Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2971576
Tommy knew what the 2nd amendment meant.
He also knew a thing or two about government...
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[vinnyraptor]

Originally Posted by Veni Vidi Vici
http:///forum/post/2969787
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1
#$%^&^%$#@!!!!!! and this is &^*%$#@! and im really tired of this #$^%&&^%$.
i doubt you'd have a problem with it if McCain won and did the same exact thing....

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/2971734
i doubt you'd have a problem with it if McCain won and did the same exact thing....
*SIGH*

WRONG! Id have a problem with anyone short of GOD trying to take away my 2nd Amendment Right. When are you liberals going to learn to stop trying to kill the US Constitution.

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/2971734
i doubt you'd have a problem with it if McCain won and did the same exact thing....
Wow.
I don't care who is president. My reaction would be the exact same thing.
It's called standing on principles. The fact that you even suggested this implies that you would do/support whatever a democrat says whether you believe in it or not. That's disappointing, to say the least.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/2971734
i doubt you'd have a problem with it if McCain won and did the same exact thing....
I would be absolutely livid if McCain did this because he knows better. I expected it from President Obama because his experience centers around Chicago and us rural folk need to stop "clinging to our guns and religion".

 

[bamacj5]

our guns and our religion has saved us from turning into the mindless freaks they got out in hollywood

 

[tank a holic]

you people amaze me you want to make it impossible for me and all the other millions upon millions of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to buy and have guns thereby punishing us
BUT
when some worthless waste of perfectly good oxygen CRIMINAL uses an ILLEGALLY OBTAINED gun to kill some one you are against capitol punishment or harsher sentencing????????
if these morons thought the consequences out weighed the reward maybe they wouldn't commit so many crimes

but i understand your point also ........ slap their wrist and take away my freedom

 

[turningtim]

Grocery shopping yet again.

When someone would enjoy a discussion on "THE CONSTITUTION" that actually follows the laws that are and were put in place let me know.
Everyone loves to pick and choose but fails to realize we as a country have and will continue to amend the laws that pertain to this country and the Constitution. We always have and always will.
But then again this is a DEAD document and should be adhered to by the strictest of standards.......
This country already has set precedence interning the Japanese during WWII. Were they allowed to bare arms? Less than 75 years ago....... This is right?
Really there are no exceptions right?
Please Please Please stop with Germany. You have no clue what you're talking about. I've posted numbers and yet no one will challenge that less than 200,000 civilians were rounded up by 15 million troops b/c they didn't have firearms?
Now who's reaching. There is no comparison here at all.
There are exception to every rule. We as a people should learn and know better. I don't necessarily believe that we should place bans of any firearm. But most of the arguments put forth in this thread are weak, unsubstantiated and would be thrown out of court in about 2 seconds.
So those of you that feel so strongly I suggest getting a Constitutional Law book for Dummies and read up......

 

[turningtim]

One more thing. I was told by one of the Constitutional scholars that is taking part in this thread.
"According to those who count the patriot act is constitutional. Doesn't really matter what you or anyone else thinks." FALSE!
"Your opinion of what is constitutional doesn't matter squat. The Supreme court had the chance to throw it out and didn't. That is the only opinion that counts." FALSE!
So I would assume that IF this ban passes then all of you should just..........
When the fact is the courts have throw this act under the bus every single time!

 

[darthtang aw]

Turning tim. Regardles of it is constitutional or not, What is the reason behind this? How does this law benefit this country as a whole?
Some have claimed it will lower crime....ok, we have asked for data proving this. We have yet to be presented with the evidence to back up the claim. In fact read this story about crime in a town that passed a law MANDATING every head of household own a gun because a town in Illinois banned gun ownership except to the police.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55288
Guess which town had their crime rate go up? Guess which town had a significant increase in population? Guess which town had their crime rate go down? Guess which town lost their population?
The assault weapons ban did NOTHING while it was in place to lower gun crime statistics.
The other reason I heard was to limit the number of Columbine style incidents because the kids wouldn't be able to take the guns from their parents closets and use them.......Well columbine happenned a few years after the assault weapons ban was in place. Obviously that worked.
The other reason I hear is , "well you don't need one." You also don't need a 3000 square foot house if you only have 4 people in your family. You don't need a Corvette, Camarro, Benz, BMW, Or Cadillac escalde either. If we had laws in place banning things we didn't need, YOU wouldn't have your saltwater fish tank.
So Constitution aside....and not part of this debate, give me the reason backed up by facts and numbers, why this law needs and should be passed.
And for that matter, if we are passing it because we don't NEED them, then let's pass a law stating people are no longer allowed to make love. WE don't need this action anymore as it has been proven we can procreate the planet through science with out this act. The number of HIV and sexually transmitted disease would decline dramatically thus saving lives in huge numbers. Also the teen pregnancy rate and single mother rate would drop significantly.
After all, we don't need it and the banning of this unsafe act would benefit society greatly.

 

[ironeagle2006]

Ask a family member of or a living member of the 442th regiment. The Fought in the ETO in WW2 they were all Japaneese Americans in fact IIRC either a Sentor or a REp from Hawaii is a member of them. They won more Medals of Honor and other medals PERIOD during the war than anyother unit in the entire ormed forces. As a Unit they won 16 Medal of Honors and I can not remember how many PUC, Sliver Stars Bronze Stars Purple Hearts CIBs and other awards. They had 2 mottos Always Forward and Always Faithful. I think it is Inguye that served in the unit. Some of the Japanese Americans after the war stated if the USA had done the same to Japan that the Japanese Military Goverment instead of Intering would have JUST SHOT the American stating it was War at least we let them live.
Also you need to read a real history book Japan did not even give us a Formal Declartion of War til 55 mins AFTER the attack at Pearl Harbor had Started By then over 1800 men were already dead and multiple ships were sunk the Arizona was destroyed and the Oklahoma was already captsized. At the same time this attack happened they also launched an attack on the Phillaphines and other major cities and bases in the Pacfic. The Japanese High Command knew that if they failed at Pearl Harbor that they would loose the war fast they were hoping that they could get the USA to neogotiate a Peace. However FDR and others refused. Bull Halsey said it best when he brought in the USS Enterprise in literaly hours after the attack the Japanese Lauguage will be spoken in Hell by the time we are done with this war. The Vote to go to war offically the next day was 434-1 in the House and 96-0.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/2971754
Wow.
It's called standing on principles. The fact that you even suggested this implies that you would do/support whatever a democrat says whether you believe in it or not. That's disappointing, to say the least.
Foreign concept to most liberals

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2971824
One more thing. I was told by one of the Constitutional scholars that is taking part in this thread.
"According to those who count the patriot act is constitutional. Doesn't really matter what you or anyone else thinks." FALSE!
"Your opinion of what is constitutional doesn't matter squat. The Supreme court had the chance to throw it out and didn't. That is the only opinion that counts." FALSE!
So I would assume that IF this ban passes then all of you should just..........
When the fact is the courts have throw this act under the bus every single time!
Maybe the concept is too complicated for you to grasp but I'll try one more time
I F - T H E - P A T R I O T - A C T - W A S - U N C O N S T I T U T I O N A L - T H E R E - W O U L D - B E - N O - P A T R I O T - A C T
If the courts had ruled against the Patriot Act or "thrown it under the bus every single time" it wouldn't be an issue now would it?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2971817
...
Please Please Please stop with Germany. You have no clue what you're talking about. I've posted numbers and yet no one will challenge that less than 200,000 civilians were rounded up by 15 million troops b/c they didn't have firearms?
.......
That's because your numbers are totally fictitious. 15 million soldiers did NOT round up the jews in Germany.
As I pointed out, small squads of German soldiers were responsible for clearing out entire villages. This would NOT have happened in an armed society.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2971817
Grocery shopping yet again.

When someone would enjoy a discussion on "THE CONSTITUTION" that actually follows the laws that are and were put in place let me know.
Everyone loves to pick and choose but fails to realize we as a country have and will continue to amend the laws that pertain to this country and the Constitution. We always have and always will.
But then again this is a DEAD document and should be adhered to by the strictest of standards.......We agree on something

"Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
This is how it works,not the Attorney General announcing this is how it shall be. This IMO is very dangerous ground hes standing on.And I am voicing my displeasure with it until he/they decides to proclaim My 1ST Amendment right is outdated or damaging to the Mexicans as well.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,"UHHHH NOPE! See above Mr.Holder.And he is our Attorney General????

 

[reefraff]

The reason Reid and Pelosi wont back Obama's play on this is they realize the data doesn't support their position on assault weapons bans and they end up with egg on their faces if they try to make the case for a ban. Just another indication that Obama isn't ready for prime time.

 

[veni vidi vici]

This President,This Attorney General,This Congress,Cannot rescind a ratification of the 2nd Amendment that was never lawfully ratified in the first place.
Further more to all you 2nd Amendment haters out there,why would you want to ratify the 2nd Amendment in a time where we are under attack by enemy from home and abroad .
Unless?????? Dare I say, you stand with the enemys of MY Country.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by TurningTim
http:///forum/post/2971817
So those of you that feel so strongly I suggest getting a Constitutional Law book for Dummies and read up......
I'd say read the Constitution itself. The read the Federalist Papers, The Declaration of Independance, and the writings of Madison and Adams. Then you can be your own Constitutional Scholar.
There apparently was a big discussion on which should come first Free Speech, or the Right to Bear Arms.

 

[reefraff]

When the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd Amendment gave us the individual right to keep and bare arms the majority opinion stated that their decision didnt mean the government couldn't implement sensible gun laws. I dunno if a ban based on cosmetic features of a gun such as in the assault weapons ban could be considered sensible.

 

[veni vidi vici]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2972083
When the Supreme Court ruled the 2nd Amendment gave us the individual right to keep and bare arms the majority opinion stated that their decision didnt mean the government couldn't implement sensible gun laws. I dunno if a ban based on cosmetic features of a gun such as in the assault weapons ban could be considered sensible.
Not only that,but the President dosent have the authority let alone the Attorney General to impose any restrictions,ratifications or any other acts on the 2nd Amendment or any other Amendment .