quote:


Previously debunked. Quote isn't what you claim it to be.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterShake69

i would be more fearful of Obamas personal militia.


“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Previously debunked. Quote isn't what you claim it to be.
http://www.collarchat.com/m_2247442/mpage_2/key_/tm.htm#2247936

quote:

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy… as a way to explain their frustrations,” he said.

Of course, this outraged Pennsylvanians, who claimed they were much more than rural folk who cling to their guns and memorize their Bibles. And along with an extensive history of pro-gun control ideals, gun rights advocates found the statement particularly offensive.


They began questioning whether the government would continue to uphold the second amendment, the right to bear arms.


Not long before Obama was elected, however, he made a promise.
“I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away,” he said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
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/)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

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!"

quote:

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!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

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!"

Total bullshit.  You can't just waltz into a gun store and walk out with a shotgun, or any gun.  Background checks are required, and they have been required since 1994. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

quote:

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!"

Total bullshit.  You can't just waltz into a gun store and walk out with a shotgun, or any gun.  Background checks are required, and they have been required since 1994. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Did it at a Dicks sporting good store last July.. the whole transaction took 10 minutes and me and my 20 gauge walked to the car.

Butch

quote:

*Koff koff* I was quoting someone else: still, I could walk out with a gun tomorrow. It takes no time to get one.

quote:

Did it at a Dicks sporting good store last July.. the whole transaction took 10 minutes and me and my 20 gauge walked to the car.

Butch   

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales

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"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coldwarrior57

quote:

ORIGINAL: MarsBonfire

A Modest Proposal:

First, this is the reinstatement of a previous weapons ban. The reason it's being brought back is because the drug cartels south of the boarder are going bugfuck, and the streetcorner violence is threatening to spread to smalltown USA. The world of paranoid gun hording didn't come to an end when the ban was on the books before, and it won't now.

Second, if you really think having a cashe of assault weapons is going to make you safe against the US government, I'd suggest you schlep your eyeballs on over to Youtube and take a look at David Koresh's compound in Waco burning to the ground again. Lotta good their little armory did for them, eh? If you want to fight against US government acting in a tyrannical way, I'd suggest you take a tip from our enemies in Iraq... do it as a fight against an occupation. Being sneaky will get you farther than a straight, stand up fight against forces that you can NOT POSSIBLY WIN against.

Just sayin'...

Third... those who want assault weapons... already have them. If they are smart, when this ban goes back into effect, they'll bundle them up nice and safe, and bury them someplace handy. This accomplishes two things: 1) it keeps the weapons handy "just in case the US government tries something" (yeah right... if that were going to happen, it would have under "Bad King George Bush II.")  and... 2) they keep them OUT of the hands of gun nuts who might feel like they need to go shoot somebody because they've lost their temper. Having to dig up a well buried cashe tends to take a while, and gives gun owning assholes (not talking about present company... just gun owning assholes in general) a chance to cool down before they can reach the ordinance.

But frankly, I agree with boijen on this one... want me to get upset about gun rights? Fine. Make sure I have full rights as a US citizen... THEN I'll consider supporting you beady-eyed, paranoid, GOP lovin' gun nuts who come off sounding more like Larry the Cable Guy after a couple cases of beer, than anyone intelligent, and reasonable. (Which is a problem that the gun lobby has always had, I might add... they can't seem to find someone who looks reasonable in public to save their lives. They almost had something with Heston... but then they blew it with the post Columbine rally just days after the massacre, painting themselves right back into the "insensitive nutcase" corner.)

BTW, I'm a lifetime member of the NRA. Go ahead and rant. I've heard all this crap before. You really think hearing it come from the likes of sanity or corysub or the dude that named himself after that third rate "adult swim" character is really gonna hurt my widdle feelings? ROFLMAO! Perception is reality in this day and age. And gun owners seem to have a compulsion to cast themselves in the worst possible light. Everytime the gun lobby does something worthwhile, like Ducks Unlimited, or it's work with the Sierra Foundation... the Larry the Cable Guy types step into the spotlight and fuck it all up for them.

it was unconstitutional then and it is still.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
SIMPLE words .

quote:

Not long before Obama was elected, however, he made a promise.
“I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away,” he said.