Gun Control Discussion

[HashiriyaS14]

"Plenty" is only correct if you consider a handful too much. The FBI does not go around handing out permission slips for these things. See my post above.

I'm just saying that it's pretty easy for anyone with an FFL to get a Class 3 endorsement and thus be able to own full-auto weapons. The real expert here is Repo Man, we should get him in here. He's an encyclopedia of firearms regulations knowledge.

Also, right now you consider large caliber rifles "unnecessary". When the big rifles are gone, then the shotgun becomes the new unnecessary weapon. What would we need such a WMD for? A .22 should suffice.

I never said anything about large caliber rifles, I said HIGH CAPACITY. I have no problem with stuff like .50BMG or whatever, because people hunt large animals. Hell, there's rounds out there a lot bigger than that, like .577 Tyrannosaur. All of which IS legal and should STAY legal, because again, what else are you going to hunt a Bear or a Rhinoceros with?

I said that COMPACT High-Capacity weapons exist for no other reason than to facilitate surprise attacks on people. You don't need a tiny semi-auto weapon with a 30rd mag unless you're trying to sneak up on a group of 8 people and kill all of them. There is no other purpose for the weapon.

Clinton even went as far as banning weapons that "looked" dangerous. What a joke that was.

And I agree that's a pretty silly criteria.

[wingFeather]

unless you're trying to sneak up on a group of 8 people and kill all of them.

Or a group of 8 people sneak up on you to attempt to end your life. Personally I'd like to have the right to conceal carry a high capacity full auto weapon. It won't happen, but it would've make me feel safer when I lived in LA.

[rn79870]

I've lived in SoCal most of my life. I've got relatives in LA. Neither me, nor my relatives have ever had a group of 8 people sneak up on us and try to end our life. What are the odds of that happening, about the same as winning the state lottery 10 times in a row?

Your posts provide more reasons to defend careful background checks for gun owners.

[Jesda]

The problems that affect your municipality do not justify federal regulations that could adversely affect the rest of us who live in more peaceful communities.

You may be surrounded by crazies, but I park my convertible with the top down in the car port at night and never lock my door.

Anyway, the firearms argument is an old and tired one that's been hashed out and settled in the supreme court.

The idea isn't to actively threaten potential burglars or the government with weapons. The idea is that there is a "possible threat" and that there is an extra layer of protection between you and those who wish to take what you have from you. Politicians buy into this as a solution to an unrelated problem. (HERE COMES GODWIN) It's like Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany's monetary inflation. (Couldn't help it. )

[Jesda]

Or a group of 8 people sneak up on you to attempt to end your life. Personally I'd like to have the right to conceal carry a high capacity full auto weapon. It won't happen, but it would've make me feel safer when I lived in LA.

Probably better to just leave LA. I don't know why people live in such awful places like LA, Miami, DC, etc.

[audtatious]

The majority of us have never had any issues. I did find it interesting that people in other countries who have not been to the US before think that they are in danger of being shot anytime they visit a city. That's obviously not the case at all. In all honestly, criminals who use a gun will use one regardless of laws on the books and limiting the manufacture of guns and their availability in the US will simply increase black market sales to the criminals. The HUGE majority of US citizens who own guns would never intentionally use it against others unless for protection in the slim case that something were to happen. I just don't think that that "slim chance" is worthy of saying they don't have a right to own one.

[wingFeather]

Neither me, nor my relatives have ever had a group of 8 people sneak up on us and try to end our life.

So you have been lucky in life, and don't care about your fellow man who many be in such a situation? Not all of us are spoiled Democrats who only hang out in posh cities, where only blondes named Nicole have to worry about their safety

I had it happen. Not 8 people, but enough. It is not fun. Please do not continue to belittle me about it.

Probably better to just leave LA.

I did

[hannibal]

Also, right now you consider large caliber rifles "unnecessary". When the big rifles are gone, then the shotgun becomes the new unnecessary weapon. What would we need such a WMD for? A .22 should suffice.

Using the same logic, since I have the right to bear arms, can I own a tank? Can John Travolta fly his F-4 Phantom fully laden with heat seeking missles? Why can't I have a biological weapon? Or hell, a nuke?!?

[HashiriyaS14]

The problems that affect your municipality do not justify federal regulations that could adversely affect the rest of us who live in more peaceful communities.

You may be surrounded by crazies, but I park my convertible with the top down in the car port at night and never lock my door.

And this is the ultimate philosophy that, IMO, underpins Obama's stance on firearms.

Nationally, from a constitutional standpoint, the Supreme Court (and common sense) rules that the 2nd Amendment provides for the individual right to keep and bear weapons.

That said, conditions vary widely from one area to another. Rural/safe areas should not reasonably have the same firearms regulations as crowded cities with huge, agitated, poor populations.

Obama recognizes and approves of the Supreme Court's ruling but supports the right of individual state and local governments to legislate firearms in their own regions as they see fit so long as they don't violate the 2nd Amendment. So long as people can still OWN weapons, everything else should pretty much be left to local or state government.

This is, if you could not tell, a stance that I enthusiastically support. I do NOT believe that rural Alaska can feasibly have the same gun laws regarding things like carry that urban Detroit can. Rural and urban America are far too different.

[wingFeather]

Using the same logic, since I have the right to bear arms, can I own a tank? Can John Travolta fly his F-4 Phantom fully laden with heat seeking missles? Why can't I have a biological weapon? Or hell, a nuke?!?

Typical Democrat exaggeration

We're talking firearmshere, not motorized vehicles or aircraft.

I do NOT believe that rural Alaska can feasibly have the same gun laws regarding things like carry that urban Detroit can.

And... they don't! So why elect Obama to create MORE legislation if the laws are already there? So he can sneak in some other junk under the guise of a gun law? No thanks!

[HashiriyaS14]

And... they don't! So why elect Obama to create MORE legislation if the laws are already there? So he can sneak in some other junk under the guise of a gun law? No thanks!

But he hasn't proposed any federal firearms legislation that I'm aware of, he's just gone on record as saying he supports a state or local government's rights to impose LOCAL restrictions.

[wingFeather]

He is wise not to spell it out. But you can tell by his stand on other issues that he is not exactly an NRA type of guy

[HashiriyaS14]

He is wise not to spell it out. But you can tell by his stand on other issues that he is not exactly an NRA type of guy

LOL, no, he is probably not a "NRA type of guy", but that doesn't mean that he's hell bet on taking anyone's guns away.

He understands how different rural and urban America are, and given how important I think that divide is to the cultural and political landscape of our nation, his recognition of this is one of the biggest reasons I support him.

That said, he's obviously said some bonehead stuff about some parts of rural America, which I also obviously which he hadn't said, lol.

But, the point is that he has NOT mentioned any intent whatsoever to try to infringe on the 2nd Amendment with federal regulations. He has no interest in doing this. He is actually a rare Democratic Presidential candidate who is fairly moderate on guns, especially when compared to the Clintons.

[wingFeather]

especially when compared to the Clintons.

Let's pray that Obama does not change this stance, then. But seeing as how he's gone back & forth many times during this campaign, I have my doubts. Four more years of Clinton is not change I can believe in

[hannibal]

Typical Democrat exaggeration

We're talking firearmshere, not motorized vehicles or aircraft.

No name calling please...

You made the comparo between WMD's and a small pistol. However, the 2nd ammendment says arms. You seem to agree that a civilian owning these 'extreme' weapons is rediculous. I assume you also support the laws in place to prevent such large weapons from being owned by individuals.

Now, lets discuss a reasonable limit...

[Jesda]

I have arms.

[wingFeather]

No name calling please...

I was not aware that I was name calling If that is the impression, then I am sorry.

But I did not advocate home WMD's. I was emphasizing that some people (ie Democrats) think that a large rifle is akin to a WMD. Sorry that was not clear.

[Cold_Zero]

Actually, poorly run cities across the country are seeking outright bans and have in no subtle way made that very very clear. That slippery slope is very wet. Mayors like to blame guns to avoid being blamed themselves for inadequate policing, poor economic development, and poor education.

Another prolific statement from Jesda.

[Cold_Zero]

LOL, no, he is probably not a "NRA type of guy", but that doesn't mean that he's hell bet on taking anyone's guns away.

He understands how different rural and urban America are, and given how important I think that divide is to the cultural and political landscape of our nation, his recognition of this is one of the biggest reasons I support him.

That said, he's obviously said some bonehead stuff about some parts of rural America, which I also obviously which he hadn't said, lol.

But, the point is that he has NOT mentioned any intent whatsoever to try to infringe on the 2nd Amendment with federal regulations. He has no interest in doing this. He is actually a rare Democratic Presidential candidate who is fairly moderate on guns, especially when compared to the Clintons.

It should be pointed out, in the interest of full disclosure that Barack Obama did vote for the Vitter Amendment which was a huge step forward to protect citizens' gun rights.

"Vote 202: H R 5441: Vitter Amdt. No. 4615, As Modified; To prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster if the possession of such firearm is not prohibited under Federal or State law."

This by no means makes Obama '2nd Amendment friendly' we only need to look at the work he did in the Illinios State Legislature for bearings on that issue. But it is interesting to see that he did vote yes on the Vitter Amendment.bud

Nay VotersAkaka (D-HI)Boxer (D-CA)Clinton (D-NY)Dodd (D-CT)Durbin (D-IL)Feinstein (D-CA)Harkin (D-IA)Inouye (D-HI)Kennedy (D-MA)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Levin (D-MI)Menendez (D-NJ)Mikulski (D-MD)Reed (D-RI)Sarbanes (D-MD)Schumer (D-NY)

[HashiriyaS14]

Nay Voters

Mikulski (D-MD)

Sometimes I think Maryland would be better off with ME in that Senate seat than Barbara Mikulski. She's never impressed me.

Anyway, the Vitter Amendment was a big deal to me, as I thought that the confiscation of firearms following Katrina was despicable.

The fact that Obama supported it is one of the reasons I've been able to get behind him and view him as a moderate Democrat rather than as the strictly partisan hyperliberal that the right makes him out to be.

The man genuinely *does* seem to value sensical legislation, and there's no better praise I can really give to a Senator than that.

EDIT: In regards to his actions in the State legislature, I don't really come down on him too hard for being more pro-gun control there because, IMO, that's where gun control belongs, on the STATE level. If it can pass at the state level, then it's because the majority in that state supports it. Blanket federal legislation is NOT the answer.

[Cold_Zero]

You forgot:

Sarbanes (D-MD)

Who pissed me off anyways with Sarbanes Oxley 404 (not related to Gun Control).

[HashiriyaS14]

You forgot:

Sarbanes (D-MD)

Who pissed me off anyways with Sarbanes Oxley 404 (not related to Gun Control).

Eh, Paul doesn't bother me nearly as much as Barbara does. I *do* have issues with Sarbanes-Oxley, but only because I was personally involved in implementing those devilishly complicated "testing matrices" at a past job. I generally think it's a good law and requires a healthy level of accountability.

It did seriously increase the expenses of all public companies though.

[Cold_Zero]

Eh, Paul doesn't bother me nearly as much as Barbara does. I *do* have issues with Sarbanes-Oxley, but only because I was personally involved in implementing those devilishly complicated "testing matrices" at a past job. I generally think it's a good law and requires a healthy level of accountability.

It did seriously increase the expenses of all public companies though.

I had to tangle with it in my old job when assigning access to a financial system and now with testing... ugh!

[HashiriyaS14]

FINALLY!!!

Obama is advertising his relatively moderate stance on gun control, currently in much-contested Virginia.

He had this to say today in rural Southwest Virginia:

"There are a lot of folks who come up to me and they say, 'you know, Barack, I like your economic plan, and I'm tired of George W. Bush,' or 'I got my NRA mailing, and I'm worried you're going to take my gun away,' " Obama told the packed gym at Lebanon High School. "I just want to be absolutely clear ... I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

THIS is what he needs to be doing in these battleground states, particularly in rural Southwestern VA.

He needs to say, in his own words (and get it IN THE PRESS) that he is not backing, planning, scheming, or trying to somehow rob Americans of their firearms.

Taken from this article:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI....html

[mtcookson]

My issue isn't that "the government would never do that", it's that if they ever did, the incremental increase in firepower of citizens owning M900s versus owning sporting shotguns would not afford said citizens any meaningfully increased protection against a malevolent government when said government is armed with Abrams tanks, cruise missiles, smart bombs, and other tools of mechanized warfare.

It was a meaningful check/balance back in the 1700's when a confrontation between government and citizenry would've meant "guys with muskets versus other guys with muskets", but this is obviously not the case in the 21st century. If the US government really decided to wage war on it's population, there's nothing the population could do about it, and thus this incredibly unlikely scenario is not a justification for citizens owning assault weaponry.

I wasn't really referring to assault weapons for that particular statement, just the constitutional right to keep and bear guns period. For the government to accomplish taking over the people they would need an army that would turn on its own people, which isn't likely to happen. They'll actually likely take over in a completely different way... maybe something along the lines of going to a one world government by first putting the world into a depression.

So long as people can still OWN weapons, everything else should pretty much be left to local or state government.

Own AND carry... i.e. keep and bear.

This is, if you could not tell, a stance that I enthusiastically support. I do NOT believe that rural Alaska can feasibly have the same gun laws regarding things like carry that urban Detroit can. Rural and urban America are far too different.

Whoa!!! Wait, wait, wait... I have to heavily disagree. This is EXACTLY one of the "reasons for gun control" in that list I posted! If the laws are more strict in urban areas... like they usually already are... criminals will still be able to get guns and the law abiding will not be able to protect themselves. Lets look back at one of the items in that list I posted...:

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

What you're proposing is already in effect in many urban areas and has already been proven not to work!!!

"There are a lot of folks who come up to me and they say, 'you know, Barack, I like your economic plan, and I'm tired of George W. Bush,' or 'I got my NRA mailing, and I'm worried you're going to take my gun away,' " Obama told the packed gym at Lebanon High School. "I just want to be absolutely clear ... I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Strange how he could say that after previously saying he felt the DC gun ban was constitutional. He probably won't take them away though... he'll probably try getting the guns and/or ammo taxed so high that most people couldn't afford them.

[szh]

Nay VotersBoxer (D-CA)Feinstein (D-CA)

And, you wonder why I so strongly believe both our state Senators are such losers.

Z

[bobotech]

Hash, you are sadly disappointing me.

[HashiriyaS14]

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

Washington DC is also not really comparable to Indianapolis, IMO. WDC's issues are rooted more in extreme, entrenched urban poverty that has spanned several generations for the same group. I've never liked this comparison.

Anyway, my point is NOT whether or not the DC gun ban in particular is a good idea. My point is that LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT should have final say on these matters. If a given locality decides that, through the wills of the electorate, given gun laws should be made, then I think they should be able to govern for themselves. It's a states' rights issue.

I'm all for giving everyone (OPEN) carry, but I'm not the elected official of any of these people, they should be able to decide for themselves so long as that decision doesn't involve a complete ban on firearms.

I *personally* support lax gun laws. I think it's worked great in VA, but I think locales should be self-determining.

Bobo: Your disappointment concerns me greatly. If I could will your disappointment into being a tangible item, I would almost certainly toss it on the ground and pee on it.

[Cold_Zero]

Washington DC is also not really comparable to Indianapolis, IMO. WDC's issues are rooted more in extreme, entrenched urban poverty that has spanned several generations for the same group. I've never liked this comparison.

Futhermore Indianapolis has a higher Population 795K vs 588K and has a much lower viloent crime rate than Washington DC.bud

[Cold_Zero]