RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns?

RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 11:04:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata ~Fast Reply~ To no one in particular... I think we could put an end to the tragic slaughter on our roads if we mandated that no vehicle could have more than 100 horsepower or a gas tank larger than 10 gallons. [:D] This would make sense if you could make the argument that a cars intended use is to maim and injure...but seeing as a car serves an altogether different use...this is just poppy-cock bullshit....but you know that, don't you.

IntellectualPro -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 11:35:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Sorry,I can't get all worked up over a perfectly reasonable attempt to ban private ownership of what is essentially a military grade weapon. At the time of the constitution, the arms they were giving people the right to bear were military grade weapons. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight afterall, and the concern for the 2nd amendment is that the People have the right to prepare themselves in the event that our military gets out of line. Remember, the Brits tried to take away that right so their military could bully us around.

slvemike4u -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 11:47:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IntellectualPro quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Sorry,I can't get all worked up over a perfectly reasonable attempt to ban private ownership of what is essentially a military grade weapon. At the time of the constitution, the arms they were giving people the right to bear were military grade weapons. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight afterall, and the concern for the 2nd amendment is that the People have the right to prepare themselves in the event that our military gets out of line. Remember, the Brits tried to take away that right so their military could bully us around. And you think owning an assualt rifle will level that playing field....good grief man,that ship has sailed.

Kirata -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 12:25:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u This would make sense if you could make the argument that a cars intended use is to maim and injure...but seeing as a car serves an altogether different use...this is just poppy-cock bullshit....but you know that, don't you. Let's not confuse intent and effect... The intent in owning a vehicle is transportation (excluding sport). The effect of an auto accident is injury, maiming, or death. The intent in owning a firearm is self-defense (excluding hunting and sport). The effect of getting hit by a bullet is injury, maiming, or death. The real difference here is, in a transportation scenario, the injured, maimed, or dead didn't choose to be in an accident. In a self-defense situation, the injured, maimed, or dead chose to get themselves shot. K.

Crush -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 12:50:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: ORIGINAL: Crush And before it comes up...the guy with 50 guns is much less of a threat than the punk who buys one out of the back of vehicle that has the serial numbers ground off. Who would you want to live next door to? Can someone plese tell me what situation you think is going to come up where you will reasonably NEED an assault rifle handy? Or is it just this complete misinterpetation what the right to bear arms was put in the constitution for in the first place that makes you all freak out anytime someone tries to put any kind of gun control in place? We have serious problems, people..and this one aint one of them. Well, I don't NEED many things, but I can PURSUE those things that make me happy. I don't NEED a computer. I don't NEED a car. I don't NEED more than one bathroom. I don't even NEED toilet paper, but it makes life a bit easier. I don't NEED a bunch of things. But I have them, just the same. However, I do have a RIGHT, as recognized by the 2nd Amendment, to have a weapon. Unlike driving a car, which is a privilege. So, what is an "assault rifle" anyway? It isn't a semi-automatic weapon, which is one thing Holder is saying needs to be controlled. It is a rifle that just "looks bad" because it has a banana or drum magazine? And let's face it; the ammo isn't cheap. So if I blow through 100 rounds, I've gone through $50+ in that time. But that's my choice. If I want a fully automatic weapon, that should be OK as well. Grenade launcher? Sure. Atomic bomb? Maybe we've crossed the line there. Cannon? Certainly, and I know several people who have them already...they just don't fit in your pocket very easily. The problem isn't the weapon, it is the misuse of the weapon. And there are already plenty of laws on the books that deal with the misuse of a weapon, whether a machine gun, a handgun, a baseball bat, a brick, or even the cable on the mouse. Or "because they are being taken to Mexico" , as Holder wants us to worry, that is already a violation of Mexican law. It comes down to recognizing that while someone may not want something, it doesn't prohibit someone else from having something. -------- Why would I want a full auto? Well, the bad guys, who DON'T follow the rules, as seen in Miami (just a few hours from me) have them already. Illegally. Why am I being denied equal footing?

Crush -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 12:57:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u This would make sense if you could make the argument that a cars intended use is to maim and injure...but seeing as a car serves an altogether different use...this is just poppy-cock bullshit....but you know that, don't you. Let's not confuse intent and effect... The intent in owning a vehicle is transportation (excluding sport). The effect of an auto accident is injury, maiming, or death. The intent in owning a firearm is self-defense (excluding hunting and sport). The effect of getting hit by a bullet is injury, maiming, or death. The real difference here is, in a transportation scenario, the injured, maimed, or dead didn't choose to be in an accident. In a self-defense situation, the injured, maimed, or dead chose to get themselves shot. K. Damn straight. If someone decides to attack and harm me, I want to be able to harm them right back....or in the words of Cap't Mal from Firefly "If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back" Or, "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. " --> Luke 22:36 (KJB)

rulemylife -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 1:12:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush However, I do have a RIGHT, as recognized by the 2nd Amendment, to have a weapon. Unlike driving a car, which is a privilege. I have truly never understood this distinction, and it crops up frequently, not just in gun rights debates. Does this mean the only rights we have are what is specifically stated in the Constitution and everything else is a privilege, a great favor granted to us by our benevolent government? The Constitution is a law, made my legislators, which can be, and has been, modified like every other law. It's not some grand, infallible document handed down to us from on high like Moses and the Ten Commandments.

subrob1967 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 1:19:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd Ok.. so taking ASSULT WEAPONS is a bad thing.... In your quote "Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border." Buuuuuuut according to a whole lot of ya'll Obama is basically aiding these drug cartels.. and his being prez has made it easier, and boosted them into fighting more. ( No dumbasses.. it has been that way for years. I know folks on the boarder patrol. Nothing new.. except they can now get assult guns from the US smuggled in... AHEM ) You cant have it both ways... Brady was right.. we need this law. Having been in Law Enforcement this law makes good sense. You dont shoot a deer, rabbit or any damn thing with an assult rifle. If your dick is that small to need one buy some damn viagra. These are used as street sweepers in the drug and gang wars. Police dpeartments will hardly pony up for a fucking mossburg cruiser, little alone assult weapons to fight the thugs on their own level. Billy bob does not need to "prove his manlieness" buy owning an assult rifle. He can protect his familiy, and shoot game just fine with out needing an assult riffle. These idjits just annoy the fuck out of me. When G Money Home-slice decides to car jack your little lady with an freaking street sweeper... then we will hear some bitching.... oh yeah.. it is supposed to be the old West. Ya'll dont believe in the police. rolls her eyes Gwyn Define an "assault" rifle for me please, because the last time I looked, assault rifles were already illegal to own, unless you have a class 3 permit. Edited to add, if the U.S. was so worried about Mexicans with guns, the government would stop selling them guns.

rulemylife -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 1:21:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush Damn straight. If someone decides to attack and harm me, I want to be able to harm them right back....or in the words of Cap't Mal from Firefly "If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back" Or, "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. " --> Luke 22:36 (KJB) Somehow I just don't think those two quotes belong together. Could be just me.

Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 1:37:55 PM)
#1 If there are more important things to do than deal with this then why is President Obama wasting time effort and money reinstating a ban that didn't show any resulting reduction in crime committed with this type of weapon in the first place? #2 The fact is the difference between the rifles in the military and these are well established if you fail to know the difference and claim that the ban ios on machineguns then you have marginalized your opinion based on a lack of relevant knowledge about the issue. These firearms go bang ONE time each time you pull the trigger.after which you have to release the trigger and pull it again to make it go bang again. They are not machineguns, submachineguns, or assault rifles, (all of which have a definition that the made up assault weapons catagory does not match) #3 Mexico safety? Given the number of already fully automatic AK style weapons floating around central and south america the worry about US semi auto weapons seems rather silly to worry about. #4 Thank the Supreme Court for the finding that Gun Ownership is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT in their last major 2nd ammendment case. The Militia Argument has been settled in court. This should make it tougher for them to reinvent the ban on military looking semi automatic weapons.

philosophy -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 1:48:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Crush However, I do have a RIGHT, as recognized by the 2nd Amendment, to have a weapon. Unlike driving a car, which is a privilege. ...ok, clear statement of position there. Weapon ownership is, from your POV, an absolute right. No limits, no lines to cross. Just buy whatever weaponry you can afford. quote: Atomic bomb? Maybe we've crossed the line there. .....ah, but now you've suggested that there is a line to cross. i tend to agree, i think there is a line to cross. Where we draw that line is open to debate, but the very fact that such a line exists tends to mitigate against the idea that weapon ownership is an absolute right. At one point, weapon systems unimagined by the Founding Fathers have to be excluded from the second amendment. If that amendment is an absolute right, why can't individuals buy anthrax? Or lay in stocks of mustard gas? Oh, and they'll need a weapon delivery system so let's give them ICBMs too. The idea that a 200 year old law can be used to justify owning weapons only developed in the late 20th century is absurd.

Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:02:59 PM)
The rifle is not a recent invention only improvements to it have been made. It still functions very much the same as it did 200 years ago. Few people hold the unlimited weapons perspective. most of the fartherst right gun rights folks only want the right to include individual weapons. The rifle and ammo that a standard rifleman would have. Those few who argue for tanks and such are the <1% fringe.

kdsub -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:05:03 PM)
Where did he lie?

philosophy -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:13:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The rifle is not a recent invention only improvements to it have been made. It still functions very much the same as it did 200 years ago. ...well, broadly true. However; range, lethality, rate of fire, ease of loading have improved dramatically. i'm actually not suggesting that the second amendment should not apply to rifles though. i'm addressing specifically the idea that the second amendment gives the right to US citizens to own weapons systems without qualification. As you go on to suggest, not many people seriously want a tank, or an F-16, or an ICBM with a nuke. However, if we don't recognise the limitations of the second amendment then such absurdity is what we end up with. i'd argue we need an amendment to the second amendment. There's clearly a line to be drawn on weapon ownership.....we seriously need to define that line. (edited to correct appalling grammar on my part)

SteelofUtah -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:15:41 PM)
I want a tank. I almost bought a Humvee so I could have a bumber sticker that said "Cause they won't Sell me a Tank" Then again I am far from the Social Norm. Steel

philosophy -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:17:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah I want a tank. I almost bought a Humvee so I could have a bumber sticker that said "Cause they won't Sell me a Tank" Then again I am far from the Social Norm. Steel ...ah, but what ordinance do you want for your tank? DU rounds? [:D]

SteelofUtah -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:21:12 PM)
WHO CARES, I just want to Own a Tank so I can go..... I Own a Fucking Tank. Think Hill Billy Red Neck and their Tires I would be just as proud of my Tank. It could fire Blanks or be a big f'ing water gun for all I care, I just want a Tank. Steel

SteelofUtah -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:22:16 PM)
DU = Depleted Uranium. Had to google. No I don't need them, Hell I'd throw rocks if I had to I just want a tank. Steel

philosophy -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:23:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SteelofUtah DU = Depleted Uranium. Had to google. No I don't need them, Hell I'd throw rocks if I had to I just want a tank. Steel ...why not get a horse drawn cart with a trebuchet mounted on it? [:D]

Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:23:15 PM)
Arms has a legal defined meaning, already ruled on by the court. That definition excludes crew served weapons.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875