Obama after the Assualt Weapons Ban Already.

[Disclaimer]

Your still missing my point, why ban something that is proven less dangerous then something else, regardless of how you "think" its used. That just is stupid and shows poor leadership. Those small decisions lead me to wonder what and how this man will decide on the bigger decisions. People fear what they don't understand, that is why I brought up the bike analogy, I love my assault rifles. You love your bike, who gives a fuck why I love, them I do, and I bet, for what ever the reason, you would be pretty pissed off if someone told you that you couldn't have you bike anymore because its too dangerous. Ben Franklin had it right, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

No, I absolutely understand your point. But, the PURPOSE of both machines are completely different. Assault weapons, original purpose - to kill. Bikes, original purpose - to move from A to B. I understand your analogy, but it doesn't suit the situation we're discussing. It'd be a better analogy if they called motorcycles "assault bikes". When the term ASSAULT describes a weapon... it's different.

I will agree with the Ben Franklin quote and that people fear what they don't understand. I don't FEAR assault weapons any more than I fear driving to work everyday. And from some of the sentiments here it's the "give an inch, take a mile attitude" of most gun owners that is the issue here. A lot of the hunters and gun owners I talk with don't have an issue with a ban on assault weapons, they're more worried about it leading to other bans (which I think is unfounded, but that's beside the point).

You best argument is the "hobbyist" one, you like your assault weapons, it doesn't matter why, you just do. That's the most valid footing you have, but even then, there are certain tools that the public-at-large need not possess given the original intent of the tools. Assault weapons are designed for a specific purpose - to kill, not to hunt, not to put food on your plate, not to get you to and from the grocery store, you get the point. It's two different worlds, it has nothing to do with fear (at least not in my personal case, or most rational people).

[Disclaimer]

Banning weapons has never been about public safety.

[citation needed]

Politicians concerned with public safety' date=' in addition to being rare or non-existent, would understand that we are much safer on an even playing field. (Evolution made man, Sam Colt made man equal.) Politicians ban guns because of one of two reasons:

1. They have a communist or "big brother" type agenda which is poorly served by an armed and informed populace. (Obama, Clinton)

2. They have personal emotions which interfere with their ability to make clear judgments and decisions. (Regan administration and Brady bill)[/quote']

[citation needed] If it was really a big brother agenda, I'd start with the 1st amendment, not the 2nd.

If you want to point fingers at a cause of human suffering and death' date=' ban RELIGION. The cause of most war and prejudice on our planet is human nature, not an object, and banning the object just means that we, as thinking animals, will simply find other ways to kill each other.[/quote']

Touche, you're 'preaching to the choir' (see what I did there ). I agree with you ... but still not a good argument to have assault weapons in the general populace.

Why should it be illegal for you to be able to effectively defend yourself and your home' date=' or even just go pop off a few rounds in a safe manner because it amuses you? Because someone else used a firearm improperly?[/quote']

You can, you don't need automatic weapons to defend your home. If you can't effectively defend your home with a standard weapon, then arming yourself with an assault weapon isn't the wisest choice because you're not educated enough on self-defense.

By this logic' date=' we should ban "Assault cars" which go over 35mph or can accelerate at more than a given rate. Also, you should have to pay to install expensive gas spectrometer equipment and supply it with a blood sample in order to start the car, that way no one can drive under the influence of any drugs either... [/quote']

See my other post, cars aren't inherently designed to kill. Apples to oranges. Though I'd be all for putting equipment in a car that prevents drunks and druggies from getting behind the wheel. Hell, I think we should design in someway for people to prove financial liability before getting behind the wheel.

The rest of your post threw out scenarios, but none of them require anything beyond the tools and skills that standard weaponry provide.

Edited February 27, 2009 by JRMMiii

[fueljunkie1]

Ooof, there are some lost individuals here. Let's oversimplify. The dems went for the guns before, and made a good run at it. But their casualties outweighed the results and they were ousted from power.

So they did something just as wide-spanning but easier for the general public to swallow-cigarettes. I don't smoke, but I voted against the bans...because it was just a stepping stone to test the waters from before they came back for the guns. Once they're dealt with, there's the right to free speech, etc. Oh, wait, they got a start on THAT with McCain Feingold. McCain's dumb ass regretted that one this election, huh? Full NRA support and not allowed to speak up.

Politicians are all used car salesmen, but without the scruples. This is all about control. You'll see blue beanies on the military pretty soon. And yes, there is a Marine rotting in the brig since Clinton for refusing to put it on because it is not in the manual. What was that justice thing again....?

[Disclaimer]

Ooof, there are some lost individuals here. Let's oversimplify. The dems went for the guns before, and made a good run at it. But their casualties outweighed the results and they were ousted from power.

We don't need simplification - we need facts and links to what you're talking about.

We are still talking about assault weapons, not cigs, or the military (which as of late, was still VOLUNTARY), right?

Edited February 27, 2009 by JRMMiii

[2wheels>4]

You best argument is the "hobbyist" one, you like your assault weapons, it doesn't matter why, you just do. That's the most valid footing you have, but even then, there are certain tools that the public-at-large need not possess given the original intent of the tools. Assault weapons are designed for a specific purpose - to kill, not to hunt, not to put food on your plate, not to get you to and from the grocery store, you get the point. It's two different worlds, it has nothing to do with fear (at least not in my personal case, or most rational people).

You did OK till this part... This can't be argued properly without first defining "assault weapon."

No, I don't ever NEED an M249 SAW. (shot them and not a big fan, really, but makes a good example) But Comrade Obama and the other commies who want to ban firearms just use fear mongering to get an edge in, and then once illegal, they can redefine "assault weapon" to include slingshots if they wish.

Currently, he want's to do away with anything that has a detachable magazine, which means your Ruger 10/22 .22cal squirrel rifle is considered the same as a MK-19 Fully auto grenade launcher or an M60, etc, etc...

Furthermore, the intent of the designer does not necessarily taint the design. Design a knife with the intent to cut a human and I cannot use it to trim my steak?? Design a bike to do 200mph, so now it is too powerfull to be allowed on the road?? People still drive on the roads Hitler built, and medical technique and technology designed to heal is still used to kill.

Design does not imply a culpable state of mind. Use or desire to own does not imply culpability. Intent is hard to prove and open to opinion, action is not. I use my CAR-15 to shoot targets, and groundhogs, and deer when they make rifles legal for that in Ohio. I will also use it to defend myself, my country, my way of life. One neither negates nor necessitates the other.

Killing in defense of self or others is good when necessary. Anything that makes that job easier, makes law abiding citizens safer. My pistol is designed and INTENDED to kill people. Never break into my house, jack my bike, try to assault someone in my presence and you need NEVER fear that I am a danger to you.

My training and arsenal is here to amuse and protect me. If I use anything in an improper manner, be it firearm or vehicle, I should be punished accordingly. If I am not hurting anyone but myself, kindly fuck off. (I mean this in a general sense, not as a personal attack on an individual.)

[fusion]

You realize how dumb it sounds every time you say something like "Comrade Obama and the other commies"?

[ReconRat]

MHO: Above all other considerations. There are individuals in government and power that have repeatedly expressed that the goal is to remove all firearms from the hands of the population. They represent groups of people with the same opinion. And they have action plans to do exactly that. They have not been successful. It has been recorded in the Congressional Record. It is fact. It also includes, if necessary, the alteration or removal of the U.S. constitution. The concept is absurd to most people. But the simple fact that many other countries have already done this or have proceeded on that track, makes it all the more probable that it will continue to be pursued.

In this country, we have extremes on both sides of every issue, and the freedom to pursue our extremes. This, above all else, should not change.

[SAMBUSA]

What!? what!? what!? That's an outlandish statement - where have you been getting YOUR news?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19210.html

It's still early in his term.

So J, you understand what I'm saying here? No President will EVER maintain a positive approval all because the media puts a twist on everything.

Look at Bush, the entire country wanted him to take us to war after 9/11. Then the media started in and the support for went to "I never wanted us to go to war" statements from politicians. All the politicians that voted to go to war pointed blame at Bush and his approval rating took a shit

[fusion]

MHO: Above all other considerations. There are individuals in government and power that have repeatedly expressed that the goal is to remove all firearms from the hands of the population. They represent groups of people with the same opinion. And they have action plans to do exactly that. They have not been successful. It has been recorded in the Congressional Record. It is fact. It also includes, if necessary, the alteration or removal of the U.S. constitution.

Citation? Would love to read that for myself.

In this country, we have extremes on both sides of every issue, and the freedom to pursue our extremes. This, above all else, should not change.

Absolutely +1

[Disclaimer]

I don't understand how they're redefining the term - ASSAULT WEAPONS... InyaAzz posted the definition, it's pretty clear:

http://www.ohio-riders.net/showpost.php?p=161931&postcount=57

I'll argue that the designer of weapons designs the weapon knowing what it's primary directive is. You don't design a butter knife the same as you design a meat cleaver.

I'll never argue your right to self defense or your country, the debate is between what's prudent and necessary to defend yourself and your country. Hence, why I feel the "hobbyist" argument is the best grounds because you don't have to be prudent and necessary to enjoy a hobby. But, if I dabble in nuclear physics, that doesn't mean I should get a reactor.

The cause-effect (or in your example, no cause-no effect) argument used: "Never break into my house, jack my bike, try to assault someone in my presence and you need NEVER fear that I am a danger to you." is weak. How can I show that's your intent? What's stopping everyone from saying that, and still going nuts? How do I know you have the mental stability and have weighed the consequences of using a weapon to kill a person? From your example, you don't deal justice fairly - someone else's life is worth your motorcycle? Punching your wife in the face is equivalent to a death sentence? In those cases, the punishment really doesn't fit the crime. Why would I (as John Q. Public) want someone who's mental stability isn't known to me, to have assault weapons?

[Disclaimer]

Time for a random picture from the user gallery...

[SAMBUSA]

Time for a random picture from the user gallery...

That is an awesome red X:lol:

[Disclaimer]

I dunno what you're talking about

[fusion]

[SAMBUSA]

[robhawk]

I don't understand how they're redefining the term - ASSAULT WEAPONS... InyaAzz posted the definition, it's pretty clear:

http://www.ohio-riders.net/showpost.php?p=161931&postcount=57

I'll argue that the designer of weapons designs the weapon knowing what it's primary directive is. You don't design a butter knife the same as you design a meat cleaver.

I'll never argue your right to self defense or your country, the debate is between what's prudent and necessary to defend yourself and your country. Hence, why I feel the "hobbyist" argument is the best grounds because you don't have to be prudent and necessary to enjoy a hobby. But, if I dabble in nuclear physics, that doesn't mean I should get a reactor.

The cause-effect (or in your example, no cause-no effect) argument used: "Never break into my house, jack my bike, try to assault someone in my presence and you need NEVER fear that I am a danger to you." is weak. How can I show that's your intent? What's stopping everyone from saying that, and still going nuts? How do I know you have the mental stability and have weighed the consequences of using a weapon to kill a person? From your example, you don't deal justice fairly - someone else's life is worth your motorcycle? Punching your wife in the face is equivalent to a death sentence? In those cases, the punishment really doesn't fit the crime. Why would I (as John Q. Public) want someone who's mental stability isn't known to me, to have assault weapons?

Any bullet fired from any weapon can kill someone, it takes alot less skill to kill someone with a shotgun then it does an ar-15, if you ever want to test this at a range just let me know. Pick up J. public off the street and give him a shot gun and tell him to hit a target and he stands a better chance then with an ar with no training. Your points are moot, "designs the weapon knowing what it's primary directive is." You tell me what hand guns are designed for, and how come the stats on this are overlooked, hand guns and rifles are responsible for many more deaths than assault rifles. So as far as mental stability goes... that can never be know of anyone, so why not take all guns.

[SAMBUSA]

Any bullet fired from any weapon can kill someone, it takes alot less skill to kill someone with a shotgun then it does an ar-15, if you ever want to test this at a range just let me know. Pick up J. public off the street and give him a shot gun and tell him to hit a target and he stands a better chance then with an ar with no training. Your points are moot, "designs the weapon knowing what it's primary directive is." You tell me what hand guns are designed for, and how come the stats on this are overlooked, hand guns and rifles are responsible for many more deaths than assault rifles. So as far as mental stability goes... that can never be know of anyone, so why not take all guns.

This post just gives those who want to ban guns even more reason to go after all guns and not just assault rifles

[fusion]

This post just gives those who want to ban guns even more reason to go after all guns and not just assault rifles

beat me to it

[Disclaimer]

You tell me what hand guns are designed for, and how come the stats on this are overlooked, hand guns and rifles are responsible for many more deaths than assault rifles. So as far as mental stability goes... that can never be know of anyone, so why not take all guns.

What stats??... post them and I will read them. Contrary to a lot of people, I am open minded and my opinions do change based on new evidence.

And you're right on the mental stability, but I'm not anti-gun, weapons will always exist. I just don't understand why people think they NEED assault weapons when the weapons available are sufficient? I already covered that most gun owners aren't FOR assault weapons, they're more scared about the "inch -> mile" thing.

But the last thing we all need, is a scared gun owner. That bodes well for no one. Fear and weapons don't mix.

[ReconRat]

Citation? Would love to read that for myself.

Me too, actually. Finding some one in congress saying that no one should have firearms, on record, probably isn't difficult. Finding some one saying on record, that the constitution should be altered or removed would be difficult? Oops, me wrong, check it... They say it all the time...

Putting only a few minutes on this, a search of the congressional record, of the latest volumes, from 1995 to 2009.

I get 31 hits on the phrase "ban firearms". 12 positive hits.

I get 29 hits on the phrase "remove firearms". 4 positive hits.

I get 57 hits on the phrase "alter constitution". 38 positive hits.

I get 200+ hits on the phrase "change constitution". 187+ are positive hits.

I get 30 hits on the phrase "remove constitution". Only one is a positive hit.

17 hits minimum in each are false hits, i.e. query reports, how to search, etc. Junk.

Apparently congress is constantly trying to change the constitution. No one would dare say get rid of the constitution out-right. All are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution.

There is currently a Congressional argument regarding changing the constitution related to voting rights, statehood, representation(votes), etc, of the District of Columbia.

There is currently a Congressional argument regarding the reinstating of the "assault weapons ban".

This makes my head hurt, I'm stopping for now....

[fusion]

Me too, actually. Finding some one in congress saying that no one should have firearms, on record, probably isn't difficult. Finding some one saying on record, that the constitution should be altered or removed would be difficult? Oops, me wrong, check it... They say it all the time...

Putting only a few minutes on this, a search of the congressional record, of the latest volumes, from 1995 to 2009.

I get 31 hits on the phrase "ban firearms". 12 positive hits.

I get 29 hits on the phrase "remove firearms". 4 positive hits.

I get 57 hits on the phrase "alter constitution". 38 positive hits.

I get 200+ hits on the phrase "change constitution". 187+ are positive hits.

I get 30 hits on the phrase "remove constitution". Only one is a positive hit.

17 hits minimum in each are false hits, i.e. query reports, how to search, etc. Junk.

Apparently congress is constantly trying to change the constitution. No one would dare say get rid of the constitution out-right. All are sworn to uphold and protect the constitution.

There is currently a Congressional argument regarding changing the constitution related to voting rights, statehood, representation(votes), etc, of the District of Columbia.

There is currently a Congressional argument regarding the reinstating of the "assault weapons ban".

This makes my head hurt, I'm stopping for now....

I figured you had something specific you were referring to. Getting hits on those in the congressional record is no surprise and it would be context that matters. Those phrases on their own don't mean anything especially if you hit on something said in debate that could be no more than empty accusation.

[Jester851]

That's just from THIS thread, but there've been other times where Obama's been called a puppet in other threads - and across the web.

So, gentlemen... what makes Obama a puppet (over any other politican)? Why? If you're going to make claims like that, either enlighten and educate the rest of us where you're drawing your information from to make that assertion, or STFU.

It's really easy to propagate what you've heard from everyone else.

Maybe I should rephrase what I said. Politicians are puppets, you find me one that isn't. Campaigns are funded by special interest, anything from tree huggers to big business. Those folks who can raise the most money, are the ones pulling the strings. Unfortunatley i have lost damn near all faith in our government because of this, it's corrupt.

[jbot]

damn nubs. don't you know the zombie apocalypse is coming?

[ReconRat]

I figured you had something specific you were referring to. Getting hits on those in the congressional record is no surprise and it would be context that matters. Those phrases on their own don't mean anything especially if you hit on something said in debate that could be no more than empty accusation.

You got me researching now...

In Feb of 1995, the Daschle amendment for a BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, did attempt to alter how changes could be made to the US constitution, which would in effect, allow Congress alone to decide what changes were to be made. The existing procedure requires the consent of three/fourths of the states of the union to ratify the change. Whether this was intentional or by ignorance/accident, is unclear.

In Feb of 1995, HON. RICHARD H. BAKER speaking about BIG BROTHER AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, quotes:

Most people don't realize that along with the 19 semiautomatic

firearms that are banned specifically by the assault weapons ban, the

Clinton crime bill gives the BATF broad authority to define what other

firearms qualify as assault weapons and then to ban these rifles,

shotguns, and pistols as well without further congressional approval.

Apparently it isn't Congress that has the power, it's the BATF.

[ReconRat]

You know what? It is near impossible to pin a politician down on what they've said. And they would deny it anyway. After reading congressional records of endless blah blah blah, I retract any statements I made (see above) regarding evidence in congressional records. Politicians are slippery weasels and it won't be that easy. I will also agree that the fear factor is way too high. It only distracts from what actually does happen.