Obama’s Gun Ban List Is Out

[DocRock]

Here it is, folks, and it is bad news. The framework for legislation is always laid, and the Democrats have the votes to pass anything they want to impose upon us. They really do not believe you need anything more than a brick to defend your home and family. Look at the list and see how many you own. Remember, it is registration, then confiscation. It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

Remember, the first step in establishing a dictatorship is to disarm the citizens.

Gun-ban list proposed. Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly. I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity. It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve made little mention of criminals. Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment. The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine,
Sturm Ruger Mini-14,
AR-15,
Bushmaster XM15,
Armalite M15,
AR-10,
Thompson 1927,
Thompson M1;
AK,
AKM,
AKS,
AK-47,
AK-74,
ARM,
MAK90,
NHM 90,
NHM 91,
SA 85,
SA 93,
VEPR;
Olympic Arms PCR;
AR70,
Calico Liberty ,
Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU,
Fabrique National FN/FAL,
FN/LAR, or FNC,
Hi-Point20Carbine,
HK-91,
HK-93,
HK-94,
HK-PSG-1,
Thompson 1927 Commando,
Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
Saiga,
SAR-8,
SAR-4800,
SKS with detachable magazine,
SLG 95,
SLR 95 or 96,
Steyr AU,
Tavor,
Uzi,
Galil and Uzi Sporter,
Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle ( Galatz ).
Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110,
MAC-10,
MAC-11, or MPA3,
Olympic Arms OA,
TEC-9,
TEC-DC9,
TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10,
Uzi.
Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG,
SPAS 12 or LAW 12,
Striker 12,
Streetsweeper. Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see
below),
(iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.
Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than
10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rim fire rifles).
A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine, and has:
(i) a second pistol grip,
(ii) a threaded barrel,
(iii) a barrel shroud or
(iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and
(v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10
rounds.
A semiautomatic shotgun with:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock,
(ii) a pistol grip (see definition below),
(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity
of more than 5 rounds, and
(iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.
Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will: Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.”

Note that Obama’s pick for this office, Eric Holder, wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home. In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.” In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America http://www.gunlaws.com/gloa.htm

Forward or send to every gun owner you know…
Watch This, If You Want More Proof:
YouTube - CNN- Obama To BAN Guns SPREAD THIS FOLKS, PLZ!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv3p2lLmjGk

A partial list of gun rights groups:

Gun Owners of America
http://gunowners.org/

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
http://www.jpfo.org/

FREEDOM=GUNS
http://www.tcsn.net/doncicci/freedom.htm

National Rifle Association
http://www.nra.org/

Second Amendment Committee
http://www.libertygunrights.com/

Second Amendment Foundation
http://www.saf.org/

Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org/

Women Against Gun Control
http://www.wagc.com/

[KommanderK]

lol how many cases have you heard of a person actually defending themselves in their home with a gun, as opposed to cases were said guns get stolen and used to kill other people.

It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

uh all those countries have lower murder rates then the US. strange huh?

[Megadude]

Good. The less guns around anywhere, the better. Perhaps also, we will hear less of kids finding their parents guns and accidently shooting someone, and hear less of school shootings with the people responsible having less access to guns.

[dissonance]

lol how many cases have you heard of a person actually defending themselves in their home with a gun, as opposed to cases were said guns get stolen and used to kill other people.

My uncle (who moved to Virginia about a year ago) told me about two times that he personally prevented himself from being carjacked or robbed in his home. In each case, he did not need to fire his weapon, or in the case of the attempted carjacking, did not even need to raise it; he merely showed the other fellow that he was armed and prepared to kill in self defense. After that, the would-be criminal decided that an old pickup or a stereo system wasn't worth his life, and went on.

It has happened in the UK, in Australia, in Europe, in China, and what they have found is that for some reason the criminals do not turn in their weapons, but will know that you did.

uh all those countries have lower murder rates then the US. strange huh?

With the exception of China, I believe all those countries have lower populations than the United States. Per Capita homicide rates involving the firing of a firearm would be a much better statistic to refer to here.
Also, if you don't mind, cite a source for these.

Good. The less guns around anywhere, the better.

No. Go read the Federalist Papers. The Second Ammendment was included to enable the American citizenry to protect itself from the American government.
Furthermore, "anywhere" would involve disarming the police and military, which is not going to ever happen, much less somehow disarming criminals.

Perhaps also, we will hear less of kids finding their parents guns and accidently shooting someone, and hear less of school shootings with the people responsible having less access to guns.

Before I go off and yell at the incredible irresponsibility of these parents, let me ask how many guns involved in these shootings were legally purchased/distributed? The same question goes for firearms involved in school shootings. Cho's two handguns used in the Virginia Tech shooting are the only two I can think of.

Oh, let me also point out that this bill is never going to pass.

[YokaI]

Oh, let me also point out that this bill is never going to pass.

Yup, and that's why I wish republicans would use their guns to kill themselves. That way, we wouldn't even have to argue.


I am for complete elimination of guns to the populous unless they have at one time served under the military or public protection services.

[dissonance]

I am for complete elimination of guns to the populous unless they have at one time served under the military or public protection services.

Why is disarming the law-abiding populace a good thing?

[Ennui]

Cry me a fuckin' river OP. I'm quite happy knowing that people can't buy assault rifles, Uzis and SPAS-12s just for the hell of it. If you want to defend yourself, a handgun is quite sufficiently deadly. Also you should know that owning a gun drastically raises the chances of a member of your family dying a violent gun-related death (whether it's you shooting them, you shooting yourself, or a robber in your home shooting them). If you pull a gun on someone trying to fuck with your shit, they're either going to leave because a stereo isn't worth their life... or they're going to pull their own gun and shoot you, and you're going to be sitting there dying when you realize that that stereo wasn't worth your life either.

edit: for the record I'm just throwing my opinion out there, I already know it's futile to argue with you people

GUNS ARE AWESOME!

[dissonance]

Also you should know that owning a gun drastically raises the chances of a member of your family dying a violent gun-related death (whether it's you shooting them, you shooting yourself, or a robber in your home shooting them).

Bullshit. Sorry, but I'm not believeing that for a second. Again, any statistics to back that up?

If you pull a gun on someone trying to fuck with your shit, they're either going to leave because a stereo isn't worth their life... or they're going to pull their own gun and shoot you, and you're going to be sitting there dying when you realize that that stereo wasn't worth your life either.

If you pull a gun on an intruder in your home and it looks like he's going for a weapon, fire.
If you pull a gun, you'd better be comfortable with killing the person you're pointing it at. If you're not okay with that, even under circumstances of self-defense, don't buy a gun, or at the very least, keep it at the range and not at home. If someone can shoot you when you have a gun drawn, you seriously fucked up.

image

All of those weapons were illegally obtained and more people were killed by automobiles on that day than in that highschool.

[dissonance]

Oh, and OP is trolling.
Pretty well, I might add.

[Ennui]

Bullshit. Sorry, but I'm not believeing that for a second. Again, any statistics to back that up?

Kellermann, Arthur, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, Vol. 329 No. 15, pp. 1084-91.

If you look around though you will find as many websites debunking this study as you will citing it. It's almost impossible to find truly nonpartisan statistics or studies related to gun control. My point is that owning a gun is far more of a feeling safe issue rather than a being safe one. Sure you can feel comfortable knowing you can blow someone away if they try to break into your house or whatever, but at the same time having a gun automatically escalates the situation to the point where someone is probably getting shot.

If you pull a gun on an intruder in your home and it looks like he's going for a weapon, fire.
If you pull a gun, you'd better be comfortable with killing the person you're pointing it at. If you're not okay with that, even under circumstances of self-defense, don't buy a gun, or at the very least, keep it at the range and not at home. If someone can shoot you when you have a gun drawn, you seriously fucked up.

You and I both know that you're harping over semantics here. It's not about whether you're comfortable shooting someone or not. It's not necessarily going to be you holding a gun and the robber like a deer in the headlights in your living room; maybe you don't see him, just hear him downstairs, and walk down with a gun in your hand only to get shot from the dark corner of the room by the startled criminal. Maybe you're jumpy and accidentally shoot your teenage daughter who's quietly walked up behind you to see what you're doing up. Maybe you both draw at the same time and shoot each other. Maybe you catch him unawares and cap his filthy criminal ass. Maybe he finds your gun before you do and shoots you with it. Who knows? This is hardly even relevant anyway; I support the second amendment, and by this point we have saturated our country with guns so it's necessary because all the criminals have them anyway. I just don't think people should be allowed to buy something that doesn't make sense as a hunting weapon or is serious overkill for self-defense, like an AK-47. In an ideal world there would be no guns in anyone's hands but that's obviously not going to happen... but the fact is that guns are designed solely for the purpose of killing and/or incapacitating, acting outraged at bans on assault weapons on the like is myopic.

All of those weapons were illegally obtained and more people were killed by automobiles on that day than in that highschool.

Obviously what happened at Columbine is symptomatic of massive underlying social issues, not just gun control, but the fact is that if we had stricter gun control laws it would not have been nearly as easy for them to obtain the guns they did even illegally. I don't know what the fuck you think automobiles have to do with this, they're designed to get people places not kill people.

I'm not posting in this thread anymore, so to make things easier I'll prematurely concede defeat. Obviously, gun violence and the USA's extremely high rate of it has nothing at all to do with the fact that guns are so prevalent and easy to come by here. No, it must be something else.

[Sacul15]

[Rasky_26]

I gotta agree that this ban is bullcrap! I can't tell you how much I love hunting with my semiautomatic rifle and blowing the deer to f*cking smitherings!!!!

And its not like the 2nd amendment doesn't apply well anymore because America still has a HUGE threat from foreign countries and a non-assembled army therefore requiring every-day citizens to arm themselves. So you can take your liberal BS ideas and get outta this country or we'll shoot you! Go go drive by shootings, ftw!

[Athlete{UK}]

The problems I have with the whole.

"If you hand guns in all the law abiding people wont have weapons any more but the criminals will!" are that There seems to be some beliefe that in society there are bad eggs and good eggs. Good eggs turn bad quite quickly given the right push the difference between with gun control is if they have ready access to weaponry.

Also there seems to be this assumption when talking about gun control that every criminal is carrying a piece and will shoot you. To an extent it's a self fullfilling prophecy. Everyone arms up to protect themselves from armed burglary so all the burglar who weren't carry weapons anyway arm themselves up as well.

As for the comparisons to other countries I agree. The nations with gun control have lower murder rates. And please note I say rates not amounts. It's a useual response to say "yeah well they have a lower population" well that's what averages are for and the UK has a much lower gun crime rate than the USA.

Unfortunatly I find myself in a bit of a dilema with gun control. On one had I believe the hypothetical utopia society is one in which nothing is illegal and everything is subject to the idea of complete freedom. On the other more realistic side our society is still very infantile and cannot be trusted with too much power.

Finally whilst I agree with tighter gun controls it's difficult for a nation like the USA where guns are so engrained in their culture to take that away from them. Imposing a gun ban on a nation which doesn'thave guns everywhere is easier. You ban them in the USA people will still keep them probably. In my eyes that's not a reason not to impose tighter moderation but it is a difficulty.

Also sacul it's a very nice map which doesn't really prove anything. "vermont no gun restriction 49th in violent crimes" New York has gunristriction and has one of the highest. Your map implies that's down to gun control. It's worth noting vermont is a comparatively sparsely populated bunch of hills with a fairly liberal way of life and New York is home to NYC one of the busiest tightly populated often violent cities around. The map is null and void imo.

[dissonance]

Bullshit. Sorry, but I'm not believeing that for a second. Again, any statistics to back that up?

Kellermann, Arthur, et al., "Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home," New England Journal of Medicine, October 7, 1993, Vol. 329 No. 15, pp. 1084-91.

If you look around though you will find as many websites debunking this study as you will citing it. It's almost impossible to find truly nonpartisan statistics or studies related to gun control. My point is that owning a gun is far more of a feeling safe issue rather than a being safe one. Sure you can feel comfortable knowing you can blow someone away if they try to break into your house or whatever, but at the same time having a gun automatically escalates the situation to the point where someone is probably getting shot.

Fuck yeah! Leave it to Interlopers to actually cite a statistic. Best forum ever. Heart.
I google'd and got http://www.guncite.com/gun-control-kell ... times.html first; a somewhat interesting read. Like you said, though, I did run into a whole lot of "nah, that's a load of shit" in regards to the same study. Considering that the cited rate for in-home homicides by previously nonviolent offenders is .0000075%, though, I'd still think that firearms in the home act as more of a deterrent.

If you pull a gun on an intruder in your home and it looks like he's going for a weapon, fire.
If you pull a gun, you'd better be comfortable with killing the person you're pointing it at. If you're not okay with that, even under circumstances of self-defense, don't buy a gun, or at the very least, keep it at the range and not at home. If someone can shoot you when you have a gun drawn, you seriously fucked up.

You and I both know that you're harping over semantics here. It's not about whether you're comfortable shooting someone or not. It's not necessarily going to be you holding a gun and the robber like a deer in the headlights in your living room; maybe you don't see him, just hear him downstairs, and walk down with a gun in your hand only to get shot from the dark corner of the room by the startled criminal. Maybe you're jumpy and accidentally shoot your teenage daughter who's quietly walked up behind you to see what you're doing up. Maybe you both draw at the same time and shoot each other. Maybe you catch him unawares and cap his filthy criminal ass. Maybe he finds your gun before you do and shoots you with it. Who knows? This is hardly even relevant anyway; I support the second amendment, and by this point we have saturated our country with guns so it's necessary because all the criminals have them anyway. I just don't think people should be allowed to buy something that doesn't make sense as a hunting weapon or is serious overkill for self-defense, like an AK-47. In an ideal world there would be no guns in anyone's hands but that's obviously not going to happen... but the fact is that guns are designed solely for the purpose of killing and/or incapacitating, acting outraged at bans on assault weapons on the like is myopic.

Myopic, thank you; that was the word I was looking for. Place this statement in conjunction with "In an ideal world there would be no guns in anyone's hands but that's obviously not going to happen" and we get right to the core of the issue.
And as long as diving into the deep end of semantics is okay, I'd like to point out that there's a light on by any sort of ingress/egress door in my house at all times.
Civilian AK-47s are excellent hunting weapons. The difference, as I see it, between civvie and military weapons is rate of fire: the one and only thing that fully-automatic fire is used for is suppressive fire. If you shoot once, a deer will take cover. Semiautomatic weapons make perfect sense for hunting. Fully-automatic weapons have no place whatsoever in a civilian setting, and have barely any place in a military one.

All of those weapons were illegally obtained and more people were killed by automobiles on that day than in that highschool.

Obviously what happened at Columbine is symptomatic of massive underlying social issues, not just gun control, but the fact is that if we had stricter gun control laws it would not have been nearly as easy for them to obtain the guns they did even illegally. I don't know what the fuck you think automobiles have to do with this, they're designed to get people places not kill people.

I'm just pointing out that there are socially accepted mechanisms that cause more death per year than firearms. I realize that it's more towards the trolling end of the spectrum; my bad.
And to be entirely honest, I'm starting to doubt weather or not school shootings are symptomatic of underlying social issues; considering their growing prevalence worldwide, I'm beginning to think that they're a tiny indication that humans are beginning to live beyond their means - that is to say that we, as a species, are placing greater burdens on ourselves than we can biologically handle.
...maybe. This is just a musing; I've put a grand total of about six hours of thought into it in the last year.

I'm not posting in this thread anymore, so to make things easier I'll prematurely concede defeat. Obviously, gun violence and the USA's extremely high rate of it has nothing at all to do with the fact that guns are so prevalent and easy to come by here. No, it must be something else.

Defeat? You didn't lose anything. I know I might come off as an asshole, but I've found that it's the best way to grind people's true feelings out of them. I just wanna know what people around me think.

[dissonance]

Also there seems to be this assumption when talking about gun control that every criminal is carrying a piece and will shoot you. To an extent it's a self fullfilling prophecy. Everyone arms up to protect themselves from armed burglary so all the burglar who weren't carry weapons anyway arm themselves up as well.

If I may be so blunt, you're not looking at this from a criminal's perspective. The police already carry guns; this will push criminals towards the aforementioned escalation (nearly) regardless of how the citizens are armed.

Unfortunatly I find myself in a bit of a dilema with gun control. On one had I believe the hypothetical utopia society is one in which nothing is illegal and everything is subject to the idea of complete freedom. On the other more realistic side our society is still very infantile and cannot be trusted with too much power.

The utopia you mentioned sounds an awful lot like complete anarchy; not what I'd consider utopian.
Call me naive, call me trusting, whatever; I believe that there is some essential good in people. I think humanity would be better off if we acted in small groups; somewhere around 1 to 5 million. City-states, I guess. When people are faced with the fact that they control not only their fate, but the fate of those around them, this good in them tends to come out more (at this point, I would make a D= face towards anyone who starts to say "Lord of the Flies"). When you have a group of people as large as America, an individual's responsibility becomes lost in the crowd. I know the rest of the world understands what I'm talking about here: think of how many times you've made fun of our overly litigious society. In my opinion, Americans have had this notion of "individuality" shoved down their throats too long; to the point where they/we really do start to believe "it's all about me; fuck the rest of you."
If you need an example of this, look at our last President: "oh, the UN told me it wasn't okay to invade Iraq? Well fuck you, I'm America; I'm gonna invade anyway. You're not my boss."
Ah, I guess maybe I am stupid. Maybe I am assuming that humans are smarter than they really are.

Finally whilst I agree with tighter gun controls it's difficult for a nation like the USA where guns are so engrained in their culture to take that away from them. Imposing a gun ban on a nation which doesn'thave guns everywhere is easier. You ban them in the USA people will still keep them probably. In my eyes that's not a reason not to impose tighter moderation but it is a difficulty.

The problem I have with disarming the populace is that I do not trust my government at all. When they say, "give me your guns," I hear (hang on a second, lemmie put my tinfoil hat on), "give me your ability to resist," and immediately become suspicious. "You didn't have a problem with me owning a bolt-action 30.06 for the last 40 years, why do you want to take it now?"