Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

People who are afraid of guns should educate themselves.

Why? Their view of the world is working perfectly good for them. They have absolutely no motivation to change it.

If Pro-gun people want them to change their minds, they should be doing the education AND should be doing it subtly from the point of HELPING them, not fighting them.

I guess I always assumed that intelligent people are responsible for educating themselves.

I can understand having a fear.. but when I had one like a fear of heights... I went out of my way to face the fear...headon.... not cower from it.

[quade 4]

Quote

I guess I always assumed that intelligent people are responsible for educating themselves.

People will only educate themselves if they see a reason to.

From their point of view, they're already as educated as they need to be.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

I guess I always assumed that intelligent people are responsible for educating themselves.

People will only educate themselves if they see a reason to.

From their point of view, they're already as educated as they need to be.

Gee and here I thought it was only the "dumb as dirt and proud of it" people who thought that way..

You would think if they were that afraid of things that could kill them.. they would seek to ban cars...or alcohol.. lots more deaths every year.. oh wait.. they already tried to ban one of those.. never mind.

[LongWayToFall 0]

Read my post and you will understand why kinetic energy per minute is BS, and why you will never be able to limit it. Fully automatic weapons don't exist in the general public, without a massive amount of paperwork, and even then in specific states. The weapons you fear the most are delivering less energy, but with more lethality. You just can't limit it. A mill, a piece of steel, and a handgun turns into a weapon just as powerful as any fully automatic assault weapon.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

ANYONE who is even slightly familiar with weapons... should know that.... People who are afraid of guns should educate themselves.. and take a class or two.... to overcome their phobia's

+1, +1, +1 !!!

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Their view of the world is working perfectly good for them. They have absolutely no motivation to change it.

Maybe their view of the world is working perfectly good for them. If they're trying to ban weapons with no knowledge of what they're talking about, they are motivated to do something, instead of educating themselves.

Quote

If Pro-gun people want them to change their minds, they should be doing the education AND should be doing it subtly from the point of HELPING them, not fighting them.

Pro-gun people's view of the world IS working perfectly well for them.

We are all engines of karma

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

I guess I'm still not getting the distinction.

Sure you do. The post you originally questioned is inflamatory, but not innacurate. I intentionally included the Republicans so it would be less likely to be interpreted as a threat. I don't advocate violent action because of a disagreement with the politicians. But I do think they should have a very healthy respect / fear of an armed populace. That was my point, and it's simply a re-statement of the reasoning behind #2. Here is some more timeless wisdom:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So, we're a long way from it, but it should remain a possibility, especially in the minds of every lawmaker.

Quote

However, how can taking people from their homes, schools, lives, and then shipping them off to fight and, in many cases, die in a poorly conceived "police action" (as the Congress never actually declared war), against the wishes of a majority of the American population (at least by the later years of the war), NOT be seen as oppressive in the extreme? National guard troops shooting unarmed (well, except for flowers) "hippies" who were simply exercising their First Amendment rights to assemble and protest is not "oppressive government"? Maybe oppressive government, like assault weapons, is something that people "know when they see it", except everyone sees things through the lens of their own beliefs and values.

No doubt Vietnam caused a lot of problems. I think Kent state was more of a localized mistake by a few guardsmen than a systemic problem of firing on the population. Then again, revolutions have been sparked by similar actions.

Quote

I wonder how an entire nation could be organized like that? I suppose if the government were to go completely off the deep end and suspend elections, round up all the guns (that they could find), round up and jail political opponents, then it would be obvious and there might very well be a spontanious national reaction

See? You DO get it.

Quote

Mostly, though, I hear people whining about government using tax dollars to provide education or health care to "hippies". Is that "oppressive" enough to justify armed revolution? Better dead than European?

No. While hideous, not worthy of armed conflict. Most/all of the problems are driven by economics. If the policies of the past several months lead to an economic failure, then the situation will be ripe. And you're going to disagree with this, but the Obama administration has been very adept at taking advantage of the current economic situation to advance a leftist agenda. Who's to say that if it gets a lot worse, they won't attempt to take over completely? Parallels your fear that Bush wouldn't step down, I guess.

Quote

Your use of the word "hippies" seems slightly perjorative, but then again "Tankbuster" kind of implies you probably side with the militaristic perspective rather than peace/love/get high.

No one loves peace more than a soldier. I'm not a smart man, but I know what love is.

Quote

Well, I hope you're wrong,

Me too. But I'm prepared.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[quade 4]

Quote

Pro-gun people's view of the world IS working perfectly well for them.

Great! Then I won't have to listen to any more crap when the shitty law you're opposed to gets passed.

So . . . is your world still working perfectly well now?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

Quote

The point is that what some have called "assault weapons" are simply classified as scary looking.

I've made this point before and I'll make it again; if Pro-gun people don't like "assault weapons" being banned based on being "scary looking", then they should work with the gun control advocates and educate them so that there is a more reasonable criteria.

Start by picking something ludicrous like the amount of kinetic energy per minute delivered by a SAW and work downward until it become apparent that a simple hunting rifle (one specifically designed for hunting and not an adaptation of a military weapon) over takes it.

I know this might not make sense on the first read through but read it over again until it does.

You can't just SAY that what they're doing is silly and cosmetic. PROVE to them that the energy delivered is less than what is available specifically for hunting.

Unfortunately, many of the Anti-gun folk know exactly what they are doing. They use misdirection, false "facts" (back to that in a sec) and outright lies to "prove" their point. Working with the anti-gunners isn't realistic, because in spite of what they say, they seem to want a total ban.

Like with so many other things, the general populace believes what they see on TV, and don't care enough to educate themselves on the truth, the biggest and loudest become the truth, and the real truth gets lost.

Some of the more glaring "false facts" include the "43 times more likely to kill a family member" - true until you realize that armed encounters with bad guys end with the bad guy dead less than 1% of the time.

And what about bayonet lugs? One of the "scary" features. And I will admit, having a sharp knife on the end of a 3 foot rifle is scary and a great hand-to-hand weapon. But how many people have been killed by a fixed bayonet? I believe it to be zero. (I looked around and couldn't find anything one way or the other.)

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

You can't just SAY that what they're doing is silly and cosmetic. PROVE to them that the energy delivered is less than what is available specifically for hunting.

Uh........ actually the hunting weapons I use are far more powerfull than any of the typically "scary" looking assault weapons... PLUS... I could VERY easily reach out and touch someone with my better weapons easily past 500 yards.

ANYONE who is even slightly familiar with weapons... should know that.... People who are afraid of guns should educate themselves.. and take a class or two.... to overcome their phobia's

Rather than regulating what kind of weapons we "BAN"... I would much rather make SEVERE penalties for those who USE a weapon in the commission of any crimes.....period.

"BAN" those who misuse the tools... instead of the tool.

OK, so if "regular" weapons have at least equal to and maybe better functionality than "assault weapons", WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF ANYONE WANTING SAID "ASSAULT WEAPONS" OTHER THAN TO ASSUAGE THEIR NEED TO APPEAR MACHO?

And maybe people who need guns to feel adequate should seek help instead.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not about hunting, my friend. It's about making sure we always have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny. So hopefully my black gun scares plenty of people, namely Pelosi, Frank, Obama, hell Bohner, Shelby, etc.

OK, serious question here. You've made a very clear statement advocating resistance by force against elected politicians you happen to disagree with, should they cross some line in your perception of things. Every time discussion of the 2nd amendment comes up, someone makes a similar statement. So why is this OK, presumably it makes you a "true patriot" and all that, but when someone else of a different political leaning actually does take up arms to oppose a government they see as oppressive and unresponsive to the peoples will, they are labeled "terrorists". To be specific, why is Tankbuster (and others of similar persuation) a patriot, but William Ayers is a terrorist, and by extention Obama "pals around with terrorists"? I'm really curious about why you don't see Ayers as an "American patriot", since he actually did what you all threaten to do.

Don

No, I haven't made a statement of that nature. The 2nd ammendment was intended to ensure that government would never get too powerful and oppressive, because of the threat of armed revolution. When I mention those politicians, including two conservative ones, I'm sort of restating that point. They must fear us, respect our right to bear arms and protect ourselves. Not just from home intrusion, but also from an oppressive government. It isn't a threat to any of them, but a warning which was issued a couple hundred years ago, and not by me. While I'm absolutely diametrically opposed to the current "leadership" in DC, they gained power according to the constitution, and I'm just gonna have to grin and bear it for as long as it lasts. Bend over too, it seems. As in the Declaration of Independence, if enough of us believe that government has become destructive of these ends......

Ayers was a terrorist. Just because he opposed the war didn't give him the right to take up arms against the government. He should be behind bars, but since he's not he's gotten smart and decided to change the government legally, by pushing a radically left agenda through the education system. Hopefully, conservatives will be able to counter this movement, also within the law.

There's a big difference between organizing a few hippies to plant bombs, and organizing an entire nation to throw off an oppressive government. If it ever does happen, and I believe there's a decent chance of it in the next few decades, there will patriots and loyalists, just like the last one.

But why do you need a scary looking "assault weapon" to do this, when you pro-gun folks have told us over and over that regular looking weapons are just as good and maybe better? Or were you lying when you said that?

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[StreetScooby 5]

I was using your own logic in reply to that. Clearly pro-gun people need to take action to protect against people that you even agree can't be bothered to educate themselves.

We are all engines of karma

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

OK, so if "regular" weapons have at least equal to and maybe better functionality than "assault weapons", WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF ANYONE WANTING SAID "ASSAULT WEAPONS" OTHER THAN TO ASSUAGE THEIR NEED TO APPEAR MACHO?

The point I'm hearing being made is - folks who try to ban "assault weapons" don't know beans about what they're trying to do. Thus, once successful with such vaguely worded laws, it's just a matter of time before all guns are viewed as "assault weapons".

We are all engines of karma

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, so if "regular" weapons have at least equal to and maybe better functionality than "assault weapons", WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF ANYONE WANTING SAID "ASSAULT WEAPONS" OTHER THAN TO ASSUAGE THEIR NEED TO APPEAR MACHO?

The point I'm hearing being made is - folks who try to ban "assault weapons" don't know beans about what they're trying to do. Thus, once successful with such vaguely worded laws, it's just a matter of time before all guns are viewed as "assault weapons".

Didn't want to answer my question, eh?

"Slippery Slope" is one of the more common logical fallacies.

Apparently all you gun folks are agreed that from a functional point of view, you will lose NOTHING if "assault weapons" are banned. So you're whining about nothing, or lying.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

OK, so if "regular" weapons have at least equal to and maybe better functionality than "assault weapons", WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT OF ANYONE WANTING SAID "ASSAULT WEAPONS" OTHER THAN TO ASSUAGE THEIR NEED TO APPEAR MACHO?

And maybe people who need guns to feel adequate should seek help instead.

Intersting to collect, fun to shoot, competition, reenactments, self-defense(the aftermath of any recent hurricane comes to mind).
I don't need a gun to feel adequate, but there have been times I felt much more secure with one than I would have without.

As I said above, the anti-gunners seem to be looking for a total ban. "Assault weapons", .50BMG, "Satuday Night Specials", full capacity magazines, armor piercing ammo, ect., are the "Camel's nose" in that direction.

Before you accuse me of paranoia, read This. About halfway down, it mentions "Brady Bill 2".

Edit to fix the clicky

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

But why do you need a scary looking "assault weapon" to do this, when you pro-gun folks have told us over and over that regular looking weapons are just as good and maybe better? Or were you lying when you said that?

Hmmm. This thread seems to have started arguing the wrong point. The anti gun lobby relies on the fact that many Americans don't know much about weapons, their use, or the intent of the 2nd ammendment. If you can keep "military style" weapons out of the hands of the general population, then the perception becomes one of - we, the sheep are allowed to own hunting and sporting weapons but law enforcement is better left to the police and armed insurrection is NEVER a possibility. Additionally, they realize that any gun law is better than none, and if they impact the ecomomics of manufacture and sale, they have gained some ground.

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

Didn't want to answer my question, eh?

I personally don't own anything remotely resembling an "assault weapon", so I really can't answer your question. I do see the thread losing topic, in part due to posts such as yours.

We are all engines of karma

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

From their point of view, they're already as educated as they need to be.

Almost a perfect definition of "close-minded"

I knew you'd come around someday

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

From their point of view, they're already as educated as they need to be.

Almost a perfect definition of "close-minded"

I knew you'd come around someday

"Almost" but not quite.

What I'm describing is a person that has no reason to think their view of the world is incorrect. For instance, if a person has always been taught the Bernoulli Principle is what makes an airplane fly and he's satisfied with that explanation, then he has no reason to think otherwise. It doesn't mean he's "close minded", just that he doesn't know any better and for 99.9% of everything he does in life the Bernoulli Principle is a perfectly fine explanation.

The problem is . . . it's not complete.

A close minded person isn't going to listen no matter what. To think that applies across the board to gun control advocates is a pretty big assumption on your part.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[millertimeunc 0]

You know what, you're right. And while we're at it, let's place restrictions...or better yet bans on fast cars. Surely there's no need to have the ability to go 175 mph and take a 20 mph corner at twice the legal speed limit. Yep, no more Porsches, Ferraris, Corvettes, or BMW's. No need for that kind of power in the hands of the average American. If you buy that kind of car, it MUST mean that you intend to break the traffic laws all the time and endanger yourself and those around you. Let's not forget, as we all well know, that only people who are insecure about their manhood buy flashy fast cars.

Nope, nothing to do with the fact that they may just like to drive a precision built machine with some pedigree and occasionally use that pedigree in a safe and controlled manner (i.e. club race circuit on the weekend, or an auto-x).

No, take away the sports cars and make us all drive hybrids, and America will be a much safer place.

The same logic applies to the gun argument. The anti-assault weapon crowd just doesn't seem to understand the simple fact that I don't NEED the kind of firepower provided by a semi-automatic assault rifle. But maybe, just maybe, I enjoy taking it to a range once or twice a month and using it in a safe, controlled environment because it is fun and it is my right as an American to do so.

The best things in life are dangerous.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

But why do you need a scary looking "assault weapon" to do this, when you pro-gun folks have told us over and over that regular looking weapons are just as good and maybe better?

There are several reasons (That have nothing to do with penis size or machoness) why an Assault rifle would be preferable for some people.

For someone that does not hunt and just enjoys going to the Rifle range and firing off a few hundred rounds occasionally (It is a hobby for many people that makes about as much sense as people jumping out of airplanes. No real purpose other than they enjoy it) an Assault rifle is much better for this purpose than a Traditional Hunting rifle. First off the Assault rifle is lighter weight (Fiberglass Stock vs heavy wooden stock) easier to break down and clean afterwards and the ammo is MUCH less expensive.

What valid reason do you have for wanting to take away their guns? Are not they just as entitled to enjoy their hobby as you are to enjoy yours?

Once again, the constitution does not say I have a right to keep and bear arms for hunting. It says I have a right to Keep and Bear Arms. That right includes semi-automatic rifles. The stock on the gun should not matter.

Trying ban weapons based on which stock the gun has is pure stupidity and serves no purpose other than to try to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. There are many reasons why the Rifle with the lightweight fiberglass stock is preferable to some people over the Traditional heavier wooden stocks.

[quade 4]

Quote

You know what, you're right. And while we're at it, let's place restrictions...or better yet bans on fast cars. Surely there's no need to have the ability to go 175 mph and take a 20 mph corner at twice the legal speed limit. Yep, no more Porsches, Ferraris, Corvettes, or BMW's. No need for that kind of power in the hands of the average American. If you buy that kind of car, it MUST mean that you intend to break the traffic laws all the time and endanger yourself and those around you. Let's not forget, as we all well know, that only people who are insecure about their manhood buy flashy fast cars.

This is quite possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard used in a Pro-gun argument.

I do not know ANYONE that owns a car of this type that has not and does not continue to break the law on a regular basis. None.

If you can tell me with a straight face that you own a car capable of 175 mph and have NOT ever broken the speed limit . . . well . . . you're a much better liar than most.

Are you suggesting the same amount of illegal use is made by gun owners?!?

(See . . . I told you it was a bad analogy!)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

Quote

You know what, you're right. And while we're at it, let's place restrictions...or better yet bans on fast cars. Surely there's no need to have the ability to go 175 mph and take a 20 mph corner at twice the legal speed limit. Yep, no more Porsches, Ferraris, Corvettes, or BMW's. No need for that kind of power in the hands of the average American. If you buy that kind of car, it MUST mean that you intend to break the traffic laws all the time and endanger yourself and those around you. Let's not forget, as we all well know, that only people who are insecure about their manhood buy flashy fast cars.

This is quite possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard used in a Pro-gun argument.

I do not know ANYONE that owns a car of this type that has not and does not continue to break the law on a regular basis. None.

If you can tell me with a straight face that you own a car capable of 175 mph and have NOT ever broken the speed limit . . . well . . . you're a much better liar than most.

You are absolutely correct. So where is the outrage here? Where are the laws to ban these cars? They kill far more innocent people every year than Assault Rifles do.

We know that people that buy these cars are going to break the law and we also know that the vast majority of people buying Assault Rifles (Over 99%) will NOT break the law (Based on History) with their guns.

If people really want to actually do something that will make a difference and save lives, Forget Assault Rifle Bans. Go after those High Performance cars oh and Go after High Performance canopies too, They kill our friends.

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

You know what, you're right. And while we're at it, let's place restrictions...or better yet bans on fast cars. Surely there's no need to have the ability to go 175 mph and take a 20 mph corner at twice the legal speed limit. Yep, no more Porsches, Ferraris, Corvettes, or BMW's. No need for that kind of power in the hands of the average American. If you buy that kind of car, it MUST mean that you intend to break the traffic laws all the time and endanger yourself and those around you. Let's not forget, as we all well know, that only people who are insecure about their manhood buy flashy fast cars.

Nope, nothing to do with the fact that they may just like to drive a precision built machine with some pedigree and occasionally use that pedigree in a safe and controlled manner (i.e. club race circuit on the weekend, or an auto-x).

No, take away the sports cars and make us all drive hybrids, and America will be a much safer place.

The same logic applies to the gun argument. The anti-assault weapon crowd just doesn't seem to understand the simple fact that I don't NEED the kind of firepower provided by a semi-automatic assault rifle. But maybe, just maybe, I enjoy taking it to a range once or twice a month and using it in a safe, controlled environment because it is fun and it is my right as an American to do so.

So now you're claiming that there IS a difference in functionality.

You guys need to make up your minds which of two contradictory positions you are going to use, and stick with it. Switching back and forth according to the needs of the argument just makes you look like liars.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[millertimeunc 0]

You're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I think your kinetic energy/time idea is flawed. The point I was trying to make (albeit sarcastically) was that these so called assault weapons, to the law abiding citizen, are recreational items used in an enjoyable past time that should remain a legal right.

The best things in life are dangerous.