gun show loophole rant

Quote: Face

I am shocked that you consider opposition to government "unpatriotic". Patriotism is love of one's country. The Government is not our country. We don't serve the Gov, they serve us. They are our employees. I challenge the Gov exactly because I love my country, and I feel they're damaging it. Political offices were never meant to be a career, they were a term of service for those who wished to make us our country better. Somewhere along the line, service of citizens became service of self. "Good of the country" turned to "what can benefit me". A term of service turned into a career. That's not right, and just because it's been that way so long that we no longer recognize it, doesn't mean that that's just the way it is now.

No, I challenge, resist, and will fight this fight exactly because I love my country, not in spite of it. Our elected officials are not Kings, and I vow no allegiance to them. If they make decisions I deem as good for the land, I will support their effort. If not, then I will assist in their downfall. That is democracy.

VERY WELL SAID!!!!! I starting thinking I was the only one that believes in the above statements. I can truly say I am sorry for putting those two in the White House again. Had this come out before the election, I would have voted differently. Well maybe if they gave us a better alternative candidate than Romney. Which now I'm seeing that candidate was used on purpose to get Obama re-elected, so that this agenda will get put through. After the Movie theater shooting, the Obama administration held one of those polls to see the opinion of gun control. The results proved it would have a negative impact on re-election due to in favor of gun control received less votes; so they let it sleep. Until now, after the senseless school shooting, now the poll has reversed. It's a gut reaction to the situation, that's why they are acting fast with the gun control, before the country can come back to their senses and look at this rationally, rather than through the emotions brought on from a disturbing situation. Any time the government says it's for the kids, is a ploy to pull at your heart strings. But you have to put that aside. Think of a Jewish father trying to protect his family during the holocaust. Standing defenseless against soldiers raping his 15 year old daughter, and shooting his 12 year old son in front of him. Now think of the children... It is your job as a father to protect your children from everyday criminals that may try to bring harm to you and your loved ones or a tyrannical government that becomes out of control, of which has happened in other countries throughout history. If you think that can't happen anymore, because people are aware of the holocaust and the other tyrannical movements that has killed millions, so it just can't happen again. YOU'RE WRONG... Knowledge is suppose to be power, well use that knowledge to protect your families before it is too late. What is really the big picture here. It's not gun control, it's citizen control. I believe what ever weapons your police and military can possess, so can its people. Look at the new report on police corruption in Chicago. Those are the people you want to have the big guns to protect you and your families.. stand up and protect your own.. Let the criminals know, let the police know, let the military know domestic and foreign ones know. That it's citizens will stand up to protect their families against any threat.. And that means possess whatever firearms and firepower you need to accomplish such.. You can't bring a knife to a gun fight, as you can't bring a 7-shooter to a gun fight if the assailants are using military grade firearms..

America: armed to the teeth.

I just came back from watching Lincoln, and there was a funny scene where one of Lincoln's coercers was threatened to be shot. The shot missed but it took the shooter about 20 seconds to reload his gun and fire it again. That's what guns were like in the 19th century.

Has Obama taken away your 2nd amendment freedoms? Is there any one of you on this forum who, because of his executive orders, cannot go out and legally buy a gun now? Didn't Reagan support an assault weapons ban? I wonder what members of this forum would have said when Bush passed the Brady Bill in 1991?

I trust the police over the citizenship, corrupt as a few might be. Of course the police and the armed forces should have more capable arms than the citizen -- that allows the police officers to have control of the citizens so that they can easily take out someone who goes on a shooting rampage.

I'm trying to think of the number of American uprisings against the government in the last 147 years. I'm trying to think if there was a government with a tyrannical aspect who threatened the citizens in the last 147 years that caused a mass of citizens to rise up against the government with its arms.

The same group of people get upset at a legal protest like occupy Wall Street which was mostly peaceful (but heaven forbid, they made a mess and didn't clean it up). Imagine if those same people were armed to the teeth.

I guess there's always a first time, and I find it interesting that it takes a man like Barack Hussein Obama (the suspected radical leftist kenyan-born commie pinko fascist black man) to put the fear of tyranny in everyone. Yikes. I'm trying to think if there was an equal protest when the Patriot Act (which severely curtailed your 4th Amendment rights) was put in place. Oh, but that was in the "war on terror", so I guess it was okay.

Get a grip. Your 2nd amendment rights are still intact.

Quote: boymimbo

I find it interesting that it takes a man like Barack Hussein Obama (the suspected radical leftist kenyan-born commie pinko fascist black man) to put the fear of tyranny in everyone.

You need to capitalize HUSSEIN when you spell out the President's middle name, otherwise it's not scary enough.

Quote: boymimbo

America: armed to the teeth.

I just came back from watching Lincoln, and there was a funny scene where one of Lincoln's coercers was threatened to be shot. The shot missed but it took the shooter about 20 seconds to reload his gun and fire it again. That's what guns were like in the 19th century.

Has Obama taken away your 2nd amendment freedoms? Is there any one of you on this forum who, because of his executive orders, cannot go out and legally buy a gun now? Didn't Reagan support an assault weapons ban? I wonder what members of this forum would have said when Bush passed the Brady Bill in 1991?

I trust the police over the citizenship, corrupt as a few might be. Of course the police and the armed forces should have more capable arms than the citizen -- that allows the police officers to have control of the citizens so that they can easily take out someone who goes on a shooting rampage.

I'm trying to think of the number of American uprisings against the government in the last 147 years. I'm trying to think if there was a government with a tyrannical aspect who threatened the citizens in the last 147 years that caused a mass of citizens to rise up against the government with its arms.

The same group of people get upset at a legal protest like occupy Wall Street which was mostly peaceful (but heaven forbid, they made a mess and didn't clean it up). Imagine if those same people were armed to the teeth.

I guess there's always a first time, and I find it interesting that it takes a man like Barack Hussein Obama (the suspected radical leftist kenyan-born commie pinko fascist black man) to put the fear of tyranny in everyone. Yikes. I'm trying to think if there was an equal protest when the Patriot Act (which severely curtailed your 4th Amendment rights) was put in place. Oh, but that was in the "war on terror", so I guess it was okay.

Get a grip. Your 2nd amendment rights are still intact.

and its statements like this that scare the crap out of me.....its like they don't even understand the intent of the of the constitution...

I'm still in awe that someone said this..."Of course the police and the armed forces should have more capable arms than the citizen -- that allows the police officers to have control of the citizens"

Quote: vert1276

and its statements like this that scare the crap out of me.....its like they don't even understand the intent of the of the constitution...

I'm still in awe that someone said this...

Same. I'm almost speechless. Almost...

C'mon, boymimbo. I know you're Canadian, but you were an American, right? Surely you understand that what you suggested is exactly why the Constitution was made, to prevent word for word what you just said?

Quote: boymimbo

I'm trying to think if there was a government with a tyrannical aspect who threatened the citizens in the last 147 years that caused a mass of citizens to rise up against the government with its arms.

1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.

2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.

3. After the rise of the Nazi’s, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated.

4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.

5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.

6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.

7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.

8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.

So, you do have a point. There has never been a case of citizens rising up against the government with its arms. And that's a damn shame.

Quote: boymimbo

The same group of people...

I don't subcribe to a group, but I'd imagine the sum of my post history, which has been of the pro-gay / pro-drug / pro-choice / pro-athiest variety, doesn't jive with the picture you're painting.

Quote: boymimbo

Get a grip

I have one. It's of the pistol variety. And Cuomo's new gun bill made me a criminal overnight because of it.

Quote: vert1276

and its statements like this that scare the crap out of me.....its like they don't even understand the intent of the of the constitution...

I'm still in awe that someone said this..."Of course the police and the armed forces should have more capable arms than the citizen -- that allows the police officers to have control of the citizens"

You took the words right out of my mouth. All one needs to do is read a history book to see the naivete of that post. In fact, I could picture Stalin uttering the line you just quoted ("Of course the police and the armed forces...").

Quote: rxwine

Why, it didn't matter to blacks that local agencies like police were helping violate voters rights at one time during the civil rights era. Feds or locals what was your point? The ATF or a local cop can take a gun; same result.

The obvious problems with your analogy are somehow eluding you, and now you've made it worse with a local/federal distinction.

Quote: bbvk05

The obvious problems with your analogy are somehow eluding you, and now you've made it worse with a local/federal distinction.

Oh it's a feature, not a problem.

Conservatives fighting for ID laws to keep people who shouldn't be voting, vs liberals who want ID laws to keep people who shouldn't have guns.

Yeah, no similarity at all.

For instance, it would be silly to make a law in Newton Conn, for mentally ill, and wait for similar shooting to happen in another state and then make it there.

Go to federal level where it actually makes some sense.

Quote: rxwine

Conservatives fighting for ID laws to keep people who shouldn't be voting, vs liberals who want ID laws to keep people who shouldn't have guns.

Gun control supporters are asking for much more than a valid picture ID.

Quote: rxwine

Go to federal level where it actually makes some sense.

I somewhat agree, on the surface. NYS's laws are equally as stupid, as I could just go over the hill into PA, get my scary AR, and take it right back home.

But it's that damned Constitution again. The 10th expressly limits Federal powers to only those prescribed by the Constitution, with all powers not prescribed going to the States. It is my belief that the 2nd states flat out that gun rights can't be touched. So not only is permission to infringe not prescribed, it is completely denied.

Maybe I'm understanding it wrong, but it seems like you're asking to stomp on the 10th in order to stomp out the 2nd.

All right, I'll bite. Someone has to take a liberal point of view around here.

You don't have to go far from home to look at prejudicial gun control. You can look at the slaves in the 1800s. Gun control made arms ownership by slaves impossible which prevented them from rising up against their owners. Gun control took away guns from union leaders in the north in the early 1900s. The NRA supported gun control in legislation in the 1960s against the black panthers in California. Even today, where police forces have discretion in issuing gun permits, their decisions on allowing guns have been motivated by race or income.

For examples 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8, is there a minority of people in the United States at a threat of extermination or racial persecution? In these cases, with or without gun control, you are talking about an overwhelming portion of the populace taking over a very small number of citizens. All were racially or religously motivated. Even without gun control, it is highly unlikely that these oppressions would have stopped. I woud purport that this condition does not exist in the United States and that Obama's executive orders does not prejudice against any segment of the population.

For example #3, could anyone have stopped Hitler? I mean, Hitler and his army managed to defeat a very well armed France, north Africa, and part of the Soviet union. A few hundred thousand Jews, armed, or no (which was the Jewish population in Germany when the Nazis began their oppression just before World War 2) had no chance against the Nazis.

For example #4 and #2, (Communist China and the Soviet Union), is the United States communist? There is still an executive, legislative and judicial branch in government, all of which, I believe, are working. Is there an identifiable group of people that Obama is going after? I realize that there is a significant portion of famous broadcasters (Hannity, Rush, etc) who are convinced that Obama is a tyrannical commie. But really? Is he? I mean the tax structure has not really changed. There's Obamacare, which is supposed to be beneficial to poorer Americans. Social Security and Medicare are both socialistic concepts with wide acceptance.

The laws that Obama passed do not prevent you from exercising your 2nd amendment rights and they do not show prejudice against any particular group.

Now, I get it. America would have not been able to stage a revolution had the British had gun control enacted in the 1770s. I also understand there are so many guns owned by citizens that anything that takes away guns from its citizens will disproportionally allot guns to criminals. I also understand that the 2nd amendment allows all Americans to own guns.

So, perhaps the solution is just to accept the high homocide rates (with guns), the high suicide rates (with guns), and the senseless mass murders as part of the cost of freedom. I guess it will be fine until it's your family member who was shot and killed.

I don't know why some people keep trying to frame this as a liberal/conservative issue. It's not; it's a constitutional issue. I even pointed out to another member quotes from people like Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and John F. Kennedy, and he responded by saying, "I don't care what those guys said." Huh??

Quote: boymimbo

I woud purport that this condition does not exist in the United States and that Obama's executive orders does not prejudice against any segment of the population.

Quote: boymimbo

I realize that there is a significant portion of famous broadcasters (Hannity, Rush, etc) who are convinced that Obama is a tyrannical commie. But really? Is he?

The right to bear arms is just one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote, but which historically has proved to be always possible.

Quote: boymimbo

could anyone have stopped Hitler?

We did stop Hitler.....with guns.

Quote: boymimbo

So, perhaps the solution is just to accept the high homocide rates (with guns), the high suicide rates (with guns), and the senseless mass murders as part of the cost of freedom.

Unfortunately, yes. But this is no different from the high number of automobile-related deaths, which everyone readily accepts.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Unfortunately, yes. But this is no different from the high number of automobile-related deaths, which everyone readily accepts.

Are you really that thick? I do not readily accept any car related deaths. If you do then that's your problem.

Cars are built and used to transport people and things. An automobile can also kill you.
Baseball bats are made to hit baseballs but if you hit someone hard enough with one it might kill him.
Knives are made to cut things like meat or wood but if someone is stabbed with a knife they can die.
GUNS are made to kill and if used properly they will do just that. They serve NO OTHER PURPOSE.

Stop comparing guns to other things that might kill someone. There is NO comparison other than in your deluded world. If every gun was to disappear from the face of the earth and no more were built, the world would be better off.

Take away baseball bats and we have no baseball... not the end of the world by any means but the number of baseball bat related deaths is very, very low.

Take away automobiles and the world would be worse off - now if we could only get idiots to stop driving while drunk or speeding there would be many, many fewer auto related deaths. I think this can be done if the government and the public have the stones to actually do something about it.

Take away knives and you'll have a tough time at dinner (except for Buzz who drinks all his meals).

So, enough with these ludicrous comparisons.

Quote: boymimbo

All right, I'll bite.

Wasn't asking you to bite =) You asked, so I just produced. And you made a nice response in return, as well.

Quote: boymimbo

The laws that Obama passed do not prevent you from exercising your 2nd amendment rights and they do not show prejudice against any particular group.

Just so we're on the same page, I'm not completely up to speed on Obama's decree. NY's been such a cluster, my plate's been full with home state stuff, and much of my ranting and raving has been directly as a result of NY. I've only glazed over O's plan, and I'm not wholly against all of it. But I've not went over it near enough to fully understand it. Some things look OK, some really bad. Background checks? OK. Registration? Not really. Arbitrary banning of styles and capacity? Hell no.

And just to be extra-extra clear, I personally have said only one "bad" thing about Obama in my entire 1,200+ post history - "I don't think he's doing a good job". Kenyan, commie, fascist, etc have never once came from my mouth. I save my Communist comparisons for the People's Republic of NYS ;)

I understand that the examples I listed may not be like comparisons to today's America. But up until the first time it happened, they themselves had no like comparisons either. Germany has always struck me. Pre-Hitler, Germany was a republic, just like us. They went through an economic depression, just as we are. There was a division of it's people, which seems to be happening more and more each day here. They were technologically advanced, culturally advanced, had arts, sciences, they were modern, civilized people, just like us. 10 years later, it was the worst place that has possibly ever existed.

I am in no way, shape, or form comparing Obama to Hitler, nor am I one who thinks the revolution or government oppression is just around the corner. But as I've said before, the Constitution deserves, and in my opinion demands, defending. It is what made us, has kept us, and will keep us in the future. Any change or challenge to it better damn well be met with resistance, no matter how righteous the change seems to be on the surface. Talk of keeping guns out of criminal hands is good, and I've no problem with it. I see no Constitutional issue with doing so. Restricting or outright banning certain types of weapons or their capacity from the citizen over arbitrary reasons is unacceptable.

Quote: TheNightfly

Stop comparing guns to other things that might kill someone. There is NO comparison other than in your deluded world. If every gun was to disappear from the face of the earth and no more were built, the world would be better off.

Uh, no. People would just find another means to hurt one-another. And to defend ones-self against a large individual would be much more difficult.

You anti-gun folks really seem to live in some parallel-universe. I am willing to guess that you also believe if every nation got rid of their armies we would have world peace?

So what you seem to be saying is that you are such a frightened little person that before someone tries to harm you you'll stock up on the most powerful weaponry you can lay your hands on. Who, in your life, have you ever had to defend yourself from where nothing less than a gun would suffice? If you were in the military I can understand being in battle, but I'm talking about on US soil. Don't give me links to housewives shooting up burglars - I'm am asking about you personally. Are you so scared of the Bogey Man? Do you really believe that in the next 1,000 years your government will do what Mao or Hitler or Ceaușescu or Pol Pot or any of these evil men did? That is incredibly sad if you do.

I have read history and I know about atrocities from the past, brought upon the people by their governments. I understand that that has happened. For you to imagine the same thing within the borders of the US is simply outrageous. Your argument is no better than a craps systems promoter telling you that you can't disprove that dice control works. You're trying to tell me to prove that your government will not attack you, the citizenry, and in the mean time you'll prepare for when it happens.

How absolutely juvenile and asinine. You and your fear-monger accomplices will do anything to stir the pot and it's disgusting.

By the way, check out Costa Rica and tell me how they have managed to live without a standing army for over 60 years. Pretty darn well as a matter of fact. It's only those who fear and hate who use this sort of outrageous fairy tale scenario to justify having guns. Is it in the constitution that you may have one? Yes. I still don't see why you think you must.

I apologize to this board for being loud in my posts and this is my last one on this topic. It makes me sick to my stomach to read the simpleminded, unfounded rubbish that is being posted in this thread. All so someone can hold a gun and feel like a big man.

Quote: TheNightfly

Who, in your life, have you ever had to defend yourself from where nothing less than a gun would suffice?

Is it in the constitution that you may have (a gun)? Yes. I still don't see why you think you must.

OK, so not exactly a "who", but 8 times I've been at this distance or closer to one of these. 7 of those times I had my then 3 year old son with me. Not everyone lives in suburbia, and a great many people carry for this type of protection daily, myself included. I've felt that fear, knowing that all it takes is a decision, one which you have no control over, and your life ends. I've only felt it once; I've carried ever since.

I have taken a thrashing before. Several times, sad to say. Jumped from behind by a guy much bigger, pinned to the ground, and punched in the head 5 times before I even knew what was going on. When the punches didn't work, I had him try to repeatedly bash my head on the concrete floor. I watched as 11 of my friends, countless other standers-by, and a few teachers even, did nothing to intervene. I was 17 then, spry enough to finally flip him off and eventually go on the offensive. Only by dealing my own damage did the assault stop. It was scary as hell, I thought he was trying to kill me. He probably was. I am no longer in fighting shape. Motorsports, extreme sports, and just sports in general have crippled a lot of my strength. 23 concussions have severely limited any further damage I can take. Even a thug punching me in the head once could be the end as I know it. My girl was robbed at knifepoint 3 years ago for the $600+ she made that night, money she earned to put her through her Masters courses. She was sexually fondled at gun point just last summer. Her Bogey Man has a name, as well as a criminal record.

Frightened? I have been. Feared for my life from both two and four legged beasts. I've seen my relaxing sit in the sun or at a lunch table chat with your mates turn deadly in the blink of an eye. My girl was on a summer stroll from a hard, productive day at work. 2 minutes later, her life was spared and she was broke. This stuff happens daily.

I don't feel like a tough guy, like I'm brimming with machismo, or braggadocious at all. I don't find myself paranoid or cowering with fear. I feel like I'm wearing protection, no different than the boots I wear to protect me from sprained ankles and sharp rocks, a life jacket to protect me from drowning, or a helmet to protect my soft head. I really do. Just like the survival knive I carry in the highly unlikely chance I need it, it goes on my person and forget about it unless I happen to sit on it. I know all the serious SD carriers I know are the same. It's only when absurdity gets shoved in our face do we respond in kind. I expect the same goes for you.

As much as the antis simply cannot comprehend what we gun guys do, we likewise cannot comprehend why it's so shocking. I can almost guarantee everyone here has been in the presence of a man with a concealed firearm on his person, and none of us have ever had a problem. It's only when the debate's shoved in our collective faces and we choose sides that we all have a problem. Ignorance is bliss, innit? =)

In any case, my gov has decreed that a low capacity, revolver spec weapon is all I can be trusted with, and that's enough to do the job. And perhaps it is. But I won't be the NRA's stat to show it's not. A lot of my decision to buy my protection weapon of choice was based on capacity. That capacity, as well as choice of weapon to suit my needs, is something I aim to keep.

Quote: TheNightfly

All so someone can hold a gun and feel like a big man.

Wow. Talk about somebody who doesn't 'get it'..

Quote: Face

I understand that the examples I listed may not be like comparisons to today's America. But up until the first time it happened, they themselves had no like comparisons either. Germany has always struck me. Pre-Hitler, Germany was a republic, just like us. They went through an economic depression, just as we are. There was a division of it's people, which seems to be happening more and more each day here. They were technologically advanced, culturally advanced, had arts, sciences, they were modern, civilized people, just like us. 10 years later, it was the worst place that has possibly ever existed.

Germany was a fascinating example. There was a pretty great two-parter on History Channel on why Hitler was able to succeed. Really, it came down to the depression, ineffective leadership, and the inability of two other opposing parties to talk to each other. Chancellor Bruening used article 48 to push through laws when parliament couldn't agree, destroying the notion of democracy. The reigning president was extremely old (85) and did not want to be president. Hitler was extremely cunning and tenacious. His message was for peace while in the meanwhile his party was picking fights with Communists. When he finally got into power (after many tries), he was able to declare marshal law to get rid of the Communist Party and then the Social Democrats. He orchestrated the burning of the Reichstag (equivalent to the Congress) and blamed a single Communist scapegoat in order to declare marshal law, round up and exterminate the opposition and create the concentration camps. Finally, dictatorship was complete with the passing of the Enabling Act in 1933.

There are similarities, but there are major key differences as well. The depression of 1929 was far worse on the Germans than the current conditions in the United States. The division of the people really is more about political differences than anything. Obama hasn't done anything to quell the voices of the right. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are still on the air. Militias in many states are still conducting their military exercises in case they're called into service to overthrow their government. There is no one knocking on your door to take free speech away. Obama isn't rounding up tea-partiers and throwing them in jail. Obama has no SS and no SA. Obama got elected fairly through fair elections. Obama ain't no Hitler.

When I think of people who compare Obama to Hitler, I'd propose the counter proposal of comparing Dubya to Hitler. Dubya pushed through a law to curtail fourth amendment rights (the ability to spy on you). Dubya started a war based on false pretenses (WMD). Dubya had the crisis to declare martial law, but he didn't. Dubya isn't Hitler and neither is Obama.

Let me be clear. I don't want you not to have guns. But I see no need in today's society to have semi-automatic weapons capable of firing 10s of rounds. A gun in itself should be a reasonable deterrent to protect yourself from property. A long-gun is probably reasonable if you live in a rural area and need to kill wildlife. I even think that it should be okay for some people (well licensed, well registered, well restricted) to have military-grade weapons, provided that rules are followed and the person is absolutely trustworthy. That means extensive background checks, long waiting periods, travel permits, storage restrictions, etc, to ensure that the gun is stored safely. You don't need THAT gun to ward off a burglar or to kill an animal. That gun is a killing machine, only to be used in case of a political uprising or nuclear catastrophy (in which case you'd ignore the laws anyway). I'd consider the difference between a manual handgun and an AK-47 the difference between driving a bicycle and a school bus. Not everyone can drive a school bus.

Obama is responding with a knee jerk reaction to a very complex issue that will take decades to resolve (if it can be resolved at all). But the American public at large demands the reaction. They've seen enough senseless bloodshed. And maybe the proposed solutions will do diddly squat except quell the population. And we can argue the merits of his XOs ad nauseum.

But there is merit for a nation that feels safe. We know that seat belts save lives and all states now have seat belt laws to protect you when you get into a car accident. But child car seats for toddlers have been proven useless. They make us feel safe, yet studies show that they do not increase safety over a lap belt, yet there is a law to have them.

Obama has signed executive orders and I am sure his lawyers feel that they are not unconstitutional. The population is welcome to challenge them in the courts of your land and eventually, the Supreme Court will undoubtably rule one way or another and the laws will change. That's one thing I do admire about your judicial system.

There was an assault weapons ban for 10 years federally. There is a gun control act and Brady Bill in place. The Brady bill stopped 1.8 million people from procuring guns. Obama's laws are incremental.

Quote: TheNightfly

Are you really that thick? I do not readily accept any car related deaths.

Unless you want to ban cars, then apparently you do. Let's be honest, we could end ALL car-related deaths today by banning cars, but you (as well as I) would rather drive to work than walk.

I don't understand how you fail to see the obvious. You claim that we need to get stupid people (ie; drunk drivers & speeders) to stop misusing cars. By the same token, I say that we need to get stupid people to stop misusing guns. The purpose of guns is self-defense, plain and simple. We need to stop people from using guns for anything other than this, and the solution is not by disarming law-abiding citizens.

Quote: TheNightfly

There is NO comparison other than in your deluded world.

Actually, I think you just don't like the comparison because it makes your argument fall apart. But that's just my opinion.

If only the people at these gun shows had weapons with which to defend themselves.

Quote: TheNightfly

So what you seem to be saying is that you are such a frightened little person that before someone tries to harm you you'll stock up on the most powerful weaponry you can lay your hands on. Who, in your life, have you ever had to defend yourself from where nothing less than a gun would suffice? If you were in the military I can understand being in battle, but I'm talking about on US soil. Don't give me links to housewives shooting up burglars - I'm am asking about you personally. Are you so scared of the Bogey Man? Do you really believe that in the next 1,000 years your government will do what Mao or Hitler or Ceaușescu or Pol Pot or any of these evil men did? That is incredibly sad if you do.

I am ineed saying I am a very small person physically who could easily be taken by most men and possibly quite a few women. And if someone comes into my house my chances of stopping them without a firearm are nearly zero. It is not "being scared of the bogeyman" but instead reality. Reality is that home invasions and burglaries do happen, so some simple preperation-in my case a loaded handgun in the nightstand-are in order. I endanger nobody by this.

Do I believe what you say about the government? ABSOLUETLY! All governments continually seek power and take away rights over time.

Quote:

I have read history and I know about atrocities from the past, brought upon the people by their governments. I understand that that has happened. For you to imagine the same thing within the borders of the US is simply outrageous.

Why? Because "this is the USA?" Lets see, we have a government that has states I have to buy health insurance or go to prison. We have a government that refused to allow a businessowner to open a store in a major city just because of his personal beliefs (Chick-Fil-A.) We have a govenment that says they can take my property and sell it to someone who wants to build a different business there that will pay more in property tax. We have a government that has said they can refuse me from collecting water or growing crops on my own land for my own use. We have a government that says a certain percent of government contract work should be awarded based on sex and skin color. We have a government that says it is OK sieze property at merely the charge of a crime and never give it back. We have a government that sues states to stop them from trying to *stop* election fraud.

Do I need to keep going? We have a government that seeks to control more and more at every level, and a population that is so caught up in celebrity and cult-of-personality that they will believe anything that government says. If you want to believe "it can't happen here" look at the USSR who seemed unstobable in 1979 but by 1994, only 15 years later, ceased to exist and was under gangster control. Don't be so arrogant as to assume we in the USA are immune from a similar fate.

Quote:

By the way, check out Costa Rica and tell me how they have managed to live without a standing army for over 60 years. Pretty darn well as a matter of fact. It's only those who fear and hate who use this sort of outrageous fairy tale scenario to justify having guns. Is it in the constitution that you may have one? Yes. I still don't see why you think you must.

They have survived because they live in a world where if someone major tries to invade them the USA will not allow it. Our Navy would sink their navy before they came close. And nearby land invasion will not happen since the border countries do not have the resources to stop them. Finally, it doesn't matter "why you think I think I must have a gun." I am not hurting you by having a firearm, nor is anyone else. 99%+ of gunowners will not use their gun in a crime, yet you want to treat us as children. Why?

Quote: TheNightfly

I have read history and I know about atrocities from the past, brought upon the people by their governments. I understand that that has happened. For you to imagine the same thing within the borders of the US is simply outrageous.

Former US Senator/Vice President Hubert Humphrey disagrees with your statement. I included this quote of his in one of my previous posts to you, but perhaps you missed it:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." --Hubert Humphrey

Quote: TheNightfly

By the way, check out Costa Rica and tell me how they have managed to live without a standing army for over 60 years. Pretty darn well as a matter of fact.

I don't understand the point of this comment. First you were arguing that only the army should have guns. Now you're arguing that we shouldn't even have an army?!

Quote: TheNightfly

If every gun was to disappear from the face of the earth and no more were built, the world would be better off.

this guy wants to go back to fighting wars with battle axes and broadswords. and somehow he thinks this make s the world a better place.....

Quote: TheNightfly

Stop comparing guns to other things that might kill someone. There is NO comparison other than in your deluded world. If every gun was to disappear from the face of the earth and no more were built, the world would be better off.

This would be great, but since that's not going to happen. What? Have the law abiding citizens give up their guns, or allow them limited firepower, so they don't stand a chance against anyone with greater firepower? BS.. Why are there so many countries with Nukes, and only certain ones may possess them, without sanctions are ultimatums placed against them. Because the powers that be, can have control over the countries that aren't permitted to have them.... This is the same as gun control does to it's citizens...

Quote: TheNightfly

By the way, check out Costa Rica and tell me how they have managed to live without a standing army for over 60 years. Pretty darn well as a matter of fact. It's only those who fear and hate who use this sort of outrageous fairy tale scenario to justify having guns. Is it in the constitution that you may have one? Yes. I still don't see why you think you must.

They do have a army of such.. Heavily armed individuals mostly hired guns by the cartels there...

Quote: s2dbaker

If only the people at these gun shows had weapons with which to defend themselves.

This situation was planted.. I know a couple people that attended that show several times, as well as others on the circuit. The individuals injured were first timers... Accident maybe, or staged accident to bring more light to defend gun control...

Quote: allinriverking

Quote: s2dbaker

If only the people at these gun shows had weapons with which to defend themselves.

This situation was planted.. I know a couple people that attended that show several times, as well as others on the circuit. The individuals injured were first timers... Accident maybe, or staged accident to bring more light to defend gun control...

Alright Alex Jones. Who volunteered to go to jail for gun control's sake?


More like accidents that only get reported nationally due to the push for gun control.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Former US Senator/Vice President Hubert Humphrey disagrees with your statement. I included this quote of his in one of my previous posts to you, but perhaps you missed it:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible." --Hubert Humphrey

What else did the great Hubert Humphrey say?

"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

and my favorite:

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."

Quote: boymimbo

What else did the great Hubert Humphrey say?

"It was once said that the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

Which is why we need guns to defend them from bad people.

*FYI, Humphrey still disagrees with you.

"That is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced".

I would take that to mean that he would thinks guns should be taken away from those who do not follow the safety rules or carelessly use them. I think that, by definition, is a form of gun control.

So, by Humphrey's own words, I would think guns should be taken away from:

- anyone who gets into an a accident or commits a crime with them.
- those who are not capable of demonstrating care with a gun.

Sounds like gun control to me. He qualifies the 2nd Amendment with how guns should not not be used (pardon the double negative).

Quote: boymimbo

I would take that to mean that he would thinks guns should be taken away from those who do not follow the safety rules or carelessly use them. I think that, by definition, is a form of gun control.

So, by Humphrey's own words...

Unfortunately, those are your words, not his.

Quote: TheNightfly

Stop comparing guns to other things that might kill someone. There is NO comparison other than in your deluded world. If every gun was to disappear from the face of the earth and no more were built, the world would be better off.

Are you a 6'5'' 250 pound trained fighter? Maybe if you are, the world is a better place. Even then you better not run up on two or three slighly smaller trained fighters...

You obviously didn't do your homework previously assigned. Many European countries have extremely difficult to obtain gun laws. All this does is make gun crimes go down. It causes other violent crimes to go up, way up.

The above would also cast doubt to your premise of:

Quote: TheNightfly

GUNS are made to kill and if used properly they will do just that. They serve NO OTHER PURPOSE.

If lack of gun ownership creates a surge in violent crime, (which we all agree it does) then gun ownership serves at least a second purpose of keeping violent criminals intent on harming innocent people at bay.

I would also suppose most logical, law abiding citizens would agree that keeping violent criminals at bay is a good thing.

Really, violent crimes go way way up when gun laws are in place? Evidence?

Quote: boymimbo

Really, violent crimes go way way up when gun laws are in place? Evidence?

You need to read the entire statement. The poster is saying the crime rate stay the same. The gun crime rate will go down. The non gun crime rate will go up to compensate.

This makes perfect sense as criminals are more prone to adapt to the loss of ability to get a firearm than to go straight.

I just heard on the news today that some Police training ranges are having a hard time getting the ammo needed because of the shortage the strong sales have created. Maybe this was another of Obama's ways of putting America back to work and helping the economy. Either way, it shows people are concerned that they may either be taxed more, or have a harder time purchasing ammo in the future.

Quote: boymimbo

Really, violent crimes go way way up when gun laws are in place? Evidence?

This is your homework assignment, but here is a start.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

I have no idea the validity of this site, but it was the second link in a Google search "violent crime by county." The first was a Wikipedia defining violent crime.

It is a good place to start in any case. As they say, you can feed a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. The goal of the homework assignment was not to give you a bunch of knowledge to go in one ear and out the other, but to allow you to learn it for yourself, let it sink in, and grow from the wealth of experience you have just gained.

The facts of link will run very similar where ever you look. This is precisely why Piers Morgan ALWAYS qualifies his statistics with “gun related-(insert criminal offense),” ie “murder by gun” or “gun related homicide.” He has to, because there is no correlation to violent crime and guns, only gun related violent crime and guns. (this statement has been said before on this forum, and it still remains true)

How about those first world, developed countries on the list?

Turkey
Finland
Sweden
Australia
Switzerland
Italy

Every single one of these countries has very restrictive gun control, save Switzerland, but even the Swiss have been tightening the proverbial noose around the necks of their countrymen in the past 20 years or so.

Let me know what your search turns up for you!

This fun video explains why each citizen needs a fully automatic sub-machine gun.

Oh darn, the video was removed by whoever put it up... now we'll never get to see it. Wait a second, you could act it out and post the video for us to view. Then we'd all have better insight into why you probably shouldn't post on topics that you really don't understand.

After doing some reading and some research, it is clear that some nations that become dictatorships enacted gun control in order to control the populace.

What I am saying is the the US populace is so armed to the teeth that there really is no threat to the people, with about 89 guns / 100 people (and in 43% of homes, according to 2005 figures). And really, the ability to have a revolution today may have little to do with guns. I cite Tunisia, which had a revolution two years ago. Their rate of gun ownership? 0.1/100 people. Egypt has 3.5 guns / 100. Revolutions today may be more about social media and international pressure over actual civil wars (though civil wars are alive an healthy in countries that no one cares about (Sudan, Somalia)).

And if the US government wanted to kill *you*, you don't stand a chance against an drone. It can get you silently from 20,000 feet and you wouldn't see the Hellfire until you were already dead.

It is also clear that there is a linear relationship (in most cases) between gun ownerships and gun deaths. That is, the lesser per capita of gun ownership, the less per capita of gun deaths (generally). There are exceptions.

Switzerland, for example, uses its citizens for its militia. They have no standing army. As part of the citizen's milatary agreement, they keep their personal weapons at home. The difference between the United States and Switzerland are these:
(1) All males undergo training around age 20. Their service in the militia generally ends at age 30, at which time they have a choice to keep their weapon or return it. Automatic weapons that are kept are sent to the factory to be turned into semi-automatic or single shot weapons.
(2) Up until 5 years ago, you were only given 50 rounds of ammunition, to be kept in a sealed box, which was audited regularly by the government. After 2007, their ammunition was taken away and was only available at militia centres. Only 2,000 specially trained personnel can keep ammunition at home.
(3) You have to have a permit to carry the weapon, and permits are usually only given to security personnel.
(4) You are only allowed otherwise to buy three weapons. Automatic weapons are prohibited.
(5) Despite this, guns were responsible for more than 60% of homocides (but the homocide rate is very low at 0.7/100,000).

So despite people quoting the numbers for Switzerland, ammunition is very controlled for militia members, all males receive training, and gun ownership is restricted. So, there is a great level of gun control (and gun education) in Switzerland.

The murder rate in the United States is 4.8/100,000. 75% of those (3.6/100,000) are committed by firearms. Canada's murder rate is 1.6/100,000. 32% of those (0.5 / 100,000) are committed by firearms. The gun ownership in Canada is about 30 / 100.

Therefore, there is a link between gun ownership and both the murder rate and the percentage of deaths commited using a firearm.

The biggest threat to the US government and democracy is not Obama. It's the corporations and lobbyists that have corrupted the government and taken away the power from the people (a long time ago). It it wasn't for those, there might be a health care law that actually made economic sense.

Quote: boymimbo

The biggest threat to the US government and democracy is not Obama. It's the corporations and lobbyists that have corrupted the government and taken away the power from the people (a long time ago). It it wasn't for those, there might be a health care law that actually made economic sense.

Yeah, those darn lobbyists hired by people looking out for their own self-interests! Maybe we should get rid of the 1st Ammendment so there are no lobbyists!

As to a health care law that makes sense, we could not have that as we have a POTUS that wants to move the USA to a single-payer system. What would make sense is allowing people to have Health Savings Accounts and force more transparent pricing so people shop.

Oh, and another Health Care Law that makes no sense is requiring doctors to ask me if I have a handgun in my home when I go in for the flu. Wonder who passed this?

Quote: boymimbo

After doing some reading and some research, it is clear that some nations that become dictatorships enacted gun control in order to control the populace.

What I am saying is the the US populace is so armed to the teeth that there really is no threat to the people, with about 89 guns / 100 people (and in 43% of homes, according to 2005 figures). And really, the ability to have a revolution today may have little to do with guns. I cite Tunisia, which had a revolution two years ago. Their rate of gun ownership? 0.1/100 people. Egypt has 3.5 guns / 100. Revolutions today may be more about social media and international pressure over actual civil wars (though civil wars are alive an healthy in countries that no one cares about (Sudan, Somalia)).

And if the US government wanted to kill *you*, you don't stand a chance against an drone. It can get you silently from 20,000 feet and you wouldn't see the Hellfire until you were already dead.

It is also clear that there is a linear relationship (in most cases) between gun ownerships and gun deaths. That is, the lesser per capita of gun ownership, the less per capita of gun deaths (generally). There are exceptions.

Switzerland, for example, uses its citizens for its militia. They have no standing army. As part of the citizen's milatary agreement, they keep their personal weapons at home. The difference between the United States and Switzerland are these:
(1) All males undergo training around age 20. Their service in the militia generally ends at age 30, at which time they have a choice to keep their weapon or return it. Automatic weapons that are kept are sent to the factory to be turned into semi-automatic or single shot weapons.
(2) Up until 5 years ago, you were only given 50 rounds of ammunition, to be kept in a sealed box, which was audited regularly by the government. After 2007, their ammunition was taken away and was only available at militia centres. Only 2,000 specially trained personnel can keep ammunition at home.
(3) You have to have a permit to carry the weapon, and permits are usually only given to security personnel.
(4) You are only allowed otherwise to buy three weapons. Automatic weapons are prohibited.
(5) Despite this, guns were responsible for more than 60% of homocides (but the homocide rate is very low at 0.7/100,000).

So despite people quoting the numbers for Switzerland, ammunition is very controlled for militia members, all males receive training, and gun ownership is restricted. So, there is a great level of gun control (and gun education) in Switzerland.

The murder rate in the United States is 4.8/100,000. 75% of those (3.6/100,000) are committed by firearms. Canada's murder rate is 1.6/100,000. 32% of those (0.5 / 100,000) are committed by firearms. The gun ownership in Canada is about 30 / 100.

Therefore, there is a link between gun ownership and both the murder rate and the percentage of deaths commited using a firearm.

The biggest threat to the US government and democracy is not Obama. It's the corporations and lobbyists that have corrupted the government and taken away the power from the people (a long time ago). It it wasn't for those, there might be a health care law that actually made economic sense.

wow I don't even know where to start.....if you think small arms are so ineffective against a modern military ask the former Soviet union or the US military how that is working out for them in Afghanistan? .....Or how it worked out for the US military in Vietnam?

What data do you have that the murders rate is not just cultural or due to poverty? You have no data to show if there was more gun control or a ban on guns the murder rate would drop...It's like saying people will stop drinking alcohol or using drugs if we just make it illegal...

your first rule that should come to mind when looking at statistics from difference cultures....

Correlation does not imply causation

Quote: vert1276

What data do you have that the murders rate is not just cultural or due to poverty? You have no data to show if there was more gun control or a ban on guns the murder rate would drop...It's like saying people will stop drinking alcohol or using drugs if we just make it illegal...

Well, Chicago has very strong gun bans and the murder rate there is, uh, nevermind.......................................

At least I'm trying to use data rather than using anecdotal instances.

But you make a good point. Murder rate probably has alot to do with poverty. Perhaps murder rates are lower in countries that doesn't let its people get desparate by providing good social nets, like a health care system and welfare system that keeps people off the streets and not having the need to rob (as much).

Someone asked me to explain Switzerland, and I just did.

Quote: boymimbo

At least I'm trying to use data rather than using anecdotal instances.

But you make a good point. Murder rate probably has alot to do with poverty. Perhaps murder rates are lower in countries that doesn't let its people get desparate by providing good social nets, like a health care system and welfare system that keeps people off the streets and not having the need to rob (as much).

Someone asked me to explain Switzerland, and I just did.

LOL.

by the way, boymimbo's numbers on the last page actually underestimate the number of guns in the US. It is really more like 300 million guns and 311 million residents .... 96.5 guns per 100 people.

Quote: boymimbo

At least I'm trying to use data rather than using anecdotal instances.

And that is where you and the rest of us liberals fail. Data and science and crap like that bounces right off their foreheads. You just have to let them win. When it's their children that get slaughtered then they will suddenly have an epiphany and think that a gun in everyone's hands isn't such a good idea after all. Until then, we do like all the forum members here do, throw the dice and hope it's not our loved one that's dying from a sucking chest wound.

Quote: s2dbaker

And that is where you and the rest of us liberals fail. Data and science and crap like that bounces right off their foreheads. You just have to let them win. When it's their children that get slaughtered then they will suddenly have an epiphany and think that a gun in everyone's hands isn't such a good idea after all. Until then, we do like all the forum members here do, throw the dice and hope it's not our loved one that's dying from a sucking chest wound.

are you being serious right now? or are you trolling?

Quote: vert1276

wow I don't even know where to start.....if you think small arms are so ineffective against a modern military ask the former Soviet union or the US military how that is working out for them in Afghanistan? .....Or how it worked out for the US military in Vietnam?

Well, yeah, but dying 10 or 20 to 1 soldier on average.

Also, our modern forces actually strive to not cause collateral damage while inflicting these casualty rates. Take that out of the equation and you can lay a lot more waste. If you stop worrying about who is a fighter and who is not, it's a hell of a lot easier.

The chief analyst before the Senate (general someone or other) said the chance the Libyans would win against Gaddafi was ZERO with conventional arms. They would be overcome. But others provided the extra oomph, took out his Air Force and struck at strategic targets and wandering armor on the ground.

Quote: rxwine

Well, yeah, but dying 10 or 20 to 1 soldier on average.

Also, our modern forces actually strive to not cause collateral damage while inflicting these casualty rates. Take that out of the equation and you can lay a lot more waste. If you stop worrying about who is a fighter and who is not, it's a hell of a lot easier.

The chief analyst before the Senate (general someone or other) said the chance the Libyans would win against Gaddafi was ZERO with conventional arms. They would be overcome. But others provided the extra oomph, took out his Air Force and struck at strategic targets and wandering armor on the ground.

so you are assuming that if the US government was fighting against its own citizens it wouldn't be concerned with collateral damage, and it would just start dropping nukes everywhere?