Fuck beliefs. Give me some facts which cannot be refuted which shows this last AWB made crime go down. If you've got a belief with some facts, I'm willing to listen. Beliefs alone? Fuck you (not YOU specifically, people who are campaigning for an anti 2a agenda with no logical argument to stand on). You want crime to go down? Make it criminally punishable for not reporting people who a normal person reasonably believes is a danger to others. Stop letting criminals out who you know are a danger to society. Those two guys who shot the girl in Chicago the other day? It's on record saying they violated their probation/parole and NOTHING was done despite having prior weapons convictions. You want crime to go down? Get off your fat bureaucratic ass and actually do the job you're paid to do. In the mean time stop punishing people like Kakotch, ODEN, lhprop1, myself, and many others who are actually following the law. Edit: For those of you saying they are not confiscating anything, read the latest garbage Missouri is voting on where they make it a FELONY to possess one and make it mandatory for turning in your weapons. Also what a bunch of hypocrites the folks in Colorado are. They are also voting on garbage legislation but still telling Magpul, the maker of the so called "assault magazines" they are still allowed to stay in business and sell to the government and law enforcement, they just can't sell to civilians.
Jesus. The thread has been littered with facts. You can dispute them if you want, but just because someone says the word "belief" doesn't mean facts don't exist.
None of what Biden or any of the politicians are saying are using logic or facts. I've watched almost every single video in this thread and read almost every single article/site and can attest to this. My point is that having an AWB or mag ban isn't going to do a single thing other than piss off law abiding gun owners. If you want some real change, focus on the root causes of the problem (like apathy for one) not some feel good rhetoric targeted at the ignorant proletariat or the lowest common denominator incapable of forming their own opinion which hasn't been regurgitated.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter in this context. Like it or not, politics shies away from facts now. It's especially rampant in the more radical right wing lunatics who treat facts and science like you might respond to a leprosy-infected homeless person who wants to lick your face... but it's certainly equally true that the politicians of all stripes are at a point where they form an opinion - some based on facts, some not - and don't really supply the rationale why. This is mostly the general population's fault, since the average idiot doesn't seem to be able pay attention for longer than 30 seconds, and unfortunately, real facts don't fit in that time slot. The upshot is that Biden's opinion may or may not be based on facts, and of course you and I should certainly hope that it is, but there are plenty of facts out there and we can form our own opinions, and simply support the policies that make sense to us. Whether he supplies the facts is not a reason to dismiss the policy in a thread that's full of facts and rational discussion. Now, the state of politics having reached this point is another discussion...
It's an 8 page bill that most of the people backing it didn't take the time to read, fuckin' politicians. Door-to-door in home inspections once a year without a warrant. Brilliant idea.
It was really only a matter of time. It should be no surprise that the government doesn't like or trust people owning guns. It wasn't a misstep by a random staffer, it was on purpose and they hoped no one would notice. The misstep was by the idiots that voted for them.
Welcome to Canada, if you own a restricted weapon(any pistol, or black/scary rifle) the RCMP can come in and make sure you are storing it safely(in a gun safe with a trigger lock).
This may be on-par with the annual home inspections... legislators in Wisconsin are proposing a ban on hollow point and frangible ammunition. Funny thing is, this proposal contradicts Wisconsin DNR regulations that require hunters to use such ammunition for big game hunting. Apparently the email sent with the proposal also contains this little gem arguing for the proposal: If I'm not mistaken, our armed forces haven't used hollow point ammunition since the 1899 Hague Convention. As if a full metal jacket bullet isn't lethal- just ask our military. Give me a fucking break if you want to tell me this is sensible politics.
What a bunch of complete and utter bullshit. 1. It's illegal for soldiers to use hollow-point ammo (although there's been mention of some limited use, particularly by snipers I believe), as Katokoch says, since the 1899 Hague Convention. 2. You want to know why virtually every Law-Enforcement agency uses JHP and why most home defence guns are loaded with it, you dumbshit motherfuckers? It's because unlike FMJ, JHP won't zip the fuck through you and the wall behind before lodging in an innocent fucking bystander's skull. Ever seen what a .308 FMJ does to a cinder block?
I hate to use this as an example but this is no different than the Patriot Act. These bills are already written, sitting on the shelf, just waiting for the right crisis to be pulled out and ramrodded through the appropriate legislative body.
Exactly. Hollow-point ammo is more likely to kill the person you're shooting at, and far less likely to kill an innocent bystander after passing through the intended target's body, a wall, or any other object (it's actually complete bullshit that the military isn't allowed to use it, especially in counter-insurgency campaigns like Afghanistan/Iraq, but that's a whole nother issue). But think about it--law-abiding citizens basically have a 50-50 split on which party they vote for. Obviously there are regional variances, sometimes significant ones, but nationwide neither party ever gets more than about 52-53% of the vote. Criminals on the other hand, if they vote, are far more likely to vote for the party of gun grabbing. The gun grabbers are merely playing to their constituents. Plus if hollow-point ammunition is banned, law-abiding citizens will be forced to use full metal jacket ammo to defend their homes....which makes it that much more likely that sooner or later, a homeowner acting legally in defense of his house will shoot or shoot at a criminal and the round will go through a wall or the criminal's body, killing an innocent victim. Which of course is a gun grabber's wet dream.
Fun fact: two of the four legislators in Wisconsin proposing the hollowpoint ban were elected by default- they had no opponents on the ballot. I'm betting that may influence the next election. Also last year the state had about 600,000 deer hunters in the firearms season. I think they will have a bone to pick with a bill that is in direct conflict with Wisconsin DNR regulations (which once again ban use of full metal jacket bullets while big game hunting).
I was wondering if anyone has read the letter Evan Todd, survivor of the Columbine tragedy wrote directly to the president. I thought some of you might find it an interesting read. Spoilered for size as it’s a bit long but definitely worth a read. This is the link to the original article from The Blaze. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/columbine-survivor-pens-bold-open-letter-to-obama-rejecting-gun-control-whose-side-are-you-on/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02 ... re-you-on/</a> Spoiler Mr. President, As a student who was shot and wounded during the Columbine massacre, I have a few thoughts on the current gun debate. In regards to your gun control initiatives: Universal Background Checks First, a universal background check will have many devastating effects. It will arguably have the opposite impact of what you propose. If adopted, criminals will know that they can not pass a background check legally, so they will resort to other avenues. With the conditions being set by this initiative, it will create a large black market for weapons and will support more criminal activity and funnel additional money into the hands of thugs, criminals, and people who will do harm to American citizens. Second, universal background checks will create a huge bureaucracy that will cost an enormous amount of tax payers dollars and will straddle us with more debt. We cannot afford it now, let alone create another function of government that will have a huge monthly bill attached to it. Third, is a universal background check system possible without universal gun registration? If so, please define it for us. Universal registration can easily be used for universal confiscation. I am not at all implying that you, sir, would try such a measure, but we do need to think about our actions through the lens of time. It is not impossible to think that a tyrant, to the likes of Mao, Castro, Che, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, and others, could possibly rise to power in America. It could be five, ten, twenty, or one hundred years from now — but future generations have the natural right to protect themselves from tyrannical government just as much as we currently do. It is safe to assume that this liberty that our forefathers secured has been a thorn in the side of would-be tyrants ever since the Second Amendment was adopted. Ban on Military-Style Assault Weapons The evidence is very clear pertaining to the inadequacies of the assault weapons ban. It had little to no effect when it was in place from 1994 until 2004. It was during this time that I personally witnessed two fellow students murder twelve of my classmates and one teacher. The assault weapons ban did not deter these two murderers, nor did the other thirty-something laws that they broke. Gun ownership is at an all time high. And although tragedies like Columbine and Newtown are exploited by ideologues and special-interest lobbying groups, crime is at an all time low. The people have spoken. Gun store shelves have been emptied. Gun shows are breaking attendance records. Gun manufacturers are sold out and back ordered. Shortages on ammo and firearms are countrywide. The American people have spoken and are telling you that our Second Amendment shall not be infringed. 10-Round Limit for Magazines Virginia Tech was the site of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history. Seung-Hui Cho used two of the smallest caliber hand guns manufactured and a handful of ten round magazines. There are no substantial facts that prove that limited magazines would make any difference at all. Second, this is just another law that endangers law-abiding citizens. I’ve heard you ask, “why does someone need 30 bullets to kill a deer?” Let me ask you this: Why would you prefer criminals to have the ability to out-gun law-abiding citizens? Under this policy, criminals will still have their 30-round magazines, but the average American will not. Whose side are you on? Lastly, when did they government get into the business of regulating “needs?” This is yet another example of government overreaching and straying from its intended purpose. Selling to Criminals Mr. President, these are your words: “And finally, Congress needs to help, rather than hinder, law enforcement as it does its job. We should get tougher on people who buy guns with the express purpose of turning around and selling them to criminals. And we should severely punish anybody who helps them do this.” Why don’t we start with Eric Holder and thoroughly investigate the Fast and Furious program? Furthermore, the vast majority of these mass murderers bought their weapons legally and jumped through all the hoops — because they were determined to murder. Adding more hoops and red tape will not stop these types of people. It doesn’t now — so what makes you think it will in the future? Criminals who cannot buy guns legally just resort to the black market. Criminals and murderers will always find a way. Critical Examination Mr. President, in theory, your initiatives and proposals sound warm and fuzzy — but in reality they are far from what we need. Your initiatives seem to punish law-abiding American citizens and enable the murderers, thugs, and other lowlifes who wish to do harm to others. Let me be clear: These ideas are the worst possible initiatives if you seriously care about saving lives and also upholding your oath of office. There is no dictate, law, or regulation that will stop bad things from happening — and you know that. Yet you continue to push the rhetoric. Why? You said, “If we can save just one person it is worth it.” Well here are a few ideas that will save more that one individual: First, forget all of your current initiatives and 23 purposed executive orders. They will do nothing more than impede law-abiding citizens and breach the intent of the Constitution. Each initiative steals freedom, grants more power to an already-overreaching government, and empowers and enables criminals to run amok. Second, press Congress to repeal the “Gun Free Zone Act.” Don’t allow America’s teachers and students to be endangered one-day more. These parents and teachers have the natural right to defend themselves and not be looked at as criminals. There is no reason teachers must disarm themselves to perform their jobs. There is also no reason a parent or volunteer should be disarmed when they cross the school line. This is your chance to correct history and restore liberty. This simple act of restoring freedom will deter would-be murderers and for those who try, they will be met with resistance. Mr. President, do the right thing, restore freedom, and save lives. Show the American people that you stand with them and not with thugs and criminals. Respectfully, Severely Concerned Citizen, Evan M. Todd
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/in-gun-debate-a-bigger-role-seen-for-insurers.html?_r=1&" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/us/in ... html?_r=1&</a> Here comes the private insurance company to save the day! Or fuck it up for everyone again! Meh, same thing. One thing that I think is clear: insurance that will cover your legal fees in case you shoot someone intruding in your home has to be the biggest sham in the history of easy money.
Don't know if anyone has seen this, but it's a thing of beauty. A law student makes a cop back down after stopping him for no reason other than the fact that he was carrying a gun. Definitely check this out. http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video800.php?v=wshh9uupF06WWu97tcLT&set_size=1
I'm actually really impressed by this, for several reasons: 1. The cop wasn't an asshole, although he persisted for longer than he should have. My guess is that the cop didn't really know the law and was a little slow on the uptake. 2. The supervisor showed up and immediately said "Yep, he's free to go." 3. The citizen, while aggressive in asserting his rights, was polite and never insulted the police officer. 4. The fact that this confrontation happened means that the message will get out that you DO have the right to open carry in Maine. I'm less impressed by the fact that this kid obviously went out carrying openly with the intention of causing a confrontation (why else would he be recording it). Still, the fact that this kid provoked it means that other people won't have to have a confrontation.
Do you feel the same about the fact that the police have cameras in their cars to record all stops? As a former judicial court clerk, I saw many of these tapes, and they never seemed to administer the physical DUI tests on camera. In short, does recording alone mean that you're looking for a certain outcome/confrontation? Or perhaps - as most people believe the police are doing when they record all stops - are they merely protecting themselves?