Obama after the Assualt Weapons Ban Already.

[fusion]

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.

[InyaAzz]

I don't know what we ever did while this ban was previously in effect. I mean, how did we even function as a society? Going all commie and shit.

[Disclaimer]

Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Granted it's an editorial by a member of the US Socialist Party, but the arguments are there.

Partial article excerpt:

The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy. The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.

Issues of war and peace further weaken the commander in chief's socialist credentials. Obama announced that all U.S. combat brigades will be removed from Iraq by August 2010, but he still intends to leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq and wishes to expand the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. A socialist foreign policy would call for the immediate removal of all troops. It would seek to follow the proposal made recently by an Afghan parliamentarian, which called for the United States to send 30,000 scholars or engineers instead of more fighting forces.

Yet the president remains "the world's best salesman of socialism," according to Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina. DeMint encouraged supporters "to take to the streets to stop America's slide into socialism." Despite the fact that billions of dollars of public wealth are being transferred to private corporations, Huckabee still felt confident in proposing that "Lenin and Stalin would love" Obama's bank bailout plan.

Huckabee is clearly no socialist scholar, and I doubt that any of Obama's policies will someday appear in the annals of socialist history. The president has, however, been assigned the unenviable task of salvaging a capitalist system intent on devouring itself. The question is whether he can do so without addressing the deep inequalities that have become fundamental features of American society. So, President Obama, what I want to know is this: Can you lend legitimacy to a society in which 5 percent of the population controls 85 percent of the wealth? Can you sell a health-care reform package that will only end up enriching a private health insurance industry? Will you continue to favor military spending over infrastructure development and social services?

[jhaag]

Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Granted it's an editorial by a member of the US Socialist Party, but the arguments are there.

Partial article excerpt:

i'm no conspiracy theorist, but what would it serve the socialist to agree that the barrack is a socialist? this would only spark a political revolution to squash such progress, especially if he really is exhibiting such tendencies. besides, the barrack has already lied about several issues (lobbyists, tax cheats, etc) and why do we now have Czars?! the car czar was cute for the whole rhyming thing, but whatever, right? isnt the enrgy czar a member of a socialist group (sorry no links on that, may or may not be true)?

also, "redistribution of wealth" is a term taken directly from "The Communist Manifesto". pretty fucked up, imo.

further, being apathetic to important issues (ie giving up a couple of rights here and there) in the name of keeping faithful to your party is particularly careless and counterproductive.

[blacktalon606]

i'm no conspiracy theorist, but what would it serve the socialist to agree that the barrack is a socialist? this would only spark a political revolution to squash such progress, especially if he really is exhibiting such tendencies. besides, the barrack has already lied about several issues (lobbyists, tax cheats, etc) and why do we now have Czars?! the car czar was cute for the whole rhyming thing, but whatever, right? isnt the enrgy czar a member of a socialist group (sorry no links on that, may or may not be true)?

also, "redistribution of wealth" is a term taken directly from "The Communist Manifesto". pretty fucked up, imo.

further, being apathetic to important issues (ie giving up a couple of rights here and there) in the name of keeping faithful to your party is particularly careless and counterproductive.

Well said good sir.

[blacktalon606]

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.

To begin with, trust me... one day they will.

When the Brits banned guns, they saw a 300% increase in firearms related homicide. Enough in fact, that they had to change their way of reporting crime. They also saw a drastic rise in violent crimes of all types, and are actually in the process of (or maybe already have) banning pointed knives. lol. If people want to kill people, they will do it regardless. Criminals after all, specialze in doing things that are against the law.

[DangBruhY]

Canada still has serious problems with guns after their ban.

[SAMBUSA]

One

Big

Ass

Mistake

America

[Disclaimer]

Sheep

Are

My

Bitches

Usually

Sodomizing

All of them

[SAMBUSA]

Sheep

Are

My

Bitches

Usually

Sodomizing

All of them

Creative and factual. Rep for you

[kawi kid]

Sheep

Are

My

Bitches

Usually

Sodomizing

All of them

[Disclaimer]

WOW! Rep from you two gave me a MAJOR boost.

[kawi kid]

we are kinda a big deal......

[SAMBUSA]

we are kinda a big deal......

werd

[DangBruhY]

One

Big

Ass

Mistake

America

There was a picture of a huge freaking bumper sticker on a truck that said that... I can't seem to find it though.

[fusion]

To begin with, trust me... one day they will.

When the Brits banned guns, they saw a 300% increase in firearms related homicide. Enough in fact, that they had to change their way of reporting crime. They also saw a drastic rise in violent crimes of all types, and are actually in the process of (or maybe already have) banning pointed knives. lol. If people want to kill people, they will do it regardless. Criminals after all, specialze in doing things that are against the law.

Ummm no. They didn't change their way of reporting because of a 300% increase. They saw a "300%" increase because they had changed the way they were reporting.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

"Recorded crime increased during most of the 1980s, reaching a peak in 1992, and then fell each year until 1998/99 when the changes in the Counting Rules resulted in an increase in recorded offences (see Box 2.1 on ‘Changes in recording practices’). This was followed by the introduction of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) in April 2002 which led to a rise in recording in 2002/03 and 2003/04, as the rules were bedded-in within forces. The level of police recorded crime has since fallen from 5.64 million in 2004/05 to 4.95 million offences in 2007/08"