Are they banned yet? Wow, Obama's moving slower than Clinton on this one. How long will it finally take before he doesn't ban guns?
Outlawing guns in the US ...
- Thread starter Member2019
- Start date
health care, is a prize. Clinton failed too, Then moved to guns. I think he (Obama) actually might be feeling kinda sorta normal, like a mortal being. Not a god, can i say that here?
First off, nobody is outlawing any guns in the U.S. That's the bullsht the NRA and facist conservative nutjobs are trying to get the gullible and less-than-educated to believe so they can propagate fear and mistrust and get their way. Don't be an idiot and fall for their bullshit. Fear has been utlized by lots of people in power to keep those who aren't in power under their thumb and doing their bidding. Don't be a lemming.
Secondly, the Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about guns. It speaks about the right to "bear arms". So why limit it to just guns? By your definition, you should also have the right to own and possess chemical and nuclear weapons, as well as massive amounts of explosives. Why not? Those are all "arms" aren't they? So you should be able to own them, shouldn't you? It says so right there in the Bill of Rights!
I'd love to hear your explanation on that.
Mr. Daystar
In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
First off, whatever bullshit the NRA does, or doesn't speak, laws against ownership have been instituted in past. Restrictions have been instituted in the past. Talks about further, and continuing restrictions have been floated around, BY POLITICIANS, in the recent past, Don't be ignorant, and naive. Attempts to pass laws to restrict ammo, or impose restrictions on manufacturers, which would cause price increases, passed on to consumers, have been proposed. Don't be an idiot.
When the Bill of Rights was written, weapons of that type weren't in existence, however , firearms were. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that the Amendment speaks of guns...after all, the anti-choice, anti-self defense gun grabbers feel as though they have the right to assume that Amendment is the only one that doesn't apply to everyone. If you had any common sense, you would realize what a stupid comment it is, to propose that, "by that logic we can own nukes". No one is saying, hey we should be allowed to have an ICBM. The argument for gun control is, and always will be, crime, and violence. The fact is, gun control causes crime to increase, not decrease. The Government likes to say they want to impose gun control to reduce crime, when in actuality, they just want our guns, so they can piss all over the rest of the rights, they haven't gotten to, with the Patriot Act. You keep calling people like me, paranoid, and gun nuts, and whatever else you want to, because it's people like me, that have helped keep the rights of the people where they belong...in our hands. It's people like me, and my fellow patriotic Americans, that give pause to EVERY other country in the world, that would even think they have a chance to roll up on our shores, and try and start some shit.
If the popular majority of Americans wanted to ban guns, would it be okay to do so then?
What if they wanted to ban certain types of guns (but not all)???
What if they wanted to ban certain types of guns (but not all)???
jasonk282
Banned
Certian types are baned already
Rae oyu srue?
Supermajority is required.
Some US states have various type and carrying restrictions. A few municipalities have some outright bans (Chicago is next with the lawyers).
jasonk282
Banned
Fully automatic weapons are banned in the USa, they are a certian type of gun.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
The reality is, otherwise law abiding Americans would just be turned into criminals with the stroke of a pen... because they would not give up their firearms. And rather than focusing on violent criminals, the government could spend its time and resources chasing down grandmas and grandpas who wouldn't give up their weapons.
I mean, why chase down Hells Angels, Pagans, Crips, Bloods, Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican, Italian and Russian/Israeli mafiosi, the Triads or drug cartel members from Central and South America? Why go after the hedge funds and the bankers that help organized crime launder money and provide the liquidity they need to buy weapons? Hell, those people are dangerous!!! Some of them have ties to wealthy & important people. Ya never want to mess with people like that (Johnny Chung and Clinton, anyone?!). Better to focus on the superficial stuff that makes headlines (like shark attacks), but addresses nothing. Just like the make believe war on drugs, this would just be another 2 bit dog & pony show.
But the reason it's not going to happen isn't because there aren't political forces that have an interest in banning the private ownership of firearms in the U.S. - there are. It's because so many of the American people have no interest in such a ban. And no politician, outside of an ultra-liberal district, is going to fall on his sword to push that agenda. When politicians waffle on this issue, all they do is cause NRA (and eventually GOA) membership to swell. From Bush Sr. to Obama now... that's all they accomplish.
Just excerpts. Read it all for the complete story:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/50_oppose_stricter_gun_control_laws
I mean, why chase down Hells Angels, Pagans, Crips, Bloods, Aryan Brotherhood, Mexican, Italian and Russian/Israeli mafiosi, the Triads or drug cartel members from Central and South America? Why go after the hedge funds and the bankers that help organized crime launder money and provide the liquidity they need to buy weapons? Hell, those people are dangerous!!! Some of them have ties to wealthy & important people. Ya never want to mess with people like that (Johnny Chung and Clinton, anyone?!). Better to focus on the superficial stuff that makes headlines (like shark attacks), but addresses nothing. Just like the make believe war on drugs, this would just be another 2 bit dog & pony show.
But the reason it's not going to happen isn't because there aren't political forces that have an interest in banning the private ownership of firearms in the U.S. - there are. It's because so many of the American people have no interest in such a ban. And no politician, outside of an ultra-liberal district, is going to fall on his sword to push that agenda. When politicians waffle on this issue, all they do is cause NRA (and eventually GOA) membership to swell. From Bush Sr. to Obama now... that's all they accomplish.
Just excerpts. Read it all for the complete story:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/gun_control/50_oppose_stricter_gun_control_laws
Not exactly 100% correct, but ownership is restricted and heavily regulated.
"Machine guns" are considered "Class 3" firearms by the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Also included are rifles with a barrel length less than 16", shotguns with barrel length less than 18" or either with a total length less than 26" (commonly referred to as "short-barreled rifles/shotguns") and suppressed weapons (aka "silencers").
A citizen of the US can own any of the above provide they are purchased through a dealer who holds a Class 3 license to deal NFA weapons. Furthermore, all such weapons must be registered with the ATF. This process includes obtaining permission from the ATF, background checks, fingerprinting, photographing, and obtaining a signature from county sheriff or chief of police. Some states (CA) it is downright impossible to get. Others, not so much, and it even varies by county too. There is also a requirement to obtain ATF permission to transport NFA weapons across state lines. Transfer of ownership after the purchase requires the same process to be repeated for the new owner. Lastly, the NFA Class 3 fees are pretty steep and the ATF taxes are pretty high too. Not to mention, that Class 3 weapons are usually much more expensive ($700-$1500 semi-auto AR15 compared to select-fire M4 for $10-$15K)
jasonk282
Banned
Well I just did not feel like typing all that out LOL
Ah! LOL :glugglug:
The 1994 federal law sunset in 2004 ...
I believe you might be thinking of the 1994 federal law which sunset in 2004. The Assault Weapons Ban law is no longer in effect.
jasonk282
Banned
Re: The 1994 federal law sunset in 2004 ...
Sweet, time to go to DPS and get my M4
Sweet, time to go to DPS and get my M4
Re: The 1994 federal law sunset in 2004 ...
The argument against the Brady Foundation, among others, was that any restriction was a restriction of rights. It's a common argument made on any restrictions on Abortion (e.g., the 3rd trimester), that it will lead to more. But I sided with the Brady Foundation because I thought these arguments by the NRA, Libertarians and others were poor.
But then the Assault Weapons Ban made little difference. The problem continues to be that less than 1% of discharges are by legal owners, and over 90% are by non-American, non-legal travelers/guests. That's the Brady Foundation's own statistics. And that explained a lot to myself.
And the Brady Foundation, among others, were going farther. I started realizing that the NRA is 100% for background checks and other guarantees to keep them out of hands of criminals, children who have not be taught proper care and respect, etc... They wanted guns banned outright.
I've since switched because the arguments by the Brady Foundation are based on fear and not being truthful with what legal gun owners are actually responsible for. Rights should not be taken away because of fear, let alone when they make no difference with the problem, because legal, responsible people are not the problem.
I was a big-time pro-Brady supporter in 1994. I was very much for the background checks and other things, and I sided with their statistics on assault weapons for their banning.
The argument against the Brady Foundation, among others, was that any restriction was a restriction of rights. It's a common argument made on any restrictions on Abortion (e.g., the 3rd trimester), that it will lead to more. But I sided with the Brady Foundation because I thought these arguments by the NRA, Libertarians and others were poor.
But then the Assault Weapons Ban made little difference. The problem continues to be that less than 1% of discharges are by legal owners, and over 90% are by non-American, non-legal travelers/guests. That's the Brady Foundation's own statistics. And that explained a lot to myself.
And the Brady Foundation, among others, were going farther. I started realizing that the NRA is 100% for background checks and other guarantees to keep them out of hands of criminals, children who have not be taught proper care and respect, etc... They wanted guns banned outright.
I've since switched because the arguments by the Brady Foundation are based on fear and not being truthful with what legal gun owners are actually responsible for. Rights should not be taken away because of fear, let alone when they make no difference with the problem, because legal, responsible people are not the problem.
Assault weapons is something I've been doing a lot of research on.
Take the common complaint that the US is the country of origin for many assault weapons used by organized crime in the Americas.
I don't think people realize that the market is starting to be flooded with M-16s as it's dropped as the standard assault rifle for various nations. Take Mexico for example, which has its HK G36-inspired FX-05 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX-05_Xiuhcoatl ).
And there were even FAL-licensees that were manufactured in the US, or components that were, that were sold to various nations in South America, several of which are dropping the FAL as well. You're seeing more FALs crop up as a result.
The US was a major manufacturer of firearms, regardless of whether or not assault weapons are banned, because world militaries utilized US weapondry, including millions of small arms. Many knock-offs are not the same as a real AR-15 or FAL-based design.
Now that many militaries are changing to new, 21st century designs, the civilian and, worse yet, black markets are being flooded with them. That's hardly the US' fault.
