White House: Obama ‘Profoundly Frustrated’ — Ready For More Executive Action On Gun Control

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Working with some very poor parts of the community in SC I an tell you nobody has cared for over 30 years about the 50 or so people that die every weekend in Chicago or other parts of the us. Those gun laws have done zero.

Maybe people just feel the problem won't be solved by taking away guns.

"Gun control is like getting a vasectomy when your neighbor has too many children."
-Clint Eastwood.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TarzanBeta

Working with some very poor parts of the community in SC I an tell you nobody has cared for over 30 years about the 50 or so people that die every weekend in Chicago or other parts of the us. Those gun laws have done zero.

Maybe people just feel the problem won't be solved by taking away guns.

That's exactly my point.

How bad will things get for people before they start being willing to give up their rights?

I believe that is the question that Obama is asking himself.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I do! The fewer mentally ill cowards with guns the better.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I have to admit, either people aren't reading the same article as me, or y'all just aren't getting the real point of it. The major implication here is that they don't know how much we will have to suffer before we give up our rights.

Come on now. I don't like feeling alone.

Just imagine how much we will suffer if we give up our rights.

a reply to: xuenchen

My gosh, 222 years ago people were killing each other with muskets. The law is outdated, it needs to be changed. The killing machines that we call guns, are nothing like the guns they used 222 years ago.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I have to admit, either people aren't reading the same article as me, or y'all just aren't getting the real point of it. The major implication here is that they don't know how much we will have to suffer before we give up our rights.

Come on now. I don't like feeling alone.

Just imagine how much we will suffer if we give up our rights.

How many will have the fortitude to think that way through every single crisis that hits home?

originally posted by: TheAmazingYeti
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I do! The fewer mentally ill cowards with guns the better.

They aren't talking about taking the guns away from cops.

www.westernjournalism.com... another link on same topic from a day or two ago

Used mainly for target practice and as a self-defense weapon, the rifle is rarely used in the commission of crimes in the U.S. Still it has been the target of anti-gun advocates, including Obama, who say it is an “assault rifle” and has “high-capacity magazines” and serves no real purpose other than to kill humans. Not true say hunters. Hunters often use the AR-15 to hunt predatory animals such as coyotes and wild boar. The boar population has become a national epidemic in the U.S. with many states changing hunting laws to allow for boar to be harvested even at night, all in an effort to prevent the destruction of agricultural crops. One critic of the idea calls the banning of assault weapons “a stupid idea pushed by stupid people.” It’s unclear how a ban on assault rifles by presidential executive order would be able to be effective. Some say it would be as effective as the United States’ ability to keep drugs out of the country. In other words, it would not be effective at all, only allowing for criminals to have weapons as law-abiding citizens would be defenseless to protect themselves and their families.

the critic must be an ats member because i have heard that line quoted a lot around here

a reply to: alonzo730

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I have to admit, either people aren't reading the same article as me, or y'all just aren't getting the real point of it. The major implication here is that they don't know how much we will have to suffer before we give up our rights.

Come on now. I don't like feeling alone.

Just imagine how much we will suffer if we give up our rights.

How many will have the fortitude to think that way through every single crisis that hits home?

The smart ones.

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: TarzanBeta
I have to admit, either people aren't reading the same article as me, or y'all just aren't getting the real point of it. The major implication here is that they don't know how much we will have to suffer before we give up our rights.

Come on now. I don't like feeling alone.

Just imagine how much we will suffer if we give up our rights.

How many will have the fortitude to think that way through every single crisis that hits home?

The smart ones.

I'm for the second amendment and I'm trying to help here, but this thread looks more like a Facebook feed and there's a reason I don't login anymore.

I'm thinking people are really not getting the point of this article.....

But, okie doke.

a reply to: TarzanBeta

Well the problems are not the guns.

This issue is being used to distract you from political failure.


To addresss violence we have to address poverty, education, political corruption, law enforcement corruption, mental healthcare, drug addiction, and organized crime.

Since politicians are unwilling to do this work they make up a fake symbolic debate which in this case is guns.

The actions that need be done are social and take hard work.

Passing gun legislation makes people feel great but it doesn't do anything for the victims or the new victims.

Chicago hasn't been effected at all by gun legislation. The crime us every bit as bad.

Of course so are the schools, job prospects, wealth etc. So of course passing gun laws doesn't work in the US. We have 100's of millions of guns in circulation. Maybe it's time to think about the root of the problem rather than the tool used to commit the crime.

Also the constitution can be amended. Why don't gun control people just do what your supposed to and get the votes. Otherwise sit down and shut up. Pretty sure liberals don't want the far right passing laws limiting the 14th amendment and neither do I.

Nobody should be able to unilaterally circumvent the constitution.

My gosh, 222 years ago people were killing each other with muskets.

Both the government and the populous had muskets. The populous is even more out gunned today.

Me thinks the fascists doth protest too much.



And.



There's some more hypocrisy.

a reply to: luthier

I think you're not understanding anything I'm saying.

I'm not distracted at all. I don't think the issue is with fire arms at all.

Critical thinking is to be employed here y'all. Help.

a reply to: alonzo730

you do know they had rapid fire weapons even before the consituion was signed or america gained its independence right?

www.youtube.com... 12 shot flintlock more then currently legal in NY

en.wikipedia.org... one of the fastest firing weapons up until 1900s

The Kalthoff repeater was a type of repeating firearm that appeared in the seventeenth century and remained unmatched in its fire rate until the mid-nineteenth century. As its inventor is unknown, it is named after the Kalthoff gunsmiths that has come to be associated with the design.

The Kalthoff had two magazines, one for powder and one for balls (some had a third for priming powder). A single forward-and-back motion on the trigger guard powered a mechanism that deposited a ball and load of powder in the breech and cocked the gun. Within one or two seconds, it was ready to fire again. A small carrier took the powder from the magazine to the breech, so there was no risk of an accidental ignition in the reserve. Early Kalthoff guns were wheellocks, later they became flintlocks. Some carried six shots, one claims in an inscription on its barrel to have thirty.

so possibly an antique assault rifle capable of up to 30 shots in a frigging wheel lock

en.wikipedia.org... from 1790s completely silent rapid fire with a detachable stock and 20 round capacity(.46 cal) ,made famous by the Lewis and Clarke expedition

en.wikipedia.org... lever action from early 1750s 20 round capacity

The mechanism at the heart of the Cookson repeater dates from 1680 and was originally known in Europe as the Lorenzoni System, named for Italian gunsmith Michele Lorenzoni of Florence. Long arms utilizing this system were produced in other European nations and in the United States until about 1849. The Cookson rifle dates from 1750 and features a two-chamber horizontally mounted rotating drum. Loading was accomplished by lowering a lever which was mounted on the left side of the rifle. This caused the chambers to line up with two magazines contained within the buttstock and allowed one .55 caliber lead ball and a 60-grain powder charge to fall into their respective chambers. When the lever was returned to its original position, the ball dropped into the chamber, and the powder charge lined up behind it. At the same time, the hammer was cocked, the pan was primed, and the frizzen was lowered. After firing the rifle, the process could be repeated until the two magazines, with their seven-shot capacities, were empty. Although other breech loading rifles were introduced in later years, the Cookson-type long arms were unique in their ability to fire multiple shots without reloading. This feature would later become widespread, but for a time, these repeaters represented the pinnacle in firearms development.

en.wikipedia.org... breach loader used against american forces by the british at saratoga but more of a novelty admittedly but was capable of up to 7 shots a minute which was astounding for the day


www.sadefensejournal.com... some of the more obscure firearms/field artillery from history

en.wikipedia.org... not a gun but a crossbow but the Chinese had semi automatic weapons before the time of Christ so saying the founders had no idea such weapons could achieve such rates of fire is completely false ,although they did take a lot longer to to reload then modern weapons

originally posted by: alonzo730
My gosh, 222 years ago people were killing each other with muskets. The law is outdated, it needs to be changed. The killing machines that we call guns, are nothing like the guns they used 222 years ago.

So, by your logic then:

Freedom of expression and assembly do not apply to the internet
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure does not apply to computers/cell phones/digital media at all

Is that correct?

Of course, with the disclosures related to the NSA, one could very well argue that the 4th has been ignored long ago, what matter is it that others are ignored?

a reply to: xuenchen

He still hasn't figured out that the LEGISLATIVE branch MAKES the laws. He just gets to enforce them (which he actually sucks at anyway).