Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Post Reply New Topic

Macbeth wrote;

I looked back several pages of all of my posts and didn't find any instance of where I argued the laws of a country other than the US.
I know I've commented on general happenings and topics outside the US and will do so in the future but that was not my gripe.

I get tired enough of clueless Americans putting thier two cents in on topics they're ignorant of, let alone non-Americans telling us that we're the cause of the rest of the world's problems and how we need to set things in order in our house.
Maybe we're not perfect but globaly we've fixed a lot more than we've destroyed or corrupted and saved more asses than we've kicked.
It must be surprising that people, past and present, tend to imigrate to the United States and not from it.
I don't think my ancestors fled Germany and Ireland to come here because the US was worse.

Well, I can only go by the words you write. Just because someone lives in the Bayous, does not mean you should slander them without reason.
Just because someone is concerned about the actions of their own government does not make them "Conspiracy-driven mental patients".

Take a look at your words below Macbeth... once again you opt for the easy slander, the over-emotional response, the "I don't really have anything with which to create a viable argument so I will resort to name-calling and verbal abuse".
Your actions here are pathetic... really.
I honestly expect something much better than this from you.





And your words above come across as an immature attempt at being condescending.

And for MrMisanthrotope...

I have lived in large cities and out in rural areas of the U.S., and I have carried concealed firearms for many years also.
I also believe that firearms are just machines.
They are tools, as you say, and when people quit anthropomorphizing them and see them for what they really are... maybe those people will gain a greater appreciation for those of us who see no problem with the private ownership of them.

T-rav20...

I can agree with the term, "de-facto ban", when speaking of fully automatic firearms... I just don't like people saying that these are illegal to own... when in fact.. they are quite legal to own.

One of the issues here centers around semantics... so, I tend to be more guarded about people's choice of words when discussing various things, to include firearms.

One other example of this would be the usage of the moniker... Assault Weapon.
As has been pointed out here already in this thread... the first usage of the term 'Assault Weapon' was to describe a specific military firearm which also had fully automatic capabilities.
It was distinguished from other fully automatic firearms by certain characteristics.

So, when certain people start labeling the AR variety of semi-automatic firearms and other related firearms as 'Assault Weapons' and eventually bastardize the whole meaning of the label... that upsets me... but it also allows ignorance to rise up with a false validity that only satisfies certain emotional needs and not true logic at all.

So your great nation does not in fact contain anyone who is unsafe to use a firearm, or whose mental state impairs them from making reasoned political decisions then? My argument is over-emotional, slanderous and pathetic why? Because you genuinely belive that EVERYONE should have the right to a gun? Because you're all completely well-balanced individuals? Or because you can't understand generic examples? Why is it permissible for me to use terms like "upright citizen concerned about his rights" as a generic, but not "conspiracy-driven mental patient". How about "political undesirable trying to implement a Sharia state"? Or do you not have those either?

Macbeth, you have just proven that you are an arse who has no intention of carrying on a reasoned and informed debate.

I posted the link to the US Gun Law that pertains specifically to such things. It is Title 18, Section 922 of the US Code and can be found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

It defines quite clearly in Sub Section (g) who is and is not "permitted" to not just own or purchace, but to POSSESS - as in touch, hold or otherwise exercise contol over.



Now, please try to become educated on the subject or STFU.

Ah, so when I mention these undesirables I'm an arse. American law DOES provide for the regulation of weapons.. but if i dare to suggest that those who first wrote the damn rules might have been thinking along those lines, I'm being condescending or over-emotional... even though you actually have such laws. The thought that lines like: well regulated militia were introduced as a direct attempt to provide the kind of controls this legal list provides is verboten?

Simply put.. my argument is thus: The founding fathers did not want EVERYBODY to have free access to firearms. They wanted people of sound mind and body, sensible men who were not criminals, or mentally disturbed, or a danger to themselves or others.. TRUE OR NOT?

NOT.

The regulation I cited was instituted in 1968 and subsequently modified to include more and more people at the whim of the State.

The previous law pertaining to firearms hails to 1932 and was written to Tax and Control - but not prohibit the possession of fully automatic firearms.

Prior to that the ONLY firearms laws in the United States were both local and written specifically to prohibit "undesireable" minorities - particularly Blacks & in certain areas the Irish, from owning firearms.

The writers of the Constitution (not the writers of the US Code) presumed that, if you were not incarcerated, enslaved, or institutionalized (i.e. a FREE person), it was a Right of human existence to own, possess and carry those tools necessary for the defense of ones self, family and country. Brigands were abberations to be dispatched with extreme prejudice.

All of the Primary Source, ancillary writings of the people who wrote the Constitution attest directly to that fact. It would do you well to read them.

Just to clarify, the Heller decision has already established the 2nd Amendment as an individual right in the US, what we are discussing is the wisdom of reinstating the 1994 "assault weapons" ban. Given that even Nancy Pelosi thinks this is a bad idea (or at least not politically expedient), I'm not that concerned right at the moment, but the Obama administration has tipped it's hand and needs to be reminded that it was this very misguided idea that brought about the Republican revolution in '94 and derailed much of Bill Clinton's agenda afterwords. It also cost Al Gore the 2000 election, where he couldn't even win his home state of Tennessee largely due to his support for the AWB all those years ago.

Anyone who thinks a "gun ban" is anything but a Government Power Grab intended to impact ONLY the Law abiding needs to see this clip:

http://www.vbs.tv/full_screen.php?s=DGF ... sc=1363196

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGVianQJsmQ[/youtube]

Note that, other than the "illegal sale of firearms" this is a relatively "crime" free place.

I can build a 9mm Sten Gun in about a day on my kitchen table. Gun Bans are useless... except to opress those who would not be violent/dangerous with an RPG much less a handgun.

If there was any question as to whether or not International Gun Ban advocates are out to "protect" everybody from crime or stop the international trafficing of small arms to violent NGOs, the following ought to put paid to the question...

Switzerland has virtually no "gun crime" and less "gun trafficing", yet even there the usual Utopian Dreamers and Socialist Dictators in Waiting believe that the SWISS tradition of a Citizen Militia and Armed populous needs to be crushed.

Not even the slide-action (pump) shotgun is safe from irrational people.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/top_news/d ... 2330354000

Obviously those who say "gun bans" are necessary to prevent crime/trafficing are simply lying since neither are of any consequence in Switzerland.

They are nothing more than a direct assault on the Right of Self Determination.

So in fact TRUE. Incarcerated, enslaved, institutionalized or brigand.. these are the same as of sound mind and body, sensible men who were not criminals, or mentally disturbed, or a danger to themselves or others. It might serve you well to stop automatically opposing what I write and start actually reading it. That or you are implying that if a man is wandering lose, regardless of his mental faculties, he should be allowed access to firearms.

No sir. In fact FALSE. If one is NOT enslaved (an entirely different subject) or NOT incarcerated (i.e. not free to leave the place of incaceration/enslavement), one is, or at least was considered to be a Free Person, capable of and under Natural Right to own, possess and carry weapons.

This INCLUDED brigands, for one does not become a brigand until the act. Once one is a Brigand, even then as long as one is FREE one has the right to defend ones self, property and nation with arms. That the brigand may ans should be killed in the commission of his aggerssive act of violence against another is, again a different matter.

Who is to judge "a man is wandering lose, regardless of his mental faculties"? If he is loose, then he has not been "adjudicated" - which, when the laws were written, meant "subsequently incarcerated".

Do you wish to set some arbitrary standard by which some "authority" dictates that Colored Person A may not own a firearm but White Person B may? (or Jewish/Christian, or Hutu/Tutsi, or whatever)? That's been tried and has shown only to lead to genocide.

Maybe next week all AS persons shall be barred, regardless of proficiency/competency, because some "authority" dicates that AS now equals a "mental defective" (lovely term that... see what the Nazi's did with that term...)

Let me put this simply:

Every (Free, as in un-incarcerated) man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

This Right is derived from the fundamental Right to Exist.

If any being has a Right to Exist, it has the Right to individually defenend its individual existence.

To defend one's existence one must have both the will and the means.

To have the Means one must have both the training and the tools.

Animals are born with ot the training and tools... Instinct, Tooth and Claw.

Humans are born with neither, and must LEARN and MANUFACTURE the means of self defense.

The most effective tool of Self Defense - the defene of simpe existence - currently developed is the Firearm.

To reject, ban or otherwise disuade by authority the use of the most effective tools for self defense by the general population is to suggest that the lives of The People are not worth preserving... that the lives of The People, as individuals, are Worth Less than the lives of the Government Officials who would remove their means of self preservation.

Any Person or Government that suggests that the life of ANY Free Person is WOrth Less than the life of any other Free Person is suggesting that the Government has the authority to take that life at will.

I don't know about yours, but, my life is not WorthLess than the life of some Authoritarian Thug sent to oppress/kill me.

Bravo, Sir!
Well said.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that when W used terrorism as an excuse to infringe on civil liberties, people called it fear mongering, scare tactics and an assault on the Constitution, and rightly so. Now when some of these same people use crime in another country to try to whip up public sentiment for a not only pointless, but deceptive regulation infringing on civil liberties of a different type, where is the outcry? Isn't it just a little hypocritical that our new AG is making a stink about the Bush administration's subversion of rights when he's trying to backdoor the 2nd Amendment with loaded language and the perceived ignorance of the public?

Macbeth... here, for the last time, are your very own words...

I do find this ignorant rambling and over-generalization of people you do not even know, to be offensive.
Why is it that you do not see how pathetic your choice of words was?
Your only means of trying to shore up your opinions, is supported by your immature attempts at character assassination.
I realize you are ranting in this thread... but please.. understand how you belittle yourself when you take such a position as you did above.
I'm done with this now... there appears to be nothing to gain except more angry, emotional, diatribe from you.



And again... your words above come across as a lame attempt at being condescending.

I truly feel sorry for you, that you cannot seem to present a mature argument, but instead fall to such childish tactics.

You and I disagree on this issue and I do not see any chance this will change.
I believe this thread has run it's course... the arguments have been repeated many times over.

From my shack on the bayou, I would buy a case of gold plated grenades, but it seems they were all shipped to Mexico under NAFTA. The fully automatic weapons shown in Mexico, were supplied by the US government, millions of them to Mexico, Guatamala, Honduras, the Contras, and when last in the area, they were $25. Once they found the geosyncline in the Petan, potential oil, they suddenly discovered that the Mayan who lived there had been communists for 8,000 years. Jimmy Carter gave Guatamala Huey gunships to strafe villages.

During disasters, such as being lost, in the swamp or at sea, the distress signal is fire three shots close together, pause, then fire three more. It's meaning around here is universal, come rescue me. It is in the Boy Scout Handbook.

The news crews reported they were under fire from assult rilfles? Everyone in this state can hit a chopper at a few hundred yards, most could pick off the pilot, show me the bullet holes.

We had several hundred thousand people on roofs for five days with news crews flying over, filming, but no rescue, that was in mid summer sun, on a roof, without water. 1570 people died, mostly of thirst, in the week following Katrina.

Flying over people who are dying of thirst, to get some film at ten o'clock, is sick. So was the goverment response, a week later.

In Marine Corp Sniper, Viet Nam, the weapon of choice was the Remingtom Model 70, in 7mm. Bolt action, five shot box clip, and workable out to 700 yards. Walmart sells them. With a good scope and some sighting in, a good deer rifle for mountains and desert. The deer rifle is the most common weapon in the US, there are millions of them, in the hands of people who hit what they aim at.

A people's war would be a million snipers who know the ground. In the first days we get all the National Guard Armories. Most enlisted people would desert and come home. The State Police would enforce the traffic laws. The Interstates would be closed, no food to cities, no fuel, and every night we would move closer, sealing them into pockets. It will take The People about three days to overthrow the government.

That is the Militia, when the able bodied take up arms.

Government only by the consent of the governed.

All rights not granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government, or to the States, are reserved to the People, who have a Right to change the form of Government at any time.

When those elected to do the business of The People fill their pockets from lobbists, who pay to have just and reasonable laws governing banks and brokerages changed, then loot the wealth of the people, and their children, their grandchildren, and the economy, paying the debts of private lenders and insurers from the public purse, and debt, and said transactions are carried out in secret, then one has to ask, "Mister President, which side are you on?"

Mister President, you must chose between the Bond Holders who speculated in the market and lost, and the entire future of We, The American People, who elected you.

If you reach for our guns, that is your answer.

Brilliant how you repeatedly fail to address what I'm actually saying by moaning about the "tone" in which I write. Do you or do you not have political undesirables trying to implement a Sharia state, or similar?" What do YOU call these people. then, if none of the terms I produce are satisfactory to you? What do you want me to call them?