|
|
I see where the government just bought what, another 21.5 million rounds. Nice to see they're so worried about how many bullets we can take deer hunting.
I wonder what the burglary rate in Missouri would jump to if this bill is passed. I'm pretty sure all my guns would be stolen if it passed.
There's some bill trying to gain legs in Mo. that would make almost every gun illegal.Originally Posted by eyeballjr
I'm guessing it would skyrocket in those 90 days.
If people really knew what the government is doing, they would not complain about the 2nd amendment. Even in states like ours where the local authorities say they will prosecute federal authorities who try to take guns away, this fierce protection of the 2nd is because of who occupies the white house. You put in a GOP guy in the white house, and the authorities in this state comply with WH demands.
It's hard to have peace in stolen land.
Government needs wars. If there are no wars (on drugs, guns, terrorism, etc) then the public will turn their attention to the way the government abuses tax payer money. So they manufacture wars to keep us on our toes. Al-qaeda is all but reduced to ashes, so we are next.
When you ban guns just like with drugs all you are doing is promoting criminals to have guns. Do we really want guns and drugs in the hands of criminals?
Magpul threatening to leave Colorado if the State Legislature enacts new laws.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...est=latestnews
3 users like OUSchitzo's post: eyeballjr, Fahooglegods, Sooner Bob
Remington is also being heavily courted to relocate from New York by several states, including Oklahoma.
Link
3 users like oorah_okie's post: eyeballjr, Sooner Bob, Tundra
Well thats just not true if you look at the crime rates of other countries
you mean increases in crime in the uk and australia?
The following users like this post: TenYards
One of the lowest crime rate in Europe is in a country with the highest gun ownership. But even that isn't the problem. The reason why crime rates are so high in some of these nations is because almost everything is becoming a crime. It's getting there in the US also but it's not as bad as most of Europe which almost all have pretty high crime rates. But in UK and Australia as cited the criminals have taken over areas because the well abiding citizens don't have any defense.
Crime rates flux in other countries year to year. What DOESN"T change is America is the least safe country in the world by a large margin
http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...ime-rates.html
you're free to leave at any time. i hear venezuela is nice.
Please explain how you think a gun ban would take guns out of the hands of criminals.
4 users like wheelihan's post: burnsyo, fdubzou, oorah_okie, Sooners2007
Depends on what you mean by least safe and how you get crime rate stats. Violent crime rates have actually been trending down in the US. And I've seen stats that say about a third of the crime rate in the US is because of the border issues we have mostly to do with drugs. And this doesn't even add to the drug crimes in major cities and gang violence that comes from it.
America is a large country with 350 million people, huge metropolis in every corner of the country, and it is quite a bit different from these fairly ethnically homogenous European countries. I cringe anytime compares the whole of USA with particular European countries.
The fact is Australia's crime rate went up after banning the guns. There is no logical way to escape that. Hell, someone could bring another watermarked map from God knows where, and tell us the US just caught fire from all the gun shots, yet it would not change the fact that in Australia after they took the guns, crime rate went up. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
What is going on in America has nothing to do with Australia. Yeah crime rate is high in the US, but take the guns and the crime rate doubles.
I also don't think that anybody who values reason would say that Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Mexico are safer than the US.
If we are to believe the FBI, crime rate has seen a steady decline in this country: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
Like most libs he doesn't have an answer to that.
If you look at most crime rate numbers in the US the actual crime rate for most states are going down. Violent crime rate is really going down. And has been for a long time It peaked in the mid 90s. However we are seeing more and more people incarcerated.
How will a gun ban stop Mexican drug dealers from flooding the US market with guns?
Change our drug laws and give the Mexican drug dealers more or less nothing to fight over. It would also help our gang crime problems in inner cities. But lets not do something that actually makes sense and continue this war on drugs and continue to promote violence.
In his country we don't care as much that people die, but how they die. If 20 children die in one day, that's not according to our view of life, so we get all angry (rightly so). But if hundreds of children die in the streets of Chicago in one year, then we don't get so angry.
If 20 children die in one day we want to suspend the constitution, but if 50 million die in 37 years, we call that a woman's right to choose.
4 users like TenYards's post: eyeballjr, pbc2003, Sooner Bob, Sooners2007
I honestly just want to hear the logic behind this arguement. I can't understand how common sense doesn't apply to this issue, regardless of one's political leanings.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
2 users like fdubzou's post: soonerintn, SoonerLibertarian
I don't support a straight gun ban but in the interest of answering your question: Less guns available on the market through stricter licensing and registration means less guns available on the street. Street thugs from Illinois aren't getting their guns from south of the border, their stealing them any way. Less supply, less weapons on the street. Only 5 states require gun registration. 5 out of 50 and only a handful require permits. If every tom **** and harry couldn't go out and pick up a gun and disappear into the woodwork there would be less on the streets
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law...tates_by_state
If stricter laws kept things from the market drugs wouldn't be a problem in this country. We basically promoted Mexican drug dealers having guns last year and all Obama really did was blame it on Bush. You really trust a government that does something like that to keep guns out of the black market? Good luck with that.
So you can't steal a gun if its licensed? How do you know that illegal guns in Chiraq aren't coming from Mexico?
I'm open minded to more thorough background checks, screening, etc. But I can't comprehend the logic that making guns more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain results in less guns in the hands of criminals. Criminal minds don't operate that way. Street thugs from Illinois will find a way to arm themselves regardless of any restriction or ban you put on the average citizen. You can apply the same logic to anything - drugs, alcohol, ****ography. That's why they're criminals, they have no regard for laws.
The only thing a gun ban or restriction would accomplish is taking away liberty from the those who obey the law.
To them it's a religion and not politics.
The gangs in Chicago are getting their guns from other thieves (the stolen gun black market) and next door in Indiana and other bordering states. No matter how much legislation is passed, the criminal black market will ALWAYS be there for guns, drugs, Ho's, or anything else they can make money off of. It will never change! Thinking otherwise is silly.
The following users like this post: Sooners2007
Guns don't dissolve over time...
Stopping future production of guns doesn't take guns off the street especially those held by violent criminals. No amount of legislation will stop a dirtbag in Chicago from murdering kids in their neighborhood.
The following users like this post: Sooners2007
Haven't seen this article posted yet:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rtage/1919321/
Chicago Police Chief: Second Amendment Is A Danger To Public Safety
http://www.redstate.com/dloesch/2013...public-safety/
Washington - Gun-control efforts calls for the sheriff to inspect the homes of ****ault-weapon owners once a year.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localne...neat17xml.html
Wow.
The following users like this post: Sooners2007
Based on the highest REPORTED crime rates. I'd also bet that the USA has the best crime reporting mechanisms in the whole world.
Not to mention the fact that the second highest country on that list is supposedly gun free. So it kind of makes you think that gun restrictions =/= safeness.
The following users like this post: Sooner Bob
police chiefs are appointed by their mayors. Of course this guy has to toe the party line or he will find himself out of a job.
they can always run for sheriff.
full version of magpul's open letter printed in the Denver Post.
I pulled it off their facebook page, may be easier to read it there.
Good for magpul. Hopefully Remington follows suit in NY. There are plenty of southern states willing to provide a new home.full version of magpul's open letter printed in the Denver Post.
I pulled it off their facebook page, may be easier to read it there.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The following users like this post: bushmaster06
All firearm and ammunition manufacturers should refuse sales and service to any goverment entity in any ban state.
larue said they're going to treat local and state law enforcement the same as civilians when selling them guns, so no more rifles with happy switches.
If guns were to be banned, the mexicans would start running guns. If there is money to be made, someone will be there to make it legal or illegal. That niche will be filled. There will be lives lost over it, just like the drug trade. The law abiding citizen will be the only ones hurt by it. Criminals will continue buying illegal guns, and they will continue using those guns to ****ault each other, and those who disarmed themselves per the law. If laws work, they should just enforce the laws that are already on the books. If they would do that, there wouldn't be an illegal gun problem right now.
Only about 3% of all gun crimes right now are by rifles of some kind. If we ban even those type of guns, that number would jump significantly almost overnight.
I fail to see how regulated registration and permitting is a intrusion on the American people and yes if the process was more strenuous less guns in the end would end up on the street. Law abiding citizens would still have access to the weapons they desire and less weapons would fall through the woodwork Its kind of obtuse to think otherwise
Im pro clip restriction and i do believe now certain varieties of weapons should NOT be available without a even more strenuous process then above.
Personally, I still see no real reason for recreational ****ault guns in the general public hand especially without some deep deep background digging and psych exams. I under stand why people feel otherwise ( We'll fight a corrupt government if it comes to it etc) but in the end that line of thinking is narcissistic, technology has progressed well past the point of the 2nd amendment and muzzle loaders. Im pro home protection, pro hunting but iI think if people want to own these other weapons there should be some extra responsibilities to meet. How is registration a violation of the Second Amendment? You have the right to vote but you must first register. You have to have to register property, and get licenses for marriage etc I don't understand the disconnect
Again im not saying ban the damn things, i'm saying their should be a "price" (mandates met) to play with certain toys.
Last edited by usaosooner; 02-19-2013 at 04:02 AM. Reason: clarifying a point
You obviously don't study history.
3 users like bushmaster06's post: Cabbage_town_kid, ImTheDude, soonerintn
More damage has been done at the ballot box by unverified voters than ar15s.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
