now we don't want to take away your ol' shotgun or whatever it is, we just want some simple, common sense controls. Afterall, it's for the children." Step by step by step by step.



Speaking of your son buying these evil rifles you find so heinous, and not going through "enough" background checks to please you, brings to mind three questions.



One, what malignant evil lurks in your son that you think he is dangerous to Society by owning one of those "people killing machines" whereas he wouldn't be a horrible threat if he just bought one of those ol' thutty thutty guns, or such?



Two, if your son broke any laws buying those rifles out-of-state, are you going to turn him into the BATF??



Three, what more background checks than those now existent in law do you want done by Big Brother before permission is granted by Big Brother to us worker peasants should we want to buy one of those murder & mayhem guns?? You didn't bother to mention what more power you want to give to Big Brother. What's your "fix" of the present law??



As for "easily converted to full auto" that is another facet of The Big Lie. Nonsense. I've watched as police armorers, schooled at the Colt factory, tried to "convert" Colt AR 15 rifles to full auto with the various methods lied about by the gun grabbers and watched the rifles fire TWO rounds and jam. Solid. Every. Single. Time. Same same with non-select fire AK47s. Just for your information one of the police armorers was also a V.N. vet, USMC, Force Reconnisance, and he, and other armorers couldn't do it. If you ACTUALLY believe that "easy to convert" Big Lie, you've been watching too many idiotic movies and teeeeveeee.



L.W.

Thanks, amigo!

I'll be hauled off eventually, but not yet, I guess. When I am, I'll think about you folks a lot.

TLee, RAM, FREEME, et al,

Why are all of you arguing with an obvious plant? The guy comes out of nowhere and starts advocating more "gun control". You're wasting your typing skills. Simply by including in his initial post the words "assault weapon" he gives himself away. Anyone that frequents this board knows that the AWB didn't ban any real assault weapons. What it banned were look-a-likes. True assault weapons are still available and legal in most states, you just have to go through a Class III dealer. All the AWB did was put the Federal government in the ridiculous position of having fully automatic firearms legal and certain specific semi-automatic ones banned. The absolute height of assinine logic. This guy knows that. He's just trying (and succeeding) to jerk your chains. Let him listen to the deafening silence that his premise deserves.

Question: If a "gun control" advocate speaks and no one listens how loud will he/she have to get before he/she is declared a public nuisance?

LarryMartin:

Let me ask you up front and simple; do you view our right to keep and bear arms in the light of self defense and as a counterwieght to federal tyranny? This is certainly the context in which it was written into our Constitution and defended.

I would not presume to know what you exactly think but it seems that folks that want to mitigate access to "assault" weapons so called, usually view our right to keep and bear arms in the context of duck hunting.

What are your specific views here?

larrymartin:

You sound like no other shooter I have ever heard regarding so called assault weapons. I am in agreement with several of the other members. You sound like a plant.

I think your messages should be disregarded as tainted. I concede that you have the right to express your opinions. I have the right to hold them in contempt.

Funny, nowhere have I suggested grabbing anyone's guns, but still am accused of being a left-winger. The fact is, I'm a registered Republican and have voted that way in every election starting in 74, but that's not what's really relevant here. What is relevant is some of these so-called hunting and fishing forms are nothing more than storefronts for manufacturers selling products, in some cases assault weapons. The biggest disgrace I've come across so far is the link I'm providing below. This form claims to be made up of military veterans and I truly question if there's a true veteran among any of the participants. What a disgrace to freedom of speech and the First Amendment for those who shared blood fighting for the those rights



Their final approach before banning me was sending a woman to the plate, if you don't believe that reader the discussion (Jar head), if you know what that term means.





http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/showt...598c87a3c2325dc6&threadid=166800





best regards

Larry Martin

Larry- I think where you over-stepped your bounds was suggesting stricter gun control. Most gun owners are pretty much sick of all them anyway. You just threw fuel on the fire. It does seem odd that any average joe hunter would suggest that, you're a first for me, I don't know of anyone around my neck of the woods that feels that way. I think it's been a hard enough battle keeping what we've got, without losing more. You should be aware that all of their gun control laws don't make a fat rats a$$ to the criminal. They'll get them no matter what the government does to the rest of us guys. You're fighting a losing battle on any hunt forum you'll ever go to.

Larry;
Don't mean to be rude, but am seriously curious about what I asked. In what context do you view the right to keep and bear arms?