Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2972899
Nothing factual? And you do? Riiiight.
Think you need to go back to that other thread and reread your MULTIPLE posts on the issue. You claim here you never said Obama wasn't a Natural Born Citizen, but in the other thread, you go On and ON about how he isn't considered in your mind our true President until he shows you original proof he was born in Hawaii. I'll mail you my cotton...

I challenge you to show me where I said Obama wasnt a citizen. You might want to hold on to that cotton and get some glassed too.But do it in that thread not here it D/N/A to this discussion
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2972918
Debating truth is never fruitless because we don't live in a binary world.
True, I won't disagree with this. But the discussion was the assault weapon's ban. I have been debating this aspect of the ban. Turning Tim is debating the constitution in general. Thus my debate with him is fruitless is my point as we are debating two different things. Thus the debate between ourselves is fruitles.
Now moving on, If the constitution is a living breathing document as he claims based off our times and knowledge and how it should be applied in these times, then it is safe to say the constitution is pointless. as it can be changed to mean what ever you think it should mean based off current events and situations. Therefore turning tim's comments towards the patriot act and it being unconstitutional do not wash,as times have changed and the patriot act does not remove any of your freedoms. You can still do everything you could before. except now you might be monitored to ensure others safety. so is the constitution a living breathing document that changes with the times or is it strict in it's meaning?
You can't have it both ways.....you can't pick one aspect to be living and breathing and another aspect not to be.
 

wattsupdoc

Active Member
bionicarm, BY your own analogy, because you state that the forefathers could not have seen such a powerful weapon. The only firearm that would be legal would be black powder. That's all they had in the way of handguns and riffles. Flintlock, black powder. They never could have imagined a weapon that fires just by pulling the trigger. Multiple times one right after the other...Or what about a weapon that reloads just by pulling a lever, or pumping a pump? They couldn't have seen that. Additionally, the world you live in is a delusion. You seem to think that banning a weapon that fires only one shot at one trigger pull with a caliber of what is similar to a .22 rifle is somehow going to make you safe. This is a delusion. You believe that there should be a compromise (you want to call it), the compromise is educate yourself about these and you'll see that just because they look scarier than a hunting rifle, they are no more dangerous. You just want to completely IGNORE THIS FACT. You also want to ignore that if you ban a weapon, only criminals will have that weapon.
A few years back here in Missouri we had the CCW issue come up for the ballet. It was not passed the first time around. Everybody kept saying how afraid they were. There would be "killings in the street". It would be "The Wild West" all over again.
Their children would be in danger. It was soo funny to hear some of the ridiculous things they came up with. The second time it passed. Now several years have gone by. Guess what? No "Wild "West", no "killings in the street". None of that. In fact from time to time you hear of how this armed civilian thwarted this criminal in their effort to rob them. Women are carrying these and feel safer and more empowered than ever before. They can move around and shop at night alone without so much fear of something happening.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2972840
WOW, we live in a different world!
Darth, never said there SHOULD be a ban. I stated that the constitutional arguments are weak at best.
So we should have just executed this guy! Whoops.....
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26...act/index.html
The Supreme court has NEVER UPHELD THE PATRIOT ACT!
Lower Federal courts have thrown it out!
.
If the supreme court refuses to take a case they are in fact saying the case is so baseless it isn't ever worthy of deliberation. By doing so they are in fact affirming the lower court's decision by doing so.
 

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2972971
If the supreme court refuses to take a case they are in fact saying the case is so baseless it isn't ever worthy of deliberation. By doing so they are in fact affirming the lower court's decision by doing so.

Not always. Occationally they refuse to hear a case because jurisdiction belongs at the State level and not the federal level.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2972894
The bottom line to all this is for the gun activist, there will NEVER be a compromise when it comes to gun laws or the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. No matter what anyone tells you, in your minds it is your God-given right to purchase and hold these firearms you love so dearly. You live with this fear and paranoai that if The Government takes away your revered weapons, it's only the beginning of The Final Takeover. Well I hate to tell you, but WE are The Government.
You must live a sheltered life

No compromise on guns? Do you have to follow a waiting period to exercise your right of free speech? Does the press have to wait for a "cooling off period" before publishing a controversial story? I would say there has been more compromise in dealing with the right to keep and bare than any other right specifically granted in the constitution
There's no magical institution of brotherhood that has these special powers that can circumvent the Constitution everyone seems to continue to post in this thread.
Don't try to tell that to Tim

Every individual that you feel can strip these rights away, are the everyday normal people like you and me that WE elected. When the majority of Americans disagree with the viewpoints and philosophies of the current administration, we vote them out in the next election for their office. You people are all up in arms because Obama wants to ban your precious momentos that apparently you can't live without. Didn't the previous administration repeal this same law that was enacted by the administration before his? That's how the system works.
The previous administration DID NOT repeal the ban. There weren't the votes in the senate to renew it, and it appears there isn't now even with the democrats in charge.
The only way there would be any possibility of the average American to lose the capability of owning a firearm, is if the 2nd Amendment were ratified.
I assume you meant repealed. Tell that to the residents of DC, Chicago and other places who were not allowed to have pistols for years. Tell that to the people who years ago plead guilty to a domestic violence charge in a plea agreement because the fine was much less than the cost to prove their case only to have their right to own a gun stripped away years later when a law was enacted making it illegal for a person ever convicted of domestic violence to possess a gun.
"quote-container">
In the minds of ANY American or resident of this country, that Amendment, and the other nine contained in the Bill Of Rights are taboo. You would NEVER be able to elect a majority in the House, The Senate, and the Presidency to get any of those Amendments changed. Even if you could, the last of the three branches of the goverment, The Supreme Court, would have the power to overturn those decisions. It's callled Checks And Balances.
If Obama was successful in getting this new ban implemented, nothing much would change for the average gun owner. Big Brother isn't going to come knock on your door and confiscate these guns you feel you have to own to validate your Man Card. The ammo will still be available for you to 'Lock And Load' so you can get your daily adrenaline rush at the tune of $50. Anyone wanting a gun for home protection, or to have a reason to upgrade that NRA membership, will still have the capability to do so. You may not be able to buy that gun that was designed strictly for the military, but there's plenty other options out there that you can purchase that can make just as loud a noise, and do just as much damage.
I'll end this rant with a saying from a man that will be dearly missed in the world of news and entertainment --- "This is Paul Harvey, -- Good Day!"
Well the government still has enough sense to know what would happen if they tried to round up our guns

But never misunderestimate the arrogance of judges and politicians.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2972975
Not always. Occationally they refuse to hear a case because jurisdiction belongs at the State level and not the federal level.
True, They also will issue guidance for a lower court to reconsider a case on occasion as well but generally speaking when they flat refuse to hear a case rather than issue guidance it is because the case is baseless.
 

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2972997
True, They also will issue guidance for a lower court to reconsider a case on occasion as well but generally speaking when they flat refuse to hear a case rather than issue guidance it is because the case is baseless.
Yep.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2972840
...
OK Journey it wasn't 15 million. How many. Was it even in arms, trained soldiers, And if there was retaliation who would have gotten the help to back them up. The German soldier or the Jews?...
Again... You do realize there were armed bands of Jews that fought back and survived, right?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2972990
You must live a sheltered life

No compromise on guns? Do you have to follow a waiting period to exercise your right of free speech? Does the press have to wait for a "cooling off period" before publishing a controversial story? I would say there has been more compromise in dealing with the right to keep and bare than any other right specifically granted in the constitution
Don't try to tell that to Tim

The previous administration DID NOT repeal the ban. There weren't the votes in the senate to renew it, and it appears there isn't now even with the democrats in charge.
I assume you meant repealed. Tell that to the residents of DC, Chicago and other places who were not allowed to have pistols for years. Tell that to the people who years ago plead guilty to a domestic violence charge in a plea agreement because the fine was much less than the cost to prove their case only to have their right to own a gun stripped away years later when a law was enacted making it illegal for a person ever convicted of domestic violence to possess a gun.
Well the government still has enough sense to know what would happen if they tried to round up our guns

But never misunderestimate the arrogance of judges and politicians.
What do you mean Bush didn't repeal the assault weapons ban? If it's still the same law that Clinton implemented, then what's this entire argument about? I guess I totally misread what Obama is trying to take away from the gun activists?
Again, WE elected the people who hold office in the Federal Government that wants to take your right to own a military-style gun. Don't like it? VOTE THEM OUT. RUN FOR OFFICE AND SAY 'NO' TO THE VOTE. That's the beauty of living in a Democracy. You just want to sit here and whine about how 'The Democrats' want to take away something that 95% of you don't even own, nor would ever own. Do something about it.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2972924
There is nothing to interpret Ive already broken down the English language for you if you will go back and read. The 2nd Amend,is not a GOD given right, its a Constitutional given right as a last line of defense against Tyranny.
Do you really thing WE are the govenment?Do any of these clowns really listen to us?
The last Administration didn't repeal the AWB it expired as set fourth in the "Sunset Clause" in the bill.
Please read Article V

The 2nd Amendment say differently
And ill help you along by saying GOOD RIDDANCE
If you think the people you elected aren't listening to you, why did you vote for them in the first place? You just vote because you like the sound of the name? If you really feel that we as American voters have absolutely no say in what our elected officials do, then why do you even care what the Constitution says? They can apparently change anything they want to it, and there's nothing you can do about it.
I don't have a clue why you're saying you have to interpret anything. Put on your reading glasses and read that paragraph again.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2972941
bionicarm, BY your own analogy, because you state that the forefathers could not have seen such a powerful weapon. The only firearm that would be legal would be black powder. That's all they had in the way of handguns and riffles. Flintlock, black powder. They never could have imagined a weapon that fires just by pulling the trigger. Multiple times one right after the other...Or what about a weapon that reloads just by pulling a lever, or pumping a pump? They couldn't have seen that. Additionally, the world you live in is a delusion. You seem to think that banning a weapon that fires only one shot at one trigger pull with a caliber of what is similar to a .22 rifle is somehow going to make you safe. This is a delusion. You believe that there should be a compromise (you want to call it), the compromise is educate yourself about these and you'll see that just because they look scarier than a hunting rifle, they are no more dangerous. You just want to completely IGNORE THIS FACT. You also want to ignore that if you ban a weapon, only criminals will have that weapon.
A few years back here in Missouri we had the CCW issue come up for the ballet. It was not passed the first time around. Everybody kept saying how afraid they were. There would be "killings in the street". It would be "The Wild West" all over again.
Their children would be in danger. It was soo funny to hear some of the ridiculous things they came up with. The second time it passed. Now several years have gone by. Guess what? No "Wild "West", no "killings in the street". None of that. In fact from time to time you hear of how this armed civilian thwarted this criminal in their effort to rob them. Women are carrying these and feel safer and more empowered than ever before. They can move around and shop at night alone without so much fear of something happening.
Delusional? No more dangerous? Let's see. An Uzi or TEC-9 is no more dangerous that a common hunting rifle. OK, Yep, they both shoot a projectile capable of killing a human being. You're right on that point. But the problem with your argument is the Uzi and TEC-9 can fire those projectiles at a rate 100 times faster than a conventional hunting rifle that is normally a bolt action. So if you were walking down the street, and some maniac yelled that he was going to shoot you, which of those two guns would you prefer he'd be carrying? Are you going to tell me it wouldn't matter? That he would have the same opportunity to hit you shooting a bolt action rifle that would take about 5 seconds per shot, as opposed to an Uzi that could shoot 50 rounds in that same 5 seconds?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2973245
What do you mean Bush didn't repeal the assault weapons ban? If it's still the same law that Clinton implemented, then what's this entire argument about? I guess I totally misread what Obama is trying to take away from the gun activists?
Again, WE elected the people who hold office in the Federal Government that wants to take your right to own a military-style gun. Don't like it? VOTE THEM OUT. RUN FOR OFFICE AND SAY 'NO' TO THE VOTE. That's the beauty of living in a Democracy. You just want to sit here and whine about how 'The Democrats' want to take away something that 95% of you don't even own, nor would ever own. Do something about it.
Bush had ZERO, ZIP, Nada to do with it. Congress had to vote to reauthorize the ban and didn't do it. They had in fact listened to their constituents.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2973280
Delusional? No more dangerous? Let's see. An Uzi or TEC-9 is no more dangerous that a common hunting rifle. OK, Yep, they both shoot a projectile capable of killing a human being. You're right on that point. But the problem with your argument is the Uzi and TEC-9 can fire those projectiles at a rate 100 times faster than a conventional hunting rifle that is normally a bolt action. So if you were walking down the street, and some maniac yelled that he was going to shoot you, which of those two guns would you prefer he'd be carrying? Are you going to tell me it wouldn't matter? That he would have the same opportunity to hit you shooting a bolt action rifle that would take about 5 seconds per shot, as opposed to an Uzi that could shoot 50 rounds in that same 5 seconds?
Now if you know the firing rates of weapons you surely know the difference between fully Automatic weapons the military uses which require a special (and expensive) license and extensive background check for any individual to own and the semi automatics which anyone can own.
So why are you spreading false information?
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2973280
So if you were walking down the street, and some maniac yelled that he was going to shoot you, which of those two guns would you prefer he'd be carrying? Are you going to tell me it wouldn't matter? That he would have the same opportunity to hit you shooting a bolt action rifle that would take about 5 seconds per shot, as opposed to an Uzi that could shoot 50 rounds in that same 5 seconds?
So this is what you are afraid of???
First, hunting rifles are also commonly pump action and even semi-automatic. I own one of each. I do not own even one bolt action gun.
But my real point is how often does this happen right now? How often did it happen before the AWB, how much less often did it happen while it was in place, and how much more did it happen after it expired?
I don't recall the last time I picked up the newspaper and read about someone going all postal in the street with a fully automatic weapon....
This kind of stuff generally only happens in the movies.
Why fear monger over something that is obviously statistically insignificant?
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2973245
What do you mean Bush didn't repeal the assault weapons ban? If it's still the same law that Clinton implemented, then what's this entire argument about? I guess I totally misread what Obama is trying to take away from the gun activists?
The law had a Sunset Clause meaning after 10 years it expires.
Its no longer a law.Obama want to reinstate it but has no authority to do so.
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2973280
Delusional? No more dangerous? Let's see. An Uzi or TEC-9 is no more dangerous that a common hunting rifle. OK, Yep, they both shoot a projectile capable of killing a human being. You're right on that point. But the problem with your argument is the Uzi and TEC-9 can fire those projectiles at a rate 100 times faster than a conventional hunting rifle that is normally a bolt action. So if you were walking down the street, and some maniac yelled that he was going to shoot you, which of those two guns would you prefer he'd be carrying? Are you going to tell me it wouldn't matter? That he would have the same opportunity to hit you shooting a bolt action rifle that would take about 5 seconds per shot, as opposed to an Uzi that could shoot 50 rounds in that same 5 seconds?
Thats the essence of our disagreement.I have the right to own that weapon that fires 50 rounds in 5 seconds.Im not going to hunt with it. Im going to own it for the reason the right was given to me for if need be.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2973333
Thats the essence of our disagreement.I have the right to own that weapon that fires 50 rounds in 5 seconds.Im not going to hunt with it. Im going to own it for the reason the right was given to me for if need be.
Now see I agree with both sides here. I believe we have the right to own full automatic weapons without having to obtain the special license. But if it were put to a vote I would be willing to amend the constitution so the license would be needed because the full autos are very dangerous in the wrong hands. This isn't the only case where federal laws run afoul of the intent of the constitution but until someone takes it to scotus and wins.....
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarmhttp:///forum/post/2973263
I don't have a clue why you're saying you have to interpret anything. Put on your reading glasses and read that paragraph again.

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2972894
The bottom line to all this is for the gun activist, there will NEVER be a compromise when it comes to gun laws or the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
There is nothing to interpret.Pay close attention to the definition of "ARMS" "Infringe"or the rest of the words for that matter
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici

http:///forum/post/2971326
The

Right

Adjective
1. morally or legally acceptable or correct: his conduct seemed reasonable, even right
2. correct or true: the customer is always right
3. appropriate, suitable, or proper: there were problems involved in finding the right candidate
4. most favourable or convenient: she waited until the right moment to broach the subject
5. in a satisfactory condition: things are right again now
6. accurate: is that clock right?
7. correct in opinion or judgment
8. sound in mind or body
9. of or on the side of something or someone that faces east when the front is turned towards the north
10. conservative or reactionary: it was alleged he was an agent of the right wing
11. Geom formed by or containing a line or plane perpendicular to another line or plane: a right angle
12. of or on the side of cloth worn or facing outwards
13. in one's right mind sane
14. she'll be right Austral & NZ informal that's all right; not to worry
15. the right side of
bear 1 (bâr)
v. bore (bôr, br), borne (bôrn, brn) or born (bôrn), bear·ing, bears
Of

The

People

TO

BEAR

v.tr.
1. To hold up; support.
2. To carry from one place to another; transport.
3. To carry in the mind; harbor: bear a grudge.
4. To transmit at large; relate: bearing glad tidings.
5. To have as a visible characteristic: bore a scar on the left arm.
6. To have as a quality; exhibit: "A thousand different shapes it bears" Abraham Cowley.
7. To carry (oneself) in a specified way; conduct: She bore herself with dignity.
8. To be accountable for; assume: bearing heavy responsibilities.9. To have a tolerance for; endure: couldn't bear his lying.10. To call for; warrant: This case bears investigation.
11. To give birth to: bore six children in five years.
12. To produce; yield: plants bearing flowers.
13. To offer; render: I will bear witness to the deed.
14. To move by or as if by steady pressure; push
ARMS

- weapons considered collectively
implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons system
ammo, ammunition - projectiles to be fired from a gun
armament - weaponry used by military or naval force
bomb - an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditions
defence system, defense system - the weaponry available for the defense of a region
gunnery - guns collectively
hardware - major items of military weaponry (as tanks or missile)
instrumentation, instrumentality - an artifact (or system of artifacts) that is instrumental in accomplishing some end
naval weaponry - weaponry for warships
weapon, weapon system, arm - any instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to carry a weapon"

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2971329
Shall

1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:
a. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
b. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.
c. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it.
d. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.
2. Archaic
a. To be able to.
b. To have to; must.
Not

In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition:
Be

Infringed

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v.intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.
 
Top