Obama may push for ban on assault wea...

Obama may push for ban on assault weapons

There are 667 comments on the The Indian Express story from Oct 17, 2012, titled Obama may push for ban on assault weapons. In it, The Indian Express reports that:

Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney engaged in a rare tussle over gun control on Tuesday, and Obama opened the door to pushing for a ban on assault weapons if he wins a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indian Express.

Dr Freud

France

#455 Nov 19, 2012
Village Mystery wrote:
Of course he will and probably much more. I already knew what would happen if he got reelected.
Suddenly "climate change" will become the most dire situation to human beings even though there was little discussion in the past 3 years. After carbon taxes and the rest of the take over of the US economy via "global warming" legislation/regulation then the next "emergency" will be firearms.
His followers will allow him to do anything as long as Republicans are against it. They have truly reached their most primal depths and no longer consider themselves Citizens with responsibility and they do not give a damn about the Constitution except being hostile to its' limits.
The Republicans and others claiming to oppose tyranny are responsible for this. It's simple - the leftists, statists, and big govt. types needed to be stopped, and still do. No one has stopped them and there is no evidence that anything is in place to stop them in the future.
People thought that Liberty could run on auto-pilot - now they see otherwise. Now they see that mortgages and the rat-race amount to shit. The leftists have the schools, media, entertainment industry, and now the government.
The People have failed to protect their freedoms via their laziness and dependence on the profound efforts of those who came before us. Quoting Jefferson means little in the face of an irrational juggernaut devouring everything in its' path.
Nice rant!
And I don't say that unkindly, because I do agree with your assessment.
Most Americans, along with most of the rest of humanity, have it in mind that that their elected officials will always do the 'right thing.'
But if this world's duly elected parliaments, congresses, assemblages, etc., are to be any kind of indication of what that means, then the real takeaway message is just this: NO ONE can be trusted to make any kind of decision making, when it comes to other's lives, for surely they will end up making the WRONG decision for all the right reasons, and the 'right' decision for all the WRONG reasons.
So, there really is only one option: Lay all proposed law at the feet of the people themselves, and let them decide.
By that I do NOT mean that there should be pure democracy, as such a thing is to be avoided like the plague!
No individual human right would ever be put up for a vote. Rather, laws, rules, and regulations would be up for a vote, and ONLY those voting for whatever law/rule/regulation would be the ones paying for its administration. Everyone else would be exempt. If you want it, then you pay it!
Oh, and it would require not less that 80% of ALL registered voters to pass.
Finally, ALL law, excepting constitutional law, would sunset after three years.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#457 Nov 20, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
we only need 3, nationwide.
One to give you the limits on carrying, like to an elementary school.
One for the background check.
One for registration.
Why no carry to an elementary school? If a parent is picking their child up at school should they lose their second amendment rights temporarily?

I donít mind the background check so much. But, here in Florida itís insanity. Despite the fact theyíve run a background check on me to obtain my concealed carry I still must endure an additional background check with each purchase. When I lived in Georgia you werenít checked again for every purchase.

Registration isnít needed. With existing measures law enforcement can still trace a firearm. They go to the manufacturer, then the distributor, then the commercial seller. Each is required to maintain records of transactions. Why should the government have the ability to know where every weapon is at all times? Registration doesnít work and often leads to infringement of rights. Democrats probably would see a tax opportunity with registration. Annual tax on each firearm owned. Itís none of the governments business how many firearms anyone has.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#458 Nov 20, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
It's already illegal to carry at an elementary school. Unless you are a criminal.
There are already background checks required to purchase from a gun retailer. How do you suggest it be regulated for private sales? Retailers have an account number with BATF. What will individual citizens have? Retailers have to triple check applications for gun purchase, for any mistakes no matter how slight. For example, no abbreviations, no scratched out mistakes, no letters outside of allotted space, and no simple spelling errors. Then they call in the background check. How will the BATF hold individual citizens to those requirements? Threaten to shut down their gun business? Oh wait, they don't own or run one.
How is registration going to prevent crime? Vehicles are registered. We still have stolen vehicles, vehicular homicides, traffic violations, motor vehicle accidents, vehicular suicides, and a much easier , less expensive, and less restricted license requirement than a CCL.
I havenít read the laws related to schools here in Florida as Iím no longer concerned about driving through a school zone daily. In Atlanta I lived about a mile down a dead end street with a school on the corner of the main road and my street. There are laws pertaining to being armed in school zones.

If you have a valid CCW and valid reason to be on school property you may bring a firearm on school property. The law is somewhat unclear about bringing it concealed inside the building so itís not a good idea to do that. See http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php as youíre reading their explanation they offer appropriate links to actual state law.

I wish the government was required to provide similar information in the format Georgia Packing provides it. Clear concise English rather than insane legalize.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#460 Nov 20, 2012
Village Mystery wrote:
Of course he will and probably much more. I already knew what would happen if he got reelected.
Suddenly "climate change" will become the most dire situation to human beings even though there was little discussion in the past 3 years. After carbon taxes and the rest of the take over of the US economy via "global warming" legislation/regulation then the next "emergency" will be firearms.
His followers will allow him to do anything as long as Republicans are against it. They have truly reached their most primal depths and no longer consider themselves Citizens with responsibility and they do not give a damn about the Constitution except being hostile to its' limits.
The Republicans and others claiming to oppose tyranny are responsible for this. It's simple - the leftists, statists, and big govt. types needed to be stopped, and still do. No one has stopped them and there is no evidence that anything is in place to stop them in the future.
People thought that Liberty could run on auto-pilot - now they see otherwise. Now they see that mortgages and the rat-race amount to shit. The leftists have the schools, media, entertainment industry, and now the government.
The People have failed to protect their freedoms via their laziness and dependence on the profound efforts of those who came before us. Quoting Jefferson means little in the face of an irrational juggernaut devouring everything in its' path.
More like the Village Idiot.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#461 Nov 20, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
It's already illegal to carry at an elementary school. Unless you are a criminal.
There are already background checks required to purchase from a gun retailer. How do you suggest it be regulated for private sales? Retailers have an account number with BATF. What will individual citizens have? Retailers have to triple check applications for gun purchase, for any mistakes no matter how slight. For example, no abbreviations, no scratched out mistakes, no letters outside of allotted space, and no simple spelling errors. Then they call in the background check. How will the BATF hold individual citizens to those requirements? Threaten to shut down their gun business? Oh wait, they don't own or run one.
How is registration going to prevent crime? Vehicles are registered.

We still have stolen vehicles, vehicular homicides, traffic violations, motor vehicle accidents, vehicular suicides, and a much easier , less expensive, and less restricted license requirement than a CCL.
1. We have laws in 50 separate states against carrying in an elementary school (if they all have that law.) All that does is make different rules in different states making it confusing and difficult on people traveling. Is it within 100 feet, 500 feet or just on school property? The other thing this does is allow gun nuts to pump up the law count by counting each state law separately instead of just throwing them together under one heading.

2. Mandatory registration would ensure background checks are performed on person-to-person sells. Unless of course you want to get caught with an unregistered gun.

3. No one has ever said there was a 100% solution. Stop making false arguments. Vehicle registration however does hold down on vehicle theft and because vehicles are registered, a chop shop can be closed down and the workers arrested because the parts can be traced to stolen cars.

4. Tell you what though, if you agree that all the old people in Florida who have lost their licenses due to an inability to drive safely can come drive in your city, we could consider some of your argument seriously. Until that time you are just making false arguments and throwing spaghetti.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#462 Nov 20, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Got yo 'bama pho' yet?
Got yo 'bama beer' yet?

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#463 Nov 20, 2012
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Why no carry to an elementary school? If a parent is picking their child up at school should they lose their second amendment rights temporarily?
I donít mind the background check so much. But, here in Florida itís insanity. Despite the fact theyíve run a background check on me to obtain my concealed carry I still must endure an additional background check with each purchase. When I lived in Georgia you werenít checked again for every purchase.
Registration isnít needed. With existing measures law enforcement can still trace a firearm. They go to the manufacturer, then the distributor, then the commercial seller. Each is required to maintain records of transactions. Why should the government have the ability to know where every weapon is at all times? Registration doesnít work and often leads to infringement of rights. Democrats probably would see a tax opportunity with registration. Annual tax on each firearm owned. Itís none of the governments business how many firearms anyone has.
Since the 2nd Ammendment specifies that it shall not be infringed, and 10 year olds have rights as well, why shouldn't a 10 year old be allowed to open carry at school?

So who says you have not done something wrong since your last background check in Georgia?

Person-to-person sells. Theft.

“Hello Trump”

Since: Jan 07

Goodby Hillary

#464 Nov 20, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the 2nd Ammendment specifies that it shall not be infringed, and 10 year olds have rights as well, why shouldn't a 10 year old be allowed to open carry at school?
So who says you have not done something wrong since your last background check in Georgia?
Person-to-person sells. Theft.
Person to person sales. Theft? How? From whom?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#465 Nov 20, 2012
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>I haven’t read the laws related to schools here in Florida as I’m no longer concerned about driving through a school zone daily. In Atlanta I lived about a mile down a dead end street with a school on the corner of the main road and my street. There are laws pertaining to being armed in school zones.

If you have a valid CCW and valid reason to be on school property you may bring a firearm on school property. The law is somewhat unclear about bringing it concealed inside the building so it’s not a good idea to do that. See http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php as you’re reading their explanation they offer appropriate links to actual state law.

I wish the government was required to provide similar information in the format Georgia Packing provides it. Clear concise English rather than insane legalize.
Thanks for the link.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#466 Nov 20, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>1. We have laws in 50 separate states against carrying in an elementary school (if they all have that law.) All that does is make different rules in different states making it confusing and difficult on people traveling. Is it within 100 feet, 500 feet or just on school property? The other thing this does is allow gun nuts to pump up the law count by counting each state law separately instead of just throwing them together under one heading.

2. Mandatory registration would ensure background checks are performed on person-to-person sells. Unless of course you want to get caught with an unregistered gun.

3. No one has ever said there was a 100% solution. Stop making false arguments. Vehicle registration however does hold down on vehicle theft and because vehicles are registered, a chop shop can be closed down and the workers arrested because the parts can be traced to stolen cars.

4. Tell you what though, if you agree that all the old people in Florida who have lost their licenses due to an inability to drive safely can come drive in your city, we could consider some of your argument seriously. Until that time you are just making false arguments and throwing spaghetti.
So show some facts to back your claims. We are supposed to just trust your word that mandatory registration will insure background checks will be performed on person to person gun sales? I provided examples of why that will be difficult at best, and not feasible in reality. You simply rebut by saying it will work fine, with no reasoning or examples to back up the statement.
Show some facts, examples, or reasoning to back your statement that I'm using false arguments. Again, you simply use the (if you say it, it should be taken as fact) method of debate. That doesn't fly.
I can say the moon is maid of marshmallow and cheese. That doesn't make it true.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#467 Nov 20, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the 2nd Ammendment specifies that it shall not be infringed, and 10 year olds have rights as well, why shouldn't a 10 year old be allowed to open carry at school?
So who says you have not done something wrong since your last background check in Georgia?
Person-to-person sells. Theft.
Do ten years old legally drive cars or drink beer ?

I am starting to think you are the 10 years old.
Dr Freud

France

#468 Nov 20, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the 2nd Ammendment specifies that it shall not be infringed, and 10 year olds have rights as well, why shouldn't a 10 year old be allowed to open carry at school?
So who says you have not done something wrong since your last background check in Georgia?
Person-to-person sells. Theft.
As has been aptly explained to not a few times past, minor children are under the care of their parents/guardians, and cannot exercise the full ranges of rights without parental discretion.
Such a situation has existed in most communities of people from antiquity.
That you keep tossing out shit while pretending some some degree of validity seems to be your signature: Vapid, mindless, bullshit.
Dr Freud

France

#469 Nov 20, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the 2nd Ammendment specifies that it shall not be infringed, and 10 year olds have rights as well, why shouldn't a 10 year old be allowed to open carry at school?
So who says you have not done something wrong since your last background check in Georgia?
Person-to-person sells. Theft.
As has been aptly explained to not a few times past, minor children are under the care of their parents/guardians, and cannot exercise the full ranges of rights without parental discretion.
Such a situation has existed in most communities of people from antiquity.
That you keep tossing out shit while pretending some some degree of validity seems to be your signature: Vapid, mindless, bullshit.
Dr Freud

France

#470 Nov 20, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Do ten years old legally drive cars or drink beer ?
I am starting to think you are the 10 years old.
Well, you know the old saying: When one can't dazzle with brilliance, then one baffles with bullshit.

“Hello Trump”

Since: Jan 07

Goodby Hillary

#471 Nov 20, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
As has been aptly explained to not a few times past, minor children are under the care of their parents/guardians, and cannot exercise the full ranges of rights without parental discretion.
Such a situation has existed in most communities of people from antiquity.
That you keep tossing out shit while pretending some some degree of validity seems to be your signature: Vapid, mindless, bullshit.
Pettyfoging is what liberas do best when confronted with facts or a situation where their ideology has no answer.
Dr Freud

France

#472 Nov 20, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Got yo 'bama beer' yet?
Got yo 'bama pho' yet?
Village Mystery

Huntsville, AL

#473 Nov 20, 2012
Dr Freud wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice rant!
And I don't say that unkindly, because I do agree with your assessment.
Most Americans, along with most of the rest of humanity, have it in mind that that their elected officials will always do the 'right thing.'
But if this world's duly elected parliaments, congresses, assemblages, etc., are to be any kind of indication of what that means, then the real takeaway message is just this: NO ONE can be trusted to make any kind of decision making, when it comes to other's lives, for surely they will end up making the WRONG decision for all the right reasons, and the 'right' decision for all the WRONG reasons.
So, there really is only one option: Lay all proposed law at the feet of the people themselves, and let them decide.
By that I do NOT mean that there should be pure democracy, as such a thing is to be avoided like the plague!
No individual human right would ever be put up for a vote. Rather, laws, rules, and regulations would be up for a vote, and ONLY those voting for whatever law/rule/regulation would be the ones paying for its administration. Everyone else would be exempt. If you want it, then you pay it!
Oh, and it would require not less that 80% of ALL registered voters to pass.
Finally, ALL law, excepting constitutional law, would sunset after three years.
The United States Constitution exists. The Bill of Rights exists. What doesn't exist is a society of Individuals who want to live in a state of Liberty. It doesn't matter what system is put in place if the masses are so susceptible to primitivism. Clearly if leftists are allowed to speak and organize freely it just becomes a matter of time before a society no longer cares about limited government power. Today, people just pretend the USC or the BOR don't exist and the system you describe could be denied away just as easily. It's like Obama doing something unConstitutional - for example, bombing Libya or picking and choosing who follows the law and who doesn't have to - well, it's not like the abstraction of law or regulation can stop him.

The leftists didn't have to fight a revolution they just had to become the teachers, the press, the entertainers, and finally, the government. The incredible wealth produced by this country but also the ease of getting into a debt-ridden life to live beyond one's means contributed greatly as well.

The only potential solution is an education system where people are taught to live as self-sufficient Individuals. The "freedom" to teach people otherwise could not be allowed. It would have to be mandated that people are taught philosophy (the real stuff - not "marxism" or other nihilistic outbursts), science, engineering, and in general how to provide for themselves and also how to run businesses.
Village Mystery

Huntsville, AL

#474 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
More like the Village Idiot.
What are you 5 years old? What's next, "That's what she said" or "I know you but what am I" or how about just calling me fat or gay?

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#475 Nov 21, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>
Person to person sales. Theft? How? From whom?
You really have to ask how a theft of guns takes place?

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#476 Nov 21, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
So show some facts to back your claims. We are supposed to just trust your word that mandatory registration will insure background checks will be performed on person to person gun sales? I provided examples of why that will be difficult at best, and not feasible in reality. You simply rebut by saying it will work fine, with no reasoning or examples to back up the statement.
Show some facts, examples, or reasoning to back your statement that I'm using false arguments. Again, you simply use the (if you say it, it should be taken as fact) method of debate. That doesn't fly.
I can say the moon is maid of marshmallow and cheese. That doesn't make it true.
Person-to-person sales could take place at DMV's, gun shops, and police stations where the registration is changed and the background check is accomplished. The seller could go with the buyer to maintain ownership and possession of the gun until the background check is completed. It would be possible for the buyer to go early to get the background check so the seller would not have to stick around.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

History in the News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gillibrand: Bill Clinton should've resigned ove... Dec 12 Trumps in the gutter 249
News Honeywell shuts Teterboro aviation plant (Mar '07) Dec 12 Bob B 46
News The Latest: Natural resources chairman lauds Tr... Dec 12 Impeach the Creep 8
News Lawyers: Trump too busy to face woman's defamat... Dec 11 okimar 21
News Bill Clinton rape accuser: Hillary 'tried to si... (Jan '16) Nov 30 illegal alien Edu... 25
News Inside the Beltway: Monica mocks 'The Monica Le... Nov 30 Ex Senator Santpo... 3
News Donald Trump signals welfare reform is next, wi... Nov 24 RIP 1
More from around the web