Obama, Pelosi, and the others Made me Buy Guns

This is true... i saw the video with my own two eyes. I was appalled that this woman was so ignorant on a subject that she was about to legislate.

 

Then why does he do it time after time?

He knows he can lie with impunity, because of the naivete of his supporters.

 

THERE Frank is the crux of so many problems with America. Every moron who can stumble (or be carried) to a voting place is allowed to vote. We have minimum requirements to drive a car, adopt a puppy, cut people's hair, etc. but NOTHING about getting to choose the leader of the free world ! Insanity....Only such insanity gets people like Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi into places of authority.

I would require a VERY SIMPLE civics test. Something you would want a fourth grader in a good school to be able to ace. Multiple choice questions like: Laws are passed by what branch of government: A)Executive, B) Legislative, C) Presumptive, or D) Judicial. You have to make like 75%. NO pass, NO VOTE. Sad to say but probably 20 - 30% of the people that voted in the last presidential election could not pass (and I am probably being generous).

 

That doesn't really mean anything. Everyone lies. Politicans just seem to lie more often because they're under more scrutinity.

 

Not if your a Mexican drug lord. Him and Eric Holder have them guns. No questions asked.

 

Yet when I posted his position, it clearly says he doesn't want to. He just wanted to ban military grade weapons from the public.

 

And what would that be? It's against the law to have full auto weapons already.

 

What are you talking about? What the pro gun regulation crowd wants now isn't something more, they want what was law. At this point they're trying to get old laws on the books again, not new laws.

And then the NRA came up with their own campgian slogans to demonize the left to make sure that anything that was common sense or supported by the vast majority of people was labeled as extreme.
- - - Updated - - -

Now you know. Want to actually come up with a response or should I just assume that you can't come up with a reasonable reply?

 

If I end up seeing him in person, I'll explain it to him.

 

If they would take away the guns. I want all politicians to have unarmed security. If I can't protect my family neither should they.

 

Okay. Great. I don't care.

"The term “Assault rifle”, despite its widespread use, is controversial, mostly because there’s no single agreed definition for it.
It first became well-known during and shortly after WW2 as a political/propaganda measure on the part of Adolph Hitler, although both the basic concept and the term itself have a noticeably longer history.
The earliest use of a similar term, known to this author, is dated back to the 1918-1920 timeframe, when noted US small arms designer Isaac Lewis designed a series of experimental automatic rifles which he called “Assault phase rifles”. These rifles fired standard US Army issue rifle ammunition of the period, the .30 M1906 (.30-06, 7.62x63mm), and were in direct competition with John Browning’s M1918 BAR automatic rifle. Both Lewis and Browning automatic rifles were designed to same concept of “Walking fire”, originated by the French in around 1915, and first implemented in the ill-fated CSRG M1915 “Chauchat” machine rifle. This concept called for a man-portable automatic weapon with its primary use being to provide suppressive supporting fire for infantry during assaults on entrenched enemy positions. In fact, this concept called for THE “Assault” rifle, but its early implementations, such as CSRG M1915 and BAR M1918 mentioned before, or the Russian Fedorov M1916, had some inherent flaws."
http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html

 

A gun refers to any of the various types of weapons that fires a bullet out of a chamber through the use of creating a "spark" by using various chemicals in the bullet. An assault rifle refers to a special type of gun that uses high velocity bullets and is most commonly used by the military.

 

So let me just make sure that I know what you're saying. Optional features on a gun, somehow constitute a ban on all guns.

 

The costs of a weapon are not an indication of their legal status. Also...
"That really depends on the brand and who is selling it. A Colt Defense -the original producer of the M16- will cost you around 1,400 to 1,600 dollars (or more depending on the specifics). But many other companies produce and sell M16s and their variants for cheaper. I just bought a Stag Arms M4 (the carbine version of an M16) for 800 dollars, and have found other models at gun shows for as low as 500. The best way to truly price an M16 in your area is to find a local gun show and just shop around."
http://www.answers.com/Q/How_much_does_a_real_M16_cost

No he's not. If anything I just showed he is not in favor of banning all firearms.

 

Obama wants to take our guns yet give Mexican murdering drug lords plenty of guns. Nice progressive thinking.

 

You mean the slippery slope arguments that can't actually prove anything? The only way that it can be proved is showing a trend. Right now, that trend isn't in favor of the gun regulation side.

 

Should I then say the same thing for the right as well? How many times have they been lied to and never bothered to check their own claims?

 

The end game of adopting measures used by similar countries that have lower gun deaths and crimes? It's clear that this is not about guns. It's about the lack of trust in the government.

- - - Updated - - -

Assault rifles can also be semi-automatic.

 

And at no point should we ever trust the government. They should always be questioned and scrutinized.

 

A defacto ban any way you look at it.

At the heart of it, they would ban all guns if they could get away with it.

- - - Updated - - -

True, the trend is against the gun grabbers but they will never stop trying.

 

Not the calm and rational way. Anyone can tell you that not all guns are assault rifles. To somehow say that Obama wants to ban all guns, when his position clearly says otherwise, is simply grasping for straws.

No. Not even close.

 

All most all semi-automatic possess a detachable magazine, which was a feature used in the test.

So if most semi-automatic firearms possess a detachable magazine, then my statement is true. A virtual ban on all semi-automatics.

That is reference to a semi-automatic rifle. Not an assault rifle. Do you know the difference?

Assault rifle
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=458528581

Semi-automatic rifle
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=457443469

What is the difference and how does the 1934 Gun Control Act and 1986 National Firearms Act treat one differently than the other?

I do remember correcting you on this on more than one occasion. Do not pretend to be an authority on this subject, you are clearly not one.

Cut the bull(*)(*)(*)(*). The platform clearly states he is in favor of banning semi-automatic firearms. Your position is asinine:
You can have any color you like, as long as it is black.
You can have any firearm you like, just as long as it doesn't look scary.
You can vote for anyone you want, as long as its the Communist party.

You are yet to substantiate any claim that banning a firearm based on how it looks will effect crime. Especially considering literally more people are killed with blunt force trauma than are semi-automatic rifles.

 

Define "assault rifle". Will that always be the definition?

 

Machine guns were easily obtainable > Then a NFA tax was applied to them > Registry was closed > The importation of semi-automatic rifles was banned > The manufacture of rifles possessing two scary features was banned > The feature test was moved to one feature

The slippery slope is a fallacy how?

Gun control advocates do not and will not stop. There is no reason to give an inch.

 

First, they are not assault rifles, they are semi-auto rifles that look scary to liberals.

Second, they have stated as such and their goal is the same.