The NRA at its best

[Dirty Penguin]

No, I have made my stance clear in other threads of the forum. The status quo needs to be changed. But anti-gun advocates are taking advantage of the high emotions right now to try and go overboard in instituting total bans on weapons. If they have their way, the only change in the status quo will be law abiding citizens being treated as criminals. These mass murders they are trying to stop will continue unabated.

Thanks....

As far as a ban...they don't want a "total ban on weapons"....Just certain weapons and high capacity clips/drums.

Mass murders will continue..Yes...but banning combat weapons and requiring law abiding gun owners to secure their weapons in the home will, in my view, cut back on the carnage. That along with background checks, 3 day waiting periods, mental health restriction......can help as well.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The problem is multi-fold. I grew up with guns and was taught how to use them. I've been a hunter and shooter for fun and sport. Are guns the problem? OR ARE THEY JUST AN EASY WAY FOR FREAKS AND A GOOD EXCUSE FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE AWAY MORE RIGHTS? Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Our society is broken, not our gun rights. Taking away guns does not stop the problem...

I give 911, suicide bombers, and Oklahoma City as examples. Taking away our guns is the same as saying that drunk driving is a major problem and needs to be addressed: SO, we are going back to PROHIBITION (worked great didn't it?) and not allowing anybody to own a car. You will all use public transportation. PROBLEM SOLVED! Now we can all feel safe and good about our lives....

UGH... seriously?

I think you hurt your case when trying to use drunk driving and guns as an argument. You give the impression that drunk driving should be allowed because you don't want rights taken away...or you don't like prohibition.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I agree that there needs to be some rules and laws. Yet, our gun laws have not prevented this.

I assume then that you're for the legalization of all drugs. And we might as well go ahead and get rid of the laws against rape and murder while we're at it. I mean, those laws haven't stopped that stuff from happening.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thank the Constitution for that! Yet, our other rights have been being trounced upon for years now. See Patriot Act.

No one wants to ban ALL guns...lest you have a credible source...

2nd Amendment (a portion) gives you the right to bear arms...But I don't remember it stating you can have any type you wanted. And I don't remember there being anything there stating the local, state or federal government couldn't ban certain types of guns.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I agree that there needs to be some rules and laws. Yet, our gun laws have not prevented this. Again, the Stony Brook shooter couldn't purchase those weapons or bullets or clips... The Brady Bill, wow that stopped criminals from having guns! Seriously? Taking MORE FREEDOMS AND RIGHTS (Constitution) away from law abiding citizens is not the answer.

Come on now...My son never get's his hands on my gun because as a law abiding gun owner mine stays in a gun safe. In many of these cases some young man has gotten hold of a weapon that was in the home. They, by law, should be locked up at home when not in use. There are provisions that can be enacted as well...

 

[Apex]

Thanks....

As far as a ban...they don't want a "total ban on weapons"....Just certain weapons and high capacity clips/drums.

Mass murders will continue..Yes...but banning combat weapons and requiring law abiding gun owners to secure their weapons in the home will, in my view, cut back on the carnage. That along with background checks, 3 day waiting periods, mental health restriction......can help as well.

Sorry, I should have been a little clearer. Depending upon the particular piece of legislation, they want a total ban on semi automatic rifles or "assault" rifles. For example, Feinstein's proposal wants to ban combat weapons based upon the fact that they look scary.

Banning combat weapons will not cut back on carnage. The kinds of mass shootings these bans are a result of typically happen in close quarters (such as the school or theater) where two hand guns would be just as, if not more, deadly (e.g. Virginia Tech). Banning rifles will do nothing. Killers will continue to get assault rifles illegally (which they already do) or just switch to using hand guns in the very rare instance in which they would have used an assault rifle.

The answer is not bans on guns themselves. America has already reached a good balance for what types of firearms are legal (semi automatic and below). What is needed are restrictions on items which alter their physical functions (such as magazine restrictions) and legislation dedicated to creating a reasonable and working system for the sale, transfer, and storage of all firearms. Not just scary looking rifles.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, I should have been a little clearer. Depending upon the particular piece of legislation, they want a total ban on semi automatic rifles or "assault" rifles. For example, Feinstein's proposal wants to ban combat weapons based upon the fact that they look scary.

Banning combat weapons will not cut back on carnage. The kinds of mass shootings these bans are a result of typically happen in close quarters (such as the school or theater) where two hand guns would be just as, if not more, deadly (e.g. Virginia Tech). Banning rifles will do nothing. Killers will continue to get assault rifles illegally (which they already do) or just switch to using hand guns in the very rare instance in which they would have used an assault rifle.

The answer is not bans on guns themselves. America has already reached a good balance for what types of firearms are legal (semi automatic and below). What is needed are restrictions on items which alter their physical functions (such as magazine restrictions) and legislation dedicated to creating a reasonable and working system for the sale, transfer, and storage of all firearms. Not just scary looking rifles.

I think you point to the real issue, even though it seems like you're not willing to acknowledge it: the United States' handgun problem is much more serious than its "assault weapon" problem.

 

[Apex]

I think you point to the real issue, even though it seems like you're not willing to acknowledge it: the United States' handgun problem is much more serious than its "assault weapon" problem.

I am very willing to admit it. But I do not think the answer is to ban them. That will only lead to a situation analogous to the War on Drugs. They will still be easily available to whoever wants one. The answer is what I wrote about in my previous post. Although, with handguns, I think solving our inner city issues will go a very long way as well.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I always though Heston did a lousy Moses.

I think that he made a lousy human being.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that he made a lousy human being.

Leave him alone, you lousy stinking ape!
(He wasn't my favorite actor though.)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not a single American has died as a result of a nuclear strike .... and yet Obama wants to restrict nuclear weapons!

I say, give me liberty or give me death. Or better yet, give me both. Pass the ammo!

 

[BBTimeless]

Report: Obama gun ban list leaked - Virginia Beach Conservative | Examiner.com

Proposed gun bans here. I will have to look to find the other articles about banning passing down, et al. Hope this helps for now.

Yet, what is the difference in banning XYZ and ALL? It is the first step. Perhaps more people need to live outside the east coast and big cities to appreciate what we have.... perhaps so. Why punish us all?

I have a hard time taking the Examiner with any kind of seriousness. Perhaps if their ideas/claims were backed by other news agencies I would be inclined to believe them. However, since many of their sources are links to their own articles and their claims are not supported by other sources, I do not see how they are anything more than biased rants.

 

[BBTimeless]

Not a single American has died as a result of a nuclear strike .... and yet Obama wants to restrict nuclear weapons!

I say, give me liberty or give me death. Or better yet, give me both. Pass the ammo!

I think it goes without saying that an individual would have a very difficult time acquiring a nuclear device. In regards to the international arena, the threat of using one is more than enough to warrant a discussion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A couple of points:

• The NRA reference to 323 Rifles "OF ANY TYPE" clearly claims that none of the 1,587 unspecified firearms were rifles.
• The punchline - but Obama wants to ban semi-automatic rifles? - is a clever bit of slight-of-hand. Reframing the issue from one of semi-automatic weapons to one of semi-automatic rifles serves only to mislead.
• The ad fails to suggest how many knives, hands, feet, clubs, or hammers were used in mass murders.
• And, finally, the number of people killed with a weapon should not be a determining factor; I would want the distribution of C4 and RPGs heavily controlled irrespective of such statistics.

That people would rush to the defense of this ad is both shameful and symptomatic.

Well said. Frubals. :clap:

Whether the point the NRA is attempting to make is valid or not, and whether you agree with it or not, the NRA graphic is highly misleading and dishonest.

 

[tumbleweed41]

FTR, President Obama has yet to release a detailed plan.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think it goes without saying that an individual would have a very difficult time acquiring a nuclear device. In regards to the international arena, the threat of using one is more than enough to warrant a discussion.

But sooner or later, the bad guys will get a nuclear device and then how will you protect your family? Mutually Assured Destruction does not work as a deterrent unless everyone has plenty of nukes for a retaliatory strike. The Soviet Union knew it, and rest assured, those neighbors down the street you don't get along with know it too.

 

[BBTimeless]

But sooner or later, the bad guys will get a nuclear device and then how will you protect your family? Mutually Assured Destruction does not work as a deterrent unless everyone has plenty of nukes for a retaliatory strike. The Soviet Union knew it, and rest assured, those neighbors down the street you don't get along with know it too.

This is a silly comparison.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is a silly comparison.

I know.

 

[McBell]

Any firearm could be "used for hunting". I could, technically, go hunting with a grenade launcher.

the difference between a grenade launcher and an AR-15 is that there are people who actually use AR-15s to hunt.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

the difference between a grenade launcher and an AR-15 is that there are people who actually use AR-15s to hunt.

And the ones (the very few) that have and use them for hunting can continue...but anyone after the ban will have no problem adapting another weapon.