|
|
Post by Mink on Nov 2, 2008 17:57:42 GMT -5
Yeah, this is one of the biggest reasons gun enthusiasts claim and it could be very well true, but on the other hand, having guns around will always make it possible for anyone to get their hands on. That is the what makes this such a contraversial issue for non gun enthusiasts. It appears we will live with the gun........and criminals. There could quite possibly be more guns on the black market than legally owned. How many innocents will die when ONLY the criminals are armed? If one is worried about the murder rate now, just wait until when the Government steals all legally owned guns from their subjects-- and only the bad guys are armed. Where do you see that the govt. will steal your legal guns?? |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Nov 2, 2008 18:04:19 GMT -5
There could quite possibly be more guns on the black market than legally owned. How many innocents will die when ONLY the criminals are armed? If one is worried about the murder rate now, just wait until when the Government steals all legally owned guns from their subjects-- and only the bad guys are armed. Where do you see that the govt. will steal your legal guns?? The country is changing. European socialism feels inevitable, with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and a huge majority in the house and senate projected. Just look at the stances of our friends. Feinswine wants an all out ban-- and is very respected by other elitists (note that she carried a gun herself for some years, yet doesn't believe her subjects should have one). Must be nice being a life long politician -- their lives are clearly more valuable than their subjects. Pelosi and Obama's voting record speaks for themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Nov 2, 2008 18:09:04 GMT -5
Surefire said:
Their stance/s on guns, I believe is most negative towards assault weapondry and not so much at eliminating all guns.
This socialist categorizing is just that and not necessarily true, but sound bytes of the right wing.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Nov 2, 2008 18:19:25 GMT -5
Surefire said: Their stance/s on guns, I believe is most negative towards assault weapondry and not so much at eliminating all guns. This socialist categorizing is just that and not necessarily true, but sound bytes of the right wing. I guess you didn't see Feinswine on 60 Minutes. She clearly stated she would support an all out ban if the votes were there. Pelosi and Obama are arguably even MORE radical than her. One other gun point, the extreme left wouldn't know an "assault weapon" if it jumped up and bit them on the ass. Most of the guns banned under the Brady Bill were NOT assault weapons, but were banned because ignorant buffoons thought they looked scary/dangerous/evil. While I'm sure the extreme left gets warm and fuzzy feelings about calling those that don't support socialism "right-wing", I am actually in the middle on most issues, and often known to side with the moderate left on personal rights. Where I disagree with the extreme left, as a libertarian, is on having a nanny Government that strips individual rights for the good of the Government. I have similar disagreements with the extreme right--who also attack different sets of personal rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Nov 2, 2008 18:34:55 GMT -5
Surefire:
Did you have any problem with Bush taking your right to privacy?
I didn't see Feinstein on 60 minutes. Do you have a link?
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Nov 2, 2008 18:37:22 GMT -5
The new AWB that is on the back burner right now would make the 1866 lever action an 'assault rifle'. Yep, a mid-19th century rifle is just like a full auto (or select fire) AK 47. Yep, no difference at all.
All semi autos would become 'assault weapons.' Except of course those that belong to the State. Most handguns would be banned. Most center fire rifles, if not all, would be banned (most hunting caliber rifles can easily penetrate a cops kevlar).
Do you even bother to read or listen to the stuff your politician put out? Barry supported a bill that would ban gun stores within a 5 MILE radius of schools and parks. Get a map of Sonoma county. Find all the parks and schools. Take a compass and set it to a scale 5 miles. Draw circles around all the parks and schools. For some of the larger parks, trace the outline of the park at a distance of 5 miles. How much room is left for gun shops? Within a reasonable driving distance?
He has also said publicly that no one needs handguns and that he would like to see them "off the streets" which is double speak for illegal for honest citizens to have.
He has come out publicly against private ownership of semi-auto firearms. And most medium and large game animal hunting calibers.
I'd need to track this one down, but I think he has said that he sees no need for magazine capacity of more than two or three rounds (there goes just about all shooting sports, and what about revolvers? Those hold 5 to 10 rounds depending on make, model and caliber).
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Nov 2, 2008 18:43:53 GMT -5
Surefire: Did you have any problem with Bush taking your right to privacy? I didn't see Feinstein on 60 minutes. Do you have a link? I've said it a ton of times already here, Bush is an idiot. Yes, I had a problem with Bush's policies. But why do we need to keep having to talk about that moron? It seems that some resort to changing topics to take the heat off the three stooges that are going to have a monopoly of power. The 60 minutes interview happened over 10 years ago, IIRC. Here is a blog link: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/07/EDGIV5EQ6B1.DTLSomeone good at detailed research, such as Subdjoe, could probably get you more "official" links. |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Nov 2, 2008 18:46:42 GMT -5
I'd need to track this one down, but I think he has said that he sees no need for magazine capacity of more than two or three rounds (there goes just about all shooting sports, and what about revolvers? Those hold 5 to 10 rounds depending on make, model and caliber). But Subdjoe... revolvers are deadly assault weapons. There is no need for anyone to have more than 1, perhaps 2 shots. Can't they fill the empty cylinder chambers with metal and get them down to 1 or 2 shots? Think of all the innocent people it would save. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Nov 2, 2008 18:55:17 GMT -5
Surefire: Did you have any problem with Bush taking your right to privacy? I didn't see Feinstein on 60 minutes. Do you have a link? I've said it a ton of times already here, Bush is an idiot. Yes, I had a problem with Bush's policies. But why do we need to keep having to talk about that moron? It seems that some resort to changing topics to take the heat off the three stooges that are going to have a monopoly of power. The 60 minutes interview happened over 10 years ago, IIRC. Here is a blog link: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/07/EDGIV5EQ6B1.DTLSomeone good at detailed research, such as Subdjoe, could probably get you more "official" links. Thank you for link surefire. The reason I bring up bush is because when you point fingers, it is only at these guys. When it comes to rights being taken, bush did it too. We still don't know if guns will be banned. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Nov 2, 2008 19:04:10 GMT -5
Subdjoe:
I have said before that this issue is one that I neither support or dislike, however after reading what you just posted in regards to proximity of schools/ school children, I see no problem with it.
Why would gun shop owners have an issue with this. It seems sensible and less of a hassle for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Nov 2, 2008 19:05:53 GMT -5
Subdjoe:
I have said before that this issue is one that I neither support or dislike, however after reading what you just posted in regards to proximity of schools/ school children, I see no problem with it.
Why would gun shop owners have an issue with this. It seems sensible and less of a hassle for them.
I think the point Subdjoe was making was that this is an easy way to ban gun stores. How many areas do NOT have schools within 5 miles? |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Nov 2, 2008 19:10:00 GMT -5
I've said it a ton of times already here, Bush is an idiot. Yes, I had a problem with Bush's policies. But why do we need to keep having to talk about that moron? It seems that some resort to changing topics to take the heat off the three stooges that are going to have a monopoly of power. The 60 minutes interview happened over 10 years ago, IIRC. Here is a blog link: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/07/EDGIV5EQ6B1.DTLSomeone good at detailed research, such as Subdjoe, could probably get you more "official" links. Thank you for link surefire. The reason I bring up bush is because when you point fingers, it is only at these guys. When it comes to rights being taken, bush did it too. We still don't know if guns will be banned. I'm not pointing figures at Shrub because the idiot will be out of office soon. I'm more worried about the idiot about to take his place. I do not like super majorities, especially when run by loons (extreme left or extreme right). Obama, Reid, and especially Pelosi strike me as tin foil loons. I would raise equal concerns if we had three extreme right in control of all checks and balances. I think there should always be a check and balance (left and right working together) in place to prevent an extreme agenda. |
|
