Let's Talk About Gun Control

[daze23]

So how do we define assault weapons? Is a 9mm semi auto considered an assault weapon or does the assault weapons ban only refer to weapons that can be converted to fully auto? (ARs, AKs etc.)?

I imagine it would be something similar to the 1994 ban

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
-Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
-Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
-Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
-Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
-A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
-Detachable magazine.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

LOL calm the fukk down, I don't have a horse in this race either way....I don't support the NRA I couldn't care less about them as an organization...and you're right, I really don't give a fukk about guns..

lol...Exactly. If Obama did nothing on gun control, you would call him a spineless coward and accuse him of bending over for rednecks and not caring about black youth being murdered by guns in places like Chicago.

You only exist in this forum to be a knee-jerk hater and a debbie downer. Whatever floats your boats.

 

[Robbie3000]

I imagine it would be something similar to the 1994 ban

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah I saw this but was confused especially for handguns. So under Obama's proposal semi automatic handguns with clips that hold 10 rounds or less would not be banned right? But it would ban semiautomatic handguns such as Uzis and techs even if they had clips that hold less than 10 rounds because their are fully automatic versions of these weapons?

I'm not a gun guy.

 

[GetInTheTruck]

lol...Exactly. If Obama did nothing on gun control, you would call him a spineless coward and accuse him of bending over for rednecks and not caring about black youth being murdered by guns in places like Chicago.

You only exist in this forum to be a knee-jerk hater and a debbie downer. Whatever floats your boats.

I've come to the conclusion that it's not Obama I dislike as much as his most ardent supporters. But maybe you can tell me why he feels compelled to issue all types of executive orders when a bunch of white kids get killed by some psycho but we don't really hear him address his hometown being a literal graveyard with nearly the same fervor. Maybe it's because the problem is deeper than guns since Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country...or maybe it's because he knows most of America could give two shyts about black kids killing each other in Chicago or wherever else. I don't like this idea that we can stop gun crimes just by passing a few laws that wont keep guns out of criminals hands but instead make things harder for gun owners who play by the rules.

I've always hated politicians. Part of the reason I may seem like an "obama hater" is because he's the only one who actually fooled me into voting for him. Truthfully, they all make me sick. It's nothing personal.

 

[daze23]

Yeah I saw this but was confused especially for handguns. So under Obama's proposal semi automatic handguns with clips that hold 10 rounds or less would not be banned right? But it would ban semiautomatic handguns such as Uzis and techs even if they had clips that hold less than 10 rounds because their are fully automatic versions of these weapons?

I'm not a gun guy.

I really don't know about the details of the current plan, but I think it might be a little more harsh than the 1994 ban. for example, the new NY law sets the criteria at a semi-auto rifle with any one of those attchments

 

[GoPro]

Listening to MSNBC today, I swear all these anti-gun advocates want to "have a conversation". Seems like everytime a liberal wants to change things they abuse the phrase "have a conversation".

 

[Soymuscle Mike]

I've come to the conclusion that it's not Obama I dislike as much as his most ardent supporters. But maybe you can tell me why he feels compelled to issue all types of executive orders when a bunch of white kids get killed by some psycho but we don't really hear him address his hometown being a literal graveyard with nearly the same fervor. Maybe it's because the problem is deeper than guns since Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country...or maybe it's because he knows most of America could give two shyts about black kids killing each other in Chicago or wherever else. I don't like this idea that we can stop gun crimes just by passing a few laws that wont keep guns out of criminals hands but instead make things harder for gun owners who play by the rules.

I've always hated politicians. Part of the reason I may seem like an "obama hater" is because he's the only one who actually fooled me into voting for him. Truthfully, they all make me sick. It's nothing personal.

he addressed it months ago, and he even proposed the exact same thing he did now - problem was there were elections coming up.

From 29th of Oct:

""I live on the South Side of Chicago. Some of these murders are happening just a few blocks from where I live. I have friends whose family members have been killed," said Obama, who maintains a residence in the city's Hyde Park neighborhood. "What I've said is that we've got to have an 'all-of-the-above' approach. We have to enforce our gun laws more effectively. We've got to keep them out of the hands of criminals. We've got to strengthen background checks."

Clearly a personal issue for Obama, the president got more solemn when talking about the upswing in violent deaths in the city after decades of decline. "What I know is that gun violence is part of the issue," he said. "But part of the issue also is kids who feel so little hope and think their prospects for the future are so small that their attitude is, 'I'm going to end up in jail or dead.' And they will take all kinds of risks."

With that level of nihilistic thought, the president said we have to ask if we're providing those children's parents with enough support from an early age, and are those kids getting early childhood education so that when they walk into school every day they feel they can succeed? "If they've got mental health issues, are they getting the kind of services and counseling that they need early on?" he said.

"Are we making those investments in those young people so that by the time they're 11, 12, 13, 15 ... they can make responsible choices because they feel they've got something at stake?"

The bottom line, he argued, was looking at how effective we are at keeping those guns out of the hands of kids who are prone to shooting at each other and broaden the conversation about firearm violence so that these "kids don't feel as if they've got no prospects in life and end up killing each other."


Obama on Chicago gun violence

 

[GetInTheTruck]

ICE T with some common sense:

 

[Box Cutta]

So from what I understand, Obama is asking for like 500 million for his proposals...and they are pretty much ONLY going to stop "mass killings"...so 500 million to save maybe 100 people a year?

Shame that the conversation didn't turn towards urban violence....

At this point, I'd probably rather they didn't do anything.

 

[Type Username Here]

So from what I understand, Obama is asking for like 500 million for his proposals...and they are pretty much ONLY going to stop "mass killings"...so 500 million to save maybe 100 people a year?

Shame that the conversation didn't turn towards urban violence....

At this point, I'd probably rather they didn't do anything.

Because the solution to urban violence is ending the Drug War and focusing on eliminating poverty and income inequality.

If we did those things we could eliminate a significant chuck of gun violence.

But most of what is being proposed is to make people feel safe and to show that they are doing something.

IN 5-10 years when something like this happens again instead of realizing that their ideals don't translate, they'll be asking for more restrictions and the cycle will continue.

 

[Type Username Here]

I have to give it up to the President in one regards:

"Like most Americans, I believe in a individual's right to beat arms" which is a final swat to this "collective rights" garbage.

Not sure if he really believes it, but it being said in such a high profile press conference was enough for now.

 

[No1]

I've come to the conclusion that it's not Obama I dislike as much as his most ardent supporters. But maybe you can tell me why he feels compelled to issue all types of executive orders when a bunch of white kids get killed by some psycho but we don't really hear him address his hometown being a literal graveyard with nearly the same fervor. Maybe it's because the problem is deeper than guns since Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country...or maybe it's because he knows most of America could give two shyts about black kids killing each other in Chicago or wherever else. I don't like this idea that we can stop gun crimes just by passing a few laws that wont keep guns out of criminals hands but instead make things harder for gun owners who play by the rules.

I've always hated politicians. Part of the reason I may seem like an "obama hater" is because he's the only one who actually fooled me into voting for him. Truthfully, they all make me sick. It's nothing personal.

I think you're overestimating the scope of what he expects these gun restrictions to do. On a local level, like in Chicago, that will fall on the politicians in those areas to bring about more stringent laws. The federal law will allow for that if passed, only so much as the local and state laws will not then be clashing with federal law in anyway. But I think you're generally right. But you've got to get off this "be contrarian for the sake of it" just because I dislike politicians steeze. It takes away from otherwise good points you may make. I don't think any of us like politicians. And don' post up Ice T, my homie can't even regulate his household

 

[No1]

So from what I understand, Obama is asking for like 500 million for his proposals...and they are pretty much ONLY going to stop "mass killings"...so 500 million to save maybe 100 people a year?

Shame that the conversation didn't turn towards urban violence....

At this point, I'd probably rather they didn't do anything.

If the conversation turned to urban violence then you wouldn't get anything done because that is what the NRA tried to shift it to. They would essentially make it an issue of criminality only and would just push for harsher penalties against criminals or those caught having guns illegally which would do nothing to stop urban violence and would just put more people in urban areas in prison and repeat the cycle. The mayors of all the major urban areas are signing on.

You have to think strategy. But I don't think any of us believe that this in and of itself will stop urban violence. We all know the decades it took us to get to that.

 

[newworldafro]

I think you're overestimating the scope of what he expects these gun restrictions to do. On a local level, like in Chicago, that will fall on the politicians in those areas to bring about more stringent laws. The federal law will allow for that if passed, only so much as the local and state laws will not then be clashing with federal law in anyway. But I think you're generally right. But you've got to get off this "be contrarian for the sake of it" just because I dislike politicians steeze. It takes away from otherwise good points you may make. I don't think any of us like politicians. And don' post up Ice T, my homie can't even regulate his household

How ad hominem of you ......

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

 

[No1]

How ad hominem of you ......

Okay.