Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!







Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 26th, 2007, 08:55 PM   #21
brandonfiremedic
Senior Member
 
brandonfiremedic's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-07-05
Location: ortonville
Posts: 882
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to brandonfiremedic Send a message via Yahoo to brandonfiremedic
Default

Its all a very slippery slope... Personally I see no need for any private citizen to own an assault type rifle. But as soon as they get banned.... then they will want more. Instead of regulating the guns why can't we regulate who can have them? Full background checks for all purchases paid for by the person that wants the gun. No legal guns for non-citizens. etc....

Just an idea, flame away
brandonfiremedic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 09:13 PM   #22
chris1044
Senior Member
 
chris1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Lost in the mitten!
Posts: 2,011
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandonfiremedic View Post
Its all a very slippery slope... Personally I see no need for any private citizen to own an assault type rifle. But as soon as they get banned.... then they will want more. Instead of regulating the guns why can't we regulate who can have them? Full background checks for all purchases paid for by the person that wants the gun. No legal guns for non-citizens. etc....

Just an idea, flame away

A good Idea, IMO, that a more stringent background check should be done and even to the point of having people buying pay for them. I also agree that non-citizens shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun, or ammo, or anything else shooting related for that matter.

But the problem still lies in the fact that no matter what someone would be able to get their hands on a gun if they really wanted to. Hell, for that matter if you really wanted to you could probably build your own gun to shoot whatever ammo you can get your hands on if you had the resources - it wouldn't be all that hard. But gun restriction - no matter what types/how strict it is - will never change that fact.

Additionally, as Duffman stated guns don't kill people - people do. If I wanted to kill someone with a pencil I probably could, and the same goes for a vehicle....does that mean they should be banned as well??

There really isn't a "need" to own an assault type rifle.....however, to that same respect there isn't a "need" to own a jeep and go off road either - but people get a kick out of shooting a gun like an AK or SKS (granted I think it should be done/they should be owned legally) just like we do going off road.....While I can see some assault type gun's being banned, some of the types on the list - and especially the "no more than 5 round clips" notion - is beyond out of hand.....

So what do we do about six shooters if we can't have 5 round clips?? Are double action revolvers considered "assault weapons" by this bill as well?
chris1044 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 10:34 PM   #23
MrBi11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-05-06
Location: Holly
Posts: 452
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Here's whats wrong with more background checks.....


Congressional Leaders Moving To Pass Gun Control Without A Vote!
-- McCarthy bill would treat gun owners even worse than terrorists

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

"Another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly
opposed to the [McCarthy-Dingell] legislation. It said the measure
would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling
reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable
people from buying guns." -- Associated Press, April 24, 2007

Thursday, April 26, 2007

This is going to be a knock-down, drag-out fight. GOA continues to
stand alone in the trenches, defending the rights of gun owners
around the country. It's not going to be easy.

Gun control supporters want to pass gun control within the next
couple of weeks. And that's why, even if you took action earlier
this week, you need to do so once again.

All the gun haters (who have been keeping silent for a while) are now
coming out of the closet and into the open. Take the notoriously
anti-gun senator from New York -- Chuck Schumer. He has been very,
very excited this week. Recent events have given him a platform, and
the excuse, to push legislation that he had sponsored years ago --
legislation that never got through Congress.

You see, Senator Chuck Schumer has been, in past years, the Senate
sponsor of the McCarthy bill (HR 297). And the recent murders at
Virginia Tech have given Senator Schumer the pretext he has been
looking for. Appearing on the Bill O'Reilly show earlier this week,
Schumer did his best to make a reasonable-sounding pitch for more gun
control.

He told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had
previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress
to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable
limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but
I think
certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable
limitation. We do it for cars."

Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the
McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun
control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed
and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.

In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed
the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot
potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get
this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically
means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.

This is a perfect way to pass gun control without anyone getting
blamed... or so they think. We need to tell every Senator that if
this bill passes without a vote, then we hold ALL OF THEM
responsible. (Be looking for a future GOA alert aimed at your
Senators.)

On the House side, the Associated Press reported this past Monday
that "House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle
Association to bolster existing laws blocking" certain prohibited
persons from buying guns. Of course, there are at least three
problems with this approach:

1. It's morally and constitutionally wrong to require law-abiding
citizens to first prove their innocence to the government before they
can exercise their rights -- whether it's Second Amendment rights,
First Amendment rights, or any other right. Doing that gives
bureaucrats the opportunity to abuse their power and illegitimately
prevent honest gun owners from buying guns.

2. Bureaucrats have already used the Brady Law to illegitimately deny
the Second Amendment rights of innocent Americans. Americans have
been prevented from buying guns because of outstanding traffic
tickets, because of errors, because the NICS computer system has
crashed -- and don't forget returning veterans because of
combat-related stress. You give an anti-gun bureaucrat an inch,
he'll take a mile -- which we have already seen as GOA has documented
numerous instances of the abuses mentioned above.

3. Finally, all the background checks in the world will NOT stop bad
guys from getting firearms. As we mentioned in the previous alert,
severe restrictions in Washington, DC, England, Canada, Germany and
other places have not stopped evil people from using guns to commit
murder. (Correction: In our previous alert, we incorrectly
identified Ireland as the location of the infamous schoolyard
massacre. In fact, it took place in Dunblane, Scotland in 1996 -- a
country which at the time had even more stringent laws than we have
here.)

McCARTHY BILL TREATING GUN OWNERS WORSE THAN TERRORISTS

HR 297 would require the states to turn over mountains of personal
data (on people like you) to the FBI -- any information which
according to the Attorney General, in his or her unilateral
discretion, would be useful in ascertaining who is or is not a
"prohibited person."

Liberal support for this bill points out an interesting hypocrisy in
their loyalties: For six years, congressional Democrats have
complained about the Bush administration's efforts to obtain personal
information on suspected terrorists WITHOUT A COURT ORDER.

And yet, this bill would allow the FBI to obtain massive amounts of
information -- information which dwarfs any records obtained from
warrantless searches (or wiretaps) that have been conducted by the
Bush Administration on known or suspected terrorists operating in the
country.

In fact, HR 297 would allow the FBI to get this information on honest
Americans (like you) even though the required data is much more
private and personal than any information obtained thus far by the
Bush administration on terrorists.

And all of these personal records would be obtained by the FBI with
no warrant or judicial or Congressional oversight whatsoever!!!

Get the picture? Spying on terrorists is bad... but spying on honest
gun owners is good. After all, this horrific intrusion on the
private lives of all Americans is presumed to be "okay"
because it's
only being used to bash guns, not to go after terrorists and
criminals who are trying to kill us.

As indicated in earlier alerts, this information could include your
medical, psychological, financial, education, employment, traffic,
state tax records and more. We don't even know the full extent of
what could be included because HR 297 -- which can be viewed at
http://thomas.loc.gov by typing in the bill number -- is so
open-ended. It requires states to provide the NICS system with ALL
RECORDS that the Attorney General believes will help the FBI
determine who is and who is not a prohibited person. Certainly, an
anti-gun AG like Janet Reno would want as many types of records in
the system as possible.

The provision that would probably lead to the greatest number of
'fishing expeditions' is that related to illegal aliens. Federal law
prohibits illegal aliens from owning guns. The bill requires all
"relevant" data related to who is in this country illegally. But
what records pertaining to illegal aliens from the states would be
relevant? Perhaps a better question would be, what records are not
relevant?

ACTION:

1. Please take a moment to communicate your opposition to HR 297 --
even if you already sent your Representative a note earlier this
week. We have provided a new letter (below) which provides updated
information relating to the battle we are fighting.

House leaders are talking about bringing up this bill soon. And Sen.
Schumer (in his interview with O'Reilly) even hinted at the fact that
the bill could come up WITHOUT the ability to offer pro-gun
amendments -- such as a repeal of the DC gun ban or reciprocity for
concealed carry holders -- provisions that could potentially serve as
killer amendments.

Also -- oh yeah, this is going to upset you -- Senator Schumer told
O'Reilly, "I got to tell you, a lot of NRA people, they support
this." Can you believe that? Senator Schumer is claiming to speak
for you! That's why it's so important that you once again tell your
congressman that Schumer is wrong... that you're a supporter of gun
rights who OPPOSES the anti-gun McCarthy-Dingell bill.

2. Please circulate this e-mail and forward it to as many gun owners
as you can.

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your
Representative the pre-written e-mail message below. And, you can
call your Representative toll-free at 1-877-762-8762.
MrBi11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 10:59 PM   #24
mudd_jumper
Senior Member
 
mudd_jumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-20-05
Location: Sterling Heights,MI
Posts: 5,112
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris1044 View Post
So what do we do about six shooters if we can't have 5 round clips?? Are double action revolvers considered "assault weapons" by this bill as well?
They are not considered readily re loadable. But I know people that can reload as fast as I can with my semi auto.

Now what is the definition of a assault rifle?
websters
Quote:
Main Entry: assault rifle
Function: noun
: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
well they use everything including pistols. So are they next. They use .308 for snipers and the is one of the most popular deer rifle round so then would that be an assault rifle? As stated many time give an inch take a mile. This is a very slippery slope.
mudd_jumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 11:29 AM   #25
chris1044
Senior Member
 
chris1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Lost in the mitten!
Posts: 2,011
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mudd_jumper View Post
As stated many time give an inch take a mile. This is a very slippery slope.
I agree - it's sad that people just jump on the "ban all gun's" band wagon - hell, form any type of opinion on any issue - without becoming educated about it.
chris1044 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 05:41 PM   #26
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,836
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Interestingly enough, most of the definition of "assault weapons" is based on appearance - not function.

A Remington 7400 with a wood stock - not an "assault weapon". But the same gun with a composite stock and matte finish = "assualt weapon".

If I hit someone with a hammer, doesn't that make the hammer an "assault weapon"?

It's also worth noting that (outisde of TV shows & movies) "assault weapons" are not often used in crimes.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 06:18 PM   #27
mudd_jumper
Senior Member
 
mudd_jumper's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-20-05
Location: Sterling Heights,MI
Posts: 5,112
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
Interestingly enough, most of the definition of "assault weapons" is based on appearance - not function.

A Remington 7400 with a wood stock - not an "assault weapon". But the same gun with a composite stock and matte finish = "assualt weapon".

If I hit someone with a hammer, doesn't that make the hammer an "assault weapon"?

It's also worth noting that (outisde of TV shows & movies) "assault weapons" are not often used in crimes.
the hammer would be if you can hold more then five at once

Yes the do not use these "assault wepons" in many crimes and we already have laws that make it illegal for them to use them in said situations. Also laws governing criminals owning them. So why do we not just enforce the laws we have. That would be a great place to start...
mudd_jumper is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Cracker Enterprises - Powered by Linux
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=
Page generated in 0.19021 seconds with 26 queries