Fact: Obama isn't a big 2nd Amendment guy.

Fact: The particular bill in question isn't going anywhere.

Fact: We need to do a TS meet soon where we shoot shit and make stuff go boom.

 

We've been around too. Those type of things aren't limited to places you've been. We don't tolerate that here, in either direction.

As for "agreeing to disagree", there really isn't much room to argue in the first place my friend. Obama is anti-gun, period. More than that, he is anti-ammunition. Some on the left like to say that he isn't "anti-gun", and in that process they attempt to be legalistic and leave out the reality that he is absolutely interested in attacking the ammunition that firearms require.

Make no mistake, Obama and his administration is absolutely anti-gun. His attorney general is interesting in renewing the so called assault weapons ban. Anyone who is NOT anti-gun would never let that travesty anywhere near the floor of congress. It is not designed to curb crime, or to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, it is designed to make law abiding citizens be placed in a position increasingly under the thumb of the federal government.

It was not created to ban "assault rifles". The weapons named in this bill were chosen on appearance only, AND failed to properly what an "assault weapon" is.

There is nothing to disagree with. This administration is not gun friendly.

 

Call me European but there was very little in that suggestion (at least as stated in the first entry) that seemed to be directly negative to me. .

I can appreciate an interest in guns and an interest in defending oneself, but there are pretty many countries in the world that currently seem to manage those interests pretty well within the circumstances stated in the bill?

Now excuse me while I got put my flame-suit on.

 

I would say that about sums it up.

 

The entire bill/ban runs contrary to the foundations of this country. Worse, the bill is not about keeping people of this country safe. It is a subtle infringement upon our part of the population who are firearms enthusiasts. Combine that with the fact that our own Department of Homeland Security regards military veterans, firearms enthusiasts and people who want smaller government, as being worthy to be placed on government watch lists; and you have a real problem that is totally un-American.

This country is about freedom, not security and a nanny state. We have MORE than enough on the books in regards to gun laws, but we do not enforce the ones that we have. The only thing that the federal government is doing is seeking new ways to infringe upon gun owners, without blatantly crossing our second amendment boundaries.

 

Thanks for a calm response to a heated subject. And just to clarify: I'm not trying to provoke - just understand where you're coming from on this one. To me it just feels a littlie alien not to be allowed to tackle the issue this hard when there's such a large problem with guns in society. But you gun-guys really have a strong & powerful voice in the states I'll give you that.

 

No worries bro. Yours is a valid question! Our culture has many things that are alien to most, for sure.

The root of it is this bro... Your statement said "large problems with guns in society"... That is NOT the problem. The problem is the lack of responsibility, and punishment placed upon those who commit crimes with a gun. Guns to not commit crimes, people do. The people should be punished, but our politically correct criminal justice system fails in that respect.

Criminals are the problem, not guns. Putting "blame" and "responsibility" on inanimate objects is irrational and therefor makes the problem and issue harder to combat.

 

"The root of it is this bro... Your statement said "large problems with guns in society"... That is NOT the problem. The problem is the lack of responsibility, and punishment placed upon those who commit crimes with a gun. Guns to not commit crimes, people do. The people should be punished, but our politically correct criminal justice system fails in that respect."

I agree with this. Part of the new bill spells out the minimum responsibilities of owning guns. It also spells out penalties for those careless enough to leave guns around where kids can get to them. As I don't see an end to bullying likely in kids futures, and with so much miserable, inattentive parenting going on, I feel this may be one of our best routes to reduce school shootings.

 

"Ahh, yes. You come on here, stir up a hornet's nest with tired liberal talking points, insult the vast majority of the members, then when made to look like a fool, "just agree to disagree." What a brilliant "proud East Coast liberal" you are."

Funny, I don't feel like a fool, and I'm man enough to admit when I'm wrong. The reason I want to agree to disagree is I can respect your views, can you respect mine?

 

About the whole European/American schizm on gun control: I once heard the argument that during the 16th-18th century, when America was colonized, and the US of A was founded, firearms was a means of repression in the Old World: It was the instrument of power of feudal lords and kings, and the general populace, armed with nothing more lethal than pitchforks and colourful language, couldn't overthrow despots.
Among the first colonists, the fathers of the nation, there were many persecuted minorities, religious and ethnic. To ensure that they'd never again would have to live in the tyranny that they had endured most of all, they ensured the citizenry's right to own firearms. Thus, the right to own firearm, and the firearm as a symbol of freedom from repression - governmental, criminal or otherwise - is an integral part of the American spirit.
Makes for an interesting argument, anyway.