The Obamination: Your rights end here.

[Gelgoog]

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

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today."As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S. Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.

A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez." At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.

"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.

Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.

"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be." In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."

During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider. "I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.

The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.

"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."

get your fricken guns while you can. The president is clearly a liar and has been planning to impliment chicago style guns laws across the country the entire time, even when he said he wouldnt do it.

Obama: ‘I’m Not Going to Take Your Guns Away’

Christopher Cooper reports from Duryea, Pa., on the presidential race.

The Obama campaign talks a lot about new ideas and expanding the political map, but in the swing state of Pennsylvania, which the campaign has focused on almost exclusively since the Democratic convention, old-school issues still rise to the fore.

The latest example came Friday during a small political event at SCHOTT North America Inc., a glass factory in Duryea, Pa., where even a hand-picked crowd threw Barack Obama a curve ball.

A woman in the crowd told Obama she had “heard a rumor” that he might be planning some sort of gun ban upon being elected president. Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the “traditions of gun ownership” but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of “gang bangers and drug dealers’’ in big cities “who already have them and are shooting people.”

“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.

So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

people have been panic buying for the last 6 months because of fear that he would do exactly this, and when the media picked up on sky rocketing gun sales, then obama fearing that he would lose votes, said he would "not take away your guns"...I guess he is partially correct, he isnt taking them away, he is just preventing people from buying them..... I swear if his chances for being assasinated werent high enough with the damage he has done to the economy in the past 36 days in office, then putting gun control measures like this in will surely be his nail in the coffin.

Sic semper tyrannis

[Player989random]

Why do you need a semi-auto military grade weapon in the first place?

[Vince Noir]

Why do you need a semi-auto military grade weapon in the first place?

I second that question.

"Jesus holy christ be dammed, they're gona take away our semi automatics! better stock up now before the Russians come next fall!"



"I'm waiting for ya'll communist bastards!!"

[Kamos]

Why do you need a semi-auto military grade weapon in the first place?

Mostly to collect and its fun to target shoot with them. The ban is ridiculous though considering the absolutely minuscule amount of crime it could stop.

[CDMan477]

Mostly to collect and its fun to target shoot with them. The ban is still ridiculous though considering the absolutely minuscule amount of crime it could stop.

If I actually cared to own firearms, and had quite a bit of residual income, I might want to own one for the sake of collection I suppose. In the end, the President is reaching out to his base on an issue most moderates won't care about and may even support. In the end, most people didn't care when Brady was implemented only too show about the same level of apathy when the law expired. Until the police are ordered to start going door too door to retrieve firearms, I don't think the majority of people in the country will really show any interest either way.

[no0]

Why do you need a semi-auto military grade weapon in the first place?

So the government never forgets it is the people who rule and not corrupt officals. If a government were to become to powerful and start taking away peoples rights it would be pretty hard to abolish that said government without having military grade weapons. I suppose you would have us wave hand guns at them. If thats not a good enough reason then I don't know what is.

I'm not saying the government is going to start taking away peoples rights anytime soon or ever for that matter but no one knows what the future holds.

[Player989random]

So the government never forgets it is the people who rule and not corrupt officals. If a government were to become to powerful and start taking away peoples rights it would be pretty hard to abolish that said government without having military grade weapons. I suppose you would have us wave hand guns at them. If thats not a good enough reason then I don't know what is.

I'm not saying the government is going to start taking away peoples rights anytime soon or ever for that matter but no one knows what the future holds.

Use explosives. God man you can make high grade explosives in your garage if you really want to **** with the government. And yeah I would prefer my neighbor had a pistol or 9mm rather than an M14 or a member of the AK series.

[no0]

I would be worried if my neighbor owned ANY weapon and used it irresponsibly. You should have more faith in your fellow man, were not all crazy lunatics out for blood. The fact of the matter is most legal weapon owners do use their weapons responsibly. Its very rare for someone to go crazy and start shooting a place up if thats what your fear is.

And while explosives would be very effective for fighting a tyrannical government it would take a lot longer to abolish the said government using only those means.

(In reference to Player989random's post, respectively.)

[MaximiIian]

Why do you need a semi-auto military grade weapon in the first place?

A better question is- why don't you? o__O

[Shaun]

A better question is- why don't you? o__O

No, honestly, it's not a better question at all.

[Lias_solano]

Its written in the US constitution that all americans are allowed to arm bears,and all bears love semi-automatic weapons


Lias

[Mikelus Trento]

Its written in the US constitution that all americans are allowed to arm bears,and all bears love semi-automatic weapons


Lias

Do you have an understanding that there is a difference from a single shot muzzle loading weapon from those times, and a gun that can pump out more firepower than well, a line company from those days, in a shorter period of time?

Do you understand that these weapons are not being used by collectors? But greedy folks who run them over the border where they make lots of money selling them to the drug cartels?

Do you know over 6,000 Mexicans died last year to those cartels?

The problem is that framers of the constitution had no inkling of the change that has occurred in weaponry in 250 years.

Hopefully, now you do have such an inkling.

You can also re-sell them south of the border for 3x the sales price. Cash too.

Illegal cash. And for murderous purposes.

[Gelgoog]

Do you have an understanding that there is a difference from a single shot muzzle loading weapon from those times, and a gun that can pump out more firepower than well, a line company from those days, in a shorter period of time?

so then because computers werent around in their day either, that any speech on the internet is not protected under the first amendment? sorry but they wrote them vague to be timeless so people couldnt make rediculous arguments like that.

Do you understand that these weapons are not being used by collectors? But greedy folks who run them over the border where they make lots of money selling them to the drug cartels?

do you understand that what they are doing is already highly illegal and Any gun control law would have no effect. You can't stop people from doing stuff like this with more legislation. Since you obviously dont understand the nature of guns/crime or how laws effect them, then you are the last person to be lecturing us on the issue.

Do you know over 6,000 Mexicans died last year to those cartels?

not our in problem, what happens in another country has no relation to our civil rights.

The problem is that framers of the constitution had no inkling of the change that has occurred in weaponry in 250 years.

Hopefully, now you do have such an inkling.

um, the framers knew exactly what their were doing, they kept it vague for a reason. anyone who knew about the framers would know their intentions when they drafted the constitution and bill of rights.

Who in the hell needs an assault rifle?

Its a good thing in this country that we dont have to prove a need. Just like I dont have to prove to anybody why I own a hummer or a jetliner, its my own damn business. Its upto the govt to prove that allowing society to own them is such a danger to national security to ban them. So far nobody has come close to ever proving their are a danger to either the govt nor to the public. Their use in crime is so small, thats its negligable. Banning them like in the last assault weapons ban will only prove to be a useless bit of legislation that has no impact on society, which is why the first ban was allowed to expire.

[Atlassmurf]

Scheuch13, for real. The death-penalty is already a stupid account in your constitution, let alone stand allowing semi-automatic guns. Get over it man, your constitution is getting old.

[Rebel Jeb]

For all the people who keep saying 'Why would you need them anyways?', isn't it obvious? To protect yourself. If someone comes up to you with a gun, threatening your life, if you have a gun you could shoot them in defense to save your life.

Thats pretty helpful in my opinion.

[DimondLight]

Scheuch13, for real. The death-penalty is already a stupid account in your constitution, let alone stand allowing semi-automatic guns. Get over it man, your constitution is getting old.

It is very sad if you truly believe that.

[chilon]

um, the framers knew exactly what their were doing, they kept it vague for a reason. anyone who knew about the framers would know their intentions when they drafted the constitution and bill of rights.

um, most of the actual writers of the US Constitution were actually opposed to the Bill of Rights (Jefferson was in France and the writer of the Dec of Independence actually did not participate much in writing the US Constitution).

The only reason the Bill of Rights is even there is because the States were not going to ratify the heavily Hamiltonian influence US Constitution *without* a Bill of Rights.

Let's not forget the political nature of the US Constitution itself evidenced by things such as the 3/5 compromise =/

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

I wonder what ole GW would say if he ever met Crip Monster Kody who is clearly a shining example of GW's belief.

Except when that piece of paper written 200 years ago just happens to be the law.

Well, a more accurate way to put this would be:

Ongoing iterations of interpretation, mostly in a language somewhat resembling English known as Legalese, of that 200 year old document are the starting basis for US laws.

For instance, nowhere in the US Constitution or any Amendment are the Rights of Personhood granted to immortal entities of gigantic wealth (corporations). That "law" comes out of an 1886 Supreme Court interpretation.

I'm also curious as to why people think that founding fathers could write a piece of paper that would be relevant and have answers for every situation time immemorial. This is from a non US citizen so if you could explain it I'd be grateful, perhaps I might understand US politics a bit more.

That belief is only held by a certain sub-set of the US population.

Not even all the 'founding fathers' (I don't that term is quite accurate myself) believed in that concept.

Thomas Jefferson, the writer of the Declaration of Independence, for one believed in a living constitution. He thought the document must continually evolve with the society that is bound to it. He believed that no citizenry should be bound to iron clad laws of that society's ancestors.

Additionally many prominent Americans including famous Supreme Court Justices and Presidents have endorsed a more Jeffersonian view of Living Constitution that if not as radically evolving as Jefferson's are still far more reasonable than an 'originalist' like Antonin Scalia.

Here is Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr one of the most respected SCOTUS Justices of all time:

"With regard to that we may add that when we are dealing with words that also are a constituent act, like the Constitution of the United States, we must realize that they have called into life a being the development of which could not have been foreseen completely by the most gifted of its begetters. It was enough for them to realize or to hope that they had created an organism; it has taken a century and has cost their successors much sweat and blood to prove that they created a nation. The case before us must be considered in the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a hundred years ago."

[Gelgoog]

um, most of the actual writers of the US Constitution were actually opposed to the Bill of Rights (Jefferson was in France and the writer of the Dec of Independence actually did not participate much in writing the US Constitution).

The only reason the Bill of Rights is even there is because the States were not going to ratify the heavily Hamiltonian influence US Constitution *without* a Bill of Rights.

Let's not forget the political nature of the US Constitution itself evidenced by things such as the 3/5 compromise =/

doesnt change the fact that the bill of rights was put into to limit the power of an overbearing federal govt, and thought the constitution in its original form did not do enough to protect the basic principles of human liberty.

I wonder what ole GW would say if he ever met Crip Monster Kody who is clearly a shining example of GW's belief.

what?

[Serben]

Oh noes, Joe Sixpack can't buy fully automatic assault rifles anymore! Poor him! Unless your first name is John, and your last name Rambo, and you intend to single handedly fend off the entire imaginary red army that exists solely in your head, you do not need an assault rifle. A hunter doesn't need an assault rifle. A concerned citizen who wants to protect himself doesn't need an assault rifle. hunting rifles and handguns more than adequately meet those needs. IBut you need to get your head around the fact that the negative impacts of allowing inbred redneck retards to own sophisticated military ordnance far outweigh any potential imaginary benefits you might think there are.


You'll thank Obama the next time someone you love and a few dozen other people don't get killed by some -for-brains who suffered some kind of rejection and now feels entitled to take his frustration out by dumping a 100 round beta c-mag of 5.56'ers into a crowd because he couldn't get his hands on a full auto weapon.

[Denny Crane!]

Oh noes, Joe Sixpack can't buy fully automatic assault rifles anymore! Poor him! Unless your first name is John, and your last name Rambo, and you intend to single handedly fend off the entire imaginary red army that exists solely in your head, you do not need an assault rifle. A hunter doesn't need an assault rifle. A concerned citizen who wants to protect himself doesn't need an assault rifle. hunting rifles and handguns more than adequately meet those needs. But you need to get your head around the fact that the negative impacts of allowing inbred redneck retards to own sophisticated military ordnance far outweigh any potential imaginary benefits you might think there are.


You'll thank Obama the next time someone you love and a few dozen other people don't get killed by some -for-brains who suffered some kind of rejection and now feels entitled to take his frustration out by dumping a 100 round beta c-mag of 5.56'ers into a crowd because he couldn't get his hands on a full auto weapon.

1. How many crimes involved these weapons that are getting banned?

2. And how many involved the ones that aren't getting banned?

3. How many of the ones that involved these weapons that are getting banned were purchased legally?

Tell me that it makes sense, please. If you could actually include some statistical data along side this gorgeous vitriolic rhetoric.