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

kittinSol -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:01:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 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. Yes, but let's not get that in the way of focalised hysteria, shall we [8\|] ?

Kaledorus -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:09:59 PM)
quote: "Recent Mexican Army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," Drug violence tarnishes Mexico's international image Sara Miller Llana The Christian Science Monitor February 23, 2009 Unlike Mr Obama, Mr Cottrel is a black man, a liberal Democrat. Unlike Mr Obama he tells the truth. A Liberal Democrat's Lament Gun Control is Racist, Sexist & Classist." 10 American Enterprise 58 (Sept/Oct, 1999). by Robert Cottrol Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizen to bear arms is just one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible. —Hubert Humphrey, 1960

Owner59 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:10:58 PM)
One of the un-intended results of the recent DC gun law was the SCOTUS defining in a concrete way,what was and what wan`t Constitutional,concerning firearms. This is Constitutional. Keeping a fellow from having a hand gun in his home,isn`t Constitutional. The gun nutter/NRA types really don`t know how much ground their paranoid ass`s lost,in the DC decision. That law made it plane that we had the right to be armed.The SCOTUS also made it plane that the government can regulate firearms.

Crush -> RE: Remember when ABM said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:23:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 I remember him saying he was for reasonable gun laws. This sounds reasonable. Certainly, reasonable is fine...as long as it is "my reasonable" .... and that's the problem with "reasonable"

Owner59 -> RE: Remember when ABM said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:26:52 PM)
That`s why there`s a supreme court,to decide these things.

Crush -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: ORIGINAL: Crush 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. You may want to do a little Googling on accidental child deaths by firearms. Maybe then you would understand how you sound to many. Butch Irrelevant. There are lots of child deaths by a variety of causes. Many more deaths by a variety of things besides guns. Preventable things too.... Here ya go: http://www.bostoninjurylawyerblog.com/2008/12/leading_causes_of_child_deaths_1.html Each child's death is a sad event. But it isn't the gun, it is the misuse of the gun, whether through failure to be responsible in storage or whatever on some adult's part, that's the cause of the child's death. And last I checked, those adults are held responsible for their irresponsible act.

Crush -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:31:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: a well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. quote: ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57 Webster's dictionary defines a militia as: 1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service. ...snip... Actually, that definition of Militia was not in effect when the Constitution was written. Typical mistake of those reacting instead of researching. Try again...

kittinSol -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:32:00 PM)
Rationalise all you want, gun ownership remains safe.

rulemylife -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:48:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Already did. Right here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=2482537 quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Then maybe you should provide some links to show us his other face. Honestly, I have to ask you. Do you ever read the links you post or do you just scan the headlines and assume it supports your position? You're arguing for gun rights yet this is from one of your links: In 1994, Bobby Crabtree thought his daughter was over at a friends’ house, and upon arriving at home during the wee hours of the morning, heard a noise coming from the closet of his daughter’s room. His daughter, who thought it’d be funny to play a practical joke on her father, opened the door and jumped out. Crabtree, suspecting an unwanted visitor, was armed with his .357-caliber pistol. Out of immediate response, he shot his daughter in the neck. She died 12 hours later. (http://theapp.appstate.edu/content/view/4786/41/)

Owner59 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:53:38 PM)
If it were up to me,that guy would go to prison for a decade.Nothing more dangerous than a coward with a gun.

kdsub -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 5:56:05 PM)
A child’s death is never irrelevant…and as you could see… not rare by any means. There are laws that could be enacted such as penalties, required guards, and so forth but the gun lobby always fights them. But again my point is these events or not rare and are relevant to any gun discussion. Butch

kdsub -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 6:00:10 PM)
Did you also check out the hundreds of thousands of accidental injuries to children.. I guess that is not relevant either? Now run that same search in the UK... damn I hate saying that...but facts and truths are truths Butch

Owner59 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 6:03:56 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. 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. While true(there were rifles back then),what the difference today is semi-auto loaders and hi-cap magazines. The only equivalent between a modern semi-auto loading long gun and a musket(or a 1700`s rifle) would be 30 or 40 muskets lined up in a row to shoot or 30-40 muskets in one. There`s no comparison between mussel loading,single shoot firearms and modern semi-automatic loading rifles w/ 20,30,40.50 and one hundred round magazines.

ladynlord -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 6:42:01 PM)
There seems to be a lopsided rational (if you can call it that) here. An attitude of "you WILL acknowledge my rights" but your rights don't really exist unless I agree with them! It is obvious that if you support the Second Amendment in any fashion, you are a "gun nut", "gun nutter", or on a "rant", or just a beer drinking cable guy, who prays with blood lust for the day that someone can be killed at their hands during a home invasion or carjacking. But for God's sakes, don't anyone threaten to limit any posters rights under the First Amendment. If any poster hints that not all "art" is in fact art, and that some things are distasteful to the average community standard, they are flamed for being a neanderthal or backwards or a bible thumper or a fossil who refuses to accept the artist's "RIGHT" that is wrapped in an unyielding and impenetrable FIRST AMENDMENT. But the Second only means what the most conservative definition and construction means? In this very thread, a several posters argue that technology has changed since the Second Amendment and therefore the amendment should not apply to today's technology. REALLY, then by that argument, there is no First Amendment right to any content in T.V., e-mail, motion picture, DVD, .jpg, recorded lyrics, radio talk show, or even to the very computer that you are sitting at! So if anyone's right to "KEEP and BARE" assault rifles by any definition are to be banned by the government, so should there be a government ban upon these technologies and their content, that did not exist at the time of drafting. Or does that just seem ridiculous only to me. Either the Bill Of Rights protects every posters right to own (or choose not own) a firearm AND extends to and provides rights to the very lifestyle and desire for privacy of everyone here, or the alternative is that no one has the protection from any of the amendments. You can't "twist" the Second Amendment to make you feel safer without so twisting the rights granted under the First, or the Fourth, or for that matter, the Ninth (rights v. privileges). Honestly, I assumed that these message boards on this site would be the most open minded place where no one would be ridiculed for what they believe or practice. I actually entertained the idea that the lifestyle enthusiasts might at least treat each other as brethren on some level, or be above name calling to point out that they dislike another's post. The word hypocrisy come to mind.

allyC -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 6:51:02 PM)
If crimes were being committed every day by those who purchased automatic weapons and were using those automatic weapons to commit said crimes, that would be one thing. Any old Joe cannot purchase an auto assault weapon. There are extremely stringent background checks. People who want to obtain full auto assault weapons to do harm will do it, period. They don't give a flying rat's behind about legally owning them. Crimes that are committed with these weapons are not due to those who purchase them legally - they happen from those who purchase them illegally. If you want to stop it, crack down on the criminals, don't infringe the rights of those who obey the law.

subrob1967 -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 6:57:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gwynvyd 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 How is banning guns going to remove them from the criminal element of society? It worked really well for alcohol and drugs, didn't it? It amazes me that the folks who are for banning guns, want to legalize dope, talk about ass backwards.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 7:07:39 PM)
quote: So if anyone's right to "KEEP and BARE" assault rifles by any definition are to be banned by the government, so should there be a government ban upon these technologies and their content, that did not exist at the time of drafting. quote: ORIGINAL: ladynlord That is an interesting point......let me extend it and get your opinion. Just as there were not all the technologies of speech mentioned in your posts available during the drafting of the constitution, there also was a great deal less armament technology available. At that time, firearms i.e. muskets and such, were the height of ballistic weaponry. Therefore, by your logic, people should be able to purchase their own grenades, flamethrowers, RPGs, plastic explosives, tanks, stealth bombers and nuclear weapons. In both cases, the technology has changed, in one case to bring forms of expression to more people, in the other to kill more people, and so, by your logic should be equally protected. So is that your point? That we, in the name of constitutional protection, should be able to walk into our local arms shop and say "I'll take a couple of quarts of napalm, some 64, and do you have any mustard gas at a good price"?

kittinSol -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 7:29:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales So is that your point? That we, in the name of constitutional protection, should be able to walk into our local arms shop and say "I'll take a couple of quarts of napalm, some 64, and do you have any mustard gas at a good price"? Thermonuclear is such a beautiful word... I'll have a dozen of those, please: no need to wrap them.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 7:34:07 PM)
quote: Thermonuclear is such a beautiful word... I'll have a dozen of those, please: no need to wrap them. They're on their way.... Actually, I kind of like the 7 day waiting period for handgun purchase though...it gives me an opportunity for a lot of fun. I go into a gun store. I let the salesman show me a 9mm glock, going over every feature and detail. Then I happily tell them I'll take it.....at that point they tell me I'll have to wait a week to pick it up. I then respond, as indignantly as possible, "Seven days? But I won't be pissed off in a week!" Strangely enough, most of the guys behind the counter immediately say. "Ohhhhh...then you want a shotgun! You can carry that right out of the store!"

rulemylife -> RE: Remember when Obama said he wouldn't come after people's guns? (2/26/2009 7:34:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ladynlord There seems to be a lopsided rational (if you can call it that) here. An attitude of "you WILL acknowledge my rights" but your rights don't really exist unless I agree with them! It is obvious that if you support the Second Amendment in any fashion, you are a "gun nut", "gun nutter", or on a "rant", or just a beer drinking cable guy, who prays with blood lust for the day that someone can be killed at their hands during a home invasion or carjacking. But for God's sakes, don't anyone threaten to limit any posters rights under the First Amendment. If any poster hints that not all "art" is in fact art, and that some things are distasteful to the average community standard, they are flamed for being a neanderthal or backwards or a bible thumper or a fossil who refuses to accept the artist's "RIGHT" that is wrapped in an unyielding and impenetrable FIRST AMENDMENT. But the Second only means what the most conservative definition and construction means? In this very thread, a several posters argue that technology has changed since the Second Amendment and therefore the amendment should not apply to today's technology. REALLY, then by that argument, there is no First Amendment right to any content in T.V., e-mail, motion picture, DVD, .jpg, recorded lyrics, radio talk show, or even to the very computer that you are sitting at! So if anyone's right to "KEEP and BARE" assault rifles by any definition are to be banned by the government, so should there be a government ban upon these technologies and their content, that did not exist at the time of drafting. Or does that just seem ridiculous only to me. Either the Bill Of Rights protects every posters right to own (or choose not own) a firearm AND extends to and provides rights to the very lifestyle and desire for privacy of everyone here, or the alternative is that no one has the protection from any of the amendments. You can't "twist" the Second Amendment to make you feel safer without so twisting the rights granted under the First, or the Fourth, or for that matter, the Ninth (rights v. privileges). Honestly, I assumed that these message boards on this site would be the most open minded place where no one would be ridiculed for what they believe or practice. I actually entertained the idea that the lifestyle enthusiasts might at least treat each other as brethren on some level, or be above name calling to point out that they dislike another's post. The word hypocrisy come to mind. Interesting, because I don't think I have seen anything in this thread corresponding to: you are a "gun nut", "gun nutter", or on a "rant", or just a beer drinking cable guy, who prays with blood lust for the day that someone can be killed at their hands during a home invasion or carjacking. Feel free to point it out if I missed it.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625