Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Debates of a more controversial nature, and discussions on the latest world events. Give your opinions, but no flaming!
Post Reply
User avatar
slepyoneshot
Dwarf Miner
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2012
Gender: Male
Location: the butter heaven
Contact:

Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by slepyoneshot » Wed 8th May 2013

Warning. i. hate. Obama.... very much

I think that Obama is taking away our second amendment in a way and is just looking for an excuse to. he did it after the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary. my problem is only handguns were used in the shooting, and most handguns don't even hold ten bullets (the limit put on a clip)

What are your thoughts on this?


PS: if there is already a topic on this i'm sorry. i hope i didn't skip one of the forum pages or something
do you not like me? doesnt matter, i face a lot more than you in real life

do you not like the fact that i am a big gamer? doesnt matter, i face a lot more than you in real life

do you not like butter? doesnt matter you dont know how awesome it is

do you not like anything about me? you only think im a kid who likes to annoy everyone i see, i have ADHD, dont blame me for my gift from god, ADHD lets me be happy in real life even though im hated there

Image

User avatar
Bang Your Drum
serial addict
Posts: 5913
Joined: Tue 1st May 2007
Location: Penn's Forrest
Contact:

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by Bang Your Drum » Wed 8th May 2013

He wasn't looking for an "excuse" as the idea of clip limits has been a talking point for quite some time.
And hate is a very strong word, don't you think? You could just say you "strongly disagree with his actions/politics"
Moses Seixas wrote:give bigotry no sanction

User avatar
slepyoneshot
Dwarf Miner
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2012
Gender: Male
Location: the butter heaven
Contact:

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by slepyoneshot » Wed 8th May 2013

Bang Your Drum wrote:He wasn't looking for an "excuse" as the idea of clip limits has been a talking point for quite some time.
And hate is a very strong word, don't you think? You could just say you "strongly disagree with his actions/politics"
sorry i never got the difference between dislike and hate, basically i've always thought they are the same thing.

anyways i thought banning the assault rifles might just make things worse. such as when cigarettes were banned in america the crime rate was higher than ever before. and we have the right to bear arms. it never says anything about not being able to use certain types of weapons.
do you not like me? doesnt matter, i face a lot more than you in real life

do you not like the fact that i am a big gamer? doesnt matter, i face a lot more than you in real life

do you not like butter? doesnt matter you dont know how awesome it is

do you not like anything about me? you only think im a kid who likes to annoy everyone i see, i have ADHD, dont blame me for my gift from god, ADHD lets me be happy in real life even though im hated there

Image

User avatar
Bang Your Drum
serial addict
Posts: 5913
Joined: Tue 1st May 2007
Location: Penn's Forrest
Contact:

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by Bang Your Drum » Thu 9th May 2013

slepyoneshot wrote: sorry i never got the difference between dislike and hate, basically i've always thought they are the same thing.
Do you say the Pledge of Allegiance with that mouth?

There's a reason they're called Hate Crimes
Gene Hunt circa 1973 wrote:...as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?
Additionally you gotta back this up, or put it out
slepyoneshot wrote: anyways i thought banning the assault rifles might just make things worse. such as when cigarettes were banned in america the crime rate was higher than ever before. and we have the right to bear arms. it never says anything about not being able to use certain types of weapons.
First off, thinking something does not make it true, you need stats.
Also cigarettes are restricted where you can smoke them... How that would influence crime rates is beyond me.
And the second amendment was written in a time where guns of today were non existing....they had to be loaded one ball at a time and accuracy was awful.
Moses Seixas wrote:give bigotry no sanction

User avatar
slepyoneshot
Dwarf Miner
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2012
Gender: Male
Location: the butter heaven
Contact:

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by slepyoneshot » Thu 9th May 2013

[quote= Bang Your Drum]First off, thinking something does not make it true, you need stats.
Also cigarettes are restricted where you can smoke them... How that would influence crime rates is beyond me.
And the second amendment was written in a time where guns of today were non existing....they had to be loaded one ball at a time and accuracy was awful.[/quote]

what i meant by that was in the early 1900's ciggarettes were considered illeagal.

anyways if they had been talking about it the whole time why did they choose that exact time?
do you not like me? doesnt matter, i face a lot more than you in real life

do you not like the fact that i am a big gamer? doesnt matter, i face a lot more than you in real life

do you not like butter? doesnt matter you dont know how awesome it is

do you not like anything about me? you only think im a kid who likes to annoy everyone i see, i have ADHD, dont blame me for my gift from god, ADHD lets me be happy in real life even though im hated there

Image

User avatar
Bang Your Drum
serial addict
Posts: 5913
Joined: Tue 1st May 2007
Location: Penn's Forrest
Contact:

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by Bang Your Drum » Thu 9th May 2013

I think you are thinking of alcohol which was illegal in the 1920s crime was up then, yes.. But alcohol is an addictive substance...guns are not (unless you are a compulsive buyer/shopper..in which case you might want to switch music boxes) and you can make achohol, you cannot as easily make 30 round magaziene guns.

The thing is, now people will listen.... It stupid, but it takes something like this to make people not feel safe...
Why only now the public transport in my area is promoting security via their site and at the stations is beyond me....granted not all places are as well served as the North East, but the is much more expansive train/underground networks in Europe and there have been attacks there...
It shouldn't take a scare to make us rethink the actual safety (or lack thereof) many people live in.
Moses Seixas wrote:give bigotry no sanction

User avatar
slepyoneshot
Dwarf Miner
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon 18th Jun 2012
Gender: Male
Location: the butter heaven
Contact:

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by slepyoneshot » Thu 9th May 2013

there are people who break the law just to break the law. like maybe they could see that guns are banned, and then he would buy a pistol and put it in his car just to tick the police off
do you not like me? doesnt matter, i face a lot more than you in real life

do you not like the fact that i am a big gamer? doesnt matter, i face a lot more than you in real life

do you not like butter? doesnt matter you dont know how awesome it is

do you not like anything about me? you only think im a kid who likes to annoy everyone i see, i have ADHD, dont blame me for my gift from god, ADHD lets me be happy in real life even though im hated there

Image

User avatar
Battery
Ringbearer
Posts: 7121
Joined: Sun 4th Oct 2009
Gender: Female
Location: The Shire
Contact:

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by Battery » Fri 10th May 2013

^For that particular argument I would just like to point out that pistol =/= assault weapon. I don't really see what that example has to do with anything.

Okay past that, first of all I'm going to address the fact that this:
he did it after the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary. my problem is only handguns were used in the shooting, and most handguns don't even hold ten bullets (the limit put on a clip)
is actually not true at all.
The weapons seized from the attacker Adam Lanza are as follows, according to the State Police:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber– model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun
So saying that there is no logical correlation between the Sandy Hook shooting and the assault weapons ban isn't actually true. Also, if I remember correctly from some current events research I did a few months ago, the ban that's being discussed actually covers the first gun listed above.

As for the excuse statement, I would think it perfectly logical to be pushed to think more about gun control after several 6-7 year old children had been killed while at school than any other time. I certainly thought a lot more about the subject after the fact than previously.

Byddie's already made the point I was going to about the second amendment, being that there weren't exactly high-power assault rifles in 1791. The amendment is also open to interpretation, and the right to bear arms does not translate to the right to possess any kind of weapon you can possibly imagine, just as the right to pursuit of happiness doesn't translate to "eh if it makes you happy do whatever."

The thing I constantly wonder is this: why would any civilian actually need an assault weapon? The argument that policemen and other law enforcement officials (often referred to in such arguments, in case we didn't realize, as "the good guys") would need to use weapons against armed criminals doesn't seem to belong in this particular debate at all to me. I don't support the blanket banning of all guns ever. But assault weapons, as far as I believe, cause more damage than they prevent.

The second amendment does guarantee the right to bear arms, but the Constitution and Declaration of Independence also state that it is the job of the government to protect its people.

I'd also like to remind you that the president is by no means the only proponent of this measure; in fact, if it makes any difference, when it was under discussion in 2004, several Republican senators supported the ban.
Image
online more often than you probably assume
tumblr & ao3

User avatar
Lavaeolus
Goblin
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 2nd Feb 2013

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by Lavaeolus » Sat 11th May 2013

slepyoneshot wrote:I think that Obama is taking away our second amendment in a way and is just looking for an excuse to.
I've never really been that in-touch with American views. What's so great about these "amendments" of yours, you know? Maybe they're wrong. They're quite old; times have changed, and sometimes the people of the past have been quite wrong.

I'm not even sure what the second amendment is, so don't take my complaints too much to heart.

User avatar
Ash Kelp
Centaur Genius
Posts: 1087
Joined: Wed 4th Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Location: In the great and awesome Cascadia, where the norm is rain, and coffee.

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by Ash Kelp » Sun 12th May 2013

^I agree with that, it's not muskets we're using anymore (or horses or bayonets).

Guns are one of those things that no one seems to understand, guns don't kill people, people kill people, however, people kill people using guns. The US census bureau says that there were 9,200 murders related to firearms in 2009.

Although handguns might be acceptable to own or even carry, weapons that can easily kill 20-some kids without much accuracy doesn't seem to be the best way to "have freedom". No amount of safety measures or laws will ever stop gun-related deaths, but we can lower the number. Is freedom being able to shoot more bullets per second or having a little bit better of a chance to be shot? Please answer that.
Image
It's like Trouble, but with many a variation.

User avatar
AFrules12
LEPrecon Officer
Posts: 905
Joined: Mon 19th Sep 2011
Gender: Female
Location: In Camelot, crying my eyes out.
Contact:

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by AFrules12 » Mon 27th May 2013

How I see it is in the UK guns are illegal. According to this website: http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murd ... in-us.html (which probably isn't completely accurate, I couldn't be bothered to find a better one) 58 in the UK to 8775 in US, of course the US is bigger and more populated blahdebah, but they've made it equivalent, which is 50 to 290 which is over 5 times, almost 6 the amount. See what I'm getting at? Less guns, less deaths. People in the US have the means to kill someone available to them. So they use it. In the UK they do not, they are much harder to get your hands on so less people use them.
So thats why I dont agree with legal guns. If you ahve them, you're more likely to be killed by them
One word: Merlin
Image

User avatar
/b/
LEP Commander
Posts: 2447
Joined: Tue 15th Jan 2008
Location: Dans la Boulevard de la Revolution :D

Re: Obama banning assault rifles and the bullet limit

Post by /b/ » Fri 14th Jun 2013

Basically it goes like this:

Serbia is a country that participated in 5 wars in the 20th century, she was the victim of 5 of them, so she started NONE of those wars. There are many veterans of those wars (like there are in America), and there are kinda a lot of guns here too. However, the only allowed gun is a handgun, and you need like a million things in order to get one (I'm speaking legally, because other things are not controlled by any government), including a reason to own it (can be self defense), and the skill to use it (which is proven though a course). There are shootings in Serbia, usually few per year. It's mostly suicide, RARELY a shooting, and even then it's usually a mental patient or such. Crime related shootings are down to three a year or something like that.

We had one shooting, a man killed 13 of his family, because he was insane and bought a gun illegally. He killed them in their sleep, and it is the ONLY shooting in Serbia, EVER, to have more than 5 victims. Think about that for a second.

Serbia is a small country, 7 million people, you have towns bigger then that in America, I understand, but there is a correlation between guns and shootings. If a man is armed with an assault rifle, he'll kill dozens of people no matter the size of a country. It takes much much much more guts to take a knife and kill someone. It takes much less to use a state-of-the-art machine gun to mow down rows of children (or firemen and police officers as has happened in another shooting in the US). Worst of all, your policemen are armed with handguns, and a shotgun. If the criminal can legally buy and own a pile of ammo and a Bushmaster, there is nothing policemen can do. NOTHING. They are out-powered and need to call in a SWAT team. If nothing else, a single gun has less ammo, accuracy and range, giving people more time to run away.

Besides, people getting anything more than a gun aren't looking for self-protection, they are either gun fetishists or interested in shooting offensively. If you took weapons away from criminals and home-owners, the second group would be safer, because when push comes to shove, a law abiding citizen can't defend himself against armed shooters, no matter how well armed he is. He doesn't have the mind and the reflexes of the killer like they do.

Giving guns to a broad populace is not smart, and never has been. Look at the number of shootings ANYWHERE else where there are no guns allowed (talking about developed countries), and see the difference.

I know it's hard to give up on a right you had, but you have to face it, that right is outdated and harmful, much like allowing cigarettes, but it's hard to get rid of it.

Crime is correlated with low education, poverty, and such. Gun control won't make people do MORE crime, if anything, it'll make them do less.
Image

I love you guys :]

Post Reply