Outlawing guns in the US ...

[meesterperfect]

If this Prez gets the chance, he will do it.
His czar, cass sunstein.
his words.
if you care about the constitution, you should watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj8ZGasmWgY&feature=related

deny my right to protect myself? who will protect me? you? the police?
fuck youuuuuuu.

 

[Mauser98k]

If this Prez gets the chance, he will do it.
His czar, cass sunstein.
his words.
if you care about the constitution, you should watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj8ZGasmWgY&feature=related

deny my right to protect myself? who will protect me? you? the police?
fuck youuuuuuu.

there's no feasible way Obama could do that. it would be a suicide mission for anybody unfortunate enough to be sent to collect guns. a full ban/confiscation will NEVER HAPPEN

 

[iv6789]

Shooting ranges, gun dealers and bullet manufacturers say they have never seen such shortages. Bullets, especially for handguns, have been scarce for months because gun enthusiasts are stocking up on ammo, in part because they fear President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress will pass antigun legislation — even though nothing specific has been proposed and the president last month signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

Are you seriously scared the President is going to take this right away? I know he says stuff about it here or there, but there is no way legislation would pass taking away our gun rights altogether.

I feel I must've missed the episode where Glen Beck told everyone the Pres. was going to take our rights away.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Are you seriously scared the President is going to take this right away? I know he says stuff about it here or there, but there is no way legislation would pass taking away our gun rights altogether.

I feel I must've missed the episode where Glen Beck told everyone the Pres. was going to take our rights away.

No, I'm not afraid the President will do it...but I have no doubts about Biden, or Pelosi, especially Pelosi. People complain about Obama, and I understand, I don't particularly like him either, but runners up #1, and #2, are 100% worse alternatives. You also have to think in terms of achieving their goal, in unconventional manners. They have talked about laws that would force manufacturers to micro stamp ammo or gun components. You still would be able to buy whatever you wanted, but because of the high cost to the manufacturers...which will be passed on to the consumer, your average working class stiff, wouldn't be able to afford them. A city in California is currently in the process of trying to pass a law that no one shall be allowed to buy, sell, or transfer more then 50 rounds of ammo to a private citizen, in a one month period. Now I don't know about most people, but when I go shooting, I take a few hundred rounds, and a few different guns. So what, I have to stock up, over the course of a year, just to shoot my guns once in a 12 month period. If you think they won't try to achieve their goal, you need to pay better attention. Don't consider it "paranoid" behavior, think of it as "vigilant", or "cautious", because I guarantee you, the minute you take a rest, and give them a chance, they will slide right in, and catch you by surprise.

 

[sexdog121]

Get rid of them and they will stop shooting each other

 

[meesterperfect]

Get rid of them and they will stop shooting each other

why didn't i think of that?!!!!!!!

 

[coleman_stoops]

I have no objection at all to firearms commonly used in hunting (rifles; shotguns) or sports--and the latter includes handguns/sidearms. For the life of me, though, I can't imagine why an average citizen would need/have a use for an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. Those should be strictly the province of the professionals; i.e., the police and the armed forces. Corollary: a crime committed with one of those would carry a very rigorous penalty with zero chance of parole.

 

[Rey C.]

I have no objection at all to firearms commonly used in hunting (rifles; shotguns) or sports--and the latter includes handguns/sidearms. For the life of me, though, I can't imagine why an average citizen would need/have a use for an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. Those should be strictly the province of the professionals; i.e., the police and the armed forces. Corollary: a crime committed with one of those would carry a very rigorous penalty with zero chance of parole.

Why only guns that are commonly used in hunting? There's no constitutional right to hunt in the U.S. Why do people link "good guns" with hunting? Seriously... :dunno:

 

[meesterperfect]

I think he meant guns that cant take out 30 people in .8 seconds.
I disagree of course.
If I want a flamethrower I think I, a citizen without a criminal/mental record should be able to get one, unmolested by a GOV.
I think what its come down to is as a society in whole we are just too stupid to own guns responsibly.
So, if automatics like an m-16 or ak47 were legal some nut or bad guy would do some damage...........but wait........if a nut or bad guy wants to, really wants to , he can get an automatic and still do the damage......so what good is the law?
Oh yeah, it makes people feel safe.

taking away or making it almost impossible for citizens to own guns based on "theyre dangerous" is the same as making cars illegal because some people drive like shit.

 

[nathan13]

if guns get outlawed im movin

 

[ChefChiTown]

if guns get outlawed im movin

If guns get outlawed, I'll have to start wearing long-sleeve shirts.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I have no objection at all to firearms commonly used in hunting (rifles; shotguns) or sports--and the latter includes handguns/sidearms. For the life of me, though, I can't imagine why an average citizen would need/have a use for an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. Those should be strictly the province of the professionals; i.e., the police and the armed forces. Corollary: a crime committed with one of those would carry a very rigorous penalty with zero chance of parole.

Last time I checked, it was called the "Bill of Rights", not the bill of needs. What I want with a gun like that, is irrelevant and no ones business...ESPECIALLY the Governments. As long as I'm a law abiding citizen, and entitled to legally own a firearm, restrictions of ANY type are clearly a violation of my Second Amendment rights, and such laws clearly usurp, said Amendment. And for the record, only something like 1% of crimes committed with guns, are committed with "assault" type weapons. Most criminals prefer handguns, for ease of conceal ability, and most get their guns illegally, so outlawing ANY type of gun, will result in only outlaws having guns.

 

[JacknCoke]

Last time I checked, it was called the "Bill of Rights", not the bill of needs. What I want with a gun like that, is irrelevant and no ones business...ESPECIALLY the Governments. As long as I'm a law abiding citizen, and entitled to legally own a firearm, restrictions of ANY type are clearly a violation of my Second Amendment rights, and such laws clearly usurp, said Amendment. And for the record, only something like 1% of crimes committed with guns, are committed with "assault" type weapons. Most criminals prefer handguns, for ease of conceal ability, and most get their guns illegally, so outlawing ANY type of gun, will result in only outlaws having guns.

This right here. I agree with everything in this statement. I don't think I need to say anything more...

 

[jasonk282]

I have no objection at all to firearms commonly used in hunting (rifles; shotguns) or sports--and the latter includes handguns/sidearms. For the life of me, though, I can't imagine why an average citizen would need/have a use for an automatic or semiautomatic weapon. Those should be strictly the province of the professionals; i.e., the police and the armed forces. Corollary: a crime committed with one of those would carry a very rigorous penalty with zero chance of parole.

Actually there are zero automatic weapons as they are already outlawed becasue of the automatic weapons ban. Every gun IS a semiautomatic. So your hunting rifles and handgus you would not let the general population have.

 

[Rey C.]

It's possible to legally purchase a select fire or fully automatic weapon in the U.S. If the weapon is transferable and you're willing to go through a little bit of hell and pay a whole lot of money, you can rock & roll.

I've never seen figures on how many transferable weapons exist in the U.S. today. I'd say that it's only a few thousand, but I don't know. But the last time I really dug into it several years ago, no legally owned fully automatic or select fire weapon had been used to commit a crime in the United States at least since the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The fully automatic and suppressed fire weapons used by criminal gangs in the U.S. are not legal weapons. Many/most of those people are already felons, so ownership of ANY type of firearm is already illegal for them. But they acquire their weapons through illegal channels: robbing armories, backdoor deals with military sources, the Russian/Israeli mafia, the Italian mafia, the Chinese Triads (and the Chinese government itself) and the various Central and South American gangs that plague cities in the U.S. now.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

It's possible to legally purchase a select fire or fully automatic weapon in the U.S. If the weapon is transferable and you're willing to go through a little bit of hell and pay a whole lot of money, you can rock & roll.

I've never seen figures on how many transferable weapons exist in the U.S. today. I'd say that it's only a few thousand, but I don't know. But the last time I really dug into it several years ago, no legally owned fully automatic or select fire weapon had been used to commit a crime in the United States at least since the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The fully automatic and suppressed fire weapons used by criminal gangs in the U.S. are not legal weapons. Many/most of those people are already felons, so ownership of ANY type of firearm is already illegal for them. But they acquire their weapons through illegal channels: robbing armories, backdoor deals with military sources, the Russian/Israeli mafia, the Italian mafia, the Chinese Triads (and the Chinese government itself) and the various Central and South American gangs that plague cities in the U.S. now.

Don't you mean, the Federal Firearms Act of 1934? I don't recall a major law being passed in '68. Clinton added on something in 1986, with the assault weapons ban that stated no new guns, or parts could be manufactured for private sale. That part of the law did not sunset when the semi automatic portion did. It also covered some things deemed, "dangerous devices". I think that would be grenade launchers, and flame throwers.

 

[Rey C.]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 greatly expanded the prohibitions on who could and could not purchase or possess firearms - that was a biggie. The study I read picked up from '68 forward.

 

[jasonk282]

It's possible to legally purchase a select fire or fully automatic weapon in the U.S. If the weapon is transferable and you're willing to go through a little bit of hell and pay a whole lot of money, you can rock & roll.

I've never seen figures on how many transferable weapons exist in the U.S. today. I'd say that it's only a few thousand, but I don't know. But the last time I really dug into it several years ago, no legally owned fully automatic or select fire weapon had been used to commit a crime in the United States at least since the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The fully automatic and suppressed fire weapons used by criminal gangs in the U.S. are not legal weapons. Many/most of those people are already felons, so ownership of ANY type of firearm is already illegal for them. But they acquire their weapons through illegal channels: robbing armories, backdoor deals with military sources, the Russian/Israeli mafia, the Italian mafia, the Chinese Triads (and the Chinese government itself) and the various Central and South American gangs that plague cities in the U.S. now.

Thus the problem, once you makes guns outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Come on people, no one is in of any impostance is seriously proposing outlawing guns. It is just an NRA fund-raising tool.

 

[Rey C.]

Come on people, no one is in of any impostance is seriously proposing outlawing guns. It is just an NRA fund-raising tool.

Well, that's very true. But the NRA's resources and success in the past at knocking off weak kittens who sided with the gun grabbers is the reason for that. The Democrats will have enough on their plate next fall, even if/when the economy picks back up, what with the Birthers, the Deathers and the Tea baggers all riled up right now. The last thing they need is for vulnerable Dems to get picked off because they joined hands with Babs Boxer, Di Feinstein and Chuckie Schumer on a "grab the guns" vote.

Feinstein admitted months ago that if she tried to push her anti-gun agenda she'd be left virtually alone. Blue dogs, and even more moderate Dems, would move away from her like she'd just let a popcorn fart. Have you ever smelled a popcorn fart?! Wooo!!! Man, I'm talking about people high steppin' to get away from Senator Di. Holder and Hillary floated the trial balloon about a new "Assault Weapons Ban" to make the Mexican govt. happy. How long did that balloon stay afloat, about a week? When the NRA began demanding that the Mexican Federales turn over the serial numbers to the captured automatic weapons to see whether they were arms that the U.S. govt. had initially sold to the Mexican military... all of a sudden things got quiet on the southern front. Hmm, isn't that interesting.

IMO, the focus should be on crime... organized gangs and the bankers who keep the skids greased, not on ordinary citizens who just happen to have a gun fetish. I don't need an AK-47. And I don't need a car that'll go 160 mph either. But as long as I don't hurt anybody with either, I should be left alone to enjoy them. Take away my guns, my cars and my porn... hell, I might become a dangerous man. :eek: