Obama: "Weapons of war have no place on our streets".

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: Sunwolf

Yes, there is. When an idiot with an assault rifle goes nuts, we need the police to be equally armed in order to stop the nut with a machine gun. You seem to think that all assault rifle owners are Fred McMurray types who never do anything but help out. In reality a lot people with assault rifles shouldn't have them. The ability to complete an application form is not the same as being qualified to own a high powered killing machine. Our 2nd Ammendmant rights have nothing to do with a non-existant right to own an AR-15.

When is the last time the Police have had to stop a nut with a machine gun?Yes,our 2nd Amendment has everything to do with owning any man portable arms the military has.What is a high powered killing machine?Do you even know what you are talking about?

I would suggest that, obviously, the answer to that question is an emphatic no.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Police departments are getting totally out of control, I have to admit that and there is certainly not a needs for tanks for cripes sakes but it seems like you're suggesting we need some kind of equivalent in firepower to battle some future war with our own Police Departments? I am not saying it's impossible, we saw the rise of the gestapo in Germany so anything can happen and usually does. I have to tell you that Obama will be long gone by the time there is any uprising that pits the local community of hard working Joes, against their local Police force...Sacha and Milea will be teetering in rockers with sparse gray hair and they might even be gone too.

This guy is the energizer bunny of two-faced liars...He just can't stop himself, since the main stream media can't help but glorify the worst president ever.

a reply to: NavyDoc

so why aren't these laws being enforced?
Could it be that private gun sales at gun shows and elsewhere make up 40% of known/estimated gun-sales?
Could it be that there is a loophole that makes background checks unneccessary for these private sales?

and what can we do about it in terms of public policy changes?

edit: I was referring to states that did not require mental health evaluations/don't share mental-health records with federal databases.

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: Idiosonic
I know i will be bashed for this but here i go. First, are the police and Government as corrupt as you guys make it look. i daily see people saying "they don't trust the police" or that "the government might go full Hitler on them" Is this true, if so disregard the rest of this (and tell me why you still say USA #1 if you can compare it to 1940's Germany)

As an outsider looking in (not from America) The weapons that Police have are unjustified in all 1st world countries, Except America. What do you think the police should take on gangbangers with Ak's and those nutters i hear on the news that kill kids at school with, Pepper spray and a Tazer?. With the amount of firepower available to the criminals, shouldn't the police have more firepower so they can stop them?

You asked an honest question honestly, I'll try to give you the same respect in my reply.

Gun violence is the lowest it's been in decades. The media likes to spin a tale of massive gun crime in the US, and it simply doesn't exist. Gun stats are incredibly skewed in how they are presented. Often the people that are killed by police are included in the numbers for gun deaths, it's obvious how wrong that is. They include things like an unregistered firearm, or possession of a firearm by a prohibited person as "gun crime" obviously invalidating the numbers. They also sometimes include people killed in self defense in their numbers for gun deaths.

Fully-automatic firearms are legal here in the US, but they have to have been produced before a certain date (I believe it's early 80s) and have to have been owned by someone here in the states prior to that date. Basically, the full auto guns out in the hands of civilians in the early 80s, those are the ONLY full auto guns that will EVER be legal or allowed in the US. But you are lied to by media thinking we can walk into a walmart and buy a full auto AK. We can't.

The number of full auto guns is so limited, and the hoops to jump through to purchase ones so extreme, that really the only people who own full auto guns are wealthy gun collectors, not any average joe, not gangbangers. Their full auto weapons are brought into the country via illegal arms smuggling, not purchased legally.

The police are becoming more aggressive and militarized every day, yet gun violence and all violence is at a low. Something doesn't add up there. There is a HUGE number of firearms in the hands of Americans, and for that number the crime is very very low. Instead of comparing gun deaths vs population of different countries, compare gun deaths of different countries based on deaths per firearm owned in that country. That would show you the vast, vast majority of gun owners are responsible people who simply want the means to defend themselves.

You may have an image of some pumped up gun lover going around waving guns in people's faces. That's not reality. The only people in the US going around waving guns in people's faces are the police.

I don't suspect I'm going to change your opinions with my post, but I really hope you think outside of what your media tells you and listen to people that live here, own firearms, are educated and responsible. I'll leave you with one thing to ponder, the areas with the most violence are the areas with the highest restrictions on guns. Places known for high firearm ownership have very low crime.

We don't have a gun problem in the US, we have a people problem. People are angry, confused, hurt, and they lash out. The cure to this is to mend out sick society, although how exactly to do that is a complex issue. Removing guns from the equation will do nothing to solve the problem, and in all likelyhood will cause more damage as people can't defend themselves from criminals running wild in cities with strict gun laws. All those violent cities America is known for, those cities are extremely strict on guns and sometimes outright ban many of them. That has done nothing for the problem, and in recent times they are starting to loosen their gun restrictions, and crime DROPS.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: NavyDoc

so why aren't these laws being enforced?
Could it be that private gun sales at gun shows and elsewhere make up 40% of known/estimated gun-sales?
Could it be that there is a loophole that makes background checks unneccessary for these private sales?

and what can we do about it in terms of public policy changes?

edit: I was referring to states that did not require mental health evaluations/don't share mental-health records with federal databases.

www.nytimes.com...

It's not a loophole, it's the law. That's like saying non-profits don't pay tax due to a loophole, no, they don't pay tax because that's the word of the law AND the spirit of the law.

If you want people having background checks for selling their gun to a friend, then why not ask the gov to LET us use their database? The only thing a vendor has to do is call up and give your info, and they get a "yes" or "no" on whether you can purchase. The government has repeatedly denied gun owners the opportunity to use this service.

Pushing for background checks for private sales isn't a horrible idea, but forcing people to get involved with outside parties to complete a private transaction is. Many people who do private sales WANT to give the buyer a background check but they are legally denied this ability. But of course the media lies and spins and doesn't tell you that part.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: macman

The country where nation wide polls are conducted - polls that show the majority of Americans want tougher laws. These are the polls that FOX'NEWS" doesn't mention, (nor the NRA), so I'm not surprised you haven't heard of them.

How on earth can people want tougher laws, if they DO NOT even know what the law is NOW?

Tired of ignorance...

originally posted by: Idiosonic
a reply to: oblvion

Ok, but all you would need to say was yes to my first question, "Yes, i do not trust the police"

Notice i said disregard the rest of my question if you do not trust the police and the U.S government is a pile of #. The rest of my statement was for people who are governed and policed by responsible people

They dont have AK's first off stop listening to pierce morgan, didnt brittain take him back yet?

Have you, or anyone else extensively searched every gangbanger and know gangbanger associate's property from Compton to the Bronx to confirm they do not have ANY AK-47's or other fully auto weapons?

IF they have full auto weapons they are illegal, not legally purchased or owned. So how will any laws solve that problem when they are already in violation of the law?

Please, I beg you, respond to my post....

a reply to: gladtobehere


Americans should have the right to bear arms and not have that taken away. I think there are many crazy people around as gouha admits in a later post here, and those crazy people should not be able to get a deadly weapon, no questions asked. Right now, they can.

I've noticed we have an extreme far right faction in these united states and they are into weapons and weaponry probably because they are in the business of making them. They will arm anyone at all and want everyone armed. It could be Iran Contras, Iraqi military, Syrian rebels, Canadians, Mexicans, we have plenty of firepower and ammo to go around.

Sometimes I think they are Arcons leftover from some warring history of ours. Sometimes I think they are the welcome wagon ushering in the annihilation of mankind and the end of the world. That doomsday scenario is played and replayed over and over. Sometimes I wonder if this inglorious and pathetic end for the human race is inevitable or if we can change it. At least we have those Mars Colonies.

originally posted by: NonsensicalUserName
a reply to: NavyDoc

so why aren't these laws being enforced?
Could it be that private gun sales at gun shows and elsewhere make up 40% of known/estimated gun-sales?
Could it be that there is a loophole that makes background checks unneccessary for these private sales?

and what can we do about it in terms of public policy changes?

edit: I was referring to states that did not require mental health evaluations/don't share mental-health records with federal databases.

www.nytimes.com...

The "gun show loophole" is a myth perpetuated by the anti-gun rights people. All new guns have to have a background check and go through an FFL, be it at a gun show or a brick and mortar shop.

Most states do not require an FFL or a background check if a private citizen wants to sell a firearm to another citizen. If you want to trade your lawnmower for my Remington 870, we can do this legally because all we are is private citizens disposing privately owned property. If I buy guns with intent to sell them, then I am a felon and yes, those laws are enforced and those people do indeed go to jail if caught.

What the left wants to do is to capture on paper all of those unregistered guns out there, that pass form father to son, neighbor to neighbor because they want to control law abiding citizens and create a paper trail for potential confiscation.

originally posted by: Loveaduck


Americans should have the right to bear arms and not have that taken away. I think there are many crazy people around as gouha admits in a later post here, and those crazy people should not be able to get a deadly weapon, no questions asked. Right now, they can.

Where in the 2nd does it address "crazy people"?
And this whole idea of denying "crazy people" this right is moronic. "Crazy" does not equate to violent, nor does it allow for anything but the Govt deeming people it doesn't like as crazy, like what you and other Anti-2nd people do.

originally posted by: Loveaduck
I've noticed we have an extreme far right faction in these united states and they are into weapons and weaponry probably because they are in the business of making them. They will arm anyone at all and want everyone armed. It could be Iran Contras, Iraqi military, Syrian rebels, Canadians, Mexicans, we have plenty of firepower and ammo to go around.

How on God's green earth do you compare those that are for adherence to the 2nd, to those people supplying firearms to other nations?
You and TV need a break from each other. Seems that Hollywood and Progressive ideals have infected your views.

originally posted by: Loveaduck
Sometimes I think they are Arcons leftover from some warring history of ours. Sometimes I think they are the welcome wagon ushering in the annihilation of mankind and the end of the world. That doomsday scenario is played and replayed over and over. Sometimes I wonder if this inglorious and pathetic end for the human race is inevitable or if we can change it. At least we have those Mars Colonies.

Yep, those that support the 2nd, are just that. Sure sure

a reply to: James1982

The ignorance you should be tired of is your own. How do you know what laws people do or do not know? I guess only someone with superior knowledge, like yourself I assume, could possibly know enough about things to voice an intelligent opinion. Guess what? Not everyone agrees with you. And in this country, majority rules. People who think anyone with pulse should be able to get any weapon known to man, are in the minority. So soon the 'argument' will be mute, because the tough laws are coming. They're inevitable.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: James1982

The ignorance you should be tired of is your own. How do you know what laws people do or do not know? I guess only someone with superior knowledge, like yourself I assume, could possibly know enough about things to voice an intelligent opinion. Guess what? Not everyone agrees with you. And in this country, majority rules. People who think anyone with pulse should be able to get any weapon known to man, are in the minority. So soon the 'argument' will be mute, because the tough laws are coming. They're inevitable.

First off, for like the 100th time, it isn't a "mute point". It is "moot".

Secondly, for the 5th time, care to provide these polls you mention as proof that more people want more laws?

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: James1982

And in this country, majority rules. People who think anyone with pulse should be able to get any weapon known to man, are in the minority. .

Really? This is how you feel? This is okay with you?

Ruling by majority and crushing a minority has never gone wrong. Nope. Never. It's always awesome for everybody.

I don't think you "majority rules" types really understand what you're supporting. Or you're just really naive and short-sighted.

OMG, even if you believe in 2nd amendment rights, the need to have a civilian check to the government by being armed, and so on, we DO NOT need assault weapons on our streets on a daily basis. Sorry. Pull those out when there is a civil war or real revolution. Meanwhile, every assault weapon in most years here has been used for non-revolutionary nor Constitutional reasons.

originally posted by: gladtobehere

I think what he meant to say was that “weapons of war have no place on our streets”… in the hands of the slaves.

a reply to: macman

You're right about the spelling mistake. Sorry.

Here're 5 sites mentioning nation wide polls supporting strickter gun control laws. Let the discounting begin:

www.pollingreport.com...
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
blog.constitutioncenter.org...
swampland.time.com...

Lets do this then.

originally posted by: TownCryer

www.pollingreport.com...

So, a polling of 1000 people, is the sentiment of the whole nation?
You do realize that polling, conducted in this manner is outdated, right?


Question #1,

In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?

And what does that mean exactly??? Sounds very much like a well crafted question to produce the answer they are fishing for from the 1500 people they polled.

Question #2,

"Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?"

So, the people polled, all 1000 of them, seem to show their ignorance, as there are already background checks instituted in every state.

Question #3,

How much do you think stricter gun laws would do to help prevent gun violence? Would stricter laws help a lot, some, not much, or not at all

Seems that the same people ignorantly wanting a law that is already there, don't see any further laws helping to do much of anything.

Question #5,

In general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?

Again, 1000 people asked a question to produce a wanted answer.
And the divide is not that great, when you consider 3% +/- error.

Your divide is shrinking.

Question #6,

Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws

Hmmmmm, 49% Favor, 50% oppose with a 3% +/- margin.

The divide gets smaller.

I can go on and on showing the holes in each of these polls and the questions asked.


Now, lets get some actual, non polling numbers.

Firearm sales for 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009.
www.washingtontimes.com...

NSSF also released its own data on Monday which subtracts out the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks done for carry permits, which makes it a closer correlation to actual purchases. The NSSF adjusted NICS shows a 2013 year-end figure of 14,796,872. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The Federal Bureau of Investigation recorded more than 16.8 million background checks for gun purchases in 2012, the highest number since the FBI began publishing the data in 1998.

www.reuters.com...

The FBI said it fielded nearly 16.5 million queries from firearms sellers last year, checking that customers buying guns did not have criminal records or other red flags that made them ineligible to purchase weapons. That was up 15 percent from 2010, when the FBI performed 14.4 million screenings using its so-called National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and the highest number of annual screenings performed since 1998, when the checks went into effect.

www.ammoland.com...

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008. Read more: www.ammoland.com... Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

And, to save time and space, research just a little bit on NEW Concealed Carry permits, as they are driven by the state and not the ATF.


Once you review the ACTUAL data of sales, and CCW applications, I would love to hear that the REAL sentiment of the US public is to have stricter gun laws, more overreach of a Federal Govt and certain evil firearms banned.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
OMG, even if you believe in 2nd amendment rights, the need to have a civilian check to the government by being armed, and so on, we DO NOT need assault weapons on our streets on a daily basis. Sorry. Pull those out when there is a civil war or real revolution. Meanwhile, every assault weapon in most years here has been used for non-revolutionary nor Constitutional reasons.

originally posted by: gladtobehere

I think what he meant to say was that “weapons of war have no place on our streets”… in the hands of the slaves.

Other than the police, what "assault weapon" is "on the street" on a daily basis?

What "non-Constitutional" reason are most "assault weapons" used for? Are hunting, target shooting, training, collecting, competing, and self defense un-Constitutional reasons to own a firearm? Why? With millions of so called "assault weapons" in private hands and homicides from ALL long arms (not just AR-15's) less than 800 a year, I'd say that the vast, vast, vast, majority of "assault weapons" are used in a legal and Constitutional manner in this country.

a reply to: gladtobehere
Great post OP.

The pictures explained better than my words
could have, the total hypocrisy of that statement.

rebel 5

a reply to: NavyDoc

hmm.. that's funny, it seems like a pretty big loophole to me.

perhaps you're wrong?