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

[QUOTE=scout1;39242307]Are you going to tell us how you need such rounds for hunting and target shooting now?[/QUOTE] No. Are you going to tell us how we should start banning things without reason now?

[QUOTE=TheSporeGA;39242306]More weaponry? There wouldn't be enough from military defectors to supply an entire rebellion.[/QUOTE] According to who or what? Who says the military will rebel? There's been plenty of rebellions (Easter rising, for one) where the military was not involved, plenty where they have been (sepoy mutiny)

[QUOTE=scout1;39242229]FP is all for scientific progress but oh god any sort of scientific study into violent media back the fuck up, obama's out to get all us gamers[/QUOTE] A scientific study must be conducted with taxpayer's money to investigate the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse]satanic conspiracy that infects young minds through Iron Maiden and Dungeons & Dragons.[/url] Individuals under occult influence are committing hideous and depraved acts every day, and the source of this corrupt behavior must be found. Sounds absurd right? Not in 1985. In the '80s, music and books were used as the scapegoat to blame for horrific crimes. And people truly believed this crap. Now it's violent video games. In 20 years we'll laugh at the notion that video games cause violence just as we laugh at the notion that the devil corrupts children through the media in the 1980s. Then again, a new scapegoat will take the blame for violence.

[QUOTE=faze;39242309]Citizens don't need Ferrari's either. Not needing something doesn't warrant banning it. Go to Australia if you want that shit.[/QUOTE] Ferraris aren't designed for the specific purpose of killing people though?

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;39242290]lol instead of requiring firearm owners to go through a mandatory 10 hour firearms saftey course they just rage ban guns that look scary. also there background check system is flawed, youths can commit crimes and get there record wiped on there 18th birthday making them look innocent.[/QUOTE] Safety courses and background checks don't do anything if the person acquiring the gun is looking to do something heinous with it in the first place.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;39242077]Fuck off, Obama. Unless you got stats and numbers, don't dance on the graves! [B]Edit: [media][/B][url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ju4Gla2odw[/url][/media][/QUOTE] Honestly this is why I don't take these gun fanatic second amendment people seriously. You're living in a rich 21st century country no tyrannical Government is going to win power and come and take your guns and start killing people or whatever these idiots think removing their freedom is. These people need to stop with their whole removing of liberty and freedom bullshit and realise it's for the people and the countries own good that laws are passed.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39242337]No. Are you going to tell us how we should start banning things without reason now?[/QUOTE] "My right to shoot rounds specifically designed to penetrate body armor outweighs your right to security"

[QUOTE=Jacob_sword;39242313]I was just watching this and all of a sudden he makes a remark about video games and I just fucking Gha VIDEO GAMES ARNT THE PROBLEM STOP TALKING ABOUT THEM.[/QUOTE] Neither are guns

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39242222]Where it specifically points out "weapons of war"??[/QUOTE] Restricting "weapons of war." [B]Obama's plan calls for limiting ammunition magazines to no more than 10 rounds. The document notes that the Newtown killings and the July attack in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., involved the kinds of semi-automatic weapons that were targeted by the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. The administration also wants to maintain the effort to ban armor-piercing bullets.[/B] I thought "Restricting "weapons of war."" was some kind of title and what followed it was the actual statements made by Obama.

[QUOTE=scout1;39242338]According to who or what? Who says the military will rebel? There's been plenty of rebellions (Easter rising, for one) where the military was not involved, plenty where they have been (sepoy mutiny)[/QUOTE] There have been plenty of rebellions that defectors HAVE joined. Such as the Syria rebellion. Not to mention that these soldiers are fighting for freedom, and if we were to say turned into a dictatorship they'd probably join the rebellion. Plus if you're saying that the military wouldn't defect you'd be proving my point that we need the freedom of weaponry.

[QUOTE=Jacob_sword;39242313]I was just watching this and all of a sudden he makes a remark about video games and I just fucking Gha VIDEO GAMES ARNT THE PROBLEM STOP TALKING ABOUT THEM.[/QUOTE] Neither are "armor-piercing bullets." Treat the problem. Don't just lump a bunch of things you dislike into one group and try to use these tragedies to ban them. For the record, I'm not saying that AP rounds are something I need or will ever need or want to privately own, but I am using them as an example of how absurd it is to ban them.

The argument of "WELL PEOPLE DONT NEED X EITHER" ends when it isn't something that can be used in a realistic intent to harm others (ie: no one is probably going to realistically bash your head in with a keyboard) sorry

[QUOTE=Ponder;39242298]Um citizens don't need those in the first place..[/QUOTE] You don't need a car, the internet, or clothing, better ban those too!

[QUOTE=Negrul1;39242350]Ferraris aren't designed for the specific purpose of killing people though?[/QUOTE] Not needing something doesn't warrant a ban on it.

[QUOTE=faze;39242309]Citizens don't need Ferrari's either. Not needing something doesn't warrant banning it. Go to Australia if you want that shit.[/QUOTE] Looking at their homicide rates compared to those of the US, that's not bad advice actually.

The high capacity mag ban is stupid. More bullets doesn't make you a better shooter just as more crayons in the box doesn't make you a better artist.

[QUOTE=Ponder;39242265][img]http://spreadlibertynews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/swat_fbi.jpg[/img] vs [img]http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/477/redneck_gun_20100526_1984409262.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Man insulting every gun owner on the forum is a great argument wow you totally got me!!!

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;39242343]A scientific study must be conducted with taxpayer's money to investigate the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse]satanic conspiracy that infects young minds through Iron Maiden and Dungeons & Dragons.[/url] Individuals under occult influence are committing hideous and depraved acts every day, and the source of this corrupt behavior must be found. Sounds absurd right? Not in 1985. In the '80s, music and books were used as the scapegoat to blame for horrific crimes. And people truly believed this crap. Now it's violent video games. In 20 years we'll laugh at the notion that video games cause violence just as we laugh at the notion that the devil corrupts children through the media in the 1980s. Then again, a new scapegoat will take the blame for violence.[/QUOTE] Is that what the study is about? No, it's about the effect of violent media on the adolescent mind. What's to say there isn't an effect? You? Based on what evidence? Your backlog of scientific evidence? [B]oh wait you're opposing the very study to gather such evidence[/B] Talk less about your personal feelings and more what you can prove, thanks

[QUOTE=Ponder;39242389]The argument of "WELL PEOPLE DONT NEED X EITHER" ends when it isn't something that can be harmful in a realistic intent manner to others (ie: no one is probably going to realistically bash your head in with a keyboard) sorry[/QUOTE] Guns aren't harmful when they're in the hands of responsible, knowledgeable people either.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39242381]Neither are "armor-piercing bullets." Treat the problem. Don't just lump a bunch of things you dislike into one group and try to use these tragedies to ban them. For the record, I'm not saying that AP rounds are something I need or will ever need or want to privately own, but I am using them as an example of how absurd it is to ban them.[/QUOTE] It's not absurd to ban something that has no purpose other than facilitating murder. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;39242393]Not needing something doesn't warrant a ban on it.[/QUOTE] That doesn't answer what I said. At all.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39242407]Guns aren't harmful when they're in the hands of responsible, knowledgeable people either.[/QUOTE] You are basically saying accidents never happen and people never act irrationally then, especially around guns?

[QUOTE=Negrul1;39242409]It's not absurd to ban something that has no purpose other than facilitating murder.[/QUOTE] Completely forgetting the original purposes of the Second Amendment.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39242407]Guns aren't harmful when they're in the hands of responsible, knowledgeable people either.[/QUOTE] If everyone was responsible and knowledgeable I'd have nothing against selling guns, but sadly we live in reality.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39242407]Guns aren't harmful when they're in the hands of responsible, knowledgeable people either.[/QUOTE] Well I'm referring to armour piercing ammo more than guns themselves

[QUOTE=faze;39242309]Citizens don't need Ferrari's either. Not needing something doesn't warrant banning it. Go to Australia if you want that shit.[/QUOTE] "if you want information regarding apples, go look at oranges"

[QUOTE=Apache249;39242428]Completely forgetting the original purposes of the Second Amendment.[/QUOTE] Completely ignoring when and in what circumstances the second amendment was written

[QUOTE=Negrul1;39242350]Ferraris aren't designed for the specific purpose of killing people though?[/QUOTE] And neither are all semi-automatic weapons released for civilians. They're for target shooting and hunting.

[QUOTE=Negrul1;39242409]It's not absurd to ban something that has no purpose other than facilitating murder. [/QUOTE] Uh, they do ?

[QUOTE=Ponder;39242389]The argument of "WELL PEOPLE DONT NEED X EITHER" ends when it isn't something that can be used in a realistic intent to harm others (ie: no one is probably going to realistically bash your head in with a keyboard) sorry[/QUOTE] nor will someone realistically shoot up a school with a 100 round magazine. The only 2 shootings I can recal that used hi cap mags were the LA shooting in the 90's, and the Aurora shooting. and in BOTH incidents, their hi cap mags jammed their weapons because they are notoriously unreliable. High capacity magazines are not a danger to the public, they're just a scapegoat to make the unifmored feel safe.

[QUOTE=Ponder;39242434]Well I'm referring to armour piercing ammo more than guns themselves[/QUOTE] If we're still talking about responsible, knowledgeable people, then what's the difference between AP and non AP rounds?