Gun Hypocrisy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, that's what they are up to.

Under Australia's much touted assault weapons ban (including wrist rockets, blow-guns and crossbows) is one that I find particularly amusing.

A bullet resistant vest (as worn by our PM during the "debate") is a prohibited weapon, and subject to 2 years in jail for possession.

Interesting that the absolute epitome of self defence can be a "prohibited weapon"
 
Assault weapons are defined more by their purpose than their actual function or caliber.
The real idea behind banning assault weapons is to prevent the average citizen from posessing the same tactical advantages as law enforcement or the military.
Home defense is not a combat scenario, requiring a military style firearm. Home defense requires a short range firearm that is easy for an untrained operator to point, shoot, and disable an intruder. A short barrel 12 gauge makes much more sense than an AR. You are more likely to hit your target at 50 feet with 9 pellets of 00 buck than one round of .223.
 
Assault weapons are defined by those who want guns, all guns, banned, as whatever suits their aganda.

The antis are in favour of rifles for sporting shooters, then tuck in "assault" in front of "rifle", and then all rifles are capable of long range killing (which they are), when "home defence" really only requires a blunderbuss full of nails.

Australia's assault weapon ban includes ruger 10-22s, pump shotguns, anything that they could associate a "likeness" to an "assault" weapon...including most "defence weapons" that share functions with "assault weapons"...and vests, which aren't even weapons.
 
This would be a assault weapon in the context of those who want it to be...
599px-Musee-de-lArmee-IMG_1038.jpg
 
As a NY'er ... I'm very upset by this whole thing. The first think any dictator and facist government does is disarm the population. I'm leaving it at that.
 
The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:


Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The Vice President has a different Oath of Office than the President. The Vice President's Oath of office does not come from the Constitution rather it comes from a law passed by congress.

Here is the text:

"I, (Vice President's name), do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully execute the duties of the office on which I am about to embark. So help me God."

The oath I pledged as a commisioned officer in the US Navy was similar to the VP's.
 
Originally Posted By: salv
Assault weapons are defined more by their purpose than their actual function or caliber.
The real idea behind banning assault weapons is to prevent the average citizen from posessing the same tactical advantages as law enforcement or the military.
Home defense is not a combat scenario, requiring a military style firearm. Home defense requires a short range firearm that is easy for an untrained operator to point, shoot, and disable an intruder. A short barrel 12 gauge makes much more sense than an AR. You are more likely to hit your target at 50 feet with 9 pellets of 00 buck than one round of .223.


And by using something as nebulous and ill-defined as purpose, you allow the definition to encompass all guns...because the "purpose" that you see is different than the purpose for which I own it...

Frankly, the weapons ban proposals are based on ignorance of function, and tend to focus on things like color...black rifles with adjustable stocks are all bad...because I can look at them and know they're meant for nefarious purposes...
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
As a NY'er ... I'm very upset by this whole thing. The first think any dictator and facist government does is disarm the population. I'm leaving it at that.


If I lived in NY, I would, for the first time in my life, fail to comply with the law...
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
As a NY'er ... I'm very upset by this whole thing. The first think any dictator and facist government does is disarm the population. I'm leaving it at that.

Hitler and Stalin also both had moustaches. I'm leaving it at that.
 
Originally Posted By: salv
Assault weapons are defined more by their purpose than their actual function or caliber.
The real idea behind banning assault weapons is to prevent the average citizen from posessing the same tactical advantages as law enforcement or the military.
Home defense is not a combat scenario, requiring a military style firearm. Home defense requires a short range firearm that is easy for an untrained operator to point, shoot, and disable an intruder. A short barrel 12 gauge makes much more sense than an AR. You are more likely to hit your target at 50 feet with 9 pellets of 00 buck than one round of .223.


If you are a 5 foot tall women who is 90lbs, an AR makes a good option versus a 12ga. Also a AR 5.56 round is going to go through less walls than a pistol or several shotgun rounds. If the AR was such a bad room clearing option, we would have given all of/ or a lot more of our soldiers shotguns for room to room combat in Iraq.
 
Shannon has it....a single-shot .45acp Liberator will be considered an assault weapon by today's definition.

I think the "web guards" deleted by last post....miller88 is absolutely correct....all of the "great" leaders of their day disarmed the masses before continuing with their true agenda....Hither, Stalin, Hussein, Kadhafi, Oh boy, etc, etc.....
 
The only problem with this is ;bats, bricks, sticks, rocks, chairs would not lend themselves to the horror in CT> Those censorded who yelled 2nd amend at the hearing yesterday gives you an idea how important background checks are.
mad.gif
quote=Fleetmon]Yep, assault weapons come in many different flavors......bats, bricks, sticks, rocks, chairs.....you name 'em!

"Assault weapon" is the new buzz word for this joke of an administration.

As I've said in other posts, firearms are NOT weapons unless intended to be used as such. [/quote]
 
The sky is falling etc
grin.gif

Originally Posted By: Miller88
As a NY'er ... I'm very upset by this whole thing. The first think any dictator and facist government does is disarm the population. I'm leaving it at that.
 
Some did not do a great job doing that if you will notice in todays paper and also yesterdays.
wink.gif

Originally Posted By: Fleetmon
Shannon has it....a single-shot .45acp Liberator will be considered an assault weapon by today's definition.

I think the "web guards" deleted by last post....miller88 is absolutely correct....all of the "great" leaders of their day disarmed the masses before continuing with their true agenda....Hither, Stalin, Hussein, Kadhafi, Oh boy, etc, etc.....
 
If the pro-gun control lobby wants to stretch the language enough, any projectile-launching device is an assault weapon because you can commit "assault with a deadly weapon". Even with a slingshot.
 
Originally Posted By: salv
Assault weapons are defined more by their purpose than their actual function or caliber.
The real idea behind banning assault weapons is to prevent the average citizen from posessing the same tactical advantages as law enforcement or the military.
Home defense is not a combat scenario, requiring a military style firearm. Home defense requires a short range firearm that is easy for an untrained operator to point, shoot, and disable an intruder. A short barrel 12 gauge makes much more sense than an AR. You are more likely to hit your target at 50 feet with 9 pellets of 00 buck than one round of .223.


You're discussing tactics, but the debate is still disingenuine...

Many (if not all) of the children at Sandy Hook were shot by a psychotic using his stolen pistols.

So, they seek to ban rifles, while ignoring psychosis, theft, security and pistols...
 
Sir,

This is a decision that I will make for myself not the goovernment for me. And I am very well trained in both AR-15 and shotgun platoforms (LE instructor for both) and protecting me and mine is an AR. BTW a "short barreled" (18" and under) is and has been illegal in NYS since 1994. Some states allow a SBS with approprate NFA tax stamp and passing cetain background checks.

I'd suggest some knowledge prior to making assumptions concerning smaller caliber/short range firearms. Last testing done by Northeast SP showed 9mm "short barrel" out of H&K MP5 penetrated more wallboard than did 55gr SGK LE (Federal) out of a 14.5 barreled AR-15.

"Disable" and intruder?? In your attempt to "disable" an intuder it will often be YOU who ends up killed or "disabled."
 
Last edited:
No it was not pistols check link above re. Times article. It is really hard to find out details about stuff like this so we make it up to enhance our point
smile.gif

Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: salv
Assault weapons are defined more by their purpose than their actual function or caliber.
The real idea behind banning assault weapons is to prevent the average citizen from posessing the same tactical advantages as law enforcement or the military.
Home defense is not a combat scenario, requiring a military style firearm. Home defense requires a short range firearm that is easy for an untrained operator to point, shoot, and disable an intruder. A short barrel 12 gauge makes much more sense than an AR. You are more likely to hit your target at 50 feet with 9 pellets of 00 buck than one round of .223.


You're discussing tactics, but the debate is still disingenuine...

Many (if not all) of the children at Sandy Hook were shot by a psychotic using his stolen pistols.

So, they seek to ban rifles, while ignoring psychosis, theft, security and pistols...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dave1251
  • Locked
Exxon Mobil
Replies
19
Views
14K
MolaKule
D
  • Locked
Scenarios of 1973 and 2006
Replies
2
Views
1K
GMBoy
Pablo
  • Locked
IRAQ Report
Replies
3
Views
1K
Pablo
MolaKule
  • Locked
Iran
Replies
12
Views
2K
keith
Back
Top