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.

Since: Jul 12

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#497 Nov 21, 2012
Village Mystery wrote:
<quoted text>
They WOULD? Where was the "anti-war" movement when Clinton went rogue? Where were they when Obama bombed Libya? Where is the media regarding Benghazi? They are WAITING for a government investigation to be completed? Lol, you must be joking. Maybe you are under the illusion that the "left side of isle" is still dominated by American Liberals -that your gang is not merely a tool in defeating the "right-wing" by any means and also using the energy from that to expand government power. If you think it is about anything other than those two things than you need to go and watch that sinister cartoon about "Julia" and go look at the CPUSA website and see the glaring reality that the Democratic Party is merely parroting them. A campaign BASED ON hostility towards "the rich" and hatred for the opposition - remember? A move towards central authoritarianism - are you telling me you can't see it?
Your little gesture of what you WOULD do about the abuse of power is laughable.
I was talking about the colleges and not the daycare centers known as the "public school system". These centers have basically become conditioning stations for collective behavior and the goal to mix as many skin colors into one building far exceeds the one to actually teach kids anything. These kids go into the colleges all non-thinking and ignorant and are then trained as political tools.
Who "bragged" about Republican governors? I said Americans are responsible. I'm not a Republican and I am fully aware that if the "red states" did secede that they would likely create an oligarchy and not preserve the USC at all. I happen to realize that American conservatism and liberalism have lost - you should realize it as well. Primitivism has gripped this country - it's what happens when people are not willing to preserve Liberty. That is what I have been saying. That you are instinctively hostile to that says alot about you. Really, go read the CPUSA website and see how familiar it all is. Acknowledge that they don't bother to run their own candidates but instead endorse Democrats. If you acknowledge just how significant that is then maybe you wouldn't be so hostile to my comments. If not, then just continue playing your part for them.
When did Clinton go "rogue?" President Obama explained Libya and America accepted the explanation. Why do you consider eithe rof these wars?

I am hostile to ridiculous over the top comments.

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#498 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
You really have to ask how a theft of guns takes place?
You posted: "Person to person sells. Theft." Implying that such sales were theft from SOMEONE. I asked you who was being stolen from and how and you come back with THIS sh1t?

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#499 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>Take the cylinder out of a revolver. There is no serial number on it so it is not necessary. Take the bolt assembly out of a bolt action rifle.

While someone may ask you about it (highly doubtful if this is normal procedure for gun transactions) it is highly doubtful you get drawn on unless you are carrying/acting in a threatening manner.
So let me get this strait. You want people to put an add out about their gun for sale.(That costs money) You want them to meet the buyer, show the gun and come to an agreement. Then go to the DMV and wait for hours, or even agree to meet there first thing the next morning if its a business day or not a holiday, so they can TRY to get in and out quickly. They have to disassemble the gun to take it inside, reassemble when done. Who does that, buyer or seller? Or, they can go to a police station to do this. I know that will be quick because the police have nothing better to do. Or we can start a whole new division at the police station to do only firearm sales background checks. It will only require raising taxes a little more. Or they can go to a gun shop to do it. I'm sure the gun shop will take the time to run the background check and do the paperwork out of the kindness of their hearts. After all, it would be selfish if them to want to actually sell their own products and make a living. I'm thinking the buyer or seller will be paying that too. Getting kind of expensive.
I guess you assume the buyer and seller are collecting government assistance because obviously they don't have a job if they can take all the time required for your recommended process.
And heaven forbid they think your process equals INFRINGEMENT.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#500 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
BTW, what do those Democrats who don't want to be required to show photo ID to vote do when buying a firearm?

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#501 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Consitution puts an age limit on voting. Can you show me the age limit on the 2nd Ammendment? Obviously if the founding fathers had wanted a limit they could and would have put one. And if children are wards, why the age limit for voting?
Liberals are really cuuuuute when they delve into the realm of stupidity with obsfucating observations. The game of what ifs can lead to some seriously inane discussion between nitwits who oughtta know better.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#502 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>The Consitution puts an age limit on voting. Can you show me the age limit on the 2nd Ammendment? Obviously if the founding fathers had wanted a limit they could and would have put one. And if children are wards, why the age limit for voting?
Can you show me the age limit on purchasing or consuming alcohol in the Constitution?
We the people, were assumed to have sense.
I guess this is why there is a warning label on the fan blade cleaner reading, "do not use while fan is in use".

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#503 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If I knowingly sell a firearm to an ineligible buyer I’m committing a crime. That should be good enough. Now you want people to travel to another location to legally sell their private items. If I buy a gun from Billy Joe Bob it’s none of your business nor is it the business of the government provided the transaction is legal.

Why don’t we just tag everyone with RFID chips so the government can track the movement of all citizens?

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

#504 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
Take the cylinder out of a revolver. There is no serial number on it so it is not necessary. Take the bolt assembly out of a bolt action rifle.
While someone may ask you about it (highly doubtful if this is normal procedure for gun transactions) it is highly doubtful you get drawn on unless you are carrying/acting in a threatening manner.
Some firearms have their serial numbers on many parts of the weapon. This is particularly true with old military models. Some revolvers do indeed have a serial number on the cylinder.

The same is true of some bolt action firearms. Some firearms even have a serial number of the firing pin.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#505 Nov 21, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>
You posted: "Person to person sells. Theft." Implying that such sales were theft from SOMEONE. I asked you who was being stolen from and how and you come back with THIS sh1t?
Sorry for the confusion. Questions were asked and those were the answers. You read the reply without reading what I was replying to?

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#506 Nov 21, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
So let me get this strait. You want people to put an add out about their gun for sale.(That costs money) You want them to meet the buyer, show the gun and come to an agreement. Then go to the DMV and wait for hours, or even agree to meet there first thing the next morning if its a business day or not a holiday, so they can TRY to get in and out quickly. They have to disassemble the gun to take it inside, reassemble when done. Who does that, buyer or seller? Or, they can go to a police station to do this. I know that will be quick because the police have nothing better to do. Or we can start a whole new division at the police station to do only firearm sales background checks. It will only require raising taxes a little more. Or they can go to a gun shop to do it. I'm sure the gun shop will take the time to run the background check and do the paperwork out of the kindness of their hearts. After all, it would be selfish if them to want to actually sell their own products and make a living. I'm thinking the buyer or seller will be paying that too. Getting kind of expensive.
I guess you assume the buyer and seller are collecting government assistance because obviously they don't have a job if they can take all the time required for your recommended process.
And heaven forbid they think your process equals INFRINGEMENT.
Hey, after hearing the whiners in here cry about waiting hours at the gun shop why should this be any easier? It has nothing to do with your right to bear arms, but it does have to do with the way you purchase a firearm. You could be bearing while purchasing. So what is infringed?

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#507 Nov 21, 2012
okimar wrote:
<quoted text>Liberals are really cuuuuute when they delve into the realm of stupidity with obsfucating observations. The game of what ifs can lead to some seriously inane discussion between nitwits who oughtta know better.
The only thing cuter than a liberal doing it is when a Republican tries it. Kind of like watching a big, dumb dog try to figure out a new trick.

If you are going to pretend that the second ammendment does not apply to kids then I am going to ask you to explain why the only thing with an age limit is the right to vote.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#508 Nov 21, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you show me the age limit on purchasing or consuming alcohol in the Constitution?
We the people, were assumed to have sense.
I guess this is why there is a warning label on the fan blade cleaner reading, "do not use while fan is in use".
Don't have to, consuming alcohol is not a right and it is not addressed in the Constitution. However, both voting and bearing arms are in the Constition. One has an age limit and one does not.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#509 Nov 21, 2012
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
If I knowingly sell a firearm to an ineligible buyer I’m committing a crime. That should be good enough. Now you want people to travel to another location to legally sell their private items. If I buy a gun from Billy Joe Bob it’s none of your business nor is it the business of the government provided the transaction is legal.
Why don’t we just tag everyone with RFID chips so the government can track the movement of all citizens?
How do you "know" if you are selling to an ineligable buyer? Did they fail a background check? Would it be easy to prove you knew for criminal prosecution reasons?

It is if Billie Joe Bob is purchasing it for criminal intent.

Have you got a cell phone? They don't need an RFD chip. Further, they don't need a court order at this time to search it.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#510 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>Hey, after hearing the whiners in here cry about waiting hours at the gun shop why should this be any easier? It has nothing to do with your right to bear arms, but it does have to do with the way you purchase a firearm. You could be bearing while purchasing. So what is infringed?
What a cop out.
And, a first time buyer isn't going to be bearing while purchasing.
You never shut up.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#511 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>Don't have to, consuming alcohol is not a right and it is not addressed in the Constitution. However, both voting and bearing arms are in the Constition. One has an age limit and one does not.
If consuming alcohol is not a right then why must one be 21 to consume it? It seems to me, if one is 21 or older, they have the right to purchase and consume alcohol. If one is under 21, they do not.
Village Mystery

Huntsville, AL

#512 Nov 21, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>
When did Clinton go "rogue?" President Obama explained Libya and America accepted the explanation. Why do you consider eithe rof these wars?
I am hostile to ridiculous over the top comments.
Er um, ignorance and denial are not valid forms of argument.

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

The man who said this left the United States - without a word to Congress - and went to another country to council with yet more foreign countries and THEY decided to bomb Libya. There is no US law, no UN treaty, and no NATO treaty that sanctioned it. People's indifference due to their political agenda or the Republicans support or indifference to ANY military aggression is irrelevant to the fact that this was a outrageous abuse of power.

This very situation resulted in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi. Of course you might think that flying over a country and dropping bombs on it and then just flying away is a good scenario to toss a few Americans into and then NOT provide them with security when they repeatedly ask for it.

So let's observe: Violation of the Constitution, violation of Executive Power, violation of US Law, and violation of UN and NATO treaties - that was what the bombing of Libya entailed.

Clinton ignored a NO vote from Congress - he ignored the Constitution - US Law - and then violated the NATO treaty and bombed the living hell out of Bosnia. He bombed Iraq whenever he felt like it while they were under a "program" called FOOD FOR OIL - he bombed Sudan and Afghanistan. He dropped US bombs in THREE CONTINENTS.

Now just because you accept this doesn't mean it wasn't rogue, wrong, or abuse of power.

Did I already mention that your so called "concerns" about abuse of presidential power are a joke? You have established that you are a willful imbecile. Nothing more.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#513 Nov 22, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
What a cop out.
And, a first time buyer isn't going to be bearing while purchasing.
You never shut up.
You never stop coming up with frivolous excuses.

Happy Thanksgiving and may you and yours stay safe.

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#514 Nov 22, 2012
Prep-for-Dep wrote:
<quoted text>
If consuming alcohol is not a right then why must one be 21 to consume it? It seems to me, if one is 21 or older, they have the right to purchase and consume alcohol. If one is under 21, they do not.
Is driving an automobile a "right?" You can't do it till you have gotten to a certain age.

Frivolous.

If something is a "right" why is there any requirement to have obtained a certain age?

Since: Jul 12

Washington, DC

#515 Nov 22, 2012
Village Mystery wrote:
<quoted text>
Er um, ignorance and denial are not valid forms of argument.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
The man who said this left the United States - without a word to Congress - and went to another country to council with yet more foreign countries and THEY decided to bomb Libya. There is no US law, no UN treaty, and no NATO treaty that sanctioned it. People's indifference due to their political agenda or the Republicans support or indifference to ANY military aggression is irrelevant to the fact that this was a outrageous abuse of power.
This very situation resulted in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi. Of course you might think that flying over a country and dropping bombs on it and then just flying away is a good scenario to toss a few Americans into and then NOT provide them with security when they repeatedly ask for it.
So let's observe: Violation of the Constitution, violation of Executive Power, violation of US Law, and violation of UN and NATO treaties - that was what the bombing of Libya entailed.
Clinton ignored a NO vote from Congress - he ignored the Constitution - US Law - and then violated the NATO treaty and bombed the living hell out of Bosnia. He bombed Iraq whenever he felt like it while they were under a "program" called FOOD FOR OIL - he bombed Sudan and Afghanistan. He dropped US bombs in THREE CONTINENTS.
Now just because you accept this doesn't mean it wasn't rogue, wrong, or abuse of power.
Did I already mention that your so called "concerns" about abuse of presidential power are a joke? You have established that you are a willful imbecile. Nothing more.
Actually, there was a UN resolution that authorized it as an action of the UN for humanitarian reasons.

Since you want to insist that this incident was "the" cause for Benghazi, could you illuminate for us why so many in NYC, Pennslyvania and at the Pentagon were killed on 9-11? What was the act that the US committed that was directly responsible for that?

And yet Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ. Could it be that he acted within US law despite the wishes of Congress? It seems to me that getting US military forces killed would be an impeachable offense if it was committed illegally.

Once again, you prove yourself to be the Village Idiot.

“Antisocialistic”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#516 Nov 22, 2012
okb2 wrote:
<quoted text>You never stop coming up with frivolous excuses.

Happy Thanksgiving and may you and yours stay safe.
Lol. That's the pot calling the kettle black.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well.

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 Clinton Wins Democratic Nomination; Gets Boost ... 7 min spud 29
News Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment righ... 40 min payme 1,563
News Voters have trust issues with Hillary Clinton? ... (Jul '15) 46 min JCK 7,047
News Despite her many roles, Hillary Clinton still h... 48 min gwww 275
News Madeleine Albright on Donald Trump: 'He has und... 2 hr Le Jimbo 1
News Bill Clinton tells a love story to make his cas... 2 hr Le Jimbo 4
News In 10th convention speech, Bill Clinton faces t... 10 hr Years Of Viagra A... 1
More from around the web