Did President Obama respond to his training for tonight's "debate"?

I thought so. But I think both of them did especially when AWB / FAF was brought up. They both, but mainly Obama ran from that one like they were on fire.

@woodcutter : AWB / FAF ?

Oh josie josie josie. You say this as if your boy Romney hasn’t spend the past several months intensely training for these debates.

@Hawaii_Jake Assault Weapon Ban / Fast And Furious

Nobody asked about Fast and Furious. Romney brought it up in a discussion about automatic weapons because apparently Romney’s campaign is now based on flouting bullshit conspiracy theories about the Obama administration’s malfeasance and cover-ups.

@woodcutter, thank you.

I thought both candidate’s came well prepared and both performed well. In my opinion, that quite probably means that Romney won.

You thought Romney performed well?

He touted his feminist credentials by telling a story about how he lets his female staffers go home early so they can make dinner for their families.

He tottered around the stage like a fucking creep and spouted insane conspiracy theory bullshit about the attack on the Benghazi consulate, then managed to get the moderator to shoot him down on his bullshit and the audience APPLAUD against him.

He, once again, completely failed to describe anything about his magical tax plan despite being asked about it directly and repeatedly.

I thought Romney did very, very well in the first debate (apart from Obama’s performance), but I think this debate was a disaster for Romney. Maybe that’s my partisanship speaking, but I don’t think so.

@Qingu FAF sure is a big part of the assault weapons discussion whether you believe it or not. It’s a big part of it all. But boy did the two of them dance the hell out of that by talking about jobs, and education ,that ,if memory serves, was already discussed quite early on in the debate.

@woodcutter, it’s true, FAF is related to the question of gun control. If we had rational gun control laws and the NRA wasn’t effectively in control of Congress, there would be absolutely no incentive to resort to the measures involved in FAF. Of course nobody can say that because that means crossing the NRA… so it’s better to somehow pretend that FAF is a giant liberal conspiracy rather than an honest SNAFU.

And I’ll agree that education is a bit tangental to the discussion of gun control, but not really all that much. Most gun violence has nothing to do with crazy rich white kids dressing up like the Joker and shooting up a theater, it takes place in inner cities that have no social or educational infrastructure to support kids. In Chicago, where I live, dozens of kids are killed by gun violence every year (it’s probably a lot more, actually, but I’m too lazy to double-check); if these kids went to schools that were properly funded and worked to give them opportunities, maybe they wouldn’t join gangs.

And how the hell are people still talking about FAF being a “giant liberal conspiracy” when it was a Bush administration initiative? This boggles my mind.

@Qingu, the question is about style and not about substance. In that vein, Romney performed up to Republican partisan expectations. I think in style the debate was a draw and, therefore, helps Romney more than it does President Obama.

The idea of flexible scheduling for women did not escape my attention, and I am offended by it. I’d like to know the last time Ann had to worry about getting dinner on the table in time by herself.

I was equally glad he was called on the carpet for his mistake about the President’s comments on Libya.

@josie‘s question is not about the specifics of the arguments. The question is quite derisive about that, in fact, and it implies that the only thing President Obama needed to do was look good on TV.

@Hawaii_Jake, I feel like I didn’t watch the same debate you did. If you were talking about the first debate I would agree with you about Romney’s style victory. Romney came off as confident, knowledgeable, and presidential. In this debate he came off as awkward, whiney, and—especially with the Libya business—completely disingenuous.

Maybe this won’t matter in the slightest to the GOP base voters because they are trained to say their candidate “wins” no matter what, but I honestly don’t see how you can say Romney won the “style” debate tonight.

Of course it goes without saying that I wish nobody gave a shit about style and actually paid attention to what these people said, and what their policies are… but this is America, after all, so I’ll take what I can get :)

@Qingu, I believe that a draw between the two candidates will work out as a positive for the challenger, in this case that is Governor Romney.

I genuinely hope that I am wrong. I hope that President Obama comes out clearly victorious in the opinion polls about this debate performance and then in the election, too.

However, Romney was blustery in today’s debate, and in the eyes of many voters, that’s all that counts.

:-)

@Qingu So if I understand you right, I’m supposed to give up my preferred weapon of home defense because Rahm can’t get his students into better schools? That was the reason for Obama’s segway into teachers? Even he admitted that the overwhelming majority of murders happen with cheap pistols,not semi auto rifles…kind of admits that AWB is a useless law right there

@woodcutter, needless to say, you don’t understand me even remotely right. Read my post again and ask yourself when I mentioned anything about taking your gun away.

That said, I think it’s pretty fucking stupid that you think you need a semiautomatic rifle for home defense. Where the hell do you live, rural Afghanistan? Next to a cartel-run meth lab?

@Qingu

you seem agitated tonight. You ok?

@Qingu You need to read this. It make way more sense than your post up there^^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban

@woodcutter, you should know by now, I am always “agitated” when I argue on the Internet. Especially when it’s past my bedtime. :)

I have no idea what you are talking about by citing the dictionary. When did I say semiautos should be banned? Or any guns? I said we need “rational gun control laws,” and I said gun violence in inner cities would be lessened if kids had better school environments and opportunities.

@Qingu But what are rational gun control laws? Are the current ones irrational? Signing of more gun laws isn’t going to do anything to help inner city kids do better in school and the president understands this, which is why I don’t understand his clumsy performance right then given ,his excellent orator skills. It could be that the topic is one that the left cannot win using logic. Barring that, he has proven that even the best debater will not be successful defending it.

“Rational gun control laws” relates to Fast and Furious. Part of the reason law enforcement had to resort to straw buying is that the gun laws make it impossible to track these weapons.

But all the gun dealers saw this one going down as is always the case when a single buyer wants an unusual amount of weapons all at once. They report this just so they don’t involve themselves in some crime. They are heavily incentified ? to follow proceedure or they will be shut down and thrown in prison possibly. That was never the problem. I doubt any govt agency could keep accurate records of millions of firearms sold every year in a big registration sceme. It would cost tax payers millions and for what? Criminals don’t usually commit crimes in the US with registered guns (in their own name) and this fact is well known by all also. It really doesn’t matter if the authorities believed they had to break the law for the greater good of ends justifying the means. I find it hard to believe that any rational thinking law enforcement official thought this would ever work the way they say they had hoped. They knew it was going to go the way it did.There’s a reason why this administration didn’t tell the Mexican officials about this before it went down. It’s the same reason why the Pakistanis never saw those copters coming in Abbattobad. Both govts. are corrupt as hell.

“Meaning that it has nothing to do with his position and policies, but merely how he looks on TV. ” That bit of snark is a distraction in the nominal question. It meant quite a bit more than that. It means that Obama did not well present his policies.

I’d speculate that Obama was more under the influence of his handlers in the first debate who told him to keep a lid on things, he repeatedly looked restrained.
In the second debate Obama seemed more natural and in his more usual fluid and responsive style.

@woodcutter, I am talking about the agents. If laws allowed the government to track gun sales—particularly from sketchy dealers and to sketchy people—then it is far less likely that something like FAF would have happened. I am not defending FAF, I think it was obviously a collossal fuck-up, but I also find it shocking that conservatives and people like yourself take no pause in the fact that we are talking about unregulated arms sales here, and you’re completely okay with that. Like you worry about “costing tax payers millions” to better regulate and enforce laws involving the sale of military-style weapons.

I mean, do you object to laws regulating the sale of high-powered sniper rifles? Antitank guns? Depleted uranium bullets? RPG-7’s? What about heat-seeking missiles and fissile material? Where exactly do you draw the line for when the government should get involved in the weapons sale business?

Next thing ya know, the arms dealers will be selling landmines to the average citizen for installation in the lawn.
“Stand your ground” takes on new meaning when you do it by blowing trespassers’ off their feet.

@Qingu Like the president said out loud: Almost all the gun deaths are caused by cheap pistols, not semi auto rifles. His words on national TV. HIS. So even an intelligent person like yourself should understand that an assault weapon ban would be less than pointless. The left aleady knows that a ban on pistols would be a catastrophic uphill fight with zero sum return even though that is where the damage is. So they go after the guns that merely look scarey because those who are ignorant of such topics will buy into the hype.
@dabbler
You both are being ridiculous. Every time “you people” start bringing up ordinance (weapons) that are already illegal to posses, it marginalizes you.

An assault weapon ban wouldn’t be less than pointless. It would have, for example, prevented the Aurora theater shooting.

I guess the downside would be that people like yourself would no longer get to feel like tough guys.

@Qingu “An assault weapon ban wouldn’t be less than pointless. It would have, for example, prevented the Aurora theater shooting.”

No…no it would not have

@woodcutter Whooosh !
Apparently “you people” can’t recognize a joke when you see one.

But “ordinance (weapons) that are already illegal to posses” What’s so ridiculous about that ? Assault rifles used to be illegal. If people had brought up assault rifles a bit more perhaps they would have stayed illegal.

@dabbler “Assault weapons used to be illegal”…

before they weren’t. Are you showing your age there?

“If people had brought up assault rifles a bit more perhaps they would have stayed illegal”

What you really mean is: if assault weapons were used in crimes a bit more, perhaps they would have stayed illegal.

“Assault weapons used to be illegal”… is just information.
“Are you showing your age there?” What does that mean? I think you’re showing yours quite a bit more.

I meant informed discussion, if they are increasingly used in crimes that would be part of the discussion. What you meant was,“I don’t have anything smart to say, I’ll mock you”

@woodcutter, fair enough. Holmes could have killed a whole lot of people in that theater without the assault rifle. Probably not as many, though. How many is too many? I place the cutoff somewhere below assault rifle. Though I’m certainly open to negotiation.

What I’m not open to is this idiotic idea that Americans should be able to own any weapon they want wherever they want whenever they want.

A regular shotgun of the type that most would consider innocuous would have done as much damage but that further explains the scary feature fright that clones of real military weapons bring. We haven’t heard any outcries to ban shotguns of this type…yet.

@dabbler Whoosh!! Assault weapons, the real kind, have always been illegal, except for very limited licenses. Still, not to be confused with the fake assault weapons that some politicians like to muddy the debate with. Apparently these politicians /commentators/ spinmeisters are aware that a large number of people think they are the same thing, so they let it ride and get much more impact from it.
It wasn’t until 1994 when Clinton cashed in all his political capital on a long shot he was doing the right thing, that the clones of these guns were outlawed for 10 years to which there was no noticeable reduction in crimes by them even though they technically were still in circulation and new ones were still being imported/ built by the millions with just the “right” amount of “evil” features removed. Basically, the gun industry maneuvered around the law and the weapons still propagated. Same gun, just a few cosmetic changes to be compliant.
Streets did not run red with blood during this modification period.

Reason: they never did before.

An AR-15 is not a “real assault rifle?”

And you still haven’t answered my question, @woodcutter. Where is the line for you? Should citizens be able to buy M-4’s and M-16’s? Rocket-propelled grenade launchers? I’m assuming you don’t want people buying tactical nukes, but please tell us what your line is, exactly, and how you’ve drawn it.

@Qingu No. an AR is not a real assault rifle. They are not full automatic as are all machine guns. But even in the last debate, the term automatic weapons was brought up, almost as if that is a problem that needs to be addressed still. Which means even Romney is ignorant of the proper terminology. It matters. Machine guns have ,except for rare cases, been illegal to possess since 1968. Why that term is even in modern discussions is beyond me. I have a hunch it is tactically used, accidentally on purpose, to keep some people ginned up for another AWB. If you are going to be on the side to eliminate a class of firearm you should at least know what you are talking about. Hell if anyone is wanting to take any rights away from a segment of the population they are expected to know the topic from every angle, not just the ones that agree with them. Abortion rights is a good example, as well as gay rights. Same thing. Making laws that target a pinpointed group is going to draw out that electorate to attempt to stop it. Can you blame them really?

Next: You may want to google “destructive devises” as it pertains to US law. It covers anything larger than .50 caliber firearms as well as bombs, rockets, etc. That law, as any law, falls short of controlling individuals from making their own bombs in their basements. It only states it is wrong to do so.
So what is my line you ask? My line is: that there are already enough laws on the books that control gun related things. As mentioned above they are just laws and a tiny minority of people will break them on occasion. Have you ever tried to purchase a firearm from an FFL? If you have you would know that there is a background check that is made right there while you are at the counter. You will stand there and wait for the FBI to dig through any records you have or don’t have. If you have no criminal past of any kind on record you are good to go. In some places you will need to wait days for it all to be done with. Trust there are enough laws to ferret out the bad guys. The black market is out of anyone’s control. But that is true for any commodity that is in high demand.

The US is a country with the highest level of freedoms in the world and consequently we have the most laws to regulate them all. And in many cases the most severe punishments for the people who take advantage of those freedoms in a bad way. In places where freedoms are limited some drastically, there are fewer law breakers because there is a culture of fear to intimidate people to keep in line. A free land can be a dangerous one sometimes. It comes with the territory because the majority who use these freedoms in the proper way will excel better than those who have an overreaching governing body telling them everything to do or not do. The people who live in those shitholes do not have the trust of their “dear leader” to behave. I’m glad I live where I feel that my elected representatives trust me to have more rights than those elsewhere have.

It’s just too bad that because of these cherished freedoms we all have, there are a few bad apples that sometimes screw things up for the rest of us. I don’t care what other countries do relating to gun rights. That is them doing what they think is right for all of their people. The biggest reason people want to become Americans and move from elsewhere is because the US is different from every place else. It is better here and attempting to reshape it because a few people thing the grass is greener on the other side is wrong headed

Yeah, you didn’t answer my question, and I fail to see how people are yearning to move to America for our cherished freedom to own an AR-15 assault rifle. Even if it is just semi-auto.

Again…there is no such thing as an AR-15 assault rifle. You have purposely confused them with M-16’s which really are assault rifles. Stop doing that please

Here, I will help you as well as the rest of us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

Ahhhhh. It’s an assault weapon, not an assault rifle. Pardon the confusion.

No, no. Anything can be a weapon. A ball point pen stabbed in the eye can be a deadly weapon. And therefore considered an assault. An Assault weapon pertaining to the firearm genre is a shoulder fired machine gun…of the variety issued to a nation’s armed forces. And not legally available to the general public, not me, not you, not anyone. It’s not rocket science. The term assault weapon has also become a political term attempting to lump them all together because they both use the same bullets apparently.

A lot of semi-automatic weapons – whose legality comes and goes – can be turned into automatic weapons – illegal – easily with the replacement of one small part or two.
Plenty of them are otherwise identical to their combat-ready counterparts.
They are also inaccurate enough to make them useless for hunting and self-defense.

Those are some of the reasons to consider outlawing weapons that are approximately assault weapons, or at least restrict their use to a firing range and their possession a locker at the firing range.

@woodcutter, anything can become a weapon… therefore we shoudln’t bother to restrict any weapons?

There’s a difference between a ballpoint pen and a handgun. There’s a difference between a handgun and a semi-automatic high-caliber assault weapon with large magazines. There’s a difference between an assault rifle and a rocket propelled grenade. If your whole policy here is to simply wave your hand over these differences and repeat the word “freedom,” I think you’re part of the problem.

@Qingu Sigh, I think you have such a foggy understanding of the whole subject that you still insist on blurring the whole thing for the sake of muddying it up so it will be easier to make your muddy point. If that is what satisfies you then fine, thats your choice.

It’s is akin to the whole Obama birther thing or he’s a Muslim or a socialist. Same old tired descriptions designed to keep it simple enough to make some people make up their minds using fear to persuade them.

I was hoping you would be different somehow.

How am I muddying anything up? I’m trying to find the nuance. I don’t want to blanket-ban weapons; I do think that certain weapons should be banned, and that includes the AR-15. I also think the weapons sales need to be regulated to a much higher degree, so that we can better track weapons that are sold. I realize such laws are hard to enforce, but you can make that argument about many laws.

AR-15’s are well built excellent and extremely practical guns to have. They are extremely popular because of that. Because of the way politicians maneuver things there is a very real and slippery slope when it comes to getting the ball rolling on the whole ban thing. Any politician or group thereof who is successful enough to get one category of weapon banned , will certainly be strong enough to get more banned.

Because the occaisional mass killings in the US will not stop just because one kind of weapon is banned from ever being sold There will then be a push from gun control activists to ban the next category of scary weapons, and so on. Anyone who panders to this idea is not pro second amendment no matter how many times they say they support it. They are not fooling anyone, except the fools.

And it doesn’t help by lowering yourself to petty name calling by saying all those who own these self loading weapons are of some kind of mental defect. It makes you look desperate and childish and maybe have a mental defect of your own.

Please tell me of the practical value of having a semi-automatic high-capacity rifle in one’s home, @woodcutter.

Where else would you rather store it?

@Qingu I could ask you what is the practical value of having seat belts in your car.

@dabbler Hey bud I almost forgot you up there^^

Let’s discuss: It’s really easy to convert a semi auto to full auto. No. No it is not. You can try but unless you are a competent gun smith you will probably fail and just ruin the weapon totally during the attempt.Or have the thing blow your face off because the Fire control group was out of timing and caused a catastrophic failure. It is not a simple part replacement or two. They are made differently just enough so you can’t do that. The contract guns intended for the military are slightly different than the one’s sold to the general public. Yeah, the gun makers already thought of that possibility and did it on purpose. If you want you might want to try to search and find any confiscated weapons records by the police that were full auto conversions. Probably won’t see many. Mainly because we don’t hear of many crimes where these guns were involved in the first place.

”Plenty of them are otherwise identical to their combat-ready counterparts”.
That’s about as close as they get. Side by side and from a distance, it is hard to tell the difference. That’s why the fer left hand wringers get so much traction. They just plain look scary. We don’t want to be scared. Who does?.. right?

“They are also inaccurate enough to make them useless for hunting and self-defense.” Oh shit, where do I begin? Says who? Did you read that somewhere? True, they are designed to only be accurate out to about 400 meters. That is with the plain iron sites they come with. Put a scope on it, it gets easier. If they were accurate out to a mile would they be more practical? Next time you have a few minutes, measure out 400 meters and have a friend go out and stand there. It is well, pretty far away.

The practical value of having seatbelts in your car is that in the event of an accident they save lives.

In the event of a home invasion guns are more likely to be unsafe, which is one important difference between a gun and a seatbelt, in addition to the fact that you cannot use a seatbelt to murder people. To say nothing of a goddamn assault weapon.

I marvel at the delusion required to think a semi-automatic rifle is a “practical” way to defend your home. What, you keep an AR-15 loaded under your bed in case narco terrorists or black helicopters break in through the windows?

@Qingu Well inside a house it may be a little overkill. We could probably say that about almost any gun. It would be about defending the outside of your house. I don;t subscribe to the whole unsafe bit. That is under extreme stupid circumstance that hardly ever happens, compared to the times when the bearers of them do not hurt themselves or others. True, if it happens just once, it is too many, but let’s keep things in proper perspective shall we? We keep these kinds of weapons for that once in a lifetime critical incident we think will never happen. An AK or AR et,al is a fight stopper. It can prevent one from even starting.

Seat belts are for the same purpose. That once in a lifetime car wreck you never saw coming. You never think you are going to be involved in a car accident each time you leave the house do you? But you have them every time just in case. The odds that you will be killed in a car crash is way more of a likelihood than in a gunfight so, please always buckle up.

I do keep a semi auto rifle locked in a safe unloaded but with a few mags loaded. I don’t really think of them much. They are great target rifles and I assure you that is the only thing it has ever been used for. This is how I stay proficient with it. Nobody will ever forget the phenomenon of human behavior when we are forced out of our comfort zone such as when hurricane wipes out the police force to the point it is ineffective to serve and protect. It is the only real insurance policy with teeth. It is the ultimate deterrent and we all hope things never go that far, even though it is not improbable for something like that to happen some day. You can sit around and wait for the national guard to secure your area from criminals and looters or you can stand guard ready until they get there. You are capable of doing this dirty work. Yes you are. I know I am also. Because I have the right to do so as do you. I like to think you are not the type to cower in your cellar hoping for help to come. If you are…you won’t last long.

Walk me through the situation where your locked-away AR-15 would be of use to you in defending the outside of your house.

Are we talking about like a paramilitary siege-type situation? Is your house being attacked by dozens of hungry wolves or bears?

And has such a situation ever occurred? Has an AR-15 or similar weapon ever been used to “save lives”?

Lets walk through a likely scenario. You’re gonna like this. Predatory humans, which is exactly what they are when they check out a place to hit will almost every single time let on that they are outside the house. They are noisy. Not ninga like, or even seal team 6 like. What I do right away is secure one sidearm that is loaded always. Ok, now I am ready for a spirited defense should they make it inside. We hope they change their minds and go someplace else, to…someone else’s home…yours maybe?just kidding! The rifle would be a last resort failsafe, because if a semi auto pistol with 16 rounds in it doesn’t do the trick it’s probably going to over in a bad way but… If it is a statewide situation where there is a general breakdown of services ala Katrina, or for any reason there will then be time to lock and load the the heavy hitter. No matter how unlikely a scenario is likely to happen it will be the one that turns everything upside down because of its unlikeliness. If nothing like that ever happens…great, even better ,but in that case it(the rifle) is doing nobody any harm just sitting there in the safe doing nothing.

I don’t feel like doing a detailed search right now but there are stories about Katrina survivors staying with their homes banding together with AK’s to defend themselves. Just because you don’t actually shoot, does not mean you were not defending yourself.

Not everyone lives in a crowded couped up city situation but it will be in those places before anywhere else, that things will come unraveled fast. They will turn into hell holes even more so than they are during normal times. If you are living in a place like that…good luck.

Right, I remember all those “predatory humans” (I’m sure you don’t just mean “scary black people” here) stalking the post-Katrina hellscape, looting and raping like creatures from a Cormac McCarthy novel, only fended off by lucky folks assault weapons.

I’m sure you’ll find such stories on the Internet any day now.

Any day.

Ok now you are just being sarcastic. You live your life the way you want and I will do it my way. Either way works but yours is good only if everything is peachy. For your sake let’s all hope for peachy. I can go either way…can you?

I’ll admit that gun control is not one of my hot-button issues, but I do think the gun lobby is a poisonous force in American politics, and I think the ideology of absolute gun rights is seriously ill-informed. I guess we’ll just have to leave it at that.

No we will not leave it at that. The gun lobby is a one cause entity. If you liberals want to rule the world you get representatives like Webb (D) who is gun friendly. Get away from the sky is falling- guns are bad crowd and the NRA will have everyone of you in office next year. But you won’t. That is why you worry like hysterical ninnies every election.

I just handed you the key to victory in both houses

Take it

Like I said, ideologues.

You’re unwilling to compromise on this one thing because you’re a zealot. You won’t even compromise on your right to own a dangerous military-style weapon that you will only use in a fantasy scenario that exists only in your fevered imagination.

And you’re ill-informed. Gun control has not been a major part of this or any recent election. Nobody is saying the sky is falling, except you, whenever someone even suggests that maybe we shouldn’t sell assault weapons.

LOL ideologues you say Your definition of that is anyone who disagrees at all with your crazy hard left ideas.It must be uncomfortable to be you.You are part of the problem as well as the hard right. None of which is ever going to back down, ever. You want to talk compromise? really. These kinds of guns you hate so much are seldom used in crimes yet…you are afraid of them just in case they are?

No the gun issue is not a major issue in any election and we both know why. Washington knows from past experience that the electorate want their guns left alone and they will be gone if they do it. The factions are pretty much divided 50/50 and have been for some time but, if the hard left can bow out of it all enough to get more moderates in power that just might be enough to tip the balance for the democrats, but no you won’t bend just a little in order to win.

I love how you think “maybe we should limit the sale of assault weapons” is a “crazy hard-left idea.”

I’ll admit that Democrats have given up this fight. But time is not on your side. America is becoming a more urban nation; so is the rest of the world. Eventually we’ll reach a tipping point where hurting the feelings of hicks who want to cling to their bang-bang toys becomes less important to most voters than actually preventing deaths.

Why do you insult those who think different from you? Is it personal or just election year radical voter lashing out? As far as time being on who’s side I don’t think the change you would like will happen in both our lifetimes.

You still haven’t shown a good reason to not allow person ownership of these rifles, other than they scare people.
Did you get your rhetoric from Obama saying these guns belong on a battlefield not on our streets? That is classic Obama but is patently flawed even though it plays well. First off: no country would accept these weapons for use in their militaries. Not these one’s that are neutered down to sporting guns, never going to happen. And what about the “on our streets” bit? I live in on of the most gun friendly places on earth and have never not one time have I seen one of these displayed in public. Most people who have these try to keep them on the down low so as not to get people looking. These weapons are a personal effect of those who have them and don’t wave them around like in some of the banana republics we see.
Limit the sales of “assault weapons? Like in a lottery? Who gets to decide which law abiding person gets to buy one? Right now it is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System- NICS It works.

bang bang toys- oh you are so inventive

You still haven’t shown a good reason to not allow person ownership of these rifles, other than they scare people.

Scare people? No, because they can be used to easily kill large numbers of people at once.

Why semi-auto rifles and not handguns? It’s a line in the sand, I’ll admit. I guess it’s the difference in an order of magnitude. You’d have a pretty hard time killing more than 10 people with a handgun, but it’s pretty easy to do so with a 30-round AR-15 clip if you’re firing into a crowd.

@woodcutter, do you think people should be able to own RPG’s? Nukes? I mean do you even understand my point here when I argue with you? My point is that we both draw a line somewhere as to what weapons we want to allow private citizens to own. And our lines, all things considered, are probably not all that far from each other. So why is it that you have this absolutist stance on this subject?

No, we should not have nukes or rpg’s, etc, etc, etc, etc,etc, etc, etc, etc,etc,etc,etc, etc. etc

etc.

Why gun control advocates always go this way baffles me as well as the rest of 2A supporters. We currently cannot own those and I don’t think in the whole of US history we have…ever. So when did this talking point come into vogue? Is it because the doctrine of embellishment from the left was designed to fool their own kind by intentionally scaring them? If true then it sort of speaks volumes to the fact that liberals don’t read much, either. They only read things that give them a warm and fuzzy glow?
Have you ever in your days overheard anyone seriously wishing for the days when we all could own rockets and such? Even some of your closet redneck friends? No? Of course you haven’t. When has there been anyone running for public office promising to decriminalize bombs? Never. There has to be a history of this phenomenon because I have heard this prattling before a few times so who was the source?

Are you attempting to muddy the topic by suggesting in some way, that those who like self loading rifles also demand bombs? As if one is no good without the other? If someone wants bombs they can look online to learn how to make them and leave out the middleman. The line I am drawing is leave the current laws we have had in place ,and make no more. We should all have the right to own, if we choose, weapons of the current time period. There is no way anyone could seriously defend their property or selves with anything less, especially if the regular army and your police forces are flush with them. Most of the gun laws we have, originated with the late senator Dodd who copied the Nazi gun laws almost verbatim. You can look it up. What you will find will shock you. Not saying Dodd was a Nazi, just saying he used their script to save a little time.

@woodcutter, I’m not sure why you’re having so much trouble understanding my point.

There is a class of weapons that you think should be banned.

There is a class of weapons that you think should be legal.

Explain how you draw the line between these classes. Don’t change the subject to Nazi gun laws. Just explain why you think RPG’s should be banned but assault weapons should not.

Note “because they are” is not a good answer.

I don’t understand your confusion about where I stand. Is it because I have not made it artificially complicated enough?

I think now you are being artificially silly . What else can I say? This whole thing seems fogged up by the mere mention of rockets or bombs you keep on with. What’s up with that? Has anyone in your travels indicated those ridiculous devises are an all or nothing proposition for semi auto hi- cap magazines to also be legal? Who has expressed disdain for not having these? If you are trying to make this issue more complicated for the purpose of cornering me you have made a mistake my friend.
I’m arguing with a far left neo lib who hates all guns and probably has no respect for those who have them so I’m not going to entertain you further with this. If you are as smart as you seem to claim, then go back ^^ up and look at it all again and glean. You can do it.You didn’t waste your time in college.

You stand with the status quo, yes? You think that citizens should only have the right to own certain kinds of weapons, based on whether or not they can kill large numbers of people?

Did you stand with the status quo in 2004, before the assault weapon ban expired?

And do you understand that there is not a huge gulf, practically speaking, between your position on gun control and mine? The gulf is ideological.

What is the “status quo” for the sake of the three people in the world who are following this?

And what is up with the volume of people killed? What in the name of hell are you getting at? Just because a gun is capable of holding a significant number of rounds does not mean they all exit the barrel all at once. Is that what you believe? That a single shot is not possible? Weapons of mass destruction is a whole different category. If you read the 2nd amt there is no mention of these. You are trying to string the two together. What politician has ever tried this and was taken seriously…I meant really seriously. This discounts Bobby Rush. He’s a retard. Ignore him.

You are okay with the gun laws on the books? Or am I misunderstanding you?

Again: this isn’t complicated. You do not think certain weapons should be legal. I want to know which ones, and why. So here, I’m going to list a bunch of weapons. You tell me if you think civilians should be able to own them.

• Semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.
• Fully automatic assault rifles.
• High-powered sniper rifles.
• RPG-7’s.
• Anti-aircraft guns
• Mortar rounds
• Wire-guided missiles

None of these weapons is a “weapon of mass destruction” in the least. None even requires sophisticated tech to deploy. Should they be legal? This isn’t a trick question, just answer it already.

ok I’m going to bite.
The good one’s: All semi auto firearms that you can think of. and Hi Cap mags for.
The good one’s with extensive background check(already done- extremely rare) FA
The bad one’s: all the rest….......
except Sniper rifles. Can you supply any models that offend?
Mortar related munitions are considered a form of artillery= crew served weapon- not an individual weapon Agree?
Any kind of missile is considered artillery also= crew served-not an individual weapon, Agree?

Anti- aircraft guns can be considered a form of artillery= crew served- not an individual weapon, agree?

An RPG is a rocket and considered a form of artillery and is listed as a destructive devise
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destructive_device.

No body is bitching about any of these destructive devises being forbidden. These are used to project power and would make an uphill argument as to their self defense application

You don’t need a crew to fire mortar rounds, anti-aircraft guns, or RPG’s, as even a casual familiarity with the several wars currently going on right now would indicate. Having a team helps but it’s not necessary.

As for sniper rifles, you know, I haven’t been shopping for one recently, so I’m not too familiar with different models. Why don’t you tell us what kind you’d consider unsafe for civilians? Semi-auto armor-piercing? Fully automatic armor-piercing? What range?

My point is that you have boundaries. Now, you try to portray your boundaries in terms of semantics, in terms of pre-defined categories. You are okay with banning “destructive devices” or “crew served weapons.” Why? Why do you think the second amendment should not apply to explosive weapons or antiaircraft guns?

Even if it is possible to operate these weapons alone they are crew served non the less are are not individual weapons no matter how you want to spin it. Having served in the armed forces in artillery I think I am the authority on this so far.
“Boundaries” we all have them or should. I’m guessing 2A was intentionally leff open to interpretation for adjustments in technology that any educated leader of that time period would safely assume was going to happen.

like bayonets and horses?

The RPG-7 is not a crew-served weapon. And there are plenty of Libyan and Syrian militiamen who seem perfectly capable of mounting mortars and antiaircraft weapons on the backs of their trucks and shooting them by themselves.

And you haven’t answered my question. Why shouldn’t the second amendment apply to these weapons? Why does it matter if they are “crew-served”? Don’t crews of civilians have the right to bear arms? Wouldn’t an RPG-7 be incredibly useful in your fantasy scenario of post-Katrina home defense against roving predatory criminals?

Sigh…Because as I have previously noted above, those are for projecting power that at best have indiscriminate and unintended targets. Fuck, I don’t know. I’n just playing god and boy does it feel good. NO GODDAMN MISSILES FOR YOU FUCKING AMERICANS ALREADY. Be happy with rifles and pistols and shotguns and we all will be happy.

Why Have you heard that these kinds of things should be legal?
in any circles? I wouldn’t need an RPG to defend myself from roving looters trust me on that. If all they are doing is roving they can just rove on past me. Shooting at people is wrong if all they are doing is walking around. An AK-47 is just fine. Have you ever fired an RPG?

hint:not pleasant

If you take an absolutist stance on the second amendment, why shouldn’t they be legal? Because they are used to “project power” and have indiscrimanate targets? Well, you can project power indiscriminately with an AR-15 in a crowded city, too.

Let me translate your jargon. You think weapons should be banned if they are designed to easily kill a lot of people at once. I agree. Our disagreement merely involves particulars. But you have it in your head that your stance involves some sort of fundamental ideological right, and people like me are trying to take that right away.

Ok This fantasy scenario you speak of, You are conversing with the wrong guy. You should direct your inquiries to the actual people who used to live on the gulf coast who lost family, homes everything and who had to live in fear of said roving bands of criminals. While you are there discuss this with the leaders down there who thought this would never happen. If you get anyone to admit they were ready for something like this, I have a couple of nice houses I’d like to sell you in the 4th ward.

No no, you are twisting what I have there and you know it, well played but I was on to you all along. There is a huge difference between rifles and shotguns and bombs agree? I don’t have this absolutist stand on 2A. What gave you that idea? Sure each class of weapon can multi-task but lets be real ok?

My fiancee is from Louisiana, she has friends who were in Katrina; I am quite familiar with the state of affairs in the security vacuum after the hurricane.

I have never heard of roving bands of criminals being fended off with AR-15-weilding good citizens. Not once.

Like I said, this is a fantasy scenario. It’s a fantasy scenario, by the way, that dovetails traditional kind of right-wing-militia fantasy scenario of urban blacks taking over in some breakdown of civilization. Normally I wouldn’t bring this up, but you are after all the same guy who asserted that Obama only won the election because he’s black. The idea that you feel you need an assault weapon to defend yourself from opportunistic New Orleans looters is, frankly, frightening and sad.

As for differences between weapons, you keep on evading the question. Yes, weapons are different. Why should the 2A only apply to some and not others? You don’t seem capable of answering this question. Is this the first time you’ve even thought about this question?

We still have a polite society. Huge bombs aren’t needed or wanted. Now if shit devolves like the Bosnia conflict then I would be digging for some heavy weapons, and that’s the difference, heavy crew served weapons VS individual weapons that you are trying to convolute this with.

The whole idea of having them is to not have to use them. Fuck…that would be horrible to really have to do that but there were assaults down in that environment . just because you think the chances might be rare does not mean they are improbable. When it does happen to you it becomes pretty darn real. Who needs it? The storm damage and chaos was real to those who were in the thick of it but who knows what kind of disaster might happen.Having a suitable weapon for self defense sitting in the safe for emergencies is a good thing. having someone judge us for wanting something just in case is not.

C’mon really?Nothing I have contributed so far gives you a clue? You want an exact answer that is a fit-all solution? No such thing. You agree we should not foist more gun laws on the people right?

I’m off to work now

Later

@woodcutter, yes, I understand that you think it would be nice to have an AR-15 in a safe (presumably not a flooded one) in your fantasy scenario that you keep on talking about but that you are unable to show has ever happened.

I understand you acknowledge that some weapons are heavy and served by crews and others are not. You have yet to show why you think the second amendment only applies to certain weapons.

For someone with a deep faith in the need for the second amendment, you apparently haven’t put much thought into it at all.

Guys. The Second Amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms.
Bear means you can carry it. You can’t carry a Howitzer or an anti aircraft gun.
Even Justice Scalia would argue 2A does not refer to an anti aircraft gun.

You can carry an RPG-7. You can carry a Stinger missile launcher. You can carry an M-16 fully automatic rifle.

Should these be legal, @josie?

Not saying that. Just saying the debate stops at things like tanks, bombers and anti aircraft guns.
Plus, most reasonable people would not accept an argument that citizens should possess RPGs and Stingers without oversight and regulation, if at all. I personally can not think of an argument that would support the notion that 2A includes Stingers and RPGs, but who knows? SC justices are appointed for life, but they do not live forever.

The debate centers around rifles like the AR-15 which is popular in the “gun owner” culture. I have one. I can’t think of a good reason why the Fed would see fit to take it away from me. I am not a felon, I am trained in proper use and safety, plus I used a variant of it in the service.

Making ARs illegal will change nothing. I do not like the fact that criminals and lunatics own ARs, but given the fact that they always manage to find them, I would hate it and regard it as unreasonable if I did not have the prerogative to own one legally. That’s just me. I don’t expect you to agree, so this is my only statement about it. But you can sleep well knowing that you don’t have to worry about me.

Why do you draw a line between AR-15’s and RPG-7’s, @josie?

All you and @woodcutter have said is, “because other people draw a line at explosives.” Why?

Explosives serve no practical use in society, sporting or otherwise. Semi -auto rifles and pistols are practical to have. Even if you personally don’t want one.

All I said was it would be hard for me to make the argument.

But, now that you mention it, and I had time to think about it, I suppose that line does not exist.

I have rights that are intrinsic to my existence. One of these is my personal liberty. The government does not grant the right, it simply may or may not respect it. Or it may attempt to limit it, or fail or refuse to help me protect it.
The purpose of the Second Ammendment is to allow the populace to defend themselves against a tyrannical force. So I suppose RPGs are no different than any other practical, useable arms in that context.

All I need to defend myself against a maniac crack head or a crazy tweaker is a baseball bat.

My final answer.

You mentioned fantasy scenarios as if these are a good time, or made up situations that can never happen, like you in a threesome with NFL cheerleaders. Thats a fantasy. Of the kind no one would need to be prepared for to keep themselves and their families safe from bodily harm. What you are describing would be a nightmare to almost everyone, except the few who would use these nightmare scenarios as a way to take advantage of the situation. These type of people thrive in situations like these. Talk to me about semantics

What’s not practical about an RPG-7? The weapon seems very effective as a defense against, say, those “predatory humans” you’re so concerned about, if they’re traveling in vehicles.

Not to mention @josie‘s “tyrannical force.” I’d certainly like to have a few RPG’s in my arsenal if and when the tree of liberty needs to be watered with blood, or whatever.

The original intent of the 2nd amendment, the right of the militia to bear arms, was not to mean that folks should own weapons appropriate for challenging a tyrannical force, but that they should be stockpiled in a locally administered armory. The guard is called up and they check out the appropriate ordinance for the occasion.
In that context I don’t see anything wrong with RPGs or ground-to-air missiles or tanks.

There is no excuse for allowing folks to possess in their homes weapons that are more deadly than needed for practical (hunting) or defensive purposes.

I don’t have a problem with shooting ranges, and with well-controlled crazy arsenal being available at ranges for the enjoyment of the patrons. Automatic weapons, fine, hand grenades, fine, RPGs fine, blow stuff up safely is a great idea and gives people more respect for the devices they are using.

Here is an interesting piece that pretty much hits the nail on the head. It may rub people the wrong way and possibly poo- poooed so is the usual retort to sources that are not in agreement to a particular agenda, but here it is…. http://calltodecision.com/kew.htm

Not seeing any mention of artillery that was needed to stop the madness.

If you will read ⅔rds of the way down you will see where defenders were armed with an old AK-47 as well as some borrowed shotguns and lots of ammunition These people apparently felt that even after the hell of that destructive storm, they drew the line at becoming victims of those attempting to take advantage of a shitty situation.

Y’all bookmark this one so when you ever get that shaky feeling that ordinary people should cower defenseless, and wait for a govt. coordinated rescue ,(more harm than good sometimes), just click back on this to adjust yourself to reality….not a fantasy.

Oh look, another one http://calltodecision.com/amp.htm closer to the point. See if we can pick out the fantasy scenario hidden in the script. Can someone forawrd this to the White House?