quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Im asking for a direct link Bama, to direct information not someone who "thinks it MIGHT" come up.

you mean that you want me to link you to someone who has said we are going to ban all firearms now
or we do this now and in two years we ban another bunch and then another till we have them all?
how stupid do you think these people are?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

because its just that...an opinion.... facts are facts are facts...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html
I never said it was about you did I???




I asked for some substantiating evidence that the "government" is out to band all guns,
stop trying to use different posts to obfuscate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/james-yeager-start-killing-people-obama-gun-policy_n_2448751.html
I never said it was about you did I???



I asked for some substantiating evidence that the "government" is out to band all guns,
stop trying to use different posts to obfuscate.

Oboma when Heller was before the court said that the ban was a "compromise" which protected gun owners rights
WTF

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

make the states put all the info into the background check database
prosecute straw buyers, and by that I mean people who knowingly obtain firearms for people who can't get them legally as an accoplice to any crimes they commit
don't go penalizing innocent people and yes confiscating guns is penalizing (fienstien uses the word forfiet) and we will work with you not against you
add 5-10 years for any violent crime that envoles a gun

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
30 states do not enter the mental health info into the instant backgroud check database this led directly to the Va Tech incident and maybe others this needs to be fixed

And 500,000 guns are stolen each year... FBI estimates.
How many are privately sold that would never hit a background check? How many are gifts?
I agree, our mental health system needs a massive upgrade.
Background checks need to be better maintained.
But they arent all legally obtained using a background check.

And, an increase in restrictions isn't going to stop people from illegally getting guns.

If you dont have semi'sm then at least whatever portion of that 500,000 a year that are semi's wont be stolen each year. No one will be able to make private sales, legally, each year.

Ban all guns and none will be able make private sales legally. Will that change the number of total gun sales? Will all the now-illegal gun sales drop compared to the legal and illegal sales now? I'm going to guess that it would, but only because there are plenty of law-abiding Citizens that will no longer buy guns. There will be more illegal gun sales (simply because all gun sales will be illegal and I don't see all the currently-legal sales ending). But, the people who have no problem committing an illegal activity with a gun will still be able to get a gun. It might take longer, but that just means that their acts will occur later, not that they won't occur at all.

quote:

And, unless I am mistaken... hold on.. let me check.. yes...
The Tucson Police Department also held a gun buyback Tuesday. Police want to destroy the 206 firearms turned in to them. But the National Rifle Association says that would violate Arizona law.
A line of people with guns formed in front of the midtown Tucson police station well before the 9 a.m. starting time for the buyback.
At a command post in the parking lot, officers checked weapons to make sure they hadn't been stolen or used in a crime, and took the guns. The people who turned them in got a $50 Safeway gift card for every gun — money donated by the grocery chain and by private contributors.
Anna Jolivet had four old rifles she didn't want: "They belonged to my husband, and he passed away four years ago, and I haven't had any success in having someone take them off of me since then. So I thought this is a good time to turn them in."
That's exactly what Republican Tucson City Councilman Steve Kozachik expected when he asked the police to do the buyback. What he didn't expect was the response after he announced the event.
"I've been getting threats," Kozachik says. "I've been getting emails. I've been getting phone calls in the office trying to shut this thing down or 'We're going to sue you' or 'Who do you think you are?' "
Todd Rathner, an Arizona lobbyist and a national board member of the NRA, may sue. He has no problem with the gun buyback, but he does have a problem with the fate of the guns once police take possession of them.
"We do believe that it is illegal for them to destroy those guns," he says.
Rathner says Arizona state law forces local governments to sell seized or abandoned property to the highest bidder.
"If property has been abandoned to the police, then they are required by ARS 12-945 to sell it to a federally licensed firearms dealer, and that's exactly what they should do," he says.
That way, Rathner says, the guns can be put back in circulation or given away.
The Tucson city attorney calls that a misreading of the law.
Councilman Kozachik says the guns aren't being abandoned; they're being turned in voluntarily.
"This is about giving somebody the chance to say, 'Look I'm not comfortable having this weapon, here's an opportunity for me to just get rid of it in a proper manner,' " Kozachik says.
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/09/168926749/nra-vows-to-stop-tuscon-from-destroying-guns
Whats the point to this?

I support the NRA filing suit to prevent the destruction. I can't even imagine why you wouldn't agree with me. In the end, I can't see the NRA winning, but I can see the matter of the law being better understood/defined. I do think those guns would be destroyed - and rightly so - in the end, and there would be a more clear path going forward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
Considering that there are over 200 million firearms in the US public sector and growing, I fail to see where the destruction of the weapons purchased by the police would have even the slightest impact on the number of weapons, to me it just more NRA paranoia.
By the way, Police destory thousand of weapons yearly as they are no longer needed as evidence, no owners, etc.

quote:

I support the NRA filing suit to prevent the destruction. I can't even imagine why you wouldn't agree with me. In the end, I can't see the NRA winning, but I can see the matter of the law being better understood/defined. I do think those guns would be destroyed - and rightly so - in the end, and there would be a more clear path going forward.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

Controling violence by banning "bad" guns is like controling iceburgs by "only" banning what is above the waterline.

And since violence only started with the invention of firearms, it should work out perfectly.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

pre emptive revolt?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

FR,

Interesting stats...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9efqhGBHZI