Jump to content

Recent Topics Recent Topics

Photo
- - - - -

Misunderstandings over gun control abound


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#1 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,258 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:49 PM

Here is a cspan interview with one of those folks who is seeking to tighten the laws regarding gun sales.

The key thing is that among the things that apparently are off the table are:

- a national gun registry
- a tax on ammunition
- confiscation of weapons

http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0' align='middle' height='500' width='410'>http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=310101-6'/> name='quality' value='high'/>http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=310101-6' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=297109&style=full' align='middle' height='500' width='410'>

The discussions here are based on misplaced fears and concerns.

What the agenda appears to be is limiting the gun show loophole that allows non-FFL sellers - aka hobbyists - to sell guns without background checks.

Install, after a vacancy that has existed over six years, a permanent head of the ATF.

Allow acquisition of more reliable data regarding sales of weapons.

The discussion avoids the extremes including the extreme fears from both sides.

Yes, the right seems to fear that every action is aimed at confiscating guns.

And from everything I've seen, the left, at its most extreme, seems interested in limiting the number of rounds that can be loaded into a magazine to something like 10 rounds by banning the future sale of higher capacity magazines.

The video also reiterates the common sense understanding that no one is out to confiscate anyone's guns if for no other reason it would take all the effort of the federal government for a period of 15 years to do so (not that it wouldn't be political suicide as well.)

pubby

#2 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,258 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 04:55 PM

Following is the full transcript of the show. I hid it behind a spoiler so those who have read it (or listened to the show) won't have to scroll past it.

Spoiler


#3 ~Chester~

~Chester~

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,577 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:02 PM

The only thing new gun control does is put limits on what a law abiding citizen can or can not do and fails miserably because criminals could really care less and have pretty much proven that they don't follow the law.

Think I will hold on to my stash of 30 and 20 round mags I acquired while in the Army.

#4 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:07 PM

The only thing new gun control does is put limits on what a law abiding citizen can or can not do and fails miserably because criminals could really care less and have pretty much proven that they don't follow the law.

Think I will hold on to my stash of 30 and 20 round mags I acquired while in the Army.

The buzz going around the net is a 20 dollar 30 rd mag could go for a hundred bucks if they are banned, so maybe you should stock up.

If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#5 TNlamb

TNlamb

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:12 PM

Here is a cspan interview with one of those folks who is seeking to tighten the laws regarding gun sales.

The key thing is that among the things that apparently are off the table are:

- a national gun registry
- a tax on ammunition
- confiscation of weapons

<object id='cspan-video-player' classid='clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000' codebase='http://fpdownload.ma...version=9,0,0,0' align='middle' height='500' width='410'><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='true'/><param name='movie' value='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=310101-6'/><param name='quality' value='high'/><param name='bgcolor' value='#ffffff'/><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'/><param name='flashvars' value='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=297109&style=full'/><embed name='cspan-video-player' src='http://www.c-spanvid...wf?pid=310101-6' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedi.../getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=297109&style=full' align='middle' height='500' width='410'></embed></object>

The discussions here are based on misplaced fears and concerns.

What the agenda appears to be is limiting the gun show loophole that allows non-FFL sellers - aka hobbyists - to sell guns without background checks.

Install, after a vacancy that has existed over six years, a permanent head of the ATF.

Allow acquisition of more reliable data regarding sales of weapons.

The discussion avoids the extremes including the extreme fears from both sides.

Yes, the right seems to fear that every action is aimed at confiscating guns.

And from everything I've seen, the left, at its most extreme, seems interested in limiting the number of rounds that can be loaded into a magazine to something like 10 rounds by banning the future sale of higher capacity magazines.

The video also reiterates the common sense understanding that no one is out to confiscate anyone's guns if for no other reason it would take all the effort of the federal government for a period of 15 years to do so (not that it wouldn't be political suicide as well.)

pubby

Not to mention constitutional suicide.

#6 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:19 PM

Not to mention constitutional suicide.


Oh give me a break, I have noticed the biggest supporters of the Constitution only support it as long as it suits their purpose. How Rowe vs Wade and ObamaCare they were found Constructional do you support those ?

If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#7 TabbyCat

TabbyCat

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,962 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:19 PM

Because the laws against stealing guns and using them in crime are already working SO well. :rolleyes:

#8 TNlamb

TNlamb

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:33 PM

Oh give me a break, I have noticed the biggest supporters of the Constitution only support it as long as it suits their purpose. How Rowe vs Wade and ObamaCare they were found Constructional do you support those ?

Neither of those are specifically mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, they are open to interpretation.
If you think gun control laws are constitutional, you really need to take a break and read up on the intentions of the framers of that document.

#9 sm0kediver

sm0kediver

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:34 PM

How do you boil a frog? A little at a time.

If the city you live in is the site of a natural disaster (like Katrina) there's no law enforcement. Looting and lawlessness will be rampant. You'll be the only security your family has. What size magazine do you want?

As the anti gun people are quick to point out, there are staggering numbers of guns out there. There's no possible way to prevent criminals from getting any kind of gun they want (or magazine or ammo etc.) No law can ever shut down the used market or black market. Why does it make sense to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons with at least the capabilities of their potential adversaries?

A cheesy bumper sticker truly says it best: When we outlaw guns (*or certain guns, or certain magazines, or certain ammo*), only outlaws will have them.
  • TNlamb likes this

#10 NC-17

NC-17

    loud pipes save lives

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,086 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:38 PM

How do you boil a frog? A little at a time.

If the city you live in is the site of a natural disaster (like Katrina) there's no law enforcement. Looting and lawlessness will be rampant. You'll be the only security your family has. What size magazine do you want?

As the anti gun people are quick to point out, there are staggering numbers of guns out there. There's no possible way to prevent criminals from getting any kind of gun they want (or magazine or ammo etc.) No law can ever shut down the used market or black market. Why does it make sense to prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons with at least the capabilities of their potential adversaries?

A cheesy bumper sticker truly says it best: When we outlaw guns (*or certain guns, or certain magazines, or certain ammo*), only outlaws will have them.



SYLO!!!!

I'm not quite sure what purpose a national registry would serve. my tire iron, lug nuts, pocket knife, and waist chains aren't registered. the government feels no need to have a record of my kitchen utensils...why do they need to know about my guns?

#11 sm0kediver

sm0kediver

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 507 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:41 PM

SYLO!!!!

I'm not quite sure what purpose a national registry would serve. my tire iron, lug nuts, pocket knife, and waist chains aren't registered. the government feels no need to have a record of my kitchen utensils...why do they need to know about my guns?


Wrong Outlaws NC-17 :unsure:

#12 NC-17

NC-17

    loud pipes save lives

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,086 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:42 PM

Wrong Outlaws NC-17 :unsure:



oh. :mellow:

#13 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:48 PM

Neither of those are specifically mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, they are open to interpretation.
If you think gun control laws are constitutional, you really need to take a break and read up on the intentions of the framers of that document.

The 18th amendment Establishes the prohibition of alcohol .

If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#14 TNlamb

TNlamb

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:54 PM

The 18th amendment Establishes the prohibition of alcohol .

Good luck!

#15 MikeJ

MikeJ

    Paulding Com member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 283 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 06:58 PM

Why should I trust an administration to set up more laws and additional taxes? They will not even hold themselves accountable for fast & furious and Benghazi? Same group that ramrodded Obama care down our throats; with the comment: Not sure whats in the Bill; we will find out after we vote it in.

I'm sick and tired of Washington not focusing on the real issues at hand, issues that affect thousands of Americans in the here an now.. The chances of me or you being affected by this financial mess far out weight the chances of us being shot or being in a shot out anytime soon. Hell, my odds of getting hit by a drunk driver are higher than a mass shooting. I can prepare to take care of myself against additional violence. I have little to no control over the huge crap of mess that our current government is about to heap our way...

Edited by MikeJ, 27 December 2012 - 06:59 PM.

  • mrshoward, crossroads, TNlamb and 1 other like this

#16 Glassdogs

Glassdogs

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,811 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:09 PM

The 18th amendment Establishes the prohibition of alcohol .


And we all know how well that worked out.

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".


#17 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:12 PM

And we all know how well that worked out.

Yep it was revoked so don't get too cocky about the 2nd amendment.

If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#18 cptlo306

cptlo306

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,404 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:16 PM

Yep it was revoked so don't get too cocky about the 2nd amendment.


There will never be an amendment added to abolish the 2nd amendment.

This post is sarcasm.  Unless it's not.


#19 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:24 PM

There will never be an amendment added to abolish the 2nd amendment.


Then the NRA had better change their Our Way or The Highway attitude, people are getting pretty fed up with the status quo .

If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#20 cptlo306

cptlo306

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,404 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:27 PM

Then the NRA had better change their Our Way or The Highway attitude, people are getting pretty fed up with the status quo .


Really? I hate to say it but in a few weeks the latest mass shooting will no longer be in the news and most people will have moved on to American Idol.

This post is sarcasm.  Unless it's not.


#21 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:28 PM

Really? I hate to say it but in a few weeks the latest mass shooting will no longer be in the news and most people will have moved on to American Idol.

You have a point there.

Edited by CitizenCain, 27 December 2012 - 07:29 PM.

If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#22 stradial

stradial

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,782 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 07:37 PM

Really? I hate to say it but in a few weeks the latest mass shooting will no longer be in the news and most people will have moved on to American Idol.


Sad but probably true.
"If you want any one thing too badly, it's likely to turn out to be a disappointment."
"The only healthy way to live life is to learn to like all the little everyday things, like a sip of good whiskey in the evening, a soft bed, a glass of buttermilk, or a feisty gentleman like myself."

#23 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,258 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:33 PM

I take it everyone here are against convicted felons being able to obtain guns.

Yet some claim up to 40 percent of guns are sold person to person including sales at some gun shows where 'hobbyists' who don't have a FFL buy and sell without interference.

We also know that places like Georgia and Mississippi are notorious as sources of guns for northern cities as the so-called strawmen purchase firearms here and travel to NY or Chicago to sell their merchandise.

It is difficult to even identify these individuals who are breaking the laws in these cities because the laws don't allow for keeping background checks longer than 48 hours. The laws regarding registration are full of loopholes.

Supporting the intent of the laws that have already been passed - everyone is all for restricting the rights of the criminals who are served by these loopholes. What is needed is a more vigorous enforcement effort.

The other question, which relates to high capacity magazines, Nitro, a certified firearms instructor, says is really not a problem for trained and skilled shooters who can replace an empty magazine with a full one in roughly one second.

Or is what is going on a pure stonewall where the only compromise is to agree with you guys ... even if it means you believe your constitutional right under the second amendment means that you should be able to own a nuclear bomb? ... or that you're against criminals having guns as long as the government limits their ability to prevent it to arresting them after the fact.

pubby

#24 TabbyCat

TabbyCat

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,962 posts

Posted 27 December 2012 - 11:42 PM

I take it everyone here are against convicted felons being able to obtain guns.

Yet some claim up to 40 percent of guns are sold person to person including sales at some gun shows where 'hobbyists' who don't have a FFL buy and sell without interference.

We also know that places like Georgia and Mississippi are notorious as sources of guns for northern cities as the so-called strawmen purchase firearms here and travel to NY or Chicago to sell their merchandise.

It is difficult to even identify these individuals who are breaking the laws in these cities because the laws don't allow for keeping background checks longer than 48 hours. The laws regarding registration are full of loopholes.

Supporting the intent of the laws that have already been passed - everyone is all for restricting the rights of the criminals who are served by these loopholes. What is needed is a more vigorous enforcement effort.

The other question, which relates to high capacity magazines, Nitro, a certified firearms instructor, says is really not a problem for trained and skilled shooters who can replace an empty magazine with a full one in roughly one second.

Or is what is going on a pure stonewall where the only compromise is to agree with you guys ... even if it means you believe your constitutional right under the second amendment means that you should be able to own a nuclear bomb? ... or that you're against criminals having guns as long as the government limits their ability to prevent it to arresting them after the fact.

pubby


Clearly, you've missed the point entirely and instead revert to projecting what YOU believe others believe onto them (disparagingly, I might add) instead of engaging in any meaningful discourse.

Oh,wait. I forgot where I was for a second there.

-_-
  • yellowduckdog, mrshoward, Nitro and 2 others like this

#25 gog8tors

gog8tors

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,180 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 01:15 AM

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.”

http://www.therights...d-be-an-option/
http://www.syracuse....cuomo_guns.html


:pardon:




#26 orrby

orrby

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,871 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 01:22 AM

http://www.feinstein...assault-weapons
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.

#27 barrycdog

barrycdog

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 04:57 AM

This is probably not news Sen. Vincent Fort is one of the senators to push an assault weapons ban. Definitely keep an eye on what he is up to in the coming year.
"Let every dog wag his own tail." James Addison McMurtrey, Company B, 9th Georgia Battalion Artillery

#28 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,258 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 06:12 AM

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.


And what fool would expect that the GOP controlled house would pass all those restrictions.

You take some noted liberal playing to their base and raise it as a flag.

You and I both know that under current rules that measure by Sen. Fienstein would never get 60 votes required for cloture. It is a dead letter.

pubby

#29 barrycdog

barrycdog

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 06:25 AM

And what fool would expect that the GOP controlled house would pass all those restrictions.

You take some noted liberal playing to their base and raise it as a flag.

You and I both know that under current rules that measure by Sen. Fienstein would never get 60 votes required for cloture. It is a dead letter.

pubby


We didn't expect Obama would get reelected either. Liberals always raise a red flag. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment would you put your faith in the GOP to protect it?
"Let every dog wag his own tail." James Addison McMurtrey, Company B, 9th Georgia Battalion Artillery

#30 PUBBY

PUBBY

    Super Icon

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,258 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:12 AM

Yes. The gop did a good jpb protecting the tobacco lobby and the nra has them deep on their pocket.

#31 really gone from here

really gone from here

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,372 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:16 AM

Yes. The gop did a good jpb protecting the tobacco lobby and the nra has them deep on their pocket.

Your keyboard ain't working right or you been up drinking all night.... :lol: Happy New Year Pubby !!!!
*Signature Edited for Content not in Accordance with the PCOM Rules

edited by Deputy Rafe Hollister

#32 ~Chester~

~Chester~

    Icon

  • +Member plus
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,577 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:17 AM

I take it everyone here are against convicted felons being able to obtain guns.



It is already against the law for convicted felons to posses a firearm and we have seen how well that works out.

Increased gun laws will only hinder the law abiding citizens. Convicted felons will still figure out a way around them.

#33 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:22 AM

It is already against the law for convicted felons to posses a firearm and we have seen how well that works out.

Increased gun laws will only hinder the law abiding citizens. Convicted felons will still figure out a way around them.

And how about those speed limit signs they aren't stopping people from speeding so lets get rid of them too !

If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#34 really gone from here

really gone from here

    Super Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,372 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:49 AM

And how about those speed limit signs they aren't stopping people from speeding so lets get rid of them too !

They did that in a few places around Dallas-Fort Worth area quite a few years ago, a councilman said it was a waste of tax payer money to maintain the signs because just about everyone didn't pay attention to the speed limit. It actually slowed people down because they weren't sure what the speed limit actually was, and were afraid they might get a ticket.
*Signature Edited for Content not in Accordance with the PCOM Rules

edited by Deputy Rafe Hollister

#35 GO*BAMA

GO*BAMA

    In War, Everday is Memorial Day! SEMPER FI!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,856 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 08:51 AM

SYLO!!!!

I'm not quite sure what purpose a national registry would serve. my tire iron, lug nuts, pocket knife, and waist chains aren't registered. the government feels no need to have a record of my kitchen utensils...why do they need to know about my guns?


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
What we see when watching others depends on the purity of the window through which we look.
Sometimes love has to drive a nail into it's on hand!

Posted Image Posted Image In honor of my cuz who's serving in Iraq! [size=1][color="#4169E1"]

#36 crossroads

crossroads

    Icon

  • +MPS extra
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,106 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:26 AM

I take it everyone here are against convicted felons being able to obtain guns.

Yet some claim up to 40 percent of guns are sold person to person including sales at some gun shows where 'hobbyists' who don't have a FFL buy and sell without interference.

We also know that places like Georgia and Mississippi are notorious as sources of guns for northern cities as the so-called strawmen purchase firearms here and travel to NY or Chicago to sell their merchandise.

It is difficult to even identify these individuals who are breaking the laws in these cities because the laws don't allow for keeping background checks longer than 48 hours. The laws regarding registration are full of loopholes.

Supporting the intent of the laws that have already been passed - everyone is all for restricting the rights of the criminals who are served by these loopholes. What is needed is a more vigorous enforcement effort.

The other question, which relates to high capacity magazines, Nitro, a certified firearms instructor, says is really not a problem for trained and skilled shooters who can replace an empty magazine with a full one in roughly one second.

Or is what is going on a pure stonewall where the only compromise is to agree with you guys ... even if it means you believe your constitutional right under the second amendment means that you should be able to own a nuclear bomb? ... or that you're against criminals having guns as long as the government limits their ability to prevent it to arresting them after the fact.

pubby


George Washington quote on guns.jpg

This quote stands up still today. Our founders had the foresight to know there may be trouble down the line. And tyranny is knocking at our door with the thought of banning currently legal firearms. You said it right, enforcement effort needs to be top of the agenda. The department of ATF has to do their job keeping guns from felons, so let THEM do THEIR jobs instead of breathing down the necks of legal gun owners.

Do you think our government would use nuclear weapons on it's citizens? I don't think so, even if there was a second revolution. I don't think anything like that will ever happen. I do think we have the right to own whatever it takes to keep America free, even if it's from our own government.
Is there anyone here old enough to remember Ruby Ridge? The government was wrong then but it happened. I would hate to see thousands of Ruby Ridges happening today.
I am for jobs and growth in PC. I am not for commercial service at the SCF. Get it right!

#37 CitizenCain

CitizenCain

    Icon

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,804 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:29 AM

George Washington quote on guns.jpg

This quote stands up still today. Our founders had the foresight to know there may be trouble down the line. And tyranny is knocking at our door with the thought of banning currently legal firearms. You said it right, enforcement effort needs to be top of the agenda. The department of ATF has to do their job keeping guns from felons, so let THEM do THEIR jobs instead of breathing down the necks of legal gun owners.

Do you think our government would use nuclear weapons on it's citizens? I don't think so, even if there was a second revolution. I don't think anything like that will ever happen. I do think we have the right to own whatever it takes to keep America free, even if it's from our own government.
Is there anyone here old enough to remember Ruby Ridge? The government was wrong then but it happened. I would hate to see thousands of Ruby Ridges happening today.

Welcome to the Homeland Security watch list. Posted Image

If it's on the Internet it has to be True.

 

 

 

 

 


#38 crossroads

crossroads

    Icon

  • +MPS extra
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,106 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:44 AM

Welcome to the Homeland Security watch list. Posted Image


My point exactly. If you knew my last name you would know I probably am already on the no fly list. I have an unusual name and have been asked about it many times. I had to stop facebooking for a while because every of it. Too many Abdula's and Mohammads and Arabs wanted to be my friend.
  • Curious Scorpio likes this
I am for jobs and growth in PC. I am not for commercial service at the SCF. Get it right!

#39 eym_sirius

eym_sirius

    Super Icon

  • +Member Plus Black
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,726 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:59 AM

It is already against the law for convicted felons to posses a firearm and we have seen how well that works out.

Increased gun laws will only hinder the law abiding citizens. Convicted felons will still figure out a way around them.


Actually, NOT allowing convicted felons to possess guns works well, generally. Not allowing future purchases of "Bushmaster" assault-styled rifles doesn't "hinder law abiding citizens". Requiring registration of all assault-styled weapons already in circulation doesn't hurt anyone. Keeping magazine capacity at fewer than 30 doesn't impair the ability of a homeowner to protect himself and his family. Nobody hunts with these weapons so if you don't need them for hunting or home safety -- then what???

The safety of the public comes WAY before the desire of an insecure middle-aged white guy feeling the need to master bush with his compensating-weapon or before the need of the growing number of paranoids out there who, in preparing for doomsday, are making our world a more dangerous place.

#40 GO*BAMA

GO*BAMA

    In War, Everday is Memorial Day! SEMPER FI!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,856 posts

Posted 28 December 2012 - 11:05 AM

Actually, NOT allowing convicted felons to possess guns works well, generally. Not allowing future purchases of "Bushmaster" assault-styled rifles doesn't "hinder law abiding citizens". Requiring registration of all assault-styled weapons already in circulation doesn't hurt anyone. Keeping magazine capacity at fewer than 30 doesn't impair the ability of a homeowner to protect himself and his family. Nobody hunts with these weapons so if you don't need them for hunting or home safety -- then what??? The safety of the public comes WAY before the desire of an insecure middle-aged white guy feeling the need to master bush with his compensating-weapon or before the need of the growing number of paranoids out there who, in preparing for doomsday, are making our world a more dangerous place.



That's not the point! The point is the goverment has "amended infringed upon to many of our rights already! The 2nd Amendment was one of the best written and very clearly stated. People need to stop focusing on the gun and focus on the person, it has been repeated several times - GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE"!
  • really gone from here likes this
What we see when watching others depends on the purity of the window through which we look.
Sometimes love has to drive a nail into it's on hand!

Posted Image Posted Image In honor of my cuz who's serving in Iraq! [size=1][color="#4169E1"]




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Recent Topics Recent Topics