New anti-gun legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.

KillerDave

Have camera, will travel...
To take this discussion in a little bit of a different direction, rather than debating constitutional gun rights we could look at the cause & effect of anti-gun legislation and rhetoric. Unfortunately the results have been the exact opposite of what anti-gun advocates say they want; fewer guns overall, fewer criminals and crazies with guns and ultimately less gun violence.

Some examples:
Barak Obama. Statistically, the most effective gun salesman in history was Barak Obama. Google it. While I'm sure this was not his intent, gun sales during his presidency exploded; gun and ammo manufacturers literally could not keep up with demand. It's a continuing trend.

Gun ownership vs gun violence statistics show that states with low gun ownership have high gun violence rates and vice versa. The exception to this are the "A" states of Alaska and Alabama, with lots of gun ownership and gun deaths. Interestingly, Washington DC has very low gun ownership but some of the highest gun violence; statistically everyone that owns a gun in D.C. shoots someone with it. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Stop & Frisk (google it). When New York was suffering thru its worst crime wave in history this practice lowered crime rates & got guns off the street. At the same time was intrusive and admittedly skewed towards minorities so it got voted out, ironically by the same group(s) that support more gun control legislation.

Presently, there are an estimated 393,000,000 guns in the US, or 120 guns per 100 people. For my part I wish the "anti's" would pipe down as it just makes people want them even more and we probably have enough.

All this gun talk makes me want to buy more ammo.
 

long_rod_silvers

WFF Supporter
I'm actually thinking of buying a gun for the first time. For home safety but more importantly protection in our camper when camping in grizz country.

Maybe a 870 12 gauge?
Might be worth checking out the glock 20 10mm. was recently looking to expand my collection and looking to fill that same niche and found a lot of folks praising this as a great outdoor firearm with upper level bear stopping power.
 

Mark Walker

Active Member
I'm actually thinking of buying a gun for the first time. For home safety but more importantly protection in our camper when camping in grizz country.

Maybe a 870 12 gauge?
This will keep you covered whether it has 4 legs or two.
 

quilbilly

Big Time Hater
As acting head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Brooks finalized a rule Thursday that would force banks to lend to gun manufacturers, oil drillers and other controversial industries that some have refused to do business with....

Huh...makes no sense give decades of de-regulation mantra from the right.

Seems like a regulatory overreach here by the OCC.
I mean, if you think of the NRA and gun manufacturers as a gay wedding cake, and the banks as a baker, this runs completely counter to free market principles they claim to espouse, and regularly argue in court.
Its puzzling to say the least.

Or, they're just amoral liars with no principles.

:D

Going with door number 2 here....
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Then why didn't they exclude the Bill of Rights from the amendment process? There were originally 3 exclusions in Article V, the first 2 expired with the sunset clause of 1808.

The first 10 amendments were in fact, amendments that went through the Article V process. There is nothing in the constitution that prevents them from being amended.

Don't take this for an argument that they should be amended, it is just acknowledging that they can be and that your statement "this is the constitutions view of the bill of rights" is not born out by the Constitution itself - so again, where does this statement come from?

Cheers
How about we focus on what they did say and not what they didn't say.
We all know the quotes so I'll only rehash a little.

The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..
Pretty darn clear..

Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of religious or the free practice there of

The United States Government even under the influence of the majority of the population cannot legally touch these rights without due process of law..

It was written simply and clearly.

Abiding by the constitution is how we ensure domestic tranquility.. ignore the constitution and there will and should be very lawful and moral untranquility.

In short leave gun owners alone, let people practice their religion their own way. Let the press be free even when they are full of garbage and let people speak their minds WITHOUT RECOURSE!!!!!
 

Canuck from Kansas

WFF Supporter
How about we focus on what they did say and not what they didn't say.
We all know the quotes so I'll only rehash a little.

The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..
Pretty darn clear..

Congress shall pass no law concerning the establishment of religious or the free practice there of

The United States Government even under the influence of the majority of the population cannot legally touch these rights without due process of law..

It was written simply and clearly.

Abiding by the constitution is how we ensure domestic tranquility.. ignore the constitution and there will and should be very lawful and moral untranquility.

In short leave gun owners alone, let people practice their religion their own way. Let the press be free even when they are full of garbage and let people speak their minds WITHOUT RECOURSE!!!!!
Straw man Rob, I focused on what was written in Article V of the Constitution. All I was stating was that there is nothing preventing the BoR being amended, not arguing they should.

You still have not provided where your statement of "this is the constitutions view of the bill of rights", came from, ie, let's focus on what is written.

Cheers
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
Straw man Rob, I focused on what was written in Article V of the Constitution. All I was stating was that there is nothing preventing the BoR being amended, not arguing they should.

You still have not provided where your statement of "this is the constitutions view of the bill of rights", came from, ie, let's focus on what is written.

Cheers
That statement is derived by reading the bill of rights and how it explicitly describes rights that the government cannot touch without due process.
 

Salmo_g

WFF Supporter
Might be worth checking out the glock 20 10mm.
I've read two accounts now that it does indeed have bear stopping power, not to mention that the magazine holds more rounds than the .44 magnum revolver. However, the 10 mm is hard for most people to shoot, especially with hard cast bear ammo. So Swimmy would need another pistol to practice with in order to be proficient with the 10 mm. I've only shot my SIL's 10 mm once, and I'd need to practice with it a lot before I felt confident about pointing it at Mr. Bear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top