massachusetts proposed gun control

I think we Americans need to hang onto our guns. I don't see a way to disarm the "bad guys" so I think it's foolishness to allow ourselves to be disarmed. I know that it has been "said" to death, but one of the first things Hitler did was order the confiscation of arms. I think I have that right, feel free to correct me.

Like I mentioned before, other countries that are satisfied with their laws, that's great. But it's too late for us to try and change it all. I saw the Twin Towers, that told me other countries could storm our borders. I want the right to have a gun if someone invades my country. I want to carry something in places where there are still animals (especially 2 legged kind) that will attack & kill. Maybe I am child-like in my thinking, maybe it was the years/time I've been raised in, and if I have to, I'll use a danged bow & arrow, but I'm going to have something to protect myself with.

The world isn't peace and love, and I'm not going to stand in some church praying, I'm going down fighting, that's just the way I am.
 

excellent post Marinaio, that last sentence or two, right on
I have a nagging suspicion that both the pro- and anti- gun lobbies are very aware that it was an armed citizenry that brought the US into being and has likely played a role in maintaining its freedom, not a comforting thought to an ever-more controlling government.

All "facts" set aside, anyone dreaming of disarming the American citizenry needs to stop smoking whatever it is that is causing the hallucinations.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm a realist, it is what it is, but we are between a rock and a hard-spot now, so we make the best of it we can. Some dufus in WA or wherever, that's never fought for our country should never be allowed to make laws, give me a break. And I'm glad other countries don't rule us, they are not in our shoes, and never have been. Don't misunderstand, I respect other countries and their right to make "their" laws, but ours is what it is, we have to go from where we are now. No one had a "fix" when I asked for one in a previous post, so that tells me, probably isn't one other then "hang onto what we have, we'll need it, maybe in our lifetime".
 
The norm is

over 600 sheriffs in the US have signed a statement and sent it to the Pres and the DOJ. "They will not enforce any federal laws contrary to the constitution". and this is last years stuff

Currently legislation shows 15 states have passed legislation that calls for the arrest of any Federal officers, in violation, of the constitution, and any federal laws passed to be null and void, with a mandatory jail sentence for the federal officers. The only question would be if a federal judge tried to overturn the jurisdiction of a more local court.

currently the SAFE act in NY faces something like 15 joint and separate law suits.

California's restrictions only make them a laughing stock, not a role model.
 

Speaking of norm....

From Las Vegas to Georgia, the NRA Has Created a Monster

The past month’s mass-shooting death toll is the logical conclusion of the gun group’s leaders’ deluded approach to our safety.
It’s been quite a month for the National Rifle Association: Massacres at universities, in restaurants, and at retail stores from South Carolina to Las Vegas. Gun nuts porting assault weapons to dinner from Chili’s to Chipotle. The leaders of the take-no-prisoners gun-rights organization have been witness to the logical outgrowth of its policies and rhetoric. Much as the GOP helped create the lunatic-fringe Tea Party within its midst, the NRA chieftains have helped birth a beast whose black heart now beats strongly among its most radical adherents.


More>>>>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...o-georgia-the-nra-has-created-a-monster.html#
 
what is your point? the NRA's position is that if these gun free zones had armed guards, none of the school shootings would have happened. In fact Davey you proved my point, did any shootings happen at the Chilis and Chipotle, or retail/restaurants mentioned? Hard when you step in your own kakka.
 
re:the NRA's position is that if these gun free zones had armed guards, none of the school shootings would have happened.


Really??? no school shooting at all ??
You gotta be kidding me...Lets all wait for the next headlines "ARMED GUARD MASSACRES 16 CHILDREN"
 
as some people like to quote from other sources here are a few


south Car.-Billy McCall age 78 heard his wife scream, to a home invasion, shots fired on both sides, intruder dead, Bill recovering 1/2/25/13

Orville Al-- armed man in Dollar General Store - shot once in chest by concealed carry

Dorchester Ma teenagers, offended at postings in facebook , met to duke it out, stopped by concealed carry, (one female attacked) group later arrested

Cedar Hill Tx. 12/26/13 Gareth Long confronted home intruder, who would not yield, shot dead. (

Milford Pa David Braman 69 home invasion stopped by armed gun home owner

Wilmer Al. domestic dispute stopped by armed neighbor 1/17/14


Is this the norm that some politician is trying to sell because of a party agenda-- or just another day in the US (actually across the world).


more to follow
 
I think the bad guys and mass shootings cancel each other out. Whether it does or not is immaterial. There will be no major changes and only a few minor ones like what is going on in Boston now, for the next eight or ten years, and maybe not then. Guns are a political hot potato, gun issues are emotional issue. To do so is political subside. So the gun issue, if there is one, is on hold. We will never get rid of our guns like Australia did. Few want to. I've got some issues like carrying long guns in restaurants and stores and churches. But that will not be up to me. I' m an old man and have turned problems like this over to a younger generation. I am more interested making political earthquakes happen like the EricCanter thing and even then, I am powerless for I have voted my last time.
 
drifter said:
Warrigal, your biggest advantage in Australia was a smaller population and only five states for your then Prime Minister to convince a gun law change was necessary. To your advantage was also is your type of government.
Click to expand...

You are correct there Drifter on one point. We do have a smaller number of states to deal with, actually six states and two territories. Another important situation was that at the time of the last massacre we had mainly Labor state governments (progressive) and a Liberal/National federal government (conservative). The Liberal Prime Minister, John Howard was able to secure the co-operation of the Labor premiers and the rural constituency in a way that would not have been possible if the situation was reversed. Just as Nixon was the only one who could go to China, Howard was the only one who could secure support for national gun control legislation. If anything is to happen in the USA I believe that it will take a Republican president to get the ball rolling and a population that is demanding action. Obama has practically admitted defeat on this issue.

A lot of nonsense was talked at the time. Men vowed to bury their guns rather than hand them in, people claimed that Big Brother would raid their homes etc. None of that happened. In the end a lot of old guns were traded in for cash and destroyed. Customs prevented the more dangerous weapons from entering the country and gun owners were required to be responsible for the safe keeping of their firearms. Mass murder by gun ceased. That is not to say that we have seen the last mass shooting but it has been a long time since the last one.

What didn't happen was a solution to all crime. Banks and armoured vehicles were still held up, domestic violence and murders still occur. Drug gangs still shoot at each other and at each other's houses. These are police matters and the criminals must still be caught and prosecuted.
 
CPA-Kim said:
Show me your research.
Click to expand...

Research to show what exactly? That America has a problem?
I would hold that problem to be self evident.

That Americans are a 'can do' people? I think history has demonstrated that abundantly.
You were the only nation whose citizens have ever set foot on the moon.
I have seen the energy you apply to civil engineering and construction.
It is most impressive.

Surely the American people can problem solve the number of deaths by firearm, or at least make it a much smaller problem?
Do it your way, but at least give it your best shot.

Gangsters shooting each other is one thing but when you have nutters murdering children in their schools and shooting up people in military bases, shopping malls and cinemas it is surely time for some serious thinking about the kind of society you are prepared to tolerate.
 
NWLady said:
I know that it has been "said" to death, but one of the first things Hitler did was order the confiscation of arms. I think I have that right, feel free to correct me.
Click to expand...
Well you did ask, Denise.

Germany does have very strict firearms laws but they were introduced long before Hitler.

[h=2]History of firearms restrictions in Germany[/h][h=3]The 1919 Treaty of Versailles[/h]From 1918-1920, with the defeat of Germany in World War I, the nation was forced to accept a series of devastating reparations after signing the Treaty of Versailles. The defeated Weimar government agreed to payments it did not have the ability to make, which would eventually lead to the 1920s inflationary depression. The treaty had stipulations to disarm the government. Fearing inability to hold the state together during the depression, the German government adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation against the citizens prior to completely disarming the German military. Article 169 of the Treaty of Versailles explicitly targeted the state: "Within two months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, German arms, munitions, and war material, including anti-aircraft material, existing in Germany in excess of the quantities allowed, must be surrendered to the Governments of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to be destroyed or rendered useless."[SUP][1][/SUP]

In 1919, the German government passed the Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which declared that "all firearms, as well as all kinds of firearms ammunition, are to be surrendered immediately."[SUP][2][/SUP] Under the regulations, anyone found in possession of a firearm or ammunition was subject to five years' imprisonment and a fine of 100,000 marks.

On August 7, 1920, rising fears whether or not Germany could have rebellions prompted the government to enact a second gun-regulation law called the Law on the Disarmament of the People. It put into effect the provisions of the Versailles Treaty in regard to the limit on military-type weapons.

In 1928, after a near decade of hyperinflation destroyed the structural fabric of the society, a rapidly expanding three-way political divide between the conservatives, National Socialists, and Communists prompted the rapidly declining conservative majority to enact the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law relaxed gun restrictions and put into effect a strict firearm licensing scheme. Under this scheme, Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have separate permits to do the following: own or sell firearms, carry firearms (including handguns), manufacture firearms, and professionally deal in firearms and ammunition. This law explicitly revoked the 1919 Regulations on Weapons Ownership, which had banned all firearms possession.
Click to expand...

More history if German legislation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany#The_1938_German_Weapons_Act
 
The rhetoric here is getting just plain nutso! The NRA had nothing to do with these shootings nor were the shooters likely to have been NRA members and the simple fact is the shootings would have been far less severe if there had been an armed intervention from the earliest point. It would be nearly impossible to be in just the right spot at just the right time to totally prevent a shooting, even the cops admit they cannot do that. The simple, logical and to most, obvious fact is that a whacko with a gun intent on doing harm will naturally choose a target where there is little to no chance of anyone fighting back; those are called Gun Free Zones and they are advertised and labelled as such with great pride it would appear.

Another point to ponder is why all these anti-gun celebrities and millionaires have armed body guards at all times wherever they go? One might also consider these movie star hypocrites who make the garbage films that incite and encourage these whackos, get rich doing so and then use their money and influence to tell us guns are evil.

Enough for me, I'm off this thread.
 
They got it from people like my brothers who carried guns to fight for their right to live how they want, and bad-mouth the use of guns, Is that irony again Dame?? I'm learning, lol!!
Click to expand...

Irony? Perhaps, but what is probably more ironic is that my family has a strong military history too. Grandfather volunteered for the Boer War in South Africa and backed up again for the Great War, serving in Palestine. His brother was a military sniper in the same war. My father volunteered for overseas service in New Guinea, two of his brothers were killed in that war. One lies in a cemetery in Singapore and the other is buried somewhere in the middle of Nigeria. Another brother served in the RAAF in Darwin, which was more heavily bombed that Pearl Harbour. All of them, when asked, said that they fought to keep Australia peaceful and all of them, if they returned home at all, surrendered their firearms because they had no further need of them.
 
lets not confuse military service with a civilian self defense issue. while not feeling the need for a military unit in a civilian setting is not the same as protecting your home for self defense.

The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, target shooting, plinking or the military.
 
rkunsaw said:
Why can't politicians understand that criminals don't obey laws. Such laws only affect law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

rt3 said:
at the time of purchase, defined by the transfer of the firearm form the orginal manufacturer to the gun store, to the orginal buyer all guns are registered. some states are trying to make re-registering the new law, don't confuse the two.

countries that have the strictest gun laws do not have the lowest statistics of gun related deaths (what ever that means) ex. Syria, most African countries--- you have incorrect statistics.


where in the Constitution does it say you have a right to an automobile (that one is a special kind of stupidity)

The federal government does not have the logistic capability to confiscate the guns that are out there.

all schools are "gun free zones" do you see the connection? if you don't -- not much can be said
Click to expand...

rkunsaw said:
Confiscate the guns and the idiots on drugs will start using bombs.

The mental health issue and especially the use of drugs in children and teens would be the place for new laws. We should make those drugs illegal. How about a buy back program to get them off the street?


We should also make reporting these shootings in the news illegal. The sensationalism in the news media just leads to more shootings.

Citizens of this country have been armed with guns since before we were the United States. Guns owned by citizens are the reason we are not still a British colony
And with all these guns for 400 years we didn't have this problem with all these shootings until just recently, but all some people can think of is blame the guns.
Click to expand...

nwlady said:
I think we Americans need to hang onto our guns. I don't see a way to disarm the "bad guys" so I think it's foolishness to allow ourselves to be disarmed. I know that it has been "said" to death, but one of the first things Hitler did was order the confiscation of arms. I think I have that right, feel free to correct me.

Like I mentioned before, other countries that are satisfied with their laws, that's great. But it's too late for us to try and change it all. I saw the Twin Towers, that told me other countries could storm our borders. I want the right to have a gun if someone invades my country. I want to carry something in places where there are still animals (especially 2 legged kind) that will attack & kill. Maybe I am child-like in my thinking, maybe it was the years/time I've been raised in, and if I have to, I'll use a danged bow & arrow, but I'm going to have something to protect myself with.

The world isn't peace and love, and I'm not going to stand in some church praying, I'm going down fighting, that's just the way I am.
Click to expand...

marinaio said:
The rhetoric here is getting just plain nutso! The NRA had nothing to do with these shootings nor were the shooters likely to have been NRA members and the simple fact is the shootings would have been far less severe if there had been an armed intervention from the earliest point. It would be nearly impossible to be in just the right spot at just the right time to totally prevent a shooting, even the cops admit they cannot do that. The simple, logical and to most, obvious fact is that a whacko with a gun intent on doing harm will naturally choose a target where there is little to no chance of anyone fighting back; those are called Gun Free Zones and they are advertised and labelled as such with great pride it would appear.

Another point to ponder is why all these anti-gun celebrities and millionaires have armed body guards at all times wherever they go? One might also consider these movie star hypocrites who make the garbage films that incite and encourage these whackos, get rich doing so and then use their money and influence to tell us guns are evil.

Enough for me, I'm off this thread.
Click to expand...

:applause2: I agree with all the above posts. Prescribing anti-depressants and other drugs to Americans starting as early as grade school needs to stop. Kids today are doped up for normal behavior. By the time they reach adulthood they are popping pills that either makes them suicidal or homicidal.

Shootings take place in gun-free zones, guess that will keep happening since nobody who's supposed to care is taking the hint due to their agenda. Even the military base shootings could have been avoided or lessened if they didn't disarm all the troops on base who knew how to use their weapons, and could have stopped the murderer(s) in his tracks.

It's true, all those celebrities have their bodyguards...kind of like Al Gore preaching about global warming, while living his lifestyle. :rolleyes:
 
if you didn't know, Eric Cantor was anti-gun, a republican supporting critical parts of Obamas gun confiscation agenda, the guy who beat him was pro-gun and won on that. This will send a strong message to the candidates who are running this fall.
 
Davey I can't understand why you are so hung up on the NRA. There are at least 10 pro gun movements out there that do not agree with the NRA (not strict enough). Please read my post-- Cantors being in bed with Obama on gun control cost him the election. It was a grass roots movement by the people on a basic issue. And again thanks again for showing the NRA does not control the government. How do you get the kakka off your shoes?
 
Of course the President said "this is becoming the norm" when it comes to gun violence. He is absolutely right!! Those who deny it have their head somewhere in a dark place as the sand.

He has tried his best to do something about gun control but has met a brick wall by Congress and blue dogs all the way. In fact by everything he has tried to do. They don't like the intelligent black man. They are afraid of him. What else could it be.
After all they were used to the puppet.

The NRA is a great big money making business that has been laughing all the way to the bank. What have they done to help stop this madness? Not a thing.

Eric Cantor hand in hand with Obama. ROFLMBO
 
CPA-Kim said:
Countries that have strict gun controls have fewer per capita shootings, robberies, and gun-related deaths.
Click to expand...

True but those same countries are a fraction of the size of the US, have a different culture, population, geography, economy and politics. That's the problem, you can't use or take other countries laws ala carte , you have to take the whole platter.
 
rt3 said:
Davey I can't understand why you are so hung up on the NRA. There are at least 10 pro gun movements out there that do not agree with the NRA (not strict enough). Please read my post-- Cantors being in bed with Obama on gun control cost him the election. It was a grass roots movement by the people on a basic issue. And again thanks again for showing the NRA does not control the government. How do you get the kakka off your shoes?
Click to expand...


All I said was The NRA supported Eric Cantor.

You said they didnt. You seem to have went off topic.

I just go after the BIG GUNS with the most to spend ,the NRA.
.
 
Now I am getting cornfused, but that's o.k. political crud gets that way. :rolleyes:
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top