Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: BREAKING NEWS: Gun Questions at debate, Obama using Aurora

  1. #1
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763

    BREAKING NEWS: Gun Questions at debate, Obama using Aurora

    Gun control questions just asked at debate

    Obama: I believe in the 2nd amendment for hunting, self defense, and lawful use

    <rambles about Aurora>

    "Weapons designed for soldiers in war don't belong on our streets, lets get an Assault Weapons ban reintroduced but in Chicago AK-47s aren't being used to kill people"
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  2. #2
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Obama now said he wants automatic weapons banned

    Mitt is now retorting, he is saying automatic weapons are already banned, and that he supports no new weapons legislation.

    Mitt has just brought in Fast and Furious and is using it against Obama for the gun control question.
    Last edited by EMNofSeattle; 10-16-2012 at 10:28 PM.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    484
    Assault Weapons are already banned? This is new to me....

    I didn't actually watch any of the debate..because...well it's stupid...so if this wasn't actually said then sorry. lol

  4. #4
    Regular Member Sig229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by ADobbs1989 View Post
    Assault Weapons are already banned? This is new to me....

    I didn't actually watch any of the debate..because...well it's stupid...so if this wasn't actually said then sorry. lol
    Current Federal law states that any firearm that fires automatically with one pull of the trigger is an "Assault weapon".
    All of the AR15's and AK clones that we own of which are only semi auto ARE NOT classified under federal law as "assault weapons".
    "Let your gun be your constant companion during your walks" ~Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig229 View Post
    Current Federal law states that any firearm that fires automatically with one pull of the trigger is an "Assault weapon".
    All of the AR15's and AK clones that we own of which are only semi auto ARE NOT classified under federal law as "assault weapons".
    No, there is no longer any federal definition of assault weapon, that law sunsetted September 13 2004. and it applied to semi-autos.

    the law you're refering to is 26 USC § 5845 which uses the term "machine gun" not assault weapon

    (b) Machinegun
    The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    They all support the 2nd amendment, so they say. I have yet to hear any candidate EVER say they do not support ANY amendment in the constitution...this would include the second.

    But they ALL miss the point and refuse to say what the 2nd is all about: for us to be able to protect ourselves from the gov't. (except for Libertarian party).

    In this context, any weapon/system that the feds own, we can own.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Another great quote from the debate by obamalamalama

    "The commitments I've made, I've kept. And those that I haven't been able to keep, it's not for a lack of trying and we're going to get it done in the second term."

    Whatt?? So has he performed or completed his own commitments? Yes. No. Yes. No. Guantanamo is still open I think...4 yrs huh? I hope he makes a commitment not to use any oxygen .. apparently, his brain does not need it or use it anyway.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 10-17-2012 at 12:34 AM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    They all support the 2nd amendment, so they say. I have yet to hear any candidate EVER say they do not support ANY amendment in the constitution...this would include the second.

    But they ALL miss the point and refuse to say what the 2nd is all about: for us to be able to protect ourselves from the gov't. (except for Libertarian party).

    In this context, any weapon/system that the feds own, we can own.
    Highlighted red: Wrong.

    The Second Amendment is not for the purpose of protecting ourselves from the Government. BTW, think before you type--do you actually believe you have a chance in hell-fire against the Federal Government in a gun-fight? Wake up to reality people.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bumpus Mills TN
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Highlighted red: Wrong.

    The Second Amendment is not for the purpose of protecting ourselves from the Government. BTW, think before you type--do you actually believe you have a chance in hell-fire against the Federal Government in a gun-fight? Wake up to reality people.
    You are wrong. It is our duty to not allow a runaway governament. BTW Think before you type

  10. #10
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Highlighted red: Wrong.

    The Second Amendment is not for the purpose of protecting ourselves from the Government. BTW, think before you type--do you actually believe you have a chance in hell-fire against the Federal Government in a gun-fight? Wake up to reality people.
    Which is it? The bill of rights doesn't provided people the right to fight tyranny or the current tyranny is too big and powerful to stand against?
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by person DJ View Post
    You are wrong. It is our duty to not allow a runaway governament. BTW Think before you type
    I see. So, you believe that we ought to use our firearms to keep the Government in check?
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by twoskinsonemanns View Post
    Which is it? The bill of rights doesn't provided people the right to fight tyranny or the current tyranny is too big and powerful to stand against?
    Both.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by person DJ View Post
    You are wrong. It is our duty to not allow a runaway governament. BTW Think before you type
    Yes, an armed citizenry has a chance against a rogue government. Numerous times throughout history the populace has overthrown a better-armed government (The American Revolution among them). The fact that the People were armed probably prevented a military coup early in our history.

    And, yes, among other purposes, the 2A does exist in order that the People cannot be oppressed by a rogue government--unless the overwhelming majority choose to be oppressed, of which we seem to be on the cusp.

    No, I am not disagreeing with your post, but the one to which you replied, which would have otherwise been invisible to me.

  14. #14
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Highlighted red: Wrong.

    The Second Amendment is not for the purpose of protecting ourselves from the Government. BTW, think before you type--do you actually believe you have a chance in hell-fire against the Federal Government in a gun-fight? Wake up to reality people.
    The above would be your opinion.

    "When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

    "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  15. #15
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Will the citizenry be able to prevail in a "gun-fight" with the federal government? It all depends on what those who are invested in "big government" do. When your fellow citizen supports a tyrannical government to the detriment of liberty, then those who would fight to support and defend liberty will surely lose that fight, and we shall all lose our liberty.

    As a last resort when all lesser means have failed. Our greatest "weapon" that the citizenry has to defend liberty is our right to speak freely. The second most powerful "weapon" we have is our right to vote tyranny out of office.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  16. #16
    Regular Member Polite Posture's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Sig229 View Post
    Current Federal law states that any firearm that fires automatically with one pull of the trigger is an "Assault weapon".
    All of the AR15's and AK clones that we own of which are only semi auto ARE NOT classified under federal law as "assault weapons".
    Exactly. Remember guys, just because an Anti Gun labels a semi-automatic rifle as an "Assault Rifle" doesn't make it so.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Yes, an armed citizenry has a chance against a rogue government. Numerous times throughout history the populace has overthrown a better-armed government (The American Revolution among them). The fact that the People were armed probably prevented a military coup early in our history.

    And, yes, among other purposes, the 2A does exist in order that the People cannot be oppressed by a rogue government--unless the overwhelming majority choose to be oppressed, of which we seem to be on the cusp.

    No, I am not disagreeing with your post, but the one to which you replied, which would have otherwise been invisible to me.
    This is so true,just look at the countries that dont allow the peasants to keep and bear arms. If its NOT for protection from an out of control Gov. (which is what we have now) then what is it for???? Hunting? thats the libtard answer. Self defense? thats the answer given by obama supporters that believe in self defense.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Will the citizenry be able to prevail in a "gun-fight" with the federal government? It all depends on what those who are invested in "big government" do. When your fellow citizen supports a tyrannical government to the detriment of liberty, then those who would fight to support and defend liberty will surely lose that fight, and we shall all lose our liberty.

    As a last resort when all lesser means have failed. Our greatest "weapon" that the citizenry has to defend liberty is our right to speak freely. The second most powerful "weapon" we have is our right to vote tyranny out of office.
    And this is precisely why partisan politics is the biggest threat to our nation and not the government.

  19. #19
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    If the majority of police/military refuse to follow orders to quell popular uprising yes the citizenry will win.

    And this has happened before. not many examples in America, but it has happened
    for instance during "Red October" in Russia the high ranking military officers of the Tsar's army refused to carry out orders from the Tsar to fire on crowds of protesters and rioters in moscow, then most of the troops joined in the rebellion.

    If things are bad enough the government will not be able to maintain legitimacy.

    But I frankly don't see things getting that bad, unless a real economic or wartime emergency occurs.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Highlighted red: Wrong.

    The Second Amendment is not for the purpose of protecting ourselves from the Government. BTW, think before you type--do you actually believe you have a chance in hell-fire against the Federal Government in a gun-fight? Wake up to reality people.
    B92lady .. think about it .... the british had no crime issues that the colonist complained about (other than jailing dissenters); and no issues with hunting either. So why have the 2nd? To allow us to overthrow the gov't if needed and to be able to protect ourselves from gov't aggression if needed.

    Do I have a chance against the gov't forces ... you bet I do...I'm not sitting here with a BB gun ...

    And I have thwarted gov't intrusions onto my land just with the threat of using my guns ...

    We have the right to own the same weapons the gov't would use against us ... some private citizens own tanks, subs, etc ...

    Keep the Faith!

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Will the citizenry be able to prevail in a "gun-fight" with the federal government? It all depends on what those who are invested in "big government" do. When your fellow citizen supports a tyrannical government to the detriment of liberty, then those who would fight to support and defend liberty will surely lose that fight, and we shall all lose our liberty.

    As a last resort when all lesser means have failed. Our greatest "weapon" that the citizenry has to defend liberty is our right to speak freely. The second most powerful "weapon" we have is our right to vote tyranny out of office.
    I watched "Red Dawn" so I'm a believer we can win an armed conflict ...

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran ATM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    ...The Second Amendment is not for the purpose of protecting ourselves from the Government...
    Really? What on earth is its purpose, then?

    Does the following part of the prefatory clause mean nothing?

    ...being necessary to the security of a free State...

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    And this is precisely why partisan politics is the biggest threat to our nation and not the government.
    I am particularly fond of our partisan politics. Partisan politics gave us the US Constitution we have today. Partisan politics gave us many things good and bad. I would not trade partisan politics for all of the tea in China. When there is no partisan politics I get worried.

    It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress. - Mark Twain
    BTW, typically the loser yells PARTISAN POLITICS the loudest.....as it should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I watched "Red Dawn" so I'm a believer we can win an armed conflict ...
    Uh, that movie was about a commie invasion of the USA not a DHS "invasion" of the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by ATM View Post
    Really? What on earth is its purpose, then?

    Does the following part of the prefatory clause mean nothing?
    B92lady may respond if she is in the mood to be a butt.....she got caught making a mental malfunction.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I am particularly fond of our partisan politics. Partisan politics gave us the US Constitution we have today. Partisan politics gave us many things good and bad. I would not trade partisan politics for all of the tea in China. When there is no partisan politics I get worried.
    And it's going to be the division of the citizenry caused by the partisan politics that will continue to allow the government to trample our rights, and should the time come, it will allow the government to be victorious in a revolt, again because the division caused by the current partisan politics weakens us as a whole.

    People are far too concerned about their party. Right or wrong, they will always support their party. So when their party tramples our rights, they will either ignore it or support it. When someone accuses their party of being composed of tyrants, they will sternly rebuke the accusations, completely ignoring any and all evidence that proves their party is composed of tyrants. When the people rise up and rebel against some policy their party supports, they will rebuke the rebels, ignoring the rights invasions they are suffering and support their Dear Party.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •