I want a nuclear bomb.

Tell me where in the constitution it says I cannot have one.

A great many of the firearms being banned under the AWB (and vastly expanded under the new version in the House) are used for hunting and other sporting purposes.

For instance, the AR-15 platform dominates international high-power rifle target competition. They are also extensively used in hunting, particularly groundhogs and other varmints.

The current bill would ban nearly every semi-automatic shotgun. Semi-automatic shotguns are used by bird hunters, clay shooters, and even deer hunters.

Most people - even proponents of the ban - cannot explain why the items on the list are there.

This is what Obama expressly said he supports, and it absolutely does ban firearms commonly used for sporting purposes.

And we do need to enforce the laws already on the books. On this Obama and I agree.

Where we disagree is he wants to impose a ban on certain firearms. That's not enforcing existing law.

As far as the party thing goes, the leadership of the Democratic party is chock-full of folks like Feinstein, who openly supports confiscation of all handguns. She's directly said that if she had the votes in the Senate, she'd go for total confiscation.

What compromise is necessary? Can you demonstrate the need for a renewed - much less expanded "Assault Weapons" Ban? Enforcement of the existing gun laws would seem to be the more intelligent starting point.

But he still supports the idea that some guns are too scary for civilians to own. He wants to ban certain guns, based more on their appearance than any functional capacity.

So what next? Let's say we get the new, expanded AWB through. Are we to go after "sniper rifles" next?

Sorry, but I just don't buy the idea that thugs who are out killing people are doing so because we don't love them enough.

You've done some criminal defense, IIRC. Any of your clients (setting aside the first timers) likely to have gone straight with a hug?

Matt

__________________

Ahh LOVE, it’s a wonderful thing. We all need more love, hell lets all have free love….Oh wait, that’s been tried before.

I’m trying to get an understanding as to what Obama meant; I think he might be trying to say that people who love and respect themselves will do so towards others. What he didn’t address is the issue of those who can’t nor won’t love and respect themselves let alone others.
All one has to do is read the daily newspapers or watch the nightly news, if that doesn’t inform people to the fact that there are just plain old sick bastards in our society, then I don’t know what will.....and giving them a hug won't change it.

As for the assault gun bans, I can’t remember the last time I’ve heard of someone being shot by a military style weapon, in fact I believe I read somewhere that the 25 and 32 calibers are the most popular….Not positive on that though.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Speaking of ban-them-all Feinstein:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1331:

Here we go again - another incremental step towards Feinstein's stated goal of banning all guns. And the usual suspects are right alongside.

Anyone who is actually familiar with these firearms understands how stupid this proposed ban is. These rifles are large (quite large) and heavy, and have never been used in a crime in the US. No criminal is going to walk about with a 35+ pound, 48" long rifle.

Oh, yes, and it is important to note that the classification of such a gun as a "Destructive Device" under the law means than absent a special ATF tax stamp, these guns (which cost thousands of dollars) would have to be surrendered to the ATF without compensation.

Matt

__________________

These should be banned, way to damn easy to conceal in pants pockets.

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Don't forget we as a society create those plain old sick bastards and they're growing in numbers to where most major US cities have large areas of them that even the police avoid. Though I don't support much of his policy, Obama is pointing out the problem is internal and I'm in agreement with that analysis. I'm surprised he didn't reference ridiculous US drug laws that create and finance the majority of gang activity, but understand that would be a political gaffe in a church setting where drugs are considered a sin. I consider the gun thing a political focal point based on general public ignorance.

.25 and .32 calibers are not popular among gang members and armed robbers; the 'nine' (9mm) is their weapon of choice.

wow what a wizard this guy is turning out to be

"We" create them ?
Well may I suggest that you stop doing what you're doing and quit making more.

I love this theory that WE are making them , because there has always been sick bastards running around throughout history of man-kind.
Years ago we burned them and hung them, today we love them and pat them on the ass.......But guess what, they are still here. Actually there appears to more of them today.
So what's next and how do we stop it?

__________________
Anyone who thinks freedom comes cheap, please put the blindfold on and stand against the wall.

Many times I believe Americans will have to take back the country and start a new government.

Shit! And I was going to sneak my M93 into school!

__________________

I think this is being proposed because, at approx $1.50 a bullet, you practically have to be a drug dealer to afford shooting the things.

__________________

I only know one person who owns one of these monsters. He uses it in 600 to 1000 yard target competitions.

Match-grade ammo is more like $5.00 to $8.00 per round.

A completely sporting arm, these things are. Useless for personal defense, useless for criminals. Good for long range target shooting only.

But too scary for Feinstein, Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy et al. It makes them antsy, so owners should be forced to turn them in for destruction.

It amazes me that more people don't get upset by the notion that if your property - expensive property - is too scary for some politician in DC, they can order it seized and destroyed without compensation, and without any proof that you have ever done anything wrong.

Sounds more like a concept that should be coming from Bejing than DC.

Matt

__________________

You don't. With a government setting the example by attacking any nation it feels it can beat up on because it doesn't like their form of government and take your civil rights away doing it, that message will create even more outlaws playing the same tune.

I was glad that the AWB was allowed to expire. As I stated, I do find Obama's position on that concerning because the law goes overboard.

But, often times these bills go overboard due to ignorance of how the hardware works and what it is used for. For example, check out New Jersey's assualt weapons bill that was so vague that courts were finding it unconstitutional. It even contained listed weapons that did not exist. A good number of bills are sent through upon bad information, and gun advocates need to do a better job explaining it.

I am of like mindset on these parts.

Yes, there are some like Feinstein in the Dems--just as there are Whitmans in the Reps.

After my experience in the last Senate election and other recent events, this old dog of Reps equalling 2A people whilst Dems will ban all guns won't hunt anymore for me at all.

First, I saw Whitman sign the bill in NJ that made even my bb gun an 'assault weapon' that could put me in prison for years, and if I sold it could get me locked up for life without parole as an arms trafficker. Then I saw Bush put her in his Cabinet.

That, plus the urban GOPers signing off on such bills--such as Guiliani, Romney, etc--lets me know that the GOP is only as interested in keeping it a wedge issue rather than outright winning the issue because it is a gift that keeps on giving that they won't give up.

It's sort of like how the party claims it is anti-abortion and then appoints plenty of pro-choice people to the SCOTUS along with some anti-abortion people. That way, they always have it as a 'wedge issue' for scoring suckers at the polls. Look at the whoop hollering over Guiliani, Romney, etc. It just tell me that they'd sell gun owners down the river for another seat in Washington, no question about it.

And I have no time for the NRA as a genuine 2A advocate anymore after the last Senate election. It's a GOP operation and the 2A has become its gimmick with real results secondary to getting GOPers elected.

In the last Senate election, in my state, Pennsylvania, we had several solid 2A candidates running in the election. I would have felt it would have given both candidates an approved rating should the GOP candidate matched up, but too often they didn't do that when stamping the GOPers.

For example, the NRA backed Don Sherwood, the 'family values' fraud who got caught cheating on his wife with a woman 40 years younger over Carney, a 2A backer. Besides philandering, Sherwood also was arranging the sale of large tracts of federally owned hunting grounds in my state to private development, something Carney opposed given he wants to keep those lands for outdoorsmen. Yet, the NRA was backing a man that makes our rifles fit for putting over our mantles due to losing the very lands upon we hunt, fish and enjoy the outdoors.

Of course, that kind of crap just creates every incentive for Dems to just say "why alienate the progressive wing when all that will do is get me enemies on all sides because gun owners won't back me anyway." And when such people win by taking the hard line on guns, all gun owners lose.

I did my part helping get 2A Dems in office along with other similarly minded Dems. Having a pro 2A Rep and 2A Dem is the ultimate race for a 2A person. Yet, our accomplishment happened despite the sand thrown in our faces by the NRA. Thankfully enough voters had the common sense to get past it.

I get the feeling he is more thinking along the lines of what law enforcement tells him they want, and I take him as a reasonable person as opposed to some others.

IMO, the debate has become long since polarised along party lines due to things like what I said above about the NRA and the contrary pressure of the California-style progressives, and this loses the plot for those interested in real results.

A genuine sit down--not a loaded GOP-benefitting 'gotcha' email questionnaire by the NRA and other such gimmicks, etc--by gun advocates--and I'll be one of them--may very well lead to satisfactory results IMO. It's early and I know I'll be seeking that dialogue doing my part as a classical liberal (libertarian-minded) with the progressives towards the upcoming primary over the next months.

Funny enough, some have.

For example, concerning those addicted to drugs, booze, etc, that is exactly what they do--even hugs for encouragement and group solidarity--when they go to the AA and NA classes. Those programmes have a tremendous success rate given the poor odds on successful long term recovery. AA and NA have done more for keeping a large number of recidivists due to addictions out of our prison systems than sanctimonious lectures and punishments could ever accomplish.

I think you are as aware as I am that a good percentage of people who wind up in serious criminal behaviours come from broken homes and/or abusive scenarios. Not all who fail who come from such backgrounds, and not all who come from good ones turn out well. However, the linkage is undeniable. To deny that linkage would be logically similar to saying that smoking does not cause lung cancer because it does not give everyone lung cancer and some people get lung cancer who do not smoke. Obama was speaking to a church group, and I felt his theme was appropos for the audience. My ministers have talked similarly on such things--focusing on being a loving parent and neighbour and how that pays dividends such as producing healthy societies. If he starts saying these things to general audiences, then I will be more concerned that he is naive, but I don't take him as such a person.

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

Oh, yes, that makes perfect sense.

There was, of course, no crime whatsoever before 2003.



Perhaps you can explain why crime rates are lower today than during the early 1990s, when peace and love reigned in the White House?



http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/cv2.htm

Matt

__________________