Still think they're not coming for your guns?

Your last statement is total BS. To say that the goal of the left is to ban guns is the same as saying the goal of the right is to do away with all gun control laws. Neither is correct. I am a little left of center and I do not support a gun ban.

You are right on Obama pushing for stronger gun control laws. You are wrong in your statements about England and Australia:

I usually don't quote Wikipedia and I'll be happy to cite different sources if you like.

"A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. Although it is true that Australia has restrictive firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (both of which include semi-automatics), as well as handguns, are all legal within a narrow set of criteria.


As of 2015 about 815,000 people had a gun licence in Australia and there were around 3.5 to 5.5 million Registered Firearms in Australia.


In England:

Shotgun possession and use is controlled, and even low-power air rifles and pistols, while permitted, are controlled to some extent. A Firearm Certificate issued by the police is required for all weapons and ammunition except air weapons of modest power (of muzzle energy not over 12 ft·lbf (16 J) for rifles, and 6 ft·lbf (8.1 J) for pistols). Shotguns with a capacity of three rounds or less (up to guns with a magazine holding no more than two rounds, in addition to one in the chamber) are subject to less stringent licensing requirements than other firearms and require a shotgun certificate; shotguns with higher capacity require a Firearm Certificate.

And from https://www.quora.com/Why-cant-peopl...he-UK-own-guns

"You cannot own fully automatic firearms, semi-automatic firearms of calibre greater than .22, or handguns. But this still leaves a significant amount of legal weapons. It's actually fairly easy to get a shotgun licence, because you don't have to provide a reason to own one, rather the assumption is that you can unless the police have good reason to prevent it. A firearms licence for a rifle, however, is harder to get because you have to have a good reason to have one. Self or home defence does not count as a good reason." Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Now you're talking about other countries while thinking you're talking about American leftists. The left has already put forth bans on what they call assault rifles or weapons of mass destruction (I kid you not) like the "Alley Sweeper" shotgun. In California Olympic shooters have had to leave the state because their particular shotgun held too many rounds. So that would be a partial shotgun ban. The left does have a love affair with the double barrel shotgun and the six shooter which they always seem to advocate as the perfect firearms....except that Jesse James used both with great efficiency. So if the left got their way how long would it be before single shots were the best kind of gun. Except for the military and police.....and any government official and their personal bodyguards.

Australia had a gun buyback program. Not a confiscation. I'd like to actually hear your plan. And don't say more guns. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Go back a couple of years and look for it (though I'm sure you saw it the first time I posted it). However, if you're too lazy to look for it, the point is not to punish or inconvience the law abiding. I'd open up the psych records but as a recent study has shown, it would only effect about 1% of all gun purchases.

Nope, I'd go for punishment. If you commit a crime using a gun then you get five years for using the gun. Make it a federal bust so a local prosecutor can't toss the charge or plea bargain it down. Now I'm going to make a difference between carrying a gun as a crime and committing a crime using a gun. The first could be some person trying to defend themselves and the second is a criminal. Convicts have already lost their voting rights and they will continue to loose their 2nd amendment rights (someone tell Hillary that this is already a law). I'd up the anty for crime, anyone who steals someone's gun is looking at two years for every gun stolen.

So I'd punish the use of guns in criminal acts above and beyond the final judicial finding. I'd also punish people for stealing weapons. So if you're a law abiding person then you're in the clear. No one is looking to screw you up or take away your guns. Only the criminals.

I would also create a federal concealed carry program that you can VOLUNTARILY enroll in to have a 50 state permit. The states can make their own programs as they see fit.

Of course, we're all waiting to see your program NBK.

I wonder how many of those people in the classroom would have been killed if someone else had been packing?

Go back a couple of years and look for it (though I'm sure you saw it the first time I posted it). However, if you're too lazy to look for it, the point is not to punish or inconvience the law abiding. I'd open up the psych records but as a recent study has shown, it would only effect about 1% of all gun purchases.

Nope, I'd go for punishment. If you commit a crime using a gun then you get five years for using the gun. Make it a federal bust so a local prosecutor can't toss the charge or plea bargain it down. Now I'm going to make a difference between carrying a gun as a crime and committing a crime using a gun. The first could be some person trying to defend themselves and the second is a criminal. Convicts have already lost their voting rights and they will continue to loose their 2nd amendment rights (someone tell Hillary that this is already a law). I'd up the anty for crime, anyone who steals someone's gun is looking at two years for every gun stolen.

So I'd punish the use of guns in criminal acts above and beyond the final judicial finding. I'd also punish people for stealing weapons. So if you're a law abiding person then you're in the clear. No one is looking to screw you up or take away your guns. Only the criminals.

I would also create a federal concealed carry program that you can VOLUNTARILY enroll in to have a 50 state permit. The states can make their own programs as they see fit.

Of course, we're all waiting to see your program NBK. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I could actually get on board with some of that, but even harsher penalties. Make people think twice about using a gun to commit a crime. When did anyone say they wanted to jam up law-abiding gun owners? On the other hand, if you're a licensed carry owner and you accidentally shoot and kill someone, you should face the same penalties as any other murderer. Just because you were lawfully carrying the gun doesn't matter to me. In fact, if you were licensed you should be more knowledgeable than the average thug and therefore you should know better.

I don't know about the 50 state thing. That gets tricky because of all the individual state programs and which states allow what, etc.

I also like the two years for every gun stolen. Make people think twice about stealing a gun.

I wonder how many of those people in the classroom would have been killed if someone else had been packing? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I could go google up the studies, but it's not conclusive that CCL has any real effect on that.

Now you're talking about other countries while thinking you're talking about American leftists. The left has already put forth bans on what they call assault rifles or weapons of mass destruction (I kid you not) like the "Alley Sweeper" shotgun. In California Olympic shooters have had to leave the state because their particular shotgun held too many rounds. So that would be a partial shotgun ban. The left does have a love affair with the double barrel shotgun and the six shooter which they always seem to advocate as the perfect firearms....except that Jesse James used both with great efficiency. So if the left got their way how long would it be before single shots were the best kind of gun. Except for the military and police.....and any government official and their personal bodyguards. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Now you're getting confusing and confused. My post was related to your statement that Obama favored gun bans and confiscation such as what was done in England and Australia. I pointed out that in Australia that is far from the truth in that many private citizens own guns. And in England certain shotguns are allowed but admittedly gun laws in England are much stricter than in Australia.

I, in no way, compared or contrasted gun laws in Australia and England to those in the U.S. Let's let them do what they believe is right for their countries. If you object to their laws, don't go there.

Whenever a law is put into place there will be those that suffer in some way. I mentioned the new law in Texas that will allow those with a CHL to carry their handguns into classrooms and dormitories and other buildings on campus. Those that disagree with the new law, which are the overwhelming majority at UT-Austin, must suffer. That's the way our system works.

I wonder how many of those people in the classroom would have been killed if someone else had been packing? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Do you not think that those who institute gun bans in certain locations do so without considering the welfare of everyone? Do you think that the head of the University of Texas (UT) system, the President of UT-Austin, the Austin police chief, the head of UT-Austin campus police, the faculty, the majority of the students are disregarding the welfare of ALL people on campus when they are in favor of a gun ban on campus? What they are in favor of is the lesser of two evils in their opinion.

Now you're getting confusing and confused. My post was related to your statement that Obama favored gun bans and confiscation such as what was done in England and Australia. I pointed out that in Australia that is far from the truth in that many private citizens own guns. And in England certain shotguns are allowed but admittedly gun laws in England are much stricter than in Australia.

I, in no way, compared or contrasted gun laws in Australia and England to those in the U.S. Let's let them do what they believe is right for their countries. If you object to their laws, don't go there.

Whenever a law is put into place there will be those that suffer in some way. I mentioned the new law in Texas that will allow those with a CHL to carry their handguns into classrooms and dormitories and other buildings on campus. Those that disagree with the new law, which are the overwhelming majority at UT-Austin, must suffer. That's the way our system works. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Lets accept the idea for all intents and purposes both England and Australia have gun ban. Firearm ownership (yes, it exists) is heavily restricted for the average citizen.

I could actually get on board with some of that, but even harsher penalties. Make people think twice about using a gun to commit a crime. When did anyone say they wanted to jam up law-abiding gun owners? On the other hand, if you're a licensed carry owner and you accidentally shoot and kill someone, you should face the same penalties as any other murderer. Just because you were lawfully carrying the gun doesn't matter to me. In fact, if you were licensed you should be more knowledgeable than the average thug and therefore you should know better.

I don't know about the 50 state thing. That gets tricky because of all the individual state programs and which states allow what, etc.

I also like the two years for every gun stolen. Make people think twice about stealing a gun. Originally Posted by WombRaider

I have to take exception to the use of the word "murder". Not all killing is murder. The number of wrong people killed by concealed carry holders is smaller than accidental police shootings according to the FBI crime stats. Unlike a cop arriving on the scene, the CCW KNOWS who the bad guy is. I am not excusing a CCW holder from criminal penalties but they should go through the same kind of scrutiny that a cop does after a shooting even (as people have said) they have less training and are more subject to civil actions.

Which makes me think of something else. If a cop shoots the wrong person (sometimes even the right person) they get a lawyer free of charge, they don't get sued personally (usually), and they have the rank and file of the department behind them. So....if a CCW holder shoots someone, shouldn't they get the same consideration? After all, in the vast majority of the cases they are doing the job of the police. I'd like to see a law that if a criminal is convicted of a crime and they got shot in the commission of that crime then they can't sue.

Lets accept the idea for all intents and purposes both England and Australia have gun ban. Firearm ownership (yes, it exists) is heavily restricted for the average citizen. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

How can you have a gun ban and allow ownership at the same time? Yes, England has a gun ban. No, Australia does not have a gun ban. But guns are under tight restrictions.

Do you not think that those who institute gun bans in certain locations do so without considering the welfare of everyone? Do you think that the head of the University of Texas (UT) system, the President of UT-Austin, the Austin police chief, the head of UT-Austin campus police, the faculty, the majority of the students are disregarding the welfare of ALL people on campus when they are in favor of a gun ban on campus? What they are in favor of is the lesser of two evils in their opinion. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

How'd that work out for you in Oregon?

[QUOTE=WombRaider;1057278214]When did anyone say they wanted to jam up law-abiding gun owners?

You did. You want to melt down all guns.

[QUOTE=CuteOldGuy;1057280343]

When did anyone say they wanted to jam up law-abiding gun owners?

You did. You want to melt down all guns. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Typical lying liberal has told so many lies he can't remember them !

How'd that work out for you in Oregon? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You didn't answer the question.

How'd that work out for you in Oregon? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

COIdiot, quit worrying about something that you have no control over.

Just pay your debts, the rest will take care of itself! Bitch!