Anyone own any assault weapons or other interesting weapons?

[lesofprimus]

I pray for burglars so I can play with my new toys

If ur praying that someone physically breaks into ur house so u can fire ur weapon in an enclosed space and threaten the ones u care for, all so u can shoot another human being, jokingly referring to a very dangerous firearm as a "toy", then I have only one thing to say...

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Magister

Why exactly now is it foolish to "admit" that I own perfectly legal firearms?

Because you live in California where the socialists look for any excuse to seize any firearms.

I could imagine Jackie Goldberg has a team of interns from UCLA looking on the net for anyone from this state declaring what firearms they have.

Please remember that IP address's can be traced.

[Magister]

I think you're being paranoid. Besides, the authorities already know of their existence and who owns them.

[evangilder]

Syscom is right. They may be our right to have them, but there are many douchebags in our legislature that woul love nothing better than to take them all away. Me, I own a nice set of steak knives I bought at Costco. Oh! I also have an old 386 PC that I can use to drop on someone's head if need be.

That is all I will ever admit to. Besides, there are plenty of household items that can be pretty damn deadly in the proper hands. Ask anyone here who is married with kids and they will tell you that there is nothing more deadly than a Mom when she feels her kids are threatened.

[Magister]

No, he is not right with respect to my "disclosure."

They are already registered so the authorities already know of their existence and the fact that I own them.

Republishing what is already known by the governent is disclosing no more information than is already known. The government is obtaining no more information than is already known pursuant to official records.

Therefore, I am not subject to any of the risks that are being subscribed to me through my post.

It's not like we're going to wake up one day with police officers coming to our houses to collect our guns without very, very advanced warning. Such governmental action would be done through legislation in a thoroughly transparent process (we know the substance of bills that are voted on) and numerous constitutional court challenges thereafter.

It would literally take years from the time a law authorizing the government to confiscate weapons based on information specifically relevant to individuals was proposed to the time its enforcement could actually take place. (assuming such a law could even be enforced) Given the Supreme Court's clear shift to the right, there's not a chance that it would occur. Of course, even if it could occur, it would not be politically feasible. The trend in the states has been to liberalize gun laws over the past 6 years. We now have 38 right to carry states (I believe that the last three states were added in the last 5 years) and the assault weapon ban bill was allowed to die last year after the sunset provision. There was just not enough popular support for a feel good bill that had no practical impact on the criminal use of such weapons.

[Glider]

Magister
You should remember that in the UK we used to be able to own semi auto rifles and handguns. The rules were a lot stricter than yours, but it could be done.
Semi Auto rifles took less than 6 months to get banned and collected. Handguns are now banned and that took about 6 months to be implemented and collected.
If a government wants to act quickly it can. I wouldn't do anything if I was you to put your freedoms at risk even if the chances are very small.

[Magister]

And you must remember that the founding fathers in this country, having come from England, put many safeguards into our constitutiion like the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment and Due Process to disable such an event from occurring here.

England ain't America. With all due respect, long live the Queen but thank God for that.

[Nonskimmer]

You mean God Save the Queen.

[Glider]

What I mean is what a lawmaker can make, a lawmaker can break. At the end of the day its your call but if I were you I wouldn't take that chance.

[FLYBOYJ]

GENTLEMEN, GENTLEMEN, GENTILEMEN.....

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN "ASSAULT WEAPON!'

[Glider]

Not in the UK there isn't

[FLYBOYJ]

From a 2004 article...

"Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 which is a semi-automatic version of the military's rifle (M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber are often forbidden from being used to hunt deer because this small caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles. (An example of rifle caliber restrictions are Tennessee deer hunting regulations. Click on "regulations" in the frame area.)

Assault weapons are not the weapons of choice among drug dealers, gang members or criminals in general. Assault weapons are used in about one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes and about one percent in gun crimes. It is estimated that from one to seven percent of all homicides are committed with assault weapons (rifles of any type are involved in three to four percent of all homicides). However a higher percentage are used in police homicides, roughly ten percent. (There has been no consistent trend in this rate from 1978 through 1996.) Between 1992 and 1996 less than 4% of mass murders, committed with guns, involved assault weapons. (Our deadliest mass murders have either involved arson or bombs.)

There are close to 4 million assault weapons in the U.S., which amounts to roughly 1.7% of the total gun stock. "

The term "Assault Weapon" was derived from California Leftist Politician David A. Roberti who along with his crone Mike Roos drafted legislation to ban military looking weapons because of a school shooting in Stockton CA. by a Racist Fascist wacko. Although people were killed in this tragedy, the media jumped on this to demonize "Assault Rifles" like the SKS, AK-47 and AR-15 sold on civilian markets. Below is an article written by a doctor who provides great information on how these political opportunist capitalized in this event...

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba...aw_report2.txt

Roberti-Roos started this campaign and knew little about firearms but they, along with the Liberal Media and other left-wing politicians in the California Legislature coined the phrase "Assault Weapon"

http://reason.com/9511/GUNSfeat.shtml

As their momentum continued they attempted to demonize these firearms and any one who might own one. Their campaign grew into legislation which eventually became law based on lies, half-truths and ignorance. In fact they were their own worse enemy as because of this ban, it induced many to join the NRA and acquire firearms that function the same as those banned, but were not part of the original law. It also created a swing to the right which eventually led to terms limits and other laws that would weaken the democrat influence in the California State Legislature.

There were attempts to unseat Roberti but eventually term limits ended his political career.....

[Nonskimmer]

Hmmm, an interesting bit of trivia.

[Crippen]

'Hairspray' I have found is an excellent assault weapon. Timpsons and Clarks are other good named ones.

[pbfoot]

I prefer the easliy concealed and cost effective Pea Shooter ammo is cheap it has a reasonable rate of fire