soccergod04
Member
The Justice Department's own studies have shown that NFA weapons were rarely used to commit crimes before the AWB and there was no change during the AWB.
The Millennial Point of View
- Thread starter Rocketmedic
- Start date
- Status
The Justice Department's own studies have shown that NFA weapons were rarely used to commit crimes before the AWB and there was no change during the AWB.
meanmrmustard
Member
I agree with you Sam.
I'm no a whole lot older than our OP here, and I am not really understanding the points trying to be made. It reads like a failed attempt at getting gun owners to roll over so we can take one in the rear.
OP: you are not the poster child for Gun Ownership; I'm a machinist for a metal fab shop in the Midwest, not married, divorced, divorced parents, have four kids, drive whatever runs, drink beer, play Super Mario, and do not have the chunk of disposable income you tout due in no small part to the president you are seemingly a fan of. I'm on no poster, nor should you be. Anyone believing that being able to spend a few thousand bucks for an AR and range time isn't a criminal, to me, seems elitist as eff. Your soapbox is wobbling to the left.
Also, you voted for a fool and a criminal. Obama is not stalling on gun issues for us, he's busy spending your hard earned dollars on vacations at a rate of 1.4 billion dollars A YEAR!!! The Royal family, as a whole, uses up 56 million dollars annually for travel and expenses pertaining to vacationing. But Oby and his gang use 20 times that in the same time frame! Matter of fact, while he could have been diligently hammering out the path of this nation's economic and 2A paths, he's been soaking up rays in Hawaii since Saturday.
I don't care about games. They'll always be violent, because some of them only aspire to mimic the world we live in. Your characters carry M4s and FN 5.7s, why can't you? On the flip side, Marylin Manson doesn't make me want to hurt people, nor do games. You can take the games, but when it comes to my firearms "molon Labe"! You are a combat veteran? Then how do you keep a straight face bringing "realistic multiplayer" into this forum, but roll your eyes at vocal gun owners willing to fight for their rights? Failure again.
Lastly, we are no match for the US Army? Because we've let it be so. We are 300 million strong if we'd ever band together. Unless POTUS decides to nuke his own country, we win for a cause worth dying for. As a soldier, Id figure you'd value that. But, there's a line being drawn that's been along time coming. One side believes in freedom and the willingness to defend it. The other stands to extinguish said freedom and rise to an unorthodox amount of power by means of policing and bullying. I know what side of that line I'm on, and I know what side you belong to OP.
Folks did ok fighting off tyranny with pitchforks against muskets. I'd say we'd do just fine in getting the point across that we haven't been a monarchy for several hundred years, and it ain't changing now.
meanmrmustard
Member
Mustn't forget Fort Hood.
stonecutter2
Member
It is sad. Welcome to our modern reality, though. Armed guards aren't the best and ultimate answer, but it can make a difference in security for our children RIGHT NOW. Not decades from now after our culture shift has occurred, not after countless debates for and against bans. Now. Because the next nutball sees just how much attention Newtown got, and they've got a lot of anger and they don't care about shooting up a school either.
By and large, I agreed with what you wrote. It was very well thought out. I do agree that the nonsense about TV and video games was a serious misstep by the NRA. It smacked of "I'm old and these games and TV are rotting our kids' brains!" Not the best of things. I do not agree with the NRA in this regard, as you mentioned - strange to step on the 1st amendment to defend the 2nd.
Thank you for the read and for your service to our country, both in the military and in your everyday life.
jj1962hemi
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 273
I think the OP makes a point we should all consider, and that is semi-autos in general can cause more damage. Given this, it's hard for me to support an AWB, because it will just be a matter of time before some gun-grabbing PR genius realizes that cosmetics have nothing to do with function. The way to take a crack at what "they" want is an Australian-style system (look it up, it's really restrictive) where anything beyong long guns that are incapable of rapid fire are difficult for anybody to own. That's why I hate to see flexibility on AWB.
It's the "camel's nose under the tent" syndrome, I know, but anti-gunners don't look at the world as a place where bigger government/greater encroachment is anything but positive progress. Wayne L. can't even talk about defending oneself against the government publicly without being decried a whacko. That whole limitation in the public sphere has driven many inconsistencies in NRA policies over the nearly 30 years I have been a member. Too many people need a global history lesson.
It's the "camel's nose under the tent" syndrome, I know, but anti-gunners don't look at the world as a place where bigger government/greater encroachment is anything but positive progress. Wayne L. can't even talk about defending oneself against the government publicly without being decried a whacko. That whole limitation in the public sphere has driven many inconsistencies in NRA policies over the nearly 30 years I have been a member. Too many people need a global history lesson.
stonecutter2
Member
Not everyone in America is a single issue voter.
This past election cycle demonstrated that there was an awful lot of important things going on for the voter to back with their vote.
Gun rights is but one facet of making that voting decision for me. Not the only determining factor in how I cast my vote.
jj1962hemi
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 273
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0O3B7N848o
Jesse Ventura, who may be a nut in many regards, making a great arguement for the U.S. gun culure. Watch until the audience poll at the end.
Jesse Ventura, who may be a nut in many regards, making a great arguement for the U.S. gun culure. Watch until the audience poll at the end.
stonecutter2
Member
Do you seriously have to ask? He allowed concealed carry in national parks. The Brady folks gave him an "F" for that. Aside from that, to his credit, previous to Newtown he didn't go off all crazy and ban all the guns or whatever I've heard across the counter in local gun shops for years. Through several shootings, he's respected the 2nd amendment by not putting some stupid knee jerk legislation through...even when the Democrats had serious clout to do so. This time around, too - as the OP linked to - he's actually using a delaying tactic by making a commission to consider solutions to gun violence.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
What about Obama, including his words, past political history, connections, affiliations, books, votes as an IL and US Senator...lead you to believe he has anything less than pure hatred of guns and gun owners?
larryh1108
Member
Really? Maybe it's you who needs to understand the past, not just the present.
You have a nice resume. Very American-like.
I did miss how many children you have raised.
How many kids do you have sitting in front of the TV at age 10 shooting ARs and AK47s.
I'm real curious. When/if you have an 8 year old will you two sit in front of the TV seeing who can kill more cops and buy more whores? I'm just curious.
You served our contry. Thank you. However, you act as though you are the only one who has that knows the real facts.
How many soldiers died before you to give us and allowed us to keep these rights? Just because you served our contry does not give you the right to talk for all of those who served before you. You are entitled to your opinion but us old folks also have decades of experience with the facts you throw out there for us to accept because you are proof of being a success in American life even though you played your video games. When your kids are productive members of society you can speak for us old folks. Until then you are an idealist who thinks he knows all the answers.
I believe that the violent video games should be restricted by age like cigarettes, liquor, porn and gun ownership. If a parent wishes to allow his 10 year old child to play Call to Duty or GTA then he/she can go and buy it for them. I do not believe a 10 year old should be able to purchase it for himself. That is my opinion. I am just another old folk who has lived more than twice as long as a 24 year old who can tell us why we need to get it together. When you have more than 6 years experience of being a man in this world I will listen to you tell me I need to get with the times. Until then you are still a young adult who hasn't been there/done that with the real life we deal with for decades, not just a few years. Now, go see how many kills you get tonight before you go to bed.
gc70
Member
Maybe this is why there is no productive debate about how to stop mass murders. As soon as a possible contributing factor is mentioned, people immediately throw a hissy fit absolutely denying that their factor could be involved in any shape, form, fashion, or degree.
I have a sneaky suspicion that mass murder is a complex issue that has many factors contributing to greater or lesser degrees. In the spirit of that suspicion, below is a list of possible factors given by respondents to a Pew Research survey in response to the question "what broader problems does this (Connecticut school) shooting reflect?"
I have a sneaky suspicion that mass murder is a complex issue that has many factors contributing to greater or lesser degrees. In the spirit of that suspicion, below is a list of possible factors given by respondents to a Pew Research survey in response to the question "what broader problems does this (Connecticut school) shooting reflect?"
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
So...basically exactly how things already are. The ESRB video game rating system has been in place since 1994.
stonecutter2
Member
Ha, I saw that when it was on TV. About stood up and cheered.
Piers Morgan: "it's a facile argument - there's no equivalence between drunk driving and lethal firearms."
First, he tries to be all smug and British using a fancy pants word. What's funnier is that it's not really what facile means...it has nothing to do with equivalence. Facile is that you're oversimplifying a complex issue...basically trying to keep simple what is a difficult issue.
So, not only does Piers try to make Ventura look like an ignorant fool for not knowing what facile is, he then gives the wrong definition. Neither of which obviously wins him over to the audience, who seems to agree that the approach to drunk driving is actually quite good in comparison to how we should treat gun violence. I think it's an excellent example of how society changed tragedy into a more effective means of reducing the frequency of a social problem.
We didn't ban cars when people drove drunk too much, there were several high profile cases of kids getting run over - and MADD got started. And it came down to - if you drive drunk, you could kill my kid. So don't drive drunk. Laws were made more stringent for offenders. It was a massive PR campaign, and it worked.
Someone needs to form the equivalent of MADD for gun violence. I drove to Peoria IL this past weekend and saw posters all over for "Don't Shoot Peoria" to try and stop the senseless shootings that occur there. That's the type of initiative we need, not to take guns away from law abiding people simply because criminals are breaking laws.
stonecutter2
Member
Yes but retailers are spotty at best in enforcing it. Selling a kid Grand Theft Auto isn't socially as "bad" as selling a kid a bottle of vodka or a carton of cigarettes.
76shuvlinoff
Member
Ask a Native American about compromise.
First off. Thank you for your service. Many of us are also veterans.
I understand your displeasure with the NRA statement. Have you considered that he proposed that video games and movies get regulated as a "how would you like it if" statement. You also stated in your OP that you learned alot from playing video games about combat and considered it training in a safe way. By your own admission you say it prepared "you" for combat. Would this not be a form of desensitizing to violence? So you kind of made his point!
What does an AR do that a pump action do for you for self defense? Who said the right to bear arms is "just" for defense? Perhaps you should read the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers to see just what kinds of discussions our founding fathers had about government, and the ability of "We the people" to restrain it.
One last point, I don't want to raise the price point of obtaining weapons so only well to do can buy them. You said it yourself that you don't have one as it is not financially prudent for you. Does that mean only rich people should be allowed to own them? You may want to take a step back and not be so emotional about the debate. I hope you get to see more than your point of view. I just yesterday had a discussion with my older brother about this very issue. I see where he is coming from and he sees where I come from. Once you get emotion out of the equation.
Good luck,
LNK
larryh1108
Member
I just looked up Call to Duty on ebay. It states it is rated M for 17+ mature people. No where did it state it will not ship to anyone under 17 or that proof of age is required to buy. It is a rating system that is not enforced very much by a large part of the retail industry. It's more a guideline than a restriction.
stonecutter2
Member
Yeah, I know, I know. He's the gun hating nightmare of a politician we've all feared. "Pure hatred." Really? Give me a break.
I have heard this for years. Nothing has happened from Obama since he's been elected President to show he has a "pure hatred" of gun owners. It is all fear, and nothing but fear. What did FDR say about that? Let's all talk about learning from the past!
What makes me believe he has anything less than a pure hatred of guns and gun owners? How about the fact that the guy hasn't attempted to do anything to stifle or restrict our 2nd amendment rights as President? Even during past shootings. There have been panics that he would do something, but he never did.
So, since he's so absolutely hateful of gun owners, and wants to disarm us all at any given moment based on his past votes, etc. I'm going to ask YOU for something. Show me Obama's mighty legislation, or even attempt at legislation, that tried to disarm us all. If he has such a pure hatred of guns and gun owners, let's see it.
Lay it all out here right now, so I can see just what an anti-gun President Obama is.
I haven't seen it.
The man has probably caused MORE gun ownership in America, than anyone, purely due to the fear that is pervading our gun culture right now...fear of what he will do. He hasn't done anything but get a lot of people to buy a lot of guns. Nothing wrong with that in my book - arm the law-abiding populace. Law abiding Americans have a right to own a gun. I'm glad more people are exercising that right, who've never done so before. I've met more new gun owners in the last 4 years than ever before. They're now facing the same thing we are - the chance that their right will be taken away.
Last edited:
larryh1108
Member
He wanted to have the UN do his dirty work for him. Haven't you been following his attempt at the small arms treaty being shoved down our throats? He's been trying to back door the Constitution and claim it's not him but the rest of the world. He also wanted to be reelected, which he was. Want further proof? Just watch what he tries to do now that reelection is behind him.
You seem like a sharp guy, but you are sticking your head in the sand on this one. He's not stupid, he's just been biding his time. Let me ask the question another way. What makes you think he won't support a gun ban if it crosses his desk? Certainly not his past actions/votes/statements.
Mousegun
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 738
The First Amendment has pounded gun owners for years. The media's stance is clear and broadcasted daily. The NRA finally took a "shot" back at those who go for the gun rights juggler every day and it is now taking heat for it.
The suggestion that video games are somewhat behind these tragedies may or may not have a string of truth or it may be spot on but it is a hit back at those who have been punching at us for decades.
The downside of my statement is that we should not try to strip another's right to gain more of our own. The whole argument is a double edge sword when the two are used against each other.
The suggestion that video games are somewhat behind these tragedies may or may not have a string of truth or it may be spot on but it is a hit back at those who have been punching at us for decades.
The downside of my statement is that we should not try to strip another's right to gain more of our own. The whole argument is a double edge sword when the two are used against each other.
meanmrmustard
Member
Agreed.
And what some are jokingly calling a "delaying tactic" is merely worrying more about taxing the job creating citizens more to further fund his vacationing. When that is out of the way, you'll see Obie's true colors.
Watch what happens in January, then come back here a try telling us how much the POTUS loves gun owners and their rights.
76shuvlinoff
Member
Exactly, the POTUS immediately politicized this tragedy as soon as his media puppets could get the cameras warmed up. Hard for me to imagine a vulture shedding genuine tears.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Waitamminute. Is nobody paying attention?
The Democratic Party plank in 2008 clearly enumerated a desire to institute a new permanent AWB and ban all private gun sales. The 2008 Democratic presidential candidate clearly spoke in favor of such measures; his words and writings provided a clear view that he felt that guns needed to be restricted in alignment with the Democratic Party plank.
He then spent the first two years of his first term, both directly via the DoJ and via proxies such as Mexico, declaring the need for additional US gun restrictions based on the assertion that US guns were fueling the drug gang wars in Mexico. They used bogus* gun recovery statistics from Mexico to bolster their claims. They went so far as having the president of Mexico affirm and attest to that assertion in a speech to Congress. They then used those assertions to institute new administrative rules on FFLs in all border states, requiring the FFL provide point-of-sale data not legally required by statute (under threat of pulling the FFL for anyone not complying).
When the administration failed to get the level of public furor from all of this needed to support open action against gun rights in the US, they then elected to actively and illegally 'seed' guns into Mexico and then use the recovery of those guns as further proof of the need for additional restrictions on semiauto weapons in the US. They called that action 'Operation Fast and Furious'. OF&F was not a Republican ploy, it was not legal, and it was not a bake sale - it was a clear effort to gain the ability to push for new gun restrictions based upon 'proof' that the US gun purchases were causing international strife.
It was illegal, it got American citizens killed, and it was conducted by the sitting administration. It's all a matter of public record.
How is it that we can have sentient and intelligent folk capable of declaring that the first term of the current administration was benign and neutral on the subject of gun rights in the face of demonstrated facts?
I can only assume that those folk that do not see this simply do not want to.
*The Mexican gun recovery data was bogus because the methodology used to create it was deliberately manipulative and dishonest, and designed to be inflammatory and not accurate. Essentially, the assertions made were that XXX percentage of recovered and traceable guns came from the US - but what wasn't mentioned was that only the US provided gun trace data. The actual percentage of all guns (not just those traceable) recovered in Mexico and coming from the US was astonishingly small.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
