Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

reefraff

Active Member
#1 The founding fathers intended that we have the exact same weapons as the military, You doubt that read the federalist papers, several of the founders wrote extensively about the rational behind the second and their distrust of a centralized government was a major part of it. They felt an armed citizenry was a deterrent to the government becoming tyrannical.
#2 Anyone who says they own "assault riffles" and sees no reason why we should be allowed to have one is either a liar or an idiot. That would be no different than saying we are going to ban red and yellow corvettes because they are driven faster. An AR 15 is functionally no different than a Rugar Ranch Riffle.
What percentage of gun crimes are committed with "Assault weapons"?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/2970415
I am the furthest thing from an Obama supporter there is on most subjects, but if a ban on assault weapons even saves one kid from getting shot in a school because "Timmy" brought Daddy's pistol for his school shooting instead of Daddy's M-4, I'm all for it.
Timmy would have a whole lot better chance of making it to school with daddy's pistol than an M4.
But following your line of thinking we need to ban alcohol and swimming pools as they lead to many times more deaths each year than guns.
 

jtt

Member
ok, i gotta know something, is this ban going to actually stop me from being able to purchase like a small hand gun for protection in my home and stuff? because THAT is what i am against. sure i could see them putting a ban on assault rifles that should only be used in combat, but i mean, i still am planning on buying a small hand gun just to have in case i need it.
 

reefraff

Active Member
What I find rather disturbing is the Obama administration sees a law abiding citizen with a legally purchased Semi Automatic riffle as a bigger threat than the captured terrorists being held at gitmo.
 

fishhunter

Member
Originally Posted by jp30338
http:///forum/post/2969791
Seriously. What does any civilian need an assualt weapon for?
UMMM There is no such thing is an assualt weapon
FIREARMS ARE NOT WEAPONS!!!!
I AM THE WEAPON!!!
A gun only makes it easyer; so there for its a tool.
If I wanted to go on a massive killing spree and there was no such thing a firearm do you think i would not find something alse to do it?
Hell I see people hunting with everything under the sun from AK47s to M16s they have gotten that bullsh!t term assualt weapon because the look scairy...
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970578
The ban is realted to SPECIFIC weapons. Look up the list to see which one's they are. It would be difficult if not impossible for Congress to ban all semi-automatic weapons.

Really??? And what would lead you to believe that ridicules statement?If they can take away your right to own any specific gun ,whats to stop them from taking away all your guns?
Originally Posted by bionicarm

http:///forum/post/2970578
Do you have a problem with them banning 'cop killer' bullets?
Yes ,who came up with the term "Cop Killer Bullet"?
Answer is:politicians
Whos going to take away your cop killer weapons?
Answer is:The same people who designate ammunition as "Cop Killers"
 

tank a holic

Active Member
All you anti gun people are ignorant in my book and here's why
1. If I purchase a gun legally, I'm not going to commit a crime with it.
2. If I purchase a gun to commit a crime your law won't stop me and neither is the chintzy little sign or your door saying no guns allowed
all you do is make it hard for a law abiding citizen to get guns for hunting, target shooting and protection, meanwhile all the "bad guys" still have them and still use them to do bad things
so what did you gain???????????
waiting
waiting give up???
NOTHING
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member

Originally Posted by JTT
http:///forum/post/2970642
ok, i gotta know something, is this ban going to actually stop me from being able to purchase like a small hand gun for protection in my home and stuff?

Not sure what it means yet,Its kinda like a snowflake that falls on top of a mountain and starts to roll down.

Originally Posted by JTT

http:///forum/post/2970642
because THAT is what i am against. sure i could see them putting a ban on assault rifles that should only be used in combat, but i mean, i still am planning on buying a small hand gun just to have in case i need it.
The reason our Original Government gave us the 2nd Amendment was to stop any future government from taking them away.To to protect ourselves from Tyranny.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by tank a holic
http:///forum/post/2970707
All you anti gun people are ignorant in my book and here's why
1. If I purchase a gun legally, I'm not going to commit a crime with it.
2. If I purchase a gun to commit a crime your law won't stop me and neither is the chintzy little sign or your door saying no guns allowed
all you do is make it hard for a law abiding citizen to get guns for hunting, target shooting and protection, meanwhile all the "bad guys" still have them and still use them to do bad things
so what did you gain???????????
waiting
waiting give up???
NOTHING


1. If I purchase a gun legally, I'm not going to commit a crime with it.
Tell that to the parents of the dead sons and daughters of Columbine and Virginia Tech. Tell that to the families whose loved one's have been killed in drive-by shootings, and they find out it's some 16 year old punk who paid some homeless person $100 to go in and buy him that Uzi or TEC-9 at a gun show.
 

scsinet

Active Member
In skimming over this thread... it's shocking to me how many people here are all for some rights up until the point that they don't agree with them or they don't see a need, then it's suddenly "okay" to suppress them. I've read a disturbing number of posts on this thread alone that are to the effect of
"I own a handgun, but why would an ordinary citizen need an assault weapon anyway?"
... So as long as the suppression of constitutional rights happens to be pertaining to something that you don't feel applies to you, you are okay with it?
Let's put it to a different example... The nineteenth amendment guarantees women equal voting rights to men. So because I am not a woman, should I be okay with repealing that amendment? After all, I'm all for being able to vote, but because I'm not a woman, that amendment doesn't affect me, so if I decide "Why would a woman need to vote anyway," does that mean it should be repealed?
This is a bigger issue than guns. We as Americans need to protect all rights guaranteed to us by our constitution. Allowing the erosion of our rights is a slippery slope that should be protested (and yes... fought) by all citizens, whether they feel they can benefit from those rights or not.
To say that you support gun rights, but then are okay with an AWB just because you don't feel or see the need to own an assault weapon is hypocritical.
Just for the record, I own a small collection of weapons, none of which are assault weapons (although some of my magazines are large enough to be banned). I have no plans to purchase or otherwise aquire any assault weapons. But I'll be right there fighting alongside the "gun nuts" to protect this and any other right.
 

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970729
1. If I purchase a gun legally, I'm not going to commit a crime with it.
Tell that to the parents of the dead sons and daughters of Columbine and Virginia Tech. Tell that to the families whose loved one's have been killed in drive-by shootings, and they find out it's some 16 year old punk who paid some homeless person $100 to go in and buy him that Uzi or TEC-9 at a gun show.
Well, then the weapon wasn't purchased legally.
You try to prove a point about legally purchased firearms and then you give an example where they were purchased illegally.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970729
1. If I purchase a gun legally, I'm not going to commit a crime with it.
Tell that to the parents of the dead sons and daughters of Columbine and Virginia Tech. Tell that to the families whose loved one's have been killed in drive-by shootings, and they find out it's some 16 year old punk who paid some homeless person $100 to go in and buy him that Uzi or TEC-9 at a gun show.
This argument is suggesting that if guns were banned, that the criminals would have no way to get them.
I mean seriously... what logic arrives anyone at this conclusion?
Is there some historical evidence to prove that when you make something illegal, people wishing to break the law have absolutely no recourse? Weed is illegal. Is that impossible to get? Alcohol was made illegal once. During that time, was it impossible to get?
The only reason guns are bought legally for crimes is because they can be. However, that logic does not completely turn around to say that if they could not be obtained legally, then they would not be obtained. Look at is this way:
1. WE KNOW: Guns can be bought legally by people who may, at some point, commit a crime with them.
2. WE KNOW: Law abiding citizens cannot buy guns for their personal, legal, protection if they are made illegal.
3. WE DO NOT KNOW: Whether someone, intending to buy a gun for the purposes of committing a crime, would be stopped or even deterred by making them illegal.
Guns are just like knives, cars, or chain saws. They are equipment with perfectly legitimate, legal uses, but can also be used as weapons in the commission of a crime. But we don't ban knives... we don't ban cars... hell... you can throw a rock at someone and hit them in the head, killing them. Let's ban rocks!
 

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2970740
In skimming over this thread... it's shocking to me how many people here are all for some rights up until the point that they don't agree with them or they don't see a need, then it's suddenly "okay" to suppress them. I've read a disturbing number of posts on this thread alone that are to the effect of
"I own a handgun, but why would an ordinary citizen need an assault weapon anyway?"
... So as long as the suppression of constitutional rights happens to be pertaining to something that you don't feel applies to you, you are okay with it?
Let's put it to a different example... The nineteenth amendment guarantees women equal voting rights to men. So because I am not a woman, should I be okay with repealing that amendment? After all, I'm all for being able to vote, but because I'm not a woman, that amendment doesn't affect me, so if I decide "Why would a woman need to vote anyway," does that mean it should be repealed?
This is a bigger issue than guns. We as Americans need to protect all rights guaranteed to us by our constitution. Allowing the erosion of our rights is a slippery slope that should be protested (and yes... fought) by all citizens, whether they feel they can benefit from those rights or not.
To say that you support gun rights, but then are okay with an AWB just because you don't feel or see the need to own an assault weapon is hypocritical.
Just for the record, I own a small collection of weapons, none of which are assault weapons (although some of my magazines are large enough to be banned). I have no plans to purchase or otherwise aquire any assault weapons. But I'll be right there fighting alongside the "gun nuts" to protect this and any other right.

Thank you SCSInet.
A little update; seems Pelosi and Reid are not in support of such at this time.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-02-26.html
Reid joins Pelosi in opposing weapons ban revival
By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 02/26/09 10:17 PM [ET]
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will join Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said the Nevada Democrat will preserve his traditional pro-gun rights voting record.
"Senator Reid would oppose an effort (to) reinstate the ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future," Manley told The Hill in an e-mail late Thursday night.
It was not immediately clear whether Reid would block the bill from the Senate, but his opposition casts serious doubt on its chances. Also, Manley noted that Reid voted against the ban in 1994 and again when it expired in 2004.
Reid's stance joins him with Pelosi, who told reporters Thursday that the administration had not checked with her before Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters the administration would attempt to reinstate the ban. Pelosi gave a flat “no” when asked if she had spoken to Holder or any other administration officials about the issue.
“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”
Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.
Holder said during a press conference Wednesday in Phoenix, Ariz., that Obama had made reinstating the ban one of his campaign promises.
"There are obviously a number of things that are — that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so I’m not sure exactly what the sequencing will be," Holder said. "It is something, however, that we still think would be an appropriate thing to do."
The news caught Capitol Hill by surprise, immediately pitting Democrats and Republicans against each other and even exposing deep divides among Democrats. A number of House Democrats lost their seats after being targeted by the National Rifle Association for voting for the 1994 ban.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970575
That's well and good for that period of time. Journey's talking like you or I could go out tomorrow, rig up a boat with 50mm cannons, and legally run around the Gulf or ocean in the thing ready to shoot anything and everything in site.
Wrong.
Go back and read my post. I very clearly said the Founding Fathers would not have envisioned gun control today if they were willing to give Congress the authority to issue Letters of Marque.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2970755
Well, then the weapon wasn't purchased legally.
You try to prove a point about legally purchased firearms and then you give an example where they were purchased illegally.

What are you talking about? The guns used at Columbine were legally purchased guns. The guns that guy used at Virginia Tech were legally purchased guns. If some homeless guy walks into a gun show and provides the proper documentation, he's LEGALLY purchasing that gun. Now if that homeless person gives this gun to a kid, and it's used in a drive-by, he has committed an illegal act. However, the gun was purchased legally just the same.
 

fishyfun2

Member
When you buy a gun at a gun store, the Federal questionairre you fill out asks if you are purchasing the gun for another person, so the homeless guy lied if he intended to give it to the kid, making it an illegal sale. Also, I have trouble with your example. I have a hard time believing a guy that is homeless and willing to do such a thing has a flawless criminal background and would be sold the gun in the first place.

This is the problem with Liberalism. It has good intentions, but no accountability for results. Just because something sounds good in an ideal world doesn't mean it really will work. Did the handgun ban in D.C. curb crime? NO!!!!!! Look it up!
By the way, it isn't working in Obama's Chicago either.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970575
That's well and good for that period of time. Journey's talking like you or I could go out tomorrow, rig up a boat with 50mm cannons, and legally run around the Gulf or ocean in the thing ready to shoot anything and everything in site.

Your argument in support of this was that the founders had not intention to allow civilians to own ANY weapon. I just proved they did. So now you have morphed the argument to times have changed. Regardless and assault rifle does not hold the same fire power as a ship with 65-120 cannons which were owned by private citizens. Regardless......the founders felt it was necessary and fine for the citizen to be armed...
 

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970807
Now if that homeless person gives this gun to a kid, and it's used in a drive-by, he has committed an illegal act. However, the gun was purchased legally just the same.
It's not legal to purchase a gun for someone else. Therefore the gun was not legally purchased in your example.
 

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2970807
What are you talking about? The guns used at Columbine were legally purchased guns. The guns that guy used at Virginia Tech were legally purchased guns. If some homeless guy walks into a gun show and provides the proper documentation, he's LEGALLY purchasing that gun. Now if that homeless person gives this gun to a kid, and it's used in a drive-by, he has committed an illegal act. However, the gun was purchased legally just the same.
No Sir, to quote your previous post
Originally Posted by bionicarm

http:///forum/post/2970729
Tell that to the parents of the dead sons and daughters of Columbine and Virginia Tech. Tell that to the families whose loved one's have been killed in drive-by shootings, and they find out it's some 16 year old punk who paid some homeless person $100 to go in and buy him that Uzi or TEC-9 at a gun show.
This is called a "straw purchase" and it is illegal. Buying a gun for someone else is illegal. And by the way, you cannot go into any gun show and buy a full-auto Uzi or Tec-9, you can only buy semi-autos. So the Uzi you buy has no advantage in any way over any other semi-auto. Or are you simply using the "evil black gun" to further your argument?
 
Top