|
Post by Irish Stu on Feb 1, 2013 9:26:05 GMT -6
And drive the gun market underground. Exactly. Every modern study and statistic shows that banning guns is ineffective in stopping crime But, unless I am wrong, you have never banned guns before, just a specific type of weapon. So how do you measure that?
|
|
|
Post by Robin Hood on Feb 1, 2013 9:44:09 GMT -6
A gun confiscation will not happen; at least not in the foreseeable future. Neither Obama nor Biden has ever said this is their desire. Banning some guns sales in the future could cause civil unrest akin to the demonstrations I witnessed in the 60's and 70's against the Vietnam War, but an all out civil war...I think not. Americans today are too self centered and complacent to risk their lives over a gun ban. Nothing happened when Clinton banned some guns. A military coup over a weapon ban is also very doubtful. I think gun sales are surging because of the 'possibility' of a gun ban, age old speculation for profit and in a good number of cases simple self-protection. People should know that gun ownership is at an all time high but the national murder rate with guns has been dropping annually. A complete ban is their end game... make no mistake about it. As far as the Clinton ban, that took us by surprise in a big way, it was something that we never thought would get through. This time we are awake and ready to take the fight to them. I just hope those Democrats remember the ass kicking they got at the polls after the '94 ban... I think I can honestly say that anyone supporting this crap from a gun friendly state could pretty much kiss their job goodbye... people like Harry Reid and Max Baucus are especially vulnerable. I would be surprised if Reid even lets it come up for a vote, he knows his ass could very easily be on the line. As far as an all out war, I don't think that is the way it would go down... this is actually a really good piece on it and I don't think it is off the mark.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 1, 2013 10:09:19 GMT -6
Exactly. Every modern study and statistic shows that banning guns is ineffective in stopping crime But, unless I am wrong, you have never banned guns before, just a specific type of weapon. So how do you measure that? There has not been a national gun ban in the entire US before, but there are cities, states, and entire regions where there is a defacto gun ban (IOW, the requirements are so stringent that 99% of the populous could not legally own a gun). Chicago, Washington DC, Baltimore, the state of Connecticut (where the recent school shooting occurred) all have very strict gun laws. The cities in the US with the highest murder rates- 2011 states per 100,000 population: Atlanta 20.7 Baltimore 31.3 Chicago 15.9 Cinncinnati 20.5 Cleveland 18.6 Detroit 48.2 Kansas City 23.4 Memphis 17.9 Miami 16.8 New Orleans 57.6 Newark 33.8 Oakland 26.3 Philadelphia 21.2 Stockton 19.7 Washington DC 17.5 And here are some stats for gun happy Texas: Arlington 5.9 Austin 3.5 Corpus Christi 3.9 Dallas 10.9 El Paso 2.4 Houston 9.2 Plano 1.9 San Antonio 6.6 The only correlation that just jumps off the page at you is that the cities with the highest murder rates all overwhelmingly supported Obama.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Feb 1, 2013 10:16:52 GMT -6
I read your article. I don't know what bill he is talking about but I have not heard anything about any bill requiring any action/requirement having to do with guns already owned.
Everything I have read is about banning certain types of guns from sale going forward.
Once they try to take away guns legally purchased in the past I can see all hell breaking loose with much loss of life, much like he predicts.
edited to remove the quote by RH because it was messed up. lol
RH, you would get along with my husband like two peas in a pod.
|
|
|
Post by Robin Hood on Feb 1, 2013 10:38:10 GMT -6
Anita, they are trying to push a no transfer of existing "assault" weapons to ANYONE. That means I can't pass on my guns to my offspring... the gov gets them when I die... that is if I am dumb enough to register them... which I WILL NOT. That is CONFISCATION. But they are not calling it that because it is something that will happen later.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 1, 2013 10:38:50 GMT -6
A gun confiscation will not happen; at least not in the foreseeable future. Neither Obama nor Biden has ever said this is their desire. Banning some guns sales in the future could cause civil unrest akin to the demonstrations I witnessed in the 60's and 70's against the Vietnam War, but an all out civil war...I think not. Americans today are too self centered and complacent to risk their lives over a gun ban. Nothing happened when Clinton banned some guns. A military coup over a weapon ban is also very doubtful. I think gun sales are surging because of the 'possibility' of a gun ban, age old speculation for profit and in a good number of cases simple self-protection. People should know that gun ownership is at an all time high but the national murder rate with guns has been dropping annually. A complete ban is their end game... make no mistake about it. As far as the Clinton ban, that took us by surprise in a big way, it was something that we never thought would get through. This time we are awake and ready to take the fight to them. I just hope those Democrats remember the ass kicking they got at the polls after the '94 ban... I think I can honestly say that anyone supporting this crap from a gun friendly state could pretty much kiss their job goodbye... people like Harry Reid and Max Baucus are especially vulnerable. I would be surprised if Reid even lets it come up for a vote, he knows his ass could very easily be on the line. As far as an all out war, I don't think that is the way it would go down... this is actually a really good piece on it and I don't think it is off the mark. You will have a lot of takers on "a good piece". Always in demand since at least 8,000BC
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Feb 1, 2013 11:51:06 GMT -6
Anita, they are trying to push a no transfer of existing "assault" weapons to ANYONE. That means I can't pass on my guns to my offspring... the gov gets them when I die... that is if I am dumb enough to register them... which I WILL NOT. That is CONFISCATION. But they are not calling it that because it is something that will happen later. I have not read the current proposal and don't know if it's available yet, but I have not read anything about this. Believe me I'm against the taking of guns from law abiding citizens. Such actions have a bad history......... In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."--Justice Joseph Story-appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison
|
|
|
Post by Robin Hood on Feb 1, 2013 12:05:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Robin Hood on Feb 1, 2013 12:25:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Feb 1, 2013 14:06:28 GMT -6
If you read on the Bill also includes... Again, I'm not for ANY ban but you can will a gun that you own legally to someone else.
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Feb 1, 2013 19:13:30 GMT -6
Anita, they are trying to push a no transfer of existing "assault" weapons to ANYONE. That means I can't pass on my guns to my offspring... the gov gets them when I die... that is if I am dumb enough to register them... which I WILL NOT. That is CONFISCATION. But they are not calling it that because it is something that will happen later. I have not read the current proposal and don't know if it's available yet, but I have not read anything about this. Believe me I'm against the taking of guns from law abiding citizens. Such actions have a bad history......... In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."--Justice Joseph Story-appointed to the Supreme Court by James Madison Are you suggesting that under the guise of gun control the US government plans to round up thousands, if not millions, of US citizens and exterminate them? Are you really comparing the USA to Cambodia, the Soviet Union in 1929, Communist China in the 1940s and 50s, and Nazi Germany? It seems more like you are just reaching back into history, and events in countries that bear no relation to mordern day America, and putting a spin on it to support your argument. Anita, I may not always agree with you, but I always respect, and sometimes learn from, your opinions and points of view. In this case though you are comparing apples with oranges and it is pure nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Tex on Feb 1, 2013 20:57:27 GMT -6
I don't know Simon. Sometimes I wake up and have to face up to the fact that this isn't the country I was born in. Things have changed.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Feb 1, 2013 23:02:04 GMT -6
I don't know Simon. Sometimes I wake up and have to face up to the fact that this isn't the country I was born in. Things have changed. I agree. And not for the better.
|
|
|
Post by New Mama on Feb 4, 2013 10:01:23 GMT -6
Are you suggesting that under the guise of gun control the US government plans to round up thousands, if not millions, of US citizens and exterminate them? Are you really comparing the USA to Cambodia, the Soviet Union in 1929, Communist China in the 1940s and 50s, and Nazi Germany? It seems more like you are just reaching back into history, and events in countries that bear no relation to mordern day America, and putting a spin on it to support your argument. Anita, I may not always agree with you, but I always respect, and sometimes learn from, your opinions and points of view. In this case though you are comparing apples with oranges and it is pure nonsense. I'm not suggesting that the current administration plans to round up millions of citizens to exterminate them. I'm simply pointing out that the history of taking away peoples rights to guns is not good. Once guns are banned and all existing ones are registered a future administration 'could' eliminate their political or philosophical enemies without any meaningful resistance. If you don’t believe that the American people would never be fooled by a political type whose end game is his or her version of utopia you might be a bit naive. Becoming POTUS is not a dream job. It’s a job about power. I admit that Obama’s history with the likes of Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers cause me concern. He has been the most ‘socialistic’ leaning POTUS in my lifetime but I don’t think he’s out to kill us conservatives off. I don’t think we should set ourselves up for some future administration who may just decide to use the circumstance of a defenseless population to their end game. If you haven’t learned from history you haven’t learned anything.
|
|
|
Post by DT on May 14, 2013 7:14:16 GMT -6
DUH!! I thought GUN CONTROL ment using both hands.
pssst.... The great state of Indiana says, driving is a privilege not a right.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on May 14, 2013 14:56:22 GMT -6
DUH!! I thought GUN CONTROL ment using both hands. pssst.... The great state of Indiana says, driving is a privilege not a right. Could be. Driving is not protected by the Constitution. Not even the eighteenth century equivalent of driving.
|
|