And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

[Neil]

Neil I have to take issue about defending our laws. In the US we have what is called Ex Post Facto laws. Which means that laws cannot be enacted which retroactively criminalize an act which was legal prior to a law enacted. So any type of ban on guns which states ownership is a crime and asks the people to relinquish them is completely against our laws and what our Constitution was designed to protect its people from. Senator Feinstein is a nut anyways and if she did intact express interest in confiscating guns she has dangerously over stepped her bounds as an agent of govt. Her attitude is exactly what gun owners fear. I thought Ex Post Facto meant you couldn't be charged for something if it was legal at the time, even if it's now illegal? But I'll bow to your greater knowledge of your system... Interesting enough our corrupt and democratically controlled city of Chicago just reached 500 murders for 2012. I don't know the stats but I can safely say the overwhelming majority were committed by felons using illegally obtained guns. The criminals will always find a way. Heroin cocaine both illegal yet the market demands them. No doubt discussion and action are needed but I just can't justify knee jerk reactions of rewriting founding laws based on a small minority of human pieces of shit determined to kill. Well, we here have guns legislation based on preventing the minority of druggies, rapists, angry kids, violent husbands, suicidal women getting hold of guns easily, at the expense of us trustworthly individuals not generally being able to own one. I don't care if I don't have a gun... as I don't need one... And if this keeps guns out of the grasp of the kind of people I mentioned, I'm more than happy... Now, we here in the UK are a very different case to the US. You already have more guns than people, and as we can see your culture has a very tight connection to fire arms, so I'm not suggesting our model for you. But I will reiterate, I don't get this approach that more and more guns, of more and more power, equates to more freedom, or a better step for society on the whole... - - - Updated - - - BTW: have you checked out the record number of guns sold in America over the past few weeks since our impetuous leader started his gun control blather? The 2nd Amendment ROCKS! Sorry to respond to only one point from your fair and candid response, but I thought it beauifully highlighted our different views on this matter. The idea of people going out in record numbers, to buy guns, many of which are assault rifles, terrifies me. In reality, is a single one of these rifles really even required? Really? What purpose do they really serve other than to fulfill, a somewhat greedy I wan' it! It does again come across as paranoid... I need an assault rifle... cos? I just can't get my head around this mindset... Vaste numbers of more guns in circulation, some of extremely high power, is good because? I think this just highlights beautifully our cultural differences towards guns...

[Mr. Clean]

My dad sent me this in an email....cracks me up At the top of my Christmas list A must have in every home in America ! For everyone who would rather not have a gun in the house! In view of the recent Supreme Court ruling, sales of this new product may skyrocket. Washington thinks they are going to take away our guns, so check this out. I like it! NAIL GUNS! AND, you don't even have to REGISTER them or have LICENSES for them! AND, you don't have to worry about them being CONCEALED! Just a LOT of good stuff to do with THIS! Once in a while something so totally cool comes out that even a guy who doesn't normally even know what he'd like for Father's Day or Christmas would immediately ask for it: Thank you, DeWalt!!! New Nail Gun, made by DeWalt It can drive a 16-D nail through a 2x4 at 200 yards. This makes construction a breeze, you can sit in your lawn chair and build a fence. Hundred round magazine. Someone invades your home, just nail em!

[Neil]

^^ Did the rounds a few years back if I recall - http://www.snopes.com/photos/technology/nailgun.asp

[Mr. Clean]

I find it hard to believe that people could actually think it was anything other than a joke. I'm kinda surprised snopes wasted their time. Got a good laugh out of me.

[babomb]

The idea of people going out in record numbers, to buy guns, many of which are assault rifles, terrifies me. In reality, is a single one of these rifles really even required? Really? What purpose do they really serve other than to fulfill, a somewhat greedy I wan' it! It does again come across as paranoid... I need an assault rifle... cos? We've given you reasons. You won't accept them because the logic differs from your own national/world view. Here's a link to an article. Notice the last passage, where Senator John Mcain is quoted as saying "The war on terror has been extended to us at home"-meaning this bill makes it legal for American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial. http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/...act-explained/ This means the right to Habeas Corpus is no longer guaranteed. Here's another link. http://communities.washingtontimes.c...y-so-publicly/ This is the anti-protest bill, aka-Trespass Bill. This establishes a pattern. Many believe that this government today, is the one the constitution was written to protect us from. Babomb, not meaning to be disrespectful or anything, but naming anyone disagreeing with your theory a useful 'idiot' and so on... Frankly it comes across as condescending. Though i have done this myself on a couple of occassions. You could even say you are being the 'useful idiot' for the NRA's, the Tea Party's and others cause. If somehow I'm being used as a useful idiot to advance the cause of liberty, then, well, I'm ok with that. I'm not in the NRA or the Tea Party. I'm your average American citizen. Democratic rights are, and this is where Europe and America share more than they fear or believe under stress by an economical, harsh neoliberal system that clearly is granting powerful multinationals more power than simple citizens. Look at the economical crisis; some banks had to be saved with tax payers money because those responsible had 'gambled' their money away in dubious constructions where they had created a financial bubble. Were these bankers held responsible? Not in the States and not over here in Europe either. Banks where considered too big to fail. In Brussels there are currently more people working for lobby groups than there are for the European parliament... Meanwhile the Greek are becoming a nation where a majority are becoming 'working poor' fast. Lasw are being written and changed constantly protecting a harsh and injust system that is crushing people at an alarming rate. And what's your take on that? The cynical thing here is that if you think sitting at home on top of your arsenal will instill fear in these kinds of people I fear you are dead wrong. While you are preparing to take arms against your 'oppressive and fascist' government the 1% are walking to the bank, whistling. Atlas Shrugged tucked away under their arm in all likelyhood ... I'm not sitting on an arsenal. I don't even own an assault rifle. I don't stockpile weapons or ammo. I don't own any weapons that are on the list of firearms covered under the new proposed gun legislation. But I believe people should be allowed to own them. And I understand and support the reasons for doing it. I see where this country is headed. In the direction of collectivism. I really don't want to see that happen.

[Neil]

We've given you reasons. You won't accept them because the logic differs from your own national/world view. Here's a link to an article. Notice the last passage, where Senator John Mcain is quoted as saying "The war on terror has been extended to us at home"-meaning this bill makes it legal for American citizens to be detained indefinitely without trial. http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/...act-explained/ This means the right to Habeas Corpus is no longer guaranteed. Here's another link. http://communities.washingtontimes.c...y-so-publicly/ This is the anti-protest bill, aka-Trespass Bill. This establishes a pattern. Many believe that this government today, is the one the constitution was written to protect us from. Those link are quite worrying!? Surely it's not as black & white (dire) as that though? Can't believe those sorts of actions would take place?

[Publius]

Those link are quite worrying!? Surely it's not as black & white (dire) as that though? Can't believe those sorts of actions would take place? You're right, it really isn't as dire as that. But whether we are actually close to tyranny in the United States right now is beside the point. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to create an environment where tyranny is practically impossible. A people cannot disarm, realize their government is edging towards tyranny, and expect the government to allow the people to arm themselves THEN. The people must be armed from a time when tyranny is basically unthinkable, and hopefully things will stay that way. You don't wait to buy fire insurance (or a fire extinguisher) until you smell smoke.

[babomb]

Those link are quite worrying!? Surely it's not as black & white (dire) as that though? Can't believe those sorts of actions would take place? That's separate from the Patriot act too. The Patriot Act has provisions for warrantless wiretaps, no knock raids, and gives the President the ability to bring the country to war without congressional oversight. This was all done in the wake of 9/11. Ever since then there's been this gradual push toward loss of liberty and privacy, in the name of anti-terrorism. There's the TSA(Transportation Security Agency) that routinely violates the rights of air travelers. And now they're gonna extend the TSA to interstate travel on highways. There's also a push for cybersecurity provisions which basically gives the government the ability to police the internet. They already track and store peoples personal information and online activity. The data is stored in these places called "fusion centers". Fusion centers are privately owned corporations that process and analyze the data collected on citizens, then disseminate that information to government agencies and advertising agencies. Less than a year ago Trapwire went public. And it was discovered that Trapwire had been being used since at least 2006. Trapwire uses networked security cameras to watch people, it has facial recognition and behavior analysis built into it. The system watches people for suspicious behavior, identifies the individual if possible, and flags that person in the system so that any law enforcement or federal agency can access those Trapwire reports. There's an even more invasive and overbearing system being developed by the department of defense and Microsoft, using New York City as the testing platform. It's called the DAS(Domain Awareness System) So, as you can see, it's not simply the government that's destroying this country and violating peoples liberties. It's a perfect union of government and corporations. And YES, it really is that dire. When government starts to legislate constitutional rights out of existence, and gets away with it, it just keeps happening. This country is becoming a totalitarian state. A Corporatocracy, ruled by the Power Elite. It's a collective of corporations, banks, and government. This does not serve the interests of the people. These people care nothing about citizens. All economic and political policies are created to serve the interests of the banks, corporations and government. This is why many of us are so protective over what rights we have left, and why we don't trust them when they say they want stricter gun control policies. They make it seem like it's for the greater good, to make citizens safer. But we know from experience that they don't really care about the people. They don't do anything purely out of the best interest of the people. They've proven this time after time. So you can be sure that more gun control isn't purely in the interest of the people, there's an ulterior motive in this that benefits them. That's a certainty. They're so secretive about everything too. So we have no real way to know what's really going on in our country. So to be safe, many of us automatically assume that there's some sort of greed motivated agenda that extends the power of government and corporations at the expense of the people. Because that seems to always be the case.

[Neil]

^ I thought all the scary stuff was Bush and Rumsfeld? How he ever got elected for second term bemuses me!? But you suggest these knee jerk over reactions to civil liberty are still going on?

[Publius]

^ I thought all the scary stuff was Bush and Rumsfeld? How he ever got elected for second term bemuses me!? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. All the same policies and programs are going on as usual. Only difference is that some on the left are no longer concerned because now "their guy" is running the show, and some on the right are now concerned because "the other guy" is running the show.

[Neil]

^^ lol! It's interesting because Obama is looked upon very differently over here (it's safe to say).

[Publius]

^^ lol! It's interesting because Obama is looked upon very differently over here (it's safe to say). Well, Europeans may be more used to being under a higher level of government surveillance (CCTV cameras on every street corner, etc.), so perhaps that particular type of civil liberties issue is less of a concern to Europeans. The funny thing is that Bush seemed to be something of an international pariah due to Guantanamo and "enhanced interrogation" of terrorists. Guantanamo is still open, but no one really seems to care anymore. And Obama abandoned enhanced interrogation in favor of expanded use of drone strikes. Apparently waterboarding high-level Al Qaeda members is intolerable, but summarily blowing them to bits with Hellfire missiles is just dandy.

[babomb]

^^ lol! It's interesting because Obama is looked upon very differently over here (it's safe to say). That's because the mainstream media made him into a messiah. It's actually funny though that you guys see him that way. Because he doesn't think well of Britts. One of the 1st things he did after taking office was to give back the bust of Winston Churchill. The reason he did that was because he sees Churchill as a colonialist, he sees Britain as a colonial power, and he sees the US as a colonial tyrant. Obama is an anti-colonialist. He has strong feelings about the British occupation of Kenya. He has a half brother named George that lives in a corrugated tin shack in Kenya, and hasn't helped him out because George doesn't share his militant beliefs toward the British occupation of Kenya. But you can be sure that the way people abroad see him has been carefully crafted by the media and this administrations PR team. You can't believe anything that comes from the American media or it's foreign subsidiaries. You have to do your own research on everything. This is the problem with Obama. Nobody really knows him. Nobody knows what his personal beliefs are. People support him based on the way he's portrayed by the liberal mainstream media. They portray him as a charismatic democrat, who's ultimate goal is to fix all the injustices that the US has caused at home and abroad. A leader that truly cares about the people, and puts their needs and well being above politics. Which is certainly NOT the reality! But you can't tell anyone that. As soon as anyone is critical about Obama, his brainwashed minions immediately assume that you're just a racist. They learned that from the media too! I have many facebook friends that are big Obama supporters. After the last election I went around asking them exactly why they are such supporters, and why they believe in him so much. Many of them responded that it's not so much that they believe in him, but that he scared them less than Romney. Lesser of the 2 evils there, which is what American politics is about. However, the more vocal Obama supporters, the one's who really believe in him, said that "They believe in their heart that he's just the best candidate that America has to offer". When I asked exactly why, they couldn't really give a specific answer. These are the same people that went around acting like they just elected a brand new president that was gonna fix all the nations problems. But in reality, they just re-elected the same guy that did basically nothing for the country in his 1st term. His re-election wasn't based on what he did for the country, or policies that he created that made things better. It was all based on his charismatic personality on screen, the way the media portrayed him and his family, and the fact that he wasn't Romney.

[facestabber]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...dern-firearms/ Hope this link works. Brief synopsis is Illinois senate president is calling for a ban on all guns. And gun owners would have to turn them into the State Police. If this is in fact true it would illustrate the exact politician Babomb and others have expressed concern over.

[krisvds]

If somehow I'm being used as a useful idiot to advance the cause of liberty, then, well, I'm ok with that. I'm not in the NRA or the Tea Party. I'm your average American citizen. And I never said you were. I was just mirroring your use of the term. Annoying isn't it? Again, not meaning to be disrespectful here. Sometimes you'll have to forgive me for English being my third language (Dutch is my mother tongue and French my second language) which will inevitably lead to less subtle phrasings and whatnot. Especially on a forum where you just type away. I'm not sitting on an arsenal. I don't even own an assault rifle. I don't stockpile weapons or ammo. I don't own any weapons that are on the list of firearms covered under the new proposed gun legislation. But I believe people should be allowed to own them. And I understand and support the reasons for doing it. In all of yOur posts I read a certain, and in my case, shared concern on how big the influence of powerful multinationals is getting in local politics and basic law-making. The tax system in Belgium for instance was reorganised in such a way that the bigger corporations pay less than 1% taxes, while simple employees will see close to one third of their monthly wages go to social security and so on. A system I believe in as long as everyone contributes in a fair and equal way. A marriage of greedy neoliberal economics and politics leads to less freedom. This 'collective' of corporations, banks, and government as you call it. But the arms industry means big business. Wont the American arms lobby do everything they can to protect their best interests? Wont concerns over how much money is being made, how many people are working for the industry and so on outweigh any concerns over personal freedom or security. The argument that private gun ownership wil hold back this evolution towards a more tiranical government is to me, academic. It just wont stop these people. The occupy movement is far more worrying for these cold hearted bastards than gun ownership because it could become a global movement (in many ways it is). No need for guns to get them on their knees. Real power is in your wallet. You always talk of Romney and Obama as if they were essentially the same. Are their standpoints in this debate the same? I'm asking out of pure curiosity (not a rethorical question). Would Romney walk the same path towards stricter gun control? Do these two politicians think the same on social security? Employment, Taxes? Surely there must be some basic ideological differences leading to different views in politics? In Europe the press often presents the States as a divided nation. On a political and a social level. Ideas on gun ownership and social security are two prime examples.