Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die: Swingers Discussion 2165031092

SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

TOPIC: Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die

GoTo Page: Less ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... More

Start

92 to 101 of 532

End

User Details are only visible to members.	Robert do you know how easy it is to fix the poll results. Both sides do it. You make call in areas that are pro gun then you know what the results will be. If you make calls into anti-gun areas then you know what the results will be. So screw the polls they really mean nothing. One needs to look at the Constitution. One can also read what the writers said about it. Then you can see what they had on their minds. It is not a living document. It was written as is and if they want to change it then let the anti-gun people introduce an amendment to the Bill of rights and have it voted on by the states. That is were you will see who wants what.Not by the polls.
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1457 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Vacp: "Robert you do understand that the people will not go for having the Feds. know what guns they own." Not true. Most polls show that the greater number of the people in the US want the government to k ow who has what weapons and the riffling on record. "All that will do is encourage people to by them illegal. It will put people like Party back in business." "Unlikely as any reputable shooting range will likely want the serial number of your weapon so to keep a log of what weapons you are shooting. More over if you buy said weapons illegally, then you risk being caught and loosing all rights to ownership of any fire arm. "Plus I don't see no criminal running down and telling the Feds. what he owns." While this is true, the actions of criminals ought not be a consideration. It is a fact that as it stands now, most weapons used in crimes are bought by lawful citizens who lose, sell or have the weapon stolen. "People need to step back and really think about it. It will only effect the people that are already doing things the right way.It will NOT take any illegal guns of the street. Go onto DOJ website and see what they have to say about it.You may be surprised to what you find." Protecting your rights to gun ownership isn't always about what will and will not get guns of the street, but what will appease enough of the masses long enough to either prove/disprove your case. Right now you might have the evidence to say that criminals will be criminals... But the last two or three mass shootings were committed by mentally unsound people with access to powerful weapons. The spot light isn't on street gangs and so long as you try to play defense, you will lose. This battle is nearly lost because you don't know how to change tactics. All you do is stand in the spot light and cry "don't take my guns" your spokes men show no signs of working with anyone to curb the means of the next sandyhook killings and you fail epically to put the spot light on hand guns which kill 3x or more children due to street violence.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4810 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Robert you do understand that the people will not go for having the Feds. know what guns they own. All that will do is encourage people to by them illegal. It will put people like Party back in business.Plus I don't see no criminal running down and telling the Feds. what he owns. People need to step back and really think about it. It will only effect the people that are already doing things the right way.It will NOT take any illegal guns of the street. Go onto DOJ website and see what they have to say about it.You may be surprised to what you find.
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1457 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Mark: We wouldn't see him as as insane if he would stop blocking reasonable laws like 100% background checks for all firearm sales. Private or store. Registery of fire arms with the ATF and or FBI. He can for all I care try to block bans, but blocking the government from ensuring that only people of sound mind and clean criminal records have fire arms is is insanity.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4810 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Wayne LaPierre's critics have called him a lot of things in the past few months: A lunatic, crazy, a gun nut. But from his perspective as the executive director of the National Rifle Association, he's the only sane guy in the room. As an outspoken gun-rights lobbyist, LaPierre has faced heavy scrutiny for his defense of firearm ownership in the aftermath of a recent string of mass shootings. Through the NRA, LaPierre has vehemently opposed new proposals in Congress to build a more robust system of background checks on gun sales and curtail ownership of some firearms. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, the day after a Senate panel considering new gun legislation approved an assault weapons ban, LaPierre argued that despite his opponents' criticism, they're the ones out of step with reality, not him. "It's time for us to take a sane look at the insanity that's consumed all too much of the media and the political class in this town. They wag a finger condemning the NRA. They call us crazy," LaPierre told the group of conservative activists, before reciting one-by-one the list of the NRA's gun safety, training and education programs. "Each year we teach millions of law-abiding people how to use, store and defend themselves with firearms. We've been training America's military and law enforcement officers since NRA's founding in 1871. And they call us crazy?" He added, "I'm still standing, unapologetic and unflinching. They can call me crazy or anything else they want." LaPierre went on to list some of the ideas that have been proposed in defense of imposing gun restrictions. Use scissors to defend against an office gunman, he said the Department of Homeland Security advises, an idea LaPierre called "shear madness." (Get it?) Also, he noted, the vice president says women should fire a shotgun in the air to spook would-be attackers. "Have they lost their minds?" LaPierre asked. And, he said, congressional Democrats have proposed requiring universal background checks, even for private sales. LaPierre, right on cue: "Are they insane?" He added, "It's as if insanity itself has been sequestered in Washington. They call me crazy, and yet the people doing the finger-pointing are saying things that are absolutely bizarre."
Tulare CA			Username hidden (1881 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Vacp: "I am sure he has gone through a lot. But to make false statements only hurts what he is trying to do. He needs to be honest and tell the story the right way. Not lie about never using one or owning one. " Where is he being dishonest? He and his wife were more open to gun rights than most democrats.... Until he suffered the result of gun violence at the hands of a mentally unstable person. This is why the right ought to be on top of demanding checks, demanding mental health evaluations, demanding that gun owners not store their weapons in homes of mentally ill persons or be responsible to ensure that their weapons are locked away so tightly that mentally ill family cannot reasonably (Gun/weapon safes) obtain them. "Why would you need a sniper rifle for 50-75 meter. I shoot deer with an old Winchester 30-30 at 100-125 yards with open sights. When I hunt the fields shots range from 150-300-yards I use my 300 Win.mag with a Nikon 3x9 on top. I also hunt with a .44 mag revolver open sights and have knocked deer down at 50-75 yards." Because I am a bad shot. Thus my favoritism for Area of effect weapons. Really I was talking about the iron sight version of the spring field. If I can't shoot an M-16 well enough for my liking 45/50, then I most assuredly won't be any better with a scoped rifle. My sergeant couldn't figure out what I was doing wrong. He said my breathing was perfect, my stance better than most who shot better. So we chocked it up to my depth perception issues. (Sadly issues the military knew about before I entered the military... and won't accept that they might have made it worst.) Either way, I don't need to shoot at distances to protect myself. Enter my home, my knife collection and the blind 90 to 170 degree turns will be my defense. (my house is both sides of a half double, opened into a single home.)
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4810 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	"Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented. 1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact. 2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime." We can compare this to the statistics in cities that have enacted gun bans to see how when regular people turn in their guns, not only does it not prevent crime - it generates it. Below, we see what happened in Chicago following the notorious hand gun ban that made it nearly impossible to receive a handgun: This same trend can be seen in cities like Washington D.C., and the opposite can be seen in states like Texas which have embraced concealed carry laws. Beyond the conclusion that an assault weapons ban would be ineffective, that law enforcement should focus on a broader range of murders that are much more concerning, and that buybacks are virtually worthless despite being expensive and labor-intensive, the report even went on to break down some very crucial figures regarding how many criminals are acquiring their guns amid gun bans. While citizens are disarmed and forced to use things like bats as home defense weapons, statistics from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have found 47% of guns used in criminal offenses are obtained through a straw purchase, and another 26% are actually stolen property. As a result, extreme background checks also prove to be quite ineffective. The NIJ explains how a 'perfect' background check system "does not address the largest sources (straw purchase and theft), which would most likely become larger if background checks at gun shows and private sellers were addressed." The report reminds us that once again even major branches of the United States government have exposed the real statistics behind so-called 'enhanced' gun control measures, from annual FBI data to this bombshell report from the DOJ that really deflates the argument that firearms need to be taken off the streets to prevent mass crime waves. Perhaps this DOJ report will be a reminder to extreme gun control supporters that such action only suppresses law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and therefore provokes criminals to take advantage of the situation.
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1457 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	By Anthony Gucciardi February 19, 2013 Undermining Obama's 2013 'priority' of extensive gun control throughout the United States following mass shooting events like Sandy Hook, the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) research institution has released an in-depth study on gun control and confiscation that reveals firearms classified as 'assault weapons' are actually not a serious danger at all. In fact, they contribute to a very low number of homicides as has been detailed in the past quite extensively using data from the FBI and different branches within the Department of Justice itself. department of justice gun controlThe DOJ study, which you can read online for yourself, explains how mass shootings (which are classified in the report by homicides of more than 4 individuals) only account for 35 homicides a year - an extremely small figure when compared to the FBI figure of 1,825 deaths from knives and other sharp objects alone. The memo specifies that police officers going after mass shooters are therefore ineffectively utilizing their time, and would be much better off seeking to protect against a wider range of homicides such as the large number committed by hands, clubs, and various other weapons. "...a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides," the report reads. In an interesting statement, the DOJ report even states that gun buybacks do not aid in the fight against crime, as the guns being turned in actually will not statistically be used in crime. After all, why would law-abiding citizens turn in their guns if they were intending to commit a crime? This is why we have see massive increases in crime in cities where guns are banned through extreme legislation. Criminals, of course, do not care what the local law reads, whereas the average citizen will turn in their guns or whatever the law dictates. Subsequently, these citizens will be taken advantage of by the very criminals who know their targets are disarmed. In a statement that challenges the constant call for buybacks following the mass shootings that in total only kill 35 per year on average, the DOJ memo reads:
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1457 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	I am sure he has gone through a lot. But to make false statements only hurts what he is trying to do. He needs to be honest and tell the story the right way. Not lie about never using one or owning one. Why would you need a sniper rifle for 50-75 meter. I shoot deer with an old Winchester 30-30 at 100-125 yards with open sights. When I hunt the fields shots range from 150-300-yards I use my 300 Win.mag with a Nikon 3x9 on top. I also hunt with a .44 mag revolver open sights and have knocked deer down at 50-75 yards.
Berryville VA			Username hidden (1457 post)

User Details are only visible to members.	Vacp: He = her husband? If so he does have a right to be traumatized by the events. He nearly lost his wife and a number of others did lose loved ones. Now what we both can agree on is that they are attacking the wrong weapons with the attack on the AR-15. It is however the symbol of what they want banned, because it does look imposing... and to be honest, it is. That said, if I want to be able to shoot at ranges longer than 50 -75 meters, I will get myself a springfield bolt action or a real sniper rifle. As I am depth perception challenged, I am more partial to AOE weapons. Explosives, rockets, and grenade launchers. Flame based is good too. I don't think many people would want to risk fighting a man with a flame thrower and they are fairly easy to make... sadly. (they are thankfully by nature of using a force of nature, never a safe weapon to use.) This all said. Hand guns and other small weapons are the thing that kill more people, armed or not.
Hazle Township PA			Username hidden (4810 post)

GoTo Page: Less ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ... More

Start

92 to 101 of 532

End

TOPIC: Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die

		HELP
FORUMS: General Discussions: Politics: Assault Weapons Ban Likely To Die