Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by kjr_trig
http:///forum/post/2969809
Sorry VVV, but this might be the first thing of his I support....I see no reason for civilians to have "assault" weapons.
Please define "assault weapon".
Assault weapons were already dealt with with the NFA legislation in 1938.
What the press and politicos define as "assault weapons" is broad and wrong.
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Bionic, you are totally right. I do not and have never smoked. But I think it is wrong to ban smoking. I would stand up with the smokers on election day and vote against a ban on cigarettes. Why? Even though I see no reason for anyone to want to smoke? Because that is not the government's job. Just like even though you may not understand why someone, a law-abiding background-checked person, would want to own a so-called assault weapon. I would hope you would err on the side of freedom on election day and not be intimidated by politicians who use fear tactics to push their political control agendas.
I'm still waiting for the data, by the way.

As far as you having the freedom to not be killed by another person, I would certainly hope so. But as we all know, murder is against the law. People who are law-abiding citizens don't murder eachother. Not with a gun, a knife, a bomb, a car, etc...I think you have already said that the bad guys will still find a way to get their weapons, right? What is the bigger issue here? It's about government getting control of your life.
 
turningtim

turningtim

Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/2971095
Who was disarmed during WWII other than the French?
German weapon control act 1939. Amended previous law that stated Jews where not allowed to carry hand guns to all guns and ammo.
This by reason, the less than 200,000 Jews left in Germany where completely defenseless against 15 million German Troops. This of course was the reason that all them were so easily rounded up and exterminated.
Really?
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active 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.
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......


Nationalized banks
Socialized medicine
National Socialism= Nazi
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member

Originally Posted by FishyFun2
http:///forum/post/2971118
Bionic, you are totally right. I do not and have never smoked. But I think it is wrong to ban smoking. I would stand up with the smokers on election day and vote against a ban on cigarettes. Why? Even though I see no reason for anyone to want to smoke? Because that is not the government's job. Just like even though you may not understand why someone, a law-abiding background-checked person, would want to own a so-called assault weapon. I would hope you would err on the side of freedom on election day and not be intimidated by politicians who use fear tactics to push their political control agendas.
I'm still waiting for the data, by the way.

As far as you having the freedom to not be killed by another person, I would certainly hope so. But as we all know, murder is against the law. People who are law-abiding citizens don't murder eachother. Not with a gun, a knife, a bomb, a car, etc...I think you have already said that the bad guys will still find a way to get their weapons, right? What is the bigger issue here? It's about government getting control of your life.
The government already has control of your life. They tell you how much of your income goes towards paying taxes. They tell you how old you have to be before you can drink alcohol and gamble. They tell you how old you have to be before you can start to drive. They tell you how fast you can drive down the road. You may call these laws, but it's the government that's controlling these laws. I want to be able to drive 100 MPH down the highway to get to my destination. The government doesn't allow me. I want to be able to go to a casino in my own backyard (San Antonio, TX) and play Hold Em' Poker, the government won't let me build one. I don't agree with these rules, but I have to live by them.
The problem gun advocates have with banning assault weapons, is they're afraid that it won't stop there. But as many of you have mentioned, the 2nd Amendment protects your right to 'bear arms'. So unless they ratified the 2nd Amendment to specifically state which guns you can't own, that'll never happen.
I still haven't heard one resonable argument why a normal citizen should possess portable semi-auto/auto capable firearms that were designed specifically for the military. As you have stated. "I'm still waiting..."
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971154
I still haven't heard one resonable argument why a normal citizen should possess portable semi-auto/auto capable firearms that were designed specifically for the military. As you have stated. "I'm still waiting..."

Which "assault rifle" do you mean?
In some state one of the rifles that won WWII is considered an "assault rifle" it is the M-1 Carbine, and is illegal to own in some cities/counties.
As to the true assault weapons. They are collectors items (we can thank the 1986 law for making investments out of curious. They are good investments in our history. They are good investments period. Class 3 firearms have held their value.
They are just plain fun to shoot.
The AR series are accurate target rifles. I plan to shoot mine in comptetition. Competition shooting is a sport millions enjoy with a variety of weapons.
I am no more or less dangerous with my M-1 Garand than an AR-15 ( not an assault rifle by the way despite the name).
Why climb Mt Everest?
 
jdl

jdl

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971209
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Try again.
but it does.
i asked before, name one reason to ban them? Registered guns arent used in crimes and most gun crimes arent done with an assault gun either.
 
jdl

jdl

Member
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. 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.
no, they are treading on smoker's rights in a public place where the smokers are treading on nonsmokers rights.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2971189
Which "assault rifle" do you mean?
In some state one of the rifles that won WWII is considered an "assault rifle" it is the M-1 Carbine, and is illegal to own in some cities/counties.
As to the true assault weapons. They are collectors items (we can thank the 1986 law for making investments out of curious. They are good investments in our history. They are good investments period. Class 3 firearms have held their value.
They are just plain fun to shoot.
The AR series are accurate target rifles. I plan to shoot mine in comptetition. Competition shooting is a sport millions enjoy with a variety of weapons.
I am no more or less dangerous with my M-1 Garand than an AR-15 ( not an assault rifle by the way despite the name).
Why climb Mt Everest?
Uzi, TEC-9's, the small, compact semi-autos. Having them as 'collector's items' is a lame excuse to own one. I don't see the logic of owning a gun that shoots 50 rounds in 3 seconds, even for 'target practice'. What's a round for one of those guns cost, 50 cents, a buck? It's fun to shoot $50 in 3 seconds out of an Uzi?
I have no problems with the M-1 or AR-15. As I stated before, I owned a Colt for years. Best deer rifle I ever owned.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971218
Uzi, TEC-9's, the small, compact semi-autos. Having them as 'collector's items' is a lame excuse to own one. I don't see the logic of owning a gun that shoots 50 rounds in 3 seconds, even for 'target practice'. What's a round for one of those guns cost, 50 cents, a buck? It's fun to shoot $50 in 3 seconds out of an Uzi?
I have no problems with the M-1 or AR-15. As I stated before, I owned a Colt for years. Best deer rifle I ever owned.

Does Liberty need a reason?
9mm is about 25 cents or so a round. There is no "target practice" in full auto. That is single shot. Yes it is fun to burn through ammo.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by JDL
http:///forum/post/2971217
no, they are treading on smoker's rights in a public place where the smokers are treading on nonsmokers rights.
But you're denying a specific group their rights just the same. I don't want some Uzi-carrying criminal treading on my rights when they walk into the convenience store I'm buying a 6-pack of my favorite brew wanting to blow my head off for $20 in a cash register.
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Why is target shooting not a valid use of a firearm? Because you say the gun was designed for military use? Doesn't mean it can't be a fun, safe hobby. I'm pretty sure the fish in my tank weren't designed by whomever made them to live in my aquarium. I'm pretty sure they are supposed to be in the ocean?

BTW, I have enjoyed our sparring this afternoon. I also enjoyed the link you provided above. Cool term paper or something. Too bad I couldn't get all the "source" links to work.

Hey, we disagree. It's all good. You know, I don't expect to be able to drive 100 mph down the highway, or the other things you mentioned. I don't expect or want to be able to kill someone (either with a shotgun, "assault" weapon, car, poison, etc.) and not be held accountable. Those things are illegal, immoral and wrong. Why can't we just address the reasons crime happens, rather than taking away guns from the good guys? Well, gotta go. I've ignored my duties here at home long enough today. I'll be looking forward to seeing you explain to me how, in fact, we go about lowering crime rates in this society.
 
jdl

jdl

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971228
But you're denying a specific group their rights just the same. I don't want some Uzi-carrying criminal treading on my rights when they walk into the convenience store I'm buying a 6-pack of my favorite brew wanting to blow my head off for $20 in a cash register.
Registered buyers of uzi's arent using them for crimes. Your example is very flawed.
Everyone in a restaurant is exposed to the smoke. You are only exposed to the uzi if it is used by a criminal. Chances are it isnt.
 
fishyfun2

fishyfun2

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2971228
I don't want some Uzi-carrying criminal treading on my rights when they walk into the convenience store I'm buying a 6-pack of my favorite brew wanting to blow my head off for $20 in a cash register.
That would be pretty difficult to conceal. Maybe you should seek a complete handgun ban. OH, but don't forget to convince the bad guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top