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 2:47:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

And bringing into this discussion the injuries as a result of MV accidents isn't bullshit.....BTW on full automatic just how accurate are you willing to say these weapons are...


THESE WEAPONS that are proposed to be banned CANT FIRE ON AUTOMATIC, because they are semi auto only versions.

And I have your word they can not be altered to automatic mode in some schmucks basement....thanks for nothing.



Crush -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:49:24 PM)

Note 2:  The 2nd Amendment is to protect us from the tyranny of government.  

For those willing to read:  http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq#1 



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:51:09 PM)

They cannot legally be made automatic, and to make them automatic and functional takes some level of skill with machining.
Not impossible but not anywhere near as easy as some folks want to make it seem.
You want a more complete idea of what level of skill it takes Simply Micheal has worded as a gunsmith and can fill you in on those details.

But Joe Smuck doesn't generally have the required skill and machinist knowledge to do it.

And if they do they have violated a Federal Law in the process.



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:54:34 PM)

And BTW an M-16 fully automatic military version when fired in semi automatic can hit targets at 500 meters (just ask any US Marine) That's pretty damned accurate.




slvemike4u -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:54:45 PM)

Generally speaking Joe Schmoe intent on murder and mayhem....doesn't give a shit about those laws Archer.



Archer -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:56:09 PM)

Generally Joe Smoe isn't a machinist either and lacks the skills to do that conversion



Jack45 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 2:57:48 PM)


The so-called "assault weapons" are not true assault rifles. Real assault rifles such as the AK-47 and AK-74, among others, are selective fire weapons. That means they fire either semi-auto, that is one shot at a time or FULL AUTO they fire continuously as long as the trigger is held back.

The firearms Clinton banned and which the Democrats wish to reban are firearms that LOOK like real AK-47s etc but fire ONLY semi-automatically, one shot for each pull of the trigger. That is how all civilian firearms shoot. ONLY an elite handful have Federal licenses to own real assault rifles, you will not find, outside of military museums, REAL AK-47s in the US.

Many hunting rifles are semi-automatic as are shotguns.
As are handguns.
The truth is not what the gun-grabbers are interested in.

Carolyn McCarthy the anti-gunner from Long Island New York is a Democrat. She along with other anti-gun Democrats, Rep. Charles Rangel, , Rep. Gary Ackerman & Rep. Robert Wexler tried to derail a Federal prosecution of Milberg Weiss.

Check it out, that is hardball criminal politics. Talk about Change! Talk about ETHICS!



kdsub -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:03:30 PM)

I don't think he lied or misled... He is honest as always... you may not agree but I find it refreshing. You know where you stand with him that’s for sure. He is doing what he said he would do... Why do you find that surprising and insinuate that he is backing off his word.

I’m not an anti-gun nut one way or the other but personally agree with his stance on assault weapons and I don’t see it as a deal breaker in any way. He is doing what the majority elected him to do.

No need to go ballistic… it could change again later down the road.

Butch



Gwynvyd -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:08:05 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.

 


aaaah but following that logic, the difference you are mentioning is between a VW bug, and a Army Tank. Both will get you down the block.... and are useable/driveable... however there is a *HUGE* difference in what their main use is for.

As for the 2nd amendment... at the time the *only* guns out were the kind the military used. So the palin normal folk used them too. ~ Matchlocks, flintlocks, and the like.

Now we have many divisions of firearms. many grades of firearms.

You do not need a lazer scope, slapped onto a full  or semi auto tatical rifle to "protect" your family. Or to shoot a GD deer.

Oh course the founding fathers didnt add any amendments onto the second amendment. They werer limited in what guns they already had compared to now.. and damn happy to have them.

Banning these weapons now isnt taking guns away from lawful citizens.. it isnt the govt stepping in and controling you.

It is about getting these guns out of the hands of street thugs that would use them against you.

Saying since it wasnt in there orig, so it shouldnt be now.. is dicounting all of the amendments that need to be written, and that came after the orig. signing.

Hell we would still have slaves ( the real kind) by that brand of thinking.


And the whole well I want one dangnabit is just IMHO childish. Hell I would love to have a tank to mow down the fuckin bluehairs on Floridas highways... but it doesnt meant I deserve one.

Just as your non military do not deserve to have this grade of firearms.

Gwyn



slaveboyforyou -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:11:50 PM)

quote:

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


What is an assault rifle?  Seriously, define that word for me.  You and a few others posting in favor or reinstating this moronic ban never seem to know anything about firearms.  You can most certainly hunt with many of the rifles that are targeted in the old Assault Weapons Ban.  For years, the SKS has been called the "poor man's deer rifle."  It's cheap, and it has about the same power as a 30-30.  But because is a ugly looking rifle with a bayonet lug, it was targeted in the ban. 

Any criminal not wishing to go to prison does not carry around a rifle in his day to day dealings.  Your claim that "assault rifles" are used for gang and drug warfare is bullshit.  Assault rifles are rarely used in crimes.  It's pure media hype that there are gangs running around the streets of America armed with automatic weapons. 



Gwynvyd -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:12:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

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]



See a tank is cool... But give me the Horses, Cart, and Trebuchet any day. ( bucket style please)

I will also take my mount, and archery equiptment thank you!

Gwyn,
Who's fave gun is a Mossburg Cruiser ( old habits die hard)



angelikaJ -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:13:19 PM)

FR
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/boys_dies_in_sh.html




rulemylife -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:27:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer


#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.



I'm only going to address your last point specifically, but I have a general question regarding your first three points.

Why is this such a big deal?  The only thing he is doing is re-instating limitations on a particular kind of weapon.  He is not banning individual ownership of firearms.

As far as point #4, it is only settled until another case comes up.  This time maybe before a more liberal-leaning court which may reach the opposite conclusion.

There is no such thing as an ultimate, unquestionable answer here.



philosophy -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:36:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Generally Joe Smoe isn't a machinist either and lacks the skills to do that conversion


...generally speaking i'm sure you're correct. i am curious though how many people are the exception that proves the rule.

Also, if such a skilled machinist is bent enough, how much money can be made doing such work........

What happens if someone uses such a modified weapon in self defence? Do they get prosecuted? Should they?




rulemylife -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:41:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Explosive and incindiary devices are already regulated by law, and I agree they are properly regulated in general.
Bio and Chem weapons are regulated as well unlawful to manufacture, except by government contract.



But by the literal reading of the Constitution as some present in these discussions, that is an infringement on your right to bear arms.



philosophy -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:43:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

Explosive and incindiary devices are already regulated by law, and I agree they are properly regulated in general.
Bio and Chem weapons are regulated as well unlawful to manufacture, except by government contract.



But by the literal reading of the Constitution as some present in these discussions, that is an infringement on your right to bear arms.



....now be fair. Archer has been very helpful in pointing out two things. Firstly, all of this stuff gets interpreted by the supreme court, secondly they have ruled specifically. Any old barracks room lawyer can spout crap, but the supreme court has spoken...

(assuming i understood Archer correctly)



Crush -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:44:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer
#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.

I'm only going to address your last point specifically, but I have a general question regarding your first three points.
Why is this such a big deal?  The only thing he is doing is re-instating limitations on a particular kind of weapon.  He is not banning individual ownership of firearms.
As far as point #4, it is only settled until another case comes up.  This time maybe before a more liberal-leaning court which may reach the opposite conclusion.
There is no such thing as an ultimate, unquestionable answer here.



Actually the original "Assault Weapon Ban" (aka e Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, ) was primarily about cosmetics, not much else:
  • folding or telescopic stock
  • pistol grip protruding conspicuously beneath the action
  • grenade launcher
  • bayonet mount
  • flash suppressor or barrel having a threaded muzzle
  • detachable magazine
    Assault handguns:
  • magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip
  • a threaded barrel that can accept a barrel extender or a flash suppressor
  • a shroud that is attached to or encircles the barrel that permits the shooter to hold the weapon with the non-trigger hand without being burned
  • manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when unloaded
  • semiautomatic version of an automatic weapon ===================================================

    As for "why is this a big deal?"  It was a big deal the first time, it is one now.   It is like so many "meringue" laws ... looks substantial, but just full of hot air and have no nutritional value.




    • Crush -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:49:34 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: angelikaJ
    FR
    http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/boys_dies_in_sh.html


    And your point? 
    http://www.postchronicle.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=113&num=200785
    It is called news because it doesn't happen very often..
    ==============
    NB:  It is sad that the child died.  But then, it is sad when any child dies.



    rulemylife -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:56:10 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Crush

    Puhlease....

    Is it a Right?  Yes, because it is in the Amendments to the Constitution.   Can it be changed?  Certainly, via another Amendment.   But it is more than a "law" because laws don't go through as vigorous vetting as an Amendment would go through.

    The only "inalienable right", as I said on some other part of this board somewhere, doesn't exist.  I have no absolute right to even stay alive.  

    However, the people who founded the US and wrote the Amendments and Constitution recognized those rights found there. 

    Of course, it could also be stated that I have these Rights, as recognized by the Constitution and Amendments, for just "being alive."  And that any law that tries to change or limit these Rights is actually violating those Rights.    Certainly we recognize that other countries limit/restrict/forbid exercise of Rights, including freedom of assembly; of speech; etc.

    So, either they are "Rights" by virtue of being alive or they are "Rights" recognized.


    So to summarize, you have the right to own a gun because a group of politicians decided that 200+ years ago and wrote it into law.

    I don't have the right to drive a car without special blessings from the government because a group of politicians didn't know we would have such a thing 200+ years ago.

    Well, that clears everything up.  Now I know the difference between a right and a privilege.



    Politesub53 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 3:57:54 PM)

    Once again we have a false claim that Obama said something he didnt. He stated he would bring back the ban on assault rifles prior to the election.

    quote:


    On the issue of urban policy, Obama says he favors "commonsense measures" to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children, and that he would bring back the expired "assault weapon" ban and make it permanent:


    http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html



    Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Collarchat.com © 2025
    Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
    0.046875