1. Post #1
    Gold Member
    Milkdairy's Avatar
    July 2011
    3,225 Posts
    President Obama supports reinstating the assault weapons ban, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday, on the heels of back-to-back shooting rampages in the United States.As a presidential candidate, Obama supported renewal of the 1994-2004 federal ban on manufacturing some semi-automatic weapons for civilian use. But he hasn’t pushed for it as president, largely steering clear of the issue.
    “He does support renewing the assault weapons ban,” Carney said at his press briefing, one day after a shooter killed six people at a Sikh gurdwara in Wisconsin. In response to several questions, he added that “there has been reluctance by Congress to pass that renewal.”
    The top Obama spokesman reiterated several times that the administration intends to push for gun safety “under existing law” and “not infringe upon Second Amendment rights of citizens.” Evoking Obama’s recent speech in New Orleans, he said the president wants to improve background checks and enforce laws to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals.
    The issue of gun control is increasingly toxic in Washington as Democrats, traditionally the standard bearers of the cause, are now at pains to go head-to-head with the powerful National Rifle Association. High-profile shootings — including the Tucson massacre that critically wounded former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and last month’s Colorado rampage at a movie theater — have done little to change the dynamic.
    The semi-automatic weapons used to carry out the Colorado and Wisconsin shootings were reportedly purchased legally by the alleged shooters.
    Carney called gun safety “a broader problem that needs to be addressed from a variety of fronts.”
    “The president’s approach is that we should work with Congress where possible — and administratively where allowed — to advance common-sense measures that enhance our security, that keep deadly weapons out of the hands of criminals and others who shouldn’t have them, under existing law, but that protects Second Amendment rights, which the president thinks is an important goal as well,” he said.
    Gun laws aren’t an issue in the presidential election, although presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney has claimed to be the candidate more friendly to gun rights.
    “I’m sure he will discuss these issues again in the future,” Carney added.
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...eapons-ban.php
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Dumb x 58Winner x 32Funny x 6Agree x 3Zing x 1Late x 1Optimistic x 1Informative x 1 (list)

  2. Post #2
    Bleach Qeef's Avatar
    June 2007
    1,681 Posts
    No. Please god no.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 34Disagree Disagree x 19Dumb Dumb x 3 (list)

  3. Post #3
    Exxon's Avatar
    January 2012
    347 Posts
    Wow, way to get me excited with that title...
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Optimistic Optimistic x 10Funny Funny x 8Agree Agree x 4 (list)

  4. Post #4
    Jherkin Gherkin
    Dennab
    October 2010
    12,198 Posts
    REMOVING YOUR PISTOL GRIP WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR YOU TO USE YOUR AR-15 TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE
    (drug cartel/gangster/psycho/whatever gets military grade m4 anyways)
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Zing Zing x 52Dumb Dumb x 13Agree Agree x 8Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  5. Post #5
    Gold Member
    Sir_takeslot's Avatar
    July 2007
    4,786 Posts
    Renewing the assault rifle ban would likely destroy his chance at being re-elected.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb x 30Disagree x 23Agree x 12Funny x 4Optimistic x 1 (list)

  6. Post #6
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,690 Posts
    Renewing the assault rifle ban would likely destroy his chance at being re-elected.
    Not "assault rifles". To call them assault rifles is playing right into their ploy, which is to formulate a term "assault weapons" which sounds so much like those legitimate assault rifles like M16 and shit which we all know and fear.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux United States Show Events Agree Agree x 11Funny Funny x 5Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  7. Post #7
    sixpence's Avatar
    January 2012
    480 Posts
    Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 46Dumb Dumb x 38Disagree Disagree x 1Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  8. Post #8
    Gold Member
    ***zer0***'s Avatar
    May 2010
    3,456 Posts
    Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?
    They're pretty fun to take on a shooting range?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Finland Show Events Agree Agree x 67Dumb Dumb x 25Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  9. Post #9
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,690 Posts
    Keep the government in check, idealistically.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux United States Show Events Funny Funny x 34Agree Agree x 16Optimistic Optimistic x 1Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  10. Post #10
    sixpence's Avatar
    January 2012
    480 Posts
    They're pretty fun to take on a shooting range?
    Okay I can understand that.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Friendly x 24Agree x 2Useful x 1Winner x 1Funny x 1 (list)

  11. Post #11
    If clothing didn't exist and everyone walked around with their penises fully erect I would have all the bitches.
    ROFLBURGER's Avatar
    May 2009
    23,450 Posts
    Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?
    Collection.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Canada Show Events Agree Agree x 28Dumb Dumb x 6 (list)

  12. Post #12
    Gold Member
    ***zer0***'s Avatar
    May 2010
    3,456 Posts
    Collection.
    Or this.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Finland Show Events

  13. Post #13
    Gold Member
    JoeSkylynx's Avatar
    October 2008
    11,597 Posts
    Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?
    Assault Rifle would imply it's automatic, and sadly the Hughes Amendment has already fucked over gun owners for 30 Years in that area.
    If you're actually talking about semi-automatic weapons, theirs no reason to actually ban them. The whole original ban [FAWB] was a lackluster ban on things that look scary. Do we need some measures to protect against maniacs? Yes.
    Do we need to outright ban things because they look scary and have the potential to be used to do bad things? No.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 33Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  14. Post #14
    Gold Member
    Thom12255's Avatar
    January 2009
    8,562 Posts
    I don't think this should be a major thing right now and it's strange that Obama has brought this up.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Disagree Disagree x 4Agree Agree x 2 (list)

  15. Post #15
    it's strange that Obama has brought this up.
    After two large shootings in near succession, I don't think it's at all strange.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Mac Denmark Show Events Agree Agree x 52Disagree Disagree x 2Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  16. Post #16

    May 2012
    110 Posts
    Assault Rifle would imply it's automatic, and sadly the Hughes Amendment has already fucked over gun owners for 30 Years in that area.
    If you're actually talking about semi-automatic weapons, theirs no reason to actually ban them. The whole original ban [FAWB] was a lackluster ban on things that look scary. Do we need some measures to protect against maniacs? Yes.
    Do we need to outright ban things because they look scary and have the potential to be used to do bad things? No.
    brains make people do bad things, lets ban those too

    hey, with america in it's current state, it's not like anyone would miss it/notice anyway.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Anonymous Proxy Show Events Agree Agree x 3Dumb Dumb x 2 (list)

  17. Post #17
    Gold Member
    Daemonshadow's Avatar
    February 2005
    621 Posts
    Why would anyone want to buy an assault rifle?

    Kind of a moot point, as a reinstatement of the 1994 ban does not actually ban 'assault rifles.' Instead, it bans 'assault weapons.'

    Assault weapons are things such as:
    A rifle with two or more of the following:
    Folding or telescoping stock(keep in mind, with a folding stock, the weapon is still subject to minimum length restrictions)
    Pistol grip (this simply changes the angle you'll be holding the rifle.)
    Bayonet mount (because so many killings are carried out with bayonets, or made more lethal by one)
    Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one (does not affect lethality or accuracy)
    Grenade launcher (This refers to a fixture which allows the rifle to fire rifle grenades, as in the ones you stick on the barrel, like those you might see in WWII games and movies. This does not apply to underslung launchers. Additionally, explosives and 'destructive devices' are already heavily regulated/prohibited under other federal laws)

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
    Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip (This has no real effect on the function of the weapon. This is simply a point at which your magazine attaches. If anything, it could mean that the weapon is less accurate because there is less room for a longer barrel)
    Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor (suppressors are highly regulated under other federal law, flash suppressors were discussed above, and handgrips again don't affect the function or ballistics of the weapon.)
    Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold (Barrel shrouds, from my understanding, are to prevent a person from injuring themselves on a hot piece of metal. How is that dangerous?)
    Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more (Realistically, this has little effect other than limiting people from carrying firearms that simply weigh more.)
    A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. (This is prohibiting firearms that are otherwise legal for civilian use on purely aesthetic qualities. A semi automatic firearm is semi -automatic, no matter if it looks like an MP5, machete, or three foot doubledong.)

    There are some other things in the bill about shotguns, magazine capacity (Which I suppose you could argue increases effectiveness, but we'll to agree to disagree on that one), and banning specific weapons, most of which are already illegal or incredibly hard to acquire legally under preexisting federal law. Essentially, the 1994 ban was poorly written legislation that regulated things falling under the 'tacticool' category.

    If you must have gun control legislation, think about regulating things like education, and requirements for safe, theft-deterring storage, and better background checks that are not an inconvenience, not visual aspects of a gun that make it look 'military' but don't actually change it's function.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Show Events Agree Agree x 28Informative Informative x 5Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  18. Post #18
    There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle.

    "Oh but I want it for my collection"

    That's a dumb excuse
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events Dumb Dumb x 88Agree Agree x 54Disagree Disagree x 3 (list)

  19. Post #19
    Gold Member
    Falchion's Avatar
    May 2009
    8,040 Posts
    I wonder what gunfox has to say.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Finland Show Events Funny Funny x 8 (list)

  20. Post #20
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,690 Posts
    There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle.

    "Oh but I want it for my collection"

    That's a dumb excuse
    this just in

    assault rifles aren't "assault weapons"

    more at 11
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux United States Show Events Zing Zing x 11Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  21. Post #21
    Gold Member
    Daemonshadow's Avatar
    February 2005
    621 Posts
    There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle.

    "Oh but I want it for my collection"

    That's a dumb excuse

    You might want to try reading the actual 1994 ban before talking about owning an 'assault rifle.'

    As I pointed out earlier, the 1994 ban did not actually prohibit true 'assault rifles', as they were already illegal/highly regulated under previous laws.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Show Events Agree Agree x 7Zing Zing x 1 (list)

  22. Post #22
    Gold Member
    Milkdairy's Avatar
    July 2011
    3,225 Posts
    There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle.

    "Oh but I want it for my collection"

    That's a dumb excuse
    You didn't read read Daemon's post, did you?

    The Assault Weapons Ban pretty much restricts any rifle that isn't a stock gripped bolt action rifle that has an internal magazine.

    Oh, it apparently bans all self loading pistols too.

    This damn law was written when Revolvers were still pretty mainstream and banning pistols wouldn't be a huge problem.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Agree Agree x 12Late Late x 1 (list)

  23. Post #23
    Gold Member
    RR_Raptor65's Avatar
    February 2006
    3,292 Posts
    President Obama supports reinstating the assault weapons ban, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters Monday, on the heels of back-to-back shooting rampages in the United States.
    Heels to back of lone nuts? Except they miss and hit everyone else instead.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Dumb Dumb x 7 (list)

  24. Post #24
    Gold Member
    Milkdairy's Avatar
    July 2011
    3,225 Posts
    Whoops, I was thinking about an earlier bill when I wrote the last line.

    Disregard that.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events

  25. Post #25
    Marik Bentusi's Avatar
    June 2010
    6,271 Posts
    REMOVING YOUR PISTOL GRIP WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR YOU TO USE YOUR AR-15 TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE
    (drug cartel/gangster/psycho/whatever gets military grade m4 anyways)
    Keep the government in check, idealistically.
    And see, from a dutiful police officer's perspective (yes they aren't all cartoon villains that love hurting innocents), these kind of vigilantes only make their job harder. It might even start a firefight where bystanders get hurt that otherwise would not, or the bad guys don't take any more chances after noting some people are armed.
    Sorry, from a German perspective where we got very different gun laws and treat guns very different culturally, priority should be restructuring the police and justice system instead of arming civilians.

    But I really really wonder what went through Obama's head when he thought this was a good idea. I mean ever since the founding of the country, America's gun cult and belief that all a citizen hero needs is a weapon and a cause, has been going strong. It's kinda laughable for other regions around the globe, especially those with little American media influence, but it's a mentality to consider nonetheless. Especially now that his re-election is in the air, what's the political motive behind supporting this ban (even if he doesn't pin it proudly on his chest)?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Germany Show Events Agree Agree x 10 (list)

  26. Post #26
    Gold Member
    Memobot's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,585 Posts
    There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle.

    "Oh but I want it for my collection"

    That's a dumb excuse
    Where do you people live if you NEED a sidearm at all?

    Can I suggest moving?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United Kingdom Show Events Agree Agree x 21Dumb Dumb x 13Funny Funny x 2Disagree Disagree x 1 (list)

  27. Post #27
    cqbcat's Avatar
    April 2010
    3,985 Posts
    There's nothing wrong with that at all, you still have your precious side arm for personal protection, there's no other reason to have an assault rifle.

    "Oh but I want it for my collection"

    That's a dumb excuse
    What is your point by saying "there's no other reason to have an assault rifle." Reasons are personal and will vary from person to person. Who are you to say someone's reason is dumb?

    Maybe we don't need assault rifles. But going by that logic, we don't need cars, coffee, video games, or music. Do we really need anything at all? Do we even need life, knowledge, and the pursuit of happiness?
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 16Dumb Dumb x 7Artistic Artistic x 1 (list)

  28. Post #28
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,690 Posts
    Where do you people live if you NEED a sidearm at all?

    Can I suggest moving?
    I'll need a sidearm the moment I'm robbed or attacked in any way. Just because it's not an everyday danger doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Linux United States Show Events Agree Agree x 29Dumb Dumb x 14Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  29. Post #29
    Gold Member
    RichyZ's Avatar
    September 2007
    16,420 Posts
    Where do you people live if you NEED a sidearm at all?

    Can I suggest moving?
    crime is pretty bad in america, i know 2 people personally who have been shot with a gun in plain sight and killed
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Disagree Disagree x 14Friendly Friendly x 7Dumb Dumb x 1 (list)

  30. Post #30
    I'll need a sidearm the moment I'm robbed or attacked in any way. Just because it's not an everyday danger doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
    Just get a tazer/stungun/pepperspray/knife then goddamn.
    Aslong as everybody in America has such easy access to weapons it's never ever going to be one of the greatest countries in the world again.

    rip in peace
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Agree Agree x 27Dumb Dumb x 22Funny Funny x 2Optimistic Optimistic x 1 (list)

  31. Post #31
    I wish I was as cool as Felix :)
    Apache249's Avatar
    April 2010
    7,789 Posts
    I wonder if my Sturmgeschutz is considered an "assault weapon."
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista United States Show Events Funny Funny x 6 (list)

  32. Post #32
    Absolute tosser, manchild, and belligerent douche-nozzle.
    download's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,797 Posts
    I'm calling bullshit on the source. No one else seems to be reporting this
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events

  33. Post #33
    Dejarie's Avatar
    November 2008
    1,459 Posts
    They should probably focus more on gun safety and informing owners and limiting the amount of ammunition civilians can buy. I imagine there would be half as many accidents or killing if things were a little better regulated.
    Then again, I'm Australian, and no virtually nothing of US laws, so I might be completely wrong.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events Winner Winner x 5Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  34. Post #34
    [IT] Zodiac's Avatar
    August 2009
    82 Posts
    I'll need a sidearm the moment I'm robbed or attacked in any way. Just because it's not an everyday danger doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
    So, let me get this straight. When you're robbed, instead of just giving your wallet or whatever he ask, like every normal, sane self defense instructor would advise you, you just shoot the robber? What if you miss, and he kills you? What if you miss and hit someone else? What if he was just some poor guy with no home try to get something to eat and you kill him because you couldn't allow yourself to lose 20 dollars?

    What's up with this vigilante attitude? When someone enters your house, call the fucking police, they are there for a reason. If you're attacked, defend yourself with non-lethal weapons, like pepper spray, tazers, run, or call for help.

    You need weapons to defend yourself against armed aggressors; but in America there are so many armed aggressors walking around the streets because it's so easy to just buy a gun with the excuse of defending yourself against, guess what, armed aggressors. It's just circular logic. It's not like the lax weapon laws in the USA are the cause of all evils. But certainly, they are doing more bad than good.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows Vista Italy Show Events Agree Agree x 32Dumb Dumb x 13Disagree Disagree x 4Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  35. Post #35

    May 2011
    209 Posts
    So, let me get this straight. When you're robbed, instead of just giving your wallet or whatever he ask, like every normal, sane self defense instructor would advise you, you just shoot the robber? What if you miss, and he kills you? What if you miss and hit someone else? What if he was just some poor guy with no home try to get something to eat and you kill him because you couldn't allow yourself to lose 20 dollars?

    What's up with this vigilante attitude? When someone enters your house, call the fucking police, they are there for a reason. If you're attacked, defend yourself with non-lethal weapons, like pepper spray, tazers, run, or call for help.

    You need weapons to defend yourself against armed aggressors; but in America there are so many armed aggressors walking around the streets because it's so easy to just buy a gun with the excuse of defending yourself against, guess what, armed aggressors. It's just circular logic. It's not like the lax weapon laws in the USA are the cause of all evils. But certainly, they are doing more bad than good.
    To be honest your house is your house and you should have the right to protect that, not to mention using non-lethal weapons may just end up with you dead when the intruder brings a more dangerous weapon and let's not forgot it will take the police a good 10 to 15 minutes to get to your house
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events Agree Agree x 15Disagree Disagree x 2 (list)

  36. Post #36
    Dejarie's Avatar
    November 2008
    1,459 Posts
    To be honest your house is your house and you should have the right to protect that, not to mention using non-lethal weapons may just end up with you dead when the intruder brings a more dangerous weapon and let's not forgot it will take the police a good 10 to 15 minutes to get to your house
    You ever get hit with CS gas? Pretty hard to do anything after a squirt in the eyes.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Australia Show Events Funny Funny x 4Agree Agree x 1Informative Informative x 1 (list)

  37. Post #37
    As a wise man once said: Never ask Fatfatfatty for computer advice
    Fatfatfatty's Avatar
    March 2009
    13,456 Posts
    I dont see why assault weapons shouldn't be banned amongst civillians

    (You wont ever need an assault weapon, you're not going to be invaded by the taliban)

    Edited:

    Collection.
    Then buy a deactivated assault rifle
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 Sweden Show Events Dumb Dumb x 28Agree Agree x 21Funny Funny x 1 (list)

  38. Post #38
    Gold Member
    JoeSkylynx's Avatar
    October 2008
    11,597 Posts
    Then buy a deactivated assault rifle
    When it's money coming out of my wallet, I expect the full product.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United States Show Events Agree Agree x 23Dumb Dumb x 13Funny Funny x 2 (list)

  39. Post #39
    Conservative Cunt who fucking loves piss
    Elecbullet's Avatar
    November 2007
    11,690 Posts
    Sigh okay

    When someone has a gun, or instrument otherwise capablle of inducing at the least bodily harm to me, and is openly announcing his intention to use it against me, I don't give a fuck about him.

    I like to live, I really do. To put yourself in a position where YOU decide if I live or die and then threaten the latter is pretty goddamned inexcusable in itself.

    It is not any less of an offense if the criminal is more likely to just leave me alone and take my walllet. I don't give a shit about statistics. I don't give a shit about his welfare. I care only about protecting myself, and I don't particularly trust a criminal to be a good boy and run away with my wallet, leaving me uninjured.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete United States Show Events Agree Agree x 29Dumb Dumb x 4Disagree Disagree x 1Winner Winner x 1 (list)

  40. Post #40
    gothiclampshade's Avatar
    August 2010
    869 Posts
    I don't think you understand officer, these crates of fragmentation grenades are my collection
    Imagine a criminal attacked you with a grenade, you'd regret not having a grenade of your own to defend yourself!

    But in all seriousness, I think it's too late for banning firearms in America. It's clear that countries with bans on firearms have far fewer gun-related deaths or crimes but in America's case it's only going to affect people who would have used them for defence- they've been readily available for too long to just expect them to all disappear.
    Reply With Quote Edit / Delete Windows 7 United Kingdom Show Events Dumb Dumb x 19Agree Agree x 3 (list)