Biden: Obama Might Use Executive Order to Deal With Guns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;39162304]So that bans Glocks and 1911s then, as well as many steel-framed, large-framed, and large-calibre handguns?[/QUOTE] That was the 94 ban. Feinstein's new version would ban the sale or transfer of all semi automatic pistols as well as some revolvers, in addition to greater than 90% of long guns.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39162325]That was the 94 ban. Feinstein's new version would ban the sale or transfer of all semi automatic pistols as well as some revolvers, in addition to greater than 90% of long guns.[/QUOTE] What about semi-automatic revolvers?

[QUOTE=Ridge;39162253] A full auto version exists in the world[/QUOTE] that is literally almost every semi-automatic handgun in the world, [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=laserguided;39162336]What about semi-automatic revolvers?[/QUOTE] double action isn't semi-automatic, so j-frames and such won't be an issue. no word on matebas or webleys but those are really just collectors items so they're probably fine

[QUOTE=laserguided;39162336]What about semi-automatic revolvers?[/QUOTE] Double action revolvers would likely be affected by the bill. You can argue that since pulling the trigger draws the hammer back, and drops it, it is effectively a semi auto.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161623]I just really don't see a need for assault rifles with hundreds of bullets as a need, and some need to give up the hobby with them.[/QUOTE] First off, it is more economical to buy ammunition in bulk. On average, buying mass quantities of ammunition allows you to get them at lower cost per bullet. Secondly, these are not "assault rifles". These are "assault [i]weapons[/i]". They are semi-automatic firearms. Not machine guns. [quote]If your reason for assault rifles to stay is for the right to militia and defeat a corrupt government, well, that's a stupid argument. We have the army. Secession is illegal, and is treason. You'd get your ass kicked, end of the story. We have tanks and airplanes that would crush any attempt with assault rifles.[/quote] Find me an American soldier who would open fire on fellow Americans. Such an order would be strictly ridiculous, not to mention illegal. Soldiers are [i]not[/i] there to protect the president, they are there to protect the constitution. I'm sure you'll find that most soldiers support the American people over the government. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=alexguydude;39161730]They didn't know assault rifles would exist. That's why new amendments are created. You couldn't own a gatling gun in that time period is my guess, and that's a big version of a machine gun.[/QUOTE] A gatling gun is not a machine gun. You can own one without any paperwork.

[QUOTE=Ridge;39162325]That was the 94 ban. Feinstein's new version would ban the sale or transfer of all semi automatic pistols as well as some revolvers, in addition to greater than 90% of long guns.[/QUOTE] Well, her bill needs to be brought before the Supreme Court. I daresay banning such a large percentage of guns from civilian ownership definitely qualifies as the infringement stated in the second amendment.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;39162998]Well, her bill needs to be brought before the Supreme Court. I daresay banning such a large percentage of guns from civilian ownership definitely qualifies as the infringement stated in the second amendment.[/QUOTE] Can't go to the courts until it is law. And it would take so long, they will have forced everyone to turn their shit in and melted it down by then.

I don't see why Sobotnik has such a huge boner over a direct correlation of freedom to gun ownership. There really can't be, because as far as I know there hasn't been a situation where a society with a strong gun culture(like modern America) has been threatend by a police state or something of that nature and fought back.

[QUOTE=KommradKommisar;39163517]I don't see why Sobotnik has such a huge boner over a direct correlation of freedom to gun ownership. There really can't be, because as far as I know there hasn't been a situation where a society with a strong gun culture(like modern America) has been threatend by a police state or something of that nature and fought back.[/QUOTE] Maybe that says something in and of itself.

As a pacifist and a believer in democracy, the only thing I find more offensive then gun violence and a culture of violence is when the executive branch oversteps its bounds to enforce socially restrictive legislation.

[QUOTE=alexguydude;39161623]If your reason for assault rifles to stay is for the right to militia and defeat a corrupt government, well, that's a stupid argument. We have the army. Secession is illegal, and is treason. You'd get your ass kicked, end of the story. We have tanks and airplanes that would crush any attempt with assault rifles.[/QUOTE] Every soldier swears to "support and defend the US constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". If you didn't notice, domestic includes the government if they decided to do something insane like order the army to fire upon its OWN PEOPLE.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39160218]The fuck? Criticizing a bunch of people who support pro-gun views doesn't make me anti-gun. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] Uh, the colonies nearly collapsed. If it wasn't for the French/Spanish/Dutch/Prussians/more then the USA would have never existed. [editline]9th January 2013[/editline] I'm saying that gun ownership rates don't correlate with crime rates or political freedoms if that's what you are after? I.e more guns does not improve things.[/QUOTE] Well let's put it this way: You're certainly not pro-gun, and if you are then I've never met anyone else like you. Tell me if any of this is incorrect. You believe there's no correlation between guns and crime and that private citizens should be able to own firearms, but at the same time you've stated people who buy guns for self defense intend to kill someone. Those are very conflicting opinions, conflicting enough to make me think I'm misinterpreting you.

Im really torn on the issue of gun control. On the one hand i know that, If it was allowed in my country i would certainly carry a gun for my own protection- as possessing a firearm would significantly decrease my risk of being murdered or raped, and i know i have no intention of hurting anyone who isnt endangering me in a way that leaves me no choice but to shoot. i also understand how an armed country would be much harder for a tyranical government to subdue and control. but on the other hand, i keep seeing these stupidly huge murder statisitcs involving guns and america all over the place, coupled with all those pointless mass shootings carried out by people with very clear mental issues that the media needs to shut up about. i cant help but wonder if something needs to be done- the loss of life always saddens me, and if theres a way it can be prevented i would back it completely.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;39163885]Well let's put it this way: You're certainly not pro-gun, and if you are then I've never met anyone else like you. Tell me if any of this is incorrect. You believe there's no correlation between guns and crime and that private citizens should be able to own firearms, but at the same time you've stated people who buy guns for self defense intend to kill someone. Those are very conflicting opinions, conflicting enough to make me think I'm misinterpreting you.[/QUOTE] Well the thing is, is that if you have a gun for self-defence, you have to be prepared to kill somebody if you feel your life is in danger.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39167310]Well the thing is, is that if you have a gun for self-defence, you have to be prepared to kill somebody if you feel your life is in danger.[/QUOTE] If you think intent is anywhere NEAR just keeping the possibility in mind...

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39167310]Well the thing is, is that if you have a gun for self-defence, you have to be prepared to kill somebody if you feel your life is in danger.[/QUOTE] I have car insurance because I realize that I might get in an accident, and I need to protect myself. You're saying that the fact that I have car insurance indicates that I intend to crash my car. That's ridiculous. People concealed-carry firearms hoping they don't have to use them because shooting someone, even in clear self-defence, is a serious deal.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;39167268]Im really torn on the issue of gun control. On the one hand i know that, If it was allowed in my country i would certainly carry a gun for my own protection- as possessing a firearm would significantly decrease my risk of being murdered or raped, and i know i have no intention of hurting anyone who isnt endangering me in a way that leaves me no choice but to shoot. i also understand how an armed country would be much harder for a tyranical government to subdue and control. but on the other hand, i keep seeing these stupidly huge murder statisitcs involving guns and america all over the place, coupled with all those pointless mass shootings carried out by people with very clear mental issues that the media needs to shut up about. i cant help but wonder if something needs to be done- the loss of life always saddens me, and if theres a way it can be prevented i would back it completely.[/QUOTE] The mass shootings aren't a gun thing, they're an America thing. For some reason, our citizens wig the fuck out, a lot.

[QUOTE=viper shtf;39168801]The mass shootings aren't a gun thing, they're an America thing. For some reason, our citizens wig the fuck out, a lot.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but prescription drug abuse is a major problem in the United States. A lot of these mass shooters were on some sort of anti-depressent.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39167310]Well the thing is, is that if you have a gun for self-defence, you have to be prepared to kill somebody if you feel your life is in danger.[/QUOTE] You mean if I have a gun I can't be smart and say, shoot a home invader in the foot? Nope, I just gotta shot him in the head or chest and be done with the assailant.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;39168887]You mean if I have a gun I can't be smart and say, shoot a home invader in the foot? Nope, I just gotta shot him in the head or chest and be done with the assailant.[/QUOTE] That's literally, the first thing they teach you in a CCW course if you have to use your gun you use it to kill, aiming for the leg is just about the fucking dumbest thing you could do because if you miss you get fucked up.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39168985]That's literally, the first thing they teach you in a CCW course if you have to use your gun you use it to kill, aiming for the leg is just about the fucking dumbest thing you could do because if you miss you get fucked up.[/QUOTE] Foot =/= leg I can understand inaccuracy factoring in but in situations like this, you're close enough to shoot the person to begin with, so why not aim at the feet? Only reason I'd really down a person is if they had a gun themselves, if not and they're still getting shot for trespassing. I'm sorry I don't want to kill people to protect myself 100% of the time.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39168985]That's literally, the first thing they teach you in a CCW course if you have to use your gun you use it to kill, aiming for the leg is just about the fucking dumbest thing you could do because if you miss you get fucked up.[/QUOTE] This. Aim for center mass, always. And you're right Uzi, I forgot about that. It's still an America thing though, so far as I can tell. Do other countries have as many people on anti depressants as we do?

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;39169034]Foot =/= leg I can understand inaccuracy factoring in but in situations like this, you're close enough to shoot the person to begin with, so why not aim at the feet? Only reason I'd really down a person is if they had a gun themselves, if not and they're still getting shot for trespassing. I'm sorry I don't want to kill people to protect myself 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] If you feel threatened to the point of discharging a firearm the guy you shoot at better be dead or incapacitated, besides if hes hopped up on some mad narcotic shit shooting his foot will just piss him off.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39169070]If you feel threatened to the point of discharging a firearm the guy you shoot at better be [b]dead or incapacitated, besides if hes hopped up on some mad narcotic shit shooting his foot will just piss him off.[/b][/QUOTE] Assumption is fun huh? How do you know for sure? I might as well ask how my scenario is how I know it would work out as well, in the subject of fairness. I could see both our hypothetical situations playing out bad or good, it's all about how people react to these situations. I've stated what I would do and you as well, let's not argue over things that didn't happen.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;39169211]Assumption is fun huh? How do you know for sure? I might as well ask how my scenario is how I know it would work out as well, in the subject of fairness. I could see both our hypothetical situations playing out bad or good, it's all about how people react to these situations. I've stated what I would do and you as well, let's not argue over things that didn't happen.[/QUOTE] The point is shoot to kill or just don't shoot.

"Hey, I'll just shoot the robber in the leg" is usually followed by "Fuck, I missed it because legs are a more difficult target, and my aim is impaired because I'm hella nervous" or "Fuck, I hit the femoral artery and now he's dead anyway".

Rule Numero Uno: If you're going to pull out your gun you better be about to pull the trigger; do not use the threat of a gun to attempt to neutralize an situation. Rule Numero Dos: If you pull the trigger you better be aiming to kill, dead men don't testify.

God damn, I said feet. And this didn't even happen, it's all hypothetical.

[QUOTE=fulgrim;39167268]Im really torn on the issue of gun control. On the one hand i know that, If it was allowed in my country i would certainly carry a gun for my own protection- as possessing a firearm would significantly decrease my risk of being murdered or raped, and i know i have no intention of hurting anyone who isnt endangering me in a way that leaves me no choice but to shoot. i also understand how an armed country would be much harder for a tyranical government to subdue and control. but on the other hand, i keep seeing these stupidly huge murder statisitcs involving guns and america all over the place, coupled with all those pointless mass shootings carried out by people with very clear mental issues that the media needs to shut up about. i cant help but wonder if something needs to be done- the loss of life always saddens me, and if theres a way it can be prevented i would back it completely.[/QUOTE] you see high murder rates,I see low violent crime rates. an extra murder or two per hundred thousand citizens is worth it when we have less than a third of Britain's assaults.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;39169034]Foot =/= leg I can understand inaccuracy factoring in but in situations like this, you're close enough to shoot the person to begin with, so why not aim at the feet? Only reason I'd really down a person is if they had a gun themselves, if not and they're still getting shot for trespassing. I'm sorry I don't want to kill people to protect myself 100% of the time.[/QUOTE] If your life isn't in mortal danger you are in no position to be discharging a firearm. You don't shoot someone because you feel threatened or are annoyed and want to take them down a peg. Either you fear for your life, and thus shoot to kill, or you don't even draw your weapon. You don't use it to threaten and you sure as hell don't try to maim.