Oh I’m sure Obama can keep us safe…'cause he was so good at reducing the crime in Chicago (NOT!)
[QUOTE=enjoytheride;3639595]
The website says they want to keep guns from criminals and children, as well as making tracing guns easier (to find criminals that use them). They also want to work on the assult weapons ban and gun show loopholes (where you can buy an illegal weapon legally as long as it is pieces in a box and only for “display”). Personally I think safety of children and limiting the number of criminals with guns is a top priority.
What part of any of that restricts guns from cowboy mounted shooting or hunting?
It seems like the best way would be to work with this administration instead of running in circles screaming about Obama being the end of the world.[/QUOTE]
The First Question is which Obama policy is primary? Protecting children or honoring a tradition of hunting? Or, put another way, will the REAL Obama policy please stand up?
I suspect his model is much more Cook Co., IL than, say, Nueces Co., TX.
The “gun show loophole” is not a loophole. It’s a recognition that a private citizen may sell a firearm to another private citizen if the sale is casual and not in the ordinary course of business. Rather like the difference between you selling your car to another person on CraigsList and being a car dealer. Is a private sale a “loophole” in the various consumer laws designed to protect car buyers?
I don’t know where you get you information, but the idea that you can legally buy an illegal weapon as long as it’s dissembled is completely wrong. You should review the rules of the ATF.
As far as child protection is concerned I’m not anxious to see kids get hurt. But the rules of game as found in Chicago and Washington, DC (where this is a major justification of the policy) are the way they are to effectively prevent any sort of handgun ownership. If you’re a Mounted Shooter living in either Chicago or Washingston, DC you’d have to keep your weapons out of town (and even that might not be legal the way their ordinaces are written).
Please define for me the term “assault rifle”?
The Second Amendment guarantees me certain liberties in firearm ownership. It is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT that I possess. Like all individual rights it is not absolute and has its limits. The extent of those limits are only now being explored.
As far as Canadian law is concerned, we were scheduled to attend the North American Cavalry Competition in Markham, Ontario two years ago. I attempted to follow Provincial and Federal rules to bring in a shotgun and a .45lc Ruger New Model Vaquero. It was impossible. The Provincial office that had to send out and verify a form never answered the telephone. In three weeks of trying. They did not have an answering machine. I wonder if a person showed up if the door would be unlocked.
Canadians are free to have any firearms rules they want. But it was clear form my experience that they had no intention of making temporary importation easy. At least in Ontario. I can’t speak to the other provinces.
As to tracing stolen weapons that is possible right now. No new legislation nor regulation is required.
I have no problem with reasonable, Constitutionally sound limits on firearm ownership. I have no significant problem with a permit system based upon a “shall issue” model. I have a BIG problem with the Chicago model. I have not seen Obama eschew this model. Until then, given where he comes from and who he is, I must assume he supports it and would duplicate it at the national level.
G.
Oh, and by the way, you might want to check how much $$$$ Canada has spent on their gun-control program. I want to say that it was something like 100 times the projected figure, but I could be really off on that, because they hadn’t finished their program yet. I mean, I’m sure that money couldn’t have been used for – oh, I don’t know – health care? Road improvements? Alternative energy exploration? Or maybe even reducing ACTUAL crime?
Or use that money to give a horse to every citizen who wants one! I GUARANTEE that this would jump-start the economy!
I think you have left out parts of the gun show loophole.
In my state you can go to a gunshow and purchase a gun with no background check or waiting period. You can also purchase a fully automatic weapon. The seller states he is selling guns “from a private collection” which makes him expempt from laws requring a background check. At the gun show here almost half of the dealers are “private sellers” and most of them only take cash. It’s a pretty big loophole.
[QUOTE=enjoytheride;3639691]
I think you have left out parts of the gun show loophole.
In my state you can go to a gunshow and purchase a gun with no background check or waiting period. You can also purchase a fully automatic weapon. The seller states he is selling guns “from a private collection” which makes him expempt from laws requring a background check. At the gun show here almost half of the dealers are “private sellers” and most of them only take cash. It’s a pretty big loophole.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know where you live. I can’t comment on your local law.
Under Federal law a casual, private sale does not require a background check. Just like you can sell your car without checking to ensure the buyer has a license, insurance, etc. This is NOT a “gunshow loophole.”
Under Federal law ALL Class III transactions (fully automatic weapons) are regulated. You can’t legally buy one without complying with Federal law, nor can you sell one. Either privately or through an FFL dealer.
You’re repeating some Brandy Bunch propaganda, here. The rules on Class III and private sales are quite clear.
G.
Peace to you
“Oh I’m sure Obama can keep us safe…'cause he was so good at reducing the crime in Chicago (NOT!)”
Renzi, are you referring to the over 500 children murdered (mostly African American) in Chicago this year? If so, your comment shows utter ignorance of the role and function of government and politics, especially in a city like Chicago and a state like Illinois. Chicago is “the city that works,” but it only works one way. The safety of the city and its children would only decline if the means by which it works are ignored. Something which Mr. Obama is certainly to smart to do.
As a father, a resident of the city, an African American and a politician wise and savvy enough to get himself elected so relatively early in his political career (he’s 26 years younger that McCain), one might also view this legislation as the beginning of a broader and more comprehensive plan to address the culture of gun-violence which exists everywhere in this country.
It is one thing to gun-hunt animals in rural areas (which support), it is quite another to fire a gun into a school yard and hope to hit some rival gang member or bad-pay drug customer. One is sport, one is violence and illegal; the current systems in place to end the later are failed. This legislation seems like a prudent step to fixing what isn’t working. It in no way seems to curtail sport.
Perhaps, Rienzi and Hokieman, your vehement and reactionary response is more fueled by your own un-reflected co-opting into the culture of violence than you realize.
Wishing you peaceful days,
Ol’hound
I think it’s a loophole because it’s a large gun show with a huge number of weapons in the same place with an awful lot of private sellers so you don’t need background checks for to buy. Yes, some of the dealers do require background checks and accept credit cards but many only take cash and do no background checks.
Then what are the federal laws for buying an automatic weapon? I know that here you can purchase an automatic weapon at a gun show either in a box of parts or with the end filled with concrete as a “display” with no background check for cash from a “private seller” that also has dozens of other weapons for sale. It’s been a few years since I’ve been to a gun show so I’m not sure if the laws have changed.
This isnt horse related and the election is over so I’m stepping out of this thread before it gets closed anyway.
If we want to have a culture of nonproliferation, how about also taking guns away from:
- police
- military
- Obama's bodyguards
uh guys, we needed the Brady bill, and then got it and then it was gutted.
I own guns lots of them, and worked in a profession till retirement where I saw cops daily, and I think we need some regulation.
Especially with the crazies, no, not the guys who stockpile weapons:lol:, they are a different type of crazy, but the mentally ill, like the guy who shot up VA Tech, and the guy who shot Reagan and Brady.
And I think guns should be registered, and that bullets should be fired from them and recorded beforehand (for later law enforcement purposes) (and heck our DNA should be on file too, just like the Jockey Club does with TBs now) and that people should be required to get licenses to carry guns. (except those of us exempt by legislation, thank you Steven Scarlett).
If you are not a convicted felon, and aren’t crazy, well legally certifiable, then you should be able to possess a gun for protection or for hunting.
Meanwhile, does this mean that I can get more $ for that semi-auto I want to sell at the next gun show?
Horse related wise, what every happened to that black powder thread of neighbors shooting by horses.
(And I did not vote for Obama and I have the Nov. NRA magazine)
Please, give up the old 60s slogan “The West Was Not Won By A Registered Gun”. the winchesters or remington rifles used by the cavalry won the west.
Note for Hokieman
This BS is typical ‘sky is falling’ mentality expressed whenever the Republicans lose. I say that as an independent who has worked for the Federal government since the Ford Administration.
It does absolutely NO good for those of us who will continue to strive CONSTRUCTIVELY for the preservation of all forms of hunting and humane use of animals.
If you were a hound and I were a whipper-in, I’d be peppering you with rat shot from my .22 while yelling ‘leave it,’ since you are guilty of running riot. And I’d be doing that regardless of which candidate, or which party, was in the White House.
Go Obama!!!
The ususal gun-crazy rants, made by the sort who most certainly shouldn’t have the guns. Hounds, you go dog!!!
Grow up.
:yes:
Don’t usually get into these type of threads…have a handgun, have had it for 40 years,
sleep better knowing it’s nearby whether I’ve been living in the city or in the country. Don’t have kids–if anyone visits with kids, it gets tucked away.
A friend sent me this info a while back–don’t know the source but found it interesting.
The bad guys always seem to be able to get their hands on them regardless of the laws.
"Recently, gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million
dollars. Following the first year, these were the results:
List of seven items:
Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2 percent (and that’s continuing to climb)
Australia-wide, assaults were up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300
percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in
armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the
ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was
expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens."
you betcha!
Th:lol:
I prefer not to be a victim. If you guys want to be victims, fine, just don’t move next to me. I prefer to have armed neighbors who can (and have) helped me in crises.
houndsRus, thank you so much for talking about Chicago, and highlighting the fact that the “children” who are getting shot are often A. by rival gang members (In other words, both shooter and shootee are not ‘victims’ but dangerous criminals) B. in drug deals (already engaging in crinimal activity; again, crinimal-on-criminal crime) or C. Thy are shot by the police while they are engaged in other criminal activity, such as buglary, etc. And yes, these count towards that supposed figure of 500.
What percentage of these guns were obtained legally? Isn’t it already illegal to attack other people, take crack, and buglarize? What makes you possibly think that reducing the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves is going to make the criminals behave? THEY ALREADY HAVE NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW.
And what about the hundreds of millions that Canada is spending? What are the true results, ie, reduction of crime? I don’t think so. Reduction of suicide? Unfortunately, doubtful. So, alll that money WASTED that could perhaps – addressed why young people join gangs, supported young mothers, built job-training programs.
It is not my “fear” of regulation of guns that is apparent here – it is the fear of GUNS, lead mostly by ignorance (bless your little hearts!) And perhaps also the prevalence of the “culture of victimhood”
PS Your doctor probably doesn’t wash his/her hands; about 90,000 people die each year due to infections spread through those means. In the last 11 years, that’s nearly 1 million, not counting the number who are permanently injured. Let’s put the money towards reducing hospital errors. In fact, your VET probably is more careful about hygine than your doctor!
I’m out of here before this closes.
Well, this is somewhat horse-related for those of us who keep our horses at home. In
some parts of the country, folks have to deal with large predators who go after horses/foals. In other parts, the neighbor’s dogs running loose and running horses in their
own pastures are a problem. And then there’s always the possibility of injury or illness
that requires immediate euthansiza because the vet can’t get to the horse immediately.
And the obviously sick/possibly rabid wildlife that can come wandering by that needs to
be stopped before tangling with your dogs or kids. Most rural animal control departments
seem to take days to respond.
Personal protection aside, having a gun on hand is just part of the farm/farmette tools. It’s
just one we hope not to have to use.
How many lives could have been saved if just ONE student sitting in a classroom at Va Tech had had a legally owned gun?
Laws don’t work for criminals. If you really think the Tech shooting would not have happened if it had been harder for him to get a gun, I think you’re crazy. What might have helped is if the public mental health system had paid attention (just one more way government is inept). We have a student right this very minute in our school system (in one of my daughters’ grade) that has already had several serious incidents in the school. I have deemed him our next Cho. VERY similar in profile and behavior. I have bent over backwards to get the school to pay attention and that I’ve noticed, they’ve done very little.
So, while I’m not sure I think the OP should have his panties in a wad just yet, those slippery slopes do worry me…
So are you going to put your horse out of his misery with an AK 47? Or shoot the wild dogs with the same? I understand having a rifle or shotgun for those purposes.
What the heck does all of this have to do with horses?
When the cat is away…
