Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

We'd also have to ban baseball - I had an acquaintance that was beaten to death with a baseball bat.

And I don't know how I'm going to cut up my food once they ban kitchen knives...

reply to post by xmotex


I wouldn't go back and change my vote either, and I must admit that I believed that something like this would happen if he were elected, and I thought about this for some time before casting my vote. But damnit, I still had to do what I believed to be the right decision.

I can't tell you how frustrated I becoome when I hear someone decide who they will vote for based on one single position, such as... Abortion.

reply to post by Clairaudience


So you are "PRO DEATH" as long as the thing being killed is on your list of living entities you have "APPROVED" to be killed.

Cool i just wanted to clear that up.

It's really heartening to read this thread. The country is in what might be its worst crisis ever, everything is at stake, but wait -- maybe I'm mistaken, because so many people find time and energy to discuss there disdain for somebody who wants to take their TOYS away. Thing aren't probable that bad then. Thanks.

Originally posted by Snisha
reply to post by Clairaudience

 

So you are "PRO DEATH" as long as the thing being killed is on your list of living entities you have "APPROVED" to be killed.

Cool i just wanted to clear that up.

What he said.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
It's really heartening to read this thread. The country is in what might be its worst crisis ever, everything is at stake, but wait -- maybe I'm mistaken, because so many people find time and energy to discuss there disdain for somebody who wants to take their TOYS away. Thing aren't probable that bad then. Thanks.

We are actually strutting around the issue and taking our minds off of the current economic distress our country is in. We have no power over the economic distress but we do over our gun rights.

So shoo!! We are ignoring it.

Originally posted by Clairaudience
reply to post by Tentickles

 

tss yeah right, I'm all for the constitution, but not for giving people the right to own the means to kill.

Well you better cut off your hands then. Since they are means to kill people. If you are a judge or on a jury at any time you might as well cut out of your tongue too seeing as in some states they are given the power to kill too.


[edit on 26-2-2009 by Anonymous Avatar]

reply to post by buddhasystem


You're right, everything is at stake in this country, including the Constitution. But sure, as long as its not a freedom that you support, its alright to flush it down the toilet.

Just don't expect others to come rushing to your aid when a freedom that you cherish is under fire.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by vor78]

reply to post by buddhasystem


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

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.

Originally posted by Clairaudience
reply to post by Tentickles

 

tss yeah right, I'm all for the constitution, but not for giving people the right to own the means to kill.

Without the Right to Bear Arms, we would not have a way to fight a trannyical government. Sure you can fight with words, pitch forks and torches-but if you have make a "Change" in Government by force-then you will need weapons that at least equal in some way to what the Government is using.



Punish the law breakers to the max. Do not punish the Legal users of these guns.


Mods: Uh, One line posts are rampant!


[edit on 26-2-2009 by ShadowMaster]

reply to post by vor78


Reminds me of "first they came for the jews and I did nothing, then the blacks and I did nothing, then the gays and I did nothing then who will doo anything when they come for me?"

First they came for the 2nd and I did nothing. Then they came for the 1st and I did nothing. Next thing you know you have soldiers living in your home and you have to show your emails and letters to anyone who asks and all it'll take to be found guilty and sentenced for anything is a pointing finger from a high enough "official" and the gun-grabbers all sit with their thumbs up their rears wondering what happened.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Too true my friend too true.
The people not supporting these types of bills have always said that one thing leads to another and it is true.

But do remember this is an extreme case if that happens. Probably brought on by a home grown group of terrorists.

"The blew up 13 different buildings! and we couldnt do anything because of our rights! You need to protect us (at the government) so take away the rest of our rights so you can get the bad people!"

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Yeah, it sounds an awful lot like that, alright. These people had better wake up and realize that once they're through with the 2nd, they'll start taking away the rest of the Bill of Rights. In fact, they already have. Do we just pick and choose what's important to us, or stand up for the whole thing?

To be quite honest, with the apathy and selfishness that the public displays regarding the rights of others, sometimes I think that we as a country and as a civilization deserve exactly what we're about to get.

I thought that semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15's, AK-47's, and the like are still buyable and sellable, but only if they do not have a full auto mode of fire or a burst mode of fire? The size of ammo didnt matter, as there were both russian ammo and nato ammo styles of the AK-47 available in semi-auto last time i checked? A friend bought his from a local gun store, a Bulgarian-made one for $450. It is .223 nato rounds though, not the bigger rounds that gave the AK-47 its "armor-penetrating" urban legend. Well it was true when refering to the bigger rounds going through metal barriers and the like, but the .223 has less break-through power versus say.. an old heavy steel car door.

Are these still going to be legal? (semi-auto AR-15s and AK-47s)

Originally posted by Clairaudience
heh I guess I'm the only one who thinks otherwise on this board, which scares me, I just can't understand the obsession with guns in the United States. Most of you will reply to this post in the following way: Its for our own security, self defense and so on.... Now if there were no guns allowed like in any other developed country, you wouldn't have the need for self defense and you wouldn't have to be afraid of your neighbour. Rather try to use your body for self defense, there are several ways to go about this, and its all you need.
Ban those assault weapons, only allow small and harmless pistols which are only allowed to be obtained with a "hard to get" license. Now at this point you will see crimes going down drastically, you wouldn't have to worry about someone pointing a gun at your head, plus its bad karma owning a gun and using one here and there.
Although the reason for the ban is more than lame. The reasons I stated above make more sense.

Britain, Australia Top US in Violent Crime

UK is Knife Crime Capital

Now what was that about crime rates dropping?

Originally posted by projectvxn
Remember that Rahm Emanuel wants to put the 1 million name TSA list in the category of people not allowed to own a gun. What the hell is wrong with Americans that they would allow a socialist moron to make policy such as this?

[edit on 26-2-2009 by projectvxn]

Stupid College Students.

You want someone to blame, blame them.

They are like lead. Dense and Poisonous to the touch, easily mold able, and they make a loud thud when they are dropped on the floor.

reply to post by hotrodturbo7


Here I'll post this again for you. All people reading this thread should have watched it already but if you've skipped afew pages have a watch.

Originally posted by arcnaver
Stupid College Students.

You want someone to blame, blame them.

They are like lead. Dense and Poisonous to the touch, easily mold able, and they make a loud thud when they are dropped on the floor.

You know why college students are part of the problem?
They are sheeple!
You tell them you are into conspiracy theories and you're labeled a "Nerd" and a "freak."
Goths are more accepted then our local crowd here on ATS and other sites.
They are products of the education systems; Which are run by government regulation.
Not yet adult, still a child in many ways.
Once they leave college the majority of them are slapped hard in the face that the world is not as they thought it was.

reply to post by runetang


You would be correct. Semi-automatic AK-47s and AR-15s are still available. The new sale of these weapons would be banned, though it is unclear if there would be a grandfather clause for existing weapons.

That's not what worries me. Most of the bans being floated lately are FAR more inclusive than just this.

Originally posted by runetang
I thought that semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15's, AK-47's, and the like are still buyable and sellable, but only if they do not have a full auto mode of fire or a burst mode of fire? The size of ammo didnt matter, as there were both russian ammo and nato ammo styles of the AK-47 available in semi-auto last time i checked? A friend bought his from a local gun store, a Bulgarian-made one for $450. It is .223 nato rounds though, not the bigger rounds that gave the AK-47 its "armor-penetrating" urban legend. Well it was true when refering to the bigger rounds going through metal barriers and the like, but the .223 has less break-through power versus say.. an old heavy steel car door.

Are these still going to be legal? (semi-auto AR-15s and AK-47s)

NO.

The gist of the original AWB was, if it looks scary, it is banned.

Along with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

That is as far as new manufacture. existing weapons would still be legal (and suddenly very valuable).

Unless they decide to change it to cover existing weapons as well. Last time existing weapons were unaffected, except for their astronomical increase in price.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by hotrodturbo7]