Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, my twisted right wing mind thinks he will do it. He's shown us over and over again before that he has no problem with executive orders or mandates.
When has he said that he will sign an executive order banning assault weapons? +
Show me one link and sorry Stormfront or Breitfart doesn't count.
I support the OPPOSITE of what Republicans want. When Republicans are happy, the country is worse off.
If this incredible President issues an executive order in light of the massacre of those kids, I am completely in support of it. Assault weapons should be banned.
The shooter killed someone to get a gun as he was turned away from a legal purchase.
You're overlooking that he had a gun before he killed someone. I haven't heard any evidence presented suggesting he killed to get weapons.
This was yet another case of guns in the home being used to kill their owner or other family members, but this one went tragically far, far beyond that.
The public cannot be trusted with guns....that is beyond debate. And to answer your poll question, I support any and all means of banning assault weapons. This is a national emergency, cryin' out loud.
No.
I believe that a deep national dialog is needed. Banning combat weapons will do no good unless there is an attitude change that accompanies it. Simple banning and a halt to production won't do much about the millions of combat weapons that are already in circulation. Guns don't just decay away with age.
The attitude change, to me, is the more important of the two; I was a hunter when I was young, and for me, the entire idea behind shooting is the use of a sporting arm and one shot. I was brought up in a family of hunters, and was taught that shooting once, lethally, was the hunter's ideal. Using a second shot might be necessary, but the best thing was to not shoot at all if one bullet couldn't do the job.
So, for me, a rifle that held 5 rounds had more than enough ammunition. If I hunted all day, day after day, and never got a good clean shot, so what? That was just as much a part of hunting as anything else. I would come back to camp, unload the rifle, and that was that. And, I never enjoyed trophy hunting. I liked to get out and all the rest, but I only hunted game I would actually eat.
My son is an adult in his 30's. He is a gun enthusiast but not a hunter. By the time he was born, I had quit hunting pretty much. We went out bird hunting a couple of times and that was it. He didn't grow up in the same hunting culture I did. His idea of fun is to go out to his great-uncle's home in the woods, set up some targets and fill the sky with lead shot from an assault rifle. For him, the whole thing is the noise, the smoke and the bang-bang-bang.
My son hasn't killed anything with his guns but some tin cans and paper targets, but he's burned up at least 50 boxes of ammunition. (I honestly don't know how much- it's a lot.) I have killed about a half dozen deer and elk and over 20 game birds with my guns, and I have purchased less than 5 boxes of ammunition in total for my single rifle and single shotgun.
I learned to shoot with a .22 rifle borrowed from my grandfather, and I did go through several boxes of .22 shells. I sometimes carried a borrowed pistol when hunting, sometimes not. I have only owned 2 sporting guns in my lifetime, a rifle and a shotgun. My son has owned at least a dozen, all combat style weapons- shotguns, rifles and pistols.
I think his use of guns is both wasteful and incredibly stupid. He says he can't use his guns like I did because he can't afford to go on hunting trips; can't take the time off from work, can't afford the gas and other expenses, and doesn't know how or what to do with a deer if he shot it. He thinks it's stupid to go trudge around the boonies all day and come back empty-handed.
And there it is. My son is a well adjusted person. He has no interest in carrying a gun all the time, believes that the world as we know it is not going to end anytime soon, voted for Obama twice, and doesn't run around with only fellow gun nuts. He locks his weapons up when not using them, and has no children, so I'm not worried about accidents.
I see his general attitude toward guns to be about two steps away from a crazy mass shooter. Shooting is not a life and death thing for him mentally. He thinks I'm out of it and far too old-fashioned. I have seen lots of blood and guts, and some of my game suffered before dying. He's never seen any of that. The closest thing he's gotten to is shredded paper. He doesn't understand how easy it all is for him to pull the trigger.
And that's what needs to change. My son is one of millions who have a big disconnect between the real purpose of any gun and the bang-bang, shoot 'em up. I'm not saying that killing animals is good. All I'm saying is a way has to be found to make idle shooting have some kind of consequences deeper than shredding paper or killing a tin can.
Last edited by banjomike; 12-18-2012 at 11:58 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely if Obama makes that order
