Is it time to stock-up on assault rifles?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

coprolalia

Bored Certified
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
3,084
Reaction score
19
Now that President-elect Obama is set to take the White House by storm and change all of our lives for the better, should we pick up a few extra AK47's, SKS's, and AR-15's before the near certain assault weapons bans go into effect?

Stuff purchased now will be grandfathered. Grandfathered weapons can be re-sold. This might be a very good investment...

-copro
 
Now that President-elect Obama is set to take the White House by storm and change all of our lives for the better, should we pick up a few extra AK47's, SKS's, and AR-15's before the near certain assault weapons bans go into effect?

Stuff purchased now will be grandfathered. Grandfathered weapons can be re-sold. This might be a very good investment...

-copro
Definitely. You'll want to make sure they're available when you need them for...

...for...

...um...

...well...

...for the various assault-rifle-necessitating circumstances, whatever they are, we're all sure to run across in our daily lives once the bans are in place?

In all seriousness, even if you're just talking about them as investment items, will a few illegal rifles be worth enough to become a privateer over? I doubt the laws will look kindly upon people who traffic in banned weapons.
 
Hey Bill Johnson. Go somewhere else and be daft. And while you're at it, go walk down a dark alley in New York in the middle of the night.


Yes, you should probably be stocking up on semi-auto weapons, especially rifles. The truth is, the more seats the Dems pick up, the bigger the reality is that these weapons will be banned. So pick up your AKs and your ARs. And the parts and ammo. Truth is, they will probably go after ammo as hard as they go after the guns.

And Bill... they aren't illegal weapons. And because you are a commie that believes we shouldn't be able to possess firearms, why don't you just move to London? Because after they outlawed legal ownership of guns violent crimes INCREASED, and now they have 15 closed circuit cameras PER PERSON, just to try and control crime. Sounds like a wonderful world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Bill Johnson. Go somewhere else and be a ******. And while you're at it, go walk down a dark alley in New York in the middle of the night.

Yes, you should probably be stocking up on semi-auto weapons, especially rifles. The truth is, the more seats the Dems pick up, the bigger the reality is that these weapons will be banned. So pick up your AKs and your ARs. And the parts and ammo. Truth is, they will probably go after ammo as hard as they go after the guns.

And Bill... they aren't illegal weapons. And because you are a commie that believes we shouldn't be able to possess firearms, why don't you just move to London? Because after they outlawed legal ownership of guns violent crimes INCREASED, and now they have 15 closed circuit cameras PER PERSON, just to try and control crime. Sounds like a wonderful world.
Wow, another SDN Renaissance man in the making. Your impeccable rhetoric and flawless logic impress me equally. I salute you.
 
Last edited:
I was just at a gun show over the weekend and people are going nuts buying guns, because they are worried about bans. The prices went up a substantial amount. If anything just buy a bunch of lower receivers.
 
Well, you can either speculate all you want, or you don't. The choice is yours. Maybe calling Bill a ****** was a little strong--but his referral to selling grandfathered in semi-autos as "illegal" is not anywhere near the truth, and thereby shows his lack of competence in the issue. So maybe I should call him daft instead.

And to say gun control has been off the dockets for decades is... insane! It was just recently that the Supreme Court passed the 2nd Amendment ban lift in DC... BY ONE VOTE ONLY. So to say it is off the dockets is amazingly closed minded.

Think what you want to about guns, but the next 2 and 4 years will be hard on gun owners. I'm not saying you should "go crazy" and buy up everything you see, but if you have the money, guns never depreciate. Look at pre-ban full autos from before 1986. They have appreciated 35+%. If you think that is bad economics... well... I have a word for you. It's daft (******ed).
 
Hopefully Dr. Doze is right.

But, it might be a good idea. They have been selling like hotcakes where I am. And while you're at it, might as well pick up a .50 caliber.

Oh, and be sure to buy plenty of bullets too. What good is a gun if you can't shoot it?
 
Now that President-elect Obama is set to take the White House by storm and change all of our lives for the better, should we pick up a few extra AK47's, SKS's, and AR-15's before the near certain assault weapons bans go into effect?

Stuff purchased now will be grandfathered. Grandfathered weapons can be re-sold. This might be a very good investment...

-copro

I ordered a Colt 6920 (AR-15) a couple days before the election, but not as an investment. I've just wanted one for a while, and I figured that prices would shoot up after the election, and that it might even be hard to find what I wanted. (As it was, I had to shop around a lot to find a place that had one in stock and that wasn't already marking them up.)

I don't have any intention of selling it. It's not for home defense and I'm not joining any local militia groups.

aphistis said:
Definitely. You'll want to make sure they're available when you need them for... ...for... ...um... ...well... ...for the various assault-rifle-necessitating circumstances, whatever they are, we're all sure to run across in our daily lives once the bans are in place?

Hey, don't come running to my house for shelter when the zombie apocalypse is upon us. They'll feast on your brains while I'll be safe behind a wall of zombie corpses.

aphistis said:
I doubt the laws will look kindly upon people who traffic in banned weapons.

Last time around, weapons owned before the ban was enacted were grandfathered in and remained legal. No weapons were confiscated; they didn't become illegal overnight. One could sell and transfer ownership of them. In the immediate period after the Clinton AWB was enacted, it was not unusual to see high capacity magazines that sold for $10 before the ban going for $90 or $100. The weapons themselves were heavily marked up too.

So Copro's not spouting crazy talk, though I doubt there'll be such large profits this time around. Too many people are expecting a ban and are looking to score.
 
Poor economy plus realization that gun control is a nonissue at least for the next few years.

As I recall, "it's the economy, stupid" was a catchphrase coined around 1992 when Clinton beat out Bush Sr. 1994 rolls around and we got the AWB. As busy as they'll be with the economy and Iraq/Afghanistan, I'm sure that someone, maybe a Senator from California, will make time for a pet project on gun control.

Obama has stated his support for gun control in the past. More recently, he's been more pro 2nd Amendment, or maybe it'd be more accurate to say he's been less anti 2nd Amendment.

Honestly, I think we're more likely to see a giant sin tax on guns & ammo than an outright ban.
 
I actually think that people should start thinking about owning heavier weapons like RPG's, Stinger missiles and tanks.
The fight against progress and scientific thinking is going to be fierce and we can't allow those liberals to sneak on us with their destructive ideas like: science, logic, and civilization.
 
I actually think that people should start thinking about owning heavier weapons like RPG's, Stinger missiles and tanks.
The fight against progress and scientific thinking is going to be fierce and we can't allow those liberals to sneak on us with their destructive ideas like: science, logic, and civilization.

The only thing liberals have a monopoly on is arrogance.
 
I actually think that people should start thinking about owning heavier weapons like RPG's, Stinger missiles and tanks.
The fight against progress and scientific thinking is going to be fierce and we can't allow those liberals to sneak on us with their destructive ideas like: science, logic, and civilization.

The right to own guns is going nowhere. I find the discussion here, somewhat,
interesting.

The biggest threat to the way of life in this country is our switch from producers to consumers.
We can no longer build a better less costly mouse trap. Look @ the American auto industry.

Cambie
 
Last edited:
The only thing liberals have a monopoly on is arrogance.

True. They have a near monopoly on media outlets, college professorships, and admissions committees, but the only real monopoly is arrogance.
 
I actually think that people should start thinking about owning heavier weapons like RPG's, Stinger missiles and tanks.
The fight against progress and scientific thinking is going to be fierce and we can't allow those liberals to sneak on us with their destructive ideas like: science, logic, and civilization.

:laugh:

👍
 
Hey, don't come running to my house for shelter when the zombie apocalypse is upon us. They'll feast on your brains while I'll be safe behind a wall of zombie corpses.

:laugh:

That may be the most cogent argument for assault rifle possession in this thread.

It also makes me want to rent Shaun of the Dead or 28 Days.
 
The other thing liberals have a monopoly on is anti-gun idiocy.
 
Gun control has been off the radar on a national stage for years.


H.R. 96
H.R. 297
H.R. 1022
H.R. 1784
S 1237
S 1331

Here are just a few from last years session alone, bills with co-sponsors. I haven't had time to dig through this year's list yet. Gun control off the radar for years? Clearly, you must not be living in America.
 
I actually think that people should start thinking about owning heavier weapons like RPG's, Stinger missiles and tanks.
Those are all very difficult to defend your home with, especially indoors. A semi automatic rifle, on the other hand is quite useful.

The fight against progress and scientific thinking is going to be fierce and we can't allow those liberals to sneak on us with their destructive ideas like: science, logic, and civilization.

Is this the same logic and civilization that thinks that by preventing legal, responsible gun owners from having guns, that the criminals will decide they don't need them anymore?

It is also unfortunate that your thinking is limited to dichotomous choices. You'd be amazed at how many gun owners aren't uneducated, redneck hillbillies.
 
[You'd be amazed at how many gun owners aren't uneducated, redneck hillbillies.

Education has nothing to do with how many years you go to school.
I actually know many people with assumed good education who function at an intellectual level lower than your average "redneck hillbilly"
By the way: I have nothing against rednecks or hillbillies.
 
I guess that we have different opinions on what constitutes "gun control". I have no problem with background checks, banning some types of ammunition, and banning certain classes of weapons. I consider "gun control" making it difficult for an ordinary citizen with a clean record to purchase and carry most firearms and ammo after a background check and attendance of a safety class. Yes we do live in different Americas. BTW I do own guns.

squirt guns don't count.
 
I actually think that people should start thinking about owning heavier weapons like RPG's, Stinger missiles and tanks.

You can get that stuff, if you really want it, but the paperwork is a bitch. And, it is hella expensive.

There is already a lot of paperwork, background checks, etc. to legally own a firearm in this country. The problem is, if you take away people's right to legally own any of that stuff, people quickly figure out how to ILLEGALLY get it.

We can ban smoking, too. Let's just outlaw cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco. While we're at it, let's ban alcohol too. Surely, those two things would prevent more deaths, per year, than anything else. Let's require 1-mile camera checkpoints to ensure everyone is wearing their seatbelt, and automatically issue them a fine if they aren't wearing one. Surely this will prevent a lot of deaths each year secondary to automobile accidents (the majority of which I see in the trauma bay are a result of no seatbelt). Let's require more unfunded mandates from the federal government that will require you fork-over your own money to comply, but will not be supported financially by Uncle Sam.

Let's legislate everything. Let's ban and preclude peope from the right of free ownership and choosing what they want, because we all know that the average American can't be trusted, right? Because, everybody also knows that good legislation will prevent good, law-abiding citizens from doing things, and not just create more criminals. 🙄

-copro
 
cop...

what's wrong with you?

Do you think logic and common sense has any place in an argument/discussion with liberals?

common...get with it.
 
, because we all know that the average American can't be trusted, right?
-copro
Exactly!
Tomorrow I want you to look at your patients and tell us honestly what percentage of your patients can actually be trusted with a fire arm?
I want you to imagine each one of them with an assault rifle and tell us your feelings.
Your patients represent the "average American" so you tell me if they can be trusted.
 
[YOUTUBE]46MEqEgdLTg[/YOUTUBE]

Those guns might come in handy after all.
 
Tomorrow I want you to look at your patients and tell us honestly what percentage of your patients can actually be trusted with a fire arm?

Most of my patients already own, legally or illegally, firearms. I imagine a portion of them, I assume, also have in their possession an AK47 (or similar).

How does making it illegal to own them make me any safer? Have you ever shot an assault rifle? It's loud, it's hard to conceal, and it's pretty damn fun. You can make a Molotov cocktail very easily with gasoline, a bottle, and a piece of t-shirt. I can easily tuck one of those under my jacket and walk into a mall. Throwing that into a crowd will do just as much damage, if not more, as opening fire with a semi-auto. So, let's outlaw those things too.

-copro
 
Most of my patients already own, legally or illegally, firearms. I imagine a portion of them, I assume, also have in their possession an AK47 (or similar).

How does making it illegal to own them make me any safer? Have you ever shot an assault rifle? It's loud, it's hard to conceal, and it's pretty damn fun. You can make a Molotov cocktail very easily with gasoline, a bottle, and a piece of t-shirt. I can easily tuck one of those under my jacket and walk into a mall. Throwing that into a crowd will do just as much damage, if not more, as opening fire with a semi-auto. So, let's outlaw those things too.

-copro
I asked you what percentage of your patients you feel can be trusted with a fire arm.
Obviously not that many and that's why you did not answer the question.
So, If the majority of your "average Americans" can not be trusted with a fire arm shouldn't there be some type of regulation that limits their access to dangerous weapons?
Isn't that why we don't allow children to operate motor vehicles?
Don't you have to prove that you have a certain level of judgment to be allowed to operate a deadly weapon??
 
You can make a Molotov cocktail very easily with gasoline, a bottle, and a piece of t-shirt. I can easily tuck one of those under my jacket and walk into a mall. Throwing that into a crowd will do just as much damage, if not more, as opening fire with a semi-auto. So, let's outlaw those things too.

-copro

I doubt a Molotov cocktail would do as much damage. I can't recall hearing of someone using one (aside from movies) to commit homicide. I've been in a mall when shots were fired (albeit with a handgun), killing innocent bystanders.

It's a silly argument anyways, because you know they could never outlaw the components. I would imagine using one would fall under the premise of possessing a deadly weapon or destructive device, so they are currently outlawed.
 
I asked you what percentage of your patients you feel can be trusted with a fire arm.
Obviously not that many and that's why you did not answer the question.

The majority of them probably have firearms (if you believe the number of guns that are out there and the number of households that report owning at least one firearm... I own several). I am not aware that they are either ex-convicts or have pending firearms related crimes charges, so my answer is - yes - I trust the vast majority of them.

People are not as stupid and wreckless as you've been lead to believe.

So, If the majority of your "average Americans" can not be trusted with a fire arm...

Again, you're drawing conclusions based upon personal opinion that are clearly in contention.

... shouldn't there be some type of regulation that limits their access to dangerous weapons?

How on earth did you ever come to the conclusion that there aren't already such regulations?

Isn't that why we don't allow children to operate motor vehicles?

Straw man. We don't allow children to legally own guns without supervision either. Stay on point, Plankton.

Don't you have to prove that you have a certain level of judgment to be allowed to operate a deadly weapon??

This is a separate issue. But, carrying your argument forward to its logical conclusion, perhaps we should mandate birth control until we can ascertain that there is an appropriate "level of judgment" for future parents.

Let's get and keep government involved - more involved - in the day-to-day choices of otherwise law-abiding Americans. There are a lot of things that aren't "necessary" that we're allowed to choose to do in this country, some of those things might be bad for us individually and maybe even for society. Let's plan for every eventuality and restrict freedoms - not allow people to do certain things - so that we can perceive that we live in a "safer" environment. Isn't that really what you're advocating?

🙄

-copro
 
We all heard about what happened at Virginia Tech. But, did anyone hear about what happened in Grundy, Virginia not that far away? Imagine if one - even just one - of those students in one of those Virginia Tech classrooms had been armed...

-copro
 
so my answer is - yes - I trust the vast majority of them.
-copro

Really?
Are you sure that you live in the U.S. ??

This is a separate issue. But, carrying your argument forward to its logical conclusion, perhaps we should mandate birth control until we can ascertain that there is an appropriate "level of judgment" for future parents.
-copro
Absolutely!
 
NOW.jpg
 
Originally Posted by coprolalia

This is a separate issue. But, carrying your argument forward to its logical conclusion, perhaps we should mandate birth control until we can ascertain that there is an appropriate "level of judgment" for future parents.
Absolutely!

You need to read this book.

-copro
 
Really?
Are you sure that you live in the U.S. ??


Absolutely!

Wow plank you act like a liberal but then post your support for mandated birth control for those deemed unworthy to have children. Are you a liberal or a Nazi. B/c you are all over the board with your beliefs.
 
I asked you what percentage of your patients you feel can be trusted with a fire arm.

About the same percentage of my patients that I feel can be trusted with the right to vote or reproduce. Most of them, actually. I'm not quite as cynical as you, I guess.

But even if we could reliably single out the dumb ones, we shouldn't take away their voting or screwing rights. Don't you think it's far more likely that dumb people could harm us by voting with their dumb gut feelings or breeding a new generation of dumb progeny, than by doing something dumb with a gun?

Maybe we should all focus on outlawing all the dumb things people dumberer than us get up to on a daily basis, before we start outlawing objects that not-dumb law-abiding citizens have been safely using for 100s of years?

I'll also add that since most of the time I work in a military hospital, a very large proportion of my patients ARE trusted with firearms. Specifically, the kind of firearms likely to be covered by an AWB.
 
Slippery Slope Fallacy:

Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.

Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
 
Wow plank you act like a liberal but then post your support for mandated birth control for those deemed unworthy to have children. Are you a liberal or a Nazi. B/c you are all over the board with your beliefs.

I am a liberal who thinks that you should not be allowed to be a parent if you are a sociopath or if you lack the basic skills to provide a safe environment for a child.
I also think that if you are a sociopath or a serial killer you should not have access to assault rifles and mass murder weapons.
If that makes me a Nazi then that's fine with me!
By the way, last time I checked, you don't have to fit a certain political classification or party affiliation to have an opinion in this country.
 
Top