Obama's gun measures face a tough road in Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's sweeping gun-control package faces an uncertain future on Capitol Hill, where majority House Republicans are rejecting his proposals while the president's allies in the Democratic-controlled Senate are stopping well short of pledging immediate action.
The fate of his plan could ultimately hinge on a handful of moderate Democratic senators. Although they are unlikely to endorse the president's call for banning assault weapons, they might go along with other proposals, such as requiring universal background checks on gun purchases.
Several of these senators responded warily after Obama unveiled his proposals Wednesday with the challenge that "Congress must act soon."
"I will look closely at all proposals on the table, but we must use common sense and respect our Constitution," said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. Tester told the Missoulian newspaper in his home state recently that he supports background checks but doesn't think an assault weapons ban would have stopped the shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman massacred 20 children and six adults before turning the gun on himself.
Obama's proposals came a month after the shootings in Newtown, which he has called the worst day of his presidency. His announcements capped a swift and wide-ranging effort, led by Vice President Joe Biden, to respond to the deaths.
The $500 million plan marks the most comprehensive effort to tighten gun laws in nearly two decades. It also sets up a tough political fight with Congress as Obama starts his second term needing Republican support to meet three looming fiscal deadlines and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
"I will put everything I've got into this, and so will Joe," the president said. "But I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it."
Seeking to circumvent at least some opposition, Obama signed 23 executive actions Wednesday, including orders to make more federal data available for background checks and end a freeze on government research on gun violence. But he acknowledged that the steps he took on his own would have less impact than the broad measures requiring approval from Capitol Hill. He is also calling for limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or less.
"To make a real and lasting difference, Congress, too, must act," Obama said.
The question now is how and whether that happens.
House GOP leaders have made clear they'll wait for the Senate to act first, since they see no need to move on the contentious topic if it doesn't. "House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that," said Michael Steel, spokesman to House Speaker John Boehner.
Many rank-and-file Republicans scorched Obama's proposal. "The right to bear arms is a right, despite President Obama's disdain for the Second Amendment," said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan.
Senators are expected to begin discussions on how to proceed when they return to Washington next week from a congressional recess, according to a Democratic leadership aide who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. They could end up breaking the president's proposals into individual pieces, with votes possibly starting next month.
While the assault weapons ban is seen as having little if any chance of passage, support may coalesce behind requiring universal background checks, which is a top priority for advocacy groups that see it as the most important step to curbing gun crimes. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says 40 percent of gun sales are conducted with no criminal background checks, such as in some instances at gun shows or by private sellers over the Internet. Obama would seek to require checks for all sales.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., already has sponsored a bill to require universal background checks that the Senate could take up, while Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., has legislation banning ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a gun-rights backer who's been supported by the National Rifle Association in the past, responded cautiously, saying he was committed to ensuring the Senate considers legislation on gun violence early this year. He didn't endorse any of Obama's proposals.
Despite the uncertainty on Capitol Hill and opposition from the powerful NRA, outside groups are encouraged by polling showing public support for changes to the law. They intend to try to harness that sentiment to pressure lawmakers.
A lopsided 84 percent of Americans back broader background checks, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans want stricter gun laws, the same poll showed, with majorities favoring a nationwide ban on military-style weapons.
"Now it's up to us," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign. He said his group would be working "to bring that voice to bear in this process, because without that it's not going to happen."
The fate of his plan could ultimately hinge on a handful of moderate Democratic senators. Although they are unlikely to endorse the president's call for banning assault weapons, they might go along with other proposals, such as requiring universal background checks on gun purchases.
Several of these senators responded warily after Obama unveiled his proposals Wednesday with the challenge that "Congress must act soon."
"I will look closely at all proposals on the table, but we must use common sense and respect our Constitution," said Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont. Tester told the Missoulian newspaper in his home state recently that he supports background checks but doesn't think an assault weapons ban would have stopped the shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., where a gunman massacred 20 children and six adults before turning the gun on himself.
Obama's proposals came a month after the shootings in Newtown, which he has called the worst day of his presidency. His announcements capped a swift and wide-ranging effort, led by Vice President Joe Biden, to respond to the deaths.
The $500 million plan marks the most comprehensive effort to tighten gun laws in nearly two decades. It also sets up a tough political fight with Congress as Obama starts his second term needing Republican support to meet three looming fiscal deadlines and pass comprehensive immigration reform.
"I will put everything I've got into this, and so will Joe," the president said. "But I tell you, the only way we can change is if the American people demand it."
Seeking to circumvent at least some opposition, Obama signed 23 executive actions Wednesday, including orders to make more federal data available for background checks and end a freeze on government research on gun violence. But he acknowledged that the steps he took on his own would have less impact than the broad measures requiring approval from Capitol Hill. He is also calling for limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds or less.
"To make a real and lasting difference, Congress, too, must act," Obama said.
The question now is how and whether that happens.
House GOP leaders have made clear they'll wait for the Senate to act first, since they see no need to move on the contentious topic if it doesn't. "House committees of jurisdiction will review these recommendations. And if the Senate passes a bill, we will also take a look at that," said Michael Steel, spokesman to House Speaker John Boehner.
Many rank-and-file Republicans scorched Obama's proposal. "The right to bear arms is a right, despite President Obama's disdain for the Second Amendment," said Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan.
Senators are expected to begin discussions on how to proceed when they return to Washington next week from a congressional recess, according to a Democratic leadership aide who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. They could end up breaking the president's proposals into individual pieces, with votes possibly starting next month.
While the assault weapons ban is seen as having little if any chance of passage, support may coalesce behind requiring universal background checks, which is a top priority for advocacy groups that see it as the most important step to curbing gun crimes. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says 40 percent of gun sales are conducted with no criminal background checks, such as in some instances at gun shows or by private sellers over the Internet. Obama would seek to require checks for all sales.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., already has sponsored a bill to require universal background checks that the Senate could take up, while Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., has legislation banning ammunition magazines with more than 10 rounds.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a gun-rights backer who's been supported by the National Rifle Association in the past, responded cautiously, saying he was committed to ensuring the Senate considers legislation on gun violence early this year. He didn't endorse any of Obama's proposals.
Despite the uncertainty on Capitol Hill and opposition from the powerful NRA, outside groups are encouraged by polling showing public support for changes to the law. They intend to try to harness that sentiment to pressure lawmakers.
A lopsided 84 percent of Americans back broader background checks, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll. Nearly 6 in 10 Americans want stricter gun laws, the same poll showed, with majorities favoring a nationwide ban on military-style weapons.
"Now it's up to us," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign. He said his group would be working "to bring that voice to bear in this process, because without that it's not going to happen."
To all you viral anti-second amendment leftists, you have no idea what you are talking about. Do none of you remember the owners of those Korean stores in LA during the Rodney King riots protecting their stores with shotguns, pistols and modern sporting rifles (aka assault rifles)? I suggest looking it up on youtube as a reminder of what citizens can protect with the aid of a few firearms. What about the looters down in New Orleans that were turned away from entire portions of the city as people defended their homes with pistols, shotguns and modern sporting rifles. We just had Hurricane Sandy wipe out entire sections of New York and New Jersey, two of the states with some of the toughest gun laws in the country and looters ran wild because people were not allowed to defend themselves. Here in the Pacific northwest we live close to one of the biggest volcanoes in the western hemisphere and WHEN it blows, it will wipe out towns from Wilkerson to Tacoma. Who is going to protect you and your families from the looters and your own survival rations? The police? The national guard? Soldiers from JBLM? It took the federal government weeks to assist people during Sandy. How long will it take to help out the Puget Sound area when Rainier blows. I guarantee you, if someone tries and loots my belongings and survival stores, they will see the busy end of MY sporting rifle.
 @WhatsonTapps Ya. Every one of these left wingers think the cops will save them. The cops job is to draw a white line around your corpse and investigate.
@WhatsonTapps To you and all your paranoid over the top 2nd amendment avocates.
Â
NOBODY IS PLANNING TO TAKE YOUR GUNS!!!!!! YOU MAY ALL THE GUNS YOU WANT TO PROTECT YOURSELVES. THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE DESTROYED.
Â
In just watched about an hour of FOX I taped and now I'm concerned that someone is selling bridges.
Think about it, 1. a GOP house will never vote for a ban. 2. You can't get enough dems to vote on a ban. 3. did any of actually read the the executive orders Obama signed. None of it effects you from owning a gun. Most of is about education and training, enforcing exsisting laws on the books, studys to make schools safer, issue on how to ID mental illness and how the medical profession can report those who should not have a gun with out discriminating.
Â
@WhatsonTapps And what has been done to make it so you can not protect your home, family ect.ect.?
@DeadRabitz The attempt the ban high cap mags for one. Trained soldiers and cops miss more than they hit when under stress. Idiot politicians think a mom with 7 -10 bullets should be able to down an attacker while her heart is beating 140, while she is trembling and trying to protect her children. It is the stupid thing like that. They need to better manage mental health, and strict unforgiving punishment for the criminal.
 @DeadRabitz  @sometimesright Bragging about your college degree and what you believe you learned of world history is essentially standing on thin ice. Be careful where you walk.
 @DeadRabitz Good luck and keep your head down. Will debate again some other time. Enjoyed it.
 @sometimesright That being said...I have to go to work.  My unit has no lower enlisted, just officers and senior NCO's.  Ever try to get things done when everyone is a chief and no one wants to be an indian.  I think I'll get some coffee first...
 @sometimesright I commend you on yours as well. Â
 @DeadRabitz It is a FACT that Hitler was a bad socialist who instituted policies that are eerily close to what Democrats today would love to have. It is a fact that he put complete gun control on his enemies and it is a fact that once that gun control was in place and all the guns were turned in EXCEPT those held by the NAZIs, he made himself dictator and began wiping his enemies out! Those are the facts. In other places where they had guns, such as Switzerland, he went around them!
 @DeadRabitz I commend your service. I was long out by the time you enlisted!
 @sometimesright The problem isn't the fact.  It's your interpretations of those facts verses the mainstream accepted views.  You are off in right field, no where near the main stream.
Â
We are not arguing facts, but opinions. Â There is a difference. Â It's a fact that Hitler was a really bad guy, but it's an opinion that his gun control led to the holocaust. Â
 @sometimesright I got the joke, just didn't find it that funny.  I never really liked rocky and bullwinkle.  I was more of a looney tunes, Wile E. Coyote kid and mighty mouse if I go really far back.
Â
My military service is ongoing. Â Ill hit 16 years in March and am currently deployed...again. Â
 @DeadRabitz I didn't give you my "interpretation" of Hitler, I gave you Hitler's interpretation of himself! I could care less what liberals you follow believe about him. I have shown you his platform, his words and have yet to see a shred of evidence on your part, except a Salon article that shows exactly what I was saying! Why don't you defend your positions with facts? Probably because you have no idea what you are talking about as seems evident no matter what we debate!
 @DeadRabitz It is a joke you clown...seeing as you have such a love for movie history, I inserted a pun that seemed to have gone over your head and put in Bullwinkle the Moose's University. Read the part that it is none of your business where I went to college or got my degree. You are once again missing the point. Your degree or lack of them is nothing more than pure logical fallacy. It means NOTHING in winning an argument, as does yours or my military service (which I also have had probably before you were born). You have yet to tell me how my assertions are wrong, but instead answer them with your credentials, which is exactly the logical problem with arguing from authority! Telling me that you went to North Seattle Community College pretty much just hands me ammo to show how uneducated you are! I wouldn't spend a dime at that joke of an "educational" establishment!
 @sometimesright So you don't have a degree then.  I earned mine fron North Seattle Community college another from Cochise college and another from University of Maryland.  I hold an AA, an AS and  a BA.  That a years of military exp.  Oh and by not arguing from authority, that just means your claims are baseless and come solely form your OWN interpretation.
Â
How about this. Â You give me YOUR interpretation of Hitler and then give me what the mainstream historical community believes. Â
 @DeadRabitz Wasamatta U! None of your business and I am not sure why it matters? Are you now going to compare your resume with mine? I don't need to argue from authority to destroy your points. I can do it from memory!
@sometimesright from where?
 @DeadRabitz Ironically I do, but I don't need to brag about it in order to prove my points!
@sometimesright Do you hold a degree in history?
 @DeadRabitz More logical fallacies...this one is known as "argument from authority", which basically means you don't answer the argument, you just state that you are "trained" better therefore that negates your opponents point! You are racking them up tonight! You need to go take a logic class along with the 20th Century History class you missed!
@whatifafrog Speaking as a trained soldier (currently deployed) I hit what I aim at.
 @DeadRabitz  @WhatsonTapps Well, in New Jersey and New York, it is next to impossible to buy a firearm to protect your family. All those lives destroyed by Sandy only to be made worse by looters running rampant.
We don't need anymore of these idiotic gun control laws. Thankfully the founders of this state made it extremely hard for anti-gun nuts to control the populace via new gun laws.
Â
If you truly want to save kids lives, enact laws that force the mentally ill into hospitals to get treatment. The mentally ill do not have a right to remain homeless nor do they have the right to threaten family members. It needs to be made easier to commit these people.
If you truly want to save kids lives, encourage fatherhood again. We have close to 40% of children now born out of wedlock and the statistics are horrifying with regards to their socio-economic prospects, especially in the minority communities where single parent households are now close to 70%.
If you truly want to save kids, get serious about treating certain criminals more harshly. If you are a gang member and commit a crime involving a firearm, lock your ass up and NO pleas down to lower sentences.
Â
Look at that....no more gun control ideas needed. These proposals alone would continue the dramatic decrease in violent crime and poverty.
 @WhatsonTapps You do not need a C&C to buy a gun.  Only to carry concealed.  I use mine more for Id purposes.  Secondly, the wait period is on hand guns.  I can go buy a rifle or shot gun with out an issue.  And a waiting period is not that much of a barrier to purchasing a hand gun. Â
Â
Sorry but your logic doesn't add up. Â If you think that a waiting period makes it "IMPOSSIBLE" then you have some issues. Â Heck you don't even have to register rifles or shotguns except in NYC. Â
Â
I havet waited but a few weeks for my permits. Â And that again isn't really making it "impossible" either.
Â
Seems to me you are just being impatient.
Â
I bet you could go to your local gun store and buy a shot gun, rifle and ammo right now.
 @DeadRabitz No you can't just walk into a store in either NJ or NY and buy a gun. Neither state recognizes your concealed carry, both have long "waiting periods" and if memory serves me correctly, you need a concealed pistol permit in NY to buy a pistol and that permit process takes months.
 @WhatsonTapps I havent had any issues buying guns in NY.  Never bought one in jersey.  In fact, I haven't had an issue buying guns an ANY state ever.  So I really don't see any issues. Â
Â
When I was in AZ, all I had to do was spend 10$ to get an AZ id card fromt he dmv. Â I have a c & c from GA so that covers me in 26 states. Â I was going to get one from FL and then I would have 40+ states but I wasnt going to be their long enough.
Â
I bet, I could walk into any gun store and walk out with a gun in NY or Jersey that is if I wasn't currently deployed.
His idiotic proposals are DOA, especially in the Senate were a number of leftist senate seats are up in 2014. That's the reason Dirty Harry Reid isn't allowing it.
@WhatsonTapps The reason you are wrong is because public opinion is on the side of stricter gun control. If the Republicans block sensible controls, they will be seen as the extremists that they are, siding with gun manufacturers and the NRA over families and school children.
If Republicans block controls it's because of the 2 ammendment and the public is on their side- you can't do a vote on the constitution it is what it is and already has gone to the S court
 @DeadRabitz That still does not make it moral, right, etc...it just means he might be able to put a law together that could pass muster on the current clowns wearing the robes. So far though they have seemed reluctant (at least 5 of them) to go along with Chicago style gun control!
 @sometimesright As I said, Obama should be able to come up with a constitutionally acceptable law as the constitution is interpreted NOW, not 20 years from now but right now.  Again you are putting current ideals, moral ect. ect. on top of historical events.
 @DeadRabitz Dred Scott was held up by SCOTUS, so were the other deplorable decisions. What is your point? Once again this is another example of arguing from authority. The SCOTUS on many places have been shown by the next group to be dead wrong and by history to be plain evil in places (such as the Taney Court, probably one of the most evil group of lawyers ever assembled).Â
 @sometimesright It wasn't an argument.  It was an observation that Obama is a constitutional lawyer and should know how to write a law that is in keeping with the constitution as it is currently interpreted.  Most everyone told me I was wrong when I stated the Healthcare Law would be upheld by the Supreme Court.  They told me that I was wrong to compare it to Social Security. Â
Â
We may never really know what WILL be supported or not supported by the Supreme court as they tend to be very secretive. Â However, we must also remember that times change and so does the interpretation of the constitution. Â
I never said that a constitutional lawyer was smarter than the rest of us. Â However I would expect better work form a seasoned pro than a rookie. Â Look at it this way. Â If you wanted to build a house, would you hire the 30 year construction veteran or the guy from down the street that has 6 months of framing experience?
 @DeadRabitz Here you go with that argument from authority fallacy again. This is a better example to school you a little in some logic about why this fallacy is bad logic. The Dred Scott decision was done by a bunch of constitutional lawyers...Pace vs Alabama that upheld Alabama's right to imprison people who marry inter-racially for up to 7 years in prison....Plessy vs Ferguson which found the right in the 14th Ammendment that it was ok to segregate on the account of the color of people's skin...how about Hirabayashi v. United States in which the SCOTUS ruled that it was lawful to imprison Japanese American citizens solely upon their heritage? So yes I guess being a constitutional lawyer means that you smarter than the rest of us!
@whatifafrog we will have to wait and see but Obama is a constitutional lawyer so I would think he would know how to write something that would not conflict with the constitution.
@DeadRabitz @Peace4all Im not a lawyer but there may be a valid arguement if the regulation is so extensive as to circumvent the 2nd Ammendment
@qwertysplurb @Peace4all Well first of all I am currently active duty army and currently deployed so I would say a good amount of communication is abound. Secondly, it seems you have a seriouse compression problem. I simply stated a simple fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Governement can regulate firearms. Sorry if this is a shock to you but it is true none the less. Lastly, none of your rights have been nor will they be taken away. The constitution states your right to bear arms but it also give the Governement power to regulate that right along with all the other ones.
 @DeadRabitz  @Peace4all Then it's washed it's hands of it and WHEN the smackdown is laid out by the actual people, this will be a dead issue forever. All that is required is a block. You can believe that's the LAST thing Democrats want. They won't have the Independent vote, and they'll lose much of the minority vote. Small business owners.
And of course, does anyone else but me notice that this push for gun control is just coincidentally happening while our citizens that fight for our rights aren't in this sad excuse for a nation to fight for their own rights in the same ways other citizens are ALLOWED? How much free communications time and equipment is going to be made available to those citizens who will surely want to speak their views as vocally as those who are trying to take their rights away?
 @DeadRabitz@Superman_1967 never happen...just today 6 Democrat senators from Alaska, SD, Montana, NC, LA and WV came out against gun control. Couple that with the Republicans and nothing is going to happen. That is just the Senate where you have a slim chance of movement. The House is even worse. Probably 50+ Democrats there are from rural, NRA, gun toting districts. NOTHING is going to happen. Nobody cares what a bunch of leftists up in New England and Illinios think.Â
 @Peace4all The Supreme Court has stated that the government can regulate firearms and gun control.
 @Superman_1967  @WhatsonTapps I guess you missed the Gallup poll that showed less than 20% of the populace wants Congress to waste time on gun legislation. Guess what was the number one issue on the minds of Americans in that poll there genius? It was spending...Gun control was a distance 5th.
Read this if you dare:Â http://www.assaultweapon.info/Â
If the government was ever inclined to be "tyrannical", don't you think it's preposterous to think people with AR-15's are going to be any match against tanks, advanced fighter jets, and thousands of nukes? You people need to grow up and step into reality. This isn't 1775. We have free elections and a Court system. Your paranoia of an "oppressive government" ought to embarrass the hell out of you. I'm certainly embarrassed for you, so at least think through how this would logically play out before running to the hills to live in bunkers.
 @Superman_1967 Your paranoia of an "oppressive government" ought to embarrass the hell out of you. I'
Â
Its not paranoia to state facts. As for me, I'm neither embarrassed nor surprised by your comment. After all it explains exactly how we allowed government to get that way in the first place.Â
 @snow surfer  @Superman_1967 Remember that facts are one thing, interpretation is another.  One person sees government take over in everything from a box of cereal to gun control while another sees it as normal government regulation. Â
Â
Â
 @Superman_1967 I liked your comment even though I don't agree at all. It's a common enough misconception. Three weapons defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. The Soviets had tanks, advanced fighter jets, and tactical nukes. The Afghans had the AK-47, the RPG-7, and a hodgepodge of other small arms, some pre WWI. We gave them mostly RPG-7's, LaWS, and mines. A limited number of M-16's, and some French FN FAL's.
The only reason there were even any people fit to form a resistance from was because their citizenry are under arms all the time. They would have long since vanished as a nation without their armed public. Ask Napoleon. And their wealth that we are currently taking out from under their feet on behalf of the two or three hundred people that we are oppressing Afghanistan for would not be there to take.
Maybe the Afghani's will be happier when there is nothing left but rock, nothing remotely shiny left.Â
One thing is sure. Our nation has showed itself to be anything but for the people lately. They are unworthy of the level of trust they ask from the people.
Just one example? A government worthy of the trust of it's people have no need to keep granting themselves immune from prosecution.
Â
 @Superman_1967 It was preposterous that a bunch of hillbilly colonials could take on the Royal Navy, the Forts such as Tichonderoga, the onslaught of the British Red Coats, with nothing but antiquated muskets? What about the backward mountain folk of Afganistan that held out against the Soviet military for 10 years with nothing but AK-47s? How about Syria, Algeria, Egypt, and all the places that are currently overthrowing their governments with far less weapons than are on the streets of America? You are obviously not very educated in military tactics, because even with Tanks, Aircraft and the like, it still takes soldiers on the ground with rifles to clean out resistance and the death toll would make the CIvil War look small attempting to get all the 300 million guns away from Americans. Look at Chechnya, Stalingrad and other urban wars where advanced militaries took on rifle armed locals. That is of course if the 75% of the military who are conservative, NRA kind of soldiers would even do it!Â
 @sometimesright  @Superman_1967 I do believe that we had help from the french in many ways.  We bought weapons from them, and used their navel power to combat the british navel power.  In Afghanistan we funneled weapons and training to those backward mountain people that could take out the Soviet air power.  Seems like you forget about Charlie Wilson's war. Â
 @DeadRabitz I also notice that you have another logical problem of constantly moving the goal posts. Here is the original premise of this debate as stated above, "If the government was ever inclined to be "tyrannical", don't you think it's preposterous to think people with AR-15's are going to be any match against tanks, advanced fighter jets, and thousands of nukes? You people need to grow up and step into reality. This isn't 1775." I pointed out that we did beat back a superior force with little more than small arms and stolen cannons. I then brought up the Mujahideen and their ability to beat back a superior force with small arms also. Instead of acknowledging that these two instances (and I can give you a lot more through history) negate the above person's silly notion that armed civilians are not a match for superior forces. You inserted more silly notions that it was outside help, which still does nothing to negate the fact that both of my examples were inferior small arm forces beating vastly more superior trained armies! It matters not how they got their small arms, they still did not have the cannons, Royal Navy, tanks, helicopters or MIGs that their opponents had. Thus showing that lighter armed civilians can and do win wars against greater armies!
 @DeadRabitz A small arm is defined as a weapon able to be transported and fired by a single infantry soldier.Â
 @sometimesright The stinger missile is not a small arm.  It is a guided missile that take out aircraft.  The mujahideen would not have won if it hadn't been for outside assistance.
 @DeadRabitz Can you even follow your own debates? The point of this debate is that lightly armed citizens can win battles and even wars against overwhelming and superior armies equiped with 100 times better equipment. You then insert the French, who came along after the war was headed in our direction and we defeated a larger army (Burgoynes) without their help. With Afganistian, the Mujahideen got NOTHING from us but small arms, no tanks, helicopters or airplanes to fight the tanks, helicopters and MIGs of the Soviet military, once again showing that a lightly armed force can defeat a more powerful one! Thus once again negating your points.Â
 @sometimesright So when I said the the french helped us in the revolution I was wrong?  Oh wait, I wasn't.  Has anyone told you that you read into things too much? Â
Â
Secondly, the US funded the Mujahideen with 3 billion and added training to that. Â The type of arms that we sent we of great significance. Â It is very hard to bring down enemy air power with rifles really only happens in action movies. Â However we supplied them with Stinger Missiles, a far cry from a RPG.
Â
Seems to me you don't understand the power of an RPG. Â Equipped with the correct warhead they kill tanks and other heavy vehicles. Â Ever hear of HEAT?
Â
No, didn't think so. Â Stands for High Explosive Anti-Tank. Â That is the primary warhead on soviet RPG's. Â When you see the footage of the Taliban walking around with RPG's they are carrying Soviet anti tank RPG's. Â The are designed to go right through armor. Â
Â
My point was that those same small groups still needed and received outside assistance. Â No matter how you slice it, the french aided the US in their revolution and the US aided the Afghan mujahideen in defeating the Soviets.Â
 @DeadRabitz Charlie Wilson's War? Did you get your degree from Hollywood? Did all your education come from watching movies? How about you pick up a book once in awhile?
 @DeadRabitz There is NO WAY you have a degree in colonial history! NONE!! You are a farse! The French did not even enter the war or help with a single musket until 1778. The most they did was allow American ships to dock at French ports and secretly sent powder via the Dutch for help. It wasn't until after Washington defeated Burgoyne at the Battle of Saratoga and the French saw an easy way to slide in and help put a boot into their arch enemy, the British, did they come help. The first two years of the war were completely fought by American men with their rifles and the stuff they stole from British forts such as Ticonderoga. While it is true that the French were invaluable as the war progressed, they didn't help until victory was all but assured and public sentiment in Britain was waning. In Afganistan we funneled SOME small arms weapons and RPGs, but the not a single tank, helicopter or airplane. They defeated the Soviets with nothing more than AK-47s, M-16s and RPGs. The point is that a small group of backwards people with small arms can defeat a large conventional army, which is exactly the point I was making with both examples!
 @Superman_1967 I think maybe you need to google "Warsaw ghetto" during WW2. With homemade guns, light pistols and a few sub machine guns, they held off German armored units for days and it allowed many Jews to escape. During Vietnam, snipers with bolt action rifles pinned down entire companies of Vietcong and irregulars.
Â
Sorry Superman, just because you don't see a need for them doesn't mean the rest of us don't.
 @WhatsonTapps  @Superman_1967 So just out of curiosity, what hordes do you plan on holding back?
 @DeadRabitz I am seriously questioning that you have a single degree in anything. It took me all of five seconds to look up and read RCW 9A.16.050, which gives you the right to defend your property with deadly force, or to stop any kind of felony with deadly force. Maybe you need a computer search engine class to go along with that history, logic and constitutional law one that you need to take!
 @WhatsonTapps  @Superman_1967 Protection of ones family is fine, however you may run afoul with the law over protection of property.  I would suggest reading the laws and understanding them prior to pulling the trigger. Â
 @DeadRabitz  @Superman_1967 Personally, I am more afraid of looters than anything else. WHEN the chit hits the fan due to a major natural event like an 8.0+ earthquake or Rainier blowing it's top, I will have the means to defend my friends and family and the stores needed for our survival until things get back to normal. Like I said, youtube the Rodney King riots and see whose business's burned and were looted and which did not get burned or looted.
 @DeadRabitz  @WhatsonTapps  @Superman_1967 ZOMBIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol
 @WhatsonTapps  @Superman_1967 you never made it back, did you brother.  so sorry.  based on the psych exam for gun ownership thing, you prob shouldn't own guns.... just sayin...
 @tufa23  @WhatsonTapps  @Superman_1967 Wow, when confronted with facts, you provide snark? Go back to your legal weed and cheetoes fetish there tufa23.
 @Superman_1967 I think a lot of this has to do with peoples nostalgic historical view.  A view that the past was so much better than the present and much better than the future looks.  If they took the time to really read an learn their own history we wouldn't hear so much of this "government takeover nonsense"
 @Superman_1967 I said the same thing...just nicer.
 @DeadRabitz  @Superman_1967 It doesn't matter how nice you are. They would be throwing the same hissy fit if you tried to take their big bad truck. Most of them are anti Obama and will be against anything he says or does.
 @DeadRabitz That is an even worse movie than Gangs of New York!
 @nwbackpacker  @Darn it!  @Superman_1967 A very large problem is that our system of laws, is reactive and not proactive.  In reality it is very very difficult to have a proactive system with out stepping on the rights of those who have not committed a crime.
Â
It's not against the law to be crazy so how can you legally refuse to give a complete nut a gun? Â After all they still have the same rights. Â Unless deemed mentally unfit by a court there really isn' much you can do. Â
Â
part of the problem lies in the idea that our freedom to bear arms comes at no cost. Â In fact all of our freedoms have a price. Â Its time we recognize those costs.
Â
I think michael duglas said it best in the american president. "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free"."
 @Darn it!  @DeadRabitz  @Superman_1967 NO. I'm pro Obama, in general, and I'm very concerned about 2nd amendment rights. I agree with broader background checks but I am not for limited stupid things like magazine sizes for pistols. We need to take measured actions for things that will actually have an impact.
Â
 @Peace4all Can you give an example?
absolutely against Obama as he trys to stripe the constitution
@Darn it! @Superman_1967 that's what I call ignorant.