Biden Audio: Assault Weapons Ban 'Just The Beginning'

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by littled16
reply to post by neo96
 
Has anyone started a countdown as to exactly how many days these lunatics have left to wreak havoc on our country? I guess the only redeeming thing is that if the Democratic Party decides to run Joe as their candidate in the next presidential election and by some unfathomable chance he were to win he probably wouldn't remember that he was all for gun control and will have moved on to something else by then.



2014 the last time Bidens party passed gun control legislation they were swept out of power in the congress,




posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Point out where in the Us constitution does it say we have rights to a nuke?

Other than the fact no one can afford it, and there no range in the world one could ever set it off.

STRAWMAN



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
You say "they are coming for your guns?" The question is who are they?


They already took my guns years ago. Did it improve anything when it comes to gun crime? No.


I'm trying to point out that it's a small number of people. They are allowed to have the opinion that guns shouldn't be around. They are allowed to try to pass legislation to ban guns.


And that's fine, but people who were affected by Nazi Germany had your attitude also and look what happened to them. Zionists played a big part in what happened in WW2 and guess what, your coming to the defence of a self proclaimed Zionist right now.


What pro-gun people need to do is talk calmly and rationally. This rhetoric that's being used is crazy and detrimental to the cause. The numbers are on our side. But calling people fascists who disagree with us, and otherwise saying crazy things will turn people away.


You wont have any numbers if they take your weapons..


Some of you guys are so obsessed with guns, you're missing the big picture.


What? Do some history research and then tell me I'm missing the bigger picture.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
While I am at it laws against explosives have not worked either people make their own as seen on Youtube.

Laws against "bad drugs" haven't stopped usage either.

So the point was?

Just like Gun control laws what do they do?

They don't stop anything.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by DarknStormy
 


I don't think the next "event" will be a school. That tactic didn't manufacture the level of consent that they had hoped.

They have already changed the rhetoric from the simple and mythological "assault weapon" to "weapons of war". They have already started demonizing gun owners as "extremist" and started to ramp up the old "militia" out-grouping. So, I think the next "event" will be some sort of armed standoff with "resisters". Much easier to push until those without level heads push back.

Biden did let something slip as he said "semi-automatic weapons" instead of just the mythological "assault weapon". They are following the same tract that worked in England and Australia, most recently. Sad most Americans are not thinkers . . . simply emotionally led followers. They fell for the Anti-Terrorism bill, Patriot Act, and NDAA in the exact same fashion. Every war we've been in has followed the same path, as well as overreaching acts like the Fed Reserve, New Deal, etc. At some point you have to wonder, if the majority of people in this country deserve to live free . . .

Government wanted to enter WWI, but didn't have the consent.
Convenient Event: Lusitania

Government wanted to enter WWII, but didn't have the consent.
Convenient Event: Pearl Harbor

Government wanted to enter Vietnam, but didn't have the consent.
Convenient Event: Gulf of Tonkin

Government wanted to install a police state and restrict freedoms and get a military presence in the Middle East, but didn't have the consent.
Convenient Event: WTC bombing 1, OKC, Ruby Ridge, 9/11

Government wants to ban guns, as have the rest of the world, and bring us inline with the UN's policies of disarmament, but doesn't have the consent.
Convenient Event: Assination attempt on Reagan, Mass Shootings (including political and child targets), ????

As with restricting/eliminating our other rights, the fact that the first events didn't fully create consent means the next event will have to be shocking and massive (like 9/11). The next few years will be very dramatic, me thinks.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Point out where in the Us constitution does it say we have rights to a nuke?

Other than the fact no one can afford it, and there no range in the world one could ever set it off.

STRAWMAN


But that's not what your argument was....

This is what you said:



So by what right does my neighbor or some DC politician have to tell me what I can own?

What I said DIRECTLY responds to that question. It directly shows that there are many things the government regulates the possession of. That was the exact question you were asking.

It's actually YOU, who keeps using strawman attacks.
You are making it out to be that Nukes were the centerpiece of my argument. They were an example.
Let me explain to you what a strawman argument is. First someone has to make a claim. Then a second person misrepresents that claim, or they present a similar claim. Then they debunk this claim, that the person never actually made, and act like the debunked the person's original claim.

Again, everyone can see it for themselves. I directly responded to your question and absolutely did not misrepresent your claim. Maybe you meant something else. But what you said, is what I responded to.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


My relatives were lucky to make it out of Central Europe (Hungary and Germany) just before, during, and after WWII. If not, I would not be here today. Several perished at Auschwitz and Mauthausen.

My great-grandmother (Auschwitz survivor) used to warn us as kids that those days would come to America, as she could see the signs as far back as the 60's. Her hope was that Americans would cling to the Bill of Rights and demand restrictions on the central government, through protest and active participation in intelligent voting of officials. And, that us or our children would never have to go through such infringements, for obvious reasons.

I see her hopes slowly and surely floating away, as the reality of this nation's citizens are more than willing to beg for safety and security.

And others are right . . . this isn't about party affiliation or boogeyman puppets (like a sitting pres) . . . it's about collectivists wanting to dominate and the citizens turning their back on individualism.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


I know what I said:




Can you own drugs, explosives, nuclear bombs, a money printer? Strawman


Anyone who brings explosives, and nukes to a gun fight is a strawman.




What I said DIRECTLY responds to that question. It directly shows that there are many things the government regulates the possession of. That was the exact question you were asking.


Does regulation stop anything? NO




It's actually YOU, who keeps using strawman attacks. You are making it out to be that Nukes were the centerpiece of my argument. They were an example.


Nope someone else as there was quite a bit said after that.
edit on 31-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by solomons path
 


Yep, watch those Zionists.. Nothing but murdering cowards who seem to evade the radar time and time again. People like Biden will destroy America. Zionists are not your friends.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 




And you completely missed my point. per usual on these types of threads.


I didn't miss your point. You mean this one right?



But they are NOT coming for the guns!!!!


No, I saw it..

This is a milestone. To call semi-automatic guns "Weapons of War" is going to do the same thing as the terrorist label. Remember Bush saying "If you aren't with us your against us."?

What he meant was if you aren't with us we'll call you a terrorist.



Congrats everyone, the little .22 that you keep under lock and key to protect your family just became a...

WEAPON of WARRRRR!!!




posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Silly Joe............



Now, people when I say that look at me and say, 'What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?'. The answer is yes, that's what I'm telling you. ~ Joe Biden



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
While I am at it laws against explosives have not worked either people make their own as seen on Youtube.

Laws against "bad drugs" haven't stopped usage either.

So the point was?

Just like Gun control laws what do they do?

They don't stop anything.


Actually some of the laws turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals ie Chicago, N.Y. ; otherwise I pretty much agree with many of the posters. The consensus on the 2d by those who study such things was to require all able bodied men to be outfitted with the same arms as a soldier in the field. That was the intent; whether it can be realized in today's modern battle field environment is problematic..... for those who do not know the difference between a semi-auto AR/AK clone and a full blown M-16 with the little switch which says, SAFE, FIRE, AUTO, although there is a mod that says SAFE, SEMI, 3-round BURST, full AUTO....Full auto IMO is used in a squad environment to achieve fire superiority whether instigating an ambush or defending against one. Worked good in S.E. Asia but the military boys have decided that the sand box (for the most part) only requires the majority of the troops to use safe, fire, 3 rd burst....saves ammo and they can actually hit what they aim at for the most part.

All the chatter about outlawing this and that really gets people riled up on both side of the argument. The people who believe in the Constitution and the 2d amendment have the old document on their side where the other-side has emotions, feelings, and protect the children or population on theirs; even though the statistics on deaths by firearms in all categories is way behind the deaths caused by other means...There are a few threads showing those stats but as usual they don't mean anything to those who have a problem with guns; they just want the status quo changed by any means possible..

Guns are all over America and the time to ban them was long long ago.... probably when the Constitution was being written but the founders knew they would have another war on their hands and were not so inclined. So the idea that we are all on this boat together and all need to be able to defend it and ourselves together against all enemies both foreign and domestic made sense. Many well read history buffs on the gun side of the argument will not want to give their guns up because time after time in many places around the world things get really really bad for the living.

Think about this. You are a violent, homicidal idiot, looking to make a statement, hoping to go from disaffected loser to the most famous person in your town. One obvious way to accomplish your goal is to kill a whole bunch of people who just piss you off...Didn't give you the respect you deserved or picked on you etc etc. So where’s the best place to go shoot, bomb, kill all these people?
It is someplace where nobody can shoot back.

Time after time when the stats have been published the crime has gone down if the population is armed. Chicago and Detroit with their no guns allowed policy have about 1.2 people killed everyday by a gun; a little over 500 each a year. Those tough laws work great on the law abiders but as usual fail miserably because a certain segment of the population has no respect for laws, you, your life, certainly not your property. The crystal rubbing Utopian believers are one mugging away from meeting the harsh reality of self reliance and being able to defend themselves. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event, with more than four casualties, has happened where guns were supposedly not allowed...think about it!!!!!

My 100 pound wife is tough but I would hate to see here attacked by a 225 pound man who wanted to hurt or rob her..She is a sneaky little bugger but I would rather she not be tested.

Colt along with Smith and Wesson figured out that problem along time ago to the point they used to be referred to as "the great equalizers or Peace Makers". Times have changed; now for the uninformed masses if they see a gun it is time to "Run Away" unless carried by the government enforcers. With some of the nut jobs carrying illegal weapons that might be a good option for those who can not defend themselves. Unable to run, sorry
80% of the ones I classify as "nut jobs" are on some form of psychotropic drug and have been for many years. They have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed. They are usually disaffected, have been bullied, pushed around, and have a lot of classifiable emotional problems; delusional. They see themselves as victims, and they are usually striking back at their peer group or society
There are no easy answers regardless of TPTB making feel good, "See we are doing something" statements and trying to pass laws that have already been proven to be ineffectual
.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Continued:

To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated for the purpose of this thread in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge infantry weapon. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary; I am not kidding!
The US banned assault rifles (their new definition) once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. It was a totally, literally, pointless, feel good action, by our beloved leaders. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except piss a bunch of Americans off, and as a result a TON more guns were purchased; sound familiar?) Assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon based on looks not rate of fire or caliber. The criteria was so silly that it became a huge joke to gun owners, except where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal. flash hiders, barrel shrouds, pistol grips, thumb hole stocks and the dreaded bayonet lug... are now officially some of the things that make an Assault rifle as defined by those who should know better.

In my humble opinion along many who use firearms regularly you have to ask "What to heck are our dear leaders thinking"?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Mention guns on ATS..and the cowards will all jump in to spread the same old pro gun propaganda.

Guns prevent crime = LIE
Guns protect them from government = LIE
I need multiple weapons in order to protect my family = LIE
More guns means less crime = LIE
Gun registration does not help keep guns out of criminals hands = LIE
Less gun restriction means criminals find it easier to access weapons = TRUTH


I really do not see any good argument to own multiple weapons. I can see the argument for owning A weapon.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Mention guns on ATS..and the cowards will all jump in to spread the same old pro gun propaganda.

Guns prevent crime = LIE
Guns protect them from government = LIE
I need multiple weapons in order to protect my family = LIE
More guns means less crime = LIE
Gun registration does not help keep guns out of criminals hands = LIE
Less gun restriction means criminals find it easier to access weapons = TRUTH


I really do not see any good argument to own multiple weapons. I can see the argument for owning A weapon.



Guns prevent crime = LIE....... you are wrong if you look at the stats for the states that have CCW

Guns protect them from government = LIE Nothing can protect you from the government if they want you.

I need multiple weapons in order to protect my family = LIE Many have a weapon in their car, and a few throughout the house; but that is their choice in a free society. One old boy and his wife were herded into the kitchen while the 2d bad guy searched the house. Lucky for the old guy he had hidden a pistol in the kitchen which he was able to retrieve and one perp was shot and the other fled. There are probably those who believe the wife should have baked cookies and all sat around drinking cool-aid no doubt.

More guns means less crime = LIE.... refer back to the stats on states with CCW but that will interfere with your made up mind regardless of the facts. Must feel good though to call something a lie because you do not want the outcome to disagree with you preconceived notions....Surprised you did not fit racist in there some place which seems to be the catch all phrase for anyone who disagrees anymore?

Gun registration does not help keep guns out of criminals hands = LIE..... The gang bangers and Drug cartels have a hard time with registration and to my knowledge the only weapons they are caught with were given to them by some government or were stolen....Some are purchased on the black market and I would assume if you have a suitcase full of money or contraband there are those who can find you a weapon.

Less gun restriction means criminals find it easier to access weapons = TRUTH so glad you got one right....Houses are broke into everyday in America and guess what if there are guns they are taken. We had a guy around here that had a very large super expensive safe full of guns...His house was broken into and the very large bolted to the floor heavy safe was taken....stuff happens in a free society where the cops can't watch your house for you every time you go to the store for some barbeque sauce.

Really not picking on you but who ever fed you that load of dribble was wrong unless the FBI Crime statistics are lying?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 





Mention guns on ATS..and the cowards will all jump in to spread the same old pro gun propaganda.


Which "cowards" would those be? The ones hiding behind government "laws" to make them feel safe?




Guns prevent crime = LIE


Gun laws prevent crime= LIE




Guns protect them from government = LIE


Laws protect people from bad people= LIE




I need multiple weapons in order to protect my family = LIE


I need multiple gun laws in order to protect my family= LIE




More guns means less crime = LIE


More gun laws means less crime= LIE




Gun registration does not help keep guns out of criminals hands = LIE


Gun registration eh explain to me why I have to ask govenrment permission to own a gun?




Less gun restriction means criminals find it easier to access weapons = TRUTH


Criminals don't give a rats behind what gun laws there are= Truth since they don't "obey" them.




I really do not see any good argument to own multiple weapons. I can see the argument for owning A weapon.


Hear that gun owners your rights are whatever he says they are, too bad we don't get our rights from him or government.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


It's funny, that's how folks in Washington like to paint them selves, "reasonable" and trying to do the "right thing", while demonizing whoever opposes their view.
The Obama administration really likes to tug at the heart strings to play on the low information person's emotions.




Your rhetoric is laughable

Thats another good example, down play others opinions as if your opinion is some how superior.
And instead of facts or adding anything constructive, you respond with arrogance.






Can you own drugs, explosives, nuclear bombs, a money printer?


Actually, ever heard of a "drug dealer"?
That's where you miss the point, 260,000,000 gun owners did not use a high capacity magazine or semi auto carbines (aka ar15) to go on a killing spree today. Why should they be punished with laws that will do nothing, at all, for what those law are supposedly intended to do?



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 




Mention guns on ATS..and the cowards will all jump in to spread the same old pro gun propaganda

And hoping Obama will wave a magic wand and make all the bad people go away isn't a good indicator of a coward? You'll gladly strip away any right so you can feel that false sense of security huh?.

You must be a troll.
You ever heard of Chicago? Gun control is working great there..
Everything in your post is false. I'll admit I'm wrong if you can prove (with links) just two of any of the those things you said, to be true.




I really do not see any good argument to own multiple weapons. I can see the argument for owning A weapon.

That's not up for debate, sorry. (See "Second Amendment")
I can, and will, own as many weapons as I like. You don't need to "see why", I just can. i.e. rights
edit on 31-3-2013 by kx12x because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1/2 Nephilim
reply to post by Ghost375
 




And you completely missed my point. per usual on these types of threads.


I didn't miss your point. You mean this one right?



But they are NOT coming for the guns!!!!


No, I saw it..

No, that was not my point at all, and you're taking it out of context. My point was there are people who are trying to outlaw some guns, but they don't have the means of doing so. They are too small of a minority. If anything, they'll TRY to outlaw the SALE of semi-automatic weapons. They won't be coming door to door collecting your guns. The logistics of it make it unfeasible.



posted on Mar, 31 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Evidently in Cyprus ,so i have read ,you Cannot own a rifle or handgun in ANY calibre ! not even a 22 rimfire, you can own a shotgun, but only double barrels, NOT semi auto or pump action ! Guess they picked the right place to do a theft of the publics money .Its not your guns they specifically want ,it EVERYTHING you own !!!! its just they need to get rid of guns first ! then ........ they can take EVERYTHING !!!!, which these dummies cant seem to wake up to ,but will, when its too late, then they will be the first WHINGERS ,complaining ,why didnt someone do something ? HMMM





top topics
 
39
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join