Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-20-2012, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Texas
5,717 posts, read 18,780,143 times
Reputation: 11222

Advertisements

The speculation and price gouging may be short lived. The dimwits in DC have put the brakes on the gun ban as of the this AM. They are appointing a panel to research the issue before doing anything. By that, you need to read it as: "We are backing off of this until we have full control of the Supreme Court at which time we will take what we want and there's nothing you can do about it". Maybe by that time we'll be living in the United States of Texas. One can only hope.
The article:
Obama, Reid slam brakes on gun control | WashingtonExaminer.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2012, 12:17 PM
 
6,691 posts, read 8,706,264 times
Reputation: 4845
I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to blame the White House for the gun ban possibility. The people that should be blamed if these guns get banned are the idiots who take these "assault weapons" and use them the wrong way, killing people.

If these guns were truely only used for "sport shooting", then they have far less chance of getting banned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 12:34 PM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
8,399 posts, read 22,889,263 times
Reputation: 4435
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattTx View Post
I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to blame the White House for the gun ban possibility. The people that should be blamed if these guns get banned are the idiots who take these "assault weapons" and use them the wrong way, killing people.

If these guns were truely only used for "sport shooting", then they have far less chance of getting banned.
Well, then hold those people accountable; and not everyone else.

There's an old axiom that goes "one person (poops) their pants, and now everyone has to wear diapers." That same logic is being applied here. 99.99999999999999999999% of people that own these "assault rifles" are law-abiding citizens who only use them for sporting purposes (target shooting, hunting, etc.). They are not even truly assault rifles in the first place, as they only operate in semi-automatic mode (requiring a pull of the trigger for every shot). Just because they resemble assault rifles doesn't make them one any more than the Pontiac Fiero was an Italian sports car because it too mimicked one.

The White House is being blame for its knee-jerk reaction to what happened, the call for stricter laws is ridiculous as murder is a capital offense most states (although not in Connecticut, which currently has no death penalty statute), how much more punishment is there?

Plus, as numerous others have mentioned, marijuana, heroin and methamphetamines are all illegal, has that really stopped their usage? How simple-minded can someone be to believe that by making certain firearms illegal, criminals will stop using them?

Crimes should be based on the actions of the individual, not the devices used. Rapists are not charged with possessing a penis, nor are cars to blame when someone drives drunk (which kills more people in this country than these so-called "assault rifles").

God bless Rick Perry for maintaining his cool on this matter (unlike our own mayor, Julian Castro, whom I've lost all support for due to his uninformed position on this issue). Perry understands that the solution is removing the restrictions on the inherent right of self-defense for law-abiding citizens; all Obama's attempts at gun control will accomplish is taking away the ability of potential victims to defense themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 01:03 PM
 
6,691 posts, read 8,706,264 times
Reputation: 4845
I wasn't holding anyone else accountable. In a perfect world, no one would use "assault" guns in a bad way to kill another but because it happens, the politicians get pressured by the public to imposed "assault" gun control and they have to take the heat when they listen and make it happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 04:13 PM
 
1,552 posts, read 2,314,958 times
Reputation: 1139
All the AR types in my nearest Academy were gone. So an unintended consequence will be to dramatically increase ownership. So unless they were confiscated, the ban will not reduce available stocks.

The previous AWB had no effect due to the available stocks. Interestly, in the place of the ARs were evil lever action guns. Plenty of black tac shotgun though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 07:51 AM
 
3,669 posts, read 6,844,467 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormadmax View Post
Well, then hold those people accountable; and not everyone else.

There's an old axiom that goes "one person (poops) their pants, and now everyone has to wear diapers." That same logic is being applied here. 99.99999999999999999999% of people that own these "assault rifles" are law-abiding citizens who only use them for sporting purposes (target shooting, hunting, etc.). They are not even truly assault rifles in the first place, as they only operate in semi-automatic mode (requiring a pull of the trigger for every shot). Just because they resemble assault rifles doesn't make them one any more than the Pontiac Fiero was an Italian sports car because it too mimicked one.

The White House is being blame for its knee-jerk reaction to what happened, the call for stricter laws is ridiculous as murder is a capital offense most states (although not in Connecticut, which currently has no death penalty statute), how much more punishment is there?

Plus, as numerous others have mentioned, marijuana, heroin and methamphetamines are all illegal, has that really stopped their usage? How simple-minded can someone be to believe that by making certain firearms illegal, criminals will stop using them?

Crimes should be based on the actions of the individual, not the devices used. Rapists are not charged with possessing a penis, nor are cars to blame when someone drives drunk (which kills more people in this country than these so-called "assault rifles").

God bless Rick Perry for maintaining his cool on this matter (unlike our own mayor, Julian Castro, whom I've lost all support for due to his uninformed position on this issue). Perry understands that the solution is removing the restrictions on the inherent right of self-defense for law-abiding citizens; all Obama's attempts at gun control will accomplish is taking away the ability of potential victims to defense themselves.
Disagree with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" stance. While in a vacuum it appears straightforward it completely does not take into account our current situation.

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line assumes that some people are good and others are bad. This type of dualism is an illusion.

Fact is people are people, some go through depression or other mental illnesses, others snap, and when they do they should not have access to weapons with magazines capable of holding 20 rounds or more. We don't need weapons of war in our society. Take a good look at the history and who is behind the marketing of "assault weapons" and when it began. Companies should not be profiting on death even if they have a huge lobby (NRA) behind them.

Distributing more guns is not a solution. I will be back, if this discussion is allowed to continue, with statistics, studies, and other facts...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 08:38 AM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
8,399 posts, read 22,889,263 times
Reputation: 4435
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merovee View Post
Disagree with the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" stance. While in a vacuum it appears straightforward it completely does not take into account our current situation.

The "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line assumes that some people are good and others are bad. This type of dualism is an illusion.

Fact is people are people, some go through depression or other mental illnesses, others snap, and when they do they should not have access to weapons with magazines capable of holding 20 rounds or more. We don't need weapons of war in our society. Take a good look at the history and who is behind the marketing of "assault weapons" and when it began. Companies should not be profiting on death even if they have a huge lobby (NRA) behind them.

Distributing more guns is not a solution. I will be back, if this discussion is allowed to continue, with statistics, studies, and other facts...
Wow, I don't know what to say! You really don't think there are "good" and "bad" people in the world? You honestly blame the instruments the latter use? You allow that to be an excuse for their behavior?

Amazing how some people view the world, and based on that fact there are a long list of items before these so-called "assault weapons" that are deserving to be banned first.

But based on your comments in the southside theater shooting, I am not surprised. You somehow downplay what happened there since, as you claim, the shooter wasn't directly targeting people (I am sure the two that got shot would argue differently).

In a skewed sense, I really wish you had been there when it happened; maybe then you'd have a better grasp of the situation than you do. Same with this, and maybe you should take a second to refresh yourself with the Second Amendment...

Quote:
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
I think someone needs to explain to you exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote that. It wasn't simply to allow the citizens of this country to own firearms, it was included to serve as a deterrent to a tyrannical government like the one they just fought for their freedom. Based on that principle, people do need "weapons of war" in our society (and, if you did even more research, you will find that very few of these "assault rifles" are truly "weapons of war" as you claim); and those that use them for illegal purposes need to be held accountable for their actions, not the inanimate objects that have no ability to act on their own!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 08:39 AM
 
Location: San Antonio, TX
8,399 posts, read 22,889,263 times
Reputation: 4435
Quote:
Originally Posted by GEM-Texas View Post
All the AR types in my nearest Academy were gone. So an unintended consequence will be to dramatically increase ownership. So unless they were confiscated, the ban will not reduce available stocks.

The previous AWB had no effect due to the available stocks. Interestly, in the place of the ARs were evil lever action guns. Plenty of black tac shotgun though.
Truth.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 09:05 AM
 
3,669 posts, read 6,844,467 times
Reputation: 1803
Quote:
Originally Posted by majormadmax View Post
Wow, I don't know what to say! You really don't think there are "good" and "bad" people in the world? You honestly blame the instruments the latter use? You allow that to be an excuse for their behavior?

Amazing how some people view the world, and based on that fact there are a long list of items before these so-called "assault weapons" that are deserving to be banned first.

But based on your comments in the southside theater shooting, I am not surprised. You somehow downplay what happened there since, as you claim, the shooter wasn't directly targeting people (I am sure the two that got shot would argue differently).

In a skewed sense, I really wish you had been there when it happened; maybe then you'd have a better grasp of the situation than you do. Same with this, and maybe you should take a second to refresh yourself with the Second Amendment...



I think someone needs to explain to you exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote that. It wasn't simply to allow the citizens of this country to own firearms, it was included to serve as a deterrent to a tyrannical government like the one they just fought for their freedom. Based on that principle, people do need "weapons of war" in our society (and, if you did even more research, you will find that very few of these "assault rifles" are truly "weapons of war" as you claim); and those that use them for illegal purposes need to be held accountable for their actions, not the inanimate objects that have no ability to act on their own!
Your characterization of my comments on the other thread are not only incorrect but belong on that thread, not this one.

Before the mid-80s most guns including those used by law enforcement were cumbersome revolvers. Not converted M-16s marketed as AR-15s, not weapons of war, these weapons have no place remaining on the civilian market in respect to the current climate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 10:16 AM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,429,536 times
Reputation: 1338
You state that they don't belong, but you don't state why. Just because you say so, doesn't "make it so".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top