It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama to ban the sale/transfer of ALL Semi-Automatic weapons.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 05:23 PM
Another reason among many Not to vote for him. thank you

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Digital_Reality
No government likes the idea of citizens with guns.

That's exactly the truth. And if I had any reason whatsoever to think that the government would or could overrun the 2nd amendment, I'd be concerned. I'm not.

This is a good idea, except it requires "registering" your fingerprint with the seller... Not a good idea.
Safety Fingerprint Gun

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 05:55 PM
Can't say I'm even mildly drawn to any of the candidates but now we have one that we can strike out of the race.

Get em while you can:

Semi Autos of every style
Hi cap mags
Ammo by the bulk

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 05:57 PM
What's this? I always found survivalist to be some of the most patriotic and upstanding law abiding citizens out there...IF Obama gets the nod and IF he decides to make law that which is dead wrong, then as a whole we should enthusiastically and dutifully turn in our guns and ammo.

I reccomend the one bullet at a time method and to spread it out to as many elected officials as possible so none feel too special. Of course for many of us that is a lot of bullets, thankfully we have a fine piece of machinery to depense them rapidly and efficiently.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 06:03 PM
Yet another Obama flip-flop on a Major issue.

First it was total anti-gun and then went to pro-gun ownership and now anti-gun (as in Semi-automatic weapons and potentially other types).

Besides, he's not President anyway the last time I checked. Why all these bold Presidential maneuvers??

He is taking the "If I act like i'm President then people with subliminally believe this" thing too far.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 06:30 PM
So you are saying Smith and Wesson must include a trigger lock when I purchase a firearm. Why? I know how to buy a lock. If I am responsible enough to purchase a weapon, I think I should be able to find where the Masterlocks are. Its easy to say, mandate locks with all firearms purchases, all I see is another way for the government to be part of our lives. What if the manufacturer fails to comply one time with this mandate? The government sues them and they go broke? Hardly seems right. I would think that responsible gun manufacturers would willingly include trigger locks, but it should be their choice as a private enterprise. If consumers want locks, the market will drive that.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by salchanra

Thats a very good point. The market will drive what people want. Locks are just a small part of what I think should come with a gun. A cleaning kit and any other needed items should be a part of that too and some manufacturers do include a wide range of extras. Part of the transaction? yes. mandatory use? hardly. My feeling that drives the lock with the transaction is that just because people qualify, it may be their first purchase and no one tells them, or they may be on the low end of the IQ scale and need the prompting to think about it. At the least we are allowed to turn down rental car insurance, why not initial the paper for no locks. At least it is brought to the attention of the buyer that they are there and available.

[edit on 5-8-2008 by Illahee]

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 06:59 PM
reply to post by Illahee

Gun manufacturers arent stupid. They dont want people buying a gun and shooting themselves. The same can be said about every gun dealer I have ever dealt with. People who sell guns typically are big gun safety advocates. I just cant understand why the government needs to be part of this. We have allready conceeded seat belts, motorcycle helmets, and piles of other items to "keep us safe from ourselves". Its far past time that we as a nation stopped allowing someone else to tell us whats safe and what isnt.

Besides, I cant use the locks they put in with the firearms. I have so many, I lose track of which key goes where.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 07:19 PM
The Preisdent can only sign a bill into law, he can not just say no more semi autos, it doesn't work that way thank God.

This legislation would never make it out of committee not in this time in US history, maybe in 50 years but not now no way.

This is a very important issue to all Americans both pro and con, but it's a little early to toss in the towel just yet.

Lets check back in after the DNC and see who O picks for his Veep.

We might be getting all worked up for nothing.

May God Bless America _^..^_

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 08:32 PM
If and that is HUGE if he became POTUS and passed these laws, there are plenty of us legal gun dealers with connections that will ignore the law and import more guns into the US than dealers did during the 80s and 90s to Africa.
So let him pass his law, gun dealers will become the new "cartels"

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 08:57 PM
Taurus has had an excellent locking mechanism in place for a few years now and it can easily be incorporated into other manufacturers im sure.

Taurus Builtin Locking Mechanism

No need for secondary locking devices.

My Ruger actually came with a lock but was openable with any key so not really a deterent there. Trigger locks are good for storage but not in a home invasion/intruder situation. Responsible gun owners have their firearms locked up and away from children. Then there are the multitude of fraktards that just leave their guns out for any child to blow his/her head off. Those people should not own guns IMHO.

My $.02


posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 09:45 PM
Here in Kentucky I am still able to transport a gun that is loaded and that does not have a safety lock on it. That is, so long as it is not concealed. For it to be concealed we must pass a class and be licensed and then I can transport it no matter what in the state. And I am happy with the laws in Kentucky. First of all, if I have a gun that is visitble it is more than likely a deterrent to crimes commited against myself or those near me. And, since we have the concealed carry law criminals now have to guess if they are safe to be predatory. It's all a very good system and has lessened violent crime. And in my opinion, as a sane and law-abiding citizen, I believe I should be able to carry a fully automatic weapon. I am quite proficient in the uses of them. Why would this be a bad thing? I dunno.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 09:54 PM
They will try to take our guns incrementally, no matter who gets elected.
Don't give an inch. Don't fall for the "common sense gun law" con job.

As for the trigger lock issue, It only makes sense to secure your firearms.
While I think there should be no laws mandating how guns are stored I think gun owners should be held responsible if they are stored negligently.

If you have kids, Take them shooting!!!
let them feel the recoil and see the destructive power first hand.
They will treat guns with the seriousness they deserve.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by SIRR1

You also need to consider potential Supreme Court nominees. It seems likely that the next president will have the opportunity to replace one or more retiring Supreme Court justices. Considering that they only need one more vote in order to overturn the ruling should it be revisited, its something I would keep in mind on election day.

If you value your 2nd amendment rights, choose wisely.

posted on Aug, 5 2008 @ 11:00 PM
It's just politics.

There's a little thing called the 2nd amendment standing in his way.

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by NOTurTypical

Constitution hasn't exactly stopped bush with his executive orders...

Biggest problem I have with this regardless of constitution is that it won't affect any criminals.. they'll get their guns anyway, and whatever they want. It only affects mom and pop and yourselves from defending you and your property and rights from the criminals/govt etc.

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 12:37 AM
Well I understand everyone concern...

Well righties coming from a flaming liberal like me I think you are safe.
As I understand this not an attempt to end gun ownership...

Further more if you are responsible then you should be fine.

I think many responsible gun owners forget how many idiots there our in the cities...

Just last month the cops had a stand of with a CAR in front of my house...
The car had three asian passengers and they almost got smoked like sausage.

When the police got control I went down and I asked a cop WTH was that?

He said look there...

he pointed to two squad cars and I was shocked to see a ridiculous amount of fire power,,, I noticed 3 AKs, 5 mac 10 looking thinks, 5 shot guns and many hand guns
on the trunks and hoods of the B + Ws...

I have never seen anything like it in my life and in front of my house!!!

I don't like that... Why in the hell did these idiots have 50+ guns between them.
Plus they were gangbangers so... They really do not need any guns.

On the other hand I understand the gunfolk --

Both of us have a safety concern around gun. I believe we need to work together and use common sense.

If we do not I ultimately do fear for the 2nd...

And I say to you gun owners one American to another if Obama tries to take your guns... Well I will be with you in your struggle!

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 12:43 AM
reply to post by Illahee

Well, if his paid puppets have the guts to try to take my second amendment bring them on! I do have the guts to stop them!
Break down what he said, " Semiauto weapons" That means that he will limit all to a one shot gun then you will have to reload, can you see me saying, hold on burglar or enemy of the constitution, I missed with the first shot let me reload so I can try again! Ha! Ha!
Join a militia! It is federal and state law that all males 17-45 are part of the armed militia, if you are too chicken or just can not stomache it just forget it!

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:25 AM
I respect the Constitution in many aspects but the right for anyone to bear guns is scary and outdated.
Guns are more likely to kill or injure in an accident or get stolen and used by criminals. Europeans enjoy more security and face less criminality and they have banned firearms.
The govt isn't scared of the shotgun under your bed, if they want to "control" you, thrust me you wont stop them. I don't even think you'd lift a finger when a tac squad knocks at your door.
We still live in dark ages, hiding in our caves fearing the unknown and sleeping better with the illusion that violence will protect us.

A little anecdote I read and I hope its not seen inflammatory: We cant fight stupidity in America, why dont we just remove safety labels and let the problem fix by itself?

posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 01:34 AM

Originally posted by TheOracle
I respect the Constitution in many aspects but the right for anyone to bear guns is scary and outdated.
Guns are more likely to kill or injure in an accident or get stolen and used by criminals. Europeans enjoy more security and face less criminality and they have banned firearms.

Just to straiten this one out. That's due to different cultures, when we had guns in the UK legally it wasn't a big problem. We had the occasional shooting, but it was very rare. Why americans shoot each otehr so much i don't know but here in the UK is really wasn't that bad when we had guns.

Watch out you american people, the way it started in the UK was draconian gun controls. After that is just required a bad incident (with a man who was mentally unstable and shouldn't have had a gun), and the ban came to pass pretty damn easily.

A populous unable to defend itself will inevitably be subject to the whims of it's government.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in