[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38403952]He says he's for another assault weapons ban and this is his last 4 years, so if he wanted to do it now would be the time.[/QUOTE]
Why would anyone ever need a full auto M249 or an m4?
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;38421654]Why would anyone ever need a full auto M249 or an m4?[/QUOTE]
to defeat the government and communists, and govimunists
"Dark Night Rises"
How do you misspell that.
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;38421654]Why would anyone ever need a full auto M249 or an m4?[/QUOTE]
to suppress evil government forces trying to take their property ofc.
the gubbermint implements policies that makes it less likely for criminals to break into my house
im going to go on the internet (the infrastructure of which has been built by the gubbermint) and complain about how they cant do anything right and why it justifies me to own a arsenal of weaponry
[QUOTE=tier56;38403941]I really don't get why people keep going "hurr durr, Obama's gonna take our guns". Just because he's democratic doesn't mean that he hates guns and wants to ban them with every fiber of his body.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm]Do you ever do your research before you post your drivel on Facepunch? Obama has supported banning handguns, semi-automatic weapons, "assault weapons," and concealed carry. He also said that he is opposed to [I]DC v. Heller[/I] and [I]McDonald v. Chicago[/I], thinks gun store owners (and manufacturers) should be held criminally responsible for crimes allegedly committed with guns they sale. He voted in favor of a bill that only allows citizens to buy one handgun each month. He has said that he supports requiring guns to be "registered" and all gun owners to require "licenses." He has also said that he thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to people living in inner cities.[/url]
[url=http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-feinstein-looking-to-introduce-new-assault-weapons-ban]Never mind the fact that immediately after his re-election, Obama and his cronies created a bill that would ban all assault rifles, "high-capacity magazines," and pistol grips.[/url] [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1224303]And he announced support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.[/url]
[QUOTE=ultra_bright;38421654]Why would anyone ever need a full auto M249 or an m4?[/QUOTE]
And this question again. Why do you need a million dollar private jet when you can buy a cesna 152 that does the same job for cheaper? Why do you need a 250,000$ sports car when a 500$ tuk-tuk does the same job for cheaper? All of those are fun things to own as long as you are safe and responsible with them.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38421738][URL="http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm"]Do you ever do your research before you post your drivel on Facepunch? Obama has supported banning handguns, semi-automatic weapons, "assault weapons," and concealed carry. He also said that he is opposed to [I]DC v. Heller[/I] and [I]McDonald v. Chicago[/I], thinks gun store owners (and manufacturers) should be held criminally responsible for crimes allegedly committed with guns they sale. He voted in favor of a bill that only allows citizens to buy one handgun each month. He has said that he supports requiring guns to be "registered" and all gun owners to require "licenses." He has also said that he thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to people living in inner cities.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-feinstein-looking-to-introduce-new-assault-weapons-ban"]Never mind the fact that immediately after his re-election, Obama and his cronies created a bill that would ban all assault rifles, "high-capacity magazines," and pistol grips.[/URL] [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1224303"]And he announced support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.[/URL][/QUOTE]
yeah he's from chicago and illinois where gun crime is a major issue, all of those are based on his past record. You can't expect a politician to rule the same way on gun control as a national issue as he does on gun control as a local issue.
[editline]12th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38421773]And this question again. Why do you need a million dollar private jet when you can buy a cesna 152 that does the same job for cheaper? Why do you need a 250,000$ sports car when a 500$ tuk-tuk does the same job for cheaper? All of those are fun things to own as long as you are safe and responsible with them.[/QUOTE]
you can't fly across oceans in a cessnas, it's a range issue. and full-auto weaponry makes it significantly harder for police to stop criminals that are armed with them.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38421711]the gubbermint implements policies that makes it less likely for criminals to break into my house
im going to go on the internet (the infrastructure of which has been built by the gubbermint) and complain about how they cant do anything right and why it justifies me to own a arsenal of weaponry[/QUOTE]
I think it's adorable how you assume that all gun owners are paranoid loonies and that all criminals buy their firearms legally.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38421738]He has also said that he thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to people living in inner cities.[/QUOTE]
That's a massive fucking leap if I've ever heard one.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38421738][url=http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm]Do you ever do your research before you post your drivel on Facepunch? Obama has supported banning handguns, semi-automatic weapons, "assault weapons," and concealed carry. He also said that he is opposed to [I]DC v. Heller[/I] and [I]McDonald v. Chicago[/I], thinks gun store owners (and manufacturers) should be held criminally responsible for crimes allegedly committed with guns they sale. He voted in favor of a bill that only allows citizens to buy one handgun each month. He has said that he supports requiring guns to be "registered" and all gun owners to require "licenses." He has also said that he thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to people living in inner cities.[/url]
[url=http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-feinstein-looking-to-introduce-new-assault-weapons-ban]Never mind the fact that immediately after his re-election, Obama and his cronies created a bill that would ban all assault rifles, "high-capacity magazines," and pistol grips.[/url] [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1224303]And he announced support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.[/url][/QUOTE]
except the democratic process restricts much of what a politician can actually do
he can work towards stricter gun control sure, but it'll be marginally stricter at best at the end of his term if he really wants rid of them
[editline]12th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38421783]I think it's adorable how you assume that all gun owners are paranoid loonies and that all criminals buy their firearms legally.[/QUOTE]
i think people who say obama disregards the constitution are probably paranoid loonies
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38421776]
you can't fly across oceans in a cessnas, it's a range issue. and full-auto weaponry makes it significantly harder for police to stop criminals that are armed with them.[/QUOTE]
A criminal isn't going to use a registered firearm to commit a crime, especially not a registered full auto. He's going to buy one illegally for substantially cheaper. If he's stupid enough to use a registered one, he's going to be too stupid to get one anyways.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38421831]A criminal isn't going to use a registered firearm to commit a crime, especially not a registered full auto. He's going to buy one illegally for substantially cheaper. If he's stupid enough to use a registered one, he's going to be too stupid to get one anyways.[/QUOTE]
so where do unregistered firearms come from?
you need infrastructure for the production, dissemination and sale of guns
if you don't have infrastructure its going to be hard to get your hands on one
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38421738][url=http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm]Do you ever do your research before you post your drivel on Facepunch? Obama has supported banning handguns, semi-automatic weapons, "assault weapons," and concealed carry. He also said that he is opposed to [I]DC v. Heller[/I] and [I]McDonald v. Chicago[/I], thinks gun store owners (and manufacturers) should be held criminally responsible for crimes allegedly committed with guns they sale. He voted in favor of a bill that only allows citizens to buy one handgun each month. He has said that he supports requiring guns to be "registered" and all gun owners to require "licenses." He has also said that he thinks the Constitution doesn't apply to people living in inner cities.[/url]
[url=http://www.examiner.com/article/senator-feinstein-looking-to-introduce-new-assault-weapons-ban]Never mind the fact that immediately after his re-election, Obama and his cronies created a bill that would ban all assault rifles, "high-capacity magazines," and pistol grips.[/url] [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1224303]And he announced support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.[/url][/QUOTE]
To be fair on your first point, Romney has also said in the past that he supports an assault weapons ban. He also refused to loosen MA's strict gun laws when he was governor. He only started acting like he was a supporter of second amendment rights when he was running for President in 2008. And yet despite that, gun owners were more afraid of Obama this election than Romney.
Also on your last two points - Obama can't make any sort of anti-gun legislation with a Republican controlled House. And the U.S. constitution overrides any foreign treaty we sign(states can also individually opt out of foreign treaties), so there goes that deal. The whole 'U.N. Gun Ban' thing has been completely blown out of proportion by the NRA and related groups, who've had ominous warnings about it plastered on their websites and magazines for over a year now.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38421831]A criminal isn't going to use a registered firearm to commit a crime, especially not a registered full auto. He's going to buy one illegally for substantially cheaper. If he's stupid enough to use a registered one, he's going to be too stupid to get one anyways.[/QUOTE]
criminals aren't but suicidal/homicidal people might. Criminals want to survive, I doubt they'd get in a firefight with cops anyways, unless they're desperate.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38421853]so where do unregistered firearms come from?
you need infrastructure for the production, dissemination and sale of guns
if you don't have infrastructure its going to be hard to get your hands on one[/QUOTE]
They're either stolen, stolen from factories or illegally imported into the US. Theres literally no way you can stop the circulation of illegal firearms unless you close off all borders of the US, stop all importation of all goods, and shut down every single firearms factory then start hunting down every firearm to dismantle it. Then maybe in about 50 years you'll have gotten rid of most of the firearms in the US.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38421878]They're either stolen, stolen from factories or illegally imported into the US. Theres literally no way you can stop the circulation of illegal firearms unless you close off all borders of the US, stop all importation of all goods, and shut down every single firearms factory then start hunting down every firearm to dismantle it. Then maybe in about 50 years you'll have gotten rid of most of the firearms in the US.[/QUOTE]
his point is if we put in place the infrastructure to manufacture full-auto firearms for the civilian market then we'll see more full-auto firearms showing up in crimes as that infrastructure gets compromised.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38421878]They're either stolen, stolen from factories or illegally imported into the US. Theres literally no way you can stop the circulation of illegal firearms unless you close off all borders of the US, stop all importation of all goods, and shut down every single firearms factory then start hunting down every firearm to dismantle it. Then maybe in about 50 years you'll have gotten rid of most of the firearms in the US.[/QUOTE]
well america already has a large domestic firearms industry, so clearly theres huge demand for the things, and protectionism would only increase the number of american manufactured weapons
if you targeted domestic production, you would eventually see a decline in handgun ownership (both illegally and legally)
[QUOTE=Megafan;38421796]That's a massive fucking leap if I've ever heard one.[/QUOTE]
Obama said that he wants to ban guns in inner cities. American inner cities are part of the United States and the people living in them are (for the most part) American citizens. To say that "inner city people" don't deserve equal protection under the law and that their fundamental natural rights, which are protected by both the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution, do not apply to them, is the same as saying that the Constitution (and their fundamental natural rights) do not apply to them.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38421990]Obama said that he wants to ban guns in inner cities. American inner cities are part of the United States and the people living in them are (for the most part) American citizens. To say that "inner city people" don't deserve equal protection under the law and that their fundamental natural rights, which are protected by both the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution, do not apply to them, is the same as saying that the Constitution (and their fundamental natural rights) do not apply to them.[/QUOTE]
enough of the rhetoric
what do you have to back up that barack obama says that the constitution doesnt apply to people in inner cities
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38421930]well america already has a large domestic firearms industry, so clearly theres huge demand for the things, and protectionism would only increase the number of american manufactured weapons
if you targeted domestic production, you would eventually see a decline in handgun ownership (both illegally and legally)[/QUOTE]
Guns don't magically disappear though. If you target the industry all you've accomplished is making everyone who wants a gun more desperate to own one, and in time most everyone who wants one will own one..
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38421906]his point is if we put in place the infrastructure to manufacture full-auto firearms for the civilian market then we'll see more full-auto firearms showing up in crimes as that infrastructure gets compromised.[/QUOTE]
Look up the US laws on acquiring full auto firearms. Currently, it is by no means easy or cheap to legally purchase a full-auto. I wish for it to be easier in the future and full-autos could again be produced for the civilian market, but all the full-autos should be registered so they can be properly tracked and regulated.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;38421867]To be fair on your first point, Romney has also said in the past that he supports an assault weapons ban. He also refused to loosen MA's strict gun laws when he was governor. He only started acting like he was a supporter of second amendment rights when he was running for President in 2008. And yet despite that, gun owners were more afraid of Obama this election than Romney.[/quote]
Oh I know, Romney is no friend of freedom either. I never believed any of Romney's pro-civil liberties rhetoric.
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;38421867]Also on your last two points - Obama can't make any sort of anti-gun legislation with a Republican controlled House. And the U.S. constitution overrides any foreign treaty we sign(states can also individually opt out of foreign treaties), so there goes that deal. The whole 'U.N. Gun Ban' thing has been completely blown out of proportion by the NRA and related groups, who've had ominous warnings about it plastered on their websites and magazines for over a year now.[/QUOTE]
I think you put too much faith in our representatives, Republican or otherwise. I wouldn't trust most of our congressmen and senators to uphold the Constitution, as far as I can throw them. As others pointed out in the UN Arms Trade Treaty thread, it's unlikely that it will be a ban on guns, but there can be provisions in there that hurt gun owners; especially gun owners and gun stores that buy guns from other countries.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38421738]Obama and his cronies[/QUOTE]
Between this and Glaber saying "Grow up Barry" I'm getting the impression that the 2012 presidential election left quite an impact in the butts of conservatives.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38421930]well america already has a large domestic firearms industry, so clearly theres huge demand for the things, and protectionism would only increase the number of american manufactured weapons
if you targeted domestic production, you would eventually see a decline in handgun ownership (both illegally and legally)[/QUOTE]
Why would you want to do that though? Theres no logical reason to force firearms production to cease, commercially or domestically.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38421998]enough of the rhetoric
what do you have to back up that barack obama says that the constitution doesnt apply to people in inner cities[/QUOTE]
[url=http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/18/the_25_most_obnoxious_quotes_from_barack_obama/page/full/]#21[/url]
Though to be fair, I personally don't think he wants the Constitution to apply, ever, to anyone; especially not when it comes to limiting his power.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38421990]Obama said that he wants to ban guns in inner cities. American inner cities are part of the United States and the people living in them are (for the most part) American citizens. To say that "inner city people" don't deserve equal protection under the law and that their fundamental natural rights, which are protected by both the United States Constitution and the Illinois Constitution, do not apply to them, is the same as saying that the Constitution (and their fundamental natural rights) do not apply to them.[/QUOTE]
Well this is a more complicated issue than just the constitution. And here seems to be the quote you're referring to:
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair."
If I had to guess, he's not insinuating that the constitution of Illinois or the US is suddenly void, simply that Obama would support measures from local governments (going by context from other quotes) restricting the sale of firearms in inner cities. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to then say, 'well obviously he wants freedom of expression and all our other rights gone', because that's a separate issue. If he were making the argument on the basis of the constitution not applying for some reason, then I could see your point, but even then I think a majority of world nations would disagree that owning firearms is a 'fundamental natural right'.
[QUOTE=Megafan;38422063]Well this is a more complicated issue than just the constitution. And here seems to be the quote you're referring to:
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair."
If I had to guess, he's not insinuating that the constitution of Illinois or the US is suddenly void, simply that Obama would support measures from local governments (going by context from other quotes) restricting the sale of firearms in inner cities. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to then say, 'well obviously he wants freedom of expression and all our other rights gone', because that's a separate issue. If he were making the argument on the basis of the constitution not applying for some reason, then I could see your point, but even then I think a majority of world nations would disagree that owning firearms is a 'fundamental natural right'.[/QUOTE]
Under the 14th Amendment, all restrictions on the federal government also apply to state and local governments. The Supreme Court has also ruled that local gun control laws violate the federal Constitution. Whether or not Europeans have freedom is another topic altogether, but it is completely irrelevant. Our natural rights don't come from governments, they come from nature (as their name implies). The Bill of Rights doesn't give us rights, it just protects pre-existing ones.
[QUOTE=Megafan;38422063]Well this is a more complicated issue than just the constitution. And here seems to be the quote you're referring to:
"I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair."
If I had to guess, he's not insinuating that the constitution of Illinois or the US is suddenly void, simply that Obama would support measures from local governments (going by context from other quotes) restricting the sale of firearms in inner cities. Now, you'd be hard-pressed to then say, 'well obviously he wants freedom of expression and all our other rights gone', because that's a separate issue. If he were making the argument on the basis of the constitution not applying for some reason, then I could see your point, but even then I think a majority of world nations would disagree that owning firearms is a 'fundamental natural right'.[/QUOTE]
I think the majority of Americans see self preservation as a 'fundamental natural right', and by extension the right to own firearms. What the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant, it's not their issue.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38422049][url=http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/18/the_25_most_obnoxious_quotes_from_barack_obama/page/full/]#21[/url]
Though to be fair, I personally don't think he wants the Constitution to apply, ever, to anyone; especially not when it comes to limiting his power.[/QUOTE]
This sounds sane and not at all paranoid lunacy.
You do know that if he did that, it would be political suicide.
[editline]12th November 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gordy H.;38422116]I think the majority of Americans see self preservation as a 'fundamental natural right', and by extension the right to own firearms. What the rest of the world thinks is irrelevant, it's not their issue.[/QUOTE]
The right to own firearms can only be established by use of coercive force however.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
