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

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

The only people exposed were those people in those MOSQUES with Assault weapons that were ILLEGAL by french law.

The French don't have our Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendment.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Care to stick to it?

Yep. I wouldn't mind a real debate regarding what we can do to try and limit gun deaths in America. However, when the president uses tragedies to try and push an agenda that would do nothing to stop them, he only further polarizes both sides making any compromise even more impossible.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

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."

The second amendment talked about two separate but equal things.

The right of the people.

The right of the STATES.

The Federalists were not suppose to infringe eithers rights in any way,shape or form.

As both were necessary to the security of a free state.

a reply to: neo96

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.

And yet here we are... No armed revolution against this tyrannical government that has declared it's own citizens as terrorists and used that to justify the insane amount of mass surveillance. Are you OK with sacrificing your privacy for security? Also what's it going to take for an armed revolution? The government to officially declare war on it's citizen's? As far as I'm concerned they already have.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

So the issue is gun owners aren't violent enough for some folks.

But hey their 'assault' weapons need banned.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Well, if it's dealing with incoming refugees, there is a specific authority given the president to dictate via 'proclamation' who cannot be permitted into the country if he deems them not in the best interest of the country.

But sometimes bans do work, for the most part, but when it comes to things like alcohol or firearms, they don't have the intended effect and sometimes create unintended consequences that are worse for society.

originally posted by: neo96
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.

Holy crap it's like talking to a wall. Taggants are not illegal nor is dynamite. Just because they have this in no way makes it illegal they just enables a tracer. Now here is a question for you why was the NRA against taggants? Are they against terrorist being located for the type bomb they used?

a reply to: neo96

Stop deflecting and answer the questions...

Are you OK with sacrificing your privacy for security?

What's it going to take for an armed revolution?

a reply to: SonOfThor
So you chose to ignore the hunting element of my post. Yes I have little knowledge of guns, like most people not raised around guns. I can name the standard ones you played on video games 15 years ago but that's all. You know you would be authorised a special license anyway. (Protecting agriculture, fook knows).

My point still remains valid, other than hunting (yes I know you won't call it hunting to ignore the main premise of my point) there is no need for these weapons. It's clear my knowledge is limited on model types, doesn't make the point invalid.

originally posted by: neo96

The second amendment talked about two separate but equal things.

The right of the people.

The right of the STATES.

The Federalists were not suppose to infringe eithers rights in any way,shape or form.

As both were necessary to the security of a free state.

The second amendment only concerns itself with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The part about needing said people with arms in order to have a functioning militia (and not in the modern sense of the term) is only the reasoning proposed in the actual verbiage. Where you understand it to be saying anything about the right of the STATES is lost on me and most interpretations of the amendment.

Care to elaborate on that? I thought that the 10th amendment dealt with the rights of the states.

a reply to: buster2010

Sure is talking to a wall.

I think someone is just arguing for the hell of it.

Was explosives chemical composition changed or not ?

YEAH THEY WERE.

Hence they explosive taggant.

On the left a .223 hunting rifle, on the right an AR-15 "assault" rifle. Both chambered in .223. Both fire the same round, the same number of rounds, at the same muzzle velocity, with the same ballistic characteristics. Functionally identical weapons in every way, yet under the AWB one is legal one is not. Stupidity at its utmost.

a reply to: CellDamage420

Out of curiosity could you fire a 5.56mm x 45mm cartridge out of the AR-15 you got there?

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: SonOfThor
So you chose to ignore the hunting element of my post. Yes I have little knowledge of guns, like most people not raised around guns. I can name the standard ones you played on video games 15 years ago but that's all. You know you would be authorised a special license anyway. (Protecting agriculture, fook knows).

My point still remains valid, other than hunting (yes I know you won't call it hunting to ignore the main premise of my point) there is no need for these weapons. It's clear my knowledge is limited on model types, doesn't make the point invalid.

Why should we have a need? There is no reason to prove a need.

Do you need the internet? Then why should you be able to use it?

It is a right, no need is required, or explanation necessary.

Your opinion I don't need one does not invalidate my right to have one.

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.

SpaDe_ already answered with the proper response, but I'll reiterate--freedom of movement is only guaranteed specifically to citizens of the United States. In that sense, and only in that sense, is it guaranteed. That's not what the OP was talking about.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: SonOfThor
So you chose to ignore the hunting element of my post. Yes I have little knowledge of guns, like most people not raised around guns. I can name the standard ones you played on video games 15 years ago but that's all. You know you would be authorised a special license anyway. (Protecting agriculture, fook knows).

My point still remains valid, other than hunting (yes I know you won't call it hunting to ignore the main premise of my point) there is no need for these weapons. It's clear my knowledge is limited on model types, doesn't make the point invalid.

The point you are missing is that the assault rifles are merely cosmetic. The other point you are missing is that the design is modular which is why it is popular. They are easy to customize. The design just works well for whatever type of shooting the owner does - hunting, target practice, home defense, etc.

Your entire premise if false.

Put another way, these so-called assault rifles have about as much in common with true military grade automatic rifles as your everyday sports car has with actual professional racing cars. They may look similar, but worlds apart.

originally posted by: CellDamage420

On the left a .223 hunting rifle, on the right an AR-15 "assault" rifle. Both chambered in .223. Both fire the same round, the same number of rounds, at the same muzzle velocity, with the same ballistic characteristics. Functionally identical weapons in every way, yet under the AWB one is legal one is not. Stupidity at its utmost.

And not one gun grabber will understand your point, because the black one is a full auto machine gun meant exclusively for use on a battle field, CNN told them, and everyone knows, they wouldnt lie.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

So what privacy? We have cameras mounted on light posts and people with cameras built into their phones, the gov't snooping in phone calls and on-line activities is just part of it. Admit it the people have been being conditioned for the loss of privacy. The best part is the traffic cameras have come from the local gov't to boost revenue via fines. But hey it was done in the name of safety. Those cameras being part of the local arena of politics are just as difficult to remove as the Patriot act, so politicians from both sides have been eroding our privacy and the fighting against it causes you to go up against the masses who buy into the "it's common sense" or "for the children" lines. If you fight against both does that exonerate the person in your eyes or is it a view against guns that prevents you from seeing that the issue is actually of great importance? What will it take for you to realize that setting these precedents makes the next infringement easier for those in office?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

The second amendment only concerns itself with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

That isn't how I read it.

' A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.'

'The RIGHT of the people to keep, and bear arms.

Neither shall be infringed by the Federal Powers that be.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Where you understand it to be saying anything about the right of the STATES is lost on me and most interpretations of the amendment.

It further goes on in the 9th amendment:

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The way I read that one.

Is the powers listed in the constitution( Rights that have been laid out)

Can not be interpreted to deny or disparage others(RIGHTS) retained by the people.

Shall not be infringed,deny,and disparage ALL mean the same thing.

The tenth amendment

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms was clearly defined.

They were not prohibited to the states, or the people.

What that basically means gun control should not even exist to begin with.

Rights are inalienable.

They can not be infringed,denied, or disparaged.

People take them amendments separately, but they work in conjunction with each other.

As a limitation placed on the Federalists,

Not the states, not the people.