If I remember correctly from 7th grade, performing a study or experiment to prove something rather than discover something is "bad science". Nevermind the fact that guns aren't a "disease" and therefore shouldn't be a topic of study for the "Center for Disease Control" anyway. Maybe they should study spilled liquids; in the US more people slip, fall, and die as a result of spilled liquids than are killed with guns in the US every year

The liberal media has always touted the 50+% gun/murder ratio as a reason for gun control, but it's truly a misuse of facts. Anyone who's worked law enforcement knows that most "murders" are committed with blunt objects by men, and sharp objects by women. Unfortunately we live in a system where those people can easily plead off to Voluntary Manslaughter, or even Involuntary if they claim they "didn't know the baseball bat would kill him". The only reason Murder 1 has such a high percentage of gun crimes is that while you can grab the nearest object and hit someone then take a plea bargain, it's pretty hard to disprove that you bought an illegal firearm WITHOUT the intent to kill someone.

Call me old fashioned, but I love the constitution and would no sooner give up my right to bear arms than I would my right to freedom of speech, my right against illegal search and seizure, or my right to a fair trial. Unfortunately our freedom of speech, while incredible compared to a lot of the world, is slowly dissapearing due (in my opinion) to "hurt feelings" and childishness on the parts of very small but outspoken groups.


It's been said before and it'll be said again, because it makes sense: if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them.

Thats one of the things about the current adm , from the begining they have been saying they don't care about gun laws , ownership , ect , now they open the back door to try to say they are a health issue , well that issue can be taken care of with a little more range time by law abiding gun owners , ; hit what you shoot at , kill what you hit
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Cali has passed a law for fingerprinting buyers of ammo , so look for border state sales to go up if you can even find it

Remember boys & girls , Registration is the first step on the way to confiscation

Who really cares about the CDC researching alcohol, teen crimes, etc committed with guns? They are collected statistics and doing studies - they aren't trying to pry anything from your cold dead hands here.

Anyway, considering this is an editorial from the Washington Times I sincerely doubt the credibility of any of their (unattributed) assertions.

Yet
And they won't as I don't own any guns , except a old side hammer blackpowder gun

one of the things about poiticans ( R or D ) is if an issue will get folks dander up ( especially if they are armed ) they allways try to scoot it through a back door , tac it on to a bill about something everyone likes

and i'm not saying I believe ANYTHING I see in print , the only news I watch is BBC , if it's REALLY important i'll se it here

Beat me to it. This might as well have come out of Glenn Beck's mouth.

Bite your tongue...Glenn is the man!!!

My how uninformed you are. Our 2nd amendment rights are under attack from all sides of this administration. Read up. First they take away 2nd , they are working on taking the 1st, 14th, and many more. Move to Cuba if you like communism better than freedom. Join the NRA if you want this crap stopped.

Yea...like watching ABC, NBC, or the like will get you the truth This guy speaks the truth...whether you like him or not. He has the balls to stand up for YOUR rights...who else is doing that? Chicago will welcome BHO back with open arms in 2012. He has done a great job there.

At least he speaks from his heart and not a forked tongue.

My, how gullible you are.

How about you name a single policy action this administration has taken to curtail gun ownership? In fact, Obama signed a bill allowing gun owners to carry their firearms into national parks. This from an administration hell bent (according to the wacky right) on banning them.

Tuna, he's obviously a fan of the con artist.

Ban him on principal.

Bite your tongue. You say you trust ABC? Here's ABC.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1#



The administration has decided to try to re-up Clintons rediculous assault weapons ban... Guess what, fully automatic weapons ARE illegal for good reason, but "assault weapons" as termed by Prez. Clinton are perfect for hunting and self defense alike. Arbitrary decisions were made by non-experts and people unfamiliar with firearms, and those choices ruled the lives of shooters up until the early 2000s.


Pistol grips can be more comfortable to some people on rifles, muzzle breaks (some of which have been deemed "flash suppressors" even though they don't suppress flash) and porting improve accuracy and reduce kick, folding stocks make rifles easier to transport and more comfortable to sling over a shoulder.


These things were designed for being useful; the fact that the military used them was merely a testament to their usability. Of course the military would be innovators in firearms; most of the innovations in the technology have come about surrounding wars, when more people are making firearms to meet the demand.


Is it reasonable to make a pistol illegal because it's too heavy? Or because the magazine isn't in the grip, but in front of or behind it? Or how about making a shotgun with a fixed capacity 3 round magazine illegal, but allowing one with a fixed capacity under lug of 5 rounds? How about making a semi automatic weapon illegal because it was based off a full auto one (even though it can in no way be modified to fully automatic?).


I keep guns for hunting, for target shooting, and for personal and home defense (in the case that it would be needed). The constitution allows it, and the supreme court has time and again stated that the right to bear arms exists in and out of a militia, and for any legal purpose such as hunting or defense. When I hunt I generally use a shotgun with a 3 round capacity or a rifle with a 5 round capacity, that is for the daytime when I have a clear shot at a single target. For home defense, under the stressess of the situation, possibly in the dark of night, or when being attacked, I would not want to be limited to an unweildy low capacity long-gun. I want a comfortable firearm with a decent capacity and good stopping power that might actually help me in the situation.


"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

Supreme Court, District of Columbia v Heller 2008

Too bad they will be empty firearms eventually.

California AB962
"The Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection Act of 2009"

I forget the details, I even think there is a thread here somewhere, but one thing is they stopped the re-sale of spent brass used by the military back to the ammo companies. Pretty much a blatant move to drastically increase the price of ammunition.

I am a fan of the system that we here in australia have to follow. In order to own firearms you have to have a licence to. Meaning you have gone and done a firearm safety and awareness course at your local sporting shooters club. I liken this to having a drivers licence, getting taught good habbits in a professional environment by a trained and accredited assessor. this is also backed up by checking a persons criminal history, hence ruling people who have been convicted of violent crimes from possessing firearms. I am all for firearm ownership, but there needs to be guidelines, which for me is licensing and the registration of all firearms.

Our laws are very strict in comparison to the states and this was in direct response to a tragedy that accorded here in the mid 90's. Australia does not stop you from owning firearms if you want to, but there are rules and guidelines that you must follow.

do not take what i am saying in any way shape or form that i feel you guys require restrictions on what you can own, but i do feel you should be all licenced and forced to register your firearms.

(if this is already the case then disregard my post)

Yeah that was scary but we fixed that one. You can go buy a 55 gallon drum of 50bmg brass for $1300 again.

EDIT: I like my Category R/E weapons and Having calibers over 38 for more than approved competitions... Like possibly shooting at criminals that dont care about breaking the law having illegal guns and using them against me.

“Armed Bank Robber: hey, maybe we shouldn’t hold up the bank with this full auto AK47 because its illegal to have one. Where is my firearm license and competition registered S&W 38?”

I ask for an actual policy implemented by the administration and get something vague about old brass (no offense BigE), someone wants me banned and a story about something the AG has already backed off of. This is all you got guys? Tell me the NRA/Right have something more to offer on this matter. All I hear is fear.

FYI - I own a firearm for self defense and I am not in the least worried by all the fearmongering I am hearing out of the rightist media.

nuff said

I fee safer here with out a firearm

and it also seems these figures were taken before our strict laws came in. Dont make jokes at em about self defence when per capita more deaths happen as a direct result of firearms in your country. i tried to be adult and pass a non judgemental opinion, but as it seems your thought process is dictated by bright flashes and loud bangs.

I apologize by no means did I mean any offense. If that is truly the case I applaud your society as our country has not gotten that far. However I would be curious to see the post implementation statistics as well.

I work in the firearms industry… and would go so far as to say my views are shared by most of my colleagues in this country.
My work www.dillonprecision.com

I felt at the time that the strictness of law was over the top and a rash reaction to tragedy by our government at the time. However i do stand by the stronger implementation of training and suitability for firearm owners.

as you requested i found data post implementation. not that in 1996 35 of the homicides where from one indecent, thus causing our now strict firearm laws.

now this is a reputable source, definitely more reliable the wikipedia. as it shows there is not a sharp decline in firearm related death since implementation of our stricter laws. But social awareness could be a determining factor in the steady decline in firearm related deaths both pre and post 1996

http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/bri...deaths_2005.pdf

(by the way sorry for sort of hi jacking this thread )

I do have a license. Federal Firearms ID Card. All criminal and mental health records check required to get one. Screw up and they take your guns. What else do they want? Bring it on.

it's not the registered gun owner, it's the illegal. but, none-the-less, the government knows what it's doing. it's by complexing the confusion of process, that allows the government grow..... what a garden....

They are going after the ammunition supply. Plain and simple. The gun really wont do you much good if you have nothing to fire from it.Here is an example of what is happening in CA.

I see. So nothings actually been done at the national level.

Has the Obama administration provided a bill to the house or any concrete indication they support this measure?

"They" is a pretty broad brush don't you think?

"In fact, Obama signed a bill allowing gun owners to carry their firearms into national parks."

And he is also in favor of prosecuting thos who use handguns in self defense.

So if you save your a$$ from a armed burglar your own house, you should deff. go to jail.

I think you got spun pretty good on that one buddy...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-...gets_obama.html

You take "factcheck" as reliable? It's got an enormous amount of spin involved...

**Here's an ever so slightly biased, but interesting report on your "fact check" attack on the NRA. You'll note it is from a strong supporter (at least until recently) of Fact Check and its parent groups... This, in fact, is what changed their mind. In short, the "good" FactCheck report is based on campaign reports from 2007, not actions as president in 2009.


Either way, he said PROSECUTE not BAN... Your post doesn't address that.

Nevermind the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder has stated several times that President Obama and he have met about the assault weapon ban and several ammunition bans... That would include "armor piercing ammunition" as they've termed it, which somehow includes many jacketed pistol and rifle rounds that are designed for hunting and home defense, not military use and certainly not the piercing of armor. Should we ban steak knives? They make great weapons. Cars are even more efficient killing machines? Should we get rid of them?

Obama wants to protect HUNTERS... Well guess what, the amendment isn't the right to bear arms while hunting, it's the right to bear arms with the SPECIFIC example of forming and maintaining a militia which has been interpreted by the supreme court over and over to imply defense and, well, being armed for no reason other than a whim.

nevermind