Obama backs assault weapons ban

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/...ica/index.html

Straight from the horse's mouth.

Quote:

---

"I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment right in our Constitution -- the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners that want to keep their families safe -- to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know here in Mexico, are used to fuel violence," Obama said.

---

I'm still waiting for one of the democratic jackasses to tell me where I can buy a grenade launcher, grenades, and full auto weapons.

There really isn't a way to defend banning what they call "assault" weapons. Just because it scary-looking means nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by braeden0613

There really isn't a way to defend banning what they call "assault" weapons. Just because it scary-looking means nothing.

---

Just shows how stupid people can be.

All weapons can be used to assault.

Not to mention they're still using that stupid stat about 90% of the guns being traced to the U.S., when there was another 30,000 recovered that they didn't submit to our law enforcement because they came from elsewhere.

Lame.

Why is Obama such a pussy when it comes to guns?

As surprising as it may be to many of you, I disagree with Obama's idea about this. I think the simple fact is they feel that they stand to be criticized if they do nothing, as we have so much gun violence in this country.

But most of it is committed with a very simple weapon -- a 9 mm handgun.

Fine, just buy the AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16. It's not automatic.

Every American should own a muzzle-loading musket.

I think we should let every woman and child carry a gun so we can create a utopian society. With everyone owning a gun we can eliminate mass shootings!

I don't have a problem with it.

The guys over at Magpul Dynamics produce some awesome videos.

I'm guessing this is a dogwhistle for the Democrats, but maybe Obama believes this. One way or another, I disagree, as I've stated before. If you want to buy a tank and equip it with rocket launchers, feel free. I AM ok with sensible background checks for weapons greater than pistols/rifles, and am ambivalent towards background checks for any firearm.

I'm afraid people will upgrade their weapons from assault guns to tanks and armed helicopters, after the economy recovers and makes people richer than before. Then the government will have more reasons to peel dollars from tax payers, under the name of "fixing the roads that may be raked by the tanks".

http://www.bartcop.com/wow-we-sell-fear.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

I don't have a problem with it.

---

you wouldn't have a problem if Obama told you to wipe your ass with your hand only.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

you wouldn't have a problem if Obama told you to wipe your ass with your hand only.

---

:lmao Hey, I don't agree with everything Obama does or thinks but I have no reason to own an assault weapon so it doesn't bother me and your right to bear arms is not infringed, IMO.

I am curious. What are so-called "assault weapons" good for? What is it you hope to accomplish with one that you can't accomplish with something lesser?

IMO, there needs to be a line between what weapons are allowed and what weapons are not. I don't think we want nuclear weapons for sale. Whether "assault weapons" is the right line is debatable. I am curious about what other people think about where the line should be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurster

I am curious. What are so-called "assault weapons" good for? What is it you hope to accomplish with one that you can't accomplish with something lesser?

IMO, there needs to be a line between what weapons are allowed and what weapons are not. I don't think we want nuclear weapons for sale. Whether "assault weapons" is the right line is debatable. I am curious about what other people think about where the line should be.

---

I could say the same thing about stamps, model trains, knives, cars, or just about anything a person could collect. It's a matter of personal preference and satisfaction in the craftsmanship of the item. Firing an AR-15 or an AK-47 is a unique experience, as well. And if your response is that, "Well, a person could commit a ghastly crime with an assault weapon", consider how much damage someone could do if they decided to speed down a New York sidewalk in a stolen Hummer, or rip down through crowds on the Magnificent Mile in Chicago in an old heavy junked out truck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurster

I am curious. What are so-called "assault weapons" good for? What is it you hope to accomplish with one that you can't accomplish with something lesser?

IMO, there needs to be a line between what weapons are allowed and what weapons are not. I don't think we want nuclear weapons for sale. Whether "assault weapons" is the right line is debatable. I am curious about what other people think about where the line should be.

---

I'll draw the line at weapons that you'll need a plane to use. :) Say, smartbombs, cluster submunitions, nukes.

And I guess I'll rule out ICBMs too.

johnny is treating us with some awesome p'shops

Keep them coming :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obama

"I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second Amendment right in our Constitution -- the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners that want to keep their families safe -- to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we know here in Mexico, are used to fuel violence."

---

Fucking bullshit. Our appetite for drugs and our stupid prohibition against them that makes their import so lucrative is what fuels violence in Mexico. As for respecting the 2nd Amendment, an "assault-rifle" ban shits all over it. The 2nd Amendment is meant to be a check-and-balance for the people against authority. God, I hate political doublespeak. In an era where you have cops shooting unarmed innocents in the back in Oakland and Houston and robbing people in Vidor because of their skin color, Washington robbing us blind to give to Enron, Halliburton, AIG, Citi, Goldman-Sachs, and so on, authority should be scared of the people; not the other way around. The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves hearing how this country is taking away our first ammendment rights (see Max Hardcore's incarceration), trying to take away our second (and succeeding already in the case of automatic weapons), and trying to turn our nation into a theocracy (Bush, Palin, Jindal, etc.). It's insane to give up our rights for alleged security here, just like it was when Bush jerked us all around with the Patriot Act.

losing issue.

Why politicians don't understand this I'll never understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurster

I am curious. What are so-called "assault weapons" good for? What is it you hope to accomplish with one that you can't accomplish with something lesser?

IMO, there needs to be a line between what weapons are allowed and what weapons are not. I don't think we want nuclear weapons for sale. Whether "assault weapons" is the right line is debatable. I am curious about what other people think about where the line should be.

---

Ever run into a POed feral hog when out hunting? If so, you'd have all the reason you'd need to have one. Staring down a charging feral hog knowing you've got 4 shells in the tube to deal with it sucks.

And frankly, sometimes it's just fun to go shoot one. Sorry that's lost on you, but some people want to watch TV, some play video games, some drink, some smoke, some of us have fun going out and hanging up targets and taking a little target practice...

The funny thing is you and others apparently can't distinguish between the semi-auto lookalikes that are being villainized and the military grade auto weapons that are being used in the majority of the violent acts in Mexico.

You pull the trigger on one of these 'evil' assault weapons, you get one 'bang'. That's it. You have to pull the trigger each time to you want to discharge a round. But they look evil, and getting them banned sets the precedent among the anit-gunners that can be used to further ban additional guns through the court system. The Brady group has laid it out clearly, and has a close ally in Obama and another in his AG.

Ban these evil looking ones, then they can go after all semi-auto weapons (including hand guns) because they have the same rate of fire as the 'banned' assault weapons, and the courts have already ruled those illegal.

The progression continues until all firearms are banned.

But as others have already noted, the second amendment wasn't authored so I could go out and take down a feral hog, or defend my home in the case of a home invasion or buglary attempt.

It was enumerated so the people in this country have a check on out of control federal government, which is becoming more and more of a reality every day.

If I want to protect my family I've got plenty of firepower to choose from not to mention I'm one bad ass mofo.

Quote:

---

It was enumerated so the people in this country have a check on out of control federal government, which is becoming more and more of a reality every day.

---

I thought the 2nd Amendment was primarily a matter of military expedience, and that the US Constitution was supposed to establish a strong central government. My bad.

I don't consider *out of control government* a novelty so your ominous emphasis on its daily accretion is somewhat lost on me.

Heller established an individualized right to bear arms for the first time, but the courts have not upheld an absolute right so far, so the door to reestablishing the *assault weapons* ban is still open. I agree that it will suck if the ban is reestablished, but I have to laugh at your suggestion that
*assault weapons* in the possession of US citizenry would much deter the determined force of the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

Ever run into a POed feral hog when out hunting? If so, you'd have all the reason you'd need to have one. Staring down a charging feral hog knowing you've got 4 shells in the tube to deal with it sucks.

And frankly, sometimes it's just fun to go shoot one. Sorry that's lost on you, but some people want to watch TV, some play video games, some drink, some smoke, some of us have fun going out and hanging up targets and taking a little target practice...

The funny thing is you and others apparently can't distinguish between the semi-auto lookalikes that are being villainized and the military grade auto weapons that are being used in the majority of the violent acts in Mexico.

You pull the trigger on one of these 'evil' assault weapons, you get one 'bang'. That's it. You have to pull the trigger each time to you want to discharge a round. But they look evil, and getting them banned sets the precedent among the anit-gunners that can be used to further ban additional guns through the court system. The Brady group has laid it out clearly, and has a close ally in Obama and another in his AG.

Ban these evil looking ones, then they can go after all semi-auto weapons (including hand guns) because they have the same rate of fire as the 'banned' assault weapons, and the courts have already ruled those illegal.

The progression continues until all firearms are banned.

But as others have already noted, the second amendment wasn't authored so I could go out and take down a feral hog, or defend my home in the case of a home invasion or buglary attempt.

It was enumerated so the people in this country have a check on out of control federal government, which is becoming more and more of a reality every day.

---

:lol at what you think I'm lost on.

Reading into your comment, I would guess you would draw the line between semi-automatic and automatic weapons. [I know that you can own machine guns with a special license; I suppose that applies to automatics in general.]

I thought one of the problems with "assault weapons" is that they can be easily converted into automatic weapons. I am curious if that is true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spurster

:lol at what you think I'm lost on.

Reading into your comment, I would guess you would draw the line between semi-automatic and automatic weapons. [I know that you can own machine guns with a special license; I suppose that applies to automatics in general.]

I thought one of the problems with "assault weapons" is that they can be easily converted into automatic weapons. I am curious if that is true.

---

Correct, you can own auto weapons, but you have to go through everything short of a cavity search from the BATF to get the proper licensing (and pay like a $2500 licensing stamp fee for each weapon).

It's not easy to convert a semi to full auto. When they initially banned full auto weapon manufacturing, they worked with the manufacturers to resize parts in the critical areas necessary for the full auto mechanism to do its thing.

You'd have to be able to run down the parts to do it, or have enough machinery and expertise to custom build the parts yourself. In the case of the former (finding the parts), you'd still have to go through the same virtual cavity search from BATF. Some argue there's a black market for the equipment, but frankly, if you're going to that length a gun ban isn't going to stop you any way.

Same thing for machining the parts yourself. You're talking precision building components, some the size of a paper clip, that if done wrong would result in the gun blowing up in your face when you pull the trigger.

Again, the semi-autos that the anti-gunners hate that look like an M16 (the AR-15) or the AK-47 (WASR-10s and so forth) are one trigger pull, one bullet.

But the progression for the Brady Group and the anti-gunners like Rahm and Obama are that they can go after these weapons because they look evil to the uneducated (they don't realize they're semi-auto, so the anti-gunners equate them to the US military's M16 and the various foreign AK-47 users). Then when they get those banned, they can turn around and go after semi-auto hand guns because they use the same mechanisms and have the same firing capacity (x number of rounds per minute - never mind you'd have to change the magazine somewhere in there) as the already banned semi-auto rifles.

They also want to ban anything that has a magazine, under the argument that people don't need a gun that can shoot multiple rounds (because no one ever misses in a firefight :rolleyes). This idiotic argument is advanced even when studies show that the pros (cops, SWAT) on average only have one of every four rounds they fire in a firefight actually hit the target...

From there, we're down to revolvers and shotguns and hunting rifles. But their progression is that after the semi-autos are banned, they can say ban revolvers and rifles and shotguns that allow for multiple shots (which would be pretty much everything left). So then we're left with single shot rifles and shotguns. Hooray for the second amendment.

You don't need to have an assault weapon to be able drop someone dead cold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

You don't need to have an assault weapon to be able drop someone dead cold.

---

An assault weapon is no more deadly than any other firearm you can legally purchase in this country...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeChalupa

You don't need to have an assault weapon to be able drop someone dead cold.

---

i agree. didn't that sunday school teacher use a suitcase to kill that kid. save yourselves samsonite!!!!