Gun control soon a reality?

How about a No More Assault Rifles Act of 2012? (Exerpts)

By Paul Whitefield

July 20, 2012, 11:46 a.m.
“GUN SHOW. Glendale Civic Auditorium. Aug. 11-12.”

That was the bright yellow banner that greeted me Friday morning as I drove to work. I don’t remember it being there the day before.
Coincidence? Who knows.

Yep. You too can buy a semiautomatic rifle much like the one reportedly used by the shooter in Colorado to kill at least 12 people at a movie theater. Is this a great country or what?

So yes, this is personal. I’m insulted by the gun show banner. And I’m tired of the fact that the National Rifle Assn. and other gun advocates seemingly have a death grip -- sometimes literally -- on the debate about firearms in this country.

We don’t need to disarm Americans. But neither do we need to arm Americans with assault rifles. We can respect the 2nd Amendment -- and respect the right of young people to go to a theater without having to survive a fusillade normally reserved for the battlefield.

So how about it, fellow parents? How about giving some meaning to the lives of those killed in Colorado? How about making America just a little safer for my kids, and your kids?

I have to admit I'm a bit surprised to find that this guy writing for the LA Times...and I am in agreement. I fully expected to find yet another left wing gun hating liberal sounding off. But on this issue I part company with most of my conservative friends. While I dont want to disarm Americans either, I see absolutely no use for assault weapons. This guy in Colorado apparently went into the theater with a rifle that carried many, many more rounds than he might have been able to have used with a revolver. And while a 44 magnum is one heckuva weapon, at least the patrons of the theater might have had a fighting chance to escape had this been the only sort of weapon available to this loon.

On another front, I would like to present a video I found that might be of some interest to anyone who fears gun control. Take a look:




This has also been reported at Forbes Magazine, New York Post, and yes Fox News.

We are told that the goal here is the treaty is intended to limit transfers of conventional weapons from signatory nations in an effort to fight the likes of terrorism, crime and insurgency.

Again, I'm not certain limiting the ability to transport arms from one nation to another is a bad thing. However, I have heard some pundits (rightly) point out that this is not going to stop nations like Iran from supplying Al Quaida or Hezbollah. It wont stop Russia from aiding Syria if it so chooses. Those nations are going to do whatever they like. It would stop us from arming Israel though. It would prevent us from aiding rebels that seek to overthrow tyrranical regimes. Also some believe that it would empower China (a UN member) to limit US arms transfers to its rival, Taiwan (a non-member).

Andwho really expects state sponsors of terrorism to stop arming groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East, the FARC in Latin America and the Taliban and the Lashkar-e-Taiba in South Asia because of a piece of paper signed at the United Nations?

But here's the thing. Is this whole Colorado gunman thing going to be used to gain more support for all sorts of gun control in the US? I feel relatively certain that it will, at least, be referred to when Obama signs this UN treaty. If not by Obaqma himself, then some other Democrat official. (Pelosi or Reid maybe?)

Another thing that concerns me. If this thing is signed by Obama, have we lost our ability to make our own National decisions about Gunsw? And if this is so, is it possible that we might sign away more of our sovereignty to the UN? Frankly, I think the UN is a disaster, bloated and corrupt. Yes, I am for (some) gun regulation here at home. But I do not like the idea of us giving away our freedoms and rights to decide our own laws to a body that, quite frankly, opposes us more often than not.

It really doesn't matter if President Obama signs the treaty. It still has to be ratified by Congress and I don't see it getting out of the House at this time.

I would also add that assault weapons have been banned to the general public since the 1930's. They are considered Class III weapons and are tracked, by the Feds, for the entirety of their life.

This is VERY important:
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I can never get videos to work on this forum. The following are links to two short videos you really should watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfKADcfE90U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0&feature=related

Finally, if anyone thinks that banning something would have stopped this, just remember: he rigged an explosive gas bag. He could have just blown the place up. Making all pay the price for < 0.5% is never the right thing to do.

Articles to read if you think the AR rifle isn't good for anything but shooting people:

http://www.gameandfishmag.com/2011/07/31/modern-hunting-rifles/

http://nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm

http://www.nrapvf.org/news-alerts/2010/01/hunting-with-modern-semi-automatic-rifles-the-ar-afield.aspx

http://fromthelodge.nbcsports.com/2011/05/17/modern-sporting-rifles-on-the-rise/

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/07/bourjaily-modern-sporting-rifles

I'm really not clear yet on what this treaty is going to mean. Just thought I'd share it with ya'll

(Roll Tide!)

Marconius wrote:
Finally, if anyone thinks that banning something would have stopped this, just remember: he rigged an explosive gas bag. He could have just blown the place up. Making all pay the price for < 0.5% is never the right thing to do.

Well, how do you feel about some of the comments coming from the pro-gun lobby so instead, where they were saying "if some of the audience were carrying their firearms then they could have taken the guy down earlier and saved lives"? Given that the guy was in full body armour in a dark theater and had already left off a smoke bomb, would the most probable result there be that more people get caught in a crossfire as they try to run for safety?

Am not going to comment on most of this gun ban stuff, as I'm obviously coming from a totally different viewpoint to you guys, being from a country where guns are illegal and have a pretty bad rep (and for the reason why, just look up "the troubles"). Only point I'm going to make is that this is going to generate a lot of argument and noise, and the the same thing will happen as happened after Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabrielle Giffords and all the rest: the anti-gun lobby will say "if guns were illegal this would never have happened", the pro-gun lobby will say "if more people had guns this would never have happened", the anti-gun lobby will push for stricter gun regulation, the pro-gun lobby will say "circle the wagons boys, the godless liberals are after your guns", the conspiracy nuts will say that it's all a big plan to disarm all the patriots so that the New World Order can take over (the term "false flag" will probably be used), and everyone will ignore them as usual, the politicians will pontificate and say how shocked they are, but that it's "too soon" after the massacre to push for legislation and will ask for time to "let the wounds heal", and then nothing will happen because there's too much $$$ involved for the gun lobbies to let their pet politicians actually do anything.

[quote="Miles1"]

Marconius wrote:
the conspiracy nuts will say that it's all a big plan to disarm all the patriots so that the New World Order can take over (the term "false flag" will probably be used),

Here we go:
Colorado Batman shooting shows obvious signs of being staged

Miles1 wrote:

Marconius wrote:
Finally, if anyone thinks that banning something would have stopped this, just remember: he rigged an explosive gas bag. He could have just blown the place up. Making all pay the price for < 0.5% is never the right thing to do.

Well, how do you feel about some of the comments coming from the pro-gun lobby so instead, where they were saying "if some of the audience were carrying their firearms then they could have taken the guy down earlier and saved lives"? Given that the guy was in full body armour in a dark theater and had already left off a smoke bomb, would the most probable result there be that more people get caught in a crossfire as they try to run for safety

As both my wife and I are both conceal carry permit holders, there is a good chance one of us would have been armed at the time. It still would not have mattered. Neither I nor my wife would have much chance in this situation. All CC permit holders have to go through classes before we get our permit. Situations like this are discussed. This is not the situation CC is good for. It is only good for those times in a deserted parking lot or something like that. Unless I had a clear shot at his head, I would not have considered taking the shot and I hope other CC permit holders would have done the same.


As far as what others think about our firearms, it really doesn't matter. We do not have that right to stop this kind of action (although the VT shooting could have been stopped by armed private citizens). Our rights are there to protect us from government. Take a quick Google, an innocent citizen is much more likely to be shot and killed by a policeman than by a criminal of this type. I hear no outrage over those actions.

Dennis324 wrote:I'm really not clear yet on what this treaty is going to mean. Just thought I'd share it with ya'll

(Roll Tide!)

It will mean a national registry of all private firearms in tUSA.

If you know history, then you know what national registries are always used for in the end.

Allons Le Tigre

Marconius wrote: All CC permit holders have to go through classes before we get our permit. Situations like this are discussed.

You do??? We dont have to take those classes here in Alabama. I'm a CC holder too, but all I had to do was pay em for the license. We really should have to take classes though.

That situation probably would have been something to see if the audience had been armed. However, had they been armed, someone hoppeded up on who-knows-what would probably have beaten this guy to the punch and started shooting up the theater long before he arrived.

Dennis324 wrote:

Marconius wrote: All CC permit holders have to go through classes before we get our permit. Situations like this are discussed.

You do??? We dont have to take those classes here in Alabama. I'm a CC holder too, but all I had to do was pay em for the license. We really should have to take classes though.

That situation probably would have been something to see if the audience had been armed. However, had they been armed, someone hoppeded up on who-knows-what would probably have beaten this guy to the punch and started shooting up the theater long before he arrived.

I am a firm believer in mandatory safety and training classes for all firearm owners......especially those that just go to the range for fun and nothing else. Many of those guys practice unsafe actions and behaviors.

Marconius wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:

Marconius wrote: All CC permit holders have to go through classes before we get our permit. Situations like this are discussed.

You do??? We dont have to take those classes here in Alabama. I'm a CC holder too, but all I had to do was pay em for the license. We really should have to take classes though.

That situation probably would have been something to see if the audience had been armed. However, had they been armed, someone hoppeded up on who-knows-what would probably have beaten this guy to the punch and started shooting up the theater long before he arrived.

I am a firm believer in mandatory safety and training classes for all firearm owners......especially those that just go to the range for fun and nothing else. Many of those guys practice unsafe actions and behaviors.

Try the ones who go to the Forest to practice shooting instead of the range. I'm fine with people with clean backgrounds and sound minds having guns, however I've had some of these ass holes who like to pretend their 22 is a M16 start playing near some of my work sites.

Marconius wrote:
I am a firm believer in mandatory safety and training classes for all firearm owners......especially those that just go to the range for fun and nothing else. Many of those guys practice unsafe actions and behaviors.

I agree. I took training in the navy as well as in my civilian life. It SHOULD be mandatory.