Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by wattsupdoc
http:///forum/post/2977570
You just see them as your told to..........
You see bionic. I am trying to make a point here. But you cannot see it because you have your blinders on. In fact a large percentage of Americans are just like you today. You don't even do a very good job of keeping up with your own conversation. You flip flop around and twist and turn your conversation without ever answering anything. This is the communication skills you have been taught by those that put the blinders on you.
Just like a donkey pulling a cart. All I have to do is put up the slightest bit of information that leans towards the direction you want to go and then you go there. You you ignore the obvious even though it is right in front of your face, you just maintain course until you feel a little tug. You discount the truth simply because it does not equate to what your rationale requires it to be.
Through this entire conversation, you have time and time again been faced with question or fact constantly .Yet never, not even once , have you given a single solid reply to any of them. O(h, you'll point to some sad situation , not even related to AW, or another and want people to believe that these are caused by assault weapons. Possibly because you yourself are not smart enough to believe anything otherwise. Or question the situation , either way, you have your blinders on and evidently like it that way.
Actually, I have no clue what your point is. I've given plenty of valid responses to the topic at hand. You just don't want to accept them based on your perceptions and ideologies. It's apparent you are taking this ban as a personal attack on your life and liberties. If they take these weapons away tomorrow, it will have no impact whatsoever on me or my lifestyle. I don't have any intentions in the near future to spend $1800 on a rifle I may use once or twice a year. I'm content with having the standard clip in my 9mm. If I can't hit somebody coming into my house with 15 shots, I've got no business shooting the gun in the first place. You counter with the paranoia that if we allow this ban, it's an evitability that it will lead to even more stringent gun laws. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But I'm not going to lose any sleep worrying about it. You (or was it The Vici) stated we have no control over what the government can or cannot do anyway. I keep telling you that if you don't like this ban, do something about it. You just want to continue berating me because I don't bow down to your philosophies and say, "Oh yes Watts, you're absolutely right. The evil Government, specifically Obama, is stealing our liberties right out from under our feet. What do you want me to do to end this tyranny?" Like I said, go tell somebody who cares.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Bionic, I always chuckle when you complain about someone attacking you... Do you read your own posts? This thread alone is full of attacks you've made at people. Rereading your posts and editing them for civility would go a long way in promoting a more fruitful discussion.
Back to the topic at hand; Gun laws only restrict the rights of those that obey the law. To believe anything else is to ignore the millions of illegal workers in this country and the thousands of tons of drugs that cross our borders every year.
 

wattsupdoc

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2977627
Actually, I have no clue what your point is.
Which is my point exactly....You just don't really have a clue do you?
I've given plenty of valid responses to the topic at hand. You just don't want to accept them based on your perceptions and ideologies.
WHERE? You keep pointing to issues that are gun related, not assault weapon related. Early on you kept referring to fully automatic weapons. That is not what the ban is even about. You'll discuss any other type of weapon except the ones that are at hand.
It's apparent you are taking this ban as a personal attack on your life and liberties.
Because I am a RED BLOODED AMERICAN. It IS an attack on my liberties....You cant see that with your blinders on can you....You want some more kool-aid?
If they take these weapons away tomorrow, it will have no impact whatsoever on me or my lifestyle. I don't have any intentions in the near future to spend $1800 on a rifle I may use once or twice a year. I'm content with having the standard clip in my 9mm. If I can't hit somebody coming into my house with 15 shots, I've got no business shooting the gun in the first place.
Again you don't even understand the ban....As well, since you don't ACTUALLY OWN A 9MM, or any semi auto hand gun you don't understand that you cant have the 15 round magazine. 10 rounds. You would know that if you owned one. I'm sorry, I just busted your lie.
You state ...I can't hit them with 15 rounds, I shouldn't' have the handgun. You cant have 15 round mags under the ban. You don't even own one single firearm do you.......
Additionally, I dint have the handgun for personal home protection. I have it for whatever the heck I want it for. I used it to trim some branches off a tree once. I carry it supplemental when hunting. Just in case a cougar happens to be looking over my shoulders while calling for coyotes, bobcats or any other fur bearing varmit.
I keep my 12 gauge handy for home protection. Much better weapon for that IMO.
You counter with the paranoia that if we allow this ban, it's an evitability that it will lead to even more stringent gun laws.
Look back on ANY of my posts I never once said that. Don't put words in my mouth. I may have agreed with the cheeseburgers statement though.

You (or was it The Vici) stated we have no control over what the government can or cannot do anyway.
Not me....get it straight fella...
I keep telling you that if you don't like this ban, do something about it.
This is what I am doing right here right now. Trying to educate the misinformed....
You just want to continue berating me because I don't bow down to your philosophies and say, "Oh yes Watts, you're absolutely right. The evil Government, specifically Obama, is stealing our liberties right out from under our feet. What do you want me to do to end this tyranny?"
I would like to think that I am doing you a service by opening your eyes. About the way you see life...I am, trying to help you remove the blinders. Then you can see what is actually going on in the world and not just see what you are being told you are seeing....I never said the "evil government" Those are words your putting in my mouth. That is the weakest form of debating there is. It shows a very weak platform that is desperate at destroying the opposing platform. Put words in the opponents mouth and poke holes in those words., because you cant in the opponents OWN words......
The problem is, there are way too many people out there that will fall for that method of debate....
Like I said, go tell somebody who cares.
Another problem, you don't care if you loose your freedom.........I care if you do...
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2977694
Bionic, I always chuckle when you complain about someone attacking you... Do you read your own posts? This thread alone is full of attacks you've made at people. Rereading your posts and editing them for civility would go a long way in promoting a more fruitful discussion.
Back to the topic at hand; Gun laws only restrict the rights of those that obey the law. To believe anything else is to ignore the millions of illegal workers in this country and the thousands of tons of drugs that cross our borders every year.
Actually I do it just to tweak people. It's SOOOO easy to do. You're my favorite target.
I just counter with responses that suit the mood of the conversation. With the conservative right-wingers being the majority on this site, it's the logical thing to do when you're getting ganged up on.
You could probably make that statement for any rights that are restricted. But where do you draw the line? Which rights should you restrict? All of them, none of them? Only the one's that the conservatives feel should be restricted? Only the one's the liberals agree with? If you don't want Big Government telling you how to run your lives, do something about it. Take the voting rights away from the Legislature. Force every controversial topic that ever comes up in this country to be voted on by the American people. Do away with The House and Senate. They apparently no longer represent their constituents. They're only in it for themselves. You can't trust any of them. Bring the power back to The People. You may have to sit in voting lines everyday of your life, but YOU get to decide what you feel is right or wrong with this country. We could finally find out who the majority is in this country - The Conservatives or The Liberals. POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH SOCIALISM!
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Think Prozac Doc. Or at least a blood pressure medicine. You're going to need it if you keep responding to these posts. I discussed virtually every type of firearm because by your logic, they'll ALL be banned before the Government gets through with it. Let's talk about the guns that are on the list -
Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
So based on these specs, I assume the reasoning behind the ban would be the following:
Folding or telescoping stock - capability of concealing the weapon. You have the ability of hiding a multi-firing weapon under a long coat, in a small carrying case, etc.
Bayonet mount - Let's let the criminal have two ways to use the weapon
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor - This gives the weapon 'silencer' capability. Use the weapon in a situation where you can't see where the bullet came from. It's called a sniper. Think Oswald or that nut job that was shooting people in Virginia.
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades) - think this one is self explanatory.
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip - gives the weapon the capability of holding excessive rounds of ammo. Hard to get into a fire fight with a criminal that has a gun that has 50 - 100 rounds of ammo attached to it.
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm - this is where the concern for turning a semi-auto into a fully auto comes to play.
And in each type of weapon, two or more of the conditons have to be met in order for it to be considered an assault weapon. So in the case of yours and MY 9mm, having a 15 round magazine isn't an issue. Which by the way Mr. Gun Expert, my Taurus PT92 came standard with a 15-round clip. It also can hold a 10 or 17 round clip if I so choose.
You can still own that AR-15, as long as you don't stick a bayonet, silencer, or grenade launcher on it.
You use a shotgun to trim trees? And you criticize me for calling you a backwoods hick? OK, You Might Be A Redneck...
So don't get all worked up for something that may or may not affect you.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2977746
Actually I do it just to tweak people.
We Mods have had to edit waaay too many of your posts for you to sell that Bionic.
Originally Posted by bionicarm

http:///forum/post/2977746
You could probably make that statement for any rights that are restricted. But where do you draw the line? Which rights should you restrict? All of them, none of them? Only the one's that the conservatives feel should be restricted? Only the one's the liberals agree with? If you don't want Big Government telling you how to run your lives, do something about it. Take the voting rights away from the Legislature. Force every controversial topic that ever comes up in this country to be voted on by the American people. Do away with The House and Senate. They apparently no longer represent their constituents. They're only in it for themselves. You can't trust any of them. Bring the power back to The People. You may have to sit in voting lines everyday of your life, but YOU get to decide what you feel is right or wrong with this country. We could finally find out who the majority is in this country - The Conservatives or The Liberals. ...
The type of Government you are describing is not what the Constitution calls for...
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2977746
Actually I do it just to tweak people. It's SOOOO easy to do. You're my favorite target.
I just counter with responses that suit the mood of the conversation. With the conservative right-wingers being the majority on this site, it's the logical thing to do when you're getting ganged up on.
Or when you can't produce anything to back up your position....like one city where crime declined when they instituted a gun ban.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2977786
We Mods have had to edit waaay too many of your posts for you to sell that Bionic.
The type of Government you are describing is not what the Constitution calls for...
You're editing my posts? TYRANNY!!!
I actually haven't noticed. Guess I have to read them more carefully.
Throw that part of the Constitution out. Doesn't seem to be working anymore. Get the Constitution up to date. Quit living in the 1700's. Don't think the Founding Fathers ever imagined one of their bretheren would take kick backs for supporting some legal precedent, or fill a bill up with so much pork, that it bled bacon grease.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///forum/post/2977788
Or when you can't produce anything to back up your position....like one city where crime declined when they instituted a gun ban.
I thought I did. But remember, I don't read my own posts. Come on, we've been through this one already. Quit regurgitating the same response. I found one article where crime statistics were reduced after the ban. Think it was in Miami or some other Florida town. But again, what does that prove? Show me statistics that say every crime comitted with a gun was done with a firearm that isn't on this assault weapons list. I already told you, the cops don't really know what kind of weapon that was used half the time. Want to read an interesting point/counter-point on the gun ban issue?
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2977834
You're editing my posts? TYRANNY!!!
I actually haven't noticed. Guess I have to read them more carefully.
Throw that part of the Constitution out. Doesn't seem to be working anymore. Get the Constitution up to date. Quit living in the 1700's. Don't think the Founding Fathers ever imagined one of their bretheren would take kick backs for supporting some legal precedent, or fill a bill up with so much pork, that it bled bacon grease.
You argue against your own point. A small weak federal gov't would have less opportunity to do those things. Last I checked, the Constitution laid out a small weak fed gov't.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2977856
You argue against your own point. A small weak federal gov't would have less opportunity to do those things. Last I checked, the Constitution laid out a small weak fed gov't.
I could agree our three branches of government are small in numbers, but weak? Look at the power that a senator holds. How many millions of voices does the Senator from California represent? Look at what effect just 100 Americans have on this country, and the power they hold in their hands to literally change how people live and think. You call that weak? If we got rid of the House and Senate, and turned it back over to the people, it wouldn't be small and weak any longer.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2977902
I could agree our three branches of government are small in numbers, but weak? Look at the power that a senator holds. How many millions of voices does the Senator from California represent? Look at what effect just 100 Americans have on this country, and the power they hold in their hands to literally change how people live and think. You call that weak? If we got rid of the House and Senate, and turned it back over to the people, it wouldn't be small and weak any longer.
Again, what you are arguing was never how our Country was governed. It's inaccurate to say "turn it back over" when it was neverlike it to begin with.
 

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2977902
I could agree our three branches of government are small in numbers, but weak? Look at the power that a senator holds. How many millions of voices does the Senator from California represent? Look at what effect just 100 Americans have on this country, and the power they hold in their hands to literally change how people live and think. You call that weak? If we got rid of the House and Senate, and turned it back over to the people, it wouldn't be small and weak any longer.
But what would become of Nancy Pelosi?
 

wattsupdoc

Active Member
I never claimed to be a gun expert...more words in my mouth. I posted my list of weapons at YOUR REQUEST....you claimed I had none.... Because of your manner of logic gathering, false statistic creating, many get the wrong information and thereby make poor decisions at the ballot box. I remember when the issue of gay marriage came up here in MO. An old buddy of mine who is as homophobic as it come voted to allow gay marriage. You see the ballot required a yes vote(To amend to constitution to not allow it) when he voted NO on the ballot. Poor , uninformed mislead fella.... Anyways, here's a little FACT for you. Look at the years the ban was in place as well as all the preceding years thereafter. You will notice a steady decline of crime throughout the US.m EVEN AFTER THE BAN LAPSED....
With 2007 ending the lowest crime rates of all. WHY? I have to believe it is the concealed carry laws becoming more and more prevalent. Less guns in the world doesn't lower crime, MORE guns do. It' simple. The bottom table shows the crime rate per 100 thousand.......
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
I tried posting the table itself, but it just didn't work out...
In my eyes if you support "Pro Choice" you are guilty of being an accessory to murder....
When you are sooooo far to the left as you are, EVERYONES is to the right.....
 
Top