It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

page: 18
41
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Can anyone tell me what a "cop killer" bullet is? Last I checked a flying chunk of lead is a flying chunk of lead. The ability to penetrate body armor is dependent on the speed and weight of the chunk of lead. There is NO magic coating or no magic design to make them penetrate better. Teflon, molybdenum, blue stuff, etc are all marketing items and none have been proven more effective at penetrating vests. Steel core handgun bullets which may penetrate better have been banned for decades and are not available in ANY store or at ANY gun show. I'm guessing he will use the velocity and weight data to ban common hunting rifle calibers like to 130 year old 30-30 Winchester or the 100 year old 30-06, both of which will penetrate body armor, or a thick deer or Elk hide. In fact, most hunting loads fired from rifles will penetrate body armor.
I thought Obama had "too many more important things to do" before he would even consider a weapons ban. As long as it's not made permanent, it's OK with me. We will see a re-run of 1992-1994 election cycle when the Democrats credited Clinton's weapons ban with the changing of the control of congress from Democrat to Republican.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


you hit the nail on the head and explained it perfectly my freind

what will happen when all of a sudden anti gun people need help and noone can because we were disarmed. they will be screaming noone helped me! or maybe now i have to incriminate myself( 5th amendment) or i am not allowed to speak my mind(1st) etc etc.
take away 1 right you take them all away



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toolbox
reply to post by Logarock
 


How have I dragged the constitution into the mud? Please read my previous posts. I'm pro-constitution (who isn't?) You guys act like I'm Hitler reborn!

I believe a law specifying what kind of weapons you can or can't own could perfectly complement every word in the constitution, without destroying ANY of its or your values.

And I am not comparing it to criminal behavior. I'm just saying in some sick way you could twist what's written in the constitution (freedom of speech), and use it in any argument.

Here's another one: I feel like building a house out of special wood. Problem is, I can only find the trees in a protected area. What gives the government the right to forbid me to cut those trees (if they are on my property but an endangered species).


[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toolbox]



The problem is this, if you only have torches and pitchforks it will not be any good against machineguns and tanks. I can use the weapons I own along with other guns that are on the civilian market to keep a tyrannical government at bay. The analogy that use is not correct. That particuar item was already banned-these weapons are not banned. Not too mention wood is not a Right. In the previous AWB it was made illegal to import or sell new weapons with certain features, as well as hi-cap mags and other things. It did nothing to combat crime as it was orginially intended. Even if you ban these weapons- then we will be worse off. If you do away with the CCW (CHL in Texas) then crime will go back up. In Texas we have the Castle Law-without it I wouldn't be able to shoot an intruder-there would be too much liability for me.

Would you being willing to have your Right of Freedom of Speech admended? Maybe you wouldn't mind being told how to write or what to write?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7

Originally posted by RE2505


Stop waving that crap in my face. You are missing the blatant fact that if your country outlawed all guns you would take the title of highest knife/violent crime in a heartbeat!


Britian, Australia Top US in Violent Crime Rates

You're wrong. Stop ranting like a spoiled child.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by hotrodturbo7]


Obviously you have trouble reading plain English. You are trying to tell me that if all of your guns were banned/confiscated that your violent crime rate wouldn't go up? So how does that work? All the would be gun toting criminals give up and go home and watch TV because they lost the tools to do their job? No they would go out and either a. Obtain a gun illegally (although it would be a lot harder as the authorities will have destroyed most of the weapons in circulation and they would have to wait for black market imported weapons) or b. Find the next best weapon to threaten someone with ie: a knife or big stick with nails hanging out of it. Either way all those would be shooters have all turned into violent act criminals. Seeing as you have a lot more gun toting criminals than we do you would be crowned the new violent crime capital of the world.
I hope you can understand the scenario now, I tried to make it as simple as I could.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RE2505
You are trying to tell me that if all of your guns were banned/confiscated that your violent crime rate wouldn't go up?


I'm trying to tell you that's exactly what would happen, just like it happened in the UK.

Ban guns, criminals use other weapons AND crime rates go up.

Therefore, do not mess with our guns.




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


It's all fun and games until it's your rights that are being taken away by government fiat.


I would agree, except that this particular one is WAY on the bottom of my and many others' priorities. I also don't believe that gun owners can possibly affect the govt operates in the society, despite all the self-important hints and remarks on this board. Plinking? Yes.


And frankly, pushing a highly divisive piece of ill-conceived "culture war" legislation through is precisely the LAST thing we need to do at this moment.


I may agree with that.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowMaster
I can use the weapons I own along with other guns that are on the civilian market to keep a tyrannical government at bay.


This reads like a pretty cool joke.
Thanks.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ShadowMaster
 


I meant no offense Shadowmaster. I enjoy a debate, I really do. But it's useless having to repeat everything.

You responded to something I said early on. I agree it was ready to be misunderstood, my fault. I nuanced it later on.

Here's my opinion again:

I believe a law specifying what kind of weapons you can or can't own could perfectly complement every word in the constitution, without destroying ANY of its or your values.

And 'old' doesn't mean useless. I just think you can build upon it (not destroy) in order to progress society as a whole.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Toolbox

I believe a law specifying what kind of weapons you can or can't own could perfectly complement every word in the constitution, without destroying ANY of its or your values.

And 'old' doesn't mean useless. I just think you can build upon it (not destroy) in order to progress society as a whole.



"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

You cant call regulating this "building". Its destroying the 2nd amendment. And sorting through a list of weapons to "specify" the types that can be owned destroys all of the value and is not compliment the constitution.

A complement to this amendment would be for the government to obey and not infringe.





[edit on 27-2-2009 by Logarock]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toolbox


And I am not comparing it to criminal behavior. I'm just saying in some sick way you could twist what's written in the constitution (freedom of speech), and use it in any argument.

Here's another one: I feel like building a house out of special wood. Problem is, I can only find the trees in a protected area. What gives the government the right to forbid me to cut those trees (if they are on my property but an endangered species).


[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toolbox]


We are not talking about trees.

And in case you didn't know the constitution was written to tell the government what to do not the other way around.

The only people twisting anything at this point are the second amendment foes.

We do not have to justify keeping weapons by its effect on crime or even what kind of strategic effect it would have on tanks. We just have the right, its purpose is clear and it shall not be infringed.

What part of "shall not be infringed" dont certain people understand?

We must WATCH OUT for these "infringers" becouse they have the tendency to infringe on EVERYTHING.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
In any case, what is the Obama administration doing worrying about this "non-issue" that he's described more than once. Shouldn't they be focusing on important issues like the economy? (referring back to the whole Bitter white guy clinging to his God and his Guns speech) What about the imminent destruction of the United States Economy that he has been creating with his outrageous government spending and socialist reforms?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
This is excellent news!! An assault-weapons ban would be wonderful!!

For all you right-wingers, a newsflash: The U.S. Constitution does not specify your right to own an AK-47. The argument that you need one defies common sense and moral decency. The idea that someone stated earlier, that we should be able to have comparable weapons to the U.S. military is equally ridiculous, given that we can't all store nuclear warheads in our houses. If they wanted to violate your entire codex of rights, and kill you, they would, and your entire munitions & weapons collection wouldn't be enough to stop them.

It's time we inject a dose of common sense into this discussion...



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Toolbox
 


Your post makes me sick.
As a former LEO I can tell you that as soon as the population is disarmed that the abuse will start and its going to be worse than 1984.

If you don’t want a gun don’t buy one, hopefully you may find out why you should have had one.

What I would like to know is how dare you insist that I be left defenseless in the face of the most dangerous and corrupt government known to man?

What am I to do when a criminal breaks into my home to rob and kill my Family?

The garbage press lied to the American people about our economy until it was too late to do anything about it and crime is skyrocketing.

Why should I rely on Polices forces who are almost as incompetent as the media you claim to represent?, as a matter a fact I think it would be flat out stupid to follow any advice given out a member of the "press" since you are ALL failures and traitors to this country.

They want to enslave us and I have seen it from the inside, wither you believe me or not is my problem al i can say is that I sincerely hope that its then gun grabbers like you that run into the most violent offenders and not those who stood for the Second Amendment.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Toolbox
 



Ahh yes, evil guns.

Where did you move to? Are there thousands of illegal immigrants, gang bangers, drug cartels running the streets where you live? Hows the crime there?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by nicholaswa
 


I agree Nicholswa, I just looked up the Bill of Rights and it states 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.

For the others:

However it never specifies the type of weapon. Remember, when this was written (1787), nobody had ever heard of an AK47 or any other type of 'heavy weapon'. I realize that getting shot with an ordinary pistol will be just as deadly as being shot with an AK. But every society needs laws and codes to live by, otherwise we would just decend into anarchy and total chaos.

I believe modern times (the day of the AK or any other assault rifle) require for a specification of the law. And if your elected politicians vote that assault rifles are too dangerous, then so be it.

You can still own guns. So in essence nobody is touching the second amendment. It doesn't specifically tell you you can own assualt rifles, and it doesn't specify you can't.

So they're not infringing are they?

*edit*
And to Genradek,

I live near Antwerp and Brussels in Belgium. Illegal immigrants have been flooding the streets and most of them refuse to integrate themselves into society. We have schools where only 2/10 students are 'white'. Polish, African, Russian, Ukranian, you name it, and we probably have it. Antwerp used to be a major drug center. After years of struggle the local government has finally managed to overpower them. I have friends who have been mugged for a cell phone.

I still don't feel the need to take the bus packing a gun. I have faith in the police. You know, people who are trained to deal with problems like these. So don't tell me I don't know what it's like.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toolbox]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
So anything semi-auto with over 10 round clips will be illegal? I guess the best thing you will be able to legally have is what I already have, an unmodified Yugo SKS. No 30 round clip though, and I was thinking about picking one up. This sucks. Gonna be pretty hard to have a revolution when we keep having to reload.
I say we petition the government for a redress of our grievances about this. I bet they're more than willing to hear us out.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
What about the imminent destruction of the United States Economy that he has been creating with his outrageous government spending and socialist reforms?

You can't be serious. You're blaming him for an "imminent destruction" of the economy? He's been in office for like 40 days. You don't think Bush's tax cuts & unnecessary spending (see Iraq, Afghanistan) had anything to do with the hole we're in now? Oh, and what do you mean by "socialist reform"? Can you provide an example?

I didn't think so.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   
You know. The guy made a platform in his campaign about the economy and the Iraqi war.

Question: Since when does gun-control have anything to do with any of this?

Answer: Since 20 JAN 2009, that's when!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Toolbox
 


Ahh I understand where you are coming from, but do you have the same notorious gangs we have in the US? Probably not. We have plenty of vicious black gangs and Hispanic gangs that are killing on a daily basis here. I live in Chicago. I know what gangs are and it is not safe. And it may surprise you, but Chicago has one of the strictest gun laws in the country. You can't have handguns or assault rifles at all, and you can forget owning anything that is legal and full auto. And yet, last year, Chicago was the murder capitol of the US. In Phoenix, AZ it is second in kidnappings only to Mexico City. Why? Gangs and drug dealers. Also human traffickers. Our streets are war zones. In Chicago, three teens were killed by an "assault rifle". Some said it was full auto. We cannot get a full auto weapon legally unless we jump through 100s of legal hoops before we can even get one. Where do the gangs get them?

Also have you heard what it is like in England? You have a better chance of getting stabbed or robbed at knife point then getting hit by a car. Why? The gun ban! Why is that?

It may surprise you but in EVERY city or county where they allowed civilians properly trained to have a concealed weapon, crime has dropped drastically. FBI confirms this, the police confirm this. Every police officer I spoke to here in Chicago supports the idea of concealed carrying in Chicago. Its a deterrent.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Like I said before, I am not against all guns. But as often pointed out a pistol is just as deadly as any other gun. In my opinion banning assault guns is still the right thing to do. Why give civilians access to military grade weaponry? What's next, driving to work in a fully operational tank, just to avoid being robbed at a stoplight?

And wow Chicago really does sound horrible. Logically I still can't understand how introducing more guns into a violent society (Chicago) will make it less violent?

But that's what statistics are for. I don't have 'em, you do. So I believe you.
Doesn't take away the fact that banning assault guns is not the same as banning other guns.

*edit again...sorry
*

The thing I fear about concealed weapons is this:

let's say hypothetically speaking everybody carries a piece. My girlfriend just broke up with me, I go into a bar and decide to get wasted. Some dude in the bar pisses me off for some reason. What do I know, I'm drunk. So instead of pushing him outside and probably getting my ass kicked, I pull out a gun and blow his face off.

Or another, I get in an argument with my 18 year old kid. He snaps and pulls a gun on me.

Not every gun owner is a responsible one. And when emotions or booze cloud your head, you might do things you'll regret later

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toolbox]



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join