Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by TV_Nation

 

What possible reason could you have for the average joe to own a
Assault Rifle. They were designed for one thing only, the word "Assault"
should be clue.

Average joe? You mean a constitutionally empowered citizen of the united states.

He/she has the right to "keep and bare". This amendment does not imply a casual application but a reservation to use force and guarantees the capacity.

What does the average joe need with the right to free speech?

This here ATS is actually a free speech gun range if you will.

Originally posted by bubbabuddha


Pretty stupid government we have here folks, they don't trust the voters, they don't trust the people. Which of course means they will eventually attack those they do not trust, hence the reason why the 2nd amendment was made, so as to prevent an endless cycle of violence and revolution....

This adversarial position between the peple and those that are supposed to be working for is another indication of the deterioration of the republic.

The right to be adversarial is reserved for the people not the government. No one in government elected or otherwise has the right to impose on this amendment or take an adversarial position against the people over it.

This guy Holder would have been fired and run out of town in years past. Talk of an infringement on the peoples right to keep and bare arms is treason.

Originally posted by Toolbox
reply to post by mattifikation

 

With 'Quit giving me that constitutional rights crap' I was simply referring to the argument a lot of people tend to use/abuse.

Whenever you bring up a gun discussion, the first thing you'll hear is 'it's our constitutional right to have weapons'.

I'm only referring to the argument, not to the document itself.

Either I'm not being clear or you're deliberately not paying attention.

By making statements like that, you are indicating a belief that having something as a "Constitutional Right" is not a valid argument for having it. A "crap" argument, in your words.

Other than the numbering and the dates added, there is no distinction between the validity of any one right in the Constitution over any other. The rights are not separate entities, to be divided up and honored or not honored based on which ones are important only to you. They are a single, solid set - you have all or none.

Since you have dismissed the Right to Bear arms, you have by extension dismissed ALL of the other rights that the Right to Bear arms comes bundled with - those listed by the rest of the Constitution. Freedom of Speech is one of those rights. THAT is how they are related - they are part of the same document.

Once again, you have stated that the argument that the document gives you Rights is "crap."

Therefor, the next time you wish to claim that you have any of the other rights guaranteed by the document, then you must take into consideration the fact that you have dismissed the idea of the Constitution guaranteeing us our rights as "crap."

Of course, you'll still have those rights in reality - but for all intents and purposes you believe that the only argument in favor of you having those rights is a "crap" one.


EDIT:

Let me put it this way. The dismissal of the Constitutional Rights argument that you made in your post can easily be applied to any other Constitutional Right, and it will make exactly as much sense as it does when you apply it to the Second Amendment.

Let's say you came onto ATS and made a post indicating that you were upset because a new law was being passed saying that you, as a journalist, can no longer report on sad stories because they can cause depression, which is a dangerous mental disorder.

Now, such a law would be unarguably ridiculous. Sort of like banning guns from being sold with accessory mounts, no? But anyways, continuing with my example.

How logical would it be if the response to that thread was for a bunch of people coming into it and crying foul about how awful sad news stories are, and how terrible depression is, and asking people "why would you want to be able to report sad stories anyways?"

Not very logical, huh? Now let's say that you, as a journalist, pointed out to these people that you have the Freedom of the Press and that this is guaranteed to you by the First Amendment.

Here's where the First and Second are linked. At this point, I can make the same terrible argument that you did:

"Oh and don't give me that 'it's my constitutional right' crap. When was the constitution written? Last time I checked we kind of made a little progress since then. Things change, deal with it."

THAT is how you have effectively argued that your own Constitutional Rights are irrelevant.


[edit on 27-2-2009 by mattifikation]

# New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.

# New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.

# San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.

# San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.

# Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."

# National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.

www.guncite.com...

Originally posted by RE2505


Stop waving that crap in my face. You are missing the blatant fact that if your country outlawed all guns you would take the title of highest knife/violent crime in a heartbeat!

Britian, Australia Top US in Violent Crime Rates

You're wrong. Stop ranting like a spoiled child.



[edit on 27-2-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

[edit on 27-2-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

The US would never top knife crimes. Because even if they take away the amendment we would still go buy guns.

Originally posted by Tentickles
The US would never top knife crimes. Because even if they take away the amendment we would still go buy guns.

Yup and since it would be illegal anyway we would get the most dangerous biggest boomsticks we could find. Cause hell, we are americans. We dont do anything small!!!

Originally posted by Bushi

Originally posted by Tentickles
The US would never top knife crimes. Because even if they take away the amendment we would still go buy guns.

Yup and since it would be illegal anyway we would get the most dangerous biggest boomsticks we could find. Cause hell, we are americans. We dont do anything small!!!

You can take my guns from my Cold Dead Hands!

reply to post by mattifikation


I think I understand what you're saying:

The constitution should be treated as a whole, not seperate articles/rights. By changing one of the articles in the constitution, it opens the door for more changing and in the end, the abolition of the rights you hold dear.

Just reread that and it sounds confusing Let me try again. Politicians decide to change something in the constitution. They propose a bill, and it gets passed. Now the politicians think: 'hey that was easy, let's try it again, so in the end we can do as we please'

So you fear that once they start changing the constitution (for their own good), they'll continue until nothing is left.

And I agree, I do. What's to say they won't screw us all over? Nothing, except maybe faith in democracy, in the people I (if I lived in the States anyways ) voted into office. Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but you have to have faith in something. I choose democracy.

And over these past few pages I've noticed that the argument at hand has shifted quite a bit.

From what I understand Obama wants to change the law about what kind of guns you're allowed to own. He's not saying he wants to take them ALL away, is he?

Cluster bombs have been outlawed because they are deemed to dangerous (which they are!). Maybe this government feels that assault weapons are too dangerous. You can still buy plenty of guns, just not assault rifles....

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toolbox]

reply to post by Toolbox


You have a valid point with what you say. However, we can look at it like this too:

We have the right to free speech but only so long as we dont use 20 words of the english alphabet...

That is similar to saying that we can own guns. Just none that threaten the integrity of the US.

Americans want to be able to own whatever they want. The reasoning behind this is to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government, if it was to ever form. Which it looks like its been well on its way for the last 2 decades...

reply to post by Bushi


Don't get me wrong, I understand the philisophical idea. 'Who are they to tell me what I can and can't own?'

But as you know there are some individuals out there who want to own child pornography. They're not allowed to, it's illegal. In extremis, couldn't they use the same argument here?

I know it's a nasty comparison, but I couldn't think of anything else to get my point across

reply to post by Toolbox


Well the difference is with child pornagraphy the rights of the children are being taken away in order to produce the content and distribute it...

Me owning a Barret .50 cal sniper rifle or a minigun does not effect anyone else...

Originally posted by Toolbox
reply to post by Bushi

 

But as you know there are some individuals out there who want to own child pornography. They're not allowed to, it's illegal. In extremis, couldn't they use the same argument here?

I know it's a nasty comparison, but I couldn't think of anything else to get my point across

Well you are neither getting your point across by using these type of comparisons, child porn and cluster bombs, or making any since.

This is not a matter of who is the government to tell me this or that its a matter of a constitutional right. You have dragged down a very valuable foundational tool of a free people into the mud and compared it to a sort of criminal behavior of the worst type. The one is the apatite of a depraved mind the other a tool of a free people deemed by our founders to be a right not to be infringed.

i think it important to post what kind of legislation we are talking about here.

these are the kinda things currently being written.
PAY ATTENTION TO THE LANGUAGE..

from HR45

(b) Amendment to Title 18, United States Code- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

‘(36) The term ‘qualifying firearm’--

‘(A) means--

‘(i) any handgun; or

‘(ii) any semiautomatic firearm that can accept any detachable ammunition feeding device; and

‘(B) does not include any antique.’.

that language would include every gun i have except my shotgun. and about 90% of guns out there.

this is what we are up against.

www.govtrack.us...

reply to post by Logarock


How have I dragged the constitution into the mud? Please read my previous posts. I'm pro-constitution (who isn't?) You guys act like I'm Hitler reborn!

I believe a law specifying what kind of weapons you can or can't own could perfectly complement every word in the constitution, without destroying ANY of its or your values.

And I am not comparing it to criminal behavior. I'm just saying in some sick way you could twist what's written in the constitution (freedom of speech), and use it in any argument.

Here's another one: I feel like building a house out of special wood. Problem is, I can only find the trees in a protected area. What gives the government the right to forbid me to cut those trees (if they are on my property but an endangered species).


[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toolbox]

Originally posted by Rogue Warrior
Let me make one thing perfectly clear...THEY ARE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS! This is more of the "CHANGE" that so many Americans (even here on ATS) voted for and Obama did not disappoint. I hope you are happy. This is the first step toward disarming the populace to facilitate total control.

1) Assault weapons ban
2) High capacity magazine ban
3) Limit on ammunition purchases
4) Crippling tax on legal guns and ammo
5) National firearms registration (w/fingerprints) for all owned firearms
6) Forbid ownership for Misdemeanor convictions
7) Mandatory $1,000,000 liability insurance policy for all gun owners
8) Ban on all .50 cal. weapons and ammunition
9) Ban on all hollowpoint bullets
10) Yearly registration fee w/background check
11) The gradual confiscation of firearms for "the common good"

They will not suddenly come to everyone's home and demand your firearms. No, it will be more like the frog in the pot of water that has the temperature increased slowly, one degree at a time until he is cooked. That is how Obama and his Socialist Congress will come for your guns...one degree at a time, one regulation at a time, one ban at a time.

My fellow Americans, we are in the pot, and I just felt the water get a little warmer!

Listen to this man.

What Rogue says has already happened in the UK.

They used a couple of dodgy madmen to pass through knee-jerk reaction bills in 1987 and the early 1990s to disarm the British Public who chose to own firearms.

All we have left is shotguns (typcially for the rich landowning gentry) and .22 rifles (got to be stored at a rifle clubhouse!). They are even considering banning airrifles now!

What Barack man is pulling is the same except using Mexico and other loose reasons for the same.

Originally posted by Toolbox


Oh and don't give me that 'it's my constitutional right' crap. When was the constitution written? Last time I checked we kind of made a little progress since then. Things change, deal with it.

I think you are Right of course, we should get rid of freedom of speech too, and how about freedom of religon-its so old fashioned-just a a couple thousand years for Christians...then Pagans-whoa! That's really old and we have made progress there. You know military bases are expensive-so why don't we just quarter troops at your house? Screw state's rights lets all play nice and tax us to death! Great Idea- I would rather cling to my guns and secure my future freedoms. If you want to kneel with the rest-go for it. I choose to Stand.

Originally posted by WISHADOW
Gun dealers need to stop selling guns to Mexico. If you would just stop selling guns to Mexico to make a buck this wouldn't be in effect. And to all those assault gun owners out there your just wasting money on impressing your friends. Your not protecting this country with your assault gun. I doubt you ever will. You'll never put your life on line for freedom. Oh wait. You are online. Yeah. Good job defenders of America! Good Job! Doesn't Glen Beck or Bill O'Reilly have forums were you can go worship in the market they placed you in? Patriots. Trigger shy at best. Another sad day.

Actually, the US Government has been selling guns and other gear to Mexico for Drug Interdiction- it would make since that these guns would fall into other people's hands since the Mexican Government is corrupt.

Sorry, I do not have my guns to impress anyone-and you know what I think or should I say have prolly spent more time in the field protecting my rights and yours than your hollow words do.

Gun Dealers do not sell to Mexico- get your facts straight. Gun Smugglers They use Strawbuyers, and most states have laws against this activity.

reply to post by ShadowMaster


I responded to a similar post a while back. I know this thread has gotten very long, but don't start accusing when you haven't read the rest of my posts.

Originally posted by Toolbox
reply to post by ShadowMaster

 

I responded to a similar post a while back. I know this thread has gotten very long, but don't start accusing when you haven't read the rest of my posts.

Oh your saying that now I don't have the Right of Freedom of Speech. Well, thats great. I read and reply- doing the same as you.

Edit: Instead of taking the High Road- you decided to snap back. I am sure glad you have the Right to Freedom of Speech.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by ShadowMaster]