Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out!

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by PMNOrlando
 


Nice post, this is where I really dislike Obama but I still think the lesser of two evils was chosen. Anytime you see big banks throwing millions of dollars behind something, especially politically, You know it is about to be SHTF time.

I doubt something this drastic will pass and I believe there are more other pressing issues to be resolved.




posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jssaylor2007
Tothetenth, if you are going to shut down a perfectly legitimate thread for being "too similar to this one," then you might as well shut this thread down for being a HOAX and having no sources?

This is exactly what TPTB want is for us not to talk about our rights. so keep up the censorship requests.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Seriously? Scopes are needed for everyday weapon-handling?

I did a posting on the first page, and got attacked for not-understanding the NEED for scopes.

I cannot understand your need. Those are for shooting something a mile away. THAT is not self-defense. Maybe for hunting, but for a shotgun?!


Seriously, again: under these circumstances, I really, really prefer staying in europe, thank you very much.
Of course, 2nd Amendment, grounding fathers and whatnot.. Great words, always a huge point - or so you think. In fact, those are nothings.

You don't NEED military-grade weapons. You like them? Great. I like nuclear bombs, let me have some. Or tanks. Why don't you buy a real tank? The cannon is a lot larger and louder..



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I have looked through this list, and I think this is a hoax list for multiple reasons. First off there are many guns that are not on that list that I am 100% certain they would not overlook. The second thing is the wording and layout of this so called draft. It is just not written in the type of jargon that I can imagine them using, there are just too many layman's terms in there when we all know they would fill it full of lawyer speak that the common person cannot comprehend.

While I don't doubt that this administration is working behind the scenes on some new form of anti gun legislature, it is in my opinion that this is not it. I think that the first attempt at any new legislature will be attempted to be pushed through under the radar attached to some unimportant bill that will garner little or no attention from the general public. That is the SOP of this administration anyhow is it not?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
I did a posting on the first page, and got attacked for not-understanding the NEED for scopes.

I cannot understand your need. Those are for shooting something a mile away. THAT is not self-defense. Maybe for hunting, but for a shotgun?!


Your lack of knowledge about firearms is amusing. First off just because you put a scope on a gun does not give it some magic ability to shoot a mile. There are few guns that can shoot a mile accurately, and the use of a scope to make such a shot is obvious. I don't care if you put 20 scopes on a shotgun it will never shoot a mile.





Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Or tanks. Why don't you buy a real tank? The cannon is a lot larger and louder..


Actually you can get a tank, they are just very hard to come by because there are so few of them.



edit on 11/21/2012 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
It would appear the blogger forgot to mention one part of HR1022 which may have an over all bearing on this issue.



SEC. 4. GRANDFATHER PROVISION.
Section 922(v)(2) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(1) by inserting `(A)' after `(2)'; and(2) by adding after and below the end the following:

(B) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm the possession or transfer of which would (but for this subparagraph) be unlawful by reason of this subsection, and which is otherwise lawfully possessed on the date of the enactment of this subparagraph.'.


I think this means there will be no wholesale convescation of those guns which are already in legal posession of a citizen.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
It's not about banning guns. That is too simple, too obvious, and too many independents... and even many liberals... would be against it.

They're simply going to tax the whole living hell out of ammunition. Make it as expensive and scarce as possible. Have you seen the prices on a box of .223 lately? How about 9mm or .38? It's absolutely brutal to think about how much money a day at the range will run you now.

Without ammunition firearms are pretty much clubs, or bayonets. If you want to be prudent, stock up on ammunition for the weapons you already have... or don't have!



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
I did a posting on the first page, and got attacked for not-understanding the NEED for scopes.

I cannot understand your need. Those are for shooting something a mile away. THAT is not self-defense. Maybe for hunting, but for a shotgun?!


Your lack of knowledge about firearms is amusing. First off just because you put a scope on a gun does not give it some magic ability to shoot a mile. There are few guns that can shoot a mile accurately, and the use of a scope to make such a shot is obvious. I don't care if you put 20 scopes on a shotgun it will never shoot a mile.

I met a guy some years ago he owns 2 Sherman tanks , fully operational.





Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Or tanks. Why don't you buy a real tank? The cannon is a lot larger and louder..


Actually you can get a tank, they are just very hard to come by because there are so few of them.



edit on 11/21/2012 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:37 AM
link   
So Obama has been in office for 4 years and his record shows he not only has not tried to curtail gun owners rights but, even increased them. Romney banned assault weapons as govenor. So the candidate with the history of supporting gun rights wins and people are still dumb enough to think he is going to ban guns. Granted I heard the same crap about the few Presidents so fearmongering is not contained to just Obama but, man this stuff gets old. I suppose in 4 years I will have to hear it about the next guy. Granted I know groups like the NRA push this crap for donations because nothing hurts its income like the fact neither party has had any interest in new gun laws in decades. So fearmongering = money but, the rest of you? Use some common sense.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by chadderson
So let me get this straight. Americans have the right to bear arms, EXCEPT for the list? So when did the right to bear arms get diced up and quantified into specifically what is okay and not okay?


the same reason an RPG or a bazooka is on the NOT OKAY list. c'mon....the ability to fire massive amounts of ammo, with the ability to kill multiple people all at once without reloading, is not infringing on your right to bear arms. if you think it is, then you must believe that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to kill alot of people at once. don't you think this brings into focus your motives as well as your state of mind?
do you want to be associated with the same people as:
1...columbine shooters
2...virgina tech shooter
3...gabby giffords shooter
4...colorado shooter(s)
edit on 21-11-2012 by jimmyx because: addition



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Seriously? Scopes are needed for everyday weapon-handling?

I did a posting on the first page, and got attacked for not-understanding the NEED for scopes.

I cannot understand your need. Those are for shooting something a mile away. THAT is not self-defense. Maybe for hunting, but for a shotgun?!


Seriously, again: under these circumstances, I really, really prefer staying in europe, thank you very much.
Of course, 2nd Amendment, grounding fathers and whatnot.. Great words, always a huge point - or so you think. In fact, those are nothings.

You don't NEED military-grade weapons. You like them? Great. I like nuclear bombs, let me have some. Or tanks. Why don't you buy a real tank? The cannon is a lot larger and louder..


A scope would be used for snipers firing at enemies of our nation (even if that enemy turns out to be the government.) i'm not a gun owner myself, but that would be the answer to your question. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to protect against a tyrannical federal government. In fact, that is more the intent than protecting against burglars, rapists, and murderers, or for hunting. So yes, a scope has a very legitimate purpose under the 2nd amendment, as do high-powered weapons.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 


Back to Germany with you.


Why do you have any say in this?



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by scorpiosin
 


Yes, I am also very glad that I have sold all of my guns. However, it's unfortunate that the state in which I live allows cash-n-carry private sales. Therefore, I have no record of those sales.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by dogstar23

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Seriously? Scopes are needed for everyday weapon-handling?

I did a posting on the first page, and got attacked for not-understanding the NEED for scopes.

I cannot understand your need. Those are for shooting something a mile away. THAT is not self-defense. Maybe for hunting, but for a shotgun?!


Seriously, again: under these circumstances, I really, really prefer staying in europe, thank you very much.
Of course, 2nd Amendment, grounding fathers and whatnot.. Great words, always a huge point - or so you think. In fact, those are nothings.

You don't NEED military-grade weapons. You like them? Great. I like nuclear bombs, let me have some. Or tanks. Why don't you buy a real tank? The cannon is a lot larger and louder..


A scope would be used for snipers firing at enemies of our nation (even if that enemy turns out to be the government.) i'm not a gun owner myself, but that would be the answer to your question. The intent of the 2nd amendment is to protect against a tyrannical federal government. In fact, that is more the intent than protecting against burglars, rapists, and murderers, or for hunting. So yes, a scope has a very legitimate purpose under the 2nd amendment, as do high-powered weapons.


ok...this won't be like the movies...if the government comes after people with high powered weapons, they are not going to mess around with police sidearms, and if there are many of you, and you are enough of a threat, they will simply "drone" you. you won't even see who, what ,or where.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
edit, sorry first was a reply to wrong thread.

As for this one, if I can have a reliable source that tells me that list, then great. Cant find one, so I have no reason to believe it wasnt pulled out of thin air.
edit on 21-11-2012 by mrsdudara because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Jimmyx is 100% dead on. If you think your right to bear arms is going to protect you from the U.S. military you are insanely naive. Once you are deemed a threat to the country you will lose any credibility with the people in the military, and the larger public. From that point on you are fair game.

Your movements will be watched from space, your communications will be monitored, your supply lines will be halted, your members tagged and interrogated at will. After all that you will be droned, or have a visit from a precision missile fired from hundreds of miles away. After that, if you're unlucky enough to still be breathing, you'll receive a personal visit from highly trained ground forces.

In the 1700s when the public and military alike only had archaic rifles it may have seemed reasonable to think the public could protect themselves from their own government, but now it's just laughable.


edit on 21-11-2012 by Isee1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ManFromEurope
 



well arent you the little paid shill.


these guns arent for robbers in our homes. they are for preventing governments from taking to much power.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Gun bans will never work in America.

Here in America you will NEVER see people lining up to turn in their guns as they did in Canada, Britain or Australia. They will firmly tell the government to piss off.

There is a reason why the founders of America made it the SECOND amendment, after the FIRST amendment, the right to peacefully assemble, free speech and all that.

They knew that there would possibly be a time when governments "got too big for their britches" . When you wouldn't be able to speak against the crown, or government, for fear of jail or death.

Gun bans have always existed for one reason, and it has NOTHING to do with the "safety" of the people. Once a citizenry is disarmed, the government in question can do whatever the hell it likes.



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Bisman
 


Good luck preventing the government from taking too much power with your sidearms. Exactly how are you going to prevent it? Shooting at some soldiers when they come to your door? Bye-bye house, or maybe your whole block just to be sure...



posted on Nov, 21 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Isee1111
 


the reply was about assault rifles... that he was throwing a fit about.

its cute how you would give up your rights and sovereign state without question though.
edit on 21-11-2012 by Bisman because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join