Obama to ban the sale/transfer of ALL Semi-Automatic weapons., page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 46 times

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 07:27 AM by Spock Shock

Wow even in canada semi automatic firearms are perfectly safe and legal for taking out hunting or camping, cops pull us over all the time and have no problem at all letting us go even after searching our guns, pretty awesome to have that privilege, but to put a ban on something like that would definitely cause voters to sway in the other direction, they need their guns, I definitely feel like I need my guns I just feel alot more save in my home with a big gun shelf... lol

Thats like how our government wanted to abolish the long gun registry, which would intern save our taxpayers millions of dollars in registration fees and just go ahead and buy guns at random, lol

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 07:42 AM by sean

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Here we are at war with terror and these idiots want to stomp on our 2nd amendment rights?? Not so bright if you ask me. Well boys you better start stock piling, this sounds like the beginning of the end of your freedom.

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 08:03 AM by pernox

Originally posted by 0010110011101
With respect and coming from the UK, it is absolutely unfathombale to me that anyone with the right credentials can walk into a store a buy a gun off the shelf, no questions asked.

It would petrify me to think that anyone who you might bump into on any given day could be walking around with a gun on them with the obvious consequences that could ensue.

So I ask this, why is it that Americans feel so strongly about their right to own a gun? Surely if you removed guns from the majority it would make your conutry safer, no?

Because removing guns from the law-abiding majority does not make you safer, it puts you in greater danger.

Despite a ban on handguns introduced in 1997 after 16 children and their teacher were shot dead in the Dunblane massacre the previous year, their use in crimes has almost doubled to reach 4,671 in 2005-06. Official figures show that although Britain has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the world, firearm use in crime has risen steadily. This year eight young people have been killed in gun attacks: six in London and one each in Manchester and Liverpool.

Times Online UK

Neither have bans worked in other countries. Gun crime in England and Wales increased 340 percent in the seven years since their 1998 ban. Ireland banned handguns and center fire rifles in 1972 and murder rates soared — the post-ban murder rate average has been 144 percent higher than pre-ban.

Fox

These are just numbers, but they're certainly not made up. What makes the difference is knowing that if I'm in bed, and a Bad Guy with an illegally obtained gun decides that now is a good time to break in and rape my family while I'm tied to the bedpost, then splatter my grey matter across the wall, I can put a lot of big freakin holes in him before he gets the chance to do it.

It's also comforting to know that if I want to drive through a neighborhood that's not nice to get somewhere with my kiddo, and a Bad Guy with an illegally obtained gun wants to steal my car without letting my little girl out first, I can put big holes in his body, too.

Another instance is when Dad's at work at night and the girls (fiancee and daughter) are home alone - it's nice knowing that they can also defend themselves. Any criminal worth a dime can figure out who's left the house, and leaving is much easier while comforted in the knowledge that if said criminal breaks in with an illegally obtained firearm with the intention to do harm toward my girls, the wifey can put craters in his body rather than lose her life, sanity, and/or those of our daughter.

I guess it comes down to the basic human right to perform any action necessary to protect oneself and one's family from harm.

Take the guns from the law abiding citizens, and who has them? Only the Bad Guys. Do you think that MS-13 is going to walk up the block to their local LAPD barracks and throw down their guns? How about the junkie that lives in your neighborhood - no matter how nice it is? Is he going to give up that little Hi-Point 9mm he bought out of someone's trunk for $75? Or is he going to save it for a rainy day, in case he ever REALLY needs a fix? How about the pedophile who sees you playing with your kids in the park and follows you home, waiting for you to go to bed? If he knows you're a law abiding citizen and must have turned in all your guns, what's to stop him from breaking in your little girl's bedroom window?

Who's protecting your kids? Maybe the police, who at their best average better than four minutes in response time? Don't get me wrong, cops are by and large outstanding at their work. But they can't bunk with you. In my house, those four minutes belong to me. What's happening in your house during that time?

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 08:10 AM by Simon_Boudreaux

Originally posted by 0010110011101
With respect and coming from the UK, it is absolutely unfathombale to me that anyone with the right credentials can walk into a store a buy a gun off the shelf, no questions asked.

It would petrify me to think that anyone who you might bump into on any given day could be walking around with a gun on them with the obvious consequences that could ensue.

So I ask this, why is it that Americans feel so strongly about their right to own a gun? Surely if you removed guns from the majority it would make your conutry safer, no?

There are questions asked. You can't just walk into a gun dealer and buy a gun. There are forms to fill out and a call is placed to the FBI to register your gun with them but they can also deny you for their own reasons.If you wish to buy a handgun there's a 10 to 15 day waiting period.

If you bump into someone with a gun the obvious consequences that could ensue you mentioned would be what? You think you'll be shot? If that's the case then whoever you bumped into most likely didn't get their gun through legal channels and doesn't give a rat's a$$ about the 2nd amendment. And that is the exact type of scenario that would happen if our guns were taken from lawful and responsible citizens. The only people you'd bump into with guns would be criminals.

Personally, I would much rather live in the U.S. with all our guns and know that if something was to happen I could defend myself and my loved ones. I'd like to see you do that with a butter knife since that's about all you can have.

edited to remove harsh remarks after cooling off.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Simon_Boudreaux]

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 08:28 AM by novrod

I'm sorry for not being American but I'm not anti-American either.

What will people need to understand the main reason for many crimes to happen?

I do understand you don't kill your neighbor just because his dog @it on your porch but if you're having a bad day things can go crazy hand shooting your neighbor sounds OK.

Even a weapon for "self defense" may become an offensive weapon.

When I read some people having an orgasm with the new assault machine gun they bought I really understand why things are the way they are.

Don't forget. US was founded by European outlaws and weapons were used instead of dialog to sort things out.

By the way, I'm Portuguese and I regret we spread gunpowder and fire weapons throughout the world.

There's still time to stop.

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 08:50 AM by 0010110011101

reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux

In response to you and pernox, I am sorry if I have caused offense in anyway. I was merely trying to establish why there is such an obvious desire to own a gun in the States. It was never my intention to make you "defend" your reasons for owning a gun.

I totally take on board your right to protect your property and family and understand the "better them than me" mentallity. I cannot speculate on events that have not happened, but would like to think that anyone breaking into my house would not have a gun (simply because they are a lot more difficult to get hold of in this country) and I would also like to think that I would be able to kick seven shades out of them before calling the boys in blue. However, I accept that should they be armed, my chances of defending myself are dramatically reduced.

An interesting read for you guys would be the case of Tony Martin who was jailed for murder for defending himself in his own property in the UK. en.wikipedia.org...

I feel that part of the problem with gun culture is that it's self perpetuating and if you allow the public to own guns, more people will get shot.

Just to get back on topic, why is owning SAs a neccesity when presumably his desire to ban them will not effect the ownership of handguns, shotguns etc?

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 09:03 AM by Sage08

My personal opinion is that too many people are not responsible with guns. Too often they are treated as toys or not taken as seriously as they should. I've read stories about people that have injured themselves trying to shoot squirrels in their trailer, using a gun as a backscratcher, children shooting themselves because the guns weren't secured, people shooting each other arguing over lawnmowers, etc.

Gun control laws won't fix those problems. I believe anyone without a violent criminal history, sexual assault history, extensive depression history, or phychiatric history should be able to own a gun as long as they attend mandatory federal or state gun safety training. Just like getting a driver's license. You can't just get into a car and start driving one the day you turn 16, you need to take training for it. So, you can have a gun as long as you can prove you're not an idiot that is going to get yourself or some innocent kid killed because of your negligence.

But no, we have the 2nd ammendment to fall back on, where everyone and their retarded brother can own a gun and only wait 2 weeks for it before shooting themselves in the foot. They're not toys, and they need to be stopped being treated as such.

BTW, I'm a gun owner. And it is too easy for some people to get them that shouldn't have any business having a water gun, let alone a real weapon.

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 09:03 AM by Illahee

reply to post by 0010110011101

Obama goal is a full ban on semi automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns. In addition he has in the past authored a handgun bill to limit sales to 1 per month among many other antigun votes.

He will work to take away all guns over time. He has been hiding his gun grabbing history through the entire political process by avoiding the hard questions and glossing over them with broad undecisive responses.

It is time for everyone to know the truth and the truth is written in his history.

Please copy and spread the link in the first post to as many other websites and boards as you can.

Nothing hidden will not be known.

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 09:23 AM by pernox

reply to post by 0010110011101

No offense taken, mate. Sometimes a little forthright description of one's reasoning is needed to really drive the point home, is all. =)

I would also like to think that an intruder in my house would not be armed, but that, in my opinion, is ignoring reality and shortchanging the potential for maintaining my family's most basic right; life.

Just to get back on topic, why is owning SAs a neccesity when presumably his desire to ban them will not effect the ownership of handguns, shotguns etc?

The problem with banning semi-autos is huge. In fact, they account for the majority of guns that exist.

A semi-automatic weapon is any gun (shotgun, rifle, handgun) that only requires a trigger pull to fire. This includes everything BUT bolt/lever action rifles, pump/single shot scatter guns, and single action pistols/revolvers.

You may be thinking of fully automatic here, where you just hold down the trigger and cartridges are continually fed - a constant hail of bullets with one squeeze and hold of the trigger.

A Semi at this point in time encompasses basically everything in a handgun short of specialized cowboy action guns, target weapons, and the odd outlier. There aren't a lot of regular ol' single-action pistols around any more. As for shotties, people tend to prefer the pump action for the intimidation factor, but a semi-auto is a good choice for home defense use as it allows the barrel to be kept further back toward the body's core - harder to take away like this. Rifles have been made in semi form for lots of years - bolt and lever action guns are primarily saved for hunting, target, and sniper use now.

So a ban on semi-autos eliminates not only a huge amount of one's selection, but also a great deal of functionality and safety in a handgun. Cocking the hammer manually for every shot is not only a pain in the arse, but takes seconds longer per magazine/wheel than just squeezing the trigger. This could mean life or death in close quarters. Regarding safety, most single action revolvers do not have a safety, as their use is specialized to a narrow demographic, and self defense circles have largely abandoned them. This makes a dangerous weapon for carry, or home defense use.

In short, removing semi automatic weaponry from citizens removes a great deal of their affordable and reasonable self defense capability. It also removes a great deal of the modern gun's (as in, last 100 freakin YEARS or so.

) safety against accidental discharge.

Bad, bad idea.

Regarding the case of Mr. Martin, it seems that he was jailed rightfully based on the English Law - which means the law itself needs to be changed. If one can always be jailed for defending oneself with lethal force, there is a problem.

This particular case is a bit sketchy, though, as the man shot the burglars in the back. One of the main points that my city's Chief of Police and I discussed during my Concealed Carry Licensing Interview was the issue of robbery. Massachusetts law is similar in that you're up the creek already if you ever shoot someone in the back after they robbed you. The basic premise is that if the burglar wants material possessions, you should let him go and phone the police. If there is "immediate threat to life" then the need to defend oneself is real and killing is generally regarded as a reasonable action by the courts.

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 09:24 AM by Ecidemon

Sigh... So because my hunting rifle is Semi-auto, it's considered an assault rifle, eh?

My stance is, and always will be, gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens. A criminal isn't going to go pick up an AR 15 and decide he's going to shoot people with a lever action .30-.30 instead, because automatic weapons are illegal......

I just don't see how people can support gun laws. Look at the statistics, the places with the most strict gun laws, have the worst crime rate.

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 09:56 AM by lynn112

When I mentioned this to my husband, he basically said that was enough for him not to vote for Obama. He has several shot guns, two that I know of would be considered a semi-automatic & it would be a cold day in hell before he would voluntarily surrender them. (they were inherited from his deceased grandfather)

The thing is, while there are accidents were someone is killed, how many other American products kill just as many, if not more people because someone doesn't use it properly? Should we ban cars as well? They're just as deadly if used improperly & yet we still are allowed to drive.

My point is, I should not have my constitutional rights stripped away because some moron doesn't know how to keep a gun safely in his/her home.

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 10:11 AM by Anonymous ATS

It's the partisan divide, go fight in another country or give up your rights to bear arms.

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 10:13 AM by ZindoDoone

Originally posted by Skyfloating
An acquaintance of mine holds the patents to a gun that will only work with the owners fingerprints.

Its not being withheld. It is not practical!
This technology sounds great at first till you actualy review the meriad of problems that this can make for self protection. How many times have people read that the husband is being accosted by someone who knocked at the door only to try to break in and attack and the spouse or child runs to the bedroom to retrieve a weapon to protect the family. How would these firearms provide protection if only the husband is authorised to use the weapon. Its ludicrouse and dangerous tech. Just feel good tech. It was developed with good intensions but practicality goes out the window with tech like this!!

Zindo

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 10:44 AM by 0010110011101

reply to post by pernox

Thanks for your response and for the details you give.

I think it goes without saying that shooting someone in the back is bad form regardless of circumstance!

The Tony Martin case was interesting as it provoked a lot of debate in the UK to change the law. The law is an ass and if someone comes into your home you should have the right to defend yourself by whatever means neccesary.

I for one was delighted when they released Tony Martin and saw sense. Whilst I do not wish to kill anyone, if someone comes on to my property an threatens my family then I would like to think I can defend myself without fear of reprisals from the state.

The problem we have in this country is knives more than guns. Our teenagers seem to going through a phase of wanting to stab each other to death simply for being looked at in the wrong fashion. I think this, along with the missuse of guns in the states, is an issue which is a sad reflection of the current state of society and culture and needs to be recitifed as soon as possible. Educate children against this madness and hopefully peace will prevail.

[edit on 6/8/2008 by 0010110011101]

[edit on 6/8/2008 by 0010110011101]

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 10:51 AM by DazedDave

reply to post by ZindoDoone

Personally, I have never heard of this happening to anyone. You make it sound like its commonplace for people to break into your house and attack you. I'm Canadian, but I didn't think our societies are that far off...No wonder you guys think you need guns so much. Reading some of the posts here where people keep guns by their bed and whatnot...Why are you guys so scared?

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 10:57 AM by maybereal11

I hunt. I believe in the circle of life and feel strongly if you are not at least willing to hunt an animal in a respectful way and come to terms with your place in nature, then don't eat meat. That simple. But don't knock hunters while chowing down a Big Mac. I respect vegetarians. No hypocracy there, walk the walk, that's all.

Obama is from my home turf, so it might help some if I can offer some context.

CHILDREN ARE DYING IN CHICAGO AT AN ALARMING RATE! OBAMA IS SEARCHING FOR A WAY TO FIND A COMPROMISE AND REDUCE THE HORROR AND DAMNED IF I AM GOING TO FAULT HIM FOR IT.

I beleive wholheartedly in the constitution..But not every lunatic is entitled to own a gun. Guns are getting into the hands of people who have no interest in "a WELL REGULATED militia" or a "FREE state" and this needs to be addressed. For all of the gun rights extremists here I am open to suggestions.

Please actually read the articles before responding. I believe your opinions are strong enough to tolerate some various perspectives.

From Obama's home town...

Shock Over Chicago Student Gun Deaths
THIS IS JUST IN CHICAGO!
Since September, 24 students have been murdered, most of them shot.

The dead amount to a classroom of kids. Among them, 10-YEAR OLD Arthur Jones, who was on his way to buy candy when he got caught in gang crossfire. As did 15-year-old Miguel Pedro, who went out for ice cream and never came back.

Last school year 34 students were killed. That's 58 deaths over what amounts to a 17-month period. And that makes an AVERAGE OF ONE CHILD GETTING MURDERED EVERY EIGHT DAYS.
www.cbsnews.com...

Chicago Kids Scared to go Outside
www.suntimes.com...

[edit on 6-8-2008 by maybereal11]

[edit on 6-8-2008 by maybereal11]

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 11:05 AM by ZindoDoone

reply to post by DazedDave

I guess the Canadian press is more censored than I thought. Home invasions here with accompanied violence to the dwellers is on a rise here thats unprecedented. Its especialy heinous that senior citizens are the prefered target in many cases. I don't know where you live in Canada, but in many places here it takes the cops more than an hour to arrive at the scene of a reported incident. Thats more than true in rural areas. The thugs head out from the cities to prey on the rural residents because they know that reponse time is on they're side. Thats the reason I made the post on this

www.latimes.com...tech!
www.dallasnews.com...
michellemalkin.com...
www.boston.com...
mnhomeinvasionwatch.com...

This is in my state. Just one of many here. One last year took the lives of the wife, who had been raped and beaten before strangled, and they're two daughters having the same done to them while the father, a DR. was tied up in the basement and beaten. They set the house on fire. The DR. got out alive.
www.wtnh.com...

Zindo

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 11:08 AM by Illahee

Some friends of ours were recently the victims of a home invasion/robbery. They were awakened from a sound sleep by a baseball bat in the ribs. The assailant was a 300# man with a bat a handgun and a flashlight.

It was a stolen handgun so no law on gun control would have stopped it.

Canada is nothing to gauge the US by.

[edit on 6-8-2008 by Illahee]

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 11:08 AM by ZindoDoone

reply to post by maybereal11

Thats just the point if you outlaw the firearms, only the LUNATICS, will be the ones with them. Lunitics aren't supposed to own guns. Respectable citizens should NOT be denied this right...EVER!!!

Zindo

reply posted on 6-8-2008 @ 11:16 AM by roadgravel

For the average criminal, a single action, double action or even a single shot weapon will still get the job and an take a life.

Removing semi-automatics still isn't a solution. People will commit crimes if that is the intention. It seems some of the public feels better if more weapons are banned even if it doesn't solve anything.