Gun rights under Obama

[TheRunt]

How badly do you think our rights will be trampled? Not at all? Severely? Bury your guns while you have the chance?

[TheRunt]

Okay in answer to myself. I don't think they will be infringed upon that badly in the next four years. Obama wants re-elected, so he'll try not to piss off that large of a contingent of voters. If he gets re-elected my guess would be in year 5-6 of his term serious anti-gun laws will be brought about. Such as a federal ban on carrying which he has stated that hes for. Handgun bans. Reinstituing the assault weapon ban. High taxes on firearms/ammunition. Federal recording of firearm/ammo sales. Limits on how

[SolitareConfinement]

ehhhh you'd be surprised at how many people in this country would like to see our right to own weapons stripped from us. thinking it will do good for murder/crime. what they don't seem to understand is that just like drugs once you prohibit said item, you put it into the hands of criminals :( which is EXACTLY what we would be trying to prevent

[Parkbandit]

It will be in small steps... first all guns will need to be registered with the US Government... then permits issued with background checks and fingerprints for all gun owners... Then these permits will simply not be issued or very difficult to attain. Then a ban on certain guns with the government actively taking them from citizens. Then a ban of all guns in certain cities. Then a ban on all guns in certain states. Then a ban on all guns in the US.

It will be slow and methodical, but the effort is already underway.

[Alfster]

As long as I can keep my hunting rifles and shotguns, I don't give a shit what they do.

[Back]

It will be in small steps... first all guns will need to be registered with the US Government... then permits issued with background checks and fingerprints for all gun owners... Then these permits will simply not be issued or very difficult to attain. Then a ban on certain guns with the government actively taking them from citizens. Then a ban of all guns in certain cities. Then a ban on all guns in certain states. Then a ban on all guns in the US.

It will be slow and methodical, but the effort is already underway.

And this is a bad thing?

How is legalizing any different?

[CrystalTears]

A ban on all guns is a bad thing.

[Alfster]

I'd actually love to see them try to take the guns away from the backwoods hillbilly's up north.

[Back]

A ban on all guns is a bad thing.

Exactly. And how does this argument differ from legalization?

In fact, loose regulations on guns exacerbates the problem.

[Parkbandit]

And this is a bad thing?

How is legalizing any different?


It's not a bad thing.. to a tree hugging loser like you I suppose.

To me, it would be unconstitutional and against every law in nature which allows me to protect myself and my family.

But hey.. let's just smoke a joint and hug a tree... everything will be ok.

LEGALIZE POT NOW!!!!111

[CrystalTears]

Exactly. And how does this argument differ from legalization?

In fact, loose regulations on guns exacerbates the problem.
Exactly what? There needs to be tighter rules for getting a permit, but not impossible, and not limiting what guns can be owned/licensed.

[Back]

Marginalizing again.

Hugging a tree never killed anyone.

Guns do.

Your argument is to make guns legal yet you seem to be against the legalization of something that does not kill people.

Ok.

[CrystalTears]

Marginalizing again.

Hugging a tree never killed anyone.

Guns do.

Your argument is to make guns legal yet you seem to be against the legalization of something that does not kill people.

Ok.
When a gun shoots itself without the help of a human, you may have a point.

[AnticorRifling]

I have this debate with my father on a regular basis. It's not really much of a debate since we both have the same opinion but I argue the opposite because I enjoy the talks. Basically the big issue is that of extremes. Gun nuts want everything legal because it's a right to bear arms not a right to bear certain arms under certain conditions. Gun haters want all guns banned because they're the devil.

I want some middle ground to be reached. Do some guns need restrictions? Fuck yes. I've got several in my safe that no civilian should ever need to own. Put a ban on certain weapons. I'm not saying broad swaths of bans on a genre of weapon, make it specific. The key is to convince gun nuts that it's better to have a slightly more limited selection than no selection while convinicing gun haters that moderate restriction is a victory when compared to free for all methodologies.

I would, in a heart beat, give up a few of my weapons if it meant I got to keep the majority of my collection. (And that is what makes me an collector/enthusiast instead of a nut).

It's all about properly approaching both extreme wing parties and getting them to see a fucking compromise. It will require knowledge of the sitiuation (and I'm not sure Obama has a ton of gun knowledge but I could be wrong) as well as a shit ton of tact (which he has).

I still don't think a president who hasn't served in a position requiring the use and reliance on a firearm (military/civil service/etc) should pass any laws on the use and misuse of firearms. (I also don't think they should be president without military experience but that's a different fight for a different day).

[AnticorRifling]

Marginalizing again.

Hugging a tree never killed anyone.

Guns do.

Your argument is to make guns legal yet you seem to be against the legalization of something that does not kill people.

Ok. Poor judgement and decisions by people kill people.

[Back]

When a gun shoots itself without the help of a human, you may have a point.

I guess you missed the fairly recent story of a kid killing himself with an uzi.

[CrystalTears]

I guess you missed the fairly recent story of a kid killing himself with an uzi.


Poor judgement and decisions by people kill people.
:yeahthat:

[AnticorRifling]

I guess you missed the fairly recent story of a kid killing himself with an uzi.

I guess you missed the part of the story where the kid was involved. Take away the idiot human and the gun sits there.

Short version: WOOOOOOOOOSH

[Back]

Poor judgement and decisions by people kill people.

True. What I am asking is: if you are for gun rights how can you be against legalization?

[LMingrone]

It really doesn't matter. There's so many guns out there that aren't registered already. A ban on guns will just make a black market (which already exists anyway), just like with drugs. And it's not that hard to just build your own if you have metal working skills. People that use guns to hurt or kill will just find another way to do the same.

Personally, I've never owned a gun. But, I'd like to have the option to have one if I think I need it to protect my family. If some thug wants to hurt/kill/rob me, they will find a way. You can kill someone with your hands you know.

[AnticorRifling]

True. What I am asking is: if you are for gun rights how can you be against legalization? I'm against extremes. Unfortunatly the majority of people are either gun nuts or gun haters. Give me someone who is middle ground and understands the difference between banning all assault rifles and banning a few models for very specific reasons and I'll be happy. But as it stands now people see a black rifle and think ZOMG Columbine banz0r it. When the reality is I could do more damage with so household products, a blender, and some coke cans.

[AnticorRifling]

It really doesn't matter. There's so many guns out there that aren't registered already. A ban on guns will just make a black market (which already exists anyway), just like with drugs. And it's not that hard to just build your own if you have metal working skills. People that use guns to hurt or kill will just find another way to do the same.
I vote for Highlander.

[Back]

I guess you missed the part of the story where the kid was involved. Take away the idiot human and the gun sits there.

Short version: WOOOOOOOOOSH

Yeah, I get it.

Tale away the human and the gun does nothing. In this case a child would grow up. Sadly, that did not happen.

Take the gun away from the human? The kid would still be alive.

[CrystalTears]

Yeah, I get it.

Tale away the human and the gun does nothing. In this case a child would grow up. Sadly, that did not happen.

Educate the adults? The kid would still be alive.
Fixed.

[AnticorRifling]

Yeah, I get it.

Tale away the human and the gun does nothing. In this case a child would grow up. Sadly, that did not happen.

Take the gun away from the human? The kid would still be alive. Maybe. What didn't happen was common sense and good judgment. Stupid people can kill themselves in a myriad of ways.

You don't get it. If you got it you wouldn't be coming back to this instance in an attempt to validate your point. You'll notice I don't link references where someone lived because they put a round in someone during a rape, robbery, etc. Why? Because this shouldn't be a google pissing contest.

[Back]

Fixed.

How do you propose to do that? Its 2009. 200+ years and guns still kill people.

[Parkbandit]

True. What I am asking is: if you are for gun rights how can you be against legalization?


When you get smoking pot into the constitution as one of your rights, then I'll think about your really, really stupid fucking question.

[Parkbandit]

Yeah, I get it.

Tale away the human and the gun does nothing. In this case a child would grow up. Sadly, that did not happen.

Take the gun away from the human? The kid would still be alive.

So you would like to ban anything that can kill a human?

[CrystalTears]

How do you propose to do that? Its 2009. 200+ years and guns still kill people.
Tighter rules and regulations for permits/certain weapons.

However, there are still stupid people, and if they can't use enough common sense to keep weapons out of children's reach, then that's their problem, not the guns.

Same if they keep poisons in their reach, is it still the fault of the parent or the poison? Should we outlaw poison too because people are stupid?

[Back]

Maybe. What didn't happen was common sense and good judgment. Stupid people can kill themselves in a myriad of ways.

You don't get it. If you got it you wouldn't be coming back to this instance in an attempt to validate your point. You'll notice I don't link references where someone lived because they put a round in someone during a rape, robbery, etc. Why? Because this shouldn't be a google pissing contest.

I get it. Thats why I ask...

If you are against the prohibition of guns how can you possibly be against the prohibition of anything else? Especially since guns are involved in illegal activities?

[LMingrone]

Let's just ban life itself. A kid can slip in the shower and crack their head open, BAN SHOWERS. Everything can apparently cause cancer. BAN FOOD. Another kid could drown in water. BAN WATER.

Or let's just ban stupid people.

[Parkbandit]

Let's just ban life itself. A kid can slip in the shower and crack their head open, BAN SHOWERS. Everything can apparently cause cancer. BAN FOOD. Another kid could drown in water. BAN WATER.

Or let's just ban stupid people.


Why are you so against legalizing pot anyway? Pot never hurt anyone!

[LMingrone]

Why are you so against legalizing pot anyway? Pot never hurt anyone!


Huh? When did I say that? I think pretty much everything should be legal. Then punish the dumbasses that can't handle their own decisions.

[Alfster]

I get it. Thats why I ask...

If you are against the prohibition of guns how can you possibly be against the prohibition of anything else? Especially since guns are involved in illegal activities?

Pot should be legalized because guns are!!!!!!!

It's not fair!

[CrystalTears]

I'm all for legalizing pot. I'm against banning guns.

A stoned person has little interest to get up from the couch, away from the Pringles, to get a gun. Even if he did, he loves everyone so much that he wouldn't do anything anyway. :D

[Back]

I'm all for legalizing pot. I'm against banning guns.

A stoned person has little interest to get up from the couch, away from the Pringles, to get a gun. Even if he did, he loves everyone so much that he wouldn't do anything anyway. :D

Here comes CT with the wisdom.

Its a simple question.

If you believe something should not be banned how can you say something else should be?

[AnticorRifling]

I get it. Thats why I ask...

If you are against the prohibition of guns how can you possibly be against the prohibition of anything else? Especially since guns are involved in illegal activities?

Again, you don't get it. If you got it you wouldn't have to ask these thinly veiled adgenda oriented questions.

You're logic of guns are used in illegal activites is laughable. Take any item in your possession and I bet you can find an illegal use for it. Your car (ZOMG teh drugs don't transport themselves) would be the easiest example without having to go into detail.

[AnticorRifling]

Here comes CT with the wisdom.

Its a simple question.

If you believe something should not be banned how can you say something else should be?

It's not a simple question, it's comparing apples and hammers because in your world you want them to be held to the same rules.

[CrystalTears]

Here comes CT with the wisdom.

Its a simple question.

If you believe something should not be banned how can you say something else should be?
Wait. Aren't you the fucktard saying we should legalize pot? But you want to just eliminate guns? Where's YOUR logic?

[AnticorRifling]

Wait. Aren't you the fucktard saying we should legalize pot? But you want to just eliminate guns? Where's YOUR logic?

Guns kill people duh.

[Back]

It's not a simple question, it's comparing apples and hammers because in your world you want them to be held to the same rules.

Not really.

I understand your feelings though. I would not some nebulous entity taking away something I truly love.

[Back]

Wait. Aren't you the fucktard saying we should legalize pot? But you want to just eliminate guns? Where's YOUR logic?

When have I ever said I wanted to eliminate guns?

Apples and hammers.

[CrystalTears]

When have I ever said I wanted to eliminate guns?

Apples and hammers.
So what exactly are you advocating then? Because you've been arguing with Anticor and myself about guns, when we've been saying that some policies need to be stricter, but that guns should still be attainable.

[Parkbandit]

When have I ever said I wanted to eliminate guns?

Apples and hammers.

I don't know.. maybe when I said that they will eventually ban all guns and you responded with this gem:


And this is a bad thing?

How is legalizing any different?

[Back]

So what exactly are you advocating then? Because you've been arguing with Anticor and myself about guns, when we've been saying that some policies need to be stricter, but that guns should still be attainable.

That prohibition does the exact opposite of what it intends to do. In this case we are talking about human created death machines vs. naturally growing and alive plants.

[Jorddyn]

Maybe instead of banning guns, pot, or anything else, we should instead ban stupid people.

[Parkbandit]

Maybe instead of banning guns, pot, or anything else, we should instead ban stupid people.

That would be the death knell of the Democratic Party.

WHUT NOW!!!!11oneone.

[AnticorRifling]

Maybe instead of banning guns, pot, or anything else, we should instead ban stupid people.
I'm going to hell because I thought of a very, very horrible joke in relation to this.

[Back]

I don't know.. maybe when I said that they will eventually ban all guns and you responded with this gem:

WHOOSH@!!!

Yeah, lets ban a useful crop! But don’t take away my gunz! THATZ CRAZY!

[AnticorRifling]

Useful crop, lol.

[Rocktar]

Exactly. And how does this argument differ from legalization?

In fact, loose regulations on guns exacerbates the problem.

You are 100% wrong. In the largest scientific study ever performed, John Lott proved that private ownership of firearms, specifically handguns and carry permits actually reduces crime. For the long and drawn out, scientific and fully comprehensive study on it, read the book "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws" by John R. Lott. Now, you may want to yell about his politics, however, consider this, dozens of hyper liberal professors and so on, world wide have attacked his research and they can't find any hole in it. More guns equals less crime.

It is a fact, all our rights flow from the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court recently upheld PRIVATE ownership as contained in that right so taking guns is unconstitutional, onerous licensing is also unconstitutional. Ownership of firearms is the only thing that keeps the power of the government in check over the people. Something like 2-3 million service people vs 100 millions private owners is not good odds.

Want to reduce crime, then keep violent criminals in jail for their entire sentance and get thw weed tokers and check bouncers out of jail and in some kind of work program.

[Jorddyn]

That would be the death knell of the Democratic Party.

WHUT NOW!!!!11oneone.

Case #1: State versus PB.

[Parkbandit]

WHOOSH@!!!

Yeah, lets ban a useful crop! But don’t take away my gunz! THATZ CRAZY!

Your words, not mind chump. You wanted to know where you said it.. I provided the link.

Don't get pissy because your own stupidity betrays you.

[Back]

Your words, not mind chump. You wanted to know where you said it.. I provided the link.

Don't get pissy because your own stupidity betrays you.

Who got pissy?

You gun nuts make me think I should get one.

What do you all recommend? Gun show or back alley?

[AnticorRifling]

Who got pissy?

You gun nuts make me think I should get one.

What do you all recommend? Gun show or back alley? Ask your weed dealer, you know he's packing.

[Back]

Ask your weed dealer, you know he's packing.

Exactly.

[Parkbandit]

Who got pissy?

You gun nuts make me think I should get one.

What do you all recommend? Gun show or back alley?


Neither one.. I have the PERFECT gun for you. Hell, I'll buy you one if you promise to use it as intended:

http://carlnet.no-ip.org/suicide-gun.jpg

[Apotheosis]

lets face it.. guns used illegally are most likely obtained illegally..

why an outright ban of legal weaponry?

the majority of licensed and registered gun owners go through training and take precautionary measures....

clearly tougher laws targeting illegal gun ownership should be in place.

[Back]

rofl. I”m not that stupid.

[Parkbandit]

rofl. I”m not that stupid.

Really?

I imagine a poll asking that question would state otherwise.

[AnticorRifling]

rofl. I”m not that stupid. Quoting for use later.

[Ignot]

I am all for people having guns so long as it is done in a responsible manner, they are held accountable for accidents, and the types of weapons are limited (no uzi's please). There is no excuse for a child grabbing daddy's gun and killing his brother. Saying that the father is poorly educated is not going to stop this from happening. IMO, there needs to be much more strict guidelines on who can own a gun in their own home. We aren't talking about a defending your home with a kitchen knife, we are talking about a gun. Point, shoot, dead. So yeah, maybe everyone has the right to own one, just like everyone has a right to drive a car, but I think the qualifications and restrictions are way to low at this point.

That being said, after reading through this thread most of you who are pro-gun are sounding really angry and childish in discussing this debate. You are taking this opportunity to attack Backlash instead of discussing the issue.

[Parkbandit]

I attack stupidity.. sorry if Backlash decided to post some perfect material to allow it.

[Back]

That being said, after reading through this thread most of you who are pro-gun are sounding really angry and childish in discussing this debate. You are taking this opportunity to attack Backlash instead of discussing the issue.

Its not me. Its stubborn hypocrisy.

[Tea & Strumpets]

Its not me. Its stubborn hypocrisy.

I'm pretty sure that if marijuana could choose a spokesperson, that it wouldn't be you. Continue your crusade against the hypocrites that own guns that are against marijuana, though! The logic you used to construct your argument, and the way you clearly outlined the hypocrisy of the other posters, has been truly amazing.

[Rocktar]

Actually, driving a car isn't a right. And the number of so called "accidents" with firearms in this country is very small, more people die from things like bee stings and such than die from accidental discharge of a firearm. Now, doing stupid things, well, got to clense the gene pool somehow.

[BigWorm]

Its not me. Its stubborn hypocrisy.

Um, its not exactly like you've been dazzling everybody with your debating skills in this thread so far.

[Back]

I'm pretty sure that if marijuana could choose a spokesperson, that it wouldn't be you. Continue your crusade against the hypocrites that own guns that are against marijuana, though! The logic you used to construct your argument, and the way you clearly outlined the hypocrisy of the other posters, has been truly amazing.

I’ve never asked to be the spokesperson for anyone.

I also don’t remember asking for your permission.

Well, thanks! :)

[CrystalTears]

That prohibition does the exact opposite of what it intends to do. In this case we are talking about human created death machines vs. naturally growing and alive plants.

It's hypocritically interesting how marijuana is a useful crop but guns are just death machines.

In both instances, the USER has complete control, and could mean the difference between life and death. Both would need high policies and procedures as far as use is concerned, and in both cases, shouldn't be outlawed completely.

[Back]

It's hypocritically interesting how marijuana is a useful crop but guns are just death machines.

In both instances, the USER has complete control, and could mean the difference between life and death. Both would need high policies and procedures as far as use is concerned, and in both cases, shouldn't be outlawed completely.

As Anitcor said its apples and machines.

But you and I agree. (except that they are not on equal levels of deathliness)

[CrystalTears]

As Anitcor said its apples and machines.

But you and I agree. (except that they are on equal levels of deathliness)
Except for where you blame the guns, not the users. And no they're not.

[Methais]

Exactly. And how does this argument differ from legalization?

In fact, loose regulations on guns exacerbates the problem.

Illegal guns are involved in crimes more than legal guns.


Marginalizing again.

Hugging a tree never killed anyone.

Guns do.

Your argument is to make guns legal yet you seem to be against the legalization of something that does not kill people.

Ok.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

If bad guys have guns, which they always will regardless of the laws, and good guys don't have guns to protect themselves from the bad guys that do have guns, then bad guy shoots and good guy dies.

Take away guns, and only the bad guys will have them.

How is this a good thing again?

While we're at it, take away the 2nd amendment, and what's to stop them from shitting all over the rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Not like it doesn't happen already, but not to this extreme.


You can kill someone with your hands you know.

This is unacceptable and I no longer feel safe. We must ban all hands immediately.

[AnticorRifling]

My name is Methais and I'm 6 pages late.

[Back]

Again, I’ve never said ban guns.

I’m just pointing out extreme hypocrisy.

[Methais]

Again, I’ve never said ban guns.

I’m just pointing out extreme hypocrisy.

I'm all for legalizing pot.

[Methais]

My name is Methais and I'm 6 pages late.

http://moronland.net/media/pictures/getraped25.jpg

[CrystalTears]

Again, I’ve never said ban guns.

I’m just pointing out extreme hypocrisy.
What hypocrisy are you yelling about?

You keep saying apples to oranges, yet continue to harp on those who are against legalizing pot but wish to keep guns attainable.

[Methais]

If you legalize pot, there will be less gun crimes both due to less drug dealing, and because the smokers just won't be pissed off enough to shoot anyone. And even if they are, they'll stop at the store on their way to shoot the guy to get a bag of chips, then say fuck it and go back home and watch Family Guy.

It's win-win.

[Back]

If you legalize pot, there will be less gun crimes both due to less drug dealing, and because the smokers just won't be pissed off enough to shoot anyone. And even if they are, they'll stop at the store on their way to shoot the guy to get a bag of chips, then say fuck it and go back home and watch Family Guy.

It's win-win.

FTW

[Back]

Interestingly enough, both played a part in this country’s inception. Only one of them is illegal now and it is a plant.

[Parkbandit]

Again, I’ve never said ban guns.

I’m just pointing out extreme hypocrisy.


Huh? Didn't we already go down this road before?


It will be in small steps... first all guns will need to be registered with the US Government... then permits issued with background checks and fingerprints for all gun owners... Then these permits will simply not be issued or very difficult to attain. Then a ban on certain guns with the government actively taking them from citizens. Then a ban of all guns in certain cities. Then a ban on all guns in certain states. Then a ban on all guns in the US.

It will be slow and methodical, but the effort is already underway.


And this is a bad thing?

How is legalizing any different?

Maybe you didn't read my entire post you quoted and just read the first couple of lines? Not sure how you can say you didn't twice in the same thread.. and given evidence to the contrary both times.

Maybe it's the pot forcing you to post that?

[Back]

Huh? Didn't we already go down this road before?





Maybe you didn't read my entire post you quoted and just read the first couple of lines? Not sure how you can say you didn't twice in the same thread.. and given evidence to the contrary both times.

Maybe it's the pot forcing you to post that?

Jeez, PB. I asked a question about something you posted. Keep trying. You’ll never find a post of mine that declares we should ban guns outright.

How is a farmer going to protect his crop from the federali without a gun? I mean, c’mon...

[SolitareConfinement]

Take away guns, and only the bad guys will have them.

this was basically the point of my first post. which is what i meant by only placing them in the hands of criminals.



and fucking WOW at taking a simple gun debate to a MJ debate? wtf? they are not even on the same fucking page.

[CrystalTears]

and fucking WOW at taking a simple gun debate to a MJ debate? wtf? they are not even on the same fucking page.Of course not. One is a useful plant and the other one is a fucking DEATH MACHINE!!!

:D

[Warriorbird]

Obama hasn't done anything so far. One'd hope that Tim Kaine will gently suggest that it'd be completely fucktarded to. Not being idiotic about guns is one of the things behind the Democratic Southern resurgence.

[Parkbandit]

Jeez, PB. I asked a question about something you posted. Keep trying. You’ll never find a post of mine that declares we should ban guns outright.

How is a farmer going to protect his crop from the federali without a gun? I mean, c’mon...


I give up. Your stupidity is chronicled on this thread enough.

[Back]

Apology accepted.

[CrystalTears]

Apology accepted.
Giving up talking to a wall is not an apology. Nice try, though.

[Parkbandit]

I've had far more intelligent conversations with a wall.

[LMingrone]

Where do you draw the line if you really want to put restrictions on gun ownership?

Like Back just said, what about farmers and people who raise any kind of animals? Is paintball going to be illegal. How about a sling shot? Might as well get rid of fireworks and everything else while you're at it. Skeet shooting? Responsible people that just like to target shoot...get rid of them too.

I'm one who believes in education before restriction. I know damn well that when I have kids, I'm going to tell them the truth about the dangers with things like guns, drugs, sex, religion and everything else. My father taught me how to be responsible with shooting cans with a BB gun.

He never said to me, "GUNS ARE BAD". He knew one day I'd grow up and have the ability to do anything I want. So I was taught the truth. On that point it's kind of like parents and schools teaching teenagers abstinence. It's not going to work.

Now, handing your kid an uzi. Yeah, not so much of a good idea.

[Parkbandit]

Paintball better not be made illegal.. I'm going Saturday.

[Rocktar]

Holy FUCK batman, someone intends to actually parent! Damn, call the governement, we don't want that, can't have people parenting their kids, got to let the government do it.

</tongue in cheek>

That was humor BTW, good on you, I did the same and so did my dad, but it was with a melon.

[LMingrone]

Hah, just read my last post over and remember a funny story involving an uzi. My aunt owns a huge farm in the middle of nowhere. So my crazy, convict uncle used to go up there to target shoot with his guns. I was like seven at the time so I don't remember what his arsenal consisted of, but he did have an uzi.

My aunt decided she wanted to try it out. Big mistake. She grabs the thing and tries aiming it like you'd aim a rifle (butt of the gun against her face though, not the shoulder). Having a broken nose and a black and blue face isn't good. She's a bitch though so remembering it gave me a good old LOL.

[Methais]

According to some study, THC may have the ability to kill damaged cells before they become cancerous.

SEE WEED IS HEALTHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 IF YOU SMOKE CIGARETTES, SMOKE A JOINT AFTER SO YOU DON'T GET CANCER!

[Warriorbird]

It's funny... I got most of my gun education from my best friend + his family. My folks didn't give any... as a reaction to the part of my family that lets toddlers fondle weapons and lets 10 year olds fire off submachine guns. I think gun rights are part of our core freedoms though... we can't regulate stupid, regrettably.

[Methais]

I got most of my gun education from playing Duck Hunt.

I was a pretty good shot when I first shot a real gun too.

Thanks Duck Hunt!

[Fallen]

I don't own a gun now but if they banned them the first thing I would do is get my hands on one. Like Prohibition, if the government tries to take something away from you that only increases the desire to have it. Banning guns would take a bunch of otherwise law abiding citizens and turn them into criminals overnight. They would suddenly be in violation of a law.

[Methais]

I don't own a gun now but if they banned them the first thing I would do is get my hands on one. Like Prohibition, if the government tries to take something away from you that only increases the desire to have it.

I found myself less excited about drinking after I turned 21.

[DeV]

Having a broken nose and a black and blue face isn't good. Youtube has a rather fine collection of videos showing mostly women completely pwning themselves ala a nasty recoil after shooting high-powered firearms.

[TheRunt]

When you get smoking pot into the constitution as one of your rights, then I'll think about your really, really stupid fucking question.

It actually is see the 9th amendment.


I get it. Thats why I ask...
If you are against the prohibition of guns how can you possibly be against the prohibition of anything else? Especially since guns are involved in illegal activities?

Personally I'm against the prohibition of just about everything else.



It is a fact, all our rights flow from the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court recently upheld PRIVATE ownership as contained in that right so taking guns is unconstitutional, onerous licensing is also unconstitutional.

Close our right to bear arms doesn't flow from the 2nd amendment. This is what confuses a lot of people. Our rights do not come from that piece of paper they are in the words of the founding fathers 'Unalienable right" or natural or god given rights in that everyone on earth has them just most people have their rights repressed.


Actually, driving a car isn't a right.

Sure it is see the 9th amendment, Do you think the founding fathers thought that the right to free travel didn't exist? I'm sure most of them would of been grabbing their muzzleloaders in under 2 seconds after you told them they didn't have the right to ride their horse(drive a car) .



and fucking WOW at taking a simple gun debate to a MJ debate? wtf? they are not even on the same fucking page.

Sure they are see my first reply above.


As long as I can keep my hunting rifles and shotguns, I don't give a shit what they do.

Are any of your rifle or shotguns semiautos? Or do any of them hold more than 3-5 rounds? If so there has been legislation proposed that would of banned them.


A ban on any guns is a bad thing.

Fixed


Exactly what? There needs to be tighter rules for getting a permit, but not impossible, and not limiting what guns can be owned/licensed.

The tighter you make the rules the less good people will have them. Making laws that restrict guns only makes law abiding citizens have them less. The criminals don't care about what the law says they just do it anyway.


I guess you missed the fairly recent story of a kid killing himself with an uzi.

And that uzi loaded itself and jumped up off the table and shot the kid all by itself didn't it?


Do some guns need restrictions? Fuck yes. I've got several in my safe that no civilian should ever need to own. Put a ban on certain weapons. The key is to convince gun nuts that it's better to have a slightly more limited selection than no selection while convinicing gun haters that moderate restriction is a victory when compared to free for all methodologies.

You might be right that you have several guns in your safe that no civilian should ever need to own. In a perfect world. No civilian should need anything other than perhaps a flintlock those work just fine for hunting, target shooting etc. But do you want a flintlock to protect your family?


I would, in a heart beat, give up a few of my weapons if it meant I got to keep the majority of my collection. (And that is what makes me an collector/enthusiast instead of a nut).

I would also. Doesn't make it right just necessary and expedient. And I would fight to be able to retain them. The person that demands all or nothing usually gets nothing. But would you give up the majority of your collection to keep a few? And what would you do when a few of those few become illegal? Giving up your rights is a very slippery slope. How about if only a few religions were banned? Or you can have free speech but not against the govt?


It's all about properly approaching both extreme wing parties and getting them to see a fucking compromise. It will require knowledge of the sitiuation (and I'm not sure Obama has a ton of gun knowledge but I could be wrong) as well as a shit ton of tact (which he has).

See above on the compromise thing.


I still don't think a president who hasn't served in a position requiring the use and reliance on a firearm (military/civil service/etc) should pass any laws on the use and misuse of firearms. (I also don't think they should be president without military experience but that's a different fight for a different day).

So a Pres should pass laws on things they haven't had direct experience with? Well Obama should be good on drugs :) But what about rape/murder/burglary etc? If they haven't commited the crime or been a victim of them they shouldn't pass laws regarding them?

[LeDru]

Hugging a tree never killed anyone.

Guns do.

to quote Archie Bunker in response to his daughter claiming GUNS kill people......'Would it make you feel better if they was pushed outta winders little girl?'

[Ignot]

And that uzi loaded itself and jumped up off the table and shot the kid all by itself didn't it?



No but clearly that parent should not have been able to get a gun and they did. I think that's where the restriction/education argument comes in. And alot of you say that you want guns to protect your home and family. In what situations would you go for the gun? I'm just curious because outside of an insane madman who escaped from a mental institution I don't really see the need for a gun as protection of my family. Robbers? Crazy boyfriend/girlfriend? Vandals? If you are willing to pull a gun on these people and increase the risk of your family getting hurt then you are a fucking moron, IMO. Maybe I'm missing the scenario in which a gun would be appropriate and if so I apologize.

[AnticorRifling]

No but clearly that parent should not have been able to get a gun and they did. I think that's where the restriction/education argument comes in. And alot of you say that you want guns to protect your home and family. In what situations would you go for the gun? I'm just curious because outside of an insane madman who escaped from a mental institution I don't really see the need for a gun as protection of my family. Robbers? Crazy boyfriend/girlfriend? Vandals? If you are willing to pull a gun on these people and increase the risk of your family getting hurt then you are a fucking moron, IMO. Maybe I'm missing the scenario in which a gun would be appropriate and if so I apologize.
Anytime someone comes on my property without my consent. :)

[Warriorbird]

There's a lot of appropriate times. Post hurricane down here is high on the list.

[Parkbandit]

There's a lot of appropriate times. Post hurricane down here is high on the list.

You mean when the police came and took all the guns away from private citizens in New Orleans after Katrina?

[Warriorbird]

The moral of this story is that New Orleans is fun to visit.

[TheRunt]

Anytime someone comes on my property without my consent. :)

:yeahthat:

And wouldn't you prefer that your girlfriend or wife has a gun and knows how to use it/can get to it when the rapists comes climbing through the window? Or your mother or sister etc.?

[sst]

:yeahthat:

And wouldn't you prefer that your girlfriend or wife has a gun and knows how to use it/can get to it when the rapists comes climbing through the window? Or your mother or sister etc.?

I know I would.

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g312/RSTA006/n62801803_30608586_1813.jpg
Wife on V'day shooting her .22

[Warriorbird]

I've got nothing against it. I liked 'Death Proof's' 'more women need guns' message.

[Ignot]

:yeahthat:

And wouldn't you prefer that your girlfriend or wife has a gun and knows how to use it/can get to it when the rapists comes climbing through the window? Or your mother or sister etc.?

Even if she knows how to use it, just introducing the gun increases the risk of her getting shot. It's easy to say go grab the gun and shoot the rapist but it has to be alot different when it is actually happening. So through panic and fear you expect a woman to have the presence of mind to go grab the gun, load it, aim it, and shoot it before the rapist gets her? She is just as likely to get shot or shoot an innocent bystander with her own gun during the struggle, regardless of how much education or training she has had. Wouldn't mace be quicker and just as effective in neutralizing the situation? I'm all for protection and owning guns but a gun is not the be-all end-all answer to everything. I'd rather my girlfriend, mom, sister, etc carry around some mace with them then a freakin gun.

[sst]

Even if she knows how to use it, just introducing the gun increases the risk of her getting shot. It's easy to say go grab the gun and shoot the rapist but it has to be alot different when it is actually happening. So through panic and fear you expect a woman to have the presence of mind to go grab the gun, load it, aim it, and shoot it before the rapist gets her? She is just as likely to get shot or shoot an innocent bystander with her own gun during the struggle, regardless of how much education or training she has had. Wouldn't mace be quicker and just as effective in neutralizing the situation? I'm all for protection and owning guns but a gun is not the be-all end-all answer to everything. I'd rather my girlfriend, mom, sister, etc carry around some mace with them then a freakin gun.

Somebody does not have a high opinion of women...

[Ignot]

Somebody does not have a high opinion of women...

LoL. I didn't mean it to be derogatory but it did come off that way, huh? Also, women can't drive.

[sst]

LoL. I didn't mean it to be derogatory but it did come off that way, huh? Also, women can't drive.

oh i agree on the driving for sure...

Seriously though, anyone who is not experienced and has not "trained" for a situation most likely will freak out. As long as you work with a person and show them how to do it and they get used to it the freak-out and mistake factor is far far less.

The issue you brought up can be applied to anyone, however using my wife as an example, we’re working on her learning how to use it and how to be comfortable holding it and firing it and she’s becoming as good of a shot as I am. I’m comfortable with her having her own gun and if the need arises she can use it effectively if I am not around.

[Ignot]

Is she going through some type of raping scenario training course?

[sst]

No, just basic marksman ship and rapid firing drills. We go to the range on average of once or twice a month for a few hours. Since I travel a lot she wanted to be able to defend herself in case somebody broke into the house.

As an aside, before I deployed I was never shot nor did I ever shoot at anyone, however I reacted the way I had practiced and did what was needed.

[Carnivale]

I have this debate with my father on a regular basis. It's not really much of a debate since we both have the same opinion but I argue the opposite because I enjoy the talks. Basically the big issue is that of extremes. Gun nuts want everything legal because it's a right to bear arms not a right to bear certain arms under certain conditions. Gun haters want all guns banned because they're the devil.

I want some middle ground to be reached. Do some guns need restrictions? Fuck yes. I've got several in my safe that no civilian should ever need to own. Put a ban on certain weapons. I'm not saying broad swaths of bans on a genre of weapon, make it specific. The key is to convince gun nuts that it's better to have a slightly more limited selection than no selection while convinicing gun haters that moderate restriction is a victory when compared to free for all methodologies.

I would, in a heart beat, give up a few of my weapons if it meant I got to keep the majority of my collection. (And that is what makes me an collector/enthusiast instead of a nut).

It's all about properly approaching both extreme wing parties and getting them to see a fucking compromise. It will require knowledge of the sitiuation (and I'm not sure Obama has a ton of gun knowledge but I could be wrong) as well as a shit ton of tact (which he has).


This.

[TheRunt]

You mean when the police came and took all the guns away from private citizens in New Orleans after Katrina?

And promptly had their asses handed to them by the court system and had to return them?


Even if she knows how to use it, just introducing the gun increases the risk of her getting shot. It's easy to say go grab the gun and shoot the rapist but it has to be alot different when it is actually happening. So through panic and fear you expect a woman to have the presence of mind to go grab the gun, load it, aim it, and shoot it before the rapist gets her? She is just as likely to get shot or shoot an innocent bystander with her own gun during the struggle, regardless of how much education or training she has had. Wouldn't mace be quicker and just as effective in neutralizing the situation? I'm all for protection and owning guns but a gun is not the be-all end-all answer to everything. I'd rather my girlfriend, mom, sister, etc carry around some mace with them then a freakin gun.

Yes introducing a gun does increases the risk of her being shot. Unless the rapist also has a gun. But not having one increases her risk of being beaten to death stabbed etc unless she just lies back and takes it even then a very large percentage of rape victims are also subjected to other forms of violence during the attack. And just as likely to get shot or shoot and innocent bystander? If you have proof of that I'd like to see it, if you want I could gladly point out some links that prove otherwise. And presence of mind to grab the gun load it aim and shoot? If your going to have a gun for self protection it should be loaded and at hand. And it doesn't take much aiming to stick a handgun in the ribs of a guy on top of you.:) And I'm all for carrying mace also but don't most of those have safeties? And they still have to get them take the safety off and aim with those also. Why not carry both?


Youtube has a rather fine collection of videos showing mostly women completely pwning themselves ala a nasty recoil after shooting high-powered firearms.

Yes some of their SOs are asses who like to give a grossly overpowered gun (for the persons size and experience) to a woman who doesn't know what to expect. Hell some brothers and cousins love to give a 12 gauge lightweight single shot loaded with 3" magnum shells to their 9 year old brother and tell him the proper way to hold it is about 2" away from their shoulder :wtf: Damn that fucking hurt. My sister in law loves to shoot her small frame snubbie .357 though its magna ported with pachmare grips. But here's a clip or five from youtube that you might enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lzri8dn7p0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EVqT3XEzss&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zlWplfLQ2E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-0h_Jqp3q4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k-XJHiShB0&feature=related

[AnticorRifling]

Whenever I take someone shooting that's never fired a high powered rifle the first thing I hand them is either .300 Win Mag.

[TheRunt]

Now here's is something funny. Felons don't have to register their guns. Yep that's right Scotus ruled that felons can't be prosecuted for failing to register their guns or possessing unregistered gun. In that it violates their right against sell incrimination. So how does registering guns keep them out of the hands of criminals again?

"We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=85

[CrystalTears]

The tighter you make the rules the less good people will have them. Making laws that restrict guns only makes law abiding citizens have them less. The criminals don't care about what the law says they just do it anyway.When I'm talking about tighter policies, I mean more training and education, and not just applying for it and getting it no questions asked. I'd like more responsibility (or as close to it as possible), as the good, stupid people can be just as deadly as the bad people.

[Ignot]

If you have proof of that I'd like to see it


I don't think common sense needs proof. You shoot gun, you miss, you hit somebody else by accident.



If your going to have a gun for self protection it should be loaded and at hand.


I agree but what if you have kids? Are you still keeping it loaded and at hand?



And it doesn't take much aiming to stick a handgun in the ribs of a guy on top of you.


Again, that's easy to say when you are not in the situation. What's to stop the guy from grabbing the gun from her? Hopefully she will get the shot off and kill him but what if she doesn't? What if she misses because she is in a panic?

And btw mace does have a safety feature, you flick the handle up with your thumb and press down, not that complicated but that was just an example of another means to protect yourself other then a gun. I was just trying to point out that protecting yourself and your home doesn't mean you HAVE to have a gun.

[Ignot]

When I'm talking about tighter policies, I mean more training and education, and not just applying for it and getting it no questions asked. I'd like more responsibility (or as close to it as possible), as the good, stupid people can be just as deadly as the bad people.

:yeahthat:

[Fallen]

I am all for training being required, but when the government starts asking for crap like 5 examples of credible threats to your life, or you having to justify why you feel you need to own and carry a gun that is going too far. If your background check goes without incident, and you have received the state mandated training, that should be the end of it. Hell, have a yearly training requirement for all I care, just don't tell me YOU (government) feel I (The citizen) do not need to own a gun.

Carry and conceal permits are all but impossible to get in MD from what i've been told.

[Tsa`ah]

You are 100% wrong. In the largest scientific study ever performed, John Lott proved that private ownership of firearms, specifically handguns and carry permits actually reduces crime.

Lott's name gets thrown around in almost every discussion of this topic along with over exaggeration similar to yours.

Lott certainly did compile a vast amount of statistical values related to gun crime vs concealed carry ... but he left out a great deal of other relevant statistics. It wasn't the largest and it didn't really prove anything other than concealed carry laws didn't add to crime rates.

Lott's problem is that he approaches the issue with an extreme bias and crafts a study to support his position


Want to reduce crime, then keep violent criminals in jail for their entire sentance and get thw weed tokers and check bouncers out of jail and in some kind of work program.

You're over generalizing the problem, not offering any sort of solution.


I got most of my gun education from playing Duck Hunt.

I was a pretty good shot when I first shot a real gun too.

Thanks Duck Hunt!

We cheated. If you touched the photo gun to the center of the TV screen ... you never missed.


Sure it is see the 9th amendment, Do you think the founding fathers thought that the right to free travel didn't exist? I'm sure most of them would of been grabbing their muzzleloaders in under 2 seconds after you told them they didn't have the right to ride their horse(drive a car) .

The right to travel means your feet ... and at the time horses/carts. Driving and traveling are not wholly interchangeable. You can travel without driving. Our road system is funded by specific taxes in order to ensure the public's safety. Driving is not a right ... travel is.

To the original question though ...

This is largely carry over of campaign hysteria. Obama isn't going to take away guns, he's not going to ban them, he's not going to do anything of any significance regarding hand guns or hunting rifles/shot guns.

The subject is so far down on the list that it's not likely to even come across his desk this term ... let alone a second term if he gets re-elected.

Now if all aspects of the economy (and regulation) perform a 180, a balanced budget (that allows the reduction of debt) suddenly appears from the heavens, the wars started by the previous administration cease and all involved start swapping flowers and hugs .... then you would have something to consider.

Even then, even with a democratic majority ... prohibitive legislation regarding hand guns and hunting rifles isn't likely to make it out of committee, let alone the house.

[Parkbandit]

I am all for training being required, but when the government starts asking for crap like 5 examples of credible threats to your life, or you having to justify why you feel you need to own and carry a gun that is going too far. If your background check goes without incident, and you have received the state mandated training, that should be the end of it. Hell, have a yearly training requirement for all I care, just don't tell me YOU (government) feel I (The citizen) do not need to own a gun.

Carry and conceal permits are all but impossible to get in MD from what i've been told.

It's far too easy to get one in Florida. Here is how you do it:

Go to a Gun Show and pay for the "class".

Sit in a chair and just listen. The "instructor" will tell you exactly what is on the test and what the answers on the test will be.

Get your picture taken.

Put your fingerprints in the spaces the person holding your hand tells you to put them.

When it's time to take the test, listen to the instructor give you the answers again. Completely fill out the blank oval the instructor tells you to fill out.

Shoot a gun at a target and do not point the gun at the instructor.

Write a check.

Mail it in.



Anyone could get a CWP in Florida, given that they haven't been convicted of a felony.

[CrystalTears]

It's far too easy to get one in Florida. Here is how you do it:

Go to a Gun Show and pay for the "class".

Sit in a chair and just listen. The "instructor" will tell you exactly what is on the test and what the answers on the test will be.

Get your picture taken.

Put your fingerprints in the spaces the person holding your hand tells you to put them.

When it's time to take the test, listen to the instructor give you the answers again. Completely fill out the blank oval the instructor tells you to fill out.

Shoot a gun at a target and do not point the gun at the instructor.

Write a check.

Mail it in.



Anyone could get a CWP in Florida, given that they haven't been convicted of a felony.
Given how easily my idiot ex husband was able to get a permit and a gun, this is totally true.

[Parkbandit]

You don't need to have a permit to have a gun in Florida.. only to get a concealed permit.

[CrystalTears]

You don't need to have a permit to have a gun in Florida.. only to get a concealed permit.
I know. He got both. He's an idiot.

[Izzy]

I'm all for legalizing pot. I'm against banning guns.

A stoned person has little interest to get up from the couch, away from the Pringles, to get a gun. Even if he did, he loves everyone so much that he wouldn't do anything anyway. :D

A stoned person also has little interest in participating/contributing in any meaningful way to society. We need more stoners like we need more people on wellfare. Both of which are needed equally as much as a bullet to the head.

Of course I'm citing the extreme stoner, and there probably are plenty of casual smokers that manage to perform daily tasks well enough.

I really could care less about the pot if the person still exists as a functioning, participatory citizen. Same with any controlled substance, guns, or any other wishy-washy subject. It ONLY because a problem when it devolves into abuse of the item. Drugs bad? Only if it cripples your ability to function a majority of the time. Guns bad? Only if used inappropriately (to include, but not limited to, crime). Straight up: people are the problem. Sadly, they/we are a difficult problem to solve.

[CrystalTears]

Straight up: people are the problem. Sadly, they/we are a difficult problem to solve.We can just shoot them in the head.

Wait... what?

[Izzy]

We can just shoot them in the head.

Wait... what?

Well ok, the solution isn't what's difficult..implementing it is the real challenge :D

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't believe Obama will do much with regard to gun rights, though I do believe he'd like to (judging from his campaign statement in PA). I agree with what anticor said a few pages back. Educate people, compromise, and allow the guns. It doesn't seem like that difficult of an idea. Regarding mace, I'd still rather have a gun.

[TheRunt]

Lott's problem is that he approaches the issue with an extreme bias and crafts a study to support his position

"Until recently, when he bought a 9-mm Ruger after his own research impressed upon him the value of gun ownership, John Lott had no personal experience with firearms, aside from one day of riflery in summer camp when he was 12. "

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27562.html

I agree he does show "extreme bias"



The right to travel means your feet ... and at the time horses/carts. Driving and traveling are not wholly interchangeable. You can travel without driving. Our road system is funded by specific taxes in order to ensure the public's safety. Driving is not a right ... travel is.

Yes at the time travel was restricted to your feet and horses, could it because they didn't have cars back then? Should we also restrict free speech to words that only existed back then? Or perhaps restrict guns to muzzle loaders?





This is largely carry over of campaign hysteria. Obama isn't going to take away guns, he's not going to ban them, he's not going to do anything of any significance regarding hand guns or hunting rifles/shot guns.

The subject is so far down on the list that it's not likely to even come across his desk this term ... let alone a second term if he gets re-elected.

Even then, even with a democratic majority ... prohibitive legislation regarding hand guns and hunting rifles isn't likely to make it out of committee, let alone the house.

From whitehouse.org
"Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment,"
"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals."

Which from looking at his track record that would include banning handguns. See his voting record during his time as a IL senator. And Bidens view on guns? In a '93 ap interview he was quoted as saying "Banning guns is and idea whose time has come"

"They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

And they have all ready introduced legislation that includes federal licenses to own a handgun, or any semi-auto that can accept a detachable magazine.
Along with taking away my rights as a parent to allow my children to possess firearms.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h45ih.txt.pdf

[TheRunt]

I don't think common sense needs proof. You shoot gun, you miss, you hit somebody else by accident.

Not really You shoot a gun, you miss, you have a chance to hit someone else by accident not a guarantee a very very small percentage of missed shots hits someone else.

And I was replying to this quote by you


She is just as likely to get shot or shoot an innocent bystander with her own gun during the struggle, regardless of how much education or training she has had.




I agree but what if you have kids? Are you still keeping it loaded and at hand?

Yes I do. In fact I'm planning on getting my son a handgun for his birthday this year. He all ready has his .22 rifle.

[Warriorbird]

Moral of the story is this... if Obama tried anything serious the Southern portion of his party would give him a serious talking to.

[Ignot]

Not really You shoot a gun, you miss, you have a chance to hit someone else by accident not a guarantee a very very small percentage of missed shots hits someone else.

Yes I do. In fact I'm planning on getting my son a handgun for his birthday this year. He all ready has his .22 rifle.

You feel guns are the best defense and you want them around your kids despite the fact that there is a so called "small chance" of harming yourself or others. I feel they aren't always the best defense and kids should not be around them and a very "small chance" of someone dying is a risk I wouldn't want to take. To each his own. I don't agree with you but I do agree that you have the right to do so. I just feel that more education and restriction is needed to protect people from the very "small chance" of an accident.

[Warriorbird]

Heller pretty much defanged a lot of that junk, TheRunt. Stop worrying about the sky falling. One of the Roberts court decisions I actually agree with... and in many ways the opposite of the strict construction 'originalist' method that Scalia and countless Republican fanboys espouse.

[Rocktar]

Lott's name gets thrown around in almost every discussion of this topic along with over exaggeration similar to yours.

Lott certainly did compile a vast amount of statistical values related to gun crime vs concealed carry ... but he left out a great deal of other relevant statistics. It wasn't the largest and it didn't really prove anything other than concealed carry laws didn't add to crime rates.

Lott's problem is that he approaches the issue with an extreme bias and crafts a study to support his position

Actually, having read the study, he flatly does prove that firearm ownership by the populus reduces violent crime by a marked and statistically significant percentage. He didn't leave out any statistics and no one can validly attack the study in any statistically meaningful way. That mean, no one can punch holes in his logic or scientific method. In addition, he initially wished to prove that the reverse was true. In general, this is a widely accepted statistical method.



You're over generalizing the problem, not offering any sort of solution.

I offer a very valid and well reasoned solution. One study I read by some Liberal think tank in the late 90's stated that 50% of all violent crime, murder, assault, battery, rape and so on, was committed by people that were out of prison on early release, parole, probation, reduced sentance or lastly, the small portion, escaped. So, cut down all violent crime a lot (somewhere over say 10% to be conservative and perhaps by as much as 50% as the study suggested) by keeping violent criminals in prison for the entire length of their sentance.



The right to travel means your feet ... and at the time horses/carts. Driving and traveling are not wholly interchangeable. You can travel without driving. Our road system is funded by specific taxes in order to ensure the public's safety. Driving is not a right ... travel is.

To the original question though ...

This is largely carry over of campaign hysteria. Obama isn't going to take away guns, he's not going to ban them, he's not going to do anything of any significance regarding hand guns or hunting rifles/shot guns.

The subject is so far down on the list that it's not likely to even come across his desk this term ... let alone a second term if he gets re-elected.

Now if all aspects of the economy (and regulation) perform a 180, a balanced budget (that allows the reduction of debt) suddenly appears from the heavens, the wars started by the previous administration cease and all involved start swapping flowers and hugs .... then you would have something to consider.

Even then, even with a democratic majority ... prohibitive legislation regarding hand guns and hunting rifles isn't likely to make it out of committee, let alone the house.

The limiting of rights back to the time of the writing of the Constitution is a pedantic and meaningless exercise in futility and is generaly reserved for those that have no other method of argument other than to provide a straw man to distrace the debate. There is no written "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution either, however it is expressed by Supreme Court verdict and opinion and supported with common law now. Want to go back to no right to privacy? How about no Miranda rights? Or no right to tax the people in any means? All of these are rights of the people and government expressed along he way as being covered.

I don't want any right trampled on by anyone, ever and the fact that this idiot has expressed such Marxist views, has admitted in one of his OWN books that he is a Marxist Socialist should have warned people to stay away from him. Instead, due to an economic emergany of mostly Democrat making, we have the excuse to pass the largest pot of pork and Socialism ever seen.

[LMingrone]

You feel guns are the best defense and you want them around your kids despite the fact that there is a so called "small chance" of harming yourself or others. I feel they aren't always the best defense and kids should not be around them and a very "small chance" of someone dying is a risk I wouldn't want to take. To each his own. I don't agree with you but I do agree that you have the right to do so. I just feel that more education and restriction is needed to protect people from the very "small chance" of an accident.

I agree with most of what you have to say. But, you also have to realize there's a "small chance" that me or you could die from blunt trauma from just falling on any item. I think you were taking his words out of context.

"I just feel that more education is needed to protect people from the very "small chance" of an accident."

FTFY

[TheRunt]

You feel guns are the best defense and you want them around your kids despite the fact that there is a so called "small chance" of harming yourself or others. I feel they aren't always the best defense and kids should not be around them and a very "small chance" of someone dying is a risk I wouldn't want to take. To each his own. I don't agree with you but I do agree that you have the right to do so. I just feel that more education and restriction is needed to protect people from the very "small chance" of an accident.

Actually no I don't feel that guns are the best defense. I believe that the best defense is common sense. Don't wear a rolex when you go into a ghetto, don't go into a ghetto if you don't have to, pay attention to your surroundings. Lock your doors get a large dog and/or a alarm. A gun can provide a good second line of defense. In some cases perhaps not the best, mace as you brought up can be effective under some circumstances which is why I asked why not have both? Hell the most lethal weapon I've ever had to use in my life was a large stick to whack an aggressive dog across the nose with to discourage him from taking a chunk out of my ass.

And I'm all for education the more the better. When my son gets his handgun he's also going to be getting a reservation for the best gun safety class I can find and afford.

But to put that small chance into perspective according to the rabidly anti-gun brady campaign in one year children aged 0-19 had a total of 173 accidental deaths from firearms with another 39 that the intent could not be determined.

Where about 300 children 14 and under die in bicycle accidents. And about 900 die in downing accidents. Do I keep my children off of bikes and away from water? No I teach them swim safely make sure myself or another competent person is there while they are swimming, make sure that their bicycles are in good repair and they know safe riding.

[Ignot]

No I teach them swim safely make sure myself or another competent person is there while they are swimming, make sure that their bicycles are in good repair and they know safe riding.

That is awesome and that is what most parents should do however there are alot of stupid people who don't do that and that's why I think we need more education and restriction when dealing with firearms. Just because you take precautions doesn't mean everyone else does.

[LMingrone]

I think we need more education and restriction.

I don't agree with the restriction part. Yeah, not letting people walk around around with AK-47s and rocket launchers is fine. It's really a personal issue when it comes to all of us. Some of us don't want a gun in the house...some of us do. Why should the govt decide that?

Really, education is the most important part, by far.

And yes some versions of White light, White heat suck. But I have like 20 versions of it, and some aren't SO bad.

[Parkbandit]

I don't agree with the restriction part. Yeah, not letting people walk around around with AK-47s and rocket launchers is fine. It's really a personal issue when it comes to all of us. Some of us don't want a gun in the house...some of us do.

Really, education is the most important part, by far. If your a good parent.

You can't tell me that there isn't someone you know or you've met that really REALLY shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

[LMingrone]

You can't tell me that there isn't someone you know or you've met that really REALLY shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.


Yeah, plenty. Like my grandfather who blew his head off when my mother was seven years old. (Ok, I never met him).

But again, it's not the weapon that's the problem, it's people.

[Ignot]

But again, it's not the weapon that's the problem, it's people.

so how do you fix that?

[LMingrone]

so how do you fix that?

Uhhh, you cant? You tell me. I could go on and on about genetic engineering to "fix" it. That wouldn't fly with most Americans though.


Edit: Americans=humans. Sorry

[CrystalTears]

I believe it means having more... ahem... more restrictions and policies in place.

[LMingrone]

I believe it means having more... ahem... more restrictions and policies in place.

Yay!! I can't wait.
Don't know if you're being sarcastic, but, I'm sick of the fed and state telling me what I can and can't do.

[CrystalTears]

Yay!! I can't wait.
Don't know if you're being sarcastic, but, I'm sick of the fed and state telling me what I can and can't do.
I'm not being sarcastic. There should be a healthy compromise between being able to walk into a gun show or shop and buying anything off the shelf, and not being able to get a gun at all.

I also don't think that ALL guns should be accessible for public use. Sure a criminal might get his hands on a grenade launcher, but it doesn't mean I want everyone to have one.

[LMingrone]

I'm not being sarcastic. There should be a healthy compromise between being able to walk into a gun show or shop and buying anything off the shelf, and not being able to get a gun at all.

I also don't think that ALL guns should be accessible for public use. Sure a criminal might get his hands on a grenade launcher, but it doesn't mean I want everyone to have one.

That's a respectable stance. Of course I would want laws or rules just like we have with driving a car. I'm just against the complete ban on guns.

[TheRunt]

That is awesome and that is what most parents should do however there are alot of stupid people who don't do that and that's why I think we need more education and restriction when dealing with firearms. Just because you take precautions doesn't mean everyone else does.


You can't tell me that there isn't someone you know or you've met that really REALLY shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Thank you. But there is one small problem and that would be that "you can't legislate away stupidity."

I've known some very un-educated hillbillys I'm talking about maybe a 3rd grade equivalent? A couple of which are functionally illiterate. I wouldn't trust them to teach my kids 2+2 but about guns? They grew up with them all their life, were out hunting by themselves at the age of 9 or 10 and know everything there is about gun safety. But expect them to take a class and pass?

Another guy I worked with was extremely intelligent and well educated. Had a masters in math and a masters in I believe it was mechanical engineering and another bs or three in some minor subjects. Was fluent in 3-4 languages and could understand and speak 2 others. I wouldn't trust my kids with him for anything. He was very mentally unstable, to the point that he was driving a forklift because he couldn't get a job in what he was trained for. I guess it makes cubical workers a bit uneasy when you stand up and scream at the top of your lungs "Fuck you God and your faggot son too" while flipping off the heavens. Or another one "SHIT...Out of a dead nuns ass" But you could throw any tests you wanted at him and he would pass it with flying colors.

[CrystalTears]

That's a respectable stance. Of course I would want laws or rules just like we have with driving a car. I'm just against the complete ban on guns.
Well I think the ones for driving need to be adjusted somewhat. That you can basically get a license at 16 and never have to get tested for it ever again is ludicrous to me.

[LMingrone]

Well I think the ones for driving need to be adjusted somewhat. That you can basically get a license at 16 and never have to get tested for it ever again is ludicrous to me.


Again, I agree. I've had a few friends (making stupid decisions) killing themselves in motorcycle and car accidents. Not to mention the elderly people driving around. I think a car vs. a gun is a good analogy. As much as I hate the DMV, I'd take a test once every four years to hold my license. I could deal with a test about the same to hold a gun license.

[CrystalTears]

Again, I agree. I've had a few friends (making stupid decisions) killing themselves in motorcycle and car accidents. Not to mention the elderly people driving around. I think a car vs. a gun is a good analogy. As much as I hate the DMV, I'd take a test once every four years to hold my license. I could deal with a test about the same to hold a gun license.
And that's all I'm asking. And I consider vehicles a bigger death threat than guns.

[TheRunt]

I believe it means having more... ahem... more restrictions and policies in place.


I'm not being sarcastic. There should be a healthy compromise between being able to walk into a gun show or shop and buying anything off the shelf, and not being able to get a gun at all.

I also don't think that ALL guns should be accessible for public use. Sure a criminal might get his hands on a grenade launcher, but it doesn't mean I want everyone to have one.

How many restrictions are all ready in place? And how much good does it actually do? Its against the law to carry a gun onto school property how many school shootings has that actually stopped? Its against the law for felons to have guns do you think most of the violent ones give a shit? Hell gun registration laws that are supposed to help keep guns out of the hands of criminals doesn't apply to them. The supreme court ruled back in the late 70s that its a violation of their fifth amendment rights. I get found with a unregistered short barreled shot gun I go to prison. A felon gets caught with one its a complete defense that if he would of registered it he would of incriminated himself.

[CrystalTears]

So you're okay with anyone just going to get any gun at any time? Sorry, I'm not completely comfortable with that.

However I don't have a problem with them taking away the ban against having them in schools so long as people who carry them have permits to do so.

[aesir]

You couldn't really ban guns in this country. The US isn't like the UK where the population all reside in like 3 major cities and thus easily controllable. I would imagine if they did ban guns and went around confiscating them or have a buyback program then private gunsmiths would probably start quietly selling a few guns under the table. If you're really motivated and are reasonably smart you can just study up on basic gunsmithing go drive to home depot and fix yourself up a crude weapon in probably a couple of months.

[LMingrone]

If you're really motivated and are reasonably smart you can just study up on basic gunsmithing go drive to home depot and fix yourself up a crude weapon in probably a couple of months.

A couple days, if not a few hours.

[TheRunt]

So you're okay with anyone just going to get any gun at any time? Sorry, I'm not completely comfortable with that.

However I don't have a problem with them taking away the ban against having them in schools so long as people who carry them have permits to do so.

No I'm not comfortable with anyone going to get any gun at any time. But I do believe that their are enough regulations on them as is, most likely more than needed such as all felons are not allowed to own any modern firearms, in some states they are allowed to own muzzle loading black powder weapons. Why all felons? Why not just violent ones? Case in point I'm good friends with someone who received 2 duis within 5 years which according to IN law can make the 2nd one a felony. Yes he fucked up and has since paid the price for it. He's completely non-violent but he used to like to hunt he is no longer able to do so. The last dui was right around 6-7 years ago. No criminal charges since and those are his only 2 arrests. Why shouldn't he be allowed to own a gun? Oh and on his second arrest he blew a .07 something at the scene and was about 5 minutes from his house. He was pulled over for a tail light being out. Cop took him to the station and after the required waiting period he blew a .082 I think. He can appeal to have his rights reinstated but he cannot afford the attorney fees without causing hardship to his family.
And myself I came very close to losing my right to own a firearm. In the state I live in a misdemeanor conviction for domestic battery bans you from owning firearms. First off no I didn't and have never beat my SO ever. We went out to a bar with her friend she got drunk and on the way home accused me of trying to sleep with her friend then attacked me while I was driving about 65-70 mph on the interstate. I shoved her back and when I did so my hand slipped and brushed her face she got a very small fat lip. When we got home she ran to the neighbors and called the cops. They came and talked to me. Seen the scratches on my face, bloody nose, and fat lip and the small swelling on her lip. And the size of me vs her I'm 5' 6" and at the time about 165lbs, she was 5' 10" and about 200 or so. They told her that they would arrest me if she insisted on pressing charges but due to the disparity in injuries they would be forced to arrest her also. She said never mind.

And I agree with you on the schools.

[TheRunt]

A couple days, if not a few hours.

More like under an hour to make a very crude but effect zip gun. Including the time it takes me to go the hardware store. Two pieces of pipe a threaded end cap or plumbers epoxy and a nail is all that's needed. Oh and a drill and bit if you go the end cap route. Along with the cartridge of choice. It will take a bit more time if you need to make black powder and a black powder weapon perhaps 1-2 days?

[LMingrone]

More like under an hour to make a very crude but effect zip gun. Including the time it takes me to go the hardware store. Two pieces of pipe a threaded end cap or plumbers epoxy and a nail is all that's needed. Oh and a drill and bit if you go the end cap route. Along with the cartridge of choice. It will take a bit more time if you need to make black powder and a black powder weapon perhaps 1-2 days?


Yeah, I know. I thought if I put the time under a few hours, I'd get called out. A drill, pipe, bullet, nail and a quick weld, I could have one made in a few minutes. Have to give it a few minutes it to cure.

[TheRunt]

Yeah, I know. I thought if I put the time under a few hours, I'd get called out. A drill, pipe, bullet, nail and a quick weld, I could have one made in a few minutes. Have to give it a few minutes it to cure.

If you buy the pre-threaded pipe and end caps no need for a weld. Saves 30 seconds or so. That and doesn't require access to a welder. The plumbers epoxy doesn't even require a drill but I wouldn't go that route unless absolutely necessary :wasntme:

[aesir]

I was thinking an actual weapon. A gun where you can stick in some factory made .45 ACP's in the clip and have it working consistently. You'll need a small workshop probably.

[TheRunt]

What else can come in handy is a 3/4 inch auger, a few 12 ga shells some mousetraps, bbs, some glue or tape and couple of screws a bit of fishing line those and a small sapling= improvised claymore. That or a shovel and the previously mentioned zip gun and a piece of thin wood = landmine.

Not that I have ever done or will do any of the above nor do I recommend anyone doing any sort of such thing. In fact I have no idea how to do any sort of thing and have no wish to learn such. In fact I very much discourage anyone from doing or even thinking about how to do such sort of things.

[Warriorbird]

The one additional requirement that I'm okay with is a further weakening of HIPPAA with regards to keeping the insane or mentally ill from weapons.

[LMingrone]

What else can come in handy is....some mousetraps

A gun that shoots mousetraps? Holy shit, I've found my new project,

[TheRunt]

I was thinking an actual weapon. A gun where you can stick in some factory made .45 ACP's in the clip and have it working consistently. You'll need a small workshop probably.

Yes to make a functioning repeating firearm will take a lot of work. But to make a short range 10-15 feet perhaps a bit more doesn't take more than what was mentioned. And those take factory made ammo. To make one that takes home made ammo takes a bit more work. But a average build person wearing a loose fitting shirt and some cargo pants could carry 20-30 of the afformentioned zip guns without being noticeable.

[TheRunt]

A gun that shoots mousetraps? Holy shit, I've found my new project,

Great, when you start production put me on for one please?

[LMingrone]

Great, when you start production put me on for one please?

I'm actually designing a scale 3D model right now on our design software because I'm bored.. And I'm not kidding. I need to go find a mousetrap for dimensions on my way home from work. I have the tools and plotter/cutters/routers/metal working tools to make one. I'll post a picture when I'm done. My damn marshmellow gun doesn't do enough damage.

I feel like the biggest nerd ever. But who can't like a toy gun that fires mousetraps?

[TheRunt]

The one additional requirement that I'm okay with is a further weakening of HIPPAA with regards to keeping the insane or mentally ill from weapons.

I agree that some mentally ill/mentally handicapped people should not keep and bear arms. But what happens when the Surgeon General determines that wanting to own a gun constitutes a mental illness? Yes a bit far fetched I'll admit but it is possible. Actually perhaps not as far fetched as I'd like to think there is diagnosis for persecution syndrome or paranoia. Yes again far fetched but possible.

[Warriorbird]

I just... I dunno. I have family at NIU and Virginia Tech.

[TheRunt]

I'm actually designing a scale 3D model right now on our design software because I'm bored.. And I'm not kidding. I need to go find a mousetrap for dimensions on my way home from work. I have the tools and plotter/cutters/routers/metal working tools to make one. I'll post a picture when I'm done. My damn marshmellow gun doesn't do enough damage.

I feel like the biggest nerd ever. But who can't like a toy gun that fires mousetraps?

Agreed not about the nerd part but who can't like it. I think the the hardest part would be ensuring that the mousetraps impacts in a way to set off the trigger. And in proper orientation to ensure the trap shutting on said target. And heck with a picture how about actual schematics/blue prints of said item. Unless your planning on patenting/producing/selling the rights to such product. I think it would be fun as hell to have one.

[LMingrone]

Agreed not about the nerd part but who can't like it. I think the the hardest part would be ensuring that the mousetraps impacts in a way to set off the trigger. And in proper orientation to ensure the trap shutting on said target. And heck with a picture how about actual schematics/blue prints of said item. Unless your planning on patenting/producing/selling the rights to such product. I think it would be fun as hell to have one.


I'm getting ideas here. It just seems like a fun little project. The firing mechanism is going to be a mousetrap that lobs whatever you put in the top. I'm going to put a blow-dart down the barrel that fits small, non dangerous items. I have Co2 tanks and cartridges that I could hook up to it. This thing is going to rock. Ill post finished pictures and blue prints when I'm done. My marshmellow gun is broken, but there's nothing better than lighting people up with non-lethal ammo when they walk in your door.

Would it be evil to launch mousetraps at people? I know the answer.

[TheRunt]

Damn you can't even give a gun to the POTUS
http://www.gunguys.com/?cat=97

"When asked to provide for identification, he was "talking funny," said one officer."
Come on he was "talking funny" unless your a coonass yourself understanding people from the bayou of LA is like trying to understand a foreign language you don't speak actually it pretty much is a foreign language. Take a person from CA and someone from the woods of Maine each will say the other is "talking funny" and both of them speak english the coonass folks from LA only speak english by the very loosest definition of the word its almost worse than ebonics.

[Tsa`ah]

"Until recently, when he bought a 9-mm Ruger after his own research impressed upon him the value of gun ownership, John Lott had no personal experience with firearms, aside from one day of riflery in summer camp when he was 12. "

http://www.reason.com/news/show/27562.html

I agree he does show "extreme bias"

He entered the study with an existing bias. Ownership, or lack there of, means very little.


Yes at the time travel was restricted to your feet and horses, could it because they didn't have cars back then? Should we also restrict free speech to words that only existed back then? Or perhaps restrict guns to muzzle loaders?

You're stretching and twisting in order to fit your argument. I stated that driving and travel are not wholly interchangeable. You can travel without driving. Driving is not a right and you have failed to demonstrate that it is.


From whitehouse.org
"Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment,"
"Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals."

The operative word is "would". I also stated that such measures wouldn't make it out of committee let alone the house ... Obama can't do this without congress and congress wouldn't let it get very far, democratic majority or not.


Which from looking at his track record that would include banning handguns. See his voting record during his time as a IL senator. And Bidens view on guns? In a '93 ap interview he was quoted as saying "Banning guns is and idea whose time has come"

Again, Obama can't do this without the congress. Even if he were able to pull it off (not likely to happen in your lifetime) ... SCOTUS would shoot it down.


"They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

I see no reason why an such a ban shouldn't be permanent. I don't trust the majority of the population with a .22 let alone a water gun .... why would I support the notion of anyone able to sign their name having the ability to pick up armament most police forces don't have access to?


And they have all ready introduced legislation that includes federal licenses to own a handgun, or any semi-auto that can accept a detachable magazine.
Along with taking away my rights as a parent to allow my children to possess firearms.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h45ih.txt.pdf

I doubt the legislation has much traction ... again this is nothing more than rollover campaign hysteria.


Actually, having read the study, he flatly does prove that firearm ownership by the populus reduces violent crime by a marked and statistically significant percentage.

He proves it to you and other gun nuts ... he doesn't prove it to the scientific community. The only thing anyone can agree upon (in said scientific community) is that concealed carry doesn't add to crime rates.


He didn't leave out any statistics and no one can validly attack the study in any statistically meaningful way. That mean, no one can punch holes in his logic or scientific method. In addition, he initially wished to prove that the reverse was true. In general, this is a widely accepted statistical method.

Hemenway suggests, and rightly so, that Lott completely omitted such variables related to drugs (usage, sales, etc). Others contend he ignored socioeconomics ... Ayres, Kleck, Donohue .... all punching holes in Lott's findings and final analysis. The National Academy of Sciences (which actually did THE largest review of all available data) certainly didn't agree with Lott.


I offer a very valid and well reasoned solution.

No, you over generalized and didn't expand until that was pointed out to you. You solution doesn't touch on socioeconomics or social engineering .... until education and poverty are addressed, nothing involving how people are incarcerated will have an ounce of impact on gun crime.


The limiting of rights back to the time of the writing of the Constitution is a pedantic and meaningless exercise in futility and is generaly reserved for those that have no other method of argument other than to provide a straw man to distrace the debate. There is no written "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution either, however it is expressed by Supreme Court verdict and opinion and supported with common law now. Want to go back to no right to privacy? How about no Miranda rights? Or no right to tax the people in any means? All of these are rights of the people and government expressed along he way as being covered.

Who exactly has suggested a limiting of rights? Then again you're responding to my pointing out that travel and driving are not synonymous ... meaning driving isn't a right.


I don't want any right trampled on by anyone, ever and the fact that this idiot has expressed such Marxist views, has admitted in one of his OWN books that he is a Marxist Socialist should have warned people to stay away from him. Instead, due to an economic emergany of mostly Democrat making, we have the excuse to pass the largest pot of pork and Socialism ever seen.

I don't think that Marx should be a debate tool used by anyone that hasn't actually read Marx. I also tend to dismiss anyone who uses the word "socialist" without realizing that his/her entire existence has been touched by socialist programs.

[TheRunt]

I'm going to put a blow-dart down the barrel that fits small, non dangerous items. [/QUOTE]

Please like paperclips?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MH176mx1_ZY
Or what would be better would be like the scene in batman where the bad guy kills the other guy with half a dozen paperclips to the throat.(Damnit I cant find a youtube clip of it)




Would it be evil to launch mousetraps at people? I know the answer.

And you know the answer is hell no, Its all fun and games.

[LMingrone]

I didn't mean blow darts, I just have an old blow-dart gun I was going to throw away. Gonna use that as a barrel.

[TheRunt]

He entered the study with an existing bias. Ownership, or lack there of, means very little.

He has also stated and unfortuantly I cant find a link that he expected the exact opposite of what he study determined.



You're stretching and twisting in order to fit your argument. I stated that driving and travel are not wholly interchangeable. You can travel without driving. Driving is not a right and you have failed to demonstrate that it is.

And you can have free speech without being able to put what you want in a newspaper or on the radio. Whats going to reach a larger audience? Me up on a soapbox on the corner or myself on the radio or in the comment section of the local newspaper? Currently driving is linked with travel. And to use the defense that it wasn't that way back when the Constitution was enacted I'm going to have to use Justice Scalia as he put it in the Heller decision.

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"

So even though automobiles did not exist at the time of the founding they are still protected under our rights.




The operative word is "would". I also stated that such measures wouldn't make it out of committee let alone the house ... Obama can't do this without congress and congress wouldn't let it get very far, democratic majority or not.

One word Bullshit.



Again, Obama can't do this without the congress. Even if he were able to pull it off (not likely to happen in your lifetime) ... SCOTUS would shoot it down.

The current Scotus would probably shoot it down. If something were to happen to one of the five justices on the majority of the Heller decision and he appointed one well perhaps not. And the only thing that would stop the current congress from passing it is the worry of not being reelected considering from most surveys 1/3-1/2 of the voters own firearms.



I see no reason why an such a ban shouldn't be permanent. I don't trust the majority of the population with a .22 let alone a water gun .... why would I support the notion of anyone able to sign their name having the ability to pick up armament most police forces don't have access to?

And what weapons are anyone allowed to sign their name for that police aren't allowed to have? Considering last time I checked police were people too. At least under the most liberal definition of the word anyway. And unless you live in a very small town, kinda like I do I guarantee the police have everything and perhaps more than the law abiding citizens might have.



I doubt the legislation has much traction ... again this is nothing more than rollover campaign hysteria.

How is a bill introduced to the legislature after the election, hell even after Obama was sworn in campaign hysteria?



He proves it to you and other gun nuts ... he doesn't prove it to the scientific community. The only thing anyone can agree upon (in said scientific community) is that concealed carry doesn't add to crime rates.

No he proves it to us and to almost all other rational people other than rabid anti-gunners.



Hemenway suggests, and rightly so, that Lott completely omitted such variables related to drugs (usage, sales, etc). Others contend he ignored socioeconomics ... Ayres, Kleck, Donohue .... all punching holes in Lott's findings and final analysis. The National Academy of Sciences (which actually did THE largest review of all available data) certainly didn't agree with Lott.

Any links to the study? I tried doing a web search on it and the most I'm coming up with is reports of them not being able to prove it wrong.

"In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. "

"THIS month the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun-control laws. The big news is that the academy’s panel couldn’t identify any benefits of the decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership. The only conclusion it could draw was: Let’s study the question some more (presumably, until we find the results we want)."


" A Critical Review. In its report "based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents," reported the December 29 New York Post "

Whats funny is this though

"The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control. "


Who exactly has suggested a limiting of rights? Then again you're responding to my pointing out that travel and driving are not synonymous ... meaning driving isn't a right.

See my second reply in this post along with the 9th amendment.

[TheRunt]

I didn't mean blow darts, I just have an old blow-dart gun I was going to throw away. Gonna use that as a barrel.

Still if the barrel at one time held them perhaps it still can?

[Warriorbird]

Seriously... Obama wouldn't be in office without Southern Democrats. It isn't going to happen. Heller and the current court make it even less likely.

[TheRunt]

Damn it the more I think on what your saying the more it ruins my dreams. How are you going to launch a mouse trap down a blow gun barrel? I want a gun that fires mouse traps that snap on peoples nose, ears, lips etc. Or just perhaps my wifes pain in the ass cats.

[Warriorbird]

Mouse slingshot. Duh.

[TheRunt]

Seriously... Obama wouldn't be in office without Southern Democrats. It isn't going to happen. Heller and the current court make it even less likely.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022
The '07 co-sponsors of the assault weapon ban more than a couple of southern dems on it.

[TheRunt]

Mouse slingshot. Duh.

Slingshot for targeting mice? Or hurling them? If hurling them HELL YEAH!!! I'd love to see my wifes reactions to a small furry critter traveling her way at around 40 mpg :wasntme: And that would be my defense and I would stick to it no matter what evidence.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022
The '07 co-sponsors of the assault weapon ban more than a couple of southern dems on it.

Florida's not the South!

Apart from that, not very many and generally from metro areas.

[TheRunt]

This is gun control. This guy is so fast its fucking sick.

8 .357 shots on target in 1 second. 8 shots four targets in barely over 1 sec.
6 shots reload and another six shots in under 3
And that's with a revolver

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIYGzeryEsg

[Alfster]

heh, buy your next gun at armaworld.com

[Ignot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIYGzeryEsg

Holy shit that's fast.

[Stanley Burrell]

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3834/guncontrolxu1.png

[TheRunt]

heh, buy your next gun at armaworld.com

Except they don't sell guns. Well at least not anymore. Its a discussion forum like this one.

[TheRunt]

Holy shit that's fast.

I seen a clip of him with a 1911 using two hands he had something like a 675 rpm.

[TheRunt]

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3834/guncontrolxu1.png

Not really some folks might be like that but I do not normally feel angry and if I do possession of a firearm has no effect on that. And same with insecurity. I'm not one of the guys out there that's like "OMG I've got a small pecker, I'm gonna get the biggest gun I can to make up for it" If I was I would buy this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fs5zhCI9pY
One of the gunshops I go to has one for sale. It is a sweet gun but I can't justify the 5g price plus the outrageous cost of ammo for it. At least for something I would never use other than maybe target practice if I could find a range anywhere near me that could accommodate a weapon anywhere near this. My pecker is small but not that small.

[Warriorbird]

An illustration of why I'm in favor of HIPPAA being altered for gun issues.

[TheRunt]

Proper age to start gun safety training?

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1747532

[ClydeR]

This is a really good thread. I can tell that a lot of you really know what you're talking about. Just one question, though, which I haven't seen addressed. What is Obama's position on the issue of gun rights?

[AnticorRifling]

This is a really good thread. I can tell that a lot of you really know what you're talking about. Just one question, though, which I haven't seen addressed. What is Obama's position on the issue of gun rights? I thought since he was black he was issued a few....

[Clove]

And this is a bad thing?

How is legalizing any different?It's already legal, numbnuts; check the Constitution.

[Parkbandit]

It's already legal, numbnuts; check the Constitution.


When Backlash is using the term "legalizing", he is referring to his one true love: Marijuana.

[Clove]

When Backlash is using the term "legalizing", he is referring to his one true love: Marijuana.Oh I get it. He got lost. Posting in the proper thread UR doing it wrong.

[Tsa`ah]

He has also stated and unfortuantly I cant find a link that he expected the exact opposite of what he study determined.

I find that rather hard to believe.


And you can have free speech without being able to put what you want in a newspaper or on the radio. Whats going to reach a larger audience? Me up on a soapbox on the corner or myself on the radio or in the comment section of the local newspaper?

Only a handful of people are broadcast over the air waves or in print compared to the population as a whole. Are you suggesting that the majority doesn't have access to this freedom? Perhaps you're suggesting that anyone that refuses to broadcast or print your opinion would be violating this particular freedom? In any event ... it's an apples to oranges comparison you're attempting in order to give your poor constitutional interpretation merit.


Currently driving is linked with travel. And to use the defense that it wasn't that way back when the Constitution was enacted I'm going to have to use Justice Scalia as he put it in the Heller decision.

Driving is linked to driving and travel. Travel doesn't imply driving at all. One can walk, hitch a ride, take a bus/cab/train/airplane ... or just be a passenger in a friend's/relative's/colleague's vehicle. Driving is not a necessity of travel and you'll find not a single state or federal court that will agree with your interpretation.


"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modernforms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"

So even though automobiles did not exist at the time of the founding they are still protected under our rights.

Again, you're making an apples to oranges comparison. Driving and travel are not intertwined, nor are they synonymous. You are of course free to test out your opinion by getting your license revoked and then taking your case to the courts when you are then arrested for driving without a license. Your defense of "constitutional right" won't make fly in traffic court and it'll likely be denied a hearing by the appellate court.


One word Bullshit.

Yes yes ... your irrational fear mongering is indeed bullshit.


The current Scotus would probably shoot it down. If something were to happen to one of the five justices on the majority of the Heller decision and he appointed one well perhaps not. And the only thing that would stop the current congress from passing it is the worry of not being reelected considering from most surveys 1/3-1/2 of the voters own firearms.

Again, it wouldn't make it out of committee, let alone the house.


And what weapons are anyone allowed to sign their name for that police aren't allowed to have? Considering last time I checked police were people too. At least under the most liberal definition of the word anyway. And unless you live in a very small town, kinda like I do I guarantee the police have everything and perhaps more than the law abiding citizens might have.

Re-read the first line about trust, caliber, and waterguns.

In addition, certain departments within major PDs certainly have assault weapons ... your standard investigators and beat cops certainly do not. This is beside the point. There's no reason for the common citizen to have an assault rifle in their possession. There's no reason for the common citizen to have fully automatic firearms in their possession. Semi-auto rifles, shot guns, and hand guns sure ... beyond that there's never a convincing argument.


How is a bill introduced to the legislature after the election, hell even after Obama was sworn in campaign hysteria?

Let me reiterate this for you ... it won't make it out of committee ... let alone the house. It was introduced on 01-06-09 and it took them over a month to refer it to a sub-committee.

Translation ... they sent it to the grave.


No he proves it to us and to almost all other rational people other than rabid anti-gunners.

Yes because the National Academy of Science is a bastion for rabid anti-gunners.


Any links to the study? I tried doing a web search on it and the most I'm coming up with is reports of them not being able to prove it wrong.

"In short, the panel could find no link between restrictions on gun ownership and lower rates of crime, firearms violence or even accidents with guns. "

"THIS month the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun-control laws. The big news is that the academy’s panel couldn’t identify any benefits of the decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership. The only conclusion it could draw was: Let’s study the question some more (presumably, until we find the results we want)."


" A Critical Review. In its report "based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide, or accidents," reported the December 29 New York Post "

Whats funny is this though

"The panel was established during the Clinton administration and all but one of its members were known to favor gun control. "

What's sad is that you translate gun control into ... OMG FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS! Gun control is not taking away a constitutional right, nor is it stripping one of their right to arm themselves ... it's the attempt to instill some common sense.


See my second reply in this post along with the 9th amendment.

Apples, oranges, and a translation that fails to even hold air.

This is nothing more than fear mongering and irrational hysteria. The next phase is going to read "Obama is taking away your women" .... insert Blazing Saddles sound clip.

[AnticorRifling]

Where the white women at?

[Tsa`ah]

Give that man some rep.

[Clove]

Where the white women at?Can we dance wif yo dates?

[TheRunt]

Perhaps you're suggesting that anyone that refuses to broadcast or print your opinion would be violating this particular freedom?

No, But if I owned a newspaper/radio station. And was not allowed to broadcast my opinion that would be infringing on my rights. Or if I was not allowed to own a radio station.



You are of course free to test out your opinion by getting your license revoked and then taking your case to the courts when you are then arrested for driving without a license. Your defense of "constitutional right" won't make fly in traffic court and it'll likely be denied a hearing by the appellate court.

Wouldn't that be like a felon not being allowed to own a gun?


In addition, certain departments within major PDs certainly have assault weapons ... your standard investigators and beat cops certainly do not. This is beside the point. There's no reason for the common citizen to have an assault rifle in their possession. There's no reason for the common citizen to have fully automatic firearms in their possession. Semi-auto rifles, shot guns, and hand guns sure ... beyond that there's never a convincing argument.

I'm curious what is your definition of and assault rifle? And most if not all cop cars are equipped with a "assault weapon" at least under the assault weapon ban. A pistol gripped shotgun.



What's sad is that you translate gun control into ... OMG FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS! Gun control is not taking away a constitutional right, nor is it stripping one of their right to arm themselves ... it's the attempt to instill some common sense.

No I translate gun control as proper firearm handling.


This is nothing more than fear mongering and irrational hysteria. The next phase is going to read "Obama is taking away your women" .... insert Blazing Saddles sound clip.

How is asking a question about peoples opinion of gun regulation/restriction under the current political administration fear mongering? And irrational hysteria? How is a valid concern for retaining my rights irrational hysteria? I've listed Obama and Biden's stance on gun regulation from the official white house website and current legislation pending in congress. And said to look up past voting trends by Obama.

[AnticorRifling]

Can we dance wif yo dates?

We are having a serious discussion about gun control and Blazing Saddles, please leave Weird Science quotes out of this. :)

[Ignot]

How is asking a question about peoples opinion of gun regulation/restriction under the current political administration fear mongering?

You didn't really want other's opinions.

[CrystalTears]

You didn't really want Tsa`ah's opinions.Fixed.

[Clove]

Thanks Google!

[TheRunt]

You didn't really want other's opinions.

Sure I did for a variety of reasons. One to find out how people stand and yes trying to find out on this forums is seriously fucktarded but I also gently poll other people, also there are quite a few pretty intelligent people on these boards and it is possible they might change my mind (they say anything is possible) and they can come up with some well reasoned and unique ideas which gives me a chance if they don't change my mind to check into them and come up with a defense against their ideas if they come up in the future. Have I made any post with a straight OMG YOUR FUCKED IN THE HEAD? I for the most part try to see the other persons opinion and offer a semi-coherent rebuttal. I realize my point of view is not going to appeal to 100% of the people, hell for some of my beliefs 25% would be a miracle. But if I can get one person to change his opinion by debating and arguing with him or hers thats a plus.

[Ignot]

also there are quite a few pretty intelligent people on these boards and it is possible they might change my mind

Mhmm because you are very open to other's opinions.

[TheRunt]

I don't believe it. Seriously. Obama more than agrees with me on guns. He thinks civilians should have military weapons and that the govt. should fund them.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set"
"We gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful just as strong just as well funded"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=rfw-rec-HM-rn

And not guns but WTF?
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/bills/SB126_.pdf

Are they serious?

[TheRunt]

Mhmm because you are very open to other's opinions.


it is possible they might change my mind (they say anything is possible)

Never said I was very open or even slightly open just that it was possible. I will admit that the chance of someone converting me over to the anti-gun ranks is slim to none and that slim is currently riding into the sunset though.

[TheRunt]

And Obama's going to be too busy to enact any new gun control laws?

"The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=6960824&page=1

[Daniel]

I don't believe it. Seriously. Obama more than agrees with me on guns. He thinks civilians should have military weapons and that the govt. should fund them.
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set"
"We gotta have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful just as strong just as well funded"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s&feature=rfw-rec-HM-rn

And not guns but WTF?
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2009/bills/SB126_.pdf

Are they serious?


Trust me when I say that this civilian national security force is not anywhere close to what you think it is.

[TheRunt]

Trust me when I say that this civilian national security force is not anywhere close to what you think it is.

You might be surprised at what I think it is. But the original post was a joke.

LRN 2 SARCASM