PDA

View Full Version : Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban


Fire Haley
02-26-2009, 09:37 AM
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004

"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," Holder told reporters.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

-----------------

and so it begins

Hammer67
02-26-2009, 09:48 AM
meh

HometownGal
02-26-2009, 10:15 AM
This should be fun.

:popcorn:

lilyoder6
02-26-2009, 10:20 AM
hahahaha.....

it keeps getting better

Fire Haley
02-26-2009, 10:34 AM
OH yeah - it's on.

"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller" Holder told reporters.

First Bill that hits the floor of the House, it will hit the fan.

Dino 6 Rings
02-26-2009, 11:12 AM
dang, someone beat me to this...

oh well, here it goes:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You will not destroy MY Bill of Rights without a fight. And people wonder why there were "Obama" Gun sales since November all over the south. Geesh. What's next, going to suspend Freedom of Speech for those who don't agree with the Federal Government?

The Second Amendment, Protects the First. If you take away the 2nd, you can easily change the 1st.

But what do I know, I live in the Ozarks, where its cool to be Kin.

Hammer67
02-26-2009, 11:54 AM
But really, assault weapons? I mean, I support the second amendment as much as anyone here, but I don’t think the forefathers had the AK-47 in mind when they drafted that verbiage. Seriously, who needs those types of weapons and what good have they ever been used for in everyday life? I can understand rifles (for sportsmanship and hunting) handguns (for protection) but it does get ridiculous…

They are used for crimes, period.

Fire Haley
02-26-2009, 12:14 PM
Define "assault weapon".

Democrats rely on the ignorance of the people to not know the difference between a fully automatic assault rifle and an "assault weapon" (a made-up term meaning "the gun looks mean").

SteelCityMom
02-26-2009, 12:18 PM
But really, assault weapons? I mean, I support the second amendment as much as anyone here, but I don’t think the forefathers had the AK-47 in mind when they drafted that verbiage. Seriously, who needs those types of weapons and what good have they ever been used for in everyday life? I can understand rifles (for sportsmanship and hunting) handguns (for protection) but it does get ridiculous…

They are used for crimes, period.

I'm not for people carrying around AK-47's myself either, but the only constitutional reason I could see them being legal is because these are the types of weapons the military is issued.

When the framers of this country wrote the second amendment, they had in mind that every militia and citizen had the right to be armed as the national army would be armed, that way they would be capable of defending themselves from an unjust government, if it ever came to that.

Hammer67
02-26-2009, 12:44 PM
I'm not for people carrying around AK-47's myself either, but the only constitutional reason I could see them being legal is because these are the types of weapons the military is issued.

When the framers of this country wrote the second amendment, they had in mind that every militia and citizen had the right to be armed as the national army would be armed, that way they would be capable of defending themselves from an unjust government, if it ever came to that.

In that case, I want a Hummer with a 50 cal mounted and a couple of Patriot missles!!! :laughing:

Fire Haley
02-26-2009, 12:51 PM
Uh-oh - Nancy is on the warpath

Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“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.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

PisnNapalm
02-26-2009, 01:00 PM
Oh goodie... Let make using a gun in a crime "more illegal". Let's punish the gun for a human crime.

I'm sick of this BS!

A great man once said something about... from my cold dead hands. 'nuff said.

Dino 6 Rings
02-26-2009, 02:30 PM
In that case, I want a Hummer with a 50 cal mounted and a couple of Patriot missles!!! :laughing:

If you can get your hands on a Ma Duce let me know. I want one too.

Dino 6 Rings
02-26-2009, 02:36 PM
Uh-oh - Nancy is on the warpath

Pelosi tosses cold water on assault-weapon ban

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“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.”

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/pelosi-tosses-cold-water-on-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html

I'm guessing she sees the political winds shifting with more and more vocal conservatives and republicans attacking the Stimulus plan, the 500 billion spending bill and the very vocal anti fairness doctrine, the last thing the Democratic controlled congress needs is the pro-gun people jumping into the fray.

MACH1
02-26-2009, 03:18 PM
Define "assault weapon".

Democrats rely on the ignorance of the people to not know the difference between a fully automatic assault rifle and an "assault weapon" (a made-up term meaning "the gun looks mean").

They can also take it a step further and any gun that's semi-auto could be classified as an assault type weapon. Doesn't matter if its a .22, shotgun,handgun, rifle or rubber band gun. They tried passing that in the first Brady Bill.

Thats one of the reasons they limited the number of rounds in clips or tubes.

SteelCityMom
02-26-2009, 04:29 PM
It's a slippery slope. It's not about losing assault weapons, it's about losing our rights, ONE by ONE. First it's assault weapons, then it's semi-automatic hand guns. Then it's all guns. The ban is not in effect now, and I haven't seen a single person walking the streets with an AK47. It seems to me that these are the least of our problems.

Here's a good video that puts things in perspective.

TkS2BRoCd2I

Thank you for posting this video, I honestly didn't know things had gotten that bad in Australia and England. It's a shame they have little or no way to protect themselves or practice the sport they love.

It's a good lesson to be learned though, and one that every American should hear and know about. Give them an inch and they will take a mile.

Another good point made is that whether there is a ban on any type of gun, here or overseas, the black market will provide criminals with what they need and good people will have no way to protect themselves.

Dino 6 Rings
02-26-2009, 04:32 PM
Another good point made is that whether there is a ban on any type of gun, here or overseas, the black market will provide criminals with what they need and good people will have no way to protect themselves.

Actually, the "Twist" is that those good people, become Criminals when they go get the weapons they need to defend themselves from maniacs with guns. So then, the Good People now are labelled Criminals and can be rounded up.

At least, that's how I see it.

Fire Haley
02-26-2009, 06:02 PM
I guess I better git me one of these while the going is good.

FN Five-Seven - I bet the 20rd mag would make it illegal by itself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Five-seveN_USG.jpg/300px-Five-seveN_USG.jpg

Preacher
02-26-2009, 06:20 PM
I live in California.... Do I REALLY want to buy and register a hand gun???

steelwall
02-26-2009, 08:57 PM
They can also take it a step further and any gun that's semi-auto could be classified as an assault type weapon. Doesn't matter if its a .22, shotgun,handgun, rifle or rubber band gun. They tried passing that in the first Brady Bill.

Thats one of the reasons they limited the number of rounds in clips or tubes.

Thats exactly right.. This is the point here I think it is symbolic more than practical. I've owned an SKS which I had the fiber stock, 40rnd clips..blha..bla.. also a MAK-91 which is pretty much exactly the same as an AK but it's not fully automatic they are classified as assult rifles but they are all "semi-automatic". I also have .22, 12 gauge, .270 and other assorted guns that would not be covered under the ban, but never the less are all "semi-auto" and could do just as much damage.

Fully automatic weapons are allready illegal. I agree with the poster who said they are trying to ban these guns because they "look" bad

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-26-2009, 10:47 PM
I concur with the others here most crimes aren't even committed by these types of weapons. I have never seen nor been threatened by anyone brandishing any type of assault rifle. I have however been threatened by a handgun, BB Gun (lol), knife, broken bottle, fist, etc.

tony hipchest
02-26-2009, 11:01 PM
I concur with the others here most crimes aren't even committed by these types of weapons. I have never seen nor been threatened by anyone brandishing any type of assault rifle. I have however been threatened by a handgun, BB Gun (lol), knife, broken bottle, fist, etc.youre from L.A. right?

everybody knows what a drive by is, dont they. infact the term "drive by is almost ingrained in modern day pop culture.

has anyone ever done a drive by with a bb gun, broken bottle, or knife?

what we really need to do is decriminalize ALL assault. :tt03:

Preacher
02-26-2009, 11:08 PM
youre from L.A. right?

everybody knows what a drive by is, dont they. infact the term "drive by is almost ingrained in modern day pop culture.

has anyone ever done a drive by with a bb gun, broken bottle, or knife?

what we really need to do is decriminalize ALL assault. :tt03:

Baseball bat? Yep.

Assault rifles don't kill "more people" Fact is, a bullet comes out of a rifle just the same regardless of the classification of the rifle.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-26-2009, 11:22 PM
youre from L.A. right?

everybody knows what a drive by is, dont they. infact the term "drive by is almost ingrained in modern day pop culture.

has anyone ever done a drive by with a bb gun, broken bottle, or knife?

what we really need to do is decriminalize ALL assault. :tt03:

Do you really think you will stop a criminal from getting a weapon by making it illegal? I see it worked out well with cocaine, meth, and weed....

tony hipchest
02-26-2009, 11:32 PM
Do you really think you will stop a criminal from getting a weapon by making it illegal? I see it worked out well with cocaine, meth, and weed....

cocaine, meth, and weed are still all illegal (hypocritical to say the least.). why dont the republicans fight for legalizing those?

they used to be! :doh: drugs dont kill people, users kill people. whats the difference between a gun and a drug? why the double standard? could it be all the pharmacological lobbyists in their pockets?

libs wanna criminalize guns...

ribs wanna criminalize drugs....

and the wheels on the bus go round and round....

its all the same. if all guns are legal, why shouldnt abortion be? killing someone is killing someone, right?

:coffee:

tony hipchest
02-26-2009, 11:49 PM
Fact is, a bullet comes out of a rifle just the same regardless of the classification of the rifle.

yeah, so? what does that prove?

i understand the physics behind it. as soon as the pin hits the primer a bullet will be discharged at the same rate dependent on the calibur and amount of gunpowder used.

but lets keep it real here and throw out all BS semantics and rhetoric (and diversion).

i have a .22 calico that comes standard with a 100 round spiral clip that i can unload in less than 30 second (believe me ive tried and timed myself and wasted ammo just for the sake of doing it).

and i still have my 1st .22 rifle that holds about 12 shots and it would take me about 6 minutes of loading, and re-loading to get off 100 shots.

sure a single bullet leaves the barrel at the same rate of speed, but you are really muddying the issue here.

Preacher
02-26-2009, 11:52 PM
cocaine, meth, and weed are still all illegal (hypocritical to say the least.). why dont the republicans fight for legalizing those?

they used to be! :doh: drugs dont kill people, users kill people. whats the difference between a gun and a drug? why the double standard? could it be all the pharmacological lobbyists in their pockets?

libs wanna criminalize guns...

ribs wanna criminalize drugs....

and the wheels on the bus go round and round....

its all the same. if all guns are legal, why shouldnt abortion be? killing someone is killing someone, right?

:coffee:

It is the furthest thing from the same.

Come walk in my shoes for a week and watch the destruction drugs do to individuals, families, communities. It makes handgun crime PALE in comparison. Honestly, people who argue for the legalization of drugs are either 1. too far into the culture itself to see clearly the damage they are causing, or 2. Care to much about their agenda to see what drugs really do, in the degree they do them.

There is not ONE family in my church that is not touched by drug use in their family. There is not ONE family in my church that IS touched by gun use in their family.

MACH1
02-27-2009, 12:00 AM
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico

http://dygytalworld.ehost-services139.com/forums/images/smilies/doh.gif Why does that sound like the stupidest thing ever. Its our fault they can't control their side of the border.

tony hipchest
02-27-2009, 12:05 AM
It is the furthest thing from the same.

Come walk in my shoes for a week and watch the destruction drugs do to individuals, families, communities. It makes handgun crime PALE in comparison. Honestly, people who argue for the legalization of drugs are either 1. too far into the culture itself to see clearly the damage they are causing, or 2. Care to much about their agenda to see what drugs really do, in the degree they do them.

There is not ONE family in my church that is not touched by drug use in their family. There is not ONE family in my church that IS touched by gun use in their family.
actually it is the same, and its not a church issue it is a government issue.


the ribs want guns for fun and recreation and to protect themselves from outward threats, right?

the libs want drugs for fun and recreation and to protect themselves from the threatening harsh realities of the world.

do we leave it up to just republicans to draw the line in the sand? what makes them so high and almighty to say what is right and what is wrong?

(FWIW i dont feel any safer after Gee Dub Senior's failed war on drugs, just like i dont feel any safer based on Jr's war on terrorism).

thats just me though as i witness a terroristic drug war in my hyperbolic back yard on a daily basis. :noidea:

tony hipchest
02-27-2009, 12:10 AM
http://dygytalworld.ehost-services139.com/forums/images/smilies/doh.gif Why does that sound like the stupidest thing ever. Its our fault they can't control their side of the border.its not our fault but it is our problem.

our administrations have appointed themselves (us i.e. the U.S.A.) the world police and with that comes a cost.

...and with that cost comes people who pay.

steelwall
02-27-2009, 01:36 AM
yeah, so? what does that prove?

i understand the physics behind it. as soon as the pin hits the primer a bullet will be discharged at the same rate dependent on the calibur and amount of gunpowder used.

but lets keep it real here and throw out all BS semantics and rhetoric (and diversion).

i have a .22 calico that comes standard with a 100 round spiral clip that i can unload in less than 30 second (believe me ive tried and timed myself and wasted ammo just for the sake of doing it).

and i still have my 1st .22 rifle that holds about 12 shots and it would take me about 6 minutes of loading, and re-loading to get off 100 shots.

sure a single bullet leaves the barrel at the same rate of speed, but you are really muddying the issue here.

If you were smarter you would have 3 extra clips at the ready, and someone reloading the other 2.:noidea:

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
02-27-2009, 01:53 AM
I am with Preacher on this one, they couldn't be more different.

Most people that own a gun, never have to use it. How many people that own illegal drugs don't use them?

Also, are you really trying to compare killing a baby with owning a firearm?

Abortion- In 2005, 820,151 legal abortions were performed. (this does not take into account illegal or "back-alley" abortions) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

Firearms- "In 2005, 30,694 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States... Firearm suicide and homicide, the two major component
causes, accounted for 55.4 percent (suicide) and 40.2 percent (homicide) of all firearm injury deaths in 2005." http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf

So in 2005 (the most recent year I can get reliable data) roughly 27 times more people (yes, people) were killed by abortion than by firearm. This is without taking into account that the majority of firearm related deaths are the result of suicide.

Oh, and in response to the legalizing of drugs. I could possibly see it for marijuana, as I guess it is the least dangerous of the illegal drugs. That said I am 100% against it, but not for the reasons you might think. Legalizing marijuana equals a bigger government to control it, and more taxes out of my pocket to do so. Two things that as a conservative I am strongly against.

One last thing, could you imagine our unemployment rate if everyone was baked all the time?

xfl2001fan
02-27-2009, 04:59 AM
cocaine, meth, and weed are still all illegal (hypocritical to say the least.). why dont the republicans fight for legalizing those?

they used to be! :doh: drugs dont kill people, users kill people. whats the difference between a gun and a drug? why the double standard? could it be all the pharmacological lobbyists in their pockets?

libs wanna criminalize guns...

ribs wanna criminalize drugs....

and the wheels on the bus go round and round....

its all the same. if all guns are legal, why shouldnt abortion be? killing someone is killing someone, right?

:coffee:

Seriously, WTH is wrong with you? I don't own a gun because I want to, or intend to kill someone. I'm going to use your tactic though. I'll bite though many others (most of whom are probably smarter...or at least wiser...than me are leaving it be.) Guns and abortion has nothing to do with each other...but since you're so keen on lumping them together. Until such time that guns are used in clinical abortions, I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Let's take it a step further.

Illegal drugs have killed more unborn babies than legal guns have. I don't really need to look things up, because I'm doing things the Lib way. I'll try for a smooth delivery and smile big...might have to add in about 25 "uh"s ...but we'll get there.

xfl2001fan
02-27-2009, 05:01 AM
If you were smarter you would not be a lib.:noidea:

Fixed it for ya buddy

MACH1
02-27-2009, 09:59 AM
its not our fault but it is our problem.

our administrations have appointed themselves (us i.e. the U.S.A.) the world police and with that comes a cost.

...and with that cost comes people who pay.

They don't need to take away our freedoms because another country has a corrupt gov and can't control what is happening inside their own country. Why should the American people pay for that?

SteelCityMom
02-27-2009, 10:18 AM
its not our fault but it is our problem.

our administrations have appointed themselves (us i.e. the U.S.A.) the world police and with that comes a cost.

...and with that cost comes people who pay.

I understand where your coming from, but I think the American governments real agenda here should be controlling the border violence so that it is not trickling over into the States.

A gun ban isn't going to stop the violence though, the majority of these Mexican drug lords are not getting their guns by legal means, I can guarantee that.

tony hipchest
02-27-2009, 10:22 AM
If you were smarter you would have 3 extra clips at the ready, and someone reloading the other 2.:noidea:my antique winchester is butt loaded and isnt equipped with a clip. but the bullet does travel out at the same speed as my assault pistol.

Fixed it for ya buddyBROWNfan say what? :rofl:

SteelCityMom
02-27-2009, 10:33 AM
It is the furthest thing from the same.

Come walk in my shoes for a week and watch the destruction drugs do to individuals, families, communities. It makes handgun crime PALE in comparison. Honestly, people who argue for the legalization of drugs are either 1. too far into the culture itself to see clearly the damage they are causing, or 2. Care to much about their agenda to see what drugs really do, in the degree they do them.

There is not ONE family in my church that is not touched by drug use in their family. There is not ONE family in my church that IS touched by gun use in their family.

You make some decent points, and I agree with you for the most part.

I am not for the legalization of most drugs (except marijuana, there are more benefits to this being legal than being illegal), but I am for decriminalization of other illicit drugs. I think it is a waste of the justice systems time and taxpayers money to just toss drug users (the non-violent ones at least) into jails and prisons with murderers, rapists and the like. I feel like if someones only crime is a drug addiction then the focus should be more on rehabilitation, not mixing them into a society of violent criminals, where more often than not, they come out worse than when they entered.

There are many peoples lives that are affected by drug use, but you could use the same argument for alcohol use as well, yet this is legal. Only when a person is endangering others while intoxicated is it considered a crime. I feel very strongly that marijuana should be treated in the same way.

As far as guns go, the same principle basically applies. As long as you go through the proper steps to obtain a gun, use it within lawful means, everything is fine and dandy. Commit a crime with it, your screwed and face consequences.

MACH1
02-27-2009, 11:02 AM
As far as guns go, the same principle basically applies. As long as you go through the proper steps to obtain a gun, use it within lawful means, everything is fine and dandy. Commit a crime with it, your screwed and face consequences.


Thats just it. The only people a ban is going to affect is the LAW ABIDING citizen, not the criminals that will pop a cap in you. I can tell you for sure the criminal doesn't fill out a background check first.

SteelCityMom
02-27-2009, 12:06 PM
Thats just it. The only people a ban is going to affect is the LAW ABIDING citizen, not the criminals that will pop a cap in you. I can tell you for sure the criminal doesn't fill out a background check first.

Very true, and the crime rate increases in England and Australia have proven that gun bans do not stop crime whatsoever.

I found some interesting articles on the subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

http://www.haciendapub.com/gunpage2.html

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/130646.shtml

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

steelreserve
02-27-2009, 01:43 PM
I live in California.... Do I REALLY want to buy and register a hand gun???

I live in CA and own a pair of guns ... I've got to say what I have really noticed the most is that in this state, if you tell someone you're a gun owner, pretty much everyone will look at you like you have two dicks growing out of your forehead.

Californians have been so conditioned by political correctness, and by fearmongering in the press and by politicians, that they literally do not believe that anyone other than a street thug or a police officer could possibly want to own a gun. They fundamentally don't understand that shooting can be an actual hobby that you can have fun doing.

Everyone's initial reaction is always, "Oh my god! Are you sure? I wouldn't want a gun in MY house! That's so dangerous!" It's as if they automatically think that you sit around at home pointing loaded guns at your friends all day, or you'll be playing catch with your kids and suddenly decide to start tossing around the gun instead of a football.

Pretty much the only people here who "get" guns are people who live in farm country or who moved here from other states. Probably 90% of them couldn't tell you why "semiautomatic" is different from "assault weapon." For that matter, they don't even understand that "semiautomatic" basically just means a regular gun. When people don't know anything about a subject except that they are afraid, and they try to get involved in regulating it, that's when stupid things happen. California is living proof of that.

tony hipchest
02-27-2009, 09:30 PM
sounds like smokin3000gt wants to live with the monkeys.

:coffee:

Preacher
02-28-2009, 10:47 PM
You make some decent points, and I agree with you for the most part.

I am not for the legalization of most drugs (except marijuana, there are more benefits to this being legal than being illegal), but I am for decriminalization of other illicit drugs. I think it is a waste of the justice systems time and taxpayers money to just toss drug users (the non-violent ones at least) into jails and prisons with murderers, rapists and the like. I feel like if someones only crime is a drug addiction then the focus should be more on rehabilitation, not mixing them into a society of violent criminals, where more often than not, they come out worse than when they entered.

There are many peoples lives that are affected by drug use, but you could use the same argument for alcohol use as well, yet this is legal. Only when a person is endangering others while intoxicated is it considered a crime. I feel very strongly that marijuana should be treated in the same way.

As far as guns go, the same principle basically applies. As long as you go through the proper steps to obtain a gun, use it within lawful means, everything is fine and dandy. Commit a crime with it, your screwed and face consequences.

I disagree with you, but you make very logical and valid points here. :thumbsup:

Preacher
02-28-2009, 10:51 PM
When people don't know anything about a subject except that they are afraid, and they try to get involved in regulating it, that's when stupid things happen. California is living proof of that.

You and I disagree quite a bit on this board.

However, here, you have just summed up the ENTIRE PROBLEM with the California government in virtually EVERY AREA it touches.

If the truth wasn't so sad, I'd give you a bunch of smilies.

Dino 6 Rings
03-01-2009, 10:25 AM
I'm guessing a Gun Ban if for "the Greater Good" Right?

Keep the citizens unarmed for their own safety and what not.

MACH1
03-01-2009, 11:07 AM
I'm guessing a Gun Ban if for "the Greater Good" Right?

Keep the citizens unarmed for their own safety and what not.

Nope...Its so Guns don't go over the border in mexico. :doh: Were losing our rights because of another country.

Next they'll ban gun clubs and shooting ranges because Pakistan has terrorist training camps.

Oh' wait they already have them here in the U.S., 35 of them, and the gov wont lift a finger about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494424,00.html

Dino 6 Rings
03-01-2009, 11:14 AM
So is there good money in buying Legal Guns at Gun shows and Pawn Shops and Sports stores and then transporting them across the border and giving them to Drug Gangs?

Just curious.

MACH1
03-01-2009, 11:23 AM
So is there good money in buying Legal Guns at Gun shows and Pawn Shops and Sports stores and then transporting them across the border and giving them to Drug Gangs?

Just curious.

You talking to me?

I doubt you'd live long enough to collect.

SteelShooter
03-01-2009, 12:29 PM
Define "assault weapon".

Democrats rely on the ignorance of the people to not know the difference between a fully automatic assault rifle and an "assault weapon" (a made-up term meaning "the gun looks mean").


You beat me to it! The Dems and a dictionary's definitions are very different.

I own an M-4, exactly like the one I carry in the field.....almost. It DOES NOT have the Burst or Auto option on the selector switch. It is semi-auto only. But this would/will fall under the dems definition simply because it is black and looks MEAN. I use it for recreational use (I love firing on a range), for professional means (to keep my skills up during off-duty periods) and for (mainly) home defense. Imagine an intruder's reaction were he to bust into my home only to see a real weapon leveled on him instead of some 22 revolver which would pretty much succeed in only pissing him off.

I promise you......force your way into my home.......you will be dealt with, with no hope of being able to blame it on a poor upbringing or the absence of a father figure.

You are an adult, you made an adult decision......you will be treated as one on MY terms......not yours.

Dino 6 Rings
03-01-2009, 04:38 PM
You talking to me?

I doubt you'd live long enough to collect.

I was just throwing it out there LOL being kind of sarcastic.

I mean really, how many of these Drug Cartel weapons are really being bought Legally by US Citizens, then shipped over the boarder into the hands of thugs and killers? I doubt many if any.

Chances are, these weapons are really Chinese Knock offs of American guns, or stolen Military Grade surplus that are being sold from begining to end, off the market in back alley, back lot, back room deals. I highly doubt an "ban" on Assault weapons will do anything other than keep assualt weapons out of the hands of average, law abiding citizens.

Dino 6 Rings
03-27-2009, 03:21 PM
Ok, folks, here is a good example of the disagreement on philosophy. I will give credit to this website first,

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/obamas_sights_on_second_amendm.html

this is a right to own guns article.

Now what they point out that is most interesting to me, is what the White House currently has listed under the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms

This is found here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/the_constitution/

However the difference in philosophy is this. The 2nd Amendment does not GIVE citizens the right to bear arms, the 2nd Amendment prevents the Government from infringing on the natural right for Citizens to have arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Shall Not Be Infringed. Doesn't say anything about "giving the right" it says the Right shall not be infringed.

And that is the Philosophical difference between the left and the right in a nut shell.

One side believes the Government gives us rights, the other side believes the Constitution prevents the Federal Government from taking our Natural Rights away from us.