Obama calls for assault weapons ban, background checks. - Polidicks

I'm not uninformed, I have a different viewpoint than you guys do, theres a difference.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245394]Not saying thats the official definition, that's what I understand them to be. Weapons with the express purpose of killing human beings, they generally have no alternative purpose besides that[/QUOTE] How does having a pistol grip turn a "hunting rifle" into a rifle that's suddenly a human killer? Because that's like, the big difference to an "Assault Weapon"

[QUOTE=GunFox;39245433]In what capacity? The government serves the people. If it doesn't serve the people, it is tyranny. I'm not a fan of having no say in my government.[/QUOTE] You don't. Which I think is the biggest problem with the US.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245444]I'm not uninformed, I have a different viewpoint than you guys do, theres a difference.[/QUOTE] You don't seem to know what an "assault weapon" is, or how it can kill any more effectively than a "normal" firearm.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245443]Perhaps you've forgotten everything that happened before the revolutionary war? The constitution was written for a reason.[/QUOTE] I think you've forgotten that this is 2013 not 1775.

gun restrictions sure helped stop breivik

[QUOTE=Scot;39245449]You don't. Which I think is the biggest problem with the US.[/QUOTE] This I agree with. The current approach is representational only in boundaries, which are often gerrymandered anyway, and numerical representation. It's not easy to contact your representatives. It's largely a top-down approach rather than the bottom-up approach we intended.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245443]Perhaps you've forgotten everything that happened before the revolutionary war? The constitution was written for a reason.[/QUOTE] The second amendment only exists because at the time of its founding the United States had no national army or guard to protect itself and had to resort to militias to defend itself. That is why they needed to allow citizens to be armed. The founders certainly had nothing like this in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment. They intended rifles for well-regulated militias, not citizens owning armories. Hell, at the time of the nations founding you couldn't reload in less than a minute if you wanted to fire a second shot.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245457]I think you've forgotten that this is 2013 not 1775.[/QUOTE] And this has to do with...what

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245468]This I agree with. The current approach is representational only in boundaries, which are often gerrymandered anyway, and numerical representation. It's not easy to contact your representatives. It's largely a top-down approach rather than the bottom-up approach we intended.[/QUOTE] I think it's just because the US is so huge. Things definitely need a shake up.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245444]I'm not uninformed, I have a different viewpoint than you guys do, theres a difference.[/QUOTE] No sir, you're uninformed if you think an AWB significantly helps stop crime. please refer back to my post asking you to go to this link [URL]http://www.assaultweapon.info/[/URL] Handguns are the major cause of gun homicide in the US, not rifles, and not semi auto rifles or "assault weapons".

[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;39244911]I'd honestly rather be shot. The wound is instantly cauterized and the general impact is less lethal than being stabbed. Being stabbed leaves a large area that is cut, a bullet leaves a small circle.[/QUOTE] Wound cauterized? These are not laser weapons And let's not forget hydrostatic shock which creates a wound cavity that is much larger than what a knife is capable of in a single stab

[QUOTE=Scot;39245484]I think it's just because the US is so huge. Things definitely need a shake up.[/QUOTE] It does. If you look at the people we have in Congress the majority of them are people we don't want to have any seat of power whatosever. And Democrats and Republicans spend more time being polar opposites of each other than getting anything worthwhile done. It's horrible.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245503]It does. If you look at the people we have in Congress the majority of them are people we don't want to have any seat of power whatosever. And Democrats and Republicans spend more time being polar opposites of each other than getting anything worthwhile done. It's horrible.[/QUOTE] Do you not elect members of congress?

To be honest I could care less about the whole assault weapons ban thing, it wont be passed either way, I'll be happy with a national gun registry, stricter background checks (including a mental health examination), banning the sale of magazines with 10 or more bullets, and the elimination of so-called "gunshow" loopholes that allow people to buy weapons at shows or online no questions asked.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245510]Do you not elect members of congress?[/QUOTE] We do, and much like the presidential election it's a matter of electing who's the least crazy.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245457]I think you've forgotten that this is 2013 not 1775.[/QUOTE] The Amendment still stands to serve its original intention, whether or not it needs to be used is in the foreseeable future, however the amendment is still, quite relevant due to the fact Obongo just took a massive shit on Americas rights.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245393]I don't see why you americans feel that your government could turn tyrannical. I think it's to do with the population having little to no input, while here in the UK the PM is on bloody talk shows.[/QUOTE] Over time the federal government has claimed more power, not less. Now I don't really take too much issue with most of their actions, as the nation has become more of a single unit than a loose confederation, but the fact remains that governments slowly claim more power over time. Eventually to the detriment of the nation and ultimately resulting in some form of negative outcome. We, the United States, are designed from the ground up to impede the expansion of governmental powers, but over time they will continue to claim additional powers until eventually the people are no longer in sufficient control of their government. I figure that time is a good ways off, lifetimes most likely, but we will eventually arrive at an unfortunate point where our differences can no longer be rectified through elections and discourse. It is our job to ensure that those that come after us do not lose the option to fix their government through violence should the need arise. It isn't fear mongering or conservative bullshit, it is simple history and human nature. People take more power over time. Governments become corrupt and fall. This is just how the world works.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245475] Hell, at the time of the nations founding you couldn't reload in less than a minute if you wanted to fire a second shot.[/QUOTE] A trained soldier could fire between 2 and 3 shots a minute.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245503]It does. If you look at the people we have in Congress the majority of them are people we don't want to have any seat of power whatosever. And Democrats and Republicans spend more time being polar opposites of each other than getting anything worthwhile done. It's horrible.[/QUOTE] I think you forgot that Congressmen have to be elected

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245512]To be honest I could care less about the whole assault weapons ban thing, it wont be passed either way, I'll be happy with a national gun registry, stricter background checks (including a mental health examination), banning the sale of magazines with 10 or more bullets, and the elimination of so-called "gunshow" loopholes that allow people to buy weapons at shows or online no questions asked.[/QUOTE] you literally have no idea how this works do you.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39245487]No sir, you're uninformed if you think an AWB significantly helps stop crime. please refer back to my post asking you to go to this link [URL]http://www.assaultweapon.info/[/URL] Handguns are the major cause of gun homicide in the US, not rifles, and not semi auto rifles or "assault weapons".[/QUOTE] Having a different opinion is not the same thing as being uninformed, look at the AWB in Massachusetts, they currently have the lowest gun murder rate in the country.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245512]To be honest I could care less about the whole assault weapons ban thing, it wont be passed either way, I'll be happy with a [b]national gun registry[/b], stricter background checks (including a mental health examination), banning the sale of magazines with 10 or more bullets, and the elimination of so-called "gunshow" loopholes that allow people to buy weapons at shows or online no questions asked.[/QUOTE] Canada had a long gun registry for quite a while, go check out how that worked out for them.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245475]The second amendment only exists because at the time of its founding the United States had no national army or guard to protect itself and had to resort to militias to defend itself. That is why they needed to allow citizens to be armed.[/QUOTE] Well, they knew that the United States would need an army, because every European power had one. The national militia is basically the armed forces. [QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245475]They intended rifles for well-regulated militias, not citizens owning armories.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, but to be honest the citizens who own armories aren't the ones commiting mass shootings 99.9% of the time. [QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245475]Hell, at the time of the nations founding you couldn't reload in less than a minute if you wanted to fire a second shot.[/QUOTE] Yes but that doesn't mean that muskets and blunderbusses are the only weapons the citizens should be allowed to have.

[QUOTE=GunFox;39245520]Over time the federal government has claimed more power, not less. Now I don't really take too much issue with most of their actions, as the nation has become more of a single unit than a loose confederation, but the fact remains that governments slowly claim more power over time. Eventually to the detriment of the nation and ultimately resulting in some form of negative outcome. We, the United States, are designed from the ground up to impede the expansion of governmental powers, but over time they will continue to claim additional powers until eventually the people are no longer in sufficient control of their government. I figure that time is a good ways off, lifetimes most likely, but we will eventually arrive at an unfortunate point where our differences can no longer be rectified through elections and discourse. It is our job to ensure that those that come after us do not lose the option to fix their government through violence should the need arise. It isn't fear mongering or conservative bullshit, it is simple history and human nature. People take more power over time. Governments become corrupt and fall. This is just how the world works.[/QUOTE] NO THAT'S A CONSPIRACY THEORY stop you're spreading fear

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245530]Having a different opinion is not the same thing as being uninformed, look at the AWB in Massachusetts, they currently have the lowest gun murder rate in the country.[/QUOTE] And again, I'll point to the fact that most firearms related murders are committed with [b]handguns[/b] anyways, so legislation like that is absolutely pointless.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39245532]Canada had a long gun registry for quite a while, go check out how that worked out for them.[/QUOTE] They have far fewer gun deaths than we do. What is the problem with a national registry, what harm does it do?

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245512]I'll be happy with a national gun registry[/QUOTE] What about people like Lanza who steal legal weaponry to commit murder? [QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245512]stricter background checks (including a mental health examination),[/quote] I'll agree with this one. [QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245512]banning the sale of magazines with 10 or more bullets,[/quote] I forgot that people can't own multiple magazines and reload a firearm [QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245512]and the elimination of so-called "gunshow" loopholes that allow people to buy weapons at shows or online no questions asked.[/QUOTE] Online purchases must be mailed to a FFL holder otherwise it's illegal to ship a gun. Gunshow loopholes are a bit of a problem, but that doesn't change the fact that most firearm homicide is committed with legally purchased firearms.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245530]look at the AWB in Massachusetts, they currently have the lowest gun murder rate in the country.[/QUOTE] Yes but England has an extremely low gun murder rate, but that same fact doesn't reflect the [I]crime[/I] rate including assaults and so forth. Stricter background checks are the only thing I can agree is needed, but to be fair that wouldn't have stopped columbine nor sandy hook.

[quote]Ensure quality coverage of mental health treatment, particularly for young people Though the vast majority of Americans with a mental illness are not violent, we need to do more to identify mental health issues early and help individuals get the treatment they need before dangerous situations develop. As President Obama has said, “We are going to need to work on making access to mental health care as easy as access to a gun.” The Administration is proposing steps to identify mental health issues early and help individuals get the treatment they need before these dangerous situations develop.[/quote] This is exactly what America needs right now more than anything. Good on you Mr. President.