Obama may re-instate the ban on assault weapons.

[Leorex]

"How shall I hunt bears and shoot foreigners without my AK?!"

Seriously, who's complaining about civilians not having automatic/high-calibre weapons?
Because every country needs an army of untrained, undisciplined, unarmoured and paranoid militiamen who can be outclassed in every aspect by a standing army.

They already ARE semi-automatic. Learn something about our existing firearm laws. Assault rifles in America are NOT full auto, unless you get a special permit which is difficult to obtain.

Nobody should own a gun? Why stop there? What about bows? What about catapults? What about swords, axes, heavy sticks, rocks, knives, and everything just a little bit sharp that could be used to kill somebody?

Weapons are all around us, it's just that some are more political than others. Guns are easy to use, but so are rocks.

Tomorrow I'm marching down to city hall and proposing a ban on rocks! Everyone with me remember to vote this issue through to protect our kids!

Vote with me and we can rid our streets of THIS.

I'd like to see you snipe someone with a fuckin' rock, mate.

Deal =D

id like to see you snipe someone with an assault weapon. you cant, there not baning sniper rifels, which where used in attacks like the beltway sniper. there banning assult weapons like the ones used for target practace.

 

[ssgt splatter]

Well as long as you use them for the gun range then I'm against the ban.

 

[Wordsandstuffwillbenexttothis8465]

Of course Obama is talking about banning assault weapons. Next, he'll ban hunting firearms too. It's one of the steps needed for total control of a people by a socialist government. It's hard to rule the people when they can still fight back. This kind of thing is exactly why the writers of the Constitution put in the amendment to protect the citizens right to keep and bear arms. They'd lived in countries in Europe where the crowns didn't allow them to have weapons and didn't want to have to endure that in the New World. What they didn't forsee, was that in the future, the politicians and far too many of the citizens would choose to ignore the Constitution and give up their rights anyway. The U.S. is going to turn into the very sort of socialist state that it's founders escaped from in the first place. Sad really.

Well, most people in the US don't give a rat's ass about history, and I'm sure we all know the saying, "If history is forgotten it is bound to repeat itself".

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Just to throw in a little bit of common sense: nobody's overthrowing the military with their friends and the contents of their gunsafe.

Us Americans are too comfortable and coddled in our lifestyles to go from civilian to proper soldiers at the drop of a hat.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

America needs to rediscover its principles. The European way is stability through coercion. I believe men can be better than that. I still believe Liberty can work. In addition to the fact we have very safe countries drowning in dangerous firearms, prohibition is- or shouldn't be- the American way.

Our Fathers warned us about submitting to tyranny out of fear. I won't let the government take Liberty from me by slow degrees by playing me against my neighbor.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Just to throw in a little bit of common sense: nobody's overthrowing the military with their friends and the contents of their gunsafe.

Us Americans are too comfortable and coddled in our lifestyles to go from civilian to proper soldiers at the drop of a hat.

Now. But men have done it and we should ready ourselves. If the government really has us so subdued to tyranny, that is a problem we must immediately address.

EDIT: Sorry about the double post.

 

[Agayek]

Gee, what are you talking about. You have no idea. It didn't start there, it started at the end of WWI and most nations completely exploiting Germany. When the German population was poor and angry enough, Hitler had his moment, and the people loved him. By the time, nobody took his hatred for the jews seriously. The Third Reich would have been a dictatorship even without the jew-question.
What I'm saying is very vague, too, but it shows that what you said is just wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

"Many voters, seeking an outlet for their frustrations and an expression for their repudiation of parliamentary democracy which seemed incapable of keeping a government in power for more than a few months, began turning their support towards the far right and far left of the political spectrum, opting for extremist political parties such as the Nazi Party. The Nazis offered promises of strong authoritarian government in lieu of effete parliamentary republicanism, civil peace, radical changes to economic policy (including elimination of unemployment), restored national pride (principally through the repudiation of Versailles) and racial cleansing, implemented in part by active suppression of Jews and Marxists, all under the banner of national unity and solidarity in lieu of the partisan divisiveness of democracy and the class divisiveness of Marxism."

"From 1925 to the 1930s, the German government evolved from a democracy to a de facto conservative-nationalist authoritarian state under President and war hero Paul von Hindenburg, who opposed the liberal democratic nature of the Weimar Republic and wanted to find a way to make Germany into an authoritarian state.[10]"

Hitler promised the German people peace and security, if they gave up certain rights, in this case free elections. They agreed and it put a madman in power. I used to have a book that went into quite a bit more detail than wikipedia does, I'll see if I can dig it up.

I'm not saying taking away semiautomatic weapons will immediately lead to a totalitarian rule, but it is a start along that path. Giving the government any more power is a step towards that role.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Gee, what are you talking about. You have no idea. It didn't start there, it started at the end of WWI and most nations completely exploiting Germany. When the German population was poor and angry enough, Hitler had his moment, and the people loved him. By the time, nobody took his hatred for the jews seriously. The Third Reich would have been a dictatorship even without the jew-question.
What I'm saying is very vague, too, but it shows that what you said is just wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

"Many voters, seeking an outlet for their frustrations and an expression for their repudiation of parliamentary democracy which seemed incapable of keeping a government in power for more than a few months, began turning their support towards the far right and far left of the political spectrum, opting for extremist political parties such as the Nazi Party. The Nazis offered promises of strong authoritarian government in lieu of effete parliamentary republicanism, civil peace, radical changes to economic policy (including elimination of unemployment), restored national pride (principally through the repudiation of Versailles) and racial cleansing, implemented in part by active suppression of Jews and Marxists, all under the banner of national unity and solidarity in lieu of the partisan divisiveness of democracy and the class divisiveness of Marxism."

"From 1925 to the 1930s, the German government evolved from a democracy to a de facto conservative-nationalist authoritarian state under President and war hero Paul von Hindenburg, who opposed the liberal democratic nature of the Weimar Republic and wanted to find a way to make Germany into an authoritarian state.[10]"

Hitler promised the German people peace and security, if they gave up certain rights, in this case free elections. They agreed and it put a madman in power. I used to have a book that went into quite a bit more detail than wikipedia does, I'll see if I can dig it up.

I'm not saying taking away semiautomatic weapons will immediately lead to a totalitarian rule, but it is a start along that path. Giving the government any more power is a step towards that role.

That ties in neatly with the Patriot Act.

 

[megatron2.0]

No one should own a gun never mind a automatic weapon.

If the yanks really must be armed at least keep em semi-automatic personally Id limit them to bolt and single barreled.

They already ARE semi-automatic. Learn something about our existing firearm laws. Assault rifles in America are NOT full auto, unless you get a special permit which is difficult to obtain.

Nobody should own a gun? Why stop there? What about bows? What about catapults? What about swords, axes, heavy sticks, rocks, knives, and everything just a little bit sharp that could be used to kill somebody?

Weapons are all around us, it's just that some are more political than others. Guns are easy to use, but so are rocks.

Tomorrow I'm marching down to city hall and proposing a ban on rocks! Everyone with me remember to vote this issue through to protect our kids!

Vote with me and we can rid our streets of THIS.

dude you are so so true, ANYTHING can be used to kill, if you are burtal enough to do it. i could take a stuffed animal and stab it down someones throats to choke them.

 

[Xabekrn]

You Can't Drive a motorcycle without a motorcycle license.....simple as that. Only licensed persons should be able to have assault weapons in order to keep the unqualified from owning one and the unstable minded from owning one

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

Gee, what are you talking about. You have no idea. It didn't start there, it started at the end of WWI and most nations completely exploiting Germany. When the German population was poor and angry enough, Hitler had his moment, and the people loved him. By the time, nobody took his hatred for the jews seriously. The Third Reich would have been a dictatorship even without the jew-question.
What I'm saying is very vague, too, but it shows that what you said is just wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

"Many voters, seeking an outlet for their frustrations and an expression for their repudiation of parliamentary democracy which seemed incapable of keeping a government in power for more than a few months, began turning their support towards the far right and far left of the political spectrum, opting for extremist political parties such as the Nazi Party. The Nazis offered promises of strong authoritarian government in lieu of effete parliamentary republicanism, civil peace, radical changes to economic policy (including elimination of unemployment), restored national pride (principally through the repudiation of Versailles) and racial cleansing, implemented in part by active suppression of Jews and Marxists, all under the banner of national unity and solidarity in lieu of the partisan divisiveness of democracy and the class divisiveness of Marxism."

"From 1925 to the 1930s, the German government evolved from a democracy to a de facto conservative-nationalist authoritarian state under President and war hero Paul von Hindenburg, who opposed the liberal democratic nature of the Weimar Republic and wanted to find a way to make Germany into an authoritarian state.[10]"

Hitler promised the German people peace and security, if they gave up certain rights, in this case free elections. They agreed and it put a madman in power. I used to have a book that went into quite a bit more detail than wikipedia does, I'll see if I can dig it up.

I'm not saying taking away semiautomatic weapons will immediately lead to a totalitarian rule, but it is a start along that path. Giving the government any more power is a step towards that role.

That ties in neatly with the Patriot Act.

Which most pro-gun people I can name supported whole-heartedly and told me that,"this is America, love it or leave it!" I used to quote the same Ben Franklin sayings quoted in this very thread to support my argument and they wouldn't have it.

It's funny how people think. Take away others' civil liberties (racial profiling and suspension of habeas corpus after 9/11) and every one turns a blind eye. Take away my guns, and god damn it, it's TYRANNY!

 

[Thanatos34]

Yes, there is a slippery slope. It's happened all over the world repeatedly. Someone whips up a scare, and the people get terrified. They turn to the government to control the scare, but the government needs more and more power to handle the problem, until eventually the people are removed from the process entirely and we're left in a dictatorship.

It is a very, very small step to go from "Give me your guns of type X because they're dangerous" to "give me all your guns because they're dangerous". It will not happen overnight, and it will not be obvious, but the more of their rights people surrender for the illusion of safety, the closer we come to dictatorship.

when and where has this happened? because last time i checked Britain which has very strict gun control laws is not a dictatorship

Yeah, I've noticed that whenever ANYTHING gets banned, restricted etc. people start crying about their human rights. Whether it's children not being allowed into the cinema when there's an 18+ rated film being shown or, in this case, someone thinks about guns actually being not such a great thing to protect yourself. Though we're not talking about strict laws like in, say, most European countries, god forbid.

when and where has this happened? because last time i checked Britain which has very strict gun control laws is not a dictatorship

Germany, 1930s. You may remember a little thing like the rise of the Third Reich. It started with a very similar "X must be banned", in this case Jews. Hitler managed to stir public opinion, manipulating their fears and anxieties, giving them an outlet in the Jews. From there, it grew to include, gypsies, blacks, gays, and eventually anyone that disagreed with ze Fuhrer, and ultimately ended with 12 million people killed in internment camps, and the largest loss of life in any human conflict.

It is not guaranteed to happen, hell it's not even normal for such to happen, but it can, and the perceived safety from banning *some* semiautomatic rifles is not worth the risk to my freedoms.

Gee, what are you talking about. You have no idea. It didn't start there, it started at the end of WWI and most nations completely exploiting Germany. When the German population was poor and angry enough, Hitler had his moment, and the people loved him. By the time, nobody took his hatred for the jews seriously. The Third Reich would have been a dictatorship even without the jew-question.
What I'm saying is very vague, too, but it shows that what you said is just wrong.

I believe it was Karl Marx who said that the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to take away the people's guns.

It did indeed happen in Germany, and it also happened in Russia.

Also Stalin killed a hell of a lot more people than Hitler did, (regarding your largest loss of life comment).

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I'm sorry but I just HATE the slippery slope argument...

Really? You really and truly believe that if we ban AK's and similar weapons from average civilians, that before you know it we won't even be able to have a knife in our cutlery drawer?

That's ridiculous... the law will never go past what the majority of people want. There is no slippery slope. If people want more control over "assault rifles" and then get it... then that's it. They're not going to suddenly ask for EVERY gun to be banned... otherwise that's what they'd be asking for right off the bat. And even if they were to ask, it's not going to happen.

In politics, the slippery slope is not only possible, it's the rule. Government displaces Liberty through small steps, just as our founders warned us.

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

Replace "stupid" with "faulty instincts". The reason deer die off is because their instincts tell them to eat as much as possible before winter. Winter comes, not enough food to go around and then they die.

People, however, forfeit instinct long ago. A man can't justify shooting three cops with a high-powered assault rifle while wearing nearly full body armor by calling it instinct.

So by your logic, shooting 3 cops with a high-powered assault rifle is perfectly acceptable?

You are not being consistent. If you want to ban assault rifles (one more time, the guns that are only aesthetically different from hunting rifles) then you should want to ban all guns, because each and every gun is just as deadly as every other.

I would disagree with you on that point, but at least your opinion would at least be credible.

Edit:

Hey, I wan't guns as well. Gimme some ak47s, a rocket launcher and a BFG!!

No- wait, I live in Denmark... I don't know anyone who even owns a gun. I know some people who used guns while in the military, I even touched a real gun once (40 year old, from WWII).

Could sb explain it for me? Why would the average American want guns?
Yeah, so you can go hunting... even though you live in the middle of a city in which there lives more people than in my entire country. "Guns for hunting" sounds like the most lame excuse for: "I want guns so I can shoot people".

It's not about going hunting or shooting or anything of the like. Hell, it's not even about owning guns. It's about the government and limiting its power.

I don't own a gun and probably never will, but I will die before I say people should not be allowed to own them. The same holds true for everything else. I fully support the legality of purchasing any and every thing imaginable. The only thing the government should be allowed to do is punish people when they infringe on another's rights.

No, I'm being consistent. I'm being very consistent. I believe that Americans should have weapons for self/home defense. The 2nd Amendment *only* protects the rights of the states to operate their own defense, not of the average American. I believe that some guns are acceptable for self-defense, and that others are not. There is no self-defense situation in which you would need more firepower than an average police officer carries. I have been very consistent in my definitions, my viewpoints and in my arguments. The inconsistency you perceive might very well be me not articulating my views in a clear manner, and now I have done that for you.

 

[Gladion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany
[...]
Hitler promised the German people peace and security, if they gave up certain rights, in this case free elections. They agreed and it put a madman in power. I used to have a book that went into quite a bit more detail than wikipedia does, I'll see if I can dig it up.

I'm not saying taking away semiautomatic weapons will immediately lead to a totalitarian rule, but it is a start along that path. Giving the government any more power is a step towards that role.

Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source to quote, but this is getting far too off-topic and I know what you're trying to say anyways, let's better carry on.
I'm not sure what you think politicians are, but they're most certainly not saturday-morning cartoon villains. Most of them hate dictatorship, believe it or not, besides that it's not so easy to dictate a country in the western world any more. A new dictatorship in Germany? I doubt the other countries would just roll with that.
Yeah, the government lies A LOT but they don't do it because they're evil and want to opress us - the reason is money.
I get the feeling you're just angry because your gun might get taken away from you. How could you be serious by saying prohibiting guns would be in favor of fascism?

Don't mean to offend you, sorry if I did. This just makes me furious - how can you defend something that was made purely for the reason to kill? No matter if it's "bad guys" or not. In most other countries, there are no guns at home. Why are you so obsessed with those?

 

[Thanatos34]

Gee, what are you talking about. You have no idea. It didn't start there, it started at the end of WWI and most nations completely exploiting Germany. When the German population was poor and angry enough, Hitler had his moment, and the people loved him. By the time, nobody took his hatred for the jews seriously. The Third Reich would have been a dictatorship even without the jew-question.
What I'm saying is very vague, too, but it shows that what you said is just wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

"Many voters, seeking an outlet for their frustrations and an expression for their repudiation of parliamentary democracy which seemed incapable of keeping a government in power for more than a few months, began turning their support towards the far right and far left of the political spectrum, opting for extremist political parties such as the Nazi Party. The Nazis offered promises of strong authoritarian government in lieu of effete parliamentary republicanism, civil peace, radical changes to economic policy (including elimination of unemployment), restored national pride (principally through the repudiation of Versailles) and racial cleansing, implemented in part by active suppression of Jews and Marxists, all under the banner of national unity and solidarity in lieu of the partisan divisiveness of democracy and the class divisiveness of Marxism."

"From 1925 to the 1930s, the German government evolved from a democracy to a de facto conservative-nationalist authoritarian state under President and war hero Paul von Hindenburg, who opposed the liberal democratic nature of the Weimar Republic and wanted to find a way to make Germany into an authoritarian state.[10]"

Hitler promised the German people peace and security, if they gave up certain rights, in this case free elections. They agreed and it put a madman in power. I used to have a book that went into quite a bit more detail than wikipedia does, I'll see if I can dig it up.

I'm not saying taking away semiautomatic weapons will immediately lead to a totalitarian rule, but it is a start along that path. Giving the government any more power is a step towards that role.

That ties in neatly with the Patriot Act.

Which most pro-gun people I can name supported whole-heartedly and told me that,"this is America, love it or leave it!" I used to quote the same Ben Franklin sayings quoted in this very thread to support my argument and they wouldn't have it.

It's funny how people think. Take away others' civil liberties (racial profiling and suspension of habeas corpus after 9/11) and every one turns a blind eye. Take away my guns, and god damn it, it's TYRANNY!

Not all of us that are pro-gun supported the Patriot Act. In essence, it seems like a good idea, but it is simply more invasion of privacy by the government. Bush was a bad president for more reasons that just that, but Obama is even worse.

Racial profiling? Are you saying where Arabic-looking people are searched more often than other ethnicities? Kind of weird that we would do that when there were all different types of ethnicities were involved in the 9/11 attacks... oh wait.

 

[Thanatos34]

Gee, what are you talking about. You have no idea. It didn't start there, it started at the end of WWI and most nations completely exploiting Germany. When the German population was poor and angry enough, Hitler had his moment, and the people loved him. By the time, nobody took his hatred for the jews seriously. The Third Reich would have been a dictatorship even without the jew-question.
What I'm saying is very vague, too, but it shows that what you said is just wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany

"Many voters, seeking an outlet for their frustrations and an expression for their repudiation of parliamentary democracy which seemed incapable of keeping a government in power for more than a few months, began turning their support towards the far right and far left of the political spectrum, opting for extremist political parties such as the Nazi Party. The Nazis offered promises of strong authoritarian government in lieu of effete parliamentary republicanism, civil peace, radical changes to economic policy (including elimination of unemployment), restored national pride (principally through the repudiation of Versailles) and racial cleansing, implemented in part by active suppression of Jews and Marxists, all under the banner of national unity and solidarity in lieu of the partisan divisiveness of democracy and the class divisiveness of Marxism."

"From 1925 to the 1930s, the German government evolved from a democracy to a de facto conservative-nationalist authoritarian state under President and war hero Paul von Hindenburg, who opposed the liberal democratic nature of the Weimar Republic and wanted to find a way to make Germany into an authoritarian state.[10]"

Hitler promised the German people peace and security, if they gave up certain rights, in this case free elections. They agreed and it put a madman in power. I used to have a book that went into quite a bit more detail than wikipedia does, I'll see if I can dig it up.

I'm not saying taking away semiautomatic weapons will immediately lead to a totalitarian rule, but it is a start along that path. Giving the government any more power is a step towards that role.

That ties in neatly with the Patriot Act.

Which most pro-gun people I can name supported whole-heartedly and told me that,"this is America, love it or leave it!" I used to quote the same Ben Franklin sayings quoted in this very thread to support my argument and they wouldn't have it.

It's funny how people think. Take away others' civil liberties (racial profiling and suspension of habeas corpus after 9/11) and every one turns a blind eye. Take away my guns, and god damn it, it's TYRANNY!

Not all of us that are pro-gun supported the Patriot Act. In essence, it seems like a good idea, but it is simply more invasion of privacy by the government. Bush was a bad president for more reasons that just that, but Obama is even worse.

Racial profiling? Are you saying where Arabic-looking people are searched more often than other ethnicities? Kind of weird that we would do that when there were all different types of ethnicities were involved in the 9/11 attacks... oh wait.

 

[Thanatos34]

Gah, double post. It's most likely the proxy screwing up again.

 

[ExodusinFlames]

As a red-blooded American

Never understood that ... are there other folks with green or orange blood?

blood is 2 colors, red and purple! but you can dye blood greeeen

K but what is the difference? How does that mean anything?
I always wondered about that phrase "Red blooded, flag feeding, American" How can you feed a flag? And does that cause your blood to become more red?

 

[Yorkshire_matt]

Being from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and not the USA, i dont see why anyone in a supposed democracy with a half decent system of law and order needs anyform of fire arm, let alone assault weapons designed to spray out bullets to kill as many people as possible and if not to kill to maim and injure.

I have seen police armed with machine guns in this country and the thought that if they ar edisplaying weapons like that openly what must really dangers to society be carrying.