• 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 and gun-ownership...

Is Obama going to take our guns?


  • Total voters
    27
Gun ownership restrictions seem somewhat like smoking. Those who don't, don't want other to either and want sin-taxes and all other restrictions. I think this is so for gun ownership also. Those who don't own guns favor nearly any restrictions - but would go nuts if you tried to restrict what they do or have.
 
I think the second amendment is the only flaw of our Constitution. I wouldn't care less if gun ownership is restricted.

Its not fear mongering from the right, its just fear in general; unnecessary, unwarranted fear.
 
I think the second amendment is the only flaw of our Constitution. I wouldn't care less if gun ownership is restricted.

Its not fear mongering from the right, its just fear in general; unnecessary, unwarranted fear.



Why is it a flaw. constitutionally speaking? because you don't like it? :doh:roll:
 
-
Speaking of being stupid, California begins with a C, asshole.
-
Now tell me TURD DUDE, have they taken away everyones guns there?
NO!!!
Taking away handguns is much different than taking away everyones weapons.
-
BTW, Assholes, Obamb said that the 2nd amendment will stand!

Grow up kid-insulting me is the sign you have no game.
 
I think the second amendment is the only flaw of our Constitution. I wouldn't care less if gun ownership is restricted.

I think the only flaw in the Bill of Rights is the lack of a prohibition against gender discrimination. Not starting that topic here, just responding to your specific message.
 
Liberals, IMO, are often in favor of banning certain weapons because they see little reasoning to own large calibered semi and automatic weapons for protection, or hunting.
And this is why people hate liberals, my rights do not depend on what they do and do not see as valid reasoning, BTW, my handgun fires .40 caliber 180 grain bullets, that is a large caliber handgun, and guess what, it has very legit self defense purposes as the stopping power tends to reduce my chances of a lucky retaliatory shot from the person trying to injure me, ditto for semi or fully automatics if I happen to miss.


Revises the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" to include conversion kits (for converting a firearm to such a weapon) and any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has specified characteristics, including a telescoping stock.
How does any of that make a gun more dangerous? And, what gives these idiots the credentials or rights to make the distinction? Don't try to answer, it's rhetorical, they don't know a damn thing about guns so their opinion only matters as much as the SCOTUS lets them assert control over these things, and B, they do not actually have the right to pass laws or make these distinctions, only a friendly SCOTUS would allow this to actually pass.
Prohibits the transfer of such a weapon except through a licensed dealer or a state or local law enforcement agency, subject to specified requirements.
So to transfer my property I have to pay an extra fee, yeah, that's fair.:roll:
2) annually submit the record to Congress and make it available to the public.
It IS NOT the business of congress and especially NOT the publics what a gun has been used for, that is a political move.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device; and (2) a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer who transfers such a device that was manufactured on or before this Act's enactment from failing to certify to the Attorney General, within 60 days of the transfer date, that the device was manufactured on or before that date. Sets forth penalties for violations.
Not the AG's business, not the governments business, completely violates the second amendment rights of people in the U.S.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of such a weapon or device to a juvenile;
Fine, minors aren't ful; adults, no problem here
and (2) the importation of such a device.
Again, not the governments business.


Here's a summary. You tell me what you find so egregious about it?
It's anti-second amendment, the government is overstepping it's proscribed constitutional restrictions and asserting rights it doesn't have, it makes criminals out of law abiding citizens, it's arrogant, stupid policy, won't contribute to overall public safety, etc. etc.
 
wow that is pretty stupid. I guess you haven't watched what has happened in Kalifornia, NJ, NY, Connecticut, Maryland, Chicago, DC.
New Orleans during Katrina.
 
I think the second amendment is the only flaw of our Constitution. I wouldn't care less if gun ownership is restricted.

Its not fear mongering from the right, its just fear in general; unnecessary, unwarranted fear.
The Second is the most important amendment there, and for you to not recognize it shows a severe lack of perspective. You have a right to free speech, but I doubt you would exercise it with a gun(either privately or government owned) in your face, same with property, stay in your house with armed government forces telling you they are commandeering your property, hardly, vote your conscience with a gun to your back, hah. The second protects all of your rights, and if you can't understand the importance of any one of the rights you don't deserve ANY of them.
 
I think the second amendment is the only flaw of our Constitution. I wouldn't care less if gun ownership is restricted.
Why?
:confused:

And, what do you say to someone that uses your argument against a right you DO care about?
 
I think the second amendment is the only flaw of our Constitution. I wouldn't care less if gun ownership is restricted.

The Constitution is a balancing act of political power. It seeks to divide power among many, and retain for the people themselves as much of it as is possible while still maintaining a government viable enough to protect rights.

ALL political power -- and by ALL, I mean ALL -- ultimately resides in the barrel of a gun. A government which denies its people the right to arms deprives the people of the basis for their ultimate authority. You would cheer that on. You would give the government a monopoly on political power. As such, you would eviscerate the Constitution of the very reason it exists in the first place.
 
The essence of the Constitution couldn't have been stated more concisely.
 
-
Hey, If you didn't want me to insult you then why did you insult me first saying that I said something STUPID
Describing something you said as stupid isnt an insult.
 
I think the second amendment is the only flaw of our Constitution. I wouldn't care less if gun ownership is restricted.

Its not fear mongering from the right, its just fear in general; unnecessary, unwarranted fear.

Live a few months in the Greenspoint area here in Houston and you'll be changing your mind.

The people that often claim "unwarranted" fear have rarely if ever had to live through a crisis larger than not having anything to wear for a party. During Ike the phrase "are you guys armed?" was frequently asked among those that stayed on my street.

They idea that civilization can collapse within a matter of hours in an area just isn't fathomable despite modern day examples.
 
Live a few months in the Greenspoint area here in Houston and you'll be changing your mind.

The people that often claim "unwarranted" fear have rarely if ever had to live through a crisis larger than not having anything to wear for a party. During Ike the phrase "are you guys armed?" was frequently asked among those that stayed on my street.

They idea that civilization can collapse within a matter of hours in an area just isn't fathomable despite modern day examples.


A mugging or a home invasion robbery would be rather effective edification for all the tools who say no one needs a gun for self defense
 
Back
Top Bottom