Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[SnyderShrugged]

That's not what you said. :2cents:

I said that those that wish to ban firearms are likely to be the first to ask for help from those that own them. (no police reference)

Maybe I wasnt clear. But alls groovy bro!

[rincewind]

Nice deflect. Look up the definition of militia in 1776.

Perhaps I'll just reread my thesis - and a lot of the militia even at that time did not own guns. Besides, people here are CONSTANTLY bringing up the 2nd Amendment, but only mentioning the second half. Why should I ignore the first part as well?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

No suprise here. One of the things he said he would do once in office. He also wants to "address" abortion, i.e. make it more available and have minors not have to inform their parents' they are getting one. Which makes perfect sense: let's do/allow bad things to happen to babies and aid criminals at the same time!

I find humor that making assault weapons illegal is construed as "aiding" criminals.... the same criminals who buy the assault weapons.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Are you seriously suggesting that the thought of a standing army wasn't terrifying to them? Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it didn't happen. I think Geo. Washington could attest to just how scared Congress was of an army... along with all of the veterans that were denied their pensions and recognition because they were Continentals and not militia.

I am not suggesting that thought at all.

My point is that the Constitution DOES provide for the common defense. So it is not out of bounds of the Constitution to have a standing army

It also gives the individual the right to bear arms

[rincewind]

I am not suggesting that thought at all.

My point is that the Constitution DOES provide for the common defense. So it is not out of bounds of the Constitution to have a standing army

It also gives the individual the right to bear arms

Okay, maybe I missed your point. I said that the Founders were terrified of standing armies and you suggested the Constitution suggests otherwise. I know the Constitution doesn't state that there shouldn't be a standing army, but I believe the 2nd Amendment had that intention. Which is why I find it weird that 2nd Amendment people always get upset and cry 'red herring' when the word militia is brought up.

I think wiki actually nails it pretty well:

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions. This Declaration states:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

[SnyderShrugged]

I find humor that making assault weapons illegal is construed as "aiding" criminals.... the same criminals who buy the assault weapons.

How is that "humor"?

Criminals wont stop buying them under a ban. To think so is rediculous!

So, who does a ban actually limit from buying then? The non-criminal

Who benefits from the ban then. The criminal.

pretty simple logic really

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Okay, maybe I missed your point. I said that the Founders were terrified of standing armies and you suggested the Constitution suggests otherwise. I know the Constitution doesn't state that there shouldn't be a standing army, but I believe the 2nd Amendment had that intention. Which is why I find it weird that 2nd Amendment people always get upset and cry 'red herring' when the word militia is brought up.

I think wiki actually nails it pretty well:

At the same time Rince, they obviously read that VA language and took out exactly the portions you are saying should be read into the current 2nd Amendment. Seems a little counter-constructive.

My opinion, the second amendment is one of the most over-hyped and over-discussed sentences the world has ever known. You want to buy a gun. Go for it. Just don't shoot me. I don't want one. I'm way less likely to kill myself then. Sweet. There's also nothing to be gained, IMO, from looking at the intent of the founders because, well... i don't even want to get into that. But I don't know of too many other things people look to 1776 for advice on. :2cents:

[Zguy28]

I said that those that wish to ban firearms are likely to be the first to ask for help from those that own them. (no police reference)

Maybe I wasnt clear. But alls groovy bro!

I know that you didn't reference the police. That's why I replied that it is their job, not the neighbor or some other person who owns a gun to protect people.

I'm just funny about that when it comes to firearms. I'm not against firearms by any means.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

How is that "humor"?

Criminals wont stop buying them under a ban. To think so is rediculous!

So, who does a ban actually limit from buying then? The non-criminal

Who benefits from the ban then. The criminal.

pretty simple logic really

its humorous because the intent of banning hand guns is that they won't be made anymore. So, no one will be able to buy or steal them.

I get the point, but to insinuate that the intent is to help criminals is humorous.

[Popeman38]

Perhaps I'll just reread my thesis - and a lot of the militia even at that time did not own guns. Besides, people here are CONSTANTLY bringing up the 2nd Amendment, but only mentioning the second half. Why should I ignore the first part as well?

Does a thesis you wrote make you right? No. No more so than I am.

And the point is, the Supreme Court has defined what a militia is. Everybody is quick to throw around the decision of the court as The Law of the Land, yet ignore what they say when it doesn't suit them. And because the 2nd is similar to George Mason's Virginia Declaration does not mean that the same interpretation be applied. In fact, I am quite sure that the Founding Fathers intentionally stripped the Federal statute to cede the power to the State. A novel concept, I know. One that has been trampled since the Civil War.

[Popeman38]

At the same time Rince, they obviously read that VA language and took out exactly the portions you are saying should be read into the current 2nd Amendment. Seems a little counter-constructive.

My opinion, the second amendment is one of the most over-hyped and over-discussed sentences the world has ever known. You want to buy a gun. Go for it. Just don't shoot me. I don't want one. I'm way less likely to kill myself then. Sweet. There's also nothing to be gained, IMO, from looking at the intent of the founders because, well... i don't even want to get into that. But I don't know of too many other things people look to 1776 for advice on. :2cents:

So why is the 2nd the only Amendment the left tries to marginalize while expanding all the others? If the same arguments were used by the right to restrict the 1st, this place would go bat**** cra, errr wait, that happened already. Remember the uproar over the TSP?

[rincewind]

At the same time Rince, they obviously read that VA language and took out exactly the portions you are saying should be read into the current 2nd Amendment. Seems a little counter-constructive.

My opinion, the second amendment is one of the most over-hyped and over-discussed sentences the world has ever known. You want to buy a gun. Go for it. Just don't shoot me. I don't want one. I'm way less likely to kill myself then. Sweet. There's also nothing to be gained, IMO, from looking at the intent of the founders because, well... i don't even want to get into that. But I don't know of too many other things people look to 1776 for advice on. :2cents:

Very true. But, there is other evidence that shows they were VERY timid about allowing a standing army - citizens as well. Just look at the way Continentals were treated up until about the time of the War of 1812.

I also agree with the idea of looking to 1776 for advice. I always find it odd when people invoke the name of the Founding Fathers - they lived over 200 years ago and owned slaves. Perhaps not the best group to turn to when trying to decide on modern issues. I'm sure they would all be taken aback by something such as the Gatlin Gun - and that went out of style 100 years ago.

[zoony]

But I don't know of too many other things people look to 1776 for advice on. :2cents:

You've not familiarized yourself with the Ron Paul movement, have you?

[rincewind]

Does a thesis you wrote make you right? No. No more so than I am.

Not in the least. But it does mean that, since my paper was about Maryland's militia in the time of the Revolution, I have a good idea what was meant by 'militia' in 1776 and would not have to spend my time looking it up - as you so thoughtfully suggested I should.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

So why is the 2nd the only Amendment the left tries to marginalize while expanding all the others? If the same arguments were used by the right to restrict the 1st, this place would go bat**** cra, errr wait, that happened already. Remember the uproar over the TSP?

Probably because guns account for murders, and murder is an infringement on a person's right to not be murdered. :2cents:

Like I said, I really don't give a crap about the Second Amendment. But I know whenever people talk about it, either in the Tailgate or elsewhere, the conversations are always hysterical because there is no rational thought and tons of reckless emotion, from both sides.

People on "the left" want to marginalize gun ownership because murders and unintentional killings are the product of guns everyday. And people don't like it when people die needlessly. If you can't see that point of view, then you aren't thinking rationally.

People on "the right" want expansive gun ownership protections because they own guns, like the protection, like to hunt. They respect the power guns have and they don't misuse them. And because they know they won't misuse a gun, they don't want some ******* who murders someone or unintentionally shoots someone to restrict their ability to respectfully use guns. If you can't see that point of view, then you aren't thinking rationally either.

But its always hysterical when I read things like "God gave me the right to own a gun." No, he didn't. If he did, you would have come out of the womb with bullets shooting out your ass. Because unlike the right to own a gun, the "God-given" rights were talk about were available to you at birth, by virtue of you being born a human.

Likewise, as an American, you do have a right to own a gun. If you don't think the second amendment offers at least some protection to people's right to own guns, then you are skipping of the word "right" in the Second Amendment.

So, everyone go ape over this. Its very fun. I'm sure there are some people out there who think people have the right to own nuclear weapons because they are "arms," and there are some people that think it should be illegal to show a gun in a movie. While everyone is displaying all this extremely well-researched "reason" for why the Second Amendment is important, or isn't important, I'll laugh. And later I'll worry about the other 20 or so Amendments that actually affect my life everyday.

[Jumbo]

Just leave the guns alone. It's who we are, like it or not. When you can get enough clear and obious popular support to have a constitutional amendment, then maybe you have something. Might as well try to legislate stupid. I need the guns. Besides, I know once they get the guns they'll come after my knives and that's when all HELL will break loose.

[SnyderShrugged]

You've not familiarized yourself with the Ron Paul movement, have you?

Hey!! Ron Paul and you are in agreement on this! LOL

[Popeman38]

Probably because guns account for murders, and murder is an infringement on a person's right to not be murdered. :2cents:

That infringement is not the product of the gun, but the product of a human choice. Rather than being forced to look in the mirror and accept responsibility for their actions, humans have begun to blame their problems on their surroundings. Taking away guns doesn't end murder. It ends gang shoot outs. It ends drive by shootings.

What is the largets criminal enterprise in this country? The drug trade. Hmmmm, what are synonymous with the drug game? Guns. But rather than thry to eliminate the drug game, many on here argue to legalize these drugs. While at the same time arguing to make guns illegal, unless an appointed official gfrants you permission. Which just so happens to be a direct infringement of the Constitution.

[Prosperity]

So what's the basis for banning "assult weapons" you don't like how they look?

"Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that assault weapons are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets." -- Joseph Constance (deputy chief of Trenton NJ police dept) in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993

listen guy, I don't care about your lust for assault weapons one way or another no matter how masculine, or scary they look to you (or whatever reason you find them attractive). I think that line of argumentation is stupid (comparing them to pools or fast food etc), and I explained why it's stupid.

Look at SHF post, the government might not like them because they may be used to usurp authority... and hell maybe they DO look scary to people. That may be one reason to ban them. If the only thing about them that makes them, them, is the way they look, then what's the harm of banning one type of appearance?

[sacase]

listen guy, I don't care about your lust for assault weapons no matter how masculine they look to you. I think that line of argumentation is stupid, and I explained why it's stupid.

Look at SHF post, the government might not like them because they may be used to usurp authority... and hell maybe they DO look scary to people.

listen "guy", I find it funny you choose a screen called Liberty but are so against constitutional rights. There is no logical reason to ban "assult weapons". Even when presented with facts you make a non-sensical argument. Do you even understand what the definition of an assult weapon is? I don't know anyone that purchases an "assault weapon" because it makes them look masculine. They purchase them becasue they enjoy shooting or simply because they want one. Thanks to Obama, I know have justification to order my Rec 7 this weekend.

Maybe we should paint them pink and put rainbows and "sea kittens" on them would that make them less scary to you?

I may think you look scary, can I ban you too?

[Prosperity]

listen "guy", I find it funny you choose a screen called Liberty but are so against constitutional rights. There is no logical reason to ban "assult weapons". Even when presented with facts you make a non-sensical argument. Do you even understand what the definition of an assult weapon is?

I may think you look scary, can I ban you too?

Do you understand that there is a difference between my criticism of using analogies between swimming pools and assault weapons and support for a ban on assault weapons?

I don't think you do. And that lack of simple comprehension is making you attack all sorts of strawmen.

I don't care about an assault ban one way or another, I think it's impractical. I don't think banning one type of gun takes away your right to bear arms or formed militias. I don't think assault weapons are somehow more dangerous than other guns. I do think that the government perceives them as a threat to its authority and I do think that some people find them scary. So if you want to attack an actual argument I made go ahead.

[Toe Jam]

Who the hell needs an assault weapon?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Who the hell needs an assault weapon? Seriously.

Define an assault weapon

[rincewind]

Define an assault weapon

It is a very odd term isn't it? Somewhat redundant if you ask me.

[the12thSkin]

Guns Yes. But we do need better law regulating them. I think they should limit ownership to home owners and or proven responsible adults. Not to anyone with ID.