Free National Rifle Association Membership

[AandF6969]

So you think that a semi-automatic is less dangerous than a "fully automatic assault rifle"? I'm not familiar with the process of buying them since I'm from California, but I'd bet they can be purchased for much less than $5,000.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying a gun is "dangerous", it's not going to go off by itself or explode in the user's hands. If you're referring to the rate of fire, then yes of course a fully-automatic can exceed the rate of a semi auto. Full autos continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition is exhausted.

Seems I was a little low on the $5,000 figure... Yeah, it's from wikipedia but it does reference their sources on the page.

"Fully-automatic firearms are legal in most states, but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required approval of the local police chief, federally registered fingerprints, federal background check and the payment of a $200 tax for initial registration and for each transfer.[52] The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited imports of all nonsporting firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms. The act also prohibited further registry of most automatic firearms. A provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 banned private ownership of machine guns manufactured after it took effect.[53]

The result has been a massive rise in the price of machine-guns available for private ownership, as an increased demand chases the fixed, pre-1986 supply. For example, the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine-gun, which may be sold to law enforcement for about $1,000,[54] costs a private citizen about $20,000.[55] This price difference dwarfs the $200 tax stamp."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

[Pocketbattleship2B]

Some like guns, some like cars, some like crystal meth. That's all.

So you see where I'm coming from and agree then.

[mho]

Are guns really THAT important to people? What the hell is the big deal?

Constitutional rights. That's as far as the argument needs to go.

[mho]

Things have changed a little bit since 1791.

You're right they have. The world's psyche is fvcked! People are degenerating into a bunch of emo crybabys that bitch about everything and go ape shit when they don't get their way. Do guns force people to make poor decisions?

[mho]

Like the government is going to break into your home and squat like the British soldiers did?

If you think no modern government has ever oppressed its people, you need to enroll in a world history class.

[JDawg1536]

If you think no modern government has ever oppressed its people, you need to enroll in a world history class.

If you think that's gonna happen you need to enroll in therapy for that paranoia.....

[JDawg1536]

Constitutional rights. That's as far as the argument needs to go.

So I take it you support gay marriage as well?

[JDawg1536]

I'm not sure what you mean by saying a gun is "dangerous", it's not going to go off by itself or explode in the user's hands. If you're referring to the rate of fire, then yes of course a fully-automatic can exceed the rate of a semi auto. Full autos continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed or until the ammunition is exhausted.

Seems I was a little low on the $5,000 figure... Yeah, it's from wikipedia but it does reference their sources on the page.

"Fully-automatic firearms are legal in most states, but have requirements for registration and restriction under federal law. The National Firearms Act of 1934 required approval of the local police chief, federally registered fingerprints, federal background check and the payment of a $200 tax for initial registration and for each transfer.[52] The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibited imports of all nonsporting firearms and created several new categories of restricted firearms. The act also prohibited further registry of most automatic firearms. A provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 banned private ownership of machine guns manufactured after it took effect.[53]

The result has been a massive rise in the price of machine-guns available for private ownership, as an increased demand chases the fixed, pre-1986 supply. For example, the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine-gun, which may be sold to law enforcement for about $1,000,[54] costs a private citizen about $20,000.[55] This price difference dwarfs the $200 tax stamp."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

I mean, an M2 is more "dangerous" then a Red Ryder BB gun. I fail to see the confusion.

One can have a "full auto" for about $1,000. Those numbers you list are garbage.

[AandF6969]

I mean, an M2 is more "dangerous" then a Red Ryder BB gun. I fail to see the confusion.

One can have a "full auto" for about $1,000. Those numbers you list are garbage.

Where can you purchase fully automatic firearms for $1,000 (legally)?

Obviously an M2 fires a larger diameter round at a much faster velocity than a Red Ryder BB gun.

The only difference between a semi-auto and full-auto AK47 is the rate of fire. They fire the same cartridge at the same muzzle velocity. So I was assuming that "rate of fire" was the "dangerousness" that you were referring to.

[HILLBILLY]

If you think that's gonna happen you need to enroll in therapy for that paranoia.....

Bro again no offense but you really need to open your eyes, they are talking about implementing marshal law on major news channels over the bullsh*t swine flu (That only one person has died from in the U.S. mind you) Have ya ever seen the movie the obama deception? or Endgame-blueprint for global enslavement, if not i suggest ya watch these and then start watching the major news channels and everything in the movies will be right before your eyes.

So I take it you support gay marriage as well?

That's what living in a free country is all about, People shouldn't give a sh*t who anybody marries, It's their business not other peoples. That's one of the problems with america today, everybody got their nose in other peoples lives instead of their own. ( And no i'm not gay )

-JJ-

[HILLBILLY]

They also have a bill in the house right now to ban reloading your own ammo.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=95733

-JJ-

[Iron_Pig]

I like guns big ons that do a lot of damage.

[mho]

If you think that's gonna happen you need to enroll in therapy for that paranoia.....

Being prepared is not paranoia, it's responsibility.

[mho]

So I take it you support gay marriage as well?

I don't care who you want to marry, it's not my business. I'm not sure where the consitution explicitly states anything about marriage one way or another.

[JDawg1536]

Bro again no offense but you really need to open your eyes, they are talking about implementing marshal law on major news channels over the bullsh*t swine flu (That only one person has died from in the U.S. mind you) Have ya ever seen the movie the obama deception? or Endgame-blueprint for global enslavement, if not i suggest ya watch these and then start watching the major news channels and everything in the movies will be right before your eyes.


That's what living in a free country is all about, People shouldn't give a sh*t who anybody marries, It's their business not other peoples. That's one of the problems with america today, everybody got their nose in other peoples lives instead of their own. ( And no i'm not gay )

-JJ-

I watched "The Obama Deception". I'd like to thank you, Professor Griff, and KRS-ONE for opening my eyes to the truth.

[JDawg1536]

Where can you purchase fully automatic firearms for $1,000 (legally)?

Obviously an M2 fires a larger diameter round at a much faster velocity than a Red Ryder BB gun.

The only difference between a semi-auto and full-auto AK47 is the rate of fire. They fire the same cartridge at the same muzzle velocity. So I was assuming that "rate of fire" was the "dangerousness" that you were referring to.

You can get an AR-15 and convert it for cheap. That's all beside the point.

[mho]

You can get an AR-15 and convert it for cheap. That's all beside the point.

That's illegal if the weapon was produced after 1986.

[JDawg1536]

That's illegal if the weapon was produced after 1986.

It's a moot point. A legal AR-15 is just as deadly as an "illegal" one.

[AandF6969]

It's a moot point. A legal AR-15 is just as deadly as an "illegal" one.

So what is your point? Fully automatics are either too expensive for most people to own, or illegal for people to convert. It doesn't sound like they're a major problem...

In your earlier post you mentioned that people were crying because they might get their AK47 assault rifles taken away... well, they're either illegal to convert or out of most people's financial reach, so what is the problem?

[JDawg1536]

So what is your point? Fully automatics are either too expensive for most people to own, or illegal for people to convert. It doesn't sound like they're a major problem...

In your earlier post you mentioned that people were crying because they might get their AK47 assault rifles taken away... well, they're either illegal to convert or out of most people's financial reach, so what is the problem?

The point is that the rifles that are legal to own are just as lethal as the ones you are saying are illegal. You were comparing this http://sgcusa.com/images/supporting_...any_SR15_E.jpg to this http://www.olive-drab.com/gallery/ph...tol_m9_500.jpg.

You said the difference was the rifles only "look scary". I'd be worried a lot more about Joe Schmoe being able to buy one than I would be about protecting myself during a government takeover.

[AandF6969]

You said the difference was the rifles only "look scary". I'd be worried a lot more about Joe Schmoe being able to buy one than I would be about protecting myself during a government takeover.

Why are you worried about a law-abiding citizen owning these weapons? You are 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by a semi-automatic rifle (1). Functionally, they are no different than many common hunting rifles that also fire once per pull of the trigger.

Additionally, numerous studies have shown that these semi-automatic rifles are not a serious crime problem. Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault weapons"(2). Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used "assault weapons(3). Police are twice as likely to be killed with their own handgun then an "assault weapon" (4).

Why should they be banned?

1 - FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, Preliminary Summary, 2004
2 - Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994
3 - Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, calculated from Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapon recovery rates
4 - “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted”, FBI, 1994

[mho]

It's a moot point. A legal AR-15 is just as deadly as an "illegal" one.

Then what are you crying about? You think a .223 Rem is more lethal than a .300 Winchester Mag ? LOL

[mho]

It's a moot point. A legal AR-15 is just as deadly as an "illegal" one.

double post

[JDawg1536]

Why are you worried about a law-abiding citizen owning these weapons? You are 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by a semi-automatic rifle (1). Functionally, they are no different than many common hunting rifles that also fire once per pull of the trigger.

Additionally, numerous studies have shown that these semi-automatic rifles are not a serious crime problem. Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were "assault weapons"(2). Just under 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used "assault weapons(3). Police are twice as likely to be killed with their own handgun then an "assault weapon" (4).

Why should they be banned?

1 - FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, Preliminary Summary, 2004
2 - Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994
3 - Gary Kleck, “Targeting Guns”, 1997, calculated from Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapon recovery rates
4 - “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted”, FBI, 1994

I never said they should be. But why ban steroids ? Because they are unnecessary and potentially dangerous, that's why.

Assault rifles account for less than 2% of all guns in the US, yet are used in over 10% of all police officer homicides. They are much more dangerous to police, that's for sure.

Why make them legal?

[JDawg1536]

Then what are you crying about? You think a .223 Rem is more lethal than a .300 Winchester Mag ? LOL

Right guy. Who said I was crying? All I did was ask a couple questions.


And the lethality of a .300 vs. a .223 would all be situational.

[AandF6969]

I never said they should be. But why ban steroids ? Because they are unnecessary and potentially dangerous, that's why.

Assault rifles account for less than 2% of all guns in the US, yet are used in over 10% of all police officer homicides. They are much more dangerous to police, that's for sure.

Why make them legal?

Why ban steroids? Because people need the government to restrict their freedoms and are too stupid to make individual choices for themselves.

Why not put a warning on steroids just like alcohol, cigarettes, tylenol, etc. and let people be responsible for their own actions? Why is it the government's place to say what I can and can't put in my own body?

If we banned things that are "unnecessary and potentially dangerous" we'd have to ban alcohol, cigarettes, fast cars, motorcycles, plastic surgery, fast food, baseball bats, and a million other things.

Do you have a source for your claim that "assault rifles" aka fully automatics are used in over 10% of police homicides?

[JDawg1536]

Why ban steroids ? Because people need the government to restrict their freedoms and are too stupid to make individual choices for themselves.

Why not put a warning on steroids just like alcohol, cigarettes, tylenol, etc. and let people be responsible for their own actions? Why is it the government's place to say what I can and can't put in my own body?

If we banned things that are "unnecessary and potentially dangerous" we'd have to ban alcohol, cigarettes, fast cars, motorcycles, plastic surgery, fast food, baseball bats, and a million other things.

Do you have a source for your claim that "assault rifles" aka fully automatics are used in over 10% of police homicides?

A weapon doesn't have to be fully automatic to be called an "assault rifle". What category would you place an SR15 with a pistol grip, reflex sight, OTAL aiming laser, and adjustable butt stock in?

Saying one thing should be allowed because it kills less people than something that's legal is not an argument. I have a source for the stats, it was just over 10%. I'll try and find it.

[AandF6969]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

An assault rifle is a rifle designed for combat, with selective fire (capable of shooting in both fully automatic and semi automatic modes).

Saying that something should be banned because it is unnecessary and potentially dangerous is not much of an argument for prohibition either.

[*RAGE*]

I hate it when the OP starts a thread and walks away with out saying anything, but this thread was to give members an chance to save $25.00, I do understand where both are you are coming from. I believe we should be able to own what we want and the goverment should not tell us (with a liberal meaning) what we can buy and how many we can own...

The problem is not the honest man buying the weapons, but the criminal possession them for their own gains

[mho]

A weapon doesn't have to be fully automatic to be called an "assault rifle". What category would you place an SR15 with a pistol grip, reflex sight, OTAL aiming laser, and adjustable butt stock in?

Saying one thing should be allowed because it kills less people than something that's legal is not an argument. I have a source for the stats, it was just over 10%. I'll try and find it.

This is only according to the United States government as it pertains to the FAWB. The real definition of assault rifle before it was tainted by politicians that wished to cause hysteria among the public is a rifle that is chambered for smaller ammunition and has the ability to switch between automatic and semi-automatic.

What makes one of these more deadly than the other? The appearance? Both accept detatchable magazines, both are semi-automatic. One of these fires a round that is designed to wound a 170lb man. The other one fires a round that is designed to kill a half ton animal.

[JDawg1536]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle



Saying that something should be banned because it is unnecessary and potentially dangerous is not much of an argument for prohibition either.

Well, if thats what you think..... to each his own.

[AandF6969]

Well, if thats what you think..... to each his own.

Using the logic that things which are unnecessary and potentially dangerous can be applied to the examples I gave above... if that were the sole criteria for banning certain things, then alcohol, tobacco, baseball bats, fast food, etc. would all be banned.

There has to be other reasons why these "assault weapons" should be banned.

[JDawg1536]

This is only according to the United States government as it pertains to the FAWB. The real definition of assault rifle before it was tainted by politicians that wished to cause hysteria among the public is a rifle that is chambered for smaller ammunition and has the ability to switch between automatic and semi-automatic.

What makes one of these more deadly than the other? The appearance? Both accept detatchable magazines, both are semi-automatic. One of these fires a round that is designed to wound a 170lb man. The other one fires a round that is designed to kill a half ton animal.

The bottom one has a much higher rate of fire I'm sure. What's the top one?

[JDawg1536]

Using the logic that things which are unnecessary and potentially dangerous can be applied to the examples I gave above... if that were the sole criteria for banning certain things, then alcohol, tobacco, baseball bats, fast food, etc. would all be banned.

There has to be other reasons why these "assault weapons" should be banned.

I agree. There is no reason marijuana should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal. However, gun are designed to kill. That is their intent. A baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball. Big difference.

[AandF6969]

The bottom one has a much higher rate of fire I'm sure. What's the top one?

The top one looks like a ruger 10/22 to me.

The rate of fire for a semi-automatic depends solely on how fast you can pull the trigger. So, for the same person firing both guns, they have exactly the same rate of fire.

[QuieTSToRM33]

I received information about the National Rifle Association giving out free membership. I use to pay $25.00 a year for my membership, click on the post below and sign up to protect you SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

http://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp

DISCLAIMER

IF YOU DONT WANT TO SIGN UP THEN DON'T

Thanks

[AandF6969]

I agree. There is no reason marijuana should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal. However, gun are designed to kill. That is their intent. A baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball. Big difference.

So it sounds like now you're in favor of banning all firearms because they are designed to kill, not just semi-automatic military style rifles... correct?

Firearms are designed to kill, that's true... but they do prevent or stop crimes at least 2 million times every year. They don't even have to be fired in a great majority of those cases, simply pointing a gun at an attacker, rapist, or intruder is enough to STOP the crime in progress. They're the most effective form of self defense and defense of a household, which is why so many Americans legally own them.

Personally, I feel like my life and my family's lives are worth protecting with the most effective means possible. I'm glad it's my right to protect them, just as it's someone else's right not to choose to own a firearm.

[JDawg1536]

So it sounds like now you're in favor of banning all firearms because they are designed to kill, not just semi-automatic military style rifles... correct?

Firearms are designed to kill, that's true... but they do prevent or stop crimes at least 2 million times every year. They don't even have to be fired in a great majority of those cases, simply pointing a gun at an attacker, rapist, or intruder is enough to STOP the crime in progress. They're the most effective form of self defense and defense of a household, which is why so many Americans legally own them.

Personally, I feel like my life and my family's lives are worth protecting with the most effective means possible. I'm glad it's my right to protect them, just as it's someone else's right not to choose to own a firearm.

I'm not for or against; I was just asking questions.

[mho]

The bottom one has a much higher rate of fire I'm sure. What's the top one?

Remington 7400. Rate of fire on a semi-auto is dependant on how fast you can pull the trigger.

[mho]

I agree. There is no reason marijuana should be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal. However, gun are designed to kill. That is their intent. A baseball bat is designed to hit a baseball. Big difference.

I use my guns on a weekly basis and have never killed anything. Guns can be used for things besides killing.

This is a Ruger Mini 14 target rifle. It uses the .223 Rem (same cartridge as many AR-15s). It is designed for target shooting. If you ever enjoyed a game of darts, skee ball, or bowling, then you know the thrill and satisfaction of placing a projectile into a target.