8
   

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:02 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Well there are thousands of reason NickFun...one of them is that body armor is legal, and thus it can be used by people meaning to harm me or my family.


Better watch out for those Ninja commandos, they might getcha!

Rolling Eyes

Why don't you just admit that you like shooting big guns at things, for whatever psychologically revealing reason? That's the reason people want stuff like this. For fun.

Cycloptichorn
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:04 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

You aren't extending something if that something had expired.


Nor are you creating something new.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:05 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

You can't extend something that has ceased to exist.


It isn't a new creation either. Resurrection maybe. Yeah, that's it. Resurrection. Smile
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:06 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Well there are thousands of reason NickFun...one of them is that body armor is legal, and thus it can be used by people meaning to harm me or my family.


Perhaps a perfect reason for a ban.
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:07 pm
I am completely in favor of the Assault Weapons Ban (new or old). One reason is the effect American weapons have on the drug war in Mexico (and Latin America in general).

Americans give drug dealers money in exchange for drugs. The dealers funnel this our money to the drug cartels. The drug cartels use this money to buy automatic weapons which are gladly supplied by American gun dealers.

The results-- murder and violence on both sides of the border. American gun dealers are making great profits exporting the tools needed by some of the worst people alive to spread terror and death-- both in the US and out.

maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:07 pm
@Intrepid,
Well that would depend on what changes he would propose.

Is this ban something our Congress would have to pass first?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:10 pm
@Intrepid,
Not sure how your logic worked there; care to explain?
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Do I enjoy shooting? Sure. It's a challenging sport that also provides a useful skill. This is the same reason I plan on learning archery.

Regardless, my reason are my reasons, and since and while the weapons are currently legal, well, I'll exercise my rights.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:15 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Do I enjoy shooting? Sure. It's a challenging sport that also provides a useful skill. This is the same reason I plan on learning archery.

Regardless, my reason are my reasons, and since and while the weapons are currently legal, well, I'll exercise my rights.


Don't get me wrong; I enjoy shooting as well. But you could make the same arguments about a bazooka. I'd love to have one and shoot one. I think it would be a blast, literally. But I'm glad I can't own one.

I took archery in school and used to be good, now I suck. It was definitely fun, you can hunt with it, hell you can even fight pretty well with it once you get fast at reloading. But it's hard to see you doing mass damage with one. So I have no problem with bows & arrows, even though they are very deadly weapons.

Cycloptichorn
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Well you can use your same arguments (going the other way) to ban all guns can't you Cyclops? Oh, except for that damned 2nd amendment. Shoot, maybe we can ratify that out someday.
0 Replies
 
candide
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:22 pm
Assault rifles are for mowing down people. We will need them to mow down all the fucked up people not for hunting.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:26 pm
@Intrepid,
Quote:
Extending something and creating something are two entirely different things.


How about we extent slavery (which expired during Lincoln's administration)?? Logic is identical.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:29 pm
@ebrown p,
You fix the drug/weapon problem by eliminating the "war on drugs(TM)", and not by rescinding the bill of rights.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:35 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Extending something and creating something are two entirely different things.


How about we extent slavery (which expired during Lincoln's administration)?? Logic is identical.


Extending slavery is a bad thing. Extending a ban on lethal assault weapons is a good thing. Perspective and common sense have to come into play at some point.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 08:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I am surprised, as I didn't think he was going to do this. And I still don't think that it will come to fruition.


If it does happen, I'll never vote for a Democrat again.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 10:01 pm
@maporsche,
Well, the Republican party didn't offer you much choice this time around. McCain may have been better on the issue, but only marginally so.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Feb, 2009 10:04 pm
@NickFun,
NickFun wrote:

Someone please tell me what an AR15 can do that a standard hunting rifle can't? You can use a handgun at home and a rifle for hunting. Why do you need something that will pierce armor?


Too right! Handguns are designed for defense. Rifles are offensive weapons. Notice that infantrymen are issued rifles, not handguns.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 12:55 am
@Intrepid,
There are four basic reasons for the second ammendment in the United States.

Every one of the founding fathers is on record to the effect that private
ownership of firearms, the 2'nd ammendment, is there as a final bulwark against
the possibility of government going out of control. That is the most major
reason for it.

At the time of the revolution and for years afterwards, there were private
armies, private ownership of cannons and warships. . . The term "letters of
marque, and reprisal" which you read in the constitution indicates the notion of
the government issuing a sort of a hunting license to the owner of a private
warship to take English or other foreign national ships on the high seas, i.e.
to either capture or sink them. The idea of you or me owning a Vepr or FAL rifle
with a 30-round magazine is not likely to have bothered any of those people.

The problem with drug-dealers owning AKs is a drug problem and not a gun
problem. Fix the drug-problem, i.e. get rid of the insane war on drugs and pass
a rational set of drug laws, and both problems will simply go away. A rational
set of drug laws would:

1. Legalize marijuana and all its derivatives and anything else demonstrably no
more harmful than booze on the same basis as booze.
2. Declare that heroine, crack cocaine, and other highly addictive substances
would never be legally sold on the streets, but that those addicted could shoot
up at government centers for the fifty-cent cost of producing the stuff, i.e.
take every dime out of that business for criminals.
3. Provide a lifetime in prison for selling LSD, PCP, and other Jeckyl/Hyde
formulas.
4. Same for anybody selling any kind of drugs to kids.

Do all of that, and the drug problem, the gun problem, and 70% of all urban
crime will vanish within two years.

But I digress. The 2'nd ammendment is there as a final bulwark against our own
government going out of control. It is also there as a bulwark against any
foreign invasion which our own military might not be able to stop.

Admiral Yamamoto, when asked by the Japanese general staff about the possibility
of invading the American homeland, replied that there were fifty million
lunatics in this country who owned military style weaponry, and that there would
be "a rifle behind every blade of grass". This apparently bothered him a great
deal more than the 200,000 or so guys in uniform prior to the war.

A third obvious reason for private ownership of firearms is to protect yourself
and your family from criminals and wild animals.

And there's a fourth reason for the 2'nd ammendment, which is to provide the
people with food during bad economic times. When you listen to people from New
York and from Texas talk about the depression of the 30's, you hear two totally
different stories. The people in New York will tell you about people starving
and eating garbage, and running around naked. The Texans (and others from more
rural areas and places in which laws and customs had remained closer to those
which the founding fathers envisioned) will tell you that while money was
scarce, they always had 22 and 30 calibre ammunition, and that they always had
something to eat, even if it was just some jackrabbit.

Eating is habit forming. In any sort of a down economic situation, that fourth rationale
for the second amendment quickly becomes the most important.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 06:26 am
@maporsche,
Quote:
Well there are thousands of reason NickFun...one of them is that body armor is legal, and thus it can be used by people meaning to harm me or my family.


An M16 might shoot through the cheapest kinds of body armor but shooting through armor or metal is not the M16's forte particularly with the 60 grain bullets the thing normally shoots.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 Feb, 2009 09:29 am
@gungasnake,
Yeah, that's true too.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Demand a plan - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/20/2022 at 02:51:07