Ah, so we see that the obvious purpose of the bill was simply to make many guns illegal to buy Fully automatic weapons have been illegal to own without the proper licensing for years. Proof that our big government can't even make a law in a way to achieve it's desired purpose, which ironically goes directly against the second amendment.
@nathan9384 You are confusing the terms assault rifles and assault weapons. Assault weapons don't need to be FA/burst firing weapons. Basically Assault Weapon is a term to describe a evil cop seeker baby killing rifle.
I love guns,but I am glad that in our country they are not carried by every dickhead who could go crazy.You only have to look at the gun deaths total in the USA compared to the UK. We can still own them and fire them, but we have stringent checks,or you need to be supervised at a rifle club/army barracks,It would scare x10 knowing that some people I know had access to machine guns.One unstable moment which everyone has at some time,could be catastrophic,as we have seen in some of the USA schools
@Xiolablu3 You so full of shit. In 2002 on the F.B.I web page they put out a statistics of all accidental gun deaths from coast to coast. It was 3%. They all so posted accidental deaths by a doctors & that was 83%. Your more likely to be killed by your family doctor then a gun owner. Cant believe your that stupid. Your pointing things out like you know. Your not even from or have lived in the U.S. for at lest 5 years to even grasp whats going on here. You get your Ideas from TV & movies.
Not just these" weapons ban"s, look out the" internet censorship," meaning anything of theses factual videos might be easily taken down for safety reasons. if you catch my drift.
All you need to know is that Connecticut still has an "assault weapons" ban. These are some of the stupidest politicians in the country who can't even run this small state and keep our budget under control... but still feel they have the right to trample on the Constitution. I just own an M14 instead... and of course a compliant AR15. Suckers...
@OrangeManIce rebel against what? You think "they" are trying to take away your guns so they can imprison you? You think you need to bring guns to a protest or rally? Look at the places where assault weapons are common, like the middle east. How does the government handle that? With assault weapons. Here? Pepper spray. What is it you want to rebel?
It is my right to bear arms it is the second admendment and they can't take that away from us regardless. We the people are allowed to guns, knives, and anything else to protect ourselves with.
Assault weapon, a concept created by a California politician that allows them to say they are used in Assaults (a criminal act) because they look like (share external non functional features with) military Assault Rifles which are well defined as select fire (full or semi automatic) short rifles that use cartridges with lower energy than conventional battle rifles.
Rimfire weapons are actually exempt from the assualt weapon ban, it only pertains to centerfire semiautomatic weapons also on a side note... a pistol is an assault weapon if it has a threaded barrel, because its super scary
Anything can be used as a weapon, as to "assault", or in "close direct combat action". The word "assault" has been lamely coined by many as an attempt to label certain designs of firearms to misplace a negative connotation. "Military-type" is a much more accurate description since these particular types of weapons were designed primarily for military use. But military weapons aren't used only for "assault type actions". See how the term "assault weapon" makes no sense?
I'm an avid shooter and I LOVE to have guns, but this is the kind of simplistic reasoning that makes gun owners look like idiots. The assault weapons ban was not put in place to limit the use of the .22 LR. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. I'm not a fan of the ban, but this is terrible reasoning. If you replaced the .22 in this video with an m60 (the sort of thing the ban WAS getting at), I'd tell you that the M60 was WAY more dangerous than your bolt action anti tank rifle.
Assault Weapon Ban -----> Assault Jew Engineered Ban on Americans' Right to Bare Arms.
What we need is ASSAULT JEW BAN! Collapsible Hooked Nose, Rapid Firing Jew Mouth, Circumcised Jew Penis Lug, High Capacity Ability to steal from Americans, and, Bullshit Launching Capabilities by way of ownership of all news outlets. That's right, Folks! Assault Jew Ban is the answer!
@sledzOplenty what do you think well regulated means? Regulation: an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure. We will always be able to have our guns, no one here would let an outright ban happen. But regulation literally means (gun) control. Most of us favor guns being legal, but the smart ones also favor regulation regarding what kinds of guns you can and cannot have.
@johnlichtenberg The word "Gay" used to mean something more like happy, now it means a male homosexual. It is not the first time a word has been changed in meaning. Another word that changed meaning is Assassin, as it meant someone that had killed even in self defense, now it means someone that kills for money.
@hojoleon AK-47's are easy to use low recoil have cheap common ammo easy to disassemble dont require as thorough of a cleaning as other guns they can be reasonably accurate they're cheap effective easily modified/accessorized and excellent for personal protection/home defense. the real question, why not have one?
I wonder what the reason the gun control people want gun control? In the UK it is not working. There is virtually no legal hand guns, rifle in the hands of citizens. Australia is the same way. After the law was put in place crime went up 300%. More people are being killed and ending up in hospital in these countries.
@Wezzipooh Get a clue. You may buy a long-arm if you can convince the police that you have a valid reason for owning one. Exactly what is a valid reason is unclear, self-defense is explicitly not a valid reason. Oh you also have to be a member of a gun club, and have a number of certificates all of which require jumping through bureaucratic hoops.
You have to start to wonder gun control people here in the United States of America want, more people killed. Is it to help reduce the population in United States of America?
They call that thing a flash suppressor???? xD it's flash multiplier,dummies. It only reduces recoil by displacing gasses in all directions,instead of putting them all to the front
yes it makes sense.With 22. you can get in store and kill everyone,regardless of caliber.Ah yeah,22 is lethal shot,fast,and if it hit vital organs (it will,it twists and turn in body) it will kill- I know consequences of only one of these bullets: hit lower back,did sharp turns on bones,and exited in chest. You guess what happened to guy...Police said that,officially,and I knew guy. It is more dangerous
any rifle over .50 caliber or 12.9mm is considered a destructive device, and prohibited from civilian sales in the US without some paper hoops to jump through. Your comparison is invalid.
@praharin Your theory that big bore rifles require special paperwork is invalid, especially when you look at all the rifled-bore 12 Gauge slug guns (from 18.3mm to 20.3mm bore diameter) and big bore muzzleloaders sold every year with no permits or paperwork needed.
@NinjaRider777R Sigh... Really? Google "destructive device" the second link (for me) was to the ATF website. I cannot link in the comments section. Any rifle with over a half inch diameter rifled bore is a destructive device. Shotguns are exempt because they are "sporting arms" whatever that means. Muzzle loaders are not firearms, as defined by the ATF, and therefore not subject to their regulations.
@praharin First, Google isn't the same for everybody, they've been running "Filter Bubbles" that customize what each individual sees based on their previous searches.
w w w . wimp . com/filterbubbles
I searched for what you told me to, NONE of the links went to the ATF.
Second, a shotgun with a rifled bore is a RIFLE, if you tried using shotshells in it you'd destroy it, slugs only.
So under your theory it would be illegal, but they're sold by the thousands for Deer & Bear seasons every year.
@dlstb yes it was. its a WWII style grenade launcher. the kind that you'd use with rifle grenades. the grenade launcher your thinking of has been regulated since 1934. even with the one that is shown, finding ammuntion for it is damn near impossible not to mention all the federal regulations you have to go trough just to obtain those rounds.
The true classification of an assault rifle is the bullet size, its an intermediate round designed to have the capabilities of a smg, carbine rifle, and a light machine gun.
guns should not be ban for the people been scared its a weapon folks that should be treated with responsibility not as a threat to the comunity its very lil detail and improvements that should be allowed and dangerous equipment such as grenade launcher got to be outtta ur mind if allowed to public but it be nice though
I think there was a little known caveat in the law where those regulations didn't apply to rifles with barrels are least 26 inches long. That could have just been a state thing, though.
Pistol grips must take the rifle more dangerous. Shoot someone with a non pistol grip rifle, then a pistol grip rifle. If they live ask if they can tell the difference.
@johnlichtenberg I was proving a point, a VERY good point. The Socialist Republic of California arrested a Marine veteran TWICE because they THOUGHT his rifle had an "evil feature". Well federal lawsuit to rule the law unconstitutional will settle that shit.
@VinnyS914 good, and I'm sure that it will get figured out. Gun control isn't about (spending money to) make that guys life hard, its about safety. When his situation gets sorted out it will set a precedent for what is good or bad regarding his gun. Too bad he will have to cut red tape, but if that's what needs to be done, fine. No one is trying to make him suffer, they are trying to figure out what is safe and what isn't.
@johnlichtenberg The ONLY gun control laws that actually care about safety are laws against felon ownership & mandatory safety courses. If you actually believe that you're safer because an Iraq Vet is charged with a felony because a cop thinks his weapon has a collapsible stock then I'm lost for words. If someone threatened you with prison time because they thought the seat in your car was adjustable you'd have taken that a lot more serious.Gang bangers still do 7eleven jobs with shit hi points.
@VinnyS914 why was he arrested in the first place? Show me the story. Police make mistakes all the time, that doesn't mean we should give up on gun safety. I believe I'm safer cause there are people constantly looking into the issue. Some would favor just letting people have whatever guns they want, which would lead to the production of a lot more dangerous guns. And a car seat isn't a gun, so I don't know why you're comparing the two.
@VinnyS914 you're right, common criminals don't need big weapons. In fact a machine gun would make a simple robbery a lot harder. It's not gang bangers I'm worried about with big guns. Other people are worried about an invasion from outside, I'm more worried about what happens with a LOT more dangerous weapons get mass produced cause of sudden legality. I'm not an anarchist, I don't want to see guns get out of hand.
Not all liberals are anti-gun rights, just as not all conservatives are pro-gun rights. This partisan bullshit only serves to separate and weaken the power of the people.
@tpalace74 True that. I'm a bit of a liberal and I definitely support gun rights. However, where does this video equate gun rights with left or right / Democrat or Republican???
This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on July 28, 2008. It had four co-sponsors supporting it: Michael N. Castle (R Del.-1), Mike Ferguson (R N.J.-7), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R Fla.-18) and Christopher Shays (R Conn.-4).
H.R. 6257 was introduced by Mark Kirk (R Ill.-10) on 12 June 2008 and sought to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban for a period of ten years, as well as to expand the list of banned weapons.
@why760nitro the thing is those "liberals" that do that arn't really liberals they are just dicks, liberals should fight for gun rights, liberal, to liberate, and the ay to do that give more rights.
@why760nitro A Conservative likes to dictact rules about sex and bad language in films and its effect on others, a liberal prefers free art and expression as long as it doesnt hurt others..
@why760nitro Im more of a liberal than a conservative, and like MOST of those like me, I don't favor a gun ban, I think PETA are fucking retarded, and I don't think promoting peace means surrender. So you're pretty much an idiot.
@lHustonProductionsl Prius does better than you think. Al Gore's kid got caught doing 104 mph in one. Remember dc motors have a lot of torque, so they have faster acceleration.
Why does America have gun crime statistics so much higher than Britain or Australia, for example? Is there any other explanation besides the increased availability of guns of all kinds? Im not saying ban all guns, but what does any honest tax-paying person need a supressor or automatic weapon for?
@Xanatos57 you have obviously never had to speed away from a crash, or have never had a trailer on your truck. try merging onto a speeding freeway with a 28ft trailer loaded with crap and see how many accidents you cause with a vehicle with 100hp.
@mcfarts97 the supressor is so that you don't disturbe the nabours when you kill a burgular and somtimes its fun to burn through a whole load of rounds on full auto.
@thenoobcannon actually, that is why Finland encourages shooters to use them, because of noise pollution. Supressors are unregulated in Finland and France
@thenoobcannon i love your answer. i got to shoot a fully auto .22 when i was like 12 (give or take) and it was the best thing ever. and about the suppressor, i would like to have one just for that reason.
@mcfarts97 Britain & Australia had lower gun deaths than the US before they instituted strict gun control. Both of those countries did lower gun deaths but did not lower murder rates with gun control. As an unexpected side effect of strict gun control violence against women & elderly shot up drastically in Australia & Britain. If you actually manage to make it hard for a criminal to get a gun they simply go after weaker targets. Kohen & Felson suitable target theory illustrates this very well.
Ok. I have armor peircing rounds in .223 (not much bigger than your .22) aslo a suppressor on it. I paid my Class 3 Tax stamp for the suppressor.. My Remington 870 12 guage has that exact ATI folding stock, thats not an ATF issue at all..lol.. I have enough rounds of .223 and 7.62 to last a life time. Why? Because who knows when shit might hit the fan, but I'll tell you one thing this man will not be over thrown by any government. That would be giving up my rights as an American.. I'm ready!!
My SKS has a pistol grip, folding stock, a 20 round magazine, bayonette, and a flash hider. I'd put a grenade launcher on it too just to piss off liberals if I wanted to ruin it.
@foughtwolf nice! fyi... your SKS probably already has a grenade launcher, as the type of grenades used with an SKS are similar to those used by the M-1 Garand. They have a shaft on them that just sorta slides down the barrel and then you use a blank round to fire the grenade... check for grenade sights in between your regular iron sights... it wouldn't surprise me if you had them! Stick it to the LIBERALS!!!
Nah, mines a Norinco. As far as I know they didnt make a grenade launching version, but I dont know for sure, but since most of the Chinese SKS's were produced for the market and not for war Id say its safe to assume they werent made.
I just want to know when the Constitution of the United States became "negotiable" I mean to me it seems like most gun laws infringe the right to bear arms. Hence they violate the second ammendment. Hence they are illegal and the people who wrote them are criminals. Hence we should use that 2A right to apprehend these criminals and toss them in prison or if they don't go peacably... Either way, it is our right and our duty to kick these crooks out. Who's with me?
I just want to know when the Constitution of the United States became "negotiable" I mean to me it seems like most gun laws infringe the right to bear arms. Hence they violate the second ammendment. Hence they are illegal and the people who wrote them are criminals. Hence we should use that 2A right to apprehend these criminals and toss them in prison or if they don't go peacably... Either way, it is our right and our duty to kick these crooks out. Who's with me?
Liberals want guns away and have to create a crisis in order to do it. (Like anything else in they want gone or want more government for.) They pass the Brady bill because of what happened to Jim Brady and they advocate for more gun control because of the tragedies of Columbine and Virgina Tech. If banning guns prevents crime, how come Columbine and Virginia Tech was allowed to happen in these "gun free zones?"
Let's outlaw all guns.. that will show those criminals! Look here, Mr Criminal, you can't use a gun anymore to commit your illegal act... cuz.. we made it.. illegal...
"Why do Americans need "assault weapons"?" "What Americans needs "assault weapons"?" I'll tell why and who! Americans who live in the Southwest United States need them!! Why?? Because Obama refuses to enforce the LAW and protect Americans lives and property!! Thats why!Who knows what laws they will refuse to enforce next! With the current administration YOU are the soul person responsible for you and your families safety! Enforce the LAW Obama!!!
i think all guns should be legal. it is necessary just in case the government tries to take away more of our rights, we should be able to fight back..shit we should even be able to buy grenades,rpg's,and snipers..
I would gladly accept a worldwide ban on all guns, but first you must eradicate violence, war, hunger, homelessness, etc......Let me know when your done.
@yournamehere654 YES, and that means ERADICATE, not just postpone. Once you can GUARANTEE me 100% that there are no violent criminals and there never will be again, and that there are no tyrants waiting to take control of any country in the world, and there is no one that will try to break into my home and steal my possessions, and that I will have healthy food for the rest of my life, then and ONLY then I will surrender my firearms. Until then I'm keeping them no matter the what the law says.
@yournamehere654 Excellent idea! But impractical. The gal that posed for our Statue of Liberty packed a LeMatt revolver under her robes. Eiffel, the guy that made the tower in Paris, gave it to her. Eiffel himself carried a 5.75mm Velo dog revolver. Well... I'm allowed to have as much BS as the Clintons! Ain't I?
@yournamehere654 You'll also have to invent the men in black flashy thingy so that we can wipe all people's memories of any and all industrial skill. The only way to really get rid of any type of weapon is to destroy our ability to imagine and then create. That is far worse than just letting guns exist.
I pose this question. Does anything Congress does make sense? The idea of gun control is a good one, utilized by most civilized nations. The only problem with it in the United States is that we have such an incompetent government that their attempts to implement such a control turns into a nightmare. I personally believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own fully automatic weapons, as well as military grade weapons (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc.). But that's me, its my opinion.
Here's a point of reality. The tank rifle has a considerably slower rate of fire, additionally it is MUCH more difficult to conceal and use without the proper mounting - setting thereof being time consuming.
However. While I am a liberal, I fully support the public's right to bear arms. It is the fundamental building block of the U.S. Constitution. That being said when we allow for such grounds to be stolen from us due to our own fear; we are working against our own liberties.
in Mass, a m4 w a flash suppressor is illegal cause of the suppressor but i can buy a Barrett 50 cal because it has a magazine of 10 rounds or less, a firearms physical characteristics do not determine its performance, the ban is bull and is designed to deny us our rights
Don't forget everyone, crime will go down once every law-abiding citizen has a gun. If the 2nd Amendment right is taken away, we will all suffer; crime will go up. Everyone has the right to "whatever weapon" they please, not just us Americans, but as long as they are safe about it.
To the video producer; you're an idiot. The rest of the world is laughing at America and mortified for the families of victims. No-one can justify an assault weapon for any means other than the military. What hunter requires an automatic or semi-automatic 5.56 or even 7.62mm to down an animal? A shit one, thats for sure. And who the fuck needs a .50 cal (or 13.2mm anti tank rifle) weapon!? Planning to take out a vehicle? Didn't think so. That's right, we think you're all idiots. Peace.
@batmand200 Whether or not you think we may "need" these firearms is beside the point. Do you honestly think people who own a .50 BMG rifle are a big threat to society? Give me a break. Show me a stat where a LEGALLY obtained .50 cal was used in a homicide... As for hunting, 5.56 AR-15's with a 5 round mag are perfect for hunting....why not? And the real kicker, all prior "assault weapons bans" of any kind proved entirely pointless and never reduced any gun violence.
@72chevelless530 Whether or not a .50 BMG weapon has been used in a homicide is beside the point. The .50 BMG round was originally developed back in World War 1 to fulfill the requirement of an anti-aircraft weapon. I really don't think there is a need to elaborate on why a civilian DOES NOT need a weapon capable of firing the .50 BMG round.
@72chevelless530 The AR-15. This weapon was developed in the 50's and was offered for sale to the US military. A muzzle velocity of 3,200 ft/s and relatively small size for its kill potential made it very popular. Remember the Washington Sniper? I do, and I'm on the other side of the Pacific. He used a Bushmaster XM-15 to kill 10 people and guess what, its a variant of the AR-15. The Port Arthur Massacre saw 35 dead at the hands of a crazed gunman and his AR-15. It has no place in society.
@batmand200 LOL, the D.C. sniper could have used a remington 700 bolt action and had much WORSE results. The 5.56 round is designed to wound, not to kill like the "Hunting rifles" are. Port Arthur could have easily happened with a mini-14 or a kel-tec su16 which do NOT have ANY assault weapons features and will do the EXACT same thing. You sir, are buying in to the media's scare tactics. And still no .50 cal murder in the world.
@72chevelless530 And I don't buy into the Media's garbage. What I'm afraid of are the bunches of goons running around in their militias claiming to defend everyone from the New World Order and convincing themselves they need to be equipped like the military to do so. Bad news, these guys will be put down hard if they attempt anything against trained professionals. And still the .50 was designed to bring down aircraft.
@batmand200 You are STILL missing the point completely.... I don't care about your views on militia's or whatever, and you ARE buying into the media's B.S. 100% my friend. What we are talking about is the Assault Weapons Ban - a ban that states that a Ruger mini-14 is okay, an AR-15 is not. An SKS is okay, an AK-47 in semi is not. A .50 BMG will create uncontrollable homicidal tendencies in one's hands, and a .50 DTC will not. Do you really believe this shit?
@batmand200, You're kidding, I hope. See, here is the thing that gets me...... You seem like a somewhat articulate individual (and you can at least spell correctly) yet I still cannot tell if you are joking and you really are that naive. This is common with many "gun-control" individuals - you spout off at the mouth having no actual knowledge of the difference between the firearms you want banned vs. not - banned. You ARE joking when you say "Yep :)", right????
@batmand200 Sir, if you mean the .50 Barret or anything similar, it's actually meant mostly for light armor, not just aircraft. Hate to say it, but I do need to be equipped like or better than them to beat them. Pretty sure their M16 against my pussy .22 pistol isn't going to do me any good. You are simply a scared, misled cattle that will be cowering in the corner when that domestic or foreign enemy approaches. Also, beat down hard? Look up "guerrilla tactics". It's a way we beat the Brits.
@sylentmyst Look, all you guys can argue till the cows come home (no pun intended). At the end of the day the fact is, civilians do not require and should not be allowed to own an AR-15 or equivalent. There is a military trained specifically to kill other humans, that is why these weapons were developed.
@sylentmyst If you feel that your own government will turn on you like they did back in the barbaric chapters of history then you may as well turn the gun on yourself and pull the trigger. Save us all the time and ammunition. It is those who are at the extreme of fearing their own government that are the truly scared and mislead.
@batmand200 Yep, sure. I'm not going to argue with you because this is an argument that even actually spoken face to face could honestly go on for days. I do not fear my government. I am not misled. I am simply mindful of the history and the facts. History always repeats itself. Now that I read your other comment toward me, which had not shown in the inbox, I realize that there really is no point in arguing as you are already a sheeple. Good day to you.
@batmand200 Also, the AR-15 that was developed for the military was SELECT FIRE, which is not what we are talking about as these have been controlled in the U.S since 1934. We are talking about the semi-automatic civilian-legal rifles that are based on the original proven military designs. Anti-gun politicians began calling these semi-automatics "Assault weapons", when an assault weapon by true definition is fully automatic/select fire. Maybe now you can see our side?
@72chevelless530 I think all the gun nuts on here would agree that an AR-15 and it's relatives could have the rounds in their magazine better utilised in selective targeting on semi-automatic then simply pulling and holding it's trigger on auto and firing more or less without discretion. The issue is with it's high muzzle velocity combined with a round being re-chambered instantly.
@batmand200 So do you think that a mini-14 should be banned? An M-1 Garand? A wischester 94??? You can get so good with a Winchester 94 (lever action) that you can fire it damn near as fast as a semi-auto - with much MORE velocity than the AR's .223 and over twice the Kinetic Energy! That's a freakin' John Wayne gun man! You will never win this argument.
@batmand200 How many times has an AR-15 been used in a crime compared to......oh i dont know, a pistol or a shot gun? why do you people fear these guns so damn much? how many times have you heard of some one killing a bunch of kids on the street with a AK compared to how many time you've heard of that happening with UZI's or pistols?
the ban on these guns is based off of unfounded fear spread by the media.
Oh and the 7.62mm round is a mid range cheap round great for deer and black bear.
@batmand200 How many times has an AR-15 been used in a crime compared to......oh i dont know, a pistol or a shot gun? why do you people fear these guns so damn much? how many times have you heard of some one killing a bunch of kids on the street with a AK compared to how many time you've heard of that happening with UZI's or pistols?
the ban on these guns is based off of unfounded fear spread by the media.
@batmand200 How many times has an AR-15 been used in a crime compared to......oh i dont know, a pistol or a shot gun? why do you people fear these guns so damn much? how many times have you heard of some one killing a bunch of kids on the street with a AK compared to how many time you've heard of that happening with UZI's or pistols?
the ban on these guns is based off of unfounded fear spread by the media.
@batmand200 Because the military has it, we are able to have it.
Why would a hunter need a 5.56 to down an animal? Well,I think its illegal to hunt big game with a 5.56. Too weak.
If the Gov. has it, then we are allowed to have it. The 2nd amedment is about protection ourselfs from tyranical Gov.
If your gov ever takes you rights away, you will have no chance. O wait your Gov. already took your rights. And one thing, why would you laugh about people dying you sick fuck.
@skater3shefik Are you trained like the military to use these weapons? Have you or others been deemed capable psychologically to hold these weapons? Fortunately my government has taken the right to own a weapon capable of large scale killing. Why do US police now carry assault weapons in patrol cars? Because an equivalent weapon can be carried by any goon on the street.
@batmand200 I have not seen one cop with an assault rifle... And by the way... Crimianls get guns regardless the laws.... Hahaha you are brainwashed by the medias garbage...
You will never get it... and you will never be able to open your eyes.
And by the way, your statement made completely no sense...
I can't carry an assault rifle by the way, but i do know of some Gangster by here who somehow, even thought the law does not allow have machine guns. I WONDER WHY?
Anything that can be used to attack someone is an assault weapon. Even paper can be considered an assault weapon if you assault someone with it. >_>
MrZerostr 1 month ago
Ah, so we see that the obvious purpose of the bill was simply to make many guns illegal to buy Fully automatic weapons have been illegal to own without the proper licensing for years. Proof that our big government can't even make a law in a way to achieve it's desired purpose, which ironically goes directly against the second amendment.
nathan9384 1 month ago
@nathan9384 You are confusing the terms assault rifles and assault weapons. Assault weapons don't need to be FA/burst firing weapons. Basically Assault Weapon is a term to describe a evil cop seeker baby killing rifle.
bf2lover42 3 days ago
Okay well then im buying me a anti tank rifle.
IchiJewSan 2 months ago
"Assault weapon" is such an empty term. The Brady Bunch classifies a pistol with a forward grip as an assault weapon, too.
DeadFishFactory 2 months ago
Great points, NBC and CBS need to show this on their broadcast.
fermi911 2 months ago
1:23
Yes, it makes perfect sense. But only if you're on crack.
ghotioutofh2o 2 months ago
I love guns,but I am glad that in our country they are not carried by every dickhead who could go crazy.You only have to look at the gun deaths total in the USA compared to the UK. We can still own them and fire them, but we have stringent checks,or you need to be supervised at a rifle club/army barracks,It would scare x10 knowing that some people I know had access to machine guns.One unstable moment which everyone has at some time,could be catastrophic,as we have seen in some of the USA schools
Xiolablu3 3 months ago
@Xiolablu3 You so full of shit. In 2002 on the F.B.I web page they put out a statistics of all accidental gun deaths from coast to coast. It was 3%. They all so posted accidental deaths by a doctors & that was 83%. Your more likely to be killed by your family doctor then a gun owner. Cant believe your that stupid. Your pointing things out like you know. Your not even from or have lived in the U.S. for at lest 5 years to even grasp whats going on here. You get your Ideas from TV & movies.
CyberSoldierD19 3 months ago 2
Not just these" weapons ban"s, look out the" internet censorship," meaning anything of theses factual videos might be easily taken down for safety reasons. if you catch my drift.
BlackOfTheWest 3 months ago
All you need to know is that Connecticut still has an "assault weapons" ban. These are some of the stupidest politicians in the country who can't even run this small state and keep our budget under control... but still feel they have the right to trample on the Constitution. I just own an M14 instead... and of course a compliant AR15. Suckers...
falcondrvr200 3 months ago
@no1joey Enjoy the bans on anything even slightly anti-government, pornographic or pointy.
With the Internet censorship deal that's still being pushed, pictures of naked women with small breasts will be illegal.
In Melbourne, where I live, you can be fined $5000 for carrying a screwdriver to work.
Nope, definitely no problems over here.
Nix6p 3 months ago
assault weapon ban is to make the people unable to rebell
OrangeManIce 3 months ago
@OrangeManIce rebel against what? You think "they" are trying to take away your guns so they can imprison you? You think you need to bring guns to a protest or rally? Look at the places where assault weapons are common, like the middle east. How does the government handle that? With assault weapons. Here? Pepper spray. What is it you want to rebel?
johnlichtenberg 2 months ago
@no1joey yah well gun protect your ass in the middle east so shut the fuck up
jesselyle2186 3 months ago
It is my right to bear arms it is the second admendment and they can't take that away from us regardless. We the people are allowed to guns, knives, and anything else to protect ourselves with.
narutobubba1 3 months ago
Assault weapon, a concept created by a California politician that allows them to say they are used in Assaults (a criminal act) because they look like (share external non functional features with) military Assault Rifles which are well defined as select fire (full or semi automatic) short rifles that use cartridges with lower energy than conventional battle rifles.
Example M-16 5.56mm NATO vs M-14 7.62mm NATO
oldsarge 4 months ago
Rimfire weapons are actually exempt from the assualt weapon ban, it only pertains to centerfire semiautomatic weapons also on a side note... a pistol is an assault weapon if it has a threaded barrel, because its super scary
bwvbach 4 months ago
Why bayonet mounts of all things? Not even the military is using those anymore.
The bayonet mount perplexes me. I mean, how many crimes get committed with affixed bayonets? Enough to necessitate a ban?
I mean, I guess I can understand the argument with folding stocks. Even if it really doesn't matter in the long run.
Also, firing with a pistol grip from the hip is actually harder than firing with a rifle grip from the hip.
0neDoomedSpaceMarine 4 months ago
Anything can be used as a weapon, as to "assault", or in "close direct combat action". The word "assault" has been lamely coined by many as an attempt to label certain designs of firearms to misplace a negative connotation. "Military-type" is a much more accurate description since these particular types of weapons were designed primarily for military use. But military weapons aren't used only for "assault type actions". See how the term "assault weapon" makes no sense?
sledzOplenty 4 months ago
Being able to hit your target when firing from the hip...now that's gun control!
sledzOplenty 4 months ago 2
iam so totaly for more gun control......i use both hands
Hoschi0913 4 months ago
I'm an avid shooter and I LOVE to have guns, but this is the kind of simplistic reasoning that makes gun owners look like idiots. The assault weapons ban was not put in place to limit the use of the .22 LR. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. I'm not a fan of the ban, but this is terrible reasoning. If you replaced the .22 in this video with an m60 (the sort of thing the ban WAS getting at), I'd tell you that the M60 was WAY more dangerous than your bolt action anti tank rifle.
IIDASHII 4 months ago
@IIDASHII that is true but its hard to look at that that way sometimes when you have rage in your eyes about the ban.
myrapname214 4 months ago
Assault Weapon Ban -----> Assault Jew Engineered Ban on Americans' Right to Bare Arms.
What we need is ASSAULT JEW BAN! Collapsible Hooked Nose, Rapid Firing Jew Mouth, Circumcised Jew Penis Lug, High Capacity Ability to steal from Americans, and, Bullshit Launching Capabilities by way of ownership of all news outlets. That's right, Folks! Assault Jew Ban is the answer!
Search4diabetescure 5 months ago
US Constitution: Bill of Rights: Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
God bless America!
sledzOplenty 5 months ago 31
@sledzOplenty I think they meant muzzle loading muskets when they wrote that. Perhaps that's the answer: ban all guns apart from muskets!!
Wezzipooh 4 months ago
@sledzOplenty what do you think well regulated means? Regulation: an authoritative rule dealing with details or procedure. We will always be able to have our guns, no one here would let an outright ban happen. But regulation literally means (gun) control. Most of us favor guns being legal, but the smart ones also favor regulation regarding what kinds of guns you can and cannot have.
johnlichtenberg 2 months ago
@johnlichtenberg but we are not the militia, we are the people
Mako561 2 months ago
@Mako561 the militia IS the people.
militia is a military force of civilians. civilians, not military. civilians are the people.
visno 1 month ago
@johnlichtenberg The meaning of "regulated" has changed since the Constitution was written. Look up "The Federalist Papers".
TheHeretic2011 2 months ago
@TheHeretic2011 I looked it up in the dictionary and it doesn't seem to be open to interpretation.
johnlichtenberg 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@johnlichtenberg "I looked it up in the dictionary and it doesn't seem to be open to interpretation"
Try looking it up in an 18th century dictionary, halfwit.
XNMR53 3 weeks ago
@johnlichtenberg The word "Gay" used to mean something more like happy, now it means a male homosexual. It is not the first time a word has been changed in meaning. Another word that changed meaning is Assassin, as it meant someone that had killed even in self defense, now it means someone that kills for money.
v2joecr 1 week ago
@sledzOplenty yes, sir. but why do u need an ak-47????
hojoleon 1 month ago
@hojoleon AK-47's are easy to use low recoil have cheap common ammo easy to disassemble dont require as thorough of a cleaning as other guns they can be reasonably accurate they're cheap effective easily modified/accessorized and excellent for personal protection/home defense. the real question, why not have one?
BAGboy0032 1 month ago in playlist More videos from tardmessiah17 6
I wonder what the reason the gun control people want gun control? In the UK it is not working. There is virtually no legal hand guns, rifle in the hands of citizens. Australia is the same way. After the law was put in place crime went up 300%. More people are being killed and ending up in hospital in these countries.
samten10a 5 months ago
@samten10a Wrong. UK citizens are allowed to buy as many rifle and shotguns as they want
Wezzipooh 4 months ago
@Wezzipooh Get a clue. You may buy a long-arm if you can convince the police that you have a valid reason for owning one. Exactly what is a valid reason is unclear, self-defense is explicitly not a valid reason. Oh you also have to be a member of a gun club, and have a number of certificates all of which require jumping through bureaucratic hoops.
oldsarge 4 months ago
You have to start to wonder gun control people here in the United States of America want, more people killed. Is it to help reduce the population in United States of America?
samten10a 5 months ago
They call that thing a flash suppressor???? xD it's flash multiplier,dummies. It only reduces recoil by displacing gasses in all directions,instead of putting them all to the front
5ky5tr1d3r 5 months ago
yes it makes sense.With 22. you can get in store and kill everyone,regardless of caliber.Ah yeah,22 is lethal shot,fast,and if it hit vital organs (it will,it twists and turn in body) it will kill- I know consequences of only one of these bullets: hit lower back,did sharp turns on bones,and exited in chest. You guess what happened to guy...Police said that,officially,and I knew guy. It is more dangerous
5ky5tr1d3r 5 months ago
yep, the 'assault weapons ban' is based purely on cosmetic features. The equivalent would be banning knives that have red paint on them.
BlackcatClyde 6 months ago
any rifle over .50 caliber or 12.9mm is considered a destructive device, and prohibited from civilian sales in the US without some paper hoops to jump through. Your comparison is invalid.
praharin 6 months ago
@praharin Your theory that big bore rifles require special paperwork is invalid, especially when you look at all the rifled-bore 12 Gauge slug guns (from 18.3mm to 20.3mm bore diameter) and big bore muzzleloaders sold every year with no permits or paperwork needed.
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R Sigh... Really? Google "destructive device" the second link (for me) was to the ATF website. I cannot link in the comments section. Any rifle with over a half inch diameter rifled bore is a destructive device. Shotguns are exempt because they are "sporting arms" whatever that means. Muzzle loaders are not firearms, as defined by the ATF, and therefore not subject to their regulations.
praharin 6 months ago
@praharin First, Google isn't the same for everybody, they've been running "Filter Bubbles" that customize what each individual sees based on their previous searches.
w w w . wimp . com/filterbubbles
I searched for what you told me to, NONE of the links went to the ATF.
Second, a shotgun with a rifled bore is a RIFLE, if you tried using shotshells in it you'd destroy it, slugs only.
So under your theory it would be illegal, but they're sold by the thousands for Deer & Bear seasons every year.
NinjaRider777R 6 months ago
@NinjaRider777R Here is the chain of links to follow to get there from the ATF homepage:
"ATF HomeFirearmsGuidesImportation & Verification of Firearms, Ammunition and Implements of WarNational Firearms Act Definitions – Destructive Device"
read for yourself. Shotguns with rifled barrels are exempt from being a DD because they have a "legitimate sporting purpose" whatever that means.
praharin 6 months ago
Obviously, a gun without any of those accessories is completely harmless without them........... Dumb idiots are stupid.
kyle92223 6 months ago
Way to go man!!! Great point! I've been trying to tell people this for along time now!
Djkl28 6 months ago
That was not a grenade launcher.
dlstb 6 months ago
@dlstb yes it was. its a WWII style grenade launcher. the kind that you'd use with rifle grenades. the grenade launcher your thinking of has been regulated since 1934. even with the one that is shown, finding ammuntion for it is damn near impossible not to mention all the federal regulations you have to go trough just to obtain those rounds.
11bravoNRD 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The true classification of an assault rifle is the bullet size, its an intermediate round designed to have the capabilities of a smg, carbine rifle, and a light machine gun.
Wurmo 7 months ago
Comment removed
Wurmo 7 months ago
guns should not be ban for the people been scared its a weapon folks that should be treated with responsibility not as a threat to the comunity its very lil detail and improvements that should be allowed and dangerous equipment such as grenade launcher got to be outtta ur mind if allowed to public but it be nice though
Kill5No 7 months ago
its ones responsibility of gun not the product its self
Kill5No 7 months ago
I think there was a little known caveat in the law where those regulations didn't apply to rifles with barrels are least 26 inches long. That could have just been a state thing, though.
Santo3x7 9 months ago
Who are "They"?
seeqer66 9 months ago
Pistol grips must take the rifle more dangerous. Shoot someone with a non pistol grip rifle, then a pistol grip rifle. If they live ask if they can tell the difference.
VinnyS914 9 months ago 27
@VinnyS914 how bout not shooting someone.
johnlichtenberg 2 months ago
@johnlichtenberg I was proving a point, a VERY good point. The Socialist Republic of California arrested a Marine veteran TWICE because they THOUGHT his rifle had an "evil feature". Well federal lawsuit to rule the law unconstitutional will settle that shit.
VinnyS914 2 months ago 2
@VinnyS914 good, and I'm sure that it will get figured out. Gun control isn't about (spending money to) make that guys life hard, its about safety. When his situation gets sorted out it will set a precedent for what is good or bad regarding his gun. Too bad he will have to cut red tape, but if that's what needs to be done, fine. No one is trying to make him suffer, they are trying to figure out what is safe and what isn't.
johnlichtenberg 2 months ago
@johnlichtenberg The ONLY gun control laws that actually care about safety are laws against felon ownership & mandatory safety courses. If you actually believe that you're safer because an Iraq Vet is charged with a felony because a cop thinks his weapon has a collapsible stock then I'm lost for words. If someone threatened you with prison time because they thought the seat in your car was adjustable you'd have taken that a lot more serious.Gang bangers still do 7eleven jobs with shit hi points.
VinnyS914 2 months ago
@VinnyS914 why was he arrested in the first place? Show me the story. Police make mistakes all the time, that doesn't mean we should give up on gun safety. I believe I'm safer cause there are people constantly looking into the issue. Some would favor just letting people have whatever guns they want, which would lead to the production of a lot more dangerous guns. And a car seat isn't a gun, so I don't know why you're comparing the two.
johnlichtenberg 2 months ago
@VinnyS914 you're right, common criminals don't need big weapons. In fact a machine gun would make a simple robbery a lot harder. It's not gang bangers I'm worried about with big guns. Other people are worried about an invasion from outside, I'm more worried about what happens with a LOT more dangerous weapons get mass produced cause of sudden legality. I'm not an anarchist, I don't want to see guns get out of hand.
johnlichtenberg 2 months ago
FUCK AMERICA AND ITS BULLSHIT LAWS.
crikeniswin 10 months ago
Ii find it funny how an anti-tank rifle was legal during the ban, but a tiny .22 rimfire semi-auto with all the "scary" attachments was illegal.
UggmunsStudios 10 months ago
Not all liberals are anti-gun rights, just as not all conservatives are pro-gun rights. This partisan bullshit only serves to separate and weaken the power of the people.
tpalace74 10 months ago
@tpalace74 True that. I'm a bit of a liberal and I definitely support gun rights. However, where does this video equate gun rights with left or right / Democrat or Republican???
seeqer66 9 months ago
Comment removed
tpalace74 10 months ago
This bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security on July 28, 2008. It had four co-sponsors supporting it: Michael N. Castle (R Del.-1), Mike Ferguson (R N.J.-7), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R Fla.-18) and Christopher Shays (R Conn.-4).
tpalace74 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008
H.R. 6257 was introduced by Mark Kirk (R Ill.-10) on 12 June 2008 and sought to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban for a period of ten years, as well as to expand the list of banned weapons.
tpalace74 10 months ago
Comment removed
tpalace74 10 months ago
It should be called the "Scary-looking weapons ban"
C00Ltuber 11 months ago 2
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONSERVATIVE AND A LIBERAL
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat. If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
why760nitro 11 months ago 22
@why760nitro the thing is those "liberals" that do that arn't really liberals they are just dicks, liberals should fight for gun rights, liberal, to liberate, and the ay to do that give more rights.
TheAlexagius 10 months ago
@why760nitro Holly shit, you nailed it! That's the truth in all ways!
FrogMike81 4 months ago
@why760nitro A Conservative likes to dictact rules about sex and bad language in films and its effect on others, a liberal prefers free art and expression as long as it doesnt hurt others..
Xiolablu3 3 months ago
@why760nitro A Liberal realises that we are all human beings, a Conservative fears different cultures.
Xiolablu3 3 months ago
@why760nitro Im more of a liberal than a conservative, and like MOST of those like me, I don't favor a gun ban, I think PETA are fucking retarded, and I don't think promoting peace means surrender. So you're pretty much an idiot.
johnlichtenberg 2 months ago
@lHustonProductionsl Prius does better than you think. Al Gore's kid got caught doing 104 mph in one. Remember dc motors have a lot of torque, so they have faster acceleration.
island4diver 1 year ago
it fails as the repulicans didn't bring in thier assault weapons and show those democrates what they could do
TheAlexagius 1 year ago
so the lesson of this video is...buy anti-tank rifles instead of squirrel guns
MrCap0ne 1 year ago
Note that the Klinton Assault Weapons Ban of '94 "sunset", or expired, in '04.
There are still 922(r) parts count requirements...
RandyCOG3 1 year ago
Note that the Klinton Assault Weapons Ban of '94 "sunset", or expired, in '04.
There are still 922(r) parts count requirements.
RandyCOG3 1 year ago
I do not see a column of things that make an assault rifle, I just see a checklist.
:)
Anonymous6291 1 year ago
Why does America have gun crime statistics so much higher than Britain or Australia, for example? Is there any other explanation besides the increased availability of guns of all kinds? Im not saying ban all guns, but what does any honest tax-paying person need a supressor or automatic weapon for?
mcfarts97 1 year ago
@mcfarts97
Why does an honest tax-paying person need a car with over 100 horsepower? You can easily reach 65 miles per hour in a sedan with under 100 horses.
Xanatos57 1 year ago
@Xanatos57 you have obviously never had to speed away from a crash, or have never had a trailer on your truck. try merging onto a speeding freeway with a 28ft trailer loaded with crap and see how many accidents you cause with a vehicle with 100hp.
garrettzkool63 1 year ago
@mcfarts97 Arms race. Criminals are going to have them. We might as well too. I'd rather be prepared for something I hope isn't going to happen.
TheJokinly 1 year ago 2
@mcfarts97 the supressor is so that you don't disturbe the nabours when you kill a burgular and somtimes its fun to burn through a whole load of rounds on full auto.
thenoobcannon 1 year ago 2
@thenoobcannon actually, that is why Finland encourages shooters to use them, because of noise pollution. Supressors are unregulated in Finland and France
island4diver 1 year ago
@thenoobcannon i love your answer. i got to shoot a fully auto .22 when i was like 12 (give or take) and it was the best thing ever. and about the suppressor, i would like to have one just for that reason.
OmegaJr 1 month ago
@mcfarts97 Britain & Australia had lower gun deaths than the US before they instituted strict gun control. Both of those countries did lower gun deaths but did not lower murder rates with gun control. As an unexpected side effect of strict gun control violence against women & elderly shot up drastically in Australia & Britain. If you actually manage to make it hard for a criminal to get a gun they simply go after weaker targets. Kohen & Felson suitable target theory illustrates this very well.
shananagans5 1 year ago
i'll accept the ban when everything and everyone feels good
abcdefghi123451000 1 year ago
I prefer to support my right to arms not by voting, but by purchasing arms...
canisdormit 1 year ago 2
@canisdormit Yes, it's more effective anyway.
gblpst81 1 year ago
I be happy to burn my guns if this world wasn't fucked up.
Ven0m1985 1 year ago
Ok. I have armor peircing rounds in .223 (not much bigger than your .22) aslo a suppressor on it. I paid my Class 3 Tax stamp for the suppressor.. My Remington 870 12 guage has that exact ATI folding stock, thats not an ATF issue at all..lol.. I have enough rounds of .223 and 7.62 to last a life time. Why? Because who knows when shit might hit the fan, but I'll tell you one thing this man will not be over thrown by any government. That would be giving up my rights as an American.. I'm ready!!
GreenMan82 1 year ago
I have a 100 rd drum for my AK. But a bayonet is over the line? WTF. Ya think if I miss you w/100 rounds I got a chance of stabbing you?
hutch1200 1 year ago
My SKS has a pistol grip, folding stock, a 20 round magazine, bayonette, and a flash hider. I'd put a grenade launcher on it too just to piss off liberals if I wanted to ruin it.
foughtwolf 1 year ago 43
@foughtwolf Not this liberal, wish I could fit one on my M1 carbine.
island4diver 1 year ago
@foughtwolf sounds like a good hippie-scaring gun
JamesDBlanc 1 year ago
@foughtwolf just by a yugo sks comes stock with the grenade launcher!!!!!!!
duffman0286 10 months ago
@foughtwolf but unless you have made several other modifications that gun is still illegal by fed law, even after the AWB sunsetted
vangion 8 months ago
@vangion
Yep, and I dont give a damn. 922 is a load of crap that is only used as a last means to get someone for a charge when nothing else can be found.
foughtwolf 8 months ago
@foughtwolf True, but a charge is a charge
vangion 8 months ago
@foughtwolf My SKS has a grenade launcher on it technically, but my 47 has all the above mentioned with a drum mag added in.
shotgunn9 7 months ago
@foughtwolf nice! fyi... your SKS probably already has a grenade launcher, as the type of grenades used with an SKS are similar to those used by the M-1 Garand. They have a shaft on them that just sorta slides down the barrel and then you use a blank round to fire the grenade... check for grenade sights in between your regular iron sights... it wouldn't surprise me if you had them! Stick it to the LIBERALS!!!
ImmaculateSludge 7 months ago
@ImmaculateSludge
Nah, mines a Norinco. As far as I know they didnt make a grenade launching version, but I dont know for sure, but since most of the Chinese SKS's were produced for the market and not for war Id say its safe to assume they werent made.
foughtwolf 7 months ago
try to take my firearms and you will walk off my property with holes in you or you won't walk at all
vengfulchild 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just want to know when the Constitution of the United States became "negotiable" I mean to me it seems like most gun laws infringe the right to bear arms. Hence they violate the second ammendment. Hence they are illegal and the people who wrote them are criminals. Hence we should use that 2A right to apprehend these criminals and toss them in prison or if they don't go peacably... Either way, it is our right and our duty to kick these crooks out. Who's with me?
mattxr2i 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I just want to know when the Constitution of the United States became "negotiable" I mean to me it seems like most gun laws infringe the right to bear arms. Hence they violate the second ammendment. Hence they are illegal and the people who wrote them are criminals. Hence we should use that 2A right to apprehend these criminals and toss them in prison or if they don't go peacably... Either way, it is our right and our duty to kick these crooks out. Who's with me?
mattxr2i 1 year ago
Liberals want guns away and have to create a crisis in order to do it. (Like anything else in they want gone or want more government for.) They pass the Brady bill because of what happened to Jim Brady and they advocate for more gun control because of the tragedies of Columbine and Virgina Tech. If banning guns prevents crime, how come Columbine and Virginia Tech was allowed to happen in these "gun free zones?"
prondextro 1 year ago 2
Let's outlaw all guns.. that will show those criminals! Look here, Mr Criminal, you can't use a gun anymore to commit your illegal act... cuz.. we made it.. illegal...
pfarabee 1 year ago
@pfarabee That's called wisdom. Anti-gunners play off emotion and ignorance, not wisdom and logic.
diesel11679 1 year ago
All I can say is, Thank God it's over :)
thortun15 1 year ago
Like the people who this law is targeting even gives a shit about laws...
okix25 1 year ago
probably the reason is because they fear an rebelion
az0921144 1 year ago
haha, lies and more lies. Stupid assault weapon ban
even if u ban it, it still shoots the same way.....
R4pidSh0t 1 year ago
yeah,but the ban doesnt include rimfire cartridges.its still BS!
308scoutrfl 1 year ago
its the assholes that use guns illegally that ruin the fun for sport shooters like myself.
armydude690 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why do Americans need "assault weapons"?" "What Americans needs "assault weapons"?" I'll tell why and who! Americans who live in the Southwest United States need them!! Why?? Because Obama refuses to enforce the LAW and protect Americans lives and property!! Thats why!Who knows what laws they will refuse to enforce next! With the current administration YOU are the soul person responsible for you and your families safety! Enforce the LAW Obama!!!
MrSimonGirty 1 year ago
i think all guns should be legal. it is necessary just in case the government tries to take away more of our rights, we should be able to fight back..shit we should even be able to buy grenades,rpg's,and snipers..
Puremexican4 1 year ago
its not about "making the streets of america safe"
its about the government wanting complete control over us.
the constitution was made for the people. and to keep the government from getting to much power.
if we dont practice our rights AND DEFEND THEM. we will be like sheep going to a slaughter house
mred6554 1 year ago
Watch "Innocents Betrayed"
swu880 1 year ago
I would gladly accept a worldwide ban on all guns, but first you must eradicate violence, war, hunger, homelessness, etc......Let me know when your done.
yournamehere654 1 year ago 78
@yournamehere654 don't forget corrupt government!
mattxr2i 1 year ago
@yournamehere654 Add unemployment, jealously and insanity to that list.
diesel11679 1 year ago
@yournamehere654 YES, and that means ERADICATE, not just postpone. Once you can GUARANTEE me 100% that there are no violent criminals and there never will be again, and that there are no tyrants waiting to take control of any country in the world, and there is no one that will try to break into my home and steal my possessions, and that I will have healthy food for the rest of my life, then and ONLY then I will surrender my firearms. Until then I'm keeping them no matter the what the law says.
gblpst81 1 year ago 2
@yournamehere654 lol
12voltguy 1 year ago
@yournamehere654 Excellent idea! But impractical. The gal that posed for our Statue of Liberty packed a LeMatt revolver under her robes. Eiffel, the guy that made the tower in Paris, gave it to her. Eiffel himself carried a 5.75mm Velo dog revolver. Well... I'm allowed to have as much BS as the Clintons! Ain't I?
xbones101 1 year ago
@yournamehere654 don't forget about tyranny in government. the main reason for the 2nd amendment
alexanderrhewitt 9 months ago 19
@yournamehere654 You'll also have to invent the men in black flashy thingy so that we can wipe all people's memories of any and all industrial skill. The only way to really get rid of any type of weapon is to destroy our ability to imagine and then create. That is far worse than just letting guns exist.
dlstb 6 months ago
I pose this question. Does anything Congress does make sense? The idea of gun control is a good one, utilized by most civilized nations. The only problem with it in the United States is that we have such an incompetent government that their attempts to implement such a control turns into a nightmare. I personally believe that Americans shouldn't be allowed to own fully automatic weapons, as well as military grade weapons (rocket launchers, grenade launchers, etc.). But that's me, its my opinion.
lastminuteregret 1 year ago
@lastminuteregret look at Switzerland's gun laws, and its crime rates. Compare them to those of the United States.
hamguy01 1 year ago
@hamguy01 One example is not enough to prove an argument, at least not a valid one.
lastminuteregret 1 year ago
batmand200 out....
batmand200 1 year ago
I can't buy a SCAR-H because of this fucking ban. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE!!!!!!!!!!!
DBxSnowman 1 year ago
Here's a point of reality. The tank rifle has a considerably slower rate of fire, additionally it is MUCH more difficult to conceal and use without the proper mounting - setting thereof being time consuming.
However. While I am a liberal, I fully support the public's right to bear arms. It is the fundamental building block of the U.S. Constitution. That being said when we allow for such grounds to be stolen from us due to our own fear; we are working against our own liberties.
KaiTenSatsuma 1 year ago
Sign an official petition to oppose the UN's "Small Arms Treaty" that Hillary Clinton has already signed!!! Go to "nationalgunrights(dot)org"
MELISSA84008 1 year ago
in Mass, a m4 w a flash suppressor is illegal cause of the suppressor but i can buy a Barrett 50 cal because it has a magazine of 10 rounds or less, a firearms physical characteristics do not determine its performance, the ban is bull and is designed to deny us our rights
spyderc85 1 year ago
Don't forget everyone, crime will go down once every law-abiding citizen has a gun. If the 2nd Amendment right is taken away, we will all suffer; crime will go up. Everyone has the right to "whatever weapon" they please, not just us Americans, but as long as they are safe about it.
opsmanprime 1 year ago
To the video producer; you're an idiot. The rest of the world is laughing at America and mortified for the families of victims. No-one can justify an assault weapon for any means other than the military. What hunter requires an automatic or semi-automatic 5.56 or even 7.62mm to down an animal? A shit one, thats for sure. And who the fuck needs a .50 cal (or 13.2mm anti tank rifle) weapon!? Planning to take out a vehicle? Didn't think so. That's right, we think you're all idiots. Peace.
batmand200 1 year ago
@batmand200 Whether or not you think we may "need" these firearms is beside the point. Do you honestly think people who own a .50 BMG rifle are a big threat to society? Give me a break. Show me a stat where a LEGALLY obtained .50 cal was used in a homicide... As for hunting, 5.56 AR-15's with a 5 round mag are perfect for hunting....why not? And the real kicker, all prior "assault weapons bans" of any kind proved entirely pointless and never reduced any gun violence.
72chevelless530 1 year ago
@72chevelless530 Whether or not a .50 BMG weapon has been used in a homicide is beside the point. The .50 BMG round was originally developed back in World War 1 to fulfill the requirement of an anti-aircraft weapon. I really don't think there is a need to elaborate on why a civilian DOES NOT need a weapon capable of firing the .50 BMG round.
batmand200 1 year ago
@72chevelless530 The AR-15. This weapon was developed in the 50's and was offered for sale to the US military. A muzzle velocity of 3,200 ft/s and relatively small size for its kill potential made it very popular. Remember the Washington Sniper? I do, and I'm on the other side of the Pacific. He used a Bushmaster XM-15 to kill 10 people and guess what, its a variant of the AR-15. The Port Arthur Massacre saw 35 dead at the hands of a crazed gunman and his AR-15. It has no place in society.
batmand200 1 year ago
@batmand200 LOL, the D.C. sniper could have used a remington 700 bolt action and had much WORSE results. The 5.56 round is designed to wound, not to kill like the "Hunting rifles" are. Port Arthur could have easily happened with a mini-14 or a kel-tec su16 which do NOT have ANY assault weapons features and will do the EXACT same thing. You sir, are buying in to the media's scare tactics. And still no .50 cal murder in the world.
72chevelless530 1 year ago
@72chevelless530 And I don't buy into the Media's garbage. What I'm afraid of are the bunches of goons running around in their militias claiming to defend everyone from the New World Order and convincing themselves they need to be equipped like the military to do so. Bad news, these guys will be put down hard if they attempt anything against trained professionals. And still the .50 was designed to bring down aircraft.
batmand200 1 year ago
@batmand200 You are STILL missing the point completely.... I don't care about your views on militia's or whatever, and you ARE buying into the media's B.S. 100% my friend. What we are talking about is the Assault Weapons Ban - a ban that states that a Ruger mini-14 is okay, an AR-15 is not. An SKS is okay, an AK-47 in semi is not. A .50 BMG will create uncontrollable homicidal tendencies in one's hands, and a .50 DTC will not. Do you really believe this shit?
72chevelless530 1 year ago
@72chevelless530 Yep :-)
batmand200 1 year ago
@batmand200, You're kidding, I hope. See, here is the thing that gets me...... You seem like a somewhat articulate individual (and you can at least spell correctly) yet I still cannot tell if you are joking and you really are that naive. This is common with many "gun-control" individuals - you spout off at the mouth having no actual knowledge of the difference between the firearms you want banned vs. not - banned. You ARE joking when you say "Yep :)", right????
72chevelless530 1 year ago
@batmand200 Sir, if you mean the .50 Barret or anything similar, it's actually meant mostly for light armor, not just aircraft. Hate to say it, but I do need to be equipped like or better than them to beat them. Pretty sure their M16 against my pussy .22 pistol isn't going to do me any good. You are simply a scared, misled cattle that will be cowering in the corner when that domestic or foreign enemy approaches. Also, beat down hard? Look up "guerrilla tactics". It's a way we beat the Brits.
sylentmyst 1 year ago
@sylentmyst Look, all you guys can argue till the cows come home (no pun intended). At the end of the day the fact is, civilians do not require and should not be allowed to own an AR-15 or equivalent. There is a military trained specifically to kill other humans, that is why these weapons were developed.
batmand200 1 year ago
@sylentmyst If you feel that your own government will turn on you like they did back in the barbaric chapters of history then you may as well turn the gun on yourself and pull the trigger. Save us all the time and ammunition. It is those who are at the extreme of fearing their own government that are the truly scared and mislead.
batmand200 1 year ago
@batmand200 Yep, sure. I'm not going to argue with you because this is an argument that even actually spoken face to face could honestly go on for days. I do not fear my government. I am not misled. I am simply mindful of the history and the facts. History always repeats itself. Now that I read your other comment toward me, which had not shown in the inbox, I realize that there really is no point in arguing as you are already a sheeple. Good day to you.
sylentmyst 1 year ago
@batmand200 Also, the AR-15 that was developed for the military was SELECT FIRE, which is not what we are talking about as these have been controlled in the U.S since 1934. We are talking about the semi-automatic civilian-legal rifles that are based on the original proven military designs. Anti-gun politicians began calling these semi-automatics "Assault weapons", when an assault weapon by true definition is fully automatic/select fire. Maybe now you can see our side?
72chevelless530 1 year ago
@72chevelless530 I think all the gun nuts on here would agree that an AR-15 and it's relatives could have the rounds in their magazine better utilised in selective targeting on semi-automatic then simply pulling and holding it's trigger on auto and firing more or less without discretion. The issue is with it's high muzzle velocity combined with a round being re-chambered instantly.
batmand200 1 year ago
@batmand200 So do you think that a mini-14 should be banned? An M-1 Garand? A wischester 94??? You can get so good with a Winchester 94 (lever action) that you can fire it damn near as fast as a semi-auto - with much MORE velocity than the AR's .223 and over twice the Kinetic Energy! That's a freakin' John Wayne gun man! You will never win this argument.
72chevelless530 1 year ago
@batmand200 How many times has an AR-15 been used in a crime compared to......oh i dont know, a pistol or a shot gun? why do you people fear these guns so damn much? how many times have you heard of some one killing a bunch of kids on the street with a AK compared to how many time you've heard of that happening with UZI's or pistols?
the ban on these guns is based off of unfounded fear spread by the media.
Oh and the 7.62mm round is a mid range cheap round great for deer and black bear.
rempump870 1 year ago
@batmand200 How many times has an AR-15 been used in a crime compared to......oh i dont know, a pistol or a shot gun? why do you people fear these guns so damn much? how many times have you heard of some one killing a bunch of kids on the street with a AK compared to how many time you've heard of that happening with UZI's or pistols?
the ban on these guns is based off of unfounded fear spread by the media.
rempump870 1 year ago
@batmand200 How many times has an AR-15 been used in a crime compared to......oh i dont know, a pistol or a shot gun? why do you people fear these guns so damn much? how many times have you heard of some one killing a bunch of kids on the street with a AK compared to how many time you've heard of that happening with UZI's or pistols?
the ban on these guns is based off of unfounded fear spread by the media.
rempump870 1 year ago
@batmand200 Because the military has it, we are able to have it.
Why would a hunter need a 5.56 to down an animal? Well,I think its illegal to hunt big game with a 5.56. Too weak.
If the Gov. has it, then we are allowed to have it. The 2nd amedment is about protection ourselfs from tyranical Gov.
If your gov ever takes you rights away, you will have no chance. O wait your Gov. already took your rights. And one thing, why would you laugh about people dying you sick fuck.
skater3shefik 1 year ago
@skater3shefik Are you trained like the military to use these weapons? Have you or others been deemed capable psychologically to hold these weapons? Fortunately my government has taken the right to own a weapon capable of large scale killing. Why do US police now carry assault weapons in patrol cars? Because an equivalent weapon can be carried by any goon on the street.
batmand200 1 year ago
@batmand200 I have not seen one cop with an assault rifle... And by the way... Crimianls get guns regardless the laws.... Hahaha you are brainwashed by the medias garbage...
You will never get it... and you will never be able to open your eyes.
And by the way, your statement made completely no sense...
I can't carry an assault rifle by the way, but i do know of some Gangster by here who somehow, even thought the law does not allow have machine guns. I WONDER WHY?
skater3shefik 1 year ago