It's official, Obama to make AWB permanent

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets. Source

Sorry, but there is absolutely no way in hell that I'm going to live through another ban Mr. Obama. I fled my state when it refused to give up the ban after the expiration and my friends and family had more than one legal run-in under Clintons worthless experiment just for doing what they had always done that was one day arbitrarily made illegal.

Not again.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I like your views as you well know, and I dont mean this in a goading manner:

But what are you gonna do about it?

Such is the frailty of democracy; where tyrants can be legitimised through elections.

In the interest of having an informed discussion would you care to elaborate and describe specifically which guns are assult weapons and which guns aren't? Is there any gun that you think should be banned from private ownership or that should have increased liscensing?

reply to post by 44soulslayer


I'll learn from the lack preparedness that messed it up for many of my acquaintances during the first ban. I'm going to increase my rate of purchase for high-cap mags, ammunition and the would-be banned arms with cash at as many private transfer sales as possible. Any that had to be purchased through gun shops will be reported "stolen" should the ban seem imminent. The arms and mags will be split up and kept at different locations and my mouth from that point forward will be kept shut.

It's really all anyone can do short of a futile standoff ending in death.

I always thought it was pretty ironic that any talk of bans or restrictions inevitable got more guns off the shelves and into peoples hands. Sometimes I swear the gun dealers are pushing for bans just to sell more merchandise

reply to post by thisguyrighthere



Your going to run to somwhere else because you cant own a gun? that seems a bit silly, and i never really understood why americans make such a big deal about gun ownership..

noone needs guns!, guns are nasty little machines, simply developed to kill and hurt people or animals ( no, im not a veggie or against hunting!)

really, what do YOU need a gun for? and why does it upset you that you cant own a gun.. something that can only be used to harm someone.

on guns, america needs to stop living in the old times, this is 2008 ! not 1908.

guns are bad!, and the politicians are spot on with what they say , why they HELL does ANYONE need an ak 47 lying about their house unless their actualy at war and in genuine danger of someone shooting at the, ?


[edit on 25-9-2008 by boaby_phet]

Originally posted by boaby_phet
i never really understood why americans make such a big deal about gun ownership..

Because our Constitution give us the right to.

Originally posted by stikkinikki
In the interest of having an informed discussion would you care to elaborate and describe specifically which guns are assult weapons and which guns aren't? Is there any gun that you think should be banned from private ownership or that should have increased liscensing?

An "assault weapon" is any weapon used in an assault. A board with a nail in it can be an "assault weapon." Any other definition is arbitrary and has no value.

No, I do not think any gun should be banned from private ownership.
I also believe that all registration and licensing requirements are infringements and wrong.

reply to post by boaby_phet


I already have run somewhere else. I gave up a job at an Ivy League University and a 50% pay cut to move to a state because of 1 gun I wanted that I couldn't have. I've never been happier and I haven't even bought that gun yet.

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by boaby_phet
i never really understood why americans make such a big deal about gun ownership..

Because our Constitution give us the right to.

The Constitution "gives" no rights to individuals. They are born with them.

Common mistake though.

reply to post by stikkinikki


An Assault Rifle is a rifle that has selective fire modes: Semi-Automatic and Full Automatic (Note: Some modern assault rifles do not have a full-auto setting, rather they have a "burst" setting that fires 3 rounds per trigger pull. That is a technical difference, the full-auto mode may be considered similar for this discussion).

A semi-automatic only rifle is not an assault rifle by modern definition.

The "assault" rifle ban seeks to restrict semi-automatic rifles that are cosmetically similar to real assault rifles, but are not. AR-15 and M-16 are examples... The M-16 is an assault rifle, the AR-15 is not, although the two rifles are cosmetically very similar.

Real assault rifles may be owned by private citizens, with VERY extensive background checks, licensing and fees. These restrictions have been in place for years - far earlier than Clinton's ban.

This effort is BS, pure and simple. 'Assault' rifles are not favored weapons for crimes... they tend to be upper end rifles and are thus expensive. They are difficult to modify or conceal. This is not to say that 'assault' rifles are never used in crime, they are. But sawed-off shotguns and cheap pistols are far more commonly used.

The workings are similar or identical (some technical detail differences) to common hunting rifles. The ban is nothing more than a "feel good" thing that will not have any significant impact on crime.

There is, IMO, no personal style weapon that should be banned from private ownership. There are some military grade weapons, including assault rifles, that I agree should be carefully monitored in the private world, and they already are so.

This is a non-issue, and Obama and Biden are completely wrong on their position.

But I consider it a non-issue that is not going to go anywhere. Nothing is more guaranteed to instantly create several million armed rebels right here in the US than to attempt much activity in this arena.

We have more important things to worry about.

This opinion brought to you by a redneck hippie...

Originally posted by boaby_phet
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

guns are bad!, and the politicians are spot on with what they say , why they HELL does ANYONE need an ak 47 lying about their house unless their actualy at war and in genuine danger of someone shooting at the, ?

What one needs is not really the issue. Get in line then when someone else decides you don't need something; it could be any ridiculous thing.

If the government agrees to give up guns first, maybe I could listen-- maybe. Probably not. Better I own them then they since I actually have a conscience about how I use it.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
An "assault weapon" is any weapon used in an assault. A board with a nail in it can be an "assault weapon." Any other definition is arbitrary and has no value.
.

Is that really the way the law is written? What do you think about allowing excons to own guns? Should kids be able to sling machine guns over their shoulders as they enter their High School? just trying to see where you are coming from is all.

Originally posted by boaby_phet
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Your going to run to somwhere else because you cant own a gun? that seems a bit silly, and i never really understood why americans make such a big deal about gun ownership..

noone needs guns!, guns are nasty little machines, simply developed to kill and hurt people or animals ( no, im not a veggie or against hunting!)

really, what do YOU need a gun for? and why does it upset you that you cant own a gun.. something that can only be used to harm someone.

on guns, america needs to stop living in the old times, this is 2008 ! not 1908.

guns are bad!, and the politicians are spot on with what they say , why they HELL does ANYONE need an ak 47 lying about their house unless their actualy at war and in genuine danger of someone shooting at the, ?
Ican respect your opinion, but I must disagree. Guns are tools. Tools designed to do a very specific and sometimes nasty but nessary job. My right to own one in the U.S. was purchased with the blood of my ancestors and I respect their sacrifice. Besides, I would rather have one and not need it that not have one and need it.

[edit on 25-9-2008 by boaby_phet]

Originally posted by stikkinikki
Is that really the way the law is written? What do you think about allowing excons to own guns? Should kids be able to sling machine guns over their shoulders as they enter their High School? just trying to see where you are coming from is all.

Thats not the how the law is written. It is written the way Open_Minded Skeptic describes it.

If it is a private school it is up to the school to decide that. If it is a government school then it should uphold the Constitution and yes, kids should be able to sling machineguns over their shoulders as they enter. My father was on the school rifle team. Nearly everyone his generation was. My generation didn't have the option in our state.

Why not let excons own a gun? I'm sure plenty of excons have more than a few acquaintances from their past who would wish them ill. Because they have committed crimes in the past they shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves or participate in shooting sports? Seems silly.

i will tell you why you need an assualt rifle in your home or a P90 45 Ruger on your hip. a gang breaks into your house where your wife and kids sleep not for the purpose of robbing, but the purpose of torture, rape, and murder. here in the dallas texas area we have had a wave of these things. now lets say you just woke up, went downstairs they find you beat the hell out of you, tie you up, take you upstairs, rape your wife, and choke your kids to death then shoot you. granted the chances of that happening are slim, dont you think its worth it to be prepared. no one will ever harm my family or myself anywhere i go, because i am loaded with extended clips, i have a conceled and im a business owner. guns are great. im 150 pounds 5"8, not the biggest guy, but my .45 ruger makes it even steven.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic


Thank you for such clear and concise answers to my questions. You make a good point about criminals using cheaper and easier to conceal weapons. I used to be for a ban on certain guns as a way to prevent tragedys like Columbine or the LA shootout but it really was more about the sickos behind those crimes and keeping the guns out of their hands in the first place. I don't know why anyone would need a machine gun unless they are at war but then again I have plenty of stuff I don't need that I keep for no good reason.

I don't own a gun myself unless you count nailguns. Maybe I'll get one someday.

reply to post by boaby_phet

I need a gun. Everyone needs a gun. How long does it take for an officer to reach your house when called? In America most of us live in rural or suburban areas instead of apartments stacked on top of each other. A gun is the difference between being beaten to a pulp waiting for the cops to come or defending ourselves and property until cops can get there. And no, if guns are outlawed they will just switch to other weapons. Look at the knivings in England. Rocks are free. Are we gonna outlaw certain knives too? I say we need a law requiring every citizen to get training and carry a gun.

Originally posted by ohioriver
reply to post by boaby_phet

 

I say we need a law requiring every citizen to get training and carry a gun.

That right there would put an end to Columbine type massacres and I guarantee lower the numbers of just about every other crime committed.

Need cannot be used as a disqualifying criteria for anything.

I think a new response to anyone who asks "why do you need guns" should be:

You have 2 kidneys, yet you only need 1 to live. Thats it, Im gonna stab you and take one of your kidneys.

So if you have children you are banned? Right, we are suppose to protect our families.