this should cheer gun owers up

[BigEvil]

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.

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.

[lil'Greg]

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)

[MoeMag]

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.

[onecaribou]

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.

[lil'Greg]

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.

[MoeMag]

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.

www.dillonprecision.com

[lil'Greg]

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/briefs/firearm_deaths_2005.pdf

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

[Tunaman]

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)

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.

[Mechanic79]

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....

[BigEvil]

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.

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.

The new law that goes into effect next summer makes these changes in the way you will buy ammunition in California.

1) It will prohibit the sale of ammunition in a way that allows the ammunition to be accessible without the assistance of an employee. It has to be in a case where the customer has no access. You could have to stand in line to see what you are buying..

2) The dealer must ask for identification each time you buy handgun ammunition and the dealer will be required to record personal information including:

a. Your thumb print

b. Your Driver's license number

c. Your home address and telephone number

d. The brand and type of ammunition that you purchased

e. Your birth date

3) It will now be illegal to buy ammunition online or by mail order. Sorry, "Cheaper than Dirt, Sportsman's Guide," and "Ammoman." It may become impossible to buy any ammunition not stocked by dealers.

In addition to crippling taxes, crime, and draconian gun laws, this is one more reason for Californians to move to gun friendlier Nevada or Arizona.

Governor Swartzenegger said in signing the bill, "Although I have previously vetoed legislation similar to this measure, local governments have demonstrated that requiring ammunition vendors to keep records on ammunition sales improves public safety. These records have allowed law enforcement to arrest and prosecute persons who have no business possessing firearms and ammunition: gang members, violent parolees, second and third strikers, and even people previously serving time in state prison for murder."

[onecaribou]

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?

[TeamBob]

"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.

[onecaribou]

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

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

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

[Frizzle Fry]

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

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ets_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.

[maxama10]

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

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...ets_obama.html

nevermind