Barack Obama vows to pursue gun measures in wake of latest massacre - Polidicks

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36947291]A kitchen knife is less lethal than a firearm. Of course there are other ways to kill someone. Besides, kitchen knifes are classed as weapons in my country too, depending on where you are with it. If you're in your kitchen it's fine, but if you're in public with a kitchen knife you don't want to run into some cops because that's illegal. [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] Same with a baseball bat. If it looks like you're not going to use it for baseball, you might be arrested when you're walking with one.[/QUOTE] Crime has nothing to do with it. If you want to truly exercise the Second Amendment, you must allow citizens to have access to the same firepower as the armed forces.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36947291]Same with a baseball bat. If it looks like you're not going to use it for baseball, you might be arrested when you're walking with one.[/QUOTE] Unless you're doing it outside a polling place, then the attorney general will order the investigation shut down.

[QUOTE=GunFox;36946866]Yes, though the one on the right isn't.[/QUOTE] How can you tell. It's a comparison between a .45-70 and a 5.56x45. You can readily get both rounds. Nevermind the issue was addressed.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36947356]Unless you're doing it outside a polling place, then the attorney general will order the investigation shut down.[/QUOTE] What??

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36947415]What??[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm confused.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36947415]What??[/QUOTE] Allegations of voter intimidation in Philadelphia in the 2008 election I believe.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36947415]What??[/QUOTE] During the 2008 elections, a couple members of the New Black Panthers were standing outside a polling place with night sticks. [video=youtube;neGbKHyGuHU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU[/video] There was an ongoing investigation into whether or not it qualified as voter intimidation, then the Attorney General's office ordered the investigation closed.

But that's not the netherlands is it? I was talking about the laws in my own country.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36947487]But that's not the netherlands is it? I was talking about the laws in my own country.[/QUOTE] And those laws are pretty much the same here in the US, as well.

[QUOTE=Ridge;36947501]And those laws are pretty much the same here in the US, as well.[/QUOTE] Oh. Why make baseball bats illegal when you can walk around with a gun anyways? That makes no sense.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;36947487]But that's not the netherlands is it? I was talking about the laws in my own country.[/QUOTE] That's commonly referred to as a "nanny state," where nobody has the free will to do anything because they've willingly given it up because they think the government knows better than they do about how to run their lives. It's the kind of mentality that breeds abuse, totalitarianism, and is exactly what the second amendment exists to prevent.

why do we need to change anything? i could drive my car onto a sidewalk one day and kill a few dozen people. does that mean we need to start having stricter laws on who gets a license? people act as though guns are the only available weapon but anyone who has played gta can tell you a car is much more efficient. just my two cents.

[quote]But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals[/quote] lol lol lol

[QUOTE=NoDachi;36946934]Then I just don't see how you can have a 'well-trained and equipped' private militia to 'keep dem governments in check'.[/QUOTE] The Libyans had it worse and got the job done didn't they

I hate it when issues like this come up because it shows that laws regarding firearms seem to be based off of the actions of an individual but not the much larger group of law abiding citizens who do own firearms. There's a reason the Assault Weapon Ban or AWB wasn't renewed when it ran out in '04. Statistically "assault weapons" aren't used in the majority of crime. Psychopaths and criminals will find ways to get guns, especially in a market as saturated as the United States. Banning "assault weapons" wouldn't fix or help the problem. I'm fine with the idea of a much larger background check, but re-enacting the AWB won't help anything. The vast majority of people owning firearms classified as "assault weapons" aren't out shooting up movie theaters. Most gun owners in possession of an "assault weapon" use it for either hunting, or reaction. Basing entire laws or weapon bans on singular events caused by mentally unstable individuals isn't going to help anything. In summary I'm alright with the idea of a larger background check to make sure mentally unstable individuals don't get this kind of equipment. Banning firearms classified as "Assault Weapons," high-capacity magazines, and online ammunition shopping isn't the right way to go; purely because the majority of gun owners who own or use things like this are doing it for recreation, sport, or hunting.

But background checks won't stop people like the Aurora shooter no one was expecting it, at all.

So say a 'tyrannical' government did emerge, what's to say everyone in the country would agree on the matter and join forces? It'd most likely be chaos with people who are supporters of the government fighting against rebels. In an alternative scenario where everyone is on the same side, presumably the military would be against the government too? They have firearms and much more, and the government in itself is powerless against that and so the public having firearms wouldn't make a difference. It's most likely the UN or something would intervene in either scenario anyway

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;36947572]That's commonly referred to as a "nanny state," where nobody has the free will to do anything because they've willingly given it up because they think the government knows better than they do about how to run their lives. It's the kind of mentality that breeds abuse, totalitarianism, and is exactly what the second amendment exists to prevent.[/QUOTE] Oh, right. You mean how we're the second country in the world with net neutrality, and have gotten our government so far as to stop supporting sopa etc? Yes, we let our government decide what is best for us :rolleyes: [editline]26th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36947672]But background checks won't stop people like the Aurora shooter no one was expecting it, at all.[/QUOTE] Regular psych exams?

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;36947672]But background checks won't stop people like the Aurora shooter no one was expecting it, at all.[/QUOTE] We still can't base laws effecting thousands or more perfectly law abiding citizens off of the actions of one individual. What happened in Aurora was horrible, but we can't re-enact an ineffective ban off out of fear of one event. Especially when that ban would mean that a large number of innocent citizens of the United States who own "assault weaponry" would now be in possession of contraband firearms. Firearms that they bought, own, and have used thus far perfectly legally to no harm of anyone else.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;36947722]a shotgun is better for home defense, as the pellets wouldn't penetrate through the wall if you used a revolver or pistol, there's a chance your neighbor or someone else can get shot as well[/QUOTE] If I had to pick a weapon for home defense, I would choose s .22 handgun. It's not very powerful, it's very small, and very easy to use. Shotguns are large and harder to wield by comparison, I would rather have a gun I could pull out, aim, and fire very quickly.

[quote]"But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals – that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities," he said.[/quote] An AK-47 belongs in the hands of a museum or a collector, the design is nearly 70 years old.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36947761]If I had to pick a weapon for home defense, I would choose s .22 handgun. It's not very powerful, it's very small, and very easy to use. Shotguns are large and harder to wield by comparison, I would rather have a gun I could pull out, aim, and fire very quickly.[/QUOTE] Depends on the shotgun. The Browning Auto 5 would like to differ.

[QUOTE=asteroidrules;36947861]An AK-47 belongs in the hands of a museum or a collector, the design is nearly 70 years old.[/QUOTE] Yet it's still a favorite among guerrilla and insurgent fighters.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36947885]Yet it's still a favorite among guerrilla and insurgent fighters.[/QUOTE] You do know how many AK variants there are, right?

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;36947873]Depends on the shotgun. The Browning Auto 5 would like to differ.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about the length. It's more awkward grabbing it and aiming it quickly. Some shotguns are better than others, but a handgun will always have more ease of use.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36947885]Yet it's still a favorite among guerrilla and insurgent fighters.[/QUOTE] Most would call their weapons AK's but most are Chinese, North Korean, Bulgarian, Yugoslav, etc varients. Mimicry is the best form of flattery right?

hey americans maybe if you bothered to look at some facts you would realise how dumb your gun laws are [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate[/url]

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;36947906]You do know how many AK variants there are, right?[/QUOTE] It's a relatively similar design. And it's a variant, it's not a completely new gun. The basic design that was made nearly 70 years ago is still used.

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;36947873]Depends on the shotgun. The Browning Auto 5 would like to differ.[/QUOTE] Winchester SXP Defender. Or one that you can't get in the US, but can in Canada (where you'll be arrested for defending yourself with it) is the Doninion Arms Grizzly 8.5" barreled pump.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;36947912]I'm talking about the length. It's more awkward grabbing it and aiming it quickly. Some shotguns are better than others, but a handgun will always have more ease of use.[/QUOTE] Ok then you got me. The BA5 is still a badass semi auto shotgun though.