*JPP bomb thrown*

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Man the battle stations!

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/2/25/232544/361

Obama to Reintroduce Assault Weapons Ban
By Jeralyn

Attorney General Eric Holder today said the Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban and a ban on "cop killer" bullets.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters."
Click to expand...

Just a few?
 
Last edited:
I guess this means we won't be seeing anymore cop killer bullets... We've already repealed one progressive amendment, so why not another?
 
We'll see. Obama's cabinet has been quite problematic for him so far. While I believe that Obama would have this intent, I'm not sure he wants to derail himself by wasting his political capital on wedge issues.

Holder may have said this in one instance and be instructed not to raise it against for three or four years. Which if anything is what I would anticipate unless the bill comes out under the cover of night and is passed very quickly and without much fanfare.

Why injure a coalition with independents and Republicans who voted and support Obama to fix the economy by pissing them off with this?
 
Is the assault weapons ban really a "wedge issue"?

Concealed carry was always an issue that split the American public in opinion polls, but the strength and corporate backing of the elite in America has made it an option in all but two states. Gun control is a lot more popular than the right lets on.
 
Sure, that's true if you just poll people on whether they're opposed to assault weapons being on the streets. Of course they're probably going to say no.

The Assault Weapons Ban on the other hand, if explicitly described, is far less interesting and relevant to the general public and far more upsetting to some core interests who do influence voters (call it corporate backing if you want, but more of it is organization and galvanization than anything).

There are also more pro-choice people in America. But pro-life has more political power relative to the numbers and votes.

The number of pro-choice people who vote on that issue is far inferior to the number of pro-lifers who vote on that strictly. Thus, they have more political influence. So too with the 2nd Amendment.
 
Last edited:
OH WELL

still, i maintain that weapons in the hands of honest or at least legal citizens are not a threat

it is weapons in the hands of the deranged (like me) or criminals that truly harm society

keep your weapons in a safe when not using them, like i do
 
Obama might want this, Pelosi and others in the leadership might want this, but hopefully all of those new pro gun democrats will remember that their jobs will be *poof* next election should they push this. If the dems think that people are THAT upset with republicans, they are misguided. They will get voted out for pursuing this.
 
Wise gun laws are what the public wants.

Assualt weapons are not going to be considered a nessesary part of wise.

You can have fun and protect yourself with one of the many other guns you are allowed to own.

Just try the Old " they are a comin' for our guns" and see what happens.
 
I agree with Adam. With everything that is going on right now, I cannot see Obama wasting political capital on a wedge issue like this. He may WANT to, but I doubt he will. Way to many other things to get done before starting down the path of any of the wedge issues.
 
evince said:
Wise gun laws are what the public wants.

Assualt weapons are not going to be considered a nessesary part of wise.

You can have fun and protect yourself with one of the many other guns you are allowed to own.

Just try the Old " they are a comin' for our guns" and see what happens.
Click to expand...

perhaps you've forgotten that the second amendment is not about hunting, self defense from criminals, or target shooting but against an overreaching federal government. Assault weapons are the primary reason the 2nd Amendment exists.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
We'll see. Obama's cabinet has been quite problematic for him so far. While I believe that Obama would have this intent, I'm not sure he wants to derail himself by wasting his political capital on wedge issues.

Holder may have said this in one instance and be instructed not to raise it against for three or four years. Which if anything is what I would anticipate unless the bill comes out under the cover of night and is passed very quickly and without much fanfare.

Why injure a coalition with independents and Republicans who voted and support Obama to fix the economy by pissing them off with this?
Click to expand...

The Democrats-Liberal coalition has a huge majority in the House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. They will do whatever they want at a time of their choosing, and that means as soon as possible. This is the equivalent of blitzkrieg for them, politically. Expect this to get pushed through within the next month or so.
 
evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons#Supporters_and_detractors

Its time you guys quit pretending we want to end your right to have a gun.

I dont want you or anyone with a granade launcher.

I also dont want you or anyone to be able to rapid fire into a crowd and at police.

I will NEVER back a law ending gun possion.

You dont need armor peicing bullets.
Click to expand...

It's not your place to tell me what guns and weapons I can and cannot own or possess, just as it is not my place to tell you what kind of house or car you can own or possess. I have every natural right to own a machine gun, whether you approve or not.
 
Yes the fuck it is.

You cant have a flame thrower can you?

The public can and will deside.

Right to bear arms does not include EVERY weapon.
 
evince said:
Yes the fuck it is.

You cant have a flame thrower can you?

The public can and will deside.

Right to bear arms does not include EVERY weapon.
Click to expand...

flame throwers are not illegal. The right to bear arms includes all weapons commonly used by the militia. Militia weapons obviously include fully automatic weapons in use by our military forces. It is NOT your fucking place to decide for me.

This is why people with intelligence hate you fucking liberals. You FEEL that you can make decisions for others on their basic and fundamental rights because the freedom of others terrifies you. It's why you'll be among the targeted when the violence starts.
 
Last edited:
SmarterThanYou said:
flame throwers are not illegal. The right to bear arms includes all weapons commonly used by the militia. Militia weapons obviously include fully automatic weapons in use by our military forces. It is NOT your fucking place to decide for me.
Click to expand...

I'm not getting into your weapons laws, as it's none of my business, but would you be comfortable with people walking down the street with flamethrowers?
 
evince said:
That is YOUR interpitation.
Click to expand...

It's also the interpretation of a handful of supreme court justices and political entities before liberals managed to get a foothold and destroy freedom. Read some fucking history, preferably the first 75 years of this country and the framers of the constitution. Unless you're afraid to learn the truth.
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Where in here does it say you get the same arms the militia gets?
 
charver said:
I'm not getting into your weapons laws, as it's none of my business, but would you be comfortable with people walking down the street with flamethrowers?
Click to expand...

why should it bother me? The problem with you brits and the liberals here is that you're terrified that a person could even have the potential to destroy others with weapons. I have a news flash for you. The potential to destroy is innate in human nature and NOTHING you do can eliminate it. It is the inherent right to freedom and self preservation that demands that all people have the ability to repel said force with equal or stronger force. It is not the duty or responsibility of government/police to provide personal individual protection, nor are they the 'only ones' professional enough to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top