Obama Outlines Gun Ban Agenda

[sprinter]

Some people are not fit to own knives or baseball bats. It is not feasible to check each person, and ban him from having possessions he is judged not fit to have, and then searching his property regularly to make sure he is not acquiring what he is not fit to have, and prosecuting him if he has any of these things. It is a boondoggle inside of a can of worms inside of Pandora's Box. Just let it be. Stop registering guns. While thay are at it, they can stop requiring drivers' licenses, and get rid of car license plates, unless the owner wants one. Get rid of speed limits, and make traffic lights just an aid to regulate the flow of traffic, and determine guilt in a collision at an intersection. If the light is red, and the way is clear, you should not have to stop. Legalize drugs, and take the tax off tobacco and alcohol and allow people to distill their own if they want to. Let them sell tobacco leaves in the produce section of the supermarket for what ever price they want to. That is just a start.

 

The government will never eliminate these. Everyone you mention is a revenue generator.

[Trimdingman]

The government will never eliminate these. Everyone you mention is a revenue generator.

 

Why do so many people believe that it is a good thing for the government to have as much information as possible about everybody? Money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to the people who earned it. It also doesn't belong to people who earn less. The more money the government takes, the more power they have, and the less freedom we have. Government institutions remain, even when there is a change in government, so there is little real change. We need to take a look at what the country would be like without all of these institutions, and if it is better, get rid of them.

[macattak1]

As usual Trim has to add 2 cents worth of anarchy.

 

Gun control does not work bottom line. You can not control the guns any more than you can drugs.

 

Registering the firearms or the controlling the artical that a person can own has never worked with any item at any time in history.

 

A person should be able to own what ever they want.

 

But it should not be carte blanch.

 

What needs to be controlled is who can own them and what.

 

Every one that gnats to be should be licensed. And a graduated one at that. Just like a drivers license is graduated in classes. You do not walk in the DMV get a license and to hop in to a Tractor pulling a C train loaded with gasoline and drive on public roads. The circumstances are no different.

 

Fire Arms licensing should be no different. As the responsibly level ownership of the Fire Arm in question increases so should the ownership and licensing requirements. it does not matter if you have 1 or 500 fire arms in that particular class. It is not the firearms that need to be controlled but who can legally be allowed to own them.

 

You are not going to allow a mentally unstable Ex Con with a history of violence to own a semi auto Sub MG that is just common sense. But there should no issues with a stable law abiding citizen that has shown a proficiency in handling, safe storage and knowledge of situations where deadly force is legal or warranted under their jurisdictions and laws. And has successfully gone through the steps of a graduated licensing system from owning rim fire (with a separate sub class for rim fire hand gun) , to single shot, to bolt action, to hand gun/semi auto and finally Full Auto.

And has passed security checks appropriate with each level/Class of fire arm. Naturally you not going to do a FBI back ground check for the guy that wants to plink away with a .22 rim fire rifle as you are on someone who wants to own a full Auto belt fed 30 cal Browning or Full auto sub gun.

 

You are responsible for all costs for the education classes, training and licensing issuance. No reason for the Taxpayers to pay for it.

 

In tandem with that minimum sentencing for crimes commissioned with a firearm should be an automatic life sentence no if ands or buts. No plea bargaining it away.

Safe storage laws need to be mandatory and really are just common friggen sense. If the Fire arm is not in your control (within arms reach) then it is locked up, trigger lock ,slide-bolt lock in a safe or what. Unfortunately there are people out there who are not smart enough or responsible enough to do this. And their kids or neighbors kids or what are getting their hands on these guns. Breach the safe storage laws and you are banned from firearms ownership for the rest of your life. As you have proven that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm. Be in possession of Fire arm above your licensing grade excepting for an immediate threat to your or your family's safety same thing life time ban on owning Fire arms. Be in possession of Fire arm after being banned for life for any reason other an immediate threat to your or your family's safety carries an automatic 10 year sentence.

 

Owning Firearms is a responsibly of the highest degree and we are lucky to be in nations that allow us to do so. Unfortunately easy access to firearms minimizes the actual responsibly. And has created the current situation of abuse of this privilege.

 

Any Responsible fire arms owner would have no problem these types of gun laws.

 

Any one that has proven to be responsible and willing to get the proper education would be denied access to any class of fire arm. Just as is the case with motor vehicle operation. Prove to be not a screw up on public roads or a threat to public saftey get the education and you can drive what ever you want.

 

 

Owning a Firearm should be no different.

 

This is not the perfect sloution by any stretch but it is far better than what Canada or the U.S currently has.

 

Matthew

 

 

So, you get caught with an unsecured gun and you loose the abilty to ever own guns again? Contrast that to driving please.

 

Peace and Blessings

[matthewq4b]

So, you get caught with an unsecured gun and you loose the abilty to ever own guns again? Contrast that to driving please.

 

Peace and Blessings

 

 

Ultimately you are responsible to insure that your motor vehicle is operated by individuals qualified to do so, that is one of the reasons cars have keys and door locks. Why should a tool that designed to kill be any different? You do not leave your car sitting around with the keys in the ignition and doors unlocked do ya? Cause if you knowingly did this not only would be hooped on getting insurance reimbursement but you could also be held liable as well if something happened when the vehicle was taken by some one not authorized to do so..

 

Yes with a vehicle you do not get a permanent suspension from operation until repeated offenses. But for most people the loss of driving privileges usually impacts income . Loosing your ability to own fire arms for 99.9% of the people out there has no impact on your ability to earn a living or provide for your family.

 

With an unsecured gun your leaving a tool accessible to any one who is not trained in the safe care use or operation of that tool, the results of which more often than not lead to the death of an innocent individual. Guns are designed to kill that is their primary purpose. Weather it be 4 legged critters or 2 legged ones. And if your not responsible enough to insure that the ONLY people that have access to these tools are the ones trained in their safe use and licensed to do so you have no right owning them. Simple as that. But some people lack this very basic common sense. Hence the need for a safe storage laws. To protect the innocent from the stupid.

 

If every one had basic common sense we would not need 90% of the laws we have. As that is what they are there for to protect the innocent from the stupid.

 

 

Matthew

Edited March 18, 2009 by matthewq4b

[the_spaniard]

Why do so many people believe that it is a good thing for the government to have as much information as possible about everybody? Money doesn't belong to the government. It belongs to the people who earned it. It also doesn't belong to people who earn less. The more money the government takes, the more power they have, and the less freedom we have. Government institutions remain, even when there is a change in government, so there is little real change. We need to take a look at what the country would be like without all of these institutions, and if it is better, get rid of them.

 

Why does it really matter what the government knows or does not know? I never got that one, either. Afraid of them knowing everything about you? Guess what, if they want to, they can have everything about who you are, every job, girlfriend, landlord, creditor, etc...in a matter of hours. That's right now. Imagine what it would be like in ten years.

 

Honestly, do people have anything to hide anymore?

[Trimdingman]

Only about 5% of "crime" is detected and punished. We are spending hundreds of billions, maybe trillions of dollars each year for a system that is 95% inefficient. If we were to police ourselves, it wouldn't cost anything, and we would also be eliminating the corruption which exists within the institutions which are supposed to be dealing with crime, and probably are creating more crime than exists naturally. They need crime. Crime is their lifes' blood. They will never really try to eliminate crime. They will do what is necessary to make sure that crime proliferates. Why, with all of the money we are throwing at crime, doesn't the situation improve? If it did, then we would start cutting back on the money. The money is what it is all about.

[stephenhawkings]

so this 'detachable magazine ban' HR45 is that going to hamper our offense, oops i mean defense department incapable of having guns with clips? how about my local law will they have to comply? or it the law enforcement above the law?

[Extreme4x4]

Well, I will surely say that "the one" sure has stimulated the economy.

 

The part of the economy, known as the gun industry.

 

Using the licensing of people, to drive, is a very poor example. Any idiot who can breathe air, can get a drivers license. If you can't pass the eye test............. they will coach you. If you fail the written test, you can take it over so many times, that you eventually memorize all of the questions.

 

There is no background check. There is no competancy test. If you get convicted of a crime, you do not lose your drivers license. If you do not lock your car, you do not lose your drivers license.

 

Many............... many................ many................. many more people, are killed, or maimed, by people who should never be behind the wheel of an automobile, than by all other methods COMBINED.

 

Yet, where is the outcry? Where is the cry for confiscation of vehicles? Where is the call for level upon level of tests.............. to prove that you have the ability to handle the type of vehicle you are planning to buy?? Where is the graduated license, that allows you to drive a tricycle.................. then after more tests and more fees, a bicycle................. then, an ATV............... then, any vehicle that weighs less than 1000lbs, has less than 25hp, and can go no faster than 10mph................... then gradually, you work up in size, power, and speed.................. until 25-30 levels later, and 10's of thousands of dollars in classes, tests, and licenses................. you are allowed to drive a vehicle, that has the potential to kill many people at one time............... like a truck.

 

And this is for a "privledge" that is not guaranteed by the constitution.

 

Sound ridiculous......................... well, so does the above proposed.

 

When you make so many laws, that do nothing, but criminalize the law abiding................ all you do is create a whole new class of criminal. You solve NOTHING.

 

In Japan, where the private ownership of firearms is allowed, only if they are held at a shooting club................. ANYONE can get a firearm illegally, if they so desire. The same is true of every country that has overly restrictive gun laws. And guess what, they all still have crime.

 

I can see that it is going to be a year, where I have to donate alot of money, to the NRA ILA.

[Trimdingman]

The more laws there are, the more government will be required to enforce them. If a law isn't really necessary, or if the enforcement of that law is going to be more of a problem than the problem that instigated the law was, it shouldn't be enacted. It is like the song about the old lady who swallowed the fly. Then she swallowed a spider to catch the fly and so on. I would rather have an extra $500 in my pay check every week than $500 worth of whatever government bullshit they spend it on.

[matthewq4b]

Well, I will surely say that "the one" sure has stimulated the economy.

 

The part of the economy, known as the gun industry.

 

Using the licensing of people, to drive, is a very poor example. Any idiot who can breathe air, can get a drivers license. If you can't pass the eye test............. they will coach you. If you fail the written test, you can take it over so many times, that you eventually memorize all of the questions.

 

There is no background check. There is no competancy test. If you get convicted of a crime, you do not lose your drivers license. If you do not lock your car, you do not lose your drivers license.

 

Many............... many................ many................. many more people, are killed, or maimed, by people who should never be behind the wheel of an automobile, than by all other methods COMBINED.

 

Yet, where is the outcry? Where is the cry for confiscation of vehicles? Where is the call for level upon level of tests.............. to prove that you have the ability to handle the type of vehicle you are planning to buy?? Where is the graduated license, that allows you to drive a tricycle.................. then after more tests and more fees, a bicycle................. then, an ATV............... then, any vehicle that weighs less than 1000lbs, has less than 25hp, and can go no faster than 10mph................... then gradually, you work up in size, power, and speed.................. until 25-30 levels later, and 10's of thousands of dollars in classes, tests, and licenses................. you are allowed to drive a vehicle, that has the potential to kill many people at one time............... like a truck.

 

And this is for a "privledge" that is not guaranteed by the constitution.

 

Sound ridiculous......................... well, so does the above proposed.

 

When you make so many laws, that do nothing, but criminalize the law abiding................ all you do is create a whole new class of criminal. You solve NOTHING.

 

In Japan, where the private ownership of firearms is allowed, only if they are held at a shooting club................. ANYONE can get a firearm illegally, if they so desire. The same is true of every country that has overly restrictive gun laws. And guess what, they all still have crime.

 

I can see that it is going to be a year, where I have to donate alot of money, to the NRA ILA.

 

 

It may sound ridiculous but what other option is there that is going to appease both sides?

 

Control the firearms themselves?

 

That is not only unpractical but it does not work for many reasons.

 

First off you end up with one gun being prohibited and some thing identical not being.

There are way more guns in private hands than there are gun owners.

There currently is different classes of Firearms licensing for individuals. So what is so ridiculous about adding a couple more and completely doing away with tracking all but Full Auto Fire Arms?

 

Yes any clown can get a Class 5 licenses (auto here) Yes you do not need a back ground check or a comprehensive competency test. But the primary function of an automobile is not to kill living beings either. Yes a car can be used as a deadly weapon as can any object. But the primary function of a car is to get from point A to Point B. Is the current system of Auto licensing adequate ? Absolutely not. But that is a whole other topic.

SO why repeat he same mistakes with Firearms licensing ? And not every clown can get a class 1 drivers license (tractor trailer) Just as with a fire arms licensing not every clown would be able Full Auto Licensing. Most everyone should be able to get a Center fire non automatic repeating fire arms licenses. The rim fire .22 licensing would and should have a reduced minimum age say 14 or 16. Everything else a minimum age of 18. Till Full auto with a minimum age of 21. (And even that is young as far as I'm concerned if it was my choice it would be 30 for full auto ownership)

 

 

That is the most cost effective solution that will help insure responsible ownership. Sure you can prohibit certain guns ban others but none of that encourages responsible ownership. A .22 rifle can kill someone just as easily as a Full Auto FN in .308.

In fact the .22 rifle in some minds might be considered more dangerous as they can be easily silenced when using Sub Sonic Ammo.

 

 

The object here is try to limit guns from falling in to the hands of individuals that should not have them and to keep them in the hands of those that should be able to own them.

 

You can not do this by saying what gun is illegal and what is not illegal. And banning certain firearms from public ownership.

The Criminals will still get them and the public will not be armed with equivalent.

 

The other thing that needs to be done is gun offenses have to be treated with the seriousness that they are.

 

If some one robs a bank armed with a gun what is the more serious offense The robbery or the fact that they were armed?

 

In my eyes the robbery is secondary the fact that did it with a fire arm is the more serious offense.

 

We are all taught early on you do not point a gun at any thing unless you intend to shot it. Unloaded or not.

The primary function of a firearm is to kill not injure or intimidate but kill.

If you commit a crime with a gun you are showing that your intention was to kill to accomplish your goal. Weather you would have not not you have demonstrated that you would.

That is the actual serious offense committed not the robbery.

 

But our courts and justice system have down played the seriousness of crimes committed with firearms . With the firearms offenses often plea bargained away.

 

And then society wonders why firearm crime is at all time highs. It is is that way cause the courts have minimized it.

And in doing so they minimized the responsibility attached to owning fire arms.

 

Controlling the guns is not the answer as you will never do it. Controlling who can own them and what is a much easier and cheaper solution. It is not perfect either but it is a far better solution than what other nations have done and the U.S starting to.

 

So what would you rather have bans on certain firearms with registration with no change in the sentencing for firearms offenses . Or graduated licensing for gun ownership with severe punishment for fire arms offenses ?

 

Cause the powers that be and the public at large are going demand something.

 

 

 

 

Matthew

[Deanh]

It may sound ridiculous but what other option is there that is going to appease both sides?

 

Control the firearms themselves?

 

That is not only unpractical but it does not work for many reasons.

 

First off you end up with one gun being prohibited and some thing identical not being.

There are way more guns in private hands than there are gun owners.

There currently is different classes of Firearms licensing for individuals. So what is so ridiculous about adding a couple more and completely doing away with tracking all but Full Auto Fire Arms?

 

Yes any clown can get a Class 5 licenses (auto here) Yes you do not need a back ground check or a comprehensive competency test. But the primary function of an automobile is not to kill living beings either. Yes a car can be used as a deadly weapon as can any object. But the primary function of a car is to get from point A to Point B. Is the current system of Auto licensing adequate ? Absolutely not. But that is a whole other topic.

SO why repeat he same mistakes with Firearms licensing ? And not every clown can get a class 1 drivers license (tractor trailer) Just as with a fire arms licensing not every clown would be able Full Auto Licensing. Most everyone should be able to get a Center fire non automatic repeating fire arms licenses. The rim fire .22 licensing would and should have a reduced minimum age say 14 or 16. Everything else a minimum age of 18. Till Full auto with a minimum age of 21. (And even that is young as far as I'm concerned if it was my choice it would be 30 for full auto ownership)

 

 

That is the most cost effective solution that will help insure responsible ownership. Sure you can prohibit certain guns ban others but none of that encourages responsible ownership. A .22 rifle can kill someone just as easily as a Full Auto FN in .308.

In fact the .22 rifle in some minds might be considered more dangerous as they can be easily silenced when using Sub Sonic Ammo.

 

 

The object here is try to limit guns from falling in to the hands of individuals that should not have them and to keep them in the hands of those that should be able to own them.

 

You can not do this by saying what gun is illegal and what is not illegal. And banning certain firearms from public ownership.

The Criminals will still get them and the public will not be armed with equivalent.

 

The other thing that needs to be done is gun offenses have to be treated with the seriousness that they are.

 

If some one robs a bank armed with a gun what is the more serious offense The robbery or the fact that they were armed?

 

In my eyes the robbery is secondary the fact that did it with a fire arm is the more serious offense.

 

We are all taught early on you do not point a gun at any thing unless you intend to shot it. Unloaded or not.

The primary function of a firearm is to kill not injure or intimidate but kill.

If you commit a crime with a gun you are showing that your intention was to kill to accomplish your goal. Weather you would have not not you have demonstrated that you would.

That is the actual serious offense committed not the robbery.

 

But our courts and justice system have down played the seriousness of crimes committed with firearms . With the firearms offenses often plea bargained away.

 

And then society wonders why firearm crime is at all time highs. It is is that way cause the courts have minimized it.

And in doing so they minimized the responsibility attached to owning fire arms.

 

Controlling the guns is not the answer as you will never do it. Controlling who can own them and what is a much easier and cheaper solution. It is not perfect either but it is a far better solution than what other nations have done and the U.S starting to.

 

So what would you rather have bans on certain firearms with registration with no change in the sentencing for firearms offenses . Or graduated licensing for gun ownership with severe punishment for fire arms offenses ?

 

Cause the powers that be and the public at large are going demand something.

 

 

 

 

Matthew

quick question Matt...cars are principally for transportation...along the same lines...then what are guns principally for....ooops...there itis...to kill....

Edited March 19, 2009 by Deanh

[RangerM]

Matthew

 

If the only purpose of guns was to kill, why do police carry them?

[suv_guy_19]

If the only purpose of guns was to kill, why do police carry them?

 

 

Well, since police are trained to shoot to kill....

[Deanh]

If the only purpose of guns was to kill, why do police carry them?

bling....

[Deanh]

Well, since police are trained to shoot to kill....

thankyou SUV....and their training is just a tad ( sarcasm ) stricter than the average Jo....

[RangerM]

Well, since police are trained to shoot to kill....

 

I always thought the police were trained to protect. Mercenaries are trained to kill.

[suv_guy_19]

I always thought the police were trained to protect. Mercenaries are trained to kill.

 

 

I have more respect for the police than you could ever imagine. Saying that, I know that in most forces, officers are trained to shoot for the largest part of the body using multiple shots. They have a great deal of training and don't use their weapons all that often, but the ultimate purpose of the weapon is to stop (in many cases kill) those who pose a threat. The ultimate purpose of a firearm is to kill, even if it isn't always used that way.

[RangerM]

I have more respect for the police than you could ever imagine. Saying that, I know that in most forces, officers are trained to shoot for the largest part of the body using multiple shots. They have a great deal of training and don't use their weapons all that often, but the ultimate purpose of the weapon is to stop (in many cases kill) those who pose a threat. The ultimate purpose of a firearm is to kill, even if it isn't always used that way.

 

From what you've said here. the weapon could be used to stop or kill. "even if it isn't always used that way."

 

It's either dependent upon the intention of the user or not.

 

Once you acknowledge the intent of the user has a direct relationship with the use of a weapon (and therefore the outcome of its use), you've lost the argument that any weapon has a single purpose.

[Deanh]

From what you've said here. the weapon could be used to stop or kill. "even if it isn't always used that way."

 

It's either dependent upon the intention of the user or not.

 

Once you acknowledge the intent of the user has a direct relationship with the use of a weapon (and therefore the outcome of its use), you've lost the argument that any weapon has a single purpose.

ok then, take away the bullets......so enlighten me...what ultimately do you think a guns purpose is when pointed at somthing and fired ( IMO THAT is a guns purpose....but clue me in )

[RangerM]

ok then, take away the bullets......so enlighten me...what ultimately do you think a guns purpose is when pointed at somthing and fired ( IMO THAT is a guns purpose....but clue me in )

 

When a gun is pointed - it's intent is to control.

 

When a gun is fired - it's intent is to warn (if aimed away), stop (if aimed at the periphery), or kill (if aimed fatally).

[Deanh]

When a gun is pointed - it's intent is to control.

 

When a gun is fired - it's intent is to warn (if aimed away), stop (if aimed at the periphery), or kill (if aimed fatally).

so it was designed from the get go to just warn? stop?....stretchin Ranger....there are street signs that do the same....LOL!

[RangerM]

so it was designed from the get go to just warn? stop?....stretchin Ranger....there are street signs that do the same....LOL!

 

What is you point?

 

Do you wish to change the argument to "why were guns designed in the first place" or would you like to continue the debate on whether or not guns have positive and negative uses?

 

I am addressing the role of guns in society; specifically today's society.

Edited March 19, 2009 by RangerM

[Deanh]

What is you point?

 

Do you wish to change the argument to "why were guns designed in the first place" or would you like to continue the debate on whether or not guns have positive and negative uses?

 

I am addressing the role of guns in society; specifically today's society.

I've stated once and I will state again...anything designed with the BLATANTLY obvious purpose of grevous bodily harm SHOULD have stricter rules and be harder to obtain...but sadly it may be too late...and I'm ( contrary to how some have perceived ) not a gun hater, I've shot them, they are a hoot from a recreational standpoint...it just seems they get in the wrong hands too easily.....and really, what is the actual need for more than one handgun and one rifle?....and ok, I'll bite...what are the positive uses in the hands of those undeserved....reminds me, did anyone hear what made the guy snap ( the reason I posted on this thread to begin with )

Edited March 19, 2009 by Deanh

[RangerM]

I've stated once and I will state again...anything designed with the BLATANTLY obvious purpose of grevous bodily harm SHOULD have stricter rules and be harder to obtain...but sadly it may be too late...and I'm ( contrary to how some have perceived ) not a gun hater, I've shot them, they are a hoot from a recreational standpoint...it just seems they get in the wrong hands too easily.....and really, what is the actual need for more than one handgun and one rifle?....and ok, I'll bite...what are the positive uses in the hands of those undeserved....

 

Apparently there is a disconnect between us. I am not for absolute, unrestricted access to weapons. I have no problem with criminal background checks and restrictions on ownership by previous offenders. I have no problem with restricting access to those with mental problems. I have no problem with minimum sentences being imposed on offenders.

 

What I do have a problem with is outright bans; DC, Chicago, etc.

 

And I would also have a problem with telling someone who collects guns that he is limited on the number he/she can have.

 

And I'm saying this, even though I don't own a gun.

 

I agree that guns wind up in the hands of criminals too easily, but I see that as a problem of gun law enforcement, not guns' existence.

 

As far as positive uses, my family hails from rural West Virginia. You can use your imagination to think of a few ways a rifle would have come in handy for a rural and poor family.

 

My view originates from my rights as an individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Edited March 19, 2009 by RangerM

[Deanh]

Apparently there is a disconnect between us. I am not for absolute, unrestricted access to weapons. I have no problem with criminal background checks and restrictions on ownership by previous offenders. I have no problem with restricting access by those with mental problems. I have no problem with minimum sentences being imposed on offenders.

 

What I do have a problem with is outright bans; DC, Chicago, etc.

 

And I would also have a problem with telling someone who collects guns that he is limited on the number he/she can have.

 

And I'm saying this, even though I don't own a gun.

 

I agree that guns wind up in the hands of criminals too easily, but I see that as a problem of gun law enforcement, not guns' existence.

 

As far as positive uses, my family hails from rural West Virginia. You can use your imagination to think of a few ways a rifle would have come in handy for a rural and poor family.

 

My view originates from my rights as an individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

gotcha...no more disconnect....no problem telling gun collecters if the firing mechanisms are removed AND documented, I DO have a problem with guys that hoard up for no better reason than to just have as many as they can then pull a Columbine. 1 handgun, 1 rifle should suffice ANYONE, and if it is documented you already have one and want to buy another, turn the DOCUMENTED prior gun in....