Obama Will Take Your Guns

[Wikkiwallana]

to the Obama administration, an "automatic weapon" is anything with a clip. revolvers? okay. for now. but they ask the populace for their opinion, which is unfair. for the average joe, an "automatic weapon" is an assault rifle or machine gun. they will use that to cheat their way into getting our defenses away from us.

Sources, please.

[Occupied Deutschland]

to the Obama administration, an "automatic weapon" is anything with a clip. revolvers? okay. for now. but they ask the populace for their opinion, which is unfair. for the average joe, an "automatic weapon" is an assault rifle or machine gun. they will use that to cheat their way into getting our defenses away from us.

Sources, please.

I'm more concerned with the constant misuse of 'clip' by people. Even people who apparently are on my side.
Clips are not magazines people.

[Tagmatium]

to the Obama administration, an "automatic weapon" is anything with a clip. revolvers? okay. for now. but they ask the populace for their opinion, which is unfair. for the average joe, an "automatic weapon" is an assault rifle or machine gun. they will use that to cheat their way into getting our defenses away from us.

Sources, please.

I don't think these people believe in sources, bar what they've just been told by their mates.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

And he's putting out one helluva second-hand smoke if the number of posts in this thread screaming "OBAMA WNTS TU TAYK YR GUNZ!!" is any indication.

the real people being butthurt are all the people getting upset over this shooting when your more likley to die from diabetes than you are being murdered by someone with a gun, sounds like the media and liberals are blowing this WAY out of proportion.

Except you can't actually legislate against and ban diabetes. It's partially genetic and partially down to lifestyle. And while Obama is clearly a gun-hatin' atheist godless Muslamofascist commie pinko liberal Nazi, even he can't legislate against your genome.

Guns, on the other hand, are something that people choose to own and choose, actively, to kill other people with. Guns can be legislated against. Guns should be legislated against.

Diabetes is to a degree preventable, but the onus is upon the individual to get a check-up etc. and/or lead a healthy and responsible lifestyle. People being murdered with rifles is entirely preventable. Clue: ban rifles.

So it's a stupid comparison.

[Spreewerke]

Sources, please.

I'm more concerned with the constant misuse of 'clip' by people. Even people who apparently are on my side.
Clips are not magazines people.

Yeah, seriously: banning anything that takes clips would mean I could no longer shoot this, this, or this. Thank God I'd get to keep my AKs, though!

[Occupied Deutschland]

the real people being butthurt are all the people getting upset over this shooting when your more likley to die from diabetes than you are being murdered by someone with a gun, sounds like the media and liberals are blowing this WAY out of proportion.

Except you can't actually legislate against and ban diabetes (1). It's partially genetic and partially down to lifestyle. And while Obama is clearly a gun-hatin' atheist godless Muslamofascist commie pinko liberal Nazi, even he can't legislate against your genome.

Guns, on the other hand, are something that people choose to own and choose, actively, to kill other people with. Guns can be legislated against. Guns should be legislated against (2).

Diabetes is to a degree preventable, but the onus is upon the individual to get a check-up etc. and/or lead a healthy and responsible lifestyle. People being murdered with rifles is entirely preventable (3). Clue: ban rifles (4).

So it's a stupid comparison (5).

1) Maybe not "ban", but have you looked at New York recently? Very clearly legislating against it.
2) There is a fundamental jump in the logic here. Guns CAN be legislated against. To a large degree they already are.
3) Guess what? Such murders are to a degree preventable. But the onus is upon the government to prove one is irresponsible or disturbed enough not to own a firearm to begin with.
4)
5) Eh, hit or miss.

[Spreewerke]

the real people being butthurt are all the people getting upset over this shooting when your more likley to die from diabetes than you are being murdered by someone with a gun, sounds like the media and liberals are blowing this WAY out of proportion.

Except you can't actually legislate against and ban diabetes. It's partially genetic and partially down to lifestyle. And while Obama is clearly a gun-hatin' atheist godless Muslamofascist commie pinko liberal Nazi, even he can't legislate against your genome.

Guns, on the other hand, are something that people choose to own and choose, actively, to kill other people with. Guns can be legislated against. Guns should be legislated against.

Diabetes is to a degree preventable, but the onus is upon the individual to get a check-up etc. and/or lead a healthy and responsible lifestyle. People being murdered with rifles is entirely preventable. Clue: ban rifles.

So it's a stupid comparison.

You're right, this is a faulty comparison. Going by what was said in this post, diabetes should be banned for everyone by having mandatory check-ups. The only people allowed to have it are those than cannot help it (genetic). Very similar to, "no one should have guns, ever! Well, except the people who I think might keep me safe like cops and army men, but still! No other exceptions because they scare me!"

[Wikkiwallana]

No, I love video games. But what happens is that parents don't teach children about life first.

I'm actually pro-parenting licenses.

If you need one to shoot off a rifle, you need one to shoot off the gun in your pants. Unless you're using protection, of course.

Damn it, I was really starting to like you.

[Gauthier]

Except you can't actually legislate against and ban diabetes. It's partially genetic and partially down to lifestyle. And while Obama is clearly a gun-hatin' atheist godless Muslamofascist commie pinko liberal Nazi, even he can't legislate against your genome.

Guns, on the other hand, are something that people choose to own and choose, actively, to kill other people with. Guns can be legislated against. Guns should be legislated against.

Diabetes is to a degree preventable, but the onus is upon the individual to get a check-up etc. and/or lead a healthy and responsible lifestyle. People being murdered with rifles is entirely preventable. Clue: ban rifles.

So it's a stupid comparison.

You're right, this is a faulty comparison. Going by what was said in this post, diabetes should be banned for everyone by having mandatory check-ups. The only people allowed to have it are those than cannot help it (genetic). Very similar to, "no one should have guns, ever! Well, except the people who I think might keep me safe like cops and army men, but still! No other exceptions because they scare me!"

Of course, legislating against diabetes would require the ugly deal of having to deal with socio-economic issues. After all, diabetes tends to be more common amongst lower-income strata given that the only real sustenance they can usually afford tend to be sugar-bombs that contribute to Type 2 Diabetes.

[Wikkiwallana]

A clicking sound is fine, but my AR15 goes "Sproing" every time I fire it.

You miiiiiiight need to replace that buffer spring.

But seriously, all this business about guns has made me realize something I already knew: the media in this country is, on the whole, a titanic cluster of asshats. A horrifying tragedy occurs, and what happens? Fox attacks children who have fun, and tries to round up people with Asperger's; and everyone else forms a mob at the Library of Congress, trying to get inside with their Sharpies and scratch out the Second Amendment. It's nuts. Can we please respond to this sort of thing in a manner less akin to a poultry decapitation? Is that a thing we can do?

That'd be unAmerican, or something…

[Wikkiwallana]

Soylent Green is people!

It's a cookbook, it was Earth all along, and Rosebud was his sled.

Spoiler alert, dammit!

[Agymnum]

I'm actually pro-parenting licenses.

If you need one to shoot off a rifle, you need one to shoot off the gun in your pants. Unless you're using protection, of course.

Damn it, I was really starting to like you.

Eh, I'm pro-licensing for everything.

You can't say gun-nuts are bad for not wanting regulation, and then be okay with random people having babies who are obviously unfit for parenting.

If you wanna regulate some, why not all? Least, that's my idea.

But on-topic, I'm pro gun regulation, not gun banning. There's a reason we have a 2nd Amendment, so banning is out of the question.

You see, I'm okay with someone having an assault rifle. But that person better be tested EVERY YEAR to make sure he or she is continually fit to utilize his or her right to bear arms. We need stricter regulations to ensure that the morons and idiots are weeded out and thus only the ones who are stable, responsible, and intelligent are allowed to wield firearms.

The gun is not the problem; the problem is the person behind the trigger. We need to regulate that, not the gun itself.

[The New Lowlands]

Damn it, I was really starting to like you.

Eh, I'm pro-licensing for everything.

You can't say gun-nuts are bad for not wanting regulation, and then be okay with random people having babies who are obviously unfit for parenting.

If you wanna regulate some, why not all? Least, that's my idea.

But on-topic, I'm pro gun regulation, not gun banning. There's a reason we have a 2nd Amendment, so banning is out of the question.

You see, I'm okay with someone having an assault rifle. But that person better be tested EVERY YEAR to make sure he or she is continually fit to utilize his or her right to bear arms. We need stricter regulations to ensure that the morons and idiots are weeded out and thus only the ones who are stable, responsible, and intelligent are allowed to wield firearms.

The gun is not the problem; the problem is the person behind the trigger. We need to regulate that, not the gun itself.

And then, of course, because of regulation, everyone will live up to the standard of the New Soviet Man New American Gunman!

Regulating weapons is easier than changing people.

[Agymnum]

Eh, I'm pro-licensing for everything.

You can't say gun-nuts are bad for not wanting regulation, and then be okay with random people having babies who are obviously unfit for parenting.

If you wanna regulate some, why not all? Least, that's my idea.

But on-topic, I'm pro gun regulation, not gun banning. There's a reason we have a 2nd Amendment, so banning is out of the question.

You see, I'm okay with someone having an assault rifle. But that person better be tested EVERY YEAR to make sure he or she is continually fit to utilize his or her right to bear arms. We need stricter regulations to ensure that the morons and idiots are weeded out and thus only the ones who are stable, responsible, and intelligent are allowed to wield firearms.

The gun is not the problem; the problem is the person behind the trigger. We need to regulate that, not the gun itself.

And then, of course, because of regulation, everyone will live up to the standard of the New Soviet Man New American Gunman!

Regulating weapons is easier than changing people.

Just because it's easier, doesn't mean it's right.

You know what else is easier? Bombing the everlasting fuck out of the Middle East rather than trying to negotiate!

US is doing that, and look how it's working out.

And besides, even if you do regulate it so only small guns are available, an idiot with a pistol is far more dangerous than an erudite with a rifle. At least the erudite knows better than to shoot people just because he doesn't like them.

[The New Lowlands]

And then, of course, because of regulation, everyone will live up to the standard of the New Soviet Man New American Gunman!

Regulating weapons is easier than changing people.

Just because it's easier, doesn't mean it's right.

You know what else is easier? Bombing the everlasting fuck out of the Middle East rather than trying to negotiate!

US is doing that, and look how it's working out.

And besides, even if you do regulate it so only small guns are available, an idiot with a pistol is far more dangerous than an erudite with a rifle. At least the erudite knows better than to shoot people just because he doesn't like them.

Actually, bombing the fuck out of the Middle East has turned out to be harder. It's a lot of space to cover, and there's always some jihadi hiding in a foxhole, which means they have to do it all over again...

On the second point, generally people would think that making the rifle freely available for purchase to all the idiots would be a bad idea.

[Wikkiwallana]

Needless to say, whether liberals are pro or anti gun, Barack Obama is pro-control. He has said it before, and he'll use the connectitcut shooting to justify his denial of yet ANOTHER liberty.

Source?

[Wikkiwallana]

Needless to say, whether liberals are pro or anti gun, Barack Obama is pro-control. He has said it before, and he'll use the connectitcut shooting to justify his denial of yet ANOTHER liberty.

Yep, free an unrestricted access to firearms for every American. Excuse me, I'm going to go hand out RPGs at a mental health facility.

Take a camera crew and put it on pay-per-view, would you please?

[Agymnum]

Just because it's easier, doesn't mean it's right.

You know what else is easier? Bombing the everlasting fuck out of the Middle East rather than trying to negotiate!

US is doing that, and look how it's working out.

And besides, even if you do regulate it so only small guns are available, an idiot with a pistol is far more dangerous than an erudite with a rifle. At least the erudite knows better than to shoot people just because he doesn't like them.

Actually, bombing the fuck out of the Middle East has turned out to be harder. It's a lot of space to cover, and there's always some jihadi hiding in a foxhole, which means they have to do it all over again...

On the second point, generally people would think that making the rifle freely available for purchase to all the idiots would be a bad idea.

Hence my position is that we should let most guns (within reason, of course, no RPGs or machine-guns) be available to the public, but force them to have mandatory, yearly-renewable licenses to own and carry such weapons. If you're caught using one without a license (or proof of one - if you forget it at home you should have a stamp on your driver's license or something), then your weapon gets confiscated and you have to show proof of license to get it back.

Thus, we retain our right to bear arms whilst still keeping ourselves safe from the real threat that kills our people: idiots and morons.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yep, free an unrestricted access to firearms for every American. Excuse me, I'm going to go hand out RPGs at a mental health facility.

Technically speaking, the RPG fires a rocket, therefore not a "firearm" but a "rocket launcher". They are very illegal for a reason.

On the other hand, the founding fathers would have allowed full auto carbines, assault rifles and others.

I didn't know you could speak with the dead. Why are you wasting your gift finding out what kind of guns the Founding Fathers would have allowed instead of talking to Leonardo Da Vinci, finding out what the Romans made their super-concrete out of, recovering the Library of Alexandria, or answering any of thousands of other questions about the past that would actually benefit mankind?

[The New Lowlands]

Actually, bombing the fuck out of the Middle East has turned out to be harder. It's a lot of space to cover, and there's always some jihadi hiding in a foxhole, which means they have to do it all over again...

On the second point, generally people would think that making the rifle freely available for purchase to all the idiots would be a bad idea.

Hence my position is that we should let most guns (within reason, of course, no RPGs or machine-guns) be available to the public, but force them to have mandatory, yearly-renewable licenses to own and carry such weapons. If you're caught using one without a license (or proof of one - if you forget it at home you should have a stamp on your driver's license or something), then your weapon gets confiscated and you have to show proof of license to get it back.

Thus, we retain our right to bear arms whilst still keeping ourselves safe from the real threat that kills our people: idiots and morons.

Makes sense.

[Spreewerke]

You're right, this is a faulty comparison. Going by what was said in this post, diabetes should be banned for everyone by having mandatory check-ups. The only people allowed to have it are those than cannot help it (genetic). Very similar to, "no one should have guns, ever! Well, except the people who I think might keep me safe like cops and army men, but still! No other exceptions because they scare me!"

Of course, legislating against diabetes would require the ugly deal of having to deal with socio-economic issues. After all, diabetes tends to be more common amongst lower-income strata given that the only real sustenance they can usually afford tend to be sugar-bombs that contribute to Type 2 Diabetes.

That is absolutely, 100% correct. Since it is that same group of individuals performing the vast, vast, vast majority of gun crimes, why isn't our response to violence the same? Why do many folks automatically jump to "ban guns!" whereas they wish to address the social factors elsewhere in other topics?

[The New Lowlands]

Of course, legislating against diabetes would require the ugly deal of having to deal with socio-economic issues. After all, diabetes tends to be more common amongst lower-income strata given that the only real sustenance they can usually afford tend to be sugar-bombs that contribute to Type 2 Diabetes.

That is absolutely, 100% correct. Since it is that same group of individuals performing the vast, vast, vast majority of gun crimes, why isn't our response to violence the same? Why do many folks automatically jump to "ban guns!" whereas they wish to address the social factors elsewhere in other topics?

Because without guns, nobody gets murdered by guns.

[Agymnum]

That is absolutely, 100% correct. Since it is that same group of individuals performing the vast, vast, vast majority of gun crimes, why isn't our response to violence the same? Why do many folks automatically jump to "ban guns!" whereas they wish to address the social factors elsewhere in other topics?

Because without guns, nobody gets murdered by guns.

Except 2nd Amendment says you need to let people have guns.

So why not do it responsibly?

[The New Lowlands]

Because without guns, nobody gets murdered by guns.

Except 2nd Amendment says you need to let people have guns.

So why not do it responsibly?

I'm not arguing for a total gun ban, just pointing out the reasoning behind it.

[Grenartia]

Obama is coming for your guns. He has always wanted your guns. He waited until his second term to secure a mandate for rule. Now that he has a mandate, and the political winds are shifting, he will come for your guns.

He will start with a nationwide gun buyback. The weak and the lilly-livered will let the government pay them in paper, a currency that will soon be worthless. The strong, such as the retired cops, veterans, and the really nutty, will clasp their guns. Obama will take them, too.

There may be states which may resist the Will of Obama. Their governors may instruct state police officers not to cooperate with Obama’s dictates. They may even go to court to seek an injunction against enforcement until Obama’s dictates are deemed constitutional. Yet the courts are spineless without well-armed citizens. Obama will disarm everyone in those states by declaring martial law, appointing a plenipotentiary for that state, and collecting guns.

There may be militias who oppose Obama’s will. They are well-armed, and have sophisticated and lethal weapons most people cannot access. Obama and his armies have way more firepower, though. Lethal force could be met with lethal force.

Once Obama confiscates all of your weapons, there is no stopping his plan of making the U.S. a U.N. vassal state. All laws in the U.S, including constitutional amendments, will be passed in the General Assembly. Dictatorships like North Korea and Equatorial Guinea will have equal vote to other democracies. Our Security Council seat will be eliminated. Obama will still be the executive, but he will merely be the CEO. His directives will come from a committee of 23 bureaucrats, who interpret the General Assembly’’s mandate.

Agenda 23 will be ruthlessly enforced. Most suburbs will be depopulated, and the displaced will go into large Soviet-style apartment blocks. Work will be for the connected first – all others will live on the generosity of the state. They may wish to rebel against this repressive, un-American lifestyle, but they cannot. They have no guns.

The ignorance (if serious) or satire (if not serious) in this post make me laugh.