White House: Reinstating 'Assault' Weapons Ban to Prevent Terrorism is Common Sense

This absolutely maddening. Given then FACT that no mass shooter used the gun show loophole. The ASWB of the Clinton Era did little, and it sure didn't stop Columbine. Why yes people it's only common sense to keep pushing the exact things they have for the past seven years. What really irks me is where do they get off telling me what I need or don't need.

"I think what the President would say based on his comments from Sunday night is that we are seeing extremist organizations, including ISIL, trying to radicalize people in the United States to essentially mimic the tactics of other mass shooters in this country. So, there certainly is a national security benefit to closing the gun show loophole or reinstating the assault weapons ban," Earnest said (bolding is mine). "There is such profound frustration on the part of the President that Congress hasn't taken common sense steps that would make it harder for those who shouldn't get guns from getting their hands on them. The suggestion is not that we can stop every incident of violence in this country but if there are some common sense things that we can do that will at least make some of them less likely, then why wouldn't we do it."

Brownshirts are on the march

According to Earnest,Obama, and their supporters. No one should have a gun. Well except police, and the government.



Stop!

Listen real close people.

This is how the Patriot Act was created.

Put the fear of God in the masses.

They can work wonders.

And people called me paranoid after my last thread.

NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should 'Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens'

I thought he was a "constitutional" lawyer?

Dumb ass.

I'm confused. In the other thread, which you quickly left after being exposed, you were ok with gun confiscation for Muslims and mosques, but now you get upset at the White House suggesting an assault weapons ban?

You're not very consistent.

a reply to: neo96

Why do they keep saying " common sense"?

Because it is not common sense, it is in fact senseless.

Millions upon millions of gun owners don't use their guns for I'll every day week month year decade.....

But yes we should punish all gun owners, for a tiny fraction that does evil.

But we shouldn't judge all muslims, based off the evil acts of a tiny fraction.

"Common sense " in its most inept version on full display.

a reply to: introvert

Violate gun-owners' rights? NEVER!!!
Violate Christians' rights? NEVER!!!
Violate Muslims' rights? Sure! Why not?

I need to hurry up and buy an AK an AR and a shotgun before they go extinct.

a reply to: neo96
Rookie terrorist: I have obtained 5 "assault rifles" for our next mass shooting.
Lead terrorist: You idiot. We can't use those. They are banned in the United States.

Yep. Only common sense. Because, you know, terrorists obey the law.

a reply to: introvert

The only people exposed were those people in those MOSQUES with Assault weapons that were ILLEGAL by french law.

The French don't have our Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendment.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Care to stick to it?

originally posted by: AlongCamePaul
I need to hurry up and buy an AK an AR and a shotgun before they go extinct.

Shotguns were not part of the AWB.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
I thought he was a "constitutional" lawyer?

Dumb ass.

Why do you think they're all so good at ignoring the thing?


Topic- how many "assault weapons" did the ban keep off the streets and out of the hands of violent gangs and terrorists previously?

a reply to: neo96

You know what I actually have to agree with your stance on this issue here...

The whole idea of banning weapons of war is stupid IMO, for one all firearms could be considered weapons of war would it not? Their designed to kill or maim their targets. I find it stupid personally for the reason you could take more people out or at least maim more people with a full auto Glock 18 than a semi-auto hunting rifle..

But one thing to note it's never mentioned in the article specifically that Obama supporters said NO ONE should own firearms except government entities, but I can understand the leap in logic when the terrorism no-fly list was mentioned. As they could put just about anyone on the no fly list for a whole host of ridiculous,petty reasons.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: introvert

Violate gun-owners' rights? NEVER!!!
Violate Christians' rights? NEVER!!!
Violate Muslims' rights? Sure! Why not?

Gun owners rights have been violated consistently since 1934.

The countries first 'terrorists'.

After all they are the only group of people in this country that have to ask the state for permission to exercise their RIGHTS.

a reply to: neo96

Why doesn't government simply do a gun exchange program.

For every gun they confiscate, they will provide you with a white flag and instructions on how to cower in place and hide.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

The only people exposed were those people in those MOSQUES with Assault weapons that were ILLEGAL by french law.

The French don't have our Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendment.

But that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.

Care to stick to it?

True. The firearms were illegal to posses and they were confiscated because France has an AWB.

What was your comment on that?

You said Americans would never do it here because it's racist and you also said "Viva la France".

You support an AWB as long as it doesn't effect you.

With one of the most commonly crossed borders on earth how can anyone say we ban anything? You cant buy coc aine in stores but people still have it. Banning only works on people who will respect the fact that it is banned. That is the common sense part our glorious leader seems to keep missing.

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
I thought he was a "constitutional" lawyer?

Dumb ass.

Why do you think they're all so good at ignoring the thing?


Topic- how many "assault weapons" did the ban keep off the streets and out of the hands of violent gangs and terrorists previously?

None, because there is no such thing as an "assault weapon".

That phrase is pure BS.

Unless you believe that a weapon is somehow more dangerous because it looks scary.

If you do believe that, I got 8 sec Honda civic to sell you, the body kit and go fast stickers prove it.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

The whole idea of banning weapons of war is stupid IMO,

Isn't it though.

'Common sense' from the crowd that wants weed legalized,drugs legalized, Guns banned.

It us common sense though. What is the need for an "assault" weapons. You can have your guns, maintain paranoid thoughts of someone breaking in to your homes as justification for the gun in the first place.

Isn't a standard gun enough? Genuine question guys? Is there a possible reason outside constitutional right and amendments, because on the level, it's a poor reason, for owning a gun that can cause maximum damage simply for defensive reasons.

Hunting is different, if you get your kicks out of mutilating animals with multiple bullets then that's your choice, but still not a justifiable reason for high powered automatic weapons.

a reply to: introvert

I know what I said.

Mosques will never be raided here because it isn't PC.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: introvert

Violate gun-owners' rights? NEVER!!!
Violate Christians' rights? NEVER!!!
Violate Muslims' rights? Sure! Why not?

QFT. Pretty much sums up the right wing political climate to a T.