Obama Outlines Gun Ban Agenda

[grbeck]

Then it isn't working. It needs to be enforced better. People are licensed to drive cars, they should be licensed and checked to buy guns. Large purchases (many guns at once) should also be a flag to authorities.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/firestar/gunlaws.html

 

I'm not saying it needs to be as strict as the Canadian laws listed, but what happens in Georgia isn't nearly enough.

 

There is no proof that it isn't working; nor is there proof that it would deter criminals from buying a firearm. Criminals don't obey current laws; they won't obey new ones, either.

 

The entire Firestar .45 episode is nonsense; tightening laws that criminals already don't obey won't make criminals obey them in the future.

Edited March 13, 2009 by grbeck

[napfirst]

Interesting article

 

LINK

[fmccap]

Then it isn't working. It needs to be enforced better. People are licensed to drive cars, they should be licensed and checked to buy guns. Large purchases (many guns at once) should also be a flag to authorities.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/firestar/gunlaws.html

 

I'm not saying it needs to be as strict as the Canadian laws listed, but what happens in Georgia isn't nearly enough.

It will never work! No matter how expensive or hard they make it there will always be a black market which will breed more crime.

[Trimdingman]

Was there a check to get moonshine? Is there one to get drugs? We don't usually screen people before thy do illegal things.

 

Of course criminals will always get guns, but that doesn't mean you give up. People need to be screened for gun ownership. There is no more efficient way to kill another person. It may help to keep a few illegal guns out of the system, and that's a good thing.

 

 

It is no good because it creates a black market in illegal guns. It gets police involved in a new type of crime that didn't exist before. The more police become involved, the more they acquire a vested interest in the perpetuation of this industry. Soon, they become partners with the gun dealers. Rival gangs form and battle for turf. Gun dealers battling other gun dealers is a frightening prospect, especially with armed police in the fray. Just let people buy guns and don't worry about it. A balance between sanity and insanity will occur naturally, and the situation, while not perfect, will be better than the one I described above.

[stephenhawkings]

still have my guns!

[armadamaster]

Obama's Gun Ban List is out

 

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):

M1 Carbine,

Sturm Ruger Mini-14,

AR-15,

Bushmaster XM15,

Armalite M15,

AR-10,

Thompson 1927,

Thompson M1;

AK,

AKM,

AKS,

AK-47,

AK-74,

ARM,

MAK90,

NHM 90,

NHM 91,

SA 85,

SA 93,

VEPR;

Olympic Arms PCR;

AR70,

Calico Liberty ,

Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,

Fabrique National FN/FAL,

FN/LAR, or FNC,

Hi-Point20Carbine,

HK-91,

HK-93,

HK-94,

HK-PSG-1,

Thompson 1927 Commando,

Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;

Saiga,

SAR-8,

SAR-4800,

SKS with detachable magazine,

SLG 95,

SLR 95 or 96,

Steyr AU,

Tavor,

Uzi,

Galil and Uzi Sporter,

Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):

Calico M-110,

MAC-10,

MAC-11, or MPA3,

Olympic Arms OA,

TEC-9,

TEC-DC9,

TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,

Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):

Armscor 30 BG,

SPAS 12 or LAW 12,

Striker 12,

Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):

A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see

below),

(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than

10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a

detachable magazine, and has:

(i) a second pistol grip,

(ii) a threaded barrel,

(iii) a barrel shroud or

(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and

(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10

rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with:

(i) a folding or telescoping stock,

(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),

(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity

of more than 5 rounds, and

(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

[Trimdingman]

The gun illegal gun dealers must be rubbing their hands together in anticipation. The cops and lawyers are dreaming about the fat checks this will bring them. The middle class are cringing over how much more taxes they will have to pay. The moms in the ghettoes are worrying about their sons joining the new gangs that will spring up. The government will be gloating as it sticks it to us once again.

[stephenhawkings]

so i still have my guns, even the ones on the list does that mean they are illegal?

[sprinter]

so i still have my guns, even the ones on the list does that mean they are illegal?

 

Maybe before his term is up. You can always trade them for food.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6414376

[sprinter]

Vote for Ron Paul? You just might be a terrorist.

 

 

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/m...ver-assertions/

[stephenhawkings]

Vote for Ron Paul? You just might be a terrorist.

 

 

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/m...ver-assertions/

good thing i covered mine up with a mccane sticker!

[96towncarcartier]

Obama makes me sick... he's going to do exactly what they did over in England and Australia, where the robber has all the rights. Shop owners in England finally have the right to shoot a robber, but then go to jail anyway because they have a gun illegally!

 

It's all about controlling the population so they can't rise up against his socialist agenda. We gotta get him OUT of Washington in 2012.

 

These Liberals never learn, Would these jackasses care to take a look at places with strict gun laws and the corresponding crime rate for that area? Or maybe they would like to look back at 1994 when they got their asses handed to them with their silly gun bills?

In the words of Charlton Heston "From my cold dead Hands"

[the_spaniard]

Pretty standard-fare list of banned weapons. All the usual suspects are in there.

 

Doesn't affect my current stock or my future purchases in this round of legislation, so no sweat there.

 

EDIT> What's the deal with the barrel shroud?

Edited March 16, 2009 by the_spaniard

[macattak1]

so why so many gun crimes to begin with?....and more and more of this magnitude it seems....I'm at a loss, but it seems guns are way to easy to obtain, AND they get in the wrong hands ( irrespective of the gangs etc ) they should be harder...MUCH harder to obtain...hell, i could say the same for damn drivers licences....new bumper sticker " BRING BACK TURN SIGNALS"....bottom line, make em harder to get, a PRIVILIDGE to own one, and perhaps owners wuld treat them with more respect rather than abuse...

 

Can you honestly, before you go looking, tell me how hard it is to get a hand gun in your state?

 

In CA I had to wait 11 days after I purchased it before I could pick it up. That also just boosts up the price.

Did you know that there is no difference between my waiting period in CA then there is for the police when they buy a gun?

 

How much more difficult do you suggest making it to get a gun? Further, considering its a constitutional right, how much more difficult should it be?

 

But you think it should be a privilege not a constitutional right? Based upon what? Perhaps you would feel safer in D.C.?

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

I forward this question....seems a few here don't see issues or problems...only there own self centeredness and how it effects them and so-called rights and freedom of choice ( isn't that actually the literal translation of Liberal????? ) well, obviously it IS a problem, so heres the question...how would you, or what would YOU recommend to at least slightly appese the current situation which is so obviously broken.......

 

Incorrect. You are the one claiming it is broken. So please tell us what you would change...in light of the constitution?

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

guys I see your point, and i didn't say anything about knives, besides that try stabbing someone 25 yard away, unless youre a Ringling brother youre $hit outa luck.......but come on...lets be real...a gun is a different beast COMPLETELY...don't agree, then state your argument........next up...remember the guy that held up a bank with a syringe he said contained the aids virus???????????.......

 

I can walk up to you and stab you in the back with a knife a number of times and walk away with no one the wiser. Have you ever shot a gun? They are LOUD! They do not just go pop and people ignore them.

 

If guns were made for killing then what are police officers for?

 

How much rage do you think it takes to kill someone with a gun? How much with a screwdriver, hammer, baseball bat, rock?

 

Crime should be crime and murder should be murder. Blurring guns into crime is a red hearing. Crime is not guns and guns are not crime.

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

to which i have answered a multitude of times......make them harder to get and more intensly screen so morons like this find it more difficult to attain...is that difficult to comprehend...I ask you this...why do you in particular find THAT objectionable...

 

So in reading this, the best solution is to:

 

Make them harder to get.

Screen more intensely.

 

That looks like it is nearly ready to be written into law!

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

point is the laws are too loosey goosey...they need to be re-vamped with tighter more stringent regulations, and re-evaluate owners every 5 or so years...not only would that weed a few out , it would also become such a tedious process as to hinder those that really have ZERO need to begin with.....what is the REAL need to have a gun anyways?.....theres a can of worms I just opened...simply put...recreation ( really necessary???? ) or the fact that guy down the road has one and I need to defend myself ( speculation????...well at least sometimes )....now if he DIDN"T have one would the need still be there?

 

 

Too funny. Anti gun people will never just come out and say it. They get the pro gun people slowly discussing guns as the cause of crime - broken assessment. Then they slowly work to 'why would anyone need a gun anyway' and there is no answer that would ever suit them.

 

Crime is crime. Murder is murder. It matters little how it was done. Only that it was done.

 

The fact is that people that are anti gun simply hate guns and do not want any guns at all. Period. If this were not true they would be chasing down more simple and cheaper ways to save lives such as:

 

Hospital acquired infections

Food poisoning

Obesity

Poor Diet

Inactivity

Suicide

 

All of which beat out Homicide which includes any form of murder.

 

Peace and Blessings

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK9_2005.pdf

[macattak1]

so in your eyes its ok that fruitloops and nutjobs find it easy to arm themselves, so I guess everything is just peachy in the land of napfirst....just keep govt regulations outa your hair...what good are regulations anyways...ESPECIALLY when it comes to arms....And no, not thin skinned, but when retorts are all fired from the same corner, they just get old real fast....so rather than constantly throwing barbs, bring something to the table for once and offer an opinion...even if you dis-agree it can be appreciated for a different perspective....

 

Most places you can walk out and buy a high powered rifle and bring it home right now.

Most places you buy a hand gun and you wait a week or more before you can get it.

 

How does this policy not cause everyone to be sniping each other from windows with rifles?

 

Peace and Blessings

[macattak1]

good point.... but hey, they do it for drivers licences.....and if they are not fit, no driving....confiscate the gun.

 

 

And what exactly prey tell is the point of making people get a new license every so often? Have you ever in your life known someone less then say 70 or 80 that should have lost their license based upon some written test?

 

My 80 year old neighbor got to the point where he voluntarily turned in his drivers license. That made me feel 1000% times safer for me, my kids, and others. But he still carried his colt 45 in his overalls deep pocket most days. That never caused me any concern. In fact, in the area I lived it was reassuring.

 

Peace and Blessings

[suv_guy_19]

And what exactly prey tell is the point of making people get a new license every so often?

 

 

Circumstances change. The person may no longer be 'fit' to own weapons.

[Trimdingman]

Circumstances change. The person may no longer be 'fit' to own weapons.

 

 

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.

[suv_guy_19]

Some people are not fit to own knives or baseball bats.

 

You are correct. Some people can't own those things either. Guns are targeted and feared because they are far more efficient at killing (especially at distance) than knives or baseball bats. I don't for one minute say that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns (handguns I'm a bit more iffy on, but that's another debate), I just think that the owner should have to prove some type of competency and should have to maintain a clear record.

[Trimdingman]

You are correct. Some people can't own those things either. Guns are targeted and feared because they are far more efficient at killing (especially at distance) than knives or baseball bats. I don't for one minute say that people shouldn't be allowed to own guns (handguns I'm a bit more iffy on, but that's another debate), I just think that the owner should have to prove some type of competency and should have to maintain a clear record.

 

 

I think that no government should have the right to tell anybody what he is allowed to have. These things should be decided at the most local level possible, block by block using such tools as petitions and boycotts. The law should stay out. If the person is particularly obnoxious, a good thumping could be in order. That usually straightens them out.

[matthewq4b]

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 not 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

Edited March 18, 2009 by matthewq4b