Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2970996
The Constitution clearly lays out that the people have a right to bare arms. Nowhere does it say you should be required to report it or explain why.
Compromise today, a little more tomorrow, pretty soon there's not much left of the Constitution our Nation was founded on.
There you go with that 'clearly' word again. Try another one. Go read the wiki document and come up with another verb.
That's why they're called Amendments.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2971002
But doesn't it make sense to ask the criminals why they want a gun? I mean, we know they would tell the truth, right?
That's where tagging the gun to the bullet comes to play. The criminal may not tell the truth, but a bullet through a rifle barrel doesn't lie.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971000
What's a valid reason for not banning them? I get tired of the "It's my right and I'll have one if I want one" rhetoric. I'll ask you, what is the logical reason for a normal citizen to own a weapon like an Uzi, TEC-9, or other compact semi-auto weapon? Please don't give me the 'target practice' response, or how it's the perfect weapon for home security. We both know that's a crock. Like I said, those style of weapons were created for the sole purpose to be used in military combat.
You keep bringing up the Vette analogy. Gun advocates will use these type of comparisons to justify their arguments. The problem is, someone driving a car fast, or under the influence, does not knowingly have the intent of harming someone with that device. Someone walking around with a semi-auto weapon that's designed for the purpose of nothing more than killing someone, does. How many bank robberies have you seen someone use a Vette for a weapon? Guess you could do a Drive-thru instead of a drive-by with one.
What percentage of bank robberies use a tech-9? or even an assault rifle?
Now, what percentage of those same robberies use a vehicle that can drive faster than 125 miles per hour.
You don't need a car that can go over 75 miles per hour. So why be able to own one.....Justify that, and you will justify owning an assault rifle.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971007
That's where tagging the gun to the bullet comes to play. The criminal may not tell the truth, but a bullet through a rifle barrel doesn't lie.
OK, a bullet doesn't lie.

A rifle barrel doesn't lie.

I think you are assuming a criminal will obtain a gun through legal channels. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I don't believe it happens often enough to be helpful.
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971000
What's a valid reason for not banning them?
Because it's illegal to ban them, it's unconstitutional.
Show me, I beg you, show me some data SOME ACTUAL NUMBERS where when guns are banned, there is less crime. I think until you come up with something, you have no case. Your intentions may be good, and maybe the governments are too (maybe?), but there is no correlation to lessening crime.
Gun control is about control, not guns. No one on here wants to see bad guys have guns, but we're terrified to give ours up in any little way. The thing is, if there are more concessions made, more guns listed that are "assault weapons," crime rates will rise. The politicians will then say "look, crime is still going up. We must ban other guns to keep them out the wrong hands." Hence, more guns are listed. More civil rights lost. The thing is they never take the time to review data, actual facts and numbers to see if their laws are working. Look at Washington D.C. They banned handguns totally. Crimes went up. It took a fight all the way to the supreme court to get it repealed. WHY? Because it was unconstitutional. Not to mention the fact that it didn't serve it's intended purpose.
Someone mentioned the slippery slope. I don't care if you don't have guns, or shoot for sport. Aren't you at all worried that they will take advantage of your rights?
 
veni vidi vici

veni vidi vici

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971003
There you go with that 'clearly' word again. Try another one. Go read the wiki document and come up with another verb.
That's why they're called Amendments.
The only people who CLEARLY dont understand the English Language seems to be Democrats.I mean come on Clinton didnt even know the definition of the word "IS".
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2971026
Guns don't kill people, McDonald's Cheeseburgers kill people.

Yes, and California has or is working on banning transfat in restaurant foods. Maybe they'll work on a law that says it's illegal to be obese. Heart disease kills way more people than guns and alcohol. But of course not!! How silly right? The ACLU would be all over that. However the AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION chooses to ignore crimes against the US Constitution if it doesn't serve their political purposes.
 
turningtim

turningtim

Active Member
Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2970916
1939 era where my exact words.It would have been different,And at least they would have had a fighting chance instead of none at all.
If your offended that isnt because of what i said isnt true.Im not going to try and make crap smell like a rose for you so your not offend
It has been to court and 2nd amendment keeps winning.
Living ,Breathing Document is a direct quote from Obama.........It disagree it is not a document that changes with time or Democratic whims so it suits them better.
Thats right and the second amendment isnt subject to change because you dont like it.Smart people keep upholding it just the way it is.
1939 15-20 million government backed soldiers against less than 200,000 jews? If you actually would read you would know that 20-30,000 were taken prior to 1939. Most of them men and boys. Again they had a chance? You really believe that?
I don't know about crap and roses?
Living breathing document was coined long before Pres Obama was born.
OK so you keep winning! Good for you! You have case law behind you and no worries. So why are you so upset about a proposed law and just fine with something jammed through congress to take our rights away?

Please show me anywhere that I said I was a liberal? I own a gun........
 
jdl

jdl

Member
Originally Posted by makorunner013
http:///forum/post/2970236
Why do civilians need Assault Weapons? BECAUSE IT'S OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT. If a Woman can Abort a baby, Than I can own an Assault Weapon to protect my Family. The way things are going everyone should be self sufficent and Yes be able to take out a Deer or Two.
please dont use the protection arguement. I own an AR-15 but that would be the last gun to pick if someone was breaking in. There are many other choices with much better results and none of them are assault weapons.
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2971045
I own a gun........
Owning a gun doesn't make you a conservative. Believing that government should be small and purposeful, controlled by the people, at the will of the people, and financially stable and accountable makes you a conservative. Believing in "old-fashioned" values like hard work, personal and professional responsibility, and standing up for freedom makes you conservative. If you were wrongly called a liberal, I am truly sorry.
I'm starting a new thread. I really want to understand some stuff about Democrats. Sorry if I've gone off topic.
 
turningtim

turningtim

Active Member
I'm offended simply b/c you make these assertions using terms like "Hitler, Germany and WWII" as catch phrases to intimidate and scare. With no factual basis what so ever.
Bang I'm all for valid cohesive follow the dots arguments on any subject. But the unsubstantiated nonsense and comparisons that are far then rational has gotten ridiculous......
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by moprint
http:///forum/post/2971071
That sentence shows you shouldn't be talking about guns.

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2971073
I'm offended simply b/c you make these assertions using terms like "Hitler, Germany and WWII" as catch phrases to intimidate and scare. With no factual basis what so ever.
Bang I'm all for valid cohesive follow the dots arguments on any subject. But the unsubstantiated nonsense and comparisons that are far then rational has gotten ridiculous......


Yep. We agree.
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2971073
I'm offended simply b/c you make these assertions using terms like "Hitler, Germany and WWII" as catch phrases to intimidate and scare. With no factual basis what so ever.
How does Hitler, Germany, & WWII have no factual basis? When you disarm people they are sitting ducks.
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Originally Posted by FishyFun2
http:///forum/post/2971027
Show me, I beg you, show me some data SOME ACTUAL NUMBERS where when guns are banned, there is less crime. I think until you come up with something, you have no case. Your intentions may be good, and maybe the governments are too (maybe?), but there is no correlation to lessening crime.
I'm still waiting....
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by FishyFun2
http:///forum/post/2971027
Because it's illegal to ban them, it's unconstitutional.
Show me, I beg you, show me some data SOME ACTUAL NUMBERS where when guns are banned, there is less crime. I think until you come up with something, you have no case. Your intentions may be good, and maybe the governments are too (maybe?), but there is no correlation to lessening crime.
Gun control is about control, not guns. No one on here wants to see bad guys have guns, but we're terrified to give ours up in any little way. The thing is, if there are more concessions made, more guns listed that are "assault weapons," crime rates will rise. The politicians will then say "look, crime is still going up. We must ban other guns to keep them out the wrong hands." Hence, more guns are listed. More civil rights lost. The thing is they never take the time to review data, actual facts and numbers to see if their laws are working. Look at Washington D.C. They banned handguns totally. Crimes went up. It took a fight all the way to the supreme court to get it repealed. WHY? Because it was unconstitutional. Not to mention the fact that it didn't serve it's intended purpose.
Someone mentioned the slippery slope. I don't care if you don't have guns, or shoot for sport. Aren't you at all worried that they will take advantage of your rights?
Just like you have the right to own that gun, I have the same Constitutional right to not get threatened or shot by it. If you're so worried about Constitutional rights, where's the thread screaming about how virtually every company, store, restaurant and bar across America is banning smoking? I personally have no problem with the ban, and actually prefer they get rid of cigarettes altogether. But the fact is, the Government is treading on all these smoker's rights.
 
turningtim

turningtim

Active Member
I never said I was conservative either did I? I never said I was against the 2nd amendment did I? I never said that those things were not factual. I said the assertions made that used these words in context has no factual basis.
Your statement is a bit simplistic isn't it? Really all things considered its all the same? Pres Obama proposes something and all the sudden its Nazi Germany? Really?
Its already been stated that the 2nd Amendment hasn't lost in Court. What are you worried about?
Does this mean Hitler is in charge?
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971096
Just like you have the right to own that gun, I have the same Constitutional right to not get threatened or shot by it.
How often do you get threatened by an assault weapon or shot by one? Maybe this is a real problem for you then. I'm sorry, I didn't realize how personal this assault issue is for you.
I think you should move to a safer place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top