Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

also,the resort to guns basicly means the nation has given up on the law,on actually dealing with problems through intelligence and civil engineering and has resorted to violence and weaponry to deal with social problems.

if a nation needs to use guns to control crime or social problems then it is a failed nation and social system,which no amount of guns are ever going to solve period.

bring out as many guns as you wish,its not going to stop crime or the reasons cited for the need of guns.

i mean in the olden days everyone had a sword,did it stop crime and people attacking each other?,no.....infact the oppostive occured everyone was attacking everyone....dueling each other over petty disputes.

its not about defending,the constitution or attacking criminals its about civil engineering,about how society is structred,about how the population is brought up to act and behave.
its evident to me the need to use guns for any reason pretty much means to me somethings wrong in the way the population is being educated and how society is structured.

a gun solves nothing,to think otherwise is fallacy.
however wisdom does,education does,upbringing does......find me a buddhist monk who ever resorted to robbing flks with assualt rifels......nope for their minds are correctly formed.

modern society is broken,the populations(and leaders) minds are illogical and irresponsible.....most nations cant even understand the workings of the most simplest lifeforms on earh,microbes let alone the causes and cures for crime.

Originally posted by welivefortheson
also,the resort to guns basicly means the nation has given up on the law,on actually dealing with problems through intelligence and civil engineering and has resorted to violence and weaponry to deal with social problems.

if a nation needs to use guns to control crime or social problems then it is a failed nation and social system,which no amount of guns are ever going to solve period.

bring out as many guns as you wish,its not going to stop crime or the reasons cited for the need of guns.

i mean in the olden days everyone had a sword,did it stop crime and people attacking each other?,no.....infact the oppostive occured everyone was attacking everyone....dueling each other over petty disputes.

You are once again wrong....

Every nation in which guns have been banned has seen an exponential increase in crimes by criminals WITH GUNS...

When you take away the right of law abiding citizens to own and bear arms, ALL CRIMINALS WILL INCREASE THEIR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES...

Criminals do not buy their guns from old mom and pop's gun store....they buy their weapons in the BLACK MARKET, which the citizens have no control over.

You obviously are uniformed on this issue.

Several times, in this same thread other members and myself have presented a video from England, and the fact that after their government BANNED ALL WEAPONS, CRIME INCREASE BY 40% or more....

The same thing happened in Australia, and every other country where this has been done.

Several countries in which the right of citizens to own and bear arms were banned, have become DICTATORSHIPS, which is why our forefathers included the right of ALL FREE MEN to own and bear arms...



[edit on 5-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Again, do yourself a favor, and watch the following video from beginning to end, then maybe you will understand we cannot allow this to happen to us..

www.youtube.com...


Watch it and see even what the police in England are saying, and you will see that you are wrong.

I can't even believe this is up for debate. I really worry about our nation.

Originally posted by welivefortheson
..........................
a gun solves nothing,to think otherwise is fallacy.
however wisdom does,education does,upbringing does......find me a buddhist monk who ever resorted to robbing flks with assualt rifels......nope for their minds are correctly formed.

modern society is broken,the populations(and leaders) minds are illogical and irresponsible.....most nations cant even understand the workings of the most simplest lifeforms on earh,microbes let alone the causes and cures for crime.

You are once again WRONG... Look at what happened to Tibet... They are under the dictatorship of China, and crimes against Buddhist Monks are committed daily...

I can see that you have closed your eyes to what is happening in the world, and you are an idealist.

IDEALISM is not practical, and it's goals will never be achieved simply because YOU CANNOT CONTROL ALL PEOPLE.... people have different ideas, and different goals, and many people around the world from many nations would resort to violence without blinking...

How many Buddhist monks have resorted to suicide in different forms?.... Do you want to ignore that after decades under the iron rule of Communist China that many Buddhist monks lose it and several have even set their bodies on fire to protest against the Chinese invasion?.....


There is no excuse that you, or anyone else can give to take away one of our most basic rights. A right which not only defined our nation but which is a mayor building block and supports our nation...

Without this right to own and bear arms the whole system will crumble, and other rights will be lost.

Americans should never forget every one of the rights that were given to us by our forefathers, but it seems clear that you are more than willing to trash these rights in order to satisfy your flawed IDEALISM.

Sorry but you are wrong....

The right to bear arms does not include biological weapons, again that is a red herring, and it is obvious you don't understand or even want to uphold the basic rights that our forefathers gave us...

We are not talking about a law being passed by Congress, or any of the other two branches of government. We are talking about a right that has been given to All free men, and which is a principal right which has defined this nation, and it is part of our nation...

In the history of the world when civilizations were deprived of the right to protect themselves, and to use and bear arms, these nations have always become a dictatorship.

You are talking about taking away one of our most basic rights. Nay, there is no excuse that you, or anyone else can give to take away that right which was given to us by our forefathers...

[edit on 5-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

i understand the law perfectly,the law says the population has the right to bear arms and form militias in order to defend communities and to protect the nation.

i never mentioned biological weapons,i am refering to future hand guns and the like.

you are resorting to the "sacred" argument,that all the laws passed by a few people hundreds of years ago are sacred for all time,that all the laws they passed are auotamicly correct becuase they called it the constitution.
the constituation is a set of laws,and with all laws no matter what you pretend they will have flaws,and there are flaws but the resort to the sacred aspect of it means your not allowed to discuss those flaws without being branded a "taker of freedom"

its quiet the opposite,an inability to discuss and change the law actually amounts to the opposite of freedom,an in ability to change the law.......a dictatorship.

rights are only as benificial as the right itself,you cannot resort to the sacred nature of a right without discussing and validating the benifical and negative aspects of that right.
put shorter,calling something a right does not mean that right is "right", benificial nor does quesitoning that right amount to dictatorship ,its the oppositve the inablity to question and change laws which are portrayed as rights is a dictatorship.

for example in a town in the uk,one has the right to shoot a scotsmen with a bow and arrow ,is this a benificial right?,does taking it away amount to being a taker of freedom?

ive gleened that most things in the modern world is not about what things are its how they are "presented".calling a burger a "big mac" will somehow want people to eat it over a burger without a funky phrase.

saying that weapons prevent the formation of dictatorships cant be correlated with the american publics right to own arms,it is not a valid enough reason as warfare between the population and the government is not an aspect of american society.

i mean america has always allowed arms but its pretty clear america has been on the brink of dictatorship for hundreds of years!,infact many say it is.
what good have they done for upholding the law?,nothing,they may have been of some use in acnient days but not now,now we attempt to use debate and rational to solve problems and run society.

guns have done nothing to stop the executive from gaining control of everything.....what has is the publics inability to rationalize politics,to understand or even take notice of how things are actually run.
and the public is awash with guns!,;-)

this is also why we have milataries,whos duty it is to protect the population from those who would wish to aquire a dictatorhip.
it is the militaries responsibility to use arms correctly to prevent dicatorhips....not the populations.
however of course the militaires are now hand in hand with the executive and often join in with the dictarships.

im not one for warfare at all but i do believe terrorists(who are created by future ai of course) have pretty much eroded the populations ability to defend itself against dictatoships against central power,you cant do it anymore without being called a terrorist.

i get the distinct imrpession this was the whole point,take away the populations ability to fight any agression by governmental forces by labeling all civilians who resist any government as a terrorist.
get it?

terrorists have undermined the civilians ability to defend itself against any central power......strange condisering many terrorost organisations were infact made by central powers, a clever trick perhaps?.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


one countries right to defend itself against another is not the object of discussion here as is the case with china and tibet,that is not in doubt,you are superimposing two different problems,which is a fallacy.

every nation has the right to defend itself against another,unless the proponent of that agression is america,russia,isreal,oh wait no you cant its all about how the war is portrayed in the media!

what is up for discussion is the relationship between the population and weaponry.
some time ago "people" decided to forgoe the use of violence to solve problems and use something called discourse,to settle problems through other channels which are well established in most modern countries such as "voting",parliamentiary discussion,reason,demonstrating,changing and making the law.

weaponry is of no use in a world where weaponry is a thing of the past in refernce to solving issues with the government.

instead now we do something called "passing laws" which are intendid to prevent people from gaining control of a country towards creating a dictatorship.
this has nothing to do with how many guns the people have its about the peopels inability to run maintain their democracy properly,to understand the laws being passed.....in short democracy has failed not because of a lack of guns but because the public do not take enough interest and educate themselves enough to make sure adequate laws are being passed to control their leaders.

stick to your guns,see what it can actually solve,are gonna waltz into congress with an uzi demanding changes of laws?,be my guest but i for one would rather use law abiding processes which many other countries have to actually make sure their leaders are kept in check.

so many other nations have managed to control their leaders by maintaining their democracy,why cant america?.....the public are not educated enough to maintain their democracy,other factors such as entrainment,purposful undermining of democracy by rogue elements are other factors.

infact it is the indiscriminate use of weaponry which has resulted in the abusive empowerment of the executive over the people,the patriot act for example was just that.
notice the phrasing "patriot" when infact those who passed those laws were actually responsble for those indescriminate uses of the weaponry!

its all about how something is phrased,how it is portayed to manipulate how the voters process it in their oh so entrained minds.

how did homer simpson put it? "would a rose be as loved if it were called the stink blossom?", obiously not!.
channel number 5,executive travel,bonus super sales hlaf price of twice the normal price......left wing right ring,flip flopper,good buy bad guy,her villian,manipulating the minds of the entrained,those raised to be irrational,to be manipulatible.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by welivefortheson]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by welivefortheson]

After reading through this thread I noticed that many have given up trying to debate with you welivefortheson because its obvious you are set in you're ways.

What you keep pointing out is that fact that one nation has the right to defend itself against another nation. You're right.

I just want to ask you one simple question and I want you to answer this one question honestly.

Why should the people of a nation not have the right to defend against its own government?

Originally posted by Techsnow
After reading through this thread I noticed that many have given up trying to debate with you welivefortheson because its obvious you are set in you're ways.

What you keep pointing out is that fact that one nation has the right to defend itself against another nation. You're right.

I just want to ask you one simple question and I want you to answer this one question honestly.

Why should the people of a nation not have the right to defend against its own government?

this is hilarious!,when the argument is lost you resort to saying nonsense,to ad hominen attacks,talking gibberish,attackng the proponent of the argument and not the argument itself.
a sure sign the debates been lost.
your deraling the debate,or you cant understand what ive written for
if you actually read my last post you would see i made it clear that the people do defend themselves against their government by using something called democratic process,which was something "invented" to make sure weapons were not used to solve social isssues.
understand?


you are several thousand years behind my friend,give me an example of how guns have solved an issue in modern america in refernce to the people against the government.
zilch,beause that method was superseeded by democracy.

i know your playing the fool,its a common tactic called fillerbustering.......(whats one+ one, 2)....(no its not its 22,its 25 and your numbering system is wrong,you wont allow anyone to debate with you etc etc.)

written programs such as yourself seem to just copy information such as debating and derailing techniques which are well established in history and can be spotted on sight.

ignoring the points i make just to make argument for arguments sake,to eat up my time from actuallly telling the world that ats is professional disinfo that i have conclusive proof of this and this place is full of worms ready for the de canning.

its pretty clear where the ais lie,against rationality,to undermine democracy.

i expect an equally add hominen and fillerbustering response.

reply to post by welivefortheson


Well, I assume you, welivefortheson are a believer, (me too) People have the right to keep and bear arms. There is plenty of killing and war sanctioned by God in the Bible, and until such time as they are no longer needed we have weapons of defense. So, in summary
Either you are wrong about weapons OR you are a believer... which is it?

Originally posted by welivefortheson
i understand the law perfectly,the law says the population has the right to bear arms and form militias in order to defend communities and to protect the nation.

...and to protect themselves also, including from the government....

Originally posted by welivefortheson
i never mentioned biological weapons,i am refering to future hand guns and the like.

You were trying once again to come up with another red herring of an excuse based on your flawed Idealism, which goes against the Constitution. You can fantasize all you want, the Constitution is not for you to dismiss whenever you want..

Originally posted by welivefortheson
................
the constituation is a set of laws,and with all laws no matter what you pretend they will have flaws,and there are flaws but the resort to the sacred aspect of it means your not allowed to discuss those flaws without being branded a "taker of freedom"

Wrong again...the Constitution was not written just for the times they were written...The Constitution is the foundation by which this country was founded, and as such it is essential for the survival of the U.S. as a nation, and for ALL AMERICANS TO BE FREE...

Originally posted by welivefortheson
its quiet the opposite,an inability to discuss and change the law actually amounts to the opposite of freedom,an in ability to change the law.......a dictatorship.

Wrong....the ability of all free men to own and bear arms IS A FREEDOM....IT IS NOT A DICTATORSHIP...

Originally posted by welivefortheson
for example in a town in the uk,one has the right to shoot a scotsmen with a bow and arrow ,is this a benificial right?,does taking it away amount to being a taker of freedom?

You really don't know what to come up with anymore... Perhaps you should start by reading the Constitution, and how and why this country was founded... It is obvious you are completely ignorant on what the Constitution is....

Originally posted by welivefortheson
saying that weapons prevent the formation of dictatorships cant be correlated with the american publics right to own arms,it is not a valid enough reason as warfare between the population and the government is not an aspect of american society.

wow.... Are you out of your mind?... I gave several statements from America's forefathers which gave the right to bear arms too all free men for all future generation of Americans..

This nation was founded on the right of the people to destitute a tyrannical government, even by the use of weapons if there was no other way...

Originally posted by welivefortheson
this is also why we have milataries,whos duty it is to protect the population from those who would wish to aquire a dictatorhip.
it is the militaries responsibility to use arms correctly to prevent dicatorhips....not the populations.
however of course the militaires are now hand in hand with the executive and often join in with the dictarships.

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

I was in the military, and although there are many good people in the military there are those who would do whatever they are asked, including killing innocent American civilians in cold blood...

I have trained and listened to the ideologies of some in the military, including some Marines who see civilians as being below the military... you ask any Marine out there, and anyone in the military can tell you that there are quite a few people in the military that will follow orders even if it means opening fire against innocent, unarmed civilians...

You really need to stop arguing about a subject you obviously know nothing about. First read and learn about the Constitution, why it was written, and why...

Undermine Democracy?.... You are living in a representative REpublic...not in a Democracy.... In a Democracy 51% of the people can take away the rights of the other 49%...that in itself is a dictatorship....

In the representative Republic you are living in ALL AMERICANS are represented, and all have equal rights, and one of those rights, whether it interferes with your flawed idealism or not, is the right of people to own and bear arms...

BTW...is that you in your own signature?... Are you in the Air Force, you took an oath TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, and you are claiming the Constitution is nothing?... that it can be rewritten at will because it interferes with your flawed idealism?.....

Buddy, wake up...you are not living in an utopia...such a thing does not exist, hence the need for our forefathers to write the Constitution giving ALL AMERICANS RIGHTS WHICH INCLUDE THE ABILITY TO OWN AND BEAR ARMS...


[edit on 5-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

[edit on 5-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by welivefortheson


No...

Actually he asked you a very direct and On Topic question that you simply failed to answer..

Obfuscation is not very conducive to your argument and also not convincing to an audience such as we have here.

The question was:

Why should the people of a nation not have the right to defend against its own government

Valid and On Topic

And unanswered

Semper

Originally posted by welivefortheson

this is hilarious!,when the argument is lost you resort to saying nonsense,to ad hominen attacks,talking gibberish,attackng the proponent of the argument and not the argument itself.
a sure sign the debates been lost.

Wrong, you are the one coming up with red herrings which you keep making up just to uphold your own flawed idealism....

Originally posted by welivefortheson

you are several thousand years behind my friend,give me an example of how guns have solved an issue in modern america in refernce to the people against the government.
zilch,beause that method was superseeded by democracy.

The right to own and bear arms itself does deter the government from introducing even more draconian laws... Yes, several have been introduced, thanks to people like yourself, which are trying to destroy the Constitution, and the rights which have made this nation what it is...

Again, you are not living in a Democracy, and yes many Americans including in government and the media don't know the difference because they are not informed...

Originally posted by welivefortheson
written programs such as yourself seem to just copy information such as debating and derailing techniques which are well established in history and can be spotted on sight.

Sorry to tell you that you are the one doing the derailing and coming up with ad hominem propaganda because it conflicts with your own flawed ideology..

If you want to make your own country, go ahead and buy and island and then set up whatever kind of government you want...meanwhile you are living in the United States and you have to uphold the Constitution that made this nation possible...at the least, you ahve to respect the right of every other American, a right you obviously would love to delete like some in government want to do...

Originally posted by welivefortheson
ignoring the points i make just to make argument for arguments sake,to eat up my time from actuallly telling the world that ats is professional disinfo that i have conclusive proof of this and this place is full of worms ready for the de canning.

... You are the one making red herrings just because it interferes with your own flawed idealism...not us....

Originally posted by welivefortheson
i expect an equally add hominen and fillerbustering response.

And we expect people like yourself to remain ignorant as to what the Constitution is, and for you to want to turn this nation into a Socialist country because it coincides with your flawed idealism....





[edit on 5-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Just a reminder that we can have an adult and intelligent conversation without "Posting To The Other Poster"

Let's keep this civil!!!

OK?

Semper

Originally posted by welivefortheson
also,the resort to guns basicly means the nation has given up on the law,on actually dealing with problems through intelligence and civil engineering and has resorted to violence and weaponry to deal with social problems.
...........................

Did you watch the link to the video given to you as to what happened in England?..... I think it is obvious you haven't....because as other nations have demonstrated, when the right to bear arms were taken from the law abiding citizen CRIME WITH GUNS INCREASED EXPONENTIALLY....mainly because criminals do not buy legal guns, they buy illegal guns...

It is obvious you don't even want to watch facts that contradict your flawed idealism.....

Lets suffice to say that you have no right to try to take that right from the rest of us... You don't have to like it, it is the way it is. If you prefer living in England noone is stopping you... They already banned all guns and crime went through the roof that even the police is tired of the lies the government gave them that crime would stop once guns were banned....

If you still believe your flawed idealism that crime stops once law abiding citizens are denied their right to own and bear arms, go ahead and move to move to England. or even Australia if you want and then you will see the truth as to where your flawed ideology stands.



[edit on 5-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Since it is either obvious some people are too lazy to click on a video to watch the truth...here is the truth in written form....

August 26, 2007

Ministers 'covered up' gun crime

THE government was accused yesterday of covering up the full extent of the gun crime epidemic sweeping Britain, after official figures showed that gun-related killings and injuries had risen more than fourfold since 1998.

The Home Office figures - which exclude crimes involving air weapons - show the number of deaths and injuries caused by gun attacks in England and Wales soared from 864 in 1998-99 to 3,821 in 2005-06. That means that more than 10 people are injured or killed in a gun attack every day.

This weekend the Tories said the figures challenged claims by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, that gun crime was falling. David Davis, the shadow home secretary, tells her in a letter today that the “staggering findings” show her claims that gun crime has fallen are “inaccurate and misleading”.

The political row erupted as Merseyside police continued to question a 15-year-old boy about the murder last week of Rhys Jones in Croxteth, Liver-pool. The 11-year-old was returning from football training when he was shot by a hooded teenager on a bicycle.
................

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Monday, 16 July, 2001, 04:50 GMT 05:50 UK
Handgun crime 'up' despite ban

Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.
.....................

news.bbc.co.uk...





[edit on 5-3-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Oh, and in case some people want to try to claim that England is just an exception here is what has happened down under after guns were banned there too...

Crime up Down Under
Since Australia's gun ban, armed robberies increase 45%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 03, 2000
1:00 am Eastern


By Jon E. Dougherty
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

Since Australia banned private ownership of most guns in 1996, crime has risen dramatically on that continent, prompting critics of U.S. gun control efforts to issue new warnings of what life in America could be like if Congress ever bans firearms.
After Australian lawmakers passed widespread gun bans, owners were forced to surrender about 650,000 weapons, which were later slated for destruction, according to statistics from the Australian Sporting Shooters Association.

The bans were not limited to so-called "assault" weapons or military-type firearms, but also to .22 rifles and shotguns. The effort cost the Australian government about $500 million, said association representative Keith Tidswell.

Though lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:


Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

One year after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, to be destroyed in a government program costing over 500 million dollars, the results are in...

The latest crime statistics reveal a dramatic increase in criminal activity. Gun control advocates respond "Just wait... we'll be safer... you'll see...".

Unfortunately, the ban has made the Australian criminal safer now.

OBSERVABLE FACT AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%.

Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44%. (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)

In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%!

The steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.

The steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms that occurred during the previous 25 years became an increase in the last 12 months.

There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of-the-elderly.

At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm".

From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia have averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.

The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions.

The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has increased by 200% in response to the ban and in an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.


Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain why no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"...The best organization you've got there, the biggest organization you've got there is the NRA. We don't have an organization that size. We didn't have an organization that size, and as a consequence, we suffered. And we hope that you don't suffer..."

www.nrawinningteam.com...

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Hah , pathetic turn around. My point is that guns and ranged weapons, used outside of law enforcement and the military , is not justified because it causes more trouble than it solves. Put it this way: If you are being attacked and you fire a gun, the bullet will travel through or past the target until it is stopped by a solid object. That leaves way to many oppertunities to damage an innocent party. I put it to you that if you are interested in just defending yourself that risking an innocent life in that manner is not in your interest. I put it to you also that the only reason you dont want to give up your guns is because you fear that you are incapable of defending yourself honourably. Your time would be better spent learning close combat , and bladed combat. Both of these methods of defense are more accurate , and less risky to bystanders.