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.
People watch too many movies. Killing is not glamorous, whether it is an animal or a person. I don't know many who could dispassionately take someone's life. If the situation arises, I can, and will. The caliber of the gun is not nearly as important as the willingness to use it.
<edit>. There are plenty of restrictions on the sale of guns. Enforce the laws already on the books.
Amen. But might I add, there are a few that I would like to add, in particular, the ability of straw purchasers to pass guns on to those who are not allowed to own or possess firearms. Here in Pennsylvania, the city of Philadelphia has been trying in vain to limit the number of handguns purchased per month, I repeat, per month. As a gun owner, I can not under any circumstance understand the need to purchase multiple handguns each and every month unless I am operating as an unlicensed dealer, yet the NRA finds this to he an unreasonable piece of legislation.
Personally, If I were to win the lottery and were allowed to purchase only one handgun per month, as has been proposed, I would complete my entire dream list in 8 months. Now that would have nothing to do with my ability to protect myself, that would be one purchase (already made 10 years ago, I might add) and would just be a matter of vanity, which again isn't a matter of rights but privilege.
I support Obama's stimulus package and believe the govt should provide everyone a gun. As a socialist I believe it should be free and paid for by the wealthy.
During the last so-called assault gun ban I made a pretty penny selling over priced "assault weapons" to desperate gun buyers. I wish I had done the same this go round. At the time, some of my friends couldn't understand why I would sell the weapons that I had because, "I was going to need them, when the SHTF." Which was silly since if anyone took the time to read the actual bill banning assault weapons they would have known that there were gaping loop holes in the law which wound up not banning anything.
One would think that past experience and the Supreme Courts very clear decision in Heller v District of Columbia that the ability of the Federal government to "take away" one's guns are severely restricted. So what is the result of the hysteria... over the top sales for weapons in an industry that has for a long time been struggling to survive.
In short, its a great way to get fools to part with their cash.
Amen. But might I add, there are a few that I would like to add, in particular, the ability of straw purchasers to pass guns on to those who are not allowed to own or possess firearms. Here in Pennsylvania, the city of Philadelphia has been trying in vain to limit the number of handguns purchased per month, I repeat, per month. As a gun owner, I can not under any circumstance understand the need to purchase multiple handguns each and every month unless I am operating as an unlicensed dealer, yet the NRA finds this to he an unreasonable piece of legislation.
Personally, If I were to win the lottery and were allowed to purchase only one handgun per month, as has been proposed, I would complete my entire dream list in 8 months. Now that would have nothing to do with my ability to protect myself, that would be one purchase (already made 10 years ago, I might add) and would just be a matter of vanity, which again isn't a matter of rights but privilege.
I've lived long enough to know one thing for certain, i.e.,...crooks don't normally buy their guns from registered dealers. They either buy them off the street, from blackmarket dealers, or steal them. Our current laws are made to keep honest people honest, like putting a deadbolt on a solid glass door thinking a hardened criminal will be deterred.
You and I view guns differently. How many guns are enough, and how many does one have to own before the "right" becomes a "privilege"? When one claims that owning "x" amount of guns is a privilege, it makes me wonder. If one goes into a grocery store and buys 100 items of food, should there be "reasonable restrictions" on that "privilege"? Should a person only be restricted to one home?
Enforce existing laws. When someone buys a gun to resale on a recurring basis, that's a whole different question of law. Let's don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I agree with the above post,and would add his supposed knowledge of firearms and the AWB is lacking.
The AWB didn't ban AK with pistol grips at all...you could buy as many as you wanted to.
Wasn't the import ban of 89' pretty much responsible for the ending of imported semi autos?
As to whether an armed populace can battle a SWAT team, or even an infantry unit, just look at Iraq. All they had pretty much were AK47's and some IED's.
We have 20mm anti-tank rifles, .50BMG's, machine guns, silencers, artillery, and surplus military vehicles.
Wasn't the import ban of 89' pretty much responsible for the ending of imported semi autos?
As to whether an armed populace can battle a SWAT team, or even an infantry unit, just look at Iraq. All they had pretty much were AK47's and some IED's.
We have 20mm anti-tank rifles, .50BMG's, machine guns, silencers, artillery, and surplus military vehicles.
It stopped firearms with certain features being imported but you could buy firearms built from parts here and also simply buy pre-ban firearms.
I agree with your second part of your post,also unless the fedgov. wants a LOT of dead American civilians it cannot use most of its heavy firepower.
Introduced last Congress. Tabled. Currently floating on the Hill. Look at the sponsors, then decide if Pelosi is truly opposed. What changed her mind in the last year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Pelosi also argues, and Reid agrees;
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will join House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in opposing any effort to revive the 1994 assault-weapons ban, putting them on the opposite side of the Obama administration.
And you trust her? Maybe Obama does an end-run and bypasses her?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
And your semi-auto citizens army with a cache of M4's isn't?
Not even in the same category. For a gun "expert", you are not so bright. Furthermore, the M4 is hardly held by the public in large numbers. The AR, AK, and SKS, yes. M4 - not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Certain segments of the government could careless about an armed electorate because your citizens army is the least of its problems, as you have so ably pointed out, you are no match under any circumstances to face down the local PD much less the Federal government, but gun violence on American streets is another matter all together.
An armed populace might lose to the Federal government. An unarmed populace will certainly lose. Those pesky Taliban have shown what an armed populace can accomplish against the US. Remember Russia's little retreat from Afghanastan? Gun violence is a social issue. So is DWI. Should we ban cars outright? Is there an "assault car" ban floating on the Hill? Maybe we should outlaw big SUV's and make everybody drive single occupant vehicles simply because a few ignore the law and drive drunk. Or maybe we should just enforce the effing laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
And here in lies my beef. In the effort to thwart any heretofore reasonable restrictions on firearms the gun lobby has made this an all or nothing proposition, lunatics like Beck and Bachmann calling of armed revolution haven't helped issue much either. If the absolutist absurdum argument is to hold sway, then don't be surprised that the gun banners raise the stakes. If we, the gun owners, wish to preserve our legitimate rights then he absolutist absurdum position has to be jettisoned, because at some point the public (the people) are going to get tired of witnessing the senseless slaughter that is going on our streets every damned day.
The armed revolution is called for because of calls from the Left to ban guns. Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Either way, I don't advocate, nor do I agree with calls for armed revolt. For sure, Beck et al are TV entertainers, and not elected officials. Beck can't pass a law legalizing armed revolution. Congress can pass a law banning rights afforded in the Constitution. Just ask Bill Clinton.
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.
Free Guns for Everybody
