Obama is fed up with gun violence too, now deal with him
#1
Now boisterous forum gun nuts have a new target to deal with, it's not just us: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/...shape?lite

[Image: 121218-obama-4x3.photoblog600.jpg]

Excerpt: "President Barack Obama would actively support an impending proposal next year to reinstate a ban on assault weapons as part of the wide-ranging effort the president promised to initiate in response to mass shooting incidents this year.

The contours of Obama’s plan to address mounting gun violence begun to take shape in the nation’s capital as the White House started to outline some of the specific measures the administration would favor as part of its new initiative.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Obama supports the thrust of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's forthcoming legislation to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004. Carney said that the president was additionally willing to consider limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and closing a loophole allowing individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without a background check..."
Reply
#2
(12-18-2012, 01:42 PM)PonderThis Wrote: Now boisterous forum gun nuts have a new target to deal with, it's not just us: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/...shape?lite

[Image: 121218-obama-4x3.photoblog600.jpg]

Excerpt: "President Barack Obama would actively support an impending proposal next year to reinstate a ban on assault weapons as part of the wide-ranging effort the president promised to initiate in response to mass shooting incidents this year.

The contours of Obama’s plan to address mounting gun violence begun to take shape in the nation’s capital as the White House started to outline some of the specific measures the administration would favor as part of its new initiative.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that Obama supports the thrust of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein's forthcoming legislation to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004. Carney said that the president was additionally willing to consider limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines and closing a loophole allowing individuals to purchase firearms at gun shows without a background check..."

This is wonderful news, now I can forget about his previous 4 years of broken promises and look forward to the next 4 years; the Social Security and Medicare cuts, the death of public education, lack of manufacturing and jobs, his endless wars and their costs, the militarization of the homeland not to mention the ever increasing wealth of the few and increasing poverty that he is augmenting.
Reply
#3
(12-18-2012, 02:08 PM)Leonard Wrote: This is wonderful news, now I can forget about his previous 4 years of broken promises and look forward to the next 4 years; the Social Security and Medicare cuts, the death of public education, lack of manufacturing and jobs, his endless wars and their costs, the militarization of the homeland not to mention the ever increasing wealth of the few and increasing poverty that he is augmenting.

My God What a freaking whining bitch. Who do you consider it necessary to spew your anti American discontent on every damn thread? You start tons of thread to voice the same complaints. Obsessed much?

Anyway too bad that anyone who simply wants to keep their rights is a nut but someone who thinks we don't need borders, money or to own land is notLaughingLaughing

I don't care if Obama bans assault weapons again like before.
Reply
#4
It didn't stop anything last time, so I can see why some of you guys would support it this time.
Reply
#5
(12-18-2012, 02:27 PM)orygunluvr Wrote: It didn't stop anything last time, so I can see why some of you guys would support it this time.

There were small, but measurable effects, at least during the first few years. I don't know about the rest, because I haven't researched it. But I can provide you with this link, originally posted by Oregon 67.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf



From the conclusion:
Quote:Future directions
Gun control policies, and especially gun bans, are highly controversial crime control measures, and the debates tend to be dominated by anecdotes and emotion rather than empirical findings. In the course of this study, the researchers attempted to develop a logical framework for evaluating gun policies, one that considers the workings of gun markets and the variety of outcomes such policies may have. The findings suggest that the relatively modest gun control measures that are politically feasible in this country may affect gun markets in ways that at least temporarily reduce criminals’ access to the regulated guns, with little impact on lawabiding gun owners.

The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated. This suggests that existing regulations should be complemented by further tests of enforcement tactics that focus on the tiny minorities of gun dealers and owners who are linked to gun violence. These include strategic targeting of problem gun dealers, crackdowns on “hot spots” for gun crime, and strategic crackdowns on perpetrators of gun violence, followed by comprehensive efforts to involve communities in maintaining the safety that these tactics achieve. These techniques are still being refined, and none will ever stop all gun violence. However, with dispassionate analyses of their effects and a willingness to modify tactics in response to evidence, these approaches may well prove more immediately effective, and certainly less controversial, than regulatory approaches alone.
Reply
#6
Interesting.

Quote:You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.


Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.


You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.


In the darkness, you make out two shadows.


One holds something that looks like a crowbar.


When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.


The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.


One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.


As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.


In your country, most guns were outlawed years
before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..


Yours was never registered.


Police arrive and inform you
that the second burglar has died.


They arrest you for First Degree Murder
and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.


When you talk to your attorney, he tells
you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.


"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.


"Only ten-to-twelve years,"
he replies, as if that's nothing.


"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."


The next day, the shooting is the lead
story in the local newspaper.


Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys.


Their friends and relatives can't find
an unkind word to say about them..


Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.


But the next day's headline says it all:


"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."


The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..


As the days wear on, the story takes wings.


The national media picks it up,
then the international media.


The surviving burglar
has become a folk hero.


Your attorney says the thief is preparing
to sue you, and he'll probably win.


The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack
of effort in apprehending the suspects.


After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.


The District Attorney uses this to allege
that you were lying in wait for the burglars.


A few months later, you go to trial.


The charges haven't been reduced,
as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.


When you take the stand, your anger at
the injustice of it all works against you..


Prosecutors paint a picture of you
as a mean, vengeful man.


It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.


The judge sentences you to life in prison.


This case really happened.


On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second.


In April, 2000, he was convicted
and is now serving a life term..


How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?


It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.


This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.
The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..


Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.



Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions.
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland ,
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals.
Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners.
Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few
months later, sealed the fate of the
few sidearms
still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.


Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors
had been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs
who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
had seen most of his collection
trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended,
citizens who owned handguns
were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects,
most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn't were visited by police
and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken
nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?


WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
Reply
#7
(12-19-2012, 07:43 PM)Larry Wrote: Interesting.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.
Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.


Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying,
"We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors
had been robbed numerous times,
and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs
who had no fear of the consequences.
Martin himself, a collector of antiques,
had seen most of his collection
trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended,
citizens who owned handguns
were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects,
most people obeyed the law.
The few who didn't were visited by police
and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken
nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?


WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams
[/quote]
Interesting indeed. I suggest we send this bloody limey back to England.
Morgan is an arrogant imbecile.
Reply
#8
Wonderfully written story, aimed at showing only one side of things, and written as very moving propaganda.. Here's part of the other side:

Quote:The episode began in August 1999 when 16-year-old Fred Barras, and 33-year-old Fearon, broke into Martin's remote, semi-derelict farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.

Martin, who was in the house at the time, opened fire with an illegally-held pump-action shotgun.

Barras was shot in the back and died at the scene, while Fearon was shot in the leg and recovered after treatment in hospital.

Three days later, Martin was taken into police custody and charged with murder and wounding with intent.

Martin distrusted the police and was said to have begun fearing for his life. He slept with his clothes and boots on and reportedly kept his gun primed and ready by his bedside.

When his trial began in April 2000 Martin argued that he had genuinely been acting in self-defence.

But it emerged the pair had been shot as they tried to flee through a window.

Jurors also heard that Martin had a history of gun-related misbehaviour, including firing upon a car six years before - an incident which led to his shotgun certificate being revoked.
Reply
#9
(12-19-2012, 08:04 PM)csrowan Wrote: Wonderfully written story, aimed at showing only one side of things, and written as very moving propaganda.. Here's part of the other side:

Quote:The episode began in August 1999 when 16-year-old Fred Barras, and 33-year-old Fearon, broke into Martin's remote, semi-derelict farmhouse in Emneth Hungate, Norfolk.

Martin, who was in the house at the time, opened fire with an illegally-held pump-action shotgun.

Barras was shot in the back and died at the scene, while Fearon was shot in the leg and recovered after treatment in hospital.

Three days later, Martin was taken into police custody and charged with murder and wounding with intent.

Martin distrusted the police and was said to have begun fearing for his life. He slept with his clothes and boots on and reportedly kept his gun primed and ready by his bedside.

When his trial began in April 2000 Martin argued that he had genuinely been acting in self-defence.

But it emerged the pair had been shot as they tried to flee through a window.

Jurors also heard that Martin had a history of gun-related misbehaviour, including firing upon a car six years before - an incident which led to his shotgun certificate being revoked.

Really? are you saying they were victims, not criminals?
Reply
#10
No. I'm saying two criminals, fleeing the scene, not presenting a threat to life or limb, were shot with a shotgun by a man with mental issues who had his right to own a shotgun revoked due to history of gun-related misbehavior.

He shot the guy in the back, as the guy was fleeing! C'mon.
Reply
#11
If they were shot as they were exiting out the window, yes. That's murder any way you look at it.
Reply
#12
[Image: 598347_570098409686383_1823302752_n.jpg]
Reply
#13
If you know how to keep guns away from all the idiots I'm all ears.
Reply
#14
I'm not sure why folks keep posting on gun control, really.

When people post such dramatic, inflammatory, one-sided stories such as Larry's, there is no desire for discussion...just drama.

No link, even.

Just drama fluff intended to do nothing except make you feel sorry for people who shoot people in the back.

No matter there are a few FACTS missing from the story.

Ugh.
Reply
#15
(12-20-2012, 12:42 PM)Clone Wrote: I'm not sure why folks keep posting on gun control, really.

When people post such dramatic, inflammatory, one-sided stories such as Larry's, there is no desire for discussion...just drama.

No link, even.

Yeah it's similar to many of the pictures you postBig Grin
Reply
#16
(12-20-2012, 12:42 PM)Clone Wrote: I'm not sure why folks keep posting on gun control, really.

When people post such dramatic, inflammatory, one-sided stories such as Larry's, there is no desire for discussion...just drama.

No link, even.

Just drama fluff intended to do nothing except make you feel sorry for people who shoot people in the back.

No matter there are a few FACTS missing from the story.

Ugh.
Did you consider it is due to the topic of the thread? The point he is making is how gun laws given an inch, take a mile. No one notices how slim the salami has been sliced until it is hanging by a thread of its casing. At which point it is gone.
Reply
#17
(12-20-2012, 11:56 AM)PonderThis Wrote: If you know how to keep guns away from all the idiots I'm all ears.

Seems we are doing a good job keeping them away from you.
Reply
#18
[Image: 25041_544326815596540_1259566343_n.jpg]
Reply
#19
What about all those who went to their graves because someone else managed to get a hold of a gun? Is your life worth all of theirs?

This is the part that I don't understand.

Everyone agrees that murder is wrong. Everyone knows that guns make it easier to murder people, and easier to murder multiple people quickly.

And yet, there are law-abiding people out there who actually want to remove the restrictions on guns that we currently have!
Reply
#20
(12-20-2012, 08:39 PM)csrowan Wrote: What about all those who went to their graves because someone else managed to get a hold of a gun? Is your life worth all of theirs?

This is the part that I don't understand.

Everyone agrees that murder is wrong. Everyone knows that guns make it easier to murder people, and easier to murder multiple people quickly.

And yet, there are law-abiding people out there who actually want to remove the restrictions on guns that we currently have!

So how do you propose we unarm the criminals?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)