Obama bypassing congress to make sricter gun laws....

I have been hunting my entire life. I said if you don't bow hunt you should. And the reason more people did not die in the theatre shooting is because he jammed his gun and fortunately didn't have the experience to unjam it quickly. He had a 100 round drum for the AR that he didn't use. Had he used that the death toll would have been with out a doubt much higher.The AR is by far the most efficient gun for killing that is legal to buy. I could kill more people with a shotgun than most of these people doing the shootings but that's because I have used one all of my life. It isn't just the gun, but the gun helps the criminal immensely. Especially when the criminal is untrained. Shootings will still happen, but if the shooters are using other guns than AR's then it gives the victims more time to escape/hide while they reload. As a gun owner I actually expect you to see how obvious it is that ARs are extremely efficient killing machines. More efficient that any other gun.
 
you guys always say that other countries are not comparable when i mention the strict gun laws and wonderful safe atmosphere of middle european countries.

so why is australia now different? why can you compare australia and the US?

this is obviously a process that takes a few years, but in 10 years, this law will have its benefits.
 
not especially cool by obama, but i get it. to be fair to him this is one of the least effective congress' ever. if a little kid walked into congress asking if someone could tie his shoe, these guys would spend a few weeks arguing over the best way to do it before getting it done. it would take them forever to decide on something as simple as stricter gun regulations. and, i hope, we can all agree that something needs to change. i hope we all find it unacceptable that many of these massacres are taking place with guns that purchased perfectly legally and that this, at least, needs to be stopped.
 
Cuz fucking 5.56 is SUCH a lethal cartridge...

I mean the AR platform is amazingly easy to use but let's not get ahead of ourselves here, it's not that efficient. They say speed kills but with the guns these guys are using...the lethality just isn't there. I remember reading somewhere Lanza had a 14.5 inch barrel on his XM-15. Like the bullet's not even going to be going fast enough to cause significant hydrostatic shock and hopefully death yo..
 
Well when you can pop 2-3 bullets in people easily it becomes lethal. Hell even 1 well placed shot fr anythin is lethal.
 
Exactly, that is also why in the Aurora shooting only 12 people died and 58 were wounded. I can't even imagine how bad it wold have been had his gun not jammed. The .223 round is small yes, but still deadly. I have a friend who hunts deer with a .223 Remington 700 series and he has killed deer instantly by making a perfect shot through the heart and lungs.
 
if you talk about hydrostatic shock in the german meaning "gewebeschock", than your pretty mislead. thats just a myth floating around among soldiers.

you cannot kill a person with a shot in the foot, no matter how was the bullet is.

if this term, contrary to translation, means something else, tell me.
 
So you believe that by banning AR-15s, mass shootings or at least mass shooting casualties will decrease.

Let me ask you how many mass shootings utilized an "assault rifle". Let me then ask you how many people gave a shit about what weapon was used in the aftermath while counting the bodies.
 
Yes I do believe that. If anything the casualties will decrease. And you are probably one of those people that wants to get technical with the term "assault rifles". Well when discussing gun control, the definition of assault weapons is used to define guns that posses cosmetic features of an actual assault weapon. So if we use the definition that law makers use, then the last two mass shootings along with the D.C shooting all used assault weapons (just the three I thought of off the top of my head). If we use the term "assault weapon" the way the NRA promotes it in order to make the semi-automatic guns sound less dangerous then none of the shootings used them. I for one am a fan of the way the law makers use it, because that's what actually matters in the end.
 
ok, thats another matter, the german term/myth almost exclusively deals with these grazing shots/shots in extremities.

i heard it when i was in the military in austria. there people tell you that the standard weapon of the austrian army (austria is neutral, and is just allowed to defend itself, so there are no full crosshairs installed on guns for example) has a "limited" muzzle velocity in order to avoid "gewebeschock" just by grazing shots and other shots which are cleary non-lethal. "faster" bullets on the other hand are depicted like they can kill you even through grazes.

so that was just my part talking about this myth. this stuff with the whole chest shot is new to me, but i gladly learn something new each day.
 
I would argue that a SKS is more deadly because you can still buy 30 round mags and the bullet is 7.62. You can also put all the same shit on it as you can an AR (pistol grips, bi-pods etc.). If the shooters of these mass shootings had an SKS it would make logical sense that there would have been more casualties because some of the people they wounded would probably have died due to the much larger bullet size. The reason I think the SKS was not used probably has to do that it isn't as well known to the people who don't know a lot about guns. The AR-15 is extremely popular as you can buy them in Walmarts around the country. I'm making an assumption here, in the fact that I'm assuming most Walmarts aren't selling the SKS. At the very least, if a ban on "assault weapons" does not happen, then there needs to be a much much stronger permit processes in order to buy these guns we are discussing because the fact of the matter is, they are extremely deadly, even in the hands of completely inexperienced people. Now you can argue any gun is deadly in the hands of inexperienced people but I would argue that the gun most likely to kill mass amounts of people when being fired by inexperienced shooters are the assault like weapons. Like I said earlier there needs to be sacrifices made.
 
DID+_e76175507b15c702520915ea2cf934eb.jpg
 
I've been avoiding these shitshow gun threads, that is until now.

Executive Orders are entirely legal, but do not make law even though they carry the same weight as a law (in theory). It is a power solely reserved to the president.

I would also like to make the textualist argument that the phrase "well regulated" is within the second amendment.
 
I understand where you come from but what kind pf regulation are we going for here? No further sales of assault style weaponry? Or the requirement that people give up their semi automatic weapons? The latter is going to be near impossoble to achieve and will cost lots of federal money to pull off. Im not readily going to give up my AR-15 that is worth over $2000 without full compensation of some sort. I think the best precautions would to first limit the sale of semi auto assault rifles because that can be done easily. But that will put dozens of small arms companies out of business and hundreds or even thousands of people could lose their jobs. Even requiring a special permit or class to be taken before allowingthe pirchase of such guns wont work because anybody willing to murderthat many people would easily take a one week course before hand or just take their parents guns. Its a tough predicament because america is a nation that is deeply rooted in guns and to take something away (even if it is just assault rifles) is going to feel like a breach of peoples 2nd ammendment to hundreds of thousands of people.
 
I 100% agree with what you just said. I think they should stop the sale of semi-auto assault weapons. Then have a voluntary turn in of such guns with some sort of compensation, full compensation is just too much money so that probably will not work. Also, I think it should be kept legal to resell such guns among private owners. If they made private sale illegal then that would mean the people who don't want their guns anymore, would have to turn them in for below value price, in which case it would financially make more sense to sell them illegal thus giving the criminals more semi-auto assault guns. Also, with doing this they need to make the owner of the gun more responsible. If you sell it privately everything needs to be legally documented and legally registered under the new owner. If a gun is used in a crime, and registered then the person it is registered under should be held accountable in some way (more than they are now, because when this happens under current laws people just claim their gun was "stolen" from them). This would give incentive for people to sell their gun the legal way, with legal documentation. This is such a complex issue that needs to be talked about, however compromises need to be made, and right now powerful organizations like the NRA are not budging on their stance, and congress is a joke. These being among a few of the reasons Obama is using executive power. I have always said we can't compare America to other countries statistically because of how rooted our country has been around guns. We are an entirely different example. We need to come up with some set of laws and then see if they work. Chances are parts of the laws will work and parts will fail, in which case the parts that fail need to be reworked. Unfortunately in this country this is MUCH easier said than done.
 
Fuck off i dont even want to read your vomit

this is about american right, they have been stripped from us and you are too fucking stupid to see the bigger picture. You are doing exactly what they want. You are sidetracked by debate and cannot see that this is suppose to be a free country which means if i want to own a fucking tank, i can.
 
I love that this thread has sprung up from something Obama hasnt even done yet. Biden simply said Obama was exploring that route, granted this is also Joe Biden, he says a lot of things.

Regardless, the issue here isn't responsible gun owners, I get that. What we need to do is make better efforts to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Have a live-in son with severe mental illness? Probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns in the house. We also need to close the gun show loopholes. Again, I dont care what guns responsible gun owners own, the key word there is responsible, but you shouldn't be able to bypass background checks through things like private gun show sales. And finally, the registration process needs to be changed, so that if a gun you are said to possess, was sold by a person improperly is then used for a crime, the gun owner who improperly sold the firearm is held largely responsible.
 
Straw buying is a huge issue as well. "Bad guys" don't need to go to illegal sales because it is incredibly easy to buy high-power weapons legally.

No one is going to come and take anyone's guns away (barring committing a crime).
 
If the government is allowed to have them the people should be allowed to have them. Ill put on my tinfoil hat but we might need assault rifles where this presidency is going.. already using executive order? Im out
 
for what exactly?

if the government turns to shit, (which it won't to the point that a revolution/civil war occurs) then the military is a fail safe. And if the military turns, everyone is screwed anyway, assault rifle in hand or not.
 
Executive order on an issue that will be impossible to pass through congress. The conservatives that think Obama is trying to take away our rights are extremists. Every president uses executive order for something, this just happens to be a popular issue in our country. Also, your argument that if the government has it so should the citizens is absolutely ludicrous. The government has tanks, by your logic so should the citizens. The government has F-35's, so should the citizens? The government has nuclear weapons, so citizens should be allowed too? By your logic then yes, we the people should all be allowed to own these things. As someone mentioned earlier our military is made up of citizens, they aren't going to aid in a government take over. You extremists just make things even more difficult for the normal people of each party to negotiate deals.
 
Executive order on an issue that will be impossible to pass through congress. The conservatives that think Obama is trying to take away our rights are extremists. Every president uses executive order for something, this just happens to be a popular issue in our country. Also, your argument that if the government has it so should the citizens is absolutely ludicrous. The government has tanks, by your logic so should the citizens. The government has F-35's, so should the citizens? The government has nuclear weapons, so citizens should be allowed too? By your logic then yes, we the people should all be allowed to own these things. As someone mentioned earlier our military is made up of citizens, they aren't going to aid in a government take over. You extremists just make things even more difficult for the normal people of each party to negotiate deals.
 
Fuck that, Obama isn't gonna do shit. And fuck Dan Malloy CT's governor. He's gonna screw me over harder than Obama will....
 
True pistols are less accurate but in the close proximity of a school and a movie theater its not hard to be accurate with one. A shotgun is a better platform for a close quarters mass killing as you can take out multiple people with one pull of the trigger. Civillian AR-15's are semi auto and are used in such small amounts of violent crime that banning them or their magazines is a pointless solution. If "public safety" were really the driving force behind this gun control talk to reduce violent crime, then politicians would attack handguns with a vengeance as they are the primary gun used. Banning AR-15's will not lower violent crime! All banning AR-15's does is take away rights from law abiding citizens as a result of some nut job's killing spree. The only reason to banning AR-15's is just a step in the direction of the ultimate goal of banning all guns. It's a slippery slope and Obama can do what he wants now that he is elected for another term so the executive order talk doesn't surprise me one bit.

1) We were given the 2nd Amendment to protect us from a tyrannical government. If a tyrannical government owns all the assault weapons, law abiding civilians don't stand much of a chance.

2) During times of crisis and anarchy such as during Hurricane Katrina when people are looting for supplies and goods, the police will not be able to protect you. You are on your own to defend yourself against any looters/marauders. Against a crowd of people I want the best firearm to protect my family home and supplies. AR-15's give the person a fighting chance against multiple attackers because they hold more ammunition plain and simple.
 
This slippery slope BS drives me crazy for two reasons.

1) What makes you think Obama is suddenly going to make grab for all guns. He did nothing in the first term, in fact anti-gun groups hated Obama because he made no effort to get any gun legislation passed. He is simply going to do SOMETHING now, because a huge mass of his constituents, in the wake of these tragedies, and the ones still happening (someone got shot at a highschool in California this morning) people are demanding some sort of action.

2) The slippery slope is just an excuse to get riled up about small things. The same logic could be applied to conservatives. Less regulation?!? Thats a slippery slope the next thing you know we wont have any government at all, ANARCHY!.

Finally, Obama still hasn't actually done anything, Biden has simply stated Obama is exploring executive orders to see what he can do.

And a few other thoughts. 1) A well regulated militia. What the hell about guns today is well regulated (see my post above). 2) Do you really think your AR-15 is going to defend you well against tanks, rockets, and drones? Probably not so much. Plus to even pretend that the government is going to become so large revolt is necessary any time soon is absurd, and anyone who thinks that it is impending deserves to be institutionalized.
 
Yes AR's and other semi-auto assault like weapons are used in less crimes, but they are more often used in mass killings. You said it yourself, against a crowd of people the AR is the gun to use. Also, if the government were to attack us ( the citizens) the AR's are pea-shooters compared to what hey have. We are a highly developed country, our country isn't going to attack us. Protection from the government is a lame excuse to keep these guns legal.

Not the best example but an example where the people shot were only wounded by a shotgun. You have to be pretty close and hit someone in the vitals to have a high chance of killing them with a shotgun. So close that it would be much easier for the bystanders to engage the shooter with force. Thankfully this kid was talked out of continue to open fire. This happened today by the way.

http://news.yahoo.com/1-student-shot-high-school-taft-calif-182626650.html

 
this post is everything that is wrong with america right now. hopefully just a really subtle troll post or something.
 
I've fired an AR with one of these before. It's actually quite difficult to get the hang of. Also, these stocks are pretty expensive.

Also to the guy on the first page wondering how the president can do this. It's called an executive order and is a decision that the president can make without the approval of congress. An example of an executive order is E O 9066 decided upon by FDR, it created the War Relocation Authority which gave the government control to put Japanese-Americans in "concentration camps" during WWII.
 
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen
 
This is no different than Bush making secret executive orders to monitor calls of US citizens, or any other national security secret he possessed.
 
1) I never said Obama is going to grab for all guns entirely. He did nothing in his first term as it might impede him from reelection, now that he's relected he can do what he wants and is proving this as he is bypassing congress. While Obama won't ban all guns, the Dianne Feinstein's of the world want to disarm all Americans and that I have no patience for.

2) I am not riled up about anything? I am just bringing up the point if Assault Rifles were banned and violent crime continued and mass shootings still occurred, what is to stop politicians from banning all guns entirely? I just don't have patience for those that think limiting Civilians rights to owning firearms makes us any safer. If someone wants to do harm they don't need guns or assault rifles to do it. Timothy McVeigh was successful in causing mass carnage, killing 168 and wounding over 800 without the use of guns or Assault Rifles.

An AR-15 wouldn't defend against a drone or aircraft but I can guarantee if they were invented some 70 years ago the Jews in Nazi Germany would have wanted to own one. Are you saying the 2nd Amendment is pointless?
 
Idk what your trying to get at with the last part of that post. There were semi-auto and fully auto weapons around that people could get their hands on back then.
 
You fail to understand the fact that if someone is crazy enough to shoot up a school, they will find a way to get their hands on guns to use, illegal or not! Hand guns were used in the school shooting as well as the theater shooting but they aren't to blame, and assault rifles are? I don't understand your logic.

Shotguns are noneffective long range yes, but in the close proximity in which mass shootings occur shotguns are a great platform, you don't have to be point blank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top