Obama to end BIG City gun violence

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 04:27 AM
link   
When we ban all the assault weapons, then ban all the guns, then ban all knives, then ban baseball bats, then ban household poisons, then ban butter knives, then ban kittens, will we resort to cutting off peoples' limbs because they are capable of killing someone? The whole gun ban issue is retarded. Its a "people" issue, not an "object" issue.

I only use my gun to hunt deer and turkey by the way. My kitten just stays at home and sleeps. She's not off looking to murder my neighbor who has severe allergic reactions to cats (not that I know of anyway.)




posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Douggie
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.


You can apply that logic to a number of different products on the market. Why own a Corvette? The only reason besides showing off to your buddies is to do something you shouldn't. How about those 100hp, 1000cc motorcycles that are readily available to the public? I wonder how many those kill every year? You can argue intent and purpose all you want, the result is the same.

Of the 14,500 murders that occur on average in the United States every year, about 9,500 involve a firearm. Of these, about 7,500 involve a handgun. Less than 500 typically involve a rifle of any kind, much less an assault rifle. So here's my question: when such a small percentage of murders involve this type of weapon, what's the point? There isn't one. Four times as many people are killed yearly from knife wounds. Nearly twice as many are killed accidentally on bicycles. In fact, twice as many people are killed from falling in the United States each year than by firearms of any kind (again, discounting suicide).

Its not going to deter crime. Very few criminals use scary assault rifles. They use cheap, easily concealed handguns. I'm not in favor of banning those, either, but if you're looking for a problem, its not with the $1,000 AR-15 that some guy uses to shoot paper targets on the weekend.

So again, I ask, what's the point? If its not going to deter violent crime, and the statistics state that its almost 20 times more likely that a criminal will use a handgun rather than a rifle of any type, it seems to me that the point is simply to punish law-abiding firearms owners.


[edit on 20-10-2008 by vor78]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Good point!

which brings us to the answer:

Could it be? to systematically remove any ability of the people to defend themselves against the govt? Especially in these times of uncertainty.

Something to ponder to be sure.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TONE23
 


In reference to Congress, I think that some of them do indeed want a disarmed populace because they're afraid of an uprising. Others I think are just misinformed. A classic example is Carolyn McCarthy, who introduces gun ban legislation every year, but who has absolutely no idea what she's actually banning. See exhibit A:



That's just pure genius on display right there.


And here's another one. This would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic:



Look out boys! That .50's a heatseeker!

[edit on 20-10-2008 by vor78]

[edit on 20-10-2008 by vor78]



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


man he caught her with her dress up...roflmao


She doesnt even KNOW what she is banning!


My god these are the types of idiots we elected!


Good find.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TONE23
 


Its truly mindboggling. These people should be impeached immediately. If they don't know what the hell they're talking about, they certainly shouldn't be proposing a ban and if they do, they don't belong in office.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Youre missing the BIG point here....or just overlooking it. Youre not giving up your weapons. They never said they were going house to house. They are banning assault weapons. There is no provision anywhere that says assault weapons are included in the constitution.
I own a lot of weapons. I do have an assault weapon. Ok yeah only one. The way I see it is if it isnt flaunted who would know?
I believe 100% in the right to bear arms. I would be probably one of the most prominent people that would risk my freedom in order to maintain my ability to do so. Although I dont feel its right to punish the masses for something like those 2 bank robbers did in California. Its too easy for any Joe to out do local law enforcement. Which isnt fair to the people trying to keep the peace (well thats what theyre supposed to do anyway). When they are so outdone from the governments own limitations. This sint a police state. So, I couldnt see a regular joe policeman running arround with assault weapons either.
ive heard a lot of BS on this subject...and some maybe are true but Im unaware of it. Like this morning, a buddy of mine called me up to tell me his brother (thats a local police office) told him something thats going arround all the different townships that Obama is going to impose a 700% tax on ammo and new weapons. I nvever heard anything to that effect. He said it was in black and white somewhere.
As I have said before, Im in the financial industry. I have come to this one conclusion. Either overlook (to some extent) the ability to go out and buy assault weapons or face the possiblity of having to hock what guns and ammo we have to feed the family. McCain has said too much in my eyes about following Bushs lead. Which means further devistation of our financial and constitutional rights.
If we as a country falls finanically (and believe me were not far from it even with the bailout). They WILL enact Martial Law. This will empower them to use the Patriot act 2 to waive ANY constitutional rights you have. They are allowed under the provisions in The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 and the update in 2007. To go door to door if they wish to take pretty much whatever they want.
Its way too scary to even consider McCain.
Ill play along with his wants of restrictions. But then I will fight it tooth and nail to ensure it doesnt get passed.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
LMAO...heat seeking bullets...Fricken woman.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Douggie
 


I read that post and I can't help but get the feeling that you're actually trying to reconcile your vote for Obama with your belief in gun rights.

As for the AWB, again, I do not see how it deters crime. I've posted the statistics. Less than 500 people are killed yearly by rifles of any type and it represents less than 1% of all murders committed annually in the US. Criminals use handguns the overwhelming majority of the time.

In the end, I simply wonder where it stops. There are plenty of semi-automatic hunting rifles on the market that are capable of just as much mayhem as an 'assault rifle'. The difference is that they're usually limited by magazine capacity, but if you ban assault rifles, it won't be long before companies start ramping up high cap magazines for those rifles as well. So what then? Ban those rifles? Then, when that doesn't work, do we start banning anything that can attain a decently high rate of fire? Even a lever action can fire close to 20 semi-aimed shots per minute with a little practice.

My belief is that if its that much of a concern, the limitation should be on magazine capacity, not the particular rifles. I'm not in favor of it, but I could come a hell of a lot closer to agreeing with a 10-15 round maximum magazine capacity for an AR-15 or a pistol than I could banning the weapon itself. If you start banning weapons, it starts getting into too many gray areas. Limiting magazine capacity? That's relatively straightforward and doesn't immediately run the risk of falling off of the old 'slippery slope'.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 

Vor,
In a lot ways and instances we are already on the slippery slope.
Concealed carry laws, Clinton upping the FFl annual license fee from $10.00 per year to $600.00 per year. DOD putting psychological service connected disability vets on the IBC no purchase list. The IBC being used to compile a database. AWB, magazing capacity, bayonet lugs, flash supressors.
A bill to place anyone with a ADHD/ADD diagnosis on no purchase list. Next they would want depression and anxiety diagnoses, and bi-polar, borderline and persons who received chemical dependency treatment.
Or like you suggested, it has been proposed before, a 700% increase in tax on ammunition, (suggested when Clinton was in office) the imagination and list could go on and on.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. And the infringement has been happening for about twenty years so far.
Shall not be infringed regarding free speech means I do not have to use politically correct, culturally sensitive verbage.

Shall not means no accomodations, no concessions, no discussion, no restrictions, no laws, no regulations, no one in government's business.



posted on Oct, 20 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


I agree with you completely. Indeed, I feel we already are sliding down that slippery slope, just as you do. I am not in favor of any new gun laws. I'm just stating that if I absolutely had to choose, I think the magazine capacity limit would be the lesser of two evils and makes more practical sense for those supporting gun control legislation rather than a ban on a class of weapons. Still, its definitely not something I want to see happen.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by vor78]



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 01:39 AM
link   

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.



[edit on 16-10-2008 by GAOTU789]



Are you kidding me? Senator Obama grew up harvesting Corn and hosting Luau's. He is NOT from Chi-town, he simply moved there when he wished to become involved in Politics. I am City-born and Raised, and I have witnessed far more often the kind of "devastation" you speak of. The District, AKA Washington, D.C., has been the Murder Capitol for an extremely long period of time, and yet, they have one of the strictest Gun Bans and Firearms Policies in this Nation. It has done NOTHING to help improve the situation whatsoever.

The Criminals get their hands on guns whether you like it or not. You should hear the racket on New Years and the 4th in Anacostia, SE, one of the roughest sections of the city. Everyone is firing their Shotguns and Handguns into the air, yet, the strange part is, they are OUTLAWED. It makes NO difference, they still have the guns, and they still use them. The only Citizens who miss out with Gun Bans are Law Abiding Residents.



posted on Oct, 28 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Yeah, Barry Hussein Obama has done one fine job at bringing an end to big city gun violence in his home state of Illinois!:

Chicago

Obama was AWOL in IL Senate while Chicago murder rate skyrocketed

CBS NEWS, Katie Couric





new topics
top topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join