Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/10/13 12:28 PM, Warforger wrote:

No I didn't. That was not the point I was making. The part I was arguing were the people who said the gun rights people are on the high ground in terms of the argument, my point was that there doesn't seem to be any fringe elements of the gun ban crowd that do anything remotely as insane as saying Sandy Hook is a conspiracy.

that's because you only looked for the fringe group that suits your needs.

That was one part of the overarching point I was making, nevermind the anti-Obama ad which the NRA just put up despite the fact that it had fuck all to do with the argument. Hell Obama even tries to calm down tensions and communicate that he respects gun ownership and the NRA takes it as an insult.

that's because the bullshit meter maxed out and then some when he said it. no politician, unless so heavily entrenched in their job that no one can hope to get enough votes to get elected is going to say they're against the 2nd ammendment. Feinstein is one example of a politician who will serve until she dies so she can say whatever she wants, which is why in 1995 she openly said she wanted to ban all guns. that move would be political suicide most anywhere in this nation, except california, maybe 1 or 2 other states. Difference is, Obama had the ambition to get in the white house, so he couldn't just openly say it.

All the Gun ban people seem to be guilty of is being for a gun ban, this apparently makes them retarded, elitist and the assholes in the argument,

they want to ban guns to 'prevent crime', except it's been shown, all over the world, that it simply does not work, and yet the gun ban groups ignore this fact.

meanwhile the Gun rights people do things from ignoring the argument altogether and insulting the arguer (ad hominem) to outright denying the Sandy Hook shooting even happened.

again, you find a VERY VERY TINY GROUP and try to connect them to everyone which is outright dishonest. you're as bad as those who tried to paint the tea party movement as a bunch of stupid redneck bigots by seeking out the 1 guy in the crowd who actually was a stupid redneck bigot and tie them to the entire party. if a small group of idiots is all you got to work with, then, i suppose you may as well close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and begin screamingly about them loudly because that's about the only way you'll win an argument.

If you can find a Gun Control person who believes in the equivalent of denying Sandy Hook happened then I'll admit I was wrong, but as it stands the Gun Rights people are unreasonable and are determined to have nothing get done to solve the problem.

as I said before, you're being dishonest, tying a few people to everyone. in that case OMFG ALL DEMOCRATS WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS BECAUSE FEINSTEIN WANTS TO BAN ALL GUNS AND SHE SPEAKS FOR ALL DEMOCRATS!

And who's fault is that? The NRA's of course. They're responsible for how they market themselves and they chose to market themselves as people who throw insults instead of arguments at people they don't agree with.

it's because those in the media focus on the negative and what bolsters their point of view while ignoring the facts and putting aside what doesn't and stick it somewhere few will find, but will leave it there because removing it entirely will out them for their bias.

? Then they've been doing a pretty bad job at that seeing as they tend to kill alot of people.

obviously a chunk of metal passing through your body has the potential to kill. however, the Hague convention of 1899 prohibits the use of expanding and explosive bullets in international warfare, which ARE designed to kill. the body count on the battlefield would be FAR higher otherwise. there's a reason why the number of injured in a war always seem to outnumber the number killed. a bullet that flattens or explodes when it strikes an object would raise the body count significantly.

I don't think that was the point she was trying to make. The point she was making was that the weapons were designed to kill, for example in Columbine even the NRA would be behind the ban for the TEC-9 (for one it was designed so it didn't leave behind any fingerprints), no one commits a school shooting with a hunting rifle since I'd assume it'd be incredibly difficult.

actually, hitting a person with a hunting rifle is not hard at all. if you can shoot an 'assault rifle' you can shoot a hunting rifle. Bullets designed for hunting ARE designed to kill what it hits, and there are semi automatic hunting rifles available. Also, if these guns were specifically designed to kill, then why it is considered cruelty to animals to shoot one with a 'military' style bullet?

I don't think that matters as much as it matters how they were obtained (and they were obtained legally). Any pistol can be used to commit a massacre as long as it isn't so dated that it's single shot.

yeah but the point is, she was bitching and whining about assault rifles and 'high capacity' magazines. 15 bullets is hardly high capacity. you can blame Virginia's shitty laws on that one.

Yah I'd assume any argument when people die is going to be emotional, that's pretty normal. But this again is using logical fallacies, it doesn't matter if those kill more people guns still kill people. Which again doesn't explain why countries with far less guns report far less gun violence.

It's more a matter of culture, than availability of weapons, which is something the gun grabbers ignore completely. the UK has more or less total ban on guns, and yet their gun crime is still a major problem. why? they have a similar culture to the USA. they have gangs and lots of them, it got so bad the cops actually had to patrol with submachine guns. the gang problem in the UK got to the point where the police needed fully automatic weapons to deal with them. think about that. in a nation with a gun ban, they cops need fully automatic weapons to deal with criminals.

now, you go to a place like Japan, and you notice the culture is FAR different. criminals are heavily frowned upon and their culture values things like education and being part of something bigger than themselves. They still have criminals, they still have gangs... they still have gun violence.

you go to Switzerland. now, according to your logic, Switzerland should be a perpetual war zone, given that it's mandatory for men to keep a fully automatic, military grade gun in your home, with ammo. and yet, Switzerland is one of the safest places to be. why? culture.

also check this out.
yes, it says the USA is on top by a large margin. however, that's not per capita. when you look at per capita...

UK: 6,523,706 crimes, population: 62,641,000 for a total of 9.6 crimes per 100 people.
USA 11,877,218 crimes, population: 313,914,040 for a total of 3.7 crimes per 100 people.

another chart
UK's assault victims per capita is more than DOUBLE what the USA's is. how is this significant? simple. taking away their guns isn't stopping the violence, it's actually be making it worse. Look in the cities in the USA where there are gun bans. is the violence lower? no. it's worse. why? because the criminals don't fear their law abiding victims.

their drug offense crime rate is over 300x what the USA's is, and over 100% per capita. They also have a bigger problem with rape. 125% more per capita in fact. why? because rapists don't fear their law abiding victims.

ok, continue on with your blatant intellectual dishonesty. go ahead, keep making conspiracy theorist references, and painting everyone with the same brush, while claiming not to.

At 2/10/13 02:34 PM, S3C wrote:

At 2/10/13 12:22 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Trouble will come find you if you invite it by living in a shitty community so being proactive and choosing the right place to live and just being smart is the key to being safe not a gun LOL.

Is it possible for everyone to afford being able to live in a good community, especially a student just coming out of college?

So people do not have freedom in America gotcha.

Is it impossible for crime to happen in a relatively safe community?

We once had a drunk Native Indian in our apartment building and he was "Disturbing the peace" so I invited him into my home gave him some coffee and made him some food and called his parents to come pick him up "he was a young guy". Good thing I wasn't a dumb American otherwise the poor guy might have had his head blown off. I rather see someone get the help they need rather than going to spend a night in a drunk tank and receive petty criminal charges and possible jail time.

Is it possible for every family that lived in this once safe community to have the funds to be able to relocate?

That fact is people are economically enslaved and bound which is why I advocate for Socialist/Communist programing because there's no excuses for people to live in danger and below the poverty line in the wealthiest country's in the world.

At 2/10/13 03:43 AM, Korriken wrote:

I know I skipped a bunch, but that's because I admittedly need to do some more research one day to have a better handle on my points.

its a grab for attention

Oh sure it is. That's the problem with politics in a nutshell, it's all headline grabbing issues that really don't do anything. The politicians love their guns as much as anybody, so any kind of serious or sane gun laws coming out of this, really any new gun laws period, is pretty much not happening. They'll just jaw about it till the next crisis comes along and the public attention swings that way and then they'll quietly let the debate die again.

it won't work.

I think you're missing what my actual point was there. It basically goes back to what you said above. They don't really care, they don't really want to do anything, but it gets them some headlines at the moment to act like they do and they will.

It's easy to cast it off as slippery slope,

It is! Know why? Cause it's a fallacy with no hard basis in reality! That kind of rhymes almost...

but politicians know that gradually working your way in is the best approach.

Sure, but since as I keep saying, it's not something any of them actually WANT...

it's like trying to pet a strange dog. if you run up to it, you're either going to get bit, or it's going to run away. you gotta approach slowly, make it feel comfortable, let it lick your hand a time or two, maybe toss it a treat. before you know it, you're scratching his ears.

Good analogy, again, too bad it doesn't apply here. Too bad too that it's no substitute for what I'm actually asking for to prove that this is a first step towards a comprehensive gun ban, or that anyone currently in Congress, or the Pres, have EVER or are CURRENTLY showing signs of taking such steps. I'm just going to assume you can't because I think you're a savvy enough guy that if you had something, you would have shown it by now.

what do you think all the gun grabber groups are working on?

No no. This is a complete side step. I'm talking politicians, not gun groups, I'm talking about the people who actually VOTE and MATTER. I'm not denying the power of lobbies (if they didn't work, groups like the NRA would be a bunch of guys meeting in each others houses screaming about shit instead of a big ass group of nuts on my tv screaming about shit), but in the end it's the polis doing the voting, and I'm seeing influential politicians on both sides showing NO signs towards any sort of sweeping or overwhelming legislation. Doesn't the whole fact that this assault weapons ban is likely to die signal that to you as well?

they're not about gun safety, or any kind of safety. they're all about stripping guns away.

And the NRA is all about arming everybody to the teeth and saying that if you want to have an arsenal that makes the Punisher look like a wimp, you should and can. Does that mean their winning on Capitol Hill or pushing the needle towards that goal? Not overly much from what I can see. Again, all I see is right wing, pro gun, conspiracy theory at work and it's over sad.

Naturally, skipping to the final step "comprehensive gun ban" would be impossible in the current American political climate. so you go for the next best thing. taking it 1 step at a time.

Except that their step 1 here is FAILING! Just look at the title of this topic if not the main post for fuck's sake! It's about how the ban WON'T PASS! Come on now...

What do you think the odds of Obama being reelected would be if he went out and said, "I want to take your guns and I don't want gays to marry!"

Say I buy into all that, and ignore the mountain of evidence that has made him a friend to gun lovers since his election, what are the odds he gets this passed when his party is split on the issue, and the other side is bound and determined to kill anything he does? You can do simple maths I'm sure...tell me the odds?

I'm not sure if this line is funny, sad, or just pathetic.

I feel the same way when I see people like you who deny that racism still exists and that there are people out there that feel threatened by a black president and act like memes to attack this president (he's coming for our guns! He wasn't born here! He's a stealth Muslim! Which is just the birther thing with a different name) are somehow the same memes that other president's (Or maybe I should just stick to within his party?) have been attacked with. Because the gun one does come up, but abates soon after they don't come after the guns, Obama has never lost that. The birther thing is wholly attributable only to this president...now what's different about this president vs. other presidents? Well, there is that skin color thing...

I doubt any pro gun right group gives a damn if Obama is black, but you decided to throw that in anyway.

I'm not just talking about pro gun groups, I'm talking about individual gun owners as well. Can you say all gun buyers since Obama's election didn't give a damn that he was black? That they stocked up because they were afraid a brother was coming for their guns? I can't say all gun buyers did, you can't say all didn't. All I'm saying is to act like their isn't a certain percentage (which since I don't know what that percentage is, I won't even try to figure it) doesn't have that on their mind is to deny the realities of this country. Racism still fucking exists.

Also, since when has it been about gun sales?

You think those guys exist in a bubble? You think gun lobbies are paid by somebody other then gun manufacturers? Really, that needed explaining?

Or decided I'd let someone else bring it up so I could stomp it when they did. Obama is not pro gun. he's anti gun. VERY anti gun. Now that he's no longer facing reelection, we'll be seeing more of that.

We'll see. So far I've seen a President who's first term record on guns has been permissive and non-combative. I'm not seeing waves and waves of real effort to turn it around now, but if we do in the next four years? I'll happily come back and admit that you were right. I'm just going by the evidence of the moment that I see.

At 2/11/13 12:30 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Oh sure it is. That's the problem with politics in a nutshell...

yeah pretty much. drives me nuts.

I think you're missing what my actual point was there. It basically goes back to what you said above. They don't really care, they don't really want to do anything, but it gets them some headlines at the moment to act like they do and they will.

It is! Know why? Cause it's a fallacy with no hard basis in reality! That kind of rhymes almost...

Feinstein openly said before she wants to ban all guns. think she wouldn't if given half a chance?

Sure, but since as I keep saying, it's not something any of them actually WANT...

you sure about that?

I'm just going to assume you can't because I think you're a savvy enough guy that if you had something, you would have shown it by now.

could have sworn i already did. then again I could have sworn i posted a LOT of things that aren't there when i check to see if i got a respnse.

No no. This is a complete side step. I'm talking politicians, not gun groups, I'm talking about the people who actually VOTE and MATTER. I'm not denying the power of lobbies...

fair enough. I lump politicians and special interest groups together myself, kind of like a whore and sugar daddy routine. i'll let you decide which is which.

And the NRA is all about arming everybody to the teeth and saying that if you want to have an arsenal that makes the Punisher look like a wimp, you should and can. Does that mean their winning on Capitol Hill or pushing the needle towards that goal? Not overly much from what I can see. Again, all I see is right wing, pro gun, conspiracy theory at work and it's over sad.

Except that their step 1 here is FAILING! Just look at the title of this topic if not the main post for fuck's sake! It's about how the ban WON'T PASS! Come on now...

yeah, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

Say I buy into all that, and ignore the mountain of evidence that has made him a friend to gun lovers since his election, what are the odds he gets this passed when his party is split on the issue, and the other side is bound and determined to kill anything he does? You can do simple maths I'm sure...tell me the odds?

to me, a politician's total career speaks volumes to me, rather than what he did in his last term. his first term was spent campaigning for reelection to me. I'll not go into details but he did a lot of things that just came off to me as piss poor leadership. like ignoring his top general in afghanistan for 3 months instead of listening to him. why? the war was unpopular and giving an immediate thumbs up on the troop surge would have put him in hot water with his base.

I feel the same way when I see people like you who deny that racism still exists

since when have i denied that racism exists? sure it exists. I've been subjected to it myself.

and that there are people out there that feel threatened by a black president and act like memes to attack this president (he's coming for our guns! He wasn't born here! He's a stealth Muslim! Which is just the birther thing with a different name)

I'll admit I pondered the birther thing for a time, then realized it didn't matter because it wouldn't really change anything, given how heavily protected he is. Obama's more worried about his legacy than getting anything done, so of course his executive order on guns was just symbolic to make it look like he did something.

are somehow the same memes that other president's (Or maybe I should just stick to within his party?) have been attacked with. Because the gun one does come up, but abates soon after they don't come after the guns, Obama has never lost that.

The birther thing is wholly attributable only to this president...now what's different about this president vs. other presidents? Well, there is that skin color thing...

skin color? not so much. the fact he was raised overseas? definitely. if he was born in america, raised in america, that would have been laughed off immediately. of course, they also did the exact same thing to McCain, given he was born in Panama on a military base. Of course, it wasn't so vocally repressed.

I'm not just talking about pro gun groups, I'm talking about individual gun owners as well. Can you say all gun buyers since Obama's election didn't give a damn that he was black? That they stocked up because they were afraid a brother was coming for their guns? I can't say all gun buyers did, you can't say all didn't. All I'm saying is to act like their isn't a certain percentage (which since I don't know what that percentage is, I won't even try to figure it) doesn't have that on their mind is to deny the realities of this country. Racism still fucking exists.

Of course racism exists. I got demoted by a black foreman one time after i got transferred to his crew to operate a plasma cutter/ hole puncher machine for cutting shapes out of plate metal for solar panels. why? because I was white and in a good position and he wanted to give that position to his nephew that he just hired.

Also, since when has it been about gun sales?

You think those guys exist in a bubble? You think gun lobbies are paid by somebody other then gun manufacturers? Really, that needed explaining?

NRA is funded by membership dues. Sure, many in the gun manufacturing business are also members of the NRA. I would expect as much.

We'll see. So far I've seen a President who's first term record on guns has been permissive and non-combative.

that's now you get reelected.

I'm not seeing waves and waves of real effort to turn it around now, but if we do in the next four years? I'll happily come back and admit that you were right. I'm just going by the evidence of the moment that I see.

we'll see. right now there's no way in hell it's going to pass before midterm elections. If Obama manages to get a democratic majority in the house and senate, I fully expect him to go back to the way it was in the beginning when he wanted Obamacare enacted.

Obama is a calculating character from what I've seen. he knows midterms are coming up. he could come out and try to get something done, but he doesn't want to rile up the right's base. he wants them as docile and unlikely to vote as possible. the makeup of congress determines how much power he really has to get things done. If he tried to get the AWB passed as vigorously as he got Obamacare to pass, midterms would be a total disaster for him and he would basically be a lame duck for the next 2 years. Passing AWB would be a major victory for his party and a blow to his opponents. it'd look good in his legacy, too.

Here I am wondering why anyone needs an assault rifle to begin with.

At 2/11/13 07:41 AM, Shade wrote: Here I am wondering why anyone needs an assault rifle to begin with.

that question is irrelevant. also, the logic of "do you really need this? if not, let's ban it!" could be extended to almost anything that isn't necessary for basic survival.

don't fall for the tricks and loaded questions like, "does anyone really need this?" because the question is, frankly, irrelevant. with that logic, we could make chocolate a controlled substance because you don't need it.

At 2/11/13 08:24 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/11/13 07:41 AM, Shade wrote: Here I am wondering why anyone needs an assault rifle to begin with.

that question is irrelevant. also, the logic of "do you really need this? if not, let's ban it!" could be extended to almost anything that isn't necessary for basic survival.

I've no issue with owning Hunting Rifles, Shotguns, or handguns.

Why own an AR if you aren't assaulting anything?

Welp, I'm happy to hear that the statist anti-gun crowd has lost.

At 2/11/13 03:15 PM, Shade wrote:

Why own an AR if you aren't assaulting anything?

why own toilet paper when you can use your fingers?
why own chocolate when it makes you fat?
why own a television when you can get your news via radio?
why own a radio when you can get your news via newspaper?
why own art supplies when they're not necessary to your continues survival?

why? it doesn't matter why. when you get into the realm of "do you need it?" things go downhill very quickly.

At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

why own toilet paper when you can use your fingers?
why own chocolate when it makes you fat?
why own a television when you can get your news via radio?
why own a radio when you can get your news via newspaper?
why own art supplies when they're not necessary to your continues survival?

None of those ^ are killing machines THAT'S WHY !

At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Fluffington wrote: Welp, I'm happy to hear that the gun control crowd has only gotten some of what they want, and have only been delayed on other things.

Fixed*

At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/11/13 03:15 PM, Shade wrote:

Why own an AR if you aren't assaulting anything?

why? it doesn't matter why. when you get into the realm of "do you need it?" things go downhill very quickly.

Here I am stupidly assuming you'd answer my question.

At 2/11/13 04:47 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Why own an AR if you aren't assaulting anything?

Because AR-15 doesn't stand for Assault Rifle

and an "Assault Weapon" is basically a skin that any normal hunting rifle could have.

It's designed for Assaulting everyone knows this because it creates allot of noise and in turn fear and terror. Are you a terrorist ? Why would you want a terrorists weapon ? Anyone whom posses such a weapon as "AR - 15" should be tried and convicted of terrorism this way criminals will be more terrified of the jail sentence than the Assault weapon is worth in turn cutting down on gun homicide and terrorism.

At 2/11/13 04:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's designed for Assaulting everyone knows this because it creates allot of noise and in turn fear and terror. Are you a terrorist ? Why would you want a terrorists weapon ? Anyone whom posses such a weapon as "AR - 15" should be tried and convicted of terrorism this way criminals will be more terrified of the jail sentence than the Assault weapon is worth in turn cutting down on gun homicide and terrorism.

I was unaware I was saying that Assault Weapon owners are terrorists. I'll be sure to mark that down.

At 2/11/13 04:58 PM, Shade wrote:

At 2/11/13 04:56 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's designed for Assaulting everyone knows this because it creates allot of noise and in turn fear and terror. Are you a terrorist ? Why would you want a terrorists weapon ? Anyone whom posses such a weapon as "AR - 15" should be tried and convicted of terrorism this way criminals will be more terrified of the jail sentence than the Assault weapon is worth in turn cutting down on gun homicide and terrorism.

I was unaware I was saying that Assault Weapon owners are terrorists. I'll be sure to mark that down.

The main and only purpose of Assault weapons such as "AR - 15" is to Assault therefor thanx for clarifying the fact if one is not a Terrorist then one has absolutely no need for a weapon whose main purpose is to ensue Terror into the hearts of any one that gets in the way. Since there is no other use for an Assaulting weapon like "AR - 15" than to cause terror and maim, murder than you can see the rational behind banning the ownership and use of said weapon as you can choose other weapons to target practice with and collect.

At 2/11/13 05:33 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

I was unaware I was saying that Assault Weapon owners are terrorists. I'll be sure to mark that down.

The main and only purpose of Assault weapons such as "AR - 15"

Do you even know what AR in AR-15 means? Honestly? "Assault Weapon" is a term created based on the looks of a weapon.

Oh and murdering, maiming Humans ! that's aside from Assaulting "Victim" before hand. The name of the weapon has fuck all to do with anything here as it's the purpose the weapon was designed and used for.

At 2/11/13 01:59 AM, Korriken wrote: yeah pretty much. drives me nuts.

Same here, well past time people in this country wake up and force these guys to actually do their jobs, in order to keep their jobs and stop with all the con jobs and games.

Feinstein openly said before she wants to ban all guns. think she wouldn't if given half a chance?

I actually don't know to be honest with you. I really believe Feinstein has jumped on this so hard because she sees it as an issue to make her name. I'm not saying I don't believe she's fervently anti-gun, I'm sure she is, but I think if push came to shove, I don't know how much weight she'd put behind the hyperbole. But ok, say that she will, that's ONE PERSON and one person is not a real threat to cause an outright ban of all guns.

you sure about that?

The dead assault weapons ban, and a lack of movement on putting together ANY kind of gun control legislation in the last 4 years sure as shit seems telling to me.

could have sworn i already did.

Think I missed that. Try again plz.

then again I could have sworn i posted a LOT of things that aren't there when i check to see if i got a respnse.

Oh come on now. Don't insult my integrity, I explained the bits that were cut, and why. You know I did, I know I did, everyone who bothered to follow our conversation did. That's the beauty of a forum, it preserves shit. If you're going to ad hominem me, just do it, I'll call fallacy, we'll move on. But this foolish dancing when a reason was already stated gets you nothing and just makes you look kind of petty to me.

fair enough. I lump politicians and special interest groups together myself, kind of like a whore and sugar daddy routine. i'll let you decide which is which.

I won't, because while it's true the poli's do a lot of what the special interest groups want, and take their cash, they are at the end of the day independent of those groups with a choice whether or not to take their cash and vote the way they like. So to me they are separate entities.

yeah, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

Trying is not doing, and the try is weak and I think token as fuck. They're proposing legislation they know is guaranteed to fail just so they can say to their base "well look, we tried...those dirty bastards!" Until I see compelling evidence that's different, I call con job, and I call the idea that "they're coming for our guns!" paranoia with no solid ground to back it as a credible threat.

to me, a politician's total career speaks volumes to me, rather than what he did in his last term. his first term was spent campaigning for reelection to me. I'll not go into details but he did a lot of things that just came off to me as piss poor leadership. like ignoring his top general in afghanistan for 3 months instead of listening to him. why? the war was unpopular and giving an immediate thumbs up on the troop surge would have put him in hot water with his base.

I agree I think a lot of his first term was spent campaigning for his second. No question there. I think he did do some very good things though that can be credited, and I also realize Presidents like other officials have to pick and choose the battles they want to really fight, and the hills they want to die on. Can't see Obama wanting to die on the hill of a weapons ban that wouldn't pass anyway. He'd be one of the dumbest presidents in history if he wasted his second term trying to champion an issue doomed from the outset.

since when have i denied that racism exists? sure it exists. I've been subjected to it myself.

But yet anytime someone suggests that there could be opposition to this president based on the color of his skin, you're always among the first I see to denounce it and act like that could never, ever, happen.

I'll admit I pondered the birther thing for a time, then realized it didn't matter because it wouldn't really change anything, given how heavily protected he is.

I never did because of how much these things get vetted and what not. Nobody wants that kind of scandal. No way he gets nominated if there's even a hint he can't prove citizenship. But to me it is telling what's really at work here when you have his opponent John McCain who is BORN ON FOREIGN SOIL demonstrably, but gets natural born citizenship on the loop hole of being on a military base, so it's the part of the foreign soil that's considered American. So the black hawaiian might be a fraud...the white guy born in the american part of panama is ok...uh huh. But I digress

Obama's more worried about his legacy than getting anything done, so of course his executive order on guns was just symbolic to make it look like he did something.

I disagree with that. His legacy suffers if he DOESN'T do anything. But I think he's more concerned with social issues like marriage equality and civil rights then guns.

skin color? not so much. the fact he was raised overseas? definitely. if he was born in america, raised in america, that would have been laughed off immediately. of course, they also did the exact same thing to McCain, given he was born in Panama on a military base. Of course, it wasn't so vocally repressed.

You say repression, I say that people just said "who gives a fuck? The guy was born here, and just because he was educated elsewhere doesn't mean he's a manchurian candidate". People are born here and live and study abroad all the time.

Of course racism exists. I got demoted by a black foreman one time after i got transferred to his crew to operate a plasma cutter/ hole puncher machine for cutting shapes out of plate metal for solar panels. why? because I was white and in a good position and he wanted to give that position to his nephew that he just hired.

Hmmm, are you sure that was racism and not just flat out nepotism? Sounds more like nepotism..but I'm getting off topic, I'm sorry. I'm just baffled by when I make a suggestion that racism is an issue that causes SOME criticism and vitriole towards this president you seem eager to shout the issue down. That I don't get, especially in light of stories like the one you just told.

NRA is funded by membership dues. Sure, many in the gun manufacturing business are also members of the NRA. I would expect as much.

Uh huh, so in a round about way, you just confirmed my point. The manufacturers put in money through their dues, and thus the NRA becomes more powerful and lobbies for them while still being able to claim an autonomy FROM them. Same principle really for what radical Repubs did with the Tea Party.

we'll see. right now there's no way in hell it's going to pass before midterm elections. If Obama manages to get a democratic majority in the house and senate, I fully expect him to go back to the way it was in the beginning when he wanted Obamacare enacted.

Very possible. But since the healthcare issue had MUCH more public support then you want to really admit (at least when it carried the public option) and I believe a comprehensive gun ban would have much less, I think he isn't going to waste much political capitol or time on an issue that seems DOA to me.

Obama is a calculating character from what I've seen.

Successful politicians are.

he knows midterms are coming up. he could come out and try to get something done, but he doesn't want to rile up the right's base. he wants them as docile and unlikely to vote as possible.

His re-election riled them. He could go on TV tonight and say "I will not pass a single piece of major legislation until after the mid-term elections" and theyd STILL find a way to crucify him as a villain and vote in as many combative anti-obama candidates as possible. That's what the "base" has been doing since his election. I also don't believe even with a Dem majority he could guarantee enough Dem's would get in that would actually want the AW ban, or any gun ban to pass.

At 2/11/13 03:43 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: None of those ^ are killing machines THAT'S WHY !

Exactly. Nor is an AR-15. :)

At 2/10/13 02:08 PM, Korriken wrote: that's because you only looked for the fringe group that suits your needs.

No I didn't. You're completely missing my point, that the people on the Gun Rights side are much more unreasonable than the gun control side.

that's because the bullshit meter maxed out and then some when he said it. no politician, unless so heavily entrenched in their job that no one can hope to get enough votes to get elected is going to say they're against the 2nd ammendment. Feinstein is one example of a politician who will serve until she dies so she can say whatever she wants, which is why in 1995 she openly said she wanted to ban all guns. that move would be political suicide most anywhere in this nation, except california, maybe 1 or 2 other states. Difference is, Obama had the ambition to get in the white house, so he couldn't just openly say it.

Fine, but it's total bullshit to insult him for at least trying to appeal to them and keep on with the onslaught and continously try to say he's trying to take their guns away.

they want to ban guns to 'prevent crime', except it's been shown, all over the world, that it simply does not work, and yet the gun ban groups ignore this fact.

Erm no. The US has one of the murder rates in the Western world, much higher than Canada or Britain which have lower murder rates. Although gun control isn't the only factor, we see here a problem with people assuming correlation = causation. For example income inequality has shown to be heavily correlated with crime.

again, you find a VERY VERY TINY GROUP and try to connect them to everyone which is outright dishonest. you're as bad as those who tried to paint the tea party movement as a bunch of stupid redneck bigots by seeking out the 1 guy in the crowd who actually was a stupid redneck bigot and tie them to the entire party. if a small group of idiots is all you got to work with, then, i suppose you may as well close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and begin screamingly about them loudly because that's about the only way you'll win an argument.

Oh I'm sorry I didn't know the NRA was a tiny group that didn't represent the average gun owner. Also I enjoy being able to read because I never said they represented the whole of gun owners that wasn't my point. I know fully well that the average gun rights person isn't even as radical as the NRA is, my point was that the gun rights lobby is the problem here, not the gun control people.

as I said before, you're being dishonest, tying a few people to everyone. in that case OMFG ALL DEMOCRATS WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS BECAUSE FEINSTEIN WANTS TO BAN ALL GUNS AND SHE SPEAKS FOR ALL DEMOCRATS!

And again I say you've missed the point.

it's because those in the media focus on the negative and what bolsters their point of view while ignoring the facts and putting aside what doesn't and stick it somewhere few will find, but will leave it there because removing it entirely will out them for their bias.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKLA3BODXr0

Tell me that wasn't one of the biggest pieces of bullshit in politics lately?

obviously a chunk of metal passing through your body has the potential to kill. however, the Hague convention of 1899 prohibits the use of expanding and explosive bullets in international warfare, which ARE designed to kill. the body count on the battlefield would be FAR higher otherwise. there's a reason why the number of injured in a war always seem to outnumber the number killed. a bullet that flattens or explodes when it strikes an object would raise the body count significantly.

That still doesn't change the point of guns in general. It may make them less deadly but it certainly doesn't mean they're not supposed to kill people.

It's more a matter of culture, than availability of weapons, which is something the gun grabbers ignore completely. the UK has more or less total ban on guns, and yet their gun crime is still a major problem. why? they have a similar culture to the USA. they have gangs and lots of them, it got so bad the cops actually had to patrol with submachine guns. the gang problem in the UK got to the point where the police needed fully automatic weapons to deal with them. think about that. in a nation with a gun ban, they cops need fully automatic weapons to deal with criminals.

Let's see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-re lated_death_rate

Had to scroll down to find the UK, US though is one of the top. Again this is stupid because gun control is hardly even a dimension, the US has one of the biggest income inequalities, this leads to many problems, gun violence being one of them a bad education system being another.

now, you go to a place like Japan, and you notice the culture is FAR different. criminals are heavily frowned upon and their culture values things like education and being part of something bigger than themselves. They still have criminals, they still have gangs... they still have gun violence.

Very very little. Japan heavily regulates guns and you can only shoot one at a range. Part of it is that a gun is considered a privilege, not a right.....

ok, continue on with your blatant intellectual dishonesty. go ahead, keep making conspiracy theorist references, and painting everyone with the same brush, while claiming not to.

Let's go on completely ignoring what I'm typing because that was something completely unrelated to the content of my post.

At 2/11/13 05:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Since there is no other use for an Assaulting weapon like "AR - 15" than to cause terror and maim, murder than you can see the rational behind banning the ownership and use of said weapon as you can choose other weapons to target practice with and collect.

I'm going to pretend you have a point and leave it at that.

At 2/11/13 03:43 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

why own toilet paper when you can use your fingers?

...

None of those ^ are killing machines THAT'S WHY !

And neither are assault rifles! lol

At 2/11/13 04:45 PM, Shade wrote:

At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/11/13 03:15 PM, Shade wrote:

Why own an AR if you aren't assaulting anything?

why? it doesn't matter why. when you get into the realm of "do you need it?" things go downhill very quickly.

Here I am stupidly assuming you'd answer my question.

The point is, that there are people saying they need to be banned with arguments that are by and large mostly made upon emotion rather than fact. Ergo, the onus is on people who support the AWB to actually articulate factual reasons why they need to be banned.

Instead all we get are emotional arguments that are not reflective of the reality of the gun crime phenomenon.

As for your question...

* The AR-15 is a good gun for ranchers taking out coyotes preying on cattle and other livestock.
* The AK-47 is a good alternative to a high powered hunting rifle if you're hunting in the brush and do not need all that power.

But in the end, assault rifles are rarely used in crime and when they are...they are far less effective than handguns or shotguns.

At 2/12/13 01:11 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 2/11/13 03:43 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:

why own toilet paper when you can use your fingers?

...

None of those ^ are killing machines THAT'S WHY !

And neither are assault rifles! lol

Wow you truly are ignorant most gun advocates are though.

Gun advocates are like kids that choose to scratch their face with the middle finger.

At 2/12/13 04:16 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/12/13 01:11 PM, TheMason wrote:

And neither are assault rifles! lol

Wow you truly are ignorant most gun advocates are though.

Umm...you do realize I am military and a hunter...so I actually have the training, knowledge, and skills to be a bona fide authority on the subject... right?

If anyone is ignorant... it's you. You have yet to display any nuance or knowledge on this topic.