This anecdote is likely to be true for a hundred million americans, if not more. Those who want to outright restrict gun ownership and ban certain guns don't seem to consider this.
A question for folks that want more gun control. If they ban legally purchased 'assault rifles' and 'high capacity' magazines, should the people that bought them be compensated for giving them up? Go Blazers
There's a buy back program in most proposals I've seen. I don't favor banning any gun that is available already.
I'm disappointed that none of the gun control advocates are responding to what I think are some of the serious problems with gun control. Be that as it may at least, PLEASE STOP TELLING GUN OWNERS THAT NOBODY WANTS TO TAKE THEIR GUNS. The problem is that, because you are willing to give up your rights, it makes me give up my rights. If you insist on puking up the koolaid, please tell me why I should believe you instead of what our leaders have been saying for fucking decades: "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles" Bill Clinton, March 1, 1993 "If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees." President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993 "I feel very strongly about it [the Brady Bill]. I think — I also associate myself with the other remarks of the Attorney General. I think it's the beginning. It's not the end of the process by any means." President Bill Clinton, on the Brady Bill, August 11, 1993 "We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!" New York, Rep Charles Schumer. "We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime." Vermont State Senator Mary Ann Carlson “The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” Janet Reno, 1991 "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993 "What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio "Until we can ban all of them [firearms], then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993 "No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993 "I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." U.S. Senator. Howard Metzenbaum, 1994 "Mr. Speaker, I still believe that the best way to control handguns is to ban them outright." U.S. Representitive Cardiss Collins, Democrat from Illinois "You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis, June 16, 1986 (and 1988 Democratic nominee for President) "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of Americans to feel safe." U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, quoted by the Associated Press, November 18, 1993 "In fact, only police, soldiers — and, maybe, licensed target ranges — should have handguns. No one else needs one." Michael Gartner, president of NBC News, in The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1991 "My bill ... establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of all handguns." U.S. Representative Major Owens, Congressional Record, 11/10/93 "These automatic, semiautomatic handguns and assault weapons, they really have no place in our society." Al Gore, Larry King Live, September 17, 1999 So, all you folks that say I shouldn't worry about the government wanting to ban my guns. Why should I believe one word of that nonsense? Go Blazers
I don't know much about gun control, but those quotes are startling. Are there more recent quotes like that?
I agree but you can also take heart in knowing that none if these people are the next Hitler, and I seriously doubt that they are trying to prepare the landscape for the next Hitler. They are just people in power who feel that the best solution is no guns or very restricted guns. There are just as many people in power, if not more, who feel that the best solution is no regulations or less regulations. Just as with most things the answer lies somewhere between the two extremists view points.
I propose it to be illegal to declare you do not own a gun, if you actually own a gun. Then I propose we avoid infringing on the rights of gun owners and allow everyone who doesn't own a gun to register themselves as non-gun owners. If criminals want to start changing their habits, so be it. I'll take the risk.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/0...e-in-obama-administrations-gun-control-plans/ One day after President Barack Obama won re-election, his Administration agreed to a new round of international negotiations to revive a United Nations-sponsored treaty regulating the international sale of conventional arms, which critics fear could affect the Constitutionally protected right of U.S. citizens to purchase and bear firearms. Now, in the wake of the Newtown school massacre and the President’s January 16 promise to “put everything I’ve got” into a sweeping new series of gun control initiatives, the fate of that treaty, which enters a “final” round of negotiations this March, may loom as more important than ever, according to critics, some of whom argue that the U.S. should never have entered the talks in the first place. Their concerns remain, despite the fact that President Obama repeated his support for the Second Amendment and “our strong tradition of gun ownership and the rights of hunters and sportsmen” on January 16. (The subject never came up in his second inaugural address.) U.S. diplomats have declined a Fox News request to discuss, among other things, the direction of the talks, and whether the other 192 countries involved respect that U.S. “red lines” in the negotiations—including the Administration’s assertion that “the Second Amendment to the Constitution must be upheld”—are truly inviolate. The Administration first agreed to take part in the U.N. arms treaty negotiations in 2009—the same year in which it launched the now-notorious Fast and Furious operation, which provided weapons to illicit gun traders, ostensibly to track gun-running operations to Mexican drug cartels. Those negotiations proceeded irregularly, but seemed to founder last July. But then, the U.S. joined a 157-0 vote, with 18 abstentions, of a U.N. General Assembly disarmament committee, on November 7, 2012, —the day after President Barack Obama won his second-term victory--to create the March round of talks. (A State Department official insisted to Fox News that the vote only came after the U.S. elections due to the disruption caused by Hurricane Sandy; otherwise, it would have taken place earlier.) Amid the fog surrounding the treaty process, however, one thing seemed clear: an issue that deeply involves American rights and freedoms is back on the table, linked to the lingering problem of how to keep conventional military weapons out of the hands of terrorists and extremists. The State Department itself, on a web page that also lists its “red line” reservations in the negotiations, calls it a “complex but critical issue.” For many critics, however, the draft version of the treaty is also a mine field of clauses and propositions that mandate a much greater federal role in U.S. gun sales, and potentially tie the U.S. to the gun control agenda of other governments or regimes. “The treaty is drafted as if every nation in the world has centralized control of the arms industry and arms sales, which is not the case here,” said Ted Bromund, a security policy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation who has followed the arms trade treaty process closely, and who believes the U.S. should bail out of the March treaty talks. “We’ve already got an enormous body of statutes and practice on the import, manufacture and export of firearms, the most elaborate in the world,” Bromund told Fox News. “How would we use a treaty that gives enormous discretion to the Administration on the import and export of arms? Essentially, it would give the Administration much more control than it already has.” ... For one thing, notes Bromund, most nations negotiating the treaty—which include Russia, China and Iran—“do not recognize the human right of self-defense” against tyrannical or murderous regimes—the essential basis of the Second Amendment. ... Whether some of the world’s worst human rights violators, who are also arms exporters to even more murderous regimes, would spend much time worrying about such niceties, Bromund indicated, is unlikely. “All these other nations are free to improve their export policies without any kind of treaty at all,” Bromund argues. “They choose not to. What does that tell you about their intentions? “It is profoundly unlikely to restrain really bad actors, or make the less bad improve. It is basically pernicious. Relying on a treaty to stop irresponsible nations from acting irresponsibly is about as sensible as seeking to solve the problem of crime by outlawing it. If the arms trade treaty could work, it would not be necessary.” Moreover, critics point out that the draft version of the treaty contains a number of provisions that would make a bad situation from the U.S. point of view even worse. Among them: --various clauses in the treaty mandate domestic gun control as part of an ostensibly international obligation to end illegal “end use,” creating the possibility of a broad expansion of national regulatory powers. --terms such as the “transfer” of arms under the treaty are undefined, again leading the possibility of broad regulatory expansion—and not merely to adhere to the arms treaty. According to one clause, for example, signatories “shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms within the scope of this Treaty if the transfer would violate its relevant international obligations, under international agreements to which it is a Party”—a clearly open-ended commitment. --another clause bans the transfer of arms to “facilitate” among other things “crimes against humanity”—a phrase now often used, in the highly-charged U.N. environment, for allegations against Israel. The same vagueness applies to terms like “serious violations to international humanitarian law”—a fuzzy body of assertions that no single nation may endorse. --as currently written, the treaty allows its subsequent amendment by a majority of the original parties, meaning that the U.S. could later find it was bound by provisions it had not agreed to. ... “Iran is well respected at the U.N.,” notes Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the National Rifle Association (NRA), who calls the radical Islamic republic a member in good standing of the “club of governments” who pursue international gun control law for their own ends. And most of the killing of civilians in the developing world, he adds, “is done by governments in that club.”
LMAO! and you voted for this shmuck then told me I should move to china if I wanted some form of gun control. How you feel about Obama now buddy?
