StarBucks - Now I'm a fan!

[dem00n]

In before the lock boys.

[Bowdiddley]

The entire secret service couldn't prevent Reagan from getting shot. The point is' date=' you can inact all the gun laws you want, but if someone wants a gun, they can get it and use it. The only thing you can do is try to trip up the crazies along the way. Sorry Bow, but if you think Obama has made it harder to get a gun, you're mistaken. If anything he's made it easier... a lot easier.

 

I'm also curious to know how you would prevent firearms from getting into the wrong hands that hasn't been tried already? As it is, the responsible gun owners are paying the price of legislation. One big problem is gun sellers who don't adhere to the current laws. There are likely very few criminals who have acquired firearms legally.[/quote']

 

Some things can't be stopped, fact of life.

 

I didn't say that Obama had done anything to make it harder, I said he hasn't done anything to advance gun rights. Name one way where Obama has made it easier, just one.

 

As far as what I'd do to keep firearms out of the wrong hands? You answered your own question, thats one of those things that can't be stopped, short of very severe punishment for someone having a gun when they aren't supposed to, that would slow the problem down but again you can't stop it. Simply look anywhere guns have been banned, the "wrong hands" are the only hands with guns. The unarmed law abiding citizenry are severely handicapped.

[Bowdiddley]

Way to generalize' date=' Sean Hannity. What else you got? President Obama coming to your house personally to take your firearms?

[/quote']

 

Gosh this is harder than I thought it would be, Evol you are right! I shouldn't have been more specific.

 

BTW I can't stand SH.

[zigzag]

Guns are part of America's culture & history. It's like trying to ban marijuana. See how well that has gone?

 

LOL, that's a good one! Oh... wait a minute... I forgot what I was going to say... nevermind...

[cwness]

I found your post interesting. I am a far left progressive; the kind that Glen Beck writes on his chalk board about; and I feel the same way. There needs to be a huge push for responsible firearm ownership and on the flip side prosecute violent crime' date=' especially when a firearm is involved, heavily, but do not ban guns. Guns are part of America's culture & history. It's like trying to ban marijuana. See how well that has gone?

[/quote']

 

I have to agree here when you see people going to jail for a longer time for smoking pot or selling

it which are non violent crimes then the person who shoots and kills or wounds someone what message is

that sending. One word prohibition that worked out well. The criminals took right over when they

made booze illegal. They were killing people right and left just to sell booze. Once legal again

the killings stopped. Some laws give the bad people jobs.

 

CW

[milod]

RE: "gun show loophole."

 

Now we're at the crux of things. At a so-called gun show licensed firearm dealers must do the same sort of background checks, etc., as would be required in their stores. Period.

 

Otherwise you have a private sale from a private individual to another private individual. That's never been illegal. State laws tend to take away from the general rights of citizens, especially in states with major urban populations.

 

Those who believe firearms of various sorts - or all of them - are inherently evil, would like to see all transactions recorded by government, and all ownership of all firearms registered by government. Or the promote various laws making private ownership of firearms incredibly difficult or impossible.

 

In short, from either pro or anti firearm perspectives, in effect a registered firearm becomes the property of the government since it then has control over that arm and its transfer of ownership, at least among the law-abiding. Criminals, of course, don't care about laws.

 

Now you can like or dislike the above, but that doesn't change the facts. You can change the laws or their interpretation in order to change enforcement policies, but not the facts.

 

As for Obama doing anything for or against firearms sales... I'd say little one way or another technically, but functionally fear of left wing anti-firearm folks encourages firearm sales to those who believe it appropriate to own one.

 

Explosives and stolen aircraft seem to be a bigger problem nowadays anyway, eh?

 

m

[zigzag]

See the following: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/24/states-loosen-gun-laws-under-obama/

[FirstMeasure]

I found your post interesting. I am a far left progressive; the kind that Glen Beck writes on his chalk board about; and I feel the same way. There needs to be a huge push for responsible firearm ownership and on the flip side prosecute violent crime' date=' especially when a firearm is involved, heavily, but do not ban guns. Guns are part of America's culture & history. It's like trying to ban marijuana. See how well that has gone?

[/quote']

Exactly, is it too much to ask Law Enforcement to enforce Violent Crime Laws? Can't get a job if you smoked Pot, but you can get a house in any neighborhood if you're a child molester? Why isn't the latter crime a mandatory Life Sentence?

[Cruznolfart]

I own three shot guns and a couple of pistols' date=' one of which is my dad's WWII 45. I acquired those firearms before gun registration laws were passed. I used to enjoy hunting with my dad and grandfather when I was a kid. Taught me a lot. I don't know the current gun laws, but like I said, I am for the right to bear arms. I have to believe that hand gun laws are enacted in good faith to protect innocent people. If current laws were enforced, there are several mass murders like the Va Tech shootings and the Ronald Reagan shooting that may have been prevented. I believe the Brady Bill was passed by a Republican congress.

 

The fact is that there are far too many people killed in this country by handguns. I don't think the solution is to arm every citizen or disarm every citizen. All I know is that it is a tragedy, and if something can be done to change it, that needs to happen.

 

I also find it humorous that all the gun toting right wingers who thought that Obama was going to take away their guns are finding that just the opposite is happening under his administration.

 

"Happiness is a warm gun."

 

On the one hand Obama has been called the best thing that ever happened to private gun sales in the U.S. But look beyond your own backyard.

 

When Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton enthusiastically embraced a "binding" United Nations treaty on global control of international trade in firearms and ammunition, the Obama administration officially became an aggressive participant in what international gun-ban groups have hailed as a "first step" in their march on our sovereignty and ultimately on private ownership of firearms in every nation.

 

In her statement, Clinton did not mention the Second Amendment of U.S. sovereignty.

 

Under the UN charter "The right of self-defense in international law is not directed toward the preservation of lives of individuals...it is concerned with the preservation of the State."

 

It's on. Don't think for one moment that it isn't.

[bol316]

ok heres my gun question. Why must common citizens own semiauto/auto weapons? Seriously. The handgun thing I am not really for but, whatever. I can get over that. But explain to me why a person needs an (more or less) assault weapon.

[Cruznolfart]

People with the permits to carry concealed weapons ir hunters or those who just want a gun at hime are not a problem. They know about guns. But the fools who want to parade around with a gun strapped to their waist are just idiotic grandstanders.

 

According to this stereotype many of us belong to both groups. How can that possibly be? If I carry concealed, I'm a reasonable guy but when I take my jacket off but leave my gun on, suddenly I'm an idiotic grandstander? Might wanna rethink that one. I'm actually the very same guy. It is only your perception of me that has changed. Why should that be MY problem? Again, no offense intended.

[grampa]

According to this stereotype many of us belong to both groups. How can that possibly be? If I carry concealed' date=' I'm a reasonable guy but when I take my jacket off but leave my gun on, suddenly I'm an idiotic grandstander? Might wanna rethink that one. I'm actually the very same guy. It is only your perception of me that has changed. Why should that be MY problem? Again, no offense intended.[/quote']

 

You are grandstanding if that is your intention. The people showing up at "Town Halls" last summer wearing guns were very obviously grandstanding. And it is possible to be in both groups, like the normally responsible driver who, when the teenage boy with his teenage girl pulls up next to him, has to show off and burn some rubber. You tell me if your intention is grandstanding when you take off your jacket.

[Cruznolfart]

You are grandstanding if that is your intention. The people showing up at "Town Halls" last summer wearing guns were very obviously grandstanding. And it is possible to be in both groups' date=' like the normally responsible driver who, when the teenage boy with his teenage girl pulls up next to him, has to show off and burn some rubber. You tell me if your intention is grandstanding when you take off your jacket.[/quote']

 

LOL! Grampa, why would YOU take off YOUR jacket?

 

Same thing for me. I'll take it off when I get in the truck. Or if it's too warm to keep it on. If I need to step in the market on the way home, I don't have to worry about putting it on strictly to conceal my legal firearm from view. If you characterize my removal of my jacket as grandstanding, that doesn't make it so.

 

Sometimes, in order to preserve a right, one must exercise that right. THAT is not grandstanding. THAT is patriotism.

[milod]

Bol...

 

Functionally there is little or no difference mechanical between a semi-automatic small arm (either pistol or rifle cartridge" that fires from a closed bolt and a manually-loaded arm. In the U.S. only arms that go "bang" only once when one pulls the trigger are legal. Those that go "bang" more than once with a single trigger pull are illegal.

 

Mechanisms of firearms are all very similar. One might note, too, that the German Army in WWI believed the initial well-trained soldiers of His Majesty's government had fully automatic rifles because of their skill with what is considered an inherently slow "bolt action" rifle.

 

There also has been, for example, a semi-automatic revolver (Webley-Fosbery if you care to google it). John Browning, who designed the classic lever action "deer rifle" also designed a mechanism for that arm to be converted to a semi-automatic.

 

A double-action revolver in a single operation motion cocks the trigger while advancing a cartridge into line with the barrel, then releases the hammer so the revolver goes "bang." That is roughly the same thing that occurs with a semi-automatic arm, but in a slightly different sequence; the hammer is brought to a cocked position and then released to fire a cartridge, then either the recoil gas from the expending cartridge ejects and loads the next round.

 

A skilled person with a double action revolver can fire it as rapidly as many submachine guns (600 rpm). A skilled person with a single action revolver can fire roughly as fast, and that's entirely manual. I have seen "cowboy action shooters" with variations of 1873 Colt SAA revolvers, both in speed and accuracy, outshoot trained law officers in competition - the officers with semiautomatic firearms. And the lawmen, too, were from a region where they were raised with arms.

 

Bottom line is that the "assault weapon" argument has nothing to do with reality. One might make a different argument with reference to fully automatic firearms - those that go bang multiple times with one squeeze of a trigger - but they have functionally been illegal for a lot longer than I've been alive.

 

In fact, the "assault weapon" argument simply is a sideways argument to outlaw all arms.

 

Also, I'll never forget how I got into an argument with an "expert" who had no training with edged weaponry and had only a few times fired fully-automatic firearms. I said a "samurai" sword was far more lethal in close quarters against unarmed victims than any firearm. I'll stick to that assertion.

 

m

[FirstMeasure]

If I may Referee Cruzn and Grampa for a sec, if you guys don't mind.

 

It's safe to say Cruzn is not Grandstanding, regardless of when of how he takes his jacket off.

 

It's also true that there are those who wear a gun for the express purpose of being *****en or feared. Those who do Grandstand with their pieces aren't doing the Gun Right argument any good at all. In fact they put a very irresponsible face on it. Show up at a Town Hall meeting with a big billboard showing statistics on how many violent crimes are committed with legal guns as opposed to illegally obtained guns and you suddenly look like a Teacher instead of a Hobbyist.

[grampa]

If I may Referee Cruzn and Grampa for a sec' date=' if you guys don't mind.

 

It's safe to say Cruzn is not Grandstanding, regardless of when of how he takes his jacket off.

 

It's also true that there are those who wear a gun for the express purpose of being *****en or feared. Those who do Grandstand with their pieces aren't doing the Gun Right argument any good at all. In fact they put a very irresponsible face on it. Show up at a Town Hall meeting with a big billboard showing statistics on how many violent crimes are committed with legal guns as opposed to illegally obtained guns and you suddenly look like a Teacher instead of a Hobbyist.[/quote']

 

Quit being reasonable, there's no place for that in talks about guns.

[zigzag]

When Obama's Secretary of State' date=' Hillary Clinton enthusiastically embraced a "binding" United Nations treaty on global control of international trade in firearms and ammunition, the Obama administration officially became an aggressive participant in what international gun-ban groups have hailed as a "first step" in their march on our sovereignty and ultimately on private ownership of firearms in every nation.

 

[/quote']

 

I believe this treaty is a reaction to the recent drug wars in Mexico. I'm not sure how this will affect private gun ownership in the US.

[zigzag]

 

In fact' date=' the "assault weapon" argument simply is a sideways argument to outlaw all arms.

 

m

[/quote']

 

m,

 

Your word is gospel with me, but I gotta disagree with that statement. Outlawing all arms would be political suicide, and would result in the repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would be truly historic and unprecedented.

[Cruznolfart]

I believe this treaty is a reaction to the recent drug wars in Mexico. I'm not sure how this will affect private gun ownership in the US.

 

Any gun control treaty with the UN that does not recognize U.S. sovereignty or the rights of We The People as established in our Constitution and Bill of Rights will directly relate to gun laws in the U.S. It is the goal of the groups promoting the treaty.

 

My rights as a law abiding citizen of the United States of America have little to do with the welfare of a Ugandan. But that's the bill of goods we're about to be sold. Restrictions on commerce will be much further reaching than is necessary to have any effect on the proliferation of arms in 3d world countries. I think it would be a good conversation to discuss whether you/anyone believes or does not believe that there are those whose goal is the disarmament of private citizens throughout the world, especially those in the United States of America. We are the vanguard of the right to personal self-defense.

 

I would much rather die than be disarmed by an international committee...or Hillary Clinton. I would definitely fight to preserve our 2d Amendment. And I'm about the easiest going guy you'll ever meet.

[Gilliangirl]

NRA propaganda. There are fewer guns in Britain (and many other countries for that matter) than the US and far less crime and crimes committed with guns. I believe in the right to bear arms' date=' but I also believe that handguns exist only to kill people. The right to bear arms exists so that private citizens can protect themselves from military dictatorship and foreign aggression, and to shoot game for sustenance. It is a complicated society we have evolved into, and this is a complicated issue.[/quote']

Yeah, Canada has a relatively low crime rate and we have relatively strict gun laws. But I think restricting gun laws AFTER the guns are already out there is too little too late (i.e. Britain). Personally, I like living in a country where guns are seen as something a wee bit abnormal. ;)

[zigzag]

Cruz,

 

That treaty is a response to guns illegally flooding into Mexico. Good old Hillary is trying to stop it. The second amendment protects your right to shoot any UN troops planning to storm your fortress to disarm you, but unfortunately, the second amendment didn't protect David Koresh.

[SweetMarie]

As someone who has been around firearms all my life & was required to wear a sidearm in public as a condition of employment....

 

I think wearing a sidearm in public, particularly in areas where you might really have need of one, just tells the other guy (or gal) that you have a gun. If they want you or what you have, you'll never have the chance to touch that weapon because you'll never see theirs. They're certainly not AFRAID of your gun. I know I always felt like a target.

 

Just sayin'...:-

[milod]

Ziggy... <grin>

 

You wrote, "Your word is gospel with me, but I gotta disagree with that statement. Outlawing all arms would be political suicide, and would result in the repeal of the 2nd amendment. That would be truly historic and unprecedented."

 

That's not at all true. Don't forget that for generations "separate but equal" was legal in the US. It's a matter of interpretation and cultural preferences at a given general time and place.

 

Actually one need not technically outlaw all arms to make private ownership all but impossible. For example, technically speaking today any one of us U.S. citizens who does not have a felony conviction could quite likely get a license to own a fully automatic machine gun of one sort or another.

 

However, between the hassle and cost of the licensing regulation, it's highly unlikely that most of us would do so. Therefore it's "legal" for me to own such a piece, but it's about as likely as my purchase of a private F-16.

 

Cali has roughly similar sorts of laws against unregistered possession of military-looking rifles that are functionally no different in design from many sporting rifles. The next argument is, "well, since these other rifles are 'X,' they also should be subject to similar registration/confiscation requirements."

 

Bottom line is that if a logical argument is made, and/or judges are willing to accept an argument as logical and following a precedent they consider valid, I can easily see arms in the U.S. becoming functionally illegal even if they remain technically legal and no legal interpretation of constitutional foul. The number of "old families" with heirloom arms from a century ago or more is diminishing, and so also is that argument.

 

And for what it's worth, don't forget that it was under the English system that the bagpipe was outlawed as a weapon of war at one time, too. Why not guitar amplifiers above a given wattage on grounds of frivolous electrical usage? Note that we're already headed in that direction with light bulbs.

 

Don't forget that prior to GCA '68 one could purchase a firearm by mail order with no licensing or registration requirements in most states, and that to so so was considered by many to be part of their 2nd amendment rights. Just last week I had a law enforcement officer say that if a firearm owner commits an infraction, including a traffic infraction, and has firearms visible, they can be confiscated and held until the owner "proves" ownership. Hey, how do you "prove" ownership of anything Uncle Jake gave you 20 years ago? That would bring de facto mandatory registration "for the safety of firearm ownership," right?

 

Nowadays a drivers license is not enough identification to get an airline ticket - and look out, you're gonna find you'll have to prove again and again who you are to renew your drivers license which increasingly is a national ID card. The "national ID card" was considered unconstitutional a number of years ago too. Culture changes faster than law, but the law unquestionably can be bent to "mean" what a culture wishes it to mean.

 

m

[milod]

Just an additional thought:

 

Nobody would buy guitars except as art objects if all humans became deaf.

 

Nobody would buy firearms except for sport or as art objects if all humans became nonviolent.

 

m

[mcmurray]

Your broad-stroke assumption that we Americans are crazy because we demand the right of self-protection is based on the very thing that keeps you under the thumb of the people who stripped you of similar rights.

 

To my understanding' date=' the 2nd amendment was put in place so that citizens could protect the constitution - fair enough. It had nothing at all to do with self-protection.

 

I could be wrong.

 

The right to bear arms exists so that private citizens can protect themselves from military dictatorship and foreign aggression' date=' and to shoot game for sustenance. It is a complicated society we have evolved into, and this is a complicated issue.[/quote']

 

Exactly.