Obama Administration to seek new Assault Weapons Ban

**AandF6969** · 02-26-2009, 03:37 PM

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."

**BgMc31** · 02-26-2009, 04:02 PM

Although I'm a supporter of the pres. This is one area I don't agree with him. While I don't see the need for assault weapons for hunting or home defense (I am an avid hunter and weapons collector), an all out ban on these weapons is a slippery slope when characterizing what is considered an assault weapon. Besides it would never pass either houses of congress. It would be political suicide for congress people who preside over large rural communities.

**AandF6969** · 02-26-2009, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Although I'm a supporter of the pres. This is one area I don't agree with him. While I don't see the need for assault weapons for hunting or home defense (I am an avid hunter and weapons collector), an all out ban on these weapons is a slippery slope when characterizing what is considered an assault weapon. Besides it would never pass either houses of congress. It would be political suicide for congress people who preside over large rural communities.

The second amendment is not about hunting or home defense... The second amendment is about a final "check and balance" against a tyrannical, oppressive government.

To put it bluntly, the Second Amendment is about killing people.

***RAGE*** · 02-26-2009, 05:28 PM

I am taking my gun and moving to mexico

**gst528i** · 03-01-2009, 08:14 PM

little by little stripping people's power. Giving the govt more power. WOOT

**Razzberry** · 03-01-2009, 08:45 PM

Score one for the criminals if they succeed.

**Nooomoto** · 03-01-2009, 09:42 PM

I'm sure the Mexican drug cartels will be completely shut down by an assault weapons ban. This whole thing about drug cartels and their military-version assault rifles is a smoke screen being used by politicos to further a liberal agenda. Banning assault weapons (of which I own several, and yes I would use them to defend my home and have been properly trained to do so) in the US isn't going to change the activities of the Mexican drug cartel's. They obviously don't give a flying fk about the laws set forth by Obama's or any other administration.

Fking liberals.

**spywizard** · 03-01-2009, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by gst528i

little by little stripping people's power. Giving the govt more power. WOOT

just like england, seems to be working for them *rolls eyes

**AandF6969** · 03-01-2009, 10:47 PM

I read about the Mexcian cartels and how they were using AUTOMATIC weapons and grenades... hmm funny, how the **** would a SEMIAUTO ban change that?

***RAGE*** · 03-01-2009, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by AandF6969

I read about the Mexcian cartels and how they were using AUTOMATIC weapons and grenades... hmm funny, how the **** would a SEMIAUTO ban change that?

A ban it not going to change anything...except for us,,,,the criminals with still get there you wont...

**Flagg** · 03-02-2009, 04:46 AM

Yes, because comparing America to the UK as some sort of modern day Russia seems to be the latest internet thing..

**Kratos** · 03-02-2009, 09:15 AM

I'd like to know who the citizens are in favor of more gun control. Sure there are some, but for some reason I highly doubt the majority. I don't think the American people are demanding these actions and laws for some reason. Anytime I hear arguments in favor of gun control, it's the politicians telling us we need stricter gun laws. I've yet to meet someone who's stated it as their reason for voting for a specific candidate. It seems to be what politicians in power want.

**Nooomoto** · 03-02-2009, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by Kratos

I'd like to know who the citizens are in favor of more gun control. Sure there are some, but for some reason I highly doubt the majority. I don't think the American people are demanding these actions and laws for some reason. Anytime I hear arguments in favor of gun control, it's the politicians telling us we need stricter gun laws. I've yet to meet someone who's stated it as their reason for voting for a specific candidate. It seems to be what politicians in power want.

I bet none of them live on the border to Mexico! Imagine having to deal with automatic weapon toting drug runners and enforcers, when you can't own a semi-auto assault rifle? I remember on the news a couple weeks ago hearing about a town in Arizona that had 400 kidnappings occur in 2008...400!

Police are nifty and all, but they usually aren't there when you need them. They show up after everyone has been dropped, putz around the scene and put yellow tape every where. They also call press-conferences, which is immensely helpful.

**amcon** · 03-02-2009, 07:47 PM

impeach now!!! save our country... if this law passes it will slowly allow for more and more amendments to it that will lead to the lack of guns to the general society ... watch for amo regualtions coming asap behind this!!!

**quarry206** · 03-03-2009, 07:18 AM

the guns that use to be banned are typically not weapons that america's were buying anyways.. AR-15's and AK-47/AK-74 were not part of clintons ban..

but i honestly believe this is all just talk, kinda like what EVERY administration does just to make it look like they are serious. thats why they down play a time frame...

This is the same thing Bush did in 2004 about gay marriage, said he was going to put an end to it, he said he was going to push bills against it, then after he won all he said about gays and lesbians was wishing the best for his Vice-presidents lesbian daughter for have a baby that would be raised by her and her lesbian lover...

ITS JUST POLITICAL BULL_SH*T DON'T LOOK SO DEEP INTO IT

**AandF6969** · 03-03-2009, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by quarry206

the guns that use to be banned are typically not weapons that america's were buying anyways.. AR-15's and AK-47/AK-74 were not part of clintons ban..

AR15's and AK47's were most definitely part of the Clinton gun ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

"By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms "

**quarry206** · 03-04-2009, 04:29 AM

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

* Folding or telescoping stock
* Pistol grip
* Bayonet mount
* Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
* Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

those are the Clinton requirements for an Assault weapon..

i personally bought both an AR-15 and an AK-47 in Florida in 2003 during the ban. legally without a class III permit... so what i didn't have a flash suppressor or bayonet mount, who cares... and please hear me out, i am totally against the ban, i am also against the taking away of any of our rights. but as long as we have the political system that we have it won't be changed.

once again though people are ripping into the a side bar of what i sad.. the point still is the bill was past back then by both house of or congress, not just the president The point of what i wrote is every president has people in their cabinet that talk out of their ass in front of the media..I am just very against people putting blame on any political figures that have nothing directly to do with it. if we went throughout history and talked about every idea that was thrown on in a new conference and never put into action we could go on forever..

crime will never be changed by the speed of ease of the ability to get a weapons!

**AandF6969** · 03-04-2009, 02:35 PM

I do recall seeing on barackobama.com that he supports reinstating the Assault Weapon ban. That, and his heinous voting record regarding guns are what make me question anything that comes out of his mouth.

While in IL, he voted to ban handguns, ban semi-autos, allow weapon confiscation in the event of a natural disaster... etc etc.

**BgMc31** · 03-11-2009, 01:18 PM

Could someone point to a successful country with absolutely no gun control? Canada has it, Australia has it as well. Both countries restrict assault weapons as well. I point out those countries because when Obama won the presidency, those are the two countries I saw many of you wanting to run to.

Then again there are countries with no gun control, Jamaica, Brazil, Mexico, Aghanistan, etc.

I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic. I just want to know what valid argument there is for no gun control. The simple argument of the 2nd admendment isn't good enough for me. Saying that, IMO, is akin to religious fanatic saying homosexuality is wrong simply because it says so in the bible. Ridiculous IMO.

I bring this up because over the last couple days, there has been two heinous crimes gun crimes recently. One in Germany (who has the tightest gun control laws on the planet, I think), the other in Alabama who has a large gun ownership population. Not to mention the recent church shooting a couple days ago. I'm looking for solutions, there has got to be some type of effective middle ground on this. I don't think arming everyone will solve the problem, nor will taking all guns away from everybody will either.

**Nooomoto** · 03-11-2009, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I bring this up because over the last couple days, there has been two heinous crimes gun crimes recently. One in Germany (who has the tightest gun control laws on the planet, I think), the other in Alabama who has a large gun ownership population. Not to mention the recent church shooting a couple days ago. I'm looking for solutions, there has got to be some type of effective middle ground on this. I don't think arming everyone will solve the problem, nor will taking all guns away from everybody will either.

Imagine if the victims in all of these crimes had guns to defend themselves against the criminals who obviously aren't too concerned with the laws of our society? Law enforcement obviously could not protect these people. When this is the case, which it is...it is up to you to defend yourself. How exactly do you plan to do that when someone (a criminal) uses a gun against you, and your hands are tied because you're a law abiding citizen that chooses to not own a weapon?

**BgMc31** · 03-11-2009, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

Imagine if the victims in all of these crimes had guns to defend themselves against the criminals who obviously aren't too concerned with the laws of our society? Law enforcement obviously could not protect these people. When this is the case, which it is...it is up to you to defend yourself. How exactly do you plan to do that when someone (a criminal) uses a gun against you, and your hands are tied because you're a law abiding citizen that chooses to not own a weapon?

All the victims in the Alabama shootings had guns in their homes. They just didn't/couldn't get to them. Do you expect to allow teenagers in school to carry guns (in the Germany incident)?

The perpatrator of both crimes and the church killing were all legal registered gun owners. Clarification...the parents of the german school shooter was a registered gun owner.

**Nooomoto** · 03-11-2009, 04:04 PM

They got caught slipping. My M4 and Glock 23 are ready to go. Had they been better prepared, maybe some of the deaths couldve been avoided.
I expect school children to be protected by someone with the ability to properly do so.

**BgMc31** · 03-11-2009, 04:10 PM

So you expect police in every classroom? And you would expect every person to walk around armed without any oversight? That's just not logical! I have a CCW as well (because of my job), but there are several places I cannot carry the weapon(s). Having a firearm won't prevent idiots from shooting up places nor will it guarantee someone will use their own weapon to protect everyone else. Unless you've seen combat or been in situations where deadly force has to be used, you cannot guarantee whether you'll be able to respond appropriately and not end up shooting an innocent bystander. That is why I'm in favor of gun licensing.

**Nooomoto** · 03-11-2009, 04:20 PM

Well I won't get into where I've been and what I've done with you. But rest assured anyone coming in my house wishing harm upon my family will not be leaving on their own accord.

I don't have a problem with licensing someone who wishes to own a firearm. What I have a problem with is banning assault rifles.

Guns will not prevent bad things from happening, but they can soften the blow. There are many incidents which could have been drastically less tragic had someone taken it upon themselves to stop a rampaging gunman. Theres no reason that large amounts of people should die at the hands of one deranged individual who feels he has the right to walk around shooting people.

Criminals are criminals. By definition, they break laws. Banning assault weapons will not prevent criminals from obtaining and using these weapons, it will only handicap people's ability to defend themselves.

In your own town of Las Vegas, there was a man named Jose Vigoa. For two years he ran rampant up and down the strip taking armored trucks and casinos for millions of dollars. No one could stop him. Why? Because he was prepared. He was a criminal, he saw weaknesses and exploited them. He was bringing AK-47s and MAK-90s against Smith & Wesson revolvers. What if some of the people he killed had been better armed and trained to deal with a situation? He cut down two armored car guards in a parking lot, in broad day light, on the strip.

**spywizard** · 03-11-2009, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by AandF6969

AR15's and AK47's were most definitely part of the Clinton gun ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

"By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, H&K G36E, TEC-9, all non-automatic AK-47s, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms "

and the current one says "any weapon that needs a magazine"

that pretty much covers 80% of weapons owned by Law abiding citizens

**BuffedGuy** · 03-11-2009, 05:45 PM

Peace be unto you, BgMc.

You're a Christian right? I'm a bit confused about this statement of yours:

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Saying that, IMO, is akin to religious fanatic saying homosexuality is wrong simply because it says so in the bible. Ridiculous IMO.

So it would be religious fanaticism to hold that homosexuality is wrong even though it is explicitly stated in the Bible that it is?

**BgMc31** · 03-11-2009, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

Well I won't get into where I've been and what I've done with you. But rest assured anyone coming in my house wishing harm upon my family will not be leaving on their own accord.

I don't have a problem with licensing someone who wishes to own a firearm. What I have a problem with is banning assault rifles.

Guns will not prevent bad things from happening, but they can soften the blow. There are many incidents which could have been drastically less tragic had someone taken it upon themselves to stop a rampaging gunman. Theres no reason that large amounts of people should die at the hands of one deranged individual who feels he has the right to walk around shooting people.

Criminals are criminals. By definition, they break laws. Banning assault weapons will not prevent criminals from obtaining and using these weapons, it will only handicap people's ability to defend themselves.

In your own town of Las Vegas, there was a man named Jose Vigoa. For two years he ran rampant up and down the strip taking armored trucks and casinos for millions of dollars. No one could stop him. Why? Because he was prepared. He was a criminal, he saw weaknesses and exploited them. He was bringing AK-47s and MAK-90s against Smith & Wesson revolvers. What if some of the people he killed had been better armed and trained to deal with a situation? He cut down two armored car guards in a parking lot, in broad day light, on the strip.

I was speaking in generalizations not specifically about you. The average citizen wouldn't be able to properly handle a high stress situation.

Poor choice of examples when using Jose Vioga. Why? Because he robbed casinoes with armed guards and armored cars with armed guards. Regardless of the firearms the guards were still armed.

Assault weapons by definition are designed for close to medium range combat when multiple threats or targets are present, correct. Most violent crime in this country consists of one person perpatrating these heinous acts. Of course there are exceptions, but the vast majority show otherwise.

Please answer the initial question...name a country with no gun control laws or that allow assault weapons that have proven to lower crime or gun crime in general.

**BgMc31** · 03-11-2009, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by BuffedGuy

Peace be unto you, BgMc.

You're a Christian right? I'm a bit confused about this statement of yours:

So it would be religious fanaticism to hold that homosexuality is wrong even though it is explicitly stated in the Bible that it is?

I am a Christian, but I like to think of myself as a free thinking Christian. I don't believe in everything the bible teaches, but I agree with some principles that it teaches. The Bible in IMO, or any other holy book isn't the end all be all. It's a guideline to live your life. As a human being given free will by our creator, it is my choice to be able to agree and disagree with a book written by man. And until God, Allah, Buddah, or any other higher power tells me directly what is right or wrong, I am within my right to follow the teachings of man or not.

**Nooomoto** · 03-11-2009, 06:11 PM

I can't name a country with no gun control laws that is proven to have lower crime...lower crime when compared to what? I think the United States is prety f'kin great, and we've been allowed to have weapons for quite some time.

As far as the average citizen not being able to handle a high stress situation, you are right. But I'd rather give the average citizen a chance to effect his own survival, rather than handicap him.

I only used Jose Vigoa as an example because you live in Vegas, illustrating that these things do happen close to your home.

Assault weapons by definition are designed for close to medium range combat when multiple threats or targets are present, correct. Most violent crime in this country consists of one person perpatrating these heinous acts. Of course there are exceptions, but the vast majority show otherwise.

Indeed they are designed for engaging multiple targets. I'll also agree that most violent crimes are committed by one person. But, going by The Rules of Action (military), I'd rather stack the odds in my favor. Fair fights are for boxers.

**BgMc31** · 03-11-2009, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

I can't name a country with no gun control laws that is proven to have lower crime...lower crime when compared to what? I think the United States is prety f'kin great, and we've been allowed to have weapons for quite some time.
As far as the average citizen not being able to handle a high stress situation, you are right. But I'd rather give the average citizen a chance to effect his own survival, rather than handicap him.

I only used Jose Vigoa as an example because you live in Vegas, illustrating that these things do happen close to your home.

Indeed they are designed for engaging multiple targets. I'll also agree that most violent crimes are committed by one person. But, going by The Rules of Action (military), I'd rather stack the odds in my favor. Fair fights are for boxers.

Lower crimes compared to country with strict gun control laws. I love this country, without a doubt, but questioning things about this country doesn't make one unpatriotic. And yes we've had guns since our inception but no one is trying to ban ALL guns. Just those that serve no purpose (IMO) outside law enforcement and military action. The argument that assault weapons would deter criminals, if we all had them is flawed, the numbers don't show that. Countries with no gun control that allow its citizens to have assault weapons are some of the most violent places in the world.

**Nooomoto** · 03-11-2009, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Lower crimes compared to country with strict gun control laws. I love this country, without a doubt, but questioning things about this country doesn't make one unpatriotic. And yes we've had guns since our inception but no one is trying to ban ALL guns. Just those that serve no purpose (IMO) outside law enforcement and military action. The argument that assault weapons would deter criminals, if we all had them is flawed, the numbers don't show that. Countries with no gun control that allow its citizens to have assault weapons are some of the most violent places in the world.

They do so serve a purpose...I once went hunting with an AR-15.

**BgMc31** · 03-11-2009, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Nooomoto

They do so serve a purpose...I once went hunting with an AR-15.

Was it more effective than my Winchester 30-30 or my bolt action .308? If you are trying to make a point that its an effective hunting rifle then, ok. Yeah its effective just like any other firearm/rifle can be used for hunting. But is it necessary? Could you not do the same thing with the above mentioned weapons?

I own two assault weapons (M4 and an MP5), my job allows me to own these weapons, but I also recognize what these weapons are for and we use them as such (no I'm not in the military or law enforcement but I do work for a private security firm that specializes in diplomatic security). I know these weapons aren't for home defense or hunting. I also know that it took extensive training to use these weapons properly and I would not trust these weapons in the hands of the average citizen.

**Nooomoto** · 03-11-2009, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Was it more effective than my Winchester 30-30 or my bolt action .308? If you are trying to make a point that its an effective hunting rifle then, ok. Yeah its effective just like any other firearm/rifle can be used for hunting. But is it necessary? Could you not do the same thing with the above mentioned weapons?

I own two assault weapons (M4 and an MP5), my job allows me to own these weapons, but I also recognize what these weapons are for and we use them as such (no I'm not in the military or law enforcement but I do work for a private security firm that specializes in diplomatic security). I know these weapons aren't for home defense or hunting. I also know that it took extensive training to use these weapons properly and I would not trust these weapons in the hands of the average citizen.

I wasn't actually trying to make a point with that one, just being an asshole. But yes it was effective in that it killed the animal. Was it necessary? No...is hunting necessary? No.

You wouldn't trust assault weapons in the hands of the average citizen, but you'd trust pistols? I don't see the logic there. A pistol can be effectively just as dangerous as an assault rifle in certain situations. Cho walked around VT with pistols and killed 32 people, furthermore, he had terrible aim, and I'd bet money that his reloads were slow and labored.

Here's the thing...when you ban assault rifles, that legitimizes ignorance, hysteria and hype. It paves the way for the banning of other and all weapons. A country that does not allow me to own weapons as a private citizen, is not a country that I'm going to live in.

I'm cool with licensing and registering firearms, even mandatory classes beyond the bullshit CCW class...but an outright ban on assault weapons? No thanks.

As far as home defense, I would use my M4 for just that. I've found that for me, an M4 with a 10" barrel is the best close quarters weapon. I was taught the Rules of Action quite some time ago. They've been proven time and time again to work.

**RuhlFreak55** · 03-11-2009, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by amcon

impeach now!!! save our country... if this law passes it will slowly allow for more and more amendments to it that will lead to the lack of guns to the general society ... watch for amo regualtions coming asap behind this!!!

i AGREE.....although...i don't give a **** what he bans....my rights are my rights....and the weapons are ALOT cheaper black market anyway without all the fagass gov't taxes and such

**RuhlFreak55** · 03-11-2009, 07:23 PM

if laws get in the way........well go around them

**sloth9** · 03-11-2009, 08:02 PM

I already have quite a few black market guns for just this reason,they are not illegal just not registered, not really worried if they take them away they have to come get them from me, and that will take a little more than a couple of cops. Sorry but that is the way I feel and you cant take that away. They do know that 8 gauge shotties can blast people in half up close enough just like gears of war.

**RuhlFreak55** · 03-11-2009, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by sloth9

I already have quite a few black market guns for just this reason,they are not illegal just not registered, not really worried if they take them away they have to come get them from me, and that will take a little more than a couple of cops. Sorry but that is the way I feel and you cant take that away. They do know that 8 gauge shotties can blast people in half up close enough just like gears of war.

that's the spirit....SCREW THE GOVERNMENT

**BuffedGuy** · 03-11-2009, 10:15 PM

Peace be unto you, BgMc.

First, I want to say that I enjoy your posts, and so apologies in advance if this comes across as confrontational at all.

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I am a Christian, but I like to think of myself as a free thinking Christian. I don't believe in everything the bible teaches, but I agree with some principles that it teaches. The Bible in IMO, or any other holy book isn't the end all be all. It's a guideline to live your life. As a human being given free will by our creator, it is my choice to be able to agree and disagree with a book written by man. And until God, Allah, Buddah, or any other higher power tells me directly what is right or wrong, I am within my right to follow the teachings of man or not.

My issue is with the underlined part above. Isn't the basis of religion that the holy book is either the direct word of God (as Muslims believe about the Quran) or at minimum inspired by God (as most Christians believe about the Bible)?

Basically what you said in the underlined part is the way I feel about virtually any other book in the world. Give me a book written by say Bill O'reilly or Ron Paul or whoever, and I would agree with parts of it and disagree with other parts of it. I mean, what I am saying is: is this not reducing the authority of a holy book to that of any other book on earth?

But I think the real issue I had with your post was not your view that homosexuality is ok: you are entitled to your view. My issue was with your categorization of anyone who holds homosexuality to be wrong to be a religious fanatic. And this is not really a question or comment but just an observation: it does seem that the Abrahamic faiths will have a tough time confronting this issue in the next generation or so when it seems like it will become politically and socially impossible to even cogitate the Biblical view towards homosexuality. Right now, we live in a time in which we can voice our views--although in a very courteous and cautious manner--but I feel like in a few generations time it will be something that will become socially taboo altogether, akin to attacking someone's race.

I'm not really going anywhere with this: only pointing out an observation that I had. I really wonder how religion itself will fare in the generations to come. I don't think your view--that religion can be 'tweaked' to become more appropriate--is very sustainable. At most religion can then be a hobby, and as such, will die out in obscurity. I think that from a purely logical and mathematical approach, religion only makes sense from an all-or-none perspective...at least with regards to Christianity and Islam, which posit themselves as nothing short of absolute truths.

**luxifer93** · 03-11-2009, 10:31 PM

Police state here we go...

Chris Rock shoulda been the first black president

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDC-XQG1ifo

**sloth9** · 03-11-2009, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by RuhlFreak55

that's the spirit....SCREW THE GOVERNMENT

I have had that mentality for a while now way before Bush, but now that we have a communist lickhead like Obama I feel even stronger about Screw the Gov. We need less gov. not more, I mean look what they do to steroid users, and dealers, I mean come on our gov. thinks steroids kill and make all these people crazy. I got their crazy hanging,lol

I really hated it when Bush signed that stupid act in 04 cause it made my supps. illegal, I had more gains off those than the new crap that I wont take, Screw you gov. take my supps from me now I am doing juice how you like me now! 2 big middle fingers up to our Government.