Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out!

reply to post by Hijinx


I see no need for seat belts,helmets, some do, some dont.
Its not going to stop some wack job from buying 50lbs of furtilizer at Wallmart & wipeing out a city block,
I see no need for over 10lbs of furtilizer per person.
follow them.
At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government?

Originally posted by Screenlearner
My freedom and my guns... I will join to sign state separation from Fed! I am getting tire messing with our right to bear arm...

FFS people - why can't you understand that this treaty has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS IN THE USA???

Originally posted by Hijinx
reply to post by PMNOrlando

 

Wow. I'm sure I will catch a whole heck of a lot of flack from the typical American Gun Owner, but I see nothing wrong with this list. I don't think any civilian should have hi-capacity magazines, silencers, or Assault rifles.

Why are high capacity magazines a problem? What difference does it make if you can store 10 in pistol or 50?

What difference does it make if you store 5 shotgun shells in the gun or 10?

It is this kind of frivolous nonsense that gives gun laws a terrible name...it is called regulating for the sake of regulating or simply an excuse for the government to collect lots of easy revenue.

To be honest, I expected far more restrictions on Hand guns than we see with this list. It's actually rather fair in my eyes.

No. The less stringent the gun laws are the better. They are already over-complicated and for no good reason other than hysteria. Only the bare minimum is necessary and I covered that early. But hey everyone is entitled an opinion.

If you look at the list ever single firearm is banned. Doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by milkyway12
If you look at the list ever single firearm is banned. Doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense. Sense is something that doesn't come easy to people who cant think.

CJ

Originally posted by madenusa
reply to post by Hijinx

 

I see no need for seat belts,helmets, some do, some dont.
Its not going to stop some wack job from buying 50lbs of furtilizer at Wallmart & wipeing out a city block,
I see no need for over 10lbs of furtilizer per person.
follow them.
At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government?

See the interesting thing you miss here, is Ammonium Nitrate(the fertilizer used for explosives) Is monitored. Large purchases are reported to the fed.

How does you seat belts and helmets even remotely relate? It's not a matter, what need does a civilian have for weapons designed to kill human beings alone? You still have the right to bear arms. The constitution says that exactly, it also states in a well regulated militia. Implying regulation, and a militia. The civilian populace is not a militia(though it can be) so the fact as a standard civilian you get them at all should be a bonus.

Your right to bear arms is not infringed. You can still own guns, just not guns designed specifically to kill large amounts of human beings. It makes perfect sense, and unless your intention to own the weapon is to just that why do you need them? Why must it be your right to put others in danger? Even if you are a responsible owner, are you willing to be labeled because of the actions of others? It's quite simple.

They continue allowing these weapons, and pry into the privacy of the owners. Random checks on possession of the weapons, ammo, magazines and accessories. Having a neighbor call because they feel you're acting out of sorts knowing you own Assault weapons. Random break ins by the law suspecting you may be up to no good because you own said weapon. Risking those weapons being stolen etc.

It's simply easier to remove them from public sale. It really is. They are unnecessary in any regard. You can take an assault weapon, put it in untrained hands and the individual can kill or wound dozens of people. This is not the case with all fire arms however. Why give something designed to be easy to use, easy to maintain, with a high likeliness of putting down multiple targets in quick succession in civilian hands. It's not necessary.

It is not a civilian right to put others in danger. It is not a civilians right to own Assault weapons. The Amendment says Arms, with out specifying kind or quantity. This does not impact that law, until you are not allowed to own any guns this law is irrelevant.

Originally posted by mudbeed
Just posting the truth here:

Most people in our country want our gun laws to be more strict.

I personally don't know what I am for, but I don't see the need for an average American to have an auto assault rifle or a 100 round clip for their modified AK-47.

Certainly you are welcome to your opinion but it is clear to me that you know very little about firearms in general and therefore are reacting emotionally.

Which is exactly why as you stated “most American’s want our gun laws to be more strict” – emotion coupled with a lack of information. I question your facts there for one - most, indeed?

Perhaps in the liberal stronghold that is so; however, where I live firearms and hunting are integral to our way of life. Besides, in the places that people what the laws to be more restrictive they already are. No reason for NY and Chicago to dictate to rural Missouri what our gun laws need to be. There are fewer violent crimes in my county (armed or otherwise) in the last 10 years than there were in Chicago last weekend. I see that the laws are really working for them.

Anyway - I suggest doing some actual research on firearms and learning the difference between a "clip" and a "magazine".

Perhaps then people will consider your opinion more informed. Also, knowing the difference between a semi-auto and "fully automatic" which I can only assume is to what you term "auto" in your response. Seems to me you are just using the words you hear the media banter about - "modified" "auto" "assault rifle" etc. without having any idea what they mean. An AK need not be “modified” to be fully automatic – some are manufactured to be so. Some are sold as semi-auto and can be “modified” with a kit to be fully auto capable. Again, seems you are just spouting off the terms that scare you the most.

The "average American" doesn't need a fully automatic weapon of any type; however, the average American doesn't "need" a car that is capable of 150mph speeds either but they make them and people can buy them - why? There is no place to drive a car that fast legally...other than on a track as a hobby. Just like a shooting range. I can’t mow people down with a weapon legally but I can shoot for competition, which is fun.

I have a friend who collects Nazi memorabilia - he's fascinated by it. People enjoy different things. Who cares as long as you do it responsibly.

American's have the right to have hobbies and interests of all types. I happen to collect firearms. I have many that are not even functional and some so old they don't make rounds for them anymore. I like the way they look on my wall...

I have a stamp that allows me to purchase fully automatic weapons. I also have a federal explosives license.

Why? Because they are fun to shoot. Admittedly, I rarely fire them on full auto for the simple fact that it is cost prohibitive.

I have the explosives license primarily because I qualified for one with my former job (Special Forces Engineer Sergeant) in the Army. I maintain its currency because I consider it would be a waste of a lot of money well spent in training me for the job. Also, I have been able to help some friends in the area by blowing some rocks and large stubborn stumps out of their property – making some money on the side.

Plus, that # is just fun - making things go boom!

The bottom line is that firearms are not the problem - people are.

Just because some people are not capable of responsible ownership doesn't mean that no one should be able to own weapons.

Be afraid of irresponsible people not an inanimate object.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I am a legal fire arm owner, I've been shooting for 14 years. There is no need for more ammo in a magazine aside from being able to continue firing with out reloading. What purpose does this serve a civilian? If you are good at what you do, 10 rounds is enough to do anything you need with a fire arm. At which point you can reload. These limitations do how ever prevent Random everyday people obtaining a fire arm for the means to take on a crowd and unloading a hail of gunfire.

Yes it can still be done, but it adds precious seconds for someone trying to get away. There is no instance a civilian NEED's to be able to lay down consistent fire.

What purpose do your guns serve? Target shooting? Hunting? Home defense?

Target shooting, welcome to the sport. I know plenty of shooters that prefer to use Single shot bolt rifles. I know plenty of clay pigeon shooters that use over under or side by side shotguns. It adds a level of difficulty to the sport. It's just not fun to spend 6 rounds trying to hit a single target.

IPSC ? Many competitions provide limitation on the amount of rounds used per set anyhow. Part of the sport is learning and mastering speed reloads.

Hunting, do you really mean to tell me you need a high capacity magazine to take on your game? Really? What will be left worth eating? Part of hunting is opportunity, the other is using an appropriate round for the game, and the other is making a shot guaranteeing a clean kill with out spoiling the meat. If your first shot misses, chances are you will not make a clean kill with each successive shot, increasing your chance of missing or wounding the animal and losing your game.

Home defense. I can not see any reason for a high capacity magazine in this regard. What purpose does a high capacity magazine serve here? Seriously? The best weapon in my eyes for home defense is a shotgun, with bird shot. It's less likely to carry on through the walls of my home, ruining my property or harming family/pets in my home, and it will stop anyone in their tracks at close range. Semi auto, or pump 5 is more than enough to down an assailant. I can't believe I just said that, but it's true. The hit probability of a pistol even at close range under stress, is very low for the average civilian. Even seasoned shooters are likely to miss under a stressful situation like that. Unless you purposefully practice under extreme stress, you are likely to falter or make mistakes either identifying your target or with your accuracy in those conditions.

There is no Necessity for a civilian to own these items on the list. NONE.

You want to be in the military. Join the military.

Your means to protect yourself is not infringed.

reply to post by Hijinx


I am pretty sure it makes no difference how many rounds a clip or magazine can hold, neither does it make a difference if you own a pistol or short barrelled rifle, YET BOTH are regulated as though they are dangerous.

They are not dangerous. It is pointless legislation that just clutters the entire process and waters down the availabitlity of weapons to choose from.

Silencers should be taxed, just like buying a used machine gun made before 1983!

Machine guns and armor peircing rounds ARE PROBLEMS, because the first means you shot about 5 rounds in a second and the second means the possiblity of over-penetration into unintended targets.

Regulation should be meaningful and constructive. Too many laws complicate the process and discourage people to get involved with guns as a hobby or for protection. Criminals and government will have the best hardware anyway.

Originally posted by chadderson
So let me get this straight. Americans have the right to bear arms, EXCEPT for the list? So when did the right to bear arms get diced up and quantified into specifically what is okay and not okay?

The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This is infringement. Making someone get a background check is infringement. Making someone pay a fee in order to get a concealed carry permit is infringement. You get the idea.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by chadderson
So let me get this straight. Americans have the right to bear arms, EXCEPT for the list? So when did the right to bear arms get diced up and quantified into specifically what is okay and not okay?

The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This is infringement. Making someone get a background check is infringement. Making someone pay a fee in order to get a concealed carry permit is infringement. You get the idea.

I believe basic background checks are necessary.

Concealed carry permits exist for the sole purpose of creating revenue!

reply to post by seabag

Excuse me for wanting some evidence to go with my fear mongering.

So nobody wants guns banned??

Never said that but The OP hasn’t presented anything worth rabble rousing over.

Last I checked the sky is still there so I will sleep just fine thanks.

Thanks to defenders of the constitution…yes.

Great we will get you your own justice league and your own breakfast cereal sorry but the slogan coo coo for cocoa puffs is already taken.

I hope you realize the statement you made when taken in context with this thread makes you just like the people who claimed they stopped a false flag at the Olympics just by their awesome power of awareness.

No thanks to you.

How presumptuous you are.

BTW why is it people like to compare us to other countries except in cases where other countries have something better than us?

That works both ways…the grass is always greener.

Yup. That’s very true but it dodges the question completely.

FYI I am all for gun rights but since this thread has no evidence to back its claims and should be in the junk bin I will just throw in my 2 cents on the subject. There should be certain regulations placed on gun ownership like before someone would be able to buy a gun they should have to pass a mental health check. I have stated this in other threads and the question has often come up as to what would be entailed or what kind of criteria should be met. I could go into a lengthy in-depth explanation but instead I will simply put it this way. From my time here on ATS I know without a doubt that there are many people that are frequent posters here that shouldn’t have any business anywhere near a gun.

It may not be that we need stricter gun laws but we definitely need a better mental healthcare system.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Seriously? Scopes are needed for everyday weapon-handling?

I did a posting on the first page, and got attacked for not-understanding the NEED for scopes.

I cannot understand your need. Those are for shooting something a mile away. THAT is not self-defense. Maybe for hunting, but for a shotgun?!


Seriously, again: under these circumstances, I really, really prefer staying in europe, thank you very much.
Of course, 2nd Amendment, grounding fathers and whatnot.. Great words, always a huge point - or so you think. In fact, those are nothings.

You don't NEED military-grade weapons. You like them? Great. I like nuclear bombs, let me have some. Or tanks. Why don't you buy a real tank? The cannon is a lot larger and louder..

Listen.

I read your post and one thing becomes really clear really fast.

When it comes to guns, any type of gun, you are 100% clueless.

A mile away? clueless.
When I hunt deer, usually they get shot at distances from 100 to about 300 yards. I use a scoped rifle. AKA a hunting rifle. Animals need to be killed clean, not injured or shot in a way that destroys meat.

But for a shotgun? again, clueless.
Nobody uses a scope on a shotgun, perhaps a red dot or other small optic, as a shotgun has a VERY limited projectile distance. A shotgun is for close in work, like duck hunting, prairie chickens ect.
I have a Remington 870 18 inch barrel. I use as a DAP (Dangerous animal protection) gun, as I hunt in areas where there are BIG grizzly bears. I load out with the 1 OZ slugs, if a grizz is bearing down on me I can shoot it in the face 6 times b4 it gets to me, usually by the second or third hit the bear would be blind.

Oh and my 870 is rigged out with a full LEO drop tube from Mesa Tactical with a buffered stock that absorbs 70% of the recoil. I run a rail system where I mount a holographic sight. The LEO allows me to adapt a sling where my DAP is always handy if I need it. The configuration height is the same as a AR-15, which means I can draw up and bear down on a target very fast without having to think about it. Again, a very good idea in grizzly bear country.





My "military" style gun is not so I can look cool with my pals, it is so I can defend my life if needed in the back country.

But you would not know anything about that now would you?

Please stay in Europe where you belong. I don't mean that in a mean way, you just wouldn't survive here long being that clueless. Thanks



I cant see the list on the OP being legit.
pretty much all that would be left is,,,,,ummmm,,,,,,,errrrr,,,,,,,,paintball guns and ummmmm,,,bows and arrows.

You turning yours in?

Didn't think so,

PS:sorry for the rant but OMG, when someone from grand old Europe comes in and starts asking why this and why that but has only shot his,,,,,ummmm,errrr,,,,,,well you get the picture.

reply to post by lnfideI


i agree i live in semi rural territory and i'm jealous of my friends (gun envy) it's the got one too poor for a bunch . i mean you wouldn't pepper spray a grizzly it's like using a spork to open a can of chowder. also your point of necessity is valid. grizzly bears neocon dhs types. don' feed 'em, don't try to run etc.

I wish I had the ability to buy a glock from a gun store, or a
Rifle, but hey I live in Australia and here you must wrap a criminal in cotton balls if they break into your home.
Hell I should even offer them a cup of coffee while they rape my wife, because if I defend my family the criminal gets a pay out, if they survive.

Don't let them take your guns, don't give in.

And that's what annoys me about the anti gun rhetoric, the fact is even if you don't like guns, you still have the CHOICE to own one! Yet those that are anti gun always seem to push for the choice to be removed! What gives you that right to decide the choice of another just because you don't believe in that choice? Craziness.

And by all means if you don't like firearms, come to Oz ill swap citizenships with you

Originally posted by AlanQaida
I wish I had the ability to buy a glock from a gun store, or a
Rifle, but hey I live in Australia and here you must wrap a criminal in cotton balls if they break into your home.
Hell I should even offer them a cup of coffee while they rape my wife, because if I defend my family the criminal gets a pay out, if they survive.

Don't let them take your guns, don't give in.

And that's what annoys me about the anti gun rhetoric, the fact is even if you don't like guns, you still have the CHOICE to own one! Yet those that are anti gun always seem to push for the choice to be removed! What gives you that right to decide the choice of another just because you don't believe in that choice? Craziness.

edit on 22/11/2012 by AlanQaida because: (no reason given)

I honestly could not believe that the Australians would give up so many rights. I always figured you guys and gals were very strong minded and independent. Maybe one day you will be able to reclaim you right to defend yourselves.


The progressive mindset has spread across the world like a cancer. Hitler and his ilk would be very proud if they could see the world today.

reply to post by SubTruth


We never really had rights to begin with lol, hell we don't even have free speech here, John Howard reinstated laws for dissent, so any "hate" speech against the government so to speak and bam you can end up in jail. Not to mention that 9/10 people you talk to on th street has no idea about our constitution or what it is, or used for.
Australia is a country of muppets, because the government firmly keeps there hand squarely up your behind.
I'm serious, come to Australia and you'll have a whole new appreciation for the term "getting fingered by the man".

I absolutely support our Right to Bear Arms and I am a Hunter and own a variety of Guns. Still I have no issue with having certain weapons banned as anyone with a bit of skill can easily convert a Assault Rifle that has been designed to be semi-automatic to becoming Full Automatic.

What I completely disagree with is Trigger Lock Laws as the time it takes to get a key...unlock a trigger and remove the lock is way too much time if one found themselves being attacked in their home in the middle of the night.

I also have no issue with a person having to undergo a Check to see if they are legally able to purchase a weapon as well as a waiting period as this can have the benefit of making a person who is seeing RED and goes to purchase a weapon enough time to think and cool down.

The premise that some have that to ban Handguns as a way to prevent violent crime is a faulty one. Extensive Studies have shown that Communities that are legally well armed have a much lower rate of violent crime than communities that are not armed. The same studies show that communities that have a large segment of their population as Handgun owners also have a low rate of violent crime. Split Infinity

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Oh noies! He, the dark anti-god, will take away guns with telescopes, fast-reloading mechanisms and so on! How could he?!


Maybe because those are stupid things? Whatfor do you need a telescope on your self-defense-weapon? For something like "active" self-defense over a mile away?

Rrrrrright.

People like you will never, ever understand this because you trust the government to provide everything for you, but the main purpose of The Second Amendment is protection against a tyranical government. Period.

It's not about hunting, and it's only in a small part about self-defense.

Doesn't matter that the government outguns us, doesn't matter that they have drones, tanks, and nukes. The Consitiution is the supreme law of the land and no politician has the legal right to ignore that fact. Period.

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I absolutely support our Right to Bear Arms and I am a Hunter and own a variety of Guns. Still I have no issue with having certain weapons banned as anyone with a bit of skill can easily convert a Assault Rifle that has been designed to be semi-automatic to becoming Full Automatic.

So it's OK to ban guns, just so long as they're not your guns? That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

When is the last time someone converted a semi-auto and then went on a killing spree? Can't say that I've ever heard of such a thing. And I could be wrong, but don't think it's quite so easy to convert a semi-auto to full auto. Sounds like Brady rhetoric to me.