Originally posted by links234
I'll give as honest answer as I can; to prevent or reduce killing sprees. No one seems to care if 15 different people kill 15 other people with
handguns. They do care if one person kills 15 people with a semi-automatic rifle.
More importantly, of the nine options the president has proposed the only one I hear being discussed is the AWB. My question for the
anti-gun-control folks is this:
Why do you vocally oppose only one aspect of the issue?
I agree that the mechanism they use to push forward on gun control is killing sprees. No doubt about it, and they'll even manufacture the data in
those sprees to get the ammo they want to use. This morning on ATS the top story is on the Sandy Hook official MSM story falling apart. It seems a
semi-automatic rifle wasn't even used there, just handguns.
AWB: I am vocal on the "assault weapon" proposal because of the reasons so many have mentioned here: It deprives law abiding citizens of the right to
keep and bear a weapon that would be effective in defeating tyranny or defending against large numbers of aggressors. In another thread I outlined
the reality of rioting violence, and owning an appropriately large capacity magazine/weapon to defend yourself is a natural application of the 2nd.
I think the (honest) pro-control folks think we are scared about tyranny next week. I own guns for life. What is in store for 25, 40, 50 years from
now? For law abiding citizens, guns are preparation and insurance against the worst case scenarios. We don't want to ever have to use them, but as
realists, we recognize that the time may come in our life when we must. If that day comes, I'd prefer to be armed, to defend my family.
MENTAL HEALTH: I haven't dissected into the mental health provisions as other threads have, but they cite serious and real concerns regarding the
impact on the people's 2nd amendment rights. If past legislation has shown us anything, it is that the government is adept at using vague terms, oddly
placed commas and open ended phrasing. With the patriot act, those bastards have made it technically legal for the US government to detain w/o trial
any citizen, ship us off to another country for more...uh..."effective" interrogations, hell, even assasinate us. But they would never do that, they
said...Yet the potential is still law.
BACKGROUND CHECKS: I don't speak for everyone, but I say bring em on. It is odd that to buy a gun in a shop I get checked, but at a gun show I don't.
As for private sales, they can pass whatever laws they want, but lets be real: about 0.01% of private sales will voluntarily background check. But
conversely, those really aren't the weapons (or demographic) that are going to show up in violent crime either. (meaning a lawful citizen selling
privately to a lawful citizen, not some back alley gang-sale)
APPOINT DIRECTOR, ATF: Holy hell, did I learn something the other day from Jon Stewart. Here's a link I ran into illustrating (on the right this
time) the problem with politicians, and why they ought to be tarred and feathered rather than re-elected. If congress would give ATF their balls
I think they could do a whole lot of good just enforcing the existing20,000
Sorry, it's a Hulu link so I couldn't embed, it's 2 parts, both on the above link!
edit on 19-1-2013 by blamethegreys because: We the poster, in order to create a more perfect post...