[drunkkoala (Banned)]

Originally Posted by ClintonBaller2

Because you really need assault rifles to protect yourself.

Anyway he supports the right of the state to choose their individual gun laws, so worry more about your governor and state legislature taking guns away.

well, we need handguns to pretect ourselves at least, and he voted to get rid of them...


these "assault" rifles you speak of are only in the hands of military and people who paid a 200$ tax stamp to legally own one.


the ar15's you might think are assault rifles, are just semi-automatic rifles that are black.



"This year will go down in History! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead to the future" - Adolf Hitler

[graysonp]

Originally Posted by Gatyr

Even if the second amendment restricted free speech to JUST the printed press (which it doesn't, and you are an ignoranus for thinking anyone would construe it as such), the ninth amendment states that the rights listed in the constitution shall not be construed to deny other rights retained by the people. What should this mean to a simpleton such as yourself? It means that fundamental rights will not be deprived simply because they are not listed in the constitution.

I really doubt that since you didn't know the authors of the bills of rights included an amendment to protect unforeseeable rights that would come about in the future that you are one we should trust when seeking the intent authors had when writing such a historical document.

That's kind of his point, genius.

If you can say the same thing about the 1st amendment, why is the 2nd amendment any different? Why does the meaning behind the 2nd amendment require adjustments over time, when the other amendments are fundamental, non-changing rights?

[drunkkoala (Banned)]

Originally Posted by berserker19

The caliber doesn't determine what a rifle's classification is, just the type of cartridge. An "intermediate" cartridge (between a pistol and a full rifle) is generally an AR cartridge. Pretty much anything smaller than a 7.62x54 and larger than a pistol round. My understanding is that for a weapon to be an assault rifle it needs to be burst or full auto capable. And if you want to "split hairs", an M16 would be an assault rifle... an M16 is full auto or burst, an AR15 is generally a semi auto civilian version. The M16 is a military rifle. I love when all the "gun experts" come out on the internet.

[Death_Taco]

Originally Posted by xbreaka

why should the states be able to regulate something that is my inalienable right in the constitution?

.

[2term8r]

LA City Council Bans murder for 40 hours
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3680234.story

These are the same people that'll say they should ban weapons...

[paintballpimp092]

Originally Posted by ClintonBaller2

Because you really need assault rifles to protect yourself.

Anyway he supports the right of the state to choose their individual gun laws, so worry more about your governor and state legislature taking guns away.

Assault rifle bans are ****ing retarded. They ban things such as pistol grips, folding stocks, 30rd magazines, etc.

Do you know how long it takes me to reload my pistol? About 1.5 seconds, and that's slow for anybody who practices. I fail to see the logic of how limiting magazine capacity decreases the lethality of a weapon.

Is it up to you to decide what I need? No.

Originally Posted by ColdBlood

you may want to actually READ your sources bud

taken from ontheissues.org

For Obama:
Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)

if anything the supreme court will make the final call, its a conservative court right now so i dont think youll have to worry

so HE is NOT going to touch your guns guys

Did you happen to read the rest of it? *******.

Originally Posted by ClintonBaller2

So you need to buy multiple assault rifles per month from shady gun dealers in inner cities? Doesnt sound like any law abiding citizen to me.

And there is nothing illegal about doing that, either. If I legally fill out the paperwork and don't lie or make a straw purchase for a convicted criminal, then I'm not doing anything illegal. If the gun dealer sells a gun to someone after I leave and messes up on the paperwork, you can bet the BATF will shut them down, even if it is a MISTAKE. It all comes down to the criminal anyways- they're the one breaking the law, not me. Don't ****in' punish me because they're bad people.

Originally Posted by ClintonBaller2

M16, AK47, you knew what I meant, Im not a big gun guy. I have some shotguns thats it, sorry.

[berserker19]

Originally Posted by drunkkoala

Except that I actually am a firearms expert... you can roll your eyes all day

[cyrus-the-virus90]

Originally Posted by berserker19

The caliber doesn't determine what a rifle's classification is, just the type of cartridge. An "intermediate" cartridge (between a pistol and a full rifle) is generally an AR cartridge. Pretty much anything smaller than a 7.62x54 and larger than a pistol round. My understanding is that for a weapon to be an assault rifle it needs to be burst or full auto capable. And if you want to "split hairs", an M16 would be an assault rifle... an M16 is full auto or burst, an AR15 is generally a semi auto civilian version. The M16 is a military rifle. I love when all the "gun experts" come out on the internet.

Mean while you come in here quoting wikipedia almost word for word

I'll admit I was wrong on that, but don't be a hipocrite

[berserker19]

Originally Posted by cyrus-the-virus90

Mean while you come in here quoting wikipedia almost word for word

I'll admit I was wrong on that, but don't be a hipocrite

I was just clarifying that the real definition of an assault rifle (not the legalese political one) is an intermediate cartridge rifle, generally with F/A capability. I am a former US Army sniper, Ranger tabbed, and have been to SAMG school... I don't need to "quote wikipedia" to tell you what a rifle is.

paintballpimp: I think that thing you quoted is kind of outdated since you can have folding stocks/pistol grips/ bayo lugs etc. since the sunset of the AWB. At least I hope so because my AK has all that stuff.. I'm pretty sure the only thing is full auto or short barrels which you need special licenses/tax stamps for.

[careyman_462]

Originally Posted by berserker19

paintballpimp: I think that thing you quoted is kind of outdated since you can have folding stocks/pistol grips/ bayo lugs etc. since the sunset of the AWB. At least I hope so because my AK has all that stuff.. I'm pretty sure the only thing is full auto or short barrels which you need special licenses/tax stamps for.

Yeah, it ran out in 2004, and he knows, he was just pointing out how stupid AWB's are. They keep proposing one every year, and they just keep getting scarier.

[dustingaunder]

Originally Posted by Gatyr

This is pretty much the stupidest mentality I have ever had the chance to laugh at.

So you felt compelled to come in here and out do it for the rest of us?

Not because 99% of the people that say this would never actually stand up to the SWAT team that would eventually come for you, but because the government would give people who already own these guns amnesty in the form of a grandfather clause, just like they did for people that owned fully-automatic weapons before they were banned.


If the government actually tries to seize firearms you can bet your *** that I would stand up to them. Just because you are a panzy and are willing to turn over your constitutional rights doesn't mean that everyone else is and that it is the right thing to do. Oh, fully automatic weapons are not banned either. They are pretty easy to get with the couple of hoops you have to jump through. I would suggest doing research on the issue instead of repeating what you've heard on TV.


Sigh.

Even if the second amendment restricted free speech to JUST the printed press (which it doesn't, and you are an ignoranus for thinking anyone would construe it as such), the ninth amendment states that the rights listed in the constitution shall not be construed to deny other rights retained by the people. What should this mean to a simpleton such as yourself? It means that fundamental rights will not be deprived simply because they are not listed in the constitution.

I really doubt that since you didn't know the authors of the bills of rights included an amendment to protect unforeseeable rights that would come about in the future that you are one we should trust when seeking the intent authors had when writing such a historical document.

I just don't think you understood what he was trying to say. You seem kinda slow anyway so we can forgive you.

[dustingaunder]

Originally Posted by Bobman7

You live in California, you can't buy **** anyway.

I'm 100 ****ing percent for gun control. I really don't need to get into why.

The thing that pisses me off is all you ****ing people saying 'they're taking away my 2nd amendment rights'. **** that, the right to bear arms does NOT grant you the right to own any ****ing gun you want, it gives you the right to bear arms to protect your country. If you wanna do that, join the military. The Bill of Rights was written in 1791, saying that it gives you the right to own various [unnecessary] weapons is ridiculous! Times have changed, the context has changed, live with it.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Have you read any of the federalist papers about the right to keep and bear arms? You obviously have no idea what the intent of the second amendment was. It was intended so we could protect ourselves from tyranny of the government not be in the army. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state means that it is necessary that the US has a standing army. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means that since there is that standing army that the government could use against its people the people have the right to keep any type of weapon in any place at any time. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you people not understand?

[saltman241]

More fear mongering. No one is going to take your guns away. Come on the right has been trying to repeal roe vs. wade for how long? It's one of those issues people like to bring up when any opposing candidate gains steam. Oh he's for partial birth abortion, he supports the ban of all firearms. Blah, blah, ****ing blah. There's not chance in the world any president in our life time will ban semi auto weapons or firearms in general. Don't believe the hype. Vote based on REAL issues that actualy effect us. Foreign policy, economics, responsible spending/budget balancing. Divide and conquer is a fabulous strategy in politics.

[cyrus-the-virus90]

Originally Posted by dustingaunder

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Have you read any of the federalist papers about the right to keep and bear arms? You obviously have no idea what the intent of the second amendment was. It was intended so we could protect ourselves from tyranny of the government not be in the army. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state means that it is necessary that the US has a standing army. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed means that since there is that standing army that the government could use against its people the people have the right to keep any type of weapon in any place at any time. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you people not understand?

It's an old out dated concept, there was no way the founding fathers could have forseen the destructive power of assult weapons

First they take away assult weapons, then they take away "high powered" rifles, then they take pistols, then shotguns soon we have no gun right's left. You bet you *** the next thing on their list is going to be air rifles, then air soft guns, then paintball guns, then TOY guns.

You give the goverment an inch they are going to take MILES.

[Ionhotshot]

Of course they won't ban firearms, that would be just too shocking.
Instead they'll ban ammunition, that makes more sense


I hate all these people who cry about how guns killed Jimmy, and if the government
would do more to stop people from buying guns, Jimmy would still be alive right now.

How about this; if Jimmy had his own legal gun, he might not have been shot down by
some ******* ganster with his illegal Glock.

And what gets me the most is the government takes MY money to fund BATFE and all this other **** that only limits my freedoms.
**** that. And **** all you people who think that I shouldn't have my rifles. If you had to deal with
any sort of **** in your life you'd realize that the government isn't always there to protect you. There are
bad men out there who only want to kill and steal in order to gain power and respect.
And the only thing protecting my family from those men is me.

[RedMage138]

Originally Posted by saltman241

More fear mongering. No one is going to take your guns away. Come on the right has been trying to repeal roe vs. wade for how long? It's one of those issues people like to bring up when any opposing candidate gains steam. Oh he's for partial birth abortion, he supports the ban of all firearms. Blah, blah, ****ing blah. There's not chance in the world any president in our life time will ban semi auto weapons or firearms in general. Don't believe the hype. Vote based on REAL issues that actualy effect us. Foreign policy, economics, responsible spending/budget balancing. Divide and conquer is a fabulous strategy in politics.

Changing the constitution isnt really a presidential power anyway. Congress has the power to propose amendments but a no guns amendment would never pass anyway and interpretation is left to the courts which again would never support no guns so isn't this argument really kind of unnecessary?

[saltman241]

Originally Posted by RedMage138

Changing the constitution isnt really a presidential power anyway. Congress has the power to propose amendments but a no guns amendment would never pass anyway and interpretation is left to the courts which again would never support no guns so isn't this argument really kind of unnecessary?

Of course it's nessacary! Damn liberal democrats wanna take away all our guns and kill our children. Didn't you hear they have a black man now! He has to be stopped! If you don't hate him your un american.

[RedMage138]

Originally Posted by saltman241

Of course it's nessacary! Damn liberal democrats wanna take away all our guns and kill our children. Didn't you hear they have a black man now! He has to be stopped! If you don't hate him your un american.

Was gonna say something about being a terrorist here but then realized, **** probably shouldn't say that or the FBI is gonna be all over my ***.

[cyrus-the-virus90]

This is probubly going to get closed soon......

[careyman_462]

Even though Obama wants to leave it to the states, we can't ignore how he feels about the issue. If Bush was for a draft, but wanted to leave it to the states, you wouldn't defend him just because he wanted it to be taken care of at the state level. A ****ty idea is still a ****ty idea.

Besides, if Congress passed a new AWB, do you honestly think Obama would veto it?

^And yeah, this thread has been derailed.

[[HRT]Squirrel Master]

Originally Posted by ClintonBaller2

Because you really need assault rifles to protect yourself.

Anyway he supports the right of the state to choose their individual gun laws, so worry more about your governor and state legislature taking guns away.

its not a "need" its a "right"