Personally, I think the R’s and D’s only differ on abortion and guns and where to spend trillions of dollars: on social engineering or military. Otherwise, they’re equally derelict with wasteful spending of tax dollars, wonton infringement on personal liberties, and general ignorance of the content and spirit of the US Constitution.
Having said that, let’s keep this thread focused on the re-birth of the Assault Weapons ban. “D” vs “R” vs “Other” is a whole thread on its own.
[quote]pat wrote:
Who is shocked by this?[/quote]
Not I.
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_worst_gun_bill_yet
That bill never went anywhere, but here’s a new one that was introduced last January. And you guessed it, it’s “for the chiiiilllldrennnnn!”
And from the good guys’ side:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111Gzjgst::
Citizens’ Self-Defense Act of 2009
From what I’ve read so far, one big reason for calling for a ban is this type of thing:
"But A.T.F. officials estimate 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico come from dealers north of the border.
In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."
So instead of being pissed at Obama or Holder, you should be pissed at the dealers along the border who knowingly facilitate drug dealers smuggling weapons into Mexico. Those are the fucktards that are going to make life harder for everyone else, all for a buck.
So what gun shops are selling mexican cartels grenades, fully automatic weapons and bazookas. I’d like to visit that gun store
[quote]tme wrote:
From what I’ve read so far, one big reason for calling for a ban is this type of thing:
"But A.T.F. officials estimate 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico come from dealers north of the border.
In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."
So instead of being pissed at Obama or Holder, you should be pissed at the dealers along the border who knowingly facilitate drug dealers smuggling weapons into Mexico. Those are the fucktards that are going to make life harder for everyone else, all for a buck.
[/quote]
No, we should be pissed at those who’ve left the borders wide open, so Mexicans can come hear illegally and engage in such activities. Bush was responsible, now there’s a new sheriff in town and he’s responsible. Why should I be denied my rights because our elected officials can’t do their job?
[quote]tme wrote:
From what I’ve read so far, one big reason for calling for a ban is this type of thing:
"But A.T.F. officials estimate 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico come from dealers north of the border.
In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."
So instead of being pissed at Obama or Holder, you should be pissed at the dealers along the border who knowingly facilitate drug dealers smuggling weapons into Mexico. Those are the fucktards that are going to make life harder for everyone else, all for a buck.
[/quote]
Okay, but explain to me how a ban on the sale and ownership of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns in the United States is going to do anything whatsoever to prevent fully-automatic rifles and submachine guns from being illegally smuggled in from Mexico.
Or how it will discourage criminals, who are the primary recipients of these illegally smuggled weapons, from owning them.
Dude, this is the equivalent of banning the sale and use of Alpha Male and TRIBEX because of the illegal trafficking of Test and Dianabol from Mexico.
[quote]tme wrote:
In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."
[/quote]
Why do I have to have my rights infringed because of Mexican criminals and not-so-on-the-level (or ignorant or criminal) gun dealers?
Certainly you’re not suggesting that the existing strict legislation, stringent checks, waiting periods, and regulations don’t work? That can’t be so-- they’re so well thought out. </obvious sarcasm>
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
No, we should be pissed at those who’ve left the borders wide open, so Mexicans can come hear illegally and engage in such activities. Bush was responsible, now there’s a new sheriff in town and he’s responsible. Why should I be denied my rights because our elected officials can’t do their job? [/quote]
That’s pretty much all that needed to be said. They shirk their responsibilty in order to not piss off a growing voting bloc.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
pat wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And besides that, Democrats are the ones that are supposed to keep the government out of private affairs, what with civil rights, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-legislating morality. How’s this fit in?
Neither side of the aisle really wants to stay out of people’s business. They just pick and choose which liberties to attack.
Unfortunately, you are right. But the dems do it more.
Bull-shit. Only on guns.[/quote]
No foremost on money.
Since you cannot exercise any freedom without money that is the big problem.
I am also of the opinion that the entire ‘stop-the-flow-of-weapons-south-of-the-border’ is a red herring. Most Americans will shrug, shove a handful of cheetos in their mouths, and turn the channel to Housewives of Orange County.
How about stemming the flow of illegal aliens north, along with the enormous amounts of drugs? I respectfully submit that these might be of more concern to the Chief Justice and the President.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t agree with this. Although I doubt it, I hope there’s enough Republicans to block this.
I just cannot understand why Democrats are so anti-gun.[/quote]
The Democrats became the anti-gun party because during the era known as reconstruction the southern democrats wanted a free hand to lynch blacks and Republicans.
The Republicans on the other hand at that time got involved in supporting second amendment rights so that the Democrats would have a harder time lynching people.
That divide has continued to this day because Democrats don’t want people to be able to fend for themselves, they want people dependent upon the government.
The 2nd amendment is a threat to big government because it allows people to provide for their own security without having to pick up a phone and beg the government to deliver security services to them in a timely enough manner to be effective.
But if you deliberately cripple people “for their own good” then they will have to rely upon you and the services that you choose to provide.
Or in other words you will be the governments bitch.
why do you need these guns?
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?[/quote]
Because the goddamn zombies aren’t going to kill themselves.
[quote]tme wrote:
From what I’ve read so far, one big reason for calling for a ban is this type of thing:
"But A.T.F. officials estimate 90 percent of the weapons recovered in Mexico come from dealers north of the border.
In 2007, the firearms agency traced 2,400 weapons seized in Mexico back to dealers in the United States, and 1,800 of those came from dealers operating in the four states along the border, with Texas first, followed by California, Arizona and New Mexico."
So instead of being pissed at Obama or Holder, you should be pissed at the dealers along the border who knowingly facilitate drug dealers smuggling weapons into Mexico. Those are the fucktards that are going to make life harder for everyone else, all for a buck.
[/quote]
It’s an excuse nothing more. Only an idiot would believe that drug gangs earning billions of dollars smuggling cocaine can only get their guns through legal channels in the US.
These people are smugglers, that is what they do for a living. They will find a way to get their weapons from somewhere.
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?[/quote]
Because the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the last defense in maintaining a free state. If tyranny moves out into the open, putting aside all pretenses, and their stragety of incrementalism, armed free men will meet them in combat. Or, one could take a leap of faith, and sentence future generations to the notion that governments are always benevolent. And that once free people would never find themselves at the mercy of authority gone mad.
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?[/quote]
To protect ourselves from the Mexican drug cartels coming of the border, of course:
and the occasional riot or Ruby Ridge. You know, for the times when nothing will do but a gun. Pretty tough to figure that out, isn’t it?
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?[/quote]
read the constitution, besides that.
Have you ever been robbed, raped, mugged, your house laid under seige, your car taken at gun point, half your salary removed from your check to go to some worthless slobs that won’t get off their ass take some pride in themselves and do something to better their situation as well as to feed the fat government we’ve created.
Anyone in your family, shot in front of you, so some crack feined can get his next fix.
Ever had to console a friend because a group of local gang members raped his fiance as she was walking to her car after work and even though law enforcement knows who they are they are afraid to go after them because they have bigger and better weapons.
the right to bear arms was given to us so we could protect ourselves from the evil oppressive entity the government can become when it becomes too big and too full of itself, like our great sheep skin leader.
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
why do you need these guns?[/quote]
For self defense. The founding fathers wanted “we the people” to have the ability to control our government without having to rely upon the military being on our side.
We also need that kind of weaponry because there are criminals running around with better weapons than that.
The gangs in Mexico that are being used as a pretext for this gun grab do not confine their area of action to staying south of the border. When they come for someone in the US you can be certain that they aren’t going to be using flintlocks like the founding fathers had.
From the article:
Both of these are already strictly regulated under existing federal law and has absolutely nothing to do with the “assault weapons ban”.
But since when do anti-gun federal regulators allow facts interfere emotions and policy agendas?