DaVinci

And You are claiming that in a fight you may not have enough time to strike or hit a guy, but you may have enough time to pull a gun correctly? I say no. You are trying to say that years of martial arts training and you may not react fast enough, but a day of shooting training and you will react fast enough? Again, no. This is one problem with firearms. People think that just having it is enough.... It might be, but more likely it will not be. I take people out to tactical shoots all the time. They are amazed at how much more difficult it is than the movies make it look. Add in the stress of a guy trying to kill you.... And it is worse.

So a gun *causes* violence????? Total crap.

Pic one is a regulated weapon by the National Firearms Act of 1934. It is because it has a stock and a barrel that is less than 16" (looks to be about 7.5). Pic number two is a pistol and perfectly legal. To get weapon #1 you have to live in a state that allows SBR's. Then you have to register it on a form 4 (ATF form 5320.4), or make it on a form 1. You have to submit the form 1/4 (Two original copies) to the local Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the district that you live. He has to sign both. Then you have to send it in to the ATF&E with a check for 200 dollars, a citizenship form, two original form 1/4's, and two fingerprint cards and wait 4-6 months. Once you own the weapon you have to ask permission from the ATF to take it out of State and YOU have to be in possession of the weapon. You can't loan it to a buddy. To own weapon #2, you have to live in a State that allows pistols.

Well, your explanations are just wrong. Pointing that out is 'tightening up the argument' If you claim something that is false, then showing that serves the purpose of: 1. Education to those that are willing to learn. 2. Shutting down false information. If you are unwilling to learn, or unwilling to admit you were not correct.... That is not my fault.

Not really.... You know that at one point England had the right to keep and bear arms right? The fact that that registration has lead to confiscation should serve as a warning that it can happen again. The fact that it HAS happened in the US should be quite a wake up call. All in all , I can't think of a SINGLE good reason to register a firearm... It is not like criminals are going to do it. Oh people tried..... They just failed. It is a real shame that civil liberties can be voted and legislated away. You lost me here.... Can you please expand?

Yes, and a smart gun owner would not leave a loaded gun lying around. But you don't blame the pool and you should not blame the gun like Kallend is doing.

Irrelevant. The fact is that even folded or collapsed it is next to impossible to conceal a rifle. And the lack of data to back up your position is proof. FALSE. The M14 is harder to control, but due to the size of the round, not the pistol grip. I have shot an AR with a pistol grip and with a thumb hole stock.... There was no difference. False again. A barrel shroud is going to burn your hand as well. Ever shot a full auto weapon? Ever shot a full auto weapon with a barrel shroud? I have. Showing proof of your claim is not 'irrelevant'. Otherwise you might as well claim that pixies are going to kill you in your sleep. Nonsense. In fact, most flash suppressors direct the flash FORWARD to protect the shooter from noise and debris. Being that I own several weapons with both suppressors (NFA) and the so called 'flash suppressors' you are talking about... The fact I was military. The fact that I compete in shooting sports. And the fact I have an FFL.... I think I am qualified to state that your version of a flash suppressor is not very good at suppressing anything because it does not have baffles.

Well, for safety we should ban flying large RC models since the FAA and DHS thinks they might be used as terrorist weapons. Maybe we should also ban large model rocket motors since they could be used to kill as well. Maybe we should ban citizens from being allowed to fly private airplanes since they HAVE been used in attacks. These are three areas you are against since you think they interfere with YOUR life. But you are fine stepping on others rights when you want. But the fact is that guns are protected by the 2nd and toy planes, rockets and private planes are not.

1. It is already illegal to leave a gun where a minor could find it. 2. Do you also blame the pool when a 3 year old drowns?

Nope, because the criminals are never going to comply. Mexico has strict gun laws... Hows that working out?

1. You need a better example than Germany? 2. how about: * May 1996, Australia banned most semi-automatic rifles and semi-automatic and pump shotguns. Prior to this law, many Australian states and territories had firearms registration. Owners of these newly outlawed firearms were required to surrender them * NYC. A registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns * New Zealand. They had some form of firearms registration since 1921. In 1974, all revolvers lawfully held for personal security were confiscated * California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and declared that any such weapons registered during that period were illegal * Since 1921, all lawfully-owned handguns in Great Britain are registered with the government, so handgun owners have little choice but to surrender their guns in exchange for payment according to government schedule. Need more? You rather face the bad guys with a stick or an AR? Even fewer will stand up if they know they are going to get slaughtered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&list=FL-zHE7n4iIQfFFPlwFODLEw&index=12&feature=plpp_video Be sure to watch around the 5 min mark. And watch the 6 min mark. However, he is not actually correct about the full auto not being allowed to citizens in most States. It just takes a lot of paperwork

Good, then you recognize that owning a firearm is a civil liberty issue. If blacks were well armed after the civil war... Fewer of them would have been lynched. The pink pistols have it right (gay gun rights organization) when they say: "Armed gays don't get bashed." Fact is that the 2nd was to protect the little guy from the bigger guy no matter what reason.

Yes, but with it folded it is no better than a pistol. Worse actually. Nonsense. The M14 didn't have a pistol grip. Nope, a barrel shroud just covers the barrel (in most cases to make the barrel longer, or help dissipate heat). It does not even act like a flash compensator. Can you name one case of a criminal using a bayonet? Not really, a flash suppressor can help with muzzle rise but really does not 'suppress' the report or flash. That is the definition of a suppressor (legal term silencer). And those are regulated by the NFA of 1934.

And if you want to talk about suicides.... Canada's rate of gun suicide did go down with strict gun control laws... But the RATE of suicides didn't. Other methods went up. Studies have show that suicides are not actually reduced by gun laws. Only suicide by gun. And removing suicide the number of gun deaths drops in half.

Sounds like crap to me. The 5th should cover this in my non-lawyer opinion.

Because he knows it is political suicide. He has already stated that he can't get it done and is working 'under the radar'. You really can't blame people for listening to Obamas claims and looking at his track record.

Registration has lead to confiscation. And I seriously doubt the founding fathers would have thought that registration would be a good idea. Remember they wanted the 2nd to be able to fight against a rogue government..... Hard to do when they govt knows what you have.

The same time when a person supports a Obama just because he is black. So I guess it is ok to call a person a racist when they allow race to be a factor..... No matter what race they are and what race they are trying to slam or benefit.

Yes, and in fact he has already done it. Romney has a worse record on the 2nd than Obama..... And that is a pretty amazing feat. But BOTH have made anti 2nd comments, BOTH have voted against the 2nd, and BOTH claim to support the 2nd. I trust neither of them.... In truth, I trust Romney less. I KNOW what Obama wants and know he just is unable to do it. Romney still claims that his AWB was pro-gun in some way.

My point is pretty clear, sorry you're unable to understand it. Obama would love to follow up on his past actions and comments to ban handguns and semi auto rifles.... But he knows that it is political suicide. But, he HAS voted to ban them and he HAS said he wants to ban them. So claiming that he has and wants to is 100% valid as opposed to your false claims he does not just because he has not. Your position is just out of some imaginary land of make believe and just ignores your candidates past performance and statements.

Mnealtx brought data, you have brought opinions and insults. I lived in TX under Perry and my house went UP in value during this crash.

He has claimed that he does care 1. Opposed bill okaying gun use in home invasions in IL. 2. Fact check said this was all true on a survey sent to Obama: 35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. 3. OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004 Lets not forget on February 25, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder declared, "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons." The fact is that he knows that it would be a political blow going into the next election. And Heller didn't help his case. But there are two separate questions: 1. Would Obama (or Romney) ban semi auto rifles if they would not face political ramifications? 2. Do they want to ban them enough to face the consequences of that action? I think the answer to #1 is yes and #2 is no. Obama's statements and past voting record supports my conclusion.

Romney is actually WORSE on the 2nd than Obama. He has banned guns. But you don't think that if Obama (or Romney for that matter) could ban handguns or semi auto weapons with no political fallout that they would not do it?

Well, I think personally that the 2nd Amendment spells it out clearly. The Fed Govt has no right to regulate firearms and since it has been incorporated, the States also do not have the right. A citizen should be allowed to have the same type of weapon that the military is issued. My comment about the police off duty not being allowed to own something special is along the lines of police should not be treated as special members of society. They should not be allowed to run red lights of duty either. ALL LAWS that apply to an average citizen should also apply to an off duty officer.