Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Post Reply New Topic

Your government isn't much better... in fact.. in regards to the treatment of it's own citizens... I'd take the U.S. Government over the British Government anyday.
We have much more freedom in our lives than what I understand you people do.

As far as what it takes to stop the U.S. Military?

think... Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq.
Those three places had people willing to stand up against our military and look what happened.
Sure it cost.. and is still costing... lives, money, resources, and time... but it's apparent to me that just because we have this big bad military... we don't always win.
I am a vet, and have no bone to pick with our military in general.



Wrong.. the right isn't being 'given' to us... in your emotional diatribe Macbeth.. you continuously misstate facts.

Also, someone mentioned something about fully automatic firearms being illegal in the U.S.?

Fully automatic firearms are quite legal to own by citizens of the U.S.
First off you must live in a state that allows private or corporate ownership of an automatic weapon.
There is a paperwork process to go through, you have to meet certain qualifications, you do have to have your local law enforcement head approve it, you have to purchase your tax stamp for the firearm... also for a suppressor if you wish to own one of those also... and that's about it.

Automatic firearms in civilian hands have a history of being better safeguarded than those in our military and law enforcement hands.
These automatic firearms are not being purchased and smuggled out of the country.
In Mexico... those automatic firearms are coming from their own military and law enforcement, as well as their other neighboring countries.

I was also saddened to see Macbeth stereotype Americans who own firearms or are concerned about the actions of their own government... his comments about 'any nutter who own wants to own a gold-plated AK...', 'any weirdo in a shack in the bayou', and 'anyone who thinks the government is dodgy'

Those comments come off as pathetic and ignorant. I really expected more from Macbeth.

No, it isn't

Evidence Please? Oh, and which wars, by the way?

In reality, many "problems" are solved with a gun, and it rarely results in anyone dead, despite what the media may tell you.

This is neither here nor there, but I will point out that these films do quite well internationally.


Obviously, you have no idea what you are talking about, as "single action" has nothing to do with this law. Single action refers to the trigger only doing one thing: releasing the hammer to fire a gun. Conversely, double action both cocks and releases the hammer.

No, the 1994 law (and presumably, its successor) regulates certain cosmetic features found in Semi-automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger, automatically re-loads itself) firearms, such as: adjustable stocks, pistol grips, removable magazines , flash suppressors and bayonet lugs. the law stated that you couldn't have more than one of these features on a firearm. All of these features are utterly inconsequential to the operation of a firearm.

The law also banned the sale of newly manufactured "Ammunition Feeding Devices", (you would likely call them "clips") with a capacity of more than ten rounds, to civilians. Criminals, of course, were not impressed, and the law did nothing to lower crime rates.

Edit: Here's a article that goes more into depth (With Pictures)
http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2004/ ... r-reprint/

Last edited by T-rav20 on 28 Feb 2009, 8:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

So? the internal laws of our country don't affect you.

Such as?

Exploding ammunition is regulated under Title III of the 1934 National Firearms Act, so, already done. Similarly, possession of uranium (of any sort) is highly regulated. So, anything else?

Both effectively banned.

Effectively banned.

Except for the fact that the 1986 FOPA banned the new manufacture of such firearms, driving the price far out of the range of what most people can afford. A de facto ban is still a ban.

Fluffybunnyfeet wrote;

Not a subspecies of the human race but a separate and independent nation. As far as being and gun and military happy nation I can’t totally agree with that because of who we elected for president (no, I DID NOT vote for him). Contrary to what you believe, George W. Bush didn’t fit your description of us war mongering Americans either.
I wish we were more of a gun and military happy nation, though. It would make us stronger in many ways that would be beneficial.
You don’t stop wars by wishing them away or trying to do away with the tools of war or the warrior mindset. There always have been and always will be wars, that is one of the constants of human existence whether it’s palatable to you or not.
The way to avoid war is to be prepared for it. Weakness invites attack.
Even if your nation does have to go to war it can make a better accounting of itself by being prepared.



Certain problems can be solved with the use of a gun. Most cannot but some can.
For example, if someone were to break into my house right now the .40 caliber pistol in my desk drawer would be just the tool.
I don’t live in constant fear of that but I am fairly prepared for it.




So what are we “disgruntled” about and what’s your definition of a “singe action weapon”? I must have some patience or I wouldn’t bother to explain the obvious someone like you.

Woodpecker wrote;

You can be a citizen of the world if you want to but I’m happy to be an American.
You’re either anti-gun or pro-gun. This idea of selective banning is BS.
Selective banning eventually leads to total banning via the domino effect.
Once you admit that a ban on anything has merit, true or not, further banning follows.



A sawed off shotgun in the U.S. is defined by having a barrel length under 18 inches.
Such a weapon could easily be useful as a home defense weapon or for countering a car-jacking.
A pump shotgun with a 14 inch barrel loaded with 00 buckshot could prove be a good thing to have in thick brush were bears or feral hogs might be encountered.
Even with that aside, we still shouldn’t have to justify such things.
It’s the individual that chooses to do the killing.
Having a gun does not make someone a killer any more than having a wrench makes someone a mechanic.

No. It is still an inquiry. Inquiries or questions, by their definition, are incomplete thoughts.

Where is the car?

Where is the car.

Note the difference?

I find all of this rather humorous.

Some of the US correspondents seem to fully understand the Philosophy as of the 2nd Amendment as described in the Primary and Secondary Sources which create the milleu and meme that became the 2nd Amendment.

What seems to be missing here is the perspective of someone who actually owns and uses firearms on a regular basis.

Most people who seem to be overly interested in the US Firearms "question" largely seem to be people who live in either US Urban Areas or non-US countries which never had widespread ownership - at least since the 1940s - per se anyway.

I, on the otherhand, have owned, used and or carried a firearm since my teen years. Outside of the Urban Cesspools, Firearms are nothing more than tools. No different to their owners than a chain saw, screwdriver or kitchen knife.

A Firearm is a tool for dispatching vermin, predators, food/game animals and/or defend one's person/home from those who would do harm. This is particularly necessary in those areas of the US where, even today, there are few Law Enforcement personnel within resonable response time.

The "fact" that most Urbanites worldwide only observe firearms in the News while being used by Criminals and Government is wholly intentional on the part of those who would prefer that, regrdless of rural necessity, firearms be only associated with those groups.

Unfortunately, most people seem to be uttry unable to comprehend that, even in the US, it is and has been "illegal" for a recidivist Felon to own firearms, as it it for anyone under the age of 18 (21 for handguns), Non-approved Foreigners and anyone deemed "questionable" by an "authority" willing to sign a court order saying someone is "Mentally Defective".

Since 1932 it has been "illegal" to possess a fully automatic firearm ("machine gun") short barreled shotgun, or "other destructive device", inclufing all explosive ammunition and any weapon firing a projectile over .50 inch in diameter wthout a security inspection & regressive tax placed upon the purchaser.

I would like to suggest that any US Urban Dweller or non-US citizen take the opportunity to actually study, in particular, Title 18 US Code 922, as well as the National Firearms act of 1932 before you say that the US has some sort of utter disregard for any sort of firearms laws and sells guns willy nilly to ciminals and terrorists. Such opinion is utterly unfounded, false to fact and contrived by Governments/NGOs who are simply blindly ignorant to the realities of US Rural life.

And you obviously cannot comprehend the VAST difference between a band of compatriots training to use a field piece, and a single private individual owning all manner of military grade hardware.

Allowing or disallowing military grade hardware to the general public in no way prevents the government from doing as it pleases. A great number of your citizens find the thought of a black president repulsive.. you still got one. An equal, if not larger group of your citizens thought the previous president a grade A class-one potential world-murdering redneck buffoon. No armed uprising though.... In fact the last time owning weaponry came into it in a big way was the war of secession, and look what happened there.... Half the country decided the government was wrong, and still ended up doing what it said. I hear so much crap on here about preventing the government this, or stopping the government that... yet there are no rebellions, no righteous crusades. People used assault weapons to shoot at rescue helicopters in New Orleans. How very revolutionary indeed.

As for the rest: I only got into this thread by mentioning the OBVIOUS mis-reading of a single sentence. Well regulated was read as Well Armed.. which is WRONG. It was the WRONG WORD, leading to a completely fallacious assumption about the nature of that sentence. Go back and read it again before you all go mental at me. It wasn't me replacing words. But as all of you seem to think that it actually does say WELL ARMED, maybe you should just carry on re-writing historical documents in your minds, to fit your own beliefs.

I can assume you wont be refraining from commenting on any thread discussing matters beyond your borders now, because I've seen several comments by you on threads about foreign affairs in the NCE forum alone. So, if you find it permissible to comment on the affairs of other nations, then it is only polite that you allow the citizens of other nations pass comment about yours.

No... no one is reading "well regulated" as "well armed".

It is the Militia that is to be well regulated.

It is the Right of the People (the same People who have the Right to Free Speech and Free assembly) to Keep and Bear Arms - which, using the definition of the 18th century, meant Personal Arms (rifles, pistols, shotguns, swords), not crew served weapons (like Cannon) - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

It does not say "The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be regulated, it says shall not be infringed.

It would really help if you took the time to look at the laws of our country before you took IANSA's spin for it.

Here is the 1968 Gun COntrol Act: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

Crew served weapons and destructive devices are explicitly prohibited to anyone who does not have specific government permission and oversight.

Stereotype? How specific or generic would you like me to be when listing the kind of people that should perhaps not be permitted access to firearms capable of assisting in the overthrow of an elected government in an (apparently) democratic nation? There is a difference between a conspiracy-driven mental patient, and an upright citizen concerned that his rights and the rights of his fellows are being infringed, is there not? When your apparently god-given human right to own such materials was being written down (better?) do you not think perhaps that the men writing it thought a little on this matter themselves? Were they such a collection of idealistic buffoons that they completely ignored the fact that someone might try to use such liberties to overthrow the elected government WRONGLY? Or were they (as I am led to believe) a group of intelligent and educated gentlemen who were maybe foresighted enough to see a day when that might happen? Foresight be damned, perhaps they even saw a time in their own lifetimes when pro-british citizens (and there were some) took up arms against the new democracy?

YES THEY ARE. That there is the actual quote that misquoted the quote.. That is what was misread, that is what I was commenting upon.

FWIW... I seem to recall that a funny little man with a silly mustache was lawfully elected too...

Had his people no right to attempt to overtrow him before it took the US to come over and assist those few and the rest of Europe do it?

Naah. Maybe not. He WAS elected democraticly after all...


They absolutely did. AND THEY WELCOMED IT. Try reading a bit more. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine, Webster, Washington, and many others all wrote about the absolute necessity of the individual to keep and bear private arms.

It's all quite well documented, if studiously ignored by tose who believe that only governments and criminals should have arms... or even knives.

BTW, How's that knife ban working out for you guys? The Chavs paying any more attention to that than thy have the gun ban?

Criminals will be criminals... whether US Gangbangers, Mexican Narcos, UK Chavs or their respective Governments. They WILL get their weapons... even if they have to make them. Just look at the Khyber Pass.

Why rational people think that writing laws that they know criminals will ignore will somehow simultaneously impact those same criminals in any maningful way is utterly beyond me.

Laws against things (knives, drugs, personal arms, whatever) only impacts those with no predisposition to crime - i.e. it punishes the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.

That is unethical.

Lets just clarify. I'm not arguing against the right of people to disagree with or even overthrow their own government. I'm suggesting that the desire of those few gentlemen was the right of the individual to work with other like-minded individuals, replacing the government with a reasonable and democratic variant, through the use of armed force, if necessary.. at a time when armed force was not very much more than the massed fire-power of individuals concerned.. whilst at the same time desiring reasonable stops against tyranny rearing its head again.. which INCLUDES armed individuals who are (to cut it short) nutters of one form or another.

MY governments activities are not in question here. My government are in the habit of banning things that are already banned. Our problem is entirely enforcement of laws, or the lack thereof, rather than their introduction.

And lets not go down the "America saved the world in WW2" road because its simply not true, and will drag the whole thread way off course. Its also utterly irrelevant to the thread. The very fact that tyrants CAN BE democratically elected and continue to rule in nations where guns are freely available makes a mockery of that.

So let's clarify that... you are saying that you believe that the FOunders believed that not only should every Person (the People) have the Right and Ability to depose a tyrranical government, but they should also not have the right to maintain the meanse to do so because they might be wrong...

Seems a bit dodgy to me.



This proposed "AWB" in the US is exactly of that type. The weapons in question are allready "banned" to those whom the legislation uses as the raison d'etre for the law. THey have been prohibited from possessing such equipment since 1932. WHat this law porposed is to prohibit innocent people from owning tools that some ponce in an office in DC thinks is scary.


The point to the comment was that elections are meaningless without an armed population willing to say "NO" once in a while - regardless of personal cost... or, in the words of the Founders of the US, "Our lives, our goods and our sacred honour".

The very fact that tyrants CAN BE democratically elected and continue to rule in nations where guns are freely available only shows that the tradition of Liberty has been crushed and the slavery of conformity has taken hold. This is much easier to do where and when the People as a whole do not understand that they CAN weild power or do not have the means to do so - whether they win or lose.

Again, if is folly to "ban" somthing that can be made with hand tools in a cave. I can build a functional Sten Gun type submachine gun in one working day with nothing but a hand saw, a hand drill and a gas torch. They make do with less at the Kyhber Pass.

How about letting the People decide how to defend themselves? It's not like establishing a Totalitarian Police State has ever been a successful remedy for criminal violence...