Obama's bloodbath ban on semi automatic rifles,shotguns and pistols., page 4

privacy

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

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 04:45 PM by vor78

reply to post by TheDarkTurnip

Amen to that.

I've often said that if the gun ban lobby in DC were serious and genuine, they'd go after handguns first. Handguns are the weapon of choice in 75-80% of all firearm related murders. Rifles of ALL types (not just those evil assault rifles)...less than 10%.

Proof of that statement from the FBI's own website

Not that I'm in support of either ban, mind you. I'm not. But it would show some sincerity at attempting to address the actual problem. That problem is not, and never has been, assault rifles or any other rifle.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by vor78]

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 04:47 PM by Illahee

reply to post by TheDarkTurnip

So what do you think the effects of banning all semi automatic firearms (rifles,shotguns and pistols) as well as all handguns would be? Think it through with some imagination and then lay it out there. This is an imaginative opinion topic based on potentials of the political process.

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 05:05 PM by TheDarkTurnip

The effect of banning semi-automatic firearms would be to neither lower crime rates, nor effect the availability of these firearms to criminals. It's not even about crime, and those with a disarmament agenda know that. What it would do is outlaw nearly every firearm designed from the late 19th century onwards, criminalize those wishing to defend themselves and halt the ability of militia groups to legally train and possess weapons suitible to defense of the constitution. What we've been seeing lately has been a desensitization process to civillian disarmament. Its the same story happening again. As for the scenario that will follow, I'm leaning towards something boardering on civil war. If there is no action, then the people of America have lost all hope.

Countless times you'll hear politicians talk about the second ammendment being there to protect "hunters and sportsmen". What these people really mean is that they have absolutely zero respect for the individual right to protect one's own life and property, and attempt to avoid showing this by pretending to support hunters and sportsmen in order to curve attention away from their agenda.

These people have as little respect for your rights as those arrogant statist tyrants in the UK. Don't be fooled.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by TheDarkTurnip]

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 06:34 PM by shoafy

Here is what i think would happen in a federal firearms confiscation scenario.

I could see alot of people in the more populated coastal states giving up thier legally owned and registered firearms and conforming to the "laws". While a small portion of the pro gun population move out of the large cities and form small guerilla type militias that fight the confiscating with insurgent guerrilla type skirmishes.

In the less populated more rural inner states, I could see large militias forming and full scale battles taking place. First in country side battles, then moving to large scale urban warfare.
They would more then likely have to call out the armed forces to fight these militias. At that point i could see a large portion of federal armed forces joining the militias only to make them more efficient and powerful in thier resistance movement. This would cause the government such a huge problem that I dont think the government could stay unified. There would be a splitting off of two groups, a pro government group and pro constitution group.Basically another civil war.

At this point, the government will be forced to outsource its fighting force to businesses like blackwater and maybe even possibly to foreign mercenary type organizations which would support the small portion of the federal armed forces that stayed loyal to the government.

It would almost certainly be a long and bloody event. In the end though, I do think that the pro constitution faction would be victorious. Once the victory was won by the pro constitution faction, I think the states would get together and form a union much like they did during our fight for independance from England and bring back a government that sticks strictly to the constitution.

The federal government is there to guarantee that the states dont infringe upon our constitutional rights and to protect us from hostile foreign forces. That is all the federal government should be doing. Nothing more, and nothing less.

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 06:48 PM by Illahee

Well said. Other possibilities than I was thinking but perhaps more carefully thought out. Good post.

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 07:25 PM by XTexan

My personal opinion, and probably one that wont be very popular is that IF Obama does attempt to ban firearms is that you will see the white supremacist movement (or maybe even an average Joe) take action to end his presidency. There's no way that the extreme groups in america would allow such a thing to happen.

Not my idea of how it should go, but just my opinion on the matter...

[edit on 9-8-2008 by XTexan]

Just a side thought, what firearms would NOT be affected by this? Would lever action rifles and revolvers still be ok?

[edit on 9-8-2008 by XTexan]

[edit on 9-8-2008 by XTexan]

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 08:37 PM by Illahee

reply to post by XTexan

I had that fleeting thought as well. I don't personally believe they would stop with just semi autos. The next recourse they plan to use after that is Oswald used a bolt action and Ruby used a revolver. The goal being to make millions pay for the stupidity of a few.

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 10:26 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by XTexan

My personal opinion, and probably one that wont be very popular is that IF Obama does attempt to ban firearms is that you will see the white supremacist movement (or maybe even an average Joe) take action to end his presidency. There's no way that the extreme groups in america would allow such a thing to happen.

you're prbably right

except that, once again stated, Obama doesnt want to take your guns away

Obama wants to leave gun control up to each individual state.

AKA

Its not a decision he plans on trying to enforce his opinion on.

Leave it up to the states.

Did anyone even read that

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 10:42 PM by XTexan

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by XTexan

My personal opinion, and probably one that wont be very popular is that IF Obama does attempt to ban firearms is that you will see the white supremacist movement (or maybe even an average Joe) take action to end his presidency. There's no way that the extreme groups in america would allow such a thing to happen.

you're prbably right

except that, once again stated, Obama doesnt want to take your guns away

Obama wants to leave gun control up to each individual state.

AKA

Its not a decision he plans on trying to enforce his opinion on.

Leave it up to the states.

Did anyone even read that

Actually, sadly, no I did not read that

... I hope you are correct that he wishes to leave it to the states (as MOST decisions should be). I would like to get to the bottom of this and hear him say it (again, if need be).

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 10:47 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by XTexan

refer to this post if you want to see what obama has to say about it.

It was on page 2.

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:27 PM by Illahee

Originally posted by Illahee
Folks please avoid being baited by Andrew E. Wiggin. He has been sponsoring Pro Obama threads and derailing any that are not his own views as in this one.

Here is an example from his own thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A couple of Andrews responses from page one of his sponsored topic:

"Please - by all means - go reread the article and actually post something about the topic, and not the poster.. its kind of frowned upon around here."

"is that what you meant to post and just messed up? ...or did you actually intend to post off topic? "

"Are you done posting off topic?
I would go rewrite the OP in crayon, but ATS doesnt have that font. "

And from page 2:
"If both are the same (which is the argument i make)
then which would you do?
You can choose "neither" and explain why
but you chose to discuss something all together difference.
Talk about the thread, or go bother someone else."

From this we are just short of moderator intervention and warnings. And this follows through on several political threads and posts.

Please avoid being baited off topic by this poster. Investigate the actions and decide for yourself.

Back to this topic.

You continually attempt to derail this topic.

MODERATORS PLEASE CONTACT: Andrew E. Wiggin.

He is subverting topics openly as well as providing false information.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Illahee]

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:33 PM by Illahee

reply to post by XTexan

He is not correct. Obama has said he is distancing himself from the issue. On another occasion he has told a reporter his stance on gun control issues has not changed one bit.

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:33 PM by Rick007

If you think things are bad now, just let a domestic enemy of the Constitution take up the guns, that is when the real trouble starts!
My will to keep my semi auto rifle is much greater than any one's will to take it! The media is using word games again! An " Assault weapon " is not what uncle sam is telling you, if it is no a select fire/ full auto it is just a semi auto rifle/weapon!

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:37 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by Illahee

You make the false statement that Obama wishes to ban all guns/shotguns/assault rifles

i say you're wrong, and give facts to back it up

Sorry that in your OP you say "dont post facts"

But....facts are facts, and they prove your statements wrong.

Lets hear your opinions (no facts, they are already verified in the link above)

From you OP.

I mean....were yous serious about "dont post any facts" ?

[edit on 8/9/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:38 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by Illahee

Obama has said he does not support federal ban on weapons

he supports leaving it up to the states to decide.

proof here

Its right there - honestly - all you have to do si read his words

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:39 PM by XTexan

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Three items i don't like in that post you informed me about.

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)

Both of these are in a time frame that would put Obama in Congress. Therefore he has already taken action at the Federal level.

also he states:

As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Using this logic he can say that ANY constitutional right can be constrained... Substitue the "right to free speach" into that quote and it is much more sinister.

Illahee, sorry to continue the off topicness...

[edit on 9-8-2008 by XTexan]

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:44 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

its not derailing to dispel a lie.

Obama supports leaving it up to local state and city governments to decide gun laws.

how much more simpler can it be put?

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:48 PM by Illahee

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

This thread is about opinions of the original post. I have provided on instance above of your dual actions against any thread you may not like.

You are breaking the ATS rules you have agreed to and need to be contacted by a moderator. Your continual derailment of topics is cause to BAN you.

I have been trying to be polite and have mention topic derailment several times in this thread.

Now it is up to the Mods, if you are warned or banned.

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:48 PM by XTexan

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

If he supports leaving it up to the states then why did he co-sponser a bill to limit sales to 1 per month and also, why did he criticize Bush for not renewing the assault weapons ban? I know its fun to bash Bush, but that is one of the few things he did that I support.

reply posted on 9-8-2008 @ 11:49 PM by Illahee

reply to post by XTexan

Your not causing it. :-)

No worries, as Bob would say.