• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

Hey, if it's legal, I don't care if you use a rocket launcher. I'm just saying by MY standards.

I prefer using my compound bow. But that's just me. ;)


My .3006 is awesome in the woods too. But once you pull the string back on a 10 pointer at 30 yards and drop it to the ground, it adds a whole new perspective on one's sense of sportsmanship.

That's all'z I'm sayin'.

Me too. I have hunted with a number of guns and I personally would rather have a bow.
 
I think I'll use my 2nd amendment right for the installation of my new gun turret.

129_05sema_174z+hummer_h2+gun_turret_view.jpg
 
I think I'll use my 2nd amendment right for the installation of my new gun turret.

If you are arming up for eventual confrontation with the US Army, you'll need quite a bit more firepower than that.
It just amazes me that people think they can "take back the government" with their guns. Are they children? Have they not seen the firepower that the Commander in Chief presides over?
 
If you are arming up for eventual confrontation with the US Army, you'll need quite a bit more firepower than that.
It just amazes me that people think they can "take back the government" with their guns. Are they children? Have they not seen the firepower that the Commander in Chief presides over?

No, this is for hunting purposes.
 
And yes I realize this is out of context but these are points that must be adressed
the only "sane" legislation that an anti-gun spokesperson can pass would be a ban on the entirety of guns, and indoingso they would have to find a way to take back all the guns that are already in the hands of citizens, as the argument against gun is only one of "that a gun can kill".
If we are to pass legislation against things that kill, then we cannot just single out guns. I wouldn't need a gun if I really wanted to kill someone; that is a ridiculous claim. If you are going to ban guns, then you are going to also have to ban: sharp-things (swords, knives, kitchen knives, mechanical tools, tools found in hospitals, etc) blunt-thing (hammers, sledgehammers, rocks, etc), natural disasters (hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes), and finally, humanity (as it is never the gun that decides to fire on someone).
Already being tried in England, and, given the level of idiocy that seeks to ban firearms, their idiotic ideas are not far removed from becoming American stupidity as well, since our idiots try very hard to duplicate international idiocy under an American flag.

I do, however, support legislation that forces gun buyers to know w.t.f they are buying; like licenses.
Then you do not support the 2nd amendment or the spirit behind it, because the idea of licensing or infringing said right turns it into a priveledge.


But this whole "anti-constitutional" complaining I see the Libertarians and the Rest-Wingers doing is ridiculous. Y'all do realize that our "rights" are "privileges" as any of these can be taken away from you. I am sorry to inform y'all, but our Constitutional rights only apply as long as the Government sees fit.
Wrong, the Bill of Rightstm are considered natural human rights obtained by birth and granted as human, which is why you failed on this. Also, the right shall not be infringed as written in the constitution, not the priveledge.
 
Last edited:
I think it's pretty clear that the hardcore firearms enthusiasts believe they need weapons for a pending overthrow of the government, and that "liberals" know that overthrow is coming and use "firearm regulation" to try to disarm the "patriots" before they can rise up. We really are on different planets.

You really missed the mark on this one. The many serious gun owners that I know are some of the most decent people I've ever met. These guys aren't survivalists living in a bunker in Montana. Most of these guys are generally not politically motivated, but messing with their gun ownership rights strikes a nerve. Some are serious collectors, and maybe there is something macho about shooting big caliber weapons and making loud noises. Most if not all of these guys are avid hunters, although they own many weapons that they would never take hunting. Most have handguns for personal protection, and the smart ones have taught their family members to respect such weapons. Those that do indulge in political discussions make it clear that anti-gun laws are just another way for the government to chip away at our constitutional rights.

Your view, WillRockwell, is much more paranoid than that of most gun owners!
 
You really missed the mark on this one. The many serious gun owners that I know are some of the most decent people I've ever met. These guys aren't survivalists living in a bunker in Montana. Most of these guys are generally not politically motivated, but messing with their gun ownership rights strikes a nerve. Some are serious collectors, and maybe there is something macho about shooting big caliber weapons and making loud noises. Most if not all of these guys are avid hunters, although they own many weapons that they would never take hunting. Most have handguns for personal protection, and the smart ones have taught their family members to respect such weapons. Those that do indulge in political discussions make it clear that anti-gun laws are just another way for the government to chip away at our constitutional rights.

Your view, WillRockwell, is much more paranoid than that of most gun owners!


You are wrong, and make the same mistake as other 2nd amendment apologists of attributing automatic "liberal" motives for my response. You can't seem to understand that a person can approve of firearms, support hunting, yet feel the need to restrict certain firearms which can be used to commit mass murder. My point is that a gun owner, who by definition must be a responsible adult, should understand that certain guns should not be available to certain people. This opinion is not an excuse to begin taking away your guns, and is not in violation of the 2nd amendment.
 
Last edited:
Care to expand?

It's sad that I even have to expand. It is self-evident. Our rights are our rights, they are innate and inalienable. That means they can not be taken away, not even by the government. Government can use force to suppress the exercise of our rights, but they can never take them. Such action taken without due process of law is called treason and should be taken very seriously.

Our rights are very important as the acknowledgment of them in their full force and beauty is what restricts the government from doing as it pleases. It's what places all seat of authority and power to the People and not the government. The government you describe is a treasonous government full of tyranny and authoratative control over the People. But when the founders fought to make this new land, they envisioned a land not where the government or the King was the sovereign, but rather a land in which the People were the sovereign. When you talk of rights in the disparaging and dismissing tone which you used, you enact very dangerous rhetoric. You place power in the hands of the government and not in the hands of the People. You strip from me my exercise of my rights, the acknowledgment that I have rights, and threaten my very freedom and liberty. It is for this reason that you fail. You fail because you fail to understand the very basics of freedom and liberty; that which the founders fought so hard for. That for which the government strives against, that the corrupted parties which to destroy. You have resigned yourself to slavery, you have failed in your duties as a freeman, and you have failed in your determination and resolve to keep this Republic.
 
You are wrong, and make the same mistake as other 2nd amendment apologists of attributing automatic "liberal" motives for my response. You can't seem to understand that a person can approve of firearms, support hunting, yet feel the need to restrict certain firearms which can be used to commit mass murder. My point is that a gun owner, who by definition must be a responsible adult, should understand that certain guns should not be available to certain people. This opinion is not an excuse to begin taking away your guns, and is not in violation of the 2nd amendment.


Jim Jones used Kool-Aid to commit mass murder. Maybe Kool-Aid should not be available to certain people. :doh
 
Jim Jones used Kool-Aid to commit mass murder. Maybe Kool-Aid should not be available to certain people. :doh

Jim Jones used cyanide, not kool-aid, to commit mass murder. Perhaps cyanide should not be available to certain people.
 
Last edited:
You are wrong, and make the same mistake as other 2nd amendment apologists of attributing automatic "liberal" motives for my response. You can't seem to understand that a person can approve of firearms, support hunting, yet feel the need to restrict certain firearms which can be used to commit mass murder. My point is that a gun owner, who by definition must be a responsible adult, should understand that certain guns should not be available to certain people. This opinion is not an excuse to begin taking away your guns, and is not in violation of the 2nd amendment.

By your argument... certain adults.. (we all know them) shouldn't be allowed to drive... Hell they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

But we live in a free country... Your opinion shouldn't trump my inalienable rights.


I also find it funny that you think that a bunch of people with small weapons cannot give our military a hard time.... Have you looked at Iraq / Afghanistan lately? What makes you think that a violent uprising here wouldn't degrade into the same type of situation here?


Oh, and try to show me where an "assault weapon" ie: ar15, or ak47 in your guy's eyes... has been used to commit mass murder in the us?
 
Last edited:
By your argument... certain adults.. (we all know them) shouldn't be allowed to drive... Hell they shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.

But we live in a free country... Your opinion shouldn't trump my inalienable rights.


I also find it funny that you think that a bunch of people with small weapons cannot give our military a hard time.... Have you looked at Iraq / Afghanistan lately? What makes you think that a violent uprising here wouldn't degrade into the same type of situation here?


Oh, and try to show me where an "assault weapon" ie: ar15, or ak47 in your guy's eyes... has been used to commit mass murder in the us?

I don't appreciate you leaping to conclusions about "my argument"...this seems to be standard procedure in any firearms discussion. We are talking about restricting weapons, not driving, not procreation. You do understand that in imagining "a bunch of people with small weapons giving our military a hard time" you are describing the ongoing murder of American military personnel? And you consider this patriotism?

I have no intention of Googling recent mass murders to research the types of weapons used.
 
I don't appreciate you leaping to conclusions about "my argument"...this seems to be standard procedure in any firearms discussion. We are talking about restricting weapons, not driving, not procreation. You do understand that in imagining "a bunch of people with small weapons giving our military a hard time" you are describing the ongoing murder of American military personnel? And you consider this patriotism?

I have no intention of Googling recent mass murders to research the types of weapons used.

As far as I'm concerned, you're the enemy.

You seek to "responsibly limit" or "take away" my rights via gun control. Your ideas of responsibility and mine are different, and because your opinion is different / ideas are different, give you no right to seek to take my rights away.

TurtleDude said:
Ideologically speaking, it is very simple. Give me liberty or give me death. I will not be complicit in tyranny, whether it be through actively assissting or passively accepting it. I will die a thousand deaths before I am a party to such an evil. It seems some would rather live on their knees than die on their feet. Most would say they are deserving of our contempt, but I cannot hate someone whom I pity.


A free nation has no room, for men with an agenda of limiting the freedoms of their fellow citizens.

I'm describing the ability of small forces of individuals with weapons that aren't even remotely equivilent to our military's giving our army a hell of a run for their money. Murder, no, we're at war.

And you're right, you won't google.. because then you'll turn up factual evidence that it doesn't happen.. and your whole little house of cards argument goes out the door.
 
Last edited:
You are wrong, and make the same mistake as other 2nd amendment apologists of attributing automatic "liberal" motives for my response. You can't seem to understand that a person can approve of firearms, support hunting, yet feel the need to restrict certain firearms which can be used to commit mass murder. My point is that a gun owner, who by definition must be a responsible adult, should understand that certain guns should not be available to certain people. This opinion is not an excuse to begin taking away your guns, and is not in violation of the 2nd amendment.
A) YOU are the one who does not understand, so let me help you.
B) Adults don't need to understand anything about "certain" guns being used to "committ mass murder" that need to be banned. You can kill people en masse using anything from a gasoline pump to the right mixture of ammonia and bleach, your argument is completely irrelevant on all fronts since the second amendment Shall not be infringed, there is no way to read that you "may infringe if someone says a particular gun is scary"
C) When you condescend to gun owners by calling them "nuts" for having a differing opinion and say they "have to understand what's good for them" your motives become extremely transparent, you want the state to infringe upon others rights in the name of safety, something the great Benjamin Franklin warned against to all free men.
D) This is an excuse to take away guns, that is exactly what the freaking law says, they want to ban certain guns, most of which are semi-automatic.
and finally
E) if you don't understand that banning ownership of any type of gun for the sole reason of assigning it some kind of value past it's looks or function you do not respect the right as it was written.

p.s. - you still haven't explained why a HK G3 select fire rifle can't be used for hunting or home defense, considering it uses a .308 round which is smaller than many big game hunting rifles and is a common hunting round.
 
Jim Jones used cyanide, not kool-aid, to commit mass murder. Perhaps cyanide should not be available to certain people.

Cyanide was the bullet, Kool-Aid was the delivery system. I'll post pictures for you next time.
 
Cyanide was the bullet, Kool-Aid was the delivery system. I'll post pictures for you next time.
And don't forget about the ricin ubrella incident from 1978, maybe those should be banned too.
 
And you're right, you won't google.. because then you'll turn up factual evidence that it doesn't happen.. and your whole little house of cards argument goes out the door.

It doesn't take much to prove you wrong. Take Dylan Harris, for example: Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle with thirteen 10-round magazines, fired 96 times.
The only house of cards here is you and your apeasement of mass murderers.
 
It doesn't take much to prove you wrong. Take Dylan Harris, for example: Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle with thirteen 10-round magazines, fired 96 times.
The only house of cards here is you and your apeasement of mass murderers.

Where has he appeased them? He simply does not want to remove the rights and liberties of citizens. Your post makes no sense.

I don't believe in killing all children at birth, does that mean I'm appeasing mass murderers because some of those children might become one?
 
It doesn't take much to prove you wrong. Take Dylan Harris, for example: Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle with thirteen 10-round magazines, fired 96 times.
The only house of cards here is you and your apeasement of mass murderers.
Again, how does that necessitate a ban over anything else? It was a semi-automatic, like a pistol and many common hunting rifles.
 
Do not question WillRockwell! He knows what's best for you!

He KNOWS that an insurgency could never stand up to the might of the American military. I'm sure this is steeped in his extensive military expertise. Please, Will, expand on these thoughts and enlighten me as to how our military would solve the following problems:

How would the military differentiate between civilians and insurgents? How would the military utilize combined arms in densely populated urban areas? How would the military strategically and tactically counteract the intimate knowledge that veterans possess in regards to their operational methodology? How would the military control a landmass twenty-two times larger than Iraq? How would the military win a propaganda war against its own citizens? How would the military gather intelligence on decentralized chains of command? How would the military stop English-speaking, socially-integrated American insurgents from infiltrating their instillations and units?

I hope your response doesn't entail the aggrandizement of military firepower with talk of tanks and stealth bombers.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom