obama wants yo gats!

[SW20Racer]

rifles and shotguns would be ok though??

Obama Pushes Bill That Would Mandate Global Tax
Senate to vote on legislation that would cost U.S. $845 billion, also enables UN to implement gun bans

Presidential frontrunner Barack Obama is pushing a bill that will lead to the implementation of a UN global tax, costing the U.S. at least $845 billion dollars over thirteen years in the name of fighting worldwide poverty, as well as banning "small arms and light weapons".

The "Global Poverty Act," which is sponsored by Obama, is up for a Senate vote today, and if passed would mandate the U.S. to spend 0.7 percent of the gross national product on foreign aid, on top of the money being sent out of the country already.

The bill passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members failed to read what was actually in it. The words "global" and "poverty" in the title were presumably enough to convince them that it must be good.

In reality, the bill also "Commits nations to banning "small arms and light weapons" and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child," writes Cliff Kincaid.

"Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.'s "Millennium Project," says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.'s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the "Millennium Development Goals," this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels."

A UN controlled global tax has long been a cherished goal of the elite and they have attempted to piggy-back it on numerous different pretexts, most recently via a global carbon tax on fuel, a move that was advanced at the recent summit in Bali.

During the summit, over one hundred prominent scientists signed a letter dismissing the move as a futile bureaucratic scheme which will diminish prosperity and increase human suffering.

In 2005, former French President Jacques Chirac called for the imposition of a global tax to finance the fight against AIDS.

Perfectly happy with giving Bush carte blanche to continue illegal spying on American citizens with the passage of this week's telecom immunity bill, the Senate seems destined to rubber stamp legislation that would lead to a global carbon tax.

President Bush has overseen the biggest increase in foreign aid since the Marshall Plan and is highly unlikely to veto the bill if it is passed.

Contact the Senate and voice your opposition to this bill. Call the switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and asked to be connected to the office of your Senator.

[FaLKoN240]

Wow, way to lose the votes of a LOT of people.

[exitspeed]

^
Do you believe everything you read online?

I don't know if it's true or not, but I'd rather find out for sure before I jump to conclusions. That article is obviously one sided.

[Koopa Troopa]

Meh, I wasn't planning on voting for him anyways as he says a lot of stupid, hippie shit on TV.

[SW20Racer]

exitspeed, im not one to try and spread lies, i recieved a newsletter in my mail, and shared it here. if someone can prove it false, great! i wont subscribe to that newsletter anymore. however, if its true, and the bill passes, im gonna be pissed.

[revat619]

i hate all politicians.

I do exercise my right to vote, however.

but again, I hate all politicians.

[Yuri]

exitspeed, im not one to try and spread lies, i recieved a newsletter in my mail, and shared it here. if someone can prove it false, great! i wont subscribe to that newsletter anymore. however, if its true, and the bill passes, im gonna be pissed.

You do have to admit that the article is not written in an impartial manner.
I'm so tired of smear campaigns.

It doesn't say that it would apply specifically to the US.
It seems the bill focuses on worldwide poverty,and reducing violence in those areas.

But what do I know, I only own one gun that I haven't shot in 10 years, and wouldn't be affected if the bill turned into an anti-US small arms law.

[exitspeed]

exitspeed, im not one to try and spread lies, i recieved a newsletter in my mail, and shared it here. if someone can prove it false, great! i wont subscribe to that newsletter anymore. however, if its true, and the bill passes, im gonna be pissed.

I wasn't really saying you were.

But because it came from a newsletter doesn't always mean it's 100% accurate or explains things fully.

For instance, the media and many online sources have been reporting of "GM's Record losses". What 99% of them aren't including in their articles is that the losses are past losses that just finally got reported in the 3rd quart of 2007. AND that low and behold GM is actually up by 11% for Jan and they were the only company to have two brands with increases in Jan.

So what I'm saying is things might not always be what they seem, and that article sounds very one sided. The first thing that comes to my mind is WHY would he want something like that? There sounds to be absolutely ZERO benefit of a bill like this. That's not exactly something you'd try to do while your running for the presidency.

I'm just playing devils advocate here if you get what I'm saying.

[bloodangels13]

f that... im not giving up my .45 or my rifles ... o and yes help everyone else with poverty before we fix our own problems at home... retarted

[S14DB]

He is not a co sponsor:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01302:@@@P

Love the french thing...

[SW20Racer]

it's all good, i just dont wanna be labled as some sort of political zealot. so for now, we have speculation, and we shall see what comes of this.

(maybe a mod could change the title of the thread to "obama MIGHT want yo gats!")

[exitspeed]

it's all good, i just dont wanna be labled as some sort of political zealot. so for now, we have speculation, and we shall see what comes of this.

(maybe a mod could change the title of the thread to "obama MIGHT want yo gats!")

That's not really necessary. If anyone believes 100% of what they read online then I have a magic carpet they can buy for $1000.

He is not a co sponsor:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01302:@@@P

Love the french thing...

See, all you need is AJ to do a little digging and BAM.

[Yuri]

That's not really necessary. If anyone believes 100% of what they read online then I have a magic carpet they can buy for $1000.


Hello sirs.
I am vrey intrsted in your MAGIC CARPET for sale.
Is the mileage very high, wat is condition?
I can only send you check for 5 times the amount, please cash chcek and send balance back to me when you get it.

[SW20Racer]

EXITSPEED: Have you looked into this further by chance?

no, just got home from work & spending time with my son while he's awake. once he's asleep ill look into it, but by then someone will probably prove/disprove a whole bunch of stuff. hell, some verbal e-war will probably break out and a few people will end up pinked and my thread will get locked...

edit: nevermind. disregard OP. i just found out this story originated from info-wars.com, the most trustedest news site on the web!

[S14DB]

My Data was wrong that was the House Bill. He did introduce the senate one.
Looks like a BS feel good bill.

But, There is no mention of Cost or Guns in the Bill. Looks like you received a smear email.

The Global Poverty Act:
• Declares it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global
poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the
achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme
global poverty in half by 2015.

• Requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive
strategy to carry out that policy.

• Includes guidelines for what the strategy should include - from aid,
trade, and debt relief, to working with the international community,
businesses and NGOs, to ensuring environmental sustainability.

• Requires that the President’s strategy include specific and
measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and
timetables.

• Requires the President to report back to Congress on progress
made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy.
http://www.borgenproject.org/globalpovertyact.html

Global Poverty Act of 2007 (Introduced in Senate)

S 2433 IS

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 2433

To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 7, 2007

Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. HAGEL, and Ms. CANTWELL) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL

To require the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Global Poverty Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) More than 1,000,000,000 people worldwide live on less than $1 per day, and another 1,600,000,000 people struggle to survive on less than $2 per day, according to the World Bank.

(2) At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, the United States joined more than 180 other countries in committing to work toward goals to improve life for the world's poorest people by 2015.

(3) The year 2007 marks the mid-point to the Millennium Development Goals deadline of 2015.

(4) The United Nations Millennium Development Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.

(5) On March 22, 2002, President George W. Bush stated: `We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. We fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.'.

(6) The 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `[A] world where some live in comfort and plenty, while half of the human race lives on less than $2 per day, is neither just nor stable. Including all of the world's poor in an expanding circle of development and opportunity is a moral imperative and one of the top priorities of U.S. international policy.'.

(7) The 2006 National Security Strategy of the United States notes: `America's national interests and moral values drive us in the same direction: to assist the world's poor citizens and least developed nations and help integrate them into the global economy.'.

(8) The bipartisan Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States recommends: `A comprehensive United States strategy to counter terrorism should include economic policies that encourage development, more open societies, and opportunities for people to improve the lives of their families and enhance prospects for their children.'.

(9) At the summit of the Group of Eight (G-8) nations in July 2005, leaders from all eight participating countries committed to increase aid to Africa from the current $25,000,000,000 annually to $50,000,000,000 by 2010, and to cancel 100 percent of the debt obligations owed to the World Bank, African Development Bank, and International Monetary Fund by 18 of the world's poorest nations.

(10) At the United Nations World Summit in September 2005, the United States joined more than 180 other governments in reiterating their commitment to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

(11) The United States has recognized the need for increased financial and technical assistance to countries burdened by extreme poverty, as well as the need for strengthened economic and trade opportunities for those countries, through significant initiatives in recent years, including the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

(12) In January 2006, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice initiated a restructuring of the United States foreign assistance program, including the creation of a Director of Foreign Assistance, who maintains authority over Department of State and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) foreign assistance funding and programs.

(13) In January 2007, the Department of State's Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance added poverty reduction as an explicit, central component of the overall goal of United States foreign assistance. The official goal of United States foreign assistance is: `To help build and sustain democratic, well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty and conduct themselves responsibly in the international system.'.

(14) Economic growth and poverty reduction are more successful in countries that invest in the people, rule justly, and promote economic freedom. These principles have become the core of several development programs of the United States Government, such as the Millennium Challenge Account.

SEC. 3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT TO DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY.

(a) Strategy- The President, acting through the Secretary of State, and in consultation with the heads of other appropriate departments and agencies of the United States Government, international organizations, international financial institutions, the governments of developing and developed countries, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, and other appropriate entities, shall develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

(b) Content- The strategy required by subsection (a) shall include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives described in subsection (a).

(c) Components- The strategy required by subsection (a) should include the following components:

(1) Continued investment or involvement in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7601 et seq.), the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (19 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).

(2) Improving the effectiveness of development assistance and making available additional overall United States assistance levels as appropriate.

(3) Enhancing and expanding debt relief as appropriate.

(4) Leveraging United States trade policy where possible to enhance economic development prospects for developing countries.

(5) Coordinating efforts and working in cooperation with developed and developing countries, international organizations, and international financial institutions.

(6) Mobilizing and leveraging the participation of businesses, United States and international nongovernmental organizations, civil society, and public-private partnerships.

(7) Coordinating the goal of poverty reduction with other development goals, such as combating the spread of preventable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, increasing access to potable water and basic sanitation, reducing hunger and malnutrition, and improving access to and quality of education at all levels regardless of gender.

(8) Integrating principles of sustainable development and entrepreneurship into policies and programs.

(d) Reports-

(1) INITIAL REPORT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the strategy required under subsection (a).

(B) CONTENT- The report required under subparagraph (A) shall include the following elements:

(i) A description of the strategy required under subsection (a).

(ii) An evaluation, to the extent possible, both proportionate and absolute, of the contributions provided by the United States and other national and international actors in achieving the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

(iii) An assessment of the overall progress toward achieving the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.

(2) SUBSEQUENT REPORTS- Not later than December 31, 2012, and December 31, 2015, the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees reports on the status of the implementation of the strategy, progress made in achieving the global poverty reduction objectives described in subsection (a), and any changes to the strategy since the date of the submission of the last report.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--

(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and

(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.

(2) EXTREME GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `extreme global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $1 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(3) GLOBAL POVERTY- The term `global poverty' refers to the conditions in which individuals live on less than $2 per day, adjusted for purchasing power parity in 1993 United States dollars, according to World Bank statistics.

(4) MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS- The term `Millennium Development Goals' means the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2433:

[exitspeed]

Gotta love the internetz.

[steve shadows]

So does McCain

your fucked either way?

HELLO


We need to take over the world. So hand in your guns and join the Army.

[KA24DESOneThree]

The only candidates who are pro-2A are the candidates who either dropped out or have no chance of winning. Hunter and Paul are the only two with spotless records, the others are panderers.

I'm guessing in the next ten or twenty years we're going to see a ban or heavy tax on semiautomatic firearms similar to the National Firearms Act of 1934. I'm sawing out the closed magwell of my AR, installing a bullet button and buying a ton of 10/30 mags just to stick it to the idiots up on Capitol Hill. I'm also going to build another AR, probably a 6.8/5.56, with a heavier 20" barrel and put a dummy can on just because. Maybe a 37mm flare launcher would be a decent addition...

Arm up, and don't let them take your guns. When Heston said "From my cold, dead hands," he was talking for me.

[Omarius Maximus]

In california, there is already a full auto ban correct? I've always wanted an AK-47..

[vodka2]

Vote obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .. really though.. if we chose a woman to lead a country like this.. ew.. im moving lol.

[S14DB]

The only candidates who are pro-2A are the candidates who either dropped out or have no chance of winning. Hunter and Paul are the only two with spotless records, the others are panderers.

I'm guessing in the next ten or twenty years we're going to see a ban or heavy tax on semiautomatic firearms similar to the National Firearms Act of 1934. I'm sawing out the closed magwell of my AR, installing a bullet button and buying a ton of 10/30 mags just to stick it to the idiots up on Capitol Hill. I'm also going to build another AR, probably a 6.8/5.56, with a heavier 20" barrel and put a dummy can on just because. Maybe a 37mm flare launcher would be a decent addition...

Arm up, and don't let them take your guns. When Heston said "From my cold, dead hands," he was talking for me.

I think the current case in front of the supreme court will make it harder to place restrictions on gun ownership. The Miller case has shown them to lead to a broader interpretation of what militia arms are.

[junkyiv]

The whole reason that we have the constitutional right to own firearms is to protect ourselves from the government. That is the truth. So just think of what a politician who wants to take firearms from the people is really trying to achieve. Why is it when a facsist or dictatorial government comes into power that they immediately disarm the public? So there will be little or no power to resist. Our right to bear arms is the only true protection of our freedom.

Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns.:rl:

[ms!3]

Vote obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! .. really though.. if we chose a woman to lead a country like this.. ew.. im moving lol.

lmao, obama and clinton aren't the only people running.

[LB.Motoring]

I have 2 hands.


for two guns.

No Sir I will not set one down to shake your hand.

[jfc3po]

fuck...i just bought a USP 45 a couple months ago....

that and a shit ton of "Zombie Disposing" ammo, as i like to call it...

[LongGrain]

i watched obama speak today, and shook his hand. i'm probably going to vote for him...

big deal if guns get banned, its illegal to shoot people with them anyway....

[airforceone451]

i watched obama speak today, and shook his hand. i'm probably going to vote for him...

big deal if guns get banned, its illegal to shoot people with them anyway....
Civilians don't purchase firearms to shoot people (we hope). There's a certain enjoyment that comes from firing guns, especially at Osama targets, that only someone who's owned and fired a gun can relate to. It's a great way to relieve stress...

[SW20Racer]

big deal if guns get banned

until someone breaks into your home/tries to car jack you/rob you at an atm etc.....

i dont carry my gun with me everywhere, but i do take it with me on long trips (it stays unloaded and i do have a concealed weapon permit). i also keep it on my nightstand et c. but the main reason i even own the .40 is because i like to hunt with a pistol.(.75 cents in bullets can equal over $200 in meat, thats a steal...)

rifles are way to cumbersome for me since i actually stalk. (climbing trees, crossing streams, etc. is commonplace)

and even if the newsletter i got was slanderous/false, it still worries me that there ARE people out there who DO think that way. and like dude said, "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns". i dont know about you guys, but if i cant have an absolute advantage, i like to at least level the playing field...

[PhilthyS13]

I think the current case in front of the supreme court will make it harder to place restrictions on gun ownership. The Miller case has shown them to lead to a broader interpretation of what militia arms are.

There is hope. Parker v. District of Columbia 478 F.3d 370 is before the Supreme Court right now. The DC Circuit Court is not a state, but its cases still apply nationally. This could potentially change everything. I think the SC will hear oral arguments in March.

Here's the gist:
"Appellants, six residents of the District, challenge D.C.Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns (with an exception for retired D.C. police officers); D.C.Code § 22-4504, which prohibits carrying a pistol without a license, insofar as that provision would prevent a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within his or her home; and D.C.Code § 7-2507.02, requiring that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Shelly Parker, Tracey Ambeau, Tom G. Palmer, and George Lyon want to possess handguns in their respective homes for self-defense. Gillian St. Lawrence owns a registered shotgun, but wishes to keep it assembled and unhindered by a trigger lock or similar device. Finally, Dick Heller, who is a District of Columbia special police officer permitted to carry a handgun on duty as a guard at the Federal Judicial Center, wishes to possess one at his home. Heller applied for and was denied a registration certificate to own a handgun. The District, in refusing his request, explicitly relied on D.C.Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4).


Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as “functional firearms,” by which they mean ones that could be “readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary” for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.


Appellants sought declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the court below granted the District's motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Second Amendment, at most, protects an individual's right to “ bear arms for service in the Militia.” (The court did not refer to the word “keep” in the Second Amendment.) And, by “Militia,” the court concluded the Second Amendment referred to an organized military body-such as a National Guard unit."

Here's the promising part:
Miller's definition of the “Militia,” then, offers further support for the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Attempting to draw a line between the ownership and use of “Arms” for private purposes and the ownership and use of “Arms” for militia purposes would have been an extremely silly exercise on the part of the First Congress if indeed the very survival of the militia depended on men who would bring their commonplace, private arms with them to muster. A ban on the use and ownership of weapons for private purposes, if allowed, would undoubtedly have had a deleterious, if not catastrophic, effect on the readiness of the militia for action. We do not see how one could believe that the First Congress, when crafting The second amendment, would have engaged in drawing such a foolish and impractical distinction, and we think the Miller Court recognized as much.


* * * * * *



[3] To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.

[LongGrain]

until someone breaks into your home/tries to car jack you/rob you at an atm etc.....

i dont carry my gun with me everywhere, but i do take it with me on long trips (it stays unloaded and i do have a concealed weapon permit). i also keep it on my nightstand et c. but the main reason i even own the .40 is because i like to hunt with a pistol.(.75 cents in bullets can equal over $200 in meat, thats a steal...)

rifles are way to cumbersome for me since i actually stalk. (climbing trees, crossing streams, etc. is commonplace)

and even if the newsletter i got was slanderous/false, it still worries me that there ARE people out there who DO think that way. and like dude said, "outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns". i dont know about you guys, but if i cant have an absolute advantage, i like to at least level the playing field...

umm, i dont have a gun anywhere NEAR my house even now, so....i guess it wouldnt matter for me, i dont really plan on ever owning a gun.

[Nachtmensch]

never give up your right to own a gun.

give that up, and you give up your freedom.

[PF ALL DAY]

edit: okay, not the public. i'm aiming more at the irresponsible parent/drunken hillbilly. those people of the public don't deserve to own a firearm.

but i still prefer my own body as the perfect self defense. :bash:

[ryguy]

I can't believe you guys would be willing to support a full small arms ban. Why don't you just go ask the government to implant a chip into your arm so that they can track your every move while you're at it. After all, "it's for your protection." The day before a full weapons ban goes into effect is the day I go spend my life savings on guns and ammo.

[SW20Racer]

The day before a full weapons ban goes into effect is the day I report my guns "stolen".

a quick fix for those of us who own a goodly amount of weapony things

[89singlecamnoob]

i agree with taking guns away from the public. there's just way too many idiots in america for me to trust them with any type of weapon.



as for the punks that need a beating. i'll leave it to the good old fashion knucle sandwich to do the talking.

here's the problem with your logic...CRIMINALS GET GUNS ILLEGALLY NOW, AND THEY'LL CONTINUE TO DO IT IN THE FUTURE!...but that's just fine by you, knowing that the thugs will STILL be getting hold of Mac 10's while you're...what? trying to punch them?

good plan

:fawk2:

proud gun owner, and that shit will NEVER change

[Koopa Troopa]

To the guy wanting an AK... You can buy legal AK47's in California but they cannot have the threaded barrel and the pistol grip and they have the low capacity magazine receivers.. Also the assault rifle ban has been lifted and in states that allow it you can own fully automatic weapons.

I haven't been a weapons owner for awhile but I'm not dumb enough to think a weapons ban will stop people from owning illegal firearms. The only thing that bill will do is keep honest people from owning them.

[ESmorz]

Crossbows are way cooler than guns.

[aziankingz]

im not trying to sound racist, but i doubt having obama in office would be a great idea for the country and economy.. i live in new york city and back in the 80s was the worse times..anyone who lived in new york and remembers mayor dinkins would agree..new york city was one of the most dangerous city in the country! the city was a huge playground with crime rates through the roof, which resulted in a poor real estate market in the city..think about it...back then a condo downtown near the seaport was about 70k-90k..currently the same condo is worth over a million!!

[ESmorz]

im not trying to sound racist, but i doubt having obama in office would be a great idea for the country and economy.. i live in new york city and back in the 80s was the worse times..anyone who lived in new york and remembers mayor dinkins would agree..new york city was one of the most dangerous city in the country! the city was a huge playground with crime rates through the roof, which resulted in a poor real estate market in the city..think about it...back then a condo downtown near the seaport was about 70k-90k..currently the same condo is worth over a million!!

Well trying to sound racist or not. That was pretty damn racist. Just because ONE black man held office and fucked up doesn't mean all African American males are unfit leaders.

You're an ass.

[Koopa Troopa]

back then a condo downtown near the seaport was about 70k-90k..currently the same condo is worth over a million!!

That's called inflation..

[SR240DET]

EVERYBODY should have a gun in their household to protect them self’s and their family. Besides, Police are not obligated to protect you anyway, they enforce the law, they are not personal bodyguards.

Federal and State Court Rulings on the Role of Police

Did you know that the police are only a deterrent force and are under no legal obligation to protect you from crime?
Your safety, in fact your very life is in your hands alone. Do not be fooled by gun control advocates stating that the police are there to protect you. This is a dangerous lie.
Can't believe it? Check out these court rulings:

In 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general duty to enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433 (856)].
In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit said: "...there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order." [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1982). See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 471 F.Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)].
In 1983, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals: "In a civilized society, every citizen at least tacitly relies upon the constable for protection from crime. Hence, more than general reliance is needed to require the police to act on behalf of a particular individual. ... Liability is established, therefore, if police have specifically undertaken to protect a particular individual and the individual has specifically relied upon the undertaking.... Absent a special relationship, therefore, the police may not be held liable for failure to protect a particular individual from harm caused by criminal conduct. A special relationship exists if the police employ an individual in aid of law enforcement, but does not exist merely because an individual requests, or a police officer promises to provide protection." [Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983)].
The Court of Appeals of New York ruled: "The amount of protection that may be provided is limited by the resources of the community and by a considered legislative executive decision as to how these resources may be deployed. For the courts to proclaim a new and general duty of protection ... even to those who may be the particular seekers of protection based on specific hazards, could and would inevitably determine how the limited police resources of the community should be allocated and without predictable limits." Dissenting in this ruling, Judge Keating noted: "What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her." [Riss v. City of N.Y., 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].
The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that: "the defendant law enforcement agencies and officers did not owe them any legal duty of care, the breach of which caused their injury and death ...Our law is that in the absence of a special relationship, such as exists when a victim is in custody or the police have promised to protect a particular person, law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect the individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public. In this instance, a special relationship of the type stated did not exist ...Plaintiff's argument that the children's presence required defendants to delay (the) arrest until the children were elsewhere is incompatible with the duty that the law has long placed on law enforcement personnel to make the safety of the public their first concern; for permitting dangerous criminals to go unapprehended lest particular individuals be injured or killed would inevitably and necessarily endanger the public at large, a policy that the law cannot tolerate, much less foster." [Lynch v. N.C.Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E.2nd 247 (N.C.App. 1989)]
The Lesson to be learned from these and other court cases is that only you can prevent someone from killing, raping or robbing you. You cannot rely on the police to do it.

And yet gun control advocates would like to keep you from being able to protect yourself.



i got a mossberg 500 12 gauge loaded with buck shot just incase somebody wants to fuck with my family and my property. I wont let it happen again.

[PF ALL DAY]

here's the problem with your logic...CRIMINALS GET GUNS ILLEGALLY NOW, AND THEY'LL CONTINUE TO DO IT IN THE FUTURE!...but that's just fine by you, knowing that the thugs will STILL be getting hold of Mac 10's while you're...what? trying to punch them?

good plan

:fawk2:

proud gun owner, and that shit will NEVER change
way to be an asshole. i'm just stating my point of view. you don't have to bash on someone just because they don't think like you.

& yes, your right. criminals will always find a way. but when was the last time you actually had to use a gun on another human being? the way i see it, no one should ever have a reason to take anyone's life. anyone who wishes to do so is automatically a criminal themselves. but thats just an opinion coming from a guy who wants to end wars, not start them.

[SimpleSexy180]

i agree with taking guns away from the public. there's just way too many idiots in america for me to trust them with any type of weapon.



that sucks man. thats what makes us weak.

[PF ALL DAY]

that sucks man. thats what makes us weak.
mann, okay fine. lemme rephrase.


WE NEED TO TAKE THE GUNS AWAY FROM THE IDIOTS!

there should be some sort of psych test pre-ownership of a firearm or something.

i honestly don't think i need one, but i'm sure some people have a higher chance of getting mugged or gang raped and probably need one..

[S14DB]

The only thing that bill will do is keep honest people from owning them.
What bill? Did you read the text I posted? :duh:


Are any of you Chicken Littles watching the District of Columbia v. Heller case?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330737,00.html

I haven't seen any legitimate legislation to restrict gun ownership. Post 9/11 most gun stuff has to been to relax bans. No one wanted to refresh the ban "with 'sunset' of the ban on the horizon, assault weapon ban supporter Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) attached a ten-year extension to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban to the Senate's Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. With the Feinstein amendment, the bill was voted down 8-90."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban

[irax]

i don't get it


if EVERY one had guns, what kind of advantage would criminals have?

other than surprise? none!


If some one is going to shoot you, it doesn't matter if they got the gun legally or not. I think it is scary that these anti-gun law idiots spread lies that there isn't even a back round check to get a gun. If some one has a past, then they know where to get them with out paper work. If some one has a record of being mentally unstable they can't get them unless its done illegally anyways.


and omg they played video games!

i want to smack every person that says that is an excuse or that they used it for training or it is some sort of link.

[Koopa Troopa]

What bill? Did you read the text I posted? :duh:


No.. I just skimmed the thread.. All I got from all the reading was gun you can fire with one hand are bad but you can still own a shotgun and rifle...

[KA24DESOneThree]

I think the current case in front of the supreme court will make it harder to place restrictions on gun ownership. The Miller case has shown them to lead to a broader interpretation of what militia arms are.

That quote itself is scary. The Second Amendment says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It guarantees no rights to the militia but every right to the people. IMO, the militia which is referenced is exactly that which we have the right to be armed against.

If guns are banned, it will be like England here. The citizenry will be unarmed and the criminals will not. I don't know about you guys, but if someone brings a knife to fight me, I bring a gun. If someone brings a gun, you can bet your ass I've brought a bigger one with more ammo and better sights.

Does this mean I want to kill, that I'm bloodthirsty? Hell no! The last thing I want to have to do is take another person's life, but I won't hesitate to kill if it prevents them from harming others.

If you want an AK47 in California, I highly recommend checking out CalGuns.net and reading their FAQs. It's fairly easy to have a legal, good-looking AK here. If you don't feel like doing that, send me a PM and I'll hook you up with the information.

Full-auto guns are still tax-only weapons. The National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibits a non-licensed owner from purchasing or assembling full-automatic "machine guns." That did NOT change as a result of the lapsing of the AWB of 1994.

[ericcastro]

JUST LOCK IT

I hate political threads. I can write the same argument from both sides. Its all in how the Journalist wasnt it to come off.

Look around, you will find this argument writen in a light that makes Obama look like a saint.


AND BUSH WAS ANY BETTER ????

[KA24DESOneThree]

This is mostly non-political, as far as Obama discussion goes.

This has become a gun rights thread.

[ryguy]

The shooting at NIU this past week just goes to show that guns should not be banned, in fact, they should be carried by more people. If somebody in that lecture hall besides the nutcase had a gun, only one, maybe two, people would be dead- the first victim and the shooter. Ditto for VT.

[Koopa Troopa]

I have a feeling though if everyone owns a gun the country will turn into Iraq... OMG I hate you, I will shoot all your goats and kill your family.

[S14DB]

That quote itself is scary. The Second Amendment says "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It guarantees no rights to the militia but every right to the people. IMO, the militia which is referenced is exactly that which we have the right to be armed against.

If guns are banned, it will be like England here. The citizenry will be unarmed and the criminals will not. I don't know about you guys, but if someone brings a knife to fight me, I bring a gun. If someone brings a gun, you can bet your ass I've brought a bigger one with more ammo and better sights.

Does this mean I want to kill, that I'm bloodthirsty? Hell no! The last thing I want to have to do is take another person's life, but I won't hesitate to kill if it prevents them from harming others.

If you want an AK47 in California, I highly recommend checking out CalGuns.net and reading their FAQs. It's fairly easy to have a legal, good-looking AK here. If you don't feel like doing that, send me a PM and I'll hook you up with the information.

Full-auto guns are still tax-only weapons. The National Firearms Act of 1934 prohibits a non-licensed owner from purchasing or assembling full-automatic "machine guns." That did NOT change as a result of the lapsing of the AWB of 1994.

You totally misinterpreted/misrepresented what I said. "Militia" weapons are protected by the Second Amendment.

[KA24DESOneThree]

"Militia" weapons are protected by the Second Amendment only if they're owned by the people.

The Second Amendment guarantees NOTHING to the militia. It does, however, guarantee to the people the right to keep and bear arms. This is the biggest difference between the Brady campaign's understanding of 2A and the correct understanding of 2A. There is nothing in the Second Amendment granting any right to the militia to bear arms.