• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Gun Ban List

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Ben H

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2006
Messages
1,738
Reaction score
0
Location
Gorham, ME
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out/

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Ammo is getting harder and harder to find, my friends and I can't even find primers to reload, no gun shops, not websites. Make no mistake, gun owners are preparing. They have no intention of giving anything up.

If you argue that none of the above weapons have any sporting purposes, you either don't know what the second ammendment really means or you are a threat to the constitution because you don't believe in it.
 
What is the official reasoning for banning these guns? What problem are they claiming to address?
 
Oldtimer said:
It'll never pass the Senate...

Don't bet on it.

Regardless of it's chances of passing, what the hell is Obama pulling here? You libs told us that he supported the Second Amendment. We didn't believe you because we actually looked at his past instead of believing the drivel emanating from his lying mouth. How about an explaination, or is anybody ready to admit the obvious?
 
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
It'll never pass the Senate...

Don't bet on it.

Regardless of it's chances of passing, what the hell is Obama pulling here? You libs told us that he supported the Second Amendment. We didn't believe you because we actually looked at his past instead of believing the drivel emanating from his lying mouth. How about an explaination, or is anybody ready to admit the obvious?

You can support the Second Amendment and still believe in "reasonable" rules, regulations, and limitations....

Or do you think everyone should be able to mount a Ma Deuce on their Dodge Ram and cruise the country- or pack an Uzi down Main Street.... :???:
 
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
It'll never pass the Senate...

Don't bet on it.

Regardless of it's chances of passing, what the hell is Obama pulling here? You libs told us that he supported the Second Amendment. We didn't believe you because we actually looked at his past instead of believing the drivel emanating from his lying mouth. How about an explaination, or is anybody ready to admit the obvious?

You can support the Second Amendment and still believe in "reasonable" rules, regulations, and limitations....

Or do you think everyone should be able to mount a Ma Deuce on their Dodge Ram and cruise the country- or pack an Uzi down Main Street.... :???:


YES!~!!!!!
 
Yes, anyone should be able to have a M2 or an UZI as long as they only use it for lawful purposes such as defending the Constitution against liberals. Why should only criminals be able to have an Uzi?
 
Ben H said:
Yes, anyone should be able to have a M2 or an UZI as long as they only use it for lawful purposes such as defending the Constitution against liberals. Why should only criminals be able to have an Uzi?

as long as they only use it for lawful purposes such as defending the Constitution against liberals.

You done stepped over the line there, bubba. You're freakin' crazy. :shock:

Alice
 
Like I've said before- this bill and this type of bill loses the Repub party more moderate and independent countrywide support than almost anything else- even some of their's backing of extremist social values...

Many-many can not justify why anyone -except for police and military- would need an assault weapon in a civilized country...

Congressman Rehberg had an interesting take on why some Dems don't want to see it come up either....

Rep says gun bills could clear House
By The Associated Press

HELENA - Rep. Denny Rehberg said he expects gun control advocates will try to advance their cause in Congress in the next couple of years, but will ultimately fail.

Montana's at-large congressman is a staunch opponent of gun control. He said there could be enough anti-gun votes in the House to get gun control out of that chamber.

But Rehberg said House Democratic leaders will be careful in bringing such measures out for a vote, because it causes problems for some Western and rural Democrats.

And ultimately, Rehberg said, major gun control bills, such as an assault weapons ban, are likely to die in the Senate. U.S. Sens. Max Baucus and Jon Tester, both Democrats, have already come out strongly against possible moves by the Obama administration toward some gun restrictions.

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/03/14/news/state/47-gunbills.txt
 
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
It'll never pass the Senate...

Don't bet on it.

Regardless of it's chances of passing, what the hell is Obama pulling here? You libs told us that he supported the Second Amendment. We didn't believe you because we actually looked at his past instead of believing the drivel emanating from his lying mouth. How about an explaination, or is anybody ready to admit the obvious?

You can support the Second Amendment and still believe in "reasonable" rules, regulations, and limitations....

Or do you think everyone should be able to mount a Ma Deuce on their Dodge Ram and cruise the country- or pack an Uzi down Main Street.... :???:

How is it reasonable to take a gun away from a law abiding citizen when the Constitution says that right will not be infringed??

What problem are they trying to fix?
 
alice

What do you have to be afraid of, you're not against the Constitution are you?

I said defend the Constitution against liberals, I didn't say take out all liberals. You can be a liberal and not go after the constitution can't you? Some just need to be re-educated, or educated period.

What can I say, Uncle Sam tought me how to defend the Constitution against all enemies forgein and domestic.
 
Many-many can not justify why anyone -except for police and military- would need an assault weapon in a civilized country...

Come on OT, enough with the civilized society excuse. I have a hard core liberal at work who trys to pull that one.

You're missing the point, the second ammendment is about keeping the power in the people to preven tyranny and government. Allowing the police and military to be better armed then the people is exactly what the founders did NOT want.

The better armed the people are, the less likely they will need to use those arms.

It's simple, if the government stays out of our way, we won't have a problem.
 
Ben H said:
What do you have to be afraid of, you're not against the Constitution are you?

I said defend the Constitution against liberals, I didn't say take out all liberals. You can be a liberal and not go after the constitution can't you? Some just need to be re-educated, or educated period.

What can I say, Uncle Sam tought me how to defend the Constitution against all enemies forgein and domestic.

I was too- and swore an oath to protect and defend it which I've done for 40+ years....

But I don't think 12- 13 year old kids should be legally walking the street with Uzis or cruising the drag in their "Technicals" like in Iraq or Somalia...Police have enough problems without having to operate out of APC's or decked out in full body armor....

We would be going backwards in our civilization...

There needs to "reasonable" regulation/rules- and thats exactly what the Supreme Court in its latest ruling, which is the first to define the right to own/bear arms, said...

While the American public is slow to anger--Extremism- either way- leads to the government having to react to that anger- and usually they overreact....
Thats why I would rather see the pro gun movement work with the anti folks on putting some restrictions on purchasing and owning assault weapons...
 
Oldtimer said:
Ben H said:
What do you have to be afraid of, you're not against the Constitution are you?

I said defend the Constitution against liberals, I didn't say take out all liberals. You can be a liberal and not go after the constitution can't you? Some just need to be re-educated, or educated period.

What can I say, Uncle Sam tought me how to defend the Constitution against all enemies forgein and domestic.

I was too- and swore an oath to protect and defend it which I've done for 40+ years....

But I don't think 12- 13 year old kids should be legally walking the street with Uzis or cruising the drag in their "Technicals" like in Iraq or Somalia...Police have enough problems without having to operate out of APC's or decked out in full body armor....

We would be going backwards in our civilization...

There needs to "reasonable" regulation/rules- and thats exactly what the Supreme Court in its latest ruling, which is the first to define the right to own/bear arms, said...

While the American public is slow to anger--Extremism- either way- leads to the government having to react to that anger- and usually they overreact....
Thats why I would rather see the pro gun movement work with the anti folks on putting some restrictions on purchasing and owning assault weapons...

Every time you tell us how long you were in law enforcement it grows what will tomorrow bring 50 yrs!!! :roll: :roll:
 
Ok, I would agree 12-15 year olds shouldn't be able to have an uzi, or a handgun, or maybe nothing more then a .22 or whatever they need when they're hunting. (I hesitate on saying that) But as a law abiding citizen, what's the difference between having a handgun or an uzi? Why set a limit on what I need to defend myself.

I don't recall hearing abour problems when you could order an M1 Garand from the military and have it delivered to your door.

What about the militarization of police? That is unacceptable.

Leave the law abiding citizens alone. We have a right, you may need our backup some day.

There was a good article on survialblog.com from a law enforement officer about how law enforcement can barely handle things. It wouldn't take much for them to not be able to handle things, that is where the "well regulated militia" comes in, it's the peoples duty to maintain the order when the need arises, we can't count on the government for everything.
 
Ben H said:
alice

What do you have to be afraid of, you're not against the Constitution are you?

I said defend the Constitution against liberals, I didn't say take out all liberals. You can be a liberal and not go after the constitution can't you? Some just need to be re-educated, or educated period.

What can I say, Uncle Sam tought me how to defend the Constitution against all enemies forgein and domestic.

Goofballs with your mindset scare me. As far as education...re-education? Thanks, but no thanks. The very idea that you even espouse that scares me. Who the hell do you you think you are to tell ANYONE...to force anyone...to be re-educated? GAWD, are there really Facists like you out there? :shock: Wait, Timothy McVeigh was...:shock:

Alice
 
Ben H said:
Ok, I would agree 12-15 year olds shouldn't be able to have an uzi, or a handgun, or maybe nothing more then a .22 or whatever they need when they're hunting. (I hesitate on saying that) But as a law abiding citizen, what's the difference between having a handgun or an uzi? Why set a limit on what I need to defend myself.

I don't recall hearing abour problems when you could order an M1 Garand from the military and have it delivered to your door.

What about the militarization of police? That is unacceptable.

Leave the law abiding citizens alone. We have a right, you may need our backup some day.

There was a good article on survialblog.com from a law enforement officer about how law enforcement can barely handle things. It wouldn't take much for them to not be able to handle things, that is where the "well regulated militia" comes in, it's the peoples duty to maintain the order when the need arises, we can't count on the government for everything.

There was a good article on survialblog.com from a law enforement officer about how law enforcement can barely handle things. It wouldn't take much for them to not be able to handle things, that is where the "well regulated militia" comes in, it's the peoples duty to maintain the order when the need arises, we can't count on the government for everything.

survialblog.com? Holy Moly! :shock:

Alice
 
OT, "Thats why I would rather see the pro gun movement work with the anti folks on putting some restrictions on purchasing and owning assault weapons..."

And that will solve what problem?
 
Sandhusker said:
OT, "Thats why I would rather see the pro gun movement work with the anti folks on putting some restrictions on purchasing and owning assault weapons..."

And that will solve what problem?

Remove or better regulate the true assault weapons- the AK's, the Chicoms, etc-- that many of the moderates and independents- along with some conservatives agree should not be in the hands of anybody and everybody- and that drives more folks from supporting the progun followings ......

NRA used to have a big backing of law enforcement folks- including the Chiefs of Police Assn- National Sheriffs Assn- retired Officers Assn- etc. etc.----but the assault rifle issue lost them many many of these...
 
BenH

I just took a look at Survival blog. Alot of day to day info. Looks like an informative site. Thanks for sharing it with us all.

About . Advertise . Affiliates . Archives . Asian Avian Flu . Benefit Auction . Biographies . Bookshelf . Charity . Contact . Contest . Corrosive? . Derivatives . Email Us . FAQs . Finding Others . Gear . Glossary . Getting Started . Home . Investing . Kudos . Links . Link to Us . NAIS . Nickels . Peak Oil . Prayer . Precepts . Profiles . Provisos . Retreat Areas . RSS Feed . Support . Survival Guns . SurvivalRealty.com . Targets / Logs . Ten Cent Challenge . TMM Forum . Writings .
SurvivalBlog is dedicated to family preparedness, survival, self-reliance, and self-sufficiency. Are you new to this blog? Be advised that you are jumping in to extant threads. Read "About" first. Then read my "Precepts page." For in-depth study
 

Latest posts

Top