Home-reloading will be outlawed. That is a right we are currently afforded, it will however be stripped from us.
How is this just? This is limiting, and needs to be stopped.
As I suggested in my earlier post, if there was a strict nationwide gun control, they wont have guns either (except maybe the very rich mafia gang). Besides, do you think your gun will do much to protect your family if a gang of criminals decided to storm your house with assault rifles like in Mexico? I doubt it. I came from a country where private gun possession may lead to death penalty and all my life I had never seen a gun and even in the ghettoest place I didnt have to worry that some of the gang bangers there might have guns. If they tried to approach me I could just run for example. Its way harder to evade a person armed with a gun.
Anyway, its just my perspective that gun free country is safer from gun-related crimes than the opposite.
I’m just curious what country that was? Please you are not obligated to tell me if you choose not to.
Apples and oranges. Felons do not have the right to bear arms in this country. They gave up that right when they committed and were convicted of serious crime.
We have in this country, from our founding fathers, the right to bear arms.
Without rescinding that right there will never be a death sentence to own a gun in this country. And if our rights are rescinded it will not be our nation any more.
Whether you agree with any of the rights afforded to the citizens of the United States or not does not matter. They are our rights, bought with the blood of our founding fathers, and we have and will fight to the death to keep them.
Diane
I (Heart) Diane999
Amen.
And some of us on this board have not only served in the military but have fought and killed for those same rights or similar rights for others.
The death penalty for possessing a gun? We do not do that in this country even if a crime is commited using a gun. What is the penalty for drug possession? Rape?
We have the death penalty in this country also but it is generally reserved only for murder cases. Not for possessing a banned item.
This other country sounds like a country where social order is forced through the harshest of penalties. Our country is formed on the basis of granting the maximum freedom to the individual as opposed to creating the maximum order in society.
It appears that while you may be safe from gun violence from criminals you are not safe from extremely harsh treatment from the government.
sounds like asia or eastern europe.
Drug ownership is not a constitutional right in the U.S.
Here in Canada we had an attempt at long gun registry (hand guns are restricted). The initial estimated cost was $86 million. The actual cost ended up over $1 billion and the system still didn’t work and ended up being scrapped (thank you Stephen Harper). I still set my teeth over that fiasco.
If a gang of criminals was storming my house I would rather have a gun than a baseball bat.
Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.
FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1
FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2
FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3
FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4
FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5
FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6
FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.
FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7
FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8
FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9
FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10
FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11
FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2
FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14
FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9
FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9
- United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. ((U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session))
- Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (Obama had greater role on liberal survey - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com)
- United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. ((U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session))
- David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, “Obama: ‘Common Sense Regulation’ On Gun Owners’ Rights,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, Political Punch, 2/15/08. (Obama: ‘Common Sense Regulation’ on Gun Owners’ Rights - Political Radar)
- Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.
- “Fact Check: No News In Obama’s Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (Organizing for America | BarackObama.com)
- “Candidates’ gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and “Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns,” Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (Candidates’ gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
- 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)
- “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (The Volokh Conspiracy - Obama and Gun Control:)
- Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
- Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
- “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (Radio Iowa: Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control)
- Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (The Swamp: Barack Obama: NIU shootings call for action)
- Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Urban Policy.)
[http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm316/changazn/gun-control.jpg
http://i299.photobucket.com/albums/mm316/changazn/if-guns-kill-people.jpg (http://jrenseyblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/gun-control.jpg)
I have no respect for Jankren, poking fun at US economy while his own will suffer not long from now… Right…
“Punters trading in their old underwear will get a five-euro (seven-dollar) discount on a new pair, the advert promises…” - ewwwwww!
L0LZ - trading in their underwear? ZOMG, I don’t think a Berliner has any stand to make fun of the US. Sie ist ein Berliner! L0LZ
Diane
haven’t read every single post cause hell, its 11 pages worth of posts. But as I highlighted above, it is a clash of culture. I don’t think its a country’s laws per say that can or cannot cause homicide rates. If that were true, why is Germany’s homicide rate higher than Japans when guns are illegal in both countries? I think its the culture and it’s society that causes the high or low homicide rates.
Like how you never feel the need to own a weapon, others do.
You’re right, its a good thing that in Germany, not every single idiot can own a gun. But here, our attitude is different. Majority vote says that we’re ok with one or two idiots having a gun as long as everyone else also has that right. IMO, it’s much much easier to kill someone with a knife or blade than a gun. Unless you’re experienced with a gun, it is actually quite difficult to use. Knife is a fairly easy thing to operate. You thrust. The end. Gun, you need to load ammo, cock it, make sure safety is off, aim and fire. Ok, let’s split hairs. Take out knife from sheath, then thrust.
Also in the late 90s, DC was going through a really bad time. People were leaving the city a lot, economy hit the shitter, lots of conflict and turmoil. Crime in general rises, no exception for DC. It’s like saying during the riots in south central cali, crime was really high. Or how Germans hate jews cause of hitler. That was back then during a dark time.
That being said, this is just an issue that two sides will always argue over. The said bill isn’t so bad by itself. It really isn’t, but when you have more and more bills slowly restricting gun access, people get worried. The only reason I’m a gun supporter is cause I firmly believe that guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Period. Take away guns, they’ll use something else. Anything used without responsibility can kill. Sunbathing too long increases higher risk of skin cancer. Drinking alcohol excessively can lead to a plethora of ways to die and killing others. Anytime you are driving, you are using a deadly weapon. Need I go on? Common factor is the person committing the act. Bubble, not out to pick you out, really not. Like Xev, playing doctor’s advocate.
EDIT Just think about it this way. Back when knives and swords were used to kill people, they were the best way to kill someone. Then they made guns. Then they made missiles. Now we have computer guided missiles. But really, someone needs to push the button. The act went from upclose and personal to 100-300 feet, to a mile, to global range. We’ve distanced ourselves from the actual act of killing. We’re still allowed to own knives. What was the original purpose of a knife? To kill something. Oh shit, let’s get rid of all that too. 
I do own a gun. I own a long gun. It’s a shotgun and fuck, it is huge. I use it SOLEY for clay/skeet shooting. I have never gone hunting with it. I have NEVER taken it ANYWHERE a gun does not belong. The only places it has been is my house, my car, and the shooting range (ok, ok, you got me. It was also at the store before I bought it 
). It is always unloaded, safety is always on, and you can always see if there’s a shell in there or not. It is also in a gun case locked an secure. If I seriously were to kill someone with that, well fuck, I’d have a really hard time. It’s not portable, its not really small or easy to conceal, its bulky and really hard to move quickly with it. Girls that have shot my gun dislike it cause its too heavy and bulky. They get annoyed after 2-3 shots, with the exception of one or two girls (sadly). What do I think about this law? It really really sucks for people who hunt. That’s it. I don’t enjoy guns THAT much to raise my arms over it, but I enjoy it enough to own a gun. I do not own any other firearm. Honestly, if someone came into my house and into my room, he damn well get the fuck out cause I’ve got about a few slugs and maybe 15 or so shells that’ll take out a deer that will be loaded in my gun, pointed at his chest. Same shit if I didn’t have one, I’d have a fuckin bat. But with a gun, I’m pretty sure I’ll have a better chance of coming out of it alive. Either he sees my gun, doesn’t have one himself, goes “oh shit” and leaves my house in a damn hurry, or worse case scenario he has a gun, we both shoot each other and die; I shoot him, he dies; or I die. But I would like the chance to defend myself if worse case scenario happens. No gun in worse case scenario, I die.
I don’t want to stir up the discussion again 
but if you think this law is idiotic look what our retarded government is planning to do:
They want to BAN PAINTBALL! You know, the little game where you try to hit your ‘opponent’ with some ball of paint (hence the name 
). Guess why: It simulates killing… If you’ll violate this law you’ll have to pay a fine of 5000 Euro!
Now THAT is silly!!!
So, does anyone else feel like me sometimes? Like, when you stop living your life and taking care of your own business long enough to pause and have a look at CNN or whatever, and then it dawns on you. You’re not living on the third planet out from the sun in what is referred to as the Sol System in the western spiral arm of the galaxy…
You’re living in the fucking Twilight Zone…
And everyone else is either crazy, retarded, obtuse, dense, paranoid, or any combination of the preceding?
It’s like Wesley Snipes’ Demolition Man character Simon Phoenix said: “The world has become a pussy-whipped Brady Bunch version of itself…”
-D4
To go back to zeph’s post of a few days ago, what is different about the US that makes guns safer in an american’s hands than a germans? or for that, a brit or spaniards? Genetically, there is virtually no difference, every single one of those countries has seen gun atrocities in schools in the last ten years. Here in the UK, anyone can own a shotgun, provided they are adult, hold the relevant permit and keep it locked away when not being used. As long as they don’t have a criminal record, they get the permit fairly easily. The same can be said for smallbore (.22) rifles although the requirements are a little more stringent. Anything else is virtually impossible to hold legitimately as a member of society, pistol, forget it, automatic fullbore (armalite etc) forget it.
I’m ex military and have had some combat experience, a good friend of mine once had to stab an enemy soldier with a broken bayonet. using the knife makes it personal, you’re there, you can smell the sweat and fear and hear the screams of pain. Using a rifle, you are remote, distant, detached from the reality of it all, you point, you pull the trigger, game over, at no point does the target become a man, father, husband etc.
Yes, a car has the potential to be used to kill someone, you have a licence to drive it and you lock it up when it’s not being used, why not your pistol?
To that end, IMO, anything that takes just one gun out of the hands of dickheads is a good thing. Nothing is going to take guns away from criminals, hell I could go down the road now and get you a pistol within a couple of hours from ‘some bloke in the pub’ but surely, anything that stops one Highschool kid losing the plot and borrowing dad’s pistol has got to be a good thing, surely.
I would never dream of suggesting that any of you in the US give up your right to bear arms but is there really anything wrong with keeping them locked away and traceable?
Well, I think it’s prudent to have some regulations, but I think there is a fear of a slippery slope. For example, I see nothing wrong with a waiting period. The 21 days (or however long it may be) may be just what is needed to allow that husband who walked in on his wife and another man in bed together enough time to think about how no matter how justified shooting them both may be in his mind in the heat of the moment, it’s not going to solve anything.
I also think there’s nothing wrong with, say, requiring a potential gun owner to attend a firearm safety class, to be funded by licensing fees, of course. No way in hell I’d want some granola eating tree hugger to assume the right to dictate the behavior of a gun owner on grounds that his tax monies contribute in any way towards the latter’s acting on the right to keep and bear.
But when you talk about requiring guns and ammo to be kept in different safes, or rooms, thus rendering it useless as an instrument of self, family, and home protection, it’s taking things a little too far.
-D4
I think ultimately what it comes down to is that the rest of will never truly understand how important the right to bear is to you guys. Equally, you will never truly understand how bizarre it appears to the rest of us that anyone can own virtually any weapon in case a burglar breaks in.
Take the UK for example, it has been illegal to own any form of automatic firearm for many years, following Dunblane and Hungerford ( our versions of Columbine). That basically restricts our choice to a 22 rifle or a 12 bore, neither of which are particularly useful in the confines of a narrrow hallway.
Regarding burglars, we have the principle of ‘reasonable force’ where, as long as we can show that the force used to eject or detain a burglar was appropriate, we are free from worry of prosecution. Burglars don’t carry guns, so homeowners cannot justify having a gun in the house for defence, hence, virtually all of our guns are locked away in gun cabinets. There is nothing to say that I cannot keep a bat or golf club by the bed ‘just in case’ and believe me, in my hands, that would be more than sufficient. Of course we have the advantage that the vast majority of our criminal element don’t carry guns either, we have a bigger problem with kids carrying knives but, in reality, it is still negligible.
nothing voids the bowels faster on burglar than the sound of a shotgun reloading… in Utah, if someone breaks into your house, high 5’s from the police for self defense, whatever you did to em.
reasonable force would be to use rock salt in the shotgun instead of buckshot. but thats my opinion. then there’s the zip gun. anything can be a gun. I dont have one in my house, so I’m just gonna have to improvise.
pours massive amounts of Alphanols and TAF into pepper spray