About Guns In America.

[SFC]

MMC, nailed it and I know there are numbers out there showing the vast majority of murders committed with guns are not from the registered owner. No straw man argument Bob, that is fact.  

 

Your population density point is valid, but that is still only a sliver of that overall picture. You can hide from the truth but it is stil there staring at you.

[SFC]

Regardless: My original prediction that you gun grabbers were not going to get your way appears to be accurate.  Even ammo prices are coming back down. bought 100 full brass .223 for 44.95 at Cabelas the other day. 

[phaquetoo]

We have half the problem we had in 1992. Half the gun deaths, let that sink in.  Also and this one is a bit of a hot button issue and one the politicians are to chickenshit to say. The vast majority of the gun deaths are in the Black community. Take that one demographic out of the equation and we look like switzerland.  I am not racist in the least but I want all the facts on the table before anyone starts talking about taking away any rights of mine.

 

 In all fairness, the mass killers are usually mentally messed up white males. But that is a very, very, small number.

 

  I don't know what the answer is, but I blame the vast majority of black on black violence on the war on drugs. Without it, I doubt we would see the crime we do.

 

I have to agree with you sfc! it all comes down to the family unit, but I bet we have as many white moms raising their children alone as we do black moms, but i think the big difference is the white dads that get divorced with kids pay child support and are involved in their kids life more than run away black dads, I can tell you it is not easy raising kids if you have both parents in the home, now put just one and they have to work and get welfare just to barely make it in life, they cant be watching their children as well, and they dont live in nice nieghbor hoods for the most part down in the cities so yea it is mostly blacks killing blacks in the inner city's around the U.S!

 

People like to blame it on our government over what happened during the ollie north days when we let drugs come into L.A to pay for the war in central america that paid for the weapons, but that was only one city, when my mother and father grew up in detroit their were not many black people that owned homes, they had projects for them to live in, the afro americant people moved to city's to find work, just like any normal human being would, but with the way things were back than, No one wanted a black family living next to them, so if one moved into the neighbor hood the for sale signs went up, the houses got sold to black working people and it went well for along time, till what 68 in detroit, than the riots!  that is why most black live in inner citys today, they moved there to get work to pay for their familys, and the whites moved out, they couldnt see that we are all just people, some of us are white, some are yellow some are black and many in between, we need the parents of all races to raise their children to not be racist!  My family was very racist, I did not raise my son that way and im not raising my step kids that way either, we have some black familys that live in our town, and beleive me it took a while for even the people who claim not to be racist to accept it, our kids accepted it before the moms and dads did, I have to say in my house color  or religion doesnt mean anything, every one has the right to practice what ever religion they please, and well people dont have much choice what color they were born!

 

Peace

Jim

[thanks2]

The argument never was no guns=no gun deaths.  The brady bill allowed gun ownership but put restrictions on such things as magazine capacity and restricted assault rifle ownership based on military features of the rifle- pistol grips/bayonet lugs, etc

 

Dr. Bob

The Brady bill only required background checks.  The act you speak of is Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.  

[mrd]

There is a problem that any gun owner can sell to another individual w/o a background check. Gun shows are similar are they not. This becomes a conduit for unregistered guns. 

Gun deaths are soon going to be larger than auto deaths in this country. How many gun deaths are too many? If it is in your family you probably know the answer.

[GregS]

Thanks Jim. The future belongs to the children. I'm touched to see that you enjoy watching them become better people.

[cristinew]

1000s of unregistered guns  in Upper Michigan  People buy sell them on the Radio every day here,,Seems to be no problem  Wasn't this on another thread with the same Opinions,  why another? 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/former-seal-special-message-bloomberg-nra-video-really-155414772.html

 

 

look at the top comments public comments

Edited April 8, 2013 by cristinew

[SFC]

 

Gun deaths are soon going to be larger than auto deaths in this country. How many gun deaths are too many? If it is in your family you probably know the answer.

 

 

Since when did you become clairvoyant? Or is it more like you have run out of facts and just need to make something, anything up, lol

 

BTW, The senate and congress ain't biting..Nanna nanna boo boo, stick your head in doo doo.. 

[thanks2]

A neat map on the positive side of guns.  By no means is this close to being comprehensive.  We have a MMMA member that saved his and his wife's life and he is not on the map.

 

http://gunssavelives.net/incident-map/#

 

The majority of gun deaths are from suicide and gang related violence.  

[Dr. Bob]

A neat map on the positive side of guns.  By no means is this close to being comprehensive.  We have a MMMA member that saved his and his wife's life and he is not on the map.

 

http://gunssavelives.net/incident-map/#

 

The majority of gun deaths are from suicide and gang related violence.  

Cool, and how many dots in the UP on that one?

 

Dr. Bob

[outsideinthecold]

Interesting discussion and for the most part genial; how remarkable.

 

My wife and I have similar discussions on this topic until we decided to disagree and speak no more of it.

 

I'm well over sixty-five and so it will be a few more days before I have to cave in completely.

 

For the record I am of the view that until everyone can agree guns of and by themselves aren't the problem it will be impossible to understand let alone mitigate the underlying causes.

 

The senseless massacre at Newtown has been politicized to the point the whole discussion is more about posturing for political advantage. 

 

Consider the discussion on this forum for instance. Who had equated the gun control efforts with a further expansion of the Federal government authority with a loss of personal freedom.

 

That is my first point. I don't care what restrictions any state, county, of local authority wishes to put in place be it Colorado, Connecticut, California or Chicago care to require. I simply don't believe it is a matter for the Federal Authorities.

 

From practical experience those of us who have benefited from cannabis must know a Federal prohibition is a one-way street.

 

On a personal note, as a drafted infantryman in Vietnam and Cambodia I find it particularly ironic the same government that insisted we (me) carry an M-16 in combat to protect it against the Red Menace and the prospect of falling dominoes wants to ban them.

 

But what do I know. You see, I find it ironic that drunks can massacre an entire kindergarten every ten days on the highways and across country and no one seems to want to ban alcohol.

 

It's not the alcohol any more than the guns. That's my view.

 

But hey, maybe there is a compromise. First, how about medical gun ownership. Anyone who wants to own, buy, sell or possess or use a firearm would need a doctor's evaluation and a suitable license from a state branch like LARA.

 

I'd pass on the caregiver thing but otherwise, if you have the card, you can buy the gun. It's that simple. Don't bother changing anything about the buyer. Just has to have the card.

 

And here's an even better part. Instead of hunting down pot smokers, every TNT type ninja-cop unit could simply be re-deployed into a gun-card enforcement branch.

 

Sigh. Maybe in a different world. Time to get back to finish drinking the colonoscopy prep.

 

Written on a tablet while sitting on the toilet. Life is good. Colonoscopy preps are not.

[SFC]

Thanks for the visual brother, lol.. 

[Sledge]

[Dr. Bob]

Cool, and how many dots in the UP on that one?

 

Dr. Bob

I asked this a while ago, but no one answered.  How many dots in the UP on the 'home defense with a gun' map?  Y'all made a big deal about the lack of dots on the homicide map, implying it was because Yoopers had guns, yet the second map shows no dots either?  Does that support the argument that well armed Yoopers defer homicides or my argument that it is related to the low population density?  Just asking.

 

Dr. Bob

[solabeirtan]

Hoooray for H.I.P.A. ! ,Megan Kelly, aaaaaaaand maybe too, ChillyWilly Clinton for signing it into law...  !

Edited April 14, 2013 by solabeirtan

[Dr. Bob]

Regardless: My original prediction that you gun grabbers were not going to get your way appears to be accurate.  Even ammo prices are coming back down. bought 100 full brass .223 for 44.95 at Cabelas the other day. 

 

I'll tell you what, if you want to have an adult, fact based discussion, let's leave out the 'gun grabber' label for anyone that support reasonable regulation.  You full well know that I am not a gun grabber, I support firearm rights, and we are discussing regulation.  I don't think your labels add any more to the conversation than those of us that actually think through the issues need to stoop to calling those against regulation 'gun nuts'.  I don't think I've ever used that term in here with you, chris, or anyone else on the side against regulation.

 

Dr. Bob

[SFC]

There is no middle ground Bob as far as I can see. You either support the people or the government. 

[solabeirtan]

Who does the most killing ? Who pays for all the bullets ? The middle/common ground seems to be very elusive. Yet very peaceful, perhaps it was just a dream ... ?

[GregS]

How do we counter IEFUKNDs? Aren't the arms we have the right to bear intended to hunt down the likes of the perps in Bawston and their kind?

 

Do the gun enthusiasts put up or shut up?

Edited April 16, 2013 by GregS

[shredder0911]

Well I knew it wouldn't be long after getting here to Mi, and I was correct! Heard what sounded like 2-3 shots on Sun, then watched 7-8 Flint Township LEOs swoop in and take an assault rifle and 2 young neighbors with them after what seemed like hours. Gotta say I am glad they did take it, because all I have is handguns.

[cristinew]

Gun control loses: No expanded background checks

 

Do the gun enthusiasts put up or shut up?  

 

We put up 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-loses-no-expanded-background-checks-225403205--politics.html

Edited April 18, 2013 by cristinew

[1lluminated1]

While we may have one this battle we are losing the war.

Congress passed CISPA and of course everyone is too distracted with Boston to notice.

[1lluminated1]

Actually the battle continues:

 

Biden: 'The President Is Already Lining Up Some Additional Executive Actions' for Guns

2:44 PM, Apr 18, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER

 

Joe Biden says the president of the United States is preparing to take "executive actions" to deal with guns. 

BuzzFeed reports:

Vice President Biden told White House allies in the gun control fight Thursday that President Obama will be announcing new executive actions on gun violence in the days after the Senate voted down a gun violence bill.

On a conference call with "stakeholders," Biden told gun control advocates that the fight is not over and that eventual action on gun control will come. Press were not invited to the conference call; a participant provided BuzzFeed with access.

"Look I know you're going to say that I'm just being an optimist and I'm trying to put a good face on this. But you know I've been around here a long time and we've already done, because of you, some really good things," Biden said. "Number one, the president is already lining up some additional executive actions he's going to be taking later this week."

After the Newtown shootings, Obama took a number of executive actions to expand research into gun violence and other areas favored by the gun control community. He took the actions without Congressional approval, leading to 

outrage

 by some conservatives.

Gun control measures failed in the Democratic-controlled Senate earlier this week

 

Read more: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-president-already-lining-some-additional-executive-actions-guns_718027.html

 

 

The gun grabbers will not stop until they create a civil war.  That is the agenda of the radical left.  They speak openly about disarming the American people.

[cristinew]

 

michaelscott   i agree 

[Letterhead954]

"Marijuana laws new tool to ban gun ownership"

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/marijuana-laws-new-tool-to-ban-gun-ownership/

 

 

The Obama administration has a zero tolerance policy on enforcing federal drug laws, White House drug czar Gil Kerlikowske recently told the National Press Club. So why should gun-owners be paying attention?

The website for the Office of National Drug Policy includes this warning: “Marijuana and other illicit drugs are addictive and unsafe especially for use by young people. … Marijuana contains chemicals that can change how the brain works. And the science, though still evolving in terms of long-term consequences of marijuana use, is clear: marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.”

Ads by Google

• Windows XP Driver UpdatesWindows XP Drivers Latest Download. Microsoft Certified. (Recommended)Windows-XP.DriverUpdate.net
• Do You Carry Concealed?Know Your Rights & Get Your Free Concealed Carry Report Today!USConcealedCarry.net/Free-Report

 

Why, then, hasn’t the Obama administration launched legal action against Colorado and Washington, where voters last fall voted to “legalize” marijuana under their state laws – even though federal law doesn’t allow that?

After all, the White House has been more than emphatic that state laws exempting people from the federal Obamacare law are invalid, and when Arizona took it upon itself to adopt a state law to enforce federal immigration restrictions, Washington went after those renegades immediately in the courts.

Is there something about the idea of legalizing marijuana that Washington LIKES?

That seemingly strange idea may have been borne out just days ago when the Congressional Research Service released its report on the “State Legalization of Recreational Marijuana: Selected Legal Issues.”

As attorneys Todd Garvey and Brian Yeh wrote in the report, Washington has flexibility regarding drug prosecution, stating, “The extent to which federal authorities will actually seek to prosecute individuals who are engaged in marijuana-related activities in Colorado and Washington remains uncertain. President Obama himself has suggested the prosecuting simple possession is not a priority, while the Department of Justice has said only that ‘growing, selling or possession any amount of marijuana remains illegal under federal law.’”

What is more certain, they wrote, is that federal firearms regulators will be aggressive about banning anyone who uses marijuana from buying – or possessing – a weapon.

“With the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes in Colorado and Washington, it seems likely the ATF will … consider a recreational user of marijuana to be a prohibited possessor of firearms regardless of whether the use is lawful under state provisions,” they wrote.

The attorneys said the ATF specifically has stated, “any person who uses or is addicted to marijuana, regardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana use for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance, and is prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.”

They further wrote, “These individuals are to answer ‘yes’ when asked on the firearms transfer form if they are unlawful users of a controlled substance.”

Answering falsely, of course, is also a felony.

According to the Denver Post, the CRS report was touted by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., an advocate of legalized marijuana, for saying that while “the federal government may use its power of the purse to encourage states to adopt certain criminal laws … it … is limited in its ability to directly influence state policy by the Tenth Amendment.”

Polis told the Post, “I’ve long believed that Colorado, Washington and other states that have decriminalized or legalized marijuana for personal or medical use have acted within the legal bounds of the law.”

But Obama attacked a state decision to enforce federal immigration standards, so why, as the Post reports, are “Colorado, Washington and 17 other jurisdictions … still holding out for any word from the Department of Justice on whether marijuana possession and distribution – which is illegal under federal law – will be enforced, despite the legalization within local borders.”

Dave Workman, senior editor at TheGunMag.com, a spokesman with the Second Amendment Foundation and a former member of the NRA board of directors wrote about the possible solution last fall as the votes in Washington and Colorado were approaching.

“A source with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Washington, D.C. … confirmed what had been explained in a Sept. 21, 2011, letter from Arthur Herbert, assistant director for enforcement programs and services to firearms retailers…

“Washington state gun owners need to know they cannot get stoned and head for the gun range or hunting camp,” he wrote.

A letter from Herbert, at the time, blew out of the water the option for the libertarian concept of unrestricted guns and unrestricted marijuana.

“There are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such is sanctioned by state law,” he wrote. Even selling a gun to someone can catch an owner outside the law.

“An inference of current use may be drawn from evidence of a recent use or possession of a controlled substance or a pattern of use or possession that reasonably covers the present time,” Herbert wrote.

Workman told WND his assumption is that the Obama administration is hesitant to step on the toes of marijuana users who may support the left-leaning administration.

At the same time, with Obama’s agenda for gun rules, regulations, restrictions and requirements looming large, anything that has the potential to trip up a gun owner couldn’t be all bad.

Impacts from strategies such as this are not unknown. There are millions of Americans whose ability to obtain a firearm could be challenged under the position that they are taking a variety of mood-altering psychiatric drugs carrying the FDA’s “suicidality” warning label. An increasingly  high percentage of Americans are taking these meds, which have demonstrated an alarmingly high correlation with school shooters.

And the government has been using its interaction with veterans to designate many of them – by the tens of thousands – incapable of handling their own financial affairs and therefore banned from having guns.

A lawsuit was just filed by the United States Justice Foundation against the Veterans Administration for snatching veterans’ gun rights without “due process” or any “factual or legal basis.”

WND has published multiple reports about how returning veterans were being deprived of their Second Amendment rights without a court-based adjudication competency process, based on arbitrary VA agency decisions.

The problem arises when the agency wants to appoint a fiduciary – someone to advise a disabled veteran or one receiving certain government benefits – to help with the management of those benefits.

The government then routinely notifies the FBI’s NICS system, a federally maintained list of those whose competency has been challenged, and that means they no longer can purchase a gun – or even keep the one they may have.

Michael Connelly, executive director of the USJF, told WND the initial lawsuit is to compel the VA to respond to two requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

“The information requested included Veterans Benefits Administration rules, regulations and criteria for making ‘determinations of incompetency due to a physical or mental condition of a benefit recipient,’” the legal team explained.

“The USJF has received numerous complaints from military veterans around the country who are being declared incompetent to handle their own financial affairs and then told that they can no longer purchase or own firearms or ammunition,” said Connelly. “This determination is being made without due process protections for the veterans and the basis for the incompetency ruling is often arbitrary and without a factual or legal basis.”

CRS attorneys, however, note that there doesn’t have to be a huge case for an American to pay huge consequences.

“Given the Obama administration’s informal statements and current approach to medical marijuana, it would appear unlikely that the DOJ is going to expend significant resources to investigate and prosecute individuals who merely possess and use less than one ounce of marijuana, in private, pursuant to Washington or Colorado Law,” they wrote.

“However, even if the probability of becoming the subject of a federal criminal prosecution for a violation … appears remote, there does exist a number of other consequences under federal law that are triggered by the mere use of marijuana, even absent an arrest or conviction.

“Most prominently among these concerns is the possibility that marijuana users may lose their ability to purchase and possess a firearm …”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/marijuana-laws-new-tool-to-ban-gun-ownership/#BTLv7Pj0hXxD6Bmk.99