Page 1 of 25 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 247

Thread: Obama: Greatest regret - not bringing in gun control

  1. #1

    Obama: Greatest regret - not bringing in gun control

    With just 18 months left in power, Obama has said in a BBC interview that the area he has been "most frustrated and most stymied" in was gun control "even in the face of repeated mass killings".

    I doubt that anywhere has got gun laws totally correct, but whilst there is something to be said for having very relaxed laws concerning firearms ownership, perhaps the down side of the thousands that are killed every year in the USA points to the need for more control there.

    Surely it is reasonable to have some sort of system that tries to ensure that a person is safe to possess firearms and keeps them secure so that other cannot access them.

    I wonder if the gun lobbies over there, in not seeking to engage with those seeking to ensure safer gun laws will eventually shoot themselves in the foot by doing this.

  2. #2
    SD Regular
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Midlands M1/M69 Junction 21
    Posts
    5,388
    I am sorry but you don't understand the history of gun control and in understanding that the reason why the NRA of America opposes ANY form of gun control or gun registration. No matter how "reasonable" it might sound to any supposed sensible person.

    Gun control attacks gun ownershio rights in the same way a gourmet devours a salami sausage. Fine slice, by fine slice, so that you never really notice that it has been all gobbled up until it has gone.

    That is why the NRA of America opposes any form of gun control or any attempt at gun control. Or gun registration. It has learned from Europe. The history of gun control in the UK is this (somewhat written rudely...but pretty much this).

    Until 1920 there was NO gun control save that a dealer could not sell a weapon to a person drunk and that if a person wanted to take a gun outside their "curtilage" (their house of landholdimg) they needed a Gun Licence. This being only a revenue measure, a tax, just like a Dog Licence. Which is why BOTH were available over the counter at any Post Office.

    In 1920 the FAC was introduced. But this was only rifled arms and people could still possess arms for self-defence. It was nothing more that a "reasonable and sensible" measure, surely, wasn't it, to ensure that undesirable people didn't have guns? So few in Parliament opposed it.

    By 1936 machine guns were banned, shot guns with under twenty inch barrels required an FAC, and yet other than that little was anything more than "reasonable and sensible".

    By 1948 self-defence had ceased to be a good reason for possessing an FAC.

    By 1967 shot guns under twenty-four inches required an FAC and, for the first time shot guns were on licence. The SGC arrived.

    By 1988 self-loading and pump action rifles in centrefire calibre were banned, self-loading and pump action rifles under twenty-four inches were banned. And with that ban? The dealers received no compensation. Private iundividuals only a flat rate 50% or 150 with NO COMPENSATION for magazines, dedicated sights, ammunition etc., etc., etc..

    Oh and basic over twenty-four inch barrel shot guns with a capacity of over three rounds, or a detachable magazine, went onto FAC. If the police would grant one for them! Few forces did. And the cost of converting them to a restricted magazine? The owner paid that. Not the Government,

    By 1998 all "small firearms", so all pistols either centrefire or rimfire EVEN SINGLE SHOT like the old Webley were banned.

    So what starts as reasonable becomes unreasonable and ALL of it happens because someone such as yourself says that there is no harm in "reasonable and sensible" measures and in GUN REGISTRATION.

    And in 2015? Air guns in Scotland will be licensed and for those deemed to have no "good reason" for their being issued a licence? Well...those will be banned! But it's all "reasonable and sensible".

    I am sorry I feel strongly about this and my comments may seem "harsh" to you. But my grandfather had a pistol before WWI and took it to the war. he had no licence. There were none before 1920 but where was the armed crime then? Before 1920? Yet there were no gun controls.

    I grew up in a house where my father had, until 1967, no Shot Gun Licence. They didn't exist. Again, please, where was the menace of people going about with long barrelled shot guns causing mayhem and murder?

    So, please, consider this. If you give these "reasonable and sensible" measures, and registration oxygen they grow and grow to what we have in Britain in 2015 and what Scotland has to come in 2016.

    That is why the ONLY "reasonable and sensible" actors in all this are the NRA of America in seeing what the end will always be. Gun prohibition, gun confiscation and measures that have lost all reason and all sense.

    I am fifty-eight years old this year. I predict that, in my lifetime, multishot rifles in both centrefire and rimfire will become prohibited except only for those FEW allowed them for stalking or live quarry shooting WHERE AN ESTATE RIFLE IS NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE.

    I also predict that in my lifetime the "co terminous" FAC/SGC will become an FAC and that ALL SHOTGUNS WILL BECOME SUBJECT TO FAC CONDITIONS.

    My mother was born in 1919. She died in 2014. In just the space of her lifetime (ninety-fours years old) Britain went from no gun control to total gun control. Yet I know that most truly "reasonable and sensible" thinkers would prefer the crime figures of 1919 in a Britain with no gun control for those of Britain of 2014 with total gun control.
    Last edited by enfieldspares; 23-07-2015 at 22:29.

  3. #3
    The NRA actually has proposed legislation. The NRA created the Instant Background Check System, so the government would have no excuse for stalling, as they used to do, making people wait weeks to pick a a firearm. The NRA proposed the National Firearms Act, which regulates machineguns and suppressors, in 1934. Since 1934, not a single civilian-owned machinegun has been used in a crime in the USA, and there are 252,000 licensed machineguns and 25,000 in Canada.

    The NRA was founded by General U.S. Grant and other Union generals after the War Between the States, to promote firearms safety and marksmanship, because they saw so many soldiers killed accidentally, or unable to properly use their rifles, while the Confederacy, being more rural, had much better shooting skills. In the US, "every able-bodied man" between the ages of 18 and 65 is a member of the militia, subject to call. There was no standing Army until the Union Army in 1861. The state militias provided troops for the Seven Years War with France, War of Independence, War of 1812, and Mexican War. The Armies today are still organized around those coalitions, going back to 1763. The National Guard was created before WWI, which is a dual commission, state and federal, under command of state generals. George Washington wanted to make firearms ownership and militia training universal and mandatory, like Switzerland.

    Most of the state and federal legislation in the USA is illegal, unConstitutional. That is why we resist more.
    In fact, all laws of prior restraint are illegal.

    There are more children drowned in buckets of water every year than killed by firearms.
    More than half of those killed with firearms are criminals, during the commission of felonies.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by enfieldspares View Post
    I am sorry but you don't understand the history of gun control and in understanding that the reason why the NRA of America opposes ANY form of gun control or gun registration. No matter how "reasonable" it might sound to any supposed sensible person.

    Gun control attacks gun ownershio rights in the same way a gourmet devours a salami sausage. Fine slice, by fine slice, so that you never really notice that it has been all gobbled up until it has gone.

    That is why the NRA of America opposes any form of gun control or any attempt at gun control. Or gun registration. It has learned from Europe. The history of gun control in the UK is this (somewhat written rudely...but pretty much this).

    Until 1920 there was NO gun control save that a dealer could not sell a weapon to a person drunk and that if a person wanted to take a gun outside their "curtilage" (their house of landholdimg) they needed a Gun Licence. This being only a revenue measure, a tax, just like a Dog Licence. Which is why BOTH were available over the counter at any Post Office.

    In 1920 the FAC was introduced. But this was only rifled arms and people could still possess arms for self-defence. It was nothing more that a "reasonable and sensible" measure, surely, wasn't it, to ensure that undesirable people didn't have guns? So few in Parliament opposed it.

    By 1936 machine guns were banned, shot guns with under twenty inch barrels required an FAC, and yet other than that little was anything more than "reasonable and sensible".

    By 1948 self-defence had ceased to be a good reason for possessing an FAC.

    By 1967 shot guns under twenty-four inches required an FAC and, for the first time shot guns were on licence. The SGC arrived.

    By 1988 self-loading and pump action rifles in centrefire calibre were banned, self-loading and pump action rifles under twenty-four inches were banned. And with that ban? The dealers received no compensation. Private iundividuals only a flat rate 50% or 150 with NO COMPENSATION for magazines, dedicated sights, ammunition etc., etc., etc..

    Oh and basic over twenty-four inch barrel shot guns with a capacity of over three rounds, or a detachable magazine, went onto FAC. If the police would grant one for them! Few forces did. And the cost of converting them to a restricted magazine? The owner paid that. Not the Government,

    By 1998 all "small firearms", so all pistols either centrefire or rimfire EVEN SINGLE SHOT like the old Webley were banned.

    So what starts as reasonable becomes unreasonable and ALL of it happens because someone such as yourself says that there is no harm in "reasonable and sensible" measures and in GUN REGISTRATION.

    And in 2015? Air guns in Scotland will be licensed and for those deemed to have no "good reason" for their being issued a licence? Well...those will be banned! But it's all "reasonable and sensible".

    I am sorry I feel strongly about this and my comments may seem "harsh" to you. But my grandfather had a pistol before WWI and took it to the war. he had no licence. There were none before 1920 but where was the armed crime then? Before 1920? Yet there were no gun controls.

    I grew up in a house where my father had, until 1967, no Shot Gun Licence. They didn't exist. Again, please, where was the menace of people going about with long barrelled shot guns causing mayhem and murder?

    So, please, consider this. If you give these "reasonable and sensible" measures, and registration oxygen they grow and grow to what we have in Britain in 2015 and what Scotland has to come in 2016.

    That is why the ONLY "reasonable and sensible" actors in all this are the NRA of America in seeing what the end will always be. Gun prohibition, gun confiscation and measures that have lost all reason and all sense.

    I am fifty-eight years old this year. I predict that, in my lifetime, multishot rifles in both centrefire and rimfire will become prohibited except only for those FEW allowed them for stalking or live quarry shooting WHERE AN ESTATE RIFLE IS NOT OTHERWISE AVAILABLE.

    I also predict that in my lifetime the "co terminous" FAC/SGC will become an FAC and that ALL SHOTGUNS WILL BECOME SUBJECT TO FAC CONDITIONS.

    My mother was born in 1919. She died in 2014. In just the space of her lifetime (ninety-fours years old) Britain went from no gun control to total gun control. Yet I know that most truly "reasonable and sensible" thinkers would prefer the crime figures of 1919 in a Britain with no gun control for those of Britain of 2014 with total gun control.
    Thank you for putting Gun Control into it's proper perspective before I could issue a less than civilized response.

    As to our beloved President -may he live a long and peaceful post Public Service life signing autographs at his Presidential Library- I hope you realize that if his lips are moving, he is probably not telling the truth. He's knitting his brows over gun control? Really.

    Since 2013, under his Administration's blessing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has released 104,000 criminal illegal aliens onto the streets of the United States instead of deporting them. Of these convicted criminals, 195 of them were convicted in US courts of Homicide. Almost 400 of them were rapists and over 1600 of them were convicted of criminal drunk driving. Under his guidance, these convicted criminals were simply set free on US streets. Last month a young woman in San Fransisco was brutally murdered by one of these criminals. The Administration had nothing to say to the victim's family nor have they had any comment on the hundreds of US citizens brutalized by these criminals every year.

    I'll bet the BBC didn't ask him about this, did they?? The Obama administration cares very little about public safety.~Muir
    Last edited by Muir; 23-07-2015 at 22:48.

  5. #5
    I think he is just trying to divert attention from his total failure to achieve anything substantive on his flagship policies which got him elected... like healthcare.

    I thought it very interesting that one of the black community leaders in Charleston said on camera that they didn't care about gun control because everyone in America has a gun, but what they cared about was the division in society and racial hatred which fuel these atrocities. There are far deeper problems than gun control that need resolving, but those involve much tougher conversation and action, which even politicians like Obama shy away from.

  6. #6
    I'm kind of sat on the fence here. Enfieldspares gives a very good history and clearly feels very strongly about gun control, but you can't really compare gun crime in the 1920's to that of today?
    We live in a different world now where gang culture is sensationalised by video games that make death by weapons somewhat surreal and almost normal. Not just guns, but knives and other weapons as well. It is only logical that the general public grow to fear all weapons despite their origins. The fact that legally held weapons account for a small percentage of crime does not register.
    Most of us cut our teeth with an air rifle, but looking back, were we really responsible? I used mine in numerous places I shouldn't have and also shot things I shouldn't have. I shot numerous feral pigeons off the local church roof from the car whilst my dad was getting pissed in the local pub before driving home! Left in the car with a shandy and a bag of crisps and a BSA airsporter it was bound to happen!
    Air rifle control is probably a good thing as there are far too many idiots out there causing problems. Let's not forget that air rifles can (and have) kill people!
    There is an old adage that " If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" which is probably very true.
    I'm very much undecided here which is unlike me, but there is a very good argument to prevent people having very dangerous firearms that they don't actually need or have justification for.
    I've trimmed down my gun collection to what I really need. I could have a lot more, including a pistol for humane dispatch, but I can't really justify it to myself.
    The pistol argument is clearly very controversial as there is no real need for people to have them.
    I'll leave it there for tonight as it's late and I've had a couple of Abbot Ales!
    MS

  7. #7
    If you are going to prioritize gun ownership by "need", then what we all need first is a proper military weapon or two, and rifle and sidearm, to defend ourselves, our home, our family, friends, and country. The rest is merely what we "want".

    Most so-called "gun control" is not aimed at reducing crime, but in reducing the means of political resistance. It is People Control.

    Leaders who trust the citizenry want them to be armed. Those who rule by force and deception, rather than by reason and honest discussion, want everyone else to be powerless to disobey. That is why, when the King of England was mandating everyone be skilled with a bow and arrow, the King of France was outlawing archery and cutting down yew trees.

    The politicians who denounce the right of self-defense and owning weapons to do so, also have for their own armed guards, and even their own weapons. Senator Diane Feinstein, who tried to ban all "assault weapons" and "large capacity handguns", was and is, the owner of a Smith & Wesson 5906 9mm autopistol, with a 15 round magazine. Senator Jay Rockefeller was photographed on the balcony of his DC townhouse with an AR-15. They make laws for "other people", in every area. They fly in private jets and ride in limos, while telling us to drive electric roller skates.

    If guns are outlawed, my guns will be "undocumented".

  8. #8
    I'm impressed by endfieldspares research and presentation of the no gun control argument. Just change the dates and the actions slightly and you could probably create the same sequence in lots of countries.
    I'll try to do that for our attack on firearm ownership here in Australia.
    I remember my first purchase. In 1968 I walked into a gunshop in Sydney and bought an Anschutz .22 model 1416 for $68. No licence or permit of any kind required. I still have it and it's overall the best rifle I own.
    My lefty for an Australian strong NRA type organisation.
    Grant.
    Don't hide from your mates in the bush!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Southern View Post
    Most so-called "gun control" is not aimed at reducing crime, but in reducing the means of political resistance. It is People Control.

    Leaders who trust the citizenry want them to be armed.
    All very true.

    The Need argument can be extrapolated to auto's that will do more than the speed limit to the consumption of alcohol. And who is to decide what I need? No one needs a handgun you say?? I say no one needs to have a beer after work. I don't drink beer. I seldom if ever go to bars so we can dispense with them, too. TOO many people die from intoxication on our roads. In some states it's 9.9 of 10 deaths are related to alcohol consumption so obviously the good in banning same goes beyond the lack of need, right?? Right???

    You can make any case you want and convince the societal sheep it's for their own good. ~Muir

    And to those who think that a little more restrictions on my Rights would be a good thing?? Well, you can just.....
    Last edited by Muir; 24-07-2015 at 01:02.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkey Spanker View Post

    The pistol argument is clearly very controversial as there is no real need for people to have them.

    MS
    I can see several very justifiable & genuine reasons for small arms. I'd have one now, however, even though I can have one for several genuine reasons, the embuggerances discourage me, so I have to make do with less suitable tools & sacrifice my own safety & utility because of the beaurocratic hassle. I make do without one, but it's not as safe for me by not having one.

    The problem with arguing a premiss like "real need" is it can become subjective & in the process one most often confirms the actual premise that one is arguing against. Is there then also a "real need" for rifles when we can use smooth bores? What about smooth bores when we have air guns? What about air guns when we have slingshots,etc, etc?

    I'm all for public safety, but not perceived public safety. If there is genuine gains to public safety from any legislation well & good, but any new legislation against a particular group (firearms owners for this discussion) because of the demonisation from other interests, without any real gain in actual safety, it is simply wrong. It's really just another form of discrimination. How well does prohibition work for anything? Prohibit something & you usually create an industry for the criminal element.

    IMO illegal firearms are just as if not more accessible in Aust since our new gun laws, the market for illegal guns & the criminal involvement really didn't exist to any scale before the prohibition.

    Sharkey
    "Men Who Stare at Deer."

Similar Threads

  1. Gun Control - An Aussie view of the US
    By Eric the Red in forum Jokes & Funnies
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24-02-2015, 19:16
  2. gun control again
    By ndt man in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 30-10-2014, 23:45
  3. Gun Control and Politicians.
    By Muir in forum Deer Stalking General
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-03-2014, 19:54
  4. Gun Control
    By snowy in forum Jokes & Funnies
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-05-2013, 22:32
  5. Gun safe humidity control
    By JabaliHunter in forum Cleaning, Gunsmithing and Equipment Care
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 28-05-2012, 17:28

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •