OBAMAHAHs latest AW Ban list!

[Guest slim]

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out/

Fortunately, none of mine are on here!:P:P

[Guest .45Jon]

Mine either!!..what a list huh.

[9teeneleven]

I see the list; I see a list of links at the bottom of the page; However, I see no source for this "list," but nor would I have much of a problem with seeing any of the guns on that list unavailable (Edit: I would miss the SVD). In this day and age, you are not going to outgun the U.S. government no matter what the gun laws are, so the revolution argument is out the window. Would you be able to more than adequately defend yourself without the guns on that list? I think so.

Edited March 15, 2009 by 9teeneleven

[Guest nraforlife]

I see the list; I see a list of links at the bottom of the page; However, I see no source for this "list," but nor would I have much of a problem with seeing any of the guns on that list unavailable (Edit: I would miss the SVD). In this day and age, you are not going to outgun the U.S. government no matter what the gun laws are, so the revolution argument is out the window. Would you be able to more than adequately defend yourself without the guns on that list? I think so.

Outgunned, I give you that. Revolution movement out the window though is a stretch. Maybe an armed revolution would be very tough and probably impossible as a heads on confrontation but you kill a snake by cutting off its head.

As far as adequately defend yourself without guns on the list, you can defend yourself with a shovel if needed, adequately defend myself and family is what I DETERMINE NOT YOU OR ANYONE ELSE.

[Guest Rem_700]

I see the list; I see a list of links at the bottom of the page; However, I see no source for this "list," but nor would I have much of a problem with seeing any of the guns on that list unavailable (Edit: I would miss the SVD). In this day and age, you are not going to outgun the U.S. government no matter what the gun laws are, so the revolution argument is out the window. Would you be able to more than adequately defend yourself without the guns on that list? I think so.

You sir are a disgrace and should be baned!That is awful that you say that.Sure take those guns but please leave mine alone.That will satisfy them for a few months or years,then they will come for the rest of the guns.That is just down right pittiful that a fellow american/gun owner would say something like that..Makes me sick..

[9teeneleven]

You sir are a disgrace and should be baned!That is awful that you say that.Sure take those guns but please leave mine alone.That will satisfy them for a few months or years,then they will come for the rest of the guns.That is just down right pittiful that a fellow american/gun owner would say something like that..Makes me sick..

Banned (two n's) for an opinion (I do, however, love your avatar)? I was kind of hoping that TGO is an inclusive and welcoming place when I signed up. I am honestly not trying to troll, or stir the pot, but as a gun owner (who owns some of the things on that list), I happen to agree with some forms of gun control and was simply stating such. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. I, for one, don't have a problem if, as a society, we draw that line at assault weapons. The one great thing about our constitution is that nothing is ever set in stone either. It has always been necessary in a democratic state to balance individual rights with collective rights. To use a hyperbolic example, certainly you would concede that the second amendment should not provide any U.S. citizen with the right to own nuclear weapons?

"That will satisfy them for a few months or years,then they will come for the rest of the guns."

This is a classic case of the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is zero evidence to suggest that the proposed assault rifle ban will lead to the banning of any other weapons, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[9teeneleven]

Outgunned, I give you that. Revolution movement out the window though is a stretch. Maybe an armed revolution would be very tough and probably impossible as a heads on confrontation but you kill a snake by cutting off its head.

A fair point. However, it is notable to point out that this line of reasoning recognizes the legitimacy of terrorism as a political tool, and recognizes that terrorists come armed not only with weapons, but a list of political grievances.

[Guest gunnutt]

but if we have gun control it ONLY stops the honest people NOT THE CRIMINALS,gn

[Jasongar8]

Why do you even own the guns on the list if you think they should be banned? You sir dont make any sense to me. You dont think that if they ban "assault weapons" they will eventually try to come after your hunting shotgun? I dont see why we need to draw "a line in the sand" anywhere. If us as gunowners cant stand united to protect our rights to keep ALL firearms then we have no hope to defend our freedoms against the anti's. Im not much on cowboy action shooting but i WILL defend their right to own the guns that are used in the sport. If you dont like "assault weapons" or even see a use for them, as a gunowner you should defend others right to own them.

-Jason G

[Mike.357]

mrnick says

A line needs to be drawn somewhere

That line has been drawn. It has been in place for a fairly long time. It is called the second amendment.

mrmick also said

the right to own nuclear weapons?

I think it unfair to try to characterize the right to keep and bear arms by using this as an example. Nuclear weapons are certainly considered destructive devices and governed by other laws. A firearm can be aimed and used with little or no collateral damage. A nuclear weapon cannot.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Mike.357

[willis68]

A fair point. However, it is notable to point out that this line of reasoning recognizes the legitimacy of terrorism as a political tool, and recognizes that terrorists come armed not only with weapons, but a list of political grievances.

You are an idiot,you have no business on these forums and I hope the moderators agree Please send me your guns that you feel should be banned

[9teeneleven]

Why do you even own the guns on the list if you think they should be banned?

-Jason G

I never said that I think we should ban assault weapons; I said I don't have a problem if, as a society, we decide to. Most of the guns on that list are a blast to shoot; hence, my SVD comment.

You sir dont make any sense to me. You dont think that if they ban "assault weapons" they will eventually try to come after your hunting shotgun?

-Jason G

There is simply no evidence to support that statement. If, after banning assault weapons, the U.S. government tried to ban hunting shotguns, a) that would be a separate argument with reasoning and appeal separate from the issue of an assault rifle ban, and I would not support such legislation, or any legislator proposing it. It is lazy logic to simply suggest that one piece of legislation will invariably lead to another as a defense against the initial legislation.

I dont see why we need to draw "a line in the sand" anywhere. If us as gunowners cant stand united to protect our rights to keep ALL firearms then we have no hope to defend our freedoms against the anti's.

-Jason G

I don't understand this all or nothing approach. Should any citizen be allowed to own a weapon that deploys sarin gas? If you think the answer is no, then you support some forms of restrictions on the second amendment.

If you dont like "assault weapons" or even see a use for them, as a gunowner you should defend others right to own them.

Why? I see a clear use for assault weapons. Actually a variety of uses, many of which do not involve mowing down crowds of people. However, I also recognize that the negatives of some uses, in my opinion, outweigh the positives of others.

[9teeneleven]

You are an idiot,you have no business on these forums and I hope the moderators agree Please send me your guns that you feel should be banned

If I should be banned for simply presenting an argument you do not agree with, then I welcome it. I prefer forums where people are banned for calling people idiots without warrant.

[willis68]

If I should be banned for simply presenting an argument you do not agree with, then I welcome it. I prefer forums where people are banned for calling people idiots without warrant.

You have warranted it anyone reading this thread can see that you are an Idiot

Edited March 15, 2009 by willis68

[strickj]

Banned (two n's) for an opinion (I do, however, love your avatar)? I was kind of hoping that TGO is an inclusive and welcoming place when I signed up. I am honestly not trying to troll, or stir the pot, but as a gun owner (who owns some of the things on that list), I happen to agree with some forms of gun control and was simply stating such. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. I, for one, don't have a problem if, as a society, we draw that line at assault weapons. The one great thing about our constitution is that nothing is ever set in stone either. It has always been necessary in a democratic state to balance individual rights with collective rights. To use a hyperbolic example, certainly you would concede that the second amendment should not provide any U.S. citizen with the right to own nuclear weapons?

"That will satisfy them for a few months or years,then they will come for the rest of the guns."

This is a classic case of the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is zero evidence to suggest that the proposed assault rifle ban will lead to the banning of any other weapons, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary.

First,why is an AW dangerous?

Second,what evidence is there showing leniency in firearms during a ban?

During the Clinton ban,wasn't other non-AW items banned also?

Show your proof!

[Guest billwilly73]

[9teeneleven]

mrnick says

That line has been drawn. It has been in place for a fairly long time. It is called the second amendment.

mrmick also said

I think it unfair to try to characterize the right to keep and bear arms by using this as an example. Nuclear weapons are certainly considered destructive devices and governed by other laws. A firearm can be aimed and used with little or no collateral damage. A nuclear weapon cannot.

I agree that we can distinguish between categories of weapons. However, by doing so, you are undermining your first statement. There is no mention of aiming or collateral damage in the second amendment.

[Punisher84]

Mrnick,

I'll try to explain it like this. Gun owners that think like yourself are the reason our rights are eroding. You see that it doesn't really effect you, so you don't bother. The 2nd Amendment was put into place for one reason only and that is so the government could not take our freedoms away.

We, as a country, have let our rights be slowly taken away from us for years and years. It is due to ignorance and arrogance. If you feel you would not be hurt by an AWB you should still contact your legislator and voice your opposition, because whether you want to believe the argument or not, the slippery slope applies here.

They banned full-autos, then they banned AWs (it didn't help or stop anything), now they want to do it again. Tell me why they should? Tell me why you think every other law abiding gun owner should be stripped of their right to own a gun just because it looks a certain way?

I'll leave you with this. Here in Shelby County we had access to an outdoor range for a very long time, then it was shut down. Hunters didn't voice their opposition or show up to meetings, so now they have nowhere to sight in their hunting rifles.

"In America, they came first for the Cigarettes, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a smoker of Cigarettes;

And then they came for the Alcohol, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a drinker of Alcohol;

And then they came for the Guns, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an owner of Guns;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

[Guest Linoge]

To use a hyperbolic example, certainly you would concede that the second amendment should not provide any U.S. citizen with the right to own nuclear weapons?

This is a classic case of the slippery slope logical fallacy. There is zero evidence to suggest that the proposed assault rifle ban will lead to the banning of any other weapons, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary.

The irony of those two sections of your post is positively painful... Suffice to say, you just lost any credibility you might have ever had (which was already significantly damaged by your support of a piece of pointless legislation that infriges on law-abiding citizens' rights and does not, in any way, deter crime or improve safety).

[9teeneleven]

First,why is an AW dangerous?

Second,what evidence is there showing leniency in firearms during a ban?

During the Clinton ban,wasn't other non-AW items banned also?

Show your proof!

I'm happy to engage these questions, but need you to clarify them a little first. Can you please clarify "what evidence is there showing leniency in firearms during a ban?". I don't understand specifically what you are asking.

Also, which non-AW Clinton ban items are you referring to?

However, I think I can address this one right away without an answer. Defining anything is not universal. As such, any definition of "assault weapon" is imperfect (just as there will never be agreement between individuals as to what the scope of the second amendment should be). What I trust in is that the American system of government recognizes that all laws by necessity contain definitions that are imperfect, and as a result are in this way (and in others) also necessarily imperfect. As a product of the constitution (which itself is changeable), no American law, no matter what the wording is unchangeable.

I have nowhere in this thread tied myself to this specific list, or said that I think a ban on assault weapons as currently defined is a good idea. What I have said is that if implemented, I would accept it, mostly because I think that a line should be drawn somewhere, and would accept if it were drawn where it is currently proposed. What we as a society (not just as individuals) need to decide is where that line should be drawn (that is how a democracy works, so on a side note, it is problematic to simply say government, or Obama is proposing to ban assault weapons when these are democratically elected officials, serving in large part as extensions of the American populace. If you question the ability of average American citizens to make decisions then, not only are you undermining your own argument regarding the right to bear arms and the individual choice it entails, but also the democratic institution that is the United States).

The problem I have is two fold. First, I do not support a blanket ban on weapons that is decided based on cloudy terminology like "assault rifle." The second problem I have is that I firmly believe that the second amendment is not all inclusive.

Partly, this is a grammatical issue. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is an introductory clause modifying everything the comes after it. It is also notable to look at the nouns in the second amendment. With the exception of the word "arms," all the nouns are inclusive, and only make reference to the individual and the individual right as part of and relative to a larger group:"militia," "State," "People." I see no mention of individual protection, or individual rights there at all.

There are clear differences between arms, sometimes not of category, but of degree and effect. The second amendment makes such distinctions by virtue of the weapon's effect of the society as a whole, i.e. its success or failure in defending the free state (note again, there is no mention of defending the individual).

[Guest bkelm18]

Wow.... Its a shame that there are so called "gun owners" that share your line of thinking.

[9teeneleven]

The irony of those two sections of your post is positively painful... Suffice to say, you just lost any credibility you might have ever had (which was already significantly damaged by your support of a piece of pointless legislation that infriges on law-abiding citizens' rights and does not, in any way, deter crime or improve safety).

Wow.... Its a shame that there are so called "gun owners" that share your line of thinking.

You have warranted it anyone reading this thread can see that you are an Idiot

You sir are a disgrace and should be baned!That is awful that you say that.Sure take those guns but please leave mine alone.That will satisfy them for a few months or years,then they will come for the rest of the guns.That is just down right pittiful that a fellow american/gun owner would say something like that..Makes me sick..

I really don't understand the vitriol here. Well, I do, but that is beside the point. Can we not have a civil discussion. I am not entrenched in any position, and to be honest, there are many other issues that I have given far more intellectual attention to that this. As such, I am far from decided in this issue, though it seems like so many here are resistant to even engage any ideas that are not congruent with their own without including personal attacks. I am not an idiot, and find such comments to be both offensive, and counterproductive to any meaningful conversation. I enjoy bouncing topics back and forth in a civil manner, and will happily play devil's advocate for a position I am not particularly attached to. If at the end of the day I am convinced that position is not best, then I have gained two things, 1) a better position, and 2) a better defense for it because I understand the counter arguments better.

That said, there is simply no irony or contradiction in those two statements. There is a clear difference between a statement of definition and scope (the first), and a statement of cause and effect (which a slippery slope fallacy deals with).

See you at the range.

Edited March 15, 2009 by 9teeneleven

[strickj]

I'm happy to engage these questions, but need you to clarify them a little first. Can you please clarify "what evidence is there showing leniency in firearms during a ban?". I don't understand specifically what you are asking.

You said:

There is zero evidence to suggest that the proposed assault rifle ban will lead to the banning of any other weapons, and in fact, plenty of evidence to the contrary

You suggest there was leniency in firearms/firearm laws during the aw ban.I'm asking you to show proof of what you stated.

Speaking about the "proposed ban"....well there is no evidence to show anything other then what has already happened!

Ill also ask this again,why is an AW dangerous?

ETA; Please answer instead of saying this post is offensive

Edited March 15, 2009 by strickj

[Guest Linoge]

With the exception of the word "arms," all the nouns are inclusive, and only make reference to the individual and the individual right as part of and relative to a larger group:"militia," "State," "People." I see no mention of individual protection, or individual rights there at all.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Whoops, no individual rights there.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No individual rights there either.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Guess there are not any individual rights there, either.

(For clarification, I was being sarcastic.) You really are not doing yourself any favors...

And, yes, there was obvious irony between those two statements - that you would call out someone for using a "slippery slope fallacy" (why, by the by, it is not in this case, given that our glorious new President has shown obvious indications that he is against not only "assault weapons", but also handguns and concealed/open carry), and the indulge in doing so yourself.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Linoge

[9teeneleven]

"And, yes, there was obvious irony between those two statements "

You have failed to explain this irony.