jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (9 posts)

Obama on Guns

  1. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … lians.html

    At least he's making his position clear... somewhat.

    It's hard to know what politicians (or pro gun-control types) are talking about sometimes, because they use the wrong terminology to talk about guns. Case in point: Brady Campaign calling to 'ban assault clips with large magazines'. - Getting confused on what clips and magazines are.

    These terms, AR15, AK47, Assault Weapon, Sniper Rifle, Assault Rifle, High-Capacity Magazine, Tactical Gear, Tactical Vest, Bullet-Proof Vest, etc etc etc... they are almost never used properly, so who knows what they really mean?

    Does Obama want to get rid of AR15, AK47 military models with selective fire, or civilian versions(which aren't really called by those names) that are semi-automatic? What about other semi-automatic rifles? Semi-automatic handguns? Carbines? Shotguns?

    A 30-round magazine in an AR15 variant is standard capacity, would that be included in 'high' capacity magazines?

    Since politicians won't sit down to a serious discussion about firearms, and the media continues to use sensational words like assault and tactical, the whole discussion gets hurt and more divisive, as nobody is speaking the same language as the other side.

    For the record, I am completely against banning rifles. Rifles serve, among other things, a very basic function for self-defense that can't be fulfilled with any other weapon.

    In addition, it is a right. We allow the government to take too many of our rights. The Patriot Act, NDAA, among others. It's a slippery slope.

    1. recommend1 profile image72
      recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So do grenade launchers, anti personnel mines and tanks.

      However  -   who exactly are you defending yourself from with all this harware ?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Grenade launchers, mines, and tanks don't serve a basic self-defense function. Their function is based on warfare-type scenarios, where rifles serve in personal defense scenarios. Not the same thing at all.

        I'm not currently defending myself from anybody. If I need to, I can (hopefully) stop anyone who comes into my house with bad intent, or someone who tries to do me harm when I am out.

        1. recommend1 profile image72
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think you are choosing your own meaning of the terms - in the scenarios previously painted a lot has been made about protecting the individual from bad government as a civil liberty, I don't think a pop gun is going to be much use against tanks and armoured vehicles when they come to strip you of your civil liberties and put you into the FEMA concentration camps they are building in every state.

          If you feel the need to defend your house with a weapon then you are among only a few third world countries where this is a serious issue,  apart from the obvious advantage of strategically placing landmines in your garden and a rocket launcher for defence agains tram raiders . .
          . . however, the most obvious recourse is to change your system of government while theoretically you have the democratic right to do so.

    2. Billy Hicks profile image89
      Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's pointless to discuss the issue. Whenever a law is passed banning a weapon, the manufacturers simply change a couple (mostly cosmetic) features, give it a new model number, and throw it back out on the market.

      As I said recently, I personally feel that restrictions on guns of any kind are impractical. If you want to cut down on "gun violence", regulate bullets.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How will regulating bullets help?

        There will always be the issue of someone buying illegally, stealing, or making it themselves.

        Criminals don't obey the law, so laws don't serve as a deterrant to them.

        1. Billy Hicks profile image89
          Billy Hicksposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Because guns won't do you much good without the bullets.

          Right now, there is hardly any regulation on ammunition at all, so even restrictions would help.

          Laws aren't meant to serve as a deterrent, punishments are. My anal-retentive nature aside, as with most things, you simply place severe financial penalties on the people who sell ammunition illegally (as we already do with alcohol and tobacco).

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      i don't really understand why so many people get so riled up about Obama and guns he really has not made any moves towards gun legislation and as I remember it the only president to crew with my gun rights was Reagan also I hear (though I do need to do more research) that Romney passed gun restriction legislation on assault weapons etc. in his state.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't like to see the POTUS, in his first term, start to talk like this. Every president will try to get re-elected, but this reveals his feelings toward 'assault' rifles.