Quantcast

McCain ~vs~ Obama; Gun Control/Rights

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
Obama sez: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

*Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
*FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
*Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
*Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
*2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
*Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
*Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
*Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
*Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
*Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

"As a state senator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms. He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. Although out of line with most of his anti-gun voting history, in 1999, Obama voted "present" on SB 759, a bill that required mandatory adult prosecution for firing a gun on or near school grounds.

"Obama was also a board member of the Joyce Foundation which funds and maintains several gun control organizations in the United States.

"He supported several gun control measures, including restricting the purchase of firearms at gun shows and the reauthorization of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban."
Associated Press, Sept. 11, 2004:

-Voted 'No' on letting people claim a self-defense protection in court for using a gun in their homes despite local weapons bans. (SB2165, 2004)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

McCain sez: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm

*I know how to use guns; but I don't own one. (Nov 2007)
*Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
*Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes. (Sep 2007)
*Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)
*Calls for GOP "tolerance" of closing gun show loopholes. (May 2002)
*Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)
*Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)
*Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
*Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
*Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights. (May 1999)
*Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids. (May 1999)
*Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)
*Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
*Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
*Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
*Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
*Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
*Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
*Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)
 
Last edited:

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,214
16
Blindly running into cactus
wow, i actually side with obama on more issues than i thought i would. i'm all for free love in the gun market but i have don't like the idea of any joe blow buying a .50 cal at a gun show.

likes for obama:

*Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
*Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

dislikes:
*Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

likes for mccain:
*Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
*Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes. (Sep 2007)
*Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)
*Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
*Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
*Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

dislikes:
*Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
*Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
(if you want a gun, you can stand to wait for the background check. if you NEED a gun ASAP, you probably wouldn't be buying one legally in the first place)
 

ATOMICFIREBALL

DISARMED IN A BATTLE OF WITS
May 26, 2004
1,354
0
Tennessee
wow, i actually side with obama on more issues than i thought i would. i'm all for free love in the gun market but i have don't like the idea of any joe blow buying a .50 cal at a gun show.

likes for obama:

*Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
*Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

dislikes:
*Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

likes for mccain:
*Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
*Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes. (Sep 2007)
*Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)
*Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)
*Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)
*Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

dislikes:
*Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
*Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
(if you want a gun, you can stand to wait for the background check. if you NEED a gun ASAP, you probably wouldn't be buying one legally in the first place)


When Europe started BANNING all weapons,they started with the .50 caliber. Just a little FYI. It's a trick to ban ALL caliber & ALL firearms.
We here in the south think we have Washington DC's gun ban under the microscope,but in reality these people have no clue what is trying to be passed under the radar on a daily basis up there in gun ban capitol Washington DC. Not a friggin clue !
Rock on occifer !:poster_oops: Officer !
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,214
16
Blindly running into cactus
When Europe started BANNING all weapons,they started with the .50 caliber. Just a little FYI. It's a trick to ban ALL caliber & ALL firearms.
i wasn't talking about banning them, more like keeping them out of the wrong hands. and i wasn't talking about a barrett either, i was referring to an M2...which i saw for sale at the last gun show i went to.

don't get me wrong, i dig gun shows but i never go unarmed. last time, i saw several of my local and validated UBN gang members buying an SKS, tactical shotguns and a ton of ammo to boot. there's a big difference in "gun enthusiast" and "criminal" and i think there should be laws to ensure the later are is not allowed to buy a gun at a gun show.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
don't get me wrong, i dig gun shows but i never go unarmed. last time, i saw several of my local and validated UBN gang members buying an SKS, tactical shotguns and a ton of ammo to boot. there's a big difference in "gun enthusiast" and "criminal" and i think there should be laws to ensure the later are is not allowed to buy a gun at a gun show.
but you have to be careful not to lump the millions of law abiding peeps in with a few criminals......

besides, you saw criminals buying an sks and did nothing..??
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,214
16
Blindly running into cactus
besides, you saw criminals buying an sks and did nothing..??

aha! exactly my point. because i couldn't. no background check = free to anyone with the $$.

i doubt that any law abiding citizen would mind a slight inconvenience of time in order to ensure that the wrong people don't have them. i equate it to actually having the cashier ask to see my ID when i use a credit card. yeah, it's not the norm any more but i'm glad they ask because i know that they'd have a better chance at stopping someone from fraudulently using my CC.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
aha! exactly my point. because i couldn't. no background check = free to anyone with the $$.

i doubt that any law abiding citizen would mind a slight inconvenience of time in order to ensure that the wrong people don't have them. i equate it to actually having the cashier ask to see my ID when i use a credit card. yeah, it's not the norm any more but i'm glad they ask because i know that they'd have a better chance at stopping someone from fraudulently using my CC.
the last gun i bought at a gun show (back in 1990) had to be thru a friend with a FFL... He bought the gun from the seller then I bought it from him.

I am for the checks if they do them on the spot or at the show otherwise forget it

But still... i can put an ad in the Thrifty Nickel and sell my guns all day long if i wanted to.

dont see much diff between that and a gunshow
 

ATOMICFIREBALL

DISARMED IN A BATTLE OF WITS
May 26, 2004
1,354
0
Tennessee
the last gun i bought at a gun show (back in 1990) had to be thru a friend with a FFL... He bought the gun from the seller then I bought it from him.

I am for the checks if they do them on the spot or at the show otherwise forget it

But still... i can put an ad in the Thrifty Nickel and sell my guns all day long if i wanted to.

dont see much diff between that and a gunshow
Strawman is what the government calls the guy who buys something for someone else.
Yes,the local paper is excellent to buy & trade.It's still a free country;right now at least!
Oh,isn't that .50 caliber a belt-fed gun? That's pretty heavy & large.Guess you could use it for the zombie apocolypse?
Hey,that mini-gun like in the movie "Predator" is pretty neat. Probably only costs $400 in ammo to shoot it for a :30 second burst!

I went to a gun show last Sunday. I have not been to one in over a year. It was pretty empty because a combination of--> Nobody has any money, & uniformed cops were staring you down/asking you if you had any guns while entering the show which is fine for me. That seemed to eliminate all people that are usually decked out in camo clothes & real long beards & hair.

I only bought a $2.50 led flashlight that day !
 
Last edited:

Lowlight7

Monkey
Apr 4, 2008
357
0
Virginia, USA
IIRC the government limits you to 4 or 5 private transfers per year. How they enforce this, I have no idea.

I don't have a problem closing this loophole, but it's a private transfer loophole not a gun show loophole. The time I was at a gun show there were maybe 8 guys trying to do private transfers, out of maybe 400 licensed dealers. On the other hand, there are 75 ads on AR15.com right now for FTF transfers in my area. Who knows how many there are on other websites? And, like everything else, the prices are way better on the internet than they are at gun shows, private purchase or not. If we shut down gun shows we better shut down the internet too.

Of course, a scrupulous seller can't do a background check even if he wanted to. The buyer can run the serial number through the ATF to see if it's wanted or stolen, but it's not like they advertise this.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,007
149
The Cleft of Venus
the whole point is that criminals by definition dont follow the law anyway so why penalize the rest of us?

the system has worked fine for decades before the pussification of America happened.
 

ATOMICFIREBALL

DISARMED IN A BATTLE OF WITS
May 26, 2004
1,354
0
Tennessee
I tell people about what happend in Austrailia & 9 of 10 had no idea.(They banned guns & swords) Well,you can get a sword i think now, but have to be a member of a "club" which the governmant knows who is who! Also have no idea about Europe & thier ban on guns; & crackdown on swords. It's ridiculous,but that's over there & NOT here they say. Get a clue people.The anti's are always bombarding our rights here in the USA !

Some politition will try & ban private trading or "transfers" of firearms between citizens. They will try & make it a punishable felony of 200 years in jail getting a** pounded if you don't turn over your firearms through some ghey "buy back" program, or come in the local police department to "re-register" them under some new enactment!
Once people LET this happen i will be totally convinced 90% of humans are dumb zombies under total control of mind controlling beams sent through CNN !

All these people say is "they aren't going to get my guns" over & over again. But if the government,ATF or whoever know about them & come knocking on your door. Will you have the balls to stand your ground, or lie about them & bury them in the ground and say they were stolen or something to that effect & force you to sign a waiver to that !? Most people will simply surrender the weapons because most people are total pussies & clam up when talked to by police or especially feds. Or sign the waiver saying they are under arrest it found with ANY firearms or something?
At least Janet reno isn't in power any more. That's really what it's ALL about is "POWER". We all know firearms protect.(Criminals will always be able to obtain guns just like tons of cocaine get's smuggled into the country every year). That's why the ANTI's want to shut down the gun factories & sue them into bankruptcy. The anti's will try anything !
Kennessaw,GA you have to own a gun & they have zero crime. Washington DC has a ban on firearms & has the highest murder rate for example.

Theory:
If you don't have guns to be & feel safe;then you MUST look to the "GOVERNMANT" or protection both physically but most mentally. Governmant wants you to be dependent on thier system. All about POWER.
So what's the "big picture" & to what end? The U.N putting pressure on every nation to ban small arms.It's very obvious. So the masses/people won't take control & demand something or civil unrest ?
Why to democrats hate guns & republicans not. Democrats love the governmant & empower them. Democrats mostly do not believe violence is the answer to self protection & feel they can debate themselves out of a mugging or, do what Ted Kennedy said to do & retreat from your home through the nearest possible exit rather than standing you ground in "your own home" ! LOL .
 

CKxx

Monkey
Apr 10, 2006
670
0
wow, i actually side with obama on more issues than i thought i would.
Dude...you own at least one AR15. You should automatically hate obama. He's made it quite clear he does not like you (gun owner).

Seriously, a ban on semi-auto's?
No FFL's within 5 miles of a school or park?
Respect the 2A, but allow local bans? What does that even mean?

obama is a ****ing tool.
 

ATOMICFIREBALL

DISARMED IN A BATTLE OF WITS
May 26, 2004
1,354
0
Tennessee
Rep. Bob Barr is a great gun rights advocate & was monitoring the UN's "global gun ban" meeting in 2006. He constantly defends out rights to bear arms. The global small arms ban aganda from the UN is ongoing & will never stop. (Watch the NRA's video on that;it's on thier website. (
If we fall asleep on this or divert our attention elsewhere we will lose our rights in the USA. The UN is not going to give up on thier aganda & we will not either.
There are WAY too many lazy Americans that LET laws get passed on a daily basis without voicing themselves. Go home & devote at leat 10 minutes a day to call your state representative & at least e-mail them. They do listen & will even write back on how they are going to vote on said bill.
That's why the liberals & commie environmantalist's(against drilling,against guns) get soo much attention;they are constantly rallying,e-mailing,whining & crying, 24-7.
Meanwhile good ol boys or other hard working Americans aren't active & sit back & let things pan out. At least join the NRA & let them keep on doing what they do to kick back the gun grabbers!


Obama is an ant crawling around on the floor. Worthless piece of crap!
 

ATOMICFIREBALL

DISARMED IN A BATTLE OF WITS
May 26, 2004
1,354
0
Tennessee
READ IT

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto/story.html?id=611107



Handgun bans don't cut crime
John R. Lott, Jr., National Post
Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008


Banning handguns is all the rage. Mayor David Miller's push for a national ban has been joined by other Canadian big-city mayors. Yet, dissatisfied with progress at the national level, Miller successfully asked city council this week to approve measures to further discourage gun ownership in Toronto, such as shutting down city-owned gun ranges.

While it may seem obvious to many people that banning handguns will save lives and cut crime, the experience in the United States suggests differently. Two major U. S. cities -- Washington, D.C., and Chicago --have tried banning handguns. (The U. S. Supreme Court is soon expected to release a ruling on the D.C. ban.)

Washington's ban went into effect in early 1977, but since it started there has been only one year (1985) when its murder rate fell below what it was in 1976. Murder rates were falling before the ban and rose afterward. In the five years before the ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000 people. In the five years after it went into effect, the rate rose back up to 35.

D.C.'s murder rate also rose dramatically relative to other cities. In the 29 years that we have data after the ban, D. C.'s murder rate ranked first or second among the largest 50 U. S. cities for 15 years. In another four years, it ranked fourth. By contrast, in 1976, its murder rate ranked 15th.

Not only did Washington's murder rate rise much faster than other cities, it rose more quickly than neighbouring Maryland's and Virginia's or the U. S. rate as a whole.

Similarly for overall violent crime, there have only been two years after the ban when D.C.'s violent crime rate fell below the rate in 1976.

Surely D.C. has had many problems that contribute to crime, but even cities with far better police departments have seen murder and violent crime soar in the wake of handgun bans. Chicago has banned all handguns since 1982. But that handgun ban didn't work at all when it came to reducing violence. Chicago's murder rate fell from 27 to 22 per 100,000 in the five years before the law and then rose slightly to 23. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities and its five neighbouring Illinois counties.

But the experience in other countries, even island nations that have gone so far as banning handguns and where borders are easy to monitor, should give Mr. Miller and his supporters some pause. These are places that just can't blame the United States or other neighbouring states for the failure of their gun-control laws. Not only didn't violent crime and homicide decline as promised, but they actually increased.

Great Britain banned handguns in January, 1997. But the number of deaths and injuries from gun crime in England and Wales increased 340% in the seven years from 1998 to 2005. The rates of serious violent crime, armed robberies, rapes and homicide have also soared. The Republic of Ireland and Jamaica also experienced large increases in murder rates after enacting handgun bans.

Everyone wants to take guns from criminals, but banning guns ends up meaning only criminals, not law-abiding citizens, have them. Just as it is extremely hard to stop illegal drugs from getting into Canada, drug gangs seem to find ways to bring in the guns. The weapons the Canadian border guards seize at the U. S. border are overwhelmingly from unwitting U. S. tourists. Few criminals smuggling guns are caught.

Possibly Toronto and Canada will somehow operate differently from the rest of the world, but gun control has become the ultimate scapegoat for politicians' failure to control crime. One hopes politicians will learn it is the law-abiding citizens, not criminals, who obey the bans. - John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.
 

yamaguy01

Chimp
Jun 2, 2008
23
0
Fussa, Japan
I for one and a gun owner/collector, Hunter, NRA mamber and a member of our nations military. It pisses me off to no end when ignorant folks push for bans and place all their trust and needs for security in the local and state police or the military. If someone were to kick your door down in your house with the intent to do harm to you and you were dependant on the police for protection; just how long do you think you could baricade yourself in your bathroom before that intruder found you? Do you honestly think the police would get there timely enough? In most cases it seems small town police are more fearful of armed criminals than an armed home owner. I do agree that often guns do fall in the wrong hands but if we continue to put restrictions on them then they will continue to fall in the wrong hands and remove the ability of citizens to provide basic protection to themselves and thier families. I believe everyone law abiding citizen should own at least one firearm for protection and everyone should attend some sort of gun safety training course and teach their children gun safety at a very young age. I wish everyone would feel the same way I do, I really can not understand how someone would want to give up this right to protect yourself and your property. The hell with running out of my house if an intruder breaks my door down, I have a .45 to introduce him to!

Dave:imstupid:
 

kafromet

Chimp
Sep 9, 2008
6
0
i wasn't talking about banning them, more like keeping them out of the wrong hands.
Like the gypsies and the jews right?

The problem with that kind of thinking is that eventually someone is going to come along who thinks YOUR hands are the wrong ones.

The Constitution protects our right to bear arms. It doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear the arms the government decides are appropriate for them when and where the government decides it is okay, shall not be infringed."

Think about how people would react if these same thoughts were applied to the 1st amendment. "I think it's okay for the government to limit freedom of speech if it keeps people from saying dangerous things."
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
456
chez moi
I'm a pro-gun-rights guy.

But I'm also an anti-stupidity guy.

This puts me in conflict with, say, Sarah Palin. I'm actually far more scared of public schools teaching creationism in science class (as opposed to comparative religion class) than I am of anyone coming to take my gun.
 

kafromet

Chimp
Sep 9, 2008
6
0
I'm a pro-gun-rights guy.

But I'm also an anti-stupidity guy.

This puts me in conflict with, say, Sarah Palin. I'm actually far more scared of public schools teaching creationism in science class (as opposed to comparative religion class) than I am of anyone coming to take my gun.
Agreed. The "book ban" thing with her really freaked me out. It might just be the issue that pushes me over to vote for Obama. :(
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
12,649
678
Front Range, dude...
I am constantly amazed by people who turn off from a political candidate based on one issue. Its like searching for a woman...you will never find one that is perfect.

I am a gun owner, and a sandal wearing liberal hippy type. I am a military member, and guns have been part of my life for a long time. I dont see why banning the average Joe from owning a .50 cal or automatic weapon is a bad thing. They have no practical use for them, and only seem to want them out of the Amercian consumer needs...

Why does the average Joe need a machine gun?
 

kafromet

Chimp
Sep 9, 2008
6
0
I am constantly amazed by people who turn off from a political candidate based on one issue. Its like searching for a woman...you will never find one that is perfect.

I am a gun owner, and a sandal wearing liberal hippy type. I am a military member, and guns have been part of my life for a long time. I dont see why banning the average Joe from owning a .50 cal or automatic weapon is a bad thing. They have no practical use for them, and only seem to want them out of the Amercian consumer needs...

Why does the average Joe need a machine gun?
It has nothing to do with need. It's about your Constitutionally protected rights. The intent of the framers of the Constitution wasn't to protect your right to own the guns that someone else said you "need". Just like it they didn't protect your right to say the things someone else thinks you need to say.

When you start letting someone else decide what you need and don't need you give up a critical part of what makes being a citizen of our country so great.
 

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
38,986
5,696
Sleazattle
I am constantly amazed by people who turn off from a political candidate based on one issue. Its like searching for a woman...you will never find one that is perfect.

I am a gun owner, and a sandal wearing liberal hippy type. I am a military member, and guns have been part of my life for a long time. I dont see why banning the average Joe from owning a .50 cal or automatic weapon is a bad thing. They have no practical use for them, and only seem to want them out of the Amercian consumer needs...

Why does the average Joe need a machine gun?
I'm in a similar boat sans military, less hippy. I'd rather have leaders that will create an environment where I will never need a .50 than ones that will let me have one and I might need it. In other words the big picture is more important.
 

kafromet

Chimp
Sep 9, 2008
6
0
I'm in a similar boat sans military, less hippy. I'd rather have leaders that will create an environment where I will never need a .50 than ones that will let me have one and I might need it. In other words the big picture is more important.
So you are willing to sacrifice your personal liberties for the nebulous concept of being "safe?"
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
12,649
678
Front Range, dude...
It has nothing to do with need. It's about your Constitutionally protected rights. The intent of the framers of the Constitution wasn't to protect your right to own the guns that someone else said you "need". Just like it they didn't protect your right to say the things someone else thinks you need to say.

When you start letting someone else decide what you need and don't need you give up a critical part of what makes being a citizen of our country so great.
The intent of the framers of the Constitution wasn't to protect your right to own the guns that someone else said you "need"
That makes no sense at all.

I dont "need" personal automatic weapons. I have an armory full of them at work.

And following your logic, if we let screwbags like you decide we need automatic weapons, we have given up a critcal part of what makes being a citizen of this country so great...I am not willing to give you that pleasure.

The people of today deal with many things the Founding Fathers could have never anticipated. Automatic weapons, massive taxation, nuclear weapons, Britney Spears etc. Had the Fathers anticipated these things, the Constitution would have read quite a bit differently...
 

kafromet

Chimp
Sep 9, 2008
6
0
And following your logic, if we let screwbags like you decide we need automatic weapons, we have given up a critcal part of what makes being a citizen of this country so great...I am not willing to give you that pleasure.
Why did you feel the need to start name calling in a thread that had been a respectful and mature discussion of the issue?

If that's your answer to my argument, then I don't feel any need to continue the discussion.
 

Dirty Maestro

Monkey
Jul 11, 2008
124
0
Why do people need a gun to protect themselves? Unless you already know that your entering a gun fight or going into the wilderness, a gun will most likely get you into more trouble.

When anyone gets attacked at home, on the street, whatever. They're usually surprised, would every citizen have a gun on their hip and ready to shoot? What if you miss? Thats another stray bullet.

If your concerned for your safety, learn some defensive martial arts or some kind of defensive class. Carry a knife, you can only hurt yourself or the criminal. If you live in a crappy neighborhood, get stronger doors, windows and locks.

There are community watches, know your neighborhood and find a way to protect each other.

I don't know, every gun owner i've known has way to many guns and way to powerful. You don't need to take out your whole block. If anything, have 2 handguns for home invasions. One for the bedroom and another for bathroom(panic room).

I think gun lovers should be able to shoot all kinds of guns for sport BUT ONLY at the shooting range where they would have to use the range's guns.


Just my thoughts...I'm voting for Obama =)
 

H8R

Cranky Pants
Nov 10, 2004
13,965
35
I am for the checks if they do them on the spot or at the show otherwise forget
I'm all for the same licensing system used by the states for driving a car.

Get tested, carry a card.
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
12,649
678
Front Range, dude...
Why did you feel the need to start name calling in a thread that had been a respectful and mature discussion of the issue?

If that's your answer to my argument, then I don't feel any need to continue the discussion.
Thats all it took to get rid of you? Dang, that was easy...
 
Sep 6, 2007
5
0
Why do people need a gun to protect themselves? Unless you already know that your entering a gun fight or going into the wilderness, a gun will most likely get you into more trouble.

When anyone gets attacked at home, on the street, whatever. They're usually surprised, would every citizen have a gun on their hip and ready to shoot? What if you miss? Thats another stray bullet.

If your concerned for your safety, learn some defensive martial arts or some kind of defensive class. Carry a knife, you can only hurt yourself or the criminal. If you live in a crappy neighborhood, get stronger doors, windows and locks.

There are community watches, know your neighborhood and find a way to protect each other.

I don't know, every gun owner i've known has way to many guns and way to powerful. You don't need to take out your whole block. If anything, have 2 handguns for home invasions. One for the bedroom and another for bathroom(panic room).

I think gun lovers should be able to shoot all kinds of guns for sport BUT ONLY at the shooting range where they would have to use the range's guns.


Just my thoughts...I'm voting for Obama =)
Please explain to me how a gun can get you in more trouble??? Wouldn't a knife, something that can be taken and used against you? And don't start this bull**** about how a gun could be taken from you... if you are a total idiot and delay about 5 seconds from drawing to firing, yes, but otherwise, a gun is a long to mid range weapon, nothing poit blank (or criminal arm's reach) about it.

all you who feel even the slightest support for the right to bare arms, you need to seriously look into Obama's policy... not that I am Mccain die hard or anything. If they would just let independent candidates debate, the American people would have a lot more (filthy politicians) to choose from...

Ditto- refuse to be disarmed!!!
 
Sep 6, 2007
5
0
I would also like to bring up the liberal elitism. They believe that everyone who doesn't have an Ivy league education and a law degree is obviously a bumbling hick, why should the common people make decisions, other than electing the highly educated? The commoners obviously need government to think for them, right? That what we need, huh, more government? Look at Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, they are both extreme liberals who are staunch opposers of 2nd amendment rights. But of course, being the important people who matter, they both have concealed weapons permits, to protect their important selves. Thats how it should be right? keep guns out of the hands of us idiots.

I hope the sarcasm was caught, but seriously, look it up. they both have concealed carry permits, of course along with body guards with big guns. check it- http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/Diane_Feinstein.htm
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
456
chez moi
Just my thoughts...I know nothing about firearms, but make a lot of uneducated assumptions. =)
Fixed for you.

Not that I don't understand your POV...I once thought similarly (although with a greater professional understanding of guns). But it's simply wrong.
 

JohnE

filthy rascist
May 13, 2005
12,649
678
Front Range, dude...
how can you agree with that and support obama? do you people realize he is a socialist!!!!????
NØbama 08!!!!
Yeah, he is. And have you heard? He is also Muslim! And when the revoloution comes, only us liberal elite types will have guns. The rest of you will be disarmed and enslaved. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaa!

Seriously, stop drinking the Limbaugh brand Kool ade...
 
Sep 6, 2007
5
0
Yeah, he is. And have you heard? He is also Muslim! And when the revoloution comes, only us liberal elite types will have guns. The rest of you will be disarmed and enslaved. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaaa!

Seriously, stop drinking the Limbaugh brand Kool ade...
no really, his policies are socialist. socialist isn't something you can really just be or not, like a muslim. It comes with the kind of policies you have. Policies like re-distribution of the wealth
 
Apr 16, 2006
392
0
Golden, CO
I love guns, and the amazing kinetic energy they produce...

That stated can someone please give me a reasonable explanation on why they would need anything that fires a .50 BMG round or any semi automatic rifle (exluding shotguns)?

I want a no BS answer, not some answer stating that not being allowed to possess one is a violation of your personal rights. Tell me WHY you need a rifle to fire a .50 BMG round, or any semi automatic rifle for that matter.

Semi automatic pistols I can understand, even bolt action rifles and semi automatic shotguns.

I ask this question because it seems most gun enthusiast's get very enraged when either a .50 cal or semi automatic rifle like an AK or M16 is on the slate to be vanquished, and I'm just trying to see what honostly makes them mad about this, besides the fact that it may be a violation of the current "rights" of an individual, and that it is seen as "the beginning of the end" i.e. if we let them take them, whats to stop them from making more guns illegal.

And for reference I do own firearms, but none of the aforementioned ones. However I do own devices which can produce as much kinetic energy as a .50BMG, and aren't illegal.

I would just like a real answer with legitimate reasons not arguing the conflict of rights. If this is going to be a deciding factor for voting, I would like an intelligent response. As for myself, Gun control is a non factor in my choice for voting. I feel it is one of the least significant issues, and an unrealistic concern for America - more of a smoke screen to distract American's from the bigger more complicated issues to grasp.
 
Last edited: