Walmart Urged To Stop Selling Assault Rifles By More Than 85,000

[Wolseley]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

I heard one wag say that it will be impossible to stop criminals from getting guns in the U.S. because all they would have to do is put a couple of them inside every bale of marijuana that comes in. Lot of unfortunate truth to that.

But it wouldn't just be marijuana. If the government gave free street drugs away so that the Mexican cartels collapsed, they could just strap one or more guns inside the clothing of every illegal who makes it, and there would be plenty for criminals.

If we were to start arresting every gun runner in the United States who was shipping assault weapons across borders to people who intended to use them for illegal and criminal purposes.....

.....we'd have to start with arresting a lot of people in the Department of Justice and the Attorney General; and maybe even the President himself. Fast and Furious has incriminated every one of them.

[shipwrkd]

Originally Posted by Wolseley

If we were to start arresting every gun runner in the United States who was shipping assault weapons across borders to people who intended to use them for illegal and criminal purposes.....

.....we'd have to start with arresting a lot of people in the Department of Justice and the Attorney General; and maybe even the President himself. Fast and Furious has incriminated every one of them.

Just research Gunwalking and you'll see how hypocritical our government can be. We lost control of much when we lost control of our borders.

[Kelfa28]

Originally Posted by bellasbane

Only the two-legged kind, but we rely on professionals to take care of them.

And armed civilians like myself.

When seconds count....the police are only minuets away and that clock doesn't start ticking until you've located your phone, dialed 911 and relayed the emergency you have. In that time frame alone...the attacker is already there and over taking you...and the cops have no idea you are in trouble.

No thank-you...I will get my gun and fire at said intruder and then call the cops.

I'm a stay at home mom...in the people's republic of Massachusetts...you better believe I will take out any intruder who enters my home and threatens my babies.

And it won't be with a swift kick in the groin either.

If anyone came into my home with intent to do harm and have a weapon...a gun is the only safe way for me to defend myself.
There isn't enough open space to safely get that close to an intruder and rely on karate skills to take him down.

The closer you have to get to your attacker the more dangerous of a situation it becomes.
It's just common sense.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by Kelfa28

And armed civilians like myself.

I'm a stay at home mom...in the people's republic of Massachusetts...you better believe I will take out any intruder who enters my home and threatens my babies.

And it won't be with a swift kick in the groin either.

If anyone came into my home with intent to do harm and have a weapon...a gun is the only safe way for me to defend myself.
There isn't enough open space to safely get that close to an intruder and rely on karate skills to take him down.

The closer you have to get to your attacker the more dangerous of a situation it becomes.
It's just common sense.

There's nothing to worry about in Massachusetts. The police will come to your rescue. Hopefully, they'll show up before you're dead, but gun grabbers don't care about your death. You would be collateral damage in the war on gun ownership.

[Kelfa28]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

There's nothing to worry about in Massachusetts. The police will come to your rescue. Hopefully, they'll show up before you're dead, but gun grabbers don't care about your death. You would be collateral damage in the war on gun ownership.

Oh I know...

I edited my post above to reflect this.

When seconds count...the police are minutes away...

[shipwrkd]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

There's nothing to worry about in Massachusetts. The police will come to your rescue. Hopefully, they'll show up before you're dead, but gun grabbers don't care about your death. You would be collateral damage in the war on gun ownership.

Or the gun grabber will be the collateral damage. Not to worry, the police will be there in time to fill out the paperwork and you'll be alive to give them the information.

[SamH]

Originally Posted by liturgyluver

Two wrongs do not make a right.

What is the second wrong?

[SamH]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

There's nothing to worry about in Massachusetts. The police will come to your rescue. Hopefully, they'll show up before you're dead, but gun grabbers don't care about your death. You would be collateral damage in the war on gun ownership.

Agreed. Look what they did to Sandy Hook.

[TheDoors]

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Where is that in the constitution?

I have never heard that a gun could be banned because it looks scary, which is subjective

This was a while back, so I thought I'd comment on it.

The "assault weapons ban" defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic weapon with interchangeable magazines and two or more military style features. So.

My ranch rifle which fires a 7.62 round with a fifteen-round double-stack magazine is not an assault weapon.

My AR-10 which fires a 7.62 round with a ten-round single-stack magazine IS an assault weapon. The difference?

The AR-10 features an adjustable stock, which allows for greater control and accuracy. It also has a carrying handle, which comes standard with the rifle, and a pistol grip, which is also standard.

Both of these rifles fire the same round, and the same speed, at the same rate. The difference? One LOOKS like a military rifle, and is thus banned.

NO assault rifle may be owned by a civilian. An assault rifle by definition alone has the ability built in to go full-auto. Again, NO civilian may own a fully-automatic weapon without a federal firearms permit. It's been that way since the 30s. When people say "assault weapon", they mean "Guns that *I* think LOOK scary".

[SamH]

Originally Posted by TheDoors

NO assault rifle may be owned by a civilian. An assault rifle by definition alone has the ability built in to go full-auto. Again, NO civilian may own a fully-automatic weapon without a federal firearms permit. It's been that way since the 30s. When people say "assault weapon", they mean "Guns that *I* think LOOK scary".

Actually they can by owned by civilians but the ownership of such a weapon is highly regulated. Only two known crimes have been committed by legally owned assault rifles - both were by police officers.

[LisaA]

Originally Posted by TheDoors

This was a while back, so I thought I'd comment on it.

The "assault weapons ban" defines an assault weapon as a semi-automatic weapon with interchangeable magazines and two or more military style features. So.

My ranch rifle which fires a 7.62 round with a fifteen-round double-stack magazine is not an assault weapon.

My AR-10 which fires a 7.62 round with a ten-round single-stack magazine IS an assault weapon. The difference?

The AR-10 features an adjustable stock, which allows for greater control and accuracy. It also has a carrying handle, which comes standard with the rifle, and a pistol grip, which is also standard.

Both of these rifles fire the same round, and the same speed, at the same rate. The difference? One LOOKS like a military rifle, and is thus banned.

NO assault rifle may be owned by a civilian. An assault rifle by definition alone has the ability built in to go full-auto. Again, NO civilian may own a fully-automatic weapon without a federal firearms permit. It's been that way since the 30s. When people say "assault weapon", they mean "Guns that *I* think LOOK scary".

EXACTLY. The previous "assault weapons" ban had many exceptions and the difference between a banned weapon and a legal weapon was appearance. One pundit commented that we should ban black paint because it makes guns look scary.

Great post and thank you for adding some facts to offset the bloviating and pontificating coming from those wanting to prevent law abiding citizens from owning a gun.

Why doesn't the Left understand that the people engaged in these actions are breaking the laws we now have on the books? Why do they think more laws or new laws will stop the bad guys? Didn't work then, won't work now
Lisa

[shipwrkd]

Originally Posted by LisaA

EXACTLY. The previous "assault weapons" ban had many exceptions and the difference between a banned weapon and a legal weapon was appearance. One pundit commented that we should ban black paint because it makes guns look scary.

Great post and thank you for adding some facts to offset the bloviating and pontificating coming from those wanting to prevent law abiding citizens from owning a gun.

Why doesn't the Left understand that the people engaged in these actions are breaking the laws we now have on the books? Why do they think more laws or new laws will stop the bad guys? Didn't work then, won't work now
Lisa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-36SMjAUCc
worth posting again.

[seekerz]

Originally Posted by mtbender

Where is my statement regarding what assault weapons are or are not for? I don’t think I ever made one... And in absence of a claim I don’t need to reference anything I would guess.

My original comments were regarding the authority given to the General based solely on the fact that he is a General. And I simply pointed out that there are others in uniform that share opposing views to the Generals stance…

Sorry, you're not the one who made the statement - just the one who responded to my comments regarding this post:

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....&postcount=102

[Brendan]

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

If the government gave free street drugs away so that the Mexican cartels collapsed, they could just strap one or more guns inside the clothing of every illegal who makes it, and there would be plenty for criminals.

Or they could just make them.,

It would be a lot easier than processing most street drugs,, with readily available materials and a much lower level of technical knowledge

Anyone who has done any automotive body work could make a British WW-II Sten gun using tools and materials they can get at the local Home Depot.

Those submachine guns were designed to be made in small garage shops and specs can be found online.

The Zionists in British Mandate Palestine had a shop making those in the basement of a laundrymat that served British officers. The sounds of the washers and dryers covered up the hammering that was going on in the basement. Right under the feet of the officers who were sent to enforce the anti-gun mandates.

[SamH]

Originally Posted by seekerz

People don't commit mass murder with forks.

.

Actually they do:


Nice lefty website for you

We noticed a similar statistic posted online by the CDC. Based on mortality data from the 1970s, the agency said that 365,000 U.S. deaths a year could be attributed to obesity. That’s about 41 deaths an hour.

However, CDC spokeswoman Karen Hunter told us the agency lately estimates that obesity accounts for less than one-third that number: 112,000 deaths a year, or about 13 deaths an hour. According to an undated CDC sheet of frequently asked questions about calculating obesity-related risk, the estimate has dropped in recent years because CDC scientists started using newer data and different methods of analysis.


http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...n-die-obesity/