Guns...

**NCRAVEN** · 11-08-2012, 07:44 AM

Get em while you can.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8A627J20121107

I know this would have to be ratified by the Senate, but this is something to keep an eye on.

**HoustonRaven** · 11-08-2012, 08:11 AM

Won't happen and frankly, really won't have an impact on sales here really.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-08-2012, 08:18 AM

Like I said, I know the Senate would have to ratify it, which getting 66 Senators to do , is almost impossible.

It's just something to keep an eye on is all.

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 08:21 AM

I dont think were the ones the treaty is really for. More like Russia and other countries to get their shit together. Im not sure why Obama gets such grief about guns. Hes typically been very pro-2nd amendment, just not in the wrong hands, which isnt that what we all want?

The only law i knew he passed regarding guns, allowed them in more areas.

**HoustonRaven** · 11-08-2012, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

I dont think were the ones the treaty is really for. More like Russia and other countries to get their shit together. Im not sure why Obama gets such grief about guns. Hes typically been very pro-2nd amendment, just not in the wrong hands, which isnt that what we all want?

The only law i knew he passed regarding guns, allowed them in more areas.

Apathy towards the 2nd Amendment does not equal support towards the 2nd Amendment. If the numbers were on his side, he'd do everything he can to ban guns.

Thankfully, the numbers are not on his side.

And I'd love to see what law he passed that allowed them in more areas. I challenge that 100%.

**Dade** · 11-08-2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

The only law i knew he passed regarding guns, allowed them in more areas.

Which is why I find it so confusing to hear some people say Obama is gonna take away your guns.

I'm all for gun control (control being out of wrong hands and in responsible ones), but this will never see the light of day.

**Dade** · 11-08-2012, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

And I'd love to see what law he passed that allowed them in more areas. I challenge that 100%.

Challenge accepted.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...saturday_N.htm

A bill that Obama signed in May permits licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as state law allows it. The new law, which takes effect in February, will replace rules from the Reagan administration that generally require that guns in national parks be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-08-2012, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Apathy towards the 2nd Amendment does not equal support towards the 2nd Amendment. If the numbers were on his side, he'd do everything he can to ban guns.

Thankfully, the numbers are not on his side.

And I'd love to see what law he passed that allowed them in more areas. I challenge that 100%.

+1

**HoustonRaven** · 11-08-2012, 08:40 AM

A little persnickety, but touche I suppose.

The law is incredible narrow and a hallow gesture. You cannot bring said gun into ANY building or structure that happen to sit in the park. So if you're a hunter, you still have to risk having the weapon stolen by leaving it in your vehicle, or worse, in a tent, if you ever have to head inside.

This is a kin to when some blue states like Maryland tout "hey, we allow our citizens to carry concealed" because there is a concealed carry law on the books. Meanwhile, they make it so difficult to actually make it happen it still ends up being a defacto ban.

**Dade** · 11-08-2012, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

A little persnickety, but touche I suppose.

The law is incredible narrow and a hallow gesture. You cannot bring said gun into ANY building or structure that happen to sit in the park. So if you're a hunter, you still have to risk having the weapon stolen by leaving it in your vehicle, or worse, in a tent, if you ever have to head inside.

This is a kin to when some blue states like Maryland tout "hey, we allow our citizens to carry concealed" because there is a concealed carry law on the books. Meanwhile, they make it so difficult to actually make it happen it still ends up being a defacto ban.

I get you. Still, two thing he's done regarding guns has been pro. The other allowing guns to be transported in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 09:36 AM

Although Dade accepted first, this was just a quick internet search.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...onal-parks/#.T3qKdb9Wpdf
This law allows guns in national parks.

http://content.usatoday.c...-december/1#.T3qKbL9Wpdf
This law allows guns on trains.

only laws under obama passed pertaining to guns that i can find. I keep hearing this from conservatives HR and i just dont see anything that supports it. Even if hes "apathetic" thats a good thing coming from a liberal who tend to want more. I really dont see an issue with making it harder to get a gun, or gun owning qualifications. If youre suppose to be able to get one, it shouldnt be that hard to get one.

**HoustonRaven** · 11-08-2012, 09:39 AM

How does allowing guns on trains prove your point though?

What percentage of the population actually takes trains AND carries a gun?

A gesture that suits .0000000003% of the population is no gesture at all. I'll give him props when he supports concealed carry.

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

How does allowing guns on trains prove your point though?

What percentage of the population actually takes trains AND carries a gun?

A gesture that suits .0000000003% of the population is no gesture at all. I'll give him props when he supports concealed carry.

Laws anti-guns = 0
Laws pro-guns = 2

it may not be a large sample but theres without question more support that hes for guns than against, or at worst, like you said, apathetic.

As far as a National Concealed Carry law, that just seems to make sense to me. Forcing states with relaxed laws on guns to be stricter so were all on even ground will be a headache and come off anti-gun even on a pro-gun issue though wouldnt it?

**HoustonRaven** · 11-08-2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Laws anti-guns = 0
Laws pro-guns = 2

it may not be a large sample but theres without question more support that hes for guns than against, or at worst, like you said, apathetic.

Agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by JAB1985

As far as a National Concealed Carry law, that just seems to make sense to me. Forcing states with relaxed laws on guns to be stricter so were all on even ground will be a headache and come off anti-gun even on a pro-gun issue though wouldnt it?

I am not calling for a national law. If Illinois and California want to ban concealed carry, as backwards as I think it to be, that's their right.

I just don't want the federal government deciding something opposite of what the Constitution decided long ago.

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Agree to disagree.

I am not calling for a national law. If Illinois and California want to ban concealed carry, as backwards as I think it to be, that's their right.

I just don't want the federal government deciding something opposite of what the Constitution decided long ago.

oh, i thought you were referring to The National Reciprocity act.

Conceal carry was left to the states so thats just an issue they have to make national in which all would have to abide or not. youll have to get license to carry in each state you choose to or one national to make it simpler. i liked the idea of just having it be an addition to your license and plugged into a database. Im not a gun owner nor plan to be, but i do think its your right to own a gun. just not anyone mentally unstable or with bad intentions. Seems to be moot though as both the House and Senate seem to agree with the law, just needs tweaked and finalized to be put into effect. That would be a third gun law under obama thats pro-gun... if he doesnt veto it.

**HoustonRaven** · 11-08-2012, 10:19 AM

I am for the reciprocity act in spirit, but I don't like much of the language.

**JAB1985** · 11-08-2012, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

I am for the reciprocity act in spirit, but I don't like much of the language.

I think thats what theyre still working on. It has a good bit of support so i dont see it being a problem, just might take awhile like everything else in congress.

**HoustonRaven** · 11-08-2012, 10:24 AM

Best argument I have ever read from the pro-gun stand point can be found here. And it's not even written by someone from this country.

March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos
why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.