Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: What does Obama's second term mean for gun owners?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 326-334 of 334 posts in this discussion
Posted on Nov 8, 2012 5:27:09 PM PST
C.W. says:
I don't know if its been mentioned, but Obama got an "F" on a Gun Control report card that some group puts together. That means he hasn't touched, talked about, or messed with gun laws at all. Gun owners literally have nothing to worry about.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 5:35:59 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 5:37:12 PM PST
DVvM says:
Obama doesn't exactly have a lot of political capital anyway (he's got a filibuster-vulnerable senate along with an opposition majority in the house and the margin by which he was reelected does not grant a significant mandate) but he is a pretty savvy operator, so it would be really unlikely for him to squander what political capital he has on an issue like this.

Much better to spend it on something that the opposition party actively hates with a passion that is outstripped by what meager support he will get from his own party in the legislature.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 7:33:41 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 8, 2012 7:40:31 PM PST
This is why people should read the thread before spouting off uninformed nonsense.

If you are using the terms bazooka, grenade launcher or minigun in reference to a discussion about assault weapons, then you are not qualified to be in the discussion.

More than once in this thread myself and others have given a clear definition of what constitutes an "assault weapon" per the original ban. Also, note that the term "assault weapon" was invented by gun control advocates to stir up emotions in the uninformed general public. People hear it and think exactly what you thought without understanding what they are actually banning.

An assault weapon, by definition, is merely a semi-automatic rifle that possesses a folding/telescopic stock, detachable magazine, pistol grip, bayonet, flash arrestor or threaded barrel, and in the rarest of cases, a grenade launcher (which is nothing more than a tube, and you must own a Class III license to even own the "grenades").

That is it, nothing more. Your .22 could be semi-auto and have a pistol grip and it is "by definition" an assault weapon.

This is much different than an "assault rifle", which people tend to confuse this with, as the singular requirement for an assault "RIFLE" is that it must be select-fire, offering an automatic or "burst" fire setting. Nothing more.

Also, since you clearly don't understand anything about the gun law in question (and if you're going to jump up on a soap box, it is generally encouraged to at least have a basic understanding of the topic) the original Assault Weapons ban doesn't even ban the SALE of assault weapons, it merely bans the manufacture for the purpose of sale to civilians. It also in no way applies to fully-automatic rifles, which can and are sold in accordance with restrictions put into place with the National Firearms Act.

As they say in New York, if people don't have guns, you'll just have more stabbings in the street.

Here's the deal at the end of the day, it was always legal to own these so-called "assault weapons" prior to the ban in the early 90s, some politician simply didn't like the fact that civilians could modify their perfectly legal firearms in a way that ultimately made them appear similar in nature to actual "assault rifles". In some cases they are actually near-identical to their military counterpoints (hence the whole Mil-spec AR-15 fanboy crowd) with the exception of selective-fire (which, if you forgot already, is the only requirement for a firearm to fall under the definition of an assault rifle). With that being said, they are inherently no more dangerous than a standard hunting rifle, shotgun or handgun.

Per your original statement: So, what's the argument for the right to own assault weapons? Does the right to bear arms include the rig"ht to own a bazooka? A grenade launcher? Or a mini-gun? "

Replace the assault weapons with "assault rifles" or "Class III firearms" (which is what you meant without knowing it) and you've already answered your own question. The right to bear arms does not include such weapons since the passing of the National Firearms Act. Only FFL holders of a certain level, Law Enforcement Officers and Military personnel can own such things.

I don't intend to be mean in any way, it just bothers me when people form an entire opinion based on a severe misunderstanding of the subject matter.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 10:10:44 AM PST
Fidel Amaya says:
Well a Bazooka is dangerous!

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 10:12:40 AM PST
And a Sherman Tank!!!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 10:21:31 AM PST
Fidel Amaya says:
You know i totally forgot about something my 8th grade teacher told me once. "Laws are only effective when people follow them. Criminals are Criminals for a reason, they do not abide by LAWS. So passing laws really doesnt help to fix the problem. They are still criminals and will commit crimes!"

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 11:13:10 AM PST
That's cuz gangsters....have their own set of societal rules that they live and die by!!!

Posted on Nov 9, 2012 3:46:38 PM PST
Gameresq says:
"Government is not the solution to our problems, government IS the problem."

- The Gipper

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2012 4:51:01 PM PST
FOGE says:
"A Government big enough to give you everything you need, is big enough to take away everything you have."

- Thomas Jefferson
‹ Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  40
Total posts:  334
Initial post:  Nov 8, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 9, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions