I’ve been given guns as gifts since I was FOUR years old. I don’t think most of those are in record books.
Also, I remember a guy with federal firearms license who sold some SKS’s and other assault weapons when clinton entered office. He said he’d have an “office fire” should anybody ever start demanding records.
[quote]hedo wrote:
The man has been very clear on what his intentions are regarding gun control.
The first step indeed Mike.[/quote]
All authoritarian regimes begin this way, because guns are freedom. People only got to vote at all once small arms were invented. Women first got to vote in Wyoming when derringers became cheap and women could shoot tax collectors.
Guns prevent governments from ignoring your rights.
Honestly. What do you think his objective is? You really think he’s motivated by something other than a misguided attempt to curb gun violence? What does he get out of alienating a whole group of people if he didn’t really believe these measures were appropriate?
Obviously, in actuality many of them are not. For example, only 2% of guns used in crimes make there way to criminals through the gun show loopholes. Neither closing these loopholes nor most of the other proposed regulations are going to address the other 98%. They are a waste and really should not be instituted.
But certain things like better police tracing and monitoring to track illegal arms might do some good and is NOT infringing on our rights. Fucking stop whining and get over it.
I don’t mind police tracing and monitoring guns, except when it means I’ll have to fill out a dozen more forms and register every round of ammo I own.
I wouldn’t mind closing the gun show loophole, if anyone could explain exactly what that loophole is.
I wouldn’t mind some commonsense measures, but who decides what’s common, and what’s sensible?
As for the assault weapons ban, there already is a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons (except those grandfathered in), so there’s no need for another. Especially one that only restricts guns based on appearance.
[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
I don’t mind police tracing and monitoring guns, except when it means I’ll have to fill out a dozen more forms and register every round of ammo I own.
I wouldn’t mind closing the gun show loophole, if anyone could explain exactly what that loophole is.
I wouldn’t mind some commonsense measures, but who decides what’s common, and what’s sensible?
As for the assault weapons ban, there already is a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons (except those grandfathered in), so there’s no need for another. Especially one that only restricts guns based on appearance.[/quote]
Closing the ‘gun show loophole’ doesn’t really make sense. It’s that private individuals can sell to other private individuals at gun shows without licensing or any monitoring. Yet, it doesn’t result in much crime. As I said, only 2% of the guns used in violent crimes were purchased this way.
I agree that many of the measures Obama proposes aren’t appropriate. But some people are opposed to any regulation at all, whether or not it really infringe on rights in any way, just for the sake of being so. Tha’s silly. And not helpful.
I also don’t think it’s fair to reject every measure that imposes some burden on gun owners just for that reason alone. With rights come responsibilities. Every other constitutional right also has responsibilities and limitations that go along with it. Even the right of free speech, which is most assuredly one of the main precepts our country was founded on, does not provide the unqualified to say whatever you want in any circumstance.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
But certain things like better police tracing and monitoring to track illegal arms might do some good and is NOT infringing on our rights. [/quote]
Such as?
mick28 , not sure were you got info on pa. but you’re dead wrong. if you check obama won pa by winning the urban vote. he won 17 out of 63 counties.won counties surronding phila. and pittsburgh. hardly “hunting” areas.so basically he got the yuppie and black vote, not noted for their hunting.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
I don’t recognize Obama’s, or this government’s, authority to take away my so-called “assault” weapons.
You can say this all you want, but I doubt you’re going to keep the guns if laws are passed to ban them. Anyone here for that matter.[/quote]
Hint: Many people keep firearms that are already banned. It’s not about what will happen, it’s about people continuing to do something that is already done.
Nice try to authoritatively call me out on something you don’t know anything about though.
In the weeks before pump-guns were outlawed in Austria, more of them were sold than ever before.
I wonder where they are now.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Honestly. What do you think his objective is? You really think he’s motivated by something other than a misguided attempt to curb gun violence? What does he get out of alienating a whole group of people if he didn’t really believe these measures were appropriate?..
It really doesn’t matter what his motivations are. What matters are his actions and their consequences and the willful disregard for the Constitution etc.[/quote]
I partially agree. Any assault on the Constitution by any politician is reason enough to be up in arms, but in this case, I think we have more cause than usual to be concerned over Big Brotha’s motives.
Why does this man want us disarmed? What does he have in store for us freedom-loving Americans? Nothing good, is my educated guess.
“Assault weapons” are not used in crimes with any notable frequency. Semiautomatic pistols are. If he were as smart as the liberals claim, and if he were interested in reducing “gun crime”, he’d look at the data and ban the guns that were most used in crimes.
John Allen Muhammad used a bolt-action hunting rifle during his jihad, for crying out loud, not an “assault rifle.”
Meh. Noone should be better armed than the upcoming citizen army anyways.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Honestly. What do you think his objective is? You really think he’s motivated by something other than a misguided attempt to curb gun violence? What does he get out of alienating a whole group of people if he didn’t really believe these measures were appropriate?
Obviously, in actuality many of them are not. For example, only 2% of guns used in crimes make there way to criminals through the gun show loopholes. Neither closing these loopholes nor most of the other proposed regulations are going to address the other 98%. They are a waste and really should not be instituted.
But certain things like better police tracing and monitoring to track illegal arms might do some good and is NOT infringing on our rights. Fucking stop whining and get over it.[/quote]
Not sure if this has been covered before … but, when you say “our rights”, do you own guns? Or are you just showing your willingness to cede other people’s rights?
[quote]JD430 wrote:
If you truly are outraged about this, there is one step you can take that I know of to defend your rights in the immediate future…support the NRA. Send more money, recruit more members and let your local politicians know where you stand. It is your moral obligation to do so if you believe in liberty and the right to self determination. [/quote]
x2. Signed up myself, the wife, and the kids as life members.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
… he’d look at the data and ban the guns that were most used in crimes.
[/quote]
I disagree. Banning the guns is not the solution in any scenario. This is no different than any other gun ban.
i’ve just read wher obama is going to make more use of the exec privalige once he takes over, to get things moving quicker. with regards to surpreme court ruling, can he do this w/ guns?can i person over step the high court ruling?