Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by GTaudiophile, Jan 9, 2013.
So really its like living in CA because we have to do all the stuff already.
Well there ya go.
Universal background Checks - We already have the Brady Bill
restricting high capacity mags - We did that for 10 years, didn't help much
MORE GUN SAFETY RESEARCH - Mass shooting are not the result of unsafe gun use.
Pass a bunch of useless laws that doesn't address the problem and just sweeps it under the rug, then make it look like you did everything you could for political purposes.
From your link:
Doesn't sound like the Republicans and some pro-gun Democrats agree with you.
Those two quotes/articles are talking about two different things. The FN article is referring to recommendations that would presumably be implemented through legislative action, not executive order, and God knows there is nothing "radical" about the recommendations referenced in the FN article.
Magazine ban = he's trying to circumvent congress. It's a worthless ban anyway as the last one did nothing to reduce gun violence and only hurts legitimate defense uses.
There is no reason to believe he is trying to implement such a ban by executive action. You guys are conflating two different concepts. I agree with you that the last magazine ban was pointless and this one would be too, for whatever that's worth.
1. "Universal background checks." I support in principle, but I doubt the government will implement properly.
2. Restricting standard-spec capacity magazines: The deadliest mass shooting in America (Virginia Tech) was done with one 10 round pistol and one 15 round pistol. There is no evidence that restricting high capacity magazines will do anything to stop or limit mass shootings.
3. More gun safety research. Good idea, just make sure it's fair and unbiased; because right now there's an epidemic of "study until we get the answer we want."
The second amendment would be safe if our lawmakers focused on solving problems as opposed to promoting cultural agendas. As it stands, this could very well be the first step in broader restrictions; as can be seen over the last week with states such as New York and New Jersey. They are among the seven states with the most draconian gun laws, and despite this status they are proposing further, severe restrictions on guns.
The agenda is clear, and frankly it saps my will to compromise.
Hmm...so my biggest question would be who is NOT allowing them to do research?
Other than that they basically want to outlaw private sales of firearms and a pointless ban on high-cap magazines...don't really see either flying, not sure how private sales could be outlawed and the mag ban was is and always will be useless
How many rounds do you need to protect yourself? Typically all it takes is 1 or 2 rounds to incapacitate an attacker. I feel quite safe with my 17 round Glock 17 or 13 round Baretta PX4 Storm. The highest capacity rifle I use for hunting is 5 rounds (Winchester Model 70).
You do know handgun magazines would be restricted as well right? This isn't just rifle magazines...
Against 4+ attackers a rifle with 30 rounds is the best defense choice. Also a fine choice against tyranny. Defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
It's better than the crap that I see New York and Connecticut trying to do. One of the ideas I see being brandied about is requiring background checks before buying ammunition. Ugh, I can only imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that would be.
Quit living in fantasy land. What are the odds you would face 4 + attackers?
there was actually a pretty thorough article about that a few weeks back and I'd like to find it again.
basically the CDC and other government agencies are no longer allowed to document gun safety measures and research. Another thing, funding for research was pulled...by the Republican congress of the late 90s.
Also - in some states (and in some current state bills) medical doctors are not allowed to document how gun safety (or lack of) may have contributed to a possible injury or outcome...or something along those lines I'm having a terrible memory lapse about that.
I will have to find that article
I understand that. My 1911 Colt only takes 5 rounds and I can still incapacitate an attacker in 1 to 2 rounds.
Here is a recent article that explains somewhat.
and here is the important part that was passed by our congress in the late 90s
"None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,"
Just pointing out the little flaw in your post talking about not needing high-cap magazines then listing that's what you are comfortable with
I'd be curious as well, it sounds a little fishy to me...wanting "gun safety" has been used as cover for making guns effectively useless, kind of like how you used to have your gun disassembled and locked in a safe in DC, if you could even get a permit to own one
Gun control != gun safety
I'd also like to add that even in the absence of this "gun safety" research gun crimes have been dropping for decades...the article linked mentions that homicide rates are the same as the 50's, they just fail to mention that is way down from what it was in the 80's
And that would be why these "studies" are opposed, they were being done with an agenda and distorting facts to get the results they wanted
Depends on if you live in a Hurricane zone or not.
Crack is whack buddie, put the pipe down.
So ahhhh where's Biden and Obama on the mental stability issue? Seems like this is at the heart of the past two mass shootings and I would think the President would want this addressed.
Well that sounds stupid. Especially since a 2002 CDC report said this:
Oh it'll be given lip service and some money, but that's about it. Solving real problems always takes second fiddle to promoting cultural agendas.
38 years in Florida, been thru more hurricanes, tropical storms and tornadoes then most will ever face in a life time. And never even came close to need a assault weapon, even in Liberty City (probably the worst area in Miami) or Homestead in 1992. Look nobody is facing 4+ attackers unless they are a LEO or soldier, which means they would have a legitimate reason for such a weapon.
I do live in a hurricane zone and I never saw gangs of people roaming around. Maybe that was due to police and national guard presence after the hurricane struck