PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues GUN CONFISCATION IS BEGINNING!


LOCOChief
08-31-2009, 06:14 AM
GUN CONFISCATION IS BEGINNING--

SENATE BILL SB-2099

Confirmed on snopes.com - http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/blairholt.asp

HR45 Gun Owners Watch Out

Concerning the Blair-Holt proposed legislation: Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may require fingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun.
In November, our president promised he was not going after our Second Amendment rights. This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all. The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, http://www.senate.gov/ <http://www.senate.gov//> <http://www.senate.gov/ <http://www.senate.gov/> > You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099.

You know who to call; I strongly suggest you do. Please send a copy of this e-mail to every gun owner you know.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text
<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h45/text

Congress is now starting on the firearms confiscation bill. If it passes, gun owners will become criminals if you don't fully comply. It has started. Very Important for you to be aware of a new bill HR 45 introduced into the House. This is the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sale Act of 2009. Even gun shop owners didn't know about this because the government is trying to fly it under the radar. To find out about this - go to any government website and type in HR 45or Google HR 45 Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. You will get all the information.

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm - any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless: It is registered -You are fingerprinted -You supply a current Driver's License -You supply your Social Security # -You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing - Each update change of ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25 - Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail. - There is a child provision clause on page 16 section 305 stating a child-access provision. Gun must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. They would have the right to come and inspect that you are storing your gun safely away from accessibility to children and fine is punishable for up to 5 yrs. in prison.

If you think this is a joke - go to the website and take your pick of many options to read this. It is long and lengthy. But, more and more people are becoming aware of this. Pass the word along. Any hunters in your family pass this along.
This is just a "termite" approach to complete confiscation of guns and disarming of our society to the point we have no defense - chip away a little here and there until the goal is accomplished before anyone realizes it.
This is one to act on whether you own a gun or not. If you take my gun, only the criminal will have one to use against me. HR 45 only makes me/us less safe.


Anyone who supports or tries to justify this is an enemy of mine and there are plenty like me.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 06:32 AM
Wow! The Dems really are totalitarians too.

It's unConstitutional but that won't stop 'em!

headsnap
08-31-2009, 06:42 AM
Wow! The Dems really are totalitarians too.

It's unConstitutional but that won't stop 'em!

relax, it's for THE PEOPLE....

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 06:44 AM
Relax, it's just another unreasonable search and seizure! ;) Can't help but feel secure in my papers.

headsnap
08-31-2009, 06:44 AM
it's really bad out there, recently UP's Mom witnessed UP reading a post by jAZ about some guy who dropped a gun in a grocery store!!!

petegz28
08-31-2009, 06:45 AM
This is not good...

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 06:45 AM
Can those sponsoring this bill be impeached as public officials too?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 07:17 AM
Wow! The Dems really are totalitarians too.

It's unConstitutional but that won't stop 'em!

but Mccain says that BO follows the constitution.

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 07:23 AM
As a fellow advocate of 2nd amendament rights, I'm with you on following the constitution on gun control. The public having the right to bear arms is just as true today as when it was first made law.

I know how gun owners freak out when they talk about filing paperwork to own guns. But the constitution doesn't gaurantee you don't have to fill out paper work. You fill out the paperwork and they deny you the right to bear arms, I'll be right there along side you protesting.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 07:25 AM
As a fellow advocate of 2nd amendament rights, I'm with you on following the constitution on gun control. The public having the right to bear arms is just as true today as when it was first made law.

I know how gun owners freak out when they talk about filing paperwork to own guns. But the constitution doesn't gaurantee you don't have to fill out paper work. You fill out the paperwork and they deny you the right to bear arms, I'll be right there along side you protesting.

By requiring registration we've entered the slippery slope of turning a right into a privilege, sure you can own a firearm as long as we say it's ok.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 07:25 AM
None of you even read the Snopes link, did you?

1) It explicitly references the first sentence of this email as being FALSE.

2) It says that the bill doesn't have a single co sponsor, so claiming that "gun confiscation is beginning" is an outright lie.

That is all.

No it's not.

I'm really sick of the endless parade of BS information that is posted, cheered and jeered without much criticial thought given to it, only to have to come in here with the facts that knock the BS down.

This seems to happen 1-2 times a day anymore.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 07:28 AM
By requiring registration we've entered the slippery slope of turning a right into a privilege, sure you can own a firearm as long as we say it's ok.

As we developed more powerful firearms, this has become a pragmatic necessity.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 07:29 AM
As a fellow advocate of 2nd amendament rights, I'm with you on following the constitution on gun control. The public having the right to bear arms is just as true today as when it was first made law.

I know how gun owners freak out when they talk about filing paperwork to own guns. But the constitution doesn't gaurantee you don't have to fill out paper work. You fill out the paperwork and they deny you the right to bear arms, I'll be right there along side you protesting.
Ever hear of the 4th Amendment?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

petegz28
08-31-2009, 07:32 AM
As a fellow advocate of 2nd amendament rights, I'm with you on following the constitution on gun control. The public having the right to bear arms is just as true today as when it was first made law.

I know how gun owners freak out when they talk about filing paperwork to own guns. But the constitution doesn't gaurantee you don't have to fill out paper work. You fill out the paperwork and they deny you the right to bear arms, I'll be right there along side you protesting.

registering is one thing. Fingerprinting, fees and confiscation if you do not provide said info? That is getting to be borderline bullshit. I filled out paperwork and registered when I bought my firearms. That is all they need.

petegz28
08-31-2009, 07:33 AM
As we developed more powerful firearms, this has become a pragmatic necessity.

bullshit...that makes no sense at all

Inspector
08-31-2009, 07:33 AM
Wow......just wow.

Our founding fathers are slapping their foreheads: "DOH! This aint the way it's supposed to work!!!"

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 07:33 AM
Ever hear of the 4th Amendment?
not applicable. I don't think it violated the spirit or the letter of the law to have to register a handgun.

petegz28
08-31-2009, 07:34 AM
None of you even read the Snopes link, did you?

1) It explicitly references the first sentence of this email as being FALSE.

2) It says that the bill doesn't have a single co sponsor, so claiming that "gun confiscation is beginning" is an outright lie.

That is all.

No it's not.

I'm really sick of the endless parade of BS information that is posted, cheered and jeered without much criticial thought given to it, only to have to come in here with the facts that knock the BS down.

This seems to happen 1-2 times a day anymore.


jAZ, you lead that parade most of the time. You above all people here will piss on the Constitution if your party wants you too, without question.

petegz28
08-31-2009, 07:34 AM
not applicable. I don't think it violated the spirit or the letter of the law to have to register a handgun.

I do. You register when you buy the gun. End of story. They don't need fingerprints or anything else.

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 07:35 AM
registering is one thing. Fingerprinting, fees and confiscation if you do not provide said info? That is getting to be borderline bullshit. I filled out paperwork and registered when I bought my firearms. That is all they need.
I agree.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 07:42 AM
not applicable. I don't think it violated the spirit or the letter of the law to have to register a handgun.

It most certainly is applicable. The Constitution was written primarily as a restraint on the Federal govt—not the people.

LOCOChief
08-31-2009, 08:07 AM
None of you even read the Snopes link, did you?

1) It explicitly references the first sentence of this email as being FALSE.

2) It says that the bill doesn't have a single co sponsor, so claiming that "gun confiscation is beginning" is an outright lie.

That is all.

No it's not.

I'm really sick of the endless parade of BS information that is posted, cheered and jeered without much criticial thought given to it, only to have to come in here with the facts that knock the BS down.

This seems to happen 1-2 times a day anymore.


I read it and it says TRUE.

petegz28
08-31-2009, 08:24 AM
I read it and it says TRUE.

I don't think this will pass, personally. It doesn't seem as if there are any takers to support the bill. The fact it was even brought up, again, however is disturbing.

scott free
08-31-2009, 08:28 AM
I don't think this will pass, personally. It doesn't seem as if there are any takers to support the bill. The fact it was even brought up, again, however is disturbing.


I agree, this has no legs.

If Obama wants to gaurantee himself 1 miserable term, he'll push for it...i dont think he will.

Brock
08-31-2009, 08:30 AM
As we developed more powerful firearms, this has become a pragmatic necessity.

You can stick that line of thinking up your ass.

kcfanXIII
08-31-2009, 08:34 AM
they try to start taking guns it might just be the spark ive been fearing is coming. And the first guy to take out a dozen or so law enforcment officers, will be paraded on all the alphabet soup news channels as a nutjob. Then they will make that leap of faith and start claiming all gunowners are nutjobs. Then im sure they will lead the charge against your right to bear arms and make you believe that its for your own safety. Ive said all along they will whittle away our rights till someone does something violent, then they will use that act as an excuse to take total control. All the while yelling "they drew first blood" through their propaganda machine.
Posted via Mobile Device

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:40 AM
I agree, this has no legs.

If Obama wants to gaurantee himself 1 miserable term, he'll push for it...i dont think he will.

I will if it was left unknown tucked into another bill. What does that say about our current regime. I also heard they do this in Mass already. ( not sure if true but a gun owner there told me that he has to do that there.)

stevieray
08-31-2009, 08:43 AM
all it takes is a 'crisis'

:shake:

Saggysack
08-31-2009, 08:44 AM
You can stick that line of thinking up your ass.

Do you draw any line in the sand that certain weapon systems should not be available to the public? Or do you believe all should be available?

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 08:46 AM
Do you draw any line in the sand that certain weapon systems should not be available to the public? Or do you believe all should be available?

All should be available. I'd like to see a citizen militia more than having a huge standing army too. Like they do in Switzerland. They're folk have miltary grade weapons at home. Kewl!

Brock
08-31-2009, 08:51 AM
Do you draw any line in the sand that certain weapon systems should not be available to the public? Or do you believe all should be available?

Do you believe that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

RaiderH8r
08-31-2009, 08:53 AM
As we developed more powerful firearms, this has become a pragmatic necessity.

Why?

Brock
08-31-2009, 08:54 AM
Why?

Because he's in favor of government intrusion, at least when a democrat proposes it.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 08:55 AM
Do you believe that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Well of course not, at least not without your proper papers and if you jump through enough hoops you may be granted the "right" to own such.

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 09:01 AM
All should be available. I'd like to see a citizen militia more than having a huge standing army too. Like they do in Switzerland. They're folk have miltary grade weapons at home. Kewl!Yeah, thats all we need. Criminals free to purchase automatic weapons, AK-47's etc. That'll make us safe.

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:02 AM
Yeah, thats all we need. Criminals free to purchase automatic weapons, AK-47's etc. That'll make us safe.

It's already illegal for criminals to purchase AK-47s and they can get them anytime they want NOW, dumbo.

Saggysack
08-31-2009, 09:02 AM
Do you believe that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?


Don't be an ass and dodge the question.

Would you like your neighbor to have a crate full of blocks of C4, det cord, time fuse, and blasting caps?

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:04 AM
Don't be an ass and dodge the question.

Would you like your neighbor to have a crate full of blocks of C4, det cord, time fuse, and blasting caps?

I'll take that as a "No, I do not believe the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as specified by the US constitution.".

orange
08-31-2009, 09:05 AM
All should be available. I'd like to see a citizen militia more than having a huge standing army too. Like they do in Switzerland. They're folk have miltary grade weapons at home. Kewl!

"Citizen militia?" LMAO

There's UNIVERSAL CONSCRIPTION in Switzerland.

Switzerland has mandatory military service (German: Militärdienst; French: service militaire; Italian: servizio militare) for all able-bodied male citizens, who are conscripted when they reach the age of majority, though women may volunteer for any position. People determined unfit for service, where fitness is defined as "satisfying physically, intellectually and psychically requirements for military service or civil protection service and being capable of accomplishing these services without harming oneself or others", are exempted from service but pay a 3% additional annual income tax until the age of 30, unless they are affected by a disability. Almost 20% of all conscripts were found unfit for military or civilian service in 2008; the rate is generally higher in urban cantons such as Zurich and Geneva than in the rural ones. Swiss citizens living abroad are generally exempted from conscription in time of peace, while dual citizenship by itself does not grant such exemption.

Saggysack
08-31-2009, 09:10 AM
I'll take that as a "No, I do not believe the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, as specified by the US constitution.".


I'll take that as a "No, I do not believe my neighbor should be able to have any weapon system.".

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 09:11 AM
It's already illegal for criminals to purchase AK-47s and they can get them anytime they want NOW, dumbo.
WTH, are you so insecure? jeeezzzz. I was responding to BEP who suggested that we allow automatic weapons to be sold as they are in Switzerland. Okay, can I say this for the millionth time on here, please bookmark it, save it or something......I'm getting sick of repeating myself on here....

I'm against any form of gun control except for the banning of automatic weapons. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. No exceptions.


I'm well aware of the precedding part about how we need a well armed militia for the defense of the country. The argument goes we have F-16's and nuclear weapons now to defend us. What good is a pistol or hunting rifle going to do to help defend the country? I'm not buying that argument. If the founders wanted something like, "if we can defend ourselfs from forign enemies without personal firearms. then we can have gun control" in the constitution, it would have been there. The constitution is clear. If people don't like that part of the constitution there are ways to get it changed.

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:12 AM
I'll take that as a "No, I do not believe my neighbor should be able to have any weapon system.".

Take it any way you like, you're just re-hashing old, tired arguments.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 09:12 AM
I'll take that as a "No, I do not believe my neighbor should be able to have any weapon system.".

You're arguing extreme circumstances that would not exist, and if it did exist those people with tanks in their yards would be heavily scrutinized.

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:14 AM
I'm against any form of gun control except for the banning of automatic weapons. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. No exceptions.

So no exceptions, except for the exception. :rolleyes:

HonestChieffan
08-31-2009, 09:17 AM
The point is that we must be ever vigilant in making sure the right is not infringed and that we never drop our guard against the anti gun forces. They are organized and well financed and are in search of any way to restrict this right in any way they can.

Never drop your guard. The left and anti gunners will never stop in their quest to disarm the populace under any guise they can.

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 09:19 AM
So no exceptions, except for the exception. :rolleyes:
Correct. I think that is a reasonable excpetion. There is nothing in there about the right to keep and bear automatic weapons. Now, its my understanding that its fairly simple to make a weapon "automatic" but if it was legal and easily traded and sold it would be a disaster for us. Every gang in America would be armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. Talk about a slippery slope.

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:20 AM
Correct. I think that is a reasonable excpetion. There is nothing in there about the right to keep and bear automatic weapons. Now, its my understanding that its fairly simple to make a weapon "automatic" but if it was legal and easily traded and sold it would be a disaster for us. Every gang in America would be armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. Talk about a slippery slope.

Every gang in America IS armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. All you propose is disarming citizenry.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 09:21 AM
Every gang in America IS armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. All you propose is disarming citizenry.

QFT!

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 09:22 AM
Every gang in America IS armed to the teeth with automatic weapons. All you propose is disarming citizenry.being against the public sale of automatic weapons = disarming American citizens?:hmmm:

Taco John
08-31-2009, 09:23 AM
I'm really sick of the endless parade of BS information that is posted, cheered and jeered without much criticial thought given to it, only to have to come in here with the facts that knock the BS down.

This seems to happen 1-2 times a day anymore.


You should lead by example then you hypocrite (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=212633).

Saggysack
08-31-2009, 09:24 AM
You're arguing extreme circumstances that would not exist, and if it did exist those people with tanks in their yards would be heavily scrutinized.

I'm not arguing extreme circumstances. The question was simple. Should every weapon system be made available to the public? It not a hard question.
And no, tanks wouldn't be a top choice. Too cost ineffective for a individual user. But those that are easy and cheap to produce...

If there is even 1 weapon system you believe should not be made available, you're for gun control.

Let's go through a short list here...

How about Anthrax?

Sarin?
Ricin?

yeah, I can see how those weapon systems can do no harm by making them more readily available

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 09:24 AM
being against the public sale of automatic weapons = disarming American citizens?:hmmm:

I'm not sure you've heard but criminals tend to disobey the law, whereas law abiding citizens do not.

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:25 AM
being against the public sale of automatic weapons = disarming American citizens?:hmmm:

Yes, they would not be as well armed as the criminals who do and will have automatic weapons regardless of law.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 09:25 AM
I'm not arguing extreme circumstances. The question was simple. Should every weapon system be made available to the public? It not a hard question.
And no, tanks wouldn't be a top choice. Too cost ineffective for a individual user. But those that are easy and cheap to produce...

If there is even 1 weapon system you believe should not be made available, you're for gun control.

Let's go through a short list here...

How about Anthrax?

Sarin?
Ricin?

yeah, I can see how those weapon systems can do no harm by making them more readily available

Those are not firearms.

Mr. Kotter
08-31-2009, 09:25 AM
Even the Democrats won't pass this thing.

Next....

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:26 AM
I'm not arguing extreme circumstances. The question was simple. Should every weapon system be made available to the public? It not a hard question.
And no, tanks wouldn't be a top choice. Too cost ineffective for a individual user. But those that are easy and cheap to produce...

If there is even 1 weapon system you believe should not be made available, you're for gun control.

Let's go through a short list here...

How about Anthrax?

Sarin?
Ricin?

yeah, I can see how those weapon systems can do no harm by making them more readily available

Yeah, because sarin and ricin are the common infantry weapons of the day. It's hilarious that you think you're making an argument containing original thought.

Saggysack
08-31-2009, 09:27 AM
Those are not firearms.

They are arms.


And one could legally argue that have been used for decades as such.

Again,

Should every weapon system be made available to the public?

scott free
08-31-2009, 09:27 AM
Every gang in America IS armed to the teeth with automatic weapons..

Thats a fact.

Saggysack
08-31-2009, 09:30 AM
Yeah, because sarin and ricin are the common infantry weapons of the day. It's hilarious that you think you're making an argument containing original thought.

Oh, so it is only common infantry weapons now? My my, how the goalposts just keep moving.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 09:31 AM
They are arms.


And one could legally argue that have been used for decades as such.

Again,

Should every weapon system be made available to the public?

Define available, there are different laws that cover chemical/biological/radiological weaponry.

Taco John
08-31-2009, 09:31 AM
I'm not arguing extreme circumstances. The question was simple. Should every weapon system be made available to the public? It not a hard question.
And no, tanks wouldn't be a top choice. Too cost ineffective for a individual user. But those that are easy and cheap to produce...

If there is even 1 weapon system you believe should not be made available, you're for gun control.

Let's go through a short list here...

How about Anthrax?

Sarin?
Ricin?

yeah, I can see how those weapon systems can do no harm by making them more readily available



:LOL:

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:31 AM
Oh, so it is only common infantry weapons now? My my, how the goalposts just keep moving.

If you read the constitution, the goalposts haven't moved for over 200 years. Why don't you go read a book about it, then come back with some original perspective.

Saggysack
08-31-2009, 09:36 AM
If you read the constitution, the goalposts haven't moved for over 200 years. Why don't you go read a book about it, then come back with some original perspective.


But the technology of weapons by the way they are delivered and the potential of them causing greater destruction have greatly changed.

And you ignoring that fact will keep you in the minority on the issue.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 09:40 AM
bullshit...that makes no sense at all

You can stick that line of thinking up your ass.

You both say that while readily accepting bans on certain arms.

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:40 AM
You both say that while readily accepting bans on certain arms.

I don't readily accept bans on certain arms, you presumptuous twit.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 09:43 AM
Those are not firearms.

"arms"

jAZ
08-31-2009, 09:48 AM
I don't readily accept bans on certain arms, you presumptuous twit.

You are ok with personal nuke ownership?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 09:50 AM
"arms"

Biological weapons are controlled substances, therefore are placed in the wrong category.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 09:51 AM
You are ok with personal nuke ownership?

try to get one, see if you can.

Brock
08-31-2009, 09:51 AM
You are ok with personal nuke ownership?

Look, another ignorant, sophomoric argument! GAME CHANGER

Donger
08-31-2009, 09:53 AM
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

HonestChieffan
08-31-2009, 09:53 AM
Look, another ignorant, sophomoric argument! GAME CHANGER

Careful, he may move to the "double dog dare" or even the "My dad can beat up your dad" move. Followed up by an "Oh yea?"

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 09:54 AM
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

So hope and change are codewords for lies and deception? Appears so.

vailpass
08-31-2009, 10:01 AM
I can hear them locking and loading all over the country.

Iowanian
08-31-2009, 10:06 AM
As a fellow advocate of 2nd amendament rights, I'm with you on following the constitution on gun control. The public having the right to bear arms is just as true today as when it was first made law.

I know how gun owners freak out when they talk about filing paperwork to own guns. But the constitution doesn't gaurantee you don't have to fill out paper work. You fill out the paperwork and they deny you the right to bear arms, I'll be right there along side you protesting.

We fill out paperwork when we buy them, we fill out paperwork for our purchase permits.


You and your paperwork can shove it in your ass.

I'd say its time to start buying undocumented items.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:07 AM
Don't be an ass and dodge the question.

Would you like your neighbor to have a crate full of blocks of C4, det cord, time fuse, and blasting caps?

If he was a peace loving limited govt type; yes. If he was a lefty, big govt, fascist, socialist, facialist or communist then no. ;)

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:08 AM
Yeah, thats all we need. Criminals free to purchase automatic weapons, AK-47's etc. That'll make us safe.

Like the criminal gang called govt? Who checks that criminal gang? We do.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Madd works.

Iowanian
08-31-2009, 10:11 AM
As we developed more powerful firearms, this has become a pragmatic necessity.

I guess this is the point where I invite you to stuff this thought in an unpleasant location for most males.

Donger
08-31-2009, 10:15 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MWajf5RkDJ8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MWajf5RkDJ8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:17 AM
If it's pragmatic due to advanced power of weapons; then it's equally pragmatic that the citizenry have equal fire power for the proper check on govt abuse of power should it ever happen.

KC native
08-31-2009, 10:22 AM
JFC! Some of you are fucking lunatics. This bill has no co-sponsors and has a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. I don't want anyone restricting me in my ability to purchase firearms but there is a lot of hyperventilating going on over nothing. If this bill gets a co-sponsor or has a realistic chance of passage then I would be right alongside of you wingers but as of now it's just typical hot air coming from your side.

RINGLEADER
08-31-2009, 10:23 AM
As we developed more powerful firearms, this has become a pragmatic necessity.

Because most convenience store robberies happen with AK-47s.

:rolleyes:

If you want to see a great example of a country without the second amendment you need look no further than Iran. If they had a second amendment there would be a new regime in power right now.

KC native
08-31-2009, 10:24 AM
If it's pragmatic due to advanced power of weapons; then it's equally pragmatic that the citizenry have equal fire power for the proper check on govt abuse of power should it ever happen.

:rolleyes: Yea it's a good idea to give civilians stinger missiles and machine guns.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:24 AM
JFC! Some of you are ****ing lunatics. This bill has no co-sponsors and has a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. I don't want anyone restricting me in my ability to purchase firearms but there is a lot of hyperventilating going on over nothing. If this bill gets a co-sponsor or has a realistic chance of passage then I would be right alongside of you wingers but as of now it's just typical hot air coming from your side.

It was only tucked onto another bill with no debate so no one saw it easily. Wake up!

KC native
08-31-2009, 10:25 AM
None of you even read the Snopes link, did you?

1) It explicitly references the first sentence of this email as being FALSE.

2) It says that the bill doesn't have a single co sponsor, so claiming that "gun confiscation is beginning" is an outright lie.

That is all.

No it's not.

I'm really sick of the endless parade of BS information that is posted, cheered and jeered without much criticial thought given to it, only to have to come in here with the facts that knock the BS down.

This seems to happen 1-2 times a day anymore.

This should have ended the thread.

KC native
08-31-2009, 10:27 AM
It was only tucked onto another bill with no debate so no one saw it easily. Wake up!

Did you read the snopes page or are you just talking out of your ass again?

Donger
08-31-2009, 10:30 AM
JFC! Some of you are ****ing lunatics. This bill has no co-sponsors and has a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. I don't want anyone restricting me in my ability to purchase firearms but there is a lot of hyperventilating going on over nothing. If this bill gets a co-sponsor or has a realistic chance of passage then I would be right alongside of you wingers but as of now it's just typical hot air coming from your side.

And, what do you think of the hot air coming from your side? You know, the Democrat who introduced this bill?

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:30 AM
Because most convenience store robberies happen with AK-47s.

:rolleyes:

If you want to see a great example of a country without the second amendment you need look no further than Iran. If they had a second amendment there would be a new regime in power right now.

Honestly, the vast majority of lawful gunowners are people with no criminal record, are landowners, business owners and people educated on the Constitution.
Another law that treats most of the people like they're common criminals.

Brock
08-31-2009, 10:31 AM
And, what do you think of the hot air coming from your side? You know, the Democrat who introduced this bill?

Well, he's just trying to make our world a better place. Get behind it or get out of the way!

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:32 AM
Well, he's just trying to make our world a better place. Get behind it or get out of the way!

Like Hilter, Lenin and Stalin. All of them utopians. Every dictator agrees with gun control.

Donger
08-31-2009, 10:33 AM
From a rather brief perusal of the argument from the left on this issue, I seems like their big beef is with the use of firearms by criminals. If that is the case, isn't it somewhat silly to introduce laws restricting their purchase and possession?

I mean, criminals don't obey laws. That's why they are considered criminals.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:35 AM
From a rather brief perusal of the argument from the left on this issue, I seems like their big beef is with the use of firearms by criminals. If that is the case, isn't it somewhat silly to introduce laws restricting their purchase and possession?

I mean, criminals don't obey laws. That's why they are considered criminals.

I've read that criminals steal them from military and police. If outlawed what would stop them? Nothing. We'd all be sitting ducks.....and some of us dead ones.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 10:36 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNdIBZWhzO8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNdIBZWhzO8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

2bikemike
08-31-2009, 10:43 AM
From a rather brief perusal of the argument from the left on this issue, I seems like their big beef is with the use of firearms by criminals. If that is the case, isn't it somewhat silly to introduce laws restricting their purchase and possession?

I mean, criminals don't obey laws. That's why they are considered criminals.

This!

Inspector
08-31-2009, 10:43 AM
You know...come to think of it....

This gun control thing could be a real economic stimulant for criminals. They'll have a much more open ability to further their businesses and gain a lot of economic power with this.

No reason to sneak into people's houses, just walk up to the door, kick it in and go to work. I mean, what is anyone gonna do if they have been disarmed??

So despite what some say, I do see where there could be an upside for some folks.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:44 AM
I saw this comment on the link for that you tube on criminals;


"Of course politicians will pass all the gun control laws they can. Most politicians will side with criminals because they are criminals themselves. Gun control is NOT crime control. You can NOT legislate a criminals behavior. "

Donger
08-31-2009, 10:48 AM
Well, perhaps one of our resident pro gun-control proponents could fill me in? How does the creation of additional restrictions and controls on the purchase of firearms help reduce the frequency of criminals using said weapons?

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 10:49 AM
Well, perhaps one of our resident pro gun-control proponents could fill me in? How does the creation of additional restrictions and controls on the purchase of firearms help reduce the frequency of criminals using said weapons?

The video provided the answer. It won't. It increases their productivity! LMAO

2bikemike
08-31-2009, 10:50 AM
JFC! Some of you are ****ing lunatics. This bill has no co-sponsors and has a snow ball's chance in hell of passing. I don't want anyone restricting me in my ability to purchase firearms but there is a lot of hyperventilating going on over nothing. If this bill gets a co-sponsor or has a realistic chance of passage then I would be right alongside of you wingers but as of now it's just typical hot air coming from your side.

We need to be ever vigilant in this fight. Maybe this bill does have a snowballs chance in hell. Maybe by raising a stink about it now before anything happens keeps it from getting slipped into another bill.

I for one have no intention of sitting back on my laurels. At any hint of legislation detrimental to my 2nd ammendment rights, I will fire off letters e-mails and money to fight any and all attempts.

Reaper16
08-31-2009, 10:53 AM
Like this shit has a chance of being passed.

One guy writes a doomed bill = GUN CONFISCATION IS BEGINNING? Prob. not.

Donger
08-31-2009, 10:56 AM
Like this shit has a chance of being passed.

One guy writes a doomed bill = GUN CONFISCATION IS BEGINNING? Prob. not.

Well, how else would it start?

KC native
08-31-2009, 10:57 AM
And, what do you think of the hot air coming from your side? You know, the Democrat who introduced this bill?

It's pretty clear from my post that I think this is stupid and has no chance of passing. I don't live in Illinois so I have no idea of who this person is and no ability to vote them out therefore I don't really give a shit about that person.

Again, I'm not a Democrat. I don't believe in political parties. I do tend to agree with Dems more but I will never join a political party. The two party system is a huge part of our current problems with our political system.

Norman Einstein
08-31-2009, 11:01 AM
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/taxreturns.asp

Anyone actually search this out? What I see is that it's false.
Just another internet rumor.

I would tend to watch those in power though, they are afraid of armed and intelligent Americans.

jAZ
08-31-2009, 11:04 AM
Look, another ignorant, sophomoric argument! GAME CHANGER

There is nothing ignorant about acknowledging that the founding fathers never concieved of arms that so deadly that even strict 2nd amendmenters would welcome such arms ownership bans.

Reaper16
08-31-2009, 11:06 AM
Well, how else would it start?
It will start when it actually starts. There are infinite steps that would lead up to the start of confiscation and it would be impossible to identify any single one of those steps as the genesis of it all.

Donger
08-31-2009, 11:07 AM
It will start when it actually starts. There are infinite steps that would lead up to the start of confiscation and it would be impossible to identify any single one of those steps as the genesis of it all.

I would think that such a bill becoming law might be readily identifiable as the first step.

Reaper16
08-31-2009, 11:12 AM
I would think that such a bill becoming law might be readily identifiable as the first step.
I would call that the first step, too.

This bill will not become law. Until it does, I'm not compelled to think that gun confiscation is beginning.

Donger
08-31-2009, 11:14 AM
I would call that the first step, too.

This bill will not become law. Until it does, I'm not compelled to think that gun confiscation is beginning.

You're missing the point: once it becomes law, it is too late.

Reaper16
08-31-2009, 11:21 AM
You're missing the point: once it becomes law, it is too late.
It won't become law. No one will let it.

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 11:31 AM
...I would tend to watch those in power though, they are afraid of armed and intelligent Americans.

I can guess which side of this equation you're on.

:D

LOCOChief
08-31-2009, 11:35 AM
. If this bill gets a co-sponsor or has a realistic chance of passage then I would be right alongside of you wingers but as of now it's just typical hot air coming from your side.

Go ahead and wait until then dumbass, the simple fact that this is being proposed and the way it would be slipped in is disturbing.

KC native
08-31-2009, 11:37 AM
Go ahead and wait until then dumbass, the simple fact that this is being proposed and the way it would be slipped in is disturbing.

:rolleyes: You are aware that there are conservative democrats that would never allow this to happen right?

LOCOChief
08-31-2009, 11:38 AM
It won't become law. No one will let it.

Who would stop it, folks like you, Jaz, KCNative? I don't think so, you can give your own liberties away, not mine.

LOCOChief
08-31-2009, 11:47 AM
:rolleyes: You are aware that there are conservative democrats that would never allow this to happen right?

I am also aware that there are conservative democrats that allowed the current administration to appoint a convicted felon and self proclaimed communist as green jobs Czar and give him millions of our dollars to play with.

I'm supposed to entrust the safe keeping of my liberties to "conservative dems"? I don't think so, and if you would you’re out of your mind.

KC native
08-31-2009, 11:48 AM
I am also aware that there are conservative democrats that allowed the current administration to appoint a convicted felon and self proclaimed communist as green jobs Czar and give him millions of our dollars to play with.

I'm supposed to entrust the safe keeping of my liberties to "conservative dems"? I don't think so, and if you would you’re out of your mind.

:rolleyes: don't let reality get in the way of your little fantasy. Reid already shot down the possibility for any gun control legislation months ago.

LOCOChief
08-31-2009, 11:52 AM
:rolleyes: don't let reality get in the way of your little fantasy. Reid already shot down the possibility for any gun control legislation months ago.


This is my little fantasy? One question, do you trust Harry Reid?

HonestChieffan
08-31-2009, 11:52 AM
:rolleyes: don't let reality get in the way of your little fantasy. Reid already shot down the possibility for any gun control legislation months ago.

And we will see a balanced budget in 8 months shortly after the Easter bunny delives us all baskets of goodies.

KC native
08-31-2009, 11:54 AM
This is my little fantasy? One question, do you trust Harry Reid?

On this yes. He knows he will lose his next election if any gun control legislation is passed.

BigRedChief
08-31-2009, 11:54 AM
And we will see a balanced budget in 8 months shortly after the Easter bunny delives us all baskets of goodies.Cool. I love those little marshmallow bunnies.

Radar Chief
08-31-2009, 12:01 PM
Cool. I love those little marshmallow bunnies.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yw_gEyg7Nt8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yw_gEyg7Nt8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

LOCOChief
08-31-2009, 12:02 PM
On this yes. He knows he will lose his next election if any gun control legislation is passed.

You don't understand KC native I sensed this about you from the beginning. When a person jeopardizes their credibilty they can't get it back, not with me anyway. This might not be true for people like yourself whom cite the truth when it fits their agenda but for the most part they talk out of their ass.

Either way you have as much credibilty with me as your BFF Harry Reid.

And maybe Harry Reid isn't concerned with having to win a FREE election anyway.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 12:03 PM
And maybe Harry Reid isn't concerned with having to win a FREE election anyway.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

KC Dan
08-31-2009, 12:04 PM
You don't understand KC native I sensed this about you from the beginning. When a person jeopardizes their credibilty they can't get it back, not with me anyway. This might not be true for people like yourself whom cite the truth when it fits their agenda but for the most part they talk out of their ass.

Either way you have as much credibilty with me as your BFF Harry Reid.

And maybe Harry Reid isn't concerned with having to win a FREE election anyway.He's running behind (poll wise) and unless the economy does a hard turn to excellence, he is in trouble already and thankfully so.

KC native
08-31-2009, 12:06 PM
You don't understand KC native I sensed this about you from the beginning. When a person jeopardizes their credibilty they can't get it back, not with me anyway. This might not be true for people like yourself whom cite the truth when it fits their agenda but for the most part they talk out of their ass.

Either way you have as much credibilty with me as your BFF Harry Reid.

And maybe Harry Reid isn't concerned with having to win a FREE election anyway.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

ROFL I'm not a fan of Reid however I do know that like most politicians he is interested in remaining in power. Just based on his self interest he is not going to allow any gun control legislation.

I don't know what's funnier the fact that you guys can't see it's in his self interest to prevent gun legislation or the fact that you think there won't be a free election.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 12:07 PM
ROFL I'm not a fan of Reid however I do know that like most politicians he is interested in remaining in power. Just based on his self interest he is not going to allow any gun control legislation.

I don't know what's funnier the fact that you guys can't see it's in his self interest to prevent gun legislation or the fact that you think there won't be a free election.

You must be extremely Naive to believe we've never had a rigged election here.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2009, 12:08 PM
You must be extremely Naive to believe we've never had a rigged election here.

KCnaive

KC native
08-31-2009, 12:12 PM
You must be extremely Naive to believe we've never had a rigged election here.

I love the projection that goes on out here. I've never claimed there hasn't ever been a rigged election. OTOH I don't believe Harry Reid would be capable of rigging an election.

2bikemike
08-31-2009, 12:15 PM
I love the projection that goes on out here. I've never claimed there hasn't ever been a rigged election. OTOH I don't believe Harry Reid would be capable of rigging an election.

Not that I know much about it. But I wouldn't think any politician would be capable of rigging an election. The crooks that want them in office for one reason or another would definately be able to rig an election.

BTW I just watched MR. Smith goes to Washington. Great movie!

Reaper16
08-31-2009, 12:25 PM
Who would stop it, folks like you, Jaz, KCNative? I don't think so, you can give your own liberties away, not mine.
You are incredibly stupid.

LOCOChief
08-31-2009, 01:03 PM
You are incredibly stupid.

I don't think much of you either jackoff.

Norman Einstein
08-31-2009, 05:19 PM
I can guess which side of this equation you're on.

:D

Go ahead and guess, it might be interesting.

Norman Einstein
08-31-2009, 05:22 PM
Who would stop it, folks like you, Jaz, KCNative? I don't think so, you can give your own liberties away, not mine.

Aren't those the guys that were complaining about the patriot act when Bush was in office?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-31-2009, 05:34 PM
Aren't those the guys that were complaining about the patriot act when Bush was in office?

I was too but the difference is i still am, but i've never harbored any love for barky.

Reaper16
08-31-2009, 05:43 PM
Aren't those the guys that were complaining about the patriot act when Bush was in office?
I was, yeah. I wouldn't want this bill passed, either.

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2009, 06:12 PM
Go ahead and guess, it might be interesting.

I'll take a shot. You're armed.

If that's not the case then you're not a side of either part of the equation.

banyon
08-31-2009, 07:21 PM
Wow! The Dems really are totalitarians too.

It's unConstitutional but that won't stop 'em!

Can those sponsoring this bill be impeached as public officials too?

:spock:

banyon
08-31-2009, 07:30 PM
And pursuant to the new case, combined with [D.C. v. Heller (incorporating 2nd Amendment and McCoullouch v. Maryland, this bill taxing existing gun ownership is unconstitutional and also has 0 chance of passage for that reason too.

Mr. Flopnuts
08-31-2009, 07:57 PM
None of you even read the Snopes link, did you?

1) It explicitly references the first sentence of this email as being FALSE.

2) It says that the bill doesn't have a single co sponsor, so claiming that "gun confiscation is beginning" is an outright lie.

That is all.

No it's not.

I'm really sick of the endless parade of BS information that is posted, cheered and jeered without much criticial thought given to it, only to have to come in here with the facts that knock the BS down.

This seems to happen 1-2 times a day anymore.

Fear mongering is the single biggest tool that Republicans use to get their dumber, poorer, constituents to vote with them.

stevieray
08-31-2009, 07:59 PM
Fear mongering is the single biggest tool that Politicians use to get their dumber, poorer, constituents to vote with them.

FYP

....couldn't resist. ;)

Norman Einstein
08-31-2009, 09:55 PM
I'll take a shot. You're armed.

If that's not the case then you're not a side of either part of the equation.

I do not own a firearm, but it is the right of all Americans to own one if that is their choice.

I can shoot with the best of them. In a one year stretch I shot for score 8 times with military style scoring and scored expert every time.

You don't have to own a weapon to know that the 2nd amendment is being fucked up by liberals.

Norman Einstein
08-31-2009, 09:56 PM
FYP

....couldn't resist. ;)

Far more correct than the other dude.

Bwana
08-31-2009, 10:02 PM
.

orange
09-01-2009, 09:35 AM
.

Yeah, right.

http://img.kiosko.net/2009/07/31/ie/irish_news.750.jpg

Bwana
09-01-2009, 07:55 PM
Yeah, right.

http://img.kiosko.net/2009/07/31/ie/irish_news.750.jpg

Yeah right what? Perhaps this is more your speed? I know I like this one too. :Pinky:

orange
09-01-2009, 08:14 PM
Yeah right what? Perhaps this is more your speed? I know I like this one too. :Pinky:

"Criminals Have 400 Guns From Burglaries."

You don't get it?

Maybe these:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2009/04/16/2009071355.jpghttp://www.mysouthwestga.com/uploadedImages/wfxl/News/Stories/gun(7).jpg

http://photos.oregonlive.com/photos/oregonian/afaadab23c1f42f37901bd4c64d10dff.jpg


Like I said - Yeah, right!

Bwana
09-01-2009, 08:16 PM
"Criminals Have 400 Guns From Burglaries."

You don't get it?

Let them try my place for 401 and see how that works out for them.

orange
09-01-2009, 08:20 PM
Let them try my place for 401 and see how that works out for them.

As the pictures show, they're just terrified of homes with guns. :LOL:

Bwana
09-01-2009, 08:23 PM
As the pictures show, they're just terrified of homes with guns. :LOL:

LMAO: Dude, if "all I had" around here were guns, I may see your point, but I have many other measures as well.

If you're ever up in my part of the country, feel free to drop by some night. :)

KILLER_CLOWN
09-01-2009, 08:31 PM
As the pictures show, they're just terrified of homes with guns. :LOL:

just begging for a repost right about here.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNdIBZWhzO8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HNdIBZWhzO8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Radar Chief
09-01-2009, 09:29 PM
As the pictures show, they're just terrified of homes with guns. :LOL:

400 guns stolen since '03 in Northern Ireland with a population of 1.68M. Yea, that's a real gun stealing crime wave.
Any stats on how many were stolen while the residents were present?

Bwana
09-01-2009, 09:53 PM
400 guns stolen since '03 in Northern Ireland with a population of 1.68M. Yea, that's a real gun stealing crime wave.
Any stats on how many were stolen while the residents were present?

Exactly

kcfanXIII
09-01-2009, 10:07 PM
On this yes. He knows he will lose his next election if any gun control legislation is passed.

you trust this guy? you're out of your mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tRQHsXujpo

<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4tRQHsXujpo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4tRQHsXujpo&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object>

BucEyedPea
09-01-2009, 11:02 PM
Cool. I love those little marshmallow bunnies.

You like a good peep show 'ey? :hmmm:

orange
09-01-2009, 11:46 PM
Any stats on how many were stolen while the residents were present?

Exactly

Who cares? Are you home all the time?

In America (not Northern Ireland) hundreds of thousands of guns are burgled every year. Today in Oklahoma City was a winner:

34 Guns stolen from residence
RUSSELL CARTER REPORTING
5:13 PM CDT, September 1, 2009

OKLAHOMA CITY -- A home burglary in Southwest Oklahoma City has investigators full attention after 34-guns were stolen. Officials say the brazen crook or crooks kicked in the gun owner's back door near the 500 block of S.W. 93rd while he was at work.

Among the stolen weapons were 26 handguns and eight rifles including two AR-15's which are used by law enforcement.

"Of course in this case we don't know what this person intentions were but often times these people that steal these large quantities of guns like that will attempt to sale them to other individuals to make money," said Sgt. Jennifer Wardlow with the Oklahoma City Police Department.

If you have any information you are asked to call Crime Stoppers at (405) 235-7300
Copyright © 2009, KFOR-TV
http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-guns-stolen-story,0,822474.story


Here's a little research (you can buy the whole article if you want, I'm not going to):

The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs Inducement

Philip J. Cook
Duke University - Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy; Duke University - Department of Economics; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

Jens Ludwig
Georgetown University - Public Policy Institute (GPPI); National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA)


May 2002

NBER Working Paper No. W8926


Abstract:
The proposition that widespread gun ownership serves as a deterrent to residential burglary is widely touted by advocates, but the evidence is weak, consisting of anecdotes, interviews with burglars, casual comparisons with other countries, and the like. A more systematic exploration requires data on local rates of gun ownership and of residential burglary, and such data have only recently become available. In this paper we exploit a new well-validated proxy for local gun-ownership prevalence - the proportion of suicides that involve firearms - together with newly available geo-coded data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, to produce the first systematic estimates of the net effects of gun prevalence on residential burglary patterns. The importance of such empirical work stems in part from the fact that theoretical considerations do not provide much guidance in predicting the net effects of widespread gun ownership. Guns in the home may pose a threat to burglars, but also serve as an inducement, since guns are particularly valuable loot. Other things equal, a gun-rich community provides more lucrative burglary opportunities than one where guns are more sparse. The new empirical results reported here provide no support for a net deterrent effect from widespread gun ownership. Rather, our analysis concludes that residential burglary rates tend to increase with community gun prevalence.
JEL Classifications: K42

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=310473


And more:

MENU TITLE: Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms.

Series: NIJ Research in Brief
Published: May 1997
20 pages
41,893 bytes

National Institute of Justice
Research in Brief

Jeremy Travis, Director
May 1997


Based on the NSPOF, an estimated 0.9 percent of all
gun-owning households (269,000) experienced the
theft of one or more firearms during 1994. About
211,000 handguns and 382,000 long guns were stolen
in noncommercial thefts that year, for a total of
593,000 stolen firearms. Those estimates are
subject to considerable sampling error but are
consistent with earlier estimates of about half a
million guns stolen annually.

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt


Of course, you won't believe it - damned pointy-headed liberal researchers, every one of them.

Just don't go putting up signs advertising that you have guns in your house.

laurencn106
09-02-2009, 01:35 AM
They are arms.


And one could legally argue that have been used for decades as such.

Again,

Should every weapon system be made available to the public?

Bwana
09-02-2009, 06:19 AM
Who cares? Are you home all the time?



Ummm, no, who is?

<O:p
There are going to be times when a thug(s) break into a house and boost everything they can get their hands on, (including guns) such is life. Does that mean a person shouldn’t own a gun(s) “because there is a chance some punk ass may break in and take them?” If a person isn't home, no one gets killed and the insurance will likely take care of most of the price of the boosted property.

<O:p</O:p

On the other hand, thugs/meth monkeys/whatever have been know to break into a house with people in it. "That" is where a gun can even the odds.

<O:p</O:p

You seem to be anti-gun, which is fine, to each their own. I am on the other side of the fence. If some crack pimp breaks in when I am not home and can get past my dogs and other security measures I have in place, (good luck with that) then they will have to try to figure out how to break into my gun safe. "If" that can be done and they get away with my guns and whatever else their heart desires, my insurance will cover that.

<O:p</O:p

On the other hand, if I happen to be home when the afore mentioned pimp daddy decides to come around for a not so friendly visit, I would have no problem dropping him and calling the Rug Dr for a carpet cleaning after the cops remove the garbage from my house in a bag.

Radar Chief
09-02-2009, 06:48 AM
Who cares? Are you home all the time?

Since you’re pressing the idea that crooks don’t care about our guns, I’d assume you do. If not, why go through Googleing up an article about Northern Freak’n Ireland as if that’s directly relatable to the US. :shrug:

In America (not Northern Ireland) hundreds of thousands of guns are burgled every year.

I’m sure they are. I’m equally sure the vast majority of those are burgled when the owners aren’t home also.
Home break ins have actually become the preferred method of thievery since Concealed Carry is driving larger numbers of muggers, car jackers, basically any form of stealing that includes confrontation, out of business each year.

Inspector
09-02-2009, 07:57 AM
Ummm, no, who is?

<O:p
There are going to be times when a thug(s) break into a house and boost everything they can get their hands on, (including guns) such is life. Does that mean a person shouldn’t own a gun(s) “because there is a chance some punk ass may break in and take them?” If a person isn't home, no one gets killed and the insurance will likely take care of most of the price of the boosted property.

<O:p</O:p

On the other hand, thugs/meth monkeys/whatever have been know to break into a house with people in it. "That" is where a gun can even the odds.

<O:p</O:p

You seem to be anti-gun, which is fine, to each their own. I am on the other side of the fence. If some crack pimp breaks in when I am not home and can get past my dogs and other security measures I have in place, (good luck with that) then they will have to try to figure out how to break into my gun safe. "If" that can be done and they get away with my guns and whatever else their heart desires, my insurance will cover that.

<O:p</O:p

On the other hand, if I happen to be home when the afore mentioned pimp daddy decides to come around for a not so friendly visit, I would have no problem dropping him and calling the Rug Dr for a carpet cleaning after the cops remove the garbage from my house in a bag.


I'd like a sign that says:

"If you break into my home, I promise I will not call the police and will do everything in my power to cover up the fact that you were ever here. I promise!"

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 09:14 AM
I'd like a sign that says, "Don't further arm the stupid.".

Brock
09-02-2009, 09:15 AM
I'd like a sign that says "If you don't like the constitution, get the fuck out".

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 09:21 AM
I'd like a sign that says "If you don't like the constitution, get the **** out".

Didn't know you were moving. Hope the transition goes smoothly.

Brock
09-02-2009, 09:22 AM
Didn't know you were moving. Hope the transition goes smoothly.

Yeah, that made a lot of sense. :drool:

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 09:25 AM
Yeah, that made a lot of sense. :drool:

About as much you jumping up and down in your lil red wagon filled full of patriotism.

Iowanian
09-02-2009, 09:26 AM
I'd like a sign that says "firearms in this home protected by unstable, violence prone, vengefull SOB with other fire arms"

Iowanian
09-02-2009, 09:29 AM
About as much you jumping up and down in your lil red wagon filled full of patriotism.

You and those of your thinking are free to defend your home with tampon-nunchucks if you want. Don't forget to use your angry protest voice of reason.

Brock
09-02-2009, 09:30 AM
About as much you jumping up and down in your lil red wagon filled full of patriotism.

I'm getting the idea you haven't read any of my posts, ever.

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 09:43 AM
You and those of your thinking are free to defend your home with tampon-nunchucks if you want. Don't forget to use your angry protest voice of reason.


I don't have anything against any weapon or firearm. My wife tells me I own plenty.


With the training and experience I have, which covers anything from smalls arms, shoulder fired AT rockets, 25mm Bushmaster-coax-port weapons in BFV's , main guns in Abrams, C4-TnT, Mk19's, hand grenades and everything in between those, I can honestly say I don't trust many people with weapon systems beyond small arms.

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 09:45 AM
I'm getting the idea you haven't read any of my posts, ever.

No. Never.

Brock
09-02-2009, 09:45 AM
No. Never.

That's obvious.

orange
09-02-2009, 10:42 AM
Since you’re pressing the idea that crooks don’t care about our guns, I’d assume you do. If not, why go through Googleing up an article about Northern Freak’n Ireland as if that’s directly relatable to the US.


I simply googled "guns burglary" in images to get a nice picture. Two seconds.

To MOCK the idiotic little sign in #142. Because the idea is laughable.


Half a million guns stolen from homes every year.

"Gun in house. Stay away." ROFL

You might as well put up a sign "We keep cash. Lots of cash."

BucEyedPea
09-02-2009, 10:51 AM
Orange crimed dropped here in Florida when people could carry a concealed weapon.

orange
09-02-2009, 11:10 AM
Orange crimed dropped here in Florida when people could carry a concealed weapon.

That's a case of "nowhere to go but down."

FLA's overall crime rate is still 2-3 times the national average.

http://www.movers.com/moving-guides/us-state-profiles/state-crimereport.aspx?st=florida

As for "concealed carry," it's practically universal now. When does the crime-free Nirvana open for business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

KC native
09-02-2009, 11:14 AM
That's a case of "nowhere to go but down."

FLA's overall crime rate is still 2-3 times the national average.

http://www.movers.com/moving-guides/us-state-profiles/state-crimereport.aspx?st=florida

As for "concealed carry," it's practically universal now. When does the crime-free Nirvana open for business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

You're wasting your time. BEP is innumerate. She doesn't understand empirical evidence, reversion to the mean, or just about any other mathematical concept that isn't simple arithmetic.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2009, 11:14 AM
That's a case of "nowhere to go but down."

No it's not. Guess who were still targets of violent criminals? Foreign tourists from Europe who didn't have guns. The rental car liscense plates were one signal for them. A German couple were attacked. We have lots of foreign tourists here.

Brock
09-02-2009, 11:15 AM
That's a case of "nowhere to go but down."

FLA's overall crime rate is still 2-3 times the national average.

http://www.movers.com/moving-guides/us-state-profiles/state-crimereport.aspx?st=florida

As for "concealed carry," it's practically universal now. When does the crime-free Nirvana open for business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

But it did go down.

orange
09-02-2009, 11:24 AM
But it did go down.

It went down EVERYWHERE in the same time-frame.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Propertycrime-us.svg/720px-Propertycrime-us.svg.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Ncsucr2.gif


Florida for comparison:

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getfile/c1493f48-127a-4662-b891-d79d349a168f/TIC-Percent20yrs.aspx

orange
09-02-2009, 11:41 AM
That's a case of "nowhere to go but down."

FLA's overall crime rate is still 2-3 times the national average.

http://www.movers.com/moving-guides/us-state-profiles/state-crimereport.aspx?st=florida


Oh, and here's a nice picture. You know I always like a nice picture.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg/350px-US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg.png

Map of violent crime per 100,000 people in the US by state in 2004.

Colors represent : < 100 >100-200 >200-300 >300-400 >400-500 >500-600 >600-700 >700-800 >800 (darker is higher)

Radar Chief
09-02-2009, 12:04 PM
I simply googled "guns burglary" in images to get a nice picture. Two seconds.

Pretty much what I had assumed.

To MOCK the idiotic little sign in #142. Because the idea is laughable.


Half a million guns stolen from homes every year.

"Gun in house. Stay away. Until the owners leave." ROFL

FYP.
I’m probably a little alone here but my “self defense” guns are for protecting my family and me not property.
If I’m going to be robbed I’d prefer they break into my vehicle or house when neither my family or I are there. I really don’t want to have to kill again. ;)

You might as well put up a sign "We keep cash. Lots of cash."

I was watching a 20/20 show where they placed an unloaded handgun on a table in the basement of a church then sent kids down on made up tasks in small groups to see their reaction when they found the gun.
Only a couple of kids left it alone and alerted an adult. Others picked it up, played with it or tried to make off with it. When I was watching this with the Mrs. I told her what a :BS: test I thought that was. They might as well have placed $800 bucks on the table and acted shocked when the kids picked it up, played with it or tried to make off with it.
So yea, to an extent, agreed.

Inspector
09-02-2009, 12:21 PM
Don't know if there is any truth to it or not, but my daughter-in-law's dad told me that a town in Georgia (seems like it was called Kennesaw or something like that) passed an ordinance back in the 90's (or maybe earlier?) that every citizen was required to have a firearm in their home. He said that as a result home break-in's dropped dramatically.

I wonder if he was feeding me a line of bull or if that is actual.

Anyone ever heard of this thing in Georgia? Is it true?

KC native
09-02-2009, 12:49 PM
Don't know if there is any truth to it or not, but my daughter-in-law's dad told me that a town in Georgia (seems like it was called Kennesaw or something like that) passed an ordinance back in the 90's (or maybe earlier?) that every citizen was required to have a firearm in their home. He said that as a result home break-in's dropped dramatically.

I wonder if he was feeding me a line of bull or if that is actual.

Anyone ever heard of this thing in Georgia? Is it true?

More than likely false. If it was true the gun nuts would be trumpeting it as an example incessantly.

orange
09-02-2009, 01:00 PM
Don't know if there is any truth to it or not, but my daughter-in-law's dad told me that a town in Georgia (seems like it was called Kennesaw or something like that) passed an ordinance back in the 90's (or maybe earlier?) that every citizen was required to have a firearm in their home. He said that as a result home break-in's dropped dramatically.

I wonder if he was feeding me a line of bull or if that is actual.

Anyone ever heard of this thing in Georgia? Is it true?

More than likely false. If it was true the gun nuts would be trumpeting it as an example incessantly.

It's sort of true.

A town called Morton Grove in IL adopted a much-ballyhooed law banning guns. Kennesaw, GA adopted their own mandatory ownership law to grab a little limelight for themselves.

The gun nuts don't tout it much because there's nothing to tout. Both are sleepy, bedroom suburbs with little crime before or since the laws.

Inspector
09-02-2009, 01:02 PM
It's sort of true.

A town called Morton Grove in IL adopted a much-ballyhooed law banning guns. Kennesaw, GA adopted their own mandatory ownership law to grab a little limelight for themselves.

The gun nuts don't tout it much because there's nothing to tout. Both are sleepy, bedroom suburbs with little crime before or since the laws.


OK, thanks. I wondered if he was just feeding me a line.

Bwana
09-02-2009, 05:26 PM
I'd like a sign that says, "Don't further arm the stupid.".

I'd like a sign that says, "If you can't deal with guns in America, move your sorry granola crunching, tree hugging ass to Canada.....Limp Nipple."

Bwana
09-02-2009, 05:29 PM
I simply googled "guns burglary" in images to get a nice picture. Two seconds.

To MOCK the idiotic little sign in #142. Because the idea is laughable.


Half a million guns stolen from homes every year.

"Gun in house. Stay away." ROFL

You might as well put up a sign "We keep cash. Lots of cash."

Like I said in another post, if you're ever in the area, drop by late some night and try that theory out and see how it works out for you. :)

MahiMike
09-02-2009, 05:37 PM
You can have your guns. Just outlaw ammo.

KC Dan
09-02-2009, 05:44 PM
You can have your guns. Just outlaw ammo.Good luck with that in America

Halfcan
09-02-2009, 05:45 PM
too many guns on the street-something needs to be done

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 05:55 PM
I'd like a sign that says, "If you can't deal with guns in America, move your sorry granola crunching, tree hugging ass to Canada.....Limp Nipple."


Canada is notorious for having the best shooters in the world. The are always beating us in competitions year in and year out. I know I learned a lot from them. You?

Pretty good for a bunch of granola crunching, tree hugging asses.

Bwana
09-02-2009, 05:56 PM
Canada is notorious for having the best shooters in the world. The are always beating us in competitions year in and year out. I know I learned a lot from them. You?

Pretty good for a bunch of granola crunching, tree hugging asses.

Would the be "Pistol competion?"

Bwana
09-02-2009, 05:59 PM
You can have your guns. Just outlaw ammo.

Thank God that is starting to come back. I bought a few boxes of 10mm stardard loads (plinkers) the other day for the first time in months. I have cases of Corbon and doubletab, that that is high dollar. You don't want to be target shooting with that stuff.

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 06:04 PM
Would the be "Pistol competion?"


They are very good with pistolas as well. Winners of many golds and top shooters awards in international competitions.

Pretty amazing for granola crunching, tree hugging asses

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 06:06 PM
Here is such a team.

Bwana
09-02-2009, 06:07 PM
They are very good with pistolas as well. Winners of many golds and top shooters awards in international competitions.

Pretty amazing for granola crunching, tree hugging asses

Well I very very happy for them! How are the laws regarding your average Joe up there and pistols?

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 06:10 PM
Well I very very happy for them! How are the laws regarding your average Joe up there and pistols?

I don't know, don't care either.

Probaly not much different than our own.

Bwana
09-02-2009, 06:17 PM
I don't know, don't care either.

Probaly not much different than our own.

:D

Wrong

BucEyedPea
09-02-2009, 06:18 PM
Oh, and here's a nice picture. You know I always like a nice picture.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg/350px-US_Violent_Crime_2004.svg.png

Map of violent crime per 100,000 people in the US by state in 2004.

Colors represent : < 100 >100-200 >200-300 >300-400 >400-500 >500-600 >600-700 >700-800 >800 (darker is higher)

Some of those high ones have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country too. Like NY and Mass.

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 06:26 PM
:D

Wrong

Oh well. I have no interest in Canadian gun laws. Don't understand why you would either, but hey, to each their own.

Bwana
09-02-2009, 06:32 PM
Oh well. I have no interest in Canadian gun laws. Don't understand why you would either, but hey, to each their own.

Umm, it would revert back to my ORIGINAL post on the subject. Neither here nor there, one who has the loose skin in the lower body region. Happy shooting. :)

Saggysack
09-02-2009, 11:59 PM
Umm, it would revert back to my ORIGINAL post on the subject. Neither here nor there, one who has the loose skin in the lower body region. Happy shooting. :)

Your ORIGINAL post on the subject? Are you sure? Which one is that? The dumb yard sign post? The "pistol competion" post? The granola cruncher/tree hugger post? Which ORIGINAL post are you talking about?

And umm, did you just take to the pussy way out of calling me a pussy? Well, yeah, how pussy.

Bwana
09-03-2009, 08:22 PM
Your ORIGINAL post on the subject? Are you sure? Which one is that? The dumb yard sign post? The "pistol competion" post? The granola cruncher/tree hugger post? Which ORIGINAL post are you talking about?

And umm, did you just take to the pussy way out of calling me a pussy? Well, yeah, how pussy.

Pussy? I used the term, "limp nipple." If you think I directed that at you, so be it. Be the lefty victim.:deevee: IF you are anti-gun then you may take it that way in good faith.