• Obama wants to bust your balls, and heads for renewing the assault weapons ban
    758 replies, posted
[QUOTE]President Obama supports reinstating the assault weapons ban, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday, on the heels of back-to-back shooting rampages in the United States.As a presidential candidate, Obama supported renewal of the 1994-2004 federal ban on manufacturing some semi-automatic weapons for civilian use. But he hasn’t pushed for it as president, largely steering clear of the issue. “He does support renewing the assault weapons ban,” Carney said at his press briefing, one day after a shooter killed six people at a Sikh gurdwara in Wisconsin. In response to several questions, he added that “there has been reluctance by Congress to pass that renewal.” The top Obama spokesman reiterated several times that the administration intends to push for gun safety “under existing law” and “not infringe upon Second Amendment rights of citizens.” Evoking Obama’s recent [URL="http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/obama-calls-for-gun-control-after-colorado.php"]speech[/URL] in New Orleans, he said the president wants to improve background checks and enforce laws to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals. The issue of gun control is increasingly toxic in Washington as Democrats, traditionally the standard bearers of the cause, are now at pains to go head-to-head with the powerful National Rifle Association. High-profile shootings — including the Tucson massacre that critically wounded former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and last month’s Colorado rampage at a movie theater — have done little to change the dynamic. The semi-automatic weapons used to carry out the Colorado and Wisconsin shootings were reportedly purchased legally by the alleged shooters. Carney called gun safety “a broader problem that needs to be addressed from a variety of fronts.” “The president’s approach is that we should work with Congress where possible — and administratively where allowed — to advance common-sense measures that enhance our security, that keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have them, under existing law, but that protects Second Amendment rights, which the president thinks is an important goal as well,” he said. Gun laws aren’t an issue in the presidential [URL="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/barack-obama-assault-weapons-ban.php#"]election[/URL], although presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney has claimed to be the candidate more friendly to gun rights. “I’m sure he will discuss these issues again in the future,” Carney added.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/barack-obama-assault-weapons-ban.php[/URL]
No. Please god no.
Wow, way to get me excited with that title...
REMOVING YOUR PISTOL GRIP WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR YOU TO USE YOUR AR-15 TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE (drug cartel/gangster/psycho/whatever gets military grade m4 anyways)
Renewing the assault rifle ban would likely destroy his chance at being re-elected.
[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;37117798]Renewing the assault rifle ban would likely destroy his chance at being re-elected.[/QUOTE] Not "assault rifles". To call them assault rifles is playing right into their ploy, which is to formulate a term "assault weapons" which sounds so much like those legitimate assault rifles like M16 and shit which we all know and fear.
Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?
[QUOTE=sixpence;37117821]Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?[/QUOTE] They're pretty fun to take on a shooting range?
Keep the government in check, idealistically.
[QUOTE=***zer0***;37117835]They're pretty fun to take on a shooting range?[/QUOTE] Okay I can understand that.
[QUOTE=sixpence;37117821]Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?[/QUOTE] Collection.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;37117849]Collection.[/QUOTE] Or this.
[QUOTE=sixpence;37117821]Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?[/QUOTE] Assault Rifle would imply it's automatic, and sadly the Hughes Amendment has already fucked over gun owners for 30 Years in that area. If you're actually talking about semi-automatic weapons, theirs no reason to actually ban them. The whole original ban [FAWB] was a lackluster ban on things that look scary. Do we need some measures to protect against maniacs? Yes. Do we need to outright ban things because they look scary and have the potential to be used to do bad things? No.
I don't think this should be a major thing right now and it's strange that Obama has brought this up.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;37117916]it's strange that Obama has brought this up.[/QUOTE] After two large shootings in near succession, I don't think it's at all strange.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;37117902]Assault Rifle would imply it's automatic, and sadly the Hughes Amendment has already fucked over gun owners for 30 Years in that area. If you're actually talking about semi-automatic weapons, theirs no reason to actually ban them. The whole original ban [FAWB] was a lackluster ban on things that look scary. Do we need some measures to protect against maniacs? Yes. Do we need to outright ban things because they look scary and have the potential to be used to do bad things? No.[/QUOTE] brains make people do bad things, lets ban those too hey, with america in it's current state, it's not like anyone would miss it/notice anyway.
[QUOTE=sixpence;37117821]Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?[/QUOTE] Kind of a moot point, as a reinstatement of the 1994 ban does not actually ban 'assault rifles.' Instead, it bans 'assault weapons.' Assault weapons are things such as: A rifle with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock(keep in mind, with a folding stock, the weapon is still subject to minimum length restrictions) Pistol grip (this simply changes the angle you'll be holding the rifle.) Bayonet mount (because so many killings are carried out with bayonets, or made more lethal by one) Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one (does not affect lethality or accuracy) Grenade launcher (This refers to a fixture which allows the rifle to fire rifle grenades, as in the ones you stick on the barrel, like those you might see in WWII games and movies. This does not apply to underslung launchers. Additionally, explosives and 'destructive devices' are already heavily regulated/prohibited under other federal laws) Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip (This has no real effect on the function of the weapon. This is simply a point at which your magazine attaches. If anything, it could mean that the weapon is [b]less accurate[/b] because there is less room for a longer barrel) Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor (suppressors are highly regulated under other federal law, flash suppressors were discussed above, and handgrips again don't affect the function or ballistics of the weapon.) Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold (Barrel shrouds, from my understanding, are to prevent a person from injuring themselves on a hot piece of metal. How is that dangerous?) Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more (Realistically, this has little effect other than limiting people from carrying firearms that [b]simply weigh more[/b].) A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. (This is prohibiting firearms that are otherwise legal for civilian use on purely aesthetic qualities. A semi automatic firearm is semi -automatic, no matter if it looks like an MP5, machete, or three foot doubledong.) There are some other things in the bill about shotguns, magazine capacity (Which I suppose you could argue increases effectiveness, but we'll to agree to disagree on that one), and banning specific weapons, most of which are [b]already illegal or incredibly hard to acquire legally under preexisting federal law[/b]. Essentially, the 1994 ban was poorly written legislation that regulated things falling under the 'tacticool' category. If you must have gun control legislation, think about regulating things like education, and requirements for safe, theft-deterring storage, and better background checks that are not an inconvenience, not visual aspects of a gun that make it look 'military' but don't actually change it's function.
There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle. "Oh but I want it for my collection" That's a dumb excuse
I wonder what gunfox has to say.
[QUOTE=mr apple;37117995]There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle. "Oh but I want it for my collection" That's a dumb excuse[/QUOTE] this just in assault rifles aren't "assault weapons" more at 11
[QUOTE=mr apple;37117995]There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle. "Oh but I want it for my collection" That's a dumb excuse[/QUOTE] You might want to try reading the actual 1994 ban before talking about owning an 'assault rifle.' As I pointed out earlier, the 1994 ban did not actually prohibit true 'assault rifles', as they were already illegal/highly regulated under previous laws.
[QUOTE=mr apple;37117995]There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle. "Oh but I want it for my collection" That's a dumb excuse[/QUOTE] You didn't read read Daemon's post, did you? The Assault Weapons Ban pretty much restricts any rifle that isn't a stock gripped bolt action rifle that has an internal magazine. Oh, it apparently bans all self loading pistols too. This damn law was written when Revolvers were still pretty mainstream and banning pistols wouldn't be a huge problem.
[QUOTE]President Obama supports reinstating the assault weapons ban, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday, on the heels of back-to-back shooting rampages in the United States.[/QUOTE] Heels to back of lone nuts? Except they miss and hit everyone else instead.
Whoops, I was thinking about an earlier bill when I wrote the last line. Disregard that.
[QUOTE=W0w00t;37117766]REMOVING YOUR PISTOL GRIP WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR YOU TO USE YOUR AR-15 TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE (drug cartel/gangster/psycho/whatever gets military grade m4 anyways)[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;37117840]Keep the government in check, idealistically.[/QUOTE] And see, from a dutiful police officer's perspective (yes they aren't all cartoon villains that love hurting innocents), these kind of vigilantes only make their job harder. It might even start a firefight where bystanders get hurt that otherwise would not, or the bad guys don't take any more chances after noting some people are armed. Sorry, from a German perspective where we got very different gun laws and treat guns very different culturally, priority should be restructuring the police and justice system instead of arming civilians. But I really really wonder what went through Obama's head when he thought this was a good idea. I mean ever since the founding of the country, America's gun cult and belief that all a citizen hero needs is a weapon and a cause, has been going strong. It's kinda laughable for other regions around the globe, especially those with little American media influence, but it's a mentality to consider nonetheless. Especially now that his re-election is in the air, what's the political motive behind supporting this ban (even if he doesn't pin it proudly on his chest)?
[QUOTE=mr apple;37117995]There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle. "Oh but I want it for my collection" That's a dumb excuse[/QUOTE] Where do you people live if you NEED a sidearm at all? Can I suggest moving?
[QUOTE=mr apple;37117995]There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle. "Oh but I want it for my collection" That's a dumb excuse[/QUOTE] What is your point by saying "there's no other reason to have an assault rifle." Reasons are personal and will vary from person to person. Who are you to say someone's reason is dumb? Maybe we don't need assault rifles. But going by that logic, we don't need cars, coffee, video games, or music. Do we really need anything at all? Do we even need life, knowledge, and the pursuit of happiness?
[QUOTE=Memobot;37118246]Where do you people live if you NEED a sidearm at all? Can I suggest moving?[/QUOTE] I'll need a sidearm the moment I'm robbed or attacked in any way. Just because it's not an everyday danger doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
[QUOTE=Memobot;37118246]Where do you people live if you NEED a sidearm at all? Can I suggest moving?[/QUOTE] crime is pretty bad in america, i know 2 people personally who have been shot with a gun in plain sight and killed
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37118285]I'll need a sidearm the moment I'm robbed or attacked in any way. Just because it's not an everyday danger doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.[/QUOTE] Just get a tazer/stungun/pepperspray/knife then goddamn. Aslong as everybody in America has such easy access to weapons it's never ever going to be one of the greatest countries in the world again. rip in peace
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.