OBAMAHAHs latest AW Ban list!

[Paletiger13]

very well said^

[Wingshooter]

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.

How about we draw the line here:

• good guys / bad guys
  
• right / wrong
  
• Capitalism / Socialism
  
• moral / immoral
  
• One Nation under God / A cursed nation that has rejected God
  
• arm the good guys / shoot the bad guys, etc., etc...
  

I'm sick of hearing about "gun control"... what about "crime or thug control"?

Consider this:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344

So, why does Obama want to ban certain arms, and who is he to draw this line you speak of?

Edited March 16, 2009 by Batman

[Wingshooter]

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.

Uh... I'm not sure anyone (or any government) has the right to own nuclear weapons. That's a different animal that kills men, women, children, pets, insects, future generations, etc. That's comparing an apple to an orange. Let's keep it in perspective... a blackpowder musket carried by our founding fathers fired a single projectile down a barrel when the trigger was pulled... so does an AR-15! As far as your argument that an Ar-15 can be easily converted to full auto... I guess a pipe can be easily converted to a bomb. Should we ban all pipes?

Edited March 16, 2009 by Batman

[Guest RopeS]

I'm with Batman. And everyone else on here besides mrnick.. haha

[Paletiger13]

god I love Batman, and not in a gay way either

[Ninja9]

If banning a list of guns would shut the gun-grabbers up and make them move on to some other short-sighted naive cause, i would be tempted to just say let em do it. Wrong as that would be, it may be worth it But you would have to be as naive as they are to think that would work.... Next it will be restrictions on ammo, mag capacity, "assault pistols", etc etc. They would not be happy until the last evil "single shot 410 assault shotgun" is banned.

We can't give them another inch

[bteague2]

I don't know how I missed this thread, needless to say I think mrnick just got voted off the TGO island.

[Guest RopeS]

god I love Batman, and not in a gay way either

[Guest FuzzyLee]

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.

The bad guys are certainly getting a large percentage of their arms legally in the U.S. in border states. The drug cartels also appear to be outgunning the Mexican government.

.

I realize that the U.S. government is arguably better armed than their Mexican counterparts, but these two quotes, considered together make my head hurt. Tortured logic does that. I suppose my thinking is not "nuanced" enough to allow mutually exclusive ideas to occupy the same brain.

[memphismason]

My 1000th post, and I believe it is my finest work yet, LOL

[Guest canynracer]

Well done MM....well done!! now go get me a keyboard!

[Metalhead]

All of the good threads are already over by the time I get to them.

Why God??? WHY????

[memphismason]

All of the good threads are already over by the time I get to them.

Why God??? WHY????

I thought the same thing. So the only thing I thought I could add was pictures.

[Guest justme]

How about we draw the line here:

• good guys / bad guys
  
• right / wrong
  
• Capitalism / Socialism
  
• moral / immoral
  
• One Nation under God / A cursed nation that has rejected God
  
• arm the good guys / shoot the bad guys, etc., etc...
  

I'm sick of hearing about "gun control"... what about "crime or thug control"?

Consider this:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344

So, why does Obama want to ban certain arms, and who is he to draw this line you speak of?

Batman, what you have suggested contains too much common sense and logic, and a politician--and in particular a politician in D.C would not recognize common sense or logic if it was to stare them in the face, therefore the government will reject your ideas as completely unworkable in our age--better to just ban the guns, and turn our citizens into victims in their opinion than control the thugs and the criminals of our society...not that the criminals will really care what guns they ban--I mean they ARE criminals after all, why should they care-the laws won't affect them....

Obama, Holder, and their click all have an agenda--and it does NOT include securing our rights or freedoms, but it does include ripping the 2nd amendment apart, and imposing a ban on virtually every firearm that uses a detachable magazine. What I have not quite figured out about Obama is why he sees himself as the modern Abraham Lincoln..

I still have not quite figured out though this one simple little thing--exactly what in the hell is the matter with these people...

Edited March 16, 2009 by justme

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I have searched as well and can't find a solid source for that list. We all know the history of the Brady campaign though so it should come as no surprise that there will be continued and elevated attempts to enact 'sensible gun control laws' over the next 4 - 8 years. My stance on gun control is a matter of principle. I simply don't think it is the government or the Brady campaigns place to tell the citizens what particular firearms are allowed based on their opinionated approval list - whatever that list may be.

Can a .50 BMG truly be used as a 'sporting' rifle? sure, 1000+ yard competition shooting comes to mind. I admit it is not common, but I think that has more to do with the high cost of owning and firing that particular weapon.

[Guest GUTTERbOY]

I'm fairly certain that the list in question is just ripped from HR 1022.

[Ninja9]

I think we have to be careful not to fall into their trap of having to justify firearms as being useful for sporting purposes. Owning guns purely as weapons is every bit as legitimate.

[Cannon Fodder]

Can a .50 BMG truly be used as a 'sporting' rifle? sure, 1000+ yard competition shooting comes to mind.

You could hunt with it too, deer, elk, moose, elephant, rhino........... Works just as well as a .375 H&H.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

[Daniel]

I think we have to be careful not to fall into their trap of having to justify firearms as being useful for sporting purposes. Owning guns purely as weapons is every bit as legitimate.

My opinion also.

[E4 No More]

I think we have to be careful not to fall into their trap of having to justify firearms as being useful for sporting purposes. Owning guns purely as weapons is every bit as legitimate.[/quote]

Heck! I don't own them for any other reason...unless you count the enjoyment of just shoot'n stuff.

[Guest tcampbell]

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 drinking the Obiden-Holder Koolaid ?

[Guest Linoge]

I think we have to be careful not to fall into their trap of having to justify firearms as being useful for sporting purposes. Owning guns purely as weapons is every bit as legitimate.

Justifying your ownership of anything is a flawed argument before it even starts.

We should not have to explain why we own something, especially when that ownership is Constitutionally-protected, not only at the national level, but also at the state.

[Paletiger13]

Our State is our best defense for gun ownership.

[ukerduker]

I think we have to be careful not to fall into their trap of having to justify firearms as being useful for sporting purposes. Owning guns purely as weapons is every bit as legitimate.

I own firearms because I can. What other reason do I need? The 2A stated this is a right and "shall not be infringed". Am I missing something? Why can't I buy a full auto AR without a stamp? Why can't I buy a suppressor without a stamp? I feel these are both infringements on my constitutional right. I dont want to commit mass murder or revolt against the gov't (as of now). I just want to be afforded the same liberties and rights our founding fathers established for us. Is that too much too ask? Apparently it is for our lawmakers today.

[Ninja9]

I own firearms because I can. What other reason do I need? The 2A stated this is a right and "shall not be infringed". Am I missing something? Why can't I buy a full auto AR without a stamp? Why can't I buy a suppressor without a stamp? I feel these are both infringements on my constitutional right. I dont want to commit mass murder or revolt against the gov't (as of now). I just want to be afforded the same liberties and rights our founding fathers established for us. Is that too much too ask? Apparently it is for our lawmakers today.

I'm with ya, man. I would think the founding fathers would want us to be as well armed as any potential force of tyranny.