So obama can use this oppourtunity to progress the MMJ cause ,its his last term so he dont need to worrry about being relected. But what about guns.Can he really do jackshit without mass uprisings? All debates aside about gun control bu Americans equate guns to their enshrined 2nd amendmant right and they equate that to their freedoms. I can see that turning messy if he goes down this route. Also it would guarentee the reps win the next election. Technically some militias could see him as a domestic enemy to the constitution no?Or do i wacth too many BS films All i will say is this- Assualt rifles should be re banned.Guns are needed over there whether your a nebraska farmer ,a guy living in no mans land in the everglades or whatever but seriously ....WHo needs Assault rifles to hunt deer.That kinda says your a shit hunter if you cant take a deer down with a well aimed one hit one kill shot. Anyways fuck the gun debate.Whats obama gonna do
He is going to reinstate the assault weapons ban hand in hand with the the Republicans so we can ignore gun control debates until the next mass shooting.
Well the ban lapsed and was never reinstated so i dont see the big deal.I mean shotguns and handguns will suffice for hunting and self defence surely.Assault rifles have only one purpose-WAR. This in my mind is the happy medium for both gun owners and gun haters alike. Now,wtf is he gonna do to protect MJ users in legit states!!!! Cant wait till state of union address
If the mother in Connecticut had properly stored her firearms in a safe or with trigger locks this never would have happened. Nobody, adult children, friends, family...NOBODY should have ANY access to your weapons without you being the one to unlock them. Ever. I'd rather see a federal requirement for gun safes or trigger locks when your firearms are not on your person or in use hunting or at the range. Make it a federal offense if your gun is used in a crime or found on another person unless you'd previously reported it stolen.
we love our guns in America....the only thing we are good at is war I would be for closing the gun show loop hole and making transfers down with a public notary so they are some what traceable. But I'm pretty pro-gun because it's my right to be pro-gun. But just because you are pro-gun doesn't mean you are against common sense reforms. Lets remember a crazy person did this, not a gun. But he won't touch the MJ thing ever, to many treaties we signed. Not worth the fight for him imho. He may just slouch on enforcement in legal states to "save tax dollars" that way both sides are happy
Connecticut already requires every transaction be registered whether at a show or from a dealer. Didn't help much. They also have magazine limitations and "assault" style limitations. Don't hold yer breath on Obama. The prosecution for federal MJ laws has increased big time under his Justice department.
I'm aware of this, I'm talking on a national level. You have to be reasonable, on both sides, but 'assault' weapons are here to stay. Even if you ban them now, there are already millions in the country. Guns don't kill, people do. Look at US stats vs anyone else...we are very good at killing in our country. Does anyone remember McVeigh? Remind me again of the guns used and the body count I'm straight up 'Merican when it comes to that if you know what I'm saying. We are a huge country of very diverse people...to each their own. You don't like guns don't buy them, don't want to go to prison, don't carry a gun As for MJ, I don't trust Obama, but I think he doesn't want this fight. The justice department has people there that aren't so favorable lifers that no matter who's in office, do what they do to justify their jobs that they have done for 20,30,40 yrs.
That last part...asssit: The memos issued to increase enforcement came directly from an Obama appointee in opposition to an earlier memo that relaxed enforcement. It was a conscious, calculated, decision by the Administration. Cool, give a little more enforcement on firearms. Track all transactions. Require every owner to have taken gun safety certification. Most states already require it for a hunting license if you're under 52 so why not simply move it to when you purchase a gun of any type? Require gun locks on all firearms not in use. Penalize the owner of a firearm found in someone else's possession off their own property, not on a range, or, not in an active hunting scenario. Make it damn tough on people who are careless with licensing (buying for a nonqualified family member) use or storage of their weapons. But, don't make limitations that simply can't be enforced, are window dressing (magazine size limitations), or limit production firearms that are currently available to the general enthusiast or CCW Permit carrier. What that creates is only people willing to violate the law (chronic enthusiasts similar to us growers, and, bad guys) will have high power weaponry. Want to embolden crime? Give them higher firepower than the Joe they want to exploit. The cat coming in your window could have an AR15 and you'll be reaching for your nifty lil' single shot 22 rimfire. Unless you can disarm the entire populace equally you can't go backward on available types of firearms.
I'm always amazed when this is said by seemingly intelligent people. Well, shocked really. Just another reminder that brainwashing propaganda does work.
More correctly; People with guns kill people more effectively than people without. It's a simple truism. Constitutional and sporting issues aside, the horse is out of the barn in the U.S. You simply can't remove all, or even a sizable enough fraction, of the firearms currently in ownership to make a dent in what is available to a criminal element. There also aren't enough prisons in the entire continent to lock up everybody who would disobey overly strict ownership enforcement.
That was my point. And, as simple as it is, many people don't seem to get it. You never know what you can do until you try. Where there is a will, there is a way. The problem is America lacks the will to do anything about it's gun problem. Personally, I'd start with reducing/restricting the manufacture of guns first, then move on to ownership.
Want a War will give you one you wont forget!! Owner of one of the 300 million guns in circulation that lawfully respects the ownership of guns t6
As am I chief....as am I. Jeopardized my probation deal in order to have a judge allow me to retain my guns so I'm a believer, but, I'm also a realist. Far too many people don't take the care to safely keep those firearms. Why not start there as a way of working towards a solution?
I think he said something like, 'Americans will win the war they are fighting against other Americans, 'cause we got our guns for protection against them other Americans with guns and we're gonna get more guns 'cause that's safer and yet we will kill each other safely with all our guns, respectfully.' 'Errrr, guns.....'murica.' Something like that. :danger: 60 mass shootings in the last 20 years, I just read. And it's gonna get worse before it gets better, because most Americans seem to have their heads up their asses on this point. I'm spoiled for examples even on this forum.
I'd give mine up. God, ANYTHING to help prevent THAT from happening again. It's a probability issue. I have three little girls and have been up nights over this....what kind of world am I bringing them into, how to protect them, etc. I'm an NRA guy too, with a few dusty shotguns and a muzzle loader. I have a few rifles - nothing too military, though I have owned a bunch of assault rifles in my day. And I loved them because of what they represent. But the truth is I don't hunt, don't need to (I get faceless industry and the butcher to do my dirty work) and as for home defense, well...if the SWAT team comes I'm screwed, and the chances of an armed lunatic breaking in blazing away? It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. But if you're going to have one, make sure YOU have it, and it's locked and unusable when you don't. No need for an arsenal. The US military can outgun the world, let alone me.
Here is the article Skuzzi was referring to on the Man in China attaching 20 school children with a knife. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/man-attacks-22-kids-knife-china-school-article-1.1220230 JUst let me say this. I have children still in school and yes I would know the feeling if something were to happen to them. Banning Guns claiming violence in the schools will stop is ludicrious. Stopping individuals who have mental problems from obtaining guns and stricter standards may be a far better approach to stopping these kinds of violance. Because this world is a violent world and there will always be access to all sorts of weapons for one to use in a violent crime besides guns. The ever popular one besides guns seems to be bombs. knifes, bats, clubs and various others as well as guns. our children deserve to be safe at school. These children at new house were not safe. These schools have no protection from a violent intruder. I have witnessed it myself. Newhouse is only a example. If a intruder enters a school there is nowhere safe to go which cannot be accessed by a intruder and they are killed before law enforcement can get there. Look what ten minutes with this madman did. They had time to huddle on the floor or in a closet but not a secure place. If they would have had a secure door on those rooms they would probably be alive today. t6
What is ludicrous is the common gun nut claim that the massive amount of guns and easy access to them has no relation to the amount and frequency of mass shootings or even just your regular every day, garden variety shootings/murder/death. The pro-gun side in America really just repeats the same 3 or 4 talking points ad nauseum. This is a relatively unusual varient of the more usual "If someone wants to kill he is going to do it. If there are no guns, he will use a knife or hammer." in that it includes bombs. Calling bombs popular in America seems to me a bit factually challenged, however. And, more to the point, no one is arguing that bombs should be openly, sold, bought, collected, owned, etc...the way guns are. People realize that they are too dangerous and so they are highly controlled. The same logic should apply to most types of guns. Or are we going to go the other way and start lobbying for the right to bear arms in the form of owning and carrying bombs? After all, bombs don't kill people, people kill people. Who's going to start up the National Bomb Association to lobby government for more bomb owning rights?
