White House: Reinstating 'Assault' Weapons Ban to Prevent Terrorism is Common Sense

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: forkedtongue

So explain to me why americans are buying guns in a record sales since obama is in office, cant be the fear mongers that tell us we will die on a daily basis.

I still stand by what i said obama is the greatest gun seller in the usa.

Yes he is, but not for the reason you think.

It isn't because he wants to sell more guns, it is because he wants to take them.

How is that not obvious?

Every other day he is on camera saying " enough is enough, it is time to restrict guns".

Only this time he is proposing it by a list that the left has argued is unconstitutional many times.

Until now that he wants to use it to take guns, now they love it.

originally posted by: introvert
I'm confused. In the other thread, which you quickly left after being exposed, you were ok with gun confiscation for Muslims and mosques, but now you get upset at the White House suggesting an assault weapons ban?

You're not very consistent.

On the other hand, Obama is very consistent. He's been caught red handed in a whole bunch of lies and deliberate deceptions. I have learned that when Obama opens his mouth you always have to read between the lines. The man is just fundamentally dishonest. Which is the most basic skill for a politician. But more than that, guys like Obama are so good at it they probably don't even recognize what they're doing. They don't even know it when they're lying.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Freedom of movement is a constitutional right. And it is a guaranteed right much like the 2nd A.

Not for immigrants trying to enter the country it isnt.

Because I am a fair person, let's consider a trade. 2nd Amendment in exchange for the debt being zeroed out and the death penalty with no trial or appeal for all elected and appointed officials should we go so much as one penny back into debt for any reason?

Or maybe a gun exchange for tactical nukes. I am open to options here. Seems a fair deal to me.

a reply to: buster2010

In June 1995, Congress enacted legislation requiring chemical taggants to be incorporated into dynamite and other explosives so that a bomb could be traced to its manufacturer.[197

en.wikipedia.org...

As I said:

They already have. That's why during the 90s ammonia nitrate chemical composition was changed.

a reply to: SpaDe_

True but in the recent past they have enacted laws that restrict that constitutional right, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and the PATRIOT act. You don't see to many U.S constitution advocates fighting for that particular right. To me it just seems odd.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Because I am a fair person, let's consider a trade. 2nd Amendment in exchange for the debt being zeroed out and the death penalty with no trial or appeal for all elected and appointed officials should we go so much as one penny back into debt for any reason?

Or maybe a gun exchange for tactical nukes. I am open to options here. Seems a fair deal to me.

That is the Stone Hammer trap.

A bunch of cave men roaming around. One of them makes a stone hammer and suddenly finds himself the leader because he can bash the brains out of anyone who opposes him. Others see his weapon and decide they want to be leader too. The battle begins. Soon the majority of the clan are dead. The cavemen decide that in the best interests of the clan they will all give up their stone hammers. And just to make sure everyone complies, most of them hide a stone hammer...just in case...

a reply to: neo96

Because Obama has been running his mouth about them.

Obama has done nothing more than that Republican God Reagan did after he was shot.

IF he would stop. So would the sales.

No they won't because he hasn't really done anything it's the NRA and the tools they own in congress that keeps the fear up.

Which means the people don't want draconian laws depriving them of the Life,LIBERTY, and property.

Of which none have happened. According to the brady campaign to prevent gun violence Obama received an F which means he was the best thing to happen to gun owners. The NRA and the gun dealers have done nothing but lie to the American public. The NRA did it to increase their membership and the dealers did it to increase their sales. If Americans did a little research instead of blindly believing BS people would see the truth.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Because I am a fair person, let's consider a trade. 2nd Amendment in exchange for the debt being zeroed out and the death penalty with no trial or appeal for all elected and appointed officials should we go so much as one penny back into debt for any reason?

Or maybe a gun exchange for tactical nukes. I am open to options here. Seems a fair deal to me.

That is the Stone Hammer trap.

A bunch of cave men roaming around. One of them makes a stone hammer and suddenly finds himself the leader because he can bash the brains out of anyone who opposes him. Others see his weapon and decide they want to be leader too. The battle begins. Soon the majority of the clan are dead. The cavemen decide that in the best interests of the clan they will all give up their stone hammers. And just to make sure everyone complies, most of them hide a stone hammer...just in case...

Exactly!

Take a look at the police these days ... "wearing ski masks", both in the US and in Europe. Any parallel with ISIS guys ... anyone?

Why do they wear ski-masks? so you can't identify them.

What does that mean? they're not accountable for their actions ... at least, not to you ... the public.

So, in the end ... you'll be defenseless in the hands of thugs ... thugs, that are there for you protection.

And tomorrow, those THUGS, will be ISIS that have turned home. At least, in some places of the world.

Comforting, ain't it ...

Take a look at the "agenda" of western governments.

The right to defend yourself ... The rebels in Syria have it, the syrian government does not. Turkey has it, Russians don't. ISIS "apparently" has it, their victims don't. Ukraine has it, but the "breakout" republics don't.

So, in future you'll just have to accept it ... you will be defenseless against terrorists. And since "war" is terror ... whose the biggest terrorists around?

So, what is their agenda?

Well, look at the United States ... they had a declaration of rights, where it says every man has the right to bear arms and defend himself. Done so, to ensure that no "entity" could turn the government of the US, into it's "British mad King George" counterpart equivalent.

First, you "behead" the snake ... snake being any movement. And behead, doesn't have to be literally ... you just remove any individuals that show leadership capability. Isolate them, alienate them ... or kill them. What you have left, are a bunch of people with guns ... but no ability to coordinate their effort in a revolution.

Next step, is to take the guns away from them ...

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: SpaDe_

True but in the recent past they have enacted laws that restrict that constitutional right, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and the PATRIOT act. You don't see to many U.S constitution advocates fighting for that particular right. To me it just seems odd.

I don't hear people talking about the Patriot Act ever bring up the FACTS :

The FISA ACT under Carter.

The Omnibus Counterrorism Act in the 90s under Clinton.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995

All three do the same thing.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Then you aren't looking very hard. There are people everywhere that want the Patriot act and others like it that infringe on our rights removed.

a reply to: buster2010

I love the Brady Act. The Exact same thing as the Gun control Act.

Verbatim.

I particularly love this tidbit from the SCOTUS.

In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.

en.wikipedia.org...

But the brown shirts really don't think too much of that piece of paper.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: buster2010

In June 1995, Congress enacted legislation requiring chemical taggants to be incorporated into dynamite and other explosives so that a bomb could be traced to its manufacturer.[197

en.wikipedia.org...

As I said:

They already have. That's why during the 90s ammonia nitrate chemical composition was changed.

Learn how to read the statement you are answering the statement was.

I wonder if they plan to ban all bomb making equipment too.

Of which they have not there are many different types of explosives besides dynamite. So like usual you were wrong again.

a reply to: neo96

Ha, ha, ha, LMAO. You people will be lucky if that's all the Feds do. Between Obama and his presumptive successor, HRC, there will be a full on attempt to confiscate what ever they can and make ammo near out of reach. They WANT you vulnerable, if not dead. Its all part of the agenda. Make everyone in the country, particularly what ever might be left of the middle class, entirely vulnerable. Good luck considering you live in a country with a target painted on it.

Me, I'm looking at Canada.

a reply to: buster2010

Yeah someone does need to learn how to read.

Once AGAIN.

In June 1995, Congress enacted legislation requiring chemical taggants to be incorporated into dynamite and other explosives so that a bomb could be traced to its manufacturer.[197

Detection taggants These are volatile chemicals which will slowly evaporate from the explosive and can be detected in the atmosphere by either detection dogs or specialised machines. Th

en.wikipedia.org...

Good Grief.

a reply to: neo96
Next time fully read your link. Funny how you chose to leave out this part.

However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose. The vast majority continued to do so. In 1998, background checks for firearm purchases became mostly a federally run activity when NICS came online, although many states continue to mandate state run background checks before a gun dealer may transfer a firearm to a buyer.

Don't provide a link when trying to be intellectually dishonest it just makes you look stupid.

a reply to: buster2010

I did read it.

It's unconstitutional but gets upheld anyway.

Funny thing about Scotus trying to have it both ways.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

You missed my entire comment, apparently, where I noted that it has been legislated to be a right, but when I say it's not "guaranteed" I mean that it can be banned and regulated heavily if the government so chooses.

In the 2nd amendment, it was written that is cannot be regulated. Most people don't understand the original, colloquial use of the phrase "well regulated."

a reply to: network dude
My bad. I thought in definitions provided in an earlier thread that assault rifles are classed as semi automatic/fully automatic weapons. I know assault rifles is a false term. I suppose the term being used in this thread is assault weapon so I apologise.
I use the term high powered for all guns to help dramatise my point.

But why doesn't anyone ever address the main point .why do you need more than a basic handgun outside hunting and shooting ranges. No one ever answers. The honest people here admit it's for the love of guns, which I appreciate, but others who claim for defense reasons tend to avoid the point.