Obama on guns

[Platapus]

I fully support the regulation of citizens owning Assault Weapons.

However, I am against the regulation of semi-automatic weapons that only superficially resemble assault weapons.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Well, with respect, perhaps you should quit with the doom and gloom way of thinking.

Let's see what will happen before reacting

That's one of my favorite things about the newscasters. They speculate on things that nobody can be sure about. You can always get a good laugh from them.

Well, that AND horrible/useless financial advice.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by August

That's not quite true Subman. There was a cop in Florida who used his legally owned Uzi to murder his wife and her lover a few years back. Of course his service weapon would have done the deed just as well but there you go.

There are only 4 instances where legally owned FA machineguns have been used in the commission of a crime:

-A man came home and killed his wife and her lover when he discovered them playing "hide the salami"

-A mans' wife killed her husband with his FA weapon (don't know what it was).

-The other two instances were committed by (at the time) current LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS using department owned weapons.

As far as crimes with "Assault Rifles":

The only time a civilian AR-15 style weapon was used in the commission of a crime was the D.C. "sniper" (proper term is gunman) shootings by John Lee Malvo and his son.

The only other time an civilian owned "Assault Rifle" was used was in the WIsconsin hunting massacre by Chai Soua Vang, a hmong immigrant who had a prior arrest record for threatening his wife with a firearm (this SHOULD have resulted in a restraining order and charges of assault with a deadly weapon to prevent him from owning firearms until he proves himself as having cleaned up his act).



Also, the term "Assault Rifle" is bandied about by the media so much that people have forgotten what the term actually refers to.

An Assault Rifle is a selective fire Rifle or Carbine that is capable of BOTH semi-automatic and Fully-automatic fire. Therefore, the civilian AR-15 and SKS rifles are NOT "Assault Rifles". To say they are even "Assault Style" is political term to make these firearms out to be the boogieman that they are not.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by Platapus

I fully support the regulation of citizens owning Assault Weapons.

However, I am against the regulation of semi-automatic weapons that only superficially resemble assault weapons.

As long as I can pass a background check and own a semi-automatic rifle, why should I be stopped from buying a rifle that is fully-automatic?

[Ducimus]

Don't get me wrong, i really do enjoy target shooting, hunting for various games (which requires various types of firearms depending on what my hunting), and the feeling of security that only a weapon for home defense can bring (handgun/shotgun)....

However.....

Modern military firearms in the hands of civilians i cannot wrap my head around. Any weapon that the military classifies as a "Primary duty weapon" such as an M16 in its many varients, or an AK-47 and its many varients, i just cant see.

In vague general terms, The military exists for two reasons.
1.) To kill people
2.) To break things.

If you don't directly do these, then your in a function that supports those two "missions". Military firearms are the tools of this "trade", and generally speaking these activities are illegal as a civilian anyway save for circumstances like home defense, and for that there are better alternatives. ( I keep looking at mossburg's and remingtons for this ) So from that perspective, I have absolutely no reason to own something an M16A1 (although id love to, and yes, i said an A1. :rotfl: )

The only reason to want to own these firearms, is because their cool, and for no other reason. Unless you have a job that requires you to hump around on foot and shoot people (subsequently requiring a tool intended for this specific purpose - aka "assualt rifle"), then there isn't any need for one. On while i'm on that subject, what the hell is a civilian going to do with a 50 caliber long arm? Blow deer apart from over 900 yards because he can?

Of course, theres always the tin foil hat "montana militiaman" and "Turner Diaries" type excuse for want or need of these weapons. I love how some think along the lines of how a revolution by the "true americans" is suppose transpire and the people will rise up and take down the (insert noun here) government.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Modern military firearms

Ducimus, real modern military firearms have been extremely difficult for civilians to legally obtain for the past 40 some odd years. To get one it would cost you literally thousands if not 10s of thousands of dollars and before you were allowed to buy one you'd have to undergo a complete backround check by the FBI. A real check, not the quicky ones they do for hiring bank guards and air marshals.

Not only that but by owning one you agree to allowing BATF, FBI and/or local police into your home at any time to ensure it both remains in your possession and is kept secured in the proper manner. Heck you must even submit a written request to move it across state lines.

Now are you by chance referring to semi-automatic versions of modern military firearms, such as the AR-15 and such a civilian can obtain in the normal way that one purchases a rifle? If so then be advised they are mechanically no different than any standard semi-auto hunting or target rifle. The ONLY difference is their cosmetics. ie they LOOK dangerous.

Are looks the standard by which you would allow the government to restrict your constitutional right to own a firearm? That's kind of open to interpetation don't you think? After all any firearm from your Ruger 10-22 to a black powder musket can look dangerous in somebodys opinion, and more importantly, your Mossberg or Remington can be added to the list of banned "assault weapons" at any time, without further legislation.

Think about that for a minute and you'll see this is just one more end run around the 2nd Amendment.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Modern military firearms in the hands of civilians i cannot wrap my head around. Any weapon that the military classifies as a "Primary duty weapon" such as an M16 in its many varients, or an AK-47 and its many varients, i just cant see.

In vague general terms, The military exists for two reasons.
1.) To kill people
2.) To break things.

A few reasons:

1. A .22 just doesn't cut it after 7 years old.

2. Its time to grow up and get something with range and accuracy.

3. Not everyone enjoys killing animals, so they turn to plinking instead.

4. Plinking with a bolt action rifle just is a pain in the butt and expensive. How many reasons.

5. And it is useful in a defensive situation - Go back and study the LA Riots. Guess who's shops were completely left alone? The Korean shop keepers that sat on top of the roofs with sporting rifles. All other shops, were burned, looted, or destoryed except all these Korean guys. And guess what? They never even fired a shot. Kind of like Americas nuke stockpile - its there, and people won't mess with us because they know its there.

Need more?

-S

[Steel_Tomb]

Ok fair enough about the assault weapons. I think the main issue is that there needs to be more detailed background checks for those who wish to apply for any licence to hold a leathal weapon i.e. a gun. There have been incidents before where people who were mentally unstable have been able to get hold of a gun TOO EASILY. Namely the bonkers chap who went on a rampage in the local Tech not long ago (think it was in virginia??) all he had to do was say that he didn't have any mental illnesses and that was it... yes... very foolproof. I'm not against people having weapons, I myself would love to have a rifle to go shooting at a range or something... but its simply not allowed here in the UK.

Gun ownership is fine by me, but there need to be very powerful safeguards and thorough background checks before one is allowed to bear arms.

[The WosMan]

Look if you want to impose limits on firearms ownership then you have to do so through a constitutional amendment. The Second Amendment protects our God given rights to own a weapon for personal defense and says the government cannot infringe on this right. All one has to do to prove this is read the writings of any of our nations founding fathers. Again, the purpose of the Second Amendment wasn't to grant a person the right to own a firearm because you already have this right as a human being. It was to protect the government from infringing on this right. Every single gun law in this nation is unconstitutional.

If Barack Obama can sit there and say the government can pick and choose and ignore one amendment then what is to stop the government from ignoring others. Imagine if the state of Texas wanted to ignore the 16th amendment (income tax) on the grounds that it discourages productivity or for some other reason. Now imagine the response the federal government would have to that. I know that if this happened I would be moving to the Republic of Texas faster then you can say Neal Stevens.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

...Namely the bonkers chap who went on a rampage in the local Tech not long ago (think it was in virginia??) all he had to do was say that he didn't have any mental illnesses and that was it... yes... very foolproof....

He was a foreigner too! Some idiot really messed up his background check. Wrong person to mess up on too.

I guess no system is perfect. One thing to note from me - I'll take the chance of a whacko getting hold of something in favor of a ban any day. Bans are just stupid, including the fully auto ban!

-S

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

Ok fair enough about the assault weapons. I think the main issue is that there needs to be more detailed background checks for those who wish to apply for any licence to hold a leathal weapon i.e. a gun. There have been incidents before where people who were mentally unstable have been able to get hold of a gun TOO EASILY. Namely the bonkers chap who went on a rampage in the local Tech not long ago (think it was in virginia??) all he had to do was say that he didn't have any mental illnesses and that was it... yes... very foolproof. I'm not against people having weapons, I myself would love to have a rifle to go shooting at a range or something... but its simply not allowed here in the UK.

Gun ownership is fine by me, but there need to be very powerful safeguards and thorough background checks before one is allowed to bear arms.

Cho Seung-Hui was found by a district court of virginia to be mentally ill. However, the Virginia courts dropped the ball in NOT forwarding this information to the National Instant Check System database which would've provided NICS the information necessary to prevent Cho Seung-Hui from purchasing a firearm.

The system we have in place now is more than adequate, it's just up to people actually doing their jobs right that's the problem.

[nikimcbee]

Bump.

I thought this would be interesting after the ruling.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Good arguments for both sides here. My two cents;

1) A society with a high proportion of gun ownership amongst the honest citizenry is will suffer less violent crime because of the deterrent factor. Imagine trying to commit a crime when every person around or who might show up is a police officer.

2) The 2nd amendment was not made to allow people to hunt or to sport shoot. It was intended for self-defense but more importantly, national defense and armed rebellion. This is also why militias are legal. It serves as a failsafe to thwart a tyrannical regime.
The contrary opinion, that the amendment was made to allow you to serve in the military (yes I have heard people say this) doesn't make any sense.
I have the right to die for my country? Gee, thanks.

3) this is a link to one of John Stossel's pieces on gun control. As with all arguments it may be biased and all evidence presented should be independently verified before being taken as fact but he does a good job of pointing out the strongest arguments for abandoning gun control.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

so you can't debate where he stands on it.

:rotfl:

Sorry, not laughing at you, or your argument. It's just that the first time I read the thread I didn't register that particular statement.

After rereading Obama's statements, I think you definitely CAN debate where he stands on gun control, and debate it successfully either way. His statements are contradictory, seemingly trying to support both sides and have it both ways.

Just my opinion.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

...His statements are contradictory, seemingly trying to support both sides and have it both ways....

Typical democrat - Flip flop flip flop!

You know why they flip flop? Because they have an agenda that is contrary to the popular one - typically more control, more government, pure communism, yet they have a hard time saying it.

-S