So You Support Gun Control...

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by 200Plus
In all honesty the only reason I can think of for the ban on platforms firing 5.56mm and 7.62mm, is to limit the potential for "scavenging" from the military in the case of civil uprising.

I do expect 9mm, .40cal, and .45cal to be next on the chopping block.

The desire to ban "evil looking" weapons is simply to provide a crack in the dam, so to speak.

The reason they are targeting ARs and other "assault weapons" is because they are the most efficient tool with which to defeat tyranny.

A bolt action rifle vs. a semi-auto or full-auto rifle with 30 round mags. Not really a fair fight is it? Tyrants don't like a fair fight, remember that.

I disagree, while I believe the average citizen should be allowed tax free silenced fully automatic weapons under the 2A I disagree that guns are the most efficient tool.
The most efficient would be a pen.
The gun is just in case of catastrophic leaks, so we can plug the dam so to say.
All guns come with advantages and disadvantages, I'd take a sighted bolt action with scope over an assault or assault type weapon if I had a few hundred yards distance on my target, up close would be a different story.
So, just grab all forms of weaponry and cover all angles.

reply to post by CB328


nvm lol

reply to post by blamethegreys


It's hard to argue against facts, but that isn't what this is about now, or in the beginning. This is a campaign against our rights, and this is just a stepping stone for them. They do not care about the the facts in this matter, they just need another stepping stone to further the gun control agenda.

This time around they are targeting "assault weapons", but my guess now is they will take whatever they can get. The problem with this? They won't stop there, they will return a short while later with the same tired story looking to "save children, and protect the american public", but next time they will be after another stepping stone. This is how they hope to achieve incremental disarmament.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these proposed gun control laws are in direct response to the recent rash of mass shootings, no? General gun statistics don't really apply in that case. I think the intent here is to a) prevent people from accessing guns that have the propensity to kill many people in a short amount of time and b) prevent people who shouldn't have access to guns from getting that access. Those, to me, seem like very prudent goals.

The general epidemic of gun violence (much of it gang related) is a totally separate issue that likely needs to be handled with different avenues.

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 back, I think they could do a whole lot of good just enforcing the existing20,000 laws!

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Sorry, it's a Hulu link so I couldn't embed, it's 2 parts, both on the above link!

reply to post by redtic


I think you are wrong, no offense.

As long as the WH is using the overall number of "gun deaths", then all gun related crime is one problem.

8.000-12,000 people were not killed in mass shootings. Less than 500 people were killed with long guns. Yet, our government is going to continue to use the actions of the few to disarm the many.

reply to post by redtic


Your first assessment of the motivation of the EO's,

"a) prevent people from accessing guns that have the propensity to kill many people in a short amount of time"

is fatally flawed on a couple levels.

First, the government (executive or legislative) arbitrarily deciding to infringe on the current, standing interpretation of a constitutional right is absolutely wrong. To interpret (in a restrictive way) the 2nd amendment would take the Supreme Court, and nothing less.
Second, the black plastic handles or foregrips of a semi-automatic military style rifle do not increase it's lethality. It performs exactly the same as a "conventional rifle" of the same caliber. The clip limitations don't stop a motivated shooter, as I showed in the OP.

Fact is any gun can kill many people in a short amount of time, depending on the operator's skill in using and reloading said weapon.

reply to post by redtic


Legislative bodies whether state or national are supposed to naturally be deliberative so that laws coming from them are factual and sensical. It was even codified in New Yorks case by a three day period alowing that very thing. The three day provision was bypassed to suppress opposition, protest and honest discussion.

The rush in NY to pass a bill infront of Obamas EO announcement is telling and points to an agenda driven effort especially considering that it was such a rush that they forgot some very important provisions that they now will have to go back and amend such as not exempting LEO's and most have yet to read language close enough to realize that they've made all gun owners felons if they don't register any firearm and lets not forget that the "webster" provision violates equality under law provisions of US constitution - just more indication of really bad law written in hurry to serve highly political rather than any practical considerations that would actually be effective.

Most anti's also completely ignore the facts pertaining to prosecution under multitude of existing law, many uses of firearms in commission of crime have what are stated as federal mandatory sentencing times, these are plea bargained away in most cases leaving perpetrators with vastly reduced jail time.

An effective law would force prosecutors to carry out the law as intended, not as they wish.

Another completely ignored issue is the almost universal use of psyhcotropic drugs by young mass shooters. An easy search on drug manufacturers own websites will allow anyone to postulate that there are potentially 10,000 or so drug induced mass killers on our streets who have a high potential of going off this way. How about changing the requirements for mental health and medical supervision of these folks? As it is now most are given a prescription and shown the door until their next 3 minutes in front of the doctor. Follow-up hah!

I am not exagerrating on the 3 minutes, I was married and spouse ran large facility where mandated psychatrists were reimbursed 15 minute visits by medicare/medicaid but only saw patients for 1-3 minutes - it was a sore point and really constitutes fraud.

Limiting rights of law abiding civilians = outright political agenda.

Passing meaningful legislation - not in this climate of windmill tilting.

Originally posted by CB328

Everyone knows that people will find a way to kill other people no matter what they take away

Wrong, where do you people get these ridiculous ideas? Of course there are a few people that are intent on killing a specific person that will use a different weapon, but most people would be too scared to attack people without their metal penis- I mean gun.
How many teenage gangsters do you think will be trying to hold up stores with slingshots? What about drive by shootings? It would be pretty hard to accidentally shoot people through their walls without firearms.

Man holds up bank with hammer
KY woman's face slashed in crowded mall
Robber beats TX man with hammers
Woman with baby stabbed to death in Bed Bath and Beyond
Russian Ballet Director attacked with acid

That's just the noteworthy non-gun attacks/murders that made headlines LAST WEEK. So I guess we get these ridiculous ideas from real life.

Originally posted by blamethegreys

Originally posted by links234
.

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)

Background checks are ok if;

Thats all it is and its not used to record weapon type or any other data which could be used for back door registration purposes - better be careful in reading what they actually include in any EO or law.

The inclusion of any other data would allow later confiscation efforts. Under current law this data collection is not allowed.

It should be thumbs up or thumbs down period.

The only sales at gun shows not requiring check are those between private sellers, dealers still have to do so. In my direct observation private sales at gun shows are in a small minority. Most if not all sellers will decline a sale to anyone who seems illigitimate anyway just on principle.

edit on 19-1-2013 by Phoenix because: (no reason given)

Why is it that democrats are scared of guns and republicans are not. I have yet to hear one conservative say," oh man mister government please take my guns so I'll be safe." I wonder why that is.

reply to post by T4NG0


Moderates don't say that crap either. Actually without making this partisan I imagine that there are quite a few democrats who don't say it either. The people spouting off at the mouth the loudest are usually the minority in opinion. They realize that they are the minority and that is why we get all this sensationalist news targeting our emotions so that we agree with them.

Originally posted by candlelight
I just read on MSN that the new York Gun law messed up, they did not provide an exclusion for cops, The NYPD are just like the citizens now they are not allowed to carry no more the 7 rounds in their pistols. I bet that gets a slurry started when they are used to carrying 15 round clips. This could get interesting real fast, seeing as the law is set to go into effect in march. The link: news.msn.com...

edit on 18-1-2013 by candlelight because: (no reason given)

The funny part is who makes 7 round mags for 9mm and .40? But we all know that 7 rounds is the typical .45 and 10mm, so I just see people carrying BIGGER guns than what is normal. If they did that in my state I would say...say hello to my little friend S&W 500... hell it only holds 5 rounds so everyone is safe around it...

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 back, I think they could do a whole lot of good just enforcing the existing20,000 laws!

reply to post by blamethegreys

Ahh that is the one Obama doesn't want to press to hard on. There is still the Fast&Furious scheme that he hid w/ Executive privilege. Him and his people don't want to answer those question about letting guns walk. Someone I feel was making some money over their gov't paycheck, that is my personal thought on it. Otherwise why did a gun purchased from the second man in charge at the Phoenix office show up in a Mexican cartel crime scene?l ink To get those questions answered would change the argument on the ATF.

reply to post by blamethegreys


Thank you.

I disagree with a few of your points but I'm glad to hear an honest opinion on the other options on the table.

This discussion on magazine capacity and weapon-type is a complete waste of time. After all, if the US government is to be believed, you can kill 3,000 with box cutters.

I'm not saying that semantics are unimportant though: this article is worth reading.
www.activistpost.com...

Originally posted by blamethegreys
*snip*

Why these guns and clips, if they aren't the problem,

if they aren't going to "save the children"?

edit on 18-1-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)

Short answer?

These are the ones that people could most effectively use for the purpose for which we actually have the 2'nd Amendment. I don't think a lot of the gun control politicians care who dies, or how, nearly as much as they care about controlling people. Total control is what they want. It's a lot easier to load people onto transport for camps if they aren't able to defend themselves.

anyone that supports gun control is brain damaged.

More attention needs to be brought to this thread. A lot of people of focusing on the fact that "these assault weapons can kill a large amount of people in a short amount of time"...

Have you ever shot a gun before? Have you ever switched an empty magazine with a full magazine? Have you ever noticed ALL of these mass shooting have occurred in enclosed spaces?

The point I'm trying to bring across is that one semi-automatic rifle vs one handgun in close quarters is essentially the same. You don't need to be very accurate to shoot fish in a barrel. Shooting a .22, .223, .308, .357, or .45 into a mass of people in close quarters combat will essentially get the same desired results.

Watch this 40 second clip of this lady switching out her 6 round magazines... Also notice these are 6 round magazines compared to New York's 7 round magazines. It takes her about 5 seconds to change mags after the last bullet from the first magazine was fired.

reply to post by SmoothRhythm


Showing what a skilled person is capable of isn't the same as what an unskilled person is capable of. An unskilled person can use a high capacity magazine in a semi-auto rifle and do a lot more damage than that same unskilled person can do with a smaller magazine in a smaller weapon.

Maybe you're right though. We should ban enclosed spaces and give more guns to more people.