Stop SB 249 in Cali!

[Vedubin01]

[quote=Pac1373;3264972 (Strangely the shooter used a Mini 14 and they are still non-restricted, fair game. no AR's though as they are WAY to dangerous must be restricted only)[/quote]

Its ok, the Mini 14 is garbage. I guess they felt bad for ya guys.

But if you look at in America the places with the toughest gun laws have the highest rate of gun crimes. Just check out the war zone in Chicago.

[Pl3wA]

you just need a revolver and be this guy

[canadiankid]

I love the idea "Who needs an ar anyway?"
To those people, pull your head out of your ass. A gun's lethality is based on the cartridge it utilizes not the scary color.

[mrsleeve]

^

your right but lethally is more the result of the operator not the weapon it self

[canadiankid]

Also correct, but the point is moron politicians ban guns based on appearance not function.

[mrsleeve]

Also correct, but the point is moron politicians ban guns based on appearance not function.

Well they ban them more outta fear than anything, fear of the masses instilled by politicos of the criminal, and fear that the governed retain the means to expel the governors by force if need be The latter more than the former.

Read some Jefferson, and this will be come more and more apparent especially when you look at all the govts that have banned/confiscated guns over the years

[myinfernalbmw]

In all honesty I don't know why you would need an AR to defend your self but what ever good luck guys.

I love the idea "Who needs an ar anyway?"
To those people, pull your head out of your ass. A gun's lethality is based on the cartridge it utilizes not the scary color.

[ATTACH]58010[/ATTACH]

^

your right but lethally is more the result of the operator not the weapon it self

I preface this by saying I'm an AR owner and although I agree with the hilarity of gun legislation, comparisons like these are a joke. I'll also entertain those crazy people that ask why you need an AR? The fact is that I don't. I could defend myself with a shotgun, a bolt action hunting rifle, or handgun. I simply choose to have an AR because it's fun as shit to shoot. I'll admit that I don't need one at all. I enjoy shooting it and since its legal to do so, I own one.

I would use my AR for defense too. Why? It's also a more effective tool for defense. I haven't seen anyone argue against that point at all in this thread. There is a reason that it is more effective than a bolt action hunting rifle in a defense role. The fact is that an AR has the means to be a more effective tool for killing than a bolt action hunting rifle. 30 rounds in less than 5 seconds is more effective than 5 rounds in 30 seconds. That is a simple fact. Operator aptitude will come into play obviously, but when you're dealing in volume, the odds are higher. I can defend myself from a group of attackers more effectively with an AR than a bolt action. The flip side is that a criminal can in fact kill more people with an AR quicker than with a bolt action rifle. Trying to argue that just tells me that your head is just as far up your ass as the people you mock.

I don't think that "assault weapons" should be illegal. I just can see the validity of the argument that they should be regulated. They are effective for killing. The problem is that regulating them will only hinder law abiding citizens and have little to no effect on criminals.

Best of luck to gun owners in CA though.

[mrsleeve]

So where am I wrong here?? Lethality is a result of the ass hat running the weapon, I can set any fire arm on the table loaded, cocked and safety off and it will not go off in a 1000 years with out some kind of human input on the trigger.

I can go to the local hard wear store and for about 50 bucks in supplies I can build something that could kill or maim way more people in about 3 seconds than a crazy fuck with an AR and few mags.

[Massimo]

I preface this by saying I'm an AR owner and although I agree with the hilarity of gun legislation, comparisons like these are a joke. I'll also entertain those crazy people that ask why you need an AR? The fact is that I don't. I could defend myself with a shotgun, a bolt action hunting rifle, or handgun. I simply choose to have an AR because it's fun as shit to shoot. I'll admit that I don't need one at all. I enjoy shooting it and since its legal to do so, I own one.

I would use my AR for defense too. Why? It's also a more effective tool for defense. I haven't seen anyone argue against that point at all in this thread. There is a reason that it is more effective than a bolt action hunting rifle in a defense role. The fact is that an AR has the means to be a more effective tool for killing than a bolt action hunting rifle. 30 rounds in less than 5 seconds is more effective than 5 rounds in 30 seconds. That is a simple fact. Operator aptitude will come into play obviously, but when you're dealing in volume, the odds are higher. I can defend myself from a group of attackers more effectively with an AR than a bolt action. The flip side is that a criminal can in fact kill more people with an AR quicker than with a bolt action rifle. Trying to argue that just tells me that your head is just as far up your ass as the people you mock.

I don't think that "assault weapons" should be illegal. I just can see the validity of the argument that they should be regulated. They are effective for killing. The problem is that regulating them will only hinder law abiding citizens and have little to no effect on criminals.

Best of luck to gun owners in CA though.

Nice to see someone who is honest and admits that they have them because they are fun and yes they are more deadly then your bolt action or hand gun. I agree with you and understand that it is not the weapon it is the person holding it.

But there most defernetly needs to be some system in which makes it very difficult for a criminal to get a hold of these kind of guns. I don't know what and would be very difficult to create a solution, but that would solve 90% of the issues people have with these guns.

[mrsleeve]

The issue is people think they are the same thing the Military carries and uses. They are not.


which one of these is more scary





I would be much much more worried about the guy with the one with all the crude wood furniture on it than the guy with the AR. I will let you try and figure out why. Its not about how they look, which is what you are basing your judgements on.

[myinfernalbmw]

So where am I wrong here?? Lethality is a result of the ass hat running the weapon, I can set any fire arm on the table loaded, cocked and safety off and it will not go off in a 1000 years with out some kind of human input on the trigger.

I can go to the local hard wear store and for about 50 bucks in supplies I can build something that could kill or maim way more people in about 3 seconds than a crazy fuck with an AR and few mags.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were "wrong" it's just that you made a similar comparison earlier. I should have quoted that as opposed to what I did.

I meant to address canadiankid's post. I just read all too often people arguing that "assault weapons" shouldn't be banned based on the fact that they aren't any more dangerous than any other gun. I suppose when worded like that though, it's true. They aren't any more inherently dangerous than any other gun. Except they are more effective at killing and were designed to kill people as effectively as possible. When I see that argument it makes me wonder who has their heads farther up their asses.

Nice to see someone who is honest and admits that they have them because they are fun and yes they are more deadly then your bolt action or hand gun. I agree with you and understand that it is not the weapon it is the person holding it.

But there most defernetly needs to be some system in which makes it very difficult for a criminal to get a hold of these kind of guns. I don't know what and would be very difficult to create a solution, but that would solve 90% of the issues people have with these guns.

Unfortunately gun control targets everyone indiscriminately. Harsher penalties on criminals caught/using stolen or guns acquired illegally might be a first step to help. I can't say definitively, I just take a common sense approach on the issues and wish legislators would too.

[cale]

The issue is people think they are the same thing the Military carries and uses. They are not.


I would be much much more worried about the guy with the one with all the crude wood furniture on it than the guy with the AR. I will let you try and figure out why. Its not about how they look, which is what you are basing your judgements on.

One puts a hole in you the size of a coffee mug while the other puts one about as wide as a pencil is my guess.

[mrsleeve]

Something kinda like that, but not exactly

[der affe]

One puts a hole in you the size of a coffee mug while the other puts one about as wide as a pencil is my guess.

Look up some videos of a BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) on youtube to get a better idea of what he is saying.

[deutschman]

apparently you guys who are against assault rifles never saw how bad the LA riots were. when small businesses were left to fend for themselves because the cops were too chicken shit and racist to do their job in the first place (so much for trading your liberty in for security).

an AR will take out a crowd of animals a lot faster and more efficient than a small fire arm... just saying. you will never know the full extent of anarchists.

Leland yee is a joke, that public ass kisser has been in office for too long.

There are situations where an AR will serve as a self defense weapon. A large percentage of a cities population going ape shit and burning property is one of them.

One question with all those people who are posting these quotes of defending yourself against the tyrant... aka our gubment. When the army with all them soldiers come on your property with their guns... are you really going to use you're AR's then?

As other people have stated the Army would most likely never carry out any such orders. How ever there might be small splinter groups of the military or other armed law enforcement agencies that would, in which case, yes I would shoot people who try and lock away my family.
As Americans we have the right to over throw our government when ever we feel it has become necessary. Not very many citizens know that. It might be a tinfoil hat idea, but it is a possibility nun the less.
Would small caliber weapons be of use against heavily armed military groups defending a corupt government bent on absolute control of its people? Its amazing what you can do with a '87 Toyota truck and a few guys armed with soviet era AK47s. Vietnam, Afganistan (England, Russia, USA), Syria. All countries in which poorly armed groups of people have and are over throwing much larger forces which were and are equipted with much more sophisticated weapons systems.

So stupid. California in general is full of idiots, and that is before the assault riffles. In fact, the only thing that state is good for is rust free E30s.

However, I do love the idea of an F-22 coming at you, and you shooting like a madman with you lame ass little assault riffle while mumbling something about the second amendment.

It took you a long time to think this through before you typed it up ha? There are many good people here in Cali. We are not all nut cases.
If for some resin it did come down to blows between the military powers of the USA and it's people, no one would be dumb enough to face the full strength of the American military forces head on. A cohesive gorilla force can withstand much greater forces for a very long time and even overpower them.

Just what you need, everyday citizens having fights with automatic weapons in the suburbs when one shot of a pistol from a well trained marksman would do the job.

If you're trying to justify owning AR's as a private citizen for the potential of a fire fight in your home your efforts should be put elsewhere, perhaps towards that which has made that scenario a possibility in the first place. Cry 2nd amendment all you want, I know here in Canada if someone is breaking into my home in the middle of the night chances are I'm not going to be staring down the barrel of a 30-round automatic rifle. We have it figured out, sort out your shit too plz.

You have no idea what you are talking about brother. Are you telling me you have no crime in Canada? Look at England where it is almost impossible to get a firearm. You know how many people get stabbed an clubbed over there? A lot! Now that getting rid of guns has not cut down on violant crime they want to ban swords and other bladed weapons. You think that will stop criminals from hurting people if taking guns out of the country didn't. No. There are plenty of Eurpean countries in which large percentages of the population own guns and they have very few problems with it. If you have never lived in a country where a power has tried to take your rights as a human being you will never understand what it means to be able to defend yourself. The basic right to be able to defend your life and the lives of your loved ones is something everyone needs to have, and in a world of guns you need a rifle to do so.
Please watch this.

I love the idea "Who needs an ar anyway?"
To those people, pull your head out of your ass. A gun's lethality is based on the cartridge it utilizes not the scary color.

[ATTACH]58010[/ATTACH]

Actually that is not true at all. The lethality of a weapon is based on the marksmanship of its user. No argument there AT ALL. I can hand you a canon and it wont do you ANY good if you can hit the side of a barn with it. A canon has a much larger caliber then a rifle. A well trained shooter can kill with a .22 just as well as with a .30-06.






Gun safety has nothing to do with banning guns. It has to do with education, training and responsibility.
Its just like sex. You could try and get rid of sex crimes and sexually transmitted diseases by banning sex, but that would never work because people will have sex no matter what. You have to educate people on how to have safe sex and avoid dangerous sexual encounters.
Same goes for guns or any other weapons. People will hurt each other no matter what. Its what people do and always will do. We are, no matter how hard you want to deny it, animals. The only way to deal with guns is to foster a safe and open understanding of fire arms in which people can understand how they work and how to safely and responsibly operate them.