Obama after the Assualt Weapons Ban Already.

[Disclaimer]

There ya go... how about, if you're capable of manufacturing it yourself, you can have it.

[Jester851]

All this talk about sheep, where are the wolves? A ban on assault weapons will be a cover to ban and/or change regulations on other gun related issues. Watch the fine print when this one gets rolling, i am sure that they will have a paragraph pertaining to ammunition. Obama has suggested before when working in Illinois that all amunition be identifiable. A.K.A. every jacket, and every slug has a serial #. You won't have to worry about buying the weapon, because you won't be able to afford the ammo when the price goes up 4-5 times current rates.

Obama is nothing but a puppet, the question is who's pulling the strings?

[Disclaimer]

George Soros BOUGHT the election for his pet puppet.

Obama is nothing but a puppet, the question is who's pulling the strings?

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.

[Disclaimer]

Ohh the sweet irony - maybe it's just the liberal MSM pushing this type of news though, since it's such a hot button topic.

Man charged in assault rifle killings of 3 teens

Accused in Chicago attacks was previously acquitted in 2005 fatal shooting

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29423140/

He probably would've committed the same crime w/o an assault rifle, but it's just ironic that we're talking about this and he used an assault rifle.

[InyaAzz]

We don't need no steenkin' facts..just FUD.

[robhawk]

Ohh the sweet irony - maybe it's just the liberal MSM pushing this type of news though, since it's such a hot button topic.

Man charged in assault rifle killings of 3 teens

Accused in Chicago attacks was previously acquitted in 2005 fatal shooting

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29423140/

He probably would've committed the same crime w/o an assault rifle, but it's just ironic that we're talking about this and he used an assault rifle.

I can tell your intelligent and your do your homework... how do you not see that the assault rifle ban is just a social ploy? Based on purely fact and stats. Everyone is like "we don't need them assault rifles as long as I gots me a glock" well we don't need super high powered sport bikes like your Busa. What happens when someone says you can no longer have your Busa but are allowed to own say a 250? My problem is that it is just too much govt control on the tax paying, law abiding citizens of this country. What happened to the citizens of the WW2 era? The ones that would stand up and fight for what they believed in, now the populace of this nation is nothing but a bunch of push overs (not directed toward anyone in this thread, just general statement).

[Disclaimer]

It's hard to compare a gun to a vehicle. I understand your point and we could go 'round and 'round on gun:bike analogies and scenarios. Yes, they can both be abused, they can both kill, etc. But, the major difference is that motorcycles are not designed to intentionally harm individuals. Motorcycles can also be used in moderation - weapons don't have throttles, you can't 'dial down' an AK to make it less lethal.

Regardless of that above rant, I'm in the same boat as InyaAzz. This really shouldn't be a huge deal. This ISN'T the type of legislation thats going to lead to further and further restrictions like everyone fears. And, in the very very off chance it would ever come to that point, you'd have the entire society in an uproar - including non-gun owners if they start banning conventional handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc.

There's just much bigger issues than to be concerned you can't have a grenade launcher. Call me when you can't get a 9mm or 12 gauge anymore, then you'll stir up concern for a cause from me.

[kawi kid]

Regardless of that above rant, I'm in the same boat as InyaAzz. This really shouldn't be a huge deal. This ISN'T the type of legislation thats going to lead to further and further restrictions like everyone fears. And, in the very very off chance it would ever come to that point, you'd have the entire society in an uproar - including non-gun owners if they start banning conventional handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc.

my fear give an inch take a mile.

[Disclaimer]

And that's been the point... it's fear mongering (FUD as InyaAzz calls it).

We can give the inch they're asking for. Hell, we may be able to give 3 or 4 inches, but when they ask for that mile - then we hold our ground.

I mean, really, the bottom line comes down to - is there a compelling reason to proceed with this decision? why or why not? I believe they've made their case on assault weapons, but the burden of proof to compel people to get rid of all firearms is a much taller mountain.

[fusion]

There should be no restrictions on any armaments for anyone!!!!

VIVA LA PEW PEW PEW!!!!!!11!!1!

[kawi kid]

And that's been the point... it's fear mongering (FUD as InyaAzz calls it).

We can give the inch they're asking for. Hell, we may be able to give 3 or 4 inches, but when they ask for that mile - then we hold our ground.

but after those three or four inches how many people are gonna lay down easier because of the first 1 or 2 inches.

[fusion]

but after those three or four inches how many people are gonna lay down easier because of the first 1 or 2 inches.

Ask your mom how easy it is...

[kawi kid]

Ask your mom how easy it is...

good one but really...............

[robhawk]

It's hard to compare a gun to a vehicle. I understand your point and we could go 'round and 'round on gun:bike analogies and scenarios. Yes, they can both be abused, they can both kill, etc. But, the major difference is that motorcycles are not designed to intentionally harm individuals. Motorcycles can also be used in moderation - weapons don't have throttles, you can't 'dial down' an AK to make it less lethal.

Regardless of that above rant, I'm in the same boat as InyaAzz. This really shouldn't be a huge deal. This ISN'T the type of legislation thats going to lead to further and further restrictions like everyone fears. And, in the very very off chance it would ever come to that point, you'd have the entire society in an uproar - including non-gun owners if they start banning conventional handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc.

There's just much bigger issues than to be concerned you can't have a grenade launcher. Call me when you can't get a 9mm or 12 gauge anymore, then you'll stir up concern for a cause from me.

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."

[wrillo]

The things you type make my brain hurt. I hope you didn't vote for Obama because of what he promised to do. I hope you looked at his voting record and based your decision on what he has actually done. That' date=' my misinformed friend, is called [i']thinking.

This is why no one likes talking about politics, because of bullshit like this. I was trying to be nice about it, but that doesn't get through thick skulls. So when and where the fuck did I say why I voted for Obama? I listed one damn reason that negatively influenced my opinion of Obama, and that hurts your head?

[2wheels>4]

Banning weapons has never been about public safety. Politicians concerned with public safety, 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)

Firearms have rarely killed anyone. Occasionally there is a manufacturing flaw and one will explode and maim someone unexpectedly, but that is very rare and usually operator error. Humans do kill, and firearms are but one of our many tools, and not even the most efficient or terrible.

Humans have been killing each other very effectively since long before Sam Colt or the repeating rifle.... If you want to point fingers at a cause of human suffering and death, 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.

On another point, big brother aside, it is not justice to punish others for the deeds of another. Why should it be illegal for you to be able to effectively defend yourself and your home, or even just go pop off a few rounds in a safe manner because it amuses you? Because someone else used a firearm improperly?

By this logic, 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 wau no one can drive under the influence of any drugs either...

Reacting to what people CAN do rather than what they actually DO is poor philosophy, weak leadership and dangerous in the long run.

And one last point.... Possession of a Machine Gun gets you a lot less time than killing a dozen people. If the prospect of life in prison or the death penalty is insufficient to stop a person from killing another, what kind of penalty do you really think will be effective to stop blackmarket trading of high power weapons??

History (not to mention common sense) tells us nothing can be effectively banned 100%. So, when only the well connected and funded criminals can access firearms, they will have it all the more easy in pushing over the rest of the law-abiding unarmed population...

Think, innercity gangs will still be able to buy weapons from other organized crime, but you will only have a tire iron when 5 bangers come through your door tonight.... Assuming the government doesn't have you in an internment work camp by this point... Think you will fair well? Think the government will save you now? How long DOES it take for a cop to respond to a call at your house compared to how long it takes someone to shoot you in the face and steal your TV?

[DangBruhY]

Can someone please tell me where people are buying grenades? Apparently this is an issue.

[robhawk]

Banning weapons has never been about public safety. 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)

Firearms have rarely killed anyone. Occasionally there is a manufacturing flaw and one will explode and maim someone unexpectedly, but that is very rare and usually operator error. Humans do kill, and firearms are but one of our many tools, and not even the most efficient or terrible.

Humans have been killing each other very effectively since long before Sam Colt or the repeating rifle.... If you want to point fingers at a cause of human suffering and death, 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.

On another point, big brother aside, it is not justice to punish others for the deeds of another. Why should it be illegal for you to be able to effectively defend yourself and your home, or even just go pop off a few rounds in a safe manner because it amuses you? Because someone else used a firearm improperly?

By this logic, 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 wau no one can drive under the influence of any drugs either...

Reacting to what people CAN do rather than what they actually DO is poor philosophy, weak leadership and dangerous in the long run.

And one last point.... Possession of a Machine Gun gets you a lot less time than killing a dozen people. If the prospect of life in prison or the death penalty is insufficient to stop a person from killing another, what kind of penalty do you really think will be effective to stop blackmarket trading of high power weapons??

History (not to mention common sense) tells us nothing can be effectively banned 100%. So, when only the well connected and funded criminals can access firearms, they will have it all the more easy in pushing over the rest of the law-abiding unarmed population...

Think, innercity gangs will still be able to buy weapons from other organized crime, but you will only have a tire iron when 5 bangers come through your door tonight.... Assuming the government doesn't have you in an internment work camp by this point... Think you will fair well? Think the government will save you now? How long DOES it take for a cop to respond to a call at your house compared to how long it takes someone to shoot you in the face and steal your TV?[/quote']

Well said, Im ready to beat my criminal attackers with flowers.

[fusion]

Well said, Im ready to beat my criminal attackers with flowers.

I don't know you could always start with hand-to-hand. Unless you're trying to date them of course then knock yourself out.

[wrillo]

I don't know you could always start with hand-to-hand. Unless you're trying to date them of course then knock yourself out.

No, you attack with flowers with the hope that they're allergic

[fusion]

No, you attack with flowers with the hope that they're allergic

Ah well that makes sense(scents?). I retract my previous statement.

[SAMBUSA]

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.

He's a puppet because he is the President. No President will ever have a positive approval rate, regardless of what political party he is in.

[2wheels>4]

No, you attack with flowers with the hope that they're allergic

Hellz yeah!

"Quick, Ma, get the assault Peanuts from the cupboard! Hooligans are breaking in and they better hope to heaven that they ain't allergic!!"

I just come out naked and tell them I want to take our relationship to the next level. Chases most men off, so as long as I don't get jacked by a chick or a homosexual looking to settle down, I should be fine.

[Disclaimer]

He's a puppet because he is the President. No President will ever have a positive approval rate, regardless of what political party he is in.

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

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

Obama’s opening 68 percent favorable rating was one of the highest for a first-term president in Gallup history, and his 5-percentage-point drop brings him roughly in line with the historic average (62 percent) for presidents after one month in office. Obama’s 24 percent disapproval rating also is similar to those of the last two presidents, according to Gallup, “perhaps owing to heightened partisanship or media scrutiny in recent years.”

[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.