I won't engage with you at all. You lost me with your "anointed one" crap at the beginning.
I think that is crap. On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Bruce Sorge <sor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So Biden said that the anointed one might enact executive action and > tighten gun control in the U.S. This means no vote in Congress. The AG is > trying to figure out the details of whether or not this can be done, and if > so how to legally go about doing it. And the chosen one is also endorsing a > renewal of the assault weapons ban, improving background checks as well as > restricting the size of high capacity magazines. > > What I find interesting is that he would consider executive action. I > mean, almost 50% of American's own weapons (according to 2010 data from > http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). I imagine that the number is a > little higher now. That's a LOT of potentially pissed off people if this > happens. > > What I also find interesting is that he wants to ban military assault > weapons which is silly since according to another study ( > http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html) assault weapons account > for a mere .20% of all violent crimes that involved a gun. To be honest I > don't know what good will come out of an assault weapons ban. I mean, guys > like Tim and I can clear a room just as easily with a Remington .223 Ranch > as we can with an M-4 or M-16. And they fire the same caliber of round. > It's silly to assume that just because Bushmaster .223 rifles were used in > the Washington DC shootings and Newton, that banning these weapons will > stop shootings. What if the shooter in Newton could not get his hands on > this type of a weapon? What if his mother only had lets say a 30.06? I > would imagine that he would have used that one instead. Of course we won't > ever know for sure. > > And of course let's look at a great example of how gun bans/control DON'T > work - Chicago. I do not need to go into all the details since pro-gun > activists are all over this and there are countless stories about this on > the interwebs. And let's not forget Washington D.C. The murder rate there > fell 25% once the gun ban was lifted according to the Washington Times back > in 2010. Oh, and it rose up considerably when the gun ban was enacted. > > I am all for tighter background checks (meaning more thorough). This is > not an issue for law abiding citizens who are allowed to own a weapon. What > I also think should be done is to take a look at the silliness of some of > the restrictions that are in place to allow people to own a firearm who are > in particular situations such as Tim's (apologies if I spoke out of line > Tim). But, I feel that regardless of what laws may come, guns are here to > stay and banning certain weapons and tightening control will not help since > criminals have always found a way to get a gun the same as they were able > to get booze and make millions of dollars during prohibition. And besides, > no criminal ever saw a sign stating that an area was a gun free zone and > decided to move on to where there were guns. When is the last time you read > about a mass shooting at a gun show or firing range? > > And speaking of making certain weapons illegal, I am sure cocaine, meth, > acid, certain mushrooms, ecstasy and the like are still illegal, but yet > tons of the stuff end up across our borders. Making something illegal will > not make it go away. > > The study done on justfacts.com is interesting, especially the part where > it shows how many citizens (not law enforcement and the like) successfully > defended themselves and/or their property with a weapon. I just wish the > prez and others behind him would stop with the knee jerk reactions and > starting talking about things more important, like what's going to happen > to administration officials who are responsible for four American's dying > senselessly four months ago. Or actually passing a budget. Or stop > defunding the military and systematically dismantling it as is always the > case post war. Or reducing our national debt. Or taking care of domestic > issues. LIttle things like that. > > These are just my thoughts. Let the debating and name calling begin. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359820 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
