US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals

page: 8
104
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Thank you for saying what has been on my mind. I like you feel as though mentioning ATS would have me labeled as one of them. To make matters worse reading some posts it seems some want to believe pro gun people are intermixed with them, which is completely false.

I have been here quite some time, done more reading than posting I guess. However, to have anyone think I am like those who believe that drivel is frightening, shaming, and downright sickening. Then there are the gun grabbers who link anyone owning a gun as being some nut case. Making it out that owning a gun will cause a person to go a mass shooting spree.

As for the gun laws I admit there needs to be something done about the mental health issue. That said that point is also a very slippery slope. Who is saying someone is mentally incapable of owning a gun? What are the points that make one so mentally ill that they cannot own a gun? And considering that the last few (SH included) were not even the shooters guns, how do they suppose to keep the guns from the hands of the mentally ill?

Raist




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I see ATS as a learning tool as much as I see it as a communication tool as such it is only right that as I learn more I adapt my views to reflect as much


I would like to personally applaud you (OtherSideOfTheCoin) for being brave enough to express this change in your views here. This is evidence of a true scholar that weighs the facts as presented, and assesses his beliefs and views in light of that evidence, unafraid to change if the facts point away from the initial views (and I would say this t someone that was an anti-gun-control advocate that changed to a gun-control advocate as well).

On-Topic:
I wonder about the long-term side effects of opening HIPPA to allow access to the medical records of private citizens for a background check. I mean, nobody has taken advantage or mishandled this data ever


Then you add in the recent changes proposed in Massachusetts that suggest additional insurance requirements for registered gun owners. So, now, that sets a precedent that insurance companies have access to this information and could combine it with health data to raise you health insurance rates because your "perceived risk" is higher.

I worry about not the direct effects of these changes,but how they integrate with other changes that have associations/overlaps in the same area. IT does open a Pandora's box of misuse and leads to higher taxes and insurance rates for EVERYONE that is registered. If that is the case, in this economy, it makes an economic barrier to gun ownership. This in itself is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms....which is in violation of that amendment.

edit on 16-1-2013 by Krakatoa because: Clarified the person I was directing my commoent towards



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   
like in Sandy Hook, the guy took HIS MOTHERS GUNS, the ones LEGALLY LICENSED TO HER, does that mean if ANYONE in your household is labeled as mentally unstable or mental ANYTHING, no guns for you?
doesntb that infringe on the stable person's 2nd amendment rights?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by RandyBragg
I think you just need to get a black stock for any gun and they think it is an "assault rifle", maybe a pistol grip too.

I don't think they reached as far as black stocks.... yet.

But the pistol grip, ventilated barrel shrouds and attachment points for a bayonet are on the list.

I wonder, what is the problem with bayonets? Doesn't anyone remember the Presidential debates.... where we found out that the military doesn't use bayonets any more?


As far as I know, we haven't had a rash of bayonet killings either.
edit on 16-1-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


If the bayonet rider is in there again, without any replica or reproduction clause to cover historic arms, then you can forget any historic battle reenactments for the future. No Civil War battles, no Revolutionary War Battles (bye annual Lexington and Concord Reenactment).

Those firearm still DO have bayonet lugs as historically accurate (and the owners also carry replica bayonets). And I have NEVER ONCE saw a story of a mass shooting involving any of these historic replica firearms (which are real and working guns).



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 





If the bayonet rider is in there again, without any replica or reproduction clause to cover historic arms, then you can forget any historic battle reenactments for the future. No Civil War battles, no Revolutionary War Battles (bye annual Lexington and Concord Reenactment). Those firearm still DO have bayonet lugs as historically accurate (and the owners also carry replica bayonets). And I have NEVER ONCE saw a story of a mass shooting involving any of these historic replica firearms (which are real and working guns).


Well what will happen is the gun grabbers will say they dont need em, they can do the reenactments without em (I bet they have NEVER been a part of reenactments), or they will say oh well so sorry

ETA: wait a second, my airsoft M4 has a bayonet lug, am i in violation of the law now???
edit on 1/16/2013 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
like in Sandy Hook, the guy took HIS MOTHERS GUNS, the ones LEGALLY LICENSED TO HER, does that mean if ANYONE in your household is labeled as mentally unstable or mental ANYTHING, no guns for you?
doesntb that infringe on the stable person's 2nd amendment rights?


I 100% support that. If you have a mentally ill person in your house, then no guns should be in that house.

People who live in your household should be included in all background checks for buying and owning a gun.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 


you support ANY measures to take guns out of the hands out of law abiding people, dont you?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by HomerinNC
 


If it works like the old AWB you are ok to own it just not buy or sell form my understanding. With the 94 AWS you had pre-ban guns that were still owned, you just could not buy or sell the weapon.

Many got past this by buying the parts and assembling them on their own. I cannot remember but I want to say some of the parts were illegal to buy and sell as well.


During the period when the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's flowchart of an assault weapon or large capacity ammunition feeding device, except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency. The law also banned possession of illegally imported or manufactured firearms, but did not ban possession or sale of pre-existing 'assault weapons' or previously factory standard magazines that were legally redefined as large capacity ammunition feeding devices. This provision for pre-ban firearms created higher prices in the market for such items, which still exist due to several states adopting their own assault weapons ban.


en.wikipedia.org...

So yeah if you own it you are within the law. You just will not be buying a new one.

Raist



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by HomerinNC
like in Sandy Hook, the guy took HIS MOTHERS GUNS, the ones LEGALLY LICENSED TO HER, does that mean if ANYONE in your household is labeled as mentally unstable or mental ANYTHING, no guns for you?
doesntb that infringe on the stable person's 2nd amendment rights?


I 100% support that. If you have a mentally ill person in your house, then no guns should be in that house.

People who live in your household should be included in all background checks for buying and owning a gun.


So now you are advocating the invasion of privacy of those individuals who are not even trying to purchase a firearm.

Does the 5 year old son need a back ground check? How about 86 year old grandma?

That individuals who may, or may not have anything to do with the purchase, ownership or possession of said firearm should now be discriminated against due to a condition that someone in the house may or may not have?

What about boarding houses where people rent rooms? Should that apply too?
edit on 16-1-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by xedocodex
 


you support ANY measures to take guns out of the hands out of law abiding people, dont you?


Nope, I support logical regulation to attempt to make society safe. People with mental issues having easy access to guns does not make us safer.

I fully support all mentally stable households to own a gun that is reasonable in society, not machine guns or any other gun that should only exist on the battlefield.

It's really a simple position and shouldn't be that hard to understand.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by xedocodex
 




Nope, I support logical regulation to attempt to make society safe

Then get to work at banning alcohol, tobacco and motorcycles.

Each one kills far more people than guns each year.... and society can live without any of them.

And while you are at it, get legislation passed to mandate that everyone wear helmets and personal flotation devices at all times. An incredible amount of people are killed each year by falls and unintentional drowning.
edit on 16-1-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Also add to that a speed limiting factor to every automobile on the road limiting it to no faster than 45 MPH. Also it would be good to add rollcages to every one of them as well. Of course we need to do something with drugs also because they cause a lot of deaths each year. Maybe we could start a war on drugs?


Raist



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by xedocodex
 




Nope, I support logical regulation to attempt to make society safe

Then get to work at banning alcohol, tobacco and motorcycles.

Each one kills far more people than guns each year.... and society can live without any of them.

And while you are at it, get legislation passed to mandate that everyone wear helmets and personal flotation devices at all times. An incredible amount of people are killed each year by falls and unintentional drowning.
edit on 16-1-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


I have no problem with people killing themselves, which is the majority of deaths by the three you listed.

Drunk driving is a problem, we already have laws on that, but I agree that more could be done.

Still, doesn't negate the fact that we still have to do something about guns.

Nice try, but these logical fallacies of trying to deflect from the issue at hand is juvenile.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Except that the Patriot Act was NOT first implemented by Obama, that honor goes to George Dubya. Also, SOPA was a bill proposed by the Republican representative from Texas named Lamar Smith and administration wasn't a big fan of it.

I respect your opinion, but at least cite correct facts.
edit on 1/16/13 by insightout because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


I would take that your an Obama supporter. Because the majority of Obama supporters are supporting him on destroying the 2nd amendment rights. I hope you understand that Obama isn't just talking about the gun control proposals as he claims and as you posted those suggestions he wants to ban the assault weapons where people wont have anything else defend to themselves with other then the crossbows.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Krakatoa
 


Thanks you for you for the kind words there dude, much appreciated.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Where is OWS now? They are fine with talking about the constitution whenever it suits them, i guess they are okay with a deteriorating 2nd amendment.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


Instead of going through point by point, let me point out a few things.

My youngest son (he's 9 now) has had firearm training. We went to a range when he was 6 and he started learning. He can fire a .22 caliber Savage bolt-action and hit centre mass at 30 yards.

I have a gun safe (in the States)
My ammo is locked in another/ separate gun safe. (I also have a 20 year old son).

The point is, I take precautions We do training My gun safes are anchor-bolted to the foundation of my house!

Obama's new "laws" do nothing to prevent a criminal from purchasing a weapon.

Point of fact; just after Obama's speech, I called my dealer in (snip) and got a Sig Sauer. And I'm in Germany!!!

So I'm law-abiding (so far) yet I can purchase a weapon with a phone call. (I have a CnC license, I've been checked-caveat)

What has changed for the criminals?
Nothing!!!

It's only MORE difficult for people like ME to buy a weapon.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomerinNC
reply to post by Krakatoa
 





If the bayonet rider is in there again, without any replica or reproduction clause to cover historic arms, then you can forget any historic battle reenactments for the future. No Civil War battles, no Revolutionary War Battles (bye annual Lexington and Concord Reenactment). Those firearm still DO have bayonet lugs as historically accurate (and the owners also carry replica bayonets). And I have NEVER ONCE saw a story of a mass shooting involving any of these historic replica firearms (which are real and working guns).


Well what will happen is the gun grabbers will say they dont need em, they can do the reenactments without em (I bet they have NEVER been a part of reenactments), or they will say oh well so sorry

ETA: wait a second, my airsoft M4 has a bayonet lug, am i in violation of the law now???
edit on 1/16/2013 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)


If that does happen, then it will expose their agenda of banning guns since that has zero to do with saving a life of a child....right?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   
It seems that thanks to the SCOTUS they might be able to "legally" ban multiple types of weapons and even confiscate said weapons if they so chose.

bigthink.com...


In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self-defense, despite the amendment’s opening language - “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ” - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then). Gun rights advocates cheered. Gun control advocates cried foul.


The question is what will be considered legal or not. What one deems as proper protection another might not. For instance myself I think a shotgun is a logical choice for home protection, a handgun following a close second. Others might feel a handgun or an AK-47 is the proper protection.

Raist





new topics

top topics



 
104
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join