-
-
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 confiscationComment
-
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.Comment
-
YetOriginally posted by onecaribou
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
Comment
-
Beat me to it. This might as well have come out of Glenn Beck's mouth.Originally posted by onecaribou
AO Mid-Atlantic Meet (planning stages)
Let us know what dates and locations work for you!!Comment
-
-
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.Originally posted by onecaribouComment
-
God....I guess I was probably returning videotapes.Comment
-
Yea...like watching ABC, NBC, or the like will get you the truthOriginally posted by BobTheCow 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.
Comment
-
At least he speaks from his heart and not a forked tongue.Originally posted by SCpoloRickerComment
-
My, how gullible you are.Originally posted by Tunaman
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.Comment
-
Tuna, he's obviously a fan of the con artist.
Ban him on principal.Comment
-
Bite your tongue. You say you trust ABC? Here's ABC.Originally posted by onecaribou
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 2008Comment
-
Too bad they will be empty firearms eventually.
California AB962
"The Anti-Gang Neighborhood Protection Act of 2009"Comment
Comment