Gun Laws

Confiscation? We can't even get an assault rifle ban, but now we are talking confiscation? like I said man, fear war.


No idea what the journal news is thinking. Bullshit move no doubt.

Michael Moore and racist white guys? Thats the last thing an open discussion on guns needs. And I thought we were doing pretty well.

And Obama is in a little bit of a unique situation with his kids. Don't see it as being hypocritcal nor relevant to the discussion.

But what about gun manufacturers. BIG freaking business. Tons of lobbyists. In bed with gov't all the way down the line. feeding the arms race, the bad guys, the good guys, stuffing their pockets. yet seemingly off limits.

Back to drug cartels. and fast and furious. Maybe the best argument I've heard for legalizing all drugs.

And I have not been for total drug legalization, but if a consequence of fighting the battle is seeing drug cartels getting their hands on 25%(amazing #) of the weaponry that is supposed to be used to fight against them? Then I prob need to change my position on total drug legalization.

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

oggy420 wrote:

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

I don't think confiscation is a realistic option. Sure it might sound good for people firmly against all guns. But that is pretty extreme and IMO has no realistic chance of happening.

My question would be can't you defend your family with a shotgun and a magnum or a .45? Do you really need a semi-auto riffle to make you feel safe? Can't we look at some of those over the top guns? After a certain point isn't it just "look how big my dick is"?

I seriously just dont think banning a certain type of rifle will have any effect at all on gun crime rates. Most gun crimes are committed with hand-guns anyway.

And as for confiscation, let's hope your right. Because i don't think that would be a peaceful process.

Im talking the arms race between "good guys" and "bad guys" or even "private citizen vs over intrusive gov't". And of coarse Gov't's vs Drug Cartels.

I'm talking the gun companies helping feed the notion of "you need to be able to defend yourself" from that evil guy over there(who also has a gun we made).

We talk about illegal guns as if they just appear from thin air. And we act as if the gun manufactures are not even part of the equation.

oggy420 wrote:

I seriously just dont think banning a certain type of rifle will have any effect at all on gun crime rates. Most gun crimes are committed with hand-guns anyway.

And as for confiscation, let's hope your right. Because i don't think that would be a peaceful process.

Some of the mass shootings involve the heavy duty semi auto riffles. You don't think that could have even the slimmest of impacts on even a small % of shootings? If it even has the possibility to, then shouldn't we pursue it? When it comes to public shootings then even the smallest fractions make a difference IMO.

No doubt about it, if that ever happened, it wouldn't be peaceful. I seriously don't think it will ever come to that extreme.

Haha yea i mean heroin and meth are illegal too but they appear from thin air too right?

Look, guns have been manufactured for a long fucking time. Gun crime rates have little to do with the number of guns, and a lot to do with society. We have a sick culture right now. There are people out there who want to hurt other people. Banning guns and telling people they can't defend themselves from the bad guys just doesn't make any sense to me. You have to understand these bad guys can arm themselves through the black market. Gun control just makes it harder for people who want to legally own a gun to protect themselves from getting one. That is why in areas with the highest concealed carry percentages among its population have some of the lowest crime rates.

The difference between gun crime rates in say Japan and USA in my opinion has very little to do with the number of guns around, and a lot to do with the difference in culture and acceptance of violence.

oggy420 wrote:

Haha yea i mean heroin and meth are illegal too but they appear from thin air too right?

Look, guns have been manufactured for a long fucking time. Gun crime rates have little to do with the number of guns, and a lot to do with society. We have a sick culture right now. There are people out there who want to hurt other people. Banning guns and telling people they can't defend themselves from the bad guys just doesn't make any sense to me. You have to understand these bad guys can arm themselves through the black market. Gun control just makes it harder for people who want to legally own a gun to protect themselves from getting one. That is why in areas with the highest concealed carry percentages among its population have some of the lowest crime rates.

The difference between gun crime rates in say Japan and USA in my opinion has very little to do with the number of guns around, and a lot to do with the difference in culture and acceptance of violence.

That's not the only thing it does. You are right that is a negative that comes with it. But the harder it is to get guns the more expensive they are in the black market. Also the stricter the penalty for owning those guns the more it cost on the black market. Still the people who really want them will still get them. Won't argue that. But it could prevent some people from paying that kind of price to get an illegal firearm. I understand even if it did it would only be a small %. But like I mentioned before IMO in these kind of issues even the smallest fractions make a difference.
I would never be for banning of all guns. IMO that is far too extreme. But why can't we look into some kind of adjustments? The problem is people always want to go to the extreme one way or the other it seems.

oggy420 wrote:

Haha yea i mean heroin and meth are illegal too but they appear from thin air too right?

Look, guns have been manufactured for a long fucking time. Gun crime rates have little to do with the number of guns, and a lot to do with society. We have a sick culture right now. There are people out there who want to hurt other people. Banning guns and telling people they can't defend themselves from the bad guys just doesn't make any sense to me. You have to understand these bad guys can arm themselves through the black market. Gun control just makes it harder for people who want to legally own a gun to protect themselves from getting one. That is why in areas with the highest concealed carry percentages among its population have some of the lowest crime rates.

The difference between gun crime rates in say Japan and USA in my opinion has very little to do with the number of guns around, and a lot to do with the difference in culture and acceptance of violence.

No meth and heroin are produced and transported by drug cartels. These guys are firmly in the "evil" dept. They were brought into this discussion pages ago. U have them in your own argument. Gun companies are not allowed to be part of the discussion, apparently because they have been doing it for a long time.

Don't disagree with cultural aspect, don't disagree that we have a sick culture, but is it odd that a culture that doesn't accept violence also is cool with a weapons ban? Is it odd that a country with no guns, also has the lowest gun homicide rate? Do they not have the black market in Japan?

American culture is out there. TV makes it very apparent. The Internet makes it very apparent.

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

I don't think confiscation is a realistic option. Sure it might sound good for people firmly against all guns. But that is pretty extreme and IMO has no realistic chance of happening.

My question would be can't you defend your family with a shotgun and a magnum or a .45? Do you really need a semi-auto riffle to make you feel safe? Can't we look at some of those over the top guns? After a certain point isn't it just "look how big my dick is"?

there are probably individuals on this board that do own automatic weapons who will have some idiotic argument to defend it but the reality is that no civilian has any good reason or legitimate need to own weapons like this.

cheekynffc wrote:

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

I don't think confiscation is a realistic option. Sure it might sound good for people firmly against all guns. But that is pretty extreme and IMO has no realistic chance of happening.

My question would be can't you defend your family with a shotgun and a magnum or a .45? Do you really need a semi-auto riffle to make you feel safe? Can't we look at some of those over the top guns? After a certain point isn't it just "look how big my dick is"?

there are probably individuals on this board that do own automatic weapons who will have some idiotic argument to defend it but the reality is that no civilian has any good reason or legitimate need to own weapons like this.

Why does there need to be a reason? Can't it just because they want it and use it for recreation?

captain organic wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Guess who got a gun for Christmas.

Following in the footsteps of the 3 wise men.

I'm not sure how that relates. I could donatie it to my church. My preacher would probably appreciate it.

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

I don't think confiscation is a realistic option. Sure it might sound good for people firmly against all guns. But that is pretty extreme and IMO has no realistic chance of happening.

My question would be can't you defend your family with a shotgun and a magnum or a .45? Do you really need a semi-auto riffle to make you feel safe? Can't we look at some of those over the top guns? After a certain point isn't it just "look how big my dick is"?

there are probably individuals on this board that do own automatic weapons who will have some idiotic argument to defend it but the reality is that no civilian has any good reason or legitimate need to own weapons like this.

Why does there need to be a reason? Can't it just because they want it and use it for recreation?

no reason i shouldn't be allowed to own a tank and an array of depleted uranium shells by that logic, as long as it's just for fun.

cheekynffc wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

I don't think confiscation is a realistic option. Sure it might sound good for people firmly against all guns. But that is pretty extreme and IMO has no realistic chance of happening.

My question would be can't you defend your family with a shotgun and a magnum or a .45? Do you really need a semi-auto riffle to make you feel safe? Can't we look at some of those over the top guns? After a certain point isn't it just "look how big my dick is"?

there are probably individuals on this board that do own automatic weapons who will have some idiotic argument to defend it but the reality is that no civilian has any good reason or legitimate need to own weapons like this.

Why does there need to be a reason? Can't it just because they want it and use it for recreation?

no reason i shouldn't be allowed to own a tank and an array of depleted uranium shells by that logic, as long as it's just for fun.

You don't see the difference between a small firearm and a tank. Its ok to use common sense.

semi-auto assault weapon bans have been put in place before in this country and had absolutely no effect. What makes you think it will be different this time?

Also, if a government agent can have the gun than there is no reason a citizen shouldn't be able to have it. We have an executive branch that spies on it's citizens without warrant, and has given themselves the power to indefinitely detain citizens secretively without warrant. The Fed gov is buying massive amounts of semi-auto guns and ammunition and yet it is wrong for a citizen to do the same thing?

I would be for making it tougher to buy these weapons. For one thing i would be for making sure Gun shows can't just sell anyone a gun and do real background checks. But picking and choosing which guns should be banned just literally makes no sense to me. You could make a home made bomb with common house hold items that would kill and do more damage that any rifle can.

oggy420 wrote:

semi-auto assault weapon bans have been put in place before in this country and had absolutely no effect. What makes you think it will be different this time?

Also, if a government agent can have the gun than there is no reason a citizen shouldn't be able to have it. We have an executive branch that spies on it's citizens without warrant, and has given themselves the power to indefinitely detain citizens secretively without warrant. The Fed gov is buying massive amounts of semi-auto guns and ammunition and yet it is wrong for a citizen to do the same thing?

I would be for making it tougher to buy these weapons. For one thing i would be for making sure Gun shows can't just sell anyone a gun and do real background checks. But picking and choosing which guns should be banned just literally makes no sense to me. You could make a home made bomb with common house hold items that would kill and do more damage that any rifle can.

Fed Gov't also has nukes, tanks, fighter jets.

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

I don't think confiscation is a realistic option. Sure it might sound good for people firmly against all guns. But that is pretty extreme and IMO has no realistic chance of happening.

My question would be can't you defend your family with a shotgun and a magnum or a .45? Do you really need a semi-auto riffle to make you feel safe? Can't we look at some of those over the top guns? After a certain point isn't it just "look how big my dick is"?

there are probably individuals on this board that do own automatic weapons who will have some idiotic argument to defend it but the reality is that no civilian has any good reason or legitimate need to own weapons like this.

Why does there need to be a reason? Can't it just because they want it and use it for recreation?

no reason i shouldn't be allowed to own a tank and an array of depleted uranium shells by that logic, as long as it's just for fun.

You don't see the difference between a small firearm and a tank. Its ok to use common sense.

And there is a huge difference between a hand gun or hunting rifle and an automatic assault rifle. Cheeky's logic stands. We agree that a line should be drawn somewhere. Question is where? Imo assault rifle is a good place to put that line.

Farmer1906 wrote:

captain organic wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

Guess who got a gun for Christmas.

Following in the footsteps of the 3 wise men.

I'm not sure how that relates. I could donatie it to my church. My preacher would probably appreciate it.

Im sure it would help him turn the other cheek.

captain organic wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

I don't think confiscation is a realistic option. Sure it might sound good for people firmly against all guns. But that is pretty extreme and IMO has no realistic chance of happening.

My question would be can't you defend your family with a shotgun and a magnum or a .45? Do you really need a semi-auto riffle to make you feel safe? Can't we look at some of those over the top guns? After a certain point isn't it just "look how big my dick is"?

there are probably individuals on this board that do own automatic weapons who will have some idiotic argument to defend it but the reality is that no civilian has any good reason or legitimate need to own weapons like this.

Why does there need to be a reason? Can't it just because they want it and use it for recreation?

no reason i shouldn't be allowed to own a tank and an array of depleted uranium shells by that logic, as long as it's just for fun.

You don't see the difference between a small firearm and a tank. Its ok to use common sense.

And there is a huge difference between a hand gun or hunting rifle and an automatic assault rifle. Cheeky's logic stands. We agree that a line should be drawn somewhere. Question is where? Imo assault rifle is a good place to put that line.

Logic doesn't stand. Auto weapons are relatively easy to get even with a ban. A tank isn't. The hunters and people who own AR for sport aren't the people commuting murder.

California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall
By Phillip Reese


Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data.

Dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to records of sale tallied by the California Attorney General's office.

During that same period, the number of California hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to hospital records collected by the California Department of Public Health.

Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800, an 11 percent drop, state health figures show.

Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime.

The number of California injuries and deaths attributed to accidental discharge of firearms also has fallen. The number of suicide deaths involving firearms has remained roughly constant.

NYC's murder rate, drops to 40 yr low. Crime dropping everywhere.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/murders-fall-record-city-article-1.1229273



The murder rate in the city plunged to a record low this year — and the number of shootings plummeted to their lowest point in 18 years, officials said.

As of Friday, there were 414 homicides investigated since the beginning of the year — about 19% less than the 471 killings reported at the same time in 2011.

It was the lowest number of murders since cops began keeping a reliable log of homicides in 1963.

“That’s a blessing,” said Isitro Bennito, manager of Bagels and Beyond in Gravesend, Brooklyn.

“The murder rate is dropping and that’s great news.”

The 61st Precinct — which covers the area around Bennito’s Avenue X shop, along with neighborhoods that include Sheepshead Bay and Gerritsen Beach — reported one of the biggest dips in murders this year.

The command reported three homicides this year, about a quarter of the 14 investigated at the same time last year.

“I’ve seen more police this past year,” Bennito said. “I think that’s the reason. The police deserve a lot of credit.”

Mayor Bloomberg, speaking at an NYPD graduation ceremony in Brooklyn, said the drop in murders is a sign “that the safest big city in America is safer.”

NYPD statistics also showed that there have been 1,353 shootings this year, dropping below the previous record low of 1,420 in 2009. Police began keeping comparable shooting stats in 1994.

Bloomberg compared New York’s murder rate — the lowest rate per 100,000 residents amongst the 25 most populated cities — to other famous cities in the country.

If the city had the murder rate of Chicago, cops would be investigating more than 1,400 homicides this year, Bloomberg said. If the city had Detroit’s murder rate, cops would be called to more than 4,400 killings this year, he added.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said that the drop in murders and shootings stem from a wide range of strategies that include deploying more officers in crime-ridden areas and the controversial stop-and-frisk tactic.

“We’re taking 8,000 weapons annually out of the hands of people we stop, 800 of them illegal guns,” Kelly said.

Guns are the leading cause of murders in the city this year, killing 237 people.

But the number of people killed by bullets was still 20% less than last year, cops said.

“We’re preventing crimes before someone is killed and before someone else has to go to prison for murder or other serious crimes,” Kelly said.

Another shop owner in Gravesend, Brooklyn, cited another possible factor to the drop in violent crime.

“I see a lot of families,” said Dmitry Novosyolov, 32, who runs Furniture Store on McDonald Ave. “When I see kids, I see them with parents. I think that’s the reason.”
mlysiak@nydailynews.com

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/murders-fall-record-city-article-1.1229273#ixzz2GSnOG0yk

Farmer1906 wrote:

captain organic wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

Farmer1906 wrote:

cheekynffc wrote:

OU wrote:

oggy420 wrote:

im sorry when did we go from discussing smith and wesson to arms race and defense contractors?

All im trying to do is show you how the media is attacking gun owners in an attempt to get everyone on board to demonize the 2nd amendment. CNN has Piers Morgan on 24/7 saying Americans need to be stripped of their gun rights, bloomberg and Cumo are talking about confiscation, that has also been reported in mainstream media, that's the only reason i brought it up so i think it is quite relevant. It shows that just a simple semi-auto rifle ban is not the end game here.

Also, so government agents still get to have whatever weapons they want right? Hmm, yea seems to go along with that whole monopoly on force thing.

Why is it wrong to want to be able to defend yourself and your family?

I don't think confiscation is a realistic option. Sure it might sound good for people firmly against all guns. But that is pretty extreme and IMO has no realistic chance of happening.

My question would be can't you defend your family with a shotgun and a magnum or a .45? Do you really need a semi-auto riffle to make you feel safe? Can't we look at some of those over the top guns? After a certain point isn't it just "look how big my dick is"?

there are probably individuals on this board that do own automatic weapons who will have some idiotic argument to defend it but the reality is that no civilian has any good reason or legitimate need to own weapons like this.

Why does there need to be a reason? Can't it just because they want it and use it for recreation?

no reason i shouldn't be allowed to own a tank and an array of depleted uranium shells by that logic, as long as it's just for fun.

You don't see the difference between a small firearm and a tank. Its ok to use common sense.

And there is a huge difference between a hand gun or hunting rifle and an automatic assault rifle. Cheeky's logic stands. We agree that a line should be drawn somewhere. Question is where? Imo assault rifle is a good place to put that line.

Logic doesn't stand. Auto weapons are relatively easy to get even with a ban. A tank isn't. The hunters and people who own AR for sport aren't the people commuting murder.

So the difference u were talking about between small firearms and tanks is the ease of acquisition?

i dont really believe the article on nyc crime really proves anything. Crime rates are dropping as a whole, yet gun sales are way up as a whole. The article on California counters the concept that crime only drops in areas with strict gun laws. Even the article itself proves that...

If the city had the murder rate of Chicago, cops would be investigating more than 1,400 homicides this year, Bloomberg said. If the city had Detroit’s murder rate, cops would be called to more than 4,400 killings this year, he added.

How have strict gun control laws including an all out hand-gun ban in Chicago worked out for them? Over 500 plus murders this year i believe?

As of Thursday night, homicides were up 17 percent over last year in
Chicago, and shootings had increased by 11 percent, according to police
statistics.



Look what happened in Newton was a terrible thing, but passing pointless laws wont bring them back and it wont change anything. Gun control is never the answer it only removes firearms from those who seek them legally. Criminals will always find a way to obtain them.

crazy people dont need guns its as simple as that