You didn't read the article I linked mate.

Seems like you refered to the Australian government's numbers as your arguement - I linked to their analysis of their crime stats - maybe if you looked at the actual numbers instead fo thre NRA propaganda you might see something other than piffle.

Motor Vehicles are designed to transport people and or goods. An AR-15 or an AKS with the capability of high capacity magazines is designed to create the maximum amount of damage in the least amount of time with little effort. So if you can figure out a way that your AKS will transport you to and from work, or maybe to the grocery store and back, please enlighten us. Until then your argument holds no water.IMO

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/curre...

Exponetially? You sure Mongo? Actually its getting better there every day - if you look at the data.

Bill of rights not bill of privileges.

If something takes a license that is difficult to get, wouldn't that make it a privilege an not a right??

Dont think you will get any takers Mongo on providing the definition of Assault Rifle.

they are the same group that produced human lexicons like Carolyn McCarthy who when asked if she knew what a barrel shroud is responded "its the shoulder thing that goes up..."

Sen Pelosi might say 'I don't know what it is, or what it does, but I'm sure we should ban it'.

Pro -- as I said --- you have the right to own them. DO you have the cash ?? Can you develop them??

Some do -- there are now private organizations that have developed space craft. Should they have been prevented from doing that? No ... when speaking of the 2nd ammendment -- its clear. It says you have the right, not the ability nor the cash.

Now if you are a Mexican drug lord -- then Obama will supply them for you.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/...

No doubt this article was written by purveyors of goat piffle.

Do you have a link that shows that their rate of mass shootings has not decreased? their Newtown like slaughters have been eliminated haven't they?

The point with the Predetor missle system comment is that you guys seem to claim that you have a right to arms without limit - you do not. Just as you cannot arm yourself with a fully auto machine gun or a Predetor missle system or portable nukes under the falacy that you would be able to combat a governement that spends more than every other threat of a nation state combined in military spending.

So how will I defend myself against the governement if I don't have anywhere near the level of weoponry that they have? Maybe that's a BS arguement in the first place.

Aulstralia enacted tough gun laws because they were sick of these mass shootings, guess what? no more mass shootings.

TCB - Ezoner was saying I do indeed have a right to own that military grade equipment - it would infringe upon my rights otherwise.
I should be able to posess portable nukes as well - otherwise how will I fend off my government. Not sure how you were able to define the line so clearly at assault rifles.

Pro -- If you want to go down the dunce path -- I will entertain you... Go ahead -- try to buy any of those. Whoops -- those are proprietary designs -- You must have the resources to pay someone to develop them or have the capability to develop them on your own. So practically speaking, thats not a practicle discussion. If you had those resources.

This is much of the libertarian arguement regarding Iran -- should our government be telling Iranians the do not have a right to a nuke. The answer is no -- we really dont, so we try to build a concensus amoung nations to convince them its not in their best interest. Sanctions are imposed. All kinds of theatre.

So -- if you have the resources to develop your own -- you have the right -- You cannot use the intellectual property that others paid for. That IP belongs to the Government for the products developed for the defense department.

mongo, do you have a predator missile system? Is this the same as an AR15? Again, only a child tries to equate these as equivalent.

The right to bear arms is a constitutional right in the United States enshrined in the Second Amendment. It may be debatable whether the right to bear arms is inherently dangerous-which is a valid question- but the reality is that only a tiny percentage of people who bear arms kill people with them, and there is no direct causative connection between legal gun ownership and dead children. Then again, this fact is lost on the left and democrat politicians desire to do "something"....

prounion,

No its not your "right" to own those weapons. You can act like a child and demand your portable nuclear weapons and try to equate these with AR15s. Its a cyber temper tantrum -nothing more. Face it guns are here to stay. Daydreams and fantasy should not guide public policy-but you seem to prefer this type of "we must do something-anything-if it will save 1 child" legislation. Its a good thing there is a bill of rights.

41 states have conceal and carry laws and the vast majority of these states legally allowed people to carry guns and to the democrats dismay-there has not been an increase in crime.

Reportedly there are 300 Million legal guns in the United states. The govt doesnt know if there are 9 Million 12 Million or 25 Million illegal aliens living and working in the US-do you think for a second that Obama can find 300 Million guns-and these are from law abiding citizens! No chance.

Ezoner - what a one shot cannon - and some paintball guns - no sir. You will need semtex grenades, fully automatic machine guns, rocket launchers, etc to effectively battle your own governement. Right?

Again - its not the Predetor Missile that kills people, its people that kill people.

After all - we all have cars, people die in car crashes. Its my right to own a predetor missle system or a delivery mechanism for a bunker buster right?

Something interesting I found, the NRA spent a little over $800K in 2011 and 2012 on lobbying, look at how much was spent by special interest groups in 2012:

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php...

The NRA is the big bad powerful lobbying group as opposed to the others that spent millions and millions?

Look how much the National Assoc. for Broadcaster spent: $11,220,000. Why? So much for that objective media we have been duped in to believing exists.

mteg, stop using logic and making sense.

Here are 2 statistics that obuma and biden have failed to share. Out of all crimes committed, "assualt style" rifles were involved .03%. In all of gun deaths in US, it's estimated that less than 100 deaths a year can be attributed to "assualt style" rifles, less than 1%. "Assualt Style" rifles kill less people in US than lightning strikes. So if this is all about the children (Obama stealing the teacher union quote), then why isnt he focusing his gun control measures on 9mm handguns. It's faulty logic. As for the opinion of people not needing "assualt style" weapons, heres a list of things people don't need to own or indulge in that can kill:
alcohol
fast food
smoking
certain breeds of dogs-pits, bulls, mastiffs, etc (kill on average 30 people a year)
any car that can go over 65
motorcycles
swimming
non-protected sex
etc....
Aside from dog owenership, alcohol, and smoking most people would scoff at banning any of these...yet they kill far more people...than all gun deaths combined. but like obuma says-its all about keeping kids safe

Prounion-- what about a cannon?? I know a guy that makes working cannons... They are generally used at football games and events....

I also know of a guy that makes catapults..... He slings watermellons -- but could be something else..

What about semi-auto paint guns... You could put more than paint into a load....

You see -- its not the weapon. Its not the tank, its not the clip. Its the individual that owns them. The difference -- is you want to restrict everyones consititional rights as a result of few nut jobs. That alone is illogical.

mooshoo,

Coming to the debate with cogent, rational point of view? How tolerant!

Username_goes_here you might want to SLOW down and read the words provided. Pointing out the hypocrisy of those wanting new gun laws, in the name of protecting children, being of the same group(s) as those claiming to be pro-choice is a clear observation. I accept all laws, regardless of if I think they are wrong or not. I also will continue to point out the lack of conviction of those people wanting laws because it will make them feel better about children removed from the womb while ignoring those in the womb.

username,

When a baby is born at term or before full term-if its 38 weeks ofr example-do you think the correct term is fetus, baby or organism? Maybe you think its a parasite-afterall a parasite lives off its host?

If a woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy at term-40 weeks-for any reason-is this a medical procedure that you support?

Prounion,

You can purchase all kinds of military equipment from the govt directly. It auctions off items all the time. As for your tank-if you buy it from the govt, it will disarm the weaponry-but then again, I am not certain you or any non felons can purchase artillery shells for personal use of tanks.

But then again, no one is stating that the 2nd amendment means that you or I should have access to nuclear launch codes or other WMDs. This is a strawman argument.

Just as Im sure that while you are pro union- meaning that you desire to freely associate and form a group that your tolerance extends to those who wish to not associate with your group as a condition of employment, correct? Lets assume that I work on the line at GM - you wouldnt force me to give a portion of my paycheck to a group that I do not want to associate with....would you? Free Association goes both ways, correct?

More dictatorship, I mean executive order. Many tyrants throughout history use children as propaganda tools. Those that survive tax payer funded abortions.

Mr. Hammer, there was no where in my comment that said the "war was planned". My comment, was just as I felt after 9/11 the President had to do something (or face the ridicule of the people) so I think Pres. Obama feels he has to do something to prevent further problems with mental people going into a school and shooting innocent children. Is he doing the right thing? I don't know, nor do I think it will prevent this from happening in the future. Personally, I think Bush did something and based on his information was the right thing.

M1A1 should be no problem -- they are outdated. We sell those to Turkey and they are rehabing them with better technology. But certainly -- if you wanted to have a tank -- had the money --- whose to stop you. If you go down your path -- collectors of WWII military aircraft -- have no right to own them.
Whats the differnce between a plane or a gun from WWII -- if thats your point of reference.

As for current aircraft and weapons -- there are proprietary agreements in place and national security risks by those outside the US. Not within -- unless you feel the people within would sell the information and technology.

There is nothing from a technology perspective that we are talking about that the outside world -- enemies of the state, do not already have access to.

Its two subjects -- but you couldnt possibly see that,.

Thats right Ezoner - I should be able to purchase and own an M1A1 Tank of my very own, as well as a fully operational Predetor missle system. How else could I battle my government effectively? Also if you continue to ban M1A1 tanks than only the criminals will have them. Also the only way to stop a bad guy with a tank, is to have a good guy with a tank?

alwaysright, War was not planned. There were the U.N. broken resolutions not allowing the inspectors to check for WMDs. The U.N.
claimed serious actions could result, and they did, U.N.'s assessment also was
Iraq had an illegitimate government, thus the removal of the Saddam regime
became the mission, and the mission was accomplished. I remember watching the
Iraqi people in Detroit celebrating while the statue of Saddam was coming down.
They were celebrating because they understood that freedom had just been handed
to their fellow countrymen on a silver platter. No one ever assumed that the
Iraqi people living in Iraq would not understand this. As a result there was
rebellion and a war did result as we all now know, there was no “invasion". The original mission without any declaration of war, the removal of
Saddam had the U.N.’s blessing and most of the world by the way, somehow people
forget the facts because of media pundits and hype.

Actually -- ProUnion is correct based upon my reading of the constitution. The constitution includes no exclusion for the type of weapon. At the time, the intent was to prevent a tyranical government influence over its citizens. They realized that the government itself was the greatest threat to the citizens. Therefore, there should be no limit on the weapons one can legally own.

When you consider the proposed laws and even the existing laws, the only people that are abiding by them are the vary citizens we would trust with large clips etc.. Not once have I heard of a drug dealer or repeat criminal -- surrendering their guns in order to obey the law. The laws on the books would only pile on to existing charges (for those accused of illegal activity) or make legal guns owners criminals if they fail to comply.

It is a shame that someone mental can go into any school and shoot 27 people. But this is the answer according to the President to keeping these weapons away from someone with the problems the shooter faced. It is like Bush going to war after 9/11. I have always said he had to do something, even if it was wrong. The American people want to see action to prevent the next casualty. Do I think this will prevent something bad happen like 9/11 or the Newtown casualty? No I don't think so. Sad that there are so many people out there wanting to hurt other people. Me, I just want the love, and it doesn't matter to me if it is a Democrat or Republican in charge. I just want the killing to stop and I don't think either party has a clue how to stop it.

Nice talking with you Hammer.

prounion, Not enough space or time here to give you an education, seems you have been deprived.

Amen Russ68-
Obama could stand with the children today and say "these are the children saved by Republican pro-life groups"

But like all good liberals, he'll use them as props instead.

Why can't I own a rocket launcher and carry it with me at all times in public just in case I run across a criminal with a rocket launcher?

This is the kind of sheriff we need. One who understands executive orders don't trump the U.S. Constitution, and won't enforce those unlawful orders.

http://www.ktvz.com/news/Crook-Co-sherif...

Why not? Obama has proven time and time again that his decisions are always right......

I don't own any "assault weapons". They go for around $10,000 so they are a little out of my reach. I have plenty of Ar15's though, all with standard capacity 30 round magazines.

On a side note, it sure would be nice if democrats would care at least as much about children inside the womb as they profess to care about them outside it.

Hilter surrounded himself with children to push his Nazi agenda too.

Just ordered 2 High Cap Mags ! Very hard to find .

I guess it will make people feel better. They don't enforce the laws already on the books. Have to wait until the crime's already been committed until they make an arrest or else someone's rights have been violated (invasion of privacy, racial profiling, any excuse to turn the tables on those who are supposed to be enforcing the laws we already have.) Isn't it illegal to buy, sell, and make narcotics? That's gone over real well too. Hope everyone feels better because that's the only thing a new law can accomplish, since they can't or won't enforce it.

CLASSIC stuff, which will ultimately show just how UNequal the balance of powers we truly have now. We have given so much power to the President, that they can basically bypass the congress entirely, if they wish to. Bush took FULL advantage of this during his reign of terror following 9/11. Now Obama will engage in it as well after another tragedy. Lets face it, the President has the power to basically do anything, if they choose to. We become ever more close to a modern day Rome with each passing day. Where the people believe they have say through a senate-elected body, but it's pretty much just a big farce. The President has pretty much absolute power if they choose to use it. Heck, a President can even go to war for 60 days without any say of congress. Reagan took full advantage of that one. Like what country can't we roll in 60 days today? We have pretty much given any given President full dictatorial power over the years, if they choose to use it.Equal balance of powers was a great concept of the founders, but was abandoned long ago. Ever since Jackson told the courts they could screw themself, and slaughtered thousands of Indians, the executive branch has gained more and more powers every passing decade. To the point they really have the power to do whatever they please. So, if Obama wants a assault riffle ban, he can pretty much enact it, in the name of 'childrens safety'. So go stock up on your riffles while you can...That is if you can even find one. They are sold out pretty much everywhere.

So sad the left profess to want to protect children as the rally cry for gun restrictions, this is the same group that cheers a women's "right" to kill her child before birth...

One more person exercising his 2nd Amendment rights..

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/15/sus...

916, you didn't have any problem with GWB running around signing executive orders all over the place. The rules don't change just because you don't like the new boss.

There is a law that prohibits a felon from owning or possessing a firearm,that said,i think it should be law that if any person living under the roof of a person that owns & possesses a gun/guns,that has any mental disorder,those people should have no guns in the house,that is just what happened at the school shooting,the mother knew the son was unstable,her guns should not of been there!!

justBnice: snicker. Your tin foil hat is slipping.

justchillin This might be where the dictator's trillion dollar coin comes into play - to pay for thousands of door-kickin boots and a loyal army of agents to do the kickin.

George H.W Bush and Clinton both used an executive order on a ban for assault weapons and guess what, the world didn't come to an end. Nobody came and took our guns away, so why is this any different? Do you think the ATF is going to kick every door down in the United States to take our guns? Who's going to pay for that? Remember we don't have any money.

The potus pretends to be soooo worried about the safety of the kids by ignoring the second amendment of the constitution. Yet he has to qualms about putting them and their children in debt for life.

smallBIZowner - Why buy when you can print? A self-made firearm doesn't need to be registered.
http://defensedistributed.com/

As the furor formulates his next policy action, I will be out buying more assault rifles and magazines while I still can.

"If Congress is unable to get anything done due to their partisan bickering, it fall to the POTUS to start making some decisions."
-------
No it doesn't. This was one of the most ignorant statements of the day. One reason our government is structured the way that it is, is to prevent too much power or control from falling into the hands of one person or group.

We already have more than 20 thousand gun laws on the books.
We only need to look to Chicago, and see how the anti gun laws are working there.

The president recognizes that the Sixth Commandment trumps the Second Amendment.

axolotlsx5 said, "and yet didnt the president just pass a law that he, his wife and each kid get a armed gaurd the rest of their lives paid by the very people he wants to take guns from."

No, he didn't. The bill is H.R. 6620 and you may want to inform yourself by reading it. The bill provides protection to children of former presidents until they reach age 16.

If Congress is unable to get anything done due to their partisan bickering, it fall to the POTUS to start making some decisions.

what exactly is an assult weapon? A knife, bat,pipe, car ect can all be considered an assult weapon.

I'd like to see all gun and ammo buyers go through a drug test as well as a background check. Let's see the right wing ding bats oppose that, but want it for the unemployed.

and yet didnt the president just pass a law that he, his wife and each kid get a armed gaurd the rest of their lives paid by the very people he wants to take guns from.

cynical......go out and purchase them then. It is your constitutional right to own firearms.....exercise it.

Hey, I want my right to own multiple assault weapons and as much ammo and high capacity clips as the founding fathers stipulated.

If you think this: "President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps he could take through executive action alone, " is a good idea, think of what precedent that would set and the executive orders that could be used to terminate things you champion. Big government does not discriminate by party when it comes to individual liberties and freedoms.