This is likely a good synopsis of what our political leaders are hearing from their constituents..... http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx
Terry. Our criticism is not about background checks. I doubt any sensible person really opposes that. It's about all the gun "restrictions" that are being proposed as a SOLUTION. You don't accept that the proposals wouldn't have changed anything in that school shooting? The perpetrator STOLE the weapons from a relative that had them LEGALLY. How would the new proposals have stopped that? I've already brought up that a Browning Stalker 7mm would have been JUST as effective for the killing spree and it only holds 5 rounds. (Look up stripper clip if you want to see how to reload quickly) How would removing "assault style" weapons with more than 7 round mags have stopped it? To stop crazy people who intend to die from going on a rampage, you'd have to eliminate guns from the entire country. When the crooks hand 'em over, so will the rest of the folks. So, as I said ... address the problem - not a TINY segment of the tool class that was used in an improper fashion.
I too believe that universal background checks against a more robust database is a major step forward in addressing the fundamental problem. If they have to throw in a ban on "assault-style" rifles to garner enough support to make it happen, it seems a small price to pay, imho, for fundamental and meaningful progress towards addressing a gaping and costly societal problem. It is the nature of politics, unfortunately..... If that is what it came down to, universal and more effective background checks and "assault-style" rifle ban/high capacity mags or nothing, would you not be supportive of the legislation? What if they "grandfathered" existing weapons? Is there not another weapon that would accomplish the same functionality you sought when you bought your weapon? Not taking shots Scott, just trying to see if we can make some progress here......interestingly enough, the poll results show overwhelming public support for universal background checks, limiting high capacity mags, but not as banning "assault-style" weapons. They may be the swing element on either side.....
Why don't we throw in a ban on Alcohol. Most shootings are alhocol related as well. Since that is a tool in the shootings, get rid of alcohol! Name one good thing that comes as a result of drinking alcohol. Compare that to the list of things that happen due to the drinking of alcohol. If we are going to ban things that will not make a bit of difference, why not start with something that will!
Terry, The problem I have is they must BUNDLE bad with good. WHY? If you want to go after high-capacity and background checks, then do it. The witch hunt for "assault style" guns is ridiculous. Per Fienstein's bill, my little Beretta 9mm is an assault weapon. I'm glad you asked this... because it actually shows that you and probably a lot of folks out there have missed what I and others have been saying. My SK-47 is only cosmetically different from a "hunting" rifle that could have been used in the shootings. (like a Browning Stalker 7mm) Differences: The muzzle velocity of the Stalker is MUCH HIGHER and it's more accurate at range. The SK can take a snap-in 10 shot mag, while the Stalker has an internal mag. Their mechanisms are the same in principle - Both semi-automatic. For the record my real issues with what has been proposed: 1) Banning "assault style" weapons. As outlined above, they are only cosmetically different from "hunting" rifles so this is a waste of resources. 2) Cataloging who owns what. I saw this proposed by the nut-jobs from Cali, but it might have been dropped. I am not tremendously worried about the magazine regs. If they want to limit them to 10, that's fine with me. But I could see how someone with significant investment into that sort of thing would take exception.
2009 was the latest stats I found in a quick search. In 2009, 12,744 people died in alcohol related traffic deaths. Of those 12,744, 181 were children 14 years of age or younger. Where is the outrage that we see in the gun hating society for the alcohol related deaths of our children? Why isn't prohibition being brought back? Prohibition kept liquor out of the hands of drunkards about as much as gun bans will keep guns out of the hands of those that would do harm! Full article found here.
Maybe our resident History Teacher can verify or shoot down this accounting: A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT.......December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism. We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day. Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people. Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States. As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”. Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute- Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.
I'll have to verify every word of that, right down to the Hotchkiss guns. It's all true. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to give the people the means to protect themselves from their own government. The founders at the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates that followed realized that they couldn't see the future, so they intentionally gave the people and the states certain means to protect themselves from future oppressive federal governments. They (Hamilton, Madison) knew that they were creating a powerful national government, which could threaten the liberties of individual Americans. Patrick Henry had refused to even attend the convention, because of his fear of a powerful federal government. George Mason and Sam Adams refused to ratify it until it contained a Bill of Rights which specifically guaranteed to individual Americans certain protections from their own government: including the Right to Bear Arms. It was only after Madison agreed to write these protections as the first amendments that they finally endorsed the document.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” ..............Thomas Jefferson The 2nd Amendment was written by James Madison, who was sitting in for Jefferson at the Consitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Madison was Jefferson's younger protege. The two of them were a team for decades, often to the disadvantage of Alexander Hamilton who frequently disagreed with them...
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lAoKdm8tjzI?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0"></iframe>
Scott, I agree with you. It is no secret that it is the nature of our lawmaking to bundle nonsense with good sense. I too wish it were not so.....but it is. I know others differ but as for myself, if that is the extent of it, it seems a modest tradeoff for meaningful progress and progress is necessary. Post Newtown, a solid majority of citizens are seeking stricter controls. My hope is that there will be some reasonable voices in between the gun-hating lefties and militant NRA types that can cobble together a bill that will lead us in the right direction, imperfect tho it is almost certain to be.....
http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495 This video has a NBC news reporter disclosing the fact that the AR-15 was left in the car and 4 handguns were recovered from inside the school. The liberal gun hating society just jumped on the fact that somewhere in this story was a "assault rifle" even if it was never used. So, tell me again how banning "assault rifles" would have stopped this tragedy or even slowed its progress?
JO'Co, I just read an magazine article about how England had disarmed its subjects to the point that besides the military, there were virtually no civilian guns in the country. When WWII developed into nightly raids on the aerial attacks on Great Brittan, the British military practically ran so fast they left most of their armament behind. There was a movement in 1940 initiated by the NRA in cooperation with the US government to send arms to the British people to help defend their homeland. Shortly after the war was over, Britain started tightening the noose on firearms and today is back to their pre-WWII status. Can you give us any details on this patriotic movement that may not have been mentioned in the article?
Tom, I think it has clearly been established from official sources that the Bushmaster was the weapon used in the shootings. Certainly the coroner stated that the cause of death on the victims that he examined had been shot with a "long rifle".
Hats off to the NRA spin machine.....they are churning out revisionist history at an unprecedented rate. Politics is such a dirty business......when they juxtapose the Blitz with Dunkirk then make the claim that there are virtually no civilian guns in the country, I just gotta shake my head. As is typically the case, both sides are going high order with distortions, fabrications and hyperbole being the standard fare. What is the NRA's official position on universal background checks?