BREAKING NEWS: Gun Questions at debate, Obama using Aurora

EMNofSeattle · Oct 16, 2012

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"

EMNofSeattle · Oct 16, 2012

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.

ADobbs1989 · Oct 16, 2012

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

Sig229 · Oct 16, 2012

ADobbs1989 said:
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".

EMNofSeattle · Oct 16, 2012

Sig229 said:
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.

davidmcbeth · Oct 17, 2012

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.

davidmcbeth · Oct 17, 2012

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.

Beretta92FSLady · Oct 17, 2012

davidmcbeth said:
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.

person DJ · Oct 17, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
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

twoskinsonemanns · Oct 17, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
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?

Beretta92FSLady · Oct 17, 2012

person DJ said:
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?

Beretta92FSLady · Oct 17, 2012

twoskinsonemanns said:
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.

eye95 · Oct 17, 2012

person DJ said:
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.

OC for ME · Oct 17, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
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

OC for ME · Oct 17, 2012

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.

Polite Posture · Oct 17, 2012

Sig229 said:
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. :idea:

nobama · Oct 17, 2012

eye95 said:
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.

Jack House · Oct 17, 2012

OC for ME said:
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.

EMNofSeattle · Oct 17, 2012

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.

davidmcbeth · Oct 17, 2012

Beretta92FSLady said:
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!

BREAKING NEWS: Gun Questions at debate, Obama using Aurora

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned