The gun control battle is winding up.

[walleyfisher]

Originally Posted by Poncherello

Just for the record, I have always thought assault weapons should stay with the military. I didn't just form this opinion last Friday. As I said earlier, the Supreme Court has said many times that the right to bear arms does not mean an unregulated right.

Then shouuld Race cars only be owed by race car drivers?

I haven't found the stat but if somebody was to look, I am willing to bet Assault rifles do not have the highest murder rate. But our media likes to sensanalize every time one happens. Just look a Chicago, where's the outrage to dozens of murders each weekend.....I guess it dosent fit the mold as news now a days, there is maximun regulations already in place and it still doesn't stop the killing.

Kind of hard to un-invent the gun when it already exsists

[Matt383]

Originally Posted by walleyfisher

Then shouuld Race cars only be owed by race car drivers?

I haven't found the stat but if somebody was to look, I am willing to bet Assault rifles do not have the highest murder rate. But our media likes to sensanalize every time one happens. Just look a Chicago, where's the outrage to dozens of murders each weekend.....I guess it dosent fit the mold as news now a days, there is maximun regulations already in place and it still doesn't stop the killing.

Kind of hard to un-invent the gun when it already exsists

Kinda what I was sayin about 200 posts ago.

On any given weekend there are 27 shootings in Chicago.
On a warm summer night that can happen in a few minutes.
There are gangs shooting gangs. what is really pissafying is that bystanders, innocents, mistaken identity make up some of those numbers.

On another note, I must say that this particular thread has kept my interest with every post. There have been such well thought out responses and replies, (a few no so much) on both sides.
I just don't have the eloquence nor the time to contribute but the guys from Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana are doing a great job

[monsolo2]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

In this particular case.. the mother and at least one doctor knew the kid was a nutcase. So, instead of worrying about infringing upon my rights, why not worry about putting a little responsibility, on those responsible for this kid having access to weapons while being a known nutcase.

It's a horrible tragedy, no doubt. But would it really be any less of a horrible tragedy if he had done like the guy in China and used a knife? Or if he had used a shotgun?

This tragedy is being politicized for one reason.. and it's pretty obvious what that is and why. We kill quite a few kids with drone strikes.. not a tragedy? Many more kids are killed by drunks.. not tragedy's?

Just put a little common sense into the equation..

You are SPOT ON!! When all the gun control (sorry, gun limitation ) dingbats can prove to me that what the left is doing is more than simple political maneuvering, then I'll pony up to the table and have a meaningful discussion. But when way more children die every year in automobile accidents, from faulty medications and failed operations at hospitals, and from simply not having any food all across the globe, left-wingers have a LOT more explaining to do!

Instead, they use the awful killing of poor innocent children to further their own warped sense of what society should be here in the US. All of you arguing the Second Amendment... get a freakin' clue!! None of this is about the 2A!! It's about taking advantage of an opportunity to disarm the public! Maybe it won't happen outright but the left will start with "assault rifles" and go from there.

[c6vettedude]

Originally Posted by Matt383

There have been such well thought out responses and replies on both sides.

Though I'll stay away from the 2a argument, I think that's a moot point.

As for gun control itself, I don't think that you can compare deaths by auto's and such to gun control, because those deaths are purely accidental... much different than someone picking up a gun and intentionally inflicting bodily harm and death.

As for the type of firearms we should be able to own, like in any civilized nation there are limits. Limiting small arms and magazine capacities imho is abuse of govt. authority. If military "application" is the litmus test for what we can and can't own, then how far will they go? Afterall, the M1911 was basically designed for Military use in Spain, because the handguns they had lacked power. By that rationale, they could eventually step up and take all semi-automatic pistols, and claim that a 6 round revolver is all that we need. Govt's by nature grow, and as the govt get's bigger, the citizen get smaller,...there's no way around that.

In past debates, it was always proven that pistols are used in the overwhelming majority of homicides. They are smaller and easier to conceal than a shotgun or rifle.

Talk to any old Polish people if you know any, and ask them about how the communist crack down went. They were first allowed to own weapons, but had to register them first. Once the communist cracked down, the police knew where all the guns were and confiscated ALL of them. After the revolution, the old folks were asked, how and why did it happen? The first thing they all said, was that "we didn't think the govt had the power to do what they did". The way I see it, we can learn from history, or ignore it.

Also, if the citizens can't have ak's and such, then why in the hell do the police and govt org's need full-auto weapons? Afterall, how many criminals do they come across with full-auto weapons? Nowadays, it's sometimes hard to tell the criminal from the LEO... all dressed in black, ski masks and tactical-geared down. Like any and all govt's, they want the upper-hand. If you're out-gunned, it's harder to fight back...though Vietnam and the Middle East are good lessons for those that think you need fighter planes and cruise missles to win a war. Also, less firepower, means less negotiating power.

Once you're unarmed, there's is NOTHING you can do in the face of tyranny.

[XQIZT]

Nevermind...it was covered ad nauseum. And after reading this whole thing...I've got nothing to say that hasn't been said already.

[blckslvr79]

Can anyone explain to me why Obama would continue down the liberal road of banning arms here in the states to honest citizens, while arming terrorists and drug cartels? If overthrowing governments and keeping leadership in check is not the primary purpose of the Second Amendment, then why do all these bad guys he's arming need the same guns that he wants to take away from his citizens???

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-benghazigate/

What we do know is that the New York Times — one of the most slavishly pro-Obama publications in the country — reported in an Oct. 14 article, “Most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, and not the more secular opposition groups that the West wants to bolster.”

In short, it seems President Obama has been engaged in gun-walking on a massive scale. The effect has been to equip America’s enemies to wage jihad not only against regimes it once claimed were our friends, but inevitably against us and our allies as well. That would explain his administration’s desperate and now failing bid to mislead the voters through the serial deflections of Benghazigate

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...mas-watergate/

In a rash attempt to deflect attention away from himself and his own irresponsibility, Holder let Congress know that the Obama administration is still working toward the day when it can reinstate former President Bill Clinton’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. According to Holder:


This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/08/ho...#ixzz2FbFsSVyX

[c6vettedude]

Originally Posted by blckslvr79

while arming terrorists and drug cartels?

I think it's safe to say that most, American's are aware that as a country, we've been doing this for a very, very long time. I have plenty of info on the Bush family and ther drug ties and dealings, but don't want to make this a Bush/BO debate.

[XQIZT]

Originally Posted by c6vettedude

I think it's safe to say that most, American's are aware that as a country, we've been doing this for a very, very long time. I have plenty of info on the Bush family and ther drug ties and dealings, but don't want to make this a Bush/BO debate.

True...but we also spend an inordinate amount attempting to keep certain weapons out of the hands of certain people as well. But if "people kill people"...and not "weapons kill people"...why are we so concerned with a nuclear armed Iran...etc?

[grumpyvette]

HERES CHINAS ANSWER TO ANY POLITICAL DISCUSSION NOT FOLLOWING PARTY LINES


LIBERALS CONFRONTED WITH REALITY

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

You Tube

[blckslvr79]

Originally Posted by c6vettedude

I think it's safe to say that most, American's are aware that as a country, we've been doing this for a very, very long time. I have plenty of info on the Bush family and ther drug ties and dealings, but don't want to make this a Bush/BO debate.

Nice Leftist move.

Bush wasn't trying to take away our gun Rights. There is no comparison. He actually reversed Clintons gun laws.

Obama, on the other hand, believes in strong gun control, limited gun ownership, elimination of auto rifles, and getting existing guns out of the publics hands....Yet he's arming Muslims in the middle east and our enemies to fight their own governments. Explain that.

[Poncherello]

They're taking away my gun rights, they're taking away my gun rights.....

The second ammendment in no way, shape, or form allows for the unregulated ownership of firearms. If that was the case everyone here would be screaming for the repeal of the NFA of 1934, which targeted so called "gangster" guns, and the repeal of the NFA of 1968 which outlawed "automatic weapons" sawed off rifles, and sawed off shotguns. Should anyone who wants one be allowed to own a fully automatic Bushmaster? Should anyone who wants to be allowed to carry a concealed sawed off shotgun? Regulation of firearm ownership has been taking place for more than 100 years and in that time the government has never come knocking at anyone's door demanding they surrender their legally possessed guns.

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by Poncherello

They're taking away my gun rights, they're taking away my gun rights.....

The second ammendment in no way, shape, or form allows for the unregulated ownership of firearms. If that was the case everyone here would be screaming for the repeal of the NFA of 1934, which targeted so called "gangster" guns, and the repeal of the NFA of 1968 which outlawed "automatic weapons" sawed off rifles, and sawed off shotguns. Should anyone who wants one be allowed to own a fully automatic Bushmaster? Should anyone who wants to be allowed to carry a concealed sawed off shotgun? Regulation of firearm ownership has been taking place for more than 100 years and in that time the government has never come knocking at anyone's door demanding they surrender their legally possessed guns.

The only people who should not be allowed to own them are criminals. In most cases, the people who own/use them are criminals.

Bad people do bad shit, regardless the tool. Look at the big city's who wear their gun control like a badge of honor. All they have done is created Target Rich Environments that leave their citizenry at the mercy of those who don't follow the rules. How is that gun control working out for Mexico? The US government arms their criminals.. and you want to let them determine what is ok for me to own? Your a nutcase if you think the poeple at the heart of the most dangerous government in history should be trusted enough to tell you what to/not to do in your private life.

[XQIZT]

Originally Posted by Vette_Newb

Your a nutcase if you think the poeple at the heart of the most dangerous government in history should be trusted enough to tell you what to/not to do in your private life.

I'll be happy to see you bring this exact statement into other debates on other subjects.

[Poncherello]

[Vette_Newb]

Originally Posted by XQIZT

I'll be happy to see you bring this exact statement into other debates on other subjects.

That statement is my sentiments exactly when it comes to government. You know this as well as anyone here.