Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bush didn't allow it. He was against the AWB expiring. He said he would sign a new AWB if it got to him. Mitt said he supported the AWB because Bush did.

BTW, all the current 'reasonable' suggstions have been found not to influence crime rates.

However, the antigun folks say that because they haven't been draconian enough - total bans and confiscations are needed. That's why the AWB did nothing.

Have been amazed by pundits who still stay it did something.

Interesting nuance, there have been a wave of op-eds from police and military veterans stating that concealed carry is worthless. NY Times (suprise) has two of them, today. I grant you that the Aurora theatre was a horror show and not an easy one to deal with if you just a have j-frame but that's being used as an indictment of the whole carry idea.
 
when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia...

George Mason In Virginia's Ratifying Convention
 
BTW, if someone expresses their idea about this or that policy - let's be polite. You may disagree but we don't have to put forward a purity test in the discussion of ideas. Speak to the logic of what they say and it's not about them.

I could say that I support the RKBA whole heartedly and then say that I think more money should be spent on better mental health status report for the NICS check system. Does that make one a bad anti?

Lighten up, folks.
 
Explain this to me:

How would new stricter laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns? Pretty sure its already a crime for felons to possess a firearm. It's also already illegal to commit a crime with a gun. That doesn't seem to be stopping the criminal element from acquiring and using guns in an illegal manner, so why would they stop just because a new law is written?
 
Bush didn't allow it. He was against the AWB expiring.
Click to expand...

He didn't ask congress for an AWB renewal AFAIK. He could have. Presidents have no actual legislative power but they have influence. It may not have been enough to get any sort of AWB passed, but he could have tried a lot harder than he did. Saying he'd sign it was a cute dodge, but I don't think anyone in congress interpreted that as even a weak signal that Bush wanted them to pursue it.

I can say I'll eat pig brains if they show up on my plate, but if I don't order them...

Disclaimer: I think GWB's administration's policies damaged liberty in this country, and I don't think he was really pro-gun.
 
Last edited:
To Chicago's defense, they have yet to have a mass terroristic type shooting as far as I know though, where as Texas has had 1, Virginia has had 1, AZ has had 1, and Colorado has now had 2, ... . Like it or not those are the stats and those are the fuel our opponents have to work with.

Anything that our side can do that may help prevent something like this is one less piece of fodder the anti-gun people can fling back at you. Even if a system like this doesn't stop it, at least it stops the 'He just walked in and bought a gun without any checks' argument. Just read the comments in some of the news sources. So is it really infringing your rights, or is it helping to protect them?

I'd be happy if there were no changes any where but the last thing I'd want to see is extreme changes everywhere because minor, benign changes, that may have helped the problem, were resisted. If you think a free, 10min of your time, 1 time background check is like getting kicked, well then I guess that's you, I'd call it a poke in the arm (if that).

Also, I never said a system like this would help reduce violent crime in general. Crime is bigger than this, we all know that. And I seriously believe that more responsible people owning guns reduces crime. We are talking about if a system like this would help stop the fluke nutcases from attacks like this one. In some cases it may have. Of course none of us can say for sure. ;)

Gotta run (bummer - work calls), will check back in tomorrow. btw - this has been a good thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ain't no place in Chicago worth shootin' up like that...

To boot... The violence and predation on society has likely numbed them to the stigma of a situation like these aforementioned ones... They have more violent deaths on a warm weekend...

Brent
 
To Chicago's defense, they have yet to have a mass terroristic type shooting as far as I know though
Click to expand...

Chicago has more murders in a week, every week, then what happened in Aurora.

These mass shooting incidents are wildly overblown by a sensationalist media. They are tragic events, but make up a tiny number of overall gun deaths.

Not only that, but IIRC, only one of the above incidents mentioned did not happen in a gun free zone. So in most cases, the states where the shootings have happened have been in places where the local firearm laws were interdicted by another authority.

As mentioned before, there have been plenty of incidents where someone with intent to do harm to many people have been stopped by people with guns. That gets thrown out way too lightly.
 
We are talking about if a system like this would help stop the fluke nutcases from attacks like this one. In some cases it may have.
Click to expand...

And what law would have prevented this. I saw no evidence he didn't buy the gun legally. Looking at the 4473, I see nothing that would have prevented the theather shooter from buying the gun or ammo.

All or most of us have bought firearms on the internet, they are sent to a local firearms dealer who conducts the background check.

I think before one can say any Gun Laws are good, they need to establish where that gun law has prevented a crime.

The theather does prohibit carring firearms inside the theater, How did that work.

Those laws only prevent honest people who have no intent of creating mischieft from the means to protect themselves from those who have mischieft intheir heart.

To say Chicago is a safe city because they havent had any mass killings is............well I wont go there.
 
OK, I thought I was going to stay out, but I feel the need to respond.

So waiting five days to buy a gun isn't an inconvenience?
Click to expand...

Read my post again. I said that a waiting period IS an inconvenience.

A "cooling down" period so that a normal, everyday person who has lived their whole life without committing any crime that disqualifies them from owning a firearm can overcome that impulse to murder someone? What the hell does this accomplish that you are so quick to accept it?
Click to expand...

As has been stated in this thread, laws regarding who can or cannot own a firearm can only address people who are already criminals. There is no way to know when a previously law-abaiding citizen will go rogue until it happens. Perhaps a cooling off period will help to diminish such occurrences, perhaps it wont, but unless you can see the future, the only way to know for sure is to try it.

Please explain for me, exactly the thought process that goes into surrendering all of these hard-won rights when there is absolutely zero reason to compromise?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the word we need to have defined here is "rights." Being able to buy guns without a waiting period, buying ammo with no background check, or any of the other things I was responding to are not RIGHTS. Gun ownership is a right. The laws being discussed do not take away the right to gun ownership, they just make it a slower process, hence my statement that they are inconvenient. In any case, I reiterate from one of my previous posts - Obama said nothing about curtailing the rights of legal gun owners. HE ONLY MENTIONED CRIMINALS!!!
 
pgdion said:
To Chicago's defense, they have yet to have a mass terroristic type shooting as far as I know though, where as Texas has had 1, Virginia has had 1, AZ has had 1, and Colorado has now had 2, ... . Like it or not those are the stats and those are the fuel our opponents have to work with.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I'd take my chances in Colorado over Chicago any day. Chicago has had multiple weekends with 10 murders occurring over that weekend. That is basically an Aurora every weekend, just spread out over the city (and not packaged quite as media-friendly).

Anything that our side can do that may help prevent something like this is one less piece of fodder the anti-gun people can fling back at you. Even if a system like this doesn't stop it, at least it stops the 'He just walked in and bought a gun without any checks' argument.
Click to expand...

I thought that was what NICS was supposed to do? Exactly what is the whole point of that system if we now need to go down to the police station and personally request a permit to own a firearm? If two background checks are good and not a serious inconvenience, why not 3? Just skip by the doctor and get his approval too?

You do understand that your whole argument for this system that your own state is giving up is that it will be such an inconvenience to a guy like the Aurora shooter that he will not try to acquire guns; but at the same time you are telling me it is no incovnience to me. How does that work?

Just read the comments in some of the news sources. So is it really infringing your rights, or is it helping to protect them?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is infringing my rights. Politically, it is a stupid move. We have worked very hard to put people in the House of Representatives who understand and support the Second Amendment. We have been so successful at it that we have a clear-cut majority and a reserve there. There is zero question about whether we can block any new proposed legislation. And yet, you appear to be suggesting that we should take it upon ourselves to add new restrictions in the hopes it will quiet people who have been adding new restrictions to firearms ownership since before I was born and have never once said "Well, maybe that is too much."

To me, what you are suggesting is like folding with a K-Q-J-10-9 flush because the other guy just keeps on raising. We should be taking that guy's money. Not folding.
 
Perhaps the word we need to have defined here is "rights." Being able to buy guns without a waiting period, buying ammo with no background check, or any of the other things I was responding to are not RIGHTS.
Click to expand...

Can you define "infringed" and tell me why "shell not be infringed" was placed in the 2nd Amendment.
 
BigMikey76 said:
As has been stated in this thread, laws regarding who can or cannot own a firearm can only address people who are already criminals. There is no way to know when a previously law-abaiding citizen will go rogue until it happens.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The difference is I would prefer to live in a society that treats me like a law-abiding citizen until I demonstrate otherwise by my actions. I don't want to live in a society that focuses in all the ways I might be a potential criminal. I don't think that is going to be a pleasant society.

Perhaps a cooling off period will help to diminish such occurrences, perhaps it wont, but unless you can see the future, the only way to know for sure is to try it.
Click to expand...

We did try it. How do you think the NICS system came about? The Brady Law as originally passed in 1994 included a 5-day waiting period for all firearms sales. This waiting period was an interim requirement while NICS was established. (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/brady-law.html)

Gun ownership is a right. The laws being discussed do not take away the right to gun ownership, they just make it a slower process, hence my statement that they are inconvenient.
Click to expand...

So, a poll tax is an infringement on the right to vote; but the laws you mention do not infringe the right to own a firearm?

Same question to you as to pgdion, exactly what was the point of working to put all those NRA A-rated Representatives in the House (Republican and Democrat) if we are just going to compromise before the other side even proposes a bill?

Obama said nothing about curtailing the rights of legal gun owners. HE ONLY MENTIONED CRIMINALS!!!
Click to expand...

You might want to qualify that by limiting your statement to this particular speech, given President Obama's past statements in support of curtailing the rights of legal gun owners.
 
Analyzing the AK-47 comment leaves me with only 2 possible choices:

Option #1: Since Fully Automatic AK's have been banned/restricted for some time, our President must have been referring to semi-automatic weapons.

Option #2: Our President has no clue as per what an AK is.

Either way, he just lost my vote. Be it for being anti-gun or for being gun-ignorant. Take a pick.
 
Avoid politics - had to delete some. I know it is hard row to hoe but when you start talking about voting and someone being a devil (even obliquely) - we are going to have a problem.
 
If you think a free, 10min of your time, 1 time background check is like getting kicked, well then I guess that's you, I'd call it a poke in the arm (if that).
Click to expand...

It's not free in all places, $25 here in Nevada, similar fee in California.

As to cooling off periods, in the most recent example of extreme violence and past examples it would not have mattered one bit. These examples are calculated attacks in which either the firearms were purchased before hand or obtained through other means. Would a cooling off period possibly prevent some incidents of gun violence? Maybe, but would it prevent the intended violence all together? On top of which, while there is an increase in purchases of firearms, only a certain percentage of those are people who don't already own firearms. Should someone who already owns firearms wait to get a new one? What's the logic in that? What's the logic of a waiting period at all, when in most states, you can simply go purchase a firearm from a private party?

To that, some might respond well all private transactions should go through an FFL. Given the roles of state and federal governments, I think it would be extremely hard for the federal government to insist on something like that on a national level, as they have no place in intrastate commerce. Which would leave it up to all states to come to a consensus to truly enforce such an idea.

Then what about C&R holders? Are all the regulations going to be rewritten to cover them too? Last time I checked a pistol or rifle that qualifies as C&R is just as capable of hurting someone as one that's not.

My over all point being, while some people don't see minor infringements as a problem, or perhaps even see them as a valid compromise, they are not. Each minor infringement can lead to more and more absurd laws, and in of themselves are often absurd to begin with.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know we have to P.C. it up here but it is a fact beyond dispute with 2/3 of his base supporting gun control... it gets the thin-skinned all excited if you try to discuss facts, which are beyond dispute.
Click to expand...
I dispute your facts, particularly the 2/3 figure. Let's see your proof.

I believe that 2 decades of "culture war" politics have bred large numbers of voters who hold their noses every election year and support a party based on one or two issues these voters feel are critical. IMHO this goes for BOTH sides, and many of these voters do not feel gun rights or gun control are critical issues.
Option #1: Since Fully Automatic AK's have been banned/restricted for some time, our President must have been referring to semi-automatic weapons.

Option #2: Our President has no clue as per what an AK is.
Click to expand...
Actually, I believe that the President is perfectly cognizant of what an AK is.

I'm with Bartholomew on this. I foresee stricter regulations on cheap imported AKlone semi-automatics under the "sporting purposes" test.

This could actually have an ironic side effect that the President's pro-labor supporters would favor: rather than choosing a product cobbled together from decades-old Warsaw Pact parts, EBR buyers would have to choose AR's, most of which are made in the good ol' USA, by American workers, using all-new American materials.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Pond, James Pond
I will follow the developments with interest as I find the US political model interesting and the Bill of Rights quite unique. I've not had this much insight into the real meaning of those statutes before joining here so I find it quite fascinating, but I still have no horse in this race.
Click to expand...

Mr. Pond,
You see, this is where some non-Americans go wrong!
Our Bill of Rights are not statutes! They are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. I understand that sometimes it is hard to grasp, but that is the way it is!

I enjoy your input, please continue the dialog.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top