Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 30, 2012 10:01:00 GMT -5
Here's what happens with gun control where citizens suddenly become subjects the government don't like.
Soviets go with gun control in 1929. !929-1953 twenty million political dissidents killed.
1911 Turkey adopts gun control. 1916-17 1.5 million Turkish Armenians killed
1938 Germany gun control. 13 million Jews, Gypsies and others killed
China adopts gun control 1935. 20 million political dissidents killed
Guatemala gun control 1964. 100,000 Mayan Indians killed
Uganda 1970 gun control. 300,000 Christians killed
Cambodia 1956 gun control. 1975-1977 One million defenseless educated people, the cream of the country , slaughtered.
Everyone should learn from history. Governments cannot be trusted. An armed citizenry is a free citizenry because they can defend themselves against excesses or hostility from their own government or foreign invasion. And minorities especially, are protected from hate crimes committed through the tyranny of the majority by having guns with which to defend themselves.
Again, "With guns we are citizens. Without guns we are subjects!" and that's exactly what the founders had in mind with the second amendment, regardless of what liars like Holder and his ilk say. " Those who do not study history, are doomed to repeat it" And folks, it ain't the good parts you are doomed to repeat *L*.....Mel
|
|
|
Post by gingerkid on Dec 30, 2012 11:25:29 GMT -5
Thank y'all for the nice comments on my new shotgun! Mel, found the Centurian for multi-defense and hope to purchase some. Right now, most places that sell them are out of stock. ehem. One site I tried to access is offline-not taking orders via the web nor phone since they are running out of products and full with orders to complete. We were going to purchase some 223's for Rick's AR-15, and they are out of stock everywhere, too. Even went to the new local gun shop, and the owner said he was in the process of purchasing some online, had them in his shopping cart (at the time they were "in stock") and when he hit submit to place the order, all of them were sold out. lagrangenews.com/pages/full_story/push?article-LaGrange+gun+sales+soar+since+Conn-+school+attack%20&id=21241060&instance=top_storiesI don't have much, if any, confidence in the UN and don't want any part of a treaty with the UN concerning guns or anything. Don't trust 'em. Wish we were not a member of the UN. LOL, Helen! I spotted a used Stoeger double barrel 20 gauge (Coach gun) that was sweet, but Rick said they wanted too much for it.
|
|
|
Post by Toad on Dec 30, 2012 11:26:05 GMT -5
Hypocrisy doesn't count when you have the power - do as I say, not as I do.
|
|
RockIt2Me
has rocks in the head
Sometimes I have to tell myself, "It's not worth the jail time."
Member since December 2009
Posts: 668
|
Post by RockIt2Me on Dec 30, 2012 14:28:20 GMT -5
Charlie, That's not true in Texas. If you buy from a gun show dealer, you fill out the same federal forms and the gun show dealer phones the check line just as happens in a gun store. Speeds yup the process if you have a CCW permit as then you've already had a serious background check but it still has to be done. No checks on private person to person sales anywhere though and that's where some sales fall through the cracks. And of course, guns can be given as gifts with no checks so in those cases, it behooves the seller or gift giver to try not to give or sell guns to crazies or criminals. Impossible for any system to be perfect though, just like you can't stop car sales to guys who drive drunk..Mel That's not just Texas but any gun show anywhere. I husband is a gun dealer and does gun shows all over the country. He said 95% of the guns sold at any show have the same federal process, complete with background checks. However, there are individuals that bring their personal guns and will do 'parking lot' sales or trades.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 30, 2012 14:34:34 GMT -5
Get real. Obama supports the 2nd Amendment, but he's got to support his party too.
We've had this discussion before, it's CONGRESS that passes laws, NOT the President. If the fiscal cliff doesn't illustrate this clearly for you, not sure what would.
Tell me how ANY kind of gun control is going to pass Congress, when you already know that 1/2 the Democrats do NOT support it, and NONE of the Republicans do? There is no way they are going to do ANYTHING about it.
I hold out hope that as a compromise, they do something about increasing mental health availability for those parents who don't know where to turn today. The ONLY option right now if you have a worrisome child is to put your child in jail, AFTER they do something horrible. Most insurances do not cover mental health, and those who do have $50 copay per visit. Sure, every family can afford $50-$100 a week for 'therapy' for their child, especially in poor households with multiple children, or single parent households. Further, a lot of these mass shooters are coming from recently divorced homes, and their single parent's are often making very low incomes, and probably suffering mental health issues themselves.
Parents with troubled kids don't want to prevent their children from ever finding a job, they can't afford mental health services for them, so they roll the dice with their silence, and society loses. I think about every case of mass shootings and even patricides in this country, and from my perspective, every last one of them might have been prevented if there was as much concern about mental health as there is for guns or criminal justice.
Too much focus in this country on punishment, too little on prevention. We are smart enough to spend the money on traffic lights when people get killed several times at a given intersection. What does it take to realize that we may diffuse many bombs by offering acessible treatment for these kids? And NO, mental health care is NOT available right now to ANYONE who doesn't have $100-$200 a week to spend on this single problem... or $40,000 for a rehab program.
Guns kill no one by themselves, but that's what gets blamed because mentally ill people can not get help. If Republicans would pull their heads out of butts and focus on the PROBLEM, we wouldn't even have the finger pointing at guns.
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Dec 30, 2012 14:59:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 30, 2012 15:12:29 GMT -5
You forgot something... Obama said he supported the 2nd Amendment, not once but multiple times. He's a Democrat, by just saying that he alienated much of the far left.
He dumped the entire gun control issue on Joe Biden. What's that tell you? He expects Joe to try to shove it through Congress... no hint of Executive Order, hmm? What's THAT tell you? He's 'doing something', but he's not really doing something.
I would be FLOORED if he actually passed an Executive Order regarding gun control. Although not letting normal people buy 50 round magazines is common sense, if only due to the risk of criminals stealing those magazines and taking any of us out with them.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 30, 2012 15:16:59 GMT -5
Man, all I got to say is the American public sure thinks Obama's administration is gonna make a run at at their guns and ammo because the cupboards around here are bare. Gun stores are almost empty, hardly any cheaper ammo around and even the two largest mail order ammo guys, Sportsmans Guide and Natchez are backordered on most ammo for months. I had a gun I wanted for Xmas and the outfit that had them sold out over a hundred of them in a couple of days and now they're impossible to find. Only way to get ammo is to pay sky high prices at some of the gun stores.
*L* Helen, I will be floored if Obama does not go after broad classes of guns, ammo, and magazines including those normal pistol clips that hold over 10 rounds because I'm from California and they did that there and I think Feinstein, Boxer, Obama etc will use that as their pattern. And I'll call BS on Obama not being anti -gun. What he says and how he has voted in the past when he was a senator are worlds apart. You're great at looking things up, Look that up *L* He even said he was for an assault weapon ban when running for re election and there, it's simply a matter of how "assault weapon" is defined. Any gun can be an assault weapon if defined that way and the list being looked at is very broadly defined....Mel
|
|
|
Post by gingerkid on Dec 30, 2012 16:14:07 GMT -5
Yep, Mel, folks are buying guns and ammo like hotcakes. bushman, hi, I can only find conspiracy stuff on UN Agenda 21. After diggin' around on the UN website, read that it is connected to the Earth Summit and protecting the world's environment. Glenn Beck has written a book about Agenda 21, and there's a lot of conspiracy websites. Don't necessarily trust what is on wikipedia and sources similar to it. The conspiracy sites state something along the lines that the human population should be exterminated to save the environment and Earth.
|
|
|
Post by rockpickerforever on Dec 30, 2012 16:24:19 GMT -5
In "Commiefornia" as Mel would call it, they are attempting to make it harder to purchase ammo: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB53. And worded so vaguely it can mean whatever they want it to mean. Another way to ban guns, make ammo inaccessable. SB-53 Ammunition: purchase permits. This was just introduced ten days ago on 12/20/12 by Senators De León and Lee. This is a real threat, and people on the gun forums (calgun.net, for one) are rightfully concerned. An explanation from that aformentioned forum: (1) Existing law requires the Attorney General to maintain records, including among other things, fingerprints, licenses to carry concealed firearms, and information from firearms dealers pertaining to firearms, for purposes of assisting in the investigation of crimes, and specified civil actions. This bill would require the Attorney General to also maintain copies of ammunition purchase permits for those purposes.(2) Existing law, subject to exceptions, requires that the delivery or transfer of ownership of handgun ammunition occur only in a face-to-face transaction. Existing law provides that the term “vendor” for purposes of ammunition sales is a “handgun ammunition vendor” as defined for those and other purposes. This bill would extend those provisions to any ammunition. The bill would provide that the term “vendor” for purposes of ammunition sales means “ammunition vendor” as defined for those and other purposes. The bill would make additional conforming changes.(3) Existing law prohibits an ammunition vendor from allowing a person the vendor knows or should know is a person who is prohibited from possessing firearms for specified reasons, from handling, selling, or delivering handgun ammunition in the course and scope of their employment. Existing law prohibits an ammunition vendor from selling or otherwise transferring ownership of, offering for sale or otherwise offering to transfer ownership of, or displaying for sale or displaying for transfer of ownership of, any handgun ammunition in a manner that allows that ammunition to be accessible to a purchaser or transferee without the assistance of the vendor or an employee of the vendor. This bill would extend those prohibitions to any ammunition. The bill would provide that a violation of those provisions is a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.(4) Existing law subject to exceptions, requires a handgun ammunition vendor to record specified information at the time of delivery of handgun ammunition to a purchaser, as specified. [[[ Seems like they think 962, the unconstitutionally vague law, is still in effect; to be fair, it still 'exists' in the PC.]]] This bill would extend those provisions to transactions of any ammunition. The bill would, commencing September 1, 2014, and subject to exceptions, require the purchaser of ammunition to hold an ammunition purchase permit, or other specified permit, license, or certificate pertaining to acquisition, possession, or carrying firearms, as provided, or other specified documentation for a person who is not a state resident. The bill would, commencing September 1, 2014, require the vendor to submit to the Department of Justice information demonstrating compliance with that verification requirement, as specified. The bill would, commencing June 1, 2014, authorize issuance of ammunition purchase permits by the Department of Justice to applicants who are residents of this state, at least 18 years of age, not prohibited from acquiring or possessing ammunition, and who pay the required fees, as specified. The bill would establish an application process and specify the information to be displayed on the permit. The bill would provide that the permit authorizes the holder to purchase ammunition from an ammunition vendor.(5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Coming soon to a state near you!! I guess certain of my family members were smart to be buying up ammo over the last couple years! Wish I could have afforded to do that... Jean
|
|
bushmanbilly
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2008
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by bushmanbilly on Dec 30, 2012 17:52:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 30, 2012 18:35:19 GMT -5
Well, states govern most gun control laws these days... that's why Florida has 'Stand your ground' AND 'castle' laws... basically covering your right to defend yourself and others anytime, anywhere with a legal weapon.
While we have jerks who have abused this (only one comes to mind actually, Travon Martin, and that was a VERY bizarre circumstance), we haven't had any mass killings approaching other states... probably because someone would take the gunman down fast.
I know the entire gun industry are making money hand over fist because of the hoopla... honestly, what business wouldn't capitalize on it? But I'll believe it's an issue when I see it, and I don't see it. In either case, the states of Florida, Texas and Alaska would ignore the Fed on this anyway. I don't see any of the southern or western states going for it either. I just don't see real gun control happening.
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 30, 2012 19:53:01 GMT -5
Boy you're right there Helen. In Texas, gun confiscation would be what you'd call risky business. Don't think the US has money enough for all the soldiers it would take or jails enough for all the people who would not turn in their guns. I guess only time will tell. Can you even imagine the crime and black market that would occur if they did ban guns or ammo? It would make prohibition look like a freaking nursery school. Every time the government bans something, it's just another business opportunity for organized crime to step in......Mel
|
|
|
Post by gingerkid on Dec 30, 2012 20:25:44 GMT -5
Thanks, bushman, will read it when I get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Dec 30, 2012 20:43:37 GMT -5
Boy you're right there Helen. In Texas, gun confiscation would be what you'd call risky business. Don't think the US has money enough for all the soldiers it would take or jails enough for all the people who would not turn in their guns. I guess only time will tell. Can you even imagine the crime and black market that would occur if they did ban guns or ammo? It would make prohibition look like a freaking nursery school. Every time the government bans something, it's just another business opportunity for organized crime to step in......Mel I agree Mel... I don't think they could lock up 3/4 of the state of Florida, because if they made guns illegal here, they'd have to. LOL! This part of the Democrat platform I simply cannot understand. Blaming the tool for what PEOPLE do with it is just complete nonsense.
|
|
chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Dec 31, 2012 9:02:28 GMT -5
Let's see now...guns dont kill people, people kill people. Ok but if that is true then: - chain saws dont cut trees people cut trees. hmmm think of the number and square miles of clearcuts without chain saws.
- nets dont catch fish, people catch fish..hmmm how is the ocean running out of tuna?
- hazardous waste doesnt pollute our country, people pollute the country...hmmm why are there so many oozing landfills, waste ponds, and Love Canals in this country
The automatic weapon does not kill by itself, the person shooting it is not so deadly without it either. It takes two to tango. and these weapons enable the act of killing. I do not want to live in a country where fights are solved by the fastest, biggest, and most powerful weapon. We went through that part of nation building and came to the realization that that is fine in the wilderness and not so fine in the city. When I grew up, we talked about the cowards who had to settle their arguments with violence rather than reason. I believe it is still true today. Charlie
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 31, 2012 10:07:59 GMT -5
Charlie: Ah, I get it. Now you want to ban chain saws and fishing nets too. Hey, that's right, people with chainsaws can kill people too I suppose or someone could get tangled in a fishing net and drown ( sadly that happened to a fellow I went to dive school with). Just what is it you don't get about the whole concept of a tool? What it does depends always, on the user. Jeez! Tools are inanimate objects.
You know I wish you and your ilk would learn gun terminology and stop being so ignorant. The firearms in question in the killings were semi-automatics just like those owned and used legally by millions of hunters and target shooters. Automatics are machine guns and are not legal except under special permit. I am so sick of seeing dumbass politicians and news anchors holding up a legal semi-auto firearm and calling it a machine gun or automatic. With an automatic you pull the trigger and it keeps spraying bullets until empty. With a semi-auto you have to pull the trigger each time you fire it so, in effect, it acts very much like a double action revolver.
And, Charlie, if you feel so scared and unsafe here, you always have the option to change countries and move to one where folks don't have guns so muggers can stab them like defenseless sheep. Or to one where folks speaking out about politics like you love to do, but are defenseless, can be taken out and shot by government thugs that don't like the way they talk.. .....Mel
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Dec 31, 2012 10:37:16 GMT -5
What exactly are the parameters of the " stand your ground" law? It does seem to leave a lot to interpretation.
Please mel, stop the hysteria. I have lived like a sheep in toronto for 50 years and never been mugged or stabbed. I have never met anyone who has been mugged or stabbed. Most of the violence here is domestic in nature like everywhere else. Yeah, there has been a few shootings by gangbangers, but they are rare and except for a few tragic moments, they mostly kill themselves.
Me, along with everyone I have ever met has been able to survive without a gun.
BAAAAAAAAAAHHH
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Dec 31, 2012 10:56:44 GMT -5
Elvis: *L* As long as you are comfortable with your place on the food chain it's OK by me. I personally prefer to be a howling wolf. Ahhhh Ooooooh!
I don't know how dangerous Toronto is so I can't speak to your security but I know a bad neighborhood in any big city in the US will still be full of criminals with guns even if the non criminals were disarmed, bad neighborhood criminals go to good neighborhoods to commit crimes cause that's where the money is. I always prefer a level playing field. It ain't hysteria, it's merely common sense, and as I've said before, I've been in several situations when a pistol in my hand felt real welcome *L*. If you ever do come up against a dangerous situation, you'll undoubtedly change your tune pretty darn fast. " An anti-gunner is simply a pro gunner who's never been mugged".
Can't really speak to the stand your ground law in general as every state is a bit different. Texas is extremely liberal as to when you can shoot a criminal and even more liberal if you are female or an older individual as they figure there is a disparity of physical strength that has to be equalized ( Have I said how much I love Texas *L*). Basically 'stand your ground" means you don't have to run from a criminal and get shot in the back like in Commiefornia but are allowed to defend yourself if you are able. But different states allow this in different situations and often you are not allowed to shoot unless your life is threatened. In Texas, you are also allowed to defend property not that most folks would shoot someone over just property. To my way of thinking, property can be replaced but personally, threat to one's person or to those you love is a different situation...Mel
|
|
fmelvis
starting to spend too much on rocks
Member since November 2010
Posts: 235
|
Post by fmelvis on Dec 31, 2012 11:30:25 GMT -5
Mel,is there anywhere in the US you would feel safe enough not to carry a gun?
|
|