Obama's Urban Policy Plan - "Commonsense gun laws and childproof guns"

[636blurr]

Originally Posted by Mooosman

That's the thing; The People can't defeat the military, and we haven't been able to since the military acquired cannons.

Even if every civilian in the U.S. were given a machine gun, we still would not be able to defeat the U.S. military; airpower trumps all, and unless The People get a hold of some strike fighters, I don't see us mounting much of a resistance!

It's a moot point. The fact is that NO civilian NEEDS a machine gun, for any reason. Period.



Nick

Evidently you have not studied history very well. Partisan fighters during ww2 were paramount to helping disable the nazi war machine.
Various groups of partisans fought,died, and survived that war. At the siege of stalingrad germany thru a massive amount of armament at a army that was not even fully equiped, the scene during enemy at the gates where only some troops had rifles and would pick up from the dead was 100 percent correct, they fought with whatever they had, bricks in some instances, but hte most famed combat troops during that time were indeed the sniper which accounted for not only horrible casualties, but crumbled moral. One could also use the isreal 1948 war where a significantly outnumbered underequiped isreal defense force held off the arabic machine.
In huge instances one person with a rifle has accounted for several hundred deaths, Simo Haya during the Finish war with russia racked up a incredible 500 kills, some were machine gun, some were bolt action rifle. Lyudimilia Pavlichenko accounted for a total of 309 kills herself. One of the snipers she killed had logged in his book over 500 kills on his own.
Take modern times, you have Iraq, and afganistan, poorly armed and trained troops fighting against the most sophisticated troops in history.
On a civilian front you can take several instances however the most recent that had a huge mental impact on people in the DC area were of course the DC snipers who fired what 17 times? killing something like 15 people?

[jim schmidt]

It's not impossible that our military (collectively) would be duped into killing a bunch of innocent people for made up reasons. You really only need to look at how some of the righty nutballs here demonize liberals as un-American to understand how it might work. All that is necessary is to convince a patriotic soldier that the rebels are "terrorists" or "subversives."

The citizenship is a wrinkle, but I suspect enough people would buy in to operate the overwhelming weapons systems. It'd be up in the air about whether such a campaign of deception could be successful but I think it would be imperative.

It would also be a profound tragedy and I think it might be far more consequential than the civil war, depending on how long it lasted and how many people died.

[Teej]

Originally Posted by flylooper

"Allow Effective Gun-Tracing: When law enforcement agencies operate in concert at the federal, state, and local levels, the chances of solving a crime increases. Since 2003, the Tiahrt Amendment has restricted the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to share gun trace information with members of state and local law enforcement. The ATF has a wide-ranging database of gun information, yet Washington has threatened police officers with time in prison for attempting to access it. As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

couBULLSHITgh....

Tiahrt does absolutely nothing to impede legitimate criminal investigation.

Gun manufacturers maintain the trace data for the ATF on their own servers. They're all too eager to provide data for legitimate purposes - nobody wants someone using their products to commit crimes.

What Tiahrt halts is fishing expeditions by, say, Bloomberg in his attempts to sue gun dealers / manufacturers.

[zx6rracer]

jesus. i'm to tired to read all the rhetoric. so here's my point(s)

child safety:
yes, locks keep a child safe. no child locks are not a good idea. the last thing you need to be doing at 2am when a burglur breaks into your residence is trying to find your key and then fucking around with a p.i.t.a lock to remove. Child safety starts with the parents. Two of my three boys are already firearms trained (the third being 2 months so it's kinda hard to teach him that, when he hasn't even learned to laugh yet). Both my 7 year old and 4 year old shoot my sidearms. Both can put all their rounds in the middle three rings. both know that they are NOT to touch any fire arm without daddy or uncle mike around. not even if my wife is around. only the two above mentioned people. The only weapon that is left out of my safe every day is my 1911. and it's out of reach of them. yes, they <could> get to it, but i trust that they won't (mainly it's on me while i'm out and about, or within arms reach of my in the house at night).

b) the batf decides what an "assault rifle" is. and it's usually based around the perception of left wing nut jobs. technically now, the ruger 10/22 is now an "assault rifle" because there are magazines out that hold more than 10 rounds, and are removable.

c) if they start banning weapons without safety's, the .gov is going to be up a shit creek. all it will take is glock doing what barrett did and stop selling to them. the case i'm citing was: california decided to ban all .50 caliber semi-automatic weapons; naming barrett's weapons specifically. guess what government agencies can no longer purchase these weapons? you guessed it. LAPD went from one of barrett's largest customers, to getting NONE over night. all <in processing> requisitions were canceled. imagine what would happen if glock stopped supporting the law enforcement community? sure they could probably turn to beretta or sig sauer, but if glock starts turning them away, the other companies will follow suit.

[jim schmidt]

Sorry, I don't think teaching a four year old to operate a weapon is an act of great insight.

[zx6rracer]

Originally Posted by snakesht

The real question is how much of the military would sympathize with the civilians whose rights were being taken away?

Baldrick, jerome, and anybody else who's served: would you have killed your countrymen if they were standing against an overly oppressive government?

"Sir, respectively, The order you have just issued is a direct violation of constitutional law, therefore being an unlawful order. Sir, i'm going to have to ask you relinquish your weapon. Under authority of the USMCJ, I am here by placing captain so-in-so under military arrest and am relieving him of his command till further investigation by a high authority can be conducted. Sergeant, Corporal, please remove the captain to the brig."

[zx6rracer]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

Sorry, I don't think teaching a four year old to operate a weapon is an act of great insight.

okay jim. i'll play. As a gun owner, my children are at some point going to see them. if i do not train them now, and at an early age; curiosity will eventually get to them. this impulse will guide them to "playing" with one of them. that's when children get hurt. it's from a lack of <insight>, and forethought by the parents that lead to that act.

my four year old probably knows more about any given weapon in my arsenal than you do about any ONE weapon. He also understands the concept of death, in that once a person is dead (killed / hurt by a gun) that they will never come back. that they will never be able to play with him, hug him, love on him, whatever ever again.

stated again: he further knows not to touch any firearm. I say firearm cause it goes beyond the scope of a "gun." it goes as far as any weapon that fires a projectile. this includes sling shots, potato guns, fire crackers, etc.

Do you teach your children not to play with knives? do you allow them to cut their own food? same principle. a knife can kill <easier and quicker> than a fire arm can. you'll bleed out from a wrist cut in what 3 minutes? what happens if your child is carrying a knife from the kitchen to the table. he falls and impales his lung on it? how long do you think it'll take for him to bleed out into his chest cavity? or suffocate?

unless you hit a vital organ (heart) or get an unlucky head shot, provided your not alone, it'll take longer for you to die from the shock of being shot than it would for you to bleed out (depending on the location of the shot; nicking an artery of course will expedite the bleed out; but same principle with a knife)

[stealthy1]

Originally Posted by jim schmidt

Sorry, I don't think teaching a four year old to operate a weapon is an act of great insight.

So, at what age would it be great insight?

[zx6rracer]

oh, and not to mention... i actually spend time with my kids. and teach them useful stuff that pertains to the real world. how many of <you> can say the same thing.

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by stealthy1

So, at what age would it be great insight?

I don't know for sure. Seven might be borderline OK. Four year old's don't have the capacity for reliable impulse control. You can't expect them to act older than their brain development.

I'd pick up a book on childhood development if you really want to know.

[snakesht]

So I guess guns are ok if I don't have kids in the house? Ok, thanks.

[stealthy1]

Originally Posted by snakesht

So I guess guns are ok if I don't have kids in the house? Ok, thanks.

Guns are ok with kids in the house also.....as long as it is done with special consideration for things that COULD happen. I happen to be pro-gun and pro-kids....so, IMO it is a balancing act between protecting your family and not being stupid about letting children have acess to potentially dangerous weapons....especially loaded ones.

I keep two clips unattached to my pistol in my night stand. It would take just a couple of seconds for me to slap one in/chamber a round/ switch it to fire and blast away if need be.

My three year old would not be able to get the clip in unless I teach him how to do it....My 16 yr old could figure it out, but, that's a chance I take having weapons in the home.

I have been introducing the 3year old to the very basics of gun safety already but he has yet to cook off a round. Hopefully in the spring if all goes well . He is a fairly violent child by nature, so I'm not encouraging him very much.

[Mooosman]

Originally Posted by Scissors

Incorrect. The military depends on the people for much of its infrastructure. That's not to say it would be an easy victory for the people, it clearly would not--assuming they could win at all. But it wouldn't be the cake walk for the military you're making it out to be. For one, not everyone in the military would agree with the government's stance and would likely ally with The People. Another issue is production of the supplies the military would need. Of course, they'd secure what they could as quickly as they could, but production would be cut severely.

Sure it would. Given superior weaponry, and, more importantly, the stomach to use it, there is no way the average citizenry would stand a chance against the U.S. military.

The key phrase there is "the stomach to use it." The military is equipped with some horrible weapons, and if the soldiers and leaders of those soldiers are determined enough to use them, it would be pretty devastating to civilians. Napalm, cluster bombs, chemical/biological weapons, nuclear weapons, etc.


The Iraqi insurgency is not a fair measure of the impact a small force can have on our military. The U.S. government does not have the stomach to use its entire arsenal on the insurgents, because of the inevitable international outcry that would occur. A civil war here in the United States could very well change that.



Nick

[killernoodle]

Its always possible to put a key on guns. For instance, both my bersa 380 and my Taurus have a key locking system. Lock them and you don't have to worry about them ever going off in a child's hands. It locks the slide, the firing pin, and the trigger, so even if you're out of the house and the kids start playing with it, you only have to worry about how hard you're going to spank them when you find out. The key unlocks and locks the gun in seconds and the key can be kept on you at all times on your usual key ring.

Its not intrusive, and its not adult proof.

As for the whole banning of assault weapons: I have a better idea.

Make a system that is similar to drivers education. Anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm of any kind must undergo a shooter's education class where they will earn the right to carry and purchase guns. Of course, each person will be background checked for previous felonies and upon getting charged with a felony your rights and your guns will be stripped from you. I'm talking the police will go to your house and confiscate all your guns. A better national gun registration system will be put into place where guns are tracked to their owners. Transferring a firearm to a new owner, turning in old/broken guns, and any changes to gun registration (stolen guns) should be done at the local police station or federally licensed gun dealer to avoid shady activities. If a gun is used in a felony and not by the original owner, I think the original owner should be held liable for some kind of 2nd degree felony if they didn't get their registration taken care of properly. Of course getting caught with a gun that isn't registered to you would also be a crime. I think the police should be able to identify the owner of a firearm by the serial number in a national database at the scene, much like how they identify people based on their drivers license number or a car's owner by the VIN/tag.

Realistic gun control can work and can be non-invasive. A common sense approach like this would prevent new guns from getting into the hands of criminals and would properly educate people on how to use, secure, carry, buy, and sell their guns.

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by zx6rracer

oh, and not to mention... i actually spend time with my kids. and teach them useful stuff that pertains to the real world. how many of <you> can say the same thing.

What's your definition of the real world? I can't answer your question until we agree on what's real and what isn't.