Obama Seeks 'Assault' Weapons Ban

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And besides that, Democrats are the ones that are supposed to keep the government out of private affairs, what with civil rights, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-legislating morality. How’s this fit in?[/quote]

Not really, just out of the affairs they want to. I always looked at the democrats as more the Nazi like party than the republicans. Did you know our Gun Control Act of 1968 was written by a democrat and is almost an exact word for word copy of the Nazi weapons act of the mid 20S?

Sen. Dodd was know to have a translation to this bill and wrote our law almost word for word.

And republicans are the Nazis? we never copied Nazi laws to make law in this country.

82

[quote]Sifu wrote:
tme wrote:
From what I’ve read so far, one big reason for calling for a ban is this type of thing:

"But A.T.F. officials estimate 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico come from dealers north of the border.

In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."

So instead of being pissed at Obama or Holder, you should be pissed at the dealers along the border who knowingly facilitate drug dealers smuggling weapons into Mexico. Those are the fucktards that are going to make life harder for everyone else, all for a buck.

It’s an excuse nothing more. Only an idiot would believe that drug gangs earning billions of dollars smuggling cocaine can only get their guns through legal channels in the US.

These people are smugglers, that is what they do for a living. They will fin

That always made me laugh, gee, we got this 2 tons of cocaine, but how are we going to do anything since we can’t find guns with our millions and billions of dollars? Better go to Cabelas!

Like they can’t get guns from the Mexican military.

84

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I heard Mexican drug cartels were using fast cars, pickup trucks and SUVs that were produced in the U.S. and exported to Mexico. With this in mind I feel it is highly necessary to enact new restrictions on Americans being able to buy and drive these type vehicles.[/quote]

At this point, I think I would prefer the rule of Mexican drug cartels to our own politicians. I don’t see them trying to disarm anyone, and at least they’re honest about their criminality.

85

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I heard Mexican drug cartels were using fast cars, pickup trucks and SUVs that were produced in the U.S. and exported to Mexico. With this in mind I feel it is highly necessary to enact new restrictions on Americans being able to buy and drive these type vehicles.[/quote]

Definitely! They should be using hybrids!

86

Can’t understand why any thinking person would consider this a bad thing. Obama is impressing me more and more.

87

Of course: the Second Amendment was written to protect firearm ownership for hunting purposes only. Therefore, any rifle not set up in the style of a hunting rifle is not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

If it is of a type ever used for combat, or even looks like it might be, the Founding Fathers had no such thing in mind. Every “thinking person” knows that.

88

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Of course: the Second Amendment was written to protect firearm ownership for hunting purposes only. Therefore, any rifle not set up in the style of a hunting rifle is not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

If it is of a type ever used for combat, or even looks like it might be, the Founding Fathers had no such thing in mind. Every “thinking person” knows that.[/quote]

Militia - Noun - A group of hunters and sport pistol shooters who gather to admire, but never actually shoot, a very specific set of weaponry outlined here…

89

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Of course: the Second Amendment was written to protect firearm ownership for hunting purposes only. Therefore, any rifle not set up in the style of a hunting rifle is not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

If it is of a type ever used for combat, or even looks like it might be, the Founding Fathers had no such thing in mind. Every “thinking person” knows that.[/quote]

Here’s the thing the libs don’t get, all our weaponry is military style. the bolt action rifle was a huge deal when it was introduced. The cartridge. Smokeless powder. The revolver. Pump shotgun. all these were military style weapons.

And don’t get me started on flintlocks. They were the assault rifle of 1776.

90

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Of course: the Second Amendment was written to protect firearm ownership for hunting purposes only. Therefore, any rifle not set up in the style of a hunting rifle is not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

If it is of a type ever used for combat, or even looks like it might be, the Founding Fathers had no such thing in mind. Every “thinking person” knows that.[/quote]

Interesting. I didn’t know that, but I will readily admit I’m not well read on the US constitution.

93

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Of course: the Second Amendment was written to protect firearm ownership for hunting purposes only. Therefore, any rifle not set up in the style of a hunting rifle is not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

If it is of a type ever used for combat, or even looks like it might be, the Founding Fathers had no such thing in mind. Every “thinking person” knows that.

Interesting. I didn’t know that, but I will readily admit I’m not well read on the US constitution.

You don’t detect sarcasm very well, do you?[/quote]

I detected it well enough to not enter into that debate.

EDIT: Additionally, you missed the fact that knowing what the Founding Fathers intended has nothing to do with whether or not you are a thinking person.

95

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
Bill Roberts wrote:
Of course: the Second Amendment was written to protect firearm ownership for hunting purposes only. Therefore, any rifle not set up in the style of a hunting rifle is not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

If it is of a type ever used for combat, or even looks like it might be, the Founding Fathers had no such thing in mind. Every “thinking person” knows that.

Interesting. I didn’t know that, but I will readily admit I’m not well read on the US constitution.

You don’t detect sarcasm very well, do you?

I detected it well enough to not enter into that debate.

EDIT: Additionally, you missed the fiction that knowing what the Founding Fathers intended has nothing to do with whether or not you are a thinking person.

Fixed that for you. I’m sure it was a typo.[/quote]

Hahahaha!

97

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
OK, and are these types of guns more likely to be involved in a crime or the killing of an innocent person?[/quote]

Nope.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/aw_final.pdf

98

[quote]read the constitution, besides that.

Have you ever been robbed, raped, mugged, your house laid under seige, your car taken at gun point, half your salary removed from your check to go to some worthless slobs that won’t get off their ass take some pride in themselves and do something to better their situation as well as to feed the fat government we’ve created.

Anyone in your family, shot in front of you, so some crack feined can get his next fix.
Ever had to console a friend because a group of local gang members raped his fiance as she was walking to her car after work and even though law enforcement knows who they are they are afraid to go after them because they have bigger and better weapons.

the right to bear arms was given to us so we could protect ourselves from the evil oppressive entity the government can become when it becomes too big and too full of itself, like our great sheep skin leader.[/quote]

There have been some good responses but the main thing I am getting from people is that there is a very strong theme of you think you should be protecting yourself, and you don’t expect the police to be protecting you.

Now, of course that is true, the police are never there to protect you when things go bad, response times are never that great. But it really seems there is a MAJOR theme of people not expecting the police to be doing much at all.

Police not going after the criminals because the crims have bigger guns is absurd, and this should not be happening.

Why IS this happening?

Also in your list of fears above, many of them are complicated by the bad guys having guns. Which of course would be a better situation if there were no guns at all, but hey how the hell you gonna stop everyone having guns is beyond me.

My point is that people should not NEED guns. The fear of all these things, this fear shouldn’t be. The criminals should be the ones in fear. WTF is going on?

If you give everyone the right the bear arms, and the arms, and the right to use them without punishment (or, the lack of ability to enforce punishment), then your society will rapidly decline into a state of multiple wars/feuds, many small tribes fighting each other until it consolidates into two tribes and then one, that enforces its rule on everyone.

You either accept that you have one ruling power now (and that ruler has to enforce their law) or you can degenerate.

You can’t have everyone running around with guns. You might be civil to me, and to your neighbour, but always there will be some asshole who sneaks up and takes what is yours by force. When you are not ready.

Or to put it another way - should everyone be allowed to have small tactical nuclear weapons? The kind that can take out a street block? at what level of firepower do you draw the line?

I wish someone would invent a personal shield device that would make things a lot easier.

and what about those zombies

99

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
cockney,

Since you live in England (correct me if wrong), you have a unique perspective that I think we could benefit from…

JeffR
[/quote]

Nope.

100

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
I wish someone would invent a personal shield device that would make things a lot easier.[/quote]

Yeah, and I wish all violent criminals would obey all laws, and the government wouldn’t need so much of my paycheck to “redistribute wealth”, and my raw milk supplier was next door instead of 25 miles away, but that ain’t happening.