All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
1/18/2013 1:06 PM
So since Obama came out with his recomendations lets talk about them....

Has anyone anywhere questioned trying the Clinton Gun Ban again? It didnt make a difference. It is wide ranging and covers a lot of guns that people would not consider "Military Style". The limit for shotguns is 5 rounds. WWII era M1 Garands are banned.

And again no results. nothing happened?

So why allow it to happen again?

People use "Screaming fire in a movie house, but that actually happened.
1/18/2013 1:24 PM
I already explained why the previous ban was ineffective.  Doesn't seem to be anything new with this one to change that, unless Congress get's it's act together and comes up with a plan to take the soon to be illegal weapons out of circulation as part of the new ban.
1/18/2013 1:58 PM
Do criminals really care if a specific gun is illegal? 

Say, for instance, do you think the Sandy Hook guy would have said :"Whoa!  Wait a minute.   These 100 round clips are illegal.  Better not use them or I'll be in a heap o' trouble!!!"?
1/18/2013 2:04 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I already explained why the previous ban was ineffective.  Doesn't seem to be anything new with this one to change that, unless Congress get's it's act together and comes up with a plan to take the soon to be illegal weapons out of circulation as part of the new ban.
And Obama is talking about putting the same ban back in place.

Do you really think that congress could pass a law that takes guns away from law abiding citizens and not get the worst political backlash in history?
1/18/2013 2:11 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Do criminals really care if a specific gun is illegal? 

Say, for instance, do you think the Sandy Hook guy would have said :"Whoa!  Wait a minute.   These 100 round clips are illegal.  Better not use them or I'll be in a heap o' trouble!!!"?
If the Sandy Hook guy's mom didn't have such weapons in the house, he might not have killed as many people as he did.  He very well may have still went to the school to carry out his killing spree, but with less powerful weapons and ammunition.
1/18/2013 2:16 PM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/18/2013 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I already explained why the previous ban was ineffective.  Doesn't seem to be anything new with this one to change that, unless Congress get's it's act together and comes up with a plan to take the soon to be illegal weapons out of circulation as part of the new ban.
And Obama is talking about putting the same ban back in place.

Do you really think that congress could pass a law that takes guns away from law abiding citizens and not get the worst political backlash in history?
And that's why the political system is so ****** up in the U.S. today.  Fear of political backlash should NOT be the driving reason why politicians do or don't do what's in the country's best interests.
1/18/2013 2:52 PM

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.

[...]

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

1/18/2013 3:36 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Do criminals really care if a specific gun is illegal? 

Say, for instance, do you think the Sandy Hook guy would have said :"Whoa!  Wait a minute.   These 100 round clips are illegal.  Better not use them or I'll be in a heap o' trouble!!!"?
If the Sandy Hook guy's mom didn't have such weapons in the house, he might not have killed as many people as he did.  He very well may have still went to the school to carry out his killing spree, but with less powerful weapons and ammunition.
Like two very legal double-barrel shotguns and a bag of shells?

I think we've been thru this.   6 year olds are sitting ducks in a classroom.   A teacher and a teacher's aid go down before the 2nd shotgun is even in play.   What do you think 20 six year olds do when their teacher's brains are splattered on their clothing?
1/18/2013 3:50 PM
Sandy Hook guy used guns and ammo that were available to him from his mother's house.  Did she have two double barrel shutguns and a bag of shells? 

He took an assault weapon and two handguns into the school with him.  If his mom didn't have the assault weapon, what would he have entered the school with? 

Would 26 people have died IN THAT INCIDENT if he did not have easy access to an assault weapon that morning?
1/18/2013 3:56 PM
I don't know what sort of guns his mother owned.  Do you?

Will the handguns be legal under your dictatorship?

Quite possibly more would be dead if he used two double barrel shotguns.   It's hard to miss with a shotgun.
1/18/2013 4:22 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2013 3:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 2:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/18/2013 1:58:00 PM (view original):
Do criminals really care if a specific gun is illegal? 

Say, for instance, do you think the Sandy Hook guy would have said :"Whoa!  Wait a minute.   These 100 round clips are illegal.  Better not use them or I'll be in a heap o' trouble!!!"?
If the Sandy Hook guy's mom didn't have such weapons in the house, he might not have killed as many people as he did.  He very well may have still went to the school to carry out his killing spree, but with less powerful weapons and ammunition.
Like two very legal double-barrel shotguns and a bag of shells?

I think we've been thru this.   6 year olds are sitting ducks in a classroom.   A teacher and a teacher's aid go down before the 2nd shotgun is even in play.   What do you think 20 six year olds do when their teacher's brains are splattered on their clothing?
And I think the response to that was you can kill people with many different things. That doesn't mean it's unreasonable to consider further regulation of guns.
1/18/2013 4:33 PM
Like this?

"If you want every weapon currently in one's hands registered, fine, I'm good with that.   If you want to impose ridiculously long prison sentences for having an unregistered firearm, cool, I'm good with that also.   If you want government round-ups of specific firearms that are newly illegal, nope, not having it."


I'm just tired of people pretending that some ban on AW will stop a goddam crazy person from killing a classroom full of 6 year olds.   That's just ******* stupid.   He could probably kill them with a goddam brick if he took out the adults quickly and bloody.
1/18/2013 4:37 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 2:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by swamphawk22 on 1/18/2013 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Posted by tecwrg on 1/18/2013 1:24:00 PM (view original):
I already explained why the previous ban was ineffective.  Doesn't seem to be anything new with this one to change that, unless Congress get's it's act together and comes up with a plan to take the soon to be illegal weapons out of circulation as part of the new ban.
And Obama is talking about putting the same ban back in place.

Do you really think that congress could pass a law that takes guns away from law abiding citizens and not get the worst political backlash in history?
And that's why the political system is so ****** up in the U.S. today.  Fear of political backlash should NOT be the driving reason why politicians do or don't do what's in the country's best interests.
No.

That is why the system works.

The people dont want guns taken away from law abiding citizens.

No matter how much pressure they get from the left they know that they cannot look voters in the eye and tell them they voted to have their guns rounded up!
1/18/2013 4:38 PM
Here's the thing:

If the gov't says "All firearms must be registered", I'll register my grandpa's 50 year old .22 rifle.    Do you think Jimmy Drugdealer is going to register his 27 AK47s?   Even if there's a crazy prison sentence for having an unregistered firearm?   He's a goddam drug dealer.   He don't give a **** about your goddam gun laws.
1/18/2013 4:43 PM
Some have asked why would the NRA be opposed to gun registration...

1 What good does it do?

2 It makes a future seizing all that much easier.

3 It gives a government list of all gun owners.
of 54
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.