mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Obama Unveils Proposals for Toughening Laws on Guns Options
Christine
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:19:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 3,917
Neurons: 15,842
Absurdicuss
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:56:42 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,884
Neurons: 30,654
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
who could argue against the truths you've expressed.
I'm not sure how what you've written fits with the topic of gun control, but for what it's worth, I like it.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 6:11:01 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,884
Neurons: 30,654
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
The aspiring criminals, rogues, the mentally disturbed, distraught and the violent elements in our society are impervious to legislation, period, no matter how "tough" it may appear to the law abiding masses.

Hijacking tragedy as a premise for ever more government overreach only restricts the liberties of "We the People".

Criminals comprise the non-law abiding class so the effect of the law on them is nil.

The law abiding masses of Americans are not going around shooting each other so again the law has no effect.

The end result of more legislation, more federal spending, more studies will be the usual waste of resources. But when it's all said and done the government will have expanded it's authority to intrude ever more into our lives.

Our liberties shrink in direct proportion to government growth.

xsmith
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:06:53 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/26/2009
Posts: 433
Neurons: 4,497
The law abiding masses of Americans are not going around shooting each other so again the law has no effect.

I don't think the average law abiding citizen would buy an assault weapon. He/she might buy a regular pistol for protection and a rifle for hunting. The proposed law does not limit these kinds of weapons. But an assault weapon? That's over the top overkill.
Tovarish
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:19:11 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/2/2009
Posts: 11,101
Neurons: 39,933
Location: Booligal, New South Wales, Australia
'Overkill', it would be funny if it wasnt so sad.
Christine
Posted: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:13:49 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 3,917
Neurons: 15,842
Absurdicuss wrote:
The aspiring criminals, rogues, the mentally disturbed, distraught and the violent elements in our society are impervious to legislation, period, no matter how "tough" it may appear to the law abiding masses.

Hijacking tragedy as a premise for ever more government overreach only restricts the liberties of "We the People".

Criminals comprise the non-law abiding class so the effect of the law on them is nil.

The law abiding masses of Americans are not going around shooting each other so again the law has no effect.

The end result of more legislation, more federal spending, more studies will be the usual waste of resources. But when it's all said and done the government will have expanded it's authority to intrude ever more into our lives.

Our liberties shrink in direct proportion to government growth.



whateverShame on you
richsap
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 6:34:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/16/2010
Posts: 275
Neurons: 1,510
The recent "mass" killings have claimed a new victim: Democracy. I feel, and we should all feel, sorrow for anyone that loses a loved one, family member, friend, etc. to ANY cause, be it a shooting, car accident, illness... whatever. But to change the laws of a nation which is based upon democratic principles for something that has happened to and affects less than .000001% of the general population (so small that my computer would only give me scientific notation). Yes, it is sad that it happened, but using that same logic that the government is attempting to apply to the situation, we should also eliminate individual and mass transportation which have a much, much higher incidence rate. Not trying to sound cynical, but logical and realistic. You can't legislate mental illness, stupidity or anger out of existence. Our legislators are acting out of fear that they may appear callous if they don't do something, even if it is wrong for the vast majority of the country.
Absurdicuss
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:17:30 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,884
Neurons: 30,654
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States
The pyramid of the global power structure, as illustrated on the obverse of our one dollar Federal Reserve Note, continues unabated, moving us towards the centralized Orwellian totalitarian utopia. Manufactured tragedy is the current manifestation of their motto "Order Out of Chaos"
Christine
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 8:45:08 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 3,917
Neurons: 15,842


If more guns made us safer, America would be the safest place on earth. It isn't.

"Manufactured tragedy" really?

towan52
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:25:04 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,982
Neurons: 226,444
Location: Waco, Texas, United States
I wrote this three years ago:
Few subjects generate as much strong feeling in the United States as the right to bear arms and gun control. Additionally, few subjects generate more opportunity for self-interest, misinformation, and extremism.
On the home page of its website, the National Rifle Association (NRA) calls itself America’s oldest civil rights organization and relies heavily on the second amendment to the United States Constitution to make its case for free and unrestricted access to weapons. This amendment, which was ratified in December of 1791, states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (FindLaw.com, 2009)
The NRA’s mission statement reads thus: “As America's oldest civil rights organization, the NRA's mission is to preserve and defend the U.S. Constitution, especially the inalienable right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.” (National Rifle Association (NRA), 2009)
To state categorically that the second amendment is justification for allowing the unrestricted possession of modern firearms and other weapons is somewhat disingenuous and makes no allowance for the late 18th century empirical knowledge of what weapons were available. Neither can the amendment take into account the very different world of 21st century America. Modern America has automatic firearms that are deadly at distance of well over a mile. In 1791 firearms were muzzle-loaded, took up to three minutes to load and were accurate only to about one hundred yards. The authors of the second amendment did not and could not have any idea of what modern weapons would be capable of.
In almost direct opposition to the NRA, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence seeks to reduce the huge numbers of people killed and injured by firearms in the United States. Their mission statement: “We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities. The Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce sensible federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence.” (Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 2009)
In 1997 The United States recorded a total of 14.05 deaths per thousand that were caused by firearms. The United Kingdom, which has very restricted availability of firearms, recorded 0.57 deaths per thousand from the same causes. (www.allcountries.org, 2007)
The NRA appears to believe that gun ownership is necessary to defend one’s life and property and routinely opposes any measures to restrict the availability of firearms. It sees any form of control as a violation of the United States Constitution. The Brady Campaign, by contrast, strongly supports legislation that restricts access to and availability of firearms. The Brady Campaign sees the number of firearms related deaths in the United States as a problem that government could and should adopt a policy on. The NRA either does not see the deaths as a problem or sees more guns a solution to the problem. Either way, the NRA strongly protests any government intervention in the issue.
The issue that has to be dealt with is the fact that Americans (for the most part) like having guns. The writers of the United States Constitution and its amendments were constrained by the recognized condition of “bounded rationality” – in other words, they could only work with the information that was available to them. If they had been asked whether Mr. Average American should have free and unrestricted access to weapons that could kill large numbers of people, at long-distance, and in just a few seconds, would they have crafted the amendment the same way?
I’m not sure there is a solution to this problem that would not require a complete change in the culture and attitude of at least half of the population of the United States. There is no doubt that most gun owners are likely to be sensible, law-abiding and upright citizens. Sadly, though, the mere availability of firearms is sufficient to increase the incidence of gun-related deaths to truly horrific proportions. All research points to the same conclusion; that having guns facilitates gun-related deaths. To put it into perspective, every year, gun-related violence causes over three times as many deaths as occurred in the Twin Towers terrorist attack of September 11th, 2001. When one considers the amount of government policy that incident generated, it is hard to see why government steers so very clear of the policy issues raised by these deaths. These deaths are caused by anarchic gun control and justified by an anachronistic constitutional amendment.

I'm just sayin'
TL Hobs
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:25:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,399
Neurons: 6,101
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States
I fail to see how the President's proposals restrict anyone from owning a gun, other than those who are already restricted due to being a convicted felon, etc. I watched him give his speech several times and found nothing unsettling by it.

He advocates strengthening background checks before buying a gun, banning assault weapons, limiting clip size to 10 rounds, banning armor piercing ammunition, giving police additional tools to prosecute gun crime, end the freeze on gun violence research, having schools develop emergency preparedness plans, and improving quality mental health care coverage.

His points are valid when he states that to do nothing and to protect ourselves with ignorance is wrong. Nothing we do will prevent anyone from using a gun to harm others, but if what we do can save some lives, any lives, then shouldn't we at least *try*? He stresses this point.

My personal feeling is that the threat of using military-style guns that are designed for only one purpose -to kill people- and discharge as much lead as quickly as possible is what we should fear the most. But, President Obama's proposals do not deny anyone the right to have and use one. All they have to do is join the military. The Army will give them one and all the bullets they want -for free! That is the only place these guns should be allowed -IMHO.

One additional comment: The controversy has been really, really lucrative for the gun industry. Fueling the fire to rile the masses has earned them record sales of guns and ammo. Get your gun now -at an inflated price to due to an increase in demand- before Obama takes them away!

jcbarros
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:33:57 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/14/2010
Posts: 2,363
Neurons: 9,377
Problems for Hatfields and McCoys.
excaelis
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:04:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,965
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[quote=TL Hobs]
He advocates strengthening background checks before buying a gun, banning assault weapons, limiting clip size to 10 rounds, banning armor piercing ammunition, giving police additional tools to prosecute gun crime, end the freeze on gun violence research, having schools develop emergency preparedness plans, and improving quality mental health care coverage.


What's that about, TL ?
TL Hobs
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:25:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,399
Neurons: 6,101
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States
excaelis wrote:
What's that about, TL ?


In his speech, President Obama states that he would sign a directive ending a ban placed on the Center For Disease Control to conduct research on the effect, if any, of violent films, computer games, and other media influences on gun violence.

He has also been unable to get the Senate to confirm his appointment for a Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. There hasn't been a full time Director in 6 years! Thus, the influence of the National Rifle Assoc. lobby on Congress. The Bureau of ATF has been hobbled by the NRA to prevent them from enforcing the existing laws concerning gun trade, yet the NRA states that we do not need more laws, but should simply enforce the ones we have. Total hypocrisy.

This event is going to push Congress to make a choice between the NRA lobby and citizens concerned about increasing gun violence. It will be interesting to watch.

For the record, I have guns, used to hunt often in my younger days, and am a veteran.

RedStar
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:05:00 PM
Rank: Member

Joined: 2/26/2012
Posts: 49
Neurons: 147
Location: United States
Hopefully this is the beginning of a long list of presidential edicts that will surplant a disagreeable congress. The removal of guns is primary in order to gain total control of a stubborn public. We need one man to make the decisions that are best for this country. Hopefully it will be part of the movement toward a new world order. One government, one individual in charge of the planet. It will happen. It's just a matter of time.
leonAzul
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:17:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/11/2011
Posts: 8,589
Neurons: 31,076
Location: Miami, Florida, United States
TL Hobs wrote:

This event is going to push Congress to make a choice between the NRA lobby and citizens concerned about increasing gun violence. It will be interesting to watch.

In the areas of importing, interstate trafficking, and standardizing licensing requirements, I think this could be a good thing, but I am not too optimistic about that.

What I really hope is that this lights a fire under the butts of State legislators to address serious and cooperative licensing at the level of the individual States where it can be held more accountable and the results of any particular policy more readily measured.
Ray41
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2013 12:20:45 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/9/2010
Posts: 1,937
Neurons: 45,980
Location: Orange, New South Wales, Australia
The part that really threw me into a tail spin was the fact that 'armor piercing ammunition' must be available to the public, otherwise why the need to ban it.Anxious

There is absolutely no rational reason for the public to have access to this ammunition.Speak to the hand

In the hands of the wrong person, every police officer and law enforcing agent would be totally at risk as this ammunition would make bullet and flak proof vests useless.

What in the name of commonsense give credence to having this available in 'over the counter sales' to begin with?. It is strictly a military round, designed for the military for military use.

This is not a gun control issue, this is just plain commonsense to get it off the shelves, and, also to make it illegal to possess.

I would not like to be a law officer of any kind that had to confront an armed offender who had armor piercing bullets in the magazine.Brick wall
excaelis
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:45:14 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 10,965
Neurons: 32,652
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Thanks for the info, TL.
Christine
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2013 9:09:24 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/3/2009
Posts: 3,917
Neurons: 15,842
So, I could have a tank?
TL Hobs
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:29:23 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,399
Neurons: 6,101
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States
leonAzul wrote:
What I really hope is that this lights a fire under the butts of State legislators to address serious and cooperative licensing at the level of the individual States where it can be held more accountable and the results of any particular policy more readily measured.


One of the problems I see with each state "doing their own thing" with gun control laws is that someone can go to the state that is the most lenient to buy a gun and carry it to the state where the laws are more strict, thus usurping the ability of the latter state to enforce stricter laws. There will always be a loophole somewhere.

The Bureau of ATF is prohibited from maintaining a national gun registry. Gun dealers are not required to maintain an inventory of guns they sell. Background checks on buyers can be destroyed 24 hours after they are made. Private individuals selling a gun to someone are not required to report the sale, or abide by the same rules as a licensed dealer. Some states require a license and/or training to carry a concealed weapon, or to be worn in public places, others do not. The US is all over the board now with individual gun laws.

I live in Alaska and cannot carry a hand gun through Canada if I travel to the Lower 48 by car. I have to apply for a license, and pay a fee, for every rifle or shotgun that I take across Canada. Canada is very strict in controlling information about guns being carried by travelers. But, if I fly to the Lower 48, I can take a gun with me as checked baggage.

TL Hobs
Posted: Friday, January 18, 2013 2:31:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,399
Neurons: 6,101
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States
Christine wrote:
So, I could have a tank?


I don't think so, but I know a gun shop that will sell you a pretty pink Bushmaster assault rifle with a matching 30 round clip. It is part of their "Barbie" edition line of guns that they sell. (No kidding!)

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.