4
   

Banning Guns: What Difference Would It Make?

 
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Jan, 2013 07:54 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Banning guns reduces chances of victims FIGHTING BACK.


That could be the exact situation Obama and his handlers want to create for this country.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 08:37 am


What is the so-called 'gun show loophole' so many anti-gun, anti-freedom advocates mention?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 08:53 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
What is the so-called 'gun show loophole' so many anti-gun, anti-freedom advocates mention?


It refers to private "non-dealer" sellers at gun shows who don't use the background check system.

Back around 1999, the NRA supported a bill that would have extended background checks to all sales at gun shows, but it would have required the government to complete the checks within 24 hours.

The gun control faction killed the bill because they objected to the 24 hour requirement, and because they were not able to load the bill up with a bunch of other gun control measures.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 09:01 am


Neal Boortz has a different take on this:

Here is some of the latest in the liberal charge to curb Second Amendment rights. First we have this from the White House.
The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
How does Obama plan to accomplish this? By working with companies like Wal-Mart to appeal to their possible business gains from closing the fictitious “gun show loophole.” I’ve been through this charade before, but let me remind you of why I call this gun show loophole fictitious. From Nealz Nuze December 20, 2012:
Obama says he will introduce legislation to close “The Gun Show Loophole.” There IS NO gun show loophole. The federal laws pertaining to purchasing a firearm at a gun show are exactly the same at a gun show as they are anywhere else in this country. When a private individual sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. When a private individual at a gun show sells a firearm to another private individual there is no requirement for a background check. When a licensed firearms dealer at a gun show sells a gun to an individual a background check must be performed before the weapon is transferred. The operation of law is EXACTLY the same at a gun show as it is anywhere else. Therefore, as I said, there is no “gun show loophole.”
The true purpose behind this “close the gun show loophole” idea is to make the sale and transfer of firearms between individuals impossible by requiring a private individual to conduct a background check before selling a privately owned gun to another individual. Private individuals do not have the legal authority to access the information necessary to perform the background check. This would mean that Americans could only obtain a firearm through a federally licensed firearms dealer.
Now are you starting to understand how Obama will try to appeal to big businesses to “close” this loophole? If closing the loophole essentially makes the sale of firearms between individuals impossible, more sales will be forced to go through … the very companies that Obama is appealing to! What’s more … when all gun sales between individuals have to involve a background check, the government will have a record of all of these sales. What does this mean? It means the next step – gun registration – will be that much easier. After registration, where do we go? One word. Confiscation.
Then we have a Democrat State Representative in Connecticut who wants to make public the names and addresses of all handgun permit holders in the state. This representative, Stephen Dargen, says that if people know how many guns are spread across communities, they’ll be safer.
I think I have a better idea, though it’s not original with me. (Not much is). If you really want to let the people know which neighbors are more likely to be dangerous, and which can be trusted, let’s try this! Print the names and addresses of everybody in the state who has been convicted of a violent crime and is now out on parole or has finished their sentence. From which group do you think we might find our most dangerous neighbors? People who own a gun and have a concealed weapons permit? Or people who have already committed and have been convicted of committing a violent crime, and are now out on parole living free in your local community?
The answer is obvious --- but the agenda for these newspapers is not to identify dangerous people in the community – it is to demonize and present as dangerous people who are simply exercising their Second Amendment rights; people who have never committed a violent crime in their lives, and who are very strongly unlikely to do so.
I recognize how fragile things are for the people of Connecticut in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, but publishing these names does absolutely nothing to solve the problem other than make this Democrat and his fellow liberals feel better … and serve as a database for criminals to know which houses are armed and which are not.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 10:07 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Neal Boortz has a different take on this:

Here is some of the latest in the liberal charge to curb Second Amendment rights. First we have this from the White House.
The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.
A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.
How does Obama plan to accomplish this? By working with companies like Wal-Mart to appeal to their possible business gains from closing the fictitious “gun show loophole.”


Just because Obama fantasizes about Wal-Mart helping him ban guns, that doesn't mean Wal-Mart will actually be willing to do so.

That said, we took down Smith & Wesson. We can take down Wal-Mart if we have to.



H2O MAN wrote:
What’s more … when all gun sales between individuals have to involve a background check, the government will have a record of all of these sales. What does this mean? It means the next step – gun registration – will be that much easier. After registration, where do we go? One word. Confiscation.


Gun registration would not be the "next" step. Obama is trying to achieve registration right now. Note the line I bolded and underlined in your paragraph above.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 10:15 am
@oralloy,


I'm sure Obama zombies are working extra hard so as not and let this tragedy go to waste.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 10:32 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
I'm sure Obama zombies are working extra hard so as not and let this tragedy go to waste.


Yes, and that means we're going to have to work extra hard to defeat them.

And if Wal-Mart betrays the American people, we'll need to boycott them just as hard as we once boycotted Smith & Wesson.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 10:45 am
@oralloy,

Obama is a destroyer, he and his evil minions are hell bent on fundamentally changing America into a huge
**** hole of a country. The started when they began spreading American wealth around outside of this country.
Disarming law abiding US citizens is a big part of his master plan to downgrade this great country.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 11:42 am
Quote:
Banning Guns: What Difference Would It Make?


One difference is that there will be more career criminals.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 11:46 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Obama is a destroyer, he and his evil minions are hell bent on fundamentally changing America into a huge
**** hole of a country. The started when they began spreading American wealth around outside of this country.
Disarming law abiding US citizens is a big part of his master plan to downgrade this great country.


The NRA and GOA have the power to block much (if not all) of his agenda from being passed through the House of Representatives.

We just need to be ready to lean hard on Congress when the battle comes.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 06:14 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:


Obama is a destroyer, he and his evil minions are hell bent on fundamentally changing America into a huge
**** hole of a country. The started when they began spreading American wealth around outside of this country.
Disarming law abiding US citizens is a big part of his master plan to downgrade this great country.


In my opinion, your "reaction" to the possible agenda of the administration might just be a reflection of realizing, on a non-verbal level, that there is segment of society that is not valued as much as they once were, by the people that are in charge, and will likely stay in charge, based on the fact that today one needs to be highly educated to not be a replaceable "widget" in the cogs of society.

I think we are just seeing a vision of the meek shall inherit the Earth; the meek being the highly educated. Just my opinion.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 07:56 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
Obama is a destroyer, he and his evil minions are hell bent on fundamentally changing America into a huge **** hole of a country. The started when they began spreading American wealth around outside of this country.
Disarming law abiding US citizens is a big part of his master plan to downgrade this great country.


In my opinion, your "reaction" to the possible agenda of the administration might just be a reflection of realizing, on a non-verbal level, that there is segment of society that is not valued as much as they once were, by the people that are in charge, and will likely stay in charge, based on the fact that today one needs to be highly educated to not be a replaceable "widget" in the cogs of society.

I think we are just seeing a vision of the meek shall inherit the Earth; the meek being the highly educated. Just my opinion.


I think he was just reacting to Obama's sweeping plot to eradicate America's freedom and civil rights.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jan, 2013 08:55 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Foofie wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
Obama is a destroyer, he and his evil minions are hell bent on fundamentally changing America into a huge **** hole of a country. The started when they began spreading American wealth around outside of this country.
Disarming law abiding US citizens is a big part of his master plan to downgrade this great country.


In my opinion, your "reaction" to the possible agenda... BLAH, BLAH BLAH...


I think he was just reacting to Obama's sweeping plot to eradicate America's freedom and civil rights.


oralloy for the win
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 02:36 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

I think he was just reacting to Obama's sweeping plot to eradicate America's freedom and civil rights.


I guess not everyone sees the humor, in that sixty years ago, many of the folks that most valued their guns, were not necessarily pro civil rights; however, since the civil rights are not now about who gets to eat at a lunch counter, but who gets to shoot at a target range, there is a turnaround of A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E. Really very funny, if one likes irony.

The falsity, in my opinion, with equating gun ownership with "freedom" is that it implies that all that live in the urban centers, where there are strict gun control laws, should not feel "free." I feel quite free in NYC, since I have the freedom to live amongst New Yorkers, and do not have to live with another variant of citizen. If New Yorkers really wanted to tote a gun around, they have the freedom to live elsewhere where it would be legal. So, what keeps them in New York, might be what keeps other people out of New York. It is called a win-win situation.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 02:38 pm
@Foofie,


The destruction of our constitutional republic from within @ the hands of Obama and his ilk is not humorous.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 03:01 pm


Obama is a killing machine when it comes to the individuals constitutional rights
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 03:05 pm
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/563780_506119916076583_243451465_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 05:01 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
The falsity, in my opinion, with equating gun ownership with "freedom" is that it implies that all that live in the urban centers, where there are strict gun control laws, should not feel "free." I feel quite free in NYC, since I have the freedom to live amongst New Yorkers, and do not have to live with another variant of citizen. If New Yorkers really wanted to tote a gun around, they have the freedom to live elsewhere where it would be legal. So, what keeps them in New York, might be what keeps other people out of New York. It is called a win-win situation.


Currently large American cities like New York are not free.

But that will be changing, and very soon.

We are within a couple years of the US Supreme Court ruling that all our large cities have to allow people to carry guns when they go about in public.
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 06:26 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

oralloy wrote:

I think he was just reacting to Obama's sweeping plot to eradicate America's freedom and civil rights.


I guess not everyone sees the humor, in that sixty years ago, many of the folks that most valued their guns, were not necessarily pro civil rights; however, since the civil rights are not now about who gets to eat at a lunch counter, but who gets to shoot at a target range, there is a turnaround of A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E. Really very funny, if one likes irony. . . .
I find it very difficult to comprehend
how anyone can deem discrimination
qua seating on a bus for a few minutes to be Constitutionally intolerable, BUT
discrimination as to who can defend his or her own life (maybe the same bus passenger)
and who be docile in offering himself up for the slaughter,
(in the discretion of criminal or of animal predators) is OK, in their opinion of the Constitution.

New Yorkers have the same natural right to FIGHT BACK as anyone anywhere.
The place where u have the right to fight back is the place where u are ATTACKED, chosen by the predator.

The Constitutional rights of New Yorkers are not inferior to those of other Americans.



David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Tue 8 Jan, 2013 06:41 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Foofie wrote:
The falsity, in my opinion, with equating gun ownership with "freedom" is that it implies that all that live in the urban centers, where there are strict gun control laws, should not feel "free." I feel quite free in NYC, since I have the freedom to live amongst New Yorkers, and do not have to live with another variant of citizen. If New Yorkers really wanted to tote a gun around, they have the freedom to live elsewhere where it would be legal. So, what keeps them in New York, might be what keeps other people out of New York. It is called a win-win situation.


Currently large American cities like New York are not free.

But that will be changing, and very soon.

We are within a couple years of the US Supreme Court ruling that all our large cities have to allow people to carry guns when they go about in public.
Yes; the USSC will also be presented
with the issue of EQUAL PROTECTION of THE LAWS
considered together with the 2nd Amendment.

Will children be told from ON HIGH,
that thay must be docile in allowing themselves to be slaughtered, because of their YOUTH??

If so, then the penalty for youth is death,
in the discretion of whatever predators choose to attack them (e.g., dogs).

The status quo ante of personal liberty c.1910 must be restored



David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/05/2020 at 04:03:36