gun control laws

[2413fanphins]

Hey all, I'm not a frequent poster in this forum, but I read a lot. I have an old colleague who is everything anti democrat and that is fine I guess. To each his own. But, everytime he posts something on facebook or whatever, it's usually quite derogatory and at best a half truth.

I'm not exactly an avid hunter, although I do pheasant hunt with a shotgun and whitetail deer hunt with a .50 caliber muzzleloader and a bow. I am by no means a 2nd ammendment activist or gun activist... which brings me to my question seeking anybody who cares to give input with a reply.

Today he threw up an article about the newly released gun ban list democrats have put out... I thumbed through the list and found about 3 guns that I had even heard of. Ak 47, AR 15, and uzi.... thats about the extent of what I knew....

basically, I'm of the thought that wtf do we need guns like that for anyway, and the basic argument is just that its' a 2nd ammendment right and they need it to protect themselves from tyranny and yada yada.... i always thought it was mostly the hunting crowd who bitched about the dems wanting gun control in which case I've never heard or seen anybody hunting with those guns on that list. at any rate, I'm just wanting to soak up some info, so I can gain a little knowledge of truth and falsehood... thanks for any input you are willing to give.

[Gonzo]

Hey all, I'm not a frequent poster in this forum, but I read a lot. I have an old colleague who is everything anti democrat and that is fine I guess. To each his own. But, everytime he posts something on facebook or whatever, it's usually quite derogatory and at best a half truth.

I'm not exactly an avid hunter, although I do pheasant hunt with a shotgun and whitetail deer hunt with a .50 caliber muzzleloader and a bow. I am by no means a 2nd ammendment activist or gun activist... which brings me to my question seeking anybody who cares to give input with a reply.

Today he threw up an article about the newly released gun ban list democrats have put out... I thumbed through the list and found about 3 guns that I had even heard of. Ak 47, AR 15, and uzi.... thats about the extent of what I knew....

basically, I'm of the thought that wtf do we need guns like that for anyway, and the basic argument is just that its' a 2nd ammendment right and they need it to protect themselves from tyranny and yada yada.... i always thought it was mostly the hunting crowd who bitched about the dems wanting gun control in which case I've never heard or seen anybody hunting with those guns on that list. at any rate, I'm just wanting to soak up some info, so I can gain a little knowledge of truth and falsehood... thanks for any input you are willing to give.

Does he own a gun store? Good business strategy if he does. Otherwise, tell your friend that that list is complete b.s. that has been making the rounds ever since HR 1022, not that he'll listen as I'm guessing he's probably a birther too. Obama has done absolutely nothing regarding gun laws.

This is one of the many reasons he won again. So many people bought into nonsense like this and other flat out lies. There were so many things that your friend and others like him could have focused on, but instead they spent all of their energy on conspiracies and b.s. That's not going to sway anybody. The people that believe that crap were never ever going to vote for Obama in the first place. They'll never reach those on the fence with it.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Dolphins9954]

The overwhelming majority of gun crimes and murders are committed by handguns. And the overwhelming majority of those crimes are committed by people who don't follow any gun laws. An assault weapons ban would do NOTHING to change that. All it would accomplish is taking away weapons from responsible and law-abiding citizens.

[Spesh]

Does he own a gun store? Good business strategy if he does. Otherwise, tell your friend that that list is complete b.s. that has been making the rounds ever since HR 1022, not that he'll listen as I'm guessing he's probably a birther too. Obama has done absolutely nothing regarding gun laws.

This is one of the many reasons he won again. So many people bought into nonsense like this and other flat out lies. There were so many things that your friend and others like him could have focused on, but instead they spent all of their energy on conspiracies and b.s. That's not going to sway anybody. The people that believe that crap were never ever going to vote for Obama in the first place. They'll never reach those on the fence with it.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nailed it, but wanted to expand.

If there is one entity that Obama has run away from with his tail between his legs its the gun industry. For all the Glenn Beck's out there insisting he is coming to dispossess everyone, Obama has avoided the subject like the plague. Meanwhile, two people im sure your colleague has voted for were more "anti-gun" than Obama:

Romney signed a ban on assault weapons as Massachusetts governor. But as the presumptive Republican nominee, he now bills himself as the candidate who will protect gun owners' rights.
Obama called for reinstating the federal ban on assault weapons during his 2008 presidential campaign. But since his election, he hasn't sought to get that done or pushed other gun control proposals, either.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Politicians who had only a few years ago responded to public pressure for controls on such weapons are keeping a cautious distance. President Bush says he supports extending the assault weapons ban, but he has not aggressively worked for legislation to extend it. John F. Kerry, his Democratic presidential opponent, voted this year to extend the ban, but the Massachusetts senator often talks about how he enjoys hunting and supports the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


The Brady Center is an organization whose focus is to prevent gun violence. It is named after, and founded by, Jim Brady. He was Ronald Reagans press secretary who was shot when John Hinckley tried to assassinate the President. Among the many things they do is grade politicians on how they have stood up against the gun lobby. You can download the pdf for yourself if you like, but here is the overall grade on Obama:

The President’s concessions to the “guns anywhere” mentality of the gun lobby and lack of leadership for common-sense gun laws has earned him a grade of “F”.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



Most liberal politicians say they are for the ban on assault rifles. Yet nothing is done. Why? Because politicians understand where the power is and they will never go up against the gun lobby. Obama has been the best pro-gun President ever and he is vilified for trying to "take away our gun rights!". When the Aurora tragedy occured, what did the politicians start talking about? Did they talk about reinstating the assault rifle ban? Nope. They talked about whether they should talk about the assault rifles ban. In all to typical fashion, they decided it wasnt time to talk about it.

[phinfan3411]

If you have any knowledge of the relatively short span of American History, the second amendment has absolutely NOTHING to do with hunting.

So, if we can agree on this, and I think we can, we can then put the question you ask about whether or not somebody "needs" an AR15, or AK47 in the proper perspective.

Why does my government need them? Not saying they don't, but why can't I have something similar to what they have, after all, that's what the bill of rights is, a check of government power. Why would you think any part of that bill was designed to give the government a big advantage? It is just not consistent with the spirit of the legislation.

[MadDog 88]

The overwhelming majority of gun crimes and murders are committed by handguns. And the overwhelming majority of those crimes are committed by people who don't follow any gun laws. An assault weapons ban would do NOTHING to change that. All it would accomplish is taking away weapons from responsible and law-abiding citizens.

Handguns are more readily available and easily concealable making them used more often than assault weapons. Regardless, handguns and assault weapons need to be banned in the U.S. Spare me the protect yourself from the government mantra because that would never happen.

[rob19]

Handguns are more readily available and easily concealable making them used more often than assault weapons. Regardless, handguns and assault weapons need to be banned in the U.S. Spare me the protect yourself from the government mantra because that would never happen.

Banning those guns would do nothing but create a new black-market, & empower a new wave of criminals. Much in the same way the current prohibition of drugs is doing, or the way the alcohol prohibition gave rise to Al Capone's criminal empire, Lucky Luciano, Machine Gun Kelly, etc.

Prohibition doesn't solve the problem. You can't wave a magic wand and completely do away with something.

[Spesh]

Handguns are more readily available and easily concealable making them used more often than assault weapons. Regardless, handguns and assault weapons need to be banned in the U.S. Spare me the protect yourself from the government mantra because that would never happen.

So long as man breaths, man will try and inflict violence against one another. If we ban handguns, people will use knives. If we ban knives, people will use rocks. We ban rocks, people will use their hands.

The goal of the assault rifles ban is to limit the damage. When tragedy is unavoidable its our responsibility as civilized people to limit the damage of such tragedy. Handguns have their proper place in our society. People do use them for protection and they are often adequate for that purpose.

[rob19]

So long as man breaths, man will try and inflict violence against one another. If we ban handguns, people will use knives. If we ban knives, people will use rocks. We ban rocks, people will use their hands.

The goal of the assault rifles ban is to limit the damage. When tragedy is unavoidable its our responsibility as civilized people to limit the damage of such tragedy. Handguns have their proper place in our society. People do use them for protection and they are often adequate for that purpose.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I believe your premise is slightly flawed. I think instead of "If we ban handguns, people will use knives", is actually more like "If we ban handguns, people will use illegal handguns". & On top of that you'll have empowered a new criminal empire.

I would bet my left-nut that if there we're any sort of ban on either handguns or assault rifles; gun related crime would actually rise. I'm not saying that just to say it either, in 1920 when they banned alcohol, rates of consumption rose steadily every single year of it's 13 year prohibition, alcohol related poisonings rose by 600%, there we're more 'speakeasies' in New York during prohibition than there are taverns, & bars in New York today.

Have any of you ever read Lao Tzu's, Tao Te Ching?

[Spesh]

I appreciate where you're coming from, but I believe your premise is slightly flawed. I think instead of "If we ban handguns, people will use knives", is actually more like "If we ban handguns, people will use illegal handguns". & On top of that you'll have empowered a new criminal empire.

I would bet my left-nut that if there we're any sort of ban on either handguns or assault rifles; gun related crime would actually rise. I'm not saying that just to say it either, in 1920 when they banned alcohol, rates of consumption rose steadily every single year of it's 13 year prohibition, alcohol related poisonings rose by 600%, there we're more 'speakeasies' in New York during prohibition than there are taverns, & bars in New York today.

Have any of you ever read Lao Tzu's, Tao Te Ching?

Alcohol and guns are a bit different. I would bet that more people drink than own guns, especially assault rifles. Weapons are not something that is consumed and in need of replacing. While the ammunition certainly is, the times you would use up that ammunition would is much lower than the amount of times someone drinks. Banning assault rifles is nothing new, states have successfully done so and i havent heard of any sort of rise in crime related to it. Granted, i havent dug up the stats to say that with any degree of certainty. It would be interesting to see the comparison between states that do ban it and those that dont.

Even now we ban explosive devices. Why? Because when they are used incorrectly they can cause large amounts of casualties. Even with that ban in place i havent heard of a rise in explosive devices used during criminal activity...despite the fact that they can be easier to acquire than assault rifles.

I will agree that banning handguns would just lead to an even worse black market. Practically speaking, handguns would be much easier to distribute due to the ease in which one can conceal them. Even with handguns being legal we have difficulty tracking them. I was just posting about Junior Seau's suicide the other day. Despite it happening in May, police still have no earthly idea where or when he acquired the handgun.
And cant say ive read Tao Te Ching.