-
The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Soooooooooooo....
With all the crazy'ness in the world goin on....
What do all the firearm owners in on the forum think YOUR president will do about arms in January???
I tried to get as many 18 rnd 9mm & 14 rnd .45ACP mags I could find before the ban takes place.....and there WILL be one!
But....EVERYWHERE I go...All "Hi-Cap" Mags & Rifles are gone!!!!!!
I couldnt even get one!!!!!
Unreal.......
Gun shops are chaging almost $200 for ONE used 30 rnd magazine....
Its all about the money I guess!!!!!
No one said anything when the IRS ( Internel Revenue Service ) bought 1,000,000 rounds of 9mm!
WTF does the IRS need with a million rounds of 9mm!
Damn...They got all the money....now they want all the ammo too ?!....
SOMETHING is going down.....WAKE THE FUCK up people!!!!
Share your thoughts!
Eve,
xoxo
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Easiest way to control the populace is make them live in fear, take away their firearms and give extensive powers to the police and government agencies enough so that it becomes a Police State.
What gets me is, with the populace fearing an upcoming restriction on firearms, this will make the people go out and hoard as many firearms and ammo as they can get, making disarming the people even harder!
Your papers please? I must see your papers! You have no papers? Come with us please.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
AR's are hard to find, PMags sold out early last week and people have bought all the ammo they could get their hands on. So, all the cries to ban "assault weapons" has done was get more of them into peoples hands, and some people really shouldnt have then, its not daddies .22. Good job anti-gun folks, you've made everyone more well armed.
I imagine this wont get much further than the last hi cap mag ban got in 94, too many people are fighting it. Fingers crossed things get worse in Syria to the media can have that to keep them entertained. Without the media jamming this shit down every soccer moms throat 24/7, most people will stop caring and move on to the next popular cause they can bitch about on FB or at their book club.
There was a shooting on Christmas eve in Rochester NY, a guy killed 2 fireman and wounded 2 others and before the guy had even been found/killed I heard a reporter say "No word on whether or not an assault rifle had been used". They're just lookin for for shit now. Turns out, an AR had been used and wasnt the property of the shooter, so no law would have saved the firemans lives. I will say, had the shooter been using a shotgun with slugs, which are plenty accurate at 100yrds, the 2 men that were only wounded would likely have died, so which is more deadly?
All these points can be argued all day by both sides, in the end, its the guy behind the weapon that makes it kill people, address that and lives will be saved.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
runround04
AR's are hard to find, PMags sold out early last week and people have bought all the ammo they could get their hands on. So, all the cries to ban "assault weapons" has done was get more of them into peoples hands, and some people really shouldnt have then, its not daddies .22. Good job anti-gun folks, you've made everyone more well armed.
Okay, so what are the anti-gun folks supposed to do? Had everyone stayed silent, it seems there still would have been a run on these guns and ammo. It's been shown that more shootings = more sales of weapons and ammo. Why are you blaming the rhetoric.
Quote:
I imagine this wont get much further than the last hi cap mag ban got in 94, too many people are fighting it. Fingers crossed things get worse in Syria to the media can have that to keep them entertained. Without the media jamming this shit down every soccer moms throat 24/7, most people will stop caring and move on to the next popular cause they can bitch about on FB or at their book club.
Seriously? You wish for more bloodshed in another nation so that opinions that are different than yours in this nation aren't aired?
Quote:
There was a shooting on Christmas eve in Rochester NY, a guy killed 2 fireman and wounded 2 others and before the guy had even been found/killed I heard a reporter say "No word on whether or not an assault rifle had been used". They're just lookin for for shit now. Turns out, an AR had been used and wasnt the property of the shooter, so no law would have saved the firemans lives. I will say, had the shooter been using a shotgun with slugs, which are plenty accurate at 100yrds, the 2 men that were only wounded would likely have died, so which is more deadly?
But dont' you have to operate the bolt to load another shotgun shell into the chamber to get off another shot, as opposed to an AR-15 which you can just reel off bullet after bullet on successive squeezes of the trigger finger? Seems like after killing one or maybe two firemen with an "accurate" shotgun shot, that the other 2 or 3 firemen have time take cover.
The more arguments I hear from gun enthusiasts, the less I'm hopeful that any meaningful reform will happen. These are just irreconciliable differences that lead to maintaining the status quo.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Odelay
Okay, so what are the anti-gun folks supposed to do? Had everyone stayed silent, it seems there still would have been a run on these guns and ammo. It's been shown that more shootings = more sales of weapons and ammo. Why are you blaming the rhetoric.
Seriously? You wish for more bloodshed in another nation so that opinions that are different than yours in this nation aren't aired?
But dont' you have to operate the bolt to load another shotgun shell into the chamber to get off another shot, as opposed to an AR-15 which you can just reel off bullet after bullet on successive squeezes of the trigger finger? Seems like after killing one or maybe two firemen with an "accurate" shotgun shot, that the other 2 or 3 firemen have time take cover.
The more arguments I hear from gun enthusiasts, the less I'm hopeful that any meaningful reform will happen. These are just irreconciliable differences that lead to maintaining the status quo.
Blame? Id say more of a cause for sales.
Syria is goin downhill regardless, I dont have the numbers of any warlords or rebels to speed things up. Ill go ahead and wish for peace in the middle east tho, I bet nobody's tried that yet...
Really? Are you familiar with firearms or just goin of the facts that Fox news tells ya? Operate the bolt on a shotgun? Not often, Mossberg 695 and a few others are bolt guns, but most are either pump 6-8 shells, or semi auto. I could write 3 paragraphs explaining which guns do what, but Im sure you wont understand most of it, which is fine as your not into guns, but that also means you should try to tell folks what firearms do what.
End of the day, the man, not the firearm kills people.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
End of the day, firearms make evil easy.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Domino liking guns is good enough for me... :)
Domino Presley shooting...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qztXOmjH-OA
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ben
Tea cup grip is not recommended.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
If it is people not guns that kill people (yawn) then make it harder for them to kill by taking away their guns. The gun lobby is a brainwashed and heartless cabal of fools.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Obama cannot take away guns or bullets with an Executive Order. And the gun control NAZiS know this latest attack on gun owners will be as futile as all the past attempts to disarm us legal gun owners.Their only hope is to try to shame us into willingly give up our weapons and put so much heat on the NRA that it won't go to court to knock down the gun control laws no matter how unconstitutional they may be. As I said it will be futile and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of giving up my gun collection which includes several so-called assault weapons. So long as the 2nd Amendment says I can own as many firearms ammo as I want, I will continue to collect them. And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Obama cannot take away guns or bullets with an Executive Order. And the gun control NAZIS know this latest attack on gun owners will be as futile as all the past attempts to disarm us legal gun owners.Their only hope is to try to shame us into willingly give up our weapons and put so much heat on the NRA that it won't go to court to knock down the gun control laws no matter how unconstitutional they may be. As I said it will be futile and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of giving up my gun collection which includes several so-called assault weapons. So long as the 2nd Amendment says I can own as many firearms and as much ammo as I want, I will continue to collect them. And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.[/QUOTE]
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beatlephil
Obama cannot take away guns or bullets with an Executive Order. And the gun control NAZiS know this latest attack on gun owners will be as futile as all the past attempts to disarm us legal gun owners.Their only hope is to try to shame us into willingly give up our weapons and put so much heat on the NRA that it won't go to court to knock down the gun control laws no matter how unconstitutional they may be. As I said it will be futile and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of giving up my gun collection which includes several so-called assault weapons. So long as the 2nd Amendment says I can own as many firearms ammo as I want, I will continue to collect them. And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.
I get the point that you dont want to give up any weapons. But let me ask you if they are secured and non-operable, and that no one else has access to them? You dont have any children or youth relatives, is one main category of people. I take it that you are not in a relationship, that would have access to your private info. Do you have anyone that has come into your home that has anger, substance, or mental health issues? A more general question is just about safety in general? Would people be more safe, if everyone carried assault weapons? Should pre-schoolers be allowed to carry them. My point is that at some point there should be some limitations of weaponry, in the hands of people. So why not look at adjusting the boundaries for the sake of safety?
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beatlephil
And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.
thats not how amendments work
Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-...s_Constitution
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beatlephil
Obama cannot take away guns or bullets with an Executive Order. And the gun control NAZIS know this latest attack on gun owners will be as futile as all the past attempts to disarm us legal gun owners.Their only hope is to try to shame us into willingly give up our weapons and put so much heat on the NRA that it won't go to court to knock down the gun control laws no matter how unconstitutional they may be. As I said it will be futile and I certainly have no intention whatsoever of giving up my gun collection which includes several so-called assault weapons. So long as the 2nd Amendment says I can own as many firearms and as much ammo as I want, I will continue to collect them. And if we're going to repeal the 2nd Amendment why stop there, and lets repeal the 1st and 5th Amendments while we're at it. Either the whole Constitution will stand or it won't stand at all.
[/QUOTE]
I don't favour a total ban simply because at a practical level it's unenforceable, and in the context of the US's historical culture it would not be accepted. Here in the UK we have tightened our gun control laws with each successive mass killing - three in the last thirty years - because it fits in with our cultural norms and history, and the vast majority of people are entirely supportive of laws which give us amongst the toughest gun controls in the world. We feel safer without guns.
What I can't understand, however, is the view expressed here which instantly assumes that any call for reasonable control, such as a review of assault weapons and multiple cartridge magazines, implies the intention to take away all weapons. That simply isn't going to happen. Yet the hysterical overreaction of people like Phil will not countenance even the sanest review.
What a fuckup.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Many gun enthusiasts blur the distinction between weapons and manhood. Giving just a little bit on gun control is like giving up the tip of their penis. The thought of it makes them whine like babies. Nevertheless, there will be tighter gun laws in the U.S. in spite of the Freudian identifications. The patient is already strapped to the table. The nurses are already sympathetically calling him a "gun enthusiast" instead of "gun nut." The patient is wincing. The tip's coming off.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
This is what Sen. Feinstein is working on for January : http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...2-ac8ca4359119
...sorry if this has already been posted.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
Many gun enthusiasts blur the distinction between weapons and manhood. Giving just a little bit on gun control is like giving up the tip of their penis. The thought of it makes them whine like babies. Nevertheless, there will be tighter gun laws in the U.S. in spite of the Freudian identifications. The patient is already strapped to the table. The nurses are already sympathetically calling him a "gun enthusiast" instead of "gun nut." The patient is wincing. The tip's coming off.
Do you really believe that any serious restrictions will actually come about? Surely, we have been here before - public memories are very short.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
martin48
Do you really believe that any serious restrictions will actually come about?...
Depends on how seriously one takes circumcision. The NRA is still a wealthy lobby and they will put the brakes on any sort of regulation. But the violent deaths of more than a score of first grade children mowed down by semiautomatic weapons fire is not an easy image for the NRA to live down.
My Father belonged to the NRA when it was a organization devoted to promoting hunting, the preservation of game-lands and gun-safety. In the sixties the NRA actually supported firearms regulation in the interest of public safety. The ordinary membership hardly noticed when the organization was taken over by survivalist nuts and became the tool of firearms manufacturers. Those who did notice quit. Those who didn't are now learning to their dismay just what kind of crazy organization they've been paying dues to.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Guns kill people, in one chilling graph. - Washington Post by Ezra Klein
This isn’t the merriest graphic we’ve ever posted, but it’s important. The Washington Post’s Todd Lindeman picked through the data on the cause of violent deaths by age and illustrated the results. He included a separate category for suicides, which is important because those are more common than homicides. The results are sobering:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...m_business_pop
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Study shows restrictions reduce gun deaths. - CT POST Bob Egelko
States with the most restrictive laws, including Connecticut and California, have lower rates of gun-related deaths, while states with few limits on firearms have the highest rates.
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/...#ixzz2GDhtbwah
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Legal Curbs Said to Hamper A.T.F. in Gun Inquiries - NY Times By Erica Goode and Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Law enforcement officials say that in theory the A.T.F. could take a lead role in reducing gun crime, but that it is hampered by politically driven laws and by the ferocity of the debate over gun regulation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/us...gun-crime.html
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Silencing the Science on Gun Research - FREE ONLINE FIRST JAMA by Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH
The nation might be in a better position to act if medical and public health researchers had continued to study these issues as diligently as some of us did between 1985 and 1997. But in 1996, pro-gun members of Congress mounted an all-out effort to eliminate the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Although they failed to defund the center, the House of Representatives removed $2.6 million from the CDC's budget—precisely the amount the agency had spent on firearm injury research the previous year. Funding was restored in joint conference committee, but the money was earmarked for traumatic brain injury. The effect was sharply reduced support for firearm injury research.
To ensure that the CDC and its grantees got the message, the following language was added to the final appropriation: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1487470
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
This seems like a good summary of some of the many questions:
Why can’t the US just ban guns?
The US Constitution prohibits Federal government and States from completely banning gun ownership. Despite the popularity of this statement, gun owner was actually a grey area until 2008, when the US Supreme Court ruled that gun ownership was actually an individual right.
However, this ruling doesn’t mean the US government or the States can’t ban ANY gun. The federal government has passed laws prohibiting the sale or ownership of assault weapons, which generally include many semi- and fully-automatic rifles. States can also pass their own laws, which vary significantly. However, the last major federal ban on assault rifle ended in 1996, due mainly to influence from the National Rifle Association (NRA).
Other laws have also been passed, such as the Brady Bill, which governs who can’t own a gun, such as felons, anyone judged to be a mental defective, or a drug addict.
What would it take to get a total federal gun ban?
Two things would be needed.
First, you would need a general turnaround in the mindset of most Americans. In a 2011 Gallup poll, only 43 percent of American thought there was a need for stricter gun laws. That’s a dramatic shift from
20 years ago, when 78 percent of Americans supported stricter laws.
Second, you would need an amendment to the US Constitution. To even start that process, you need either the approval of two-third of both the US House of Representatives and the Senate or for two-third of the states to call for a national convention. Getting the amendment passed is even harder. The result has been that only 17 Amendments have passed over the last 220 years. Given today’s polarized political environment, an amendment would be practically impossible.
What is the NRA?
The National Rifle Association is a not-for-profit lobbyist group in the US, with estimated assets of $280 million. They are routinely listed at the most influential lobby in the US. It was established in
1871 and has an estimated 4.2 million members.
Why is the NRA so controversial?
They are known for opposing any law that would limit or restrict gun ownership. Notably, the NRA successfully opposed a 5-day waiting period for gun-ownership in the Brady Bill, a US law which governs who can be stopped from owning a gun. They also successfully opposed a federal law requiring local enforcement to conduct background checks on anyone seeking to purchase a gun.
The NRA is also known for arguing that Americans should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves from crime - a position many anti-gun advocates argue only increase the likelihood of violence and would be better left to police - and to protect people from governmental oppression. In 1996, Former President George H.W. Bush resigned his membership in the NRA when the group issued a fund raising letter that described federal law enforcement agents as “jack-booted thugs.” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre later apologized for the letter, saying the statement didn’t apply to “all federal law-enforcement officials.”
Are the NRA members generally responsible for gun crime?
No. Actually, NRA members are usually viewed as being responsible gun owners who take gun safety quite seriously. It is the organization’s active resistance to laws that seek to govern guns that often lead it into controversy.
Was the NRA serious in its suggestions that more armed police officers in school would stop assaults?
Probably not, but they were certainly aware of the unfeasibility of their own suggestions. Due to the financial situation in the US and its impact on federal and state budgets, 53 percent on countries in the US had fewer staff members in 2011 than in 2010. Twelve-thousand officers across the country were laid off. 2012 is also looking bad for local law enforcement budgets. Putting aside for a second the desirability of armed guards in school, police forces are struggling to keep the staff they do have, let along add staff.
Wouldn’t a ban on assault rifles cut down on the number of murders?
That’s hard to say. Certainly a ban on assault rifles would make it more difficult for gunmen to commit mass slaughter, but the main culprit in most US gun crimes is handguns, not assault rifles. While FBI statistics don’t specially address assault rifles, in 2011, handguns were responsible for at least 72 percent of gun-related homicides. Twenty percent of firearms homicide was listed as “type not stated.”
How easy is it to get a gun in the US?
Laws governing gun ownership vary tremendously from state to state.
Anyone purchasing a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer must have a background check. Unless a check find some reason the person should not own a gun, such as a mental disability or prior criminal record, the sale will be permitted. However, an estimated 40 percent of all gun sales in the US are conducted between private parties, which do not require a background check. As of 2012, 156 million background checks have been performed.
It seems like everyone in the US owns a gun. Is that right?
No, 45 percent of homes in the US have a gun, and even that number is often taken out of context. In California, the largest state by population, only 21.3 percent of households own a gun, according to USACarry.com. In New York, gun ownership is only 18 percent. Even in Texas, a state often associated with a pro-gun population, only 35.9 percent of household own a gun. According to the Pew Research Center, 49 percent of Americans in 2011 believes it is important to protect the right of Americans to own guns.
Lost the link I ripped it off!
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
A useful set of indicators, Martin. As I argued around the time of the massacre in Aurora, the Second Amendment does not confer the right of gun ownership on individuals, this has been the most profound mistake in American history, but my interpretation of the amendment is not commonly accepted and is in practical terms merely academic and not just because I am not American with no input into policy.
If there were to be a repeal of the Amendment and a new one to replace it, the precision of the language required would be as difficult to agree on as the process of changing it, so I don't see the US choosing to make substantial changes to its gun laws in the near future.
However, I do think that Americans are these days more hostile to gun ownership than before, and that this may make it easier for Congress to make important changes to the law.
This suggests that the change that is most practicable would be minor changes to the definition of the firearms that inviduals can own and purchase, and I think as other posters have indicated that battlefield weapons are on the list of firearms that no individual should be allowed to purchase. How you get existing owners to hand in their weapons of this calibre I don't know.
There is a broader issue here which I don't think has been discussed enough. As far as I can make out, in both the UK and the USA, most gun crime takes place between criminals, and I suspect most of it is drug related, and turf related. The substantial decline of gun crime in Washington DC between the 1990s and the present day has been attributed to a combination of fierce policing and sentencing, but also the actual decline in the use of hard drugs. The loss of a market for these goods has in turn reduced the competition for its control, and thus the cause of gun crime, although I believe there are some situations in which a decline in the market can actually increase gun crime if gangs are competing for a diminishing share of a smaller market and thus need to be even more ruthless in protecting/extending what little they have left; this may be a temporary phenomenon as the market adjusts, although it seems to have had a prolonged life in Mexico, Honduras and Guatemala.
This suggests to me a two-pronged approach to drugs
a) to get the 'conventional' hard and soft drugs out of the criminal market, through controlled legalisation and distribution; and
b) a survey needs to be made of the medically prescribed drugs that are being given to young people in particular who are being diagnosed with 'behavioural' disorders or 'mental health' issues, and whose daily lives are therefore chemically affected.
If these people are also not being given any treatment that enables them to become part of wider society, their isolation plus the chemical input seems to me to be creating time-bombs that in extreme situations are liable explode in violence; and I am not even sure that these people are being correctly diagnosed in the first place.
Removing as many guns as possible from individuals cannot be a bad thing, but unless a better understanding of gun crime informs policy, even removing battlefield weapons from homes will not prevent massacres or claims of 'self-defence' in shootings. Somewhere in the mix, drugs are shaping this issue, so that the US has two politically difficult issues to deal with -guns and drugs. And I believe the US is not alone in this.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Gun ban in US is necessary, comparing the data from European countries, its clear that guns are the problem.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
arsenalfc70
Gun ban in US is necessary, comparing the data from European countries, its clear that guns are the problem.
I may be wrong, but I think the USA was the first country not ruled by some kind of king. Electing a civil servant was a brand new idea. Just like minimum wage, or tax rates, it's where you draw the line.
Whatever team Obama comes up with, it's going to be practical and hard to argue against. Nobody likes the idea of some guy with no ID buying 30 semi-automatic weapons at a gunshow.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ben
I was looking for that...!
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
[/QUOTE] robertlouis wrote:
What I can't understand, however, is the view expressed here which instantly assumes that any call for reasonable control, such as a review of assault weapons and multiple cartridge magazines, implies the intention to take away all weapons. That simply isn't going to happen. Yet the hysterical overreaction of people like Phil will not countenance even the sanest review.
What a fuckup.[/QUOTE]
One reason for the 'overreaction' is that some politicians say they are merely in favor of reasonable 'gun control' but they are really extremists that want a 'gun ban'. (And I'm not trying to say the 'gun rights' side doesn't have extremists, too).
The way the 'gun ban' politicians have ruled while claiming to be 'gun control' is the problem.
Until very recent US Supreme Court decisions, the 'gun ban' politicians, who called themselves 'gun control', did in fact ban guns. Their version of 'reasonable' was a complete ban.
In Washington, D.C. a man who worked as a Special Police Officer in federal government office buildings was not allowed to bring his gun home with him after work. He carries his gun on duty. He has cleared a federal background check. Maybe he has even been trained to respond in the case of an active shooter, since he worked at the Supreme Court Library. He has the power of arrest while on duty. 'Reasonably', I think he should be one of the people that should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Washington, D.C. would not allow this trained professional to bring his gun home. The city took an extreme position.
Illinois did not allow anybody, including retired law enforcement officers, to carry concealed weapons, until a few weeks ago. The plaintiff in a recent case retired after 30 years as a Correction Officer (Jail Guard) and now works as the head of his local County Jail. It's a civilian position, which does not allow him to carry a gun. Illinois would not issue him a gun permit. Now, 'reasonably' I think he may have a few former customers who might want to do him harm. Even if they don't, isn't he the kind of person we'd want to see issued a gun permit? The State took an extreme position. Not even retired law enforcement officers are issued gun permits. Nobody is.
Actions speak louder than words. Those politicians may think of themselves as 'gun control', but they took actions which are clearly 'gun ban'. Which is why when some 'gun rights' people hear the words 'gun control', they think it really means 'gun ban'.
P.S. The name of the 2 cases are 'D.C. vs. Heller' and 'Moore vs. Illinois'
P.P.S. I'm not a 'wing-nut' gun-loving extremist who sees a gun as a replacement for my penis, or whatever. I think there is a reasonable middle ground we should all agree on. I'm just trying to explain why some people see this debate the way they do.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
One reason for the 'overreaction' is that some politicians say they are merely in favor of reasonable 'gun control' but they are really extremists that want a 'gun ban'.
name names and provide proofs.
Quote:
'Reasonably', I think he should be one of the people that should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon
There is no legitimate need for anyone to secretly carry a firearm. If you're going to carry, have the balls to carry in the open.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Last year the TSA found approximately 400 passengers attempting to board planes with guns. The passengers all claimed they had forgotten they were secretly carrying. This year the number is 1500 guns! Of those 170 were not only loaded but had a round in the chamber. This nonsense has got to stop.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
Last year the TSA found approximately 400 passengers attempting to board planes with guns. The passengers all claimed they had forgotten they were secretly carrying. This year the number is 1500 guns! Of those 170 were not only loaded but had a round in the chamber. This nonsense has got to stop.
That is a terrifying statistic. What on earth were those people thinking?
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robertlouis
That is a terrifying statistic. What on earth were those people thinking?
"america fuck yeah"
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
...just reread what I posted. nevermind.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
name names and provide proofs.
There is no legitimate need for anyone to secretly carry a firearm. If you're going to carry, have the balls to carry in the open.
". . no legitimate need for anyone. . . "
Not even the Secret Service when protecting the President?
Most Federal law enforcement agents?
Police Detectives? Nobody? Ever?
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
If you are advocating secret carry for only Secret Service, Federal Law Enforcement Agents and Police Detectives, then perhaps we can strike a deal. Now, how about those names and proofs?
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Queens Guy
". . no legitimate need for anyone. . . "
Not even the Secret Service when protecting the President?
Most Federal law enforcement agents?
Police Detectives? Nobody? Ever?
In reply to the full quote "There is no legitimate need for anyone to secretly carry a firearm"...
We already KNOW they're carrying guns.
We DON'T know if the guy in the Cross Colours jacket is carrying a gun or not.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
If you are advocating secret carry for only Secret Service, Federal Law Enforcement Agents and Police Detectives, then perhaps we can strike a deal. Now, how about those names and proofs?
Maybe easy to draft a law stating no concealed weapons (except for ...) but think of the lawyer's arguments in court about what is concealed and what is not. Impossible to define and so unworkable.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
There are already laws that distinguish between open and concealed carry. Just outlaw concealed carry everywhere (with exceptions for Secret Service Agents etc.) using the existing criteria and let the lawyers argue. If the ordinary Joe wants to carry, let him have the fucking balls to carry openly.
-
Re: The FAST Approaching Gun Ban
There is a political slant to this, a long range Obama goal is to waken Rednecks who make 40 grand a year with a wife and three kids, that hey, your concerns should be the exact same as the black man and hispanic man who earns 40K and has three kids. And that every cent you pay in taxes, your boss pays ten. And that many of the Red States rely heavily on Medicare and social services.
But as soon as Obama talks guns, those Rednecks run straight back in line with Rush Limbaugh on their pick-up radio.