Obama: Don't stock up on guns

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: JRussellDMD
So has the consensus of this discussion been made? That effeminate liberals who are chomping at the bit to exert their will over all men and would love nothing but to ween every civil liberty away from the American citizen?

Troll much?

Since we're so blatantly generalizing, what about the gun-nut right wingers that only care about the 2nd amendment? We can trample the other amendments in the name of national security and law and order. They're basically doing the same thing as what you claim - allowing the government (and actively electing members that would push for) to take away our other rights provided they can still buy their guns by the truckload.

Why can't we just have REASONABLE gun control laws. Max of XX guns per month, penalize failure to report stolen guns, faster/better background checks of individuals, punish illegal gun sellers harshly.... I don't know what else could be done, I haven't really looked into the topic too much.

 

[OnePingOnly]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: JRussellDMD
So has the consensus of this discussion been made? That effeminate liberals who are chomping at the bit to exert their will over all men and would love nothing but to ween every civil liberty away from the American citizen?

Troll much?

Since we're so blatantly generalizing, what about the gun-nut right wingers that only care about the 2nd amendment? We can trample the other amendments in the name of national security and law and order. They're basically doing the same thing as what you claim - allowing the government (and actively electing members that would push for) to take away our other rights provided they can still buy their guns by the truckload.

Why can't we just have REASONABLE gun control laws. Max of XX guns per month, penalize failure to report stolen guns, faster/better background checks of individuals, punish illegal gun sellers harshly.... I don't know what else could be done, I haven't really looked into the topic too much.

Incredible. You infer that I'm trolling yet admit to not knowing much about the topic. Good luck on your dissertation. Max of XX guns per month? What does that solve? How about we place a cap on the amount of miles you drive or have the government decide who your family physician is. Get the logic flaw? Show me an example of a "gun-nut right winger" that was pleased with the Patriot Act and I'll bake you a cookie. NO ONE was pleased with it except for big government.

 

[halik]

He'll make another pointless AWB

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Define assault weapons for me please.

edit:
Actually which one is more dangerous or deadly:

Candidate #1

Candidate #2

Candidate #3

 

[OnePingOnly]

According to the libtards, anything that fires a projectile.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: JRussellDMD
According to the libtards, anything that fires a projectile.

Slow down there buddy, this has been a fairly peaceful thread so far, lets not ruin it.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TallBill
...
I'm all for government regulated gun ownership as long as the qualifications and tracking don't get to extreme. I think most reasonable gun owners will agree to this.

I don't know about "reasonable gun owners", but one of the big criticisms of the NRA and similar groups is that they tend to pretty vocally oppose virtually ALL regulations, especially when it comes to number of guns purchased in a set period of time, waiting periods of any length, and law enforcement tools like ballistic fingerprinting. These things in no way restrict reasonable gun ownership, and seem like they might help with gun violence without making it so law abiding citizens are stripped of their right to own a weapon. I'm pretty pro-gun rights (and pro-self defense rights in general), but I think the attitude of most gun-rights supporters borders on the ridiculous.

In any case, I think this is a non-issue. Pro-gun folks are too pro-gun, and anti-gun folks don't care enough...politicians at the national level aren't going to do anything too radical because the support just isn't there. If you think the 2nd amendment entitles you to own a F-22, then you might have a problem...but overall I think this is gun-nuts getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. Obama's policies at a local level don't come in to play, as localities have ALWAYS been more open to regulation (or not) of guns because local attitudes tend to vary a lot from place to place. At the national level, I don't think it's a big enough issue for the gun control side for anybody to do anything.

Now I understand why you are the P&N Mod......alot of truth in your post!!

 

[OnePingOnly]

The precedent has been set in other countries. Once you cave in it opens Pandora's Box and there's no going back. The tree of liberty can't be pruned. How about we place a few censorships on speech throughout the internet and here and there... it's harmless, right? Why should there be compromise when there doesn't need to be? The commentary by Rainsford would be nice if true but it's just armchair speculation. The 1994 AWB is proof that fuddled legislation exists when it comes to 'gun control' and it proves that Congress is apt to pass such things. I agree that there are more pressing issues to focus on, also, and I wish the Democrats would just drop it and leave the issue alone.

 

[brandonb]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

There are a hell of a lot more gun related deaths than deaths from things we put far more effort in to. There are FAR fewer deaths from airplane hijackings and terrorism in general than gun deaths, yet most gun-rights folks seem to support draconian laws to combat THOSE problems. If you haven't seen any common sense gun control proposals, you're not paying attention. Sure, we can't stop ALL gun violence, but a lot of it stems from how ridiculously easy it is for ANYONE to get a gun. Some crazy folks might slip through, but they aren't the majority. Things like limiting gun sales to any individual in a month, waiting periods and ballistic fingerprinting would help a lot of types of gun violence...and I don't see how they possibly encroach on your rights. Your gun control position is like the ACLU suggesting that cops should NEVER have a right to enter your house...

As for the "arm everyone" solution...that might SOMETIMES help, but it's not a complete solution. For one thing, it REQUIRES everyone to turn into some gun-toting Rambo just to live in a safe society, whether they want to or not. But more importantly, it makes a lot of unproven assumptions about the value of random people carrying guns in a suddenly dangerous situation. Life isn't an action movie.

This isn't really directed towards you Rainsford, but I'm quoting you because its my train of thought based on your post.

Most gun related deaths are due to criminal activity to begin with. Most gun deaths are due to gangs and drugs. Remove the guns, and while there might be a drop in gun deaths, or deaths in general, it won't reduce criminal activity. There will still be gangs, there will still be drugs, and people will still want to hurt one another. Do you think it would ever be possible to remove criminal activity? What if we removed poverty, would drugs still exist? Yeah. Addictions are there, and people get hooked, poverty or not. There's alot of high rollers that are coke addicts. Gangs? Yeah, gangs will still exist, some kids need "protection" from "disrespectin"...

The simple fact of the matter is this is a violent world, there is nothing we can do to avoid it. Until we are all mind controlled robots, people will have issues with one another, and violence will happen. I don't want to be a robot, the trade off is to risk violence. The only thing I can do for myself is to be prepared. I can't depend on good old 911 to help me out.

Just a year ago there was a riot in my neighbhorhood, about 100 gang bangers running through the neighbhorhood, through the yards, taking cars (I don't know if they were stolen or their own), and having a bunch of them jump on board and driving around through yards, down the street almost running over all their friends, and creating a ruckus while they were all cheering each other on. It could have been volitile situation. It reminded me of a riot scene except without the torching of houses or buildings. My roommate and I called the cops, told them their was a riot going on, 10 minutes later, still nothing. We called again and told them they had to get there ASAP. They appeared about 5 minutes later. Thats 15 minutes. A whole hell of alot could have happened in those 15 minutes. My roommate had his AR-15 ready. I had my shotgun. He was looking out the upstairs window through the curtain and was giving me the play by play, and I was laid out on the floor guarding the front door. The closest they got was running between the houses. Luckily for them.

The bottom line, people have been killing each other and starting wars since our conception. Why do people think removing guns will somehow prevent violence or death?

The only way to fix the problem is to place some morals and responsibility into our youth. When both parents work, they are too busy and tired to set those values into their kids. Are the schools and daycares going to do that for them, with all the "diversity" how can they? My kid would be coming home speaking spanish, not knowing how to take control of his actions. What about welfare moms who don't even know who the father is? We need to point the fingers that way and address the breakdowns of society. People need to find a path of enlightenment, not negativity, be that church, sports, or whatever. Not video games, action flicks, and gangsta rap that teach kids nothing but trouble.

 

[Vic]

Meh. Too much stupidity in this thread on this issue from both sides. Guns are even harder to ban than drugs, and just as pointless and harmful to try to do so.

 

[schmedy]

Now that speech he gave is in direct contradiction to his transition website as well as his voting record.

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

A lot of vague statements except the last which has no data during the last one to back up a need for this. Just because it is black or had a pistol grip does not make it any more deadly. Also funny how they interview someone from the Brady campaign about how Obama isn't going to create more gun laws, like asking PETA to talk on behalf of the USDA.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

Really?

Virginia Tech happened with 2 handguns, the shooter reloaded 15 times.
The NIU shooting happened with a shotgun and handguns from someone that should have not legally owned a firearm.
Columbine shooters used a handgun, a double barreled shotgun, and a 10 shot carbine rifle not covered by the AWB and a shotgun.
JFK was killed with a bolt action hunting rifle.


I can keep going if you want. I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon. I'm sure there are some, but it's just a fact that the majority are not.

Automatic weapons have been illegal for decades. That's why heinous crimes aren't committed with them.

Really? I recently saw a fully auto m-14 for sale on gunsamerica.com. Should I turn them in? Of course it was listed at $10,000 and I would not even want to begin to think about what type of paperwork would be needed to own the thing. They aren't illegal... just well controlled.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

So you think we should ban automobiles as a response to DUI? And of course we should ban baseball bats to stop beatings. And lets not forget fast food, we should ban fast food to stop obesity. And if we banned.....Oh hell, lets just make everyone all wear the same, talk the same and dress the same in a sterile environment.

Eh Comrade? of course, the logic of the above will be lost on a fool such as yourself.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: schmedy
Now that speech he gave is in direct contradiction to his transition website as well as his voting record.

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

A lot of vague statements except the last which has no data during the last one to back up a need for this. Just because it is black or had a pistol grip does not make it any more deadly. Also funny how they interview someone from the Brady campaign about how Obama isn't going to create more gun laws, like asking PETA to talk on behalf of the USDA.

Tell him to take a non new gun laws pledge, in writing, and maybe someone would believe him.

Mr. Flip Flop Obama has backpedaled on this numerous times.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You're definitely right on that point. Banning specific weapons (within reason, obviously) doesn't do a whole lot of good. Beyond the anecdotal evidence, it becomes kind of silly to try to imagine the type of criminal you'd be comfortable with owning a handgun but not a semi-automatic rifle. If I don't think someone can be trusted with an AR-15, I wouldn't trust them with a pellet gun.

The real trick of gun control, and one I'm sad to say neither side really seems to understand, is that controlling WHO gets the guns is far more important than WHAT particular guns they can get.

:thumbsup: x infinity

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Muse

Doing research for a school project last week, military style rifles account for about 1.5% - 2% of all gun crimes. Let's stop targeting the guns and start targeting the criminals. The majority of gun crimes are committed with small 7 round 380's or 32's or 9mm's.

If most gun crimes are committed with small guns that doesn't mean that the crimes committed with brutal assault weapons are unimportant and shouldn't be controlled. A lot of the most heinous gun crimes involve assault weapons. I think they should be unavailable to the public, i.e. illegal. Your argument to target the criminal and not the gun is typical of gun fetishists, you hear it again and again. It sounds completely wrong every time I hear it.

So you think we should ban automobiles as a response to DUI? And of course we should ban baseball bats to stop beatings. And lets not forget fast food, we should ban fast food to stop obesity. And if we banned.....Oh hell, lets just make everyone all wear the same, talk the same and dress the same in a sterile environment.

Eh Comrade? of course, the logic of the above will be lost on a fool such as yourself.

This!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: TallBill
I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon.

Originally posted by: rudder
They aren't illegal... just well controlled.

I wonder if the pro-gun people will ever put those two comments together. Well-controlled guns are our best option. Law abiding citizens can have them - as many of them as they want. Yet they are controlled well enough that criminals don't use them. In an ideal world, we'd have the same with handguns and rifles. Of course, we'll never get there.

I'll all for gun rights. Let honest citizens own any gun that they want legally. But, I just like to laugh at the misconceptions about gun control.

That said, I want to address a common theme around here. The misconception that "liberals" want to ban all guns and that "conservatives" don't. Lets look at that 1994 automatic weapons ban discussed in this thread as an example. That ban expired in 2004. But some people want to reinstate it, four representatives in the house introduced HR6257 in 2008 to reinstate the ban. Who was it?
[*]Republican Michael Castle
[*]Republican Mike Ferguson
[*]Republican Chris Shays
and
[*]Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

That is it. Those are the four sponsors of the bill to reinstate the automatic weapons ban. All Republicans, no democrats. Gun control isn't a liberal vs conservative issue.

Yet the NRA (National Rifle Association which should be renamed the National Republican Agency) pushes the idea that it is the "liberals" who want to take away gun rights. At least two people in this thread used "liberals" to describe the anti-gun people. That just isn't true. Both liberals and conservates are anti-gun people. Both liberals and conservates are pro-gun people.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You're definitely right on that point. Banning specific weapons (within reason, obviously) doesn't do a whole lot of good. Beyond the anecdotal evidence, it becomes kind of silly to try to imagine the type of criminal you'd be comfortable with owning a handgun but not a semi-automatic rifle. If I don't think someone can be trusted with an AR-15, I wouldn't trust them with a pellet gun.

The real trick of gun control, and one I'm sad to say neither side really seems to understand, is that controlling WHO gets the guns is far more important than WHAT particular guns they can get.

:thumbsup: x infinity

Horrid idea. Suddenly all someone has to do is make an anonymous tip and you lose a Constitutional Right??

I think not.

 

[MovingTarget]

Obama: No need to stock up on guns.

Citizens: Too late. Already did.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: TallBill
I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon.

Originally posted by: rudder
They aren't illegal... just well controlled.

I wonder if the pro-gun people will ever put those two comments together. Well-controlled guns are our best option. Law abiding citizens can have them - as many of them as they want. Yet they are controlled well enough that criminals don't use them. In an ideal world, we'd have the same with handguns and rifles. Of course, we'll never get there.

I'll all for gun rights. Let honest citizens own any gun that they want legally. But, I just like to laugh at the misconceptions about gun control.

That said, I want to address a common theme around here. The misconception that "liberals" want to ban all guns and that "conservatives" don't. Lets look at that 1994 automatic weapons ban discussed in this thread as an example. That ban expired in 2004. But some people want to reinstate it, four representatives in the house introduced HR6257 in 2008 to reinstate the ban. Who was it?
[*]Republican Michael Castle
[*]Republican Mike Ferguson
[*]Republican Chris Shays
and
[*]Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

That is it. Those are the four sponsors of the bill to reinstate the automatic weapons ban. All Republicans, no democrats. Gun control isn't a liberal vs conservative issue.

Yet the NRA (National Rifle Association which should be renamed the National Republican Agency) pushes the idea that it is the "liberals" who want to take away gun rights. At least two people in this thread used "liberals" to describe the anti-gun people. That just isn't true. Both liberals and conservates are anti-gun people. Both liberals and conservates are pro-gun people.

Compare it to HR1022 supporters. I'll save you the trouble actually and just post it here.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-06]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Bradley Miller [D-NC]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D-PA]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY]
Rep. Kendrick Meek [D-FL]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN]
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Martin Meehan [D-MA]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D-MA]
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
Rep. David Price [D-NC]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Albert Wynn [D-MD]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. John Olver [D-MA]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA]


Damn right its a liberal vs conservative issue.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: TallBill
I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon.

Originally posted by: rudder
They aren't illegal... just well controlled.

I wonder if the pro-gun people will ever put those two comments together. Well-controlled guns are our best option. Law abiding citizens can have them - as many of them as they want. Yet they are controlled well enough that criminals don't use them. In an ideal world, we'd have the same with handguns and rifles. Of course, we'll never get there.

I'll all for gun rights. Let honest citizens own any gun that they want legally. But, I just like to laugh at the misconceptions about gun control.

That said, I want to address a common theme around here. The misconception that "liberals" want to ban all guns and that "conservatives" don't. Lets look at that 1994 automatic weapons ban discussed in this thread as an example. That ban expired in 2004. But some people want to reinstate it, four representatives in the house introduced HR6257 in 2008 to reinstate the ban. Who was it?
[*]Republican Michael Castle
[*]Republican Mike Ferguson
[*]Republican Chris Shays
and
[*]Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

That is it. Those are the four sponsors of the bill to reinstate the automatic weapons ban. All Republicans, no democrats. Gun control isn't a liberal vs conservative issue.

Yet the NRA (National Rifle Association which should be renamed the National Republican Agency) pushes the idea that it is the "liberals" who want to take away gun rights. At least two people in this thread used "liberals" to describe the anti-gun people. That just isn't true. Both liberals and conservates are anti-gun people. Both liberals and conservates are pro-gun people.

Compare it to HR1022 supporters. I'll save you the trouble actually and just post it here.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy [D-NY]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors [as of 2008-11-06]
Rep. Edward Markey [D-MA]
Rep. Bob Filner [D-CA]
Rep. Bradley Miller [D-NC]
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX]
Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]
Rep. Jerrold Nadler [D-NY]
Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]
Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]
Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]
Rep. Yvette Clarke [D-NY]
Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]
Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY]
Del. Eleanor Norton [D-DC]
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz [D-FL]
Rep. Robert Wexler [D-FL]
Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA]
Rep. Alcee Hastings [D-FL]
Rep. Melvin Watt [D-NC]
Rep. Allyson Schwartz [D-PA]
Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA]
Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]
Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA]
Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO]
Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA]
Rep. Hilda Solis [D-CA]
Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]
Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA]
Rep. Zoe Lofgren [D-CA]
Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA]
Rep. James Langevin [D-RI]
Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA]
Rep. Neil Abercrombie [D-HI]
Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY]
Rep. Kendrick Meek [D-FL]
Rep. Betty McCollum [D-MN]
Rep. Jane Harman [D-CA]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey [D-CA]
Rep. Steven Rothman [D-NJ]
Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]
Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA]
Rep. Carolyn Maloney [D-NY]
Rep. Louise Slaughter [D-NY]
Rep. Joe Sestak [D-PA]
Rep. Janice Schakowsky [D-IL]
Rep. Martin Meehan [D-MA]
Rep. Rahm Emanuel [D-IL]
Rep. William Clay [D-MO]
Rep. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
Rep. Christopher Van Hollen [D-MD]
Rep. Niki Tsongas [D-MA]
Rep. Albio Sires [D-NJ]
Rep. David Price [D-NC]
Rep. Brad Sherman [D-CA]
Rep. Michael Honda [D-CA]
Rep. Robert Brady [D-PA]
Rep. James Moran [D-VA]
Rep. Edward Pastor [D-AZ]
Rep. Earl Blumenauer [D-OR]
Rep. Albert Wynn [D-MD]
Rep. Patrick Kennedy [D-RI]
Rep. Howard Berman [D-CA]
Rep. John Olver [D-MA]
Rep. Lois Capps [D-CA]
Rep. Henry Waxman [D-CA]
Rep. William Pascrell [D-NJ]
Rep. Patrick Murphy [D-PA]


Damn right its a liberal vs conservative issue.

No, it's being shopped as a partisan issue, but in reality it shouldn't be. Not to mention that a HUGE number of dems and libs are pro gun...even scarily pro gun. The first group to jump on Mayor Nickels in Seattle were dems. The first group to ask the AG to shoot him down were Dems. The fight over guns cannot be won in a partisan way (by either side). Victory (if there can be one) will be had through education of the opposition. It's already happening.

We got carry in national parks back.
We're winning all over with cpl and castle.
We're about to start winning with pre-emption.
We won individual standing under the 2nd.
It's only a matter of time before the majority of dems/libs are on board as well.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: TallBill
I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon.

Originally posted by: rudder
They aren't illegal... just well controlled.

I wonder if the pro-gun people will ever put those two comments together. Well-controlled guns are our best option. Law abiding citizens can have them - as many of them as they want. Yet they are controlled well enough that criminals don't use them.

Someone robbing convenience store's isn't going to us a machine gun because they are expensive and big, not because they are regulated. Regulations have little to do with it. They could be imported by criminals if they were a demand for them. Our border security can't stop drugs or illegal aliens, so it certainly can't stop illegally imported weapons. There have even been a few cases were gangs have gotten illegally imported weapons from China, but they are impractical for committing crimes.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Obama: No need to stock up on guns.

Citizens: Too late. Already did.

Yep, and don't forget tons of ammunition as well. We're not stupid and his record and actions speak for themselves. It's going to happen and he'll just say it's "common sense gun control".

First step to communism is to disarm the citizens. And we know where obama stands on that goal. Just look at his voting record.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Obama: No need to stock up on guns.

Citizens: Too late. Already did.

Yep, and don't forget tons of ammunition as well. We're not stupid and his record and actions speak for themselves. It's going to happen and he'll just say it's "common sense gun control".

First step to communism is to disarm the citizens. And we know where obama stands on that goal. Just look at his voting record.

32 pounds of powder and another 1000 bullets should hit the mail next week.

 

[StageLeft]

Fug that I already turned my basement into a veriftable armory. I have about $90k in weapons down there and enough ammunition to stock a 12-15 person team and keep them in a fire fight easily a couple days in length. I am already recruiting people in my neighborhood area (walking distance, for when the sh*t goes down) so that Skoorb's Rangers can be up and running within 12 hours of any national catastrophe and represent a force to be reckoned with in our immediate area. Maybe instead call ourselves the Regulators, but you can't be any geek off the street. You gotta be handy with the steel--know what I mean? Earn your keep.