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: 23
41
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Is it just me or is were the laws put into place in 1968 and 1986 restricting Class 3 ownership & production ridiculous? After the 1986 law you can't even buy a firearm or sear that wasn't made prior to that date, making full-auto firearms incredibly expensive and rare. You could be clean as a whistle and the most law-abiding citizen, but good luck finding the firearm you want for less than $15K.

The way the system is setup now, even if I get the sign-off for an NFA CL3, and pay the $200 tax, and wait 4 months, I would still need to cough up tons of money for outdated firearms. I would honestly submit to a severe background check and low, yearly taxes so that I could own a class 3 for a reasonable amount of money. I know I'm clean and very well-grounded. Guess I won't be getting that G36


I think more reasonable laws could have been put in place that, yes, would still make registering and owning a class 3 expensive (transfer tax, etc), but not $$$$ expensive; and also, allow manufacturers to produce and sell MODERN class 3 firearms that civilians can purchase. Make people get a license, tests, - I don't care. SOMETHING so that CL3 firearms aren't insanely expensive!!

I got to thinking about this watching the news about the Mexican drug gangs spilling over into the US, and the violence - like armed groups of thugs breaking in to people's houses. The very best weaponry a civilian could have would be a nice semi-auto - and if he were rich MAYBE an NFA weapon but that would probably be locked up (as he, or myself would do, as a law-abiding citizen owning such a firearm of that caliber). It just upsets me to see the balance of power shifted to the thugs


[edit on 6-3-2009 by ACEMANN]

[edit on 6-3-2009 by ACEMANN]

[edit on 6-3-2009 by ACEMANN]




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 06:15 AM
link   
And to just chime in - for you posters that have been presented with UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE that BANNING firearm ownership INCREASES crime and still refuse to believe those FACTS - I offer my deepest sympathy. I can not even begin to image how your heads can be buried so deep in the sand.

What a shame.


[edit on 6-3-2009 by ACEMANN]



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by welivefortheson
 



Fortunately, although the issues arises every time, the citizens of the US really do not have to justify owning weapons in relation to crime. Not one word of any argument about guns and crime has any relevance to the 2nd amendment.






[edit on 6-3-2009 by Logarock]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by welivefortheson
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


one countries right to defend itself against another is not the object of discussion here as is the case with china and tibet,that is not in doubt,you are superimposing two different problems,which is a fallacy.

.................................



errr...you were the one to claim that a Buddhist monk has the right way of thinking, hence I gave the example of what happens in Tibet, and how Buddhist monks resort to violence by killing themselves....

I mentioned China invasion of Tibet for you to see that even those who supposedly are trained from childhood to embrace peace will resort to violence when they are pushed.... That's the only reason I mentioned China's invasion of Tibet and the Buddhist monks resorting to violence...

The Constitution is not a regular law passed by Congress, and neither are every essential right given to us by the Bill of Rights...

These are documents that you can't ignore at will, and claim they do not belong to our generation because it conflicts with your own flawed idealism....

Those documents are the foundation of this nation, and were written for every, and all future generation of Americans.....

I am beggining to think that whoever you got in your signature is either your husband/boyfriend, or son, because i do not think you served in the military. Otherwise you would know that that person in your signature took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and that includes the right of every free American to own and bear arms....

There are some people, such as yourself, that can't comprehend that peace unfortunately is just a break in between wars...

There are times when violence, and the need to use weapons is necessary.

And again, you are wrong claiming that it is only the duty of the military to use weapons to defend the civilians...that's not how this nation was founded... Our forefathers gave the right to own and bear arms TO ALL FREE AMERICANS...not just the military...

There would be a lot more free law abiding citizens dead, or women and children raped if the government were to ban the right of civilians to own and bear arms....

Countless of lives have been saved, and women and children have been saved when a weapon was used to stop the criminals who wanted to harm the law abiding innocent civilians...

Again, do youself a favor and familiarize yourself with the history of your own country.

You need to read the Declaration of Independance, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, because it is clear by now that you do not know anything about your own country.





[edit on 7-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Hah , pathetic turn around. My point is that guns and ranged weapons, used outside of law enforcement and the military , is not justified because it causes more trouble than it solves. Put it this way: If you are being attacked and you fire a gun, the bullet will travel through or past the target until it is stopped by a solid object. That leaves way to many oppertunities to damage an innocent party. I put it to you that if you are interested in just defending yourself that risking an innocent life in that manner is not in your interest. I put it to you also that the only reason you dont want to give up your guns is because you fear that you are incapable of defending yourself honourably. Your time would be better spent learning close combat , and bladed combat. Both of these methods of defense are more accurate , and less risky to bystanders.


The only one making a pathetic turn around is you...

I own a Samurai Koshirae Katana, and I have been training in white weapons probably longer than you have lived.

Using shurikens you could accidentally also kill a civilian.... Just like using a sword you could kill both a criminal, and a civilian close to the criminal...

Even experts and Masters in the use of Katanas, and other white weapons can unintentionally injure, and kill someone they were trying to protect...so your claim that firearms can kill innocent civilians, hence shouldn't be used is flawed....

By now it is clear you don't even understand that honor is not in the weapon you use, but how and why you use that weapon, and that includes all firearms...





[edit on 7-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by welivefortheson
 


"this is also why we have milataries,whos duty it is to protect the population from those who would wish to aquire a dictatorhip.
it is the militaries responsibility to use arms correctly to prevent dicatorhips....not the populations. "

You, my friend, are so unbelievably blind to the real world.
What if the military, that as you say is there to protect the population, is given orders to round up people to put into FEMA camps? (I know a good bunch of military folk who say that they would defend the population but I have not talked to every single man and woman in the forces so I can not say that all would)
What happens then? All of our guns are gone, so now the only chance we have of fighting an injustice of this nature is gone! When will the sheep awaken from their pleasant, blissful, idealistic snooze??? The people who are buying these assault weapons from firearms dealers do not go around robbing people with them, they are there to protect themselves.
Look, the police can not be everywhere and I am not about to sit around on my hands and be a victim, I just will not allow myself to be a breaking news story about someguy killing me for my vehicle, toys in my garage or anything else a low life may want to take from me. As for the military guarding me... I am 100% behind all of the men and women in the armed forces who protect us but why should it be someone elses responsibility to protect me?? IT IS NOT!!!!! I will put myself in the best position to protect myself and all of my loved ones from all threats that can be fought.
You my friend need to STOP relying on others for something you should be able to do!!!

That is the bottom line... Get ready to get your hands dirty or else spend your days with the rest of the sheep in your pen



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
I cannot actually believe that comments that are being made in this thread...

Assault rifles are only useful for combat. He's not banning handguns. He's not banning even shotguns. He's banning weapons in which they're used for combat from citizens.

Ooh, real bad move.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
"Assault rifles" are not at issue here - "assault weapons" (a phony category) are.

Assault rifles are military weapons capable of fully automatic fire, and are already heavily restricted.

So called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic only.

They are functionally identical to popular hunting rifles except for cosmetic features.

Anyway, it's getting silly to argue this.

The President never actually mentioned bringing back the AWB, his Attorney General did - once. And never brought it up again because the (Democratic) leaders of both houses of Congress said they didn't support it. Obama himself never said a peep about it, and frankly I don't think he really cares.

The bill is dead in the water for the foreseeable future.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 



Yes. And the people made their voice very loud and clear with record gun and ammunition sales of late. So there is your answer Mr. Attorney General. SHUT UP AND HUNT DOWN SOME CRIMINALS RATHER THAN THREATENING THE CITIZENS AND THEIR RIGHTS.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TV_Nation
 


In the event there is Martial Law in the US guns will be easy to obtain, so I wouldn't worry about an AR ban. China imports them on the west coast by the containerload. If you have a weapon that is not a class 3(AR) the best thing to do is to get rid of it or bury it. You do NOT want weapons in your house when the NWO knocks on your door with their boots. They will exterminate you immediately. If there is civil war, guns will be easily obtained.
www.scribd.com...
Read the whole thing! It comes from an ex-soldier who happened to partake in the activities you describe.



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
yay...take away my right to defend myself... YAYYYY!!!!!!!!!!.....wait....wut?



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mak Manto
I cannot actually believe that comments that are being made in this thread...

Assault rifles are only useful for combat. He's not banning handguns. He's not banning even shotguns. He's banning weapons in which they're used for combat from citizens.

Ooh, real bad move.


ALL FIREAMRS are useful for combat situations...and BTW, there is another bill being introduced that does apply to ALL FIREAMRS...

Our forefathers never said that the government can ban weapons used for combat, and in fact one of the main reasons why they gave us the right to own and bear arms, was in case the government became a dictatorship.


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson



Second Amendment written December 15th 1791. A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep, and bear arms shall not be infringed.


It clearly says the right to keep and bear ALL ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.." Thomas Jefferson.


Our forefathers knew that the right of the people to own and bear arms was one of the most important rights.


"To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." George Mason, June 14, 1788


Some people should really keep acquainted with the Constitution of their own country, as well as the history of their own nation, and all the documents which were written for ALL GENERATIONS OF AMERICANS...

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence are the building blocks of this nation, and these documents were never meant to be ignored when "some people" decide that their flawed ideologies conflict with the sacred documents which define this Union, and give unalienable Rights to ALL AMERICANS and legal residents of these United States.



[edit on 8-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amabo Kcarab
reply to post by TV_Nation
 


In the event there is Martial Law in the US guns will be easy to obtain, so I wouldn't worry about an AR ban. China imports them on the west coast by the containerload. If you have a weapon that is not a class 3(AR) the best thing to do is to get rid of it or bury it. You do NOT want weapons in your house when the NWO knocks on your door with their boots. They will exterminate you immediately. If there is civil war, guns will be easily obtained.
www.scribd.com...
Read the whole thing! It comes from an ex-soldier who happened to partake in the activities you describe.



EXACTLY, those are the assault weapons that the Mexican drug lords are getting... ILLEGAL FIREARMS FROM THE BLACK MARKET which come mainly from China..

There have been several cargoe of these firearms which have been confiscated, but several pass through and into our borders.....

Yet the Democrats are claiming that because law abiding U.S. citizens have assault weapons, that the Mexicans drug lords are getting their weapons from us... THATS BS.... It is only a red herring being used by politicians, and people whose ideologies conflict with the second amendment given to us by the forefathers that founded this nation...

People should understand that when a government is trying to disarm it's law abidding civilians, it is only to further restrain civilians...

The easiest way to control a population is to disarm them.

I don't condone wiolence, and I still think we can stop Democrats, and even Republicans and anyone else who tries to take away the rights which our forefathers gave us.

I have written emails to my representatives, everyone else should do the same. They have to listen to the people sooner or later.

As for your statement Amabo Kcarab, about not worrying about the government taking away our AR15s and other similar weapons because of the black market...the only people that would be armed then with these weapons will be criminals, and the military/police...

Look at what has been happening in Britain, and thats exactly what will happen to us in the States if we allow it.

Criminals have more rights now than law abiding citizens do, and that's not what this nation was supposed to become.



[edit on 8-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by welivefortheson
 

I suppose that it must be difficult for you to fathom that there are many Americans who can find a modern relevance in the words our Founding Fathers used in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The right to keep and bear arms has been seen as a integral element to sustain a healthy, viable Republic. From the outset there have been numerous individuals who supported the concept of an armed populous, one notable example being the man responsible for the resolution making us independent of British tyranny Richard Henry Lee. Lee is quoted as saying "To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

In my opinion, a unique beauty intrinsic to our country's system of governance is that the content of the Constitution lends itself to a certain degree of interpretation by members of the Supreme Court as well as Constitutional scholars, especially in the case of the Second Amendment.

St. George Tucker published an edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Blackstone is still considered to be a solid legal resource for the interpretation of Constitutional Law. Tucker stated within this work "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."

When the Supreme Court's Second Amendment rulings are studied over the course of this nation’s history, there is an undeniable pattern establishing a clear view of this amendment's importance in the maintenance of personal as well as collective liberty.

“the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security”- Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886)

“as all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government the states could not prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security”- Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900)

“Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right.”- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938-939 (1997)

And finally in the most recent case - District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."


Originally posted by welivefortheson

this is also why we have milataries[sic],whos duty it is to protect the population from those who would wish to aquire[sic] a dictatorhip[sic].


With all due respect, I suggest you review your Constitutional history a bit more and strive to gain a deeper understanding of the subject.




posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
"Assault rifles" are not at issue here - "assault weapons" (a phony category) are.

Assault rifles are military weapons capable of fully automatic fire, and are already heavily restricted.

So called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic only.

They are functionally identical to popular hunting rifles except for cosmetic features.

Anyway, it's getting silly to argue this.

The President never actually mentioned bringing back the AWB, his Attorney General did - once. And never brought it up again because the (Democratic) leaders of both houses of Congress said they didn't support it. Obama himself never said a peep about it, and frankly I don't think he really cares.

The bill is dead in the water for the foreseeable future.


You have no clue what you are talking about. You say that Obama never said anything about banning assault rifles? Obama said during his campaign that he was going to reinstate the assault rifle ban so do a little research before you spout off about things you have not even researched.

Here is an outline of both McCaine and Obama's stance on gun control and this is from the 2008 election race on the CNN website. I made two important points Obama made bold that pretty much makes it clear what he thinks about our freedom to exercise our gun rights.

www.cnn.com...



Voted against a 2005 law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers stemming from acts committed by others using their products. Supports instant criminal background checks on people purchasing guns and believes law should apply to gun sales at gun shows. Calls for permanently reinstating assault weapons ban. Voted for 2005 amendment placing restrictions on rifle ammunition that is "designed or marketed" to be armor-piercing. Supports making guns childproof and voted for 2005 child safety lock amendment. Would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which allows the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to share data on history of sales and transfers of firearms used in crimes only with federal agencies for national security purposes, or prosecutors needing it for an ongoing criminal investigation or prosecution. Regarding the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, Obama did not sign a friend-of-the-court brief that urged the Supreme Court to overturn the District of Columbia gun ban. At a debate, when asked about case, Obama said he believes "that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right." Voted for 2006 amendment prohibiting confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency.


So Obama never stated he wanted to reinstate the assault weapons ban eh?

[edit on 9-3-2009 by TV_Nation]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   


You have no clue what you are talking about. You say that Obama never said anything about banning assault rifles? Obama said during his campaign that he was going to reinstate the assault rifle ban so do a little research before you spout off about things you have not even researched.


I said Obama himself never spoke on the issue, which he hasn't.

It was in the Party Platform.

I don't know if you're familiar with party platforms, but for example, every Republican party platform since Reagan has called for overturning Roe vs. Wade.

How many serious attempts have the Republicans made to overturn Roe v. Wade in that time?

Not one.

Party platforms are a wish list of every fantasy of every interest group in the party (this holds true for both major parties) put down on paper.

The only things Obama himself has said on the gun control issue in recent years are his statement supporting the Supreme Court Heller ruling that struck down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban, and repeatedly reassuring people: "I'm not going to take away your guns."

His only recent vote in the Senate relevant to gun control was to vote in favor of the Vitter Amendment, which prevents federal authorities from seizing legally owned firearms in a disaster or emergency, like the gun seizures we saw after Katrina.

Obama has never been a huge gun control maven, especially in the last few years. Now, if we were talking about Biden, it would be a different story, he helped write the original AWB, and has been a vocal gun control advocate.

So please, before you start accusing people of being "clueless", do a little research yourself


[edit on 3/9/09 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
In my opinion there is a overwhelming amount of evidence indicating Obama's stance on gun control/banning. Regardless of how much some of his supporters try to sugar-coat his message on this topic I tend to see it as Obama & Company attempting to pull off a massive "Three Card Monte" style scam with the American people as the "marks".



Barack Obama on Gun Control


Dems Leaked Gun Ban List



Sat Feb 16, 2008 Obama was not one of the 55 senators (including Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold and eight other Democrats) who signed a brief last week arguing the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right and that the DC gun ban was unconstitutional. That brief, also signed by 250 members of the House and Vice President Cheney, urges the Court to strike down the gun ban—and adopt Silberman’s test. Obama wouldn’t go that far.

www.talkleft.com...



"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In Friday, November 07, 2008 Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:

www.nraila.org...



posted on Mar, 9 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   
You're free to see it however you want to see it, but the facts tell a different story


People are making lots of money on the "Obama Gun Scare," but from what I have seen, if he has any strong opinions on gun control at all (and I don't think he does, I think he sees it as a "culture war" distraction), they are very low on his "to do list."

Also, given that the Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress have already said they don't support bringing back the AWB (let alone the right's fantasy scenarios of widespread gun confiscation) I think the constant fearmongering is ridiculous.

However it serves two agendas: one: gun sellers are making a fortune despite the crappy economy, and two: the extremist right is using scare tactics to collect new recruits and get people primed for a campaign of violence & terrorism that will make Timothy McVeigh blanch.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Which Democrat "leaders" are not in favor of it? I can't think of one of the leaders or senior members that is not for the AWB. Hell even Joe Biden was one of the original writers for the first AWB.

The right doesn't have to use scare tactics. Just open your ears and listen to the Democrats. Have you not heard about Obama's tax for firearms and ammunition?


500% tax increase

Oh and of course since you think it's right wing scare tactics I'll include a link to the NRA which states Obama's stance on gun control with all of the links you could possibly want. Hard to debate when the words were actually spoken by our new Communist leader huh?

Where Obama stands on guns

Well I had to contribute to the madness this weekend and picked up a Mossberg 12 guage and a Taurus 9mm PT111 Milennium Pro. And I threw in a few hundred dollars in ammo.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by on_yur_6]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 



If this were just about guns, I would agree with you, but when you add the bailout and the stimulus together into the mix, it just doesn't add up for me. Something else is going on.

Just a gut feeling.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join