Obama 'backs assault weapons ban'

[Hawken]

Yeah and how sad at how people twist his words to advocate for killing machines

You kill a million people you're a conquerer. You kill 1 person you're a murderer. Go Figure.

[Drayno]

You are so detached from reality that I wouldn't be surprised you think martians are going to invade the Earth. Hey anyone can twist history. Oh some people shot each other in 1779, let me shoot my neighbors! Oh the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, lets bomb Tokyo tomorrow! Oh the Mongols swept through China, lets exterminate them.

Your fear of the government goes beyond paranoia into insane territory.

All of the members of the founding government were well read students of history who went through years of rigorous study. Some of them were fluent in several languages, on top of being emissaries and diplomats to foreign countries at certain points; Thomas Jefferson, for instance, was fluent in five languages. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, was a celebrity in France and perfeclty fluent in French, being the the one to convince the King of France to bankroll the American colonies in their revolt against the British Empire and the King of England. All of the founding fathers had learned through their years of study, examining the rise and fall of great empires and governments, the weaknesses and mistakes of such entites and how they eventually turned to tyranny and abused their citizenry, or collapsed from within; that is why they integrated a safeguard in our Republic; the second amendment, because they understood the depths governments could sink.

All of the founding fathers were extensively read in political science and the ideas and concepts of the Enlightenment; following the teachings of John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francis Bacon, Baruch Spinoza, Issac Newton - even being aware of such political works from early Western philosophers such as Artistotle, or even Machiavelli's work on Republicanism: The Discourses On Livy. The latter being beneficial in combining Republicanlism and Liberalism to create the first incarnation of our government. Popular sovereignty and social contracts laying down the basic dynamic between government and consenting constiuents? Rousseau's ideas. The separation of powers between our branches of government? Montesquieu. Natural and unalienable rights? John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Insight into tyranny through satire? Voltaire; Candide being one particular work of satire.

And since I follow their sound advice and years of study, studying extensively for over five years myself, I'm a conspiracy theorist!? It is you who is a horrible fool, a troll, and you will wish you had the ability to defend yourself when your time inevitably comes.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it." - Voltaire

Even if I think you're full of **** or honestly misled.

If you even try to refute this post you will show to everyone on this topic that you truly are an idiot.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Eonwe

[Guest]

All of the members of the founding government were well read students of history who went through years of rigorous study. Some of them were fluent in several languages, on top of being emissaries and diplomats to foreign countries at certain points; Thomas Jefferson, for instance, was fluent in five languages. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, was a celebrity in France and perfeclty fluent in French, being the the one to convince the King of France to bankroll the American colonies in their revolt against the British Empire and the King of England. All of the founding fathers had learned through their years of study, examining the rise and fall of great empires and governments, the weaknesses and mistakes of such entites and how they eventually turned to tyranny and abused their citizenry, or collapsed from within; that is why they integrated a safeguard in our Republic; the second amendment, because they understood the depths governments could sink.

All of the founding fathers were extensively read in political science and the ideas and concepts of the Enlightenment; following the teachings of John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francis Bacon, Baruch Spinoza, Issac Newton - even being aware of such political works from early Western philosophers such as Artistotle, or even Machiavelli's work on Republicanism: The Discourses On Livy. The latter being beneficial in combining Republicanlism and Liberalism to create the first incarnation of our government. Popular sovereignty and social contracts laying down the basic dynamic between government and consenting constiuents? Rousseau's ideas. The separation of powers between our branches of government? Montesquieu. Natural and unalienable rights? John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Insight into tyranny through satire? Voltaire; Candide being one particular work of satire.

And since I follow their sound advice and years of study, studying extensively for over five years myself, I'm a conspiracy theorist!? It is you who is a horrible fool, a troll, and you will wish you had the ability to defend yourself when your time inevitably comes.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it." - Voltaire

Even if I think you're full of **** or honestly misled.

If you even try to refute this post you will show to everyone on this topic that you truly are an idiot.

Did you also realize that many of them were also Freemasons who firmly believed in the concept of a OWG. They were the people who helped the American nation to become what it is today - a monolithic quasi-dictatorship.

I think you should take the rosy-tinted glasses off and look at your founding fathers for what they were - a bunch of people who set out to form a globe spanning Empire and used your founding principles to achieve it.

And as I keep pointing out the ownership of guns offers only the illusion of greater personal safety as it shown by the stats which show that gun owning countries have far higher homicide rates. The simple fact is that I live in a country where guns are not allowed and I have a astonishingly small chance of been shot or murdered - can you say the same ?

Its really starting to disturb me how many extremist anti-government nut jobs we have on these boards. Government is what you make it by the choices we make as politically active citizens. Most of the same wingnuts probably have no active involvement in any form of Government. If there is a failure of democracy its largely down to people who think things can resolved by a good fight in the streets. As I keep pointing out to them - try living without a government for a while to realize what you actually have. Tragically sad.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 25, 2012 by Guest

[Yamato]

The point is murderers with guns are far, far, far more deadly than with knives.

Simply compare school rampages with guns and knives. A gun nut here in this forum looked at 7 incidents in China where someone went crazy with a knife at elementary schools. The total killed was less than Sandy Hook alone.

Anyone with a gun is far, far, far more deadly than with a knife. If we only look at murderers though, then it's still true but a very selective picture. Having a gun doesn't make someone a bad person. I was the exact same the day after I bought a shotgun for home defense. If we're wanting legislation to keep murder rates down, then having the 2nd Amendment in the US isn't the problem. In fact, European states should adopt US laws because murder rates are much lower in the US.

But that doesn't serve the true purpose of the argument here or Obama's interest, which is to ban guns, not adopt better systems of laws that keep murder rates down. The latter would require honesty and sensibility and an actual desire to lower murder incidence rates in the US. I am starting to think that these unconstitutional gun control advocates would be happier with higher murder rates in the US but with fewer guns. That would be their political mission accomplished. And we might prevent events where 20 kids get shot, and the lack of sensational stories on the news will make them feel safer. And isn't that what it's really all about? People just want to feel safe and they conjure up all kinds of bad ideas, usually with what governments can do to their own people, to do so.

[Guest]

Anyone with a gun is far, far, far more deadly than with a knife. If we only look at murderers though, then it's still true but a very selective picture. Having a gun doesn't make someone a bad person. I was the exact same the day after I bought a shotgun for home defense. If we're wanting legislation to keep murder rates down, then having the 2nd Amendment in the US isn't the problem. In fact, European states should adopt US laws because murder rates are much lower in the US.

But that doesn't serve the true purpose of the argument here or Obama's interest, which is to ban guns, not adopt better systems of laws that keep murder rates down. The latter would require honesty and sensibility and an actual desire to lower murder incidence rates in the US. I am starting to think that these unconstitutional gun control advocates would be happier with higher murder rates in the US but with fewer guns. That would be their political mission accomplished. And we might prevent events where 20 kids get shot, and the lack of sensational stories on the news will make them feel safer. And isn't that what it's really all about? People just want to feel safe and they conjure up all kinds of bad ideas, usually with what governments can do to their own people, to do so.

A very selective interpretion which only holds true if you include Russia - which is not Europe. Murder rates in mainland Europe are at least a 1/3 of the American statistic.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

A very selective interpretion which only holds true if you include Russia - which is not Europe. Murder rates in mainland Europe are at least a 1/3 of the American statistic.

Br Cornelius

No, that is dead wrong.

First of all, I don't even remember Russia on the list. Though all the former Soviet Baltic states were present, as was the Ukraine and Poland. But more importantly, this wasn't an average, where you can sneak Russia in and get your numbers up. These are incidence rates of murder per capita per country.

[Guest]

No, that is dead wrong.

First of all, I don't even remember Russia on the list. Though all the former Soviet Baltic states were present, as was the Ukraine and Poland. But more importantly, this wasn't an average, where you can sneak Russia in and get your numbers up. These are incidence rates of murder per capita per country.

Its like including central America and Argentina in the American figures, which would increase the ratio to about 1/8th - its just plain dishonest.

Br Cornelius

[Yamato]

Its like including central America and Argentina in the American figures, which would increase the ratio to about 1/8th - its just plain dishonest.

Br Cornelius

Did you bother to read what you just replied to? Your replies are just plain dishonest or else you are not understanding what I am talking about. I am talking about the countries of the world with the highest murder rates. According to the most recent data on Nationmaster, the US isn't even in the top 38.

Again, nothing is "included". These are countries weighed against one another for their own murders, independently compared.

[AsteroidX]

I think you should take the rosy-tinted glasses off and look at your founding fathers for what they were - a bunch of people who set out to form a globe spanning Empire and used your founding principles to achieve it.

. It certainly is that now. But since we arent doing what they told us we cannot really say. We are a Consumerist Nation which is not at all the same thing.

[FLOMBIE]

Did you bother to read what you just replied to? Your replies are just plain dishonest or else you are not understanding what I am talking about. I am talking about the countries of the world with the highest murder rates. According to the most recent data on Nationmaster, the US isn't even in the top 38.

Again, nothing is "included". These are countries weighed against one another for their own murders, independently compared.

That list is flawed. The US is omitted, as well as other countries with a high murder rate like Mexico or Venezuela. According to this source http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states the total number of murders in 2006 was 17.030, which would put the US in the number one spot of that list, and the per capita ratio is 57 (5.7 per 100.000 on gunpolicy.org), which would rank the US 6th on the nationmaster list.

[Guest]

Did you bother to read what you just replied to? Your replies are just plain dishonest or else you are not understanding what I am talking about. I am talking about the countries of the world with the highest murder rates. According to the most recent data on Nationmaster, the US isn't even in the top 38.

Again, nothing is "included". These are countries weighed against one another for their own murders, independently compared.

Compare Britian or Germany to the USA then you have a fair comparison of equal status countries.

Including any sub-Saharan country or any Eastern European (forma USSR) to the USA is just meaningless.

I don;t think its clever to compare the richest nation on earth with the likes of Jamaica.

Br Cornelius

Edited December 25, 2012 by Guest

[Guest]

Even the violent crimes figures for the UK are misleading. Most reported incidents of violent crime are associated with fights between drunks and are associated with the free availability of alcohol and the drinking culture. Just think how much worse that situation would be if half the population walked around with guns in their pockets.

Br Cornelius

[Drayno]

Did you also realize that many of them were also Freemasons who firmly believed in the concept of a OWG. They were the people who helped the American nation to become what it is today - a monolithic quasi-dictatorship.

I think you should take the rosy-tinted glasses off and look at your founding fathers for what they were - a bunch of people who set out to form a globe spanning Empire and used your founding principles to achieve it.

And as I keep pointing out the ownership of guns offers only the illusion of greater personal safety as it shown by the stats which show that gun owning countries have far higher homicide rates. The simple fact is that I live in a country where guns are not allowed and I have a astonishingly small chance of been shot or murdered - can you say the same ?

Its really starting to disturb me how many extremist anti-government nut jobs we have on these boards. Government is what you make it by the choices we make as politically active citizens. Most of the same wingnuts probably have no active involvement in any form of Government. If there is a failure of democracy its largely down to people who think things can resolved by a good fight in the streets. As I keep pointing out to them - try living without a government for a while to realize what you actually have. Tragically sad.

Br Cornelius

I will agree with you amicably that government only works if the people remain vigilant.

Unfortunately, many citizens don't actively participate in government.

I also agree that there were some implications most people were not aware of in the founding of our government; such as your proposed OWG idea. I am not thoroughly convinced by globalist agendas, but I recognize that a one world government would be the next logical step before humanity starts preparing to colonize in outer space. Unfortunately, a globalized and centralized world government has a higher risk of tyranny than any pre-existing incarnation of government.

Whether or not the right to own guns is an illusion, I'm sure many people would love to debate.

But in a life or death situation, I rather have a way to even out the odds.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Eonwe

[Maizer]

All of the members of the founding government were well read students of history who went through years of rigorous study. Some of them were fluent in several languages, on top of being emissaries and diplomats to foreign countries at certain points; Thomas Jefferson, for instance, was fluent in five languages. Benjamin Franklin, for instance, was a celebrity in France and perfeclty fluent in French, being the the one to convince the King of France to bankroll the American colonies in their revolt against the British Empire and the King of England. All of the founding fathers had learned through their years of study, examining the rise and fall of great empires and governments, the weaknesses and mistakes of such entites and how they eventually turned to tyranny and abused their citizenry, or collapsed from within; that is why they integrated a safeguard in our Republic; the second amendment, because they understood the depths governments could sink.

All of the founding fathers were extensively read in political science and the ideas and concepts of the Enlightenment; following the teachings of John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Francis Bacon, Baruch Spinoza, Issac Newton - even being aware of such political works from early Western philosophers such as Artistotle, or even Machiavelli's work on Republicanism: The Discourses On Livy. The latter being beneficial in combining Republicanlism and Liberalism to create the first incarnation of our government. Popular sovereignty and social contracts laying down the basic dynamic between government and consenting constiuents? Rousseau's ideas. The separation of powers between our branches of government? Montesquieu. Natural and unalienable rights? John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Insight into tyranny through satire? Voltaire; Candide being one particular work of satire.

And since I follow their sound advice and years of study, studying extensively for over five years myself, I'm a conspiracy theorist!? It is you who is a horrible fool, a troll, and you will wish you had the ability to defend yourself when your time inevitably comes.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend your right to say it." - Voltaire

Even if I think you're full of **** or honestly misled.

If you even try to refute this post you will show to everyone on this topic that you truly are an idiot.

Your arguments are out of date, considering how vastly society has changed. Judging from the people reading with disbelief at your posts, you've already proved your arguments are ludicrous. Congrats.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Maizer

[Maizer]

Anyone with a gun is far, far, far more deadly than with a knife. If we only look at murderers though, then it's still true but a very selective picture. Having a gun doesn't make someone a bad person. I was the exact same the day after I bought a shotgun for home defense. If we're wanting legislation to keep murder rates down, then having the 2nd Amendment in the US isn't the problem. In fact, European states should adopt US laws because murder rates are much lower in the US.

But that doesn't serve the true purpose of the argument here or Obama's interest, which is to ban guns, not adopt better systems of laws that keep murder rates down. The latter would require honesty and sensibility and an actual desire to lower murder incidence rates in the US. I am starting to think that these unconstitutional gun control advocates would be happier with higher murder rates in the US but with fewer guns. That would be their political mission accomplished. And we might prevent events where 20 kids get shot, and the lack of sensational stories on the news will make them feel safer. And isn't that what it's really all about? People just want to feel safe and they conjure up all kinds of bad ideas, usually with what governments can do to their own people, to do so.

The problem is simple. Mental disease and easy access to deadly weapons cause massacres. While both are hard to control, the removing guns is much much easier considering ANYONE is a bad day away from a shooting spree. The question is is it too late to remove guns. I figure we give it a try before arming kids.

[Hawken]

The problem is simple. Mental disease and easy access to deadly weapons cause massacres. While both are hard to control, the removing guns is much much easier considering ANYONE is a bad day away from a shooting spree. The question is is it too late to remove guns. I figure we give it a try before arming kids.

Check out this link.

http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2012/12/26/the-left-bullies-the-nra-n1473875

Edited December 27, 2012 by Mag357

[aztek]

Compare Britian or Germany to the USA then you have a fair comparison of equal status countries.

why??? they are nothing like us.

[Guest]

why??? they are nothing like us.

So you are more like Jamaica than the UK. When comparing countries it is only appropriate to compare ones of similar cultural status, and since America claims to be the most developed country in the world I would place it alongside the countries of North western Europe rather than the developing world when comparing statistics.

You accept high rates of homicide as an inevitable consequence of your right to bare arms.

Br Cornelius

[questionmark]

So you are more like Jamaica than the UK. When comparing countries it is only appropriate to compare ones of similar cultural status, and since America claims to be the most developed country in the world I would place it alongside the countries of North western Europe rather than the developing world when comparing statistics.

You accept high rates of homicide as an inevitable consequence of your right to bare arms.

Br Cornelius

I would not say that, the inconsequential neglect of arms is what causes it. If the gun owner were to held liable for all damages his gun causes unless he shows that he did what he could to protect it from the wrong hands I wager that half of the gun violence would dissipate.

It is not the right to bear arms that is the problem here but that people need to grow up and realize that with the right comes an obligation.

[AsteroidX]

You dont get it do you ?

I would not say that, the inconsequential neglect of arms is what causes it. If the gun owner were to held liable for all damages his gun causes unless he shows that he did what he could to protect it from the wrong hands I wager that half of the gun violence would dissipate.

It is not the right to bear arms that is the problem here but that people need to grow up and realize that with the right comes an obligation.

[+and-then]

I would not say that, the inconsequential neglect of arms is what causes it. If the gun owner were to held liable for all damages his gun causes unless he shows that he did what he could to protect it from the wrong hands I wager that half of the gun violence would dissipate.

It is not the right to bear arms that is the problem here but that people need to grow up and realize that with the right comes an obligation.

I agree (again) that responsibility should be taken. I was always taught that I owned that bullet and it's consequences no matter where it went or what I "intended". No excuses. But to make such rules ironclad in today's society would require someone to "manage" the information. Millions of guns are sold between individuals weekly in the US. Who keeps the data from those sales? That's quite a data base. The IRS would want a peek, I'm sure. The DEA as well as FBI couldn't be faulted for wanting access - you know - just to keep us safe. And ultimately the only answer the gun control types have for our concerns of confiscation is: the government wouldn't do THAT. Really? And if they decided to...then what?

[AsteroidX]

Want to have some fun and watch that border get broken into pieces....

[questionmark]

I agree (again) that responsibility should be taken. I was always taught that I owned that bullet and it's consequences no matter where it went or what I "intended". No excuses. But to make such rules ironclad in today's society would require someone to "manage" the information. Millions of guns are sold between individuals weekly in the US. Who keeps the data from those sales? That's quite a data base. The IRS would want a peek, I'm sure. The DEA as well as FBI couldn't be faulted for wanting access - you know - just to keep us safe. And ultimately the only answer the gun control types have for our concerns of confiscation is: the government wouldn't do THAT. Really? And if they decided to...then what?

Somebody has to manage the information, and in lack of somebody better it should be a federal agency. If it exists or a new one with a very small scope is matter of debate. In any case, all law enforcement has to be able to access that data or it would just create another toothless paper tiger, as so many in the past.

[AsteroidX]

Somebody has to manage the information, and in lack of somebody better it should be a federal agency. If it exists or a new one with a very small scope is matter of debate. In any case, all law enforcement has to be able to access that data or it would just create another toothless paper tiger, as so many in the past.

You think the Fed is best able to deal with this. What have they done in the past. There track record exactly aint sparkling.

[Hawken]

Good Point

Edited December 31, 2012 by Mag357