Obama a Threat to Gun Owners

Status
Not open for further replies.
2nd Amendment of the Constitution ring a bell?

Considering Congress has only been able to pass a federal budget (not a continuing resolution budget) for 1 out of the past 4 years, I highly doubt Congress would change a constitutional amendment (which requires a 2/3 majority from Congress and the States. Overblown hyperbole.
 
So, when you're out of inane, trivial shit to half-assedly link to the Obama campaign, just make shit up!

Obama might, maybe, perhaps, possibly, on the off chance strip away all of America's guns!
 
Buying spree? Why do you need a gun? let alone more than one? That's not the point I suppose but come on "Oh noes they be taking my firearms." Baaaw.
 
I can kill men with my bare hands. I cut off one of them and got a prosthetic wooden one so I can take people out at a distance.
 
Us Canadians are doing pretty good without them...
 
yyyeahhh....being that I am voting Obama I'm kinda up on this.

If anything he'll reinstate the AWB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
which won't be that bad since I kno a few people *cough, cough*
If he doesn't reinstate the AWB then no worries since i think the states are all pretty set on what they want their gun laws to be anyway
 
Given the current hysterical tone of politics over there, 'Gun Owners a Threat to Obama' might be more accurate.
 
If this were even possible (which it absolutely isnt) I would support it.
 
huntingbear said:
yyyeahhh....being that I am voting Obama I'm kinda up on this.

If anything he'll reinstate the AWB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
which won't be that bad since I kno a few people *cough, cough*
If he doesn't reinstate the AWB then no worries since i think the states are all pretty set on what they want their gun laws to be anyway
Click to expand...

The assault weapons ban is an assault on freedom that bans guns SOLELY based on looks.


Kase said:
you dont really need them :|
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. I could say "you don't really need freedom of speech" because to put it bluntly you literally don't, but it's against Freedom to support such a stance. There is no first amendment without the second.
 
Azner said:
Agreed.

The rest of the world is laughing.
Click to expand...

I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks of our constitutional rights. This is a specific issue that is genuinely domestic and I don't see why other nations would have a stake in it besides protecting exports (H&K, etc).
 
xcellerate said:
Why do you need 9 golf clubs? They all hit the ball!
Click to expand...

But they hit the ball differently for specific situations. Do you really care how you kill someone in a random unpredictable encounter where you need to protect yourself with a firearm?
 
Krynn72 said:
But they hit the ball differently for specific situations. Do you really care how you kill someone in a random unpredictable encounter where you need to protect yourself with a firearm?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is VERY important.

Do you understand that different rounds have different stopping power, as well as different uses? Real Life is not like Half Life
 
Voting to support the gun ban is exactly what this thread is about. In essence it did remove a homeowners right to self defense.

I am not going to lunge at a home invader with a knife, I am going to put as many rounds as possible as quickly as possible into the center mass. If we're talking about protecting my WIFE, future children, and property then yes, I will do exactly that REGARDLESS of the laws.


"Owners of 'illegal weapons' would simply have remained subject to the penalties of local gun bans even in cases where the weapons were used in self-defense inside a home or business"

This is gun control plain and simple.

Just because what he voted to support wasn't nation wide doesn't invalidate anything I said. He will be put in a position of power to allow such restrictions.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Yes, it is VERY important.

Do you understand that different rounds have different stopping power, as well as different uses? Real Life is not like Half Life
Click to expand...

Do you realize in a life or death situation you wont have the chance to choose the most appropriate weapon for the situation? Real life is not like Half Life.
 
Krynn72 said:
Do you realize in a life or death situation you wont have the chance to choose the most appropriate weapon for the situation? Real life is not like Half Life.
Click to expand...

If you keep a gun for self defense it is likely a pistol in your night stand, this isn't a random encounter. People do make conscious decisions do have a firearm for self defense.
 
Krynn72 said:
Do you realize in a life or death situation you wont have the chance to choose the most appropriate weapon for the situation? Real life is not like Half Life.
Click to expand...

You've obviously never been put into this situation. No responsible gun owner doesn't know where their own guns are in their home. I'm going to shoot a home invader with the highest caliber handgun as near to me as possible. And if someone's OUTSIDE on my property attempting to steal a vehicle I'm obviously going to choose to come outside with a .223 or 30 ott 6 over a 380
 
Greeaaat. Shoot someone stealing your car. Awesome.

Also every looked out how countries without guns are doing? Fine i believe.
 
Azner said:
Greeaaat. Shoot someone stealing your car. Awesome.

Also every looked out how countries without guns are doing? Fine i believe.
Click to expand...

It's not awesome to kill somebody but I'm not going to let someone steal my car and possibly my identity with what's inside the car. Don't want the threat of dying then dont come onto property to steal.
 
So you actually would consider shooting(to kill or to wound) someone whos trying to get your vehicle when your license is in the car?
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Voting to support the gun ban is exactly what this thread is about. In essence it did remove a homeowners right to self defense.

I am not going to lunge at a home invader with a knife, I am going to put as many rounds as possible as quickly as possible into the center mass. If we're talking about protecting my WIFE, future children, and property then yes, I will do exactly that REGARDLESS of the laws.


"Owners of 'illegal weapons' would simply have remained subject to the penalties of local gun bans even in cases where the weapons were used in self-defense inside a home or business"

This is gun control plain and simple.

Just because what he voted to support wasn't nation wide doesn't invalidate anything I said. He will be put in a position of power to allow such restrictions.
Click to expand...

Overturning an amendment has happened once when the prohibition of alcohol was repealed. I really doubt he is going to be able get away with more than Clinton did.

I agree that Obama is a threat to guns, but he wont be able to get away with baning much.

I think you are smashing this idea way further left than it actually is, discussion doesn't advance when things are so black and white.
 
Azner said:
So you actually would consider shooting(to kill or to wound) someone whos trying to get your vehicle when your license is in the car?
Click to expand...
Obviously yes.

You NEVER shoot to WOUND. You NEVER shoot to wound. That is a ridiculous notion. Anytime you fire a gun at someone you are trying to kill them. There is no "shoot to wound" and if you really ARE just wanting to just wound by shooting a deadly weapon that is irresponsible.


Dulrough said:
Overturning an amendment has happened once when the prohibition of alcohol was repealed. I really doubt he is going to be able get away with more than Clinton did.

I agree that Obama is a threat to guns, but he wont be able to get away with baning much.

I think you are smashing this idea way further left than it actually is, discussion doesn't advance when things are so black and white.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't take overturning the second amendment. The former AWB is a prime example of weapon banning that took place despite the second amendment. Gun rights are always in danger and must be protected from aggresively anti second amendment candidates and legislators.
 
I hate people who would so easily take someone's life. I dont give a **** what the reason it, unless he is threatening to kill you or someone else, there is no reason to try and kill someone.
 
Krynn72 said:
I hate people who would so easily take someone's life. I dont give a **** what the reason it, unless he is threatening to kill you or someone else, there is no reason to try and kill someone.
Click to expand...

If you wait to be threatened with death you're already ****ing dead.


I'm sorry guy but you've quite obviously never been in a life or death situation like this.

When someone is on an act like that they know that they can get shot at any moment and took that chance. It's not fun or awesome to kill someone it's ****ing sad, but it becomes a necessity
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Obviously yes.

You NEVER shoot to WOUND. You NEVER shoot to wound. That is a ridiculous notion. Anytime you fire a gun at someone you are trying to kill them. There is no "shoot to wound" and if you really ARE just wanting to just wound by shooting a deadly weapon that is irresponsible.
Click to expand...

I really hope that was a sarcastic comment.

Your "Obviously Yes(Hopefully meaning yes i would shoot to wound)" contradicts with your "never shoot to wound" which ofcourse means you would shoot to kill someone taking your car. Man shoot the cashier, i mean he shortchanged you. Shoot the guy on the internet he stole your virtual gold. Shoot the boy who dropped something on your lawn and tried to pick it up its trespassing. Shoot the hobo who tried to take a bag of chips because he was starving.

Your type is probably the reason why Obama would want guns banned.
edit

Necessity to shoot someone who isnt threatening you with life or death which is stealing your car.
 
Azner said:
I really hope that was a sarcastic comment.

Your "Obviously Yes(Hopefully meaning yes i would shoot to wound)" contradicts with your "never shoot to wound" which ofcourse means you would shoot to kill someone taking your car. Man shoot the cashier, i mean he shortchanged you. Shoot the guy on the internet he stole your virtual gold. Shoot the boy who dropped something on your lawn and tried to pick it up its trespassing. Shoot the hobo who tried to take a bag of chips because he was starving.

Your type is probably the reason why Obama would want guns banned.
edit

Necessity to shoot someone who isnt threatening you with life or death which is stealing your car.
Click to expand...
No, it's not sarcastic.

Obviously yes as in I would shoot to kill. If you think that it is acceptable to ever shoot someone just to WOUND them you are mistaken. That is ****ed up. The only time you should be inflicting a devastating wound like a gunshot is when your intent is for the person to be killed, not to just hurt them. Would you shoot an animal "just to wound?" if so thats sick and ****ed up.

No, you dont shoot the cashier or the other insanely stupid examples you gave. There are specific guidelines and laws regarding when it is acceptable to kill a person. The things you listed are stupid and no one sane or law abiding would do that.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
No, it's not sarcastic.

Obviously yes as in I would shoot to kill. If you think that it is acceptable to ever shoot someone just to WOUND them you are mistaken. That is ****ed up. The only time you should be inflicting a devastating wound like a gunshot is when your intent is for the person to be killed, not to just hurt them. Would you shoot an animal "just to wound?" if so thats sick and ****ed up.

No, you dont shoot the cashier or the other insanely stupid examples you gave. There are specific guidelines and laws regarding when it is acceptable to kill a person. The things you listed are stupid and no one sane or law abiding would do that.
Click to expand...

So the law in america allows shooting for people stealing your car?

What else does it allow.
 
Azner said:
So the law in america allows shooting for people stealing your car?

What else does it allow.
Click to expand...

Depends on the situation. The car situation depends on other factors as well like on your property or not.

heres the answer youre looking for


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

In general, one (sometimes more) of a variety of conditions must be met before a person can legally use the Castle Doctrine:

An intruder must be making (or have made) an attempt to unlawfully and/or forcibly enter an occupied home, business or car.
The intruder must be acting illegally -- e.g. the Castle Doctrine does not give the right to shoot officers of the law acting in the course of their legal duties
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary
The occupant(s) of the home must not have provoked or instigated an intrusion, or provoked or instigated an intruder to threaten or use deadly force
The occupant(s) of the home may be required to attempt to exit the house or otherwise retreat (this is called the "Duty to Retreat" and most self-defense statutes referred to as examples of "Castle Doctrine" expressly state that the homeowner has no such duty)
 
Also you said. Never shoot to wound. Its devastating. So if someone was stealing my car. But im not in the right to shoot him, what do i do? Stop him without a gun right? Then it isnt so bad. If guns were banned, neither party would have guns(unless its your unlucky day and you meet some illegal gun carrying punk) Death should never be the resort.
 
Azner said:
Also you said. Never shoot to wound. Its devastating. So if someone was stealing my car. But im not in the right to shoot him, what do i do? Stop him without a gun right? Then it isnt so bad. If guns were banned, neither party would have guns(unless its your unlucky day and you meet some illegal gun carrying punk) Death should never be the resort.
Click to expand...

Sadly it doesnt work that way. All you'll end up with is unarmed people being gun downed by criminals with guns because criminals dont obey the law and arent going to turn in their guns because of a ban.

Dude the post I posted shows that you are in the right to shoot him. I mean you legally can shoot to wound but no person should ever do that, that's sick IMO
 
Since you are so passionate when it comes to assault weapons,why not join the armed services then?
You'd be more than welcome to practice your pride and patriotism there.
 
TwwIX said:
Since you are so passionate when it comes to assault weapons,why not join the armed services then?
You'd be more than welcome to practice your pride and patriotism there.
Click to expand...

I have a job family and no interest in joining the military or going to war, don't be ridiculous. "Assault weapon" is a term used to classify firearms solely based on looks. I'm serious too, look at what defines an Assault Weapon in the old assault weapons ban.


Folding stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
3K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
[LIVE] Team Fortress 2 "The Love & War" Update - Day 2
Replies
3
Views
8K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
David.Seth2
Tennessee Mayor Accuses Barack Obama Of Hating On Charlie Brown
Replies
14
Views
1K
David.Seth2
David.Seth2
Krynn72
RakuraiTenjin's Anti-Obama thread
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
Uriel
Uriel
Sulkdodds
Engineering Dissent: The Rise of the Political Commentator
Replies
14
Views
2K
Absinthe
Absinthe
Back
Top