It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 04:20 PM
Here's another:

In Illinois where we don't allow concealed carry, violent crime INCREASED in 63 out of 102 counties last year.

The Illinois violent crime rate is 635 per 100K, while in Texas the rate is 511 per 100k (where concealed carry is allowed).

In Florida, which has one of highest concealed carry rates the violent crime rate is 811.

What does this mean?

Not a damn thing.

One thing we can all agree on is that crime sucks.

One thing most of us can agree on is that given a choice if confronted and in mortal danger we would rather have a firearm than get beaten or killed.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:18 PM
I havn't read every single post on this thread as most of the gun debate threads are the same. What I want to point out here is the main point that alwasy seems to get missed and washed under the rug in a bunch of statistics with each side trying to to prove their point.

First of all I am very pro gun. The reasons are very simple

1. It is a right granted by the constitution of the united states. This right was put into the constitution for several reasons but the main reason was so that the American people would have the ability to fight off and/or stage a revoltion against a tyranical government that no longer worked for the benfit of the people. The right was also given to us a a means of defending ourselves from attack from both foreign and domestic enemies. That means 1 billion screaming china men or the elite that wish to tax us to death or the burgler trying to take your family jewels. These are the reasons that we must maintain the ability to have and bear semiautomatic weapons. In the case of a revolution or an invasion of a foreign army we can not defend ourselves properly with normal hunting rifles. We must be able to defend oursleves with something somewhat equivilent to what the armies of the world are currently using. Supose the technology came about to create laser blasters such as in star wars, in that case we the people should have the right to bear those types of firearms as well. I would also go further to state that the constitution gives us the right to create and maintain a well governed militia. A well governed militia should be able to obtain and train with the same type of weapons that are armed forces are currently using. No!! I don't think that a militia should be able to arms themselves with a thermo nuclear device however I do believe they should be able to obtain and train with automatic weapons, grenades, etc. Well regulated is the word here and the National Guard doesn't count becasue when it comes down to it they will be sanctioned and put to use by the military.

2. Hunting and the need to procur food for survival.

3. Investments. Guns are a fantastic tangible investment when bought properly and cared for will increase in or hold their value.

There you have it 3 very simple reasons. The top two of which greatly override any possible statistics that you can come up with. Deaths will alwasy occur whether it be by Guns, swords, knifes, blunt objects. If someone is intent on killing another human being they will find a way. The advantages of gun ownership far outweigh the alternatives.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by photobug]

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by emsed1

I live in florida and I think one of the things you need to take into consideration when quoting gun deaths is that many of the deaths are casued by and to gang related activity. Gang related activity in florida is huge. If there were more armed and caring citizens that didnt put up with that crap the gun deaths would increase until the gangs got the message and were all dead. Then you would see the gun deaths decrease.

Another statistic that is often overlooked is the number of deaths, robberies and other violent crimes that are prevented by those that carry guns. I would wager that far more deaths are prevented than actually occur due to citizens that defend themselves.

Another statistic that must be analyzed in countries that have active gun bans is the number of deaths that have occured by other means. Just becasue gun related deaths have gone down doesn't mean that violent crimes and deaths by other means have dropped.

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 09:58 PM

MMM and you say if americans did not have easy access to guns these figures would still happen ???.

So I look at my own nation who has had strong ( though I dont believe its just) gun control since 1996
Now the US lost 148,000 in the last five years according to these figures, and roughly the UK last ( only have figures from 2006) 2006 210, 2005 185, 2004 191, 2003 187, 2002 193.

Ban cars and doctors you say!!! even more fascinating please tell me how many car driving and doctors deliberately set out to kill someone ?

Guns dont kill people, people kil people I know that, but allowing morons to have guns causing far more bloodshed than stoping people having easy acess to guns does.

Seems you are just parroting the anti-gun lobbyists. More than one third of all gun deaths are suicides. Most gun deaths arise from confrontations between known criminals. In 10 years there were only 16 murders/manslaughters by CCW holders, in ALL states. Yet CCW holders account for more than 9% of total annual gun deaths - so only 16 deaths in 9% of all gun deaths annually - if you subtract that 16 away from the total for 10 years, you get a huge amount of legitimate deaths. These were people committing crimes and getting shot.
The third biggest chunk of gun deaths is actual felonious murder - which would probably be prevented if the victims had guns.
Gun restriction only harms law-abiding gun owners.
Take a look at the Washington gun-ban! They banned guns, the crime rate sky-rocketed, simply because criminals knew victims could not defend themselves! Criminals will get guns regardless.
The solution is more responsible people with guns.
Oh, and how many violent deaths do you get in UK? They can't shoot you, so they stab you, kick you to death, hit you with a hammer?
At least here we can go to a bar or a soccer match without having a fight.
My 2c.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by cruzion]

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 03:55 AM
cool, the H&K G36 and its' variants arent on the list!


posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:22 AM
What debate?

2nd amendment is quite clear. Mince Capitalization. Doesn't matter.

You don't like America? leave.

[edit on 3·14·09 by DrMattMaddix]

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 07:41 AM
For anyone thinking this isn't possible, think again.

Down here in Australia our Govt banned firearms. They had a period (amnesty?) where you could bring in whatever firearm you owned to the "authorities" and no questions asked.

Millions of firearms where handed in - now if your caught with a firearm, and not permitted to own it, your fined and/or jailed.

Are people still being killed by firearms? You betcha! Basically there are two majority groups in society who own firearms now - the police, and the criminals. Average Joe Smith is at the mercy of any criminal who wants to come into his home armed.
Your only option is to call the police. What a joke! By the time the police arrive, the crime has been committed. Oh and for the record - serious crimes involving knives are at an all time high here in Australia.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not a fan of firearms, but I believe people need to have the right to choose and a right to protect themselves.
Honestly, the black market in firearms in Australia is rife. They have been very vigilant to try and keep that information from the public. But any criminal who wants a firearm, its as simple as having the money for one. Whilst the average person is now at their mercy.

The BS story of making it safer for all? Melbourne right now has an epidemic of violence on our streets. The new police commissioner has vouched to crack down on violent street crime. But if you do the research, the rampant rise in street assaults, robbery and so forth all started not too long AFTER the guns where taken away from the public.

Result? Now we have gangs armed with knives and some with guns. And no one has anything to protect themselves with against them. Dont believe me? Do a search on Melbourne's street violence - its all there in black and white.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 11:02 AM
Are there any loopholes? The list looks very thorough but I’m not a gun expert. Are any guns allowed? If it lists rifles, shotguns and pistols I don’t see any exceptions. Are those who live in Montana still exempt from this law?

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 12:56 PM

Originally posted by SM2
The SkS is listed. To reply to a previous poster..It will not save a single life. How is banning anything going to save a life? The weapons on the list classified as "assualt weapons" are a complete falsehood. All these weapons are just semi automatic weapons that cosmectically appear like thier military/ law enforcement counter parts. Apperance does not make them assualt weapons.An assualt weapon has a selectable fire rate capable of full auto and or 3-5 round burst, these are all single trigger pull, single fire semi automatic weapons. Back to the orginal will banning these weapons save a single life? I would like to see a sensable, real world, verified answer to this please.

90% of firearm deaths in this country are from illegal weapons used by gang bangers and other criminals. It won't decrease mortality rate, it will increase it. Look at how the crime rate in England increased when they banned their weapons.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 09:11 PM
The AK-74u isn't on there whooo! The most legendary paramilitary gun lives on.

posted on Mar, 16 2009 @ 12:57 PM
Why do they need to worry about causing a flap over the 22nd amendment when all they really need to do is control the access to ammunition:

Effective immediately DOD Surplus, LLC, will be implementing new requirements for mutilation of fired shell casings. The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction. Mutilation of the property can be done at the DRMO, if permitted by the Government, or it may be mutilated at a site chosen by the buyer. Mutilation means that the property will be destroyed to the extent prevents its reuse or reconstruction. DOD Surplus personnel will determine when property has been sufficiently mutilated to meet the requirements of the Government.
If you do not agree with the new conditions of your spot sale, please sign the appropriate box provided below stating that you do not agree to the new terms and would like to cancel your purchase effective immediately. If you do agree to the new terms please sign in the appropriate box provided below to acknowledge your understanding and agreement with the new requirements relating to your purchase. Fax the signed document back to (480) 367-1450, emailed responses are not acceptable.
Please respond to this request no later than close of business Monday, March 16th, 2009.

Government Liquidation.

(Got that? From now on, remanufacturers of military brass will not be able to buy surplus brass from DOD–actually from Government Liquidators, llc.–the corporation that sells surplus materials for the U.S. government. At least, not in any form recognizable as once-fired brass ammunition.)

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Sergeant Stiletto]

posted on Mar, 17 2009 @ 07:54 PM
"I'm sorry officer, but those firearms were stolen from me in that burglary I reported the day after the federal firearms mandatory registration bill was passed. I'm sorry you fellas drove way out here to confiscate property I no longer am in possession of. Can I offer you a cup of coffee for the road?"

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 11:21 AM
Ahem. Sorry that last comment was a bit immature.

So to WhiteWave. Yes you would think that with guns being banned and therefore no one being able to protect yourself would mean that no one would get shot. However there is the small problem of that theory being utter bull. Plus if I do want to kill someone I can just get the meat knife from the kitchen. Honestly anyone who thinks that banning guns will help the situation really needs there head looked at by a medical professional. Violent crime has gone up since guns were banned in the UK. So has gun crimes. So has knife crimes etc.. We have the problem of having ignorant fools in charge of the country. If I want a gun I can get one.

I go to a country in Europe where they have different gun laws. I then get a gun and hide it in a suitcase of clothes. I then take the channel tunnel back to Britain. I now have an illegal gun in the UK. I mean honestly wake up. If thousands of illegal immigrants sneak into the country every year then how hard is it to get one gun in. OK so now I am a criminal for having a gun illegally. However I do not care due to the fact that I was committing crimes beforehand and now I am simply going to keep on doing that only now instead of me having a blunt object and the victim having a blunt object. I have a gun and the victim has a blunt object. Crime gets easier.

Also on the knife front it works like this. Since guns went knife crime has gone up. This is because people with criminal records in the past couldn't get a gun to attack gun carrying and law-abiding citizens and they didn't feel like taking a knife against someone with a gun. Now they know their victim won't have a gun and almost certainly won't have a knife so the odds are now in the criminals favour. It has gotten so bad that know some people have started carrying a knife because they are scared of getting attacked by someone with one.

posted on Mar, 18 2009 @ 08:37 PM
Actually, think about it for a moment...the Second Amendment says what it says. The Supreme Court has recently upheld that it affirms a personal right to bear arms.

There has lately been an understandable rush to buy arms that might soon be outlawed, but the Constitution and laws are on our side.

"My cold dead hands" is a creed as much as a philosophy.

Let them try to take them away. See what happens.

It will be the beginning of the end.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:18 PM
I'll have to talk to some of my friends, see if I can procure myself a gun. I once read on here somewhere "The Day guns are criminalized is the day I become a criminal." I have to agree with that person. Especially with Gangs on the uprise in my city, I think that once they know that law abiding citizens won't have firearms, they'll start breaking in.

We have our rights, despite what our friend the president says, and now is very much a time of need in most places, even though some would argue otherwise.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:47 PM
The real body count will start the moment they attempt to enforce this unconstitutional travesty; quickly escalating into the Second American Revolution.

posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Northern Raider
...Ban cars and doctors you say!!! even more fascinating please tell me how many car driving and doctors deliberately set out to kill someone ?...

Physicians kill about 200,000 a year by prescribing the CORRECT medicines in the CORRECT dosages. Chew on that.

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:08 AM
Crgintx pretty much summed up my thoughts on the whole gun ban thing.

This Obama gun ban is just like the gun ban passed in the UK post Hungerford massacre in 1987.
They banned all the assault weapons and a whole raft of other stuff like pump action shotguns.

Then post Dunblaine they finished the job with the draconian one on all handguns (even .22 ones for gods sakes!).
Secretly the PTB must of been partying like rock stars at disarming the lawful gun-owners.

It's like 'he killed some people with a sword, lets ban all swords.'
The 'ban it if it kills' mentality is appalling when it's the person NOT the tool that is the problem.

It is so bad that, to this day, the public's mindset (in the UK) is that anyone wanting a gun is a gun nut.
Somebody actually had the gall to consider owning a crossbow meant 'he is a 'michael ryan.' Meaning a crazy.
Even in the British Armed forces the ownership of handguns/arms was discouraged and considered 'not the right way.'
A very socialist vibe permenates through Britain on handguns, but this is due, in part to not having a Revolution against the PTB to put laws in the hands of the people.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by WatchRider]

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by WatchRider

And twenty years ago I would have called you a gun nut.

What happened? To be fair I think I grew up.

I don't own a gun; I did go clay pidgeon shooting a couple of years ago; do I constantly kick myself for telling my father to hand in my grandfathers .22? Well now I do.

I can't tell you why we're not gun nuts, I just know we're not. My good lady is in the "me twenty years ago category" but that's okay because there's plenty of time...

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 12:50 AM
The right to have guns goes doubly for those of us who live in Gang territories, or places that have high crime rates(Usually gang territories). In Iraq, every man over the age of sixteen is allowed to have one AK47 and a pistol. I think a law like that should be put in place, every man and woman over eighteen or twenty one should be allowed the right to a pistol or other firearm. If I hear anything about this law on the news, I'm getting one, legally or not.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in