Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 334 posts in this discussion
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

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 11:13:10 AM PST
That's cuz criminals...like gangsters....have their own set of societal rules that they live and die by!!!

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!"

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

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

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 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.

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.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 4:07:25 PM PST
B. Hoover says:
"The Virginia Tech shooter WAS declared a danger to himself by the courts, VA just failed to report that to NICS. "

Whelp, looks like I was wrong about that.

"The Colorado shooter had seen multiple mental health professionals prior to the shooting, and must not have presented enough sign to be declared a danger."

I wonder if the CO shooter mentioned to his therapists that he obtained a gun license and was ordering barrels of ammunition? I wonder if a discussion of those facts would have changed the outcome.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 4:05:24 PM PST
Fett986 says:
"If there is a serious threat to an individual, I would hope they can receive additional police surveillance/extended protection."

And who, exactly, do you think is going to pay for the additional protection/surveillance? Last I heard, law enforcement in most areas is spread thin as it is. And how long do you think it would last? So they just call up the police and say "Hey, my ex is threatening me, and even though I have a restraining order against him/her, I want a gun to protect myself. Since it will take a couple of weeks/months to go through the psychiatric evaluation, can you come hang out with me for a while?"

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:59:11 PM PST
Fett986 says:
Both Virginia Tech and Colorado were already covered regarding evaluations in prior posts...

The Virginia Tech shooter WAS declared a danger to himself by the courts, VA just failed to report that to NICS. So it should have shown up on the background check and prevented him from purchasing his firearms.

The Colorado shooter had seen multiple mental health professionals prior to the shooting, and must not have presented enough sign to be declared a danger.

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 3:58:14 PM PST
B. Hoover says:
"My concern with such a requirement is that it is costly"

Perhaps those who already have a gun license can be grandfathered out of the new policy?

"time-consuming when time may be of the essence (think of a domestic abuse victim or an outed police informant)"

Not sure what to say about this, other than hoping the legal system and law enforcement can their job (certainly, it doesn't always work). If there is a serious threat to an individual, I would hope they can receive additional police surveillance/extended protection.

"and of no clear benefit. "

I think the clear benefit is to prevent impulsive/knee-jerk purchases.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:52:29 PM PST
B. Hoover says:
"If a person has been institutionalized or adjudicated mentally ill, that should appear in a NICS background check, which all gun dealers are required to conduct"

Although true, it would be interesting to investigate literature about the profile of someone like the Colorado or Virginia Tech shooter. Would someone like that be able to slip past a psychiatric evaluation? Or are there obvious signs? If anything, the psychiatric evaluation should serve as an evaluation of character, motive, and extended discussion of mental health problems. I presume there is a paper trail on medical records? Someone may not be diagnosed as mentally ill, but if there is a mention of mental health history their record, an evaluation provides an opportunity to explore it further.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:42:14 PM PST
Gameresq says:
If a person has been institutionalized or adjudicated mentally ill, that should appear in a NICS background check, which all gun dealers are required to conduct

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:39:38 PM PST
Gameresq says:
I believe that is the wrong measure. I said Brittain has a higher violent crime rate, as reported by its own news organizations:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Posted on Nov 8, 2012 3:38:00 PM PST
B. Hoover says:
I want to rephrase what I mentioned earlier by DVvM's excellent point.

In the case of someone like the Colorado shooter, who had no experience or history with shooting sports or guns, mental health issues should be cause for concern to apply for a gun license, if such restrictions should exist. After all, it should be very concerning if someone with a history of mental health issues suddenly takes an interest in owning or using firearms.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:33:32 PM PST
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

About Britain? No.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:31:41 PM PST
B. Hoover says:
"So if shooting sports could bring someone with Major Depression genuine pleasure, or motivate someone with Social Anxiety to socialize, then I see no reason that they should be prevented from legally and safely using firearms in this manner simply because they bothered to seek professional help for something many might not."

I'm sure those scenarios can be discussed on a case by case basis. If this is a gun owner who suffers from depression or social anxiety, but uses shooting sports as an outlet, I don't see a problem with that. I think in a unique circumstance like that, it should be sufficient to determine whether or not the individual is a threat to others or themselves. I don't think clinical depression, or social anxiety in of itself should determine whether or not a gun owner can continue to participate in a shooting sport. I strongly believe that if psychiatric evaluations were to become law, that those individuals should be allowed to substantiate their claims by example and experience.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:27:50 PM PST
Gameresq says:
Consider: China, Mexico and Brittain. Do you still believe this?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:25:51 PM PST
Gameresq says:
I do not recall any discussion specifically regarding psychiatric evaluation, either in that book or any other that I have read. My concern with such a requirement is that it is costly, time-consuming when time may be of the essence (think of a domestic abuse victim or an outed police informant), and of no clear benefit. It sounds good on its face, but it may have serious unforeseen consequences.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:23:17 PM PST
"countries that have restrictive gun laws with even greater frequency"

I don't think this is the case.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:22:07 PM PST
http://twistedmetal.wikia.com/wiki/Sweet_Tooth

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:21:14 PM PST
"Driving also requires a license to determine your competence. It's already regulated."

And these guns don't?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 8, 2012 3:20:07 PM PST
Some people enjoy competitive shooting.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 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