Obama signals support for new gun laws in wake of Colorado massacre

President Obama has added his voice to the push for stricter gun control in the wake of the massacre last week at a Colorado movie theater.

Obama, speaking Wednesday evening to the National Urban League, affirmed his belief in Americans’ right to own guns, but he singled out assault rifles as better suited for the battlefield.

“I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.”

The president, in making the comments, went further than he typically does in suggesting Washington open a new debate on gun control. It’s a topic he has handled lightly in the past, but his remarks Wednesday night follow statements from vocal gun control advocates like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg calling for new restrictions.

Read more: foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/26/obama-talks-limiting-some-gun-use-in-wake-colorado-massacre/

The movie theater was a “no gun zone” and Aurora, Colorado already had strict gun control laws on the books.

Gun control turns citizens into potential victims.

Every version I heard of this speech stated “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not criminals”.

thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/07/26/obama-ak-47s-are-for-soldiers-not-criminals.html

(around the 0:35 mark)

First of all, who does want criminals to have ak-47s? I can’t name a single person.

Secondly, what soldier in their right mind would want an AK, when they can have an AR?

http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/design/12014740/type/png/width/190/height/190/you-say-gun-nut-like-it-s-a-bad-thing_design.png

I’d rather have a M-4 chambered in 6.8 x 43 mm. But that’s just me.

As a gun owner myself, I have to ask. Why would anyone not intent on killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible need to have such a weapon? You’re not hunting with it, you don’t need a weapon like that for protecting your home or your person.

If someone can give me a reason why anyone not intent on committing a crime would need such a thing, then maybe I could understand why they shouldn’t be a little harder to obtain.

Such weapons would come in handy in the event that a totalitarian government attempted to takeover the United States.

I have no intention of harming anyone, and I don’t “need” it per se. But what about my owning it violates your rights? Plus, there is no “need clause” in the second amendment.

You speak of that like its hypothetical, and not actually occurring as we speak.

Ok, so since you don’t “need” it, then what is the harm in making it a little harder to obtain? And just because there is no “need clause” in the 2nd amendment doesn’t mean that we now in the 21st century can’t consider that. Do you really think that the Founding Fathers could have possibly envisioned the efficient methods we would invent to kill one another? They were living in a time of muskets that took a long time to load and reload. Can you really think that they envisioned a weapon that could fire that many bullets that fast?

As with other social arguments, whether it violates my rights or harms me directly isn’t the issue. Does easy access to those weapons make society in general a more dangerous place? I would say that it clearly does.

Almost went that route, but mags and ammo are still waaay too $$$

Gun controls may not prevent viloent crimes completely, but they could help to lessen violent crimes.

It directly IS the issue. If I am not violating your rights, why do you want to violate mine?

Which part of the 2nd Amendment mentions, “need”, “hunting” or “protecting your home”?

:shrug:

[quote=Seeker1961]If someone can give me a reason why anyone not intent on committing a crime would need such a thing, then maybe I could understand why they shouldn’t be a little harder to obtain.
[/quote]

I don’ like loading magazines at the range.

Can you tell me why you “need” a amendment against the quartering of troops in your home?

And there’s no clause in the first amendment saying that I can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theatre, or make up vicious and damaging lies about my neighbor, or follow someone down the street shouting obscenities at them. But yet for the well being of others and society I can’t. Both the legislature and the courts have to figure out all the time how to balance individual rights with the good of society. The 2nd amendment is no different.

Opinion unsubstantiated by fact.

If I am a law abiding citizen with no intention of harming anyone, then there should be no problem with me owning anything I want, right? Or do you just like to pass laws that control other people?

Wouldn’t you say that your actions in those cases violate other’s rights?

Oh, BTW, from another thread, one brother is an UMSL grad, and the other taught criminal science there. :slight_smile:

When? Criminal Justice was my minor!!!

Absolutely. But what are you going to do with a machine gun that doesn’t violate the rights of others? They are designed to kill a large number of people quickly. No law abiding citizen has any reason to own one.

There are some very serious under the NFA, since 1934, for owning a machine gun. It’s not something everyone can buy. You need at least an expensive Federal Firearms License and VERY extensive background search by the BATF:

Q: The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and 27 CFR, Part 479. What are some examples?
Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:

Machine guns;
The frames or receivers of machine guns;
Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machine guns;
Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun;
Any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;
Silencers and any part designed and intended for fabricating a silencer;
Short-barreled rifles;
Short-barreled shotguns;
Destructive devices; and,
“Any other weapon.”
A few examples of destructive devices are:

Molotov cocktails;
Anti-tank guns (over caliber .50);
Bazookas; and,
Mortars.
A few examples of “any other weapon” are:

H&R Handyguns;
Ithaca Auto-Burglar guns;
Cane guns; and,
Gadget-type firearms and “pen” guns which fire a projectile by the action of an explosive.
[26 U.S.C. 5845]

atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#nfa-firearms

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.