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.
I have been listening to the speeches of all the candidates. I actually heard Obama speak about guns once. He said that he doesn't want to take guns away from hunters and that if people want to hunt they have every right to hunt. He also said that in a lot of Urban areas there are drug sellers, gang members and criminals with assault rifles who are better armed than law enforcement which is something that should be addressed somehow as well. He's not anti-gun. He lives in Chicago, though, which is urban and has a lot of gun violence.
This really is a very tricky issue. NH doesn't need any gun control because people there are raised and taught to respect firearms and people there want the Assault Rifles for different reasons. Country people like to collect guns, hunt, shoot at targets as a hobby, etc. That's not what people in cities use Assault Rifles for, though. Some have handguns for protection but for the most part, people with big fire power are involved in crime. The population and attitudes towards guns are so immensely different between rural and city areas. Now, I would not want to see those guns banned from rural people who collect and shoot at ranges and at targets for a hobby. I don't think I'd have a problem with them being banned from urban areas, though. Maybe something like an assault rifle ban from 20-30 miles outside large cities (NYC, LA, Chicago, BIG cities). Something like that would address the problems in big cities while leaving the country gun owners alone. Would you be strongly opposed to something like that as well?
I'm just curious because guns are such a dividing issue in politics and it's a real shame because I don't think they should be. I'm a country gal myself, and I know how important guns are in the country. I've also lived in cities as well and know the culture is entirely different there and guns really can be a huge problem in hands of punks, drug dealers and criminals. Isn't there a reasonable middle ground to be had that is respectful to everyone?
That is the problem Centaurmyst there is NO middle ground. First off it has been and always will be a very slippery slope. First it's assault weapons, then semi-autos, then hand guns, until all we have is muzzle loaders.
I am not making this up history has shown that one gun law that doesn't work leads to another gun law with the same result. Look at Chicago, DC, LA, NYC all make it virtually impossible to carry a gun legally. Well Actually in all three cities you can't carry concealed. Yet all three cities have gun crime like you wouldn't believe.
The fundamental difference between a liberal and a non-liberal is the liberal CAN'T grasp the fact that the definition of a criminal is someone who has no regard for the law. No matter how many gun laws you put on the books, no matter how many guns you ban CRIMINALS will still use guns.
FBI stats show states with overbearing gun laws have a significant larger amount of violent crime than states with less restrictions. If you have watched the special on San Quentin, they asked a bunch of rapists and murderers what they were afraid of. Laws??? Nope. Penalties??? Nope. Cops???? Nope. They all, and every single one of them said, are afraid of an armed citizen.
When I am leaving a restaurant with my girlfriend at 11pm and head down the street to the parking garage only to find three thugs sitting on my truck asking me for some spare change, does anyone expect me to call 911 and hope for the best when they want to do harm? Nope, I'm reaching for my sidearm and making sure my kids have a father that is going to pick them up from the sitter later that night.
Gun control is the essence of communism. History has shown this time and time again. Once the population is unarmed criminals and politicians have a playground to feed on.
That is the problem Centaurmyst there is NO middle ground. First off it has been and always will be a very slippery slope. First it's assault weapons, then semi-autos, then hand guns, until all we have is muzzle loaders.
I am not making this up history has shown that one gun law that doesn't work leads to another gun law with the same result. Look at Chicago, DC, LA, NYC all make it virtually impossible to carry a gun legally. Well Actually in all three cities you can't carry concealed. Yet all three cities have gun crime like you wouldn't believe.
The fundamental difference between a liberal and a non-liberal is the liberal CAN'T grasp the fact that the definition of a criminal is someone who has no regard for the law. No matter how many gun laws you put on the books, no matter how many guns you ban CRIMINALS will still use guns.
FBI stats show states with overbearing gun laws have a significant larger amount of violent crime than states with less restrictions. If you have watched the special on San Quentin, they asked a bunch of rapists and murderers what they were afraid of. Laws??? Nope. Penalties??? Nope. Cops???? Nope. They all, and every single one of them said, are afraid of an armed citizen.
When I am leaving a restaurant with my girlfriend at 11pm and head down the street to the parking garage only to find three thugs sitting on my truck asking me for some spare change, does anyone expect me to call 911 and hope for the best when they want to do harm? Nope, I'm reaching for my sidearm and making sure my kids have a father that is going to pick them up from the sitter later that night.
Gun control is the essence of communism. History has shown this time and time again. Once the population is unarmed criminals and politicians have a playground to feed on.
This is hysterical. The FBI crime stats have shown all rifles to be involved in less than 3% of homicides. Which means that the scary "assault" weapons are used in even less homicides. That 3% number is by leaps and bounds lower than the number of homicides related to handguns which is leaps and bounds lower than the number of homicides attributed to bare hands and feet. If keeping people "safe" was the concern they would be pushing to ban bare hands or even handguns not bayonet lugs and pistol grips.
The "we need to ban assault weapons to keep us safe" argument is bunk now and was bunk before Clintons ban and was certainly bunk during the ban.
I come from a city and have friends and relatives in cities and these punk gangster idiots are not shooting each other with collapsible stock ARs, Ak-47s, shotguns with barrel shrouds, and they certainly arent running around bayoneting people. They're using crappy, rust covered handguns that registration and BS ballistic fingerprinting cannot trace or keep track of.
I also dont buy for an instant the "dont worry the president cant do alone" argument. No, he cant do it alone but he wont drop it from his platform either so it remains a threat.
Sating Obama respects gun rights is like saying Clinton respects them or CT's Chris Shays respects them. It's bull.
Besides, lets assume everything I've said is a complete lie (which it is not). If keeping people safe was the issue then why not ban murder? Oh, it's already baned? Since bans work so well to keep criminals from breaking the law then there really isnt any problem at all and we're all perfectly safe.
It's not cool at all for any politician coming out of a city to even attempt to dictate to the rest of the country how they should live and vice versa.
Just for the record...my fiance was murdered by a punk with an assault rifle. It didn't even happen in a city. I actually used to be vehemently opposed to the mere mention of any kind of gun control laws too. Your persepctive softens a bit when gun violence happens to you. The guy that killed him never would have been able to do so with his bare hands or even a knife, rock, crow bar, whatever. He was a small, scrawny punk. My fiance bench pressed over 500lbs and would have been able to over power the guy who killed him. Had it not been for that AK-47 being used to shoot him in the back he would be alive today. No, guns don't kill...idiotic people kill. But there is no denying that guns in the hands of idiotic people do make it much easier for them to kill and for their victims to have no chance of protecting themselves.
I agree that it's handguns that are more often used in urban crime. But lets be honest...you most likely would oppose any additional regulation of those just as passionately. I don't think the federal government should force any gun control on people. I do think it's a local and state issue, though. If a city votes for more gun control then they should have it if that is what they want. If NH votes for no gun control, they shouldn't have any gun control. That's my personal take on it.
I do think it's a local and state issue, though. If a city votes for more gun control then they should have it if that is what they want. If NH votes for no gun control, they shouldn't have any gun control. That's my personal take on it.
Your premise makes sense on the surface but the reality has proven it flawed. Just recently Bloomberg was suing some gun shop in Virginia (I think it was VA) because Bloomberg believed that guns purchased from that shop under that states laws were being used to commit crimes in NY.
You cant have a place like D.C., Philly, Detroit or even New Haven (all of which have strict gun laws as well as the most out of control gun crime) and have loose laws just outside the city. Those within the city will blame their troubles on those outside of the city until a national level law is passed that makes every area equally strict. Of course, should that happen the crime levels will most likely rise for everyone everywhere because no longer will the citizen be able to fight back.
Didn't you know that every time some thug in Boston shoots a kid it's New Hampshire's fault? That's the logic of the gun-banning crowd.
Here's the problem when it comes to both sides of the issue being able to talk about this issue...they just can't relate to each other, lol. People who are from the city didn't grow up with Grandpa's guns hanging on a rack in the livingroom. They don't understand how different the view on guns is in rural areas. We country folks tend to be just as pig-headed though because we don't have the high crime rates that the city is plagued with. Both sides are stubborn as heck and annoy each other so much, lol. It can be fun sitting in the middle because it's like watching extreme ping pong, lol.
Here's the problem when it comes to both sides of the issue being able to talk about this issue...they just can't relate to each other, lol. People who are from the city didn't grow up with Grandpa's guns hanging on a rack in the livingroom. They don't understand how different the view on guns is in rural areas. We country folks tend to be just as pig-headed though because we don't have the high crime rates that the city is plagued with. Both sides are stubborn as heck and annoy each other so much, lol. It can be fun sitting in the middle because it's like watching extreme ping pong, lol.
I guess it's fun if you don't have anything to lose. We have an awful lot to lose on our side and the anti-gun people who honestly believe that banning a barrel shroud will save their babies are under the impression they have a lot to lose as well.
It's frustrating when you have a rifle on the wall not doing a damn thing to anybody and a legion of screaming and paranoid city-dependents who can't seem to identify the real problem trying to take that rifle away from you.
It's like there's a big retard with an IQ of 12 bearing down on you with an 18-wheeler and you're trying desperately to show him where the brake is but he doesn't understand or care.
That is horrible that your fiance was murdered by a P.O.S., I am very sorry for your loss.
I am glad you are open minded enough to not be completely anti-gun, however I feel you have a dislike of "assault weapons". Let me give you a little background on these guns. First the term "assault weapons" was taken by the Brady Campaign to make these rifles sound more scary. The simple fact of the matter is any rifle that was used by the military is to them considered an "assault rifle".
We have this organization in the United States called "The Civilian Marksmanship Program" CMP for short. www.odcmp.org This program is for local and national rifle and pistol competitions through out our country. There is a service rifle category and and a service pistol category. The service rifles used (AR15 and the M14) are considered by politicians and the Brady Bunch as "Assault Weapons".
Since 1890 our country has recognized it's top rifle and pistol shooters by awarding them the "Distinguished Rifleman" or "Distinguished Pistol Shot" badge when they have won enough local and national competitions. In the last 118 years there have only been a little over 1800 civilians that have earned the title of "Distinguished Rifleman". I am #1745. Shooting with Military rifles for sport and hunting has been apart of our country's history and heritage since we sent the British yellow backs packing. I will be damned if I am going to allow any punk murder or punk politician to ban these so called "Assault Weapons" again so that my boys can't enjoy the freedom that I and thousands of others have provided.
You're right I will oppose any gun control, it's a constitutionally protected right which I have taken the oath to protect many years ago, and I will die doing so if need be.
And for the record I can do a lot more damage out to 1000 meters with Daddy's deer hunting rifle than any AK47, so no Assault weapons are NOT the issue, the media and the Politicans want them to be.
Gun control is the essence of communism. History has shown this time and time again. Once the population is unarmed criminals and politicians have a playground to feed on.
lol, are you not paying attention? Politicians are feeding on this country regardless of guns. It's not just one side, either...it's the whole darn bunch of them with a very few exceptions. While I don't agree with everything Obama believes I do think he's our best chance at keeping a roof over my kids and food in their belly. That's what is most important to me right now with the sorry state of affairs Bush has left us in. He spends tax payer money worse than anyone I've ever seen in my life. McCain scares the crap out of me because he sounds so much like Bush now. I'll grant you that Palin sounds better, but it's NOT her that will be in control. I'd consider voting for her in 4 years, but not just because she would be the VP. My conscience just won't let me do it...
I guess it's fun if you don't have anything to lose. We have an awful lot to lose on our side and the anti-gun people who honestly believe that banning a barrel shroud will save their babies are under the impression they have a lot to lose as well.
It's frustrating when you have a rifle on the wall not doing a damn thing to anybody and a legion of screaming and paranoid city-dependents who can't seem to identify the real problem trying to take that rifle away from you.
It's like there's a big retard with an IQ of 12 bearing down on you with an 18-wheeler and you're trying desperately to show him where the brake is but he doesn't understand or care.
Well, it can be entertaining...in the same sick way watching a train wreck is to some people, I suppose. Hey, never said I wasn't a bit twisted, lol. I can see both sides of the issue. I have hunted from the time I could hold a gun and fire it without being knocked on my bum. I've also lived in a city where you're scared to let your kids go outside to play because of drug dealers and gang members packing guns trying to act all bad. If the gun enthusiasts in the city were like you are there wouldn't be any argument on the issue at all. Sadly, that's not usually the case. It's kinda like how people come up from Mass. to go hunting in NH and shoot the locals' dogs, cows and a few years back a poor old guy picking berries. The locals there HATE it because "city folks" should not be hunting. C'mon...you know it's true, lol. Would you want to be in a city filled with people like those MA hunters that come to NH every deer season? Don't lie!
lol, are you not paying attention? Politicians are feeding on this country regardless of guns. It's not just one side, either...it's the whole darn bunch of them with a very few exceptions. While I don't agree with everything Obama believes I do think he's our best chance at keeping a roof over my kids and food in their belly. That's what is most important to me right now with the sorry state of affairs Bush has left us in. He spends tax payer money worse than anyone I've ever seen in my life. McCain scares the crap out of me because he sounds so much like Bush now. I'll grant you that Palin sounds better, but it's NOT her that will be in control. I'd consider voting for her in 4 years, but not just because she would be the VP. My conscience just won't let me do it...
The fact that you think the president is going to help keep a roof over your head and your kids fed speaks volumes. Check out Obama's proposed budget, it's larger than Bush's by a large margin. His so called tax cuts will give you a net $150 annually if you make between 20K and 150K. Yeah we are all going to be in great shape with the Messiah who hates America.
And everything is Bush's fault... You actually had me thinking for a minute there that you were open minded.
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.
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.
You actually had me thinking for a minute there that you were open minded.
