Obama's bloodbath ban on semi automatic rifles,shotguns and pistols., page 6

privacy

Pages: << 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 01:57 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by XTexan

Exactly.

So as far as im concerned, i have seen nothing that tells me obama wants to take away my 12 gauge shot gun, or my .32 colt army special (single bolt action) collectors handgun (still has the original blue'ing!)

or my .45 mag

2 of which i use for hunting

1 is just a "family heirloom"

I love my guns. I love my freedom, and i still don't see how obama infringes upon either. I see obama attempting to keep guns out of criminals hands.

Does it work 100% of the time? Of course not.

But i do see more action from him than i see from people like mccain.
Mccain is more interested in dealing with the aftermath of a gun crime than dealing with trying to prevent it in the first place.

The best defense is a good offense.

Applies to this situation too, IMO.

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 02:17 AM by jam321

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

A president can only accomplish what the people of this country will allow.

IF obama is elected and tries to take away our guns by taking advantage of a democratically controlled congress + democratic presidency, i know that the people of this country won't let it happen.

So for me, its this:

Take him at his word.

Guess people took Bush at his word too. Guess the people of this country allowed Bush to do what he wanted to.

So why should people blame Bush for the last 7/8 years if we follow your advice. that means everything passed under Bush is because the people allowed him to.

Obama will go after guns and democrats will pass it for him whether Americans agree or not. FISA is a good example.

You want to take care of urban areas, go after the criminals. Quit going after the law abiding ones and go after the criminals.

Obama isn't preventing anything. The only thing he is going to do is increase a database on law abiding citizens that have guns.

Prevent is when you put a dent on the black market, prevent is when you punish the one buying an illegal gun but throw away the key on the one who is selling the illegal gun, Prevent is enforcing the countless numbers of gun laws already on the book. Prevent is when you get Hollywood and music industry to de-glamorize guns in our society.

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 02:21 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by jam321

that means everything passed under Bush is because the people allowed him to.

thats right

the people did allow it to happen.

Richard Nixon was impeached for much less than George Bush has been guilty of.

Impeachment is always an option. It takes the will and voice of the people.
The will and voice was only a facade for the cowardice of the mass population as a whole.

If Obama tries to take away my 12 gauge shot gun - ill be the first to come here and publicly apologize to you for me being wrong.

But nothing he's done thus far as pointed in that direction (like the OP so unjustly tries to draw conclusion to)

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 02:22 AM by XTexan

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Well Im not goin to get started on the pros and cons of gun control (or as I like to say "the pros and cons of the abridgement of the 2nd amendment") on this thread, as there are other threads for just that. Plus that would take this thread even farther off topic than it has already gone... For now we shall agree to disagree and I shall continue my quest to find Obama's true outlook on this issue...

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 02:24 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by XTexan

For the record - discussing the OP (obamas stance on gun control)
is not derailing and going off topic. Just because the author wishes us not to talk about FACTS regarding the OP, doesnt make it factually so. It makes it laughably incorrect...if anything.

but if you're looking for an easy way out - go for it.

The OP is a lie. True and simple.

I've given the links to prove it.
Time till tell the rest.

edit to add: This thread is about the opinion of obama's gun control, so "pros and cons" is fuly within the realm of justified debate.
Just because the OP threatens us with legal action doesnt make it a vague possibility. Feel free to discuss anything you wish within the parameters of the OP.

Pros and cons.
its there.

PRO on gun control? Reduces the # of crimiansl that have lethal weapons. Doesnt eliminate them ALL - but think of speed limits. How many people would drive 120 mph if there were no speed limits, vs how many people break the law and drive 120 mph in spite of it today?

CON on gun control? It can be taken too far by governments. Great Britian is a prime example of this. But why compare the United States to great britian. The united states ISNT great britian, and hasnt been since late in the year of 1778.

Things have changed

we have our own way of doings things on this side of the ocean.
[edit on 8/10/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 8/10/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 02:39 AM by XTexan

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Contrary to what you said I am not looking for an easy way out, but since your going to call me out like that, I guess I'm in this for the long haul.

Before i dive head long into this let me ask you this:

What, in your opinion, is acceptable? What would your law (or use a law on the table) be?

or as I love to put it...

How much should the government abridge our 2nd amendment right?

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 02:43 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by XTexan

I'm glad you decided to stay. Please dont take me "calling you out" as an insult. It was designed to get you to stick around

My choice?

There's a lot to discuss, so lets start here:

Assault Weapons (AK47, M4A1)

The only real reason to have these is as a collectors item. So fine - you can collect them in their unarmed state with the firing chamber filled with lead (like a hand grenade in today's law)

But - there are those who'd make the argument for competitive sport. After all - shooting a gun that powerful gives you a rush.

Fine. Since there's no rush on getting the gun.

Extensive background checks. Make it hard to obtain, but possible to achieve. I dont believe in impossible laws. but i do believe that most criminals are lazy and wouldnt try.

Hand guns. Same thing. Special permits, registration, background checks, and waiting period.

There's no rush, so why make it a fuss?

Here's a list of unacceptable "firearms" i'd allow (i dont know if you'd agree on the definition of firearms on some of these, but they're just my opinon)

Hand grenades - gone unless disarmed
Bazookas - gone period
Fully automatic weapons - gone
Armor piercing rounds - GONE. Deer and skeet don't wear body armor

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 02:52 AM by jam321

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

ok you covered law abiding citizens. You will make life harder for them.

WHAT ABOUT THE CRIMINALS AND THE BLACK MARKET. very few criminals try legit ways to get guns. They steal or buy it on the market.

Criminals will still have AK, armor piercing round, handguns and everything else you want law abiding ones not to have or to register to have.

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 02:58 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by jam321

I use the same example:

By your logic - we should dispose of speed limits. people break them anways.

Or should we?

How many people would drive 120 mph through a 65 mph zone, if no speed limits existed? The same hazards are still there, the same safety concerns are still there....

The reason locks exist on doors is to deter "honest" criminals.

it reduces the # of occurances.

Does it eliminate it all? NO. Nobody is saying it does, or even that it will

but if it can eliminate some of it - why not let it go and see how things work?

Nobody is inconvienced that is a law abiding citizen

nobody

unless you consider a waiting period and a background check a bad thing.

if you do. then ... there really isnt an argument here, you cannot be open for legitimate debate.

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 03:00 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

the only way you can distinguish a law abiding citizen from a criminal is through hindsight.

"i know that person is a criminal, because he's murdered before"

So how do you keep the guns out of the hands of criminals?

You can't, 100% of the time.

Does that mean you don't try at all?

Sounds kind of lazy to me.

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 03:12 AM by jam321

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

I say to you again.

You are placing restrictions on law abiding citizens who believe in the right to bear arms. You are doing this because you believe that this will deter criminals from trying to get guns from law abiding citizens.

Criminals do not have to get a background check. Criminals do not have a waiting period. They can get anything they want as long as they have cash.

Your supposed legislation and many others like it puts a burden on law abiding citizens while the criminal continues to go on about his business.

You have to go after the criminal and the black market. It is not hindsight. Government already has tons of data on where the problem areas are. They just refuse to deal with it because many of these areas deal with minorities.
Go after the criminal element just like they do the mob. They know who is selling the guns.

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 03:13 AM by XTexan

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

I'm glad you decided to stay. Please dont take me "calling you out" as an insult. It was designed to get you to stick around

I didnt, though I did take it as a challenge

My choice?

There's a lot to discuss, so lets start here:

Assault Weapons (AK47, M4A1)

The only real reason to have these is as a collectors item. So fine - you can collect them in their unarmed state with the firing chamber filled with lead (like a hand grenade in today's law)

But - there are those who'd make the argument for competitive sport. After all - shooting a gun that powerful gives you a rush.

Fine. Since there's no rush on getting the gun.

Extensive background checks. Make it hard to obtain, but possible to achieve. I dont believe in impossible laws. but i do believe that most criminals are lazy and wouldnt try.

I disagree, firstly please state why, last I checked full autos being used in crime here in the states is almost unheard of. Looking at the FBI reportthat vor78 linked to earlier, even if we count the "other guns" and "type not stated" catagories as full autos its still under 10% of the total homicides for any given year. That is of course if you meant full autos by "assault weapons" If not please elaborate on what you consider an "assault weapon" Both rifles you listed come in both full and semi-auto.

Hand guns. Same thing. Special permits, registration, background checks, and waiting period.

There's no rush, so why make it a fuss?

To the best of my knowledge all these with exception of waiting period are already in affect, at least in the 2 states i've lived in. I see no point in a waiting period, once my background check has been cleared why should I be forced to wait? If you want me to wait so I cant use it to kill someone that day, whats to stop me from cutting off their head with a combat knife?

Here's a list of unacceptable "firearms" i'd allow (i dont know if you'd agree on the definition of firearms on some of these, but they're just my opinon)

Hand grenades - gone unless disarmed
Bazookas - gone period
Fully automatic weapons - gone
Armor piercing rounds - GONE. Deer and skeet don't wear body armor

my opinion is that the 2nd amendment protects our right to firearms, not explosives, or other "destructive devices" (i think thats what the gov calls them)

As far as the ammo goes, thats an area im not legally knowledgable on... but I can make armor piercing rounds in my garage if the need arises...

Also full autos are already heavily regulated, not sure that more needs to be done...

I use the same example:

By your logic - we should dispose of speed limits. people break them anways.

But also banning of guns would create a MASSIVE black market appeal which would funnel money to the aspects of our culture that we are trying to control with the gun laws... hence making them more un-controlable...

[edit on 10-8-2008 by XTexan]

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 03:20 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

i'm not saying that all of those are changes that need to be made

you asked me what i'd do

so essentially my thoughts are a hybrid between what obama talks about

and what currently exists in our world today.

Why should you wait?

Why shouldnt you? You have to "wait" to adopt a dog from a humane society....i know its different, but whats the big deal? If your'e going to use it to kill someone, and you have to wait...maybe you'll change your mind during that time? Hell i dont know. But i do know its not that big of a deal to wait.

If you are going to use the gun for hunting - plan in advance. Plan ahead to make sure you have your gun by opening day.

You could make armor piercing rounds in your garage, true.

Most people can't, nor will they try

just like you can make moonshine in your backyard

but a lot of people dont, despite how incredibly easy, efficient, and delicious it really is

(i dont make it - though i have tried it once before...)

both sides of the issue seem to be reverting to the extreme of the opposing sid ein order to support their belief.

You cant revert to the extreme. The extreme is going to happen no matter what you do

i could take away your garage

and you'd hide it in your basement

i coudl take away your basement, and then your bathroom
ultimately if i want to stop you completely - i'd just kill you.

But that can't happen, and i dont think any reasonably sane person would argue that point

Gun Control? yes. Control being the key word

Gun Ban? Well...i guess it really just depends on what we're tlaking about, and why?

Lots of crime doesnt exist today with FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles because they're outlawed by - you guessed it - gun bans.

If those gun bans didnt exist how many more peopel do you think would own them?

if getting on ebay was all you had to do to obtain a fully automatic turret weapon - ...how many people would own them?

How many of THOSE people would use them for crime?
That would drive up your #'s

but your #'s are low because of gun control

...really its just proving my poitn

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 03:58 AM by XTexan

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

As far as armor piercing ammo is concerned... what do you consider armor piercing? If you are refering to actual armor piercing rounds, i.e. hollow points etc. Then thats not going to solve the problem of LE being shot... Your typical street cop has what you would call soft armor... meaning that any (no not the 22) rifle round will penetrate and large pistol 45 acp and 44 mag, will at the least cause enough blunt force to critically injure. SWAT/Storm Troopers has what you call hard armor... this will take less than 10 rifle rounds to penetrate depending on the armor and what type of ballistic plate is used. So banning armor piercing rounds doesnt do much, unless the cops start driving APCs and Tanks, in which case yes we need them.

Also full autos are currently regulated and controled, which i have no problem with since I can mod rifles to do just that if the need arises... That being said, why enact further restrictions on them when the ones in place are doing fine?

[edit on 10-8-2008 by XTexan]

[edit on 10-8-2008 by XTexan]

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 04:03 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by XTexan

Armor piercing rounds get their name for a reason

its for that reason that they should be outlawed for common civilian use

civilians have zero use for armor piercing rounds other than to kill someone wearing body armor

if the point of owning a gun is protection - shoot them in the head

if the point of owning a gun is sport - you don't need armor piercing rounds

if the point of owning a gun is hunting - deer don't wear flak jackets.

so what is the point?

ont hat note - its very very late (or early) depending on who you talk to

i havent been up this late since high school.....
'
*yawn*

i need to go get some sleep

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 11:22 AM by orangetom1999

Gentlemen,

Both of you ..Texan and Andrew E Wiggen can argue this all you want....and I dont agree with the tack both of you are taking though I am pro gun and pro 2nd Amendment.

My Tack is that we as a nation and by the very intelligences attempting to rule in our nation are being slowly and gradually brought into the standards of the European nations...across the board...in politics...news and informations..thinking and beliefs....and especially in gun control.

And I know that in many of the European nations ...and in particular Britian... private ownership of firearms is so limited at to be nonexistant. IN those nations where you can own one it must be kept locked up at a gun club or such and you must get permission to go there and check it out.

This is the direction we are going ..the murky road down which the intelligences in our nation desire for us to be placed...under such feudal dicates of the Sovereign. Where we have priveleges ..not rights.

This is also the position of the United Nations ....taking away our firearms.....a body which intends to govern and it has not even been elected by the people of this country. Yet we have politicians and initelligences fawning over this body. Astonishing and sickening both.

Nonetheless..the best custodian of the 2nd Amendment and other rights...is the American public..not our governmet. Historically ..the track record of all governments is to take away by an erosive process the rights and libertys of a people...usually by psuedo intelligence or fear.

There is something very immoral, corrupt, and even bankrupt, about a government which would train me, arm me, and send me out to fight thier wars for them but when I got home...not trust me with a gun.
This does not even make good nonsense.

Like Texan..I too can make armour piercing ammunition if I do desire. A company called Corbin makes a press in which one can swage bullet cores into a copper or brass jacket. It is simply a matter of selecting the proper core material and I know where to obtain alot of it. Both the copper and the core material

However..I have little use for armour piercing ammunition..nor tracer.
I can get it if I so desire ...or make it. I too as a machinist know how to modify a firearm in many ways.

By the same logic some would use...I also have in my back pocket a set of lockpicks and taught myself to use them. I dont go breaking into other peoples property and steal thier stuff...Simply for moral/ethical reasons...It is just not proper. These people out here take RISKS
in earning their propertys just as do I.

There is a very American principle at stake here an not mentioned by either of you two posters. A principle at law ..American Law...and that is "Innocent until proven guilty"

The problem I have with so much of the gun laws is that there is a presumption of guilt at work here and definitely going in the direction of Feudalism...The Law of the Sovereign..the Feudalism of European Nations...where you must prove your innocence...and are presumed to be guilty from the starting gate.
This is a very UnAmerican principle at work and many of the Highest intelligences in this nation have taken a huge bite out of this apple.
There is also a move in the direction, by this poor logic and reason, twords Feudalism...the law of the Sovereign. Priveleges not rights.
In this placebo..this counterfit..we are being turned from Americans to Europeans ..under the Law of the Sovereign. I dont agree with this tack..across the board...in more arenas than gun control.

We are Americans..not Europeans. We are not under the Law of the Sovereign no matter what intelligences or Idealists claim and are working steadily to deceive us.

Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 10-8-2008 by orangetom1999]

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 11:29 AM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by orangetom1999

There is something very immoral, corrupt, and even bankrupt, about a government which would train me, arm me, and send me out to fight thier wars for them but when I got home...not trust me with a gun.
This does not even make good nonsense.

thats actually a very good point.
Something i never thought of before....

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 11:56 AM by orangetom1999

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Ahhh...Andrew...

I must make haste here before shoving off for the day. I am gratified that I am able to instill in you a new view, idea, or thought. I cannot recall when this came to me one day but suffice it to say that the light bulb just came on in this arena.

But you know Andrew..I should also tell you that I am by trade a Nuclear Fueler. I put nuclear fuel cells in reactors. This puts a different slant on a government stupid enough to worry about me with a gun or a particular type of ammunition. I have been close enough to these fuel cells to lick or kiss them...literally. Only a government intelligence/politician can be dumb enough to worry about me with a gun or a particular type or ammunition.
One need go to school/ Be educated to get that naturally stupid...most people are by nature not that naturally stupid. SAme thing with the going off to war but not trusted with a firearm. Stupid!!

Gotta shove off,
Thanks,
Orangetom

[edit on 10-8-2008 by orangetom1999]

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 07:09 PM by XTexan

Originally posted by orangetom1999
There is something very immoral, corrupt, and even bankrupt, about a government which would train me, arm me, and send me out to fight thier wars for them but when I got home...not trust me with a gun.
This does not even make good nonsense.

I second Andrew on saying this is an excellent point you made here orangetom...

But you know Andrew..I should also tell you that I am by trade a Nuclear Fueler. I put nuclear fuel cells in reactors. This puts a different slant on a government stupid enough to worry about me with a gun or a particular type of ammunition.

And this is also an excellent point that I never would have thought of...

I may not agree with you Andrew, and Orange... we may not be on the same tack as you put it, but I will always fight for your right to express your views... with my gun if I need to.

Andrew, and this is just my 2 cents

, if you want stricter gun control laws I suggest you fight to remove the full autos and military grade equipment from the hands of our police departments who, without announcment, kick down doors in the middle of the night and shoot everyone who doesnt do what they say the first time they say it. And all this without doing their paperwork and fact checking... see here.

It will be VERY difficult to convince a lot of people (expecially ones like me) that we should give up our arms when the gov continues to escalate and become more police state like...

Also just to followup on the armor piercing rounds, I was just trying to make the point that "armor piercing" is a relative term and it really depends on what armor type your refering to on what rounds would be "armor piercing"

"Armor piercing" or hollow point rounds are actually recommended for home defense use:

Handgun users can choose between hollow point and other expanding bullets, and non expanding full metal jacket bullets. Hollow point bullets are recommended because they are more likely to stop an attacker, and less likely to over penetrate and injure an innocent bystander.

Source

Just my 2 cents

[edit on 10-8-2008 by XTexan]

[edit on 10-8-2008 by XTexan]

reply posted on 10-8-2008 @ 08:10 PM by Andrew E. Wiggin

reply to post by XTexan

and i understand what youre saying too

I guess where we actually differ is our ... "faith" where government is concerned.

I dont so much as trust that the government wont ever in the future TRY to take away my shotgun.

What i do trust is that there are a few hundred MILLION people in this country that wouldn't allow it to happen.

If you take away a few hundred thousand uzis, a couple A1's, ya know the "big stuff"

all you're REALLY going to do is piss off the gun collectors and the hardcores - not the general population......conversation will begin...speculation will run rampant, but thats really about it.

NOW

If you take away our shotguns, our sports guns, ya know the guns that politicians say we should be allowed to have - now you're crossed another threshold as a government.

you've gone into the masses, unprotected, and uninvited.

I have faith that people wouldnt let it happen.

So when someone like McCain says

anyone at any time should have access to any gun that they want

i see it as a cop-out and an open invitiation for criminals to get their hands on any guns they want WITHOUT restriction and opposition.

You may not be able to destroy crime completely with opposition, but i think it very bad to not "try" and take the low road.

That being said

I see Obama saying "common sense gun laws"

Which i agree with.
I take him at his words until he gives me reason not to believe him.

The things the OP suggests are just 100% ludicrous and serve as a billboard for sensationalism at its worst.

The actions (or lack thereof) of the OP to contribute factual information to back his claim is all the proof i need to make my claim.

Thats where im coming from.

They wont take our guns. I agree with you.

But we dont have the guns that they're trying to take.
We dont have a federal record of crime to disqualify us in their laid-out series of requirements to have more exotic weapons.

People like you and i could pass the checkpoints, IMO.

So thats why i don't worry.

Im not so easily blinded by people, so when someone says "you'll never see it coming" i have to disagree.

And its a safe bet to say that you're the same way.

As far as armor piercing rounds go - im still against the idea. But thats just me

[edit on 8/10/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]