Obama to end BIG City gun violence

Originally posted by XTexan

Originally posted by Douggie
reply to post by Oreyeon

 

If you would step outside your bomb shelter once in a while you might see that theres a whole nother world going on outside. Kids are killing anyone they can shoot at. Hell in a little big city not too far away from me theres at least 3 or 4 murders a day.

And how many of those deaths were caused by Assault Weapons? None? Looks like the situation there won't change.

Well they never release that information....you should know that.

If youre reasoning for ahving weapons is to fight the government. The only weapon you would be able to use to do so is sniper style. You go runnin at anyone with an automatic they'll take you down...you may get a few but that would be all it ammounted to.

Perhaps you would "go runnin" at the guy with the automatic. I'll use your idiotic move to cover my retreat to the woods with the rest of the milita while we plan strategy... Probably while under the cover of a sniper.

Hu?

I think most throw more into it then what it really is. A bunch of paranoids hiding in a closet with their guns. Its sad that there are so many that are willling to make something so minor into an event that is going to change history.

Whats sad is people who condone the stripping of rights, and ridicule those who do not wish to have those rights taken away. I am not a paranoid that hides in my closet with guns and I detest you on here making broad generalizations of people with my viewpoint.

Hu again?, Sorry but youre the one making broad generalizations. Im saying it isnt as bad as what you think....youre saying theyre going to take your guns away.

What will get your guns taken away 2nd amendment or not. Is if we are in a state of Martial law. The partiot act 2 is very restrictive of everything. The government can come in and take what ever they want for what ever reason. If we dont get our economy to work through this crap. I guarantee you we will have it imposed on us if our economy fails.

So the new strategy seems to be picking out the "I need my gin in case the government tries to kill me" arguments and painting the poster as a kook. Well, that's off topic. Whether r not you think your government is gunning for you is a different thread entirely and has absolutely nothing to do with the rifle hanging on my wall that Clintons ban made illegal and that Obamas ban will again make illegal.

The slippery slope has nothing to with this either. Though to argue the existance of the slippery slope I would say those who do not believe it exists are looking at it the wrong way. They think there is a malicious group of legislators out there intentionally stripping rights for whatever reason. As if the mass was being pushed down the slope. I'm sure there is a handful of a-holes like that but the reality is the mass is being pulled down the slope by idiots who think banning bayonet lugs will save their kids even while staring at the stat that says bare hands and hadguns are far more likely to kill their kid that my rifle. It's being pulled down the slope by these idiots who the politicians pander to. They scream and cry "my child is an idiot, I'm afraid" and show pictures of guns no kid is out there running around with and the politician says "okay, I'll make you feel safe and ban those" then a few years go by and there kid is still being killed by the thing that was killing them (handguns and bare hands) and they cry "our kids are still morons, we're scared" so the politicians says "I'll make you feel safe and ban these handguns" so he does and the idiots elect him again.

CRUCIAL PART
______________________________________
What the politician or the idiot people fail to do is admit that "assault rifles" and barrel shrouds and bayonet lugs hd nothing to with their kids being shot in the first place and un-ban them so the pile of "banned" is now growing in size.
_______________________________________

So now my rifle is illegal and the handguns are too. (Dont tell me they wont do this because as we currently see in cities handguns are outrageously restricted and until the Heller decision they were banned except for the ones the criminals had of course.

But the stupid kids are still killing each other. How can this be?
The moron voters keep crying and screaming "we're scared help us" and the politicians keep complying. And we end up with a UK situation where parents are frantically trying to find "stab-proof" clothing to send their kids to school in. The final comment by the gun-grabbers = they're better off being stabed than shot at" Genius. Really. Keep avoiding the real problem that causes all the violence until our society is reduced to: "better off being stabbed than shot."

Now, if I'm not mistaken the topic is Obamas delusion that the AWB will reduce crime in urban areas apparently despite the fact that rifles of any type are rarely used in urban areas for crime. So despite all the evidence, despite the figures from Clintons ban stating gun violence and murders remained UNCHANGED during his ban somehow Obamas magic messiah power will cause banning a bayonet lug to get these ghetto-trash idiots to put down their HANDGUNS and SHOTGUNS and all sing and dance on rainbow colored clouds.

reply to post by Douggie


I know Chicago all too well, being born there and raised there. The problem is not guns, its the type of person that is willing to shot into a crowd to kill what they precieve as their rivals.

When a bullet kills some innocent kid on a bus or in the street, they could care less, they have no feelings, they have no soul. You do not see whitey runnning around shooting guns in the air on the 4th of july or cinco de mio.

You dont see whitey buying guns from some thugs car trunk or back alley, what you do see are democrats. These democrats like to shoot at other democrats for writing on their walls, enter their democrat turf and just looking like the wrong kind of democrat.

reply to post by Douggie


Could you post your definition of assault weapon for us?

Chicago has some of the most anti gun laws in the nation, yet they still havent worked.

The only solution is LESS gun control, not more.

He's not going to solve anything, except perhaps to crap on a few million law-abiding gun owners. The criminal element will still get their hands on whatever they want. Both Prohibition and the War on Drugs have shown this to be true. Of course, we've also seen just how effective strict gun laws have been in cities such as Washington DC and Chicago. Perhaps Obama should come up with a working plan for his own city before he tries to foist this nonsense on the rest of the country?

If you want to solve gun violence, the way to do it is by increasing the quality of education in the inner cities and making a real attempt to raise those people out of poverty and desperation. Instituting an AWB (or any other gun ban) is a waste of time and one that will not have the desired result.

Originally posted by Douggie
reply to post by Oreyeon

 

If you would step outside your bomb shelter once in a while you might see that theres a whole nother world going on outside. Kids are killing anyone they can shoot at. Hell in a little big city not too far away from me theres at least 3 or 4 murders a day.

If youre reasoning for ahving weapons is to fight the government. The only weapon you would be able to use to do so is sniper style. You go runnin at anyone with an automatic they'll take you down...you may get a few but that would be all it ammounted to.

I think most throw more into it then what it really is. A bunch of paranoids hiding in a closet with their guns. Its sad that there are so many that are willling to make something so minor into an event that is going to change history.

I don't appreciate your generalization sir, or child, whichever you may be. For one, I do not have a bomb shelter. Two, I did not say anything about wanting my guns for fighting government, though that IS what the 2nd Amendment is for. I want my guns, because IT IS my 2nd Amendment right. And not only that, I HAVE THE RIGHT to defend myself should some criminal douchebag who does not abide by the laws tries to take my life with a gun that he/she acquired by not following said laws that you're proposing we should all be compliant with.
It's people like you that end up a victim, and then piss and moan because you DIDN'T have a means to protect yourself. You'll judge me now, but I can assure you, I'd be the first to save your ass if you needed it with my gun when you don't have one if I knew who you were and you were in trouble here or there at the hands of some insane criminal.
And I will leave you with a quote. You might want to think about it...

"Hell yeah I'm paranoid. Paranoia is just a heightened sense of reality."

Originally posted by Douggie
If you would step outside your bomb shelter once in a while ...

If you would step outside your fantasy world once in a while ....
(see, I can be nasty as well)

.. if you stepped outside of the fantasy construct you have in your head you'd see that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would NOT stop violence in cities at all. It would just EMBOLDEN the criminals to go after more unarmed civilians.

Our Constitition allows us to own guns. We are allowed to protect ourselves. Taking our guns away would only make the criminals stronger.

Originally posted by Constitutional Scholar
Chicago has some of the most anti gun laws in the nation, yet they still havent worked.

D.C. has the strongest in the country - and all it did was EMBOLDEN the DC Snipers. They got to run around shooting at people - knowing full well that no one could shoot back because of the laws there.

An anectdotal story not intended to be based on reality:

Five hundred years ago in a continent far away there were in existence gangs or tribes of a people who raided each others territories, drew imaginary boundaries for turf, plundered and pillaged, perpetuated crime upon thier own race of people, raped and murdered. Some of these leaders of the gangs even captured and sold other captured gang members to slave traders for money.

Now in cities in America there are gangs, who stake out territority and turf, raid each others territory and turf, murder each other including innocent children, sell their own children into sex slavery for the price of a fix of crack, or smack, perpetuate crime upon their own race of people.

www.bbc.co.uk...

Crime today will not be reduced by strict laws to register, regulate, confiscate, illegalize, license, or otherwise intrude upon everyones right to keep and bear spears, as written in the second amendment. Only if everybody has a spear then everyone will be polite to each other. And one should be able to carry their spear under their clothes if they want to do so.

Human nature is, if nothing else, stable and unchanging.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Very true.

Even more proof gun control doesnt work.

People who support gun control are basically mental midgets. They thinkn with emotion and place blame on an inanimate object.

Originally posted by Douggie

The NRA, is started a smear campaign against Obama that says in no less words that he will take away our guns. This is way out of context of what Obama really wants.
Its unfortunate that the uneducated will listen to smears and possibly divert the country from a path of repair.


[edit on 16-10-2008 by GAOTU789]

So... when something is said against Obama its automatically a smear? Do you not know Biden was involved in the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban?

I'm sorry, but if someones going to kill someone they will find a way. The UK is a perfect example of that with their rising knife crimes. The best way to fix the problem is eliminate these punks off the street. Send in military if its needed. Yes.... some will probably say these kids are teens, but they are old enough to know better.

Even with gun show loop holes being open... its not that hard to get an ILLEGAL gun. The only way Obama could pull it off is if he went in and took EVERY SINGLE gun off the street, which in reality is pretty much impossible.

Kennesaw, GA is a perfect example of how preventive action (good citizens being armed) results in less crimes.

I'm sorry, but there are reports out there that show the NRA is right.


[edit on 10/17/2008 by AndrewTB]

Originally posted by Douggie

Obama comes from one of the biggest cities in the US. HE has seen what kind of devistation that can be brought about by 15 year old kids carrying assault weapons.

If Obama/Biden have their way, the only fifteen year olds carrying assault weapons will be school drop outs who belong to illegal gangs and are looking to rob unarmed law abiding citizens.

Let's get real for a change. The only way to stop gun crime is to put the blame where it belongs when a gun crime is committed. So lets ask some questions.

1. Did the gun manufacturer kill somebody with that gun? A. NO

2. Did the gun store owner kill somebody with that gun? A. NO

3. Did legal gun owners kill somebody with that gun? A. NO

So let's blame the criminal who actually commits the crime. Now what? Well under the present system the criminal will probably serve 3 to 7 years in prison and then be paroled back into society to commit the same crime.

I am going to propose an alternative to the liberal Assault Weapons Ban that will bring down gun crime and place the blame on the criminals who actually commit the crimes.

What I propose is a Federal law that will make it a Capitol Offense with mandatory death penalty sentencing for criminals who commit a crime with a gun in their possession. I further propose that there be no more than 12 months pass between the sentencing and the execution. During this time all appeals and DNA testing would be carried out to ensure that no innocent people are executed. Extra lawyers and judges would be hired to ensure that the appeals could be exhausted withing the 12 month limit.

My proposal WILL bring down gun crime. However it will not penalize innocent people instead of the criminal who actually commits the crime. My proposal will not leave home owners under gunned while "gangstas" prowl the street with FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS to do as they please to whomever they want to do it to.

The liberal Assault Weapons Ban will only disarm the LEGAL GUN OWNERS. Largely responsible people who would not think of pointing a gun even an unloaded one at another person.

What reason do we have to believe Obama is going to support 2nd Amerndment-friendly measures to curb violence and not just clamp down on gun ownership and force California-style gun control, or confiscation, on us? The left hates people who resort to self-defense and the weapons they use in the process. England has set a great example, banning firearms and then looking to ban large knives when violence didn't drop.

I'm a gun owner with many safe, accident-free years of experience with a wide variety of firearms. I was even certified to teach firearms subjects to others. If there's one thing I know, it's that firearms are not the problem. Amoral criminals who prey on defenseless people in a weak, toothless system that refuses to hold them accountable are the problem. The weak, ineffective, PC system we live under is more worried about those scumbags than the people they prey on. And since the police have admitted many times they have no duty to protect anyone, Americans have to realize it is their duty to protect themselves.

While Chicago, NY, DC, LA, and other large cities have seemingly large crime problems, the solution is not less guns. The solution is more guns. If everyone had equal access to the weapons guaranteed by the Constitution, more criminals would be dead or disabled and off the streets. If thousands or millions of criminals, terrorists, bullies, and abusive spouses were shot or killed every year, I can't help but think the US would be a better place.

In any case, I won't rely on the media and Obama to get it right, since they have never been capable of even identifying a firearm correctly. Regardless of how much you love that pinhead, you have to at least know what you're talking about when you discuss the issue. So far none of them have.

Enjoy-Polarbear

This is seemingly going from support of litimited gun control to democrats vs republicans.

Well, Im strictly for the Democratic party I was a Republican for many years until Clinton ran his platform. Amercians have witnessed what the Republicans can do. Incase youve missed it the last 8 years went like this:
Strip Americans of wealth....all but the elitists. If youre still happy the way things are going for you financially...just wait.
Strip Americans of constitutional rights
Impose more restrictions within the US

Theres very few people I know that take the same stance as some of you here. I wont vote for that black man. Hes going to take away our guns. One of my friends is so verbal about it. His 6 year old daughter was saying it at school. But then again, eventhough hes my friend he doesnt know how to read, he grew up in a house with no running water and no electricity.

I hope you have stocked up pretty well with your munitions. Because if McCain gets into office and we have 4 more of the same. You might be pawning your precious guns and ammo to feed your family.
If and or when the economy does falter. The provisions in the patriot act2 override any constitutional or Bill of Rights freedoms or rights you have.

reply to post by Douggie


Guns don't solve Anny problems they only create new once. killing only create retaliation , revenge and hate. The only way to survive is by sticking together and working together.

After you have killed your enemy you will still have to survive. But will you be able to survive with your loses. What if you're the only one left. I bet you would seek out others to join. But what if they want to kill you because they think like you do.

To me it seams like we are a common people until the resources are gone. Instead of sharing and thinking like friends we will protect our resources to the death.


[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Douggie,
The Right to keep and bear arms
It is an "inalienable" right.

"Natural rights (or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights) are rights conveyed by a particular legal or political entity, rights as enshrined in law, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. "

The erosion occurs when an inalienable right "To keep and bear arms..." begins to be treated like a legal or guaranteed right.
For instance
You are guaranteed, leagally able to, permitted, allowed, licensed, "deemed responsible enough", instructed enough,, to be able to carry, posseess, keep, bear a weapons if:
a. you pass a background check.
b. you pay $xxx.xx dollars.
c. you do not have a history of substance abuse.
d. you do not have a history of violence.
e. you submit to fingerprint process.
f. you can vocalize the correct reason for wanting the weapon.
g. you get the idea between inalienable right and legal right and discern what is happening to the inalienable right to "keep and bear arms?"



[edit on 19-10-2008 by fmcanarney]

Here in Arizona and probably elsewhere there are groups that go into the wilderness and shoot ARTILLERY. So far nobody has used it to hold up a bank or go on a drive by. So much for the argument against "military grade" weapons.

Punish the criminal, not the legal gun owners. The death penalty is needed for criminals who use guns. It is the only thing that will stop gun crime.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Douggie,
The Right to keep and bear arms
It is an "inalienable" right.

"Natural rights (or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs or a particular society or polity. In contrast, legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights) are rights conveyed by a particular legal or political entity, rights as enshrined in law, and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. "

The erosion occurs when an inalienable right "To keep and bear arms..." begins to be treated like a legal or guaranteed right.
For instance
You are guaranteed, leagally able to, permitted, allowed, licensed, "deemed responsible enough", instructed enough,, to be able to carry, posseess, keep, bear a weapons if:
a. you pass a background check.
b. you pay $xxx.xx dollars.
c. you do not have a history of substance abuse.
d. you do not have a history of violence.
e. you submit to fingerprint process.
f. you can vocalize the correct reason for wanting the weapon.
g. you get the idea between inalienable right and legal right and discern what is happening to the inalienable right to "keep and bear arms?"



[edit on 19-10-2008 by fmcanarney]

I agree wholeheartedly.

Edited to add that item f is pretty assinine. The reason I want to own a gun is to shoot it.

[edit on 10-19-2008 by groingrinder]

[edit on 10-19-2008 by groingrinder]

[edit on 10-19-2008 by groingrinder]

reply to post by groingrinder



I agree that the death penalty should be imposed on criminals who use arms to commit a crime.

I would prefer it to be immediately during the commission of the crime. Most probably by law abiding citizens carrying openly visible weapons or concealed weapons.
If not immediately during the comission of a crime then through the legal and trial process within one year or less.

That will immediately STOP all crimes when a firearm, bat, knife, is used.

reply to post by fmcanarney


True True, But then again. This was drawn up and adapted when foraging and hunting for food was 90% of how they ate.
What about the policemans safety?
I mean I dont see why giving up a "assault" weapon should be considered impeding anyones right. Sure you can have your weapons. But why have a m60? Sure theyre cool. But the only real reason besides showing off to your buddies. Would be to do something you shouldnt.
Trust me, I would be the last one you would think to make this argument. I have a pretty good sized collection.

reply to post by Douggie


Douggie,
The Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was drawn up right after and in direct response to the Revolutionary War. It was not and is not intended to ensure people can go hunting for food. It was written to enumerate the fact that a population must have arms in order to guarantee a free state.
The amendment has only to do with tyrannical governments, enemies, both foreign and domestic. I do not think the words hunting for food are in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights.

Edit for spelling

[edit on 19-10-2008 by fmcanarney]