Well, this didn't take long: Pres Obama wants to restrict guns

[Little-Acorn]

The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" resulted in no reduction in gun crimes, probably since very few crimes were ever committed with so-called "Assault Weapons" in the first place. And when it expired, the "gunfights in the streets" predicted by many anti-gun-rights hysterics, failed to materialize.

Nonetheless, with Barack Obama in the White House for less than seven hours, this has appeared on the White House website.

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

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/


Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.


I guess it was inevitable. We voted for him, now we've got him.

I said earlier that I wished President Obama success. Restricting guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens (which is all any gun legislation an ever do) produces the opposite effect: A lessening of safety and security in cities, neighborhoods, schools etc., as criminals find their victims are less and less able to fight back.

[stephanie]

it was never really a secret.. why do you think he has become the "new poster boy for gun sales"..sales have been through the roof from what I've been hearing..He said he was for the right to bear arms, but no one believed him..

people also need to start stocking up on ammo, I think that is where they are going first..they'll regulate it to the point it becomes expensive and hard to get...:cheers2:

[Mr. P]

Well, if they make the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, I'll be an instant "Law-abiding" criminal which will at least put me on a level playing field with the "criminal" criminal.

I guess this means millions of folks like me will instantly become "Law-abiding" criminals..

They still won't get my gun/s. :thumb:

[5stringJeff]

I'm going to have to go to a gun show... quick!

[Mr. P]

I'm going to have to go to a gun show... quick!

I still wanna know what that gun show loophole is. I don't know of one.

[5stringJeff]

I still wanna know what that gun show loophole is. I don't know of one.

When you buy a gun at a licensed dealer, they have to run an instant background check on you. But for private sales, you don't have to do that. The "gun show loophole" would force all private firearms sellers to conduct FBI background checks on their potential buyers.

[Mr. P]

When you buy a gun at a licensed dealer, they have to run an instant background check on you. But for private sales, you don't have to do that. The "gun show loophole" would force all private firearms sellers to conduct FBI background checks on their potential buyers.

I didn't know private sales were made. But heck if a "private" sale doesn't happen at a show it'll still happen. So this closing of a loophole will do nothing cept make the anti-gun folks feel good.

[My Winter Storm]

Good on him. The only reason people need to own a gun is for self defence. Other than that, there is no reason to even want one.

[Immanuel]

Good on him. The only reason people need to own a gun is for self defence. Other than that, there is no reason to even want one.

I don't own one and don't really want one, but I am certain there are reasons for others to own them... for instance, hunting, but then that would be rifles. I don't know if you were excluding rifles in your statement. I'm sure sefl-defense is a good enough reason for handguns.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

Anyone who honestly expresses surprise at any liberal policies Obama pushes, just wasn't paying attention for the last year. We now have the President many of us deserve, folks. Good luck!

[Monkeybone]

Good on him. The only reason people need to own a gun is for self defence. Other than that, there is no reason to even want one. like Immie says what about hunting? just because you aren't for it doesn't mean that I have to stop. Plus what about collectors? Some guns happen to look very nice and others like to check them out. should they stop that hobby too? i think deaths from doctors are higher than deaths from guns. haha


I don't own one and don't really want one, but I am certain there are reasons for others to own them... for instance, hunting, but then that would be rifles. I don't know if you were excluding rifles in your statement. I'm sure sefl-defense is a good enough reason for handguns.

Immie can use pitols too Immie. adds some challenge as long as it's not a high powered one.

[Mr. P]

like Immie says what about hunting? just because you aren't for it doesn't mean that I have to stop. Plus what about collectors? Some guns happen to look very nice and others like to check them out. should they stop that hobby too? i think deaths from doctors are higher than deaths from guns. haha

can use pitols too Immie. adds some challenge as long as it's not a high powered one.

Some here in Ga. hunt wild boar with pistols. 357 or 44 mag.

[Immanuel]

can use pitols too Immie. adds some challenge as long as it's not a high powered one.

Well, I guess the fact that I am not a gun enthusiast is going to show here, but I always considered pistols and handguns to be the same thing.

Immie

[Monkeybone]

Well, I guess the fact that I am not a gun enthusiast is going to show here, but I always considered pistols and handguns to be the same thing.

Immie

they are the same thing Immie, was pointing out that you were talking about hunting, and not all hunters use rifles or shotguns or muzzleloaders.

[Monkeybone]

oh and i will have to agree with Steph, since the ruling on the 2nd, i think that they will go after ammo since they will think that if you limit that it will make everything better.

so when are they gonna start making us register your pocket knives?

[gabosaurus]

Tell me why any normal person would want to own an assault rifle. They have no practical purpose.

[Monkeybone]

no reason. i am really not a fan of assualt rifles. yah they are cool, but like you said i would have no use for one other than to just take it out to shoot. Like getting a Beowolf upper recieve(http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/links/link.jsp?id=0018846225733a&type=product&cmCat=SEARCH_all&returnPage=search-results1.jsp&Ntk=Products&QueryText=beowolf&sort=all&_D%3AhasJS=+&N=0&Nty=1&hasJS=true&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fsearch%2Fsearch-box.jsp.form23&_dyncharset=ISO-8859-1)r. that would be awesome just to shoot. it is fun to shoot guns and blow stuff up. we are bored without all them there big city lights and thinkings and such.

[darin]

Good on him. The only reason people need to own a gun is for self defence. Other than that, there is no reason to even want one.


Tell me why any normal person would want to own an assault rifle. They have no practical purpose.

Thank you for forcing YOUR morality on others...You're supporting the legislation of morality. You're supporting the Government Elite forcing what THEY FEEL citizens need upon the population.


here's one practical reason - to fight off bad-guys who have assault-weapons.

[gabosaurus]

Leave the "fighting off of bad guys" to duly appointed law enforcement officers.
Once again, there is no reason why any person should own an assault rifle. They serve no practical purpose.

[stephanie]

Leave the "fighting off of bad guys" to duly appointed law enforcement officers.
Once again, there is no reason why any person should own an assault rifle. They serve no practical purpose.

you tells us that, while you probably live in a gated community..
But the rest of us little peons should be defenseless and WAIT FOR POLICE.:laugh2:

[Nukeman]

Leave the "fighting off of bad guys" to duly appointed law enforcement officers.
Once again, there is no reason why any person should own an assault rifle. They serve no practical purpose.Remember Gabby

"When Seconds Count, the Police are Only Minutes Away"

By the way, how is your husbands hand gun doing?????????:coffee:

[Immanuel]

they are the same thing Immie, was pointing out that you were talking about hunting, and not all hunters use rifles or shotguns or muzzleloaders.

Ah, now I understand. I've thought about taking up archery and considered the idea of bow hunting but I can't imagine having to butcher an animal on my own. Yuck!!

Immie

[Immanuel]

Tell me why any normal person would want to own an assault rifle. They have no practical purpose.

Because I can and I'll want one even more if they tell me I can't have one.

Immie

[Mr. P]

Leave the "fighting off of bad guys" to duly appointed law enforcement officers.
Once again, there is no reason why any person should own an assault rifle. They serve no practical purpose.

LOL...several years ago the bad guys were walking down the street in Cal after a bank robbery I think, with weapons that were superior to what the cops on scene had. So much for duly appointed law enforcement officers "fighting off of bad guys".

The cops had to get weapons from nearby gun shops to deal with that situation.

I have a pistol that would be classified as an assault weapon simply because the magazine holds 15 rounds, 10 was the limit under the assault ban. 15 is practical, it keeps one from reloading as often.

[Monkeybone]

Ah, now I understand. I've thought about taking up archery and considered the idea of bow hunting but I can't imagine having to butcher an animal on my own. Yuck!!

Immie

my father used to bow hunt. i like shooting the bow but don't know if i will hunt with it. there is just something about shooting a bow that has a bit of a calming effect (unless you bury a broad head {usually three pronged razor-edged tip} into the fence post) when you break it over and hold it before you shoot. But back to the OP, they could eventually ban bows.

and you get over it Immie, not as bad as you think it is, you are hyped up on adrenaline you won't notice. those might be some excuses you might hear. the first one is kinda true...you will get over it eventually...and it smells fyi.

[Hobbit]

The second amendment is the Constitution's reset button. The original, primary purpose of the second amendment reflected the nature of the revolution that spawned it. While, yes, the ability of a law-abiding citizen to defend himself from a criminal is important, that's not the primary purpose. The reason we have a second amendment is so that, as the Declaration of Independence states, the government has become contrary to the goal of securing freedoms for the people, that the people will be able to overthrow that government. The truth is that when the government doesn't want us to have assault rifles is when we need them the most.

Also, the 'assault weapons' ban didn't ban assault weapons. Assault weapons are defined as fully automatic and/or armor piercing, which were already banned. The ban bans things like collapsible stocks, for some reason.

[Immanuel]

The second amendment is the Constitution's reset button. The original, primary purpose of the second amendment reflected the nature of the revolution that spawned it. While, yes, the ability of a law-abiding citizen to defend himself from a criminal is important, that's not the primary purpose. The reason we have a second amendment is so that, as the Declaration of Independence states, the government has become contrary to the goal of securing freedoms for the people, that the people will be able to overthrow that government. The truth is that when the government doesn't want us to have assault rifles is when we need them the most.

Also, the 'assault weapons' ban didn't ban assault weapons. Assault weapons are defined as fully automatic and/or armor piercing, which were already banned. The ban bans things like collapsible stocks, for some reason.

Something tells me that the founding fathers never anticipated the eventuality of assault weapons, tanks, chemical weapons, nukes etc. :D While I fully believe in the citizens right to bare arms in order to defend ourselves against an oppressive government, I don't think today's citizens would stand a snowball's chance in Hell against an out of control government. It was one thing when everyone was limited to muskets. But "muskets" against tanks? Like that saying says, "Never bring a sword to a gunfight".

Immie

[Mr. P]

Something tells me that the founding fathers never anticipated the eventuality of assault weapons, tanks, chemical weapons, nukes etc. :D While I fully believe in the citizens right to bare arms in order to defend ourselves against an oppressive government, I don't think today's citizens would stand a snowball's chance in Hell against an out of control government. It was one thing when everyone was limited to muskets. But "muskets" against tanks? Like that saying says, "Never bring a sword to a gunfight".

Immie

The Hungarian civilians killed a lot of tanks. We could too. I'd say we could even win.

[Hobbit]

Something tells me that the founding fathers never anticipated the eventuality of assault weapons, tanks, chemical weapons, nukes etc. :D While I fully believe in the citizens right to bare arms in order to defend ourselves against an oppressive government, I don't think today's citizens would stand a snowball's chance in Hell against an out of control government. It was one thing when everyone was limited to muskets. But "muskets" against tanks? Like that saying says, "Never bring a sword to a gunfight".

Immie

Every time I make that statement, somebody comes in with the same old, tired arguments that I KNOW they've heard me refute before. First off, there are a few assumptions you make that are wrong.

A) The military is not a hive mind collective of automata which blindly follows the orders fed into the master control computer in Washington. It is made up with individuals, individuals sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not those who sit in Washington. The assumption that, in the event of an armed uprising, the entire military would gleefully slaughter American citizens to end it, is flat out wrong. Hell, we can't even convince our politicians that it's ok to shoot terrorists unless you've got photo ID and an Al-Qaeda membership card, and they don't give a damn about anybody but themselves.

B) Tanks are not invincible, nor are they universal. Get together enough explosives and the right terrain, and it becomes a multi-million dollar roadblock, preventing other tanks from rolling through.

C) Weapons ownership is not a binary issue. It's not 'ban everything' or 'allow everything.' Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are banned by international treaty, and citizens of member countries are bound by that same rule.

D) It doesn't matter one bit if the founders 'foresaw' this or 'anticipated' that. Every time I've seen that argument made, it's been in the context of, "The founders couldn't possibly have anticipated [issue A], so instead of debating the issue and seeing what position lines up the most with their ideals of individual liberty and limited government, we should just assume that I'm right." And the 'I' is usually directly opposed to their ideals of individual liberty and limited government. It's disgusting. Banning certain weapons because they're only for the government runs directly counter to the idea that the people should be more powerful than the government.

E) I didn't see Vietnam, Hamas, or Al-Qaeda lamenting their lack of tanks. Evil though they were, they found ways to fight tanks without tanks of their own.

[Immanuel]

The Hungarian civilians killed a lot of tanks. We could too. I'd say we could even win.

I don't think we could match our military, not the U.S. Military anyway.


Every time I make that statement, somebody comes in with the same old, tired arguments that I KNOW they've heard me refute before. First off, there are a few assumptions you make that are wrong.

First I'm not arguing with you about it.

Second, I'm not arguing for the banning of weapons either. I simply don't think the citizens of the U.S. could come together enough to rebel against the government. The basic problem there would be coming together as a cohesive unit.


A) The military is not a hive mind collective of automata which blindly follows the orders fed into the master control computer in Washington. It is made up with individuals, individuals sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution, not those who sit in Washington. The assumption that, in the event of an armed uprising, the entire military would gleefully slaughter American citizens to end it, is flat out wrong. Hell, we can't even convince our politicians that it's ok to shoot terrorists unless you've got photo ID and an Al-Qaeda membership card, and they don't give a damn about anybody but themselves.

True, we would have members of the military on our side. Some, but not enough. True, there would be members of the military who would not follow orders, if any were given, to slaughter American Citizens. On the other hand, neither of those truths would change the doomed outcome of such an event.


B) Tanks are not invincible, nor are they universal. Get together enough explosives and the right terrain, and it becomes a multi-million dollar roadblock, preventing other tanks from rolling through.

My point being that civilians, even civilian militias, do not have the hardware necessary to accomplish the task regardless of the situation. The U.S. Military has so much more than just tanks. Tanks was only part of the example used.


C) Weapons ownership is not a binary issue. It's not 'ban everything' or 'allow everything.' Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are banned by international treaty, and citizens of member countries are bound by that same rule.

That doesn't change a thing. An uprising of U.S. Citizenry would still not have enough conventional weaponry to make a dent in the power of the U.S. Armed Forces.


D) It doesn't matter one bit if the founders 'foresaw' this or 'anticipated' that. Every time I've seen that argument made, it's been in the context of, "The founders couldn't possibly have anticipated [issue A], so instead of debating the issue and seeing what position lines up the most with their ideals of individual liberty and limited government, we should just assume that I'm right." And the 'I' is usually directly opposed to their ideals of individual liberty and limited government. It's disgusting. Banning certain weapons because they're only for the government runs directly counter to the idea that the people should be more powerful than the government.

That was not what I said. Not even close. No where did I even suggest that banning should be an option simply because we could not match today's armed forces. The fact is that today's technology has advanced so far that the idea of a armed rebellion is ludicrous.


E) I didn't see Vietnam, Hamas, or Al-Qaeda lamenting their lack of tanks. Evil though they were, they found ways to fight tanks without tanks of their own.

Again, tanks were only used as an example not as the only thing or even the best thing that the armed forces could or would bring to the table. Al Qaeda has proven that there is no going up against the armed forces of the U.S. in a toe to toe battle. Sure, we could go the guerrilla warfare method here but then we would only be fighting the perpetual war with absolutely no hope of actually winning. We'd only be shedding our own blood and those of the men and women that have defended us for 230+ years.

And what would we accomplish? Nothing! The way to bring about change in this government is not with violence. It comes with getting rid of the political parties laced with the rich and arrogant politicians who control the world through the vote and the almighty dollar. It comes with not voting for the "lessor of two evils" but rather voting for the right man (or woman) for the job.

Immie

[Hobbit]

You're also forgetting that the total defeat of the U.S. military is not necessary for an uprising. A quick strike that took control of Washington D.C. and brought all federal politicians under captivity would be sufficient...and not that hard if the citizens are all armed.

[Immanuel]

You're also forgetting that the total defeat of the U.S. military is not necessary for an uprising. A quick strike that took control of Washington D.C. and brought all federal politicians under captivity would be sufficient...and not that hard if the citizens are all armed.

Well, I must say that I would assume that a single individual militia "might" be able to pull something like that off, but they would not do so with the backing of the citizens of the U.S. So, what you would have would be something like the KKK taking over Washington and dictating to everyone else nationwide what will be.

God forbid that ever happens.

But to have a united revolt of the citizens of the U.S.? I don't see that happening.

Immie

[Gaffer]

You're also forgetting that the total defeat of the U.S. military is not necessary for an uprising. A quick strike that took control of Washington D.C. and brought all federal politicians under captivity would be sufficient...and not that hard if the citizens are all armed.

Not to mention a military coup which could effectively take down the government. Especially with citizen support. It's a much more likely scenario than just a citizen uprising.

[Immanuel]

Not to mention a military coup which could effectively take down the government. Especially with citizen support. It's a much more likely scenario than just a citizen uprising.

And that would lead to our own Fidel Castro governing for life?

Immie

[Gaffer]

And that would lead to our own Fidel Castro governing for life?

Immie

Quite possible. Depends on who's in charge and the reasons for the coup. A rebellion of the citizens would see a rebellion in the military as well. A drawn out guerrilla war only hurts the citizens and the country. The elite politicians would continue along without care.

[Mr. P]

I don't think we could match our military, not the U.S. Military anyway.



First I'm not arguing with you about it.

Second, I'm not arguing for the banning of weapons either. I simply don't think the citizens of the U.S. could come together enough to rebel against the government. The basic problem there would be coming together as a cohesive unit.



True, we would have members of the military on our side. Some, but not enough. True, there would be members of the military who would not follow orders, if any were given, to slaughter American Citizens. On the other hand, neither of those truths would change the doomed outcome of such an event.



My point being that civilians, even civilian militias, do not have the hardware necessary to accomplish the task regardless of the situation. The U.S. Military has so much more than just tanks. Tanks was only part of the example used.



That doesn't change a thing. An uprising of U.S. Citizenry would still not have enough conventional weaponry to make a dent in the power of the U.S. Armed Forces.



That was not what I said. Not even close. No where did I even suggest that banning should be an option simply because we could not match today's armed forces. The fact is that today's technology has advanced so far that the idea of a armed rebellion is ludicrous.



Again, tanks were only used as an example not as the only thing or even the best thing that the armed forces could or would bring to the table. Al Qaeda has proven that there is no going up against the armed forces of the U.S. in a toe to toe battle. Sure, we could go the guerrilla warfare method here but then we would only be fighting the perpetual war with absolutely no hope of actually winning. We'd only be shedding our own blood and those of the men and women that have defended us for 230+ years.

And what would we accomplish? Nothing! The way to bring about change in this government is not with violence. It comes with getting rid of the political parties laced with the rich and arrogant politicians who control the world through the vote and the almighty dollar. It comes with not voting for the "lessor of two evils" but rather voting for the right man (or woman) for the job.

Immie

Are you French by chance..seems ya own a white flag. I promise you we could win.

[Immanuel]

Are you French by chance..seems ya own a white flag. I promise you we could win.

Oui Oui :lol:

Hell no, I'm not French... in fact, as far as I know I don't have a drop of French blood in me.

As for the white flag you think I own, where did I say anything about surrender? I don't think I did. Nope, I never did. However, I don't think the Revolutionary Army decided over night to pick up arms and boot King George (it was George, wasn't it?) and his hearty band of soldiers in the arse and send them packing. The victorious General plans his victory first; then goes to war. The defeated General goes to war first; then plans his victory. Now, where have I heart that before?

Anyway, despite your well intentioned promises, I don't think such a "war" would be successful and I sure as hell believe that it would be bad for this country.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

Something tells me that the founding fathers never anticipated the eventuality of assault weapons, tanks, chemical weapons, nukes etc. :D While I fully believe in the citizens right to bare arms in order to defend ourselves against an oppressive government, I don't think today's citizens would stand a snowball's chance in Hell against an out of control government. It was one thing when everyone was limited to muskets. But "muskets" against tanks? Like that saying says, "Never bring a sword to a gunfight".

Immie

Our forefathers believed in the citizenry owning the best individual weapons known at the time so they could, if necessary, fight off a tyrannical government. Under the circumstances, it doesn't matter what they did or did not foresee in terms of particular weaponry.

[Mr. P]

Oui Oui :lol:

Hell no, I'm not French... in fact, as far as I know I don't have a drop of French blood in me.

As for the white flag you think I own, where did I say anything about surrender? I don't think I did. Nope, I never did. However, I don't think the Revolutionary Army decided over night to pick up arms and boot King George (it was George, wasn't it?) and his hearty band of soldiers in the arse and send them packing. The victorious General plans his victory first; then goes to war. The defeated General goes to war first; then plans his victory. Now, where have I heart that before?

Anyway, despite your well intentioned promises, I don't think such a "war" would be successful and I sure as hell believe that it would be bad for this country.

Immie

My promise stands, we could win. You feel it would be futile to to even fight ergo the white flag french thing.

[manu1959]

Leave the "fighting off of bad guys" to duly appointed law enforcement officers.
Once again, there is no reason why any person should own an assault rifle. They serve no practical purpose.

police won't save you....they will notify your next of kin and call the morgue.....if you have an assult rifle they will provide that service to the criminals family......

[My Winter Storm]

like Immie says what about hunting? just because you aren't for it doesn't mean that I have to stop. Plus what about collectors? Some guns happen to look very nice and others like to check them out. should they stop that hobby too? i think deaths from doctors are higher than deaths from guns. haha

Collecting is fine, I have no problem with that. Hunting is another thing. You want a gun so you can hunt an kill an animal that has done nothing to you?

Sorry, I ain't for it.

[stephanie]

Collecting is fine, I have no problem with that. Hunting is another thing. You want a gun so you can hunt an kill an animal that has done nothing to you?

Sorry, I ain't for it.

so what do you plan on doing with all those cute little animals when they overpopulate?

[manu1959]

Collecting is fine, I have no problem with that. Hunting is another thing. You want a gun so you can hunt an kill an animal that has done nothing to you?

Sorry, I ain't for it.

everything you eat has done nothing to you....yet you kill it and eat it.....

[Yurt]

everything you eat has done nothing to you....yet you kill it and eat it.....

care two eggsplain this to me, but go over easy

[-Cp]

Good on him. The only reason people need to own a gun is for self defence. Other than that, there is no reason to even want one.

Once again - does anyone GIVE A DAMN - what someone in another country has to say about OUR laws here? I mean.. really?

[-Cp]

Fyi.. the "definition" of an Assault Weapon under the ban:

<p><a name="Definition_of_assault_weapon" id="Definition_of_assault_weapon"></a></p>
<h2></span> <span class="mw-headline">Definition of assault weapon</span></h2>
<dl>
<dd><i>Note: there are differing definitions of 'assault weapon' that are listed at <a href="/wiki/Assault_weapon" title="Assault weapon">Assault weapon</a>. This page refers to the usage in the United States under the previous and proposed assault weapon bans.</i></dd>
</dl>
<p>The term "assault weapon" in the context of civilian rifles has been attributed to gun-control activist <a href="/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann" title="Josh Sugarmann">Josh Sugarmann</a>. <a href="/wiki/Assault_weapon" title="Assault weapon">Assault weapon</a> refers to semi-automatic firearms (that is, firearms that, when fired, automatically extract the spent casing and load the next round into the chamber, ready to fire again and not fire automatically like a machine gun) that were developed from earlier fully-automatic weapons. By former U.S. law the legal term <i>assault weapon</i> included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt <a href="/wiki/AR-15" title="AR-15">AR-15</a>, <a href="/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G36" title="Heckler &amp; Koch G36">H&amp;K G36E</a>, <a href="/wiki/Intratec_TEC-DC9" title="Intratec TEC-DC9">TEC-9</a>, all non-automatic <a href="/wiki/AK-47" title="AK-47">AK-47s</a>, and <a href="/w/index.php?title=Uzi_style_guns&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink =1" class="new" title="Uzi style guns (page does not exist)">Uzis</a>) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of features from the following list of features:</p>
<div class="thumb tright">
<div class="thumbinner" style="width:302px;"><a href="/wiki/File:Zastava_M70AB2_with_folded_stock_Hunter_la5.J PG" class="image" title="A semi-automatic AK-47 rifle."><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Zastava_M70AB2_with_folded_stock_Hunter_la5.JPG/300px-Zastava_M70AB2_with_folded_stock_Hunter_la5.JPG" width="300" height="142" border="0" class="thumbimage" /></a>
<div class="thumbcaption">
<div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:Zastava_M70AB2_with_folded_stock_Hunter_la5.J PG" class="internal" title="Enlarge"><img src="/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png" width="15" height="11" alt="" /></a></div>
A semi-automatic <a href="/wiki/AK-47" title="AK-47">AK-47</a> rifle.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="thumb tright">
<div class="thumbinner" style="width:302px;"><a href="/wiki/File:Kg99.jpg" class="image" title="An Intratec AB-10 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law."><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/33/Kg99.jpg/300px-Kg99.jpg" width="300" height="256" border="0" class="thumbimage" /></a>
<div class="thumbcaption">
<div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:Kg99.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"><img src="/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png" width="15" height="11" alt="" /></a></div>
An Intratec AB-10 with 32-round magazine; a semi-automatic pistol formerly classified as an Assault Weapon under Federal Law.</div>
</div>
</div>
<dl>
<dd>Semi-automatic <a href="/wiki/Rifle" title="Rifle">rifles</a> able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>Folding stock</li>
<li>Conspicuous <a href="/wiki/Pistol_grip" title="Pistol grip">pistol grip</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Bayonet" title="Bayonet">Bayonet</a> mount</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Flash_suppressor" title="Flash suppressor">Flash suppressor</a>, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one</li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Grenade_launcher" title="Grenade launcher">Grenade launcher</a> (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of <a href="/wiki/Rifle_grenade" title="Rifle grenade">rifle grenades</a>)</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>Semi-automatic <a href="/wiki/Pistol" title="Pistol" class="mw-redirect">pistols</a> with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip</li>
<li>Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or <a href="/wiki/Suppressor" title="Suppressor">silencer</a></li>
<li><a href="/wiki/Barrel_shroud" title="Barrel shroud">Barrel shroud</a> that can be used as a hand-hold</li>
<li>Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4*kg) or more</li>
<li>A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>Semi-automatic <a href="/wiki/Shotgun" title="Shotgun">shotguns</a> with two or more of the following:</dd>
</dl>
<dl>
<dd>
<ul>
<li>Folding or telescoping stock</li>
<li>Pistol grip</li>
<li>Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds</li>
<li>Detachable magazine</li>
</ul>
</dd>
</dl>
<p>The earlier term <a href="/wiki/Assault_rifle" title="Assault rifle">assault rifle</a>, refers to rifles that are select-fire (that is, rifles that are capable of either semi-automatic or fully-automatic fire), firing intermediate-power rounds (such as the 5.56*x*45*mm NATO, or 7.62*x*39*mm), which along with fully automatic pistols, provided the pre-cursor for the term "assault weapon." In contrast, the term <i>assault weapon</i> as used in civilian and U.S. legal usage refers to a <i><a href="/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm" title="Semi-automatic firearm">semi-automatic</a></i> weapon with certain features, as listed above. The ban did not cover "assault rifles" but merely the new category of "assault weapons" which did not include automatic weapons of any type.</p>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[Immanuel]

Our forefathers believed in the citizenry owning the best individual weapons known at the time so they could, if necessary, fight off a tyrannical government. Under the circumstances, it doesn't matter what they did or did not foresee in terms of particular weaponry.

I didn't say it mattered? Did I? I only said, that they had not foreseen the changes in weaponry that was coming along. Nor, did I say that the idea was not to fight off a tyrannical government. That is what I believe the entire point of the 2nd Amendment is for.

What I said, was that in today's world, the citizenry are outgunned and such an endeavour is nothing short of foolhardy. First and foremost, the citizens would never be able to work as a cohesive unit. There would be too many chiefs and no (not not enough) no indians. Despite Mr. P's promises, it would be doomed to fail from the get go.


My promise stands, we could win. You feel it would be futile to to even fight ergo the white flag french thing.

No, white flag coming from me. It is much as I said regarding the Iraqi war. I never once called for surrender on our part or a seccession of hostilities. Rather a new plan of attack. We cannot defeat an enemy we can't find. That was the problem with the Viet Nam war and that is the problem with the Iraqi War.

In the hypothetical idea of a revolt by the Citizens of the U.S., I didn't say that we should surrender, I said a different plan of attack would be necessary. Buffing up and playing Rambo would result in a massacre. Using the government's power against itself would be the better way to go about this.

Immie

[bullypulpit]

<blockquote>Holder conceded during the hearing that last summer's Supreme Court decision in Heller was a "very significant opinion" that recognized the Second Amendment as protecting individual rights and limited the government's ability to impose gun control laws. Holder says that, should he be confirmed, his actions "will be guided by that Supreme Court decision."</blockquote>

It's called <i>stare decisis</i>..."to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled". But y'all keep grasping at straws...It'll keep you out of the way of real progress.

As for assault weapons, Personally, I don't need an AK-47 on full auto and a 30 round clip to take down a deer. My old Remington Model 700 .270 does the job. One shot...one kill.

[DragonStryk72]

Good on him. The only reason people need to own a gun is for self defence. Other than that, there is no reason to even want one.

Actually that's inaccurate. Professional hunters use them for their basic livelihood (Personally, I'm vastly better with a simple bow & arrow, but I'm sort of an oddball anyhow), so right there, that's one more use. Then you have the people who live in the boonies who still have to contend with the less friendly of god's creatures at times.

Then you have groups like Blackwater, which, being a mercenary company (not saying whether they're good or bad, folks, just that they exist), require an odd assortment of military grade weapons. Then, let's not forget, there are the militias, which are most usually armed by the people within them.

Then of course there's the criminals, and they want the guns precisely because other people tend not to have them, and they don't really care about any of the laws that are on the books, or will be on the books. They'll simply obtain them illegally in a myriad assortment of ways.

You are too quick to judge the people who are obtaining these firearms legally, assuming that obviously they must be up to no good. The ones who are up to no good are buying the ones with the serial numbers scratched off of them, and they're buying them from people in the street. they're the problem people, not the registered gun owners, whose firearms and bullets are all easily traceable.

I also guarantee that the vast majority of accidents that occur with firearms, occur when people are unaware of the responsibilities of owning and operating a gun.

[5stringJeff]

It's called <i>stare decisis</i>..."to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled". But y'all keep grasping at straws...It'll keep you out of the way of real progress.

As for assault weapons, Personally, I don't need an AK-47 on full auto and a 30 round clip to take down a deer. My old Remington Model 700 .270 does the job. One shot...one kill.

Stare decisis is not irrefutable. If it was, blacks would still be sitting in "separate but equal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0163_0537_ZS.html)" public facilities as non-citizens (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html).

[darin]

I've had a change of heart. I see what Gabby is saying. Things that are dangerous should have NO PLACE in our society - at least no place among the general population.

Knives kill a LOT of people. Frankly, we should restrict knives. Instead of Chopping our own onions, we should set the onion on the cutting block, then wait for the Chefs to show up and prepare the dinner. After all, THEY are TRAINED to handle such dangerous weapons. AND - seriously - NOBODY 'NEEDS' a knife. We don't. That's why we have teeth.

Come to think of it, we should have the Gov't collect our Cars too. Cars are DANGEROUS. Cars kill THOUSANDS every year. If we want to go somewhere, we should call and wait for the Police to drive us. They are TRAINED to operate Cars.

Sexually-transmitted diseases kill and infect thousands each year. Instead of having sex, we should simply call the Emergency Masturbatory Technicians (EMTs) and have THEM stimulate us to satisfaction. EMTs are TRAINED to protect and treat the health of the population

[bullypulpit]

I've had a change of heart. I see what Gabby is saying. Things that are dangerous should have NO PLACE in our society - at least no place among the general population.

Knives kill a LOT of people. Frankly, we should restrict knives. Instead of Chopping our own onions, we should set the onion on the cutting block, then wait for the Chefs to show up and prepare the dinner. After all, THEY are TRAINED to handle such dangerous weapons. AND - seriously - NOBODY 'NEEDS' a knife. We don't. That's why we have teeth.

Come to think of it, we should have the Gov't collect our Cars too. Cars are DANGEROUS. Cars kill THOUSANDS every year. If we want to go somewhere, we should call and wait for the Police to drive us. They are TRAINED to operate Cars.

Sexually-transmitted diseases kill and infect thousands each year. Instead of having sex, we should simply call the Emergency Masturbatory Technicians (EMTs) and have THEM stimulate us to satisfaction. EMTs are TRAINED to protect and treat the health of the population

Gun control means using both hands.

[Hobbit]

As for assault weapons, Personally, I don't need an AK-47 on full auto and a 30 round clip to take down a deer. My old Remington Model 700 .270 does the job. One shot...one kill.

What if a gang decides to take over your neighborhood and there's more than one of them? You can call 911 and give the police as much information as you can so they can track down your murderer or you can take the second amendment at face value and blow those delinquents away.

[Immanuel]

What if a gang decides to take over your neighborhood and there's more than one of them? You can call 911 and give the police as much information as you can so they can track down your murderer or you can take the second amendment at face value and blow those delinquents away.

Wrong!

Then you have violated their constitutional rights and we all know that under a liberal society criminals are afforded more rights than law abiding citizens. :poke:

Not to mention that unless they were physically threatening you at the time you pulled the trigger, you have committed murder. ;)

Immie

[bullypulpit]

What if a gang decides to take over your neighborhood and there's more than one of them? You can call 911 and give the police as much information as you can so they can track down your murderer or you can take the second amendment at face value and blow those delinquents away.

Browning Hi-Power, 13 in the clip and one in the hole. But given that your scenario is about as likely as the "ticking time-bomb and torture" scenario, it's a moot point.

[Hobbit]

Browning Hi-Power, 13 in the clip and one in the hole. But given that your scenario is about as likely as the "ticking time-bomb and torture" scenario, it's a moot point.

Near Six Flags Atlanta, a guy who was completely unrelated to any gang got beaten half to death by 20 gang members. Just because you don't think it can happen to you doesn't mean you need to make a law against somebody else stopping it from happening to them.

[manu1959]

Near Six Flags Atlanta, a guy who was completely unrelated to any gang got beaten half to death by 20 gang members. Just because you don't think it can happen to you doesn't mean you need to make a law against somebody else stopping it from happening to them.

looks like bully would have come up 6 rounds short.....

[DragonStryk72]

oh and i will have to agree with Steph, since the ruling on the 2nd, i think that they will go after ammo since they will think that if you limit that it will make everything better.

so when are they gonna start making us register your pocket knives?

That's just so close to a Chris Rock routine, though

[DragonStryk72]

The entire problem with the Gun Control concept, which does come from a good idea (planes are good ideas, but if you look at our trying to fly originally, a good idea with unsound basis really doesn't help much of anything), is that you are "protecting" the law-abiding citizens from the dangerous criminals.... except that the dangerous criminals don't give two shits about gun control, and just get their shit on the black market anyhow.

[DragonStryk72]

Second, I'm not arguing for the banning of weapons either. I simply don't think the citizens of the U.S. could come together enough to rebel against the government. The basic problem there would be coming together as a cohesive unit.


Actually, you'd be surprised, that is usually the only time we do come together, is when everything's gone completely to shit, like with 9/11, and again, oddly enough with Katrina. In the aftermath of 9/11, people were not only giving more blood than the hospitals or red cross could hold onto, but mass number of people helped clear the wreckage, even when they were pulling out bodyparts as often as not.

After Katrina, many people actually moved TO New Orleans to help with the rebuilding effort, and stayed there through all the various things that went wrong. People see us argue most the time, and they assume we must not be able to pull it together, but really, we're surprisingly good at it.

[Monkeybone]

That's just so close to a Chris Rock routine, though

lol i remember that. but sadly there are people that take to heart/as a good idea and are wither trying to get the price raised, limit how much you can buy or make you have a liscenes to buy one.

[Immanuel]

Actually, you'd be surprised, that is usually the only time we do come together, is when everything's gone completely to shit, like with 9/11, and again, oddly enough with Katrina. In the aftermath of 9/11, people were not only giving more blood than the hospitals or red cross could hold onto, but mass number of people helped clear the wreckage, even when they were pulling out bodyparts as often as not.

After Katrina, many people actually moved TO New Orleans to help with the rebuilding effort, and stayed there through all the various things that went wrong. People see us argue most the time, and they assume we must not be able to pull it together, but really, we're surprisingly good at it.

Those are different scenarios than it would take to put together a coup. Sure, there are a lot of good hearted people who came to help after 9/11 and Katrina, but that is completely different than putting together a band of mercenaries to bring about change in the U.S.

As much as I would like to see change, violence is not the way to bring about that change.

Immie

[Abbey Marie]

Violence gave us our country, and ended slavery.

[johnney]

Remember Gabby

"When Seconds Count, the Police are Only Minutes Away"

:

this here is about the most no bullshit post I have seen in a while. I leave the personal safety of my wife and I to me.
why would someone want to own an assulat style weapon? well lets spin it another way, why would someone want to own a multi million dollar sports car? or house? or anything expensive they think they need?
hell why dont we ban cars too? they are just as apt to jump up and kill someone just as well as a firearm could.