With the Obama presidency only 64 days away its time to stock up on all the guns you can. Gun sales are at an all time high in this country in preparation for the coming growth of government control over gun rights. President-elect Barry has stated many times his feelings on gun rights. He supported gun bans in Chicago, Detroit, and DC which still have the highest murder rates in the country. According to the NRA, "Since D.C. imposed its 1976 laws, it has earned the unfortunate distinction, “murder capital of the United States.” D.C.’s murder rate had been declining before 1976, but it increased thereafter. Between 1976-1991, it rose 200%, while the U.S. murder rate rose only 9%. (FBI, D.C. Police)" The DC gun ban was ruled unconstitutional on March 9th, 2007, so it had to be changed. The current law is still a de facto ban which makes it nearly impossible to own a gun. There is plenty of info out there about this new ban so i wont post any particular link. Some of the problems are that the "Gun Free Zones" take up a large portion of the city. The law was specifically worded to make carry nearly impossible but if you can get a license, you can own a gun in your home. In a city where even the postal workers are armed, I would want to carry mine. Also any bottom loaded gun (which is most modern handguns) are considered machine guns and may not be owned.
Here is a thought. ANY GUN BAN IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I believe in militias, armed citizens, and guns for everybody. Most of these laws are no longer even argued as being for crime reduction because there is a complete lack of evidence. Violent crime goes up when gun laws go into place. Obama and his socialist friend Nancy Pelosi will quickly push for gun restrictions that ban certain types of guns. Most of the differences in "assault rifles" and hunting rifles are cosmetic. These bans do nothing but raise gun prices, which leads to more crime, and it makes it harder for honest citizens to protect themselves. Everyone go out and buy an AK-47, blast out a few rounds at the range, then shoot any hunting rifle off the Wal-Mart shelf and tell me there is a huge difference. We all must start the work now of protecting our rights. Freedom is a constant battle against those who would take it away. unfortunately that is the federal government in this country. If you want to read a bit more about gun rights read this.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul211.html
-
Posts
Here you go, LibertyHound. http://www.tennessean.com/article/20081118/NEWS16/81118026/-1/RSS05
ReplyDeleteApparently some people took your advice. Must be nice to be listened to...
HAHAHA!!!!!! To think you find no difference between a hunting rifle and an assault weapon besides COSMETIC differences? How about effective range, rate of fire, caliber of round, velocity of round, etc. So a citizen, a CITIZEN, should have the ability to own something that can rapidly fire off 7.62mm rounds? For what? Hunting Velociraptors?
ReplyDeleteI recognize the constitution allows us to own guns (during a time when a ground assault on our nation was probable), but in today's world? Did you know the kids in Columbine basically just signed up for all their firearms and where given to them? can you believe that? Our Constitution protects the right for anyone 18+ to own high-powered weapons, and a lot of innocent KIDS die. SAME THING for the Virginia Tech shooting. Walks into store, asks for weapons, in the week he potential homicidal maniac is armed to the teeth.
Here is a better example for all of the gun nuts out there... Japan has the strictest gun control laws on the face of the Earth. You can't have a rifle unless you are law-enforcement or run the gamut through proverbial miles of ticker-tape. Their gun violence rate? .07% per 100,000 population. .04% in actually by suicide.
What's the good old USA's? 10% per 100,000 population. 7.35% by suicide? Buying guns and taking lives and/or taking your own? We have the highest gun-death rate of ANY industrialized country AND the highest unintentional gun death rate of any industrialized country also.
So you want to own a pistol, fine. You want to own a rifle, fine, but how about a muzzleloader or breechloading rifle you you can give the game your hunting a chance.
But a semi-automatic/automatic rifle? WHY!!!???? So you can declare a small arms war on a town? To protect yourself from the terrorists from attacking your home?
I was hoping such paranoia would have died out by now, but no. There are actually still people saying that we need weapons powerful enough to penetrate body armor and take out small planes and vehicles....for home protection, of COURSE.
How about instead of ban weapons, we make it so ridiculously hard to get one that is semi-automatic (besides a pistol) or above that it would not be worth owning one. Cause as it stand right now, not that I ever would, I can go out, buy several high-powered firearms from rifles to automatic pistols and modify them with high-powered scopes and night vision, I could (hypothetically, non of this is a threat) take on our police department and win.
Is this the "safety" you wear referring to?
First off, I said MOST differences. Secondly, you are comparing hunting rifles to some assault rifles. I am talking about the legal definitions used to tell the difference in these weapons used in the various weapons bans around the country. Usually, these definitions include cosmetic differences. This is supposed to be a free country. In a free society, we must allow for personal and property protection. Gun ownership is a RIGHT. If the government can take it away, it is no longer a right and becomes a privilege. There should be no restriction on gun ownership short of maybe banning sale guns to children under a certain age.
ReplyDeleteI am also insulted on the citizen v. police war-like language you used. The only reason you think you would have a chance(and you wouldn't) against the police is because you are limiting the side of justice and good to the police force. Try going up against the police in a town where most of the citizens are armed and see what happens. You would not only be going up against the police ,but the armed civilians as well. If i see a criminal shooting at a cop and I have a gun, I would pick the fool off. See freedom saves lives. Now that i have responded to your silly hypothetical with my own silly hypothetical, i can reiterate my point that the possibility of a gun in a home is a great deterrent to crime. This fallacy you have in mind of some arms race between police and the dissociative criminal other is not really there. Most violence against police comes from drug gangs. Legalize drugs and those would vanish. It seems that I am going to have to blog on ending federal drug policy. Eh that can come another day
The whole thing about the hypothetical can go a lot of ways, but when it come right down to it, (Hypothetical) if a citizen armed with an AR-15 in a high place, then it might be a small while before the police do anything about it. And the Second amendment is out-dated, every country in the world except ours seems to realize it.
ReplyDeleteAnd why not the policy of allow firearms (hunting rifles/pistols) but still make it a lot harder than a mere 5 day waiting period before you gt one. I notice you did not comment on how easy it was for the school shooting maniacs to get fully armed. Or how we as Americans are disgraced with such high gun violence. And do you really think a legalized Drug act will really help our country as a whole? Really? It's bad enough a instrument solely built to kill someone/something is so easily obtainable, but to make it so little Jimmy can get both high and be armed.....or yes, LibertyHound...you want change alright.
And none of it is good.
Actually, Stan, there are many in the world who are saying that India's strict gun policy led to the recent terrorist strikes. To speak to the notion of school shootings, bear this in mind. How many school shootings have there ever been? How many schools are there in the country? How many years have they been in operation? How many students do they have? Once you have this data, find the ratio of shootings to students. It is more likely win the lottery and die in a car crash the same day than it is to be the victim of this unforgivable crime. However, the lottery and cars are still legal. Parents are responsible for the actions of their children. It is the sole job of the parents to teach children responsible gun rights and operations. Unless we allow parents to own guns and show their children the safety and maintenance of them, children will not understand just how powerful they are. If I would have been taught how to fire and maintain a pistol, I would be a more well educated citizen. Responsible owners of guns should not be punished for the irresponsible actions of the vast, vast, vast minority. There are some people who play video games who commit vicious crimes, but you and I both maintain that violent video games do not create violent people. If video games, cars, knives, and any other tool ever created by mankind is allowed to be used, then so should guns.
ReplyDeleteChuckles....
ReplyDeleteOk, bear this in mind, how many actual terrorist attacks are made on American soil? How many Americans are there? And would do you think a terrorist target would be?
Now, i understand what you mean by showing children the power of a weapon, but aren't most unintentional gun-deaths caused by kids getting a hold of daddy's gun and showing it off to his friend? Or perhaps using a "hidden" gun with an impenetrable "lock" to commit suicide.
Wait, wait wait...did you just compare guns ownership with VIDEO GAMES? Chuckles, ok, since the categories are misconstrue, allow me to clarify:
Video Games: Entertainment, solely.
Cars: Transportation, solely
Knives: Multiple applications, including cutting a Thanksgiving turkey are crafting a beautiful wood sculpture.
Guns/Firearms: Shooting and killing something or someone...beside that and perhaps a marksmanship contest, they really have no other purpose in the world.
Did I clarify that?
Actually, a terrorist attack is any act of violence that intends to use the fear of future attack to cause action. With that in mind, there are lots of terrorist attacks on American soil, but I know what you mean and if you would have carried the point a little further you would have made a sound argument; but you didn't.
ReplyDeleteYou raise a very valid point that I hadn't mentioned with unintentional gun deaths with children. If those children knew just how deadly those guns were, do you think they would point them around loaded? Isn't it the parent's responsibility to teach their children not to harm others?
Removing guns from normal citizens isn't going to reduce suicide Stan, most suicides are hanging and overdose.
I didn't compare the two Stan, you missed the point; again. I compared the right to have them. An unarmed citizenry leads to authoritarianism. Rome didn't let their conquered peoples have weaponry because they feared uprising. The only reason that the government doesn't want us to have guns, and the sole reason that the second amendment exists, is to prevent us from being able to forcefully protect our rights. The founding fathers wanted an educated and armed citizenry to protect democracy. You and many in Washington are arguing that we don't know well enough to take care of ourselves and must be taken care of. Unless, of course, someone who breaks the anti-gun laws you support gets a gun anyway and 'takes care of' us first...
Well, Stan, there is a big problem with your statement that the second amendment is outdated. The Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights are not policy or law exactly. They are a statements of principle. The Constitution is a document intended to check the power of the federal government in order to guarantee the freedom and sovereignty of the individual. As an principle statement it cannot become outdated. If the government is to be armed, so must the citizen. If we are to be a strong, safe, and prosperous nation we must follow the foundation of freedom. This does and must include the freedom to own a weapon. The second amendment is no more outdated than the golden rule or the 10 commandments. The Constitution, as a statement of principle to citizens and law to government, are words by which you live your life. Unfortunately for statists and socialists like you, the United States federal government is required by their founding document to follow the principles of individual freedom and liberty. Not only does the federal government not have the power to limit gun rights, but it is also a terrible idea. It is impossible to stop guns from existing, so the best thing we can do is to make sure the innocent have them so they can be protected from the guilty. Also, if guns could be eradicated, it would be easy pickins for criminals to commit violent crimes against the weak, namely women and the elderly. Guns keep people safe. Without them we will switch to other weapons. Guns don't create violence.
ReplyDeleteAHAHAHA!!!!!! Me, a Socialist? I admit, i have been called worst but pah!
ReplyDeleteI never said outlaw guns, I repeatedly saw make them incredibly hard to some by. The second largest economic power in the world (Japan) has such strict firearm policies, that owning one, let alone illegally getting one, is almost impossible. And yes, i am aware of the Yakuza, so leave that to the gang category, please.
Oh sure, the innocent should have firearms. Myself, I don't hunt, nor do I feel the need to walk around with one while going to and from work or a friends house. But, there should be stricter background checks, ammunition should be sold at incredibly taxed prices AND background checks should be done with ammunition. There should also be gun registration, ammo purchase registration, everyone that purchase a firearm should have to purchase a locking cabinet, and for weapons of all types and caliber (not just a conceal and carry license) but have to take multiple week classes and instructional training programs before the purchase of ANY firearm. Plus, any time you move you should have to go to, say, a BMV like federal facility and register your firearm and the amount of ammo you have in any location.
Even after hunting, you should have to register the amount of ammo used and what weapons were used for what game.
What? Does any of this sound unfair? It shouldn't. It's basically what i have been saying all along. Make it SO DA** strict to own a weapon that anyone with nefarious deeds would probably think twice about it, or the process would nip him in the bud. Otherwise, if you are on the up and up...no problems. It'll take you about 4 months before you can get the weapon (by the way, there should be a limitation of one handgun and one rifle per household) but safer, the country will be.
Simple enough, eh? Seriously, any argument with that makes you gun-nut that doesn't much care for country safety, but rather selfish firearm wants, not needs.
Actually, that much bureaucratic red-tape does make you a socialist, good job. and this story http://www.wsaz.com/home/headlines/35632594.html just goes to show how much of the region concurs with us.
ReplyDeleteOnce again...the article compares a form of transportation with a weapon. It's not just an "inanimate object", they are meant to take lives?
ReplyDeleteI think the main difference between you two and I in this is experience. Until you have held a weapon and have been on the brink to use use it to take the life of another in self-defense (or maybe you have, I don't know) can you truly understand the purpose and the danger of a , lemme repeat this again WEAPON. It's not a tool, like an axe, it's not something everyone needs for their livelihood, like a car. It's meant to kill, one way or another. It's sole design was meant in a manner of combat or hunting something large.
Oh, and as for the red-tape dealy, all I did was cite what Japan ALREADY DOES for their gun-control. And it's not like it's a sparsely populated country either. Oh, would you look at their gun-death rate....lowest of all the industrialized countries in the world, huh?
Well, well. Looks like the system CAN and DOES work.
How about that?
There are more auto related deaths per year than gun related. Especially in our age range. You are correct, I don't know the power of a gun. It would have been nice to have been taught. If it's not a tool then why is it also used for hunting? Ask a Jain about the murder of trees with axes. You can't regulate behavior. People will always kill people, we might as well be able to defend ourselves.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...you make a good point, and I deftly counter.
ReplyDelete9 out of 10 Americans above the age of 20 own a car. so, let's use a hypothetical and say 200 million people own a car and add in weather conditions, drunkards who for some reason drive, kids who shouldn't have a car to begin with, etc, etc...and yeah, you're bound to get a wreck a day, at LEAST.
So, you want this, but instead of the safety of the car's compartment to protect you from a wreck (plus seat belts, airbags, and whatnot because the auto industry understand accidents will happen), you want that same age group to have weapons.....
wow. The possibilities for that theory could, and probably would, be very, very bad, to say the least.