Gun Control

Well, being that the President finally broke his silence on the matter, I figured it now deserves its own thread.

President Obama calls for more thorough background checks when purchasing firearms in wake of Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre

Obama says an AK-47 belongs in the hands of soldiers, not criminals. Republican rival Mitt Romney says America doesn't need new gun laws

ByTracy Connor / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

It won't satisfy Mayor Bloomberg, but President Obama called for some gun-control tweaks Wednesday, including more thorough background checks.

While he called hunting and shooting part of the nation's “cherished national heritage,” Obama added that “a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals.”

"I believe the majority of gun owners would agree we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller," he said during a speech to a supportive audience National Urban League. "That a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily."

"These steps shouldn't be controversial," Obama added. "They should be common sense."

Obama's speech marked his first public comments calling for new gun restrictions since last week's massacre in Aurora, Colo. The deadly mass shooting during a midnight showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" prompted Bloomberg and others to demand Obama and GOP rival Mitt Romney take a tougher stand on gun control.

Romney, however, insisted on Wednesday that new laws wouldn't prevent future violence.

"Political implications, legal implications are something which will be sorted out down the road," Romney told NBC News during an interview from London, where he is beginning a three-nation international tour. "But I don't happen to believe that America needs new gun laws."

But later, he appeared to suggest that accused Aurora killer James Holmes bought his guns illegally, when in fact he bought them through legal channels.

"A lot of what this young man did was clearly against the law. But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening," Romney said. "This person shouldn't have had any kind of weapons and bombs and other devices and it was illegal for him to have many of those things already. But he had them."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election...8#ixzz21kjjJURB

How about this? Anyone who visits a psychologist or psychiatrist has their visit(s) fed into a national database that will be maintained by the federal government. Any seller of firearms must then receive approval from the federal government to sell the firearm to the potential purchaser.

I suppose the obvious point is, we could make all the gun-control laws in the world, but that won't necessarily stop criminals from obtaining a AK-47 if they have the inclination and means to do so. They're criminals, after all, and so would likely look to circumvent the regular processes.

It would do no harm making it more difficult for them to obtain those weapons. I think it could make a difference.

I'd be fine with that.

What will they ban next?

I don't know if it would make a difference to crime rates in the US, but guns are completely unnecessary unless your in the army or your a farmer. In Australia and the UK I have got by just fine without having a gun. its absolutely insane to me that some place in America you can buy high powered assault rifles etc.

Which could keep some people from seeing a therapist.

i dont think its even an issue as to whether restricting guns would have a positive effect on crime. most people who are able to look at it objectively believe it would not. its more of a liberty issue with most americans. kinda like a "dont punish all of us for the misdeads of a few" kinda thing which translates to much more than just guns.

not everybody "needs" a gun. i live in a nice area, but i feel better knowing i have one. again, education is they key here people. nicky, i can see how you feel that way growing up in a culture without guns, but if you dont have expierience with them then its harder to explain how certain people feel about them. like ive said before this whole "assault weapons" thing drives me fucking crazy. an assault rifle is a selective fire weapon, meaning it has the ability to fire burst or full automatic fire in addition to single shot with the flip of a switch. these weapons are not readiliy available to the public.

notice all these politicians (mayor bloomburg) who just want all guns banned have thier own private security so realisticly they dont give a shit about what happens to you as they have thier own guns. the fact that this piece of shit pretty much told the police that they should all go on strike until everyone give up thier guns should tell you all you need to know about him. a good quote i heard is" i carry a gun because a cop is too heavy". everyone has a right to protect themselves and nobody can tell me any different. lots of people always use the quote "those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it" but when this comes up in regards to guns its ignored time and time again.

i know im gonna catch alot of crap for this but here goes anyways. pre ww2 in germany, what did hitler do? first, all guns had to be registered. soon after guess what happened? since the state had a list of everyone with guns it was much easier to take them and thats what was done. all guns were taken and look at the results. nobody could resist that nutjob as he consolidated his power. millions died, fact. funny how all those events took place in a time when the worlds economy was doing horrible, kinda similar to today, huh?

are we headed in the same direction? hopefully not but the point is these things are always done incrementally. you always have to be mindful of the future as you can never be sure how a law or restriction put into place today will be used by politicians down the road. there has to be a line in the sand and many see gun rights as that line. again, the overwhelming majority of gun owners are law abiding so the idea that nobody needs or can be trusted with a gun is just utter bullshit. the only arguement that anti-gun people ever have is you dont need them, they are dangerous, only the government should have them as we always act fairly and in the best interests of the people

another good quote is "you have to reason with somebody with a gun" that is very true as without protection you are basically at the mercy of whoever has them, whoever they may be.

heres a link to an article about some new proposed regulations on magazine capacity, similar to the old "assault weapons" ban. http://thehill.com/video/senate/240657-cybersecurity-bill-includes-gun-control-measure for people living in america, did we see all out bloodshed when the old assault weapons ban expired in 2004 like some of theses scumbag politicians would lead you to believe? nope, same as its always been.

one of the main points that i got from the acticle is its a prime example of how sleazy theses politicians can be. they added this new proposed legislation as an ammendment to the new cybersecurity bill? what the fuck do these two things have in common other than they both serve to further erode peoples rights. it doesnt matter what side of the fence you are on(pretty obvious about my side) the fact that these people wanna be sneaky like this and we should trust them with an issue like this boggles my mind. ok now my rant for the day is over and boy do i feel better!

i'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic!

The following is a quote from Five Felonies above:

"i know im gonna catch alot of crap for this but here goes anyways. pre ww2 in germany, what did hitler do? first, all guns had to be registered. soon after guess what happened? since the state had a list of everyone with guns it was much easier to take them and thats what was done."

Yes, you are gonna catch crap from me. My God, it is so easy these days to research statements before they are posted. Why not do so? Gun ownership in Germany during the tenure of the Third Reich (get this) was actually less restrictive than during that of its predecessor, the Weimer Republic. The Weimer Republic through the Reichstag enacted laws that severely restricted gun ownership to comply with the Versailles Treaty. Under the Third Reich, the Weapons Act of 1938 (Hitler became Chancellor in 1933) applied rather anemic handgun registration requirements which were intended to deprive Jews and other non-persons of weapons, but it still did not apply to long-guns. Hunters were exempt from the restictions and the gun ownership age was lowered.

To reiterate, eschew urban myths in favor or research before you post.

^^^ was my point perfect, no. should i maybe have specified that it was directed towards jews more than the average citizen, yes but the point is still more than valid as bottom line it took weapons outta the hands of alot of ordinary people regardless. when you say the guns laws were less restictive they were compared to the treaty of versailles when germany basically wasn't even in control of thier own country. bottom line was that the majority of guns were left in the hands of the state, not the population but thanks for the correction as everyone who's ever posted anything has had it 100% accurate. this article expalins it better than i could...

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

I just got back from England where I had an exptremely difficult time explainging how someone could amass the arsenal that animal in Colorado put together.

Here's an idea....instead of wringing our hands about the issue lets give real gun control and real ammo control, and clip limitations a try. All the pro gun people say it will not work, however it does work in most places where they have these controls, and it could work here.

If it doesn't, it doesn't, but lets give it a shot.

Poor choice of words .

a couple of points
#1 its always much harder to repeal new laws than it is to create new ones.
#2 when the assault weapons ban was in place, which lots of people thought was reasonable, there were no significant changes for the better or worse when it came to gun crime.

heres a type of story that rarly gets a fair amount of coverage these days, a gun being used to save people instead of destroy them. there are plenty of these incidents but most people never hear about them.


http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios...sRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

Here's the problem with this issue: There's no middle ground. NEITHER side wants to concede anything.

Again you're wrong. The 1938 Weapons Law specifically deprived only Jews and other undesirables from owning any type of weapon. The "ordinary" Germans were those not so classified. Germany's population when the WWII commenced was about 90 million; the Wermacht maxed out at 15-20 million who ever served in it.

Off topic: How many Jews lived in Germany at the beginning of the war?

who had the say as to who was an "undersireable" or "non-person"? seems to me that those are very loose terms that could be applied to "anyone". maybe even people who didnt share the same views as the party, at least thats how i interpreted it. perhaps im wrong on the specifics but the main point i was trying to get across is when the state has unrealistic,unrestricted power to decide who can own weapons, it spells trouble. no hard feelings though as i'm always open to learn more.

about 565,000. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005687

also the population of germany pre ww2 was closer to 70,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Actually PB, there were not that many compared to Germany's population. Some estimates are just a few hundred thousand. The oft cited 6 million who were exterminated represents the number throughout Europe and territories that the German army occupied.

That's what I thought. It makes it seem that much worse that the Third Reich was obsessed with getting rid of less than 1 percent of the population. Like they posed some kind of threat .

It was all incipient in with Hitler (although he had competitors who thought the same) and sustained by him. What is so alarming though is that there were so many Germans who supported him.

How did we go from gun control to Hitler?

I don't have a problem with sensible gun controls that are enacted to help assure public safety--as long as law-abiding citizens aren't arbitrarily banned from owning firearms. I also think it's a matter for states and localities to decide, as long as they're consistent with two recent Supreme Court rulings establishing the Second Amendment as applying to indivudual gun ownership. In those decisions, the High Court did not invalidate gun controls; it ruled that Washington DC and Chicago were out of line for making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to own guns.

I had to go through three months of hoops to get a permit to buy a handgun in NJ, vs. a 10-minute background here in AZ. But I got what I wanted--because I'm a law-abiding citizen. If I had problems with NJ's strict controls, I could have started a group to lobby to legislature to change the rules. But didn't have problems--I got what I wanted.

Well, whenever gun control is discussed, some people drag out the errant information about guns and the Third Reich which is considered by those draggers to be the ultimate and unavoidable outcome of any effort by government to control the proliferation of firearms. Of course, as has been accurately explained above, Hitler only sought to selectively control firearms as a component of his Final Solution.

Unless your the ones being selectively controled?





100,000,000 gun owners did not kill anyone today


In a country with 320 million plus citizens, every once in awhile a "Wacko" appears out of that HUGE population.....and HURTS people.

THAT is unpreventable.......and the OTHER 320 million citizens should not have to be penalized from owning a Gun OR being able to protect themselves................

and I do Hold/have a CC permit for New York State just for the record!

so that makes it somehow more justified? he disarmed a particular group that he saw as a threat to prevent them from being able to defend themselves and then systematically rounded them up and murdered them! my point when bringing all this up was not to imply that if certain additional restrictions were imposed tomorrow we would all be doomed, but instead to show what is possible on the extreme end of the gun control issue. i don"t think something like this is likely to happen again but its just something to consider. i think its important to look at all possible scenarios no matter how extreme when a debate on restricting anything comes up.

I'm not sure if this belongs here or not.

Thank God for that gun carrying man.
Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree

In the thirties, most of the first victims who were killed or sent to prison or concentration camps were political enemies: many social democrats and almost all communists. In 1933 the Communist Party had about 300,000 members and 6 million voters. Some of them had guns. It wouldn't help, just as it hadn't helped the Jewish community.
In terms of politics: The Nazi party took over step by step all crucial posts - the criminal police, the army, the courts of law. And if there ever had been a chance for a mass riot (armed or unarmed) it would have been immediately after January 1933 or maybe March 1933. But the political parties (conservative, leftists, communists) wouldn't co-operate. And the ordinary German wanted to be left alone.

I just heard a bunch of guys at the car show talking about this morning...and the best thing I heard was:

"The son of a bitches, that so badly want gun control are the same son of a bitches that just sit on their asses and never stand up to anyone except with their big mouths.
They want others to stand up for them, go fight their war, come to their aid when something happens to their sorry asses, but never put themselves in the line of fire or in the danger zone.
They have the nerve to complain about everything that others want to do that they don't even do..so FUCK THEM!"

and the crowd went wild!

Wow, FS, I'm so sorry. It sounds like you spent your morning with a bunch of loud-mouthed asswipes. Must have sucked.

OH. No- No....you couldn't have been more wrong. We were at a local VA Hospital this morning. Giving those there a chance to enjoy America's sports cars.

And with the help of the hospital staff and volunteers the men came down to enjoy the cars. A couple even got a chance to take a ride.

Thanks to a Police escort from our local police department. ( A local chief is a club member.) They got to enjoy some fast take offs with some burning rubber in the air. The smiles were all around... Guys enjoying the time together.

Then after snack a bunch of folks also went over to the children's hospital where all the kids got to come down from their wards (those that could get out) and with their staff's help, they came down and were all over the cars. The hospital had a whole section of a side parking lot closed for the cars

As many of you know, sport car owners have a thing about people touching their cars, at many shows they even keep people back with ropes, But not a word was said as the kids hands ran all over the polished cars. Sitting in many and holding their ears as a couple of the guys revved up their engines when asked.

A couple of the club members wives had the job of using Polaroid type cameras taking pictures of the kids sitting behind the wheel of the cars. You should have seen the kids waving the pictures trying to get them to appear faster.

Parents couldn't stop thanking everyone for their time. Saying it was great to see the kids with some smiles once again. I guess we have to thank the man above for clearing the rain away this morning.

Oh and those loud mouth ass wipes as you put it, have a 500 cars event planed tomorrow to raise money for over 20 charities and other events at some local nursing homes also.

The young man who make the comment that got you making a poor post was a young vet and his brother talking. One has just one limp left and the other set up the event for the guys stuck there for treatment and rehabilitation after spending so much time with his brother..
And sweetheart I respect their opinion a lot more then some other key board commandos on here who only claim to fame is living their life online.

Sorry if some don't just love every post posted on these boards, it is a shitty world at times I guess.

Another gem in the crown:


The biggest problem with the gun debate in this country is the ignorance on behalf of a majority of the country. AK-47's are NOT legal to own in the US, unless you have $20,000 and want to deal with 6 months of rigorous background checks, get signatures from about 10 different people, and you live in either Texas or Arizona. There ARE rifles that LOOK like an AK, which are as different as can be from an AK itself. It operates as a Semi Automatic rifle, as opposed to a fully automatic, and is therefore NOT considered an Assault Rifle.

The so called "assault Weapon" ban that went into effect in the 90's governed these weapons that LOOK LIKE assault rifles, as Assault rifles are ALREADY illegal and have been for a long time! So In other words, you are legislating based upon what the gun looks like, as opposed to the facts surrounding it. Seems nonsensical to me!

Andrew Cuomo and State legislators have reached a tentative agreement to tighten up New York State's gun laws. Specifically the by-laws regarding assault weapons and magazines.

New York Gun Control: Cuomo, Legislative Leaders Reach Tentative Deal On Assault Weapons, Magazines

By MICHAEL GORMLEY, The Huffington Post

ALBANY, N.Y. — A key New York Senate leader and the Assembly speaker said they expect the state Legislature to vote Monday to enact what would be the nation's first gun control measure following last month's Connecticut school shooting.

"I think when all is said and done, we are going to pass a comprehensive gun bill today," Sen. Jeffrey Klein told reporters Monday morning. "I'm very excited about it. I am very confident we are going to vote on a comprehensive bill that will be agreed on by the governor, the Senate and Assembly."

People familiar with closed-door negotiations told The Associated Press a tentative deal was struck over the weekend.

The tentative agreement would further restrict New York's ban on assault weapons, limit the size of magazines to seven bullets, down from the current 10, and enact more stringent background checks for sales. Other elements, pushed by Republicans, would refine a mental health law to make it easier to confine people determined to be a threat to themselves or others.

Senate Republicans also have included a further crackdown on illegal gun trafficking into New York, the people said. Most New York City gun crimes involve weapons illegally brought into the state, state and city officials say.

The people spoke on condition of anonymity because the proposal had not been discussed among rank and file legislators. They say the tentative deal will be debated behind closed doors Monday in the Senate and the Democrat-led Assembly and could be sent to the floor for a vote Monday.

A Cuomo administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity because the deal was not final, said there was no agreement yet.

A vote Monday would come exactly one month after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said the deal will include ways for schools to use state aid to better guard against shootings.

The vote also would require Cuomo to issue a "message of necessity" that would dispense with the three days of public review that bills are supposed to have under the state constitution. There was no immediate comment from Cuomo, who made these gun control provisions a keynote of his State of the State address on Wednesday.

"I think the message out there is clear after Newtown and to get us down this road as quickly as possible to basically eradicate assault weapons from our streets in New York as quickly as possible is something the people of our state want," Silver said. "It's an important thing to do. It is an emergency."

Silver said lawmakers continued into Monday settling the remaining issues of "how you do certain things in drafting it."

He said a registry of assault weapons will be created, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands. He said crimes using guns will get additional mandatory minimum sentences.

"The solution is to get those assault weapons off the street," Silver told reporters.

The closed-door meetings prompted about a dozen gun workers to travel more than two hours to Albany to protest the legislation they say could cost 300 to 700 jobs in the economically hard-hit Mohawk Valley.

"I have three small kids myself," said Jamie Rudall, a unionized worker who polishes shotgun receivers. "So I know what it means, the tragedy ... we need to look at ways to prevent that, rather than eliminate the rights of law-abiding citizens."

"We don't want to get into the gun debate," said union organizer Frank "Rusty" Brown. "We're here about jobs."

Assemblyman Marc Butler, a Republican who represents the area, decried the closed-door meetings over the politically sensitive issue in by the Senate Republicans and the Democratic majority of the Assembly as "politics at its worst."

"This is on a fast track, they are going to shove it down our throats," Butler said. "They are about to step all over the Second Amendment in secret meetings."

The bill will be the first test of the new coalition in control of the state Senate, which has long been run by Republicans opposed to gun control measures. The chamber is now in the hands of Republicans and five breakaway Democrats led by Klein, an arrangement expected to result in more progressive legislation.

Former Republican Sen. Michael Balboni said that for legislators from the more conservative upstate region of New York, gun control "has the intensity of the gay marriage issue." In 2011, three of four Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for same-sex marriage ended up losing their jobs because of their votes.

"It was always startling to me the vast cultural divide between New York City metropolitan view on gun control and most of the upstate communities," said Balboni, who represented part of Long Island for 10 years and was a Senate leader.

"Gun advocates see these incidents as almost cyclical and that in the wake of a national shooting incident, they have seen repeated calls for control," he said Monday. "They view it as a slippery slope to the banning and confiscation of weapons. Emotions run high and there will be tremendous pressure on all upstate legislators, Republicans and Democrats, to keep their base."

Also a concern is a major gun manufacturer in upstate New York.

Remington Arms Co. makes the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was used in the Connecticut shootings and again on Christmas Eve in Webster, N.Y., when two firefighters were slain responding to a fire. The two-century-old Remington factory in Ilion in central New York employs 1,000 workers in a Republican Senate district.

Republican Assemblyman Marc Butler warned last week that a more restrictive assault weapon ban could cost the factory 300 jobs.

what a fucking joke that legislation is! forget the whole "assault weapons" argument, most of us already know what side of the fence we are on that one. reduce magazine capacity down from 10 to 7? is that the new "reasonable" number? funny that they arrived on 7, seeing how almost any semi-auto rifle holds more than 7. the m-1 garand, a ww2 rifle, holds 8. most varieties of an sks, 8. basically, its a backdoor way to outlaw ALL semi-auto rifles, they count on people not knowing that. that is for all guns, including handguns, not just the "assault rifles" that destroy every living thing that moves. so is a handgun with the capacity to hold more than 7 rounds now an considered an "assault weapon"? to people unfamiliar with guns, almost every single semi-automatic handgun has a magazine with the ability to hold more than 7 rounds, so this is nothing but basically a ban of most weapons period by default.

oh, but wait, they will allow current guns to be grandfathered, funny how in that article they don't mention the option that they have been pushing for: making it illegal to transfer the weapons. guess what that means? when you die, don't even think about leaving it to a family member, the government gets it. and with no new weapons that fit this twisted criteria allowed to be privately owned, within a generation the overwhelming majority of weapons will be gone. during that transition period, they will undoubtedly cram even more restrictions down our throats. for people who say they don't want all your guns, look deeper into the effects these laws have. how long until they move onto bolt-action deer rifles, and try to classify them as sniper rifles? this makes me sick!

Wow I feel so safe now. Let's do something about all those pitbull people like to walk with. Let's limit the size of the butcher Knife to under three inches. Let's make the Louisville slugger less then ten inches long. Less put an automatic hit the breaks when something gets within 10 feet of a car.

Let's put the guy that knocked on your door at three in the morning and asks you for a cookie away to the nut house for ever.

Look at this picture
http://thepatriotperspective.wordpress.c...bama-hypocrisy/

They should change that caption to guns make him less safe

At this stage of the game any reform to gun laws, be it background checks, closing the gun show loophole or magazine sizes is a step in the right direction. With the House under control of the right wing crazies, something is always better than nothing.

These are basically douche bags...

yahoo.com

The National Rifle Association, exactly a month after the shooting at Newtown, Conn., has released a branded target shooting game deemed suitable for kids ages 4 and up.
The NRA has been highly critical of the video game industry following the elementary school shooting in Newtown that left 26 dead and sparked a national debate about guns and school safety.
"NRA: Practice Range," available free in the iTunes app store, allows players to shoot at coffin-shaped targets in indoor or outdoor settings. For $.99 extra, players can upgrade their gun to a pistol grip Mossberg or a semi-automatic sniper rifle.
According to the description on iTunes, the game is intended to instill "safe and responsible ownership through fun challenges and realistic simulations." And because it contains "no objectionable material," per iTunes' rating system, it's suitable for children as young as 4. Apple employees vet applications before they are included in the store and approve age ranges for games.

A good reason not to be a member of the NRA. I think the kid in the movie learned to shoot with video games. I learned to shoot with a 1911 we shot rats in a barn.

A month ago right after the shooting in Conn. my wife and I went to a school to see my grand daughter dance recital. They did nothing to check for weapons. They did do a moment of silence.

At the recital My time was split between watching the dancers and looking for suspicious people in the audience

this video game argument is silly. guess what, the only video games that are deadly are the drone-themed ones played by our current administration that are used to blow apart children in northwest pakistan.

NRA is now an easy target or whipping boy. They have people so worked up over Gun Control that people aren't thinking straight.
Look at you, you couldn't even enjoy yourself at your grand daughter dance recital. There is a killer behind every corner!

These few nut cases have taken away your trust in your fellow man and soon your right to bear arms if we are not careful. These children being taken away from us are being used like the race card. You don't dare say anything or you look bad. Pretty soon just like the N word you will not be able to say the G word without being shunned.

The New York Governor is taking crazy and acting like always with his I am god and you will listen theme.

They can't keep the police now from lying about events and he wants the mental health department to be able to take your rights away at a drop of the hat because it will be better to error on the right side. Remember when they removed your children because some caller dropped a dime on a person. So you better not have anyone mad at you or your family.The problem is MENTAL HEALTH so it will be so hard to watch for who really should be disarmed. Will they go overboard with these rights to judgement with the "if we just save one person theme".


And now 10 shots is to much - we only want 7 shots to be legal now- Gee f'n wise that is.

Will your son /child be locked up because he enjoys those shooter games so much or if he says I would kill you when he gets mad at someone?

Oh by the way Maryxxx does not have any guns at his house and has some great stuff, one being a $2,500. guitar. lol

A local poster said- why should I be any less armed then the police. If they shoot so well then why do they need so many rounds? (lol)
and why do some people think- that people just need guns only to hunt? No one has to justify being able to protect themselves from any body or group or the government if the time comes and people feel it is necessary to do so. A prepared person is this national best defense.

When Gabby Gifford was shot, the first thing the DC crowd did was pass rules that allowed all of them to carry firearms right away without waiting- remember that. No training or waiting period at

How many of them are drunks and on drugs if you look at the facts of those on capital hill.

Beware or you all will become the new sheep.
Thanks for reading! Be safe

Look like the President will unveil his own proposals tomorrow.

Obama weighing executive action on guns

By ERICA WERNER | Associated Press

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.

i would like to point out that not all liberals are tree hugging,hash-pipe smoking,karma loving,pussy ass,'idealists'.i am a liberal.i am also catholic. my veiws dont match my partys.or my churches. for example, i could give a fuck about gay marriage.let them be happy. i know where i stand,i aint no 'fence jumper'.lol. people who oppose it are homo phobic clost queens or are too sheltered to be allowed to participate in society.i think abortion needs to be different regualations,but not out lawed. i agree we need to help those in need,but there is a limit.if you follow me. i am pro death penalty.i disagree with the 'insanity' plea. that kid.lanza, hes not going to die. he will plead insanity. most people think you have to be insane to do such a horrid act. i agree.i dont care if he is albert einsteen or a bumbling retard.he needs to be put down for the good of society. 'who are we to play god'?is a common theme. shit ill do it. give me the needle ill squirt it in his fucking eye.i disagree with this new law on gun control cuomo just signed.i really dont have any basis to,seeing as im a multiple felon and all of our guns are in my wifes name,but regardless,i feel it constricts the law abidinding gun owners,while is done nothing to stop the actual gun violence.seven rounds in a clip?what is that going to help? we still own the 'glock' magazines with seven teen.which is illegal now. if you are some shit head.on the corner and you already have a illegal gun,are you really going to follow this new law and only by lower capacity magazines?every one in n.y. knows to get a gun.you just drive to virginia. but shit.i dont even have to do that! i remember when i could make a phone call and get a ingram.full auto, with a suppressor, fora grand or two.and you know what?i have before! it is the same make and mdel i did a year in arthur kill for in the eighties.you think this law i going to stop some one from getting a gun of the street?take the marbles out of your fuckin head.

funny i played the number '619' every day for for years in the sixetys.lol. it was when my baby sister was born.lol.

i guess it will be 'post,620' now,but..lol.

No one every called me a sheep before? But in your honor I will say Baaaaaaaaa.

I don't know if you meant someone else but Ryan Lanza committed suicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Lanza#Investigation

i was using an example of some one like him.but yes.

Yh sorry i thought that tbh.

WOW! Obama's twenty something executive orders and his proposal to Congress will really set the crazies hair on fire. 50-50 he'll be impeached.

Is this an impeachable offense? Is it an offense? Not a fan of the guy but what do you do?

i found it pretty ironic that one of his proposals, which i agreed with, was to vigorously go after and prosecute people who make straw purchases with the intent to traffic those weapons to people who shouldn't have them. kind of a slap in the face to the american people to advocate something like that with eric with-holder sitting in the front row!

Of course it isn't, but that wont atop the tea baggers.

It means nothing. The same crazies impeached Bill Clinton for getting a blowjob. If JFK were around today, the Tea Baggers would try him as a sexual deviant. And it didn't affect Clinton's legacy, either. The people who loved him then love him now, probably even more so. Same goes for the people who hated him. He'll always be Slick Willie to his critics. I didn't even like Clinton, but talk about a waste of time and money!

Let's be clear. Impeachment is different from the Impeachment Process which has two parts: 1) impeachment by the House of Representtaives for for one or more alledged offenses as determined by the House; 2) trial in the Senate.

President Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

During any session of Congress (each two years of a Congress is termed a session) there is usually at least one bill of impeachment introduced against a President. Obviously, they are quickly disposed of. The House of Representatives is the sole determinent of an impeacheable offense. Such an alledged offense can be within the meaning of the Constitution's original intent or it can be political. It can be argued that any impeachment includes a political dimension. Certainly, President Andrew Jackson's impeachment was such.

I get where politicians are coming from with their plan to outlaw ar-15 style rifles and other "assault weapons". But I disagree with it. I own a Bushmaster AR15. When I first bought it I had two thirty round magazines. Why would I need to own such a gun? Am i in the military? No. Am i a cop? No. Am i a criminal? Not really. Am i some nut who wants to shoot up a school or a hospital? No. Hell i dont even use it for self/home defense, I have a Judge i would rather use. So why do I or thousands of other people across the nation own this kind of gun? WE WANT TO. Some people fish or hike, some like to shoot. Ive heard people at my college say things like, why cant you shoot something different? Ok lets compare our options here... My roomate has a bolt action Winchester .30-06. Holds 4 rounds. The AR15 shoots a .223 caliber round. Most people that want to outlaw hi capacity magazines and assault weapons have never owned a gun! This is what bothers me when some girl says i can target shoot all i want with a .30-06. OK.. You cant shoot 10 rounds without bruising the shit out of your shoulder! The AR15, barely kicks at all. Its a smaller round, smaller cartridge. Not as loud. Not as expensive. Another stat i saw was there were a few hudred firearm related deaths in the US since the shooting and less than one percent was with a gun that would classify as an assault weapon. Just food for thought.

Skinny, cant say I disagree with you, however when you send your kids to school after all this BS then. we can talk. In the end it only takes one bullet though I suppose

And this current craziness reminds me of safety standards in construction, nithing gets done till after people die! So much for looking ahead.

I agree with this, these new laws are more of a response to all these recent shootings. I am in favor of limiting gun violence in anyway possible, but these laws seem short sighted to me. Although i agree, my veiws will probably change once i have kids of my own.

I'm just curious, Skinny, because that's some serious firepower. But you were able to get that thing licensed at your age? Or shouldn't I be asking?

I mean, you're technically not even old enough to drink (although I've always maintained that it's ridiculous that one can be in Afghanistan at 18, but not in the corner bar).

I dont usually keep it with me in Jersey. I think im allowed to possess it but all the clips i have for it are illegal. I bought in North Florida a week after i turned 18. They did everything legally required within 20 mins right at the counter. I have never bought a gun in NJ. Everywhere in the US you have to be 21 to buy a handgun. Usually its 18 to buy/own a rifle or shotgun. In NY its 21. In NJ it varies from town to town. Honestly it is a lot of fire power. But i and the rest of my family have traditionally been gun nuts. I through out my life have owned 3 shotguns, 2 rifles, and 2 handguns. My dad owns 12 or 13. My mom has one. Like I said I like guns.

I do agree with you as to being able to drink though

Didnt they try and outlaw 4 Lokos a while back? But it had more than just alcohol in it. A friend of mine brought me back absinthe from a HS trip to Germany.

I'm not an NRA supporter or member. But I do own guns. I'm concerned that people who don't own or like guns are going to support legislation that won't do very much to stop violence but will do a lot to expand government oversight of law abiding gun owners.

For example, Feinstein's proposed legislation would make a number of semi-automatic weapons illegal but also grandfather in others. The problem is that the grandfathered weapons would need to be registered under the NFA which is the same law we restrict automatic weapons under. Long story short, if you owned a certain semi-automatic weapon (not just a rifle) for all intents and purposes you'd be treated the same as if you owned a machine gun. I don't see much value in that.

I would support universal background checks and greater sharing of medical data when someone has been involuntarily committed or has some sort of psychosis. I also would like more prosecution of people who fail background checks and gun dealers/individuals who make illegal sales.

But past that I start getting a little uncomfortable when people say "no one needs x". I might not need or want x but someone else might.

Skinny I will be 1000% honest, i have zero idea what a AR whatever is. Ive heard but wouldnt be able to identify. No idea about guns, clips or whatever. I think growing up around a killing field they turned me off, also knowing my temper there just not something I want for myself. My one question is do most buy for protection, sport? Im tired of every gun owner being labeled a "gun nut". What if are there any percentages?

If you think firing a bolt action 30-06 is hard on your shoulder try firing one that shoots it in full-auto.

One of the most brutal machine guns ever is a Browning Automatic Rifle BAR M1918 which shoots 30-06 rounds on fullauto. It was the favorite gun of Clyde Barrow and the same model gun used to kill him and Bonnie Parker in that ambush when they were killed.

It's a real beast.

Its basically a civilian version of a M16/M4. It is the platform of gun used by the US military for the past 30 plus years. It is the only gun i own that is for sporting purposes. It has absolutley zero practicality. I guess i can shoot small game like foxes with it but i dont. I have a shotgun and a pistol that I would call their primary use self defence. I inhereted a pistol when my grandfather passed away, but i would never use it. Everything else i would use for hunting. I dont do as much as i used to when we moved to Jersey. But yeah i grew up around guns just used for different purposes.

http://themanwhonevermissed.blogspot.com/2013/01/twenty-three.html

Me, too.

I don't own any long guns because I don't need them. But, if I lived in one of Arizona's many remote areas, I'd probably want a tactical shotgun and an AR-15 as defensive weapons, just in case.

My fear is that well-meaning people want to do something to stop this tragic massacres. They'll enact various controls and think the problem is "solved"--until the next massacre. The imperative is to identify the potential killers and to prevent them from getting firearms.

Has anyone actually ever seen Wayne LaPierre and Stephen King in the same room?

This right here..

Me, three. I've probably discussed this with both of you before, but I have handgun licenses in both Florida and New York State. I also own a hunting rifle that I never use.


I knew you were out to get me, Lilo. You broke my heart.

No, Mommy. Please don't hit me again. I'll clean up my roooooooom!!!!


That's one of the most rational things you've ever posted, EHI. I pretty much feel the same way. The guns that I own are out of necessity. And they're legal. That's the key word right there. The universal gun haters and peaceniks fail to get their heads around the idea that some people need to own guns out of necessity .


I thought you were on original Jersey Boy, Skin. Where are you originally from?

They whole point here is that no one in his right mind believes that people should not own guns for protection, hunting, target practice, or for that matter just having a gun collection. That is a constitutional right. Period. But the second amendment talks about the "militia" being "well regulated," which leaves room for regulation of clips, magazines, types of guns etc.

The real question here is whether or not there enough left of center people who understand that there is an absolute right to bear arms not going too far, and the right of center people understanding there is a problem with guns getting into the wrong hands and the constitutionality of trying to keep them out of the wrong hands coming together and squeezing out the extremes on both sides. Lets face it when the far left or far right is calling the shots the tail is wagging the dog.

Justice Scalia, in the DC and Chicago cases, affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right. But he was careful to note that it didn't pre-empt states and municipalities from enacting gun controls that didn't violate the Second Amendment.


There is a shortage of rationality on both sides.

It is regretful this shortage exists in areas way beyond gun control.

i agree that their is little common ground, but the lack of education on the anti-gun side really drives me crazy. everyone has a right to their opinion, but seeing as how we live in an age where information is literally at our fingertips, ignorance is no longer a valid excuse. its even worse when politicians want to eliminate something that they are unfamiliar with, here is a prime example...

Information may be more accessible today than ever, but so is misinformation. In fact there is more misinformation and manipulation of facts on the internet than legitimate information. There is more general ignorance today than I could ever recall. There are misguided views on all sides of the gun debate. And when the issue of guns is raised, make no mistake that there are more than two perspectives.

Thank you for that Kly. I am sick & tired of the implication that people who don't cling to guns don't know anything. The gun lovers MUST take their blinders off and see both sides. I hate the attitude of "Nothing can ever ever be done and basically telling those of us who want to make changes to STFU. I may not be a gun expert BUT when children are blown to shit (I hear each child killed had anywhere from 5 -20 bullet holes in them)I for one won't accept that attitude. There is NO reason this shouldn't be talked about and changes made.


TIS

TIS, both you and Kly are correct. I am appalled by the profound ignorance that so many Americans have about their Nation's Constitution. However, that does not preclude them from commenting on it as if they are intimately familar with its origins, content, original intent, and interpretation. Despite the wealth of information that I've accumulated about it, I still hestitate to represent that I know very much about it.

Some of the posts above do touch on elements of the 2nd amendment's original intent, but that's only some.

Thanks Oli,

I guess for obvious reasons, this last shooting tears me apart. I pray for some good/honest dialog and changes. I won't hold my breath, but I still have hope.




TIS

I have a question about the constitution wasn't the only reason why the constitution worked was because the people here were tge framers and tge people living here were religious.

Now the left says it does not work and it does not work for them because they are not religious.

I was talking to a black man in my doctors waiting room today. The conversation got to gun control. He told me he has a gun for self protection, and we talked about how easy it was to get a gun not a legal gun.

It is a lot harder to get a gun if you do it legally.

The Constitution works the same whether individuals are religious or not.

I don't know if you are saying all the LEFT is not religious or not BUT that's simply not accurate.


TIS

The constitution was an attempt to correct the deficiencies of a failed confederation of the States which was established after we won the war of independence. Consider it our Second Republic. The Constitution tried to strike a balance between federal and state power and between the concepts of pure democracy and indirect democracy (hence the House and Senate, and the Spearation of Powers. The people who conceived and wrote it understood it was an imperfect document and thus created a means by which it could be amended, hence when "original intent" was that women could not vote and that slaves counted as three fifths of a person, there was room to change that, which has happened. As for religion, at the time various states favored different religions. Maryland for example was heavily Catholic, other states were Anglican, Puritan etc., the idea of the First Amendment was to allow for the practice of any religion without interference by the government, and the purpose of the applicable portion which set forth the criteria for qualifications to hold office was specific in that it said religion could never play a role in anyone's ability to hold office. Many of the founders were not even Christians. They were deists.

Klydon and Don T: You two guys argue so convincingly, that you make me think you both could have been trial lawyers .

Olivant: When you use big words, you remind me of Little Carmine .

Hi Pizza Man

I'll pm you.

I sincerely hope that this will help with the shootings. But as long as there are evil/wicked people on this earth it will keep happening. They will just use something else besides the AK's & AR's.

[Off topic??] My browser warns me that this page contains content from world.guns.ru which is known as a provider of malware.
Did someone embed it or did it appear in the ads?

A law bidding person who has a legal gun is not apt to use it.

But a law breaker who has an illegal gun is very apt to use it.

So the government is putting more restrictions on legal gun owners. So what's that going to do to stop gun violence.

I just learned you can not control guns.

Look up a guy named Cody Wilson I just saw him on Glenn Beck.

"You're very observant: the sacred and the propane."

Little F'N Carmine .

Just a little bit about the Second Amendment's role in all this. Olivant, who is very well versed in constitutional law, can add as well.

It's interesting that the Heller case in 2008 marked the first time that the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment provided an individual right to bear arms. The decision struck down D.C.'s ban on handguns and its requirement that lawful firearms in homes have a trigger lock or be disassembled. The majority's 5-4 ruling (which is an example of conservative judicial activism) was narrow in scope in that it recognized that the government has a right to regulate and restrict firearms, and that the ban of handguns was unconstitutional as that class of weapons is commonly used for self defense, which for the first time was viewed as a basis for Second Amendment protection.

It stands that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to possess short barreled shot guns or high capacity military assault weapons as they do not fall within the class protected by the Court. There was a case in the 1930s (Miller) that unanimously found that Congress had a right to regulate and prohibit such weapons not in common use, but that case did not recognize an individual right to bear arms outside the prefatory clause of the Amendment. In a sidenote Mr. Miller, who challenged the National Firearms Act in that case, did not live to see the decision as he had been shot to death.

An interesting thing to note is that the NRA leadership opposed Mr. Heller going forward with his suit against D.C. because they did not believe the Court would find an individual right, and would issue an unfavorable decision with precedential value.

Yeah, but I heard he can't subtract.

Sorry for hijacking you post, Counselor. But I had to take the shot when I saw the opening. That's a great post, by the way .

You know Kly, I find tremendous fault with Scalia's opinion that the 2nd Amendment's prefatory clause (about the militia, etc) has no effect on the amendment's application. Madison included the phrase in his original proposal of it. In fact, the Senate reversed the order of the Amendment's two clauses to emphasize the militia aspect of it. That, in his opinion, Scalia allowed some governmental restrictions on forearms is an affront to strict construction of the Constitution. Of course, it's no surprise that Substantive Due Process is a refuge for both liberals and conservative jurists.

Well played.

Finding a protected right of self defense in the Second Amendment would be a stretch for strict constructionists too as two states at the time of the convention had included rights to bear arms in their respective declarations of rights that specifically included purposes of hunting and self defense. Yet the Framers excluded that language from the Amendment.

Dems not backing President Obama's toughest gun measures

Background checks are likely to pass -- but not much else, Hill insiders say

By Dan Friedman / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

WASHINGTON - Democrats are rallying behind President Obama's proposal for universal background checks on gun sales but even some top liberals are balking at other key safety provisions.

The president’s bid to ban military-style assault weapons is already losing steam in the Senate, Democratic aides said, even as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) prepares to formally offer the plan next week.

Top Senate aides said a proposal to ban high capacity ammunition magazines also faces long odds.

Mayor Bloomberg, a leading proponent of strengthening restrictions on firearms, conceded Thursday on “CBS This Morning” most of the sweeping package of proposals to reduce gun violence Obama announced a day earlier is unlikely to make it through Congress.

And House Republicans are hardly discussing gun legislation during a retreat in Williamsburg, Va., according to House aides, so the Senate will lead on the issue.

But Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is already maneuvering to shield his caucus from a politically tough vote on guns.

Reid decided to move Obama's comprehensive package piecemeal through the Senate, allowing Democrats up for reelection in 2014 to back more popular provision, such as the background check proposal, and oppose the other measures, which are seen as unpopular.

Many of the Democratic senators up for reelection next year in gun-friendly states reacted coolly to Obama's plan.

"Before passing new laws, we need a thoughtful debate that respects responsible, law-abiding gun owners in Montana instead of one-size-fits all directives from Washington," said Sen. Max Baucus.

Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska predicted "it will be hard for any" of Obama's legislative proposals to pass. "There are some of us who just fundamentally believe in a Second Amendment right.”

Even liberal Sen. Al Franken, eyeing a 2014 race in Minnesota, stopped short of endorsing an assault weapons ban.

Lawmakers view universal background checks as easier to pass because, they argue, they do not limit rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D—N.Y.) touted his bill to impose universal background checks in a statement — and then ignored other proposals.

Currently only licensed gun dealers must perform background checks, while other sellers — including vendors at gun shows — do not make such checks. Such sales account for 40 percent of gun purchases each year, the White House says.

That translates to roughly 4 million guns sold every year without background checks.

"The system is woefully incomplete," Vice President Biden said Thursday in a speech to the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

Biden compared a background check to swiping a credit card. "It's not an inconvenience," he said.

Democrats also believe they can advance measures to beef up mental health care, as well as a bill to make gun-trafficking illegal, which they say would cut down on straw purchases.

Both parties have also embraced vague plans to examine the role of video games on violence.

dfriedman@nydailynews.com

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/dems-waiver-gun-bills-article-1.1242188#ixzz2ILky3BOe

Even if I cannot, I'm still light-years ahead of Throggs Neck residents who, of all things, chose to live in a place called Throggs Neck.

This just tells me that ALL elected pigs don't give a rats ass about this issue. They just want to make sure that they don't hurt their chances getting reelected next year. It's all about lining their pockets even deeper. Makes me sick.

I know their all wealthy and very selfish the middle class is getting screwed right now a lot of those guys are puppets for the people they represent they have to protect their interest therefore screwing over a million people to benefit a couple thousand people and the song remains the same...

(CNN) -- A 12-gauge shotgun loaded with bird shot accidentally discharged Saturday when the owner opened its case at a gun show at the North Carolina State Fairgrounds in Raleigh, injuring a retired sheriff's deputy and two other people, police said.

The gun owner, a 36-year-old man from Wilmington, North Carolina, was carrying the weapon through security at the show entrance and was unfastening the case on a table, authorities said. The owner planned to sell the shotgun at the show.

The deputy suffered a slight injury to his hand and was treated and released at a local hospital, said Joel Keith, chief of police of the North Carolina State Fair. A 54-year-old woman from Benson, North Carolina, was being treated a wound to her right torso at a local hospital, and a 50-year-old man from Durham, North Carolina, was treated for an injured left hand, Keith told reporters.

Born in GA, lived in FL and NJ.

Dick Cheney moved to North Carolina?

I am originally form area west of Kingston, New York, west of there. Almost everyone has a gun, or multiple weapons, yet we have no violence and low crime. Kingston is middle sized city, with some crime. The different lifestyles and upbringings make the difference. I am now in what is considered a nice area of New York City, yet many people here should not be armed in my opinion. People get into fights over the silliest things, like a parking spot or what they consider to be a wrong look. Obviously mentally ill people are on trains and on streets. That is root of problem. I learned gun safety as child, my whole family did. The Connecticut school shooters mother knew he had mental problems, yet let him know she had weapons. His mental illness coupled with her carelessness led to this whole problem.

On gun appreciation day or what ever it was called. There were 4 gun accidents.

I never had a gun accident and I have been firing guns since I was 12 years old.

But I was accidently wounded when I was 34 years old. I say accidently because the guy who shot me was trying to kill me. I wonder what ever happened to that guy.

I was laid up for months. I needed a walker to watch one of my sons soccer games. At the end of tge game I was too tired to walk off the field to get to my car. So I called up a car service to come on to the field and take me to my car.

Schummer thinks one day he will be president or vice president. He will be a senator forever, but nothing higher then that.

+1

If the problem are the mentally ill, does that mean that there are more mentally ill in the US than elsewhere?

The Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, which is an exhibition that yearly brings over a hundred thousand visitors and buyers from around the eastern USA, last week banned vendors from selling assault weapons and some sport rifles. AA sizable number of gun dealers dropped from the event, and yesterday the NRA pulled out.

Not at all. It just shows that guns are a part of our young country's culture. Every once in a while we have to kick some Nazi's ass.

Here in Arizona, the "Second Amendment State," our County Sheriff said he would refuse to enforce any federally mandated gun controls that he believes are "unconstitutional." Sounds like we could get rid of the Supreme Court, their salaries, perks, etc., and leave all constitutional issue to our Sheriff.

Four AZ legislators introduced a bill that would require Arizona to ignore any new Federal gun controls, and to charge any Federal official attempting to enforce them as a Class 6 Felony offender. Any day now, someone will introduce a bill for AZ to secede from the Union.

I don't understand this answer? Do you mean that the victims of gun violence are Nazis?

Not at all. I can't even imagine how you'd conclude that.

D, the information that you posted within a map is non-comparable. For one, it compares US cities homicide rates against those of nations. For another, homicide definitions among law enforcement, prosecutors, and coroners do vary among nations.

This map uses different nations to compare to different United States cities. With so many countries in world to choose from, a person making up that map can find statistical matches for almost anything.

Last weekend they had a gun show here and they said that they had such a long line waiting to get in they opened the doors early and they closed 3 hours later cause the sold all the guns and bullets the people brought. They are having a gun show this weekend in Norfolk I'm sure it will be the same.

Better hurry and buy some bullets. You won't be as safe if your neighbor has more than you.

Man I am scared. Like we used to say as kids "I am shaking like a leaf"

The good news is this will drive up the price of illegal guns. We should be able to find a way to make some money out of this right boys?

This is happening all over the country with many venders pulling out in some shows when the event starts putting on restrictions on what can be shown or sold. They are sending a clear message.

Just wait and see what the new voting group will be in coming elections.

I just love how some people are so willing to give up other peoples rights so easy. Why millions of good citizens have to be punished because of the fear some people have after some nut cases pull sick stunts. And only those good citizen will follow the bands put on them while the real problem causers could give two shits and do what they want anyway. Bans will only give people a fake sense of security.

and when they don't work, the call will be for total bans on all guns which will only make it worst as the crime rate will soar. NYC has had bans on guns for years and that never stopped shooting or crime with a weapon.

A report states that as many as 1 in 4 homes has a weapon in their control.
They all don't scream it out loud though. Many keep it to themselves and aren't flashing their guns out in the open. But you will see many speaking with their votes come election day.

Don't you love the NYC ban on soft drinks. Get ready for more and more control by the Government! After all they know what is good for you!

Get a grip FS.

The secons amendment clearly states that arms may be "well regulated." Requiring background checks and limiting magazines to ten rounds is hardly a punishment to gun owners. For that matter hollow poinjt and armour piercing bullets being banned do not punish lawful gun owners either.

With rights come responsibilities. And as for the limit on sodas in New York, I think anyone opposing it should be responsible to pay a disproportionate amount of money for the diabetes treatment of the idiots who drink those things.

if you are not a gun owner, who are you to say what is punishing them? i agree with fatherson, its very sad how quickly people are willing to give up the rights of others. hollow-point ammo is much safer and more effective to use for self defense. bullets with an expanding design are much less likely to penetrate barriers and potentially injure someone on the other side. any hunting rifle is capable of firing so-called "amour piercing" rounds. real "amour piercing" bullets, meaning rounds with a hardened steel core, are already illegal to posses. as for your take on the soda ban, get real. we shouldn't have to pay for the mistakes or bad choices of others in a free society, ever hear of personal responsibility? a collectivist utopia might be better suited to people with your mindset, let me know if you find one.

Five, why do you assume I do not own a gun?

Hey DT, what kind of grip should I take, they banned pistol grips on some weapons-

anyway, not to be rude to you,but you really should know more about what is being done then what the 2nd amendment is or isn't. If you would research what has happened here in NEW YORK State you would see what our Governor has ramroded into effect here in NY. Almost overnight without any kind of public debates or chance to talk about the items he went and enacted.

No one is talking about background checks, we have them already in NY and it is very tuff to get a new permit in most places and tuffest in NYC. All gun sales go thru a check here. And New York ALREADY had a ten round limit so that isn't what it is either, Cuomo has taken it down from 10 to seven, WHY? because he what to show he is KING and is setting him self up for a run for the white house?
Example:
So most guns that would have taken a 17 round Mags in other states was taken down to 10 years ago, and now he wants to take it to seven. Most popular guns have don't even have 7 round mags for these guns. Why not 10 rounds like the FED ban was stating? or you can have a 10 round Mag but only insert 7 rounds in it?
You know you can tell if a person is anti gun by what he posts and what their reasons are. Even if you are a gun owner, I will guess that you don't carry it for self protection or use it much or you would understand what people are talking about here. Besides the 2nd amendment interpretation.

The gun world is blowing up with all of this because people care!

I'll will tell you this, In most cases the citizen who is a gun owner is very responsible. The people who post in the gun forums post real quality posts and stay on the subject with little or no problems among them. Take a look and see how they are handling this subject and then you would see that it isn't a small problem like non owners or anti gun people think.

And like I said they will be a new voting block in the future elections!


You are right DT "With rights come responsibilities" and people who manage them should not be effected by those that can't or won't. That is why we have laws. How about we make those work rather then heap on new ones which will YES "Punish" and restrict those millions of people that do. The nuts and criminals don't follow any of them.

I thought lawyers where around to protect the good people rights also?

and why should anyone pay for: " pay a disproportionate amount of money for the diabetes treatment of the idiots who drink those things." If I oppose being told what I should or should be allow to do?? We are free men and women still aren't we?

Oh Yeah that is the reason we should always be allowed to have firearms! To stay free!

I know there are only a few who will post because so many other on THIS board do not owner or are anti gun people,and are afraid to go against the grain on here. but some of us do and it would be nice for those that don't to at least listen to what we are posting rather then taking cheap shots on this issue.
Thank for reading and understand where it comes from.
Be safe.

Yup my hubby paid $700.00 for one of his AR's now they are $2000.00.

Federal and state laws do not ban pistol grips on weapons; they regulate weapons that have pistol grips as those grips are defined by statute and regulation.

New York State's S.2230 is a statute passed by the New York State Legislature and forwarded to New York State Governor Cuomo for his signature which it received.

Does it make me and others who own AR's & AK's bad people? No it doesn't. Me and my hub are very responsible with our weapons. They are locked up in gun cabinets and only taken out when we take them to the gun range or when they need to be cleaned and oiled. So what is wrong with that?

Whatever our government decides to do with this issue we will still have those evil/wicked sicko's still committing crimes. It will not stop.

My main issues with people argueing for gun control are..

1. Yes fatherson, i agree with you, the people who usually want more gun control do not own guns themselves, or have little to no knowledge of a firearm (or bullets).

2. The suggested restrictions will only restrict law abiding gun owners. Are we really supposed to believe that every criminal in NYC with an illegal firearm that has a magazine capacity greater than 7, will just say, "better get a smaller magazine, dont want to break the law."

Just my 2 pennys

There are certain responsibilities and controls that should go along with the ownership of weapons. You can own a car, but you can't drive drunk or speed. You can't behave in ways that will endanger others. Gun control is the same. If there are certain restrictions that are necessary for the greater good, then that's what needs to be done.

So we should out law cigarettes? And limit the number of beer youre allowed to buy at once? Or why dont we outlaw cars? Even with out the combination of alcohol, car accidents kill more people in a month than guns do in a year? How about we only let people tan 30 minutes every week? Bc uv rays kill to dont they? How would that be done for the greater good? Your arguement makes no sense?

I don't care if you tan until you look like a raisin. However, you're not endangering anyone but yourself if you tan. You're not going to give ME skin cancer by tanning. And cigarettes have been outlawed in public places (which, as a former smoker, used to anger me), because that's what hurts the public. And we do limit the number of beers you can buy in a bar, because of the potential danger. And we have made drinking and driving illegal. So, YOU make absolutely no sense.

Should we outlaw cars? No, because responsible ownership of a car poses little danger to the public. However, recklessness does pose danger, so we have controls. I don't believe guns should be outlawed. I come from a family of hunters. However, the kinds of things I'm talking about, certain weapons and certain high-capacity clips, were designed for one thing - to kill as many humans in as short a time as possible. They were made for military use, and that's where they should stay.

A freind who seats on the planning board here once told me that "done for the greater good" is a term that, means we just need to screw you out of something (AND it is usally used to benift a select few,) because they have no other good reason in their arsenal or bag of tricks.

Here's a list of the guns Dianne Feinstein wants banned. Just about every decent gun i can think of is listed. Whats next, BB guns? I also read she wants ammo clips to hold no more then 10 rounds but they might even push for a 7 round limit similar to what NY just passed.

WELCOME TO THE SLIPPERY SLOPE
Dianne Feinstein has been the wicked witch of the anti gun league for years. She goes overboard on everything she touches. The only saving grace is her bill as written is very unlikely to pass.


It just begs the question - where has all the common sense gone.

The best reason for MORE gun control " I don't think you need or should have -----------.

I agree Giancarlo. From a enthusiasts point of veiw,i would be extremely disappointed if this was passed. Lets pray it doesnt.

No criminals will obey that law, or any other gun laws passed. Law abiding people with very right to have gun to defend self will be disarmed, criminals will still have guns. If a criminal is caught after that, it is good, but what about the honest citizen who out of fear buys certain gun on banned list? We will be making them criminals with this law. And it will be only beginning, same politicians who want these guns banned are some one who want all firearms banned.

There shouldn't be gun restrictions by gun type, but restrictions to the people who CAN'T own them. Those are mentally ill people and people with a criminal record.

First of all, before the gun is bought, the person needs to be checked, who is he, why he needs a gun, is he mentally stable, does he know how to handle the gun(not to shoot himself in the foot).

Once that is done, the gun's are needed a safe way to be put in. I don't know how it's in the states really, but in Latvia it's obligatory to have a safe, which is attached to the floor or wall, that no-one can carry away it. The police comes and checks it if it's right.

WHAT DOES IT CHANGE IF YOU GIVE AN IDIOT A PISTOL INSTEAD OF AN AK?! Maybe he'll shoot less people with the pistol, probably he'll have more pistols instead. It doesn't change shit if you keep giving out these guns to idiots.

And restricting those types of guns won't stop from them being on the street. USA is full of criminal organizations that will be willing to get more into the gun business. So, this will not stop criminals getting guns.

Yes, I think that is his point, correct me if I am wrong here. But the point being is we do not take away, limit them or refuse to market these other items because some people misuse them, like drunk drivers is a prime one. Alcohol and cars.

Maybe it is the fear factor with guns? Makes them a easy target.

But drunk drivers kill so many more then any of these gun nuts each year, whole families, with children etc. Of all ages. So we have to look at the real problem....

.... just like todays gun laws, drink and driving laws, they only work if people are willing to abide by them. Just like alcohol and cars, we shouldn't blame the item, we should put the blame on the person who did wrong.
Put reponsibility back where it belongs on the person.

That is all you can ask is fairness.

The problem with "putting responsibility on the person" is that more often than not these mass murderers commit suicide after they have killed innocent people. There is nothing wrong with combining restrictions on gun ownership for the mentally ill, and for people who want military style weapons that are unnecessary for hunting, target practice or defense of the home.

if the responsibly isn't on the person, who should it be on for their own acts? you wouldn't sue someone else in a civil suit for what another person does would you?
Your right well REASONABLE restrictions and many have been in place for some time, even if not followed by some is always the right idea.

The new problem is we have gone from wanting to ban all AUTOMATIC war like weapons to banning everything that is semi automatic or anything that LOOKS like one.

People aren't killed by a pistol grip or a folding stock or a muzzle shield.

Finsteins last list had like 157 guns to be on the kill list. Come on. be real....and in NY we already only get 10 rounds and Gov King made that 7. Next it will be five then 3 then none at all. Slippery slop all the way down the hill.

The real joke is when they say we (NY people) have one year to sell or transfer all large mags out of state. If they are so bad why will they allow them to go to another state rather then NY?

Seems like these new rules will turn many good citizens into law breakers real soon. Because many have said they will not comply. Sucks to be put good people into this spot.

I agree, these guns that she wants banned are all SEMI automatic weapons. You pull the trigger and one shot is fired. They are NOT Full automatic assault weapons, they are the semi auto versions that might look like them, but do not perform like them.

Whats the difference between a semi auto Uzi and a Glock pistol. Both fire a 9mm round and are semi automatic weapons. It's just that the Uzi looks much more sinister but they perform the same. You can actually get a 30 round mag for the Glock just as you can the Uzi. Ok maybe you can get a bayonet for the Uzi and not the Glock but thats about it. You can kill just as many people with that Glock as you can the semi auto Uzi.

An AR15 might look like a M16 but again, it's a SEMI AUTO weapon, same with all the AK clones.

It seems that this is leading to a eventual ban on all semi auto guns and that the powers to be want just bolt action type weapons to be legal, the kind you have to work the bolt with each shot. At least as far as rifles go, but i'm sure they'll get around to semi auto pistols next. Don't kid yourself, i truely believe that is their ultimate goal.

for all of my fellow firearms enthusiasts, this bill has little to no chance of passing, and the gun grabbers really shot themselves in the foot with this one. instead of going for more moderate restrictions which might have had a shot at passing, that witch feinstein just went for broke. the thing you have to realize with this, is that there are plenty of democratic senators in very gun friendly states who have to respect the will of the people in their state. as much as some hate it, the firearms culture is alive and well in this country and will continue to thrive, despite all of this crazy legislation being proposed.

What it did do was raise the price of both legal and illegal guns.

Sportsmans Guide catalog shows a 50-round drum magazine that attaches to a Glock. I'm not kidding.

So the drum weighs more then the pistol?

And ammo is hard to find.

Your opinion DT. But in my home it is cuz it is a nice piece to add to our collection. Like I said we are law abiding very responsible with our weapons. So why try to take them out of my hands? I am not hurting anybody on this earth cuz my family owns weapons for target shooting, home defense, hunting.

Oh god, check that beast out.

Personally i'd be happy with a 15 to 30 round straight clip for the Glock, but hey if you need a 50 rounder go for it.

photo courtesy of my friend calipso from another message board, 100 round drum for a glock 19, don't freak out anti-gunners, these things are more of a novelty as they are so heavy that they are very impractical for anything but having a little fun

God Damn! Talk about overkill.

Must be a bitch carrying that thing around. With 100 rounds it must of been pretty heavy. Looks just like the Beta-C drum mags for the AR15 but in 9mm instead of .223

i've shot a buddies glock 19 down in west virginia with a strait 33 round box magazine, and that thing was pretty heavy and very unwieldy, so i could only imagine something like that, like i said, very impractical for anything other than having some fun!

Fun. Yes, I'm sure that the next mass murderer who uses such a thing is just having a blast, no pun intended. Why don't you go to a place like Newtown or Columbine, walk the campus of Virginia Tech, get in Gabby Giffords face, and talk about how much fun it is to shoot these weapons?

well, because despite your best efforts to paint people who enjoy things that you deem unnecessary in a negative light, that wouldn't be very considerate.

Yes, and pictures you posted here show you to be the very epitome of tolerance for those you disagree with. Puh-leeze. Referring to a weapon that was designed for the slaughter of fellow human beings "fun" just sickens me. You can say it, you have that right, but it still turns my stomach.

believe it or not, outside of the liberal fantasyland that makes up the majority of the political discussions on this board, millions of people are able to enjoy shooting all types of weapons without falling for the textbook projection that there is something wrong with them. i don't own a magazine like that, and i have never even shot one, but i would sure like it, and i'm far from feeling sorry for myself because some aren't able to look past the fact that dangerous things are alot of fun. i will continue to enjoy things that i enjoy, and if that makes some people uncomfortable, tough.

I would disagree with that, fact is the majority of the opinions expressed in the political discussions on this board is very much in line with what the majority of Americans think. Regardless if its labeled liberal or not. America is becoming more liberal, that's a fact and a good thing in my opinion. But I respect your viewpoints and opinions, we are all entitled to them.

Hope all is good on your end.

If someone pulls a gun on me and I have a gun I will USE IT!! NRA!!

No doubt, I would as well.

as far as the board being in line with what america thinks, maybe we can just agree to disagree on that one! you are right about america becoming more liberal, although again, we might disagree about that being a good thing or not. hope as is well with you too buddy, waiting for this winter to get done so i can get back to serious work, too much time on my hands lately.

These types of pictures are what causes the public to become anti gun people if they don't understand that this is much a
novelty peice.

As much as a dragster is not what sports car people enjoy in the automotive arena.

and I have been taught that as always you should be an ambassador to the public if the opportunity arises.

Waving a red flag in front of a bull proves nothing and accomplishes little but to piss the bull off.

yeah im tired of this cold weather, luckily my office has been burning up with an out of control heater lately that we've actually had to open the window and call in some crews to check it out.

There are some good things. But far more bad things.

Abortion...gay marriage...women in combat...women making up the most of the workforce...a decline of religious adherence in favor of secularism...and so on...

Please lets not get off track in this thread....

I knew you would bite at that comment lol

Good to some and not good to others. To each his own.

I believe each state should be able to choose it's own laws regarding firearms and which firearms are permitted in their state. Obviously a state such as NY would want different laws then a more firearm oriented state like Texas.

I have no problem with closing up loopholes that allow criminals to purchase guns, backround checks, tightening up the book keeping by all the FFL dealers etc. And upping the penalties on people who bring in guns from out of state, and on straw buyers who get guns for felons is more then fine with me. Feel free to lock all of them up.

It's these blanket bans that piss me off. I've been a gun owner for over 30 years and guess what, i haven't shot anyone yet. Maybe in the future, but so far not one human being has been hurt by any firearm i own.

I hate to talk ill about the deceased but in that last shooting it was the shooters mother who taught her son who she knew to be mentally ill how to shoot and gave him access to her firearms knowing the kid was mentally a basketcase.

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. - Isaiah 5:20

This points seems to be pushed aside by the people who want to use this event to take everthing away and make everyone who owns a gun responsible for it.

Then add the little children card and the flames of anger shoot up like gas being poured on your bbQ.

Why should everyone read to kill a mockingbird?

That last incident with all the children being killed was just terrible, one of the worst things that could of happened. Those kids never did anything to anyone and didn't deserve to die like that. It broke my heart to look at the pictures of all those little 6 and 7 year old kids who were killed by that asshole. I'm not an idiot, i get why people are pissed.

I just don't like the knee jerk reaction to it and using that incident to further the goals of certain politicians who have made it crystal clear over the years that their ultimate goal is to ban just about all guns. I think it's disgusting the way some of these people are using that incident to further their political agenda.

I'm not so sure it's a knee-jerk reaction anymore. Many are disgusted at the growing number of these types of massacres and are tired of hearing the same bad news over and over again.

If this was an isolated incident it would, in fact, be a disgusting way to illustrate a political agenda, but it's an ever-growing problem our country faces today.

Most here who know my political ideals will tell you that I am vehemently against curtailing our constitutional rights (I'm one of those liberals who seem to be the target of many here lately). I just don't see a viable solution to stop the gun killings without cutting back the 2nd Amendment rights somewhat.

How could we not be. It was on all media outlets for weeks, some times 24 hours a day. Evey show had people on saying how bad this event was, and what else could anyone say, but this should never happen again! And it shouldn't, no one wishes for crazy people to go a rampage.

Even before all the facts were in and God did they change every five mins. Most being wrong in a rush to get facts on the air. They were screams about the problem being GUNS!

Oh my if you didn't agree they made you look like you were a monster. How could anyone disagree about the killing of little kids!

If you look at the facts, this was a WELL to do part of the country. A great section of the state. NO real crime there.
A great place to live within a jump into the big city of New York. No need to worry here in our little town. Have you noticed how many of the shooting events happen in good areas or so called safe havens? Not in the gettos or high crime areas.

A single mom, with a child which she knew had major problems made a MAJOR mistake. One which cause her and many others their lives. He was so messed up that he would kill his own MOTHER and then turn on society with a vengeance. Going into a school which any sane person would consider a safe place, to spread his vengeance on defensless little angels.

Then the news media had its major story, which will fill hours and hours of airtime. A quick rush into every little crack looking for more dirt or angle and they interviewed and gave airtime to anyone who they could find to repeat over and over again how bad this was.
When that ran low they started the gun control angle which they could fuel with this story. Putting hour and hours of anti gun people on the air. Many who knew crap about weapons, clips Vs Mags and so on and so on. Get some air time and just BLAME guns for all this. What else could it be?

Lets start going after the symbol of gun ownership that evil NRA!

The few that wanted to look at the real reason for what happen got far less airtime because it didn't fan the flames.

Lets call a spade a spade. We all dropped the ball.
Gun people, non gun people, health care people, law enforcement even friends and neighbors, everyone.

We all can put the facts together to see what is common in all these shootings. MENTAL HEALTH PERIOD!

The thing that set this kid off was he was about to be looked into for his problem and maybe committed. So he struck out against the world.

But mental health issues are tuff to control. IT COST MONEY! It makes people afraid of big brother.
You LOSE YOUR RIGHTS and maybe you will be LOCKED AWAY.
Should people with metal health issues lose their rights to own or use weapons-(even knifes) maybe, we all agree on that right about now.

People know this is so hard to regulate. It is so hard to enforce all those laws and guidlines that we AlREADY have. Oh MY, who is going to do it and how much is it going to cost and I an so afraid of those evil looking Guns. Why do people need them at all?.

Let us just take away GUNS then they can't use them to hurt anyone! What a get idea-

And we can all look like we are doing something to make the world a better place!

and of course it will not efect me..I don't want, use or need guns anyway!

Sometimes you can argue with people and they simply will not listen. That changes when you argue with a gun in your hands.

Talk like that is just what people love to point to as they talk about having more gun restrictions.

And if you were waving your gun about, you would be losing your permit in a heartbeat if not shot yourself. Last time I looked Brooklyn was still in New York State.

Do you know what is involed for your right to carry?

I could learn so much from a guy like you. That was a joke I made. I guess you have no sense of humor. I did not have one either until I hit 55. Before that I did not think anything was funny. Now I can't get the smile off my face. Everything makes me laugh now even someone like you.

Thanks, since your a new member....I will take note.

Here is a quote from Assemblyman Steve Katz, “I leave my wife and three young daughters home alone for days at a time to represent my constituents here,” Katz said on the floor of the Assembly. “After what happened to the young mother in Loganville, Georgia who defended her two young children against an intruder, this bill will turn me into a criminal because you can bet that before I leave to do the people’s work, there will be more than seven bullets in the magazine of my wife’s firearm.”

Good for him. Our families are more important then some stupid laws made by people that have no clue. I am sure their families are safely protected.

Be safe!

Do you have kids in college? Did you do anything to help keep your kids safe while they are away at school curious.

Let me turn the question the other way around: Do you think that the more guns there are in a country, the safer its inhabitants are?

This country has a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem.

-JOE ROGAN

Your unsafe if the guy with the gun gets the drop on you or if you have a gun out and hesitate to use it.

Most people without guns or with guns hesitate.

One of the things I taught all my kids is if you think your endanger don't hesitate.

There is a space about 2 feet from you that if you feel endangered and are unarmed don't let anyone enter. At that point in time you have to make up your mind to act and don't stop until they are on the floor then

Found this which may answer just that:

Violent crime rates reported by the FBI Uniform Crime Report and the BJS NCVS have been dropping since the expiration of the old AWB. The same UCR shows modern sporting rifles and their magazines that Sen. Feinstein has wanted to ban for the past 20+ years constitute a tiny fraction of all murders. Even the National Research Council report done for the Clinton administration stated there were too few of them used in crimes to be statistically relevant. Murder rates reported by the FBI and the homicide rates reported by the NCVS have fallen to nearly half of the high for this generation and have fallen since the expiration of the '94 AWB, where the NRC stated they weren't relevant, while these firearms have become more popular with the public they can't contribute to a rising violent crime rate that is actually falling.

These rifles have been used in hunting and personal defense since the '60s. They have been used for competitions for 20+ years. Today there are more participants in official competition with them than competitive shotgun competitions. Articles on their suitability for hunting are found in every hunting publication. Ads for their hunting use date back to the late '60s. Reviews of their performance are found on hunting websites. Television programs focused on hunting have featured them specifically with respect to deer hunting and controlling destructive feral hog populations. The US Park Service and National Forrest Service contract for feral hog control services using these firearms. "Traditional" hunting rifle manufacturers like Remington have invested in tooling and added these types of rifles and offer them specifically for hunting. Any search for "AR deer hunting" or "AR hog hunting" will provide sufficient evidence these firearms are used for hunting. These days they easily meet the definition of sporting firearms.

Recently in Rochester NY a resident used an AR to protect himself and roommate against armed intruders. This occurs every year. Departments of the U.S. government issue RFPs for "personal defensive weapons" requesting bids for these rifles. These modern rifles are used effectively for personal defense by citizens and the federal government departments and agencies define them as personal defense weapons. Prohibitionists say these firearms have no use for personal defense, but the government itself says they are suitable for personal defense.

Government and university studies show that firearms are used from half a million to 2.5 million times a year to stop violent crime. http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckandgertz1.htm That's a remarkable contrast to the roughly 8,000 murders committed with every type of firearm reported in the FBI UCR. This is also in contract to the sporting uses in hunting and competition noted earlier and the personal defensive definition of government RFPs. Prohibitionists that claim they're "just for killing" ignore the facts that they're used to save lives as well as in sport and recreation.

Senator Feinstein has been promoting the same agenda for 20+ years while violent crime rates drop, personal defense and sporting use of these firearms increases. Her attitudes, information and legislation are at odds with the facts, government data, and the increasing popularity of these firearms for sport, hunting, and personal defense. It is important to study the data, facts and opinions before espousing that of others.
__________________

This was on tv today. Bloomberg is surrounded by 5 body guards with guns when some guy goes right to Bloomberg and asks him if he would give up his guards with their guns to protect him. Then the body guards got the guy away from Bloomberg.

Well my friends if that guy had a weapon knife or gun Bloomberg would have been dead now. His so called body guards let him get real close to Bloomberg and talk to him before they acted. It would have been to late to save him.

Bloomberg should get ride of those bozos they were useless in this situation.

Which just goes to show you that having a gun, or even five, doesn't necessarily stop a gunman. More guns aren't the answer.

Actually better body guards are the answer. But if a guy is willing to give himself up to get someone. He could get someone.

What did you want them to do pistol whip him for being mouthy?

Did he make a threating move, look like he was pulling something out to use as a weapon?

Last I heard you can't be a good public servant without being out in the public. Hell, The president even goes out into a group of people. Good body guards know when to strike.

This isn't Nazi Germany, or at least not yet.

Well what do you hire a body guard for if not to protect your person so you don't have to do it yourself.

He approached our mayor with one of those big sodas that bloomers wants to out law.

If I was his body guard that tells me the guy may have been a little crazy.

You don't just let anybody approach the guy your guarding you get in the way and question him first. You might even frisk him while your talking to him.

Then you tell him go away and don't come back. Then if you see them again later anywhere you man is standing. Then you act. How's that sound?

Posted by a navy seal on a firearm web site


Gun Control isn't about GUNS.....

......... it is about CONTROL.




And this gem was posted by a son of a German Jew:

I saw a movie once about a time and place in which only the military had guns. It's called "Schindler's List".

I guess I missed something here. This guy wasn't a gunman?
and if he was, more then likely he would be taken down but not shot by the guards since he was in really close range.

There would be a good chance that we would have been taken down hopefully before he could have gotten a good shot off if it was shown to have a weapon or moved to use it.

Having a gun with you can not stop someone from pulling his own weapon or doing something foolish. It can stop a person or persons if need if the threat was as bad as deemed enough to warrant taking a persons life and only then.

Nothing is 100% fool proof so "necessarily" is a moot point as far as events go. All gun owner have to justify it's use, this isn't the wild west, even if people think it is. lol

More guns may not be the answer, but no guns or less guns is NOT the soultion, THAT Fact- people are sure of,
(who understand and know firearms.)

Please see my post above for more details.
It has many good points about this kind of thing.
Be Good and be safe.

Which is the case in almost every movie about the war.
Seriously, the argument about Nazi Germany is ahistorical: When the Nazis came to power (tomorrow it's 80 years ago), there was basically almost no resistance, not even civil resistance, not even a general strike, which was low risk and the way the Kapp coup was put to its knees in 1920. No civil courage either: They started with the communists, then the Jews. No-one interfered, even when the risks were still little. Antisemitism was omnipresent.

Oh, and I saw a movie once were almost every one had a gun...

D, I agree. The German people acceded to the Third Reich's reign of terror. Also, the limitations on civilian firearms during the 12 year reign of the Third Reich is one of history's most enduring myths.

Danito are you really a ghost?

Interesting thought. The German People vs the German JEWISH people.

What part was "the limitations on civilian firearms during the 12 year reign of the Third Reich is one of history's most enduring myths."


The part where they (the Jewish people) were rounded up, having most of their belongings taken from them, forced to live in slum ghettos, then taken to concentration camps or forced labor camps, or the ones taken to the kill camps?

Which one is a enduring myth-
who had no limitations on civilian firearms?

You mean the Jews had weapons and didn't fight back during all this? Maybe they shouldn't have trusted their own government so much?

Fathersson, I enjoy reading your posts in this thread.

No, there was just hardly any chance for an organised revolt. In the early years, some thought, it would remain an episode. In the 40s it was total war, total terror.
In 1933, the communists still had weapons, but they were hit immediately. Don't forget, the police was also on the side of the Nazis.

How did things get so far? What started as a thread about gun control has become wild interpretations of what the Nazis did or did not do about guns. What does this have to do with the current situation.

Bottom line here is this. There is a right to bear arms in the US that cannot be taken away unless the Second Amendment is abolished, which is not going to happpen.

It is also a fact that despite this right to bear arms, there is no individual right to have drones, atomic bombs nuclear missles, hence there already is de facto arms control. The only question therefore is how far do we go as a matter of policy.

Even if background checks, limited magazines, and the assault rifle ban all goes into effect it will not end gun violence. But as the president says, if it saves one life, its worth it.

No one is going to come and take people's guns away. Thats NRA nonsense.

No it won't. If someone wants to do you harm they will find some other means to do it.

Mig, read what I said. I said it will NOT end all gun violence. There's just a chance it will be reduced, and I repeat if it saves one life its worth it.

You ARE right DT. IF even one other school slaughter (or shooting anywhere) is avoided, it would be worth it. Thing is, the gun clingers and their head honcho, NRA God, LaPierre or as I heard one person call him, Pepe la Pew, want to insist the violence won't end, which NOBODY is saying. It's become a talking point. That's their story and they're sticking to it. Don't beat a dead horse.

Btw, technically Lanza's mom, who was supposedly a responsible gun owner, had she lived, should have been held accountable for her son. She KNEW his mental state and still kept her guns (whether they were locked or unlocked).

TIS

I read your post twice just to make sure I read it correct.

I think all people by now understand that the 2nd amendment talks about the "right to bear arms," even thou there are many that would like to twist this to fit their own wants or needs. And without getting silly with the atomic bombs nuclear missiles kind of talk which never makes anyone's point seem real. Lets talk facts please. that are at least in the real realm of things.
We should really talk about what has been proposed or has already been enacted upon like in New York State. Which I may add was pushed thru like bandits in the night without any kind of public impute or discussion of any kind. Never mind it being put up to any type of vote or a way to express your concerns.

What good is the right to bear arms if the restrictions that are put on your arms are so tight that people feel that they have been wronged and that right has just about been taken away from them? I think people like to use the term infringed on.

I think the facts have shown (and those facts which came from places like the FBI and other Government agency's) that much of these new weapons bans are or will not effect mass shootings. Loose terms like Assault Rifles have started bans on semi auto rifles and hand guns. And if people don't understand the difference then they should learn before yelling and screaming about banning them!

People should read the real facts written by EXPERTS and not cloud the waters by repeating fears of people who know little if nothing on the subject.
Your own post :
Even if background checks, limited magazines, and the assault rifle ban all goes into effect it will not end gun violence. But as the president says, if it saves one life, its worth it.

has an opinion that most people can understand and agree upon, expect when you start adding the part about "If IT SAVES ONE LIVE' that is a term that has gotten over used and is not a good reason to start new bans or enact new laws. How many lives will be lost if these new rules on into effect, does anyone stop to think about THAT?

Your last statement: No one is going to come and take people's guns away. That's NRA nonsense. is one that may people are worried about. Here in New York, you may have seen and heard about what has leaked out of the king governor planing and it was just that. The taking of people weapons. Even if Finsteins call to ban 157 types of guns is unlikely to happen, then why waste the time to bring it out there?

Making people RE register ( and that has passed here in NY) their weapons makes this one step closer and easier to do. If not, there was real talk about special taxes on guns or fees being put on your registration of guns which would have to be done every so many of years. Another money grab, at the least. (All hand guns are already register here in NY just so people know.)

Well, I did my best to state the facts in a mature manor. Without nit picking or being rude.

Damn, like Paw use to say, the slope gets real slippery.

You know it always seems to slide down hill when it slides.

Thanks for reading,
Be safe

We'll never know whether universal background checks and universal reductions in magazines and reduction of assault weapons across the board will reduce violence or not. Agreet that New York has very tight gun laws, and I would he intellectually dishonest if I said I approved of the way the recent laws in New York were railroaded through. The fact is no matter how much I favor a law (or oppose it) these things deserve to be heard out, debated, etc., and not rammed through any legislature.

As long as you can buy guns at shows without a background check, or slip a gun from Virginia into New York, or someplace else where the laws are restrictive, then for sure there willl be no reduction in violence. That is why we need a FEDERAL law that applies nationwide. If it doesn't reduce violence I will be the first to admit it, but I don't think it will be the case.

As for the slippery slope argument, thats just a canard the NRA uses. Sliipery slope to what? Confiscation? Thats not gonna happen.

Yes, TIS she made a mistake that cost her and many others their lives! I wish there were ways for us to keep people from making mistakes, but that is just not going to happen. Are we to punish others for her mistakes?

I just said (above) about the "if it saves one life" line.....if it is so true why do we allows so many other things to kill people. Or is it just a line when there are no real facts that sounds good?

Drugs, drinking and driving, and the list goes on and on..why because people aren't willing to give up booze, drugs and their cars like they are so willing to give up others right to have firearms. Sounds cold but are you willing to give any of these up to save one life?
Did anyone read the FBI report of how people are killed? Hammers kill more then any Rifles that they are banning in NY state.
Lets be fair about the facts.

yes a saved life is wonderful but what I want to know what will they want to ban next?

AS I have said in other posts, here in NY we had the rounds go down to 10 rounds years ago and that is the term pushed around on this new Federal statements being talked about.
But the king Govenor couldn't be happy with that, since we were already at that level he just enacted it to come down from 10 to 7. WHY?

most guns don't even have a 7 round mag to be used. In other states it would be 17 rounds in these same guns. This would be a standard mag when the gun was made and what it would have come with the gun if it wasn't sold here in NY or I think CA.
Fear is if he could screw us here in NY with the recent laws in which were railroaded through what keeps them from doing it again and again to 5 then 3 then just a single shot is ok? PLease don't think this is silly, we just got seven with talks about removing our guns when they were in private sessions. Of course people want and need to speak out. BEFORE it happens

In our American society ever since there was such, we of that society have tried through laws and regulations to mitigate behaviors which may cause harm. Thus, during any US Congress (it consists of two years; each year is termed a session) over 10,000 bills will be considered of which about 5% will be passed by Congress and sent to the President. In Texas during a 140 day biennial session of the Legislature, the Legislature will consider about 6,000 bills and pass 1,000-1,600. Any bills considered or passed have their supporters and opponents. All can be viewed as restricting or affecting one's rights.

Well, New York sure as hell pulled a fast one on New Yorkers didn't they.....we got no chance for ANY type of imput at all.

Many are saying that they/NY moved to quick, and that the emotions of people hearing about the little children put gas to the flames. Maybe a waiting period and some time to let all people have a chance (with level heads) would have helped some.

Most laws do restrict.That is a given. It is to the degree that worrys people on this issue.

Way to go, New York. The Empire State!!

Look at Britain! Gun crime is down, but look at knife crime!! They even had to outlaw some KNIVES.

The real problem is what New York starts, Other states jump on and follow. So watch out Sc NJ with Christy may not be that far behind-

Both (Cumo and Christy) seem to be setting themselves up for a run for the white House? The president after Sundays 60 Mins. interview seems to be giving his nod to Hillary- not to get off topic here...sorry

Has anyone seen that Video on You Tube from Australia warning Americans about Gun Control. What has happen to THEM and what they want to share to Americans. If someone could find it and post it I am sure many would learn something from it.

I have trouble posting those on this board.
And what about You Tube looking to charge people on some levels in the future. (again not to get off topic, but wanted to mention that )

i think this is the one that you are talking about fatherson, i have actually posted it before...

Can I carry a stick of dynamite, a hand grenade and a flame thrower under the Second Amendment?

see, these are the exact kind of silly arguments that are constantly thrown towards gun owners, and then when we take the bait and respond, people are quick to jump in with terms like "gun nuts", or something similar. lets just take this board for example, i haven't seen one person on the more pro-gun side of things arguing for that, yet it doesn't stop people from using it as some sort of extreme example to paint us as crazy. what we are talking about are small arms, not those silly items you listed.

YES, that is the one I was talking about. Thanks for finding it and posting it.

Oh yeah, but it will never happen here ..RIGHT?

Good point on the name calling. Why is it cuz I am pro gun I am a gun nut or just because I disagree with Obama's agenda I am a right wing nut job?

This is what you get from people who have no real facts about something concerning this issue.

But let them have a problem, say a home invasion or their wife gets mugged or even raped some night and then lets see fast they run for some home protection.

Or your driving down a street and a gang of people block your way and start banging on your car saying give us your money and lets see how the little lady feels about things then.

Oh it will never happen to you...now who is naive Kay.

well, when people lack knowledge about a subject and emotion is whats fueling their opinion, its much easier to generalize as well as demonize an entire group as opposed to bringing forward facts and solid arguments.

And they are the ones who don't read the facts in anyones posts, but still know you are wrong!

I have seen some great facts, statistics and quotes by good sources, not all great but many, but we still get wise cracks and no real answers back.

How about a missile launcher?

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/30/seattle-gun-buyback-nets-a-missile-launcher-instead/

Sorry I screwed up the link, but here is the story minus the pictures.
Here is the real story on one of them:

LAPD Gun Buy Back “Rocket Launchers” Are Harmless Hollow Tubes


We all saw the dastardly images; evil rocket launchers which were seized during a recent Sandy Hook induced LAPD Gun Buy Back program – being lauded around above the heads of every cop in Southern California.

LAPD Police Chief Charlie Beck was gravely tickled when he announced to a press conference of eager pro gun control journalists that “Those are weapons of war, weapons of death. These are not hunting guns. These are not target guns…they have no place in our great city.”

Well, yeah they do CHIEF, because the junk you’re parading around is available for sale at every two bit military surplus store in town! Those are AT-4 Single Use anti-tank grenade launchers. Once fired they are as harmless as a crazy straw and the disposable remains often times turn up in military enthusiast frequented establishments, much the same as deactivated grenades and other various shells and odds n ends do.

The real kicker is that one of the tubes the LAPD was parading around was just a training device which had never been loaded and could never be loaded because it’s sole intent was for display and practice purposes.



This is another classic example of “old media” – a term I’m coining here – being overly eager to jump on a story that parlays the current agenda of their President and his gun control cohorts in Washington. Or we have some really overpaid journalists reporting news which is completely unverified as to it’s validity.

http://dcxposed.com/2013/01/06/lapd-gun-buy-back-rocket-launchers-are-harmless-hollow-tubes-busted/

or this Click here: Wait Until You Hear the Clever Way Private Gun Buyers Invaded a Gun Buyback Program in Seattle | Video | TheBlaze.

The article I posted actually was about the Seattle buyback. Apparently the guy with the Stinger Missile Launcher bought it from someone standing in line. Maybe you get it for that special someone in your life who is SO difficult to shop for!

Can you get them on amazon?

SEATTLE - Seattle police worked with Army officials Monday to track down the history of a nonfunctional missile launcher that showed up at a weapons buyback program and determine whether it was legal or possibly stolen from the military.

A man standing outside the event Saturday bought the military weapon for $100 from another person there, according to Detective Mark Jamieson.

The single-use device is a launch tube assembly for a Stinger portable surface-to-air missile and already had been used. As a controlled military item, it is not available to civilians through any surplus or disposal program offered by the government, according to Jamieson.

Seattle police have contacted Army officials at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma deputy chief Nick Metz said Monday.


and by the way in many states you find these same things in war surplus stores as they are harmless once they have been spent...POlice make a big deal out of them to show how great they are doing getting things off the street and oh they make such great headlines thou!
Until the real truth comes out and they look like fools.


The real sucker story was that people were dealing with the people parked around these buybacks. (which is legal there) and getting most of the good guns, paying cash for them instead of gift cards. But the police story says that the good people turned them in because they wanted them off the street...yeah these were the ones that other people did not want to buy because they were old, crap or DIDN"T WORK or were parts of a full firearm.

It so nice to read the real story from people that were really there, making post on blogs instead of media stories made up for a reason.

I read the daily apple and it didn't tell me how it is

Id buy one. I would buy a lot of things that have no practical use. Like weed.

It is easier for Cuomo to pass gun law than to pass one that really cuts down on crime. Stricter parole supervision, better prison programs to set inmates straight, instead of sending them out worse, tougher sentencing for repeat offenders, better tracking of dangerous mentally ill, he does none of that. So he passes unfair and useless gun laws that criminals will ignore, so he can say he did something that was tough on crime. Not a single criminal will obey it, but all honest gun owners will be forced to.

WTF!
I just came back from the sheriff's office where you go to get your gun's register and your license if you want to apply for one. (I was there to add another one to my carry license)

They have the best people who work there! They treat you like gold and never hassle you. They are true professionals.

We always chat while I file my paperwork and today was no different. I asked what the waiting period was for new people applying for a REG. License, The next appointment to take an application in to their office is MARCH 15 TH 2014 ! ! !
Then you may have 6-8 Months before background checks are done and a judge signs off after that.

So you could be waiting almost TWO YEARS if you start today and get your name on the list.
In New York you must register in your home county. So you just can't sneak into a smaller one out of the way some where and try and beat the system.
Damn, Thank GOD I have mine already. I wouldn't even want to try to get another CARRY License, It would takes years!

How about this for another form of Gun Control.

You can get your learner permit to drive a car at 16 and it takes you about an hour to take a small test and walk away with a learners permit...go figure!

Obviously they are underfunded. No sequester!

To elaborate on your post, sheriffs offices are funded by their respective counties through their respective governing bodies. Those bodies are responsible for approving or modifying county offices and departments budgets.

On the other hand, state legislatures fund their respective departments of public safety or departments of motor vehicles.

If this happened to any other department they would make sure funds (if that is the problem) were moved to make sure things rolled a lot better then that.

Remember when they opened offices on a Sunday even when they normally weren't open so they could give gay couples a chance to get married? They didn't seem to have problem paying then did they? Like people couldn't wait ONE extra day till Monday?

Get a kick out of this person, who cares enough to take the time to speak up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NyYYgLzF6zU

residents of ny state speaking up over unjust gun control measures...

here are the provisions of the current bill that the democratic lawmakers tried push through at 11:00pm, just an hour before the current bill was voted on, thankfully they were all rejected.

1. Confiscation of "assault weapons"
2. Confiscation of ten round clips
3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be released to the public
5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons”
6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
11. State issued pistol permits
12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons

Well, I have to admit, that skeet shooting picture of Obama was ridiculous. He's not fooling his critics by pandering to them with crap like that. This has been one of my issues with him: His lack of backbone at certain times. For once in his life can't he just say, This is who I am. Now deal with it?

I mean, who did he convert with this silly photo-op? He's not changing his position and everyone knows it.

Shameless pandering by politicians sickens me (and it should sicken anyone, no matter what side of the fence they're on).

well, i guess you're not a "real" democrat then

Et tu, FF?

i thought i would go through the the gun control measures outlined by the democrats in ny and give my opinion on them...



1. Confiscation of "assault weapons"
i thought they weren't "coming for the guns"?

2. Confiscation of ten round clips
see above.

3. Statewide database for ALL Guns
please, someone answer how this will "prevent" anything bad from happening? it serves no other purpose than to make the logistics of confiscation easier as soon as a more progressive(restrictive) gun control law is passed.

4. Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be released to the public
anyone in favor of this should just pack their shit and get the fuck out of the country.

5. Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than 5 rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons”
i thought ten rounds was the cutoff for an "assault weapon" and again, what the hell does a pistol grip have to do with anything?

6. Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to 5 and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines
so 10 wasn't good enough, better make it 5, how long until 3,2,1 or nothing? as for the magazines, for people who don't know, i can't even think of any semi-auto handgun that holds less than 6 rounds, and i'm pretty knowledgeable about guns. does that mean confiscation of anything which can hold more than 5? if thats the case, this provision is nothing short of a backdoor ban on all semi-automatic handguns.

7. Limit possession to no more than two (2) magazines
again, way to punish and restrict law abiding citizens. if anybody thinks that criminals will abide by this, then i suggest you go over to england, make an appointment with a psychologist, wait the 3 months that it will take under that dreamy state run healthcare system they have over there, and get your head examined.

8. Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month
more pointless red tape that again, does nothing but punish the law abiding. notice a theme here?

9. Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners
so why should people who have already waded chest high through a trench of buerocratic shit be forced to do it again? how does this make us "safer"?

10. Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years
same as above.

11. State issued pistol permits
yeah, lets put more on the plate of a state that can't manage what it already has. kinda like a 6 year old on halloween who has a stomach ache from eating too much candy the night before, but eats even more the next day somehow hoping for a different result.

12. Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State
sounds good on the surface, but seeing as how guns already have serial numbers and its a felony to deface them, how does this help prevent crime?

13. Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers
i'm assuming this is referring just to ammo sales seeing as how gun dealers are already under strict regulation. if it could be done in an efficient way free from all the bureaucracy, i would have no problem with this, but seeing as how thats hardly ever the case, seems like nothing more than more government regulation, pass.

14. Mandatory locking of guns at home
i'm far from opposed to storing firearms in a safe manner, but that all comes down to the individual and their personal circumstances. if my gun is "required" to be locked up at all times, what happens if i need it for protection, the whole point of the 2nd amendment? i know they have some of those small keycard activated quick access lockboxes for handguns, but what do i do if all i have is a shotgun? i guess just hope for the best in the event that something goes wrong. i guess when the politicians talk about "keeping us safer", they are referring to the crooks, thanks!

15. Fee for licensing, registering weapons
what can i say, of course there would have to be a way to generate money out of the whole thing, this is america after all

This is what a free society is all about.

I think i will just say some one stole my guns.

no, no, no. you lost them in a canoeing accident!

From what I have been reading on many of the gun blogs is that this is what all the meeting that the state has put on have been like.

Many more show up then the room they have for the meeting, and as you can tell many are older mature men who want to know the rules, and they want to know why! AND most if not all are very unhappy!

Typical State people, read the laws but don't help you understand or confirm what, why or how things will work.

This is what you get when you are back doored in the middle of the night without any kind of imput by liars who hold office.

It is almost as bad as bid rigging by making almost nothing else fit, by the way things are writen.

The big lies: the check in in the mail!
, I will pull out before...., and they aren't coming for your guns.

Funny I lived in NYC all my life except the three yrs where I lived in Germany and Argentina waiting fo the witnesses against me to turn up death. I never had a problem getting guns in all that time.

An interesting mix. Politicians and John Q Public. The total IQ in that room may have reached 1,000.

Talk about a pot shot!

Mrs. Obama has a nice set of guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXPlCjr0Vw&feature=player_embedded

Boobs, too.

Not to get off topic but:

1) That is no way to talk about her Secret Service Agents.

2) I didn't see them listed on the Weapons Ban list.

3) You can't always make a mt. over a molehill

4) They aren't real, they look bigger because of her bullet proof vest.

5) You can bet someone else paid for them before obama care kicked in.

6) No wonder Barry always has a smile on his face.

7) They came from Chicago, so you know she is packing.

8) You think those are 44's S & W.

9) What good are they if you can't find ammo to use them.

10) Ask Bill Clinton if they are better then Hillary's.

The hub went to buy some clips today. A 30 round clip that was $14 is now $50 so he passed on that.

were they the p-mags for the ar? if so, i've seen them going for more than that, and most people can't even find them.

Idk about p-mags or not but yes for the AR.

The prices on large capacity mags has tripled in the last month and thats even if you can find them. Alot of places are completely sold out.

I know one thing, all this talk about banning so called "assault weapons" is driving the prices up through the roof. Before the last ban back in the 1990's i picked up a couple Polytech Legend Underfolders for $1,500 (for the pair). On Gun Broker a couple of them have sold within the last couple weeks for $4,000 a piece!

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=327112668

The ones i have are practically brand new in the original box, i shot one of them a few times and then put both of them away. At these crazy prices i think it might be time to cash out my chips and make some cash.

Cha Ching!! Thank you Mr Obama!

I've had my eye on a sweet S&W 500 so maybe i'll sell one and use part of the profit to pick it up.



It's a real cannon, shoots 500 S&W Magnum rounds. Probably take down a helicopter with that thing.

Check it out, on the left is the infamous Dirty Harry 44 magnum round and on the right is the 500 S&W Magnum.

i shot the 500 mag before, and depending on the rounds used, its not as bad as you would think. with that said, i forgot exactly what loads i shot, but my buddies father said they were on the milder side so take that for what its worth. they are without a doubt pretty cool, but they are more of a novelty. they are however, very popular in alaska for grizzly bear defense! the short-barreled version is said to be much more brutal, a real wrist breaker

For a revolver they're heavy as hell too. Definitely not going to carry that thing around. Also a pretty large frame, not for someone with smaller hands.

Pretty much a novelty as you said. Something to take out in the woods or to the range every once in awhile. I haven't priced the 500 S&W Magnum rounds yet but i have a feeling they're going to be pretty expensive.

yeah, as soon as i picked it up its almost a shock to the system. you could just as easily use the thing as a club in a pinch! i held it one handed with my arm outstretched, and i couldn't keep it like that for long! here is hickok45, who is a wealth of knowledge for anyone interested in learning about firearms, demonstrating one of the many practical uses for that beast

Many times as a kid i would of loved to have done that to our mower!

Here's a guy using a full auto AK on his.

I like some of the photoshopped photo's using that Obama skeet shooting picture.

Here's a few, i like the one he's blasting from a car on Grand Theft Auto.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conserv...ia-2572992.html

on sale right now for the low price of $19.95
http://www.herobuilders.com/barack_obama-action_figures.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CebaoIDXWDQ

This guy makes gun owners look like redneck fools.
He should lose the right to that handgun for this stunt, then posting it on there.

i disagree, shooting stuff under controlled circumstances is alot of fun! FS, check out the channel if you are interested, its one of the most popular firearms channels on youtube. this guy is about as smart and responsible as you can get, and he without a doubt portrays the shooting community in the best light possible. this is just one of his rare "goofy" videos that showcases his very dry sense of humor!

What do you think of shooting rats in a horse barn when the horses are out? Is that a control condition.

How do you guys like the smith and Wesson combat master peace with the 4 inch barrel. It is a real nice gun don't you think.

Fun maybe, funny, could be...but no way in hell does he without a doubt portrays the shooting community in the best light possible.

I'll take your word for it, that it is just a goofy video, just like those jackass videos.

Is that similar to the S&W model-19 357mag combat special? They stopped making them but they were really popular over the years. S&W have made some real good firearms, especially the ones tuned up and slightly modified at the S&W Performance center.

I had a 357 Colt Python that i wish i didn't sell. Used to really like that one. Same with a Franchi SPAS-12 Shotgun i once had but traded it in towards another gun. Can't buy those things anymore. I've had many real nice guns over the years but i usually sell or trade one to get another, that type of thing. Not trying to build up an arsenal or anything. These days i usually stick to pistols when i go to the range, and i've been looking at a nice SIG Sauer pistol i've been thinking of picking up. Had a few SIG's over the years and never had any problems with any of them.

So what guns do you guys own and like to shoot? Hunting rifles? Pistols? Bazooka's?

i guess thats where you and me might see a little differently then. to me, anybody who has fun with their guns safely is doing nothing imo to draw negative attention to the sport, or firearms in general. its quite the opposite to me, as they show that adults can be trusted to have fun with things that some see as nothing more than dangerous and un-necessary. guns, at least for me, are for self defense first and foremost, but if they just sat around all the time, thats no fun at all. i wish to hell that i lived in an area where i could just go out back and blast away at stuff, but sadly i don't, although i'm working hard to hopefully make that a possibility in the future. like i said, check out some of the other videos he posts and you will see what i'm talking about.

Different strokes I guess....I guess it matters what you community is like. I know little about NJ, but here in Central New York we have a large one. I belong to several Gun Clubs and Ranges.
If you haven't already had the chance, look into taking some firearm instruction.
With trainers who will teach you tactical and self defense instruction along with
the do's and don't of proper etiquette evolved in having and handling your weapons.
The law and what it means and how to avoid problems. The judge that helped me get my carry permit and the instructors and trainers who taught me wouldn't think much of me if I use any of my weapons for amusements like blowing up things like lawn mowers and such.

Five Felonies if you like the S&W 500 you'll love this revolver, a Austrian Pfeifer-Zeliska 600 Nitro Express. They might have a 700 Nitro Express too but i'm not sure. They say it's 3 times more powerful than the Smith and Wesson .500 Magnum.



Check out this article on it. http://www.vincelewis.net/60magnum.html

Is ammo over .50 cal even legal for revolvers here in the usa?

Get a load of the price for the ammo this beast uses.

5 rounds of .600 Nitro Express will cost you $180 and for the .700 Nitro Express five rounds will cost you $250. LOL! Thats $50 bucks every time you pull the trigger!

http://www.kynochusa.com/Cartridges.html

thats too much even for me giancarlo! besides the price, something like that can really mess up your wrist, and thats no joke! as for the price of the ammo, i guess it goes back to ying and yang. sure, its crazy expensive, but my guess is that after shooting it once, you will be unlikely to try it again! as far as the legality of rounds over .50 caliber, i think it varies from state to state but i believe that generally anything over .50cal is labeled a "destructive device", and is highly regulated by the BATF similar to full auto weapons, supressors, short barreled shotguns ect. kinda silly in a way seeing as a gun like that is more likely to do damage to the shooter rather than innocent people!

i couldn't even imagine the recoil generated by either of those two rounds, and in a revolver to boot! a few years ago when i was in new hampshire doing some work, i was given an opportunity to shoot a .505 gibbs. the round was the size of a small cigar, and the recoil was terrible, even out of a real heavy double rifle. i fired 2 shots, and had a bruised shoulder for more than a week. i know my limits, and that revolver is too much for me, but give it a go if you are a glutton for punishment

Not me, i'm way too cheap to spend $50 a round.

Thats something you might want to try once just to say you did, but after that no way jose.

Any way you look at it, that's a penis extender.

LOL It sure is and a very big one to boot. The John Holmes deluxe model of penis extenders.

I'll pass on that. I'm happy with our S&W 454. It will shoot 460,454,45 long colt bullets. And it don't have much of a kick.

Thats a real nice revolver Mignon.

The 454 Casull is some heavy artillery. 460 S&W is too.

Do you shoot often? I used to hit the range a couple times a month but i've been slacking the past year or so.

Yea we hit the range a couple times a month depending on the weather. But with bullets getting expensive and hard to come by probably won't be to often. Giancarlo have you shot a 50 cal?

I've shot a Barrett 50 cal rifle several times. I really liked it and with the right scope you can hit targets at crazy distances. The anti gun people really hate that gun and love to mention that civillians can buy it just like any other long rifle. Thats the most powerful weapon i've shot so far.

Looks like it is time to open a gun thread on here, for talk about Guns.

That would keep the Gun Control issue by itself.

Then everyone can post all the pictures and facts they want about the penis guns.

Looks like universal registration is all but a done deal.

Ok, but just two more large weapon as a phallic symbol photo's because my manhood tool is feeling extremely inadequate tonight. Last one and i'm outta here.

M65 Nuclear Cannon aka "Atomic Annie"

Giancarlo, someone from the Federal Govt. wants to speak to you! They just put you on the watch list!
You don't have a bunker somewhere do you?

Pennsylvania's Attorney General today eliminated the Florida Loophole, which had previously allowed commonwealth residents, who had been denied concealed-carry permits in PA, to apply for a CCP in Florida, and then carry a concealed gun through a reciprocity agreement that had been in place since 2001. Florida permits will be honored only if the carrier has documents proving residence in Florida.

The hub has a non resident permit for Pennsylvania & Florida so with his Ohio resident permit he can carry in most states.

I was reading about this earlier today.

I have a friend who lives down south and told me a couple years ago that he was applying for a carry permit in Delaware and i asked him why you coming up north, why don't you just get it where you live? So he told me it was easier to get approved in Delaware then the state he lives in but that the Delaware permit was good in his state. I didn't know what the hell he was talking about until today when they were talking about Florida and Pennsylvania. When he told what he was doing i was thinking it must of been something illegal but he swore it wasn't. To me why would Delaware approve someone who didn't live in the state, didn't do business in the state and only time he was there is when he would be driving through it to get to visit his family in Jersey.

Unreal you can do that kind of stuff, i really thought he was out of his mind and would get arrested but now i know he knew what he was doing. Huh, interesting you could do that legally.

Can't talk about the bunker, that info is classified and only given out on a need to know basis.

Rush for permits

I saw Atomic Annie when I visited the National Atomic Museum on Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. It was a fabulous museum. But, after 9/11, they moved it to a location off the base for security reasons. Don't know if it's back on the base yet.

Talk about "penis-envy": After SAC was awarded a monopoly on atomic bombs, every branch of the Service demanded their own nuclear toys. "Atomic Annie" was one of the Army's toys. That huge piece of artillery had to be hauled around by heavy trucks. Then the enemy had to stand still while the operators took aim and fired the thing. Oh, and by the way, the crew had to be sure to be very far away from the target, and check the wind, since it fired a 15-kiloton warhead.

It will be a big night for Obama.
Seems like he is setting the stage by filling the gallery tonight with gun victims.
He will trot them out like window dressing just like he does by putting kids around him when he wants to pull that card out. Yes, lets fill the place up with these people so he can sell his plan which will effect each one of us.

I am truly sorry for Gabby Gifford or any other person who has something like this happen to them, BUT, lets not turn them into gods because of what happened.

AS bad as it may sound to some- But being hurt doesn't make their opinion any Stronger/better then the rest of us. In fact many will say that their view has been tainted because of what happen to them.

Albany today,.... many people will be heading there to protest the NY State bans and controls on guns. Trying to show the Gov. their dislike for it because it was put in place in the dead of night and is over restrictive. I would bet that the Gov. will be out of town today-

be safe.

Reminds me of Bill Clinton and Jim Brady. Clinton would wheel him out everytime he would push for more restrictions. And you do feel sorry for the guy because he has suffered alot but again he was shot by someone with serious mental problems. I just don't like the way these shooting victims are used by the politicians.

I don't know. IF I had a child or loved one murdered like those families and if I saw that a serious attempt was being made to control gun violence I would not hesitate to let my voice/face be heard.

Anyway gunclingers, don't fret YOU will be represented as well. One Republican congressman (forgot name) invited Ted Nugent aka Motor City Mad Man, as his guest. That's not "using" someone for political advantage (or in this case maybe political suicide)? I read Nugent would be taking questions as well.


TIS

LOL! "The Motor City Madman". Ted puts on a real good show, i haven't seen him recently but over the years i've been to a few of his shows. When he was younger he would dress like Tarzan and swing all over the stage. He was shooting flaming arrows at this one show. And the thing with Ted is he's a natural crazyman, no drugs and i don't even think he drinks alcohol. A natural true Wild Man!

There was a seal that died in action. In his will he requested Ted Nugent to play at his funeral. The president put a stop to that. I am sure the googlers will doubt that story and check it out so do it. President Obama is a cock sucker. He did not even go to the seals funeral with the most confirmed kills. Double silver star winner whose funeral was in cowboy stadium. As I said Obama his a cock sucker.

Any one going to Watch Obama state of the union address. He seems to think we need more stimulus the fucking idiot

I don't see this as your side or mine.(but lets face it, I can see your side and you know my side) So I don't think having any of these people being there helps.

I sure as hell will bet that Obama will not mention Nugent in his speech as he will with the people he wants to use for his position tho.

and before we hear that this has been going on for years... that reason doesn't make it right.

gunclingers? Thank God for those people who are smart enough to see that their rights are not taken away.

I may point out as FACT that these so call "gunclingers" are the same people that serve in the military, law enforcement and are the ones that all the folks in this country call upon when they are afraid of the big bad evil villain. They also use their guns as many of the other people do, even when not in uniform. I think I read that 1-4 black rifles (as they are being called )are owned by people who are or have been in the military or law enforcement field. Next time you see an officer, ask him what he has or knows of his fellow officers. You may really be surprised by their answer.

Just for the record...I don't think calling Obama those type of names makes your point any better. In fact it discounts any real value it may have.

Reason with facts not name calling. Leave the name calling to people who have little or nothing worth saying.

and just so you don't think I didn't read your post: there are many people who say that is what Obama likes to do to keep popular. Give away more money to keep the masses from seeing that he hasn't taken care of the economy.

He sucks cock to keep popular?

Well, good enough for the Kardashians....

Heck if I care if some swing that way., what Barry or anyone else puts in their mouths is their problem.

But are you talking the Gay marriage issue or have you mixed up which weapons we are talking about?

I find what comes OUT of the average politician's mouth much more disturbing than what they put in them.

Who was that Congressman WEINER? and his naked pictures....

Speaking of the former Congressman:

I subscribe to a couple of French magazines to keep up with what little I have left of the French language. When the Dominique Strauss Kahn scandal broke, L'Express devoted an entire issue to "What Do the Americans Think of US?" Of course the French don't give a rat's ass about what the Americans think of them, so they centered on what they think of Americans. The lead article began, "Certainly the Americans have nothing to teach us about morality in public life." They then went through a long litany of misbehaving US politicians, ending up with Weiner, who, they wrote, "was sending over the Internet photographs of sa viritite triomphant." Isn't that a hell of a lot more elegant than "hardon"? Gotta love the French language.

The old OSCAR MEYER himself!

Lets hear it for the President

I have to agree with you Mr President, everyone deserves a Vote. Even here in New York, where we didn't even get a chance to voice an opinion.
We sure of HELL would have liked a vote before being taken to the cleaners. But you keep using smoke and mirror to get your way. Sooner or later you may get the point what is real and what is bull on this issue. The places you mention have the some of the tuffest gun laws around, and it didn't stop anything.
Remeber that poor little girl from Chicago, yYour home area. There is a NO GUN policy there. Did it save her?
Only good people follow the rules, get that only the good people follow and are hurt by these calls for new rules.


People have cut the mental health field to the bone and now you see what happens....

But most people want to see the beef, Yes,
JOBS so we can aford to pay for all this new crap you want to spend money on.
Keep telling us that the rich will pay...pass the check to them. How dumb do you think the people are?

Middle Class does need a chance, a chance from leadership like this!

NY Gov say NO NEW TAXES...Yes, just fees and more fees and higher fees, but no new taxes...Doesn't mean dick what you call if it comes out of our pockets, we are paying more!


Tell the truth- the state of the union is poor for most Americans and you don't know crap about fixing it but blaming the so called other side for not giving you what you want.

???
I tend to be against bans but the people in NY state and NYC did get a vote. They voted for Cuomo and Bloomberg despite both politicians' stances on gun rights and in Bloomberg's case generalized hostility for the 4th Amendment. The new law (seven round max) in NY shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. Neither should Bloomberg's aggressive stances against the gun rights crowd or illegal guns. The people spoke and got what they wanted/deserved. NYC and state have always had restrictive gun legislation. If enough people were really bothered by it they would change the law, as we did in Michigan. Apparently that's not the case.

I am from NYC bloomberg is a man of many faces. What ever gets him into office that is what he is. Now it doesn't matter even he figured out he can't be elected again. In his first election public advocate green was nominated as the democrats. Bloomer is a democrates but ran as a republican. He got guiliani backing only because Giuliani hated green.

Then bloomberg bought the election.

Gov cuomo they started to talk about how great he was as a governor a week after he got elected. He did not do anything to warrant that praise except be a democrat. Maybe one other thing having a hot girlfriend.

Now let's get to Weiner. He got in because his mother is big in ny public school system. He was a speaker at some of my kids school graduations. He did not even have a law degree. Shummer got him in as a congressmen.

Then he goes before congress and he acts like he is a tough guy. He is a mamas boy in real life who likes to take pictures of himself and send them to people. He did it right after and before he gets married disrespecting his wife.

I confronted him one day just for kicks. He was in a big van not too far from where I live. Van was full of voters I talked down to him and then said I thought you were a tough guy your a mamas boy. That was a fun day at least for me.

Oh almost forgot did you read the dead cop that shot all those innocent people what he wrote. He agreed with Obama, cuomo and Bloomberg on gun control . He endorsed their ideas on gun control. Have you heard or read anything about what he wrote?

translation: we need to move fast, as we only have a limited amount of time to exploit the current tragedy to push forth our agenda. we can't ever let a good tragedy go to waste, and its a shame that chris dorner was a black democrat who supported gun control, as opposed to a white, pro gun republican, as we could have really used that to our advantage. don't worry though, as i have told sarah brady, we have so many different tricks up our sleeve that will make "fast and furious" look tame by comparison.

I read his manifesto last friday on CNN and heard parts of it read on the Mark Levin show last Thursday.

How can anyones manifesto be taken seriously after it starts talking about what an "awesome" guy Charlie Sheen is? He lost me right after i read that.

He's right, we do. And the vast majority of economists agree as well. As a student of economics, I was bummed that the stimulus wasnt bigger. But thats another story.

Sorry to get off topic. Havent really commented in the GBB political threads in a long time.

Buxton, ME --(Ammoland.com)- Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York. As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies. For “civilian” customers residing in New York: At your choice, we will: •Complete your order and ship to a dealer of your choice outside of NY. •Refund your payment in full. •Hold your items...

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/02/york...#axzz2KvMJ28zC

Here is what many people would like to know about who has what in their state by population. Note the state where things have gone wrong have very low numbers...

http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2...-Population.htm

It is starting here in NEW YORK STATE

Thousands and Thousands Protest Rally in Albany over the new SAFE ACT with is Gun Control in New York!

and Lawsuits have been filed against the act!

33 counties are passing regs against the laws.

Firearm companies are saying that they will not sell to the state if they can not sell to the general public the same things. These companies are getting great praise by the gun community.


The people are coming for you King Gov. Cumo for the shaft you gave them and the message is loud and clear!

and the big joke is they have passed a rule saying it is alright for movie companies to use these very guns banned while filming here in NY state....Why for them? The MONEY $$$$ they spend big $$$ filming here.

A friend of mine once explained to me that many of the conflicts in US politics, espeically the gun ownership controversy, correlate with urban vs rural conflicts.
So, even though the whole concept of gun ownership is very strange to me, I can imagine that it makes sense to own guns as means of self defense if you have a house in the middle of nowhere and it takes the police 20 minutes or more until they arrive. On the other side, hunting in New York City seems a little absurd.
What do you think?

I live in NYC it could take the police more then 20 minutes if you call them .

If a person gets caught with a gun in Berlin what can happen to them?

If you wanted to buy an illegal gun in Berlin how would you get one? Would you go through the Turkish community. How about getting heroin sometimes we all need our fixes.

One last question. What if I wanted to play stickball on what is left of the Berlin wall. Let's say I wanted to play opposite the old Ghestopo head quarters that I understand is still in Berlin. But the building has another function now of course.

Bu there is an active street with traffic between the wall and the building. Would the cops hassle me or could I talk or buy my way out of being arrested if I got caught.

And where going to get the money from where china? Most of the money on the last stimulus was pissed away.

Good news today is sequestration day isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-F_zfoDqI&feature=youtu.be

Posted on another site, but it is an interesting read on this subject for sure:

The Statue of Liberty is kaput

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The line from Saving Private Ryan seemed apt for this thread. I have read a lot over the past few months on THR and given my European perspective I just wanted to add something to the debate.

You have to do everything possible to prevent the further infringement on the iconic American right that is the right to keep and bear arms.


Firearms legislation is all about one word and that word is Control with a capital C. It removes the individual's natural right to be able to defend themselves and their families. The goal to make you completely and utterly 100% reliant upon the government. There is no question that RKBA is a true litmus test of trust between those who govern and those who elect them to office.

We are restricted here in numerous ways but broadly it is done by each generation as the technocrats in the EU think long term. Each successive generation is conditioned to accept more restrictions/more costs/more rules of law until you go from a completely free society to complete reliance upon government for anything related to firearms. They think long term.

As a European I have zero rights to use a firearm for defense. I can only use it for hunting or sporting purposes, it was not always like this within this country. The Czech Republic has carry laws but I have no doubt over the decade(s) to come they will be completely eradicated to align with broader EU standards. There is no space for the natural right of self-defense of the individual within the EU collective. Every state must be molded to comply with the desires of non-elected technocrats in Brussels. They think long term....it is all for the collective good.

I cannot even acquire an air rifle/pistol without government approval - everything is licensed/registered/approved. It did not begin that way but once they started registration it was only a question of time. Eventually registration and consequently licensing/approval became mandatory for everything. They think long term.

Financial costs.
I know people who have stopped shooting because the cost of compliance was simply too high both financially and also from all the paperwork and approvals one requires just to target shoot as a pastime.


Before I pay a single cent on acquiring a new firearm here I am looking at USD 116,11....

EUR 20
My European license must be updated.

EUR 50
This is the going rate for updating my national license and having firearms added to it.

EUR 18
I have to go to a photographer and get photos taken "professionally"...i.e. photos placed within the stationary of the photographer. My wife has all the gear to take the same photos, 5k worth of photography equipment which can get the same result....but they are not accepted.

I then have mandatory club membership on an annual basis along with renewing both licenses, both are up for renewal next year. The rising cost of compliance prohibits new shooters to join the sport and inevitably each generation has less and less knowledge/familiarity with firearms. Overall, less people have firearms. They think long term.

Also, there is no legal definition set as to the number of firearms one can own in this country but it is restricted by the head of the firearms department here to a given number. Try and imagine having the number of firearms you own restricted by the whims of a government official. Nobody can afford to take the government to court to point this out, my wife is a lawyer and she laughed at the idea.

In most European countries they banned certain types of firearms or grandfathered them. It is the same thing with a timestamp on the latter. Each successive generation has less until they wake up one day looking like the U.K. It took them less than 100 years to do it. They think long term.

The RKBA underpins liberty and so you all need to do everything possible to try and preserve your right, the RKBA for your childrens' children. You need to start thinking long term too.

FS, calm down! Nobody is going to take your guns away.

Ditto.

Bull,
You must not be reading much on this subject.
What do you think a ban is?



Over 5000 people showed up in Albany (NY) who also feel the same way here. And those are just the ones who could make it there.

and the truth is: if you don't like what I post then move on down the road. NO one is making you read-
or tell you what to post-
Oh wait, someday they just may be doing that...

I am surprised that you so called lawyers aren't following this with what happened in NYS Courts.

My advice for you is get some illegal weapons that no one knows about. Then hide them away so when you need them in a,life and death situation you have them. So when they come to confiscate the weapons you both and registered legally you still have something to protect yourself and your family

There we go!

I'm not really sure what your questions have to do with what I posted, but I try to give you an answer:

1) If you're caught with a gun, it depends if you have a license. If you're involved in illegal trade with guns you can land max. 5 years behind bars. There are 60,000 registered guns in the city (3,5 million inhabitants). Those guns belong to hunters, money transporters, sport shooters. (Not counting police and other security people). Apart from that only 350 people own registered guns.

2) I don't know where I'd have to go to look for illegal guns.

3) The former headquarter of the Gestapo is a museum now. I don't know what would happen if you wanted to play stickball there. Why would somebody above the age of 14 want to do that? The museum is abou 1,000 meters away from where the Berlin wall used to be. There are very few parts left of the Berlin wall. Only this morning some of the parts (known as the East Side Gallery) had been torn down, because some investor wants to build there. Stickball? No problem. Just check out that the ball doesn't fall into the river. But what does that have to do with guns?

It wasnt pissed away, quite the contrary. Dont believe the conservative spin machine on that one. We all know they always have their facts straight. LOL

Actually it would be smart (from a business/common sense standpoint) if we continued to borrow now to make investments in infrastructure/education, etc since interest rates are at historically low levels.

20 minutes really? It doesn't take 15 minutes TOPS for the cops to come to my neighborhood. But then again, the BX (particularly the South near me) has a higher crime rate than other areas in the city so it makes sense for their faster response times.

I think you give nyc cops too much credit. If their was real trouble they would rather show up after the trouble ends and not get in the middle of it. If they did show up your as apt to be shot by the cops as the bad guys. Hey maybe there is not much difference between the bad guys and the cops.

Have you personally had to call up the cops yourself. If so how did it turn out?

Well I am moving to Berlin in may or so. I have a grandson there. The gun think us I can't be without a gun. So if I can't get one legally I will get one illegally. I am pretty sure I can get one in the Turkish community. I knew tge answer before I asked the question.

On stick ball I grew up playing stickball. When I first went to Berlin I wanted to play off that spot and my family was going to play against my daughter husband family. I was going to put it on YouTube and show it to my east Harlem and Brooklyn friends.

But when I got there both sides of tge family punked out. They were afraid of getting pinched if we did it on a well traveled area. I was very disappointed, but I have not given up on the idea that's why.

What about buying heroin there?

Question?- How much of a beating could/would you and your wife or your family take in that 15 minutes TOPS wait till a cop shows up?

What do you need a gun for in this city?
And what's that shit about heroin?

Here is a police professional telling you like it is:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vA3O6HriVTc

NYPD has a very tough job to do no question about it. Ive been lucky to never have had to call them for anything, but you often see a bunch of them walking the beat in my neighborhood, there's always at least a good 10 of them at the local subway station doing random bag checks every other day.

Random bag checks? Are they allowed to do that? With no warrant they can just search peoples bags?

A very subjective response to that question. There's no reason for anybody to give me or my family a beating. Growing up in the neighborhood, many of the local gangbangers know my family and know me from the area. I grew up with many of them, played on sports teams with them, went to school with them. They see me everyday in a suit and tie off to the office, in a neighborhood where such a sight is not a common occurrence. Let's just say that it is not in their interest to fuck with me given who im with, i mind my business and they mind theirs. Obcourse something can always happen to you or your family this is NYC, theres a bunch of crazies roaming the streets not to mention terrorists itching to attack us on a daily basis. You are not going to be safe 100% of the time no matter what you do.

Yes they are allowed to do that. It became even more commonplace after the London subway bombings. Coincidentally, I have only been stopped once to be checked in my life. I dont exactly fit the profile of a an individual who might bomb the subway.

It would be helpful to posters if they would research court rulings regarding any number of topics that emerge on this Board. Regarding the US Constitution's 4th amendment content regarding searches, federal courts have consistently ruled that random searches under certain circumstances are constitutional when they are narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate public safety objective. There are other predicates that accrue to a constitutional search, but they vary according to the type of search conducted. Subway searches are constitutional.

I used the term Beating, and you come back with "There's no reason for anybody to give me or my family a beating.

The same thought may have gone thru the people in the movie house or the teachera and children in Newton school. It only happens to the other guy....
Still how much could happen in that 15 minutes you are waiting for before it is reported and enough people get there to stop the problem...
Now just because it hasn't happen to you before, could it happen to just about anyone. You bet, and you could be betting you or your love ones life.

Only sheep depend on others to take care of them from the wovles out there. I would rather take my chance on myself and be ready the moment I relize there is a problem, not waiting or depending on others

Sorry the law clerk had the weekend off.

Well it goes without saying that if something were to happen that I would do what I can do (fight, resist) during that time to protect myself while I wait for help to arrive. If you feel that by carrying a weapon such as a gun will make you safer then go ahead nobody is stopping you. Oftentimes, the people carrying those weapons for security have them used against them by the very people perpetrating the crime. Fact is that crime is near its lowest levels ever in NYC. The probability that an average person will be the victim of a crime is quite low.

This is going to be very interesting to see how the feds deal with this one in the near future. People "printing" out guns on the new 3d printers.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/...ver-600-rounds/

For people that don't know the lower reciever of a AR15 is the registered part and pretty soon you will be able to sit at home on your pc and just hit the print button and print out as many as you want. Still not great but these guys are getting better and better at making these receivers. I have no doubt that within a few more years this will be a major problem for our pals at the BATF.

Well, In New York City, your not allowed to carry so you are shit out of luck in holding anyone off with a weapon like a handgun. Only the bad guys have them. So never mind taking a knife to a gun fight. Fists aren't going to "cut" it-
"OFTENTIMES"
and if you had any training at all - you would know that the old folk law about your gun beging used against you is just that.The phrase is used most often by someone taking a negative view on guns and their ownership. kind of like your mother telling you that you will shoot your eye out with your BB Gun- Stolen sure. if not stored correctly, taken from your hand, not likely unless you refuse to pull the triger. It is not like the movies with the super heros disarming a gang of thugs.

"The probability that an average person will be the victim of a crime is quite low."

Great then the laws we already had were doing fine and we didn't need all those new ones added to boot then did we-

How many years in jail for carrying an illegal firearm in nyc?

Violent crime- particularly those involving guns is near all-time lows in NYC. Even lower for somebody who is not involved in the criminal underworld. E.g. if your not a criminal and just a regular joe shmoe the possibility of you being the victim of crime involving a gun is quite low. Having a knife is statistically more than enough to protect yourself if you really want to against a crime.

The new gun laws being proposed are meant to prevent mass shootings with high capacity weapons and to help address people with mental health issues getting access to guns.

If you feel that you need to carry a gun to feel safe and "protect" yourself against all the criminals who might target you or your family, then go right ahead. Enjoy.

I support the second amendment, but there's no reason for ANY American to carry and own an automatic assault rifle.

The state of New York passed a 3.5 year mandatory minimum sentence for felony possession of an unlicensed loaded gun in 2006.

In a perfect world that would be a great dream to have.
After looking around the world today and the turmoil out there''' I am not so sure that works. Or will ever happen.
As far back are you can remember "man" has always had something.

Maybe we should go back to swords!

Not swords fathersson but an attempt to curb the violence that plagues our country. Banning assault weapons is one way to do it.

we have already been over this many times here, fully automatic weapons are exceedingly hard to get, as well as insanely expensive, often $10,000 or more for some of the lower quality(and limited # available since 1986) weapons that are for sale. you have to go through a lengthy backround check with the BATF, and regardless these weapons are banned in many states, ny and nj included, hardly the avenue a criminal would go down. to expand on that, i believe since 1934 when the sale of fully automatic weapons was highly restricted, that their have only been 2 murders committed with "legal" automatic weapons, and one of them involved a cop, surprisingly.


i'm sure it does happen, but rarely. like fatherson mentioned, real life is alot different than a james bond movie where a karate chop or a wrist grab will relieve someone of their weapon. also, with many of the tactical holsters available, simply grabbing at the gun isn't going to free it from the holster. have a friend put a water pistol in his pocket, stand across the room from him, and try to take it away from him before you get a wet spot on your shirt the bottom line is, that if you have a license to carry a concealed handgun, you should never pull it, much less even touch it, unless you are ready and willing to shoot. there is lots of great training out there to help people learn how to make that distinction.


the new restrictions that were shoved through so alarmingly fast have absolutly nothing to do with preventing a mass shooting, despite what they tell you. its pure political posturing by a governer who is under some weird delusion that he has a shot to be president and that this is one of the platforms that he can spring from, as well as a mayor who believes that he should have the right to tell you how to live almost every aspect of your life. anyone who understands anything about how guns function knows that the law only sounds good on paper to people who have little to no experience with guns.


not only to people who carry protect themselves, they protect others as well. google some examples of ccw holders saving lives, there are so many results that it gets repetitive fast. one of the reason some generally hold guns in such a negative view is that they never hear about the stories of gun owner doing good, but i assure you they are out there for anyone willing to look. there are examples of people injuring others as well, but they are not nearly as widespread. people who misuse their firearms, whether ccw or otherwise, are dealt with very harshly, as they should be.

what i have found on a personal basis is people who carry a concealed weapon don't do it because they are some paranoid right wing nutjob, they do so because above all else it is their right, and its nice to know that you are prepared in the highly unlikely scenario that you need it. it has alot to do with the self sufficient attitude that many americans still posses, and i think its a great trait to have!


that point makes too much sense, so it should be discounted seriously though, all forms of violent crime have dramatically dropped nationwide, even in the last 20 years. the stats are listed by the fbi for anyone who's interested. when discussing important issues, such as gun rights in this case, the big picture always needs to be looked at, and that holds true no matter what the issue in discussion is. isolated events, no matter how sad they may be, always need to be looked at in the broader context, no matter how difficult that maybe for some who are only able to act on emotion.


the facts don't agree with you. look it up on the fbi's own website, "assault weapons", a term coined by the media in the first place, are used in such a small % of violent crime that even if all semi-automatic rifles were banned today, the effect that it would have would almost be too small to measure. please look this up, don't take my word for it. above all else, ask yourself this: as a criminal, would you rather commit a violent crime(assault, robbery, rape, murder) in a city such as chicago with very restrictive firearms laws, or one such as dallas where adults are trusted with dangerous things and allowed to defend themselves with deadly force. the answer seems pretty simple to me.

Some stats for thought

In the United States in 2009 there were 3 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United Kingdom, with very restrictive firearm laws (handguns are totally prohibited, for example) was .07, about 40 times lower, and for Germany .02. Firearms are also the most common method of suicide, accounting for 53.7% of all suicides committed in the United States in 2003.

I also did some FBI digging. In 2006, the FBI reported there were 10,177 gunshot deaths, but there were 2.5 million crimes de-escalated by armed citizens, who believed they had sufficient control of the situation that they did not have to fire their weapon. Sometimes by merely displaying their weapon.

From 1994 to 2004, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place.


Except for 1999, a year of five shootings (including the Columbine massacre), the assault ban period was peaceful by US standards:
Years Shootings Per year People shot/year
1982-1994 19 1.5 25.5
1995-2004 16 1.6 20.9
2005-2012 27 3.4* 54.8*
*p<0.05 compared with 1995-2004.

Since the expiration of the gun ban in 2004, the number of shootings per year has doubled, and the number of victims per year has nearly tripled. Three of the bloodiest four years shown here occurred since the expiration.






Just for the record, I support the second amendment along with some rational restrictions to its use. Personally, I plan to legally own a firearm at some point in the future.

some interesting stats, thanks for sharing. i will caution however, that comparing countries with different cultures made up of vastly different ethnic groups can get tricky, as there are so many different variables to take into account, not the least of which are the ways the data is collected, as well as the definitions of different crimes, as these tend to vary alot more than you would think even in similar countries such as the US and UK.

another thing to take into account with regards to the US and UK is the rate of firearms ownership. if you have a vastly higher % of gun ownership here, then our numbers are going to be higher by default, despite adjusting for population. its not much different than saying the US has a much higher % of auto accidents/fatalities compared to say eithiopia, as we undoubtably have both more cars both in numbers and per capita.

Crime data along with other law enforcement data is generally collected and reported the same way in both the us and uk as they both use internationally accepted ways of data collection advocated by the united nations, ngos, and research institutions. Some interesting stats for sure in the infographics above.Hope all is well.

here's an interesting article that goes into detail about some of the fuckery with regards to crime statistic reporting in the UK.

http://www.theendrun.com/larry-pratt-british-gun-crime-stats-a-sham

thanks for sharing the article

More then 400 people packed a meeting Monday at the Onondaga County Courthouse about the new New York Law that restricts certain types of Gun Ownership. Many waiting in line outside the courthouse in cold weather waiting to get in and be heard.

"I've Never seen so many pople in the chamber," said Ryan McMahon, Chairman of the Legistature.
Many public Officals spoke against the new laws and the problems that it is causing. The mood in the chamber was anti-goverment. Several people said most gun owners would not comply with the new law.

The County Legislature is expected to vote today on a resolution opposing the law.

Full story by Tim Knauss- The Post Standard

Then they should go to jail. You can't pick the laws you like.

Yes, you are right in princple but I think you will find that the battle over this law is not over.

Even at the Federal level things are a changing and they aren't getting anywhere near what Cumo rammed (without an lube) passed the people without respect for the normal process which occurs in making a law.

By the way it sounds like you better start building a whole lot of cells. Get your tax money out to pay for them-

Also the county did pased the resolution joining many others counties in kicking back this law. So what does that tell you....that maybe just maybe the people will get this law changed which they feel is wrong by so many. It is a start. a slower start then most would like, but that is the way to do it I guess.

Hey, I have a simple solution. Guns should be in a similar category as automobiles. You must pass a test to use one, register a gun periodically, obtain insurance (so if you kill or maime someone you pay restitution), have your gun inspected, display a license. But the key is to have LAW ENFORCEMENT. That's where things breakdown.

This system would require accountability for manufacturers, sellers and users.

many states already have tests/training as mandatory, more so when ccw is concerned. as far as insurance, what does that do? if you assault/injure/kill someone, you can already be brought to civil court, so that accomplishes nothing besides adding additional costs that may prevent someone less finacially well off from being able to protect themselves.

as for registration, if your whole goal is to prevent crime, how on earth does registration stop someone from going crazy? before you come back with something along the lines of "it lets the government keep track of weapons", again, ask yourself how that would stop someone from doing something horrible, regardless of the fact that the government knows what you have. registration accomplishes nothing besides making the logistics of future confiscation easier, fact. similar to an inspection, how many massacres have happened because a gun was in poor condition? modern firearms don't just "go off" like you see in the movies, so if your goal was to eliminate shootings, it would make more sense to have weapons not in working order. wishful thinking from someone unfamiliar with firearms.

Don't worry Mignon, maybe we can all be on the same cellbock... The BB unit.

Three hots and a cot and maybe we could bribe the guards for some extras!

I'm calling top bunk tho.

I want extra blankets in the BB unit.

So, we can simply decide which laws to obey, and which laws to disregard? Nice society you're building there. Of course, given that you didn't actually post any words, perhaps I'm misinterpreting that eye roll. Please explain if that's so.

Well, if they makes ones that are wrong, or do not allow people to have a say in them.
I don't see a problem with people not following them, If they care/want to risk the penalty.
Like speeding on the thruway, not one car is doing the speed limit, but you may be the one pulled over! What about these speed traps hey have to make $$ with fines.

A place here has 4 count them 4 signs that say 40 MPH in three blocks then around a curve they drop it to 30 MPH and ten feet after the sign behind a row of hedges sits the cop cars pulling everyone over to make money. Is that fair? but it is the law....They set you up with the first signs just to tag you. You go before the judge because you feel that you have been wronged and the judge say Quilty pay the clerk $175. ($100 fine $75. court cost). Now me I just give it to a brother mason who works things out with the system.

Ever spit on the sidewalk? Cheat on your taxes? or even cross the street againt the light? Do you license you pets?
Lets look back at history...a place called the Boston Tea Party!

Did I ever spit on the sidewalk? No, because I'm not an ill-mannered piece of trash.

You can disregard certain laws all you want, but you can also be subject to the punishment that goes with your actions. Sure, I've gotten a ticket at one of those speed traps near my home, but I went to court and I was found guilty and paid my fine. Was I happy about it? No, but I broke the law and had to take the punishment that the judge gave me. Do I watch my speed more carefully now? Damn straight I do.

If you disagree with the law, if you feel the process was not correct, then there are ways to protest them. Disobeying them is not an option, unless you want to go to court.

Should I obey some laws and disregard other ones? No but saying that don't mean I have to like them either.

any law based on an emotional, knee jerk reaction to a very isolated incident which would turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals isn't worth the paper it was printed on.

Or to further their own agenda.

WOW, just what I said in my post..good to see that we agree on things!

If you disagree with the law, if you feel the process was not correct, then there are ways to protest them...[i][/i]Yes there is..see them in Albany below!


http://alloveralbany.com/archive/2013/02/28/scenes-from-the-rally-to-repeal-the-ny-safe-act?new

And that's their right - the right to assemble, something more people should take advantage of. However, I wouldn't get too excited. I read there were several thousand that showed up, but that's hardly representative of the state's population of almost 20 million.

Oh, so negative you are. People do have to work you know...

now if they revolt you may see them all out at once!

You should follow up on what I have posted about the local people protesting... their leglislaters in their counties...research and you will see how many have voted to do just that against the safe act!
It has happened and you will see it get bigger and bigger...watch....and they all vote too.

Because this is really going to change someone's mind...

Now don't shoot the messenger (no gun pun intended). I'm just posting this nightmare of a news story to revive this thread.

A Tennesssee father accidentally shot and killed his ten month old son yesterday:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/15...tm_hp_ref=crime

and to balance it out, boy grabs gun, sends suspects fleeing, stopping sexual assault. weird though, msnbc didn't run this story, guess they forgot!

http://www.khou.com/news/local/Boy-grabs-gun-sends-suspects-fleeing--195968391.html

He should have shot them. Looks like it would have been a freebie.

agreed, but he was probably so high on adrenaline that he was incapable of making any quick decisions. nice to see that they caught the guys though. people can say whatever they want about texas, but the criminals generally get what's coming to them there!

"you will shoot your eye out"
Every shooting is now top spot on the news...keep driving home that guns are so bad for the world!
And cruise ships are bad also----

But truth being...this is as bad as a parent backing over their child in the driveway! a real heart breaker. A parents worst nightmare, one I would never wish on anyone. It is one of the tuffest services to have to do.

the story that pizzaboy posted is sad, but i can't fucking stand this "accidentally discharged" excuse that shows up almost every single time. modern firearms don't just "go off", in almost every single case the person had their finger on the trigger, but was just too embarrassed to admit it. a real simple piece of advice: keep your finger off the trigger and this kind of shit just won't happen.

certain firearms, like the 1911, may very rarely go off if dropped due to the almost free floating inertia driven firing pin, but again, that is the extreme exception and not the rule. its impossible for that to happen with any of the modern striker fired weapons, such as the many glock models which are extremely popular these days. bottom line, accidents happen all the time, and people die. the best thing that we can do is to try and learn from them.

And anyone whose loaded gun somehow "accidentally" ends up in the hands of a minor or who accidentally discharges a firearm in the presence of a minor, should never be allowed to own so much as a water pistol.

On Uzi's they have a safety you have to squeeze as you pull the trigger, it's on the back of the trigger assembly and you have to squeeze it each time you pull the trigger or it won't fire. I read they put it there so the gun wouldn't accidently fire when paratroopers hit the ground. Of course that was on the open bolt SMG's but they carried that safety over to all the semi auto's that were imported into the country back in the 1980's before they got banned.

just for the record they did, i saw it on msnbc last friday

And nobody has mentioned the Herkimer County, NY shooting in which four people were killed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/herkimer-county-shooting_n_2867414.html

This happen not to far from us here. A real nut case. Again in an area where no one would ever think that a nut job would go off and kill complete strangers after burning down his own home.

BTW- did anyone also see the young man who carjacked a lady by KNIFE POINT from the mall, took her and her 10 year old daughter out to a dark road and raped the daughter and killed the mother. While he was stabbing the mother the girl got away and got to people who helped her and put the word out getting the bastard.

This happened in another good area where nothing really happens.

Last week our newspaper ran an article that on average, 87 people are killed EACH DAY by guns.

That figure is likely to go down because there isn't a round of ammo available anywhere anymore.

Some guy 60 years old was shot here in Brooklyn for no reason by three high kids in a bodega. I hope they lose their licences to carry

So which new government law will stop this shit from happening?

Any break down on how?
Is it a person taking their own life, Killed by police?, by nut case? Killed by another family member? Killed by someone defending themselves?, Does that include all the other countries and the unrest out there? Killed while hunting? Killed at war/ or conflict? by mishandling the weapon? Gang shootings?,on and on....

Now we have to look on how many people are killed each day by other means such as autos?, bad medical treatments, Ect. to get an idea of scale.

You really can't argue with this logic. Criminals will always get their hands on guns.

TB are you short some?

I know the market place is running low because people are worried and are buying up as much as they can. There is lots out there being stock piled just in case there is a problem in the future with prices running higher and higher..

Reloading supplies also and of course NO ONE wants to be left short. There sure was a run on things these last few months.(save your brass so it can save your ass) Obama's way of getting the economy going they say!

I would send you some, but mine was all lost along with most of my guns... in a boating accident on the lake! Yeah on the lake thats it!

those damn paranoid ccw holders are at it again, this nutjob actually thought that it would be a good idea to stop a vicious beating in progress. when are people gonna learn to just mind their own business?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/m...-197766101.html

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Yeah Boi!!! FF you should run take some public policy and poly sci classes and start off in local politics and maybe one day you'll rise thru the ranges and become "The Governor"

That is my story and I am sticking with it!
and that lake is so deep also...Just like Fredo...never to be seen again.

AWB is dead

As predicted, federal AWB is DOA and magazine capacity limits look unlikely.

If there is a protective order against you, not a conviction but just an order, should you be required to give up your guns?

Protective Orders and Gun Rights

Is the Government buying it all up?

Now we need to override NY and it's backdoor laws.

Just like the soda size ban set by bloomberg, these are just wrong. Como really stuck it to the people of New York in the cover of night like the bully he is.

The AWB and magazine issues are dead for now, and the focus will be on background checks. What's probably behind this is that Harry Reid has about 7 or 8 Senators who are Dems from red states up for re-election in 2014. He wants to hold the Senate, and the Dems want to take the house. If this happens I think these items will be resurrected.

That said, Reid is a pitiful majority leader. He should have never bought the BS from the republicans about not changing the filibuster rule. They are holding up judges and everything else they can think of, while they whine about easter egg rolls and white house tours. We need an LBJ in the Senate.

FZ why were the gun laws in NY "backdoor" laws? Did they not go through the state legislature? Did Cuomo do something backhanded?

As for Bloomberg and his big gulps and now his wanting to hide cigarettes in stores, I think he's at the end of his term, and is probably dreaming these things up at night just because he can. Overall he's been a great mayor...one of the best. After he leaves office and takes some time for himself, I do not think we have heard the last of him. He could end up in Hilary's cabinet in 2016.

Or Christie's .

Oh, the neverending bullshit of who wants the office. The system is so screwed up I an afraid that nothing/no person can fix this mess. No wonder people think we have reached the end or near end of America as we once knew it.

To many lies, to much bullshit + very little faith by the American people and all the others who came here.

Come on...you know these were presented and passed (within hours) in late of night. Without any input or connection with the public. Many legislatures admitted that they never read them and were pressured into passing them by being strong armed.

DT if you lived here in NY would you of approved of this method and how the law reads? Oh, and what did you say you do down there in Fla?

All they said here was that it was passed very quickly. Nothing about coercion. I have never read the bill so I don't know what it says. I don't own a gun, so I really don't care.

As for Florida, things pass or do not pass depending on who is paying more money. Don't forget the law here is "stand your ground."

Finally, FS you know as well as I that the legislators, both State and Federal who actually read legislation are few and far between.

How about a Clinton/Christie national unity ticket?

Which "people" "think" this? You sound like Trump. Be specific. And while you are at it "America as we once knew it" WHEN? During Slavery? Before Women Could Vote? Before Social Security? After the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts? Before Medicare? After Roe v. Wade? Or is it since we have had a black president? I bet that sticks in your craw.

I learned a long time ago that skin color doesn't make the man!
I judge a man by what he does, or doesn't do, what he stand for or stands against or if he stands at all.

I can tell you this. I speak with a lot of people and most of them are older. (because of what we do). I hear from many many people here at the funeral home, social groups, buisness owners and such. AND THEY ARE NOT HAPPY AMERICANS!
They feel that there were better times for families, jobs and the way of life before and they all say they see or feel that things are going to getting worst and not better.

and if you really want to know about the Reagn Years seems to be what they say were good years for buisness and seeing things change for the better not heading down....More trust in our Govt

The Reagan years? Surely you jest. Things went well cause he spent like a drinken sailor, and didn't raise taxes. He left that to Bush who got summarily thrown out of office. I wll say Reagan was one great speaker and one great motivator (and an actor btw). But here's a guy who got to office by attacking phony "welfare queens" and who began his campaign in Missippi at the site of the murder of civil rights workers. Since you, fs are color blind, you certainly took umbrage at that.

And another thing. In my life I have rarely heard an older person say things were "better" back in the day. It is not surprising people say it now. I will probably do the same when I am 80.

I took the time to ask several buiness people at this afternoons round table meeting the same thing. Many said the "Reagan years" moving right into the firstfew years of the first George Bush years were the best for buisness and profits. Less regulations, larger profits and less hands in their pockets. One said he was pro business and anti union bullies.
No times are perfect but some are surely better for business owners then others.
Did you have a business open during those years? if so what field? Cut out the bull and lets talk $$+ cents

Yes he is. I agree with you. Obama and the Dems will not let this die. You see what I mean it's all about them (both sides) getting re-elected.

Reid, Pelosi, and Bohner, three peas in a pod. Assholes all.

But by all means, keep voting them in because of their Donkey or Elephant affiliation .

I highly doubt Chris runs in 2016, but I will be sure to ask him later this month and report back to you.



what you said

I won't vote for Hillary OR Christie, so I really don't care. But he's one guy the Dems should fear. But like I say, I don't even like him. He's too much of a blowhard, Hillary is too old, entitled and self important.

I hope 2016 is the year an Indie finally breaks through. But it won't happen.

Yep, too early to really tell who will ultimately get on the ticket(s) at this point IMO.

lets get this thread back on tract- gun control!

not politics!

thanks in advance....

A very right on post from another source:

Tired of Hypocrisy
USA.


Where do they find these esteemed legislators who don't know the front end of a horse from the back end yet will write volumes of legislation concerning horse husbandry. It is however the voters fault that these know-nothing legislators are put into office in the first place.

Mr. Richard M. Aborn who stated “We don’t want to have to tell the mother of a young man who’s just been shot and killed that he was killed with the ninth bullet.”

Fuck Michael Moore. He's the best argument against evolution I've seen so far that's not named Kardashian.

I've never been an admirer of Moore. I am even less so now that he wants to use the pictures of the Newtown children to promote firearm legislation.

He has changed over the years. His films used to be poignant.

Boo-hoo. General Motors layed off his Daddy, sent him around the socialist bend for life. He's a moron, and a borderline traitor.

So why is the Department of Homeland Security buying up all the Hollow Point ammo? I read they're approaching 2 billion rounds ordered this year alone. Somethings going on over there, you don't use hollow points for target practice.

All i know is their purchases have created a severe shortage and the prices of ammo is going through the roof. Is that the intention of the administration?

well, remember obama telling sara brady a while ago that they have to do things "under the radar"? who knows, and say what you want, tinfoil hat, conspiracy theorist, whatever, the FACT is that homeland security has been arming to the teeth for a while now. in the beginning, it was to "protect" us from the terrorists that were everywhere all at once, but now the focus is on "domestic terrorists". very scary stuff indeed. billions of rounds of ammo, new multi-million dollar contracts with different firearms manufactures on a monthly basis, thousands of amroured vehicles, drones coming out the ass, NDAA, TSA, internal checkpoints, patriot act extension ect. all of this shit while the current administation has been pushing hard to eliminate a certain class of weapons for its own citizens.

And nobody is talking, they're not even answering questions asked by congress. I read all she's said is that they're getting better prices by buying all this ammo in bulk. Does anyone really believe that's the real reason for these mass purchases?

If this was the Bush administration the papers would be all over it but their boy Obama gets away with doing all this crap.

the best that can be hoped for is to expose whichever administration in power as the hypocrits that they are. by refusing to answer questions, things look even more suspicious. according to an article posted by forbes (credible by liberal standards), at the height of the iraq war, us troops were using less than 6 million rounds a month, so the 1.6 billion and growing stash is enough for a 20+ year war

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2...l-conversation/

i wouldn't worry too much though, after all obama loves you and he's a nobel peace prize winner to boot!

LOL!

The hell with his love, i want cheap ammo!

Megyn Kelly reports that the multi-millions rounds purchase is over 5 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ooa98FHuaU0#t=303s

This whole brouhaha was debunked last year I remember Palin bitching about it. If anybody actually read the language carefully they would see like Oli stated that it is over 5 years and the specific language states '' up to'' a certain amount.

DHS regularly fills all of its goods and services requirements at one time because it's cheaper for the agency, and that the 1.6 billion number was misleading because the language of DHS's purchase said it would need "up to" a certain amount.

One solicitation by the agency—for training centers and law enforcement personnel—was for "up to" 750 million rounds of training ammunition over the next five years.

Another five-year contract allows for the purchase of "up to" 450 million rounds of ammunition, he said, and was also for law enforcement. That contract would be used by all DHS agencies except the Coast Guard.


This is quite common to include language which gives you the right to buy up to a certain amount of a good or service on top of your regular purchase if you chose to do it even if its x number of yrs in the future. This usually locks in the bulk price discount or an inflation adjusted figure if its for the future. This is common in commercial real estate and the procurement of mass supplies, i see it in my office all the time.

I could care less either way, however Senator Dapper what in the fuck does the government need hollow point bullets for? The floor is yours Senator!

dapper, the technicalities are overshadowing a much bigger problem. what does the dhs need "up to" 1.6 billion rounds for? as has already been stated, hollowpoint rounds are never used for target practice, they are used to kill people. why would a domestic agency need anywhere close to the number of rounds they are ordering? why are they being shady and misleading when asked about the purpose? regardless of the whole gun debate, just as a cut and dry budget concern this should be looked at with extreme scrutiny!

Fuckin yuppies overspending on Wite-Out. That's why the economy is still in the shitter!

Thank you EastHarlemItal.

I have never worked for any DHS affiliated agency, but I know for a fact from my time on Capitol Hill that many agencies consider hollow points ammunition to be ''standard issue'' and use them for "mandatory quarterly firearms qualifications and other training sessions." I agree that a more specific useage explanation wouldnt hurt.

To reiterate as Dapper states above, "up to" or "not to exceed" is a common phrase that is included in contracts, purchase orders, or allocations and appropriations of funds and does secure an agreeable price for an extended period.

I heard about this article when listening to Dennis Prager. It's by Juan Williams, an African American who most would agree is liberal.


Some stats in the article:

* Murders with guns are the No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34.

* In 2009, for example, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 54% of all murders committed, overwhelmingly with guns, are murders of black people. Black people are about 13% of the population.

* The Justice Department reports that between 1980 and 2008, "blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide."

* The 44,038 black children killed by guns since 1979 (when national data on the age of gun violence victims was first collected) is "nearly 13 times more" than all the black people killed by lynching in the 86-year period of 1882 to 1968.


Williams goes onto say that the big reason for these facts is the breakdown of the family in the black community.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578366882484600710.html

Same message said for the last twenty years or more...and they still don't know how to stop/change it.

One group keeps saying we are all the same and we have to treat everyone and everything the same.... and the next one keeps pointing out how we are not.....and we have to make special rules for some.......oh and by the way it is always someone elses fault for these problems.

Is the modern NRA based on the Black Panther movement?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...in-america.html

Found this on 9gag

CT turn to shake up its people. Make the good suffer for the nuts.

FS can you enumerate with specificity what changes you oppose, and what changes (if any) you favor?

Please address the following:

Mandatory background checks for ALL gun transactions with a ban on convicted felons and crazy people from getting guns.

Limitations on magazines.

Banning certain types of "assault" weapons. On this one even a bleeding heart liberal like myself has a problem with the myriad "definitions" floating around out there. I mean no one wants people to have nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket launchers, etc. Where do you draw the line ?

the backround check provision sounds good on the surface, but it comes down to enforcement. how do you enforce backround checks between private sellers, without knowing who has what first? this is the part lost on many. this is why people claim, and rightfully so imo, that the provision is almost worthless without a database of who has what, and when it was acquired, otherwise known as gun registration. the vast majority of people would follow the provision, so they aren't the ones that you would have to worry about anyway.

as far as the line with regards to weapons, the common theme(verified by the supreme court) is small arms that are in common use at the time, which includes the evil black rifles that so many are wishing would disappear, despite a lack of understanding about the function. as far as magazine capacity, look at it however you want, but the 30 round magazines are "standard" for the AR platform, not "high capacity".

i'm no expert, but i have a fair bit of experience with all sorts of guns. magazine capacity restrictions would have little effects on mass shootings, but they can sure place a defensive shooter at a marked disadvantage. the simple fact is that unless we are talking about single shot weapons, all of these recent events have taken place in gun free zones, where the shooters are basically free to reload as many times as they please. these events are also all planned out, and defensive shootings are usually spur of the moment where adrenaline is flowing, and people miss, alot. same with cops in those very same situations.

the other problem that i run into with people arguing for reduced capaciy mags is the claim that having to reload will give someone a chance to act. forget the fact that a magazine can be changed in a matter of seconds, even by someone unskilled. i always wonder why its generally the same people arguing to give people a chance that are generally against guns in the schools, whether they be armed teachers, or security guards. just some food for thought.

i also thought i would add some of the many advantages of the evil black rifles as far as self defense in concerned. whether or not you agree with me, take into consideration what i have to say, and you might learn something that you were unaware of.

these rifles are often labeled "unnecessary", who needs something like that for self defense? like i stated above, defensive shooting situations are a nightmare of adrenaline and confusion, even for the highly trained. people miss alot, so the extra capacity helps to ensure that you are able to get a hit, and hopefully end the situation.

the weapons are also very light, and low recoil which can be a plus for a women, or a man for that matter, who is of smaller stature and might have serious trouble with the considerable recoil of a 12 gauge shotgun or high caliber handgun.

another plus with regards to the AR platform is the ammo it uses. the lightweight, high-velocity 5.56/.223 round it fires is generally alot safer for a home defense situation. the reason is, because of the construction of the bullet, its much more likely to fragment in drywall, greatly reducing the chances of a serious injury or death of somebody who might be in an adjacent room. the sme cannot be said for the heavy, slow moving rounds fired by alot of common handguns, or buckshot from a shotgun.

I thought you going to Washington this wing no??

Well eventually all the private guns not subject to background checks will disappear by attrition. This won't happen overnight, but it is a step in the right direction. Bottom line is if someone uses an illegally obtained weapon in the commission of a crime he/she will sing like a canary when caught if there is even a hint of a reduced sentence.

I think the whole "assault weapon" issue, unfortunately, is too fuzzy to be enacted, but the background check is not.

As for the clips, I claim ignorance, however no one needs a clip of 30 rounds, let alone several of them.
Maybe there should be some kind of restriction on bullets.

Well said FF

[i]

As every state has it's own rules, I will tend to Talk about NY State because some jerk will pop up and say that it isn't that way around here....

1)[i]Mandatory background checks for ALL gun transactions with a ban on convicted felons and crazy people from getting guns.

For New people who are just getting their permits Sure. NY is very well above this already. They call in on every gun purchase that you make here. I think your statement is a given if you are a convicted felons or crazy person. But I shouldn't have to jump back thru hoops or see a DR. very time I want to add a gun. I should be good to go after I have been thru the process already.

2)Limitations on magazines.


Tuff call because this can be twisted in so many ways. A gun comes with a magazine with witch it is design to work with, rifle, pistol doesn't matter. It is a normal feature so that should be allowed as designed.

Fear mongers will cry about any size magazines because and you don't need this or that bullshit because some jerk has to show off some misfitted over kill magazine to look cool.

I will take the same rights as any other law enforcement officer. If he wants to protect himself or/and his family, I want the same rights.

3) Banning certain types of "assault" weapons. On this one even a bleeding heart liberal like myself has a problem with the myriad "definitions" floating around out there. I mean no one wants people to have nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket launchers, etc. Where do you draw the line ?

This is the biggest bull shit in all the text they produce. They have proven that they do not know what a REAL assault weapon IS and their use of the term LIKE is so wrong that in many cases they use it to ban almost every Rifle passed on looks alone and then they try and word it tight that they pick it apart and tighten down every point and it rules out all guns almost.

There are very few REAL ASSAULT weapons out in the public and that is the fact. Cut the crap with looks...Fact is these are GUNS and they are made to kill! Stop trying to pick them apart with terms to pan them because they look just like something.
People who start with this "nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket launchers, etc."
are just blow-hards as far as I am concern- They don't want to be real about these things, they just want to stretch things out of shape, so I just don't even answer a person who starts this crap.
The answer is: the right people should have the "rights" which he is able to handle.

Isn't it funny that the Govt will give an F-14 fighter or a nuclear turn key to a young man who may only be say 21 or so.

The sad thing is you will always get the jerk that will try to pick at every word you say or type and not get what is really being say....

Have you ever been shot at ? If so you might change your mind?

I have, as a matter of fact.

Today I listened to Monsieur Pierre on Megyn Kelly's show and he continued his mantra that background checks et al would not help and would only encumber law-abiding people. Well, weren't the shooters in Newtown, Aurora, Virginia Tech, and Columbine (just to cite a few) all law-abiding prior to the murders they carried out?

let me ask you again, how is it possible to enforce backround checks on private sellers without a database of who has what? you cannot. if there is no way to enforce a law, despite how good it might seem, whats the point? again, as far as magazine capacity, who are you to judge what is necessary, particularly if you have little to no experience with guns in general? bullet control, please. these are the same tired arguments always made by people who on one hand, claim to be in support of the second amendment, while on the other hand welcoming any erosions of the rights of others simply because it doesn't effect them. its a damn good thing that we don't have a bill of needs! the states passing these laws should all be ashamed of themselves, as it has seemingly just turned into a race as to who gets the title of "toughest gun laws". add to that the blatant lack of knowledge possessed by those advocating the restrictions, and we are left with nothing more than a feel good cicle jerk.


case in point, Congresswoman Diana DeGette of colorado has recently come under fire for co-sponsoring a bill to further restrict magazine capacity in colorado, despite not knowing what they even are. this hack, when questioned, advocated the ban because after the people shoot the magazines, they will go away because they are "ammunition", and thus, over time they will disappear. regardless of your stance on guns in general, enough is enough with politicians pushing legisaltion that they either...

A: didn't even read, or

B: are totally clueless about.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/stephen-gutowski/co-sponsor-bill-banning-magazines-mistakes-them-bullets

Please pay attention. No one ever said that every person would obey the law regarding private gun sales. The law will be enforced a couple of ways: 1) A majority of the people who engage in these private transactions will obey the law.
2) Those who do not, and whose weapons end up being used in crimes will find themselves in huge messes. Let's say, e.g. someone bought a weapon and the sale was registered. Then that person sold the gun to someone else but failed to report it. When Ballistics shows who owned the gun, the registered owner is going to have hell to pay to get out of being charged with the crime (let alone civil liability for injuries). One or two of those will make people think twice about disobeying the law on this issue.

You know, this registration thing is a step in the right direction. Just because it is not 100% enforceable is not a reason to keep it from passing.
By that reasoning they should abolish speed limits on hiighways. They are not 100% enforceable either.

this is an example of the pointless restictions proposed in the now dead in the water legislation by that evil witch from california. please someone advocate how this makes any sense at all!

Agreed. In fact, what laws are? Hey, let's put them all to the test ... 100% or bust.

Mags are like Lawyers, You don't need one to YOU NEED ONE!

maybe a restriction on lawyers would reduce law suits!

DT:You know, this registration thing is a step in the right direction. Just because it is not 100% enforceable is not a reason to keep it from passing.

In New York Stae all handguns are in fact registered.

Come on DT, I think you are just trying to play with all of us.It most be a slow day down in trafic court!

so, the whole point of the new regulations are to prevent crime, but in this scenario the crime wasn't prevented. am i missing something here? its common sense that no law is 100% enforceable, but if the laws put into place are unenforceable, as well as ineffective with regards to the original stated goals of the legislation, why should they even be enacted in the first place?

In the war or on U.S. Turf?

FF couldn't you make a grip yourself

well, i suppose you could if you really knew what you were doing, but it probably wouldn't last too long! still, the point is that making the exact same make and model illegal because of cosmetic features is silly. for what its worth, most who have shot full power loads out of a 12 gauge with a pistol grip won't be getting any christmas cards from their wrist!

I didn't have to listen to anyone today I can simply state my opinion that shootings by people are unpredictable and no matter what laws are put in place a lot of this will not change because the examples you listed above are all kids who took there own life...except The Batman kid...