If Obama Took 'Executive Action' On Guns, What Might He Do?

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

What amazes me is that a person on this forum can make a legitimate thread expressing the concern over our VP stating that our President will simply supersede congress if needed to place an executive order taking away second amendment rights of US citizens.. and that it can turn into nothing but a flame fest.

I suppose the libs are perfectly fine with their chancellor in chief doing whatever he pleases. Just bend over and take it with a grin on your face

Obama will never attempt to take away our firearms - no matter how many times you wet the bed dreaming about it.

If anything, it will be a similar ban to the one instituted in the past.

Originally Posted by Lair

Obama will never attempt to take away our firearms - no matter how many times you wet the bed dreaming about it.

If anything, it will be a similar ban to the one instituted in the past.

Which banned ARs... And his buddy Rahm is currently trying to further the ban on firearms in Chicago.. so I have no idea why you think Obama is somehow above this.

If banning ARs keeps one out of your hands, I'd support the ban.

I suppose the libs are perfectly fine with their chancellor in chief doing whatever he pleases. Just bend over and take it with a grin on your face

I don't see the problem, Repubs/Conservatives seemed fine with that for 8 year previously when King George was in full reign alongside his Henchman-in-an-Undisclused-Location, Cheney:

Unitary executive theory

Signing statement

Originally Posted by simsima325

If banning ARs keeps one out of your hands, I'd support the ban.

That's a clown statement bro as I already own one. FWIW, I've had access to firearms for years and have never felt the need to go on some shooting rampage... the problem isn't access to guns. It's a lack of control and respect amongst inner city thugs that shoot one another up for drugs and the latest air jordans.

- 3% of gun violence results from AR bullets.
- The "mass shootings" on school campuses over the last decade TOTAL the violence committed in a typical WEEK in Chicago.
- Gang violence constitutes the MAJORITY of gun related murders in this country

So why aren't we talking about any of the real problems here? Why are rifles the target? Because they're scary looking? And why are schools being portrayed as the birthplace of shootings.. why aren't we cracking down on gang violence in Chicago and doing so by looking at crime statistics and putting more cops on the streets in those locales? Is it because the culprits are almost entirely minority groups? Perhaps because they're poor and the media doesn't want to present them as the problems?

It's just preposterous that the white house may try and take away a second amendment RIGHT in the name of this outlier of a problem.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

It's a lack of control and respect amongst inner city thugs that shoot one another up for drugs and the latest air jordans.

Oh please... the only interaction you've had with the inner city is driving through it in broad daylight while locking your doors out of fear.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Oh please... the only interaction you've had with the inner city is driving through it in broad daylight while locking your doors out of fear.

You don't have to live on the streets to be able to observe what is going on in the streets. Let's face it, we're not addressing the gang violence problem for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

That's a clown statement bro as I already own one. FWIW, I've had access to firearms for years and have never felt the need to go on some shooting rampage... the problem isn't access to guns. It's a lack of control and respect amongst inner city thugs that shoot one another up for drugs and the latest air jordans.

- 3% of gun violence results from AR bullets.
- The "mass shootings" on school campuses over the last decade TOTAL the violence committed in a typical WEEK in Chicago.
- Gang violence constitutes the MAJORITY of gun related murders in this country

So why aren't we talking about any of the real problems here? Why are rifles the target? Because they're scary looking? And why are schools being portrayed as the birthplace of shootings.. why aren't we cracking down on gang violence in Chicago and doing so by looking at crime statistics and putting more cops on the streets in those locales? Is it because the culprits are almost entirely minority groups? Perhaps because they're poor and the media doesn't want to present them as the problems?

It's just preposterous that the white house may try and take away a second amendment RIGHT in the name of this outlier of a problem.

Certainly doesn't mean we should downplay these mass shootings as you seem to be doing.

What should we do about the gang violence?

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Which banned ARs... And his buddy Rahm is currently trying to further the ban on firearms in Chicago.. so I have no idea why you think Obama is somehow above this.

No, it didn't ban AR's. Please stop spreading the gun lobby's lies.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons".

The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.

During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency.

The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

That's a clown statement bro as I already own one. FWIW, I've had access to firearms for years and have never felt the need to go on some shooting rampage...

Just curious here, but what exactly do you need an assualt rifle in the urban/city area of Maryland of which you live?

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Oh please... the only interaction you've had with the inner city is driving through it in broad daylight while locking your doors out of fear.

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Just curious here, but what exactly do you need an assualt rifle in the urban/city area of Maryland of which you live?

3 gun competitions. Target shooting. Hunting. Collections. Name a few for my personal reason. As far as Chase. I dunno!

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Just curious here, but what exactly do you need an assualt rifle in the urban/city area of Maryland of which you live?

Please define assault rifle, and please elaborate the difference between an assault rifle and a handgun.

Originally Posted by mdyaman

Just curious here, but what exactly do you need an assualt rifle in the urban/city area of Maryland of which you live?

Are we deciding rights based on need now? Who is the judge that gets to decide who needs what? Can people own guns in city areas and drive outside of the city to use them? Can you think independently?

Originally Posted by Act of God

Are we deciding rights based on need now? Who is the judge that gets to decide who needs what? Can people own guns in city areas and drive outside of the city to use them? Can you think independently?

Thats exactly what "we" are doing....that's the entire concept of "may issue."

Originally Posted by Act of God

Are we deciding rights based on need now? Who is the judge that gets to decide who needs what? Can people own guns in city areas and drive outside of the city to use them? Can you think independently?

Are you offended on Chase's behalf?

It's a fair question I posed to Chase. Frankly, I don't care if he owns one or not, but I didn't think it was a hobby of his given his socialite status here in the DC area. And yes, I can think independently, and have been around guns a long time and have my own views of the issue.

Basically, I couldn't picture the guy on the left in the first pic (Chase) being a gun owner


http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showpos...9&postcount=83

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Please define assault rifle, and please elaborate the difference between an assault rifle and a handgun.

why don't you ask Chase

Originally Posted by simsima325

If banning ARs keeps one out of your hands, I'd support the ban.

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

I already own one.

Originally Posted by mdyaman

It's a fair question I posed to Chase. I don't care if he owns one or not, but I didn't think it was a hobby of his.

Still waiting for you to define assault rifle and for you to explain how it is different from a handgun. No rush, you can do as much research as you like.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Still waiting for you to define assault rifle and for you to explain how it is different from a handgun. No rush, you can do as much research as you like.

Aside from ammo capacity, accuracy range, projectile, etc. etc. What would you like to know?

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Still waiting for you to define assault rifle and for you to explain how it is different from a handgun. No rush, you can do as much research as you like.

Difference? aside from the fact both fire bullets and are lethal?

I'll entertain your post (without goolge-fu and rely on my memory from service). In sum, AR's typically require the use of two hands and a person's shoulder to steady the weapon where as handguns can be used with one hand (however typically two hands are used for support/stability when firing a handgun). Then there are physical characteristics, size, weight, etc. Other differences include magazine capacity - though I realize there is magazine capacity limit for civilian use. Next is the type of munition used such as 9mm vs 5.56. ARs and handguns also differ in range and accuracy, depending on type and model. Then there are the roles of each weapon, where in a military context, hands guns are used for scenarios such as close quarters or a last resort, where as ARs are used to project firepower at range (e.g. M16 max effective range for an area target is 800m and point target at 550m). Also, in a strictly military context where fully automatic weapons exist, rifles have different rates of fire where, for example, you can select three round burst or single rate of fire. Handguns, as with the standard issue M9 Beretta have a single rate of fire.

At the end of the day, as I previously mentioned, they both fire bullets and are lethal. To add, AR and handguns that are in compliance with US law for civilian use, have a single rate of fire unless the person has a Class 3 license (that is if I recall correctly). However, I think member Rhumb put it best in a prior post,that it is perhaps the intangible (or tangible depending on how you define it) degree of efficiency an AR or handgun can inflict damage or harm. The last sentence being an opinion, not necessarily a fact.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

It's Joe Biden. He's our goofy uncle that no one listens to. Don't get your jimmies rustled.

Don't care which side you're on. That's just funny.

Mike