Assault Weapons?

[Sandstone Addiction]

Look at this gorgeous hunting rifle. Why would anyone want to ban something like this?



http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/42018-2/vepr308_super_1858web.jpg


Vepr Hunter .308 WIN


Besides caliber and full auto, what's the difference between that one and this? (weird, I had this photo on yesterday and wasn't this morning...hmmm)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Marine_AK-47.jpg

[accadacca]

Obama speaks on gun control today.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiwFY5WSUE&sns=em

[Byron]

"There's something fundamentally wrong with our country when we allow something like this to happen".

WTF are you talking about? Who is "WE"? What a tool that guy is.

SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE. Yeah, something, something, something...well, let's hear it, jerkoff. Give us "SOMETHING" that actually has a chance of doing something worthwhile (answer: there is no answer, at least in regards to gun control) instead of blaming AMERICA for these tragedies. Stinking political hack.

[hank moon]

At some point somebody in pro ban arena needs to provide compelling evidence of how changing the current gun laws will improve the safety of the citizens.

No they don't. This is politics, right? Combine equal parts fear, ignorance and money. Mix well. Since when has 'compelling evidence' been needed to fuel a bandwagon?

[Brian in SLC]

Besides caliber and full auto, what's the difference between that one and this?

Oh, man, don't cha see it? It has that menacing bayonet lug!

Pistol grip. Appallingly low capacity magazine.

My question is, though...why is that man touching him?

Ha ha.

[Brian in SLC]

Brian, my point (which you obviously missed) with the AR 15 and Ruger 10-22 is how do you ban one without banning the other? One is considered the ultimate killing firearm and the other recognized as one of the finest recreational firearms around.

Easy, just look to Oz. Catagory C: rimfire semiauto. Catagory D, centerfire semiauto. Ta da!

Yeah, its the cartridge. Your 10-22 can't reliably penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards...(what Eugene had to shoot for...pardon the pun).


The deal with OZ is by banning firearms they have basically solved one problem and created a bunch of new ones. One of the static's I do remember is strong arm crimes was way up. The experts conclusion was... if you look at just crimes committed with a firearm, then yes, the OZ ban appears to be working, but if you look at crime as a whole since the ban it was up something like 50% and the ban was a failure.

Its a hard thing to pin down. Australia has such a low gun homicide rate to begin with, you can actually piece together their entire country of 22 million folks yearly deaths by looking at them individually.

Australia has apparently always had fairly restrictive gun ownership. Their "ban" and buy back probably hasn't made a ton of difference either way. Its interesting that folks point to them for both pro and con with regard to our gun issues.

Assaults up, yep. Folks just don't put up with old ladies whackin' you with their purses. Is a purse ban next?

Its really hard for me to infer anything based on % this and rate of that. Common sense for me, is, homicide rate by firearm per 100,000.

Another interesting mix, would be, homicide rate by not just population, but, available firearms. The US number would be intersting to compare to other countries based on that. We're, what, about near 1 for 1 for guns in this country (# guns versus total population)? Australia has a very low firearm count. Given that, their rate of homicide looks more interesting to me and ours not so terrible, as, given the immense amount of potential from all of our available guns, we "only" killed 8583 people last year.

Recent numbers from a quick unvetted source has 89 guns per 100 people in the U.S. 6 per 100 in the UK. 550 deaths in the UK on average per year with firearms? Interesting. Over 10 times the amount of guns, yet, as a percentage of our population, we kill each other way less? Australia has 15 guns per 100 people and around dozen or so?

Something like that.

Anyhoo.

Op ed from Oz:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/brothers-in-arms-yes-but-the-us-needs-to-get-rid-of-its-guns-20120731-23ct7.html

No gun massacres since their buy back program in 1996. Hmm.

[Iceaxe]

:roll: If the Ruger 10-22 is the sticking point of this conversation please swap out Ruger 10-22 and insert the popular recreational ranch rifle Ruger Mini-14 into the blanks... thanks for your cooperation.

And I don't think rimfire vs centerfire is the answer. The minute you outlaw .223 centerfire ammunition someone will start marketing .223 rimfire.... Ta-Da!

As for the massacres I don't know... if your goal is to kill people there are plenty of ways.... easy enough to make a couple big ass bombs using the propane tank from your BBQ or fertilizer from Walmart and diesel fuel from the corner station, instructions for both are all over the interwebs. I notice mass bombing every day in the news and the goal and out come are still the same as shootings. Hell, maybe we are lucky they are using firearms. OK city and 9-11 killed a lot more people than any of the mass shootings.

I don't have an answer, but I do know the problem is much more complicated than just banning assault rifles, detachable magazines and bayonet lugs. Mental health care is a big issue and the media is even a bigger issue. The Media creates a target, goal and infamy for the shooters. After reading the book "Columbine" I did learn the prized goal of Harris and Klebold was to top the number of dead from OK City. They were not gunning for specific students... they were gunning for "the record" number of dead.

Banning pistol grips, barrel shrouds and standard capacity magazines is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs of the Titanic. This ship has already hit the iceburg and water is pouring into the first six compartments.... but it's nice to hear the band is still playing...

:cool2:

[Brian in SLC]

:roll: If the Ruger 10-22 is the sticking point of this conversation please swap out Ruger 10-22 and insert the popular recreational ranch rifle Ruger Mini-14 into the blanks... thanks for your cooperation.

You mean the mini with the black stock, 40 round magazine, flash hider? Ha ha. No comparison.

Your Ruger 10-22 isn't a sticking point for me. Just 'cause it looks like a duck don't mean it quacks like one too.

No one is going to make a rim fire in .223. Too spendy and not practical.

Sure, there's plenty of ways to off folks in large numbers. Been through an airport or on a plane since 911? Notice any changes? The September Army? Think that scenario could happen again? Little to no chance. Change happened, for better or worse. Cockpits locked, TSA folks get to see your junk with them new scanners, you can't bring your beverage in your luggage. Etc etc.

Yep, its complicated. Concur on the mental health issues.

[Iceaxe]

Just for giggles I thought I'd check out bombings among OZ citizens since the gun ban

Petrol Bomb Attack

(http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/petrolbomb-attack-on-religious-group-20120319-1vfe7.html)Chemical Bomb Attack
(http://touristkilled.com/australia-teenage-girls-attacked-with-chemical-bomb/)
Collar Bomb

(http://pandithnews.com/2012/11/20/australia-collar-bomb-man-jailed-for-sydney-attack/)88 Austrilians dead from bomb attack

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19920643)I'm sure I could dig up more... and I don't want to argue the merits of each bombing... just pointing out if your goal is to kill and/or terrorize people.... where there is a will there is a way....

FWIW: The Aussies are putting together a panel to investigate and explore the problems of bombings, so obviously they also noticed the problem...

[Iceaxe]

No one is going to make a rim fire in .223. Too spendy and not practical.

If .223 rimfire is all that is available I don't think cost would be the issue. The 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum has just been re-introduced so we are getting closer to a rimfire .223. During the Civil War the Henry Repeating Rifles were .44 rimfire.

I guess my point is you can pass whatever laws you like, but we have brillent engineers and they will just design around any paper barrier you impose.

Outlaw .50 caliber rifles? You just know someone will have a .49 caliber on the market a week later. Paper barriers are not the answer, that I am sure of... I wish I had the other answers...

[Brian in SLC]

If .223 rimfire is all that is available I don't think cost would be the issue. The 5mm Remington Rimfire Magnum has just been re-introduced so we are getting closer to a rimfire .223.

Wow, never heard of that cartridge.

Still not sure .223 is viable in rimfire. But, you're right, where there's a will there's a way...

Which could be said for a lot of things. Mass killings and legislation come to mind...ha ha.

When it warms up, school me on the trap/skeet/sporting clays line...I needs to blow the dust off...

[2065toyota]

I am trying to research each of these to finalize the validity of them, but here is some other info

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners inAustralia were forced by
new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their
own Government, a program costing Australiataxpayers more than $500
million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3..2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politiciansdisseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens
With guns, we are 'citizens''

Without them, we are 'subjects''

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were ARMED!
SWITZERLAND ISSUES MOST EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS MOST EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE, and

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY

CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

Just think how powerful our government is getting!

They think these other countries just didn't do it right.

Learn from history.

[Brian in SLC]

I am trying to research each of these to finalize the validity of them, but here is some other info...
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

Propaganda. Easy enough to poke holes into.

Switzerland's gun homicide rate per 100k folks is .52. Higher than a gob of "civilized" countries. Canada, Germany, Australia, etc etc etc.

If you're looking into Switzerland as a model for gun control per se, the laws governing their use and ownership are an interesting study. Quite a bit more restrictive than in the U.S.

[2065toyota]

"propoganda"

Switzerland - you said .52 - but actually a little higher at .7 but nonetheless:

Canada - 1.8
Germany - .8
Australia - 1.2

[2065toyota]

Switzerland being the lowest actually is incorrect, they are the 6th at .7

Iceland - .3
Japan - .5
Austria - .5
Norway - .6
Slovania - .6


Brazil bringing up the rear at 22.7

In the United States, 1.5% of people reported falling victim to assault over the previous 12 months, lower than the OECD average of 4.0%.

In the United States, 77% of people feel safe walking alone at night, higher than the OECD average of 67%.

[Byron]

Yes, during WWll a Japanese general warned that an invasion of the U.S. would result in their being shot at from "behind every blade of grass".

Bottom line on this thing...if the Principal of that school (who apparently was the first to be killed when she lunged at Lanza) had been armed, it's likely that not a single child would have been killed. Sure, he may have been able to kill her anyway, but at least she would have had a fighting chance. I would imagine that her last thought was "I wish I had a gun". Anyone who disagrees with the logic of that is a fool.

In my opinion, all these people that refuse to own (or even touch) a firearm, yell and scream for them to be restricted from rational, capable people and sneer at the NRA are nothing more than weak, pathetic sheep. Victims, one and all. Go ahead, run in a zig zag pattern or cower under something with your fingers crossed, I reserve the right to shoot back.

Think it'll never happen to you? Yeah, I'm sure they all thought that as well...too bad not a single one of them had a weapon.

[Bootboy]

I get tired of people citing gun control in other countries as a model for the US, the same goes for health care systems. To compare the US to other countries on these issues is absurd. The US has ten times the population of many of these "model" countries, a MUCH more diverse population, a different history, unique traditions, an entirely different culture, a very different and much larger economy, immigration and population growth rates, hell, even geography plays a role. What works for one does not always work for all. An island nation of 30 million can in no way be reasonably compared to the US on any of these issues, they are not simply microcosms of our nation. Way too many factors contributing to our issues to try what others have and reasonably expect similar results in most cases.

[oldno7]

Most stats can be skewed to reflect a position. Thats nothing new, it's called politics.

But--one Question that should be paramount to every citizen in the USA is--

Have you become more or less safe in the last 20 years???

Are you more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, now as opposed to 20 years ago??

Wish I knew how to set up a poll with the last question.(Ice??)

[Iceaxe]

Most stats can be skewed to reflect a position. Thats nothing new, it's called politics.


No NRA members have committed mass shootings... therefore it stands to reason if everyone joins the NRA there will be no more mass shooting. :)

I'm on my phone and can't set up a poll at the moment.


Sent using Tapatalk

[Sombeech]

Have you become more or less safe in the last 20 years???

Wish I knew how to set up a poll with the last question.(Ice??)

You'd have to create a new thread to create a poll. The poll options are at the bottom of the new thread write up, and you'll get the selections once you post your message.

Unfortunately, polls with such obvious questions like that will still be skewed in the results. Those who don't agree with the facts will google for the minority of articles (not their own personal experience) and will post reasons why they are less safe, or if there isn't compelling "evidence" easily found, they just won't post at all.

But, we all know this.

[oldno7]

You'd have to create a new thread to create a poll. The poll options are at the bottom of the new thread write up, and you'll get the selections once you post your message.

Unfortunately, polls with such obvious questions like that will still be skewed in the results. Those who don't agree with the facts will google for the minority of articles (not their own personal experience) and will post reasons why they are less safe, or if there isn't compelling "evidence" easily found, they just won't post at all.

But, we all know this.

Ahh, my fair-fro'd-friend, The poll would be on my second question, and there is a definitive answer.(backed by un-disputable facts)Not, conjecture.

Are you more likely to be a victim of a violent crime, now as opposed to 20 years ago??

[Brian in SLC]

Yes, during WWll a Japanese general warned that an invasion of the U.S. would result in their being shot at from "behind every blade of grass".

Not true. Was an Admiral, not a General (supposedly Admiral Yamamoto) but that quote has never been proven to have even the slightest schred of credibility. If you have a source, I'm sure historians would be happy to vet it for you.


In my opinion, all these people that refuse to own (or even touch) a firearm, yell and scream for them to be restricted from rational, capable people and sneer at the NRA are nothing more than weak, pathetic sheep. Victims, one and all. Go ahead, run in a zig zag pattern or cower under something with your fingers crossed, I reserve the right to shoot back.

I kinda put you in the same name calling catagory as my spittle dribbling liberal friends who call all NRA supporters cowards too.

Name calling doesn't really help support a rational arguement to a rational person. I guess I implied who your target audience might be...ha ha.

Which is why some of us are still here I suppose...heavy sigh...

[Brian in SLC]

"propoganda"

Switzerland - you said .52 - but actually a little higher at .7 but nonetheless:

Canada - 1.8
Germany - .8
Australia - 1.2

Your numbers might include suicides?

Suicide by firearm rates per 100,000 people has the Swiss at #4, beat only by the Finns, the U.S. and Montenegro. Interesting.

[Iceaxe]

Honestly I'm not currently a member of the NRA because I think they are a little over the top.... but... I'm thinking I should probably renew my membership just to have a voice that will be heard.

Sent using Tapatalk

[Brian in SLC]

Which makes me think...

If you look at deaths from firearms, and, you consider suicide as a component of that..."where's there's a will there's a way", it kinda points to mental health as an even bigger issue. Mass shootings could fit into that as well.

Just like you can't hug a child with nuclear arms (had to toss in a "liberal" phrase, ha ha), one wonders if some folks get a hug, would that prevent some firearm deaths? Oh, the horror!

Maybe our problem in the U.S. is really that we've become afraid of intimacy...and we insulate and distance ourselves with the blanket of comfort our Bill of Rights gives us...

Hey, I'm onto something! I'm gonna go hug a stranger....ha ha...

[oldno7]

And heres the level of campaigning the brady bunch has gone to.

[oldno7]

I can't actually believe they stoop this low, but I haven't seen them dispute it yet.

[oldno7]

I would beg to differ:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-12-28/news/36038472_1_chitwood-police-station-car-stereo

[Sombeech]

And heres the level of campaigning the brady bunch has gone to.

The gun carrying women's rights activists are soooo confused where to stand on that campaign

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[oldno7]

JFK on 2nd:


"... By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the 2nd amendment, will ever be a major danger to our Nation, the amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the 2nd Amendment will always be important."

[Iceaxe]

And heres the level of campaigning the brady bunch has gone to.

http://www.bogley.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=62469&stc=1&d=1357237128

So it's better to be raped than to shot the SOB trying to rape you?!?

I don't think so....

Anyhoo... that's what I took away from that message. Some people are just a waste of good air and the planet is a better place without them. YMMV

Sent using Tapatalk

[Brian in SLC]

Anyhoo... that's what I took away from that message. Some people are just a waste of good air and the planet is a better place without them. YMMV

What I took away from it was yet more propaganda that's not true. That poster did NOT come from the Brady Campaign.

Where the hell you guys did up this crap from, really? Its not just mildy offensive to spread lies like this. Ignorance and stupidity. Vet your sources!

When the truth isn't enough to support an arguement, search the 'net for any ol' thing I suppose.

[Iceaxe]

Yes... I understood the joke... I was just commenting on the picture/ad/whatever....


http://www.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2312.jpg

[Iceaxe]

Alright.... I'm outta this thread. If ya'll want my guns, come and get'em... I'll be handing them over bullets first.

One Man's nightmare is anther man's fantasy..... :2gun:

http://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/2011/7/29/eb0c089b-f583-4a47-8357-4a032432ffa6.jpg

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/042911NRA.jpg



http://losersbracket.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/chicks-guns-1.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1222/567651713_b8fc3fec45.jpg

[rockgremlin]

I'm utterly flabbergasted this thread is 15 pages and counting. Any bets on where it'll end?

I'm betting on pg. 28 or thereabouts...:deadhorse::rifle:


:assault::topes:

[Bootboy]

I would beg to differ:

http://articles.philly.com/2012-12-28/news/36038472_1_chitwood-police-station-car-stereo

Disgusting. I'd like to shoot each of them in the face personally.

[Byron]

Yeah, I'm done with this thread too...there just aren't enough sissies to make it interesting. :twisted:

[Sandstone Addiction]

A few simple phone calls from you can make a big difference (although an email is better)...


Help Stop the Federal Semi-Auto Gun Ban and Magazine Ban




All gun owners need to immediately contact their Congressmen and tell them specifically to:



Vote against any renewal of the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”


Vote against any renewal of the so-called “high capacity magazine” ban.


Vote against any new federal gun control.




Call and e-mail the entire Utah Congressional delegation. Their contact information is listed below.




The USSC does not ask for your help unless it is absolutely necessary. We do not bug you to contact legislators based upon every Internet rumor or anti-gun bill that has no chance of passing.


This time the threat is real, it is big, and it is likely to become law. The anti-gunners are exploiting the Newtown mass murder to pass a so-called “assault weapon” ban. This ban is not like the 1994 “assault weapon” ban; it is worse. The new bill being prepared by Dianne Feinstein lists over 100 guns by name and defines an assault weapon as basically any semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine.


To understand the anti-gunners logic consider the Glock 17. This gun, which was not banned in 1994, is functionally similar to the TEC-9 that was banned. The only difference between the two guns is the TEC-9 is scary looking because it has the appearance of a fully automatic machine gun, which it is not. The anti-gun fanatics are now arguing that since both guns are functionally similar both should be banned under the new bill.


The 1994 law banned scary looking semi-automatic guns, the new law will ban all semi-automatic guns that accept detachable magazines. That means everything from your 1911 to Ruger 10/22 and M1 Carbine will be labeled an assault weapon and banned.


This bill will require owners of existing weapons to register them with the ATF as if they were machine guns. This would entail a $200.00 registration fee per gun and other onerous requirements.


The bill being proposed would also label as “high capacity” all standard capacity magazines that hold over ten rounds. Such magazines would be banned.


Many pro-gun NRA “A” rated Senators such as Mark Warner of Virginia and Joe Manchin of West Virginia already appear to be wavering. In the House of Representatives over 122 Republicans are ready to sign on to the ban.


You can have a huge impact protecting your gun rights. All of Utah’s Congressional delegation has been solidly pro-gun but they will be coming under intense pressure from an electorate that watches Piers Morgan on CNN and believes that these modern sporting weapons are fully automatic machine guns designed to mow down children.


They need to hear from you as soon as possible. Send and e-mail and phone each legislator. Put their phone numbers in your cell phone contact list and call them once a week until the gun ban bill comes up for vote early next year. Pass along this e-mail to every gun owner you know.


Remember these gentlemen have all been solid gun supporters. Be polite and simply ask them to oppose the renewal of the assault weapons ban, the high capacity magazine ban, and any new federal gun control.


We do not have e-mail addresses for the Utah Congressional delegation but you can click on the links to go to their web page where you can e-mail them.


Note that Chris Stewart takes office on January 3rd, 2013 and does not yet have an office phone. The e-mail link is to his campaign web site. You can also post to his Facebook page.




Senator Orrin Hatch
202-224-5251
801-524-4380
E-mail form http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-orrin






Senator Mike Lee
202-224-5444
801-524-5933
E-mail form http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-senator-lee?p=contact




To find out what house district you live in go to: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/




1st Congressional District
Representative Rob Bishop
202-225-0453
E-mail form http://robbishop.house.gov/contact/zipauth.htm


2nd Congressional District
Representative Chris Stewart
http://www.chrisstewartforcongress.com/contact/




3rd Congressional District
Representative Jason Chaffetz
202-225-7751
801-851-2500
E-mail form https://chaffetz.house.gov/contact-me/email-me




4th Congressional District
Representative Jim Matheson
202-225-3011
801-486-1236
E-mail form https://mathesonforms.house.gov/contact-form









Utah Shooting Sports Council
PO Box 17561
Salt Lake City, UT 84117

[PunchKing]

I have used http://www.congress.org/news/ to contact my representatives both at the national and state level, top right of the page is a space to contact lawmakers. I assume that the message gets to them but since you rarely every see any feedback from an elected official I can't say it as definite.

[accadacca]

You are all pussies. :lol8:

[accadacca]

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/46442_10151228340321446_553348008_n.jpg?dl=1

[Sombeech]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CpVHg5pHyzI

[accadacca]

Jesse Ventura Pwned Piers Morgan in Gun Control Debate Live on CNN


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_FJSqYBLVE&sns=em

[Brian in SLC]

Hipster stat dude seems to be trying to re-direct the conversation away from homicide rates by firearms and instead on violent crime rates. A bit apples to oranges methinks.

Another stat not covered is mass shootings by firearms.

Not that his points aren't valid. But, with regard to the conversation about especially school shootings, it doesn't really address that issue.

I've not been to the UK, but, my bet is if you get in a scrap in a pub there, someone will be a victim of violent crime. Here? Chances are you'll be shot. Folks don't really duke it out much anymore. They get a gun. Societal differences.

[accadacca]

http://photos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/3876_10152378466095023_1471603661_n.jpg?dl=1

[hank moon]

Folks don't really duke it out much anymore. They get a gun. Societal differences.

Americans can't stand to "lose," ya know... :lol8:

[Sombeech]

Maybe Rob L can chime in on this one, but I've also been to a few British Pubs, not that this gives me any more right to make claims than google, but there can be some pretty nasty brawls. And a lot of the time it's not just 1 on 1. The pubs are more like community gathering places where most visitors know most of the others. So when a brawl breaks out, there is a tendency to involve 80% of the guests. And yes, guns occasionally make their appearance.

But here in the states there are MANY times where a gun is not involved in the bar fight. I would disagree with your point that chances are you'll be shot. It's still the small minority. How many guns have been fired inside the bar?

And from those statistics.... how many ASSAULT RIFLES have been fired inside the bar?

Isn't it interesting how the school shooting sparked the debate about how AR-15 rifles are so easily accessible, but it turns out that weapon wasn't used at all? And that has not slowed down the debate at all.

[Rob L]

Maybe @Rob L (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=17709) can chime in on this one, but I've also been to a few British Pubs, not that this gives me any more right to make claims than google, but there can be some pretty nasty brawls. </snip>

Well you must have been to ones that I don't frequent !!! All very genteel. Where were you?

[ratagonia]

Hipster stat dude seems to be trying to re-direct the conversation away from homicide rates by firearms and instead on violent crime rates. A bit apples to oranges methinks.

Another stat not covered is mass shootings by firearms.

Not that his points aren't valid. But, with regard to the conversation about especially school shootings, it doesn't really address that issue.

I've not been to the UK, but, my bet is if you get in a scrap in a pub there, someone will be a victim of violent crime. Here? Chances are you'll be shot. Folks don't really duke it out much anymore. They get a gun. Societal differences.

If anything, the takeaway from the UK comparison (for me) was that criminals are a lot less effective there.

Very difficult to compare "violent crimes" rate country to country, as small changes in how things are classified can make a big difference. But "murder" rates are more straightforward. Hipster Dude seems to ignore that UK murder rate is 1/4 of US murder rate. A lot of stuff in the USA ends up with death that in other countries ends up with a hospital visit. Not only bar fights, but domestic violence and suicides too.

T

[Iceaxe]

Easy enough to compare the US to the UK.... just use the official government numbers from both and not the propaganda numbers presented by both the pro and anti gun groups....

It's also easy enough to see where the money and effort to fix the problem should be spent....

This is one of those video's everyone should watch, no matter your current stance on gun control.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0

[ratagonia]

Easy enough to compare the US to the UK.... just use the official government numbers from both and not the propaganda numbers presented by both the pro and anti gun groups....

It's also easy enough to see where the money and effort to fix the problem should be spent....

This is one of those video's everyone should watch, no matter your current stance on gun control.



Dude.... :facepalm1:

Nice repost.

And no, you cannot directly compare UK and USA numbers, because they probably don't categorize crimes in exactly the same way...

uh oh, I'm reposting too...

T

[Iceaxe]

No one said it was an exact comparison... but its certainly apples to apples.... so the UK has somewhere between 3 to 4 times the US violent crime rate... how about we call that close enough for discussions.

And the UK comparison was only a small part of the video... care to comment on the rest?

Sent using Tapatalk

[double moo]

How many deaths in the UK last year due to violence related to soccer hooligans? How many in the US? It only makes sense that the predominant view in the US that soccer is for pussies is far better for public safety. Ban Soccer now before we become like them!

[2065toyota]

Is there really anybody that honestly believes that not allowing more than 10 round magazines will actually help. It pretty easy to change multiple magazines after each 10 shots when all the victims are hiding and trying to not get shot. And that's assuming the criminal is obeying the magazine law. Of course there are mass shootings at the schools when there are bright neon signs above the school letting everyone know there isn't anybody to defend them.

[Byron]

Is there really anybody that honestly believes that not allowing more than 10 round magazines will actually help. It pretty easy to change multiple magazines after each 10 shots when all the victims are hiding and trying to not get shot. And that's assuming the criminal is obeying the magazine law. Of course there are mass shootings at the schools when there are bright neon signs above the school letting everyone know there isn't anybody to defend them.I know, this whole argument by the "do something" crowd is ridiculous.

Did you hear about the woman in Georgia that shot a home intruder? She hid in a closet with her kids and a gun and let him have it in the face when he opened the door...6 rounds. What could have happened if she were unarmed?

The gun control crowd just doesn't understand that there is room for NO DEBATE with us on this...but they try so hard anyways. No grey zone to "compromise" in here, boys and girls.

[Iceaxe]

I know, this whole argument by the "do something" crowd is ridiculous.

I don't believe the "do something" argument is ridiculous.... its just most the proposals are ridiculous. It would be helpful if folks would actually educate themselves and not just believe all the propaganda and scare tactics being used by both sides.

I think most of us agree that better availablity to mental health care and proper enforcement of current laws would be a step forward.



Sent using Tapatalk

[Brian in SLC]

But here in the states there are MANY times where a gun is not involved in the bar fight. I would disagree with your point that chances are you'll be shot. It's still the small minority. How many guns have been fired inside the bar?

Google searches are fun...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evgpWTm_-rE

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/salt-lake-city-ut/T08D90RJMIS3NLTNO (http://www.topix.com/forum/city/salt-lake-city-ut/T08D90RJMIS3NLTNO)
http://www.kutv.com/news/features/national/stories/vid_1631.shtml (http://www.kutv.com/news/features/national/stories/vid_1631.shtml)
http://www.federalwaymirror.com/news/160545115.html (http://www.federalwaymirror.com/news/160545115.html)


And from those statistics.... how many ASSAULT RIFLES have been fired inside the bar?

http://www.tangilena.com/view/full_story/14386170/article-Tangipahoa-man-arrested-for-entering-bar-with-assault-rifle?instance=secondary_stories_left_column


Isn't it interesting how the school shooting sparked the debate about how AR-15 rifles are so easily accessible, but it turns out that weapon wasn't used at all? And that has not slowed down the debate at all.

You got a vetted source for that claim? I see whacky sources for it, but, nothing of substance.

This CNN story is from the 19th of December. Sources look pretty solid.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html

You're right, though, plenty of bar brawls sans firearms. Just seems like we hear about the local ones when they happen (that Green Street deal with the off duty cop sounded fugly...). Folks get butthurt, just seemed like they used to step outside and resort to fisticuffs. Instead they often head to the car or home to pick up the heat, and, return. Because they can I suppose. Times have seemed to change in that regard. Kids never took guns to school when I was a kid, and, when one pulled a knife in a fight, it made huge news (I remember two in the state of Montana when I was a kid...one across town at a rival high school, and, one in another city...funny...the stories made the rounds because they were so rare).

Anyhoo...I digress. What were we talkin' about again?

[Brian in SLC]

No one said it was an exact comparison... but its certainly apples to apples.... so the UK has somewhere between 3 to 4 times the US violent crime rate... how about we call that close enough for discussions.

And the UK comparison was only a small part of the video... care to comment on the rest?

Watched it again a couple of times. For me, its still apples to oranges.

He talks about the violent crime rate, and, admits the homicide rate is higher in the US. So, he's diluting the debate a bit by focusing on violent crime.

His other points about being able to focus in on exactly where violent crime occurs is interesting, but, not really part of the gun debate, IMHO, at least not specifically.

But, back to comparing the US to the UK. Yeah, they got 3X more violent crime per 100k than we do. Interesting. But...

US murder rate is 4.8/100k. UK is 1.2/100k.

US homicide by firearm rate is 3.2/100k (2009 numbers I think). UK rate is .03/100k. I'm gonna have to do some math here, but...uhh, we have 100X more homicides by firearms? Geez, how come hipster dude didn't mention that?

So, I have a 3X higher chance of gettin' my ass beat in the UK. I have 100 times more chance of gettin' whacked by a gun here.

In the gun debate, which rate has more traction in the arguement?

Sure, you can toss poverty, education, income, all kinds of fluff into the mix and look at data a ton of different ways. But, for me, homicides by firearm per 100k kinda tells me something more than rate of violent crime, which, could be granny hittin' me with her purse (or gettin' beat up with a pipe, etc). Such a wide range of violence out there.

Would I trade an uptick in violent crime, say, 3X for a 100X reduction in gun homicides? Dunno. Something to ponder. Is the fear of being a victim of violent crime enough to justify nearly 10,000 folks a year dying in homicides by firearms?

More to the specific issue du jour, though, mass shootings. If you kinda define it as intent and attempt, what are the rates of it, and, what weapons are used?

I know the media blows this stuff up, but, seems like when these whack jobs head out to slaughter a bunch of innocent folks, they find the firepower they need to do the job. I'm just thinking of the last few...Portland Mall, Colorado's two biggies, CT, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech. All military-esque high capacity fairly lethal items. Not some scoped huntin' rifle. Not a Ruger 10-22. Just seems in every case easy access to fairly lethal firepower. Is that ok? Acceptable? Worthy of debate? Introspection?

Crazy stuff.

[Iceaxe]

Also interesting that violent crimes and homicides have decreased by 50% in the US over the past 20 years.... looks like bar fights just ain't what they used to be.

Funny that both the pro and anti gun groups forget to mention you are 50% safer now than 20 years ago... but it doesn't play into either sides fear based campaigns.

The dude with the US vs UK statics does make the point that his analysis was just scratching the surface based on limited research... but his point that perhaps we are looking in the wrong areas about how to solve the problem is valid.

Any sane person that has even a basic knowledge of the problem has to admit that banning barrel shrouds and pistol grips is not a valid answer and nothing but a waste of time and money.

Sent using Tapatalk

[Sombeech]

Also interesting that violent crimes and homicides have decreased by 50% in the US over the past 20 years....
And that its going UP in the U.K.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Byron]

I think most of us agree that better availablity to mental health care and proper enforcement of current laws would be a step forward.



Sent using Tapatalkholmes isn't crazy, he's just a moron...do they have a background check for that? In the case of Lanza, he was getting mental health care from the wealthy mother he whacked...sorry Ice, you're beginning to sound like them.

Arm yourselves...that's it.

It seems that this argument, this "debate", this "compromise", this "do something" is just a battle of statistics. Hey you, 50% this! Oh yeah, 78% that! This thread is 30 plus pages and it's getting nowhere...just like the high shaking heads on T.V.

There's only one logical answer here...buy a gun and learn how to shoot it. "More mental health"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? What "existing gun laws" are being broken, or at least need to be beefed up? See Ice, they're starting to wear you down, man.

[accadacca]

http://cdn.firearmstalk.com/forums/attachments/f97/52680d1343472677-assault-weapons-ban-assault_weapon.jpg

[oldno7]

And that its going UP in the U.K.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

[oldno7]

Instead of talking about far away countries, lets talk about a Country we share a border with and how well gun control is working there.

http://www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/Boletines/Boletin/Comunicados/Especiales/2012/agosto/comunica29.pdf

[Iceaxe]

I don't think most people in this country understand how poor our mental health care is.... I have a basic understanding from my wife who is a paramedic. She tells me over half the calls she responds to daily are mental. Sit for 5 minutes with her coworkers and listen to their chatter and you will catch on to the problem real fast.

Harris and Klebold (Columbine), Cho (Virginia Tech) along with Lanza (Sandy Hooks) were all in the mental health system at one time before their shooting sprees, to bad they didn't get the help they needed.

Sent using Tapatalk

[2065toyota]

62658

[double moo]

"I know the media blows this stuff up, but, seems like when these whack jobs head out to slaughter a bunch of innocent folks, they find the firepower they need to do the job. I'm just thinking of the last few...Portland Mall, Colorado's two biggies, CT, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech. All military-esque high capacity fairly lethal items. Not some scoped huntin' rifle. Not a Ruger 10-22. Just seems in every case easy access to fairly lethal firepower. Is that ok? Acceptable? Worthy of debate? Introspection?" (Brian in SLC)

I read somewhere that the VA Tech shooter used 2 guns that would not be affected by the ban, and the third one had a mag cap of 16, which means he couldn't have had that magazine - but could have had the gun under the ban. Wiki here notes that one of them was a .22 - actually not as lethal as a Ruger 10-22 because with it you can't hit shit...



"Cho used two firearms during the attacks: a .22-caliber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_Long_Rifle) Walther P22 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_P22) semi-automatic handgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol) and a 9 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_mm_caliber) semi-automatic Glock 19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_pistol) handgun.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre#cite_note-roatimes_nomotive-13) The shootings occurred in separate incidents, with the first at West Ambler Johnston Hall, during which Cho killed two pupils, and the second at Norris Hall, where the other 31 deaths, including that of Cho himself, as well as all the nonlethal injuries, occurred."

And you kind of need to throw out Fort Hood - -wouldn't you expect a military guy, on a military base, to have military style firearms? And since he was acting in a terrorist capacity... at least he didn't use a suicide bomb - which would most likely have have far more casualties.

[oldno7]

Instead of talking about far away countries, lets talk about a Country we share a border with and how well gun control is working there.

http://www.inegi.org.mx/inegi/contenidos/espanol/prensa/Boletines/Boletin/Comunicados/Especiales/2012/agosto/comunica29.pdf

Come on----Mexico only has 1 gun store!!!!
They are likely the most gun prohibitive country in the World!!
Why don't we want to mirror their success in keeping guns out of the hands of citizens.
If we keep trying, surely we can be equally as safe as Mexico in 20 years.........

[oldno7]

I guess it could be argued, that despite stiff gun control, Mexicans can still easily obtain guns from obama and holder!

[Sandstone Addiction]

Biden: Obama prepared to take executive action on gun control

By Amie Parnes - 01/09/13 01:03 PM ET

President Obama will likely take executive action in an effort to tamp down the recent rash of gun violence, Vice President Biden said Wednesday.

[FONT=&amp]

[Iceaxe]

There is a group of people that are intent on doing "something". This group is charging full speed ahead with the intent of "helping" the situation. Many in this group are ignorant to firearms in general and only know what they see on TV and in movies. I suggest that it is the gun owners responsiblity to make sure this effort to help is channeled in a direction that will actually do some good.

I really don't know a gun owner that doesn't agree that firearms can be safer, that is why we have things like hunters safety and concealed carry classes. I'd suggest education is the place to start. Most of those screaming to ban guns the loudest actually have no practical experiance with a firearm. Many have never even fired a weapon.



:soapbox:

[Sombeech]

Google searches are fun...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evgpWTm_-rE


:haha:

So you found a video. If I find more videos of barfights without guns, do I win?

[Iceaxe]

:popcorn:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKCMkoqfVhE

[Sandstone Addiction]

"Guns Across America" rally at the State Capitol, Saturday, Jan. 19 at noon.

Here is our chance to be seen and heard.

I like his suggestion to wear best dress and bring your families.

http://www.guncontrolmorecrime.com/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUAfft7l4wQ

[oldno7]

How gun control SHOULD work!

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/dramatic-911-call-released-in-intruder-shooting/nTrLK/

I only wish she had a larger caliber and a larger magazine, so the criminal wouldn't waste our tax dollars on defending him and keeping the scum alive.

[Iceaxe]

KSL Replacement

Utah Gun Exchange
http://utahgunexchange.com/

This is the best one I've seen so far. I actually do all my buying and selling here:

Gun Broker
http://www.gunbroker.com/

But I have an FFL. You can also use the advanced search feature on Gun Broker and just search Utah (or anywhere else) listings.

[2065toyota]

62768

[PunchKing]

Hipster stat dude seems to be trying to re-direct the conversation away from homicide rates by firearms and instead on violent crime rates. A bit apples to oranges methinks.

Another stat not covered is mass shootings by firearms.

Not that his points aren't valid. But, with regard to the conversation about especially school shootings, it doesn't really address that issue.

I've not been to the UK, but, my bet is if you get in a scrap in a pub there, someone will be a victim of violent crime. Here? Chances are you'll be shot. Folks don't really duke it out much anymore. They get a gun. Societal differences.

Here is an interesting video. I suppose you could make the same apples oranges argument about it as well. The presenter does try to address some of that though.


http://youtu.be/N9efqhGBHZI

http://youtu.be/N9efqhGBHZI

[Iceaxe]

The NRA has add 100,000 new members in the past 27 days (since Sandy Hooks).

Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:


"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

[hank moon]

Is there really anybody that honestly believes that not allowing more than 10 round magazines will actually help.

I think it could help reduce the level of carnage in mass shootings, long AFTER the legal availability of such mags becomes low. That'll take time...lots of it. And yes, there will always be the black market. There is no quick fix.

Also, agree w/others who have said that education is key. As long as guns are a cultural fixture here, otta be compulsory education on their use, role and impact in society, history, etc. Not a cheap survey course, but continuing education, beginning in grade school and continuing through high school.

Speculation corner: W/O a ban, might any of the recent mass shooters sought a fully-auto weapon to achieve more deadly effect?

[Bluff-Canyoneer]

George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:


"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

You've been suckered by a bogus quote. Have a look at the Second Amendment Foundation website.
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm

[Iceaxe]

I think it could help reduce the level of carnage in mass shootings, long AFTER the legal availability of such mags becomes low. That'll take time...lots of it.

You need to let me take you shooting one of these days.... you will discover there is almost no difference between 30 shots fired with two 15 round mags or three 10 round mags.

The really interesting thing is when I hunt rabbits I actuslly prefer two 10 round mags. It allows me to always have a full mag in the gun and reload the second mag as I walk with bullets in my pocket.... I seldom shoot s mag empty, I just swap out mags between availability of targets. Shooting unarmed children at school has got to be easier than rabbits because they don't run nearly as fast.

A second tibbit.... when the M16 was first introduced into the military the soldiers would only load 10 bullets


Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

You've been suckered by a bogus quote. Have a look at the Second Amendment Foundation website.
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/general/BogusFounderQuotes.htm

Yep, you are correct. Apparently I didn't read Playboy in the 90's or I would have known that.:mrgreen:

[2065toyota]

Speculation corner: W/O a ban, might any of the recent mass shooters sought a fully-auto weapon to achieve more deadly effect?

The problem is too many of these decision are made off of speculations and opinions, without respect to logic and fact

[Brian in SLC]

Speculation corner: W/O a ban, might any of the recent mass shooters sought a fully-auto weapon to achieve more deadly effect?

Interesting info below:

http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_09.pdf

One might conclude, conject, speculate, whatever, and draw some conclusions about California, homicides, guns, and their ban based on some data. I haven't cojitated on it much...

Machine guns are tightly controlled. The only ones used in crimes are either stolen or are guns that have been illegally converted to full auto, methinks. Low low percentage.

Which, makes one wonder...if that's a reasonable model for "other" items...ha ha...

[oldno7]

Still haven't seen anyone argue the merits of Mexico's gun ban.

No need to speculate, numbers are published.

[Iceaxe]

Interesting info below:

Just looking at those stats quickly kinda proves how stupid some of the new proposed laws are... I notice that .223, the cartridge most associated with the AR-15 assault rifle was only used twice. While 22 rimfire, the cartridge most agree should be excluded from gun control was #2 on the list....

:roll:

[Brian in SLC]

Still haven't seen anyone argue the merits of Mexico's gun ban.
No need to speculate, numbers are published.

Mexico doesn't have a gun ban, per se?

Sounds really restricted though.

Huge amount of guns smuggled into Mexico across the border. I gots personal experience with this, being invited downtown to have a chat with our local ATF here in SLC...

They use AK's, M4's and grenade launchers to kill each other down there, illegally obtained of course.

You think a gob more guns and less restrictions on firearms would solve a bunch of the crime in Mexico? Can I ask what you're smoking, and, did it come from Mexico? Ha ha...

Their homicide rate by firearms per 100k is way higher than us (nearly triple). They got a whole mess a problems down yonder.

Just say no?

[hank moon]

You need to let me take you shooting one of these days.... you will discover there is almost no difference between 30 shots fired with two 15 round mags or three 10 round mags.

Thanks for the offer, Shane. I would love to go with you sometime - I've shot mostly pistols (Glock) and black powder rifles. Very little in the way of modern rifles. It might also be interesting to load up a bunch of rifles and practice walking/running around with them while trying to reload. Though there may be little difference in fire rate between 2 x 15 and 3 x 10, there is the logistics of managing multiple cumbersome weapons and/or mags that can slow things down for the shooter, especially one who is untrained in such maneuvers. Gives folks a chance to take him down while reloading.

Nice that the most recent shooter is still alive and perhaps not a "whacko" - might provide some insight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/taft-high-school-shooting_n_2449261.html

[Brian in SLC]

Just looking at those stats quickly kinda proves how stupid some of the new proposed laws are... I notice that .223, the cartridge most associated with the AR-15 assault rifle was only used twice. While 22 rimfire, the cartridge most agree should be excluded from gun control was #2 on the list....

Well...the take away point then would be that those CA gun laws are actually working. Right?

What do you think? Are the CA gun laws a model for the whole US? They lead the way on much it seems...ha ha!

Yep, sounds like their gun restrictions are actually working.

[PunchKing]

Well...the take away point then would be that those CA gun laws are actually working. Right?

What do you think? Are the CA gun laws a model for the whole US? They lead the way on much it seems...ha ha!

Yep, sounds like their gun restrictions are actually working.

I won't pretend to know California's gun laws but a quick google search said that they "banned assault weapons" in 1989 - 1990 timeframe and the data provided in your stats doesn't cover anything before 1999 so how could you ever deduce how effective the ban was? I don't have the numbers and I am sure if I would just GTS I could find them but I suspect California is one of our nations leaders in firearm homicide even with their ban...

[Brian in SLC]

Actually...this is fresher data and pretty interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

[Brian in SLC]

I won't pretend to know California's gun laws but a quick google search said that they "banned assault weapons" in 1989 - 1990 timeframe and the data provided in your stats doesn't cover anything before 1999 so how could you ever deduce how effective the ban was? I don't have the numbers and I am sure if I would just GTS I could find them but I suspect California is one of our nations leaders in firearm homicide even with their ban...

Oh, they are. Way way higher than Utah.

I bet data is out there. Goggle!

[PunchKing]

Actually...this is fresher data and pretty interesting:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

Why does the UK care so much about the US? Maybe they are still bitter... HA HA

Oh and there it was in with that data. It looks like Cali is number 1 with 1220 in 2011...

[oldno7]

Mexico doesn't have a gun ban, per se?

Sounds really restricted though.

Huge amount of guns smuggled into Mexico across the border. I gots personal experience with this, being invited downtown to have a chat with our local ATF here in SLC...

They use AK's, M4's and grenade launchers to kill each other down there, illegally obtained of course.

You think a gob more guns and less restrictions on firearms would solve a bunch of the crime in Mexico? Can I ask what you're smoking, and, did it come from Mexico? Ha ha...

Their homicide rate by firearms per 100k is way higher than us (nearly triple). They got a whole mess a problems down yonder.

Just say no?

Sounds like the results of disarming society.

And yes--I do think that if Mexican citizens were more frequently armed, they would be less likely to be victims.

And I don't smoke anything...but thanks for implying.

So would you say that there is no shortage of guns in Mexico, despite a ban?

Would you also say the vast majority of guns in Mexico are in the hands of criminals?

[Brian in SLC]

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns? Mexico's situation is brutal, especially the drug trade. The well armed border patrols and Mexico military haven't been able to deal...can't imagine.

I don't think the Mexico situation has to do with disarming the society. Its a full on drug war. Brutal.

Back to California, though. Their data is interesting. They seen a fairly steady decline in homicides over the last 10+ years, as has the U.S. Their decline in homicide has been fairly dramatic, though.

One of the years, 2008 or so, shows an interesting county by county breakdown of homicide. The highest rate took me by surprise. San Francisco. And, counties near the border with Mexico were lower than those above.

I can't really see data that shows their gun law changes made an impact (other than maybe the rate of decline of homicides), maybe there's a study out there.

[oldno7]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/California-gun-purchases-nearing-record-3739037.php

And this was pre-obama II
and Newtown

[oldno7]

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns? Mexico's situation is brutal, especially the drug trade. The well armed border patrols and Mexico military haven't been able to deal...can't imagine.

I don't think the Mexico situation has to do with disarming the society. Its a full on drug war. Brutal.




So Mexico's statistics are not relevent, but Australia and the UK are somehow?:ne_nau:

Sounds like listening to what you want to hear.......

[2065toyota]

And we also shouldn't always compare the AR15 that a standard citizen buys is the same gun that the military issues which is what is stated a lot. You can put a Lamborghini body on a Honda civic but that still doesn't make it a Lamborghini. I am still happy that we live in the US and can still have these discussions to hear opinions. I do believe we all new to be a little more open minded about how to deal with situation. There is usually choice A or B, but we really new to be looking at C or D

[oldno7]

Kinda like Wyoming's proposed legislation.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-bill-to-nullify-new-federal-gun-laws/article/2518133?custom_click=rss#.UPBTYG__pAG

[ratagonia]

Kinda like Wyoming's proposed legislation.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/wyoming-lawmakers-propose-bill-to-nullify-new-federal-gun-laws/article/2518133?custom_click=rss#.UPBTYG__pAG

Gun nut + Constitution nut = Civil War II - The Sagebrush Rebellion!

T

[Iceaxe]

Well...the take away point then would be that those CA gun laws are actually working. Right?

Actually you have it wrong... if you look at the .223 and 7.62x39 bullets and and make the reasonable assumption they were fired from an "assault rfle" (or at least a rifle)... they are over the rational average of 3.something percent.

And I only looked at the chart for about 2 minutes.... I'm sure we can both spend hours framing the stats to support whatever argument we care to make.

[Iceaxe]

Gun nut + Constitution nut = Civil War II - The Sagebrush Rebellion!

:roll: You call them nuts, I call them patriots...

FWIW: There are several states proposing similar laws.... South Carolina has a proposed law that any firearm or firearm accessory manufactured in the state is excluded from Federal law. Several other stares are discussing similar laws.

[oldno7]

Gun nut + Constitution nut = Civil War II - The Sagebrush Rebellion!

T

So where do you stand on the issue? Certainly your house in Mt. Carmel is surrounded by gun nuts.........

Do you have a sign in your front yard--"gun free zone"?:lol8:

[ratagonia]

So where do you stand on the issue? Certainly your house in Mt. Carmel is surrounded by gun nuts.........

Do you have a sign in your front yard--"gun free zone"?:lol8:

Why do you ask? Still feeling irate at me? Thinking about a 2nd Amendment solution?

Don't assume too much.

There are WAY more gun-owners in this country than there are gun nuts.

Tom

[ratagonia]

:roll: You call them nuts, I call them patriots...

FWIW: There are several states proposing similar laws.... South Carolina has a proposed law that any firearm or firearm accessory manufactured in the state is excluded from Federal law. Several other stares are discussing similar laws.

South Carolina tried that before.




It didn't go too well, for anyone. Well, except maybe the slaves, but it really did not go so well for them either.



Playing well to the gun-nut/Constitution-nut choir is one thing. Actually passing the laws is another. Being able to enforce the laws is an entirely different thing. The bills are based on a specific, popular (among some) interpretation of the Constitution, that is not supported by the jurisprudence. But heck, the gun-nuts changed the Second Amendment to a personal right (Heller v. D.C.) helped by careful and clever packing of the Supreme Court with Federalists, so I guess anything is possible. Wonder who President Palin will appoint to the Supreme Court - Wayne LaPierre?

Tom

[Iceaxe]

South Carolina tried that before.

Yeah... the good ol' days.... by the way... how is that War on Drugs going for the Feds? By my last count 18 states had told the Feds to do screw themselves with regards to Marijuana. When are the Yankee's going to march on the rebels?


Hell, if the Feds can't stop a bunch if high, peace loving, stoners, how are they ever doing to deal with armed patriots?

:popcorn:

[oldno7]

Why do you ask? Still feeling irate at me? Thinking about a 2nd Amendment solution?

Don't assume too much.

There are WAY more gun-owners in this country than there are gun nuts.

Tom

I've never been irate with you, you don't matter that much.:mrgreen:

And yes--I'm trying to see how you feel about your Presidents 2nd amendment solutions.(at this point proposed solutions)

I can spell them out if your not certain what they are.....

MY second Amendment solution is to leave it alone!


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Iceaxe]

I do believe we all [need] to be a little more open minded about how to deal with situation. There is usually choice A or B, but we really new to be looking at C or D


:2thumbs:


62784

[ratagonia]

I've never been irate with you, you don't matter that much.:mrgreen:

And yes--I'm trying to see how you feel about your Presidents 2nd amendment solutions.(at this point proposed solutions)

I can spell them out if your not certain what they are.....

MY second Amendment solution is to leave it alone!


"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Good to hear.

How is that Parowan Militia doin' these days? Lots of training out in the snow?

Tom

[oldno7]

Good to hear.

How is that Parowan Militia doin' these days? Lots of training out in the snow?

Tom

Ya know--thats a good question.

I'm not too sure how a Parowan militia would be doing, I'm not in the inner circle(church)

My guess, though, would be that Parowan would make an excellent Concord.

So--how do you feel about your presidents 2nd Amendment proposals?

1) ban semi-automatic guns
2) ban magazines(you guys call em clips)that hold over 10 rds
3) make it illegal to transfer any of these items, including from family member to member.

many more but these are a start.

[Brian in SLC]

So Mexico's statistics are not relevent, but Australia and the UK are somehow?:ne_nau:

Sounds like listening to what you want to hear.......

I think Mexico's stat's are relevent in their context, sure.

I try to be open minded about all this. I don't have a solution. What I try not to do, is, get swept up on propaganda on either side of the debate.

My bet is you're less open minded and more "listening to what you want to hear" than I am. By far.

But, most of us have a bunch of common ground. And the debate continues to be civil and reasonable. And, interesting.

[ratagonia]

And yes--I'm trying to see how you feel about your President's 2nd amendment solutions (at this point proposed solutions).



Since you asked ----

I am very pessimistic.

1. It is not clear that there is a possible solution here. The super-liberal (not me!) wet-dream of taking guns away from all the gun nuts is not viable because, as mentioned, not only would it not pass but it would be entirely unenforceable should anyone try to enforce it. All that would happen is a lot of people would get shot. It is not clear that this 'solution' is proposed by anyone other than the NRA/Gun Lobby as a strawman argument, but it does seem to work for them - to the tune of 2 to 10 billion dollars, depending on how you score it.

2. Writing gun laws is very tricky, as the previous 'Assault Weapon Ban' showed. Heck you can convert your AR-15 to full auto legally in 49 states (all except Cal.)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72USc0hXFcU

3. I think what we'll end up with is some window-dressing changes. Banning manufacturing of magazines > 10 shots. And some more - I don't know, I think they are mostly foolish and easily got around.

4. Might end up with some reasonable changes. Unlikely. MY pragmatic-liberal wet dream list is:
4A. Cut the gun-show loophole: require all sales of guns, gun parts and ammunition to be to qualified individuals. Notice this would make individual sales of firearms illegal - but they could certainly be arranged through a Federal Firearms Dealer like Mr. Ice. Notice that this does not shut down gun shows, it just means people who want to buy at the show would have to pass a background check when going in.
4B. make the background check system better
4C. remove the legal exemption of the firearm industry from liability concerns (this is a 1-10 billion dollar/year subsidy to the gun industry).

I doubt any of these steps-in-the-right-direction will pass Congress. Indications are that these items would be amendable to about 80% of Americans, basically everyone but the gun nuts (ie, by definition, anyone who does not think these are reasonable is a gun nut, of course :facepalm1:), including the majority of the 55% of Americans who own guns.

Our liberal wet-dream (or, at least mine) is a society that is naturally rather low on guns, but I see no path to get to there from where we are now. Doing a few things to make it harder for the mentally ill, felons and kids (without adult supervision) to get firearms would be 'good'. But really, the effect of these items would be very small.

In other words, it's hopeless.

IF the original question for this thread was 'can we have a reasonable discussion about guns in our society?', the Bogleyites have clearly demonstrated that the answer to that is a resounding "NO!!!". (that was not the original question). I think nationally, the answer is also no, because the same type of discussion has occurred on the national level.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Ya know--thats a good question.

I'm not too sure how a Parowan militia would be doing, I'm not in the inner circle(church)



Yeah, I was thinking that... The Sons of Dan prolly wouldn't want Gentiles like you and me.

T

[PunchKing]

So I have a question about some of the stuff I have heard about "universal background checks". Would passing legislation on this essentially put an end to all private sells of firearms? I have an opinion but would like to hear if others have different thoughts.

For all of those that think there is a "gun show loophole", I suspect you have never been to a gun show. The vast majority of vendors at gun shows perform background checks. The only way that it wouldn't be performed is if there was a private sale between two people, likely not involving one of the vendors at the show at all.

[oldno7]

. Heck you can convert your AR-15 to full auto legally in 49 states (all except Cal.)



WOW, I was not aware of this, can you explain?

[Brian in SLC]

And we also shouldn't always compare the AR15 that a standard citizen buys is the same gun that the military issues which is what is stated a lot. You can put a Lamborghini body on a Honda civic but that still doesn't make it a Lamborghini.

Hmm. Colt M4 versus the Colt LE6920. Differences?

Selectfire for the M4. 14.5 inch barrel for the M4.

They're made on the same production line and have most of the same parts. All parts are interchangeable. They use the same magazines made by the same vendor. They both have a cutout for an M203 grenade launcher. They both have a bayonet lug. Same upper. Same stock. Etc etc etc.

A fun set of charts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_variants

The Colt M4 and the LE6920 are both Lamborghinis. One is a Aventador the other is a Diablo.

[oldno7]

So I have a question about some of the stuff I have heard about "universal background checks". Would passing legislation on this essentially put an end to all private sells of firearms? I have an opinion but would like to hear if others have different thoughts.

For all of those that think there is a "gun show loophole", I suspect you have never been to a gun show. The vast majority of vendors at gun shows perform background checks. The only way that it wouldn't be performed is if there was a private sale between two people, likely not involving one of the vendors at the show at all.

The "gun show loophole" is not based on gun show purchases, as you stated, it is already law, that all gun show vendors do background checks at shows on gun purchases.

The "gun show loophole" is only to Ban private sale or transfer.

This is a fancy liberal way of telling you, we'll take your guns but, it's going to take a generation.(ban through attrition)

[Brian in SLC]

So I have a question about some of the stuff I have heard about "universal background checks". Would passing legislation on this essentially put an end to all private sells of firearms? I have an opinion but would like to hear if others have different thoughts.

For all of those that think there is a "gun show loophole", I suspect you have never been to a gun show. The vast majority of vendors at gun shows perform background checks. The only way that it wouldn't be performed is if there was a private sale between two people, likely not involving one of the vendors at the show at all.

Wouldn't put an end to private sales, but, would probably have to go through someone with an FFL.

I think the "loophole" is private sales. Colorado I think closed "the gunshow loophole" specifically I seem to dimly recall.

Really, what it boils down to is registration I'm guessing.

[oldno7]

My bet is you're less open minded and more "listening to what you want to hear" than I am. By far.



You got me there!! I'm pretty un-flexible when it comes to those who would try to take away a Guaranteed Constitutional Right.

Wouldn't it be weird if they banned computers and cell phones?

It's just words, whats the difference between one Amendment and the other?

[PunchKing]

Really, what it boils down to is registration I'm guessing.

That is my opinion as well. I think it is an elaborate way of forcing every firearm sales to be tracked. As I understand it FFL are required to keep records of all sales for something like 20 years. Now the gun is not registered exactly but presumably if someone were dedicated enough they could track a serial number back through all the owners. The other potentially beauty (my conspiracy theory, take it for what it is worth) of this is that now they could institute some fee that the FFL would have to charge to perform this service to further discourage private sales. Similar to what they have done with machine guns and silencers/suppressors... just now for all firearms.

[oldno7]

Wouldn't put an end to private sales, but, would probably have to go through someone with an FFL.

I think the "loophole" is private sales. Colorado I think closed "the gunshow loophole" specifically I seem to dimly recall.

Really, what it boils down to is registration I'm guessing.

This is true--except in the proposed bans on Semi-Automatic guns(not just Ar's)

They would require registration and confiscation upon death.

[Iceaxe]

So I have a question about some of the stuff I have heard about "universal background checks"....... "gun show loophole"..........

This is a really good question for the less informed playing along at home.... :2thumbs:

The "Universal Background Check" is designed to make sure firearms are only sold to those that can legally own them (and NOT sale to felons, drug addicts, wife beaters, crazies).

As the law stands right now (gun show loophole), a private citizen can sell a gun to you (anther private citizen) without a background check. This also creates an unregistered firearm.

Calling the situation "the gun show loophole" is really a poor name as it doesn't really identify the problem. Anyone with an FFL that sales a gun has to run a background check (it's part of your license requirements), which is why they usually run a background check on you at the gun show. Nearly everyone that has a booth at the gun show also has an FFL. The problem (from the Feds point of view) is firearms transferred between private parties become untraceable.

Now from the gun owners view the problem is different.... the first thing any country that has confiscated firearms in the past has done is require firearms to be registered. It is ALWAYS the first building block. It only makes sense to learn where the guns are first so you know where to confiscate them from. This is why a lot of people will only buy guns from private sellers, they don't want the Feds knowing what guns they have as it's hard to confiscate what they don't know about.

I don't think the "Universal Background Check" would be an issue if gun owners were not worried that the Feds will one day attempt to confiscate their firearms. And folks like that dumbass Feinstein are just tossing gas and hand granades on the fire with their arm waving politics. In theory the "Universal Background Check" is probably a good idea, but so long as people like Feinstein are in office their is not a chance in hell folks will voluntarily register their un-register firearms.

[Brian in SLC]

And...my bet is, if it ever does come to registration, that a bunch of FFL holders and keepers of the records would magically loose those records...but who knows?

[Brian in SLC]

You got me there!! I'm pretty un-flexible when it comes to those who would try to take away a Guaranteed Constitutional Right.

Wouldn't it be weird if they banned computers and cell phones?

It's just words, whats the difference between one Amendment and the other?

There's been an enormous amount of debate on the interpretation of the amendments. Just on the 1st alone...the whole, "am I allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater" arguement.

And folks go on ad naseum what they all really mean, and, federalist papers this, and Jefferson said that, and Washington said this, oops, not really.

They'll propose legislation, some states will fight it, it'll crawl through the legal system until the Supreme Court decides whether its legit or not. Seems to be how it goes.

Still folks doin' the interpretations.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Still are raging, emotional and hotly contested interpretations to the amendments.

Do as I say not as I do...ha ha.

[oldno7]

Didn't DC vs. Heller clear up some of the second Amendment "stuff"?

And I would say that decision is one heart attack from reversal at this time in history.

But on the other hand, no one has been able to reverse roe v. wade despite many attempts.

[Iceaxe]

Tom, you have a couple of errors or mis-understandings in what you posted. But I believe you could obtain about 90% of what you desire by just closing the "gun show loophole". No reason to fight the other 50 battles.... closing the "gun show loophole" would basically force all law-abiding citizens to follow the rules and laws already in effect to holders of an FFL.

>> make the background check system better

The system is actually really good, except for the fact that private sales are excluded (the gun show loophole).


>>Heck you can convert your AR-15 to full auto legally in 49 states (all except Cal.)

Not legally you can't. I believe full auto sears have been illegal the past 25 years (without a class 3 licence). Your video is just an engineering solution to fire a semi-auto faster. By diffinition it is not full-auto (and full auto has not been an issue since the days of prohibition). A class 3 licence is pretty strict. Engineers will always continue to engineer....


>>require all sales of guns, gun parts and ammunition to be to qualified individuals.

Actually you don't need to ban all of the items mentioned. The laws currently covering gun sales are probably suffiecent if it were not for the "gun show loophole". Anyone can sell "gun parts", you just have to exclude the "action" from the list of parts, which is how the law is currently written for FFL holders transferring guns and parts.


>>remove the legal exemption of the firearm industry from liability concerns (this is a 1-10 billion dollar/year subsidy to the gun industry).

That's an extremely slippery slope to head down as it would also open the door on a multitude of other things Like holding the auto manufacteurs responsible for drunk driving deathes. Or holding Stanley Tools responsible for all hammer death's. I believe that is an impossible law to write.


>>IF the original question for this thread was 'can we have a reasonable discussion about guns in our society?', the Bogleyites have clearly demonstrated that the answer to that is a resounding "NO!!!".

Funny... I've found the thread extremely enlightening and it has forced me to reexamine a few of my original thoughts. I hope more feel like me then like you. Or I at least hope others have followed the thread with an open mine.


:cool2:

[oldno7]

On a slightly side note:

On Shanes recommend I just started reading Columbine. These 2 boys only motivation was to exceed timothy mcvee's death count.

The FBI investigator, speculated if the 2 boys initial bombs would have went off, the initial blast would have killed 6-800 kids, then these murderers

set up outside the best 2 escape routes with semi-automatic pistols(purchased illegally by another)to kill any survivors that would be fleeing.

Their bombs did not work so they just went in and started shooting.

I guess I'm just pointing out, the potential for bad people to kill others is unlimited.

This was a dark moment in history but could have been much worse.

[Iceaxe]

They'll propose legislation, some states will fight it, it'll crawl through the legal system until the Supreme Court decides whether its legit or not. Seems to be how it goes.

Brian, you are a little behind on this one. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

With the recent Supreme Court decision the 2nd amendment is crystal clear. You would probably have to change the 2nd amendment to mix things up and that would be a tall order (unless Tom is right that 80% agree with his way of thinking. In that case it should be a snap).

:popcorn:

[Brian in SLC]

>>IF the original question for this thread was 'can we have a reasonable discussion about guns in our society?', the Bogleyites have clearly demonstrated that the answer to that is a resounding "NO!!!".

Funny... I've found the thread extremely enlightening and it has forced me to reexamine a few of my original thoughts. I hope more feel like me then like you. Or I at least hope others have followed the thread with an open mine.

Yeah, I'd disagree with Tom on this too. Has been civil and enlightening. Stimulating and educational.

And...reasonable.

[oldno7]

>>remove the legal exemption of the firearm industry from liability concerns (this is a 1-10 billion dollar/year subsidy to the gun industry).

That's an extremely slippery slope to head down as it would also open the door on a multitude of other things Like holding the auto manufacteurs responsible for drunk driving deathes. Or holding Stanley Tools responsible for all hammer death's. I believe that is an impossible law to write.





:cool2:
So can we presume, Tom, that you would also favor such legislation in sales of "outdoor" gear, such as climbing gear, camping gear, ski's, snowshoes, etc. etc.?:ne_nau:

[PunchKing]

Now from the gun owners view the problem is different.... the first thing any country that has confiscated firearms in the past has done is require firearms to be registered. It is ALWAYS the first building block. It only makes sense to learn where the guns are first so you know where to confiscate them from. This is why a lot of people will only buy guns from private sellers, they don't want the Feds knowing what guns they have as it's hard to confiscate what they don't know about.

I don't think the "Universal Background Check" would be an issue if gun owners were not worried that the Feds will one day attempt to confiscate their firearms.

As far as I know, at least currently, FFL dealers don't provide their transactions to the Fed but I suppose could be required to provide such information in a court of law or on request or something. I don't know all the requirements to be an FFL dealer.

I have never worried about my guns being "registered" but I can see why some would. If I were going to sell a firearm, I would require the person provide a concealed carry permit because I think it is the responsible thing to do. As far as registration, to my knowledge, there is no database out their that someone could look at and see how many guns I have or any details. It would be a manual process of them going to each dealer I have purchased from.

[Iceaxe]

set up outside the best 2 escape routes with semi-automatic pistols(purchased illegally by another)to kill any survivors that would be fleeing.

While the pistols were orginally sold legally to anther, the transfers to Harris and Keibold were illegal (both were underage). The guy that made the illegal sale (transfer) really takes a major beating in the end. He will be in prison a very long time.

[oldno7]

While the pistols were orginally sold legally to anther, the transfers to Harris and Keibold were illegal (both were underage). The guy that made the illegal sale (transfer) really takes a major beating in the end. He will be in prison a very long time.

Oh--GREAT, now you've ruined the ending for me.......:haha:

[Iceaxe]

If I were going to sell a firearm, I would require the person provide a concealed carry permit because I think it is the responsible thing to do.

For Utah Residents (your state might be different), and I don't even want to talk about CA as I refuse to ship firearms to that state...

Under Federal law, you may not sell a firearm to a person who is not a resident of Utah in a private party transaction (meaning without a Federal Firearms License). While not required, it is HIGHLY recommended that you conduct the transaction with a bill of sale (click here for a printable one (http://utahgunexchange.com/drop/billofsale.pdf)) that includes the make, model, serial number and caliber of the firearm you sell or buy. Be sure to verify that the person buying or selling the firearm is a Utah resident with valid identification.

I keep a record of all my personal gun transfers... who I bought them from... and who I sold them to...

I don't worry about my guns being registered... so many have passed through my hands over the years I'm sure I'll be the first stop when they start confiscating them...

:cool2:

[Iceaxe]

So can we presume, Tom, that you would also favor such legislation in sales of "outdoor" gear, such as climbing gear, camping gear, ski's, snowshoes, etc. etc.?:ne_nau:


:lol8: :lol8: :lol8:

I thinking Tom might want to file this in the "careful what you wish for" catagory.


:popcorn:

[ratagonia]

>>remove the legal exemption of the firearm industry from liability concerns (this is a 1-10 billion dollar/year subsidy to the gun industry).

That's an extremely slippery slope to head down as it would also open the door on a multitude of other things Like holding the auto manufactures responsible for drunk driving deaths. Or holding Stanley Tools responsible for all hammer death's. I believe that is an impossible law to write.



This is a specific exemption for the firearms industry ONLY.

All you have to do is repeal the current law, and the firearms industry would be on the same footing as other industries in the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Lawful_Commerce_in_Arms_Act

It is unclear what would be the result of this, if anything. The thrust that it parried was by State AGs who were interested in pursuing manufacturers for their (lax) distribution businesses, which was (claimed: deliberately) ineffective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

From a liberal point of view, manufacturers would be prodded toward being more responsible corporate citizens. (It is not clear that this would be in any way effective at impacting any of the problems in question).

Tom

[ratagonia]

So can we presume, Tom, that you would also favor such legislation in sales of "outdoor" gear, such as climbing gear, camping gear, ski's, snowshoes, etc. etc.?:ne_nau:

As noted in a previous post, the only gear covered under the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
are firearms.

Tom

[ratagonia]

>>Heck you can convert your AR-15 to full auto legally in 49 states (all except Cal.)

Not legally you can't. I believe full auto sears have been illegal the past 25 years (without a class 3 licence). Your video is just an engineering solution to fire a semi-auto faster. By definition it is not full-auto (and full auto has not been an issue since the days of prohibition). A class 3 licence is pretty strict. Engineers will always continue to engineer....



Did you watch the video?

Yes, it is TECHNICALLY not full-auto, which is why it is legal in 49 states.

But, you pull the trigger, and it fires until you decide to stop. Functionally Full-Auto. What, you don't have one yet?

Although, clearly, you have to hold it in a special way, so you can't really spray from the hip, like a REAL full-auto.

The California Law is more effective, because it recognizes this as functionally full-auto, and therefore bans it.

Tom

[oldno7]

As noted in a previous post, the only gear covered under the
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act


are firearms.

Tom

But I know of more deaths(personally) by ropes, than guns over the last 10 years.

I'm thinking there may not be enough regulation in ropes and folks are getting killed by mis-use.

Perhaps there is a common denominator in brand of ropes that folks are dying with, these should be regulated more than the "safer" ropes.

But as an overall percentage of deaths vs. safe use, the numbers are way to high.

We can't condone this, as a "safe society" any longer.

There needs to be change.......

[Brian in SLC]

We can't condone this, as a "safe society" any longer.

Tort reform!

[oldno7]

Tort reform!

Is that what you do with a soft taco shell before you put meat in it?:haha:

[Iceaxe]

Did you watch the video?

Yes, I've seen the video....

Now let's examine it rationally... no marksmen would ever consider such a weapon. There is no way you could hold a reasonable point of aim with the weapon jumping around like that. Also maintenance on the weapon in a combat situation would be atrocious.

This is what "gun-nuts" call spray and pray (spray a lot of bullets and pray you hit something).

Remember.... people that actually shoot to hit something are worried about their breathing upsetting the flight of the bullet. If you believe someone can hit a target with that piston jumping around on their shoulder you have never been to a firing range.

The guy in the video would probably be better served using a shotgun. It's a point and shoot weapon that can be very lethal at close range.

And for the record.... if you can figure out a way to write that system to be classified as a class 3 weapon, I'd have no problem with that (just my humble opinion). Also the weapon system is a extremely rare example.

And why are you so concerned with full-auto? in the giant picture they are a drop in the ocean. Outside of the movies when was the last time a full-auto was a problem?

This is a major part of the problem, you have folks wanting to make laws when they really don't understand what they are talking about. This is like someone suggesting traffic laws that has never driven a car. This is why we get bans on things like pistol grips, barrel shrouds and standard capacity magazines.

[Iceaxe]

This is a specific exemption for the firearms industry ONLY.

All you have to do is repeal the current law, and the firearms industry would be on the same footing as other industries in the USA.


:roll: Here we go again.... it would be nice if you understood a little gun history or did a little of your own research first...

A one point in time (2000?) it became popular for lawyers to file lawsuits going after firearms manufacturers anytime a firearm was involved. Suddenly the court system was jammed with thousands of different cases. The law was passed because it instantly cleaned up thousands of different cases with one shot (ha ha).

Eventually this deal went as far as the supreme court and it was decided that you could not hold a tool (which is what a firearm is) responsible for doing what the tool was design to do.

So bottom line, the law was passed to clean up the court system. With the court decisions that followed you could repeal the law and it would have no effect.

Anyhoo... that's kinda the readers digest condensed version. The anti-gun establishment likes to point to the law as some type of secret gun conspiracy but it wasn't anything nearly so grand.

:popcorn:

[Sandstone Addiction]

Back a few pages ago, I posted an article about Obama using his executive powers to bypass congress and the senate by creating an executive order. The gun grabbers in the media are all excited about it.

Am I the only one concerned about this?

[PunchKing]

Back a few pages ago, I posted an article about Obama using his executive powers to bypass congress and the senate by creating an executive order. The gun grabbers in the media are all excited about it.

Am I the only one concerned about this?

Maybe I am just uninformed but when I heard this I essentially thought, "You can't make a law with executive orders." Am I wrong? Maybe I should be concerned but I just don't think he office is capable of pushing changes to firearm laws down everyone's throat.

[Iceaxe]

Am I the only one concerned about this?

Hard to comment until we know what the executive power is used for.... but we have a checks and balance system in this country for a reason.

The president can't use his executive power and declare himself emperor or declare a firearm illegal. And going up against the 2nd amemndment is a difficult road no matter what path you take. The Prez will also be going up against the Supreme Court in addition to congress if he attackes the right of those legally entilted to own a firearm.


They intend to use Obama’s executive power to make incremental changes that won’t require congressional approval, such as making it harder for people who are mentally ill to purchase guns and strengthening background checks for gun purchases.

Most (all?) legal gun owners have no problem with keeping guns out of the hands of those that should not legally have them... which is what I see the executive power being used for. I wish the Prez all the luck in the world in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.

:2thumbs:

[Iceaxe]

Something positive the president could probably do with is executive power is force all states to submit their mental health records into the national firearms background check system. Currently only half the states make their mental health records available for inclusion in a firearms background check.

Sent using Tapatalk

[2065toyota]

The Colt M4 and the LE6920 are both Lamborghinis. One is a Aventador the other is a Diablo.

Thanks for helping confirm my point that there are differences

Lamborghini Diablo VT 6.0
550 hp/457 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 3.4 seconds
Quarter mile: 11.8 seconds @ 120.9 mph


Lamborghini Aventador (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=b6iZyotCOr4zjkacwqm_6l&u=MotortrendMag) LP700-4 691 hp/509 lb-ft
0-60 mph: 2.8 seconds
Quarter mile: 10.6 seconds @ 133.9 mph

[oldno7]

Back a few pages ago, I posted an article about Obama using his executive powers to bypass congress and the senate by creating an executive order. The gun grabbers in the media are all excited about it.

Am I the only one concerned about this?

Dave

Abuse of EO(which some could argue is un constitutional)by undermining the Constitution, would certainly be viewed as an act of Treason/Tryanny.

The second Amendment was written for just this reason.

barry zero is power drunk, he's pissed that he knows he cannot get congressional support on banning any guns.

There is NO way that issuing an EO in the way of banning any guns and eroding the Constitution, will be taken well.

It's being talked about a lot--heres Ron Pauls Stance:

Meanwhile, former Congressman and GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, who has millions of ardent supporters across America, suggested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WeliGPmcPM) to radio host Alex Jones that “executive orders” purporting to ban guns may well spark a second American revolution. Jones himself made similar remarks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7Lzz4EKGBg) in a heated interview this week on CNN as well, saying an assault on gun rights would lead to another revolution, drawing praise from his legions of followers but controversy in some conservative and libertarian circles.

During the interview, Ron Paul pointed out the hypocrisy of trying to infringe on the rights of Americans due to the actions of a murderer even as the Obama administration continues killing children all over the world using drones (http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/item/14136-forget-due-process-15-dead-in-pakistan-in-us-drone-attack). "It should go without saying that he's gone way too far. It also should go without saying that he's acting with the use of illegal violence, and he becomes the violent person," Rep. Paul explained. "These are dictatorial moves; they are very, very dangerous.”

Still, he did not believe Americans were likely to relinquish their firearms anytime soon. "I don't think the American people will [turn in their semi-automatic guns],” the doctor-turned lawmaker from Texas continued. “I've always assumed that the line in the sand may well be drawn if the federal agent marches in unannounced and they say, 'give me your gun and give me your gold.' I don't think they'll be able to do that calmly. I think the American people will highly resent it and resist."

[oldno7]

Another read:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/10/presidential-gun-ban-executive-unconstitutional

[oldno7]

If the Us, truly thinks that the 2nd Amendment needs to be altered or abolished, the ONLY way to do it is through Article 5!! End of story!!

[oldno7]

Early 1900's, Military style assault weapon. Sure glad no one wanted to ban these.

http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/smallarms/p/Us-Military-Colt-M1911-Pistol.htm

[oldno7]

If your going to lie--at least remember your past!:facepalm1:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DKuN2ey80&amp;feature=player_embedded#!

[Byron]

Elections matter, ladies and gentlemen.

[PunchKing]

If your going to lie--at least remember your past!:facepalm1:

Not that I like or support the senator in any capacity. I am pretty sure that last part of the video is taken out of context. She would have collected all the assault weapons if she could. I have watched the whole video uncut and I am pretty sure she was only talking about assault weapons. I tried real quick to search youtube but couldn't find any version of the video that someone hadn't cut down. Sorry.

[ratagonia]

Not that I like or support the senator in any capacity. I am pretty sure that last part of the video is taken out of context. She would have collected all the assault weapons if she could. I have watched the whole video uncut and I am pretty sure she was only talking about assault weapons. I tried real quick to search youtube but couldn't find any version of the video that someone hadn't cut down. Sorry.

No reason to introduce reality into this debate...

:moses:

[Iceaxe]

Real enough.... what's an assault weapon?

Fienstien's latest "Assaut weapons" bill includes ALL sem-automatic firearm's and all firearm's with detachable magazines.... that covers about 80% of all firearm's in existance.

Anyone that believe's she is not gunning for all firearms is a fool.

Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

No reason to introduce reality into this debate...

:moses:

It's as REAL as anything in your life ever will be.

[Iceaxe]

If the anti gun crowd wants to make any progress their first order of business should be to remove Fienstien as the face of the movement.... she is a one woman episode of the Keystone Cops.

I might not agree with everything the NRA says, buy they have some outstanding and well informed spokesmen. Every question tossed their way they have an intelligent reply.

Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

The Cato Institute's thoughts:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk&amp;feature=youtube_gdata_player

[oldno7]

Got a new business proposal.

A small group of guys went to a gun buy back in NM at a police station.

They offered a few dollars more per gun than the cops were allowed.

On this day they purchased 21 guns at an average of $140 per gun and they got some treasures.

Now thats what I call the land of opportunity.....:2thumbs:

[Iceaxe]

I already considered this... if there is a $50 (what was offered in AZ) gun buy back anywhere near me I'll be there offering more.

If anyone was serious about traveling to the next buy back I'd be really interested in creating a partnership. I have the ability to bankroll the project, provide instant expertise on what to offer for each firearm... but most important.... I have the ability through my FFL to turn the guns around by selling them on the firearm eBay (gunbroker.com). My only real concern is I'm sure every other FFL holder has the same idea.

Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

I'm carrying:lol8:

Very good interview.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDvwObwZk&amp;feature=youtu.be

[Iceaxe]

:lol8:

Anther anti gun spokesperson that is uninformed and poorly prepared with actual facts.

It's pretty bad when you get completely blown off your own show.

Sent using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

Speaking of brilliant engineering solutions to firearm restrictions....

http://i.minus.com/jcdTfaciMDIDU.jpg

[oldno7]

Speaking of brilliant engineering solutions to firearm restrictions....

http://i.minus.com/jcdTfaciMDIDU.jpg

:lol8::lol8:It needs a drum magazine......

I have a roofing nail gun with a drum magazine

And everyone knows these couldn't shoot through 2x4's at 200yds until they came out with the 24volt model.

[oldno7]

Heres 2 other guns that are on the "LIST"

[Iceaxe]

Any other questions?

Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

Once again--Well thought out and accurate!!
Something that is COMPLETELY lacking on the liberals side.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o7YgiTFm4&amp;feature=youtu.be

[oldno7]

And--heres a democrat Senator from Connecticut, he wants to ban "teflon coated bullets"

Yes--TEFLON COATED BULLETS!!!

TEFLON COATING HAS NO CHARACTERISTIC THAT WOULD MAKE IT PIERCE ARMOR-NONE!!

The only thing that can make a bullet pierce armor--is the internal components used to produce bullets.

TEFLON COATING:facepalm1:

Would it also become illegal to spray your bullets with Pam to keep them from penetrating armor??(man, I hope they don't figure this one out)

So--heres his bill:crazy:




For more information, contact our office at (202) 224-2823
http://blumenthal.senate.gov/ammunition-background-check-act-of-2013
Bill Summary: Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013
This month, Senator Blumenthal will introduce legislation to require instant background checks on sales of ammunition.
Under current law, it is illegal to sell both firearms and ammunition to certain groups, including,
 felons
 fugitives
 drug addicts
 people deemed “mentally defective” by a court, or committed to a mental institution
 persons under a protective order for, or convicted of, domestic abuse
But under current law, firearms and ammunition are not treated the same way. If a felon walks into a store licensed to sell firearms and tries to buy a gun, the store will run an instant background check of an FBI database (National Instant Background Check System, or NICS), and the purchase will be denied. By contrast, if a felon walks into the same store to buy ammunition, he can load up an entire shopping cart with ammunition, pay up, and walk out, no questions asked. The store is not required to run an instant background check for ammo purchases. In fact, the store couldn't run a background check even if it wanted to – because the FBI database is only available for firearms purchases, not for ammo.
Background checks have worked in many cases to keep firearms from falling into the wrong hands.
 According to the FBI, over the last decade, more than 100 million background checks have been run on firearms purchases.
 The vast majority of checks took about 30 seconds. Approximately 700,000 people under the law were prohibited from purchasing guns – including felons, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill.
The Ammunition Background Check Act of 2013 would require that every buyer of ammunition would undergo an instant background check under the FBI’s National Instant Background Check System (NICS).
 Federally licensed gun dealers could simply use their existing system to run checks on purchasers of ammunition (either electronically or by telephone).
 Sellers of ammunition who are not federal licensees can continue to sell simply by conducting a background check through an existing licensee or by getting a federal license.
In addition to requiring background checks, the legislation would reestablish recordkeeping and reporting requirements on ammunition sales. Prior to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act, sellers of ammunition had to track their inventory and keep records of their customers.
 The Ammunition Background Check Act restores these requirements so that law enforcement can ensure that sellers are complying with the law and can use seller records to solve gun crimes.
 The Act also requires sellers of ammunition to report to law enforcement when a purchaser buys more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or when a large quantity of ammunition is stolen.
Finally, the bill bans Teflon-coated bullets and incendiary ammunition. The current federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition exempts certain kinds of Teflon-coated bullets, as well as incendiary ammunition designed to ignite or explode on contact. Both of these kinds of ammunition can defeat body armor, and pose a grave danger to law enforcement. They should be banned.

[oldno7]

This proposed democrat legislation has the potential to drive up plumbing costs.

Wait till Merica learns teflon penetrates steel.

[oldno7]

blumenthal went to:

Harvard
Yale
Cambridge

2 out of 3 Ivy's
Go education:crazy:

[oldno7]

Rumors I'm hearing, are that barry zero's EO is to be about banning AR parts and magazines.

[oldno7]

Another "gun nut" according to some.........

Man, I wish these "gun nuts" could make a calm,reasoned,common sense argument just once.....




http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/13/walter-williams-americans-misunderstand-the-point-of-the-second-amendment/#ooid=lwdWliODoZWCNKUiQ9G7nbZFEBvY_80D

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/13/walter-williams-americans-misunderstand-the-point-of-the-second-amendment/#ooid=lwdWliODoZWCNKUiQ9G7nbZFEBvY_80D


And then on the liberal talking points, jesse jackson points out AR15's are a homeland security threat, they can bring down planes with these things.

http://nation.foxnews.com/jesse-jackson/2013/01/14/jesse-jackson-assault-weapons-are-threat-homeland-security?intcmp=fly

[James_B_Wads2000]

Wow what a thread! Been trying to catch up on it over the last couple days. The whole gun debate is a huge can of worms. This thread shows how hard it is to have a discussion about gun violence without booth sides becoming completely deaf to the other sides arguments.

My two cents:
These violent massacres are a manifestation of some serious problems in this country. Guns being the most visible and therefore easiest part to blame. A comprehensive approach to these problems should be used leaving nothing "off the table", including changes to gun laws.




James

[Iceaxe]

Alright.... I made my decision.... there is no way in hell I'm voluntarily surrendering any of my rights granted to me in the Bill of Rights.

To back it up I sent a big ass check off to the NRA this morning as they seem like the organization most intent on protecting the 2nd amendment.

I've given this a lot of thought and my conclusion is law abiding civilians have a right to be armed equally with their local police force. My reasoning is based on the fact that you as a private citizen face the exact same criminal element as your local police. Police do not carry firearms to protect you, they carry firearms to protect themselves. If it is good enough for my local police force it is good enough for me. FWIW: My local police force carries AR15's and semi auto handguns with 17 rounds in the magazine.

[Sombeech]

This thread shows how hard it is to have a discussion about gun violence without booth sides becoming completely deaf to the other sides arguments.


I was under the impression this thread remained fairly civil, replying directly to opposing views.

[oldno7]

Download and print your mags:2thumbs:

Seems these gun guys in Merica can't be stopped.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=q10Jz2qIog8

[oldno7]

And of course, confiscation could never happen in the USA.

How many libs here have uttered these very words.

Some of us know better.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tta1qhQZWSE&amp;feature=youtu.be

[James_B_Wads2000]

I was under the impression this thread remained fairly civil, replying directly to opposing views.

Yes this thread has been very civil (except when you told me I was fat). My point was that both sides are so deep in there opposing views that It doesn't appear to be much wiggle room. :(



James

[oldno7]

Video not working

[oldno7]

I hope Some Utah representatives have this much backbone.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=HA3jwOFjHhw

[oldno7]

Yes this thread has been very civil (except when you told me I was fat). My point was that both sides are so deep in there opposing views that It doesn't appear to be much wiggle room. :(



James

I have lots of wiggle room---right here, right now--I'll give up teflon coated bullets.....There, Wiggled

[oldno7]

Starting to look like some folks don't like to be dictated to.


"Rep. Steve Stockman (R-Texas) is threatening to file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he moves to change gun regulations through executive order.
“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said.
In a statement, Stockman didn’t hold back, saying Obama is launching an “attack on the very founding principles of this republic.”
“The President’s actions are an existential threat to this nation,” Stockman said in a statement. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms is what has kept this nation free and secure for over 200 years. The very purpose of the Second Amendment is to stop the government from disallowing people the means to defend themselves against tyranny. Any proposal to abuse executive power and infringe upon gun rights must be repelled with the stiffest legislative force possible.”

[oldno7]

I'm thinking maybe if Anonymous would shut down barry zero's daughters, i phones and i pads, he wouldn't have so much time on his hands for tyranny.

hell hath no furry like 2 teenage daughters, unable to text!!!:mrgreen:

[Iceaxe]

I have lots of wiggle room---right here, right now--I'll give up teflon coated bullets.....There, Wiggled

I agree with giving up Teflon bullets.... and to improve the deal I'm also willing to toss those pop up shoulder thingy's into the mix....

Sent using Tapatalk

[Sombeech]

Yes this thread has been very civil (except when you told me I was fat). My point was that both sides are so deep in there opposing views that It doesn't appear to be much wiggle room. :(



James

Is there a single solution offered by the gun control crowd that would reduce violence in any way? No sane person wants violence, no matter what side of the fence they are on. But the usual conclusion from a gun control supporter is "Well I don't know but something has to change" after all of their ideas have been walked through in a logical manner.

[Byron]

And of course, confiscation could never happen in the USA.

How many libs here have uttered these very words.

Some of us know better.
There you have it...the thing to do is always deny that you have a firearm. If you see these guys coming, hide them and play dumb. It's too bad that it can come to that, but in this situation you have to lay low...especially with some jacked up meat head with a badge just itching to blow someone's head off.

I hate to say it, but I think most cops and military would follow the confiscation orders gleefully. That sucks.

[double moo]

I hate to say it, but I think most cops and military would follow the confiscation orders gleefully. That sucks.

I disagree... it may be niave, but I believe that our police officers and the military were both sworn to protect the citizens and the uphold the constitution. I don't believe they were sworn to follow the president's wishes. In fact the constitution outlines the means through the president should be removed from office for not following the constitution...

SLC's police chief refused to follow the state law regarding immigration, feeling it was not in the best interest of the public he is sworn to serve. The state backed down... Surely there are plenty of good men like these out there who will set the example and tone for those lacking backbone.

[Iceaxe]

Things could get real interesting.... the pro gun congressmen are starting to line up.... and they appear to have the numbers...


Sent using Tapatalk

[oldno7]

Heres a Utah response:

"Thank you for contacting me regarding your Second Amendment rights. This is a crucial issue and I appreciate the time you took to express your thoughts.

Recent and saddening acts of violence, such as those in Newtown and Aurora, have brought guns to national attention. These acts of violence, as terrible as they are, should not be used as justification to revoke rights outlined in the United States Constitution.

Senator Dianne Feinstein has pledged to introduce an extensive ban on semiautomatic weapons. I am strongly opposed to such a bill. I am convinced that gun control measures will do nothing to prevent tragedies like that at Newtown, and will likely only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

[COLOR=#000000][FONT=tahoma]In June 2010, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in McDonald v. Chicago that the right to

[Iceaxe]

Heres a Utah response:

Just curious where the response came from? I wrote all three of my congressmen last week and have not recieved a response to date.

[oldno7]

Just curious where the response came from? I wrote all three of my congressmen last week and have not recieved a response to date.

This response was to another Utah gun owner, not me.

To date I've sent out dozens of e-mails and continue to do so.

[PunchKing]

Interesting article, not sure how much fact there is but gives a bit of an idea of at least a fews perception of what that Obama administration is planning. http://news.yahoo.com/obama-weighing-executive-action-guns-082740829--politics.html


WASHINGTON (AP) — Facing powerful opposition to sweeping gun regulations, President Barack Obama is weighing 19 steps he could take through executive action alone, congressional officials said. But the scope of such measures is limited.The steps could include ordering stricter action against people who lie on gun sale background checks, seeking to ensure more complete records in the federal background check database, striking limits on federal research into gun use, ordering tougher penalties against gun trafficking, and giving schools flexibility to use grant money to improve safety.
Obama will unveil his proposals Wednesday, barely over a month since the massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., thrust the gun issue into the national spotlight after years of inaction by Obama and lawmakers.
The White House said Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will be joined at Wednesday's announcement by children who wrote the president letters after the Newtown shooting. Supportive lawmakers and advocacy groups are also expected to attend.
Obama is vowing not to back off his support for sweeping gun legislation that would require congressional backing — including banning assault weapons, limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and instituting universal background checks — despite opposition from the influential gun lobby.
"Will all of them get through this Congress? I don't know," Obama said at a news conference Monday.
"My starting point is not to worry about the politics," he said. "My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works."
The president said he would unveil a comprehensive roadmap for curbing gun violence within days. His plan will be based on recommendations from Biden's gun task force and is expected to include both legislative proposals and steps Obama can implement by himself, using his presidential powers.
White House officials believe moving swiftly on gun proposals at a national level, before the shock over the Newtown shooting fades, gives Obama the best chance to get his proposals through Congress.
Officials said Obama and Biden met Monday afternoon to discuss the vice president's recommendations. Ahead of that meeting, Biden huddled with a dozen House Democrats who have formed their own gun violence task force and whose political muscle will be needed to push legislation through Congress.
Biden told those lawmakers that he and his staff had identified 19 steps Obama could take without help from Congress, according to Jenny Werwa, communications director to Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., one of those present. Biden didn't indicate which of those Obama would adopt.
Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., another lawmaker at the meeting, said one example is working to ensure better state reporting of mental health and other records that go into the federal background check database. But Scott said there are clear limits to what Obama can do without Congress' say-so.
"It wasn't anything remarkable, it was just administering present law better," Scott said. "You can't change the law through executive order."
Among other steps, advocacy groups have been pushing Obama to order the Justice Department to crack down on those who lie on background checks; only a tiny number are now prosecuted. Such a step has support from the National Rifle Association, which has consistently argued that existing laws must be enforced before new ones are considered.
Obama also could take steps ordering federal agencies to make more data on gun crimes available and conduct more research on the issue, something Republican congressional majorities have limited through language in budget bills, advocates said.
The president's proposals are also expected to include steps for improving school safety and mental health care, as well as recommendations for addressing violence in entertainment and video games.
"You'll have a combination of gun safety, mental health and general prevention," Scott said.
Another Democratic lawmaker who met with Biden on Monday said the vice president was likely to have given Obama proposals for allowing schools flexibility in spending federal grant money so they could take steps toward safety, including hiring school resource officers, instituting mental health intervention or making repairs like putting locks on doors. Grants could also go to communities to institute programs to get guns away from people who shouldn't have them, said the lawmaker, adding these were steps the president could take without Congress.
The lawmaker spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposals hadn't been announced publicly.
But the most sweeping and contentious elements — including an assault weapons ban — will require approval from Congress. The NRA has vowed to fight any measure that would limit access to guns and ammunition, a hardline position that could sway some Republicans and conservative Democrats.
The assault weapons ban, which Obama has long supported, is expected to face the toughest road on Capitol Hill. Congress passed a 10-year ban on the high-grade, military-style weapons in 1994, but supporters didn't have the votes to renew it once it expired.
Obama will also need congressional help to limit high-capacity ammunition magazines, like the ones used by the Newtown shooter, and to require background checks for anyone seeking to purchase a gun. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said some 40 percent of gun sales happen with no background checks, such as at gun shows and by private sellers over the Internet or through classified ads.
Parents of the slain Connecticut children added their voices to the national dialogue Monday. Members of the newly formed group Sandy Hook Promise called for an open-minded discussion about a range of issues, including guns. And lawmakers in New York state pressed ahead with what would be the nation's first gun control measure approved since the school shootings.
___
AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this report.

[Iceaxe]

I don't think we have a lot to worry about with our Utah congressmen. They all know it would be political suicide to vote with the gun-control crowd, but it's still good to remind them of the fact in an email or letter.

:2thumbs:

[oldno7]

I don't think we have a lot to worry about with our Utah congressmen. They all know it would be political suicide to vote with the gun-control crowd, but it's still good to remind them of the fact in an email or letter.

:2thumbs:

Matheson is a concern!!
Keep e-mailing, they can't hear too much from constituents.

[Brian in SLC]

Matheson is a concern!!

Nah, not our Jim. NRA gave him more money than any other member in Congress from Utah.

SALT LAKE CITY — Members of Utah's congressional delegation are taking a wait-and-see attitude to President Barack Obama's call for new gun control policies.
Spurred by the tragic elementary school shooting in Connecticut, the president vowed Wednesday to send Congress measures for reducing gun violence by January. Obama put Vice President Joe Biden in charge of an interagency task force to create concrete proposals and pledged to push them through without delay.
Obama also supports reinstatement of a ban on assault weapons, a policy Utahns in Congress oppose.
"I hope they are successful in coming up with solutions to the challenges we face, rather than using it to pursue an anti-gun agenda or to further limit the rights of law-abiding citizens," Sen. Mike Lee said.
Obama said he knows it is a complex issue with deeply held passions and political divides.
"I will use all the power of this office to help advance efforts aimed at preventing more tragedies like this," he said. "It won't be easy, but that can't be an excuse not to try."
A little more than half — 51 percent — of the members of the new Congress that convenes next month have received funds from the National Rifle Association's political action committee at some point in their political careers, according to the Sunlight Foundation.
And 47 percent received money from the NRA in the most recent race in which they ran, including Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch ($5,000) and Lee ($2,500), Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson ($6,950) and GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz ($1,500).
Matheson was the sixth highest recipient in the House and tops among Democrats in 2012. Rep. Rob Bishop and Congressman-elect Chris Stewart, both Republicans, did not receive NRA donations in 2012.
"The numbers give insight into the depth and breadth of support that the nation's most powerful gun lobby commands," according to the Sunlight Foundation, a nonpartisan organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes government transparency.
"They also highlight the primary obstacle to quick action on gun control in response to last week’s massacre in Newton, Conn. — deep and long-lasting allegiances to the National Rifle Association," according to the foundation.
Matheson said the Biden-led panel should cast a wide net for ideas, and solutions must be deliberate and comprehensive.
"This is a highly emotional set of circumstances for all of us. Somehow, we also have to take a step above that and really be thoughtful about what could be an effective set of policies," he said.
Obama said the country needs to "look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts."
Matheson said he might reintroduce a bill that enforces the age rating on video games at the point of sale.
"We don't allow people to buy cigarettes until they're a certain age. There are plenty of rules in place were ID is checked for age. That's just one of many ideas. That's not going to solve it on its own," he said.
As for a ban on assault weapons, Matheson said it didn't reduce gun violence in the country while it was in place. But if it's an issue people want to raise, it ought to be on the table for discussion.
The president said the proposals would not be just about weapons.
"We need to work on making sure access to mental health care is at least as easy as access to a gun," Obama said.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz said earlier this week that the mental health aspect needs to be dealt with.
"I think we absolutely should talk about the intersection of a lethal weapon and (how) it relates to mental health," he said on ABC's "This Week." "Absolutely we've got to have that discussion in this country."
On Wednesday, Chaffetz said he's looking forward to what the task force comes up with.
"It will be interesting to see what the recommendations are," he said.
A spokesman for Sen. Orrin Hatch said the senator shares the desire to try and prevent future tragedies.
"As for the specifics of the task force announced by the president (Wednesday), it will depend on what recommendations are sent to Congress," Matthew Harakal said.
Hatch has not supported a ban on assault weapons in the past, he said.

[oldno7]

Thanks, Brian

All the more reason to keep writing.imho

[oldno7]

Heres a passage out of the new--New York gun ban.

So, I see now, in New York, The State can tell you what personal property you can keep.

And if they deem you can't keep it, they can require you to sell it,OUT of STATE.

I foresee sooo much court action in the next couple of years that it will bog down the system.

Or--we can just accept tyranny and move on........

As the non qualified attorney, I am not. I would think the Supreme courts DC vs. Heller would factor in large in the New York City Legislation.

Something along the lines of--small arms in "common" use.



"Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/15/bill-called-toughest-gun-control-package-in-nation-passed-by-new-york-state/#ixzz2I5JB9ngH

[Iceaxe]

Heres a passage out of the new--New York gun ban.

I don't think it's going to fly.... the city of Chicago already tried to go a similar route and lost.

In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 US 3025 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

[Byron]

I disagree... it may be niave, but I believe that our police officers and the military were both sworn to protect the citizens and the uphold the constitution. I don't believe they were sworn to follow the president's wishes. In fact the constitution outlines the means through the president should be removed from office for not following the constitution...

SLC's police chief refused to follow the state law regarding immigration, feeling it was not in the best interest of the public he is sworn to serve. The state backed down... Surely there are plenty of good men like these out there who will set the example and tone for those lacking backbone.Did you watch the Katrina video Oldno posted up? I'd likely think along the same lines as you, but after watching that I'm really not so sure.

In regards to the Prez being removed from office, remember that it would have to be an act of Congress...fat chance of that with Reid calling the shots in the Senate. Obama can act with virtual impunity, and he knows it.

Personally, I'll just cross my fingers and hope a natural disaster doesn't occur anywhere in my vicinity...because it appears they won't allow you to ride it out at home with a weapon to defend your property, at the very least. And that was when Bushiepoo was the man.

That video only confirms what I've always suspected...they'll be able to find plenty of cops or Nation Guard ready and willing to play "army man" Being able to throw their weight around with the normal rules and regs on pause is just too much fun.

[James_B_Wads2000]

Once again--Well thought out and accurate!!
Something that is COMPLETELY lacking on the liberals side.





http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/

[oldno7]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/10/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-to-start-killing-people-over-obamas-gun-control/

Hey--His name is James, too

He is a mere drop in the bucket.

Suffice it to say--he may be more reasoned than most.

You should read some of the Veteran's sites.

[Bootboy]

I'm carrying:lol8:

Very good interview.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDvwObwZk&amp;feature=youtu.be

I still can't get over this interview. I gives me tremendous vindication and satisfaction about being on the correct side of this whole debate, but also frustrates the hell out of me because it shows us what we're up against.

That guy got BLASTED off his own show. A shellacking of the highest order! Hahaha! LMAO! I've never seen a guest destroy a host so bad on their own show. Not for while anyway. He said he didn't think he'd shoot anyone but I'll bet he was fuming with rage after the show. I would have loved to see him in his dressing room, throwing shit and cursing, punching holes in walls and breaking his hand... Haha!

[jfeiro]

Deleted..

[jfeiro]

[URL potential new gun laws. Cole said it took him a month to craft the response. The letter outlines his contention that the Second Amendment on the right to bear arms is “fundamental to our individual freedoms and that firearms are part of life in our country.”

“We have been inundated,” Cole said of questions about gun laws since the Newtown, Conn., massacre in December.

Pine County Commissioner Doug Carlson said he wasn’t surprised to hear about Cole’s stand, calling the sheriff “opinionated.”

“Here’s a sheriff riding cowboy saying he’s going to do what he’s going to do,” Carlson said.

“Is he going to put us on a county level in a liable position?” Carlson asked, about local law enforcement versus the federal government. “If he can do that, where does that put us as a county board?”

But Commissioner Mitch Pangerl said he agrees with the sheriff.

“We’re still the state of Minnesota,” he said. He said that if the state legislative process comes up with a new law, it should be followed. But he’s wary of crossing the Second Amendment, even though he knows he doesn’t have much say as a County Board member.

“I will protect those rights,” Pangerl said.

A ban on assault weapons would be the biggest change for Minnesotans. Right now, a purchase permit is required for handguns and assault weapons. Those permit applications can go through a retailer or a local police office for background checks. In most of Pine County, the only place to go to is the sheriff’s office.

Cole said Tuesday he’s simply providing reassurance to his constituents.

“They’re afraid,” Cole said. “When they’re afraid, you can’t reason with that.”

Cole wrote that states’ rights should supersede any attempts by an individual or the federal government to curb gun rights. The letter states that he will not accept any legislation from the federal government or any one individual, hinting at the notion that President Obama could approve some gun law changes by executive order.

“We enforce state law,” Cole said.

In the letter, Cole states: “I believe current state law is sufficient to protect public safety.”

He goes on to write: “I do not believe the federal government or any individual in the federal government has the right to dictate to the states, counties or municipalities any mandate, regulation or administrative rule that violates the United States Constitution or its various amendments.”

The Minnesota Sheriff’s Association doesn’t have an opinion on new gun legislation, its executive director, Jim Franklin, said. He hadn’t seen Cole’s letter and said he couldn’t comment.

Cole isn’t alone among sheriffs across the nation. In recent days, sheriffs in Oregon, Georgia, Arizona and Kentucky have taken similar stances.

Cole said he wrote the letter for his constituents and it’s his opinion alone.

“I don’t care what other sheriffs agree with,” he said.

[jfeiro]

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/255814/
Here's the link to the above story.

[oldno7]

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/255814/
Here's the link to the above story.

Thanks--There are many sheriffs, saying the same thing.

I received a letter from my State Senator, his comment was " I am very confident that there are enough of us in the Utah legislature that will be willing to protect our gun rights"

Theres a reason the liberals are trying to fast track this, every minute that passes, our side is gaining momentum and buying more guns.

[Sombeech]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4KvZxxtYJw&amp;feature=player_embedded&amp;safe=a ctive

[rockgremlin]

Things are about to get real...







...scary.

There is so much emotion tied to this issue that it could invoke a real shit-storm. Who knows....another Newton? Dare I mention that A - word that JFK was well acquainted with? :scared:

[Eric Holden]

Things are about to get real...







...scary.

There is so much emotion tied to this issue that it could invoke a real shit-storm. Who knows....another Newton? Dare I mention that A - word that JFK was well acquainted with? :scared:

The Secret Service is knocking on your door now...........

[accadacca]

Biden seemed to be having a hard time keeping a straight face...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el9sKw9rr2U&amp;feature=share&amp;list=UU52X5wxOL_ s5yw0dQk7NtgA

[rockgremlin]

The Secret Service is knocking on your door now...........



I was referring to Apache helicopters......haven't you seen JFK?

What were you referring to?

[oldno7]

I know no one will be surprised here, but I truly like the new NRA add, along with the FACT it has pissed zero off!

All the while he's dancing on the graves of dead children to fast track an agenda.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=saHyMxVjceE

[Iceaxe]

NRA RESPONSE TO OBAMA GUN CONTROL PROPOSALS

01/16/2013
Throughout its history, the National Rifle Association has led efforts to promote safety and responsible gun ownership. Keeping our children and society safe remains our top priority.

The NRA will continue to focus on keeping our children safe and securing our schools, fixing our broken mental health system, and prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law. We look forward to working with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to find real solutions to protecting America's most valuable asset - our children.

Attacking firearms and ignoring children is not a solution to the crisis we face as a nation. Only honest, law-abiding gun owners will be affected and our children will remain vulnerable to the inevitability of more tragedy.

[Iceaxe]

Ruger just made it simple to write your representatives. It takes only a couple of minutes. Here is the link:

http://www.ruger.com/micros/advocacy/takeAction.html

:2gun:

[ratagonia]

Thought y'all might enjoy this - about the origin of the 2nd Amendment.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35By Thom Hartmann (http://truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/44701), Truthout (http://truth-out.org/) | News Analysis


[*=center]

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.



more... follow link above.

[Iceaxe]

about the origin of the 2nd Amendment.
I disagree with Hartmann's interpretation... but that is of little significance.... The reasons and origins of the Second Amendment are not the issue....

The second Amendment says we have a right to firearms as indivduals. The Supreme Court has defined that right..... everything else is secondary...

Our President, Congress and Military have all sworn an oath to protect and uphold the Constitition. Attempting to undermine the Constitution is treasonous. As an American citizen you should defend the Constitition.

If you don't agree with the Constitution then change it. The Constition has a provision so it can be modified as the citizen's see fit.

:flag:

[oldno7]

Thought y'all might enjoy this - about the origin of the 2nd Amendment.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Tuesday, 15 January 2013 09:35By Thom Hartmann (http://truth-out.org/author/itemlist/user/44701), Truthout (http://truth-out.org/) | News Analysis
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.



more... follow link above.

So by your flawed logic, and it is flawed,
Your claiming slave patrol militias were the American side of Lexington and Concord:crazycobasa:

thom hartman is a propagandist. How convenient he just came up with this "theory" YESTERDAY!!! See--the date 1-15-13--PROPAGANDA

And yes--I know you can point me to wikipedia and prove there was such a beast as slave patrols, you CANNOT link them with minutemen militias in any way.

Yes--there was more than one group of people that claimed the militia monikor, not much different today.

[accadacca]

Sorry if this is a repost... :ne_nau:

62852

[James_B_Wads2000]

There is no right in the Constitution that is absolute, all of them have limits. You can't yell fire for fun in a crowded theater and call it freedom of speech. Convicted felons can't vote. You can't commit crimes under the protection of your religion. Prisoners can be put into forced labor.

And guess what? Congress can regulate guns. It can't flat out ban all of them, but it most certainly can enact laws restricting them. No conditional provision needed.



James

[oldno7]

And guess what? Congress can regulate guns. It can't flat out ban all of them, but it most certainly can enact laws restricting them. No conditional provision needed.



James

O.K.--could you point me to that passage in the constitution, I'm thinking I just overlooked it somewhere in the complicated wording of the second Amendment.

[oldno7]

I think I was pre mature, sorry James

Congress can legislate guns as well as the President.

It's just that neither can do it lawfully and in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

It has a tendency to lead to challenges in the Supreme court, such as McDonald and Heller

[ratagonia]

Sorry if this is a repost... :ne_nau:



Don't know if it is a repost, but it IS a BOGUS Quote. The actual quote is:

A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress (http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=324) (January 8, 1790)

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

(which is very much a pro-gun site)

Tom

[ratagonia]

I think I was pre mature, sorry James

Congress can legislate guns as well as the President.

It's just that neither can do it lawfully and in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

It has a tendency to lead to challenges in the Supreme court, such as McDonald and Heller

Even with a disagreement on the meaning of the second amendment (which the SCOTUS has had very few cases about); Congress with the president can pass laws that are unconstitutional. It is not ILLEGAL for them to do so. Depending on the law and who cares about it, it takes a while to wind its way through the courts to a challenge before the Supremes, and they can strike it down and use the opportunity to clarify what is and is not allowable under the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Constitution.

This is what happened in Heller.

So... there is a process. Please don't pick up your Bushmaster's and start shooting people, YET!

It is currently very unclear as to where the 2nd Amendment limits are. Governments are allowed to manage guns to some extent. What we know is that restrictions like Heller are not allowed. (Heller was pretty extreme, even for a lib like me). We do not know whether Mr. Cuomo's proposed laws in New York will pass muster with the Supremes; or more accurately, which parts will pass muster. Very unpredictable, based on 2nd Amendment prior jurisprudence. And could change with one heart attack.

Jus' sayin'...

:moses:

[Sombeech]

And guess what? Congress can regulate guns. It can't flat out ban all of them, but it most certainly can enact laws restricting them. No conditional provision needed.



James

Guess what, it already does! People just want more without admitting a hoard of regulations already exist.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[oldno7]

Even with a disagreement on the meaning of the second amendment (which the SCOTUS has had very few cases about); Congress with the president can pass laws that are unconstitutional. It is not ILLEGAL for them to do so. Depending on the law and who cares about it, it takes a while to wind its way through the courts to a challenge before the Supremes, and they can strike it down and use the opportunity to clarify what is and is not allowable under the Supreme Court's current interpretation of the Constitution.

This is what happened in Heller.

So... there is a process. Please don't pick up your Bushmaster's and start shooting people, YET!

It is currently very unclear as to where the 2nd Amendment limits are. Governments are allowed to manage guns to some extent. What we know is that restrictions like Heller are not allowed. (Heller was pretty extreme, even for a lib like me). We do not know whether Mr. Cuomo's proposed laws in New York will pass muster with the Supremes; or more accurately, which parts will pass muster. Very unpredictable, based on 2nd Amendment prior jurisprudence. And could change with one heart attack.

Jus' sayin'...

:moses:

Since you have quoted(unintentionally) most of my prior made points on SCOTUS, thanks, glad your following along.:2thumbs:

You made a slight though, but I'm sure unintentional on your behalf. I never mentioned congress or the president passing unconstitutional law as "ILLEGAL", as you suggest in bold print. I stated it was unlawful. BIG difference!!

So tell me tom, Why do you, as the owner of imlay canyon gear, fear lawful gun owners?

Have you been attacked in Mt. Carmel by armed madmen? Have you been accosted by armed groups passing through the Zion tunnel?

Seriously, why do YOU fear an individuals right to own a gun?

[oldno7]

So... there is a process. Please don't pick up your Bushmaster's and start shooting people, YET!





:moses:
Bushmaster??? I heard those things are dangerous, I would never consider.

Besides--doncha know, guns don't kill people, static ropes do!!!!

[accadacca]

I think this may have been posted earlier...I just had a chance to watch it. It is long, but damn interesting if you've been following this thread. :popcorn:


http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8

[hank moon]

i did not watch the entire video. I watched a few of the alleged "damning" segments, such as Robbie Parker [08:40] supposedly "getting in to character" before giving his statement. The video (what I saw of it - about 5 min) is loaded w/speculation and very little fact. Seems a bid by the author for his 15MOF, nothing more.

Next up: proof that the video was actually produced by the NRA.

http://gawker.com/5976204/behind-the-sandy-hook-truther-conspiracy-video-that-five-million-people-have-watched-in-one-week (http://gawker.com/5976204/behind-the-sandy-hook-truther-conspiracy-video-that-five-million-people-have-watched-in-one-week)

Behind the ‘Sandy Hook Truther’ Conspiracy Video That Five Eight Million People Have Watched in One Week

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17rl172daxw6wjpg/avt-small.jpg Max Read

"This is a simple, logical video," the text on the screen reads. "No aliens, holigrams, rituals or anything like that, just facts." (All sic.) There's some light piano (from Guns 'n Roses' "Estranged") playing in the background. "New information comes up every single days, so by the time you see this video there may be a lot more evidence that has come to light." In a few seconds, the guitar solo kicks in.
You're watching "The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed," the most comprehensive summary of the bizarre "Sandy Hook Truther" movement you can find on the internet. It's also the most popular: in the seven days since it was posted, it's racked up 5.5 million hits. (Less than 24 hours after this article was first published, it jumped to 8.5 million.) "I... honestly would have spent more time on it if I had known it would explode," the guy who created the video told me.
It only took a few days after Adam Lanza opened fire inside Sandy Hook Elementary School for conspiracy theories to pop up on the internet. We covered a bunch of them at the time (http://gawker.com/5969532), each less likely than the last: Lanza's father was due to testify in hearings about a banking scandal, and the shooting was a distraction; Obama orchestrated the shootings to enact gun control laws;The Dark Knight Returns and/or Hunger Games predicted the shooting.
As it turns out, the one that stuck was maybe the most unlikely of all: the Sandy Hook elementary shooting never happened at all. Or, that it did, in some way, but not as it was reported — there was more than one shooter, or not as many children died, or the parents we saw on television were actors.
Over the last month or so, the "Sandy Hook Truther" movement has taken hold in the usual channels of internet conspiracy — sites like InfoWars and Natural News, message boards like Godlike Productions and Above Top Secret, and most importantly, on YouTube, where self-produced mini-documentaries like "The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed" can make the leap from obscurity to viral success without any mainstream coverage at all.
"[I]t all started when me and my friends used to research 9/11 in high school," the auteur behind the video told me over email. (He declined to give me a name or personal information, "due to the sensitivity of the channel and my concern for my security," and signed his emails T.O.T.V., after his YouTube channel's title "ThinkOutsidetTheTV.") "That's what really got me started when it came to researching government cover ups [...] Once I learned about all the false flag attacks in history that have been proven to be true, I knew it was only a matter of time before another came a long."
The "false flag attack," in which the true belligerents of an attack conceal their identities, is a common trope among conspiracy theorists, especially 9/11 Truthers, who believe the U.S. government (or another actor) destroyed the Twin Towers and pinned the attacks on Al Qaeda. While there are plenty of documented false flag attacks in history — all fervently cited by 9/11 true believers — they tend to be regarded by conspiracists as the rule and not the exception. Spend enough time in the YouTube conspiracy dregs and you see them everywhere.
"When Sandy Hook first happened i just had a feeling like it was all too perfect," T.O.T.V. continued. "I just had this feeling deep down that these people and the whole town had this artificial vibe about them." The perceived "artificiality" of the grieving parents is a cornerstone piece of "evidence" produced by Sandy Hook Truther: SandyHookHoax.com, the premiere Sandy Hook Truther site on the web, has an entire section called "All Actors," under an enormous header reading "NO TEARS," devoted to videos of families deemed insufficiently grief-stricken.
And not just families. Gene Rosen, a Newtown man who sheltered six children at his home near the school and later gave an emotional television interview, appears in T.O.T.V.'s video accompanied by the caption: "FUN FACT: Gene is a member of the Screen Actors Guild, look it up!" (He's not — the widely-circulated "proof" shows a 62-year-old SAG member named Gene Rosen; Gene Rosen of Newtown is 69.) As Alex Seitz-Wald, owning the Sandy Hook Truther beat at Salon (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/the_worst_sandy_hook_conspiracy_theory_yet/), writes, Rosen has been the subject of harassment and accusation from Truthers:
There have been phony Google+ and YouTube accounts (http://www.salon.com/2013/01/15/this_man_helped_save_six_children_is_now_getting_h arassed_for_it/) created in his name, messages on white supremacist message boards ridiculing the "emotional Jewish guy," and dozens of blog posts and videos "exposing" him as a fraud. One email purporting to be a business inquiry taunted: "How are all those little students doing? You know, the ones that showed up at your house after the ‘shooting'. What is the going rate for getting involved in a gov't sponsored hoax anyway?"

The idea that the U.S. government is somehow behind the shooting is widespread. Jay Johnson, who runs SandyHookHoax.com, thinks that the operation may have been a cover-up for the murder of Adam Lanza's mother (http://www.sandyhookhoax.com/about.html), who "was costing his dad a lot of money": "Peter Lanza is reportedly an executive with GE, which is locally into genetic research and closely tied to the Obama regime." (Lanza does work for G.E., which is not "into" genetic research, and is not particularly "closely tied" to the current administration.)
Like many of his fellow conspiracists Johnson, who describes himself as "the New Age Messiah" and "the only person in the world to solve LOST" — the TV show — cites the confusion around the initial reports as a reason to believe his conspiracy. "There were early reports [Peter Lanza] was killed, and that is an impossibility, that such a thing would be randomly falsely reported. So, there has to be an unseen hand (unnamed law enforcement officials) feeding disinformation and misinformation, maybe to form an incomprehensible web to dissuade or confuse investigations?" There's an odd but unsurprising overdetermination to this line of thought — if early reports are conflicting, it's evidence of a conspiracy of misinformation; if everyone agrees on the story, it's a cover-up.
But mostly Johnson sticks to I'm-just-asking: the conspiracy is "offered as food for thought." For his part, T.O.T.V. takes the same stance, in email as in his video. "I really try to stress this video was about putting together a bunch of evidence and raising questions that others could research and answer," he wrote.
"I never intended to expose who was behind it because I dont know, and I could be wrong. But history repeats itself and i'm really glad people are waking up to it. [...] People seem to mistake my video for exploitation of victims and children and that is totally wrong. As I said in the beginning of the video, we in no way claim this shooting did not take place and our hearts go out to anyone affected by the tragedy, weather one person was responsible or another. [... S]tay tuned for part 2, we have learned from the first one how to improve upon the delivery so hopefully it will be even better than the first."

[oldno7]

Scott and any others viewing this.
Read the book "Columbine" it goes into detail of how media is so adept at creating sensationalism, that the very kids who witnessed these crimes(Columbine), started to believe the media's portrayal. It took many years and lots of investigating to learn of these fabrications and actually uncover the real truth. Initial reports will always be all over the spectrum. Many who saw the exact same thing will describe it completely different.

Having said that, there are some serious inconsistencies with these reports. Were this investigation has now taken on a political cloak, the truth may never be divulged. It will likely always be the "assault rifle" with high capacity mags was used exclusively. It compliments an agenda of "letting no good crisis go to waste"

[accadacca]

I understand that hank, but you really need to watch the whole thing. Especially if you expect me to READ all that text. :lol8:

[oldno7]

I sometimes find it ironic that when liberals argue, they want all your points backed up with scientific documentation.

These same liberals will post their "facts", derived from an internet "blog" and insist it is accurate.:facepalm1:

[ratagonia]

Since you have quoted(unintentionally) most of my prior made points on SCOTUS, thanks, glad your following along.:2thumbs:

You made a slight though, but I'm sure unintentional on your behalf. I never mentioned congress or the president passing unconstitutional law as "ILLEGAL", as you suggest in bold print. I stated it was unlawful. BIG difference!!

So tell me tom, Why do you, as the owner of imlay canyon gear, fear lawful gun owners?

Have you been attacked in Mt. Carmel by armed madmen? Have you been accosted by armed groups passing through the Zion tunnel?

Seriously, why do YOU fear an individuals right to own a gun? I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".


It's just that neither can do it lawfully and in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".

:moses:

[oldno7]

So tell me tom, Why do you, as the owner of imlay canyon gear, fear lawful gun owners?

Have you been attacked in Mt. Carmel by armed madmen? Have you been accosted by armed groups passing through the Zion tunnel?

Seriously, why do YOU fear an individuals right to own a gun?

[oldno7]

I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".



[/COLOR] I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".

:moses:

lawful--



Conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.





So the mere act of writing law from the Executive is not ILLEGAL(although our system was not designed that way), he will not "likely" be prosecuted for such and serve jail time.

I personally believe that EO's are a tool that Presidents have used for a long time, that are not backed by the Constitution and should be abolished.

But theres certainly no lack of precedent.

And to note--my thoughts are based on years of study at Parowan School of Law.

Which by the way seems to be a more intelligent law school than the Ivies, that are responsible for teaching Senator blumenthal that teflon is capable of penetrating steel! Just sayin'

[oldno7]

Just curious where the response came from? I wrote all three of my congressmen last week and have not recieved a response to date.

Yesterday, I received the same letter from Stewart.

[oldno7]

And something to ponder:

Do the police have a duty to protect you???

[oldno7]

And while I don't see it as necessary to defend my right to own a modern rifle and standard 30rd magazines, I could go this route, which I wrote elsewhere.


I need 30 rds because it has been recently reported that 5 was not enough.

Not only was 5 not enough but after the perpetrator left with 5 shots in his face, he went to the hospital, criminals in hospitals cost the tax payers money.

Upon removal from hospital, criminal gets free meals and lodging, this costs the tax payers money.

While enjoying their free lodging, they get to go through the court system, running felons through the court system cost the tax payers money.

After being found guilty, said criminal gets free meals, lodging, medical treatment for life, costing the tax payers money

So in the end, if this fine lady had used a gun with a 30rd magazine, the criminal would have not been able to flee and use all the free shit that criminals have grown accustomed to.

So the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is---Standard 30rd magazines save the tax payer money and who doesn't like lower taxes?

[stefan]

a little comic relief from the daily show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

[oldno7]

I have better relief::mrgreen:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=BQHWTfFV3Vc

[stefan]

I have better relief::mrgreen:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=BQHWTfFV3Vc


uh ... what she needs is a deadbolt lock, dude

[accadacca]

uh ... what she needs is a deadbolt lock, dude
:lol8:

[oldno7]

uh ... what she needs is a deadbolt lock, dude

Didn't seem to work so well in this case.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/

But I see your point, you could sit on your couch and tell the intruder--"dude, you can't come in here, I have a deadbolt"

[Iceaxe]

Do the police have a duty to protect you???

The Supreme Court has ruled "NO", the police are not obligated to protect you. Police carry firearms to protect themselves.

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) Police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals (in other words, safe gaurding the President's children).



Read the book "Columbine"

Good book isn't it. :2thumbs:

For those playing along at home the book was written by an FBI agent who was a first responder. I thought the book was very fair as the FBI does not have a political agenda, they just enforce policy.

[oldno7]

I wonder if some might find it disconcerting to know, the police have NO obligation to protect you.

"Columbine" should be a must read. There was a police cover up that didn't come out for 5years, that likely would have prevented the Columbine massacre.

[stefan]

a little comic relief from the daily show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

somehow my post was abridged, should have had 2 links:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-january-16-2013/there-goes-the-boom---atf

[2065toyota]

62854