Obama's Ban List

[daerious]

http://www.rense.com/general85/obs.htm

 

I don't know how reliable this is, but several sites around the internet have this list. Do you think this is for real? Will it pass?

[KSG_Standard]

I think it's real. Whether it will pass or not is a toss up...at least 2 dem senators are pro gun (Tester and Conrad) and the dems will need 60 votes to pass it in the senate. It will pass overwhelmingly in the house. The dems tried to bring this to a vote in 2005 and in 2007 (look it up).

 

my .02

[RichCI]

http://www.rense.com/general85/obs.htm

 

I don't know how reliable this is

 

I'd approach that web site with a health dose of skepticism.

 

http://www.rense.com/

[KSG_Standard]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/29/obamas-gun-ban-rhetoric/

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4227

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

http://www.gunlawnews.org/senators/barack-obama.html

[FirstMeasure]

The ABC News one is good enough for me. Thier mandate was for Economic Issues, they'd better not blow a good thing with this Gun Crap. 'Cmon Democrats, Email your Congressman and tell them to drop the damned Issue. All that '97 Gunban didn't reduce crime. A healthy Middle Class and a thriving economy do.

 

.................So put the Gun Ban on the ground and step away!

[RudyH]

That list is essentially an updated summary restatement of the Clinton ban, which included a list of specifically exempted models.

[Gitfidl]

Change!

[daerious]

Thanks for your replies, and other sources of information. If you have other reliable sources related to the idea that we should enact laws that restrict our citizens in order to make Mexico a safer place, please let me know.

[Mr. Robot]

For the record, the ban on semi-automatics in Australia has reduced the incidence of death and assault by gunshot and had no detrimental effect on civil liberties.

 

You can still own a gun, be a member of a gun club and hunt.

[daerious]

For the record' date=' the ban on semi-automatics in Australia has reduced the incidence of death and assault by gunshot and had no detrimental effect on civil liberties.

 

You can still own a gun, be a member of a gun club and hunt.[/quote']

 

Here is the facts on crime in Australia post ban:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

 

The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.

(There are many other sources, it is accepted statistical data)

 

While it may be true that firearms deaths have decreased, there are several factors we have to consider, first, the statistic (which I haven't been able to find any sources on) does not specify that this reduction is even from criminal firearms deaths. Perhaps there are fewer firearms deaths because good, lawful citizens are no longer killing those would-be assailants. Perhaps there is actually less firearms crime, however, it is CRIME that you must consider, not the tool used for the crime. Obviously the ban increased the frequency of many violent crimes. So let me ask you this, do you concern yourself with how likely it is that you will be attacked and/or killed, or do you concern yourself with the weapon your attacker is using.

 

Your argument states this theory: "Gun control laws in Australia have successfully changed the weapon of choice for some people, and increased the overall crime rate dramatically."

 

Your second argument is that this ban was not detrimental to civil liberties. I beg to differ. To cause an individual citizen to be 45 percent more likely to be the victim of an armed robbery, 3.2% more likely to be murdered, etc. and not allowing him access to the most effective tools for protecting himself from said robbery, it has been extremely detrimental to civil liberties, after all, the right to LIFE is our first civil liberty.

[Mr. Robot]

 

Here is the facts on crime in Australia post ban:

Countrywide' date=' homicides are up 3.2 percent;

Assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent;

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent;

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily;

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15304

 

The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.

(There are many other sources, it is accepted statistical data)

 

While it may be true that firearms deaths have decreased, there are several factors we have to consider, first, the statistic (which I haven't been able to find any sources on) does not specify that this reduction is even from criminal firearms deaths. Perhaps there are fewer firearms deaths because good, lawful citizens are no longer killing those would-be assailants. Perhaps there is actually less firearms crime, however, it is CRIME that you must consider, not the tool used for the crime. Obviously the ban increased the frequency of many violent crimes. So let me ask you this, do you concern yourself with how likely it is that you will be attacked and/or killed, or do you concern yourself with the weapon your attacker is using.

 

Your argument states this theory: "Gun control laws in Australia have successfully changed the weapon of choice for some people, and increased the overall crime rate dramatically."

 

Your second argument is that this ban was not detrimental to civil liberties. I beg to differ. To cause an individual citizen to be 45 percent more likely to be the victim of an armed robbery, 3.2% more likely to be murdered, etc. and not allowing him access to the most effective tools for protecting himself from said robbery, it has been extremely detrimental to civil liberties, after all, the right to LIFE is our first civil liberty.[/quote']

 

And that, is the biggest load of crap statistics I have ever seen. I live in the bloody country and have never read such drivel. Dont accept right wing articles written by people on behalf of the gun lobby.

 

The official police statistics are clear. Gun violence is down in Australia.

[Californiaman]

I like how Dianne Frankenstine from California claims that 90% of the guns used by Mexican Drug Cartels are from the U.S.

And the 50 Cal.s they've been using... Clinton sold them to the Mexican army in 1990. Wow... what a tangled web of lies she weaves.

[daerious]

Californiaman,

I have read that the Mexican government will not provide serial numbers for the weapons that supposedly came across the boarder from the US, which could indicate it is simply a case of their refusing to take responsibility and blaming the US without any real evidence.

 

Mr. Robot,

Even if you live in Australia, you would still need to provide sources for your claims. I have provided a single source, and with google you will have no problem verifying the statistics I stated, however I can find no sources that verify your claim other than a very general "report" stating that the bans have lowered firearm crimes, with no real numbers provided. That source was the center for handgun control. I can't consider this obviously bias source as credible especially since it was simply a general statement and not statistical data.

[Gitfidl]

Here is a VERY simple fact: automobile "accidents" kill 50,000 innocent Americans every year and half involved alcohol. Fact. There have been 50,000 Americans killed every year by cars since 1950. That's more than 2,500,000 Americans. In WWII 500,000 Americans were killed. In Korea it was about 200,000 and Vietnam about 500,000. Automobiles have already killed more Americans than the combined deaths by firearms since 1600 (Jamestown) .. 4 French & Indian Wars, the Revolution, the war of 1812, the Civil War, the SpanAM War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, both Iraq's and Afghanistan ... and ALL THE GUN (OR OTHER) MURDERS EVER.

 

So if you are really all bummed out about people being senselessly and violently killed, then why are you worried about guns? YOU CAN DO SOMETHING about traffic accidents -- you can do a LOT about traffic accidents. (consider road rage, alcohol, cell phones, combing hair -- all a part of the overall number -- how many people will voluntarily stop ANY of those? Zilch)

 

OK .. another fact: doctors accidentally kill 100,000 Americans EVERY YEAR. Twice as man as auto accidents. Do you care? Do you just pick one out of the yellow pages?

 

Cigarettes -- (including marijuana), alcohol poisoning, domestic violence, swimming pool drownings, dune buggy's, jet ski's, snow mobiles, ladders, power tools, electric saws. Anybody give a toot about any of those? No. Nobody cares.

 

So why do you really (actually) care about guns? Why do you **emote** about guns? It's not ACTUALLY about killing or death, so what is the REAL reason? Tell why you object to guns (and do not say deaths or killings -- because it's clear you do not care about deaths or killings). WHy?

[FennRx]

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/australiaguns.html

 

it would appear that the chain letter concerning australia's crime stats may be less credible.

[NeoConMan]

http://www.rense.com/general85/obs.htm

 

Do you think this is for real? Will it pass?

Do you doubt they will make every effort to do it?

All you have to do is simply listen to what they say. Their own words condemn them' date=' and they don't care.

There's no smoke and mirrors, or cloak and dagger here - it's right in front of you.

 

Do you guys have a clue what all went into the original Brady Bill?

 

Do you understand how crazy the gun-banners were when the 'evil' gun makers exploited every wide-open loophole?

 

I don't care the source of the info, there are millions of America-hating, freedom-hating, liberty-hating, gun-hating people [b']living in this country[/b], and thousands of them hold government positions.

 

 

Isn't the idea behind personal freedom and liberty the concept that we are responsible for ourselves?

Commit a crime with a gun or a water pistol, you should pay.

 

To all of you who find the personal responsible ownership somehow unpalatable, consider this;

If you don't want to own a gun, don't buy one.

But F@CK YOU if you think you have any right to tell me I can't.

Yes, I'm serious.

[FennRx]

neo, always the poet...lol

 

but i do agree with you 100%

 

good to see ya, i hadnt seen ya on here in a bit and was starting to wonder if you had been put in time out again. haha

[NeoConMan]

Hah!

Nah Fenn, my folks are in town and I'm on vacation.

Running all over the mountains and desert here playing tour guide.

Wouldn't miss it for the world.

 

I'll duck in when I can and try to help Right the Lefty world.

:-)

 

 

 

I live in the bloody country and have never read such drivel.

You should.

 

 

 

Dont accept right wing articles written by people on behalf of the gun lobby.

So' date=' explain to me why you're so pissy and persistent about voicing your 'opinion' in an argument you have no stake in?

Explain to me why I should give you a bit of credibility if you're so gleefully cheerleading the deconstruction of our Constitution and the surrender of our most basic civil liberties?

You let your country fxck you in your poop chute without so much as a kiss on the cheek, and you want me to accept the same love, caring and tenderness from the idiots in MY government?

 

I appreciate your input, I respect your opinion, but I respectfully submit that either your idea of benevolence in governing is WAY different from mine, you have no clue what OUR Constitution was created to ensure, you're a Lefty Liberal scared to death that somebody somewhere might actually have a right to do something you disapprove of, or you're simply a fool.

 

In no way do you stand a chance of making millions of law-abiding Americans give up ANYTHING that does not incriminate them. [b']To say MY guns are a threat to you is an insult, and I take it seriously.[/b] The only way any of the dozens of weapons I own would ever pose a threat to you is if you do something stupid concerning my property or my family.

Mind your own business, keep your head out of your ***, and live like you should - I think you'll find me to be a good neighbor.

 

 

 

The official police statistics are clear.

Then why can't you interpret them?

 

 

 

Gun violence is down in Australia.

So, who am I supposed to believe?

 

The ONE GUY in Australia who thinks I should give up MY guns?

Or data, statistics, and information compiled from countless sources who are watching every lawmaker and politician?

 

Sorry, you have zero credibility with me.