It's official, Obama is coming after your guns

[Cade]

I'm sorry that this is my first post on the P1999 forums, but I have to say something here.

In regards to the first claim about an assault weapons ban:

Do we really need these? A shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun should be more than enough for any sort of self/home defense situation. All the people I have met who own or would like to own anything larger probably shouldn't have been allowed to. Really, in what situation do you think that you will need an assault rifle or extended magazine?

As for the UN treaty:

What does this have to do with gun control within the US? All I've been able to find about it is conservatives arguing that it will interfere with the 2nd amendment, but none of them seem to be able to explain how. It applies to international trade only.

For the record I am a gun owner and oppose domestic gun control. However these claims that Obama is trying to take our guns really get under my skin. I'm not commenting on Feinstein, as she has nothing to do with Obama or this thread.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by United Nations Resolution regarding Arms Trade Treaty, 64th session, agenda item 96

[it is] the exclusive right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership, including through constitutional protections on private ownership.

As I said, the UN treaty only addresses international trade. It will not interfere with regulation within the US no matter how many times it is repeated with no source of information.

Since we're talking about assault weapons in terms of an assault weapons ban, perhaps we should define 'assault weapon' by the political definition instead of arguing about which dictionary to use. In political terms, as evidenced by the 10 year Federal Assault Weapons Ban on which another assault weapons ban would be based, used very specific language and clearly defines what would be considered an assault rifle. The old ban then goes on to list all of the 19 weapons which fit the description. Most of the recent pushes for an assault weapons ban focus on renewing the very same law, and therefore only those 19 weapons would be banned. Again, I don't support such a law, I'm only pointing out that it would have very little impact on the ability to own firearms.

[Lazortag]

Who cares, the 2nd amendment is dumb anyway.

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by Lazortag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who cares, the 2nd amendment is dumb anyway.

Fuck you.

Also, fuck anyone who thinks they can take away HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of small arms that US citizens have legally owned for hundreds of years. Lol.

[quido]

The semantic difference is irrelevant to the actual discussion. As someone said before, what counts is how the law defines such weapons, not how people traditionally or non-traditionally categorize these weapons.

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by quido [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The semantic difference is irrelevant to the actual discussion. As someone said before, what counts is how the law defines such weapons, not how people traditionally or non-traditionally categorize these weapons.

Exactly right. And we all know with our government, when you give them an inch, they take a mile.

If Diane fuckstein had her way, she would make it to where a 200 dollar mossberg shotgun from academy would be considered an assault weapon. There truly are people within our government that go to bed at night dreaming about taking away Individuals rights to own and carry firearms. This is fact.

[Black Jesus]

Originally Posted by Lazortag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who cares, the 2nd amendment is dumb anyway.

Get the fuck out of here Canadian. Fun fact: Canada's monarch is Queen Elizabeth, and they are slaves without anything like the 2nd amendment.

[Autotune]

Originally Posted by Cade [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm sorry that this is my first post on the P1999 forums, but I have to say something here.

In regards to the first claim about an assault weapons ban:

Do we really need these? A shotgun, hunting rifle, or handgun should be more than enough for any sort of self/home defense situation. All the people I have met who own or would like to own anything larger probably shouldn't have been allowed to. Really, in what situation do you think that you will need an assault rifle or extended magazine?

As for the UN treaty:

What does this have to do with gun control within the US? All I've been able to find about it is conservatives arguing that it will interfere with the 2nd amendment, but none of them seem to be able to explain how. It applies to international trade only.

For the record I am a gun owner and oppose domestic gun control. However these claims that Obama is trying to take our guns really get under my skin. I'm not commenting on Feinstein, as she has nothing to do with Obama or this thread.

I use assault weapons on coyotes, true story.