Keep Assault Rifles Legal

Rivalry Side A | Politics | News

Ban Assault Rifles

Rivalry Side B | Politics | News

Should American citizens be able to own assault rifles or should Super Lib Obama and his allies in Congress ban them?

1

Posted by in Politics / News on 5/03/09
Debate Leaders
  1. Vulcan (4 votes)
  1. mama kaz (3 votes)
  1. sarahmcarr (3 votes)
  1. manonfire (2 votes)
  1. The Boss (2 votes)

Side A fans: (44)

Neutral Fans: (0)


Side A Comment

Grand Larson - 7/8/12 @ 10:34 AM:
0
Keep your hands off the second amendment, end of story.

Side A Comment

randja - 4/11/11 @ 3:43 PM:
1
IF WE ARE SMART WE WILL ALL GRAB AS MANY AS WE CAN WE ARE GOING TO NEED THEM
Vulcan - 6/27/11 @ 5:58 PM: Ally | Side A
0
Ha, you are so right, and people are grabbing them up faster than you can believe. The gun industry has been hard pressed to keep up with demand ever since Obama took office. He is the best thing that could have happened for gun sales.
The Boss - 6/27/11 @ 8:08 PM: Ally | Side A

Side A Comment

mama kaz - 6/7/09 @ 10:57 PM:
0
Well said...Our present government is making changes by hiding things in bills that look innocent enough until you read the fine print. I believe that's exactly what they are doing with the assault weapons. They will come up with a bill that apparently bans them but upon further exam will be much more extensive. Since our lawmakers are passing bills they haven't even read this can and will happen if we don't scream loud enough.

Side A Comment

ohshit - 6/7/09 @ 4:49 AM:
1
An assault weapon is defined as a semi-auto with a pistol grip and other cosmetic features. Semi-autos without a pistol grip or other cosmetic features are somehow less deadly and not as evil....

So called assault rifles are NOT any different from your grandpa's deer rifle he used to feed your family, teach you gun safety, and go to the range with.

They start banning some guns, then they ban them all. I can tell you that only the honest will be hurt, criminals will always break the law and always have guns, just like in England where their violent crime jumped up like crazy after they banned guns.
LIBERAL - 1/16/10 @ 10:15 PM: Rival | Side B
-2
There is a very clear difference between a deer rifle and an assault rifle. Most deer rifles do not have a selective fire option of single round, three round bursts, or full automatic. So please don't try to educate people on a subject you clearly don't understand. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm not trying to embarrass you, but please be more informed before you make such statements. Others are so impressionable and are likely to believe what you say. By the way, the government is not going to take away all of your guns. They may not allow you to purchase weapons that clearly are not necessary to defend yourself in the case of a home burglary. A handgun or even a shotgun should be efficient enough to thwart such an event. Do I really need to remind most of you that at the time the 2nd amendment was conceived that the right to keep and bear arms was mostly a reaction to English occupation. I hope not. And mama kaz we don't need the government to make all of our decisions for us, but we do need them to make a majority. Remember that it was the "government" who wrote the Constitution and gave women the right to vote. It is hypocritical to say we don't need a government making these types of decisions when it is the same government who originally set forth the framework for which you say you are defending. Our Constitution is not being torn apart. If anything, it is being amended. As well it should be. Times change, and so does the need to protect the American people, whether they realize it or not, sometimes from themselves.
Vulcan - 6/27/11 @ 5:50 PM: Ally | Side A
0
Rick--- Swing and a miss. You choose to belittle someone else for being ignorant of the meaning of the word assault rifle and then you spout incorrect information.
manufactured http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
Normal citizens in the United States are not able to purchase selective fire or purely automatic weapons without going through the class three tax stamp application process which includes a two to six month background check by the ATF. This is on a per weapon basis and can only be used to purchase automatic weapons manufactured prior to May 19, 1986. With the limited number of these weapons available the price is so restrictively high that most people cannot afford to purchase one.
So please don't try to educate people on a subject you clearly don't understand. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm not trying to embarrass you, but please be more informed before you make such statements. Others are so impressionable and are likely to believe what you say.

Side A Comment

mama kaz - 6/6/09 @ 6:50 PM:
3
I also meant to say that I should be able to defend my liberty with any weapon I want. I don't need the government to make all my decisions for me.

Side A Comment

mama kaz - 6/6/09 @ 6:49 PM:
0
As Americans, we should have the right and the ability to defend ourselves from any enemy whether foreign or domestic. I never thought I would think of my government as being a possible enemy but its looking more like that everyday. Our constitution is being torn apart and when that's gone, what do we have? Certainly not the United States of America. Texas is looking better all the time.

Side A Comment

manonfire - 6/6/09 @ 4:43 PM:
2
The whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to give the people the power to forcefully change the government should it ever come to that. Assault weapons might not generally be needed by civilians, but they really are if you look at the grand picture.

The Constitution restricts the government, not the people. The 2nd Amendment was intended to be a last ditch effort to enforce the rights we have against a possible future oppressive government.

If we ban assault weapons from civilians and only the government has them, there would be no way to forcefully remove a seriously corrupt government.

The government should fear its people - not the other way around; that's the spirit of the 2A.

Side A Comment

09 partytime - 6/6/09 @ 3:18 PM:
1
I think this whole issue of an assault rifle being somehow more dangerous or unnecessary is complete @!#@!#@%@ Most people don't even know that there really is no such thing as an "assault rifle," its just a term the media uses to describe military type weapons. Most people label any gun with a high cap magazine and scary looking body as an assault rifle when in reality it is just a semi-automatic hunting rifle with a few add-ons. And as for assault rifles being the weapon of choice for a criminal, I think not. The top 5 most commonly used weapons in crime starts with your average 12 gauge mossburg which only holds 3-8 rounds and the other guns are small caliber handguns with 6-15 round capacities.

Side B Comment

J - 5/22/09 @ 12:43 AM:
0
By saying the comment "should be left u to the government" I was actually referring to the U.S. Military. That was typo. I will however restate that fact that the military should have assault rifles not people like you and me Mr. Kazinec should not in my belief. A gun yes. I do understand your views and respect them and see your point though. I actually agree with you on some things as you know. The government has forgotten that it works for us, and that it's not out parent, charity, God, or lover. But it's been that way for a long time. Our founding fathers would be ashamed of us and the freedoms that they dreamed of us having. It's not all Obama's fault though. Someone at some point has to take some type of leadership role though. He stepped into a huge mess as we all know. He's trying to fix it, give him some time. Like I've said before someone has to have faith and hope that things will get better, they will probably get worse though. Sorry for rambling.
manonfire - 6/6/09 @ 4:46 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Civilians should have the power to use force to remove the government from power should it be necessary. That's what the 2nd Amendment was about.

If you remove assault rifles and the like from civilians' hands, you remove the power to defend the country from an oppressive and anti-citizen government.

I own an assault rifle. If a ban came down, there would be no way I would ever give it up without a fight. Government has restrictions regarding weapons - not the citizens.

Side B Comment

J - 5/19/09 @ 10:34 PM:
-1
I dont think the average American has a need for an assault rifle, that should be left up to the govt. I don't think you need that type of gun to shoot a deer or a bear. I think every American has the right to defend themselves and nobody should be able to take that right away from us. But to me an assault rifle is taking "protection" way too far.
The Boss - 5/20/09 @ 6:58 AM: Rival | Side A
1
There is something very troubling about a portion of your comment. "Should be left up to the government" It is that kind of perception of the federal governments role that has lifted Obama's parachute of government take over, regulation, and pure control of more and more of our lives as every day passes that he's in office.

The government is not the parents of the American public and is not a charity, the government works for us and that is something they forgot a long time ago.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
Thomas Jefferson

Side A Comment

mama kaz - 5/17/09 @ 10:21 PM:
0
The point is that making assault rifles illegal is only the first step in making all guns illegal. I own guns and I'm not "mean." However, there are a lot of crazy people out there and they will always find a way to own weapons. I feel safer knowing I can protect myself and my grandkids if it came down to it. I'm not out looking for a fight and hope to God I never have to pull the trigger but I know I would if I had to. We also spend a lot of time at our property where there are wild boars and bears. I don't worry so much about the bears but wild boars are very aggressive and can tear you apart. It takes a powerful gun to stop one of those. It's also pretty isolated so if some nutcase came along I might not have the luxury of being rescued by the sheriff. A lot of people here wouldn't have food to eat if it weren't for hunting. Some people just really enjoy target shooting as a hobby. There are a lot of reasons for owning guns and those of us who do are not war mongers or psychos. We're just regular people who love the constitution and the rights and privileges it provides. We are concerned that our rights are being taken from us and that no one is representing us in DC anymore.

Side B Comment

Ripi - 5/15/09 @ 11:17 PM:
-1
The operative word is:ASSAULT weapon.
No one outside of war needs an assault weapon. I don't mind you having a regular hunting rifle but that's where it should stop. If you use an assault weapon for hunting deer, you've made the game unfair.
Police should have the same type of equipment that the criminals have (exception #1).
big ben - 6/6/09 @ 6:25 PM: Rival | Side A
0
I appreciate your comments. I do agree with you in the sense that assault rifles should not be used for hunting. I also do not agree with the hunters who put gps on their dog's collar and or video coverage which they track from their coffee cup and climatized truck cab. I have seen some of this in TN. In fairness, I am not a big hunter, but am going to try to make a deer trip in october with a 308 bolt action. TO get back to the point, I do feel it is important for law abiding citizens to have ass. rifles. This is because the 2nd ammendement was designed to protect the people from a tryanical government. If the people are throwing rocks at the govenment who has catapults (so to speak), it is not a good opportunity for the people to bring back liberty. Please look at history everyone. The Roman empire was the strongest society that the world had seen up to that point, and the great empire fell. We have to realize that many freedoms are being taken from us or are in the works. Type hr45 (gun rights), hr 875 sub section 206 (food Supply), hr 1966 (freedom of speech)! These are real!!!! Do not believe the main stream media. They are using hitleraian type propaganda to capture the sheep. These things are happening. I have not watched main stream media for 5 months. The guns are the only means of fighting back if the need comes.
Vulcan - 6/27/11 @ 5:37 PM: Rival | Side A
0
The AR15 is normally chambered in either .223 or .308, the only thing that makes it different from your hunting rifle is that yours is bolt action and the AR15 is semi automatic. However, it is just as easy to purchase a semi automatic hunting rifle chambered in .308 or the more powerful 30-06. The term assault rifle is just that, a term used for fear mongering and to stir up emotion in the uneducated swing votes. Anyone who is fully familiar with all aspects involved in this discussion and still wants assault rifles banned is a liberal gun grabber at heart and is using this as a stepping stone towards banning all firearms.

Side A Comment

Jeff - 5/11/09 @ 7:54 PM:
0
They can have my gun when they take it from my cold dead hands, I believe in gun control but they will never be able to take all guns...say they do people will take up sticks and beat the crap out of each other,what will they do next cut all the trees down?

Side A Comment

cutie122403 - 5/8/09 @ 11:15 PM:
0
You know there are people out there that just simply collect guns. I completely agree with you mama kaz, very well said.I get tired of people talking about guns when we have drunk drivers out there every day killing people.
cutie122403 - 5/8/09 @ 11:16 PM: Ally | Side A
0
No one is going to tell me if I can own a gun or not.
Porow - 5/13/09 @ 12:51 AM: Ally | Side A
0
Why miss Sergeant Kristy, your a strong supporter of these oh so lethal weapons! Why is that? You must hava mean side after all...
cutie122403 - 5/23/09 @ 11:05 PM: Ally | Side A
0
Haha. No I don't have a mean side but I do support the right to own a weapon.

Side A Comment

mama kaz - 5/7/09 @ 8:47 PM:
0
Gun control has never and will never keep guns out of the hands of those who commit gun crimes. I am a middle aged grandmother of five and I just took my carry permit class and asked my husband to get me a hand gun for my birthday. It's not the lunatics I fear, it's the government. I believe our constitution is being dismantled including our right to bear arms. The constitution does not distinguish what kind of arms we have the right to bear, nor should it. I will do whatever I have to do to defend my constitution and the liberties that go with it. It means something to me...
Vulcan - 6/27/11 @ 6:59 PM: Ally | Side A
0
Gun control is using two hands!!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Side A Comment

Sarah Forester - 5/7/09 @ 12:37 PM:
0
more specifically assault rifles since there are semi auto hand guns.

Side A Comment

Sarah Forester - 5/7/09 @ 11:35 AM:
0
we have them...we fire them...we may even have built one...people kill people, not guns...taking them away is not going to fix this world...honestly it is too late! i would like for one of you to look up statistics as to how many people are killed by hand guns compared to semi automatic weapons.

Side B Comment

cyberanto - 5/6/09 @ 10:59 PM:
0
Fluoride in your water doesn't really affect your opinion on gun control. However if you drink lots of it when you are a baby, it will make your teeth more resistant to cavities, but they might have brown stains on them called fluorosis.
Porow - 5/13/09 @ 11:32 PM: Rival | Side A
0
dude guns. not floride dude, get it rite! stay on subject!

Side A Comment

big ben - 5/6/09 @ 10:32 PM:
0
Just to clarify, I am praying that the fema camps does not happen. I am not attempting to foretell the future neither. I am just working hard to gather evidence and warn my fellow americans. I am not saying that shots will be negative for sure neither. I am just using logic. If a dog bites you, you will probably be careful around the dog the next time. It does not mean the dog will bite you again though. Finnaly. I am working on locating the kissinger quote source. I have heard alex jones state this quote of kissinger multiple times. I will continue t o search. It may be on council of foreign relations web site data base or un. thank you and best wishes.

Side A Comment

big ben - 5/6/09 @ 10:13 PM:
0
Okay, with all due respect, anyone who does not fear Obama and his gun policy history has had too much flouride in their drinking water. How much more history does a person need. This is cut and dry. There is no room for argument and court adjourned.

according to http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2322
Barack Obama’s gun control policy, or should I write anti-gun record is long and informative:

* 1994 to 2001 - Obama was on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation. This foundation is the largest funding source for radical anti-gun groups in the country.
* 1996 - Obama supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
* 1999 - Obama proposed a 500 percent increase in the excise taxes on firearms and ammunition. This tax would effectively punish gun owners for buying guns and ammunition.
* 2003 - Obama voted in support of legislation that would have banned privately owned hunting shotguns, target rifles and black powder rifles in Illinois.
* 2004 - Obama voted against legislation intended to protect homeowners from prosecution in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion.
Do we need to even bring up rahm emanuel? He was also a state representative in IL until Obama appointed him as Chief of Staff. He has a F rating by the NRA for his duties as an IL Representatives. He also is the one who introduces the mandatory service ideas. THe following is from his book and is similiar to HR 1444 subsection 206 which requires mandatory government service. What a JOKE!!!Remember Hitler anyone, okay what about stalin, im sorry, you were public educated, what about chou?
according to J.D. Tuccille
Albuquerque Examiner
November 7, 2008

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, President-Elect Barack Obama’s choice for chief of staff in his incoming administration, is co-author of a book, The Plan: Big Ideas for America, that calls for, among other things, compulsory service for all Americans ages 18 to 25. The following excerpt is from pages 61-62 of the 2006 book:

It’s time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, All Americans between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service. …

Here’s how it would work. Young people will know that between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five, the nation will enlist them for three months of civilian service. They’ll be asked to report for three months of basic civil defense training in their state or community, where they will learn what to do in the event of biochemical, nuclear or conventional attack; how to assist others in an evacuation; how to respond when a levee breaks or we’re hit by a natural disaster. These young people will be available to address their communities’ most pressing needs

I am glad that I have learned from history. I will also add that Britain and their homeland security has banned mike savage from their country because of his comments. Way to go Britain, giving up freedom of speech. they have also outlawed talking against the EU or open borders!!! I will not waste anymore of my time. I thank god I have learned from history and am preparing myself by protecting myself. Those who are still in denial, go aheand and walk into the furnace at the fema camp. Yes, as the guard tells you, there are cupcakes in there waiting for you.......
Is sorry if this is offensive, but wake up, anytime in history that the civilians are disarmed, tyrany follows.

Denial is your worst enemy!!! For the love of mercy, look at his voting record. And no ! I hate BUSH!!!this is not about left or right, this about freedom people!!!
Guns in citizens hands are what keeps us all free.DO I need to quote Kissinger also. I think I will. He recently stated that all american civillians will be disarmed by october this year. You want to wave a stick at him, thats fine. He has much more control with the global elite than you think. I will also mention that US homeland security chief has stated two sundays ago that the worst of the flu is yet to come....... How the hell does she know that. You can call me a quack now, but dont ask me for help come september, october. I guess she has a crtstal ball. This is all perfectly normal right?? Go ahead and take the FREE vaccine that they are preparing for the sheep. (dont worry that the who has asked Baxter to work on the vaccine for the new crises even after the who admitted that they are investigating baxter for the march 6th bird flu contamination in the vaccine.) the times of india, canadian press and toronto sun if you want to type baxter scandal. Go ahead and take the vaccine my friends, let me know how good it is.......and dont forget, rahm emanuel stated that you should never let a good crisis go to waste. DOnt worry, they wont, marshal law will be introduced to protect you from the mutated man made april swine flu come september. Im a quack? apperently alan keyes does not think so, type in alan keyes you tube. He states here that obama will stage terror to get marshal law.

What perfect timing. the gdp has dropped 6% in each of the last 2 quarters, tax receipts are down 52 % with the lates gathered data from feb this year, and exports have dropped 30 % since jan(biggest in over 40 years) go ahead and not buy guns. Everything is going to be fine. Help me out here, why are gun sales up toward 500% give or take statitics and other variables ?

finally, the treaty, if approved, is above our constitution according to international law. Here let me spell that out again, t-h-e-t=re=aty- if approved i=s a-b=v=e u=s const-tution-

Side B Comment

cyberanto - 5/6/09 @ 9:13 PM:
-1
Imagine a world with no weapons at all! Am I too utopic?
Porow - 5/13/09 @ 12:48 AM: Rival | Side A
0
a lil beyond utopic! that world will never be possible soo dream on geezer dude!
Vulcan - 6/27/11 @ 5:26 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Before you start raising funds to make your dream come true, look at the statistics. When Australia banned firearms, the incidence of violent crimes skyrocketed. The same result has been witnessed in the U.K. Washington D.C., and Chicago. Entertainingly enough, when gun ownership is encouraged and/or concealed handgun permits are issued on a widespread basis the incidences of violent crime drop dramatically. The reason for this is simple. Even the criminals will tell you, you don't break into houses when people are home, "that's how you get shot!!!" If you take guns out of the hands of the people, there is no deterrent against the criminals doing whatever they want.

Side B Comment

Dennis Plucinik - 5/6/09 @ 8:55 PM:
0
I switched sides #&!! it

Side B Comment

Dennis Plucinik - 5/6/09 @ 8:52 PM:
3
again the only issue is around the word 'illicit manufacture' being twisted to mean 'reloading, or cleaning' ... am I the only one with a brain here?

Side B Comment

ioneill - 5/6/09 @ 2:23 PM:
1
Personally? I'd rather not see assault rifles in private ownership, but I think there's more to this than I know about.

Practically? I come from the UK, and although all guns are banned (apart from farmland use), violet crime is very high. I think we'll find new ways to kill each other regardless of whether guns are in society or not.

However, there is the argument that assault rifles are a little over-the-top for "routine duties" like hunting and protection. I'm pretty sure there are less cumbersome (and less noisy) alternatives to shoot dear with. As for personal protection? Unless someone is coming at me with a small army, I doubt I'd use a high calibre assault rifle to protect myself. Actually, I probably *would* grab my assault rifle, for effect.

Therefore owning an assault rifle is really a thing for collectors and enthusiasts, and as long at there is sufficient regulation on who owns one, I don't see it as being an urgent concern. But if illegal manufacturing and distribution is on the rise, and assault rifles are being used more in violent crimes, perhaps the system does need to be reformed.
Vulcan - 6/27/11 @ 4:53 PM: Rival | Side A
1
There are so many things wrong with the previous statements. First of all, the statement that "assault rifles" are a little over the top for hunting and protection. I would like an explanation of in what way they are over the top. Do they automatically become more dangerous because they look scary? I am also confused as to why you would think that an assault rifle would be cumbersome. They are designed to be be more maneuverable than most full sized hunting rifles. As far as my next complaint I will start it with a quick pop quiz. What do you consider "high caliber"? Does .223 count? How about .308? These are the two most common types of ammunition in "assault rifles". I assume that when you hear 30-06 that you begin to envision high caliber bullets. There are nearly no assault rifles that are chambered for 30-06. The majority of assault rifles (ar-15 and ak-47/saiga) are chambered for either .223 and .308. While the .308 bullet is the same diameter (approx) as the 30-06, the .308 is a noticeably shorter round. Coincidentally, many of the most popular hunting rifles are chambered for 30-06. .223 and .308 rifles are available in many derivatives that never have and never will be considered assault rifles.
The term assault rifle is used in this day and age as a propaganda tool by the gun grabbers. Rifles that have particular accessories are classified as assault rifles. Now I know you have visions of rifles with grenade launchers, or selective fire switches flashing through your mind, but no. The accessories they prefer to demonize are pistol grips, collapsible stocks, removable magazines, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs. Out of all of these, the only one that I would be concerned about is the bayonet lug. Grenade launchers and automatic weapons are not generally sold to private citizens in the United States without a class three tax stamp. These are issued on a per weapon basis following an in depth background check by the ATF. You should also be aware that assault rifles are almost never used in violent crimes.
Sorry, I know that was a very rambling reply.
Vulcan - 6/27/11 @ 6:02 PM: Rival | Side A
0
quick correction, barrel mounted grenade launchers are counted in the definition of an assault rifle.

Side B Comment

dannomatic - 5/6/09 @ 12:08 PM:
-1
You Americans are mental. I'm a Canadian and honestly there is NO good reason for you to own a semi automatic assault rifle. Seriously. Holy Crap.
The Boss - 5/6/09 @ 12:11 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Hunting, Protection, Collecting. There's three. As pictured, AR-15's are very acurate rifles and paired with a scope are very effective for hunting.
sarahmcarr - 5/6/09 @ 12:11 PM: Ally | Side B
3
LOL! Ya no need for anybody to own an assault rifle. But then again I'm all about peace, love and smoking weed to make the world better. ;-)
The Boss - 5/6/09 @ 12:18 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Nothing wrong with that Sarah. Peace is a wonderful thing.
Porow - 5/12/09 @ 12:08 AM: Rival | Side A
0
thats because your canadian! you wouldn understand. its our right but i do think to believe you are mistaken. You're jus as likely to die from a car wreck. TRUST ME i would kno! so before you go calling anyone mental go spend a few days AT a mental institute. reasons aint it.
Vulcan - 6/27/11 @ 5:17 PM: Rival | Side A
1
On what basis are you making the statement that there is no reason to own a semi automatic assault rifle? What semi automatic rifles is there a reason to own? I will post three links and you tell me which of these rifles is more dangerous and which one you believe is acceptable for Joe citizen to own.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/18/Mini14GB.jpg/800px-Mini14GB.jpg
http://operatorchan.org/k/arch/src/k229184_mini14main.jpg
http://www.har-bar.com/images/650_mini14_04aug07a_T_C.jpg

I'm sure that you cheated and looked ahead to this part without opening all of the links. All three of those rifles are Ruger mini14s but each one has different accessories attached to it. I would also like to point out that all of the weapons pictured shoot the same round designed for the original m16/ar15. A round which is nearly two/thirds the size of the popular 30-06 hunting round. It's easy to spout liberal gun grabbing propaganda when you don't understand the issues at hand. "Holy crap"
The Boss - 6/27/11 @ 6:21 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Took care of the duplicate comments. This brings to light the need to revisit the feature that is supposed to prevent this sort of thing. Thanks for your participation Vulcan.

Side A Comment

The Boss - 5/6/09 @ 9:59 AM:
0
This article does a good job of breaking things down. http://www.infowars.com/obama-pushing-treaty-to-ban-reloading/
Dennis Plucinik - 5/6/09 @ 8:54 PM: Rival | Side B
-1
did you even read that? Look:

1. “Illicit manufacturing” of firearms is defined as “assembly of firearms [or] ammunition … without a license….”

Hence, reloading ammunition — or putting together a lawful firearm from a kit — is clearly “illicit manufacturing.”

let me be clear: reloading != manufacturing

...am I missing something?
The Boss - 6/6/09 @ 6:50 PM: Ally | Side A
1
Do you know how many people reload their ammunition? Have you heard about the ammunition shortage? If the government makes reloading illegal then all they have to do is eliminate the supply of ammunition and banning guns won't be neccessary because a gun is useless without ammunition.

Side A Comment

big ben - 5/6/09 @ 9:56 AM:
1
As Lou Dobbs notes here, Obama is in favor of the ratifying CIFTA, the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms. On its face, the treaty sounds reasonable because it would “prevent, combat, and eradicate the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials” (emphasis added). However, upon reading the bill we discover the following:

Stressing the need, in peace processes and post-conflict situations, to achieve effective control of firearms, ammunition, explosives, and other related materials in order to prevent their entry into the illicit market.

Obama has promised Mexican President Felipe Calderon that he would urge the Senate to take up CIFTA. He is doing this under the cover of the drug cartel violence in Mexico. Obama and Calderon quoted a statistic echoed by the corporate media that 90% of the weapons seized in Mexican raids were purchased from U.S. gun shops and a reason why the U.S. needs to ratify this treaty. In fact, this is a lie — only a mere 17% of guns found at Mexico crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
featured stories Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession
Obama featured stories Obama Supports Treaty Outlawing Gun Possession

CIFTA would bury the Second Amendment under “pertinent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly.” It would criminalize ammunition reloading (defined as explosives manufacture) and gun assembly (including firearm kits and presumably breaking down weapons for cleaning or transport).

Language contained in the CIFTA treaty insists it respects “the principles of sovereignty, nonintervention, and the juridical equality of states.” Not mentioned is the fact the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties has a superior rank to national laws. If the CIFTA treaty is ratified without exception, it would kill U.S. sovereignty and lead the way to destroying the Second Amendment.

It should be noted that only the Senate needs to ratify the treaty. Article II, section 2, of the Constitution states that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”

The United States was one of the first signatories to CIFTA in November, 1997. The Convention was transmitted to the Senate in June 1998 and to this day awaits the Senate’s advice and consent. 29 of the 34 OAS member states have ratified CIFTA. Only the US, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica and St. Vincent & Grenadines have yet to do so.

this article is from infowars.com and I believe Paul Watson is the author.
People have to realize that international law can over power soverignty of our nation if the congress does not amend the treaty. That is the problem. Yes, this is the same treaty the clinton tried to pass, but the senate never ratified it. I just want people to keep a wathtful eye and write their local senators. Thank you for supporting the constitution fellow constitution supporters!!

Side A Comment

big ben - 5/5/09 @ 6:02 AM:
1
Obama is currently pushing congress to ratify the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms.
If the Senate passes this is will ban guns to civilians under international law. Citizens will be extradited from US for gun crimes also. Please Read this treaty my friends. You gotta watch big brother like a hawk anymore. He will give you love with one hand and put a gun to you head with another, so to speak.
Dennis Plucinik - 5/6/09 @ 2:04 AM: Rival | Side B
-1
I Googled it, it seems like its not such a big a deal as you make it out to be. Here's a rundown of what's actually happening:

Basically, people are trying to argue that because 'illicit manufacturing' means 'making guns without a license', and since gun owners don't have a license to manufacturer guns (obviously), then simply 'reloading' your gun is similar enough to 'manufacturing' that by doing so you could be thrown out of the country for 'illicit manufacturing.'

You see how stupid the hysteria sounds now? It took me all of 5 minutes to figure that out.

Side B Comment

Dennis Plucinik - 5/5/09 @ 12:08 AM:
-1
nobody is taking away anyone's guns settle down.
Porow - 5/12/09 @ 12:02 AM: Rival | Side A
0
uh watch the news bro. obama sucks. & your rite tey aren gettin takin away but there is a ban being pursued.
bladow227 - 6/6/09 @ 4:09 PM: Rival | Side A
-1
Porow is a dumbass.
Colcowboy842 - 7/1/09 @ 11:55 PM: Rival | Side A
0
Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, bud. Right up to the time der Fuhrer Obama and his Reichstag haul you off.
Vulcan - 6/27/11 @ 6:57 PM: Rival | Side A
2
Dennis, I recommend that you retract your statement. The Obama administration is already unlawfully banning fully legal weapons.

It must be an election year. Senators and House Members of both parties are asking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to lift the import ban on classic U.S. made firearms. In March 2010 the State Department decided to disallow the importation of M1 Garands and M1 Carbines given to South Korea during the Korean civil war. FirearmsTruth has been on this story for months.

In May 2009 the State Department approved a request by the South Korean government to transfer 87,310 M1 Garand rifles and 770,160 M1 Carbines to private U.S. entities for commercial resale in the United States. When the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATFE) learned of this, it requested that the import be banned because it posed a threat to public safety. The arguments against the import range from criminals using the weapons to the conversion of the M1 Carbine to fully-automatic by those able to machine their own parts.

Various politicians have written and or signed letters addressed to Secretary of State Clinton asking the ban to be lifted. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and fifteen other senators state that blocking the importation “amounts to no more than a backdoor gun ban that lacks any basis or justification under current Federal law and policy” and “violates law-abiding citizens’ constitutional right, protected under the Second Amendment, to purchase these firearms for legitimate purposes such as target shooting, hunting, collecting, and self-protection.”

The letter questions concerns that the firearms could be used for illegal purposes (what firearm can’t?) and asks Secretary Clinton for “an explanation of your reasons for blocking the importation and sale of American-made rifles from South Korea.”

In a separate letter to Secretary Clinton, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) disagrees with the department’s opinion that these rifles constitute a public risk stating, “The importation of these antique rifles . . . does not pose a security threat to our nation.” Sen. Webb added, “Hundreds of thousands of these firearms are already in the United States, and substantially more advanced and powerful firearms are already available.”

Another letter, written by Congressman John Boozman (R-Ark.) and signed by 65 other House members objected to the State Department’s stated concern that the rifles might be “exploited . . . for illicit purposes,” calling it “a reiteration of tired arguments by gun control advocates.” The Boozman letter also noted “these are the very same types of rifles that have been sold by the federal government to civilians for decades through the Civlian Marksmanship Program.”

In a fourth letter, by Congressman Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) and 44 other members of the House of Representatives noted that “the M1 is one of the two rifles most commonly used at the National Matches, a marksmanship competition authorized by federal law” and that “there are separate competitions dedicated to each of the two rifles” (the M1 rifle and the M1 carbine).

Letters aren’t the only action being taken. Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Congressman Joe Donnelly (D- In.) have introduced H.R. 6240, the Collectible Firearms Protection Act, which would allow for the importation of lawfully importable U.S.-origin surplus firearms without the approval of the Department of State or Defense.

I doubt that Clinton will lift the import ban. Despite all the talk during the 2008 presidential election, it is clear that both President Obama and his Secretary of State want to restrict our gun rights as much as they can. Making costs prohibitive is one way to infringe on the 2nd Amendment. Hopefully Congresswoman’s Collectible Firearms Protection Act, or something similar to it, can get passed when Washington gets shaken-up this November 2nd. If enough Obama supporters are working on their resumes this November 3, he may be in the mood to throw a bone to the opposition.

Side A Comment

*lil_smarty* - 5/4/09 @ 1:39 PM:
1
i really dont think its fair for the goverment to take away our guns!!!!
Add new comment:

You must either login or register before you can comment.

Side B fans: (15)

You need to be logged in to do that!
Login with Your Facebook Account:
Already have a JealousBrother account? Login
Register for a JealousBrother Account! Register