In America we have free speech.The news media is not held accountable for truthfully reporting the news.Spin and slant are determined by political agenda.The liberal elitist media think that the public is ignorant.If you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.
Clinton is not a Jewish name... and neither is Brady. Pull your head out of your ass and realize that you are alienating your own allies. You might as well go and shoot yourself in the food while you're at it.
I don't care what you're race or creed or color is. If you are a US citizen, and support freedom, rights, and the second amendment, then you are an ally... it's that simple.
United we stand, divided we fall. Go think about that for a bit.
Fox/CNN are KKK networks, their ONLY agenda is divide the country by creating, controversy, spreading rumors, dishonesty, deceptions & ignorance with their news & brainless shows. Lets not forget about Fox News, Selma, AL, NEGROS ATTACK POLICE, DEMAND SPECIAL RIGHTS. WALLACE DEFIANT: WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRIOISTS Just like BUSH if they cannot rule or dominated you are considered a terrorist.
Long live NRA, gun rights are important. Of course fully automatic assault rifles should be banned. Semi-Auto, Bolt action, Single Shot, Hunting rifles should not be banned.
wrong saywow 2002, the 2nd ammendment is to protect us from tyranny within our own gov., its expressly refering to military weapons, if you were really concerned about rights, you would know this, you are a fake, a plant, and an enemy of liberty, come out of the closet, be who you really are, or, realize your wrong, and quit giving the enemies of freedom ammunition.
Al right calm down please. I believe in right to bear arms, how lethal is the question. I really don't know who to agree to but honestly writing unnecessary words here won't serve a purpose.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I was scrolling back the comments page to find the person who replied to me but on the way I was just amazed at the paranoia.
Obama supports banning a small number of specific guns, and he's the enemy. Bush tapped everyone's phones and recorded everyone's emails and felt he could do anything he felt like to anyone within or outside the law, but for some reason that bothers not one of you. Govt might TURN tyrannical so you need guns?? Govt just TURNED toward the rule of law as of Nov. 4th.
Is it ok to build a nuclear weapon in your backyard? If you said no - then have some universality and understand that some things should not allowed to be in the hands of civilians. If you said yes... you're a fucking moron.
From there i believe we can start checking off the list of what's ridiculous to use.
The problem is not responsible citizens. The problem is our criminal justice system giving the thumbs up to letting all sorts of criminals off the hook for testimony. Or allowing murderers and rapists out on parol for "good behavior". I had a friend that was shot by a conficted felon on his way home from the grocery store. Are you gonna be the one to look his mother in the eye and tell her, "It was safer that he didn't have a gun"?
BUT WHERE DOES IT STOP...OK we don't need AR's to hunt or protect our belongings. So they become banned. Next, people decide anything other than a single shot should be banned because you don't need a semi-auto or magazine fed weapon for hunting or self-defense. Then people say you can't have a weapon that shoots bigger than .22 cal because you don't need a .45 ACP to hunt/scare burglars....and it continues. They banned most guns in the UK and guess what? SHARP increases in knife violence.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
no one needs guns like the guns these guys claim to need. Unless you live in a fantasy land where you think you can stand off against the army and national guard with you and the other republicans in your culdesac.
You want to hunt? You want to fire a warning shot or defend yourself against a criminal or burglar? You don't need to spray bullets.
Americans can buy a mind-numbing arsenal of death, all they have to do is wait for a background check, but for some reason that is repression.
What if our government turns tyrannical? What if they decide to repeal several more amendments from Bill of Rights? Who would defend your rights in this case? National Guard? They are controlled by government.
I understand your position "you can't fight an army". Yeah, you can't if you are alone. But if there are several millions people with powerful guns - let me assure you, any tyrant will think twice.
that's a culture thing. i've lived in japan. there's no crime either. is that because there are no guns? it has to do with our culture that we kill each other. not guns. japan never had a frontier. in a lot of ways it's still a kind of feudal country where instead of shoguns, its corporations running the show. just saying.
in fact, japan's strict gun control is what led to it being passed up by all other countries. Japan mastered the use of gunpowder and firearms very early on but the Samuraii and Shogun saw it as a threat so they slowly outlawed it, first from peasants, than lords, than even the govt. it wasn't till after the american civil war that firearms were reintroduced and by that time Japan had fallen far behind. You could say WW2 was a response, the japanese trying to catch up to the rest of the world
but even if you teach abstinence and get rid of guns, people are still going to have sex and kill each other.
the thing to think about is guns dont protect dumb people. they protect smart people from dumb people. just like how condoms protect the girl from getting impregnated by the dumb guy.
criminals will always have guns. they're willing to break the law, remember. the question is should innocent people be allowed to have guns. i say yeah. let innocent people defend themselves.
First of all, i didnt realize there was no crime before firearms or that there's been no crime after gun laws were passed. second of all, Just because you saw it happen on Touched By an Angel (best title evah!) doesnt mean it's more likely your family will shoot you. Guns prevent crime. Just waving an unloaded gun at someone will get them to leave your property. You never hear about the crimes that DONT happen due to there being a civilian with a gun because those crimes are prevented.
I don't have any clue of what touched by an angel is... at all.
Guns don't prevent crime, if that was true, there would be no crime.
I've never been robbed by one person on my property, it's usually by 3 or 4 people, do I now need to walk around with 5 or 6 all the time to scare them off, or maybe I'll show them my gun, and the 3 of them will show me theirs, I dunno, I think giving them 50 bucks is better than being shot...
the argument that "criminals will always have guns" is such a phony argument. criminals only have guns because the guns got into society legally in the first place.
I'm fine with people having guns for hunting, but having a gun for self protection is simply a product of over-hyped and misplaced fear.
since you can't shoot anyone with a joint, i don't see how that's relevant.
yes, it's a phony argument to say that it must be legal to own a gun because criminals have guns. because that assumes that the only people who kill people with guns obtained those guns illegally. and it also assumes you can only protect yourself with a gun.
you cant get a gun if you have a record.Then again, if yure a convict you can't vote or run for office either. Anyway, most criminals get their guns illegally because thy're not stupid. are you really so dumb to buy a gun, use it, and then be surprised you get picked up? no. dont underestimate criminals. if youre not that dumb, neither are they. they get the guns illegally so theres no trace. thats just common sense. domestic shootings, are nothing compared to whats happening on the streets.
The point, uforeader, is that prohibition doesn't work. But you knew that and threw out a non sequitur in defence anyway.
Far more people are harmed by lawful activity done with motor vehicles than lawful activity with guns. Yet you espouse prohibiting guns and not cars. How about focusing on actual risk and quit demonizing law abiding citizens.
I don't get conservatives. They want to outlaw drug use, a victimless crime, but defend to the death the right to own an instrument that is designed to kill people. They go on and on about protecting the rights of unborn fetuses, but are against spending money to help educate about contraception. Then once the baby is born they don't want a health care system set up so that all children get good treatment regardless of their parent's income.
In defense of ender1, the AK-47, Type 56, and AK-74 and most of their variants are all select fire (full-auto as well as semi-auto). They only become semi-only, when surplus rifles are ripped apart, and sold as parts kits to commercial businesses. From here they are rebuilt on new recievers and trigger groups that only have a semi-auto feature. These are most of the AK's you see at the range today (i.e. SAR-1, WASR-10, AMD-65, all the Norinco guns, as well as the SLR's offered by Arsenal).
Classic you are wasting your time trying to educate Ender1zero1, he must have stayed at a holiday inn last night or something he knows as much about firearms as the talking heads on CNN .
Very true I never claimed otherwise I probably know less then many of the talking heads on CNN when it comes to guns and many other things. I hunt rabbits with an old .22 pellet rifle and deer hunt when I feel like it and the season is open guns are a tool not a passion for me. I can oil mine take mine apart and put them back together and that's about it. I never claimed otherwise.
I'll take it as friendly but I stopped watching T.V. years ago media in general disappoints and T.V. is nonsense t&a and just plain garbage for the most part anymore IMO
I'll admit I have FOX news on in the background most of the time. If you want the most honest issues on gun control, Obama, Pork, they are the most honest with an obvious lean toward the right.
From there I see comment here on YouTube that I see I have an interest in, as I did with yours. But before I make my attack I do a lot of Internet research before I open my mouth. I have watched CNN and MSNBC but they really lean so far left they don't cover a lot of issues, and they lie a lot.
Again different strokes I don't set out to attack anyone and I won't fight back if someone feels the need to insult I figure they must have a reason and if they need to blow off some stream I don't mind it's not like they can hurt my feelings or anything it's just online maybe it a gender thing :).
Classic - I have the opposite experience, I watch Fox for a chuckle now and then and it seems like they lie all the time, ESPECIALLY about Obama and pork. The opinion guys (all of prime time) are much worse than the news folks, but it's pretty constant and extremely disingenuous. Examples include Pelosi's "mouse" project and the Disneyland to Vegas train line -- both appeared nowhere in the bill. What has MSNBC lied about?
Dot#1 Senate "Compromise" 2/7, Page 70: 50 million dollars go to activities authorized by the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act.
Dot#2 California Bay-Delta Restoration Act states there are 750 plant and animal species, some listed as threatened or endangered in California.
DOT#3 the Government's Department of Fish and Game of endangered species covering California says the Salt-Marsh Harvest Mouse is an endangered species.
True. But it the point is that the 50 million going to activities authorized by the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act will do nothing to create more that a few jobs and it will do nothing to stimulate the economy. Isnt that the point of a stimulus bill?
Classic - I agree that a debate over the best way to stimulate the economy would have been a much better use of air time than this endless hyperbole that the bill contained clauses to protect endangered mice and to build Disneyland rides.
The whole point was that this bill was full of crap that had nothing to do with stimulating the economy, as was the promise this bill was to do. Then after the Republicans were locked out of the Senate while the Democrate re-wrote the final issue of the bill and gave the Republicans 15 hours to read it before Obama signed it.
What happened to Obama's promise that all bills would be put on the internet for 5 days for the public to review before he signed it. Another Obama lie.
That's a different conversation, but I do believe that building train corridors creates more jobs than tax cuts. We've tried deficits-for-tax-cuts in the 80s and again this decade and it did nothing but shift wealth.
Congress should have allowed themselves a longer review. I hated that during the last 2 terms, every major piece of legislation was introduced days before scheduled recesses. The abuses by the majority (ie watch?v=EY_OPcGBSrI ) were infuriating too. I'd like that crap to stop.
Actually the conversation is about your claim FOX lied about the mouse and the train line.
Again the stimulus package is a here and now help bill. As you mention about that article, the train is far off in the future.
And if you look at history tax cuts work, where wild spending does not.
And I don't mind the politics as usual, but Obama promised change and transparency, and no lobbyists too. Clearly the largest spending bill in history was not transparent, nor was it bipartisan.
Did you? Look at politifact or a hard news site, not some loony right blog. The $8 bil isn't even entirely for rail, and the Anaheim-LV project isn't in the bill period.
"Federal transportation officials said that they were still drawing up guidelines for how the money would be spent, and cautioned that it was too early to predict what they would do."
Again, the bill does not specifically allocate money to Reid's pet train project anymore than it does Boehner's. Fox doesn't say that, though. They talk again and again about a specific earmark for a "Disneyland" to Vegas train.
It's true that the $ were bumped at the last minute, in the dead of night. But instead of pointing this out, Fox absurdly tells us this was a Reid earmark for a Disneyland to Las Vegas train when in fact there is no language specifying this particular corridor (though if you've ever driven from LA to Vegas, you'd probably agree that it's as deserving as many competing projects), nor is there any factual basis for saying that Reid slipped this into the bill.
The train has clearly been a pet project of Harry Reid for years. All the projects in the bill including, the mouse and the train are blank checks. You even pointed that out in the train article. The $50 Million for the mouse goes to "activities authorized by the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act". The activities are not in the bill either. Rahm Emmanuel said it perfectly "you should never let a good crisis go to waste".
Whats the difference between a car driving on the right side of the street and a another car driving down the wrong side of the street ? A 20 dollar bottle of whiskey or case of beer available to anyone over the age of 21.
On this premise should we ban alchohol/Autos because it can be misused as well ?
Did I say we should ban guns? I don't think so. We do need tighter controls and maybe we need to finally admit that gun ownership should come with a large measure of responsibly and verifiable safeguards.
Until the People who make the laws realize that the crooks they allow back on the streets dont give a spit about their laws then It makes no sense to Continue to hack away at the constitution with legalese that only hurts those who actually obey the law.
For all gun owners. Owning guns may be a right but it does come with responsibilities just like anything else. You need car insurance licenses proof of ownership etc no reason those types of rules shouldn't apply to guns as well.
Yeah the liscences would be a great idea , that way if the government ever bans the second amendment they'll know whose house to send the police or military to confiscate said firearms , Dont have a problem with the insurance seeing as how few accidents are reported from firearms compared to aoutos every day should be dirt cheap and then we should be allowed to shoot em in the city on public roads too you know since were insured and all.
If the Government ever passed an amendment to change the Constitution and outlaw guns it would take 2/3 of the House and Senate and then it would have to be ratified by 38 states. Do you really think that could ever happen? Sorry big bad boogey man scare tactics don't work
If have been alive for more than 20 years you would have noticed that they (congress/senate) have been chipping away at not only the second but first ammendments through laws and legalese, they actually wouldnt have to abolish the second amendment if they can effectively create enough restrictions that would only make it possible for only the richest americans to own one.
And what does that kit buy you without any I.D.? It buys you a trip to federal prison. :) Google Gun control act of 1986 and the National Firearms Act of 1934. Besides its more than just a kit and anyone who has taken a semi auto firearm apart knows this. And
People modify cars too, making them faster heck some cars are able to break the speedlimit three times over which is extremely dangerous to other bystanders if they were to do so , do you think we should create laws restricting modifying automobiles Hp which if abused could cause an innocent person being killed.
I mean we already have laws in place to keep motorists safe but as we all know some people dont obey the laws so shouldnt we force draconian laws on everybody
There is a kit that the company he mentioned "Thompson and a Ruger" makes a conversion kit to make the AK-47 a .22LR caliber. There are plans you can buy but like I said you would have to be a machinist to make it happen.
Nope it's for a AK-47 assault rifle and they even tell you it is illegal to modify the gun in the way they lay out, but you believe whatever makes you happy
Nope Ak47s dont come in semi automatic only fully automatic, The semi automatic versions are called mak 90s and such, Please learn the difference Its like calling a fully aoutomatic m16 the same as an AR15, They may look similar but the cycling process is completely different.
Trust me I didnt learn about firearms from the internet or the media.
Ender1zero1 you abviously know absolutely nothing about firearms , because every body and I mean everybody who does knows that an AK47 is already a Fully automatic firearm ,
You my uneducated freind are an example of which this video is about , a person who learned about firearms through a misinformative media.
You sir are the posterboy and have exposed yourself and your ignorance fully.
Trust me full auto AK47 is not the same thing as a a semi auto Mak 90 or the polytech version, Its like comparing a select fire M16 to a semi auto AR15 .. completely different.
semi autos and autos aren't my thing so I'll take your word for it. I've never understood the fascination some people have with semi autos and autos, different strokes.
If you are a citizen you are only allowed to own a fully automatic firearm if it was made before 1968, and only if you have special permission from the BATF.
Look up: Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
People do things they are not allowed to do all the time. I remember when the law was enacted I thought my Dad was gonna pop a blood vessel he was so mad. He got over it. The kits can be found online directions for doing it can be found online and I've heard they can be "aquired" at gun shows but I really wouldn't know if that's true or not.
"midway conversion kit", Same as the other company you gave me. The conversion kit that have for the AK-47 converts the gun's caliber to a .22LR so you can us the gun for plinking. I have a coversion kit for my 9mm pistol that converts in onto a .22LR as well.
As much as I don't like to date myself I was a little kid so it had to be 1968. Used to you said $19.99 and everyone knew you were just picking a common infomercial price tag I just added 20 bucks on for inflation the $39.95 price tag was just a quip me trying to have a little fun certainly didn't mean to get your heat up.
I'm a fact guy, so I love a good challenge, and I am a gun nut for the most part. I'm into pistols and trap and skeet guns. Not so much into rifles. I hate this gun control crap. Gun Free zones only get people killed.
I don't remember the 1968 bills, but to date myself too, I was 12. The 1994 Clinton ban made me made. I live in NJ and they added more guns on top of the Clinton ban. My Father actually had to ship some of his guns to someone in another state just to keep them.
I'm not happy about the gun control either but something has to happen. I lived in a moderate size midwest city until a few years ago and I got used to hearing gunshots I actually stopped noticing them. When we moved it was days and days until I figured out what was missing, gunshots.
Hey, I live 5 minutes out of Newark New Jersey. For as long as I can remember Newark has been in the top 5 murder cities in the whole counrty. I think right now they are 4th or 5th.
Case in point. If you are unaware, England ban a HUGE number of guns in their country several years ago. Since then, gun crime has decreased, but guess what; knife related crimes and death have skyrocketed. The countries home secretary had this to say, "We will continue to make absolutely clear that carrying a knife is unacceptable in our society." So where does it stop? A ban on knifes? A ban on bats? A ban on ...?
They would have said the same about the British in 1776. Over the past 230 years, the U.S. government has slowly corrupted its original intent. It happens to any government. I don't suggest it will happen now, in 10 years, or even 50 years, but sooner or later there WILL be some kind of revolution in the U.S. Its always happened with every form of any government in existence. Personally, I think a revolution every few hundred years is a healthy cycle in any country.
What do you think about the government? Banning alcohol (which kills about 13,500 DIRECTLY per year) kills more than these weapons. So wouldn't that make more since?
It's not all just about "keeping the government in check" (Although at this stage in the game, you really need to be weary. The great Roman Empire only lasted about 300 years from rise to fall. Our country is nearing a point at which the world is unfamiliar (unknown territory if you will). Moreover this arguement is about truth. If the government says they are banning a certain gun because it has been involved in huge numbers of shootings and you later find out thats not the truth...
I have to admit the guy is right about the media misinforming Americans about the firearms in question, But this goes beyond the issue of firearms really ... I have noticed that the media has forsaken its role of delivering unbiased news to the point of spreading disinformation to ommiting important news altogether.
I just hope the same richest or most influential people dont do to the internet what they did to the old media formats.
Fully automatic weapons...a very limited number of people actually own them, and most are used as dealer "samples" to retailers. I've looked into what it takes to get a full-auto and it is more trouble than its worth(Plus the fact that most full-auto's are well over $10,000). I can't believe people buy into that kind of BS.
There is nothing techincally different between my AK and my Remington 7400 Deer rifle. Both have box magazines, both are semi-auto. People who say there are crazy black and white differences between "Assault Rifles" and your ordinary deer rifles need to wake up and do some research. Telling me I can't have a gun because it looks "scary" is just dumb.
People call a lot of these semi automatic rifles high power but the reality is the standard AR15 and 5.56(.223) round is one of the weakest centerfire rounds out there. Bolt action hunting rifles built for bigger game are much much higher powered than any .223 AR could imagine to be.
Defense which is exactly what the Second Amendment regards. You shouldn't need more of a need than that but in midwest prairie dogs are a huge problem to farmers. They have towns of thousands of dogs which ruins fields. The faster you can shoot the better. Target grade ARs are taken out there and are a much better help to the farmer than any musket ever could be. There are many competitions that utilize the AR or similar rifles, which is just as good of justification as a baseball bat.
If the Second Amendment is about defense, then what does your wish to mow down 500 prairie dogs have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't justify the school & office shootings that legalizing those weapons would facilitate.
Call it mowing down but they are a pest causing both crop loss and machinery damage to farmers. It doesn't have anything to do with defense, but the question was what is another reason to own them. Let me ask this. What benefits does baseball have to the country? People have died at the end of a bat yet they are only accepted use it for entertainment. Why should we allow an entertainment device to be legal if it can also greatly enhance a persons ability to kill another?
Unless you're playing Grand Theft Auto, you can't really go on a killing spree with a baseball bat. Assault rifles are different. Aren't there better ways to deal with prarie dogs... like making a fence?
So now its about a killing spree and not just killing? You have to kill a bunch at one time, though only once or so a year rather than kill one at a time a few a month? And what good does a fence do you on animals that tunnel? You must live in the city because anyone who has spent any time in the country knows how much trouble even a few ground hogs/ prairie dogs can cause, let a lone by the thousands.
The NWO wants to leave Americans with the same weapons that the Palestinians must use to protect themselves and their children from zionists - sticks and stones!
DON'T ley them take our guns!!! If they do its OVER!!
No. That is the argument that the gun nuts use. I am showing how ridiculous that argument is.
Gun loonies say they need guns to keep the government in check.(see DaytonaRoadsters posting). That argument is delusional in a day when the government's military force is unlimited.
Yeah, that's why our military had no trouble in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
So people who support upholding the 2nd amendment are now "loonies?" What about those who support freedom of speech? Are they "speech loonies?" We better get speech under control too huh? Boy, are you ever misinformed and well indoctrinated. From now on, just post, "baaaa" because that's all that you are really saying.
Proponents of the retention of the full guarantee of the Rights SPECIFIED by the 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights enumerates it doesn't grant, have never defended their position with the proposition that citizens need to defend themselves against Cruise missiles or H-bombs.
Please familiarize yourself with period and the other writings of those who first framed and codified the Constitution. You will be more likely to add informed discussion vs foolish
So then where do you stop or start? What is your judgement line as to what is too good at defending a person and what isn't? Should we make the world eliminate all weapons? Should we make the country eliminate all weapons? Don't just give the BS that people pro gun are pro home nukes. Lets live in the real world. Lets use US statistics. What type of statistic and at what level should we draw the line? Hammers can be used to kill people, should we ban them as well? Where is the line?
Let's be clear: we're talking about the "line" where something has 2nd A. protection or it doesn't. I have two ideas for what gets protected: 1) Only weapons technology that existed circa 1791, or 2) only weapons minimally powerful to pursue a non-offensive purpose.
Hammers & handguns can be used to attack others, but they have other justifications. An assault rifle or bomb is overkill; thus, no constitutional protection.
State & cities can have more powerful weapons, but not individuals.
And, no, you don't need an assault rifle to hunt. If you do, that's pathetic.
I am sympathetic to the revolutionary aspect of the Second Amendment, but this doesn't mean private individuals get to have offensive weapons. That's irresponsibly dangerous.
A fair compromise is allowing local public organizations - State, county, city, perhaps neighborhood - store high-powered weapons & ammo. A "well-regulated militia" implies public, not private... we don't want skinhead groups with AK-47s.
You have never been on a prairie dog hunt where the ability to rapidly shoot is a huge advantage. When you have 500 prairie dogs a fast rifle helps. Lets look at what happens in a revolution if all the firearms are kept under lock by the government. The government pushes, the people push another way, the government has the firearms. Does that seem like a good idea? I like the idea of restricting firearms from criminals but law abiding citizens are to be assumed guilty and not allowed them?
1) there isn't just one "government"; there are federal, State, city, and county gov'ts. Let ALL of the gov'ts have access to guns & there won't be tyranny.
2) its been almost 200 years since the USA has been invaded by an army.
3) in a democratic society as pluralistic as ours, the likelihood that facism might break out is MUCH less likely than the real danger a disgruntled employee slips a background check and shoots up his office, or a teen uses grandpa's guns to shoot up his high school.
1) Tyranny at all levels of government - enforced by arms denied citizens
2) Dec 7, 1941 doesn't count?
3) Don't know where your from, but in the USA we have a Republican form of government. Fascism HAS arisen in States with similar forms of government. Please review history before making statement about history in the future. You will seem much less the fool when your postulations can be backed up by facts and verifiable trends.
The word militia originally legally meant (Virginia Bill of Rights, Section 13) and still legally means (U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 31) the whole able-bodied citizenry of the country, not the formal armed forces of the United States. Therefore, "A well regulated Militia" is a well-organized citizens' army, not a well-controlled standing army.
What do you think the Second A was talking about? Hunting firearms or firearms to defend against an oppressor? Which do you honestly think they created it for? They put it in to allow people to own firearms to defend themselves. I want these assault rifles IF I ever need to defend myself, especially when you think of another country invading. The Second A was for defense which is exactly what these rifles are great at doing. the fact technology was only at muskets then is irrelevant.
The golden rule of history: when the people have the guns make the people make the rules; when the people can't defend themselves from tyranny, they end up with fewer rights and often in holocaust.
Holocaust: Germany 1930s-40s (13mil. dead), Soviet Union 1920s-80s (45mil), Com. China (50mil and rising), Kampuchea 70s-80s (2mil), Sudan (2.5mil and rising), Iran (1mil and rising), etc.
The ban Clinton passed DIDN'T ban anything fully automatic. It banned some semi automatic firearms and magazine that held more than 10 rounds. The odd thing is how certain firearms get picked. They pick visual features about the firearm to ban them. They didn't pick based on caliber or function(beyond semi auto). They took the ones with black synthetic plastic stocks and said those are bad and let ones with wood stocks, operating the same way with the same bullet, stay legal.
you are stupid..fully auto is illegal and has been since the 1930s...they are trying to ban semi-auto..which is technolgy well over 100 years old because it 'looks dangerous'
Since courtesy involves habitually caring for & thinking of other individuals than ourselves the concept of "safety" is inherent within the context of "courtesy." But "safety" by itself is narrowly focused & diabolically selfish. The word "safety" as used in our current social rhetoric can even extend & most often does to completely exclude courteous behavior from our thoughts & actions
Homeland security, Build walls lock doors kill foreigners fear strangers hoard more stuff
Your missing the point. semi auto guns were not made for war. They were made for hunting and personal defense. The point is that our media is bought and payed for just like yours. The same way the people are convinced to vote against gay marriage or marijuana legalization, to vote for a war president, they use the same tactics to trick us into giving up our defenses. Those who give up liberty for security get neither.
yes that is why in canada there are daily raped/mugged and murdered people because the people don't have guns? what planet are you on? And if there is such a high crime then see my comment above, Then the US isn't a safe place
well thank you for proving my point robin. Your right not enough people are protecting themselves. The world is a dangerous place taking guns rights away won't fix that. It will only embolden those who rob gas stations break into houses or carjack people at stoplights.
In America we have free speech.The news media is not held accountable for truthfully reporting the news.Spin and slant are determined by political agenda.The liberal elitist media think that the public is ignorant.If you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.
dannyfivefifty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pillemannen
Clinton is not a Jewish name... and neither is Brady. Pull your head out of your ass and realize that you are alienating your own allies. You might as well go and shoot yourself in the food while you're at it.
I don't care what you're race or creed or color is. If you are a US citizen, and support freedom, rights, and the second amendment, then you are an ally... it's that simple.
United we stand, divided we fall. Go think about that for a bit.
DaedalEVE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fox/CNN are KKK networks, their ONLY agenda is divide the country by creating, controversy, spreading rumors, dishonesty, deceptions & ignorance with their news & brainless shows. Lets not forget about Fox News, Selma, AL, NEGROS ATTACK POLICE, DEMAND SPECIAL RIGHTS. WALLACE DEFIANT: WE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRIOISTS Just like BUSH if they cannot rule or dominated you are considered a terrorist.
BonafideBlinger 2 years ago
Whats vrong in having machineguns? I think they are way cooler than semi-autos.
bigbattles 2 years ago 14
gotta be rich to afford the ammo :)
Russoft 2 years ago 6
I love you NRA :]
danniboothediva 2 years ago 13
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't get these people.....
ver506 2 years ago
Long live NRA, gun rights are important. Of course fully automatic assault rifles should be banned. Semi-Auto, Bolt action, Single Shot, Hunting rifles should not be banned.
saywow2002 2 years ago
wrong saywow 2002, the 2nd ammendment is to protect us from tyranny within our own gov., its expressly refering to military weapons, if you were really concerned about rights, you would know this, you are a fake, a plant, and an enemy of liberty, come out of the closet, be who you really are, or, realize your wrong, and quit giving the enemies of freedom ammunition.
danel3591 2 years ago 2
Al right calm down please. I believe in right to bear arms, how lethal is the question. I really don't know who to agree to but honestly writing unnecessary words here won't serve a purpose.
saywow2002 2 years ago
full auto shouldn't be banned and full auto laws that exist currently should be lessoned get it right no gun ban is a good gun ban
AlderTheKitty 2 years ago 3
Wayne's a good man. He's right too!
auxmike 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
NRA SUCKS!!!
jorgnava 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I was scrolling back the comments page to find the person who replied to me but on the way I was just amazed at the paranoia.
Obama supports banning a small number of specific guns, and he's the enemy. Bush tapped everyone's phones and recorded everyone's emails and felt he could do anything he felt like to anyone within or outside the law, but for some reason that bothers not one of you. Govt might TURN tyrannical so you need guns?? Govt just TURNED toward the rule of law as of Nov. 4th.
GretchenDawntreader 2 years ago
Any ban is just the fisrt step in a total ban. Go f@#@ Yourself you blind bitch!
tinner38 2 years ago 6
Is it ok to build a nuclear weapon in your backyard? If you said no - then have some universality and understand that some things should not allowed to be in the hands of civilians. If you said yes... you're a fucking moron.
From there i believe we can start checking off the list of what's ridiculous to use.
LorenzKamo 2 years ago
The problem is not responsible citizens. The problem is our criminal justice system giving the thumbs up to letting all sorts of criminals off the hook for testimony. Or allowing murderers and rapists out on parol for "good behavior". I had a friend that was shot by a conficted felon on his way home from the grocery store. Are you gonna be the one to look his mother in the eye and tell her, "It was safer that he didn't have a gun"?
SKYVAIN 2 years ago 6
BUT WHERE DOES IT STOP...OK we don't need AR's to hunt or protect our belongings. So they become banned. Next, people decide anything other than a single shot should be banned because you don't need a semi-auto or magazine fed weapon for hunting or self-defense. Then people say you can't have a weapon that shoots bigger than .22 cal because you don't need a .45 ACP to hunt/scare burglars....and it continues. They banned most guns in the UK and guess what? SHARP increases in knife violence.
SKYVAIN 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
no one needs guns like the guns these guys claim to need. Unless you live in a fantasy land where you think you can stand off against the army and national guard with you and the other republicans in your culdesac.
You want to hunt? You want to fire a warning shot or defend yourself against a criminal or burglar? You don't need to spray bullets.
Americans can buy a mind-numbing arsenal of death, all they have to do is wait for a background check, but for some reason that is repression.
GretchenDawntreader 2 years ago
What if our government turns tyrannical? What if they decide to repeal several more amendments from Bill of Rights? Who would defend your rights in this case? National Guard? They are controlled by government.
I understand your position "you can't fight an army". Yeah, you can't if you are alone. But if there are several millions people with powerful guns - let me assure you, any tyrant will think twice.
NEJIBMEHB 2 years ago 7
Agree with you on this one. Look at Iraq And Afghanistan, they only have small fire-arms and they are able to stand up to so many armies.
saywow2002 2 years ago 2
Ban guns. Ask why Japan is one of the safest place on earth. Because they don't have guns.
zigyzigy13 2 years ago
that's a culture thing. i've lived in japan. there's no crime either. is that because there are no guns? it has to do with our culture that we kill each other. not guns. japan never had a frontier. in a lot of ways it's still a kind of feudal country where instead of shoguns, its corporations running the show. just saying.
gangreneday 2 years ago
Comment removed
gangreneday 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
in fact, japan's strict gun control is what led to it being passed up by all other countries. Japan mastered the use of gunpowder and firearms very early on but the Samuraii and Shogun saw it as a threat so they slowly outlawed it, first from peasants, than lords, than even the govt. it wasn't till after the american civil war that firearms were reintroduced and by that time Japan had fallen far behind. You could say WW2 was a response, the japanese trying to catch up to the rest of the world
gangreneday 2 years ago
shooting for peace is like fucking for virginity
lewghost 2 years ago
no. having a gun is like wearing a condom.
gangreneday 2 years ago
still you're no longer a virgin, and peace is still not attained... condom or not...
lewghost 2 years ago
so your point is that we should teach abstinence because people will never have sex.
right? or do you believe people will have sex no matter what and the best thing is for them to protect themselves.
if so, you get where i'm coming from.
gangreneday 2 years ago
I think the majority of people shouldn't have sex or guns, mainly because they are dumb fucks... but that's never gonna happen
I guess I'd rather teach abstinence, because you're creating life, and limit the number of guns, because they destroy life...
lewghost 2 years ago
but even if you teach abstinence and get rid of guns, people are still going to have sex and kill each other.
the thing to think about is guns dont protect dumb people. they protect smart people from dumb people. just like how condoms protect the girl from getting impregnated by the dumb guy.
criminals will always have guns. they're willing to break the law, remember. the question is should innocent people be allowed to have guns. i say yeah. let innocent people defend themselves.
gangreneday 2 years ago
do criminals break the law cause it's fun? or is it because their lives have been screwed by gun violence?
as for innocent people defending themselves... they usually end up hurting a family member more often than a criminal
lewghost 2 years ago
First of all, i didnt realize there was no crime before firearms or that there's been no crime after gun laws were passed. second of all, Just because you saw it happen on Touched By an Angel (best title evah!) doesnt mean it's more likely your family will shoot you. Guns prevent crime. Just waving an unloaded gun at someone will get them to leave your property. You never hear about the crimes that DONT happen due to there being a civilian with a gun because those crimes are prevented.
gangreneday 2 years ago
I don't have any clue of what touched by an angel is... at all.
Guns don't prevent crime, if that was true, there would be no crime.
I've never been robbed by one person on my property, it's usually by 3 or 4 people, do I now need to walk around with 5 or 6 all the time to scare them off, or maybe I'll show them my gun, and the 3 of them will show me theirs, I dunno, I think giving them 50 bucks is better than being shot...
lewghost 2 years ago
the argument that "criminals will always have guns" is such a phony argument. criminals only have guns because the guns got into society legally in the first place.
I'm fine with people having guns for hunting, but having a gun for self protection is simply a product of over-hyped and misplaced fear.
uforeader 2 years ago
phony argument? so then you also believe that marijuana prohibition has worked, or cocaine, or alcohol?
gangreneday 2 years ago
since you can't shoot anyone with a joint, i don't see how that's relevant.
yes, it's a phony argument to say that it must be legal to own a gun because criminals have guns. because that assumes that the only people who kill people with guns obtained those guns illegally. and it also assumes you can only protect yourself with a gun.
uforeader 2 years ago
you cant get a gun if you have a record.Then again, if yure a convict you can't vote or run for office either. Anyway, most criminals get their guns illegally because thy're not stupid. are you really so dumb to buy a gun, use it, and then be surprised you get picked up? no. dont underestimate criminals. if youre not that dumb, neither are they. they get the guns illegally so theres no trace. thats just common sense. domestic shootings, are nothing compared to whats happening on the streets.
gangreneday 2 years ago
also, i like that you subtly hint i should buy a samuraii sword. great.
gangreneday 2 years ago
The point, uforeader, is that prohibition doesn't work. But you knew that and threw out a non sequitur in defence anyway.
Far more people are harmed by lawful activity done with motor vehicles than lawful activity with guns. Yet you espouse prohibiting guns and not cars. How about focusing on actual risk and quit demonizing law abiding citizens.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
Have you ever been on the other side of a gun?
SKYVAIN 2 years ago 2
I don't get conservatives. They want to outlaw drug use, a victimless crime, but defend to the death the right to own an instrument that is designed to kill people. They go on and on about protecting the rights of unborn fetuses, but are against spending money to help educate about contraception. Then once the baby is born they don't want a health care system set up so that all children get good treatment regardless of their parent's income.
heatmourning33 2 years ago
be creative; a semi-automatic weapon could serve the recreational purpose of blowing air holes in a diving helmet!
Cyphlix 2 years ago
That video was cute. It's nice to see these kinds of videos once in a while. Lol
chick7489 2 years ago
Comment removed
BigMikeX21 2 years ago
"There really isn't any recreational uses for a semi automatic weapons."
do you know what recreational means?
IndIka024 2 years ago
the media really do play there part well...with trickery
aires12345678 2 years ago
In defense of ender1, the AK-47, Type 56, and AK-74 and most of their variants are all select fire (full-auto as well as semi-auto). They only become semi-only, when surplus rifles are ripped apart, and sold as parts kits to commercial businesses. From here they are rebuilt on new recievers and trigger groups that only have a semi-auto feature. These are most of the AK's you see at the range today (i.e. SAR-1, WASR-10, AMD-65, all the Norinco guns, as well as the SLR's offered by Arsenal).
SKYVAIN 2 years ago
Classic you are wasting your time trying to educate Ender1zero1, he must have stayed at a holiday inn last night or something he knows as much about firearms as the talking heads on CNN .
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
True
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Very true I never claimed otherwise I probably know less then many of the talking heads on CNN when it comes to guns and many other things. I hunt rabbits with an old .22 pellet rifle and deer hunt when I feel like it and the season is open guns are a tool not a passion for me. I can oil mine take mine apart and put them back together and that's about it. I never claimed otherwise.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
May I make a friendly suggestion? Dont get you information from CNN.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
I'll take it as friendly but I stopped watching T.V. years ago media in general disappoints and T.V. is nonsense t&a and just plain garbage for the most part anymore IMO
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
I'll admit I have FOX news on in the background most of the time. If you want the most honest issues on gun control, Obama, Pork, they are the most honest with an obvious lean toward the right.
From there I see comment here on YouTube that I see I have an interest in, as I did with yours. But before I make my attack I do a lot of Internet research before I open my mouth. I have watched CNN and MSNBC but they really lean so far left they don't cover a lot of issues, and they lie a lot.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Again different strokes I don't set out to attack anyone and I won't fight back if someone feels the need to insult I figure they must have a reason and if they need to blow off some stream I don't mind it's not like they can hurt my feelings or anything it's just online maybe it a gender thing :).
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
Classic - I have the opposite experience, I watch Fox for a chuckle now and then and it seems like they lie all the time, ESPECIALLY about Obama and pork. The opinion guys (all of prime time) are much worse than the news folks, but it's pretty constant and extremely disingenuous. Examples include Pelosi's "mouse" project and the Disneyland to Vegas train line -- both appeared nowhere in the bill. What has MSNBC lied about?
cobwebhead 2 years ago
FOX wins! Here is the mouse
Follow the dots
Dot#1 Senate "Compromise" 2/7, Page 70: 50 million dollars go to activities authorized by the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act.
Dot#2 California Bay-Delta Restoration Act states there are 750 plant and animal species, some listed as threatened or endangered in California.
DOT#3 the Government's Department of Fish and Game of endangered species covering California says the Salt-Marsh Harvest Mouse is an endangered species.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Wow, that's some wild inference. Definitely proves the assertion that Pelosi put language in the bill to protect that mouse.
Where have you guys been the last 8 years? We could have used you during those long Abramoff / Fogo / Delay years.
cobwebhead 2 years ago
True. But it the point is that the 50 million going to activities authorized by the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act will do nothing to create more that a few jobs and it will do nothing to stimulate the economy. Isnt that the point of a stimulus bill?
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Classic - I agree that a debate over the best way to stimulate the economy would have been a much better use of air time than this endless hyperbole that the bill contained clauses to protect endangered mice and to build Disneyland rides.
cobwebhead 2 years ago
cobwebhead,
The whole point was that this bill was full of crap that had nothing to do with stimulating the economy, as was the promise this bill was to do. Then after the Republicans were locked out of the Senate while the Democrate re-wrote the final issue of the bill and gave the Republicans 15 hours to read it before Obama signed it.
What happened to Obama's promise that all bills would be put on the internet for 5 days for the public to review before he signed it. Another Obama lie.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
That's a different conversation, but I do believe that building train corridors creates more jobs than tax cuts. We've tried deficits-for-tax-cuts in the 80s and again this decade and it did nothing but shift wealth.
Congress should have allowed themselves a longer review. I hated that during the last 2 terms, every major piece of legislation was introduced days before scheduled recesses. The abuses by the majority (ie watch?v=EY_OPcGBSrI ) were infuriating too. I'd like that crap to stop.
cobwebhead 2 years ago
Actually the conversation is about your claim FOX lied about the mouse and the train line.
Again the stimulus package is a here and now help bill. As you mention about that article, the train is far off in the future.
And if you look at history tax cuts work, where wild spending does not.
And I don't mind the politics as usual, but Obama promised change and transparency, and no lobbyists too. Clearly the largest spending bill in history was not transparent, nor was it bipartisan.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago 2
FOX wins again, here is your PORK!
watch?v=UXJsxLvLdxo
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
FOX wins a third time,
And Harry Reed stuck in 8 Billion for the train. GOOGLE IT!
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Did you? Look at politifact or a hard news site, not some loony right blog. The $8 bil isn't even entirely for rail, and the Anaheim-LV project isn't in the bill period.
cobwebhead 2 years ago
cobwebhead,
How about from The New York Time, a newspaper that is to the left of the left and that loves Obama more than Onama love himself.
GOOGLE: "Slice of Stimulus Package Will Go to Faster Trains".
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Classic - That article says:
"Federal transportation officials said that they were still drawing up guidelines for how the money would be spent, and cautioned that it was too early to predict what they would do."
Again, the bill does not specifically allocate money to Reid's pet train project anymore than it does Boehner's. Fox doesn't say that, though. They talk again and again about a specific earmark for a "Disneyland" to Vegas train.
cobwebhead 2 years ago
cobwebhead,
"And despite the record $8 billion investment in high-speed rail added at the last minute to the new economic stimulus package"
The article was dated 2 days after the bill was signed by Obama. What did you read?
Google "Slice of Stimulus Package Will Go to Faster Trains" from The New Your Times. Article is dated February 19, 2009.
And it was $2 million before Read bumped it to $8 million.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
It's true that the $ were bumped at the last minute, in the dead of night. But instead of pointing this out, Fox absurdly tells us this was a Reid earmark for a Disneyland to Las Vegas train when in fact there is no language specifying this particular corridor (though if you've ever driven from LA to Vegas, you'd probably agree that it's as deserving as many competing projects), nor is there any factual basis for saying that Reid slipped this into the bill.
What has MSNBC lied about?
cobwebhead 2 years ago
The train has clearly been a pet project of Harry Reid for years. All the projects in the bill including, the mouse and the train are blank checks. You even pointed that out in the train article. The $50 Million for the mouse goes to "activities authorized by the California Bay-Delta Restoration Act". The activities are not in the bill either. Rahm Emmanuel said it perfectly "you should never let a good crisis go to waste".
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
What's the difference between a semi auto assault weapon and a fully auto assault weapon? A $39.95 kit you can buy without any I.D.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
Whats the difference between a car driving on the right side of the street and a another car driving down the wrong side of the street ? A 20 dollar bottle of whiskey or case of beer available to anyone over the age of 21.
On this premise should we ban alchohol/Autos because it can be misused as well ?
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
Did I say we should ban guns? I don't think so. We do need tighter controls and maybe we need to finally admit that gun ownership should come with a large measure of responsibly and verifiable safeguards.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
Tighter controls ? for who Lawabiding gun owners?
Until the People who make the laws realize that the crooks they allow back on the streets dont give a spit about their laws then It makes no sense to Continue to hack away at the constitution with legalese that only hurts those who actually obey the law.
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
For all gun owners. Owning guns may be a right but it does come with responsibilities just like anything else. You need car insurance licenses proof of ownership etc no reason those types of rules shouldn't apply to guns as well.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
Yeah the liscences would be a great idea , that way if the government ever bans the second amendment they'll know whose house to send the police or military to confiscate said firearms , Dont have a problem with the insurance seeing as how few accidents are reported from firearms compared to aoutos every day should be dirt cheap and then we should be allowed to shoot em in the city on public roads too you know since were insured and all.
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
If the Government ever passed an amendment to change the Constitution and outlaw guns it would take 2/3 of the House and Senate and then it would have to be ratified by 38 states. Do you really think that could ever happen? Sorry big bad boogey man scare tactics don't work
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
If have been alive for more than 20 years you would have noticed that they (congress/senate) have been chipping away at not only the second but first ammendments through laws and legalese, they actually wouldnt have to abolish the second amendment if they can effectively create enough restrictions that would only make it possible for only the richest americans to own one.
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
Driving a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a constitutional right.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
And what does that kit buy you without any I.D.? It buys you a trip to federal prison. :) Google Gun control act of 1986 and the National Firearms Act of 1934. Besides its more than just a kit and anyone who has taken a semi auto firearm apart knows this. And
Raytesh 2 years ago
And people still modify guns took me seconds to find links online on how to do it, would it work? I'm certainly not going to try it.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
People modify cars too, making them faster heck some cars are able to break the speedlimit three times over which is extremely dangerous to other bystanders if they were to do so , do you think we should create laws restricting modifying automobiles Hp which if abused could cause an innocent person being killed.
I mean we already have laws in place to keep motorists safe but as we all know some people dont obey the laws so shouldnt we force draconian laws on everybody
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
I guess it really matters on what you believe is the difference between draconian laws and being responsible.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
You found links for paintball guns. Real guns are machined so it is near impossible to convert unless you are a machinist.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Really, they make an AK-47 paintball gun and a Thompson and a Ruger if you say so.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
The conversion kit that Thompson and a Ruger makes for the AK-47 changes the caliber only into a 22LR and it cost about $200. Not into an automatic.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Ender1zero1,
That's for a paintball gun you moron.
"RAP4 AK47 Full Auto Conversion Kit by Rap4"
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Are you telling us that Ender1zero1 cant tell the difference between a kit for a paint ball marker and a real firearm?
If true he is the kind of uneducated idiot probably learned everything he knows about firearms through the bald face lying media.
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
There is a kit that the company he mentioned "Thompson and a Ruger" makes a conversion kit to make the AK-47 a .22LR caliber. There are plans you can buy but like I said you would have to be a machinist to make it happen.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Nope it's for a AK-47 assault rifle and they even tell you it is illegal to modify the gun in the way they lay out, but you believe whatever makes you happy
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
Give me the link.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
you can't post links on youtube and yes AK-47s come in semi auto as well as fully auto.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
Nope Ak47s dont come in semi automatic only fully automatic, The semi automatic versions are called mak 90s and such, Please learn the difference Its like calling a fully aoutomatic m16 the same as an AR15, They may look similar but the cycling process is completely different.
Trust me I didnt learn about firearms from the internet or the media.
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
You can give me google search words, or you can sent it to me pivately, or you can put it here just put () around the dots.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
I had already closed the page but I did send another one.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
The link you sent me was how to rig one with tie-wrap. Not a kit for 39 bucks.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Ender1zero1 you abviously know absolutely nothing about firearms , because every body and I mean everybody who does knows that an AK47 is already a Fully automatic firearm ,
You my uneducated freind are an example of which this video is about , a person who learned about firearms through a misinformative media.
You sir are the posterboy and have exposed yourself and your ignorance fully.
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
Not if it was manufactures after 1986. You can only buy semi-automatic AK-47s new. With BATF permision you can own one made before 1986.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Trust me full auto AK47 is not the same thing as a a semi auto Mak 90 or the polytech version, Its like comparing a select fire M16 to a semi auto AR15 .. completely different.
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
semi autos and autos aren't my thing so I'll take your word for it. I've never understood the fascination some people have with semi autos and autos, different strokes.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
correction: 1968
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
keep trying AK-47 come in semi and fully auto
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
No they dont , you are thinking of Mak 90s
Kalishnikovs are full auto, you are talking about knock offs.
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
So where is this kit for under $40?
If you are a citizen you are only allowed to own a fully automatic firearm if it was made before 1968, and only if you have special permission from the BATF.
Look up: Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
People do things they are not allowed to do all the time. I remember when the law was enacted I thought my Dad was gonna pop a blood vessel he was so mad. He got over it. The kits can be found online directions for doing it can be found online and I've heard they can be "aquired" at gun shows but I really wouldn't know if that's true or not.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
I don't believe there are kits anywhere you can buy. I know you can get plans online, but like I said, you have to be a machinist to modify the gun.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Try googling midway conversion kit I'm pretty sure that was one of the names of the companies I was looking at.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
Ender1zero1,
"midway conversion kit", Same as the other company you gave me. The conversion kit that have for the AK-47 converts the gun's caliber to a .22LR so you can us the gun for plinking. I have a coversion kit for my 9mm pistol that converts in onto a .22LR as well.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
Whick law was that? The on in this clip or the ones from 1968?
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
As much as I don't like to date myself I was a little kid so it had to be 1968. Used to you said $19.99 and everyone knew you were just picking a common infomercial price tag I just added 20 bucks on for inflation the $39.95 price tag was just a quip me trying to have a little fun certainly didn't mean to get your heat up.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
I'm a fact guy, so I love a good challenge, and I am a gun nut for the most part. I'm into pistols and trap and skeet guns. Not so much into rifles. I hate this gun control crap. Gun Free zones only get people killed.
I don't remember the 1968 bills, but to date myself too, I was 12. The 1994 Clinton ban made me made. I live in NJ and they added more guns on top of the Clinton ban. My Father actually had to ship some of his guns to someone in another state just to keep them.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
I'm not happy about the gun control either but something has to happen. I lived in a moderate size midwest city until a few years ago and I got used to hearing gunshots I actually stopped noticing them. When we moved it was days and days until I figured out what was missing, gunshots.
Ender1zero1 2 years ago
Hey, I live 5 minutes out of Newark New Jersey. For as long as I can remember Newark has been in the top 5 murder cities in the whole counrty. I think right now they are 4th or 5th.
ClassicFIHD 2 years ago
I like this video! I enjoyed it a lot. haha Very nice. It's cute in a weird way lol. but good job making it! it's unique!!
chick5581 2 years ago
Aboveallnations:
Case in point. If you are unaware, England ban a HUGE number of guns in their country several years ago. Since then, gun crime has decreased, but guess what; knife related crimes and death have skyrocketed. The countries home secretary had this to say, "We will continue to make absolutely clear that carrying a knife is unacceptable in our society." So where does it stop? A ban on knifes? A ban on bats? A ban on ...?
SKYVAIN 2 years ago
Richarddwm:
They would have said the same about the British in 1776. Over the past 230 years, the U.S. government has slowly corrupted its original intent. It happens to any government. I don't suggest it will happen now, in 10 years, or even 50 years, but sooner or later there WILL be some kind of revolution in the U.S. Its always happened with every form of any government in existence. Personally, I think a revolution every few hundred years is a healthy cycle in any country.
SKYVAIN 2 years ago
What do you think about the government? Banning alcohol (which kills about 13,500 DIRECTLY per year) kills more than these weapons. So wouldn't that make more since?
SKYVAIN 2 years ago
It's not all just about "keeping the government in check" (Although at this stage in the game, you really need to be weary. The great Roman Empire only lasted about 300 years from rise to fall. Our country is nearing a point at which the world is unfamiliar (unknown territory if you will). Moreover this arguement is about truth. If the government says they are banning a certain gun because it has been involved in huge numbers of shootings and you later find out thats not the truth...
SKYVAIN 2 years ago
I have to admit the guy is right about the media misinforming Americans about the firearms in question, But this goes beyond the issue of firearms really ... I have noticed that the media has forsaken its role of delivering unbiased news to the point of spreading disinformation to ommiting important news altogether.
I just hope the same richest or most influential people dont do to the internet what they did to the old media formats.
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago 5
do you doubt thats next??? or soon???
dgleason2 2 years ago
How about your opinion doesnt matter.
DaytonaRoadster 2 years ago
Fully automatic weapons...a very limited number of people actually own them, and most are used as dealer "samples" to retailers. I've looked into what it takes to get a full-auto and it is more trouble than its worth(Plus the fact that most full-auto's are well over $10,000). I can't believe people buy into that kind of BS.
SKYVAIN 2 years ago
excuse me for being so fucking ignorant on the subject , but that was not my point
benjykenjy 2 years ago
There is nothing techincally different between my AK and my Remington 7400 Deer rifle. Both have box magazines, both are semi-auto. People who say there are crazy black and white differences between "Assault Rifles" and your ordinary deer rifles need to wake up and do some research. Telling me I can't have a gun because it looks "scary" is just dumb.
SKYVAIN 2 years ago
People call a lot of these semi automatic rifles high power but the reality is the standard AR15 and 5.56(.223) round is one of the weakest centerfire rounds out there. Bolt action hunting rifles built for bigger game are much much higher powered than any .223 AR could imagine to be.
benzy2 2 years ago 2
Heard that!
I could never figure out why the USMC issued me an M-16 (first the A1 then the A2)
when it had such a poor track record out in the field. And such a small and ineffective as well as inefficient caliber for it's intended purpose.
It's why so many ditched theirs in 'Nam @ the first opportunity to pick up an AK-47, gaining reliability and stopping power.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
Defense which is exactly what the Second Amendment regards. You shouldn't need more of a need than that but in midwest prairie dogs are a huge problem to farmers. They have towns of thousands of dogs which ruins fields. The faster you can shoot the better. Target grade ARs are taken out there and are a much better help to the farmer than any musket ever could be. There are many competitions that utilize the AR or similar rifles, which is just as good of justification as a baseball bat.
benzy2 2 years ago
If the Second Amendment is about defense, then what does your wish to mow down 500 prairie dogs have to do with anything? It certainly doesn't justify the school & office shootings that legalizing those weapons would facilitate.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
Call it mowing down but they are a pest causing both crop loss and machinery damage to farmers. It doesn't have anything to do with defense, but the question was what is another reason to own them. Let me ask this. What benefits does baseball have to the country? People have died at the end of a bat yet they are only accepted use it for entertainment. Why should we allow an entertainment device to be legal if it can also greatly enhance a persons ability to kill another?
benzy2 2 years ago
Unless you're playing Grand Theft Auto, you can't really go on a killing spree with a baseball bat. Assault rifles are different. Aren't there better ways to deal with prarie dogs... like making a fence?
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
So now its about a killing spree and not just killing? You have to kill a bunch at one time, though only once or so a year rather than kill one at a time a few a month? And what good does a fence do you on animals that tunnel? You must live in the city because anyone who has spent any time in the country knows how much trouble even a few ground hogs/ prairie dogs can cause, let a lone by the thousands.
benzy2 2 years ago
The NWO wants to leave Americans with the same weapons that the Palestinians must use to protect themselves and their children from zionists - sticks and stones!
DON'T ley them take our guns!!! If they do its OVER!!
t4705mb6 2 years ago 2
Repeal the Second Amendment.
Richardgwm 2 years ago
leave everyone defense..cause govenements never evar hurt their citizens..not at all..fucking idiot
DaytonaRoadster 2 years ago
You really think your little AK-47 is going to stop the government from doing whatever they want?????
They have cruise missiles and hydrogen bombs. Yep your little toy gun is going to stave off the federal government alright.
Richardgwm 2 years ago
I dont have an AK faggot, i have an AR
If it isnt going to hurt them...why are they so scared about people having them? Try some critical thinking nigger
DaytonaRoadster 2 years ago
Such eloquence.
Richardgwm 2 years ago
only in your most faptastic dreams could you match it
DaytonaRoadster 2 years ago
To RichardGWm:
Are you implying that the government would use "Cruise missles" and "Hydrogen bombs" on the people its supposed to represent ?
spliffsperlunk 2 years ago
No. That is the argument that the gun nuts use. I am showing how ridiculous that argument is.
Gun loonies say they need guns to keep the government in check.(see DaytonaRoadsters posting). That argument is delusional in a day when the government's military force is unlimited.
Richardgwm 2 years ago
Yeah, that's why our military had no trouble in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
So people who support upholding the 2nd amendment are now "loonies?" What about those who support freedom of speech? Are they "speech loonies?" We better get speech under control too huh? Boy, are you ever misinformed and well indoctrinated. From now on, just post, "baaaa" because that's all that you are really saying.
pector55 2 years ago
Your a liar or clearly deluded Richardgwm
Proponents of the retention of the full guarantee of the Rights SPECIFIED by the 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights enumerates it doesn't grant, have never defended their position with the proposition that citizens need to defend themselves against Cruise missiles or H-bombs.
Please familiarize yourself with period and the other writings of those who first framed and codified the Constitution. You will be more likely to add informed discussion vs foolish
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
So then where do you stop or start? What is your judgement line as to what is too good at defending a person and what isn't? Should we make the world eliminate all weapons? Should we make the country eliminate all weapons? Don't just give the BS that people pro gun are pro home nukes. Lets live in the real world. Lets use US statistics. What type of statistic and at what level should we draw the line? Hammers can be used to kill people, should we ban them as well? Where is the line?
benzy2 2 years ago
Let's be clear: we're talking about the "line" where something has 2nd A. protection or it doesn't. I have two ideas for what gets protected: 1) Only weapons technology that existed circa 1791, or 2) only weapons minimally powerful to pursue a non-offensive purpose.
Hammers & handguns can be used to attack others, but they have other justifications. An assault rifle or bomb is overkill; thus, no constitutional protection.
State & cities can have more powerful weapons, but not individuals.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
And, no, you don't need an assault rifle to hunt. If you do, that's pathetic.
I am sympathetic to the revolutionary aspect of the Second Amendment, but this doesn't mean private individuals get to have offensive weapons. That's irresponsibly dangerous.
A fair compromise is allowing local public organizations - State, county, city, perhaps neighborhood - store high-powered weapons & ammo. A "well-regulated militia" implies public, not private... we don't want skinhead groups with AK-47s.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
You have never been on a prairie dog hunt where the ability to rapidly shoot is a huge advantage. When you have 500 prairie dogs a fast rifle helps. Lets look at what happens in a revolution if all the firearms are kept under lock by the government. The government pushes, the people push another way, the government has the firearms. Does that seem like a good idea? I like the idea of restricting firearms from criminals but law abiding citizens are to be assumed guilty and not allowed them?
benzy2 2 years ago
1) there isn't just one "government"; there are federal, State, city, and county gov'ts. Let ALL of the gov'ts have access to guns & there won't be tyranny.
2) its been almost 200 years since the USA has been invaded by an army.
3) in a democratic society as pluralistic as ours, the likelihood that facism might break out is MUCH less likely than the real danger a disgruntled employee slips a background check and shoots up his office, or a teen uses grandpa's guns to shoot up his high school.
AboveAllNations 2 years ago
If citizens don't have guns then
1) Tyranny at all levels of government - enforced by arms denied citizens
2) Dec 7, 1941 doesn't count?
3) Don't know where your from, but in the USA we have a Republican form of government. Fascism HAS arisen in States with similar forms of government. Please review history before making statement about history in the future. You will seem much less the fool when your postulations can be backed up by facts and verifiable trends.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
The word militia originally legally meant (Virginia Bill of Rights, Section 13) and still legally means (U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 31) the whole able-bodied citizenry of the country, not the formal armed forces of the United States. Therefore, "A well regulated Militia" is a well-organized citizens' army, not a well-controlled standing army.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
What do you think the Second A was talking about? Hunting firearms or firearms to defend against an oppressor? Which do you honestly think they created it for? They put it in to allow people to own firearms to defend themselves. I want these assault rifles IF I ever need to defend myself, especially when you think of another country invading. The Second A was for defense which is exactly what these rifles are great at doing. the fact technology was only at muskets then is irrelevant.
benzy2 2 years ago
Here here!
The Constitution codifies intent not technology.
Clearly the writers and those that first put forth a Constitution were concerned with activities and not the tools to accomplish those activities.
Having put down one tyrannical government it made sense to prepare for subsequent tyrannies whether home-grown or from across borders.
maskedphrogg 2 years ago
The golden rule of history: when the people have the guns make the people make the rules; when the people can't defend themselves from tyranny, they end up with fewer rights and often in holocaust.
Holocaust: Germany 1930s-40s (13mil. dead), Soviet Union 1920s-80s (45mil), Com. China (50mil and rising), Kampuchea 70s-80s (2mil), Sudan (2.5mil and rising), Iran (1mil and rising), etc.
TedinLasVegas 2 years ago
call me stupid but i don't see the point of a normal person needing to have an fully automatic rifle to protect them selfs
benjykenjy 2 years ago
The ban Clinton passed DIDN'T ban anything fully automatic. It banned some semi automatic firearms and magazine that held more than 10 rounds. The odd thing is how certain firearms get picked. They pick visual features about the firearm to ban them. They didn't pick based on caliber or function(beyond semi auto). They took the ones with black synthetic plastic stocks and said those are bad and let ones with wood stocks, operating the same way with the same bullet, stay legal.
benzy2 2 years ago
you are stupid..fully auto is illegal and has been since the 1930s...they are trying to ban semi-auto..which is technolgy well over 100 years old because it 'looks dangerous'
DaytonaRoadster 2 years ago 5
Courtesy vs Safety
Since courtesy involves habitually caring for & thinking of other individuals than ourselves the concept of "safety" is inherent within the context of "courtesy." But "safety" by itself is narrowly focused & diabolically selfish. The word "safety" as used in our current social rhetoric can even extend & most often does to completely exclude courteous behavior from our thoughts & actions
Homeland security, Build walls lock doors kill foreigners fear strangers hoard more stuff
SlaveStorm 2 years ago
I don't and don't want to own a gun as I think men who buy guns too seem masculine simply buy them to try and be masculine and as a penis extension
jround93 2 years ago
Yeah? So a man who buys a gun to protect his family is just trying to show off, right?
AnonymousCthulhu 2 years ago 2
What about the women who buy guns?
AnonymousCthulhu 2 years ago 2
charleston heston got PWNED by Bill Maher in Religulous.
ironchopsticks 2 years ago
they are weapons of war moron. That's why they were invented.
PersonalJesus348 2 years ago
Your missing the point. semi auto guns were not made for war. They were made for hunting and personal defense. The point is that our media is bought and payed for just like yours. The same way the people are convinced to vote against gay marriage or marijuana legalization, to vote for a war president, they use the same tactics to trick us into giving up our defenses. Those who give up liberty for security get neither.
hozehd 2 years ago
I love that the NRA CEO can pretend to not be a part of the corrupt establishment... no, he's just a humble, small town corporate shill.
driftersmanifesto 2 years ago
The weapons they banned are not at all like the ones we use in the military.
MusaJames 2 years ago 2
remind me why everyone needs a gun in the US again?
robinvan1983 2 years ago
read the declaration...
milliradian 2 years ago 2
the right to defend themselves? is the US such a dangerous place to live, that you need a gun?
robinvan1983 2 years ago
uhhhh yes it is.....
dgleason2 2 years ago
everyone should have a gun. what planet do you live on where people don't get mugged or raped or murdered.
hozehd 2 years ago
i think everyone should own a bow and arrow - guns make it too easy for a person to murder someone.
ironchopsticks 2 years ago
yes that is why in canada there are daily raped/mugged and murdered people because the people don't have guns? what planet are you on? And if there is such a high crime then see my comment above, Then the US isn't a safe place
robinvan1983 2 years ago
well thank you for proving my point robin. Your right not enough people are protecting themselves. The world is a dangerous place taking guns rights away won't fix that. It will only embolden those who rob gas stations break into houses or carjack people at stoplights.
hozehd 2 years ago <