quote Originally posted by AusFiero: So as a democracy listen to your own people.

We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. There is a difference.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: So all guns are illegal in your country? Steve

God no. Only guns banned are automatic weapons and semi auto where not justifably needed. Pistols are confined to pistol clubs.
But as a hunter your guns are fine. My brother for instance has our great grandfathers double barrel shotgun. a 303, a 202 and some other gun he hunts with. Not sure on the specs of it but it has a nice scope on it and is a long range gun.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: Read the comments of Mr. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. http://www.nranews.com/# These comments make more sense than anything I have heard on the subject.

Just posting this for those members to afraid or lazy to click on a link, although the link is perfectly safe.


NRA PRESS CONFERENCE
12/21/2012
The National Rifle Association's 4 million mothers, fathers, sons and daughters join the nation in horror, outrage, grief and earnest prayer for the families of Newtown, Connecticut ... who suffered such incomprehensible loss as a result of this unspeakable crime.

Out of respect for those grieving families, and until the facts are known, the NRA has refrained from comment. While some have tried to exploit tragedy for political gain, we have remained respectfully silent.

Now, we must speak ... for the safety of our nation's children. Because for all the noise and anger directed at us over the past week, no one — nobody — has addressed the most important, pressing and immediate question we face: How do we protect our children right now, starting today, in a way that we know works?

The only way to answer that question is to face up to the truth. Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.

And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.

How have our nation's priorities gotten so far out of order? Think about it. We care about our money, so we protect our banks with armed guards. American airports, office buildings, power plants, courthouses — even sports stadiums — are all protected by armed security.

We care about the President, so we protect him with armed Secret Service agents. Members of Congress work in offices surrounded by armed Capitol Police officers.

Yet when it comes to the most beloved, innocent and vulnerable members of the American family — our children — we as a society leave them utterly defenseless, and the monsters and predators of this world know it and exploit it. That must change now!

The truth is that our society is populated by an unknown number of genuine monsters — people so deranged, so evil, so possessed by voices and driven by demons that no sane person can possibly ever comprehend them. They walk among us every day. And does anybody really believe that the next Adam Lanza isn't planning his attack on a school he's already identified at this very moment?

How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame — from a national media machine that rewards them with the wall-to-wall attention and sense of identity that they crave — while provoking others to try to make their mark?

A dozen more killers? A hundred? More? How can we possibly even guess how many, given our nation's refusal to create an active national database of the mentally ill?

And the fact is, that wouldn't even begin to address the much larger and more lethal criminal class: Killers, robbers, rapists and drug gang members who have spread like cancer in every community in this country. Meanwhile, federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40% — to the lowest levels in a decade.

So now, due to a declining willingness to prosecute dangerous criminals, violent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you've got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.

And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here's one: it's called Kindergarten Killers. It's been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn't or didn't want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there's the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."

But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000 acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18.

And throughout it all, too many in our national media ... their corporate owners ... and their stockholders ... act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators. Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

The media call semi-automatic firearms "machine guns" — they claim these civilian semi-automatic firearms are used by the military, and they tell us that the .223 round is one of the most powerful rifle calibers ... when all of these claims are factually untrue. They don't know what they're talking about!

Worse, they perpetuate the dangerous notion that one more gun ban — or one more law imposed on peaceful, lawful people — will protect us where 20,000 others have failed!

As brave, heroic and self-sacrificing as those teachers were in those classrooms, and as prompt, professional and well-trained as those police were when they responded, they were unable — through no fault of their own — to stop it.

As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school. The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away ... or a minute away?

Now, I can imagine the shocking headlines you'll print tomorrow morning: "More guns," you'll claim, "are the NRA's answer to everything!" Your implication will be that guns are evil and have no place in society, much less in our schools. But since when did the word "gun" automatically become a bad word?

A gun in the hands of a Secret Service agent protecting the President isn't a bad word. A gun in the hands of a soldier protecting the United States isn't a bad word. And when you hear the glass breaking in your living room at 3 a.m. and call 911, you won't be able to pray hard enough for a gun in the hands of a good guy to get there fast enough to protect you.

So why is the idea of a gun good when it's used to protect our President or our country or our police, but bad when it's used to protect our children in their schools?

They're our kids. They're our responsibility. And it's not just our duty to protect them — it's our right to protect them.

You know, five years ago, after the Virginia Tech tragedy, when I said we should put armed security in every school, the media called me crazy. But what if, when Adam Lanza started shooting his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, he had been confronted by qualified, armed security?

Will you at least admit it's possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared? Is that so abhorrent to you that you would rather continue to risk the alternative?

Is the press and political class here in Washington so consumed by fear and hatred of the NRA and America's gun owners that you're willing to accept a world where real resistance to evil monsters is a lone, unarmed school principal left to surrender her life to shield the children in her care? No one — regardless of personal political prejudice — has the right to impose that sacrifice.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is no national, one-size-fits-all solution to protecting our children. But do know this President zeroed out school emergency planning grants in last year's budget, and scrapped "Secure Our Schools" policing grants in next year's budget.

With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can't afford to put a police officer in every school? Even if they did that, politicians have no business — and no authority — denying us the right, the ability, or the moral imperative to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm.

Now, the National Rifle Association knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school. We can deploy them to protect our kids now. We can immediately make America's schools safer — relying on the brave men and women of America's police force.

The budget of our local police departments are strained and resources are limited, but their dedication and courage are second to none and they can be deployed right now.

I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January.

Before Congress reconvenes, before we engage in any lengthy debate over legislation, regulation or anything else, as soon as our kids return to school after the holiday break, we need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work — and by that I mean armed security.

Right now, today, every school in the United States should plan meetings with parents, school administrators, teachers and local authorities — and draw upon every resource available — to erect a cordon of protection around our kids right now. Every school will have a different solution based on its own unique situation.

Every school in America needs to immediately identify, dedicate and deploy the resources necessary to put these security forces in place right now. And the National Rifle Association, as America's preeminent trainer of law enforcement and security personnel for the past 50 years, is ready, willing and uniquely qualified to help.

Our training programs are the most advanced in the world. That expertise must be brought to bear to protect our schools and our children now. We did it for the nation's defense industries and military installations during World War II, and we'll do it for our schools today.

The NRA is going to bring all of its knowledge, dedication and resources to develop a model National School Shield Emergency Response Program for every school that wants it. From armed security to building design and access control to information technology to student and teacher training, this multi-faceted program will be developed by the very best experts in their fields.

Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead this effort as National Director of the National School Shield Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires. His experience as a U.S. Attorney, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to hire the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts available anywhere, to get this program up and running from the first day forward.

If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy.

Under Asa's leadership, our team of security experts will make this the best program in the world for protecting our children at school, and we will make that program available to every school in America free of charge.

That's a plan of action that can, and will, make a real, positive and indisputable difference in the safety of our children — starting right now.

There'll be time for talk and debate later. This is the time, this is the day for decisive action.

We can't wait for the next unspeakable crime to happen before we act. We can't lose precious time debating legislation that won't work. We mustn't allow politics or personal prejudice to divide us. We must act now.

For the sake of the safety of every child in America, I call on every parent, every teacher, every school administrator and every law enforcement officer in this country to join us in the National School Shield Program and protect our children with the only line of positive defense that's tested and proven to work.


****************************************


And as I said in the other thread about this subject I would be one of the first to volunteer to do duty in any school that wanted me. See laws are going to take months if not years to enact. So why not protect our most precious people on earth RIGHT NOW. Instead of waiting any amount of time.

Steve


------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 12-23-2012).]

at the risk of sustaining more personal attack and insult, i think the NRA (yes, i read their press release) both missed the point and obstructed the process by offering a non-solution. they offer two main objects, (in addition to re-designing our school buildings) placing armed security guards in the schools, and creating a national data base of the "insane". and then they place the blame on the "usual suspects", the media and computer games. i think they knowingly dodged the question and offered a non-answer.

a national data base sounds fine, but what does the NRA know about mental illness? who, exactly, goes on this list, and who decides who goes on the list? does everyone who has ever taken a mind-altering prescription drug go on the list? what about alcohol? people diagnosed with manic-depressive illness? anyone who has attempted suicide? maybe those who play Call of Duty?

armed security? sure, and the NRA generously, selflessly offers to help train these guards, but who pays? the federal government? doesn't this constitute MORE federal presence in the schools? they missed an opportunity to encourage the arming of individual citizens who have a demonstrated interest in the well-being of their charges, to put authority figures in the schools. beholden to whom? we missed this same opportunity by not allowing aircrews on airplanes to carry after 9/11. if an airline pilot wants to kill us, he doesn't need a bomb or a gun. instead we got a bureaucracy which routinely violates our dignity and freedoms. and the NRA offers us more of this?

[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 12-23-2012).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: Former Congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead this effort as National Director of the National School Shield Program, with a budget provided by the NRA of whatever scope the task requires. His experience as a U.S. Attorney, Director of the Drug Enforcement Agency and Undersecretary of the Department of Homeland Security will give him the knowledge and expertise to hire the most knowledgeable and credentialed experts available anywhere, to get this program up and running from the first day forward. If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy. Under Asa's leadership, our team of security experts will make this the best program in the world for protecting our children at school, and we will make that program available to every school in America free of charge.

I think you missed this part.
I think their idea was for a voluntary guard at no charge to anyone. Would you volunteer? I know I will if they want me.

Steve

Steve


------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 12-23-2012).]

quote Originally posted by couldahadaV8: I have to post one more after reading this. Thank you for clearly going against all the stupid posts you've put here about gun safety and all the careful checks that are made. You said it much clearer than I could. You just closed the case, and shot yourself in the foot (pun intended).

if the guy wanted to kill himself, not passing the check to get his gun wouldn't have matter. He would have found another way, and it might have hurt someone else in the process. At least this way he only hurt himself.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: God no. Only guns banned are automatic weapons and semi auto where not justifably needed. Pistols are confined to pistol clubs. But as a hunter your guns are fine. My brother for instance has our great grandfathers double barrel shotgun. a 303, a 202 and some other gun he hunts with. Not sure on the specs of it but it has a nice scope on it and is a long range gun.

What about pump action shotguns and others like lever action long guns. Or pistols for bank runners, people who take money to the banks after their tills are full.

Steve

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't



Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: I think you missed this part. I think their idea was for a voluntary guard at no charge to anyone. Would you volunteer? I know I will if they want me. Steve Steve

nope, read it, though my eyes did start to glaze over from how wonderful the NRA was sounding. they're offering "training" and "advice". i still see this as a public relations gambit, and a missed opportunity.
they may well expect volunteer guards, and yes, if my community calls, i'll answer. but first, i'd need a carry permit, which i've never felt a need for.

quote Originally posted by lurker: at the risk of sustaining more personal attack and insult, i think the NRA (yes, i read their press release) both missed the point and obstructed the process by offering a non-solution. they offer two main objects, (in addition to re-designing our school buildings) placing armed security guards in the schools, and creating a national data base of the "insane". and then they place the blame on the "usual suspects", the media and computer games. i think they knowingly dodged the question and offered a non-answer. a national data base sounds fine, but what does the NRA know about mental illness? who, exactly, goes on this list, and who decides who goes on the list? does everyone who has ever taken a mind-altering prescription drug go on the list? what about alcohol? people diagnosed with manic-depressive illness? anyone who has attempted suicide? maybe those who play Call of Duty? armed security? sure, and the NRA generously, selflessly offers to help train these guards, but who pays? the federal government? doesn't this constitute MORE federal presence in the schools? they missed an opportunity to encourage the arming of individual citizens who have a demonstrated interest in the well-being of their charges, to put authority figures in the schools. beholden to whom? we missed this same opportunity by not allowing aircrews on airplanes to carry after 9/11. if an airline pilot wants to kill us, he doesn't need a bomb or a gun. instead we got a bureaucracy which routinely violates our dignity and freedoms. and the NRA offers us more of this?

I dont know why anyone has to pay for it. Billions of dollars of weapons and equipment have been given by the DOD and .fed gov to local police all over the US. From M9's and Holsters to Humvees.

I would like to point out something that people seem to be consistently missing. These people kill themselves at the first sign of resistance. While crazies have before gone toe to toe with the Cops, this doesnt seem to happen anymore. Shooters kill themselves as soon as another armed person shows up, ending whatever god fantasy theyre having. I'm fine with schools being gun free zones for the public, and not having "every single teacher" packing. I would like to see a principal, an assistant principal, a PE teacher or hell even a janitor carry a gun on a belt. End these conflicts before they start, or right after. Minimize damage and loss of life. Sure its "ugly and scary" but so is the world, and pretending that it isnt perpetuates what we see every single damn time on the news. "I never thought it would happen, not here, not to me"

No kids have died in school fires in the last 50 years. Why? Fire extinguishers, fire alarms, and fire drills 4 times a year. Why can we admit that fire is a threat, emplace preventative mesures and train to deal with it but ignore school violence. I can't agree with "banning guns" because its a damn excuse to continue pretending bad people dont exist in suburban America.

Its not JUST mass shootings either. There is widespread assault and voilence in schools across America already.

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: What about pump action shotguns and others like lever action long guns. Or pistols for bank runners, people who take money to the banks after their tills are full. Steve

Bank runners inmost cases are the business owners or the junior office girl. They just don't get robbed. Dont get me wrong, I am sure it happens. But not enough to justify extreme action. Employees are just trained to give the money. It is insured, let the police and insurance company sort it out.

I have had some interesting conversations with fellow gun owners over the last few days. Although it may not be the opinion of many here on PFF, I was surprised at how many people agreed that the NRA is pushing away many moderate gun owners from their cause. Just sharing a couple articles that I found interesting.

A Sportsman’s Viewpoint: We Need a Moderate Alternative to the NRA

quote I used to live in the country and go to a gun club for the skeet and trap shooting. I went there on Sundays because that was the only day the club was open to nonmembers. Like many shooting clubs, this one would only grant membership if I also joined the National Rifle Association. That wasn’t going to happen. While I like some of the NRA’s youth gun-safety programs, I cannot support its policy aims. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 13.7 million people went hunting in the U.S. last year, a nearly 5% increase from 2001. By contrast, the NRA has 4 million members. There are likely plenty of reasons why two-thirds of hunters (as well as millions of gun owners) don’t belong to the group, apathy and financial hardship among them, but politics undoubtedly play a role. And reaching out to pro-hunting moderates is perhaps our best hope for ending the national stalemate over gun control. “I don’t know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” West Virginia Senator Joe “Dead Aim” Manchin said on Morning Joe,one of several pro-gun politicians who have started to speak out in favor of sensible reforms after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. “I don’t know anybody that needs 30 rounds in the clip to go hunting.” Neither do I. And I’m guessing the same is true for many other sportsmen. Unfortunately, this constituency has no organization speaking to and for it. That’s why if philanthropists and influential leaders really want to do something about gun safety, they should launch an advocacy group for sportsmen that will provide a legitimate alternative to today’s gun lobby. The solution to our gun problem is not to try to fight through the same old politics — rather, it’s to change the political landscape. A moderate sporting organization could oppose knee-jerk proposals like banning “semiautomatic” guns (a class that includes many legitimate sporting arms) while supporting common-sense steps to improve public safety, including the strict regulation of — or even prohibition against — the sale of large-magazine firearms that have no legitimate sporting use. At the same time, such an organization could take on all the issues of more immediate concern to sportsmen than the Second Amendment, in particular the loss of wildlife habitat. The NRA and its even more radical cousins are pretty much exclusively focused on maintaining access to all kinds of firearms and ammunition. It’s an economic agenda to preserve the interests of the companies that make these products, not a pro-sportsmen’s agenda to preserve natural resources and open space; the gun lobby frequently supports politicians with horrendous records on environmental issues. Its narrow focus, as Field & Stream columnist George Reiger observed a few years ago, could lead us to become a nation where people can have “a closet full of guns with no place but a shooting range to use them.” It’s worth noting that hunters have tried to start a pro-gun-control group before. Ray Schoenke, who used to play for the Washington Redskins and ran for governor in Maryland, launched the American Hunters and Shooters Association in 2005; it was defunct by 2010. Monster.com founder Andrew McKelvey started a similar group, Americans for Gun Safety, that quickly fizzled (before merging with the centrist D.C. think tank Third Way). Both of these organizations were hamstrung by having close ties with traditional gun-control organizations, and that made them an easy target for the gun lobby. A moderate alternative to the NRA would need authenticity to succeed. And deep pockets too. It would also help if the leader of this new organization could motivate young people to help change the status quo. (Mass shootings may grab our attention, but day-to-day gun violence is the major reason why homicide is the second leading cause of death, after accidents, among young adults.) That’s why I’m nominating Mark Zuckerberg to take up this cause. He’s rich, he has tons of social capital, and in 2011 he pledged to spend a year eating only meat from animals that he had killed. He said he did this to challenge himself to be more thankful for what he has and to be more thoughtful about how we live — ideas sadly lost on today’s gun lobby.

NRA: Guns Don't Kill People, Video Games Do

quote The charade of Friday's NRA press conference was best summed up by one of the last lines uttered at it by NRA President David Keene: "...this is the beginning of a serious conversation. We won't be taking questions today." Of course, neither Keene nor NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre would be taking questions. This "press conference" was not the beginning of any conversation -- it was the NRA leadership telling us all that we were wrong. They were there to enlighten us so that we understood that: "It's not guns that kill people, it's video games." It's movies. It's the media. It's "monsters." It's a society that worships celebrities and money. It's greedy corporate executives and shareholders. It's foreign aid to other countries. (These were all actually referenced by Wayne LaPierre during his rambling speech.) The one thing that Wayne LaPierre apparently doesn't believe is responsible in any way for shooting deaths are guns. Not the guns used in the Newtown shooting that took the lives of 20 young children and 6 adults. Not the guns used in July to kill 12 and wound 58 in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater. Not the guns used to kill six people at a Sikh Temple in August. And not the guns used to kill 94 more people in the U.S. since the Newtown shooting. Yes, 94 people have been murdered by gun violence since December 14. (And that number will likely be higher by the time you read this.) While LaPierre claimed that violence in movies and in video games like "Grand Theft Auto," caused gun violence, he offered no explanation for why people in other countries where they watch the very same movies and play the same video games have remarkably lower numbers of people killed by guns. For example, "Grand Theft Auto" broke UK sales records for fast selling video with over 600,000 units sold in its first day. However, in the UK, only 51 one people were killed by guns in 2011. In contrast, in the US, 8,583 people were murdered by guns in 2011. The real difference between the U.S. and UK isn't that they are watching different movies or playing different video games. It's guns. We have close to 300 million guns legally owned while the UK has only approximately 1.8 million guns. What the NRA leadership should have said -- and what I know from twitter some NRA members expected they would say -- is that the NRA was going to embrace sensible "human safety" laws. (To me, we should stop using the term "gun control" -- I'm not concerned with controlling people's guns, I'm concerned with saving lives.) At the very least the NRA should have called for a few common sense changes to our laws. The first and most obvious being to close the "gun show loophole." Our current federal law only requires background checks to determine if the purported gun buyer has a criminal record or history of mental illness if the gun is so sold by a licensed firearm dealer. But that only accounts for 60% of the guns legally sold. Meaning, 40% of the guns legally sold are to people who have had no background check at all. Only 19% of Americans polled want to keep the law the way. The problem is that the NRA leadership is part of this 19% and has lobbied to keep the gun hole loophole intact. How can any organization that truly cares about saving the lives of Americans ever oppose a law to ensure that the mentally ill and criminals are prohibited from buying firearms? So what did the NRA called for at its press event? More guns. LaPierre proposed that every school in America should have an armed guard. There are roughly 100,000 public schools meaning a boon in gun sales to arm these new guards. But here's a glaring problem with the NRA's proposal. At the horrific Columbine High School shooting in 1999 that left 15 dead and 23 wounded, there was an armed guard. A 15-year veteran of the Sheriff's office was on the location. While he exchanged gunshots with one of the two shooters, he was unable to stop the shooting. How could the NRA leadership not be aware of this fact? And does this mean that every school would need two armed guards? Will the NRA next suggest we have armed guards at every movie theater, shopping mall, Sikh temple, workplace, church -- or any of the other location where mass shootings have recently occurred? Clearly, the NRA leadership is not prepared to have an honest conversation on the issues about the role that GUNS play in the deaths of Americans. The one bright spot is that the rank and file members of the NRA disagree with the NRA elite on a growing number of issues, including 69% who favor closing gun show loophole. The NRA leadership is at a crossroads. It can either begin to embrace policies that will save American's lives or find the NRA marginalized to the fringes of American society. While I know that NRA leaders LaPierre and Keene aren't taking questions right now, they may want to consider this one.

I have to admit that I just don't get it.

Why are so many U.S. citizens (apparently) calling for 'gun control' and 'gun bans' when both are clearly against the U.S. Constitution (not to mention almost every single State Constitution)?

Why are those people so much in favor of Congress passing law(s) that would restrict a fundamental right?

Do they not understand the seriousness of allowing the legislature to abridge God-given rights without going through the due-process of a Constitutional amendment? (not that it hasn't already happened, which I suppose is the point).

The entire Constitution is based not on rights 'granted by government to the people', but is in fact a set of restrictions on the Federal government.

It doesn't matter what laws the legislature passes for so-called 'gun control'. They are invalid, as they are against the Constitution of the United States. Any such laws are null and void by default.

-Darryl

No one has pointed out that the "gun show loophole" does not fall under Federal juristiction, such legislation is the responsibility of the individual States. The Feds and the gun ban lobby are not honest about the problem. Only the Legislatures in the individual States can require background checks on private sales.

quote Originally posted by dsnover: I have to admit that I just don't get it. Why are so many U.S. citizens (apparently) calling for 'gun control' and 'gun bans' when both are clearly against the U.S. Constitution (not to mention almost every single State Constitution)? Why are those people so much in favor of Congress passing law(s) that would restrict a fundamental right? Do they not understand the seriousness of allowing the legislature to abridge God-given rights without going through the due-process of a Constitutional amendment? (not that it hasn't already happened, which I suppose is the point). The entire Constitution is based not on rights 'granted by government to the people', but is in fact a set of restrictions on the Federal government. It doesn't matter what laws the legislature passes for so-called 'gun control'. They are invalid, as they are against the Constitution of the United States. Any such laws are null and void by default. -Darryl

They are hypocrites for one. The rules are only good if they like them. The other part is a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution and what it means. ( which in part is being done by the media, with the goverment turning a blind eye to the dis-information )

Next time someone wasn't to pass a gun ban, ask them about free speech and if is it ok to curtail that... "They cant do that, its guaranteed in the Constitution".. Well, so are gun rights..

Some undisputable facts.......

Laws of any kind only exist to set penalties for noncompliance.
Criminals pay no attention to laws.
The enforcement of the laws now on the books is severely lacking at the Federal level.
Guns are plentiful in our society.
Mentally ill people have been acting out and killing people as a means to commit suicide.
We have no real program to help, or quantify the number, of mentally ill citizens.
Federal law requires the states to report the mentally ill to the NICS.

So, explain to me, in a sensible manner, how additional laws banning certain types of weapons will have any IMMEDIATE EFFECT in protecting our children as they attend school.

quote Originally posted by olejoedad: So, explain to me, in a sensible manner, how additional laws banning certain types of weapons will have any IMMEDIATE EFFECT in protecting our children as they attend school.

That isn't what these laws are for.

so, let stick with the consitituion, and have a well organized militia guarding the schools?
people always seem to leave out the militia part...?
ya ya need that to not be infringed with your arms.....

you expect some "interpetation" when dealing with things written in other languages, translated, and dragged thru time.
not on something written in our language, and a few generations ago.

maybe next we should make stealing OK.
if we outlaw stealing, only outlaws will steal? seems somewhat a stupid arguement when you go that way, doesnt it?

but, I know damn well that the minute guns are outlawed - I am making guns. evetrything outlawed is profitable - and that is something I am good at. so yes - outlaws will have guns. tho, somehow, I expect so will many more.

and here is where the real reason for this junk actually lies. people who need to hire armed security. if guns are outlawed - these people who need armed security are in big big trouble. these despicable folk will have a much tougher time. dont for a minute think your petty BS means a thing.

since we don't seem to have trouble determining that most weapons used in these sort of thing are legally owned, they were obviously not purchased through a "loophole", hence i think the loophole argument is bogus.

quote Originally posted by lurker: since we don't seem to have trouble determining that most weapons used in these sort of thing are legally owned, they were obviously not purchased through a "loophole", hence i think the loophole argument is bogus.

No matter what the argument to retain our rights, the other side has set things up for us to fail.

In your example they will just respond: "well, that means we should stop all legal sales too". ( for example )

I dont know what the answer is to get past their rhetoric and control of both the media and educational systems, but its not to be discounted and cant be addressed on honest logic alone. Underestimating the enemy is how we got into this mess in the first place.

How about we focus on enforcing current rules before we start putting new ones into place.
Yesterday on “Meet the Press”, David Gregory decided to wave around a 30-round AR-15 magazine.

quote Meet the Press’s studios are located in Washington DC. This morning on “Meet the Press”, David Gregory decided to wave around a 30-round AR-15 magazine. From DC’s gun laws: DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 (b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term large capacity ammunition feeding device shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition..” From Westlaw’s listing of DC’s gun laws: District of Columbia Official Code 2001 Edition Currentness Division I. Government of District. Title 7. Human Health Care and Safety. Subtitle J. Public Safety. Chapter 25. Firearms Control. Full text of all sections at this level Unit A. Firearms Control Regulations. Full text of all sections at this level Subchapter VI. Possession of Ammunition. Current selection§ 7-2506.01. Persons permitted to possess ammunition. (b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The term “large capacity ammunition feeding device” shall not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. Penalties: It is also illegal to possess, sell or transfer any “large capacity ammunition feeding device.” A person guilty of this charge can be sentenced to a maximum fine of $1000 and/or up to a year imprisonment. D.C. Criminal Code 7-2506.01. And from the DC Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog: 3. Unlawful Possession of Ammunition – As I mentioned above, in the District of Columbia, unless you are a licensed firearms dealer, you can only possess ammunition for the type of firearm that you are lawfully registered to own. Possession of unlawful ammunition is a crime and can result in a fine of $1,000 and a year in prison. It is also illegal to own what is considered a “large capacity ammunition feeding device,” which means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition. I chose to highlight these three major gun laws because they are the ones most likely to catch someone off guard that has no idea they are in violation of the Washington, DC gun laws.

How much would you like to bet they don't even get a slap on the wrist?

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: post the link steve

I appreciate the offer, but it was clarifying the statement about Russia having 4 times the murder rate of the US. As it is in response to your article I'll respectfully decline your offer.

I would support the ban on civilians owning magazines that holds over 50 rounds,unfotunately if you give them an inch, they drool & slober with greed for more..
the founding fathers knew monsters like diane fartstein(unsure of spell) & racist wrong Paul would come & millions of idiots & drooling rabid moron supporters would ignore the truth about these Demagogues
the damage they do is massive,,racist Paul was really a massive big help to Obama reelection
support the constitution & the bill of rights MAN up,screw the left wing, the democrat atheist,queers national org of witches
& other liberal groups that will steal your GOD given right to carry a .50 caliber sniper rifle for varmint hunting,or my fave the M-14 with 30 round magazine ,perfect for large groups of liberal loadmouths
90% of these mass killings are done by left leaning crazies,, the religeon of liberalism/marxism drives men crazy & make women more stupidly shrill.

quote Originally posted by uhlanstan: I would support the ban on civilians owning magazines that holds over 50 rounds.

This part of your statement sort of surprises me.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I think we as America DO need to make a BIG move towards getting control of our violent Nation and guns are central to the violence. So my proposal is to make a federal death penalty for the persons or persons who use a firearm or explosive or pioson during a violent crime. After days of horrible news and gun hating opinions, I have yet to hear ANYONE say what should befall those "suspects" that survive mass murders.

I missed this party, and the other one. I too am appalled by the gun rights haters views. We have more gun users than drug users in this nation. Are we prepared to double the amount of prisons and prisoners in this nation, as we see all to well how the war on drugs is going. For those that say guns, or some types of guns, should be outlawed consider that outlawing drugs does not stop possession or use. Contrary, it enables cartels and black markets. Most gun crimes are committed by people who should not even be allowed under current laws to own them. As far as the Sandy Hook and Black Night mass shootings, heh, we as a nation have cut back severely in the mental health arena.
Getting control of our violent nation is a mental health issue. Fatherless homes, the lack of corporal punishment, the removal of christian morals, and the idiots videoits all play a part.
The Federal Death Penalty is a joke. I am against any more federal involvement into our lives as I think local and state jurisdictions can handle the problem. Also, any use of a firearm, poison, or explosive during a crime would make them all violent in my opinion.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Bank runners inmost cases are the business owners or the junior office girl. They just don't get robbed. Dont get me wrong, I am sure it happens. But not enough to justify extreme action. Employees are just trained to give the money. It is insured, let the police and insurance company sort it out.

Protecting yourself is extreme action? Ya. Sure.

And let the police clean up the blood you mean. Just because its insured doesn't mean the crook wants no witnesses, and ( now ) helpless ' office girls' would be a witness. People are killed all the time during robberies since all they could do is stand there and die.

No thanks, i don't like the world you propose. But you are more than welcome to live at the mercy of the criminals if you like. I choose not to.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Even a punch in the face during the crime would qualify for me.

I agree.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Fatherless homes, the lack of corporal punishment, the removal of christian morals.

yeah thats what we need.. Turn everyone into Christians and all will be well, because we all know Chrsitians never do anything violent or wrong. Thier clean history proves that. Oh and while where at it, we will give teachers permission to beat our kids if they act up.. AWSUME idea!!!

Don't get me wrong, i do not support the banning of guns. But Chrsitanity, or any other religion, and letting strangers hit your kids is not going to solve this problem.

[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 12-29-2012).]

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: They just don't get robbed.

By George, that's the best damn solution I've seen yet for solving our crime problems! Make it just not happen.
Get the media on board and everything will be fine.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Fatherless homes, the lack of corporal punishment, the removal of christian morals.

quote Originally posted by Jonesy: yeah thats what we need.. Turn everyone into Christians and all will be well, because we all know Chrsitians never do anything violent or wrong. Thier clean history proves that. Oh and while where at it, we will give teachers permission to beat our kids if they act up.. AWSUME idea!!! Don't get me wrong, i do not support the banning of guns. But Chrsitanity, or any other religion, and letting strangers hit your kids is not going to solve this problem.

If you notice, I used a lower case letter "c" when I used the phrase christian values. I am a Christian, and a piss poor one. The values of the Word (not the interpretation of man), which used to permeate our society, are lacking now. My thoughts on the lack of corporal punishment, was not intended to give teachers permission to beat our kids. More so of the fact that now parents can't even use corporal punishment for fear of Child Protective Services coming in and, if not taking one's kids, causing parents to jump through hoops and possible go to court, perhaps incurring lawyers fees and court costs.

deleted

[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 01-04-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: so, let stick with the consitituion, and have a well organized militia guarding the schools? people always seem to leave out the militia part...? ya ya need that to not be infringed with your arms..... you expect some "interpetation" when dealing with things written in other languages, translated, and dragged thru time. not on something written in our language, and a few generations ago. maybe next we should make stealing OK. if we outlaw stealing, only outlaws will steal? seems somewhat a stupid arguement when you go that way, doesnt it? but, I know damn well that the minute guns are outlawed - I am making guns. evetrything outlawed is profitable - and that is something I am good at. so yes - outlaws will have guns. tho, somehow, I expect so will many more. and here is where the real reason for this junk actually lies. people who need to hire armed security. if guns are outlawed - these people who need armed security are in big big trouble. these despicable folk will have a much tougher time. dont for a minute think your petty BS means a thing.

If you passed High School grammar, you'd understand the sentence refers to an individual's right and not a militia.
The Supreme Court agrees.