Obama Attacks Gun Owners

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
…and NONE of that has jack shit do with any legislation that is about to happen now. The entire south is gun happy. Why the hell does anyone think a true nation wide gun ban would even be possible?

Like was said before, if any true issues do arise, no one will be listening anymore.

Well for one if a federal law was passed (Obama is at the federal level now not just the state level) it would be nation wide regardless of what the south wants.

I agree though if a real issue does arise no one will be listening absolutely. Just like a good con artist any politician will use their smooth talking to have everyone focused on one issue while they quietly take away our rights on another.

Interesting. Where was all of this fear of rights being taken away when Bush was setting up his delivery of the Patriot Act?

[/quote]

I didn’t support the patriot act and I have been critical of it on this forum. Bush did bad with the patriot act but he at least compensated for it to some degree by letting the assault weapons ban lapse.

The assault weapons ban has been reintroduced and Obama will most assuredly sign it into law when it reaches his desk. If you don’t believe that X I am willing to wager with you. What I wonder about is if the Democrat controlled congress and White House will compensate for the assault weapons ban by repealing the patriot act. If they don’t be prepared to see a lot worse happen.

102

[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I have a question. If we require people to annual or semi-annual training to own a gun shouldn’t we require people to take a test or course on politics to vote?

We require a driving test to get a car and I personally think most people should be required to take tests every 10 years or so to show they still can. There are 70 year olds on the road right now that just might get someone else killed.

Again, this is not the 1700’s where everyone had a gun and society as a whole was geared towards using one safely. This is 2008. People are just as likely to pull one out due to road rage now.[/quote]

I have to call bullshit on that one. The 2nd amendment is a constitutional right driving a car is not. There should not be qualifications for who can and cannot enjoy constitutional rights.

With your road rage remark you are now the one who is engaging in paranoia and hysteria. Back in the 1700’s people didn’t need to rage out they would just challenged each other to a duel and there was a lot of that going on.

In the 1700’s everyone didn’t have a gun, a lot of people were too poor to afford one. This was one of the major problems the founding fathers faced during the revolution. Study the history of Valley Forge sometime. Patriots died due to a lack of equipment and training. This is why the 2nd amendment is worded the way it is. It’s so the people can assemble armed to train with their weapons and have them readily available for when they need them.

103

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I have to call bullshit on that one. The 2nd amendment is a constitutional right driving a car is not. There should not be qualifications for who can and cannot enjoy constitutional rights.[/quote]

Imagine the shit you’d have to deal with if getting a license to drive was linked with a license to own a gun.

104

[quote]Makavali wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
I’m sorry I was to busy deploying during those year to sit around and cry about it on a forum.

You just lost a lot of respect here.

Serving your country is admirable, but using that fact to try and score brownie points on an internet forum is pretty lame.[/quote]

I was making the point that not all of us just sit on a forum and complain. Some of us actually do.

105

When I hear the “license gun use like licensing to drive” argument all I think is…cool!

  • I can buy anything my bank account or credit can allow.
  • I don’t have to wait a certain amount of time before I can pick it up.
  • If I only keep and use the gun on private property I don’t even need a license.

Where do I sign?

107

x there’s more military on here than you think. some just don’t toot their horn like you.

108

[quote]toejam wrote:
x there’s more military on here than you think. some just don’t toot their horn like you.[/quote]

God I can’t believe I am doing this, but X was giving me a hard time for saying I am a Marine.

110

[quote]toejam wrote:
x there’s more military on here than you think. some just don’t toot their horn like you.[/quote]

Retarded. I responded to someone else who brought up out of the blue that they were military and by this you came to the conclusion that I was “tooting my own horn”? How does that even make sense to you? HE brought it up, not me.

Honestly, what is wrong with some of you?

111

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…My opinion is that regulation is needed. If you want a gun, get registered. Have your finger prints on file. I also believe in mandatory training whether that be every 5 years or every other year, something that indicates the person is still competent.

This isn’t the 1700’s. In a world where I can’t even drive down the street without being on 15 street cameras, yes, I want people with guns registered.

Sorry, X, this reasoning is deeply flawed. Registration is all about control. It puts the control in the hands of the state. The Second Amendment is all about empowering the People not the state.

Your proposition cannot viably work without violating the Second Amendment. It’s simply that simple.[/quote]

Wait, so expecting people to be competent with their guns is “unconstitutional”? Putting restrictions on purchases so that it isn’t as easy for possible criminals to get them from a store is “unconstitutional”?

I am FOR the waiting period. I see no problem with it at all. I am for registering the fire-arm. I see no problem there either. I am also for some type of regulation that causes a person to get regular practice with a gun.

I don’t understand this reaction to gun control that I am speaking of while people completely ignore the way the society is changing in every other regard.

You can not drive to work in a major city anymore without being on surveillance. Eventually, your children or their kids won’t even know the meaning of the word privacy, yet THIS is where you speak up the loudest?

Power to the people would mean freedom. We’ve lost that on so many levels that maybe, just maybe some of that should be the focus. Even without direct gun regulation, there will still be regulation even if it is unspoken to the general public.

More damage can be done to your life using a keyboard now than with a bullet.

112

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
toejam wrote:
x there’s more military on here than you think. some just don’t toot their horn like you.

God I can’t believe I am doing this, but X was giving me a hard time for saying I am a Marine. [/quote]

But wait, that wasn’t “tooting your own horn”. Me saying you weren’t alone is?

113

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Honestly, what is wrong with some of you?[/quote]

Too many blows to the head.

115

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I am FOR the waiting period. I see no problem with it at all. I am for registering the fire-arm. I see no problem there either. I am also for some type of regulation that causes a person to get regular practice with a gun.
[/quote]

I’m not sure what the waiting period accomplishes. There are certainly no statistics or data that show a waiting period accomplishes anything, so why bother?

One constant during change in society is that criminals will always break, ignore, or work around laws, and that government will always grow more intrusive.

The Constitution has no ‘Right to Public Privacy’. There is, however, an unqualified right to bear arms. This is actually a good point-- Has all this government surveillance significantly reduced crime? I suspect not. Perhaps it’s the wrong solution. London has strict gun regulation and a high concentration of surveillance-- results?

Firearms empower those who wish to be empowered by them.

I don’t understand this statement-- please clarify.

I treat my right to own firearms like I treat my name-- I try not to do anything to tarnish it. My gun club is self-policing and has kicked members out for unsafe behavior. I never had a formal gun training class, but grew up around them and was taught the proper respect, use, and care of them. I’m a good shot, and can shoot birds on the wing. I’ve done biathalon circuits (certainly not at Olympic pace or accuracy, but, still).

The problem isn’t the 99.9999999% of legal gun owners. It’s the remainder and the illegal gun owners (ie the criminals) who fuck it up for everyone else.

116

[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
toejam wrote:
x there’s more military on here than you think. some just don’t toot their horn like you.

God I can’t believe I am doing this, but X was giving me a hard time for saying I am a Marine.

But wait, that wasn’t “tooting your own horn”. Me saying you weren’t alone is?

[/quote]

I was defending you smart guy.

117

[quote]Professor X wrote:
usmccds423 wrote:
toejam wrote:
x there’s more military on here than you think. some just don’t toot their horn like you.

God I can’t believe I am doing this, but X was giving me a hard time for saying I am a Marine.

But wait, that wasn’t “tooting your own horn”. Me saying you weren’t alone is?

[/quote]

I was actually defending you smart guy.

118

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
…My opinion is that regulation is needed. If you want a gun, get registered. Have your finger prints on file. I also believe in mandatory training whether that be every 5 years or every other year, something that indicates the person is still competent.

This isn’t the 1700’s. In a world where I can’t even drive down the street without being on 15 street cameras, yes, I want people with guns registered.

Sorry, X, this reasoning is deeply flawed. Registration is all about control. It puts the control in the hands of the state. The Second Amendment is all about empowering the People not the state.

Your proposition cannot viably work without violating the Second Amendment. It’s simply that simple.

Wait, so expecting people to be competent with their guns is “unconstitutional”? Putting restrictions on purchases so that it isn’t as easy for possible criminals to get them from a store is “unconstitutional”?

I am FOR the waiting period. I see no problem with it at all. I am for registering the fire-arm. I see no problem there either. I am also for some type of regulation that causes a person to get regular practice with a gun.

I don’t understand this reaction to gun control that I am speaking of while people completely ignore the way the society is changing in every other regard.

You can not drive to work in a major city anymore without being on surveillance. Eventually, your children or their kids won’t even know the meaning of the word privacy, yet THIS is where you speak up the loudest?

Power to the people would mean freedom. We’ve lost that on so many levels that maybe, just maybe some of that should be the focus. Even without direct gun regulation, there will still be regulation even if it is unspoken to the general public.

More damage can be done to your life using a keyboard now than with a bullet.[/quote]

If this country does continue to take away our privacy rights how will we defend ourselves without guns?

Honestly why does it bother you to be on video in the airport or in the mall? Unless you plan on breaking the law then who cares? Obviously if the government wanted to install surveillance in every home I would be readily to march on Washington, but in a public place were crimes are generally committed I have no problem at all go for it.

Oh and if a keyboard does more damage then a bullet then why don’t we require annual typing training or computer use training?

119

Happy Ammo Day everyone! Buy early buy often:

http://www.ammoday.com/

120

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I am FOR the waiting period. I see no problem with it at all. I am for registering the fire-arm. I see no problem there either. I am also for some type of regulation that causes a person to get regular practice with a gun.

I’m not sure what the waiting period accomplishes. There are certainly no statistics or data that show a waiting period accomplishes anything, so why bother?[/quote]

To my knowledge. the goal is to prevent someone from buying a gun in a fit of rage or something to that effect. It is on that basis that I do agree with it.

[quote]

I don’t understand this reaction to gun control that I am speaking of while people completely ignore the way the society is changing in every other regard.

One constant during change in society is that criminals will always break, ignore, or work around laws, and that government will always grow more intrusive.[/quote]

That didn’t really address the point I was making.

[quote]

The Constitution has no ‘Right to Public Privacy’. There is, however, an unqualified right to bear arms. This is actually a good point-- Has all this government surveillance significantly reduced crime? I suspect not. Perhaps it’s the wrong solution. London has strict gun regulation and a high concentration of surveillance-- results?[/quote]

The point is, the government has bigger guns than you and more personnel. We lose most of our own personal protection when we have no privacy. Therefore, maybe we should be focusing more on ways to maintain our own individuality in a society that is moving quickly towards taking that away.

[quote]

Power to the people would mean freedom.

Firearms empower those who wish to be empowered by them.[/quote]

Firearms protect you from the criminal who is breaking in your house, not government. One well skilled computer hacker can freeze all money in your bank accounts and erase your identity. You won’t be defending much of anything if you can’t buy food. The government wins unless you manage to grow your own food and live independently very quickly.

[quote]

Even without direct gun regulation, there will still be regulation even if it is unspoken to the general public.

I don’t understand this statement-- please clarify.[/quote]

Loss of privacy and constant surveillance. If you are on film 24/7 in the future, no one needs to regulate your guns.