Obama To Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

[kat8585]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

When will these people get it thru their heads that this isn't going to cut down on crime?? Not that that is the motive anyway, tho. I'm surprised we didn't see this before now.

[Leonard]

Yet another attempt to pass legislation that is clearly unconstitutional. In my opinion, anyone that supports this ban should be brought up on charges for violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and impeached.

a question,

but a statement first.

I think we should be allowed to own guns, I think it is in the Constitution that we should be allowed to do so. What I dont think is that it is unrestricted free to have what ever you want.

now the question...

why does anyone need to own an assault weapon?

(I withheld the desire to ask you to show me in the Constitution where it says we can own wssault weapons )

Please read the letters of the Committee of Correspondence which passed between our Founders. There you will CLEARLY see why we should be able to own assault weapons.

Secondarily, the 'assault' weapons bans, do NOT ban true assault (fully automatic) weapons, but SEMI-AUTOMATIC guns. Like the semi-auto 30.06, three in the magazine, one in the chamber, my dad used to hunt with!

Now I have a question for you: Have you been reading the Constitution upside down or something? The Constitution is NOT a document which DEFINES, OR BESTOWS the peoples' rights. It is a document which LIMITS the power of the Federal Government to interfere in the peoples' lives! Now just where in that document do you find ANYTHING which gives the Federal Government the power to interfere with peoples' purchase of guns?

You will search in vain for such a statement in the Constitution. In fact the great Bill of Rights, is a NEGATIVE document. It says in effect: Government, you can't do this. Government, you can't do that. Or that. Or that. etc. And finally, just so there could be NO CONFUSION in the minds of anybody whose IQ exceeds their collar measurement, the 9th and 10th Amendments basically say: "Oh, and Federal Government; if there's anything we forgot.....YOU CAN'T DO THAT EITHER!

In point of fact, our Constitution only permits the Federal Government to do nine (count 'em: 9) things! And one of them is NOT to 'infringe' on the 'people's right to keep and bear arms.....'!

You really ought to learn and think, before forming an opinion on a subject.

[Hunterpoet]

I can't remember, but i think they consider any semi-automatic weapon an assault weapon.

Now I have a problem with this...many 22 rifles are semi-automatic as well as shotguns and many pistols, but they always hold up an AK-47 when making their argument.

[kat8585]

You might want to work on your current events since the present administration is against the Fairness Doctrine and the present Senate just barred federal regulators from reviving a policy.

Not to get off track, but do you really believe this, as much as they want to silence dissent? I was just thinking the other day, I wonder what new name they will come up with for it or what different approach, or who else it will come from. Someone was saying something may come from the FCC, from someone he appoints, maybe.

[kat8585]

Not to get off track, but do you really believe this, as much as they want to silence dissent? I was just thinking the other day, I wonder what new name they will come up with for it or what different approach, or who else it will come from. Someone was saying something may come from the FCC, from someone he appoints, maybe.

Until I see otherwise, yes I really believe.

In my own personal opinion "they" dont want silence dissent anymore than the previous administration wanted to.

How so? They certainly didn't want this!

I have to laugh at this whole thing, the Senate did what we would want them to do, the Pres has said consistently that he is against the Fairness Doctrine,

If he's telling the truth, which I don't believe, it will be the first time he has about anything major.

but none of that is enough, those on the far right still see some sneaky play to get this passed despite what they see in front of their eyes.

Those on the RIGHT????

[Hunterpoet]

You might want to work on your current events since the present administration is against the Fairness Doctrine and the present Senate just barred federal regulators from reviving a policy.

Not to get off track, but do you really believe this, as much as they want to silence dissent? I was just thinking the other day, I wonder what new name they will come up with for it or what different approach, or who else it will come from. Someone was saying something may come from the FCC, from someone he appoints, maybe.

FCC is already involved, supposedly helping to configure new language so that stations will be required to adhere to basic principles of doctrine without big legislative push.

[kat8585]

what "major" thing has Pres Obama lied about so far?

It would take up a lot less space (no space) if you would tell me one thing he hasn't lied about.

[kat8585]

what "major" thing has Pres Obama lied about so far?

It would take up a lot less space (no space) if you would tell me one thing he hasn't lied about.

The fairness doctrine.

now, your turn, give me one thing that he has lied about.

For starters, transparency, bipartisanship, no lobbyists, no pork, bills being online 48 hours before being voted on, and on and on. Oh, and the fairness doctrine.

[Hunterpoet]

You might want to work on your current events since the present administration is against the Fairness Doctrine and the present Senate just barred federal regulators from reviving a policy.

Not to get off track, but do you really believe this, as much as they want to silence dissent? I was just thinking the other day, I wonder what new name they will come up with for it or what different approach, or who else it will come from. Someone was saying something may come from the FCC, from someone he appoints, maybe.

FCC is already involved, supposedly helping to configure new language so that stations will be required to adhere to basic principles of doctrine without big legislative push.

do you have link or two to this information.

No RG I don't have a link. This was being discussed on the news and talk radio awhile back. Have heard nothing since. Guess we will just have to wait and see. The talk show folks are all over this and if anything starts up we will hear about it.

I can tell you this with certainty, 10 years ago right here in Cleveland a big push was made to get all religious and ethnic programs off am radio...they were somewhat successful at the time, but allot shows survived, but allot were also lost, mostly the small shows with smaller following, mostly the old European shows, slovaks, poles, serbs, Ukran etc.

[Leonard]

You really ought to learn and think, before forming an opinion on a subject.

do you always insult people you want to have a discussion with, or is this just the way to get rid of people so you dont have to talk to them?

I suppose it is proof that I ought to think before closing a post so carelessly...... My apologies. Do note my signature. I am truly a sinner, with many failings.

Nonetheless, how do you tell someone whose views are just silly and immensely damaging to America, that they are in fact just silly and immensely damaging to America, without sounding insulting? I trust you will forgive me if I seem ingracious, but your views would soon have us reduced to thraldom.

And by the way, you failed to answer any of my arguments, preferring to jump to the ab hominem.