Gun Control talks

[Username28]

One thing to say to people who say BAN GUNS....

[ringonose]

Our PC and poor parenting will stand in the way of stopping people like the Conn
shooter..

Parents nowadays overlook what their kids do and hope they will grow out of it, then
more then likely they have friends/family telling them that the kid will grow out it..

Mental illness also won't work if the fix is going to be just a "PILL" .... when i first came
down here (Out of the Marines) i work a few "Houses" here in central Fla that house
people with Mental issues (families pay big bucks for this) ....
I was what they called a "Observer" i kept a watch on them and made sure they didnt
harm each other/staff and also drove them to events and Dr visits...

What i got from working there is that some of these people could flip in a heartbeat..
most of the time it was because they were getting low on their meds, remember these people
were in a control house and they still had outburst at times..

We had a couple of "Violent people" that IMO should've been held in more secure area..
but Money has a blind eye what i'm trying to get too is.. unless the person
with a mental issue isnt watch 24hr and at any time gets off his meds... its another
story and more then likely a violent one...

The whole Mental health issues is going to be a huge battle that no one really seems
to talk about... oh they will list a few things but they are more invested in AWB

Back when the law and the right to bear arms was passed as a second amendment, the law was passed to help farmers protect their land from invading foreigners, namely Brits. The "arms" that people had the "right to bear" were no more than muskets. A mentally ill person cannot walk into a movie theater and kill off dozens of people with a musket; a mentally ill individual cannot barge into a school and kill off dozens of children with a musket. It's obvious that the "arms" we have the "right to bear" have changed, and so should that law. Semi automatic weapons that can unload how many rounds that quickly? Really? Is that what they were thinking when they passed that law? Just answer that question if you can. Or maybe the amendment needs to be amended.....sayin'

[crashmister]

That's actually valid Jetty. No one is suggesting we go back to muskets, but I have often argued that they were state of the art when 2A was written. As far as I'm concerned that's all it should cover. Everything else is negotiable.

[crashmister]

Jetty, agree or disagree the #'s are on the control side of the argument. 69%, the largest # in over a decade support stricter gun control regulations. That's 7 in 10 registered voters. You won't see a ban on anything but possibly high cap. mag's.
Don't know why you think anybody is covering up anything about Chicago. The thing you don't mention about Chicago Jetty is the ban was on new purchases of handguns. All handguns bought or owned before the ban were granfathered. And nothing in the ban restricted Chicago residents from buying gun's else where. No data base informed Chicago of an illegal resident purchase. The Chicago ban was so full of holes it sunk before the ink was dry on the paperwork.

[Northwoods]

I work in a prison and gun law violations are usually dropped in favor of drug or other charges. Dude gets popped with dope and a gun, burglary and a gun, whatever and a gun, and they drop the gun charge and the guy cops to whatever the other charge was. I read it on guys files all the time, doesn't matter what state the crook comes from.

Chicago is and has been a war zone for the last thirty years. I reposessed cars on the South side of Chicago back in the mid 90's. At the time, it was illegal for any resident of the City of Chicago to possess a handgun. What that meant was that all the crooks were armed, but the law abiding citizens were made defenseless. Take a drive down on the South side sometimes. There are bars on the windows and doors of EVERY BUILDING, because that was the only way for the people to defend themselves, since they had less rights than the crooks did. The bars are still there, think I'm wrong, then take a stroll down State street anywhere between 30th street and 99th street. It was just as unsafe then as it is now. CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW GUN LAWS!

New gun laws will restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. Enforcing existing gun laws will take bad guys off the street. If you want to create a new gun law that will do something, then go after straw buyers. The thing that everyone has to remember is that no gun law of any kind will stop a determined whack job. No matter what we do, we can't legislate our way to safety. Impossible.

The anti-gun crowd owns the media, so the sheep watching the information box only know the "truth" that the main stream media pours into their heads. When is the last time you heard about someone scaring off a bad guy because the good guy let it be known that they had a gun? When is the last time you saw a news story about a good shoot where the good guy saved their life, or the life of someone else by using a gun for self defense? Where is the news story that talks about the fact that knives were used to kill three times as many people as weapons of war...wait...I mean assault rifles...I mean deadly guns that use mass ammunition magazines...dang...I get the propaganda names confused sometimes. I guess it's because I call semi-automatic magazine fed rifles by what they are. Semi-automatic magazine fed rifles.

You want to keep your Second Amendment rights? Get off your rear end and march down to your State Capital building when they have public hearings on the new gun control laws. Make phone calls every day to the representatives that are on the committees hearing proposed legislation. I spent four days down at our Capital building testifying, and made at least thirty phone calls. The proposed assault weapon and high cap mag bans were taken off the table in my state.

[Northwoods]

If you want to talk about Hadiya Pendleton, then lets talk about something that neither Obama, or the mainstream media talked about. Do you know who Michael Ward and Kenneth Williams are? They are the two lowlife bangers that shot her. They are the mindless automatons that were controlled by the gun. Anybody know who Danetria Hutson is? She is the fifteen year old girl who held Hadiya in her arms and watched her die. You know what she was pissed about? She was mad about the "ignorance" of social media.

[crashmister]

While I really don't disagree with anything you said, there still has yet to be a ligitimate case made for general ownership of Semi-automatic magazine fed rifles. 2nd amendment dog don't hunt. It didn't under Clinton and it wouldn't here. Using the Commerce clause they can legally ban manufacture and sale. The ones already in hand would be grandfathered to that owner. The confiscation hype was fear tactics. Any bean counter will tell you the cost of trying to track these thing's down pretty much kill's that idea right outa the box.
Look, this is all gonna boil down to who everybody fears the most and who is up for election next. As it is now, AW's are off the Senate version and HCM's will probably hit the floor next. So what they we'll get is Background checks, end of law.

[Northwoods]

The Second Amendment dog don't hunt because it was never meant to hunt. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting in any way. In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained "The significance of the militia was that it was composed of civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

The thing that needs to stick out about that is the last sentence about the kinds of arms in common use of the time. The thing we all need to remember is that the Second Amendment is the the one protection that guards all of our rights. Justice Alex Kozinski said it best:"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." I have never heard it put any better than that...

People often claim that our government would never turn on us, take our rights away, or harm us, as they are there to protect and take care of us. While I don't fall into the tinfoil helmet/black helicopter crowd, I am concerned with how our government has operated in the last eleven years. What I have witnessed is a continual stripping away of our rights in the name of public safety. I have guns, ammunition, extra food and medical supplies at my house, I am a strong supporter of the second amendment, and have spoken out against President Obama. Because of the above named actions and beliefs, I am considered a possible Right Wing Extremist terrorist. I'm not a prepper, nor a member of an organized militia. I just want to be able to take care of my family regardless of what type of emergency might happen. I didn't vote Republican in the last election, I don't break the law, and I don't wish anyone harm unless they are going to try and hurt my family or someone around me, yet due to the DOH report coupled with the NDAA, I can be detained without due process, or legal representation indefinitely detained because of my political views, and my want to protect my family and the Constitution. They don't need a warrant because I meet their qualifications of a terrorist. I would venture a guess that forty percent of the people on this forum also fall into the category of suspected terrorist. You can download the pdf document off this link: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/ ... extremism-

Take away all the "dangerous" guns from law-abiding citizens, and the next nut-job will still find something to do his dirty work. If he can't find a gun, he will drive a truck filled with gas into a loaded church and set off a road flare. Like I said before, you can't stop crazy, but you can limit the citizens of this country's ability to protect what is left of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The second amendment scares politicians, as well it should. Those in Washington already act with impunity, and consider the average citizen a simpleton that needs to be though for. Most people are too lazy to do their job of making their representative do just that: represent them, and the fact that a lot of us bristled at this latest assault on our rights put a little pucker factor into the boys and girls in Washington; I think that's a good thing.

To me it's pretty simple. I want to enjoy time with my family and friends, help people when I can, fish, hunt, enjoy life in general, and hopefully grow old with my loving wife. I hope and pray that I am never forced to take up arms to protect the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but if that be the case, I don't want to try and take on guys from Blackwater with a revolver and a prayer.

[PhishingPhanatic]

Very well said Northwoods. There is a reason why the US is the only Democracy in the world that has lasted as long as it has.

[Northwoods]

Back when the law and the right to bear arms was passed as a second amendment, the law was passed to help farmers protect their land from invading foreigners, namely Brits. The "arms" that people had the "right to bear" were no more than muskets. A mentally ill person cannot walk into a movie theater and kill off dozens of people with a musket; a mentally ill individual cannot barge into a school and kill off dozens of children with a musket. It's obvious that the "arms" we have the "right to bear" have changed, and so should that law. Semi automatic weapons that can unload how many rounds that quickly? Really? Is that what they were thinking when they passed that law? Just answer that question if you can. Or maybe the amendment needs to be amended.....sayin'

In case you missed it in the earlier post, I will refer you to United States v. Miller, where the Court sustained "The significance of the militia was that it was composed of civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that “comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Muskets were in common use then, not now.

Adam Lanza had one magazine, and reloaded it a few rounds at a time as he walked through the school. If you want to demonize semi-automatic rifles, realize that three rounds of 12 guage 00 buck will put 36 lead balls down range, versus a fully loaded 30 round AR mag. The 00buck rounds have a similar grain weight and larger diameter than a .223 round (AR-15 round) The number one long gun used in murders in this country is a pump shotgun. I can fire three rounds out of a Remington 870 in three seconds. I can then speed load and shoot that empty Remington 870 in five seconds. Now you are talking 72 projectiles headed down range in eight seconds, which is much faster than you can squeeze off thirty rounds out of a semi-automatic AR.

The Brits were our government, and we grew tired of the oppression, so we revolted. When we won that revolt, a document was written to prevent future tyranny, and to prevent the new boss from being just like the old boss. The second amendment is not a law that can be repealed or changed, it is an inherent right of all free men and women in this country.

[crashmister]

Well, let's be honest here, if the Clinton ban had been renewed, Lanza would not have had a Bushmaster! His mother bought it post ban. That's a fact nobody is talking about. Would it have made a difference? Probably not, but who knows. The 2nd amendment dog I was refering to was the violation argument. There is no violation of 2A unless a complete ban is legislated like the Chicago or Washington handgun ban. The Clinton ban stood for 10 years without a single successful court challenge. This would be no different. Anybody who own's em will keep em and law would ban future sales.
Another point here, if your concern is the government, You're suggesting that our families, our son's, daughter's, father's, mother's, brother's, sister's, and combined aunt's, uncle's and the rest that actually make up our military will for some silly reason follow an order to attack us, their family members. Really? Is that your argument?
Let's say just for the sake of argument they did. How long do you really think you'll last against the US military? No offense, but my cash is on the military. They don't have to fire a shot. Just cut food, power, and close the roads, we're done. Every bit of our food comes from trucks. Now you may have 6 months of provisions stored. A little hard but not impossible. You may even have ammo stock piled, eventually without resupply, you'll run out. My point here is simple. Your scenario is unlikely in the extreme, and if it did somehow occur, I don't think you'll have much of a fighting chance.
This whole discussion has been surrounded by fear and hype. Some people have no choice but to look for the boogy man. The NRA has done it's level best to create that boogy man. And thanks to that effort, every NRA board member is making a fortune. Because after all is said and done, the NRA BOD are the gun companies CEO's.
And they have spent millions on this disinformation campagin.
For me, I really don't care what you have as long as it poses no threat to my family or friends. The second it does, then I have a right to address that threat. Currently these thing's do pose a threat to my people. I want background checks and all the loopholes closed. Not one single gun or round should be sold to anyone who does not check out.
I really don't care who likes it or not. If you're that paranoid that background checks are a problem, then maybe you shouldn't own em in the first place.
As far as comparing a shotgun to a 223, you forgot to mention buckshot has very limited range. After 60 yards it has to be wired otherwise it's kinetic energy is disipated and it drop's. A 223 is good to 600 + yards. Had Lanza only had a shotgun, it's entirely possible some of the kids could have gotten away while he was reloading. They did in both Aurora and Tucson. In fact both shooters were grabbed and disarmed while reloading. Unfortunately some people in this country believe they need these types of weapons. Well I believe if you want to own those types of weapons the rest of us have a right to know you're not going to go on a spree with them or sell them to someone who has no buisness owning them.

[fishnfool73]

Obama is the greatest thing to happen to gun/ammo sales, the NRA and their lobbiest. This whole scare will do little more than load their coffers and rile up the paranoid right wingers. In the end I can't see much more than a few court battles and registration in certain states. The NRA needs to send Obama a thank you card and gift basket as I would wager that their registration has doubled in recent months. Gun ban and registration talks are the best things that can happen for them. Nothing boosts donations and registration like stories that threaten to take away gun rights. Gun companies as well as the demand and cost of weapons and ammo is through the roof just as it was last time everyone feared Obama would try to bypass the 2nd.

[Northwoods]

What amazes me is that people so easily discount history because they feel that we have evolved to some special status that prevents our government from committing atrocities of any kind; that those of us in western cultures have reached some magical level of civility that puts us above all others. The taking of human life is acceptable to us as long as it is not one of “our people.” It’s acceptable that kids get killed by a misplaced drone strike or smart bomb, as long as their accidental deaths could in some way help the people of this country be safer. Human life does not have a universal standard of value to our government, yet we trust that our government will have a utopian moral compass, and never act in a self-serving manner that could take away the rights of its citizens.

This second amendment was written to allow the people the ability to keep the government in check if it overstepped its powers. And no, I don’t think that a militia made up of my extended family, including drunken uncles and overweight aunts would be an effective threat to the United States military, nor do I think a similar militia would have been an effective threat to the much more advanced British army. What was an effective threat to the highly trained British army was the approximately three percent of the colonists that rose up against them. I am not saying that I think there will be a need for a second American Revolution in this country, but I do believe that Justice Kozinski made a very intelligent argument for the necessity of the Second Amendment to a free society.

In regards to your suggestion of the people of this country surviving against the United States military being an almost impossibility, I disagree. We have been fighting in Afghanistan for over ten years, and the Taliban are not beaten, they are not gone, and they have not surrendered, yet they were vastly outnumbered, and outgunned. The other thing that needs to be remembered about our military is that it is not a thing, but an organization made up of soldiers, a vast majority of which believe that their oath is first and foremost to uphold the constitution, not the wishes of the political party in power at the time. Most of our men and women of the armed forces serve their country as patriots, not hired mercenaries. Our government does use hired mercenaries; they just do another “mass ammunition magazine” word change and call them private contractors. I feel that a militia comprised of able bodied Americans would stand a chance against government hired private contractors and the remaining military personal that chose to abandon the constitution. While I do not immediately foresee a circumstance requiring the necessity of the militia to retain our rights and freedoms; that does not mean that the immediate lack of necessity will continue to sustain future impossibility. You can’t predict the future, but you can learn from history. Assuming that any government will always look out for the best interests of its people, and that the people should not have the ability to stand up against their government as citizens, not subjects, is a mistake a free people will only make once.

Yes, I forgot to mention that buckshot has a limited range compared to a .223 round. I also forgot to mention that from a tactical perspective of going room to room, without the necessity for ranged fire, buckshot could have been more effective than a .223 round. Most of the teachers were not attempting to flee, but instead hiding in the classrooms attempting to protect the children. Another thing I forgot to mention was that buckshot was designed to kill, and a .223 or the near identical 5.56×45 NATO was designed to wound. The Clinton era AWB prohibited the manufacturer and sale of certain types of AR’s, but Lanza’s mother still could have bought an AR during that time period. Do you think that not having a bayonet lug, a flash hider, or a collapsible stock would have made any difference in the performance of the weapon in the circumstances it was used in? She also could have bought twenty, thirty, or forty round magazines during the Clinton-era AWB. Lanza did not use multiple thirty round magazines but a single one that he was reloading as he went. My point is that in this particular shooting, and the way it went down, the gun type really didn’t matter. The victims were in essence, stationary targets hiding in large kill boxes.

Yes, some shootings that took place in gun-free zones were stopped when some of the people were able to rush the attacker during reloading. I would personally rather have the choice to use my .45 versus waiting in a holding pattern of slaughter for my chance to rush the attacker. Perhaps when we learn that the only people that follow the gun-free zone laws are the good guys, things might change.

Personally, I am fine with universal background checks, closing gun-show loopholes, and some of the other proposed gun control legislation. I am not fine with limiting my ability to own a certain type of gun because it will make people that do not understand facts feel better. When the television tells people something, they automatically believe that it must be true. On the days I was in attendance at senate gun control hearings, ninety percent of the people testifying were pro-gun, yet the media only showed footage of the anti-gun lobbyists, giving the impression that they were the overwhelming majority in attendance. The news station did not lie, but they also did not present the facts in a truthful manner. The facts about gun control and public safety are out there, but most people find it easier to accept the propaganda that is fed to them instead of going out and looking for the facts. If you want to know the truth based off of facts and not emotions, then do the research yourself instead of blindly accepting the hype. The hype is being spread evenly by both the NRA, and the anti-gun groups, with the American people picking and choosing the propaganda that fits their particular mindset best.

People need to ask themselves what their goal is out of all of this. If the number one thing you are concerned about is keeping you and your family safe, then there are a dozen causes you should take up before you even think about banning certain types of guns or magazines. Is this issue really about family safety, or is it about finding an emotional Band-Aid to cover up the trauma caused by gluing ourselves to the televised car-accident that involved a special category of children being killed?

[Northwoods]

I stand corrected on the magazine information, as they are now saying that he had three thirty round magazines.

[ikaika]

John Kerry just surrendered to the UN.
All sportsmen will report to re-education camps ASAP.

[ikaika]

Well, let's be honest here, if the Clinton ban had been renewed, Lanza would not have had a Bushmaster!

The 1994 federal ban, signed by President Clinton, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it, which it did not.

Connecticut passed its own law in 1993. It defined assault weapons and listed semiautomatic firearms that were illegal to sell, transport or possess in the state. It banned future sales of 63 types of military style weapons. The state law also banned someone from using a combination of parts to convert a firearm into an assault weapon.
The Connecticut AWB (which is stricter than the Clinton AWB) is still Law in the state.