Obama's Gun Ban List Is Out!

Originally posted by AntiNWO

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I absolutely support our Right to Bear Arms and I am a Hunter and own a variety of Guns. Still I have no issue with having certain weapons banned as anyone with a bit of skill can easily convert a Assault Rifle that has been designed to be semi-automatic to becoming Full Automatic.

So it's OK to ban guns, just so long as they're not your guns? That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

When is the last time someone converted a semi-auto and then went on a killing spree? Can't say that I've ever heard of such a thing. And I could be wrong, but don't think it's quite so easy to convert a semi-auto to full auto. Sounds like Brady rhetoric to me.

Your posts are as intelligent as your avatar....

Converting from semi to full is relatively easy and common... a simple google search would've told you that...

As for a hunter being rational enough to agree with banning automatic weaponry, it's not hypocritical - it's sane.

Things are not black and white, but grey.

I know it's hard for gun nuts to process that (or in the OP case, do simple research without freaking out), but it's true none the less.

The US is NOT trying to ban a huge list of guns, or letting the UN write it's laws - that's paranoia - a dodgy trait for someone with a lot of guns; that being said, the US SHOULD ban a lot more and enforce a lot more... the gun fatality rate in the US is simply pathetic.

reply to post by longlostbrother


As I see it, its a waste of time and perhaps shows the true agenda of those who support it. About 80% of those gun-related homicides are committed while the perpetrator is using a handgun...and in most cases, its a cheap handgun. Bans on fully automatic rifles (which are hardly an off-the-shelf item and are far from inexpensive) and 'assault' rifles accomplish little except to make some people feel better. In reality, they account for a very small percentage of the firearm-related crime in the country.

In light of that fact, its reasonable to assume that this proposed ban would be ineffective at accomplishing a reduction in the homicide rate. So what's the point, except to strip away the rights of the millions of people who use that class of weapons legally and responsibly? There isn't one that I can see.

I am not for banning types of weapons or banning types of ammo however for certain types like incendiary and AP rounds there should be permits obtained. Restricting clip size is just dumb it will not affect much and shouldn’t be done. The main issue is keeping these weapons and rounds out of the hands of people that have no business owning a gun like the mentally unstable.

The fact came out about the guy who killed all those people at the movie how he was showing signs of instability. Shortly before he murdered those people he tried to join a gun range and they turned him away. I have never heard of ranges turning people away but that is a pretty good sign that there was something wrong with him. The issue should be about keeping these weapons out of wacko’s hands. Background checks are not enough they should have mental evaluations as well. I have no problem with full autos or silencers either you just have to pay the tax and register them. My pops has a few silencers and when we go boar hunting it makes a huge difference. It is also nice not having to use ear protection.

If we can keep guns out of crazy people’s hands we wouldn’t even be talking about any of this.


The only debate that should be going on is the debate about our current mental health system and how it is completely subpar.

reply to post by vor78


It does happen though. About 6 months ago a kid had gotten into a car accident with another kid from school. He showed up at his house that night with 2 converted AKs and opened fire on his house with his family inside the police showed and he fired on them it ended after he tried to take his own life. Seminole County Florida. He was another case of someone that should have been under mental care.

I think everyone is missing the real issue. The elephant is right in front of everyone but no seems to see it.

reply to post by Grimpachi


It certainly does happen, I'm not going to disagree with that. But in the grand scheme of things, its a very small minority of the gun-related homicides in the country. I'm just saying that if you're expecting a ban on those types of weapons to have a real impact on the homicide rate, you're in for a disappointment.

And I agree with you completely about the ineffectiveness of the mental health system in preventing many of these crimes. It seems as though too often, the warning signs are ignored. Although I think we have to be careful not to go overboard, that side of it needs to be tightened up, no question.

reply to post by Grimpachi


i actually heard about this guy named ted bundy he used handy tools. so did Andrei Chikatilo in russia where they ban guns, like all these infamously known serial killers used all sorts of stuff to torture people to death. so criminals use all types of impliments.
bun guns and you may as well ban the DEADLIEST weapon of all... the human mind. yes the human mind is a constantly sharpening instrument that brings homicidal tendancies to play. maybe perhaps more people should be armed to the teeth because of serial killers, troubled people with guns that they could get from the black market, gangs.
the elephant in the room is an armed assailant versus unexpecting unarmed assailant. this brings up to mind social darwinism. if i had a .45 i could take someones eye out who is 25 yards away with one shot if they were using full auto. when you hold down on full auto, an ak-47 wants to go up with every shot effecting the accuracy. you have to aim your weapon.
one shot one kill. full auto is for using three round bursts to lay down supressive fire against an enemy under cover. that is the sun tzu aspect of an ak-47 or any full automatic machine gun. if you have a belt fed 50 cal you can supress enemies long enough to permanently subdue them. that family was not armed and should have had the knowledge to protect themselves from a degenerate scumbag. and an ak- 47 does jam during full auto. another video of an example of supressive fir

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

As I see it, its a waste of time and perhaps shows the true agenda of those who support it. About 80% of those gun-related homicides are committed while the perpetrator is using a handgun...and in most cases, its a cheap handgun. Bans on fully automatic rifles (which are hardly an off-the-shelf item and are far from inexpensive) and 'assault' rifles accomplish little except to make some people feel better. In reality, they account for a very small percentage of the firearm-related crime in the country.

In light of that fact, its reasonable to assume that this proposed ban would be ineffective at accomplishing a reduction in the homicide rate. So what's the point, except to strip away the rights of the millions of people who use that class of weapons legally and responsibly? There isn't one that I can see.

Why is owning an automatic weapon a "right"?

Can I own a missile launcher?

A nuclear weapon?

We ALL know that some weapons are not for personal use and have no legitimate purpose in the hands of civilians. There should be no need, in other words, for anyone to have access to automatic weaponry. Allowing someone that wants to commit a crime access to automatic weapons is, frankly, stupid.

I also agree with your first point though, handguns are the main problem.

Most countries aren't awash with hand guns and they do just fine.

Americans are wildly paranoid about their governement's desire to imprison them or otherwise take away their freedoms. The US governement has neither the desire or ability to become a dictatorship, and even if it did, the chances of the MASSIVE military going along with it is pretty insane.

If the US wanted to allow just hunting rifles, I'd be fine with that.

America's obsession with guns and paranoia is extremely unhealthy... in fact, most everything in America is unhealthy..

reply to post by longlostbrother

First, I dont hear many cases of criminals using full auto weapons (just the one bank robbery case in CA a few years ago). Second, I dont hear a lot of stories of people illegally converting semi-autos to full autos (requires an auto sear...I am not talking about those bump fire systems). Third, in the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) they also banned bayonet lugs and birdcage flash suppressors which have nothing to do with full auto functionality but are more related to the military appearance of the weapon. They want to take away the warrior culture that goes with this genre of firearms not just the guns per se. If I am right then they will go after benign military surplus gear including camouflage clothing as well.

reply to post by longlostbrother


maybe the governments obsession with handguns, semi autos, and disarming civillians could be causing the civillian obsession with firearms. i like how switzerland requires people to have semi automatic rifles and grow what americans can't grow in their living rooms. wow is it switzerland or america that's the land of the free and the home of the whopper? oh well. maybe if enough people are armed gun related violence might happen less.

reply to post by longlostbrother

Why is owning an automatic weapon a "right"? Can I own a missile launcher?

You can own a flamethrower. There are no federal restrictions on them.

You could own a fully automatic weapon before 1934 without registering it or paying an extra tax. In the Phillipines, they have very restrictive laws regarding firearms. People kill each other with machetes there.

The problem is that we have prisons full of people that got convicted of using and selling drugs, and the government releases some criminals early that commit crimes such as murder, rape and robbery.

You don't solve the problem of speeding on highways by banning cars.

reply to post by longlostbrother


I'm not saying that owning a fully automatic weapon is a 'right', although I think it probably is. As it stands, fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and cost many thousands of dollars. They are out of reach for the average person and its highly unlikely that the wealthy buyers are going to use them to commit crimes anytime soon.

Its not really relevant, anyway. Any new law would affect semi-automatics instead.

Honestly, I just see it as a solution in search of a problem. We have 15,000 homicides a year in the US. About 9000 are gun-related, and of those, less than 500 in a typical year involve the use of any kind of rifle, whether its an 'assault' rifle or a hunting rifle. 500 is about as low as its going to get unless you just apply a blanket ban to ALL rifles (and many, myself included, would argue that a complete ban would have the opposite effect). I just don't see where this is an effective solution when the problem lies somewhere else.

The end result is that you're just going to have about 20-30 million pissed off owners of such weapons who were never guilty of anything except owning something that looked scary to some people. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I don't believe in restricting the rights of the overwhelming majority just because a few idiots abuse that right. Go after the latter, not the former.

One thing I'd also point out is that the 1994 AWB expired in 2004. Now, if those weapons were such a menace, one would have expected the US homicide rate to have skyrocketed, right...especially since people have been buying them by the millions over the last few years.

The funny thing is, the US homicide rate, and total homicides, have continued to drop. In 2011, the homicide rate and total number of homicides were lower than at any point since the late 1960s. This isn't an anomaly, either. We could easily have homicide rates comparable to much of western Europe within a couple of decades if the current trend continues. If we're moving in the right direction already, and we clearly are, then a ban would seem completely unnecessary to me.

All this means is that most guns on this list will be hidden in places the government has little or no access.

How they expect to enforce the surrender of guns is beyond me. Sure some people who inherited guns and who feel uncomfortable with them in their house will gladly give them up, but the remainder of the gun owning population will not surrender them.

Why would a person surrender something for which they paid hard cash? Seems unlikely. Some of these weapons cost dearly.

The constitution does not spell out the brand, model, or type of guns permitted, thus all guns are permitted to private ownership, without limit.

The Supreme Court has said most gun ownership is legal. Perhaps the patsies who now sit on that bench will bend to his will, but it is unlikely gun owners will recognize any new rulings fly in the face of gun ownership.

According to Wikipedia :

"The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]"

.

It also comes to mind that those of us who were trained to use guns when we were young, have no fear of guns, but important respect for same. We don't run around waving our guns like some kooks.

I remember in the 1960's and before, many teens who owned pickup trucks had a gun rack in the rear window with one or two guns proudly displayed. Now I only occasionally see such racks.

When in High School we had a rifle range in the basement of the school. We often brought our guns to school, put them in our lockers with bullets, and thought nothing of it. Never had a problem.

Today, there is a Christian youth camp about 1/2 mile from my home. In their brochure they proudly announce and show their summer campers being taught to use rifles. (Girls and boys) This is the same as when I too went to summer camp in the '50s.

Finally with the hundreds of millions of guns secreted around this country, and very knowledgeable owners counted in the hundreds of millions, the task of trying to forcefully take weapons away will be nearly impossible. Gun laws created to make criminals of those who do not surrender their guns will be moot.

reply to post by rockoperawriter


I may be wrong but wasn’t Bundy a stalker serial killer that lured people into a false sense of security. I think he would have been the type to make friends with you and get you to a point where you would hand him your gun. Weapons ban or not I don’t think it would have made one difference with him except he would probably get kicks out of killing you with your own stuff.

My point about the kid that went all Rambo was he had mental problems that if we had a better health care system in place should have had him somewhere already being treated to where this never happened. If we had mental heath checks required for gun ownership he may have been one that wouldn’t have passed. I never heard how he got the guns but wouldn’t it have been a b23ch if he had bought them that day? I wonder if he already had the ammo or if he just picked up at Wal-Mart. I don’t know the answers but that would be a pretty bad scenario it’s just sad to know it is well within the realm of a possibility in this case.

I just believe there needs to be better screening than what we have and I think that is reasonable.

reply to post by PMNOrlando


lol even the website doesn't source anything. I call BS yet again, and to answer your question NO I'm not alarmed.

reply to post by PMNOrlando


About time. The quicker Americans are disarmed the better. Obama has it right. A fair healthcare system and less guns on the street. Four more years!

reply to post by rockoperawriter


One difference with Switzerland you need to keep in mind is all those gun owners are also considered there military every single one of them have been through a boot camp and trained in not only the basics but they have gone through our version of a AIT school they are all considered inactive reservists and I believe once a year they prequalify with a unit to stay proficient. Crime rate is low there though aside from car theft.

reply to post by vor78


There is much more involved in the drop in crime than just weapons laws. It was nationwide phenomenon which many contribute to roe vs. wade determination that was made. There were less hoodlums turning of age and entering the streets becoming career criminals because there wasn’t as many unwanted children being borne into America. It is cause and effect plain and simple. I don’t the crime rate had anything to do with gun restrictions especially the stupid rules like flash suppressors.

Crime and gun crime is a social economic issue more than anything but as we have seen with the latest shooting sprees it has been a mental health issue.

They came for my guns (never had one actually) when they determined I wasn't mentally fit to have one, yet I've never hurt anyone physicaly, and have proceeded in life to respect even my most hated enemies and let them live, whoever they are. You know who im talking about random stalkers, that's right im more benevolent than you are. But seriously thanks for ruining my life. your awesome. HA.