So, Obama is not after our guns?

[Slyfox696]

Slippery slope arguments hold no weight for you because what is being proposed doesn't affect you directly.

Slippery slope arguments hold no weight with me because I find it silly to worry about what does not exist. While I disagreed with most of the gun supporters on this forum when they argued against the gun control legislation introduced to the Senate, it was at least a valid position because they were arguing against something tangible. But discrediting a position upon the assumption of something which may never happen is simply not a valid position.

If you disagree with these executive orders, it should be on the merits of the executive orders.

But banning the importation of firearms that up until now have been imported is intended to dry up the supply.

I would disagree with this statement for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact the supply of guns in this country is quite extensive.

As for "Taking a position against a situation because of what may happen in the future is never a good argument", I have to ask if you are student of history. I seem to remember a quote about those who refuse to consider history being doomed to repeat it.

Of course I know that quote, but you fight the fight when it's valid.

For example, I'm a teacher. If my state passed a law which says schools need to make sure all teachers need to have in-school training for emergency intruder situations, I could extrapolate from that the following things:

1) If we need in-school training for intruders, it won't be long until we'll have to go to weekend training.
2) Once we have weekend training, the next step will be optional teachers armed
3) Once teachers are optionally armed, then it becomes required to arm all teachers
4) You require arming of all teaches because you know many teachers are opposed to guns in school. This results in an exodus of educators from the profession
5) Once quality educators leave the profession, the quality of education decreases.
6) Then education decreases to a level the state decides is no longer worth funding.
7) All public schools close.

So from a very reasonable law which has nothing to do with the demolition of public education, I could theoretically make the case my state is trying to destroy public education. But you and I both know that concept is absurd, so for me to argue against in-school training on intruders because of something which may happen down the road is simply not a valid argument.

You fight the fight when it needs fighting. In my example above, I'd happily except the in-school training, would grumble about the weekend training (because I just don't want to go on my weekend ), will disagree strongly with optionally arming teachers and will staunchly fight against mandatory arming of teachers. I'd choose step 3 because that's the step which I feel needs fighting.

If you disagree with these executive orders on the merits of the orders themselves, that's fine. I'd likely disagree with you, but it'd still be a valid argument. I just don't believe arguing what could happen somewhere way down the line is an effective argument.

I can return the comment about appreciating your response. We do not always agree on the issues but you are a reasonable poster and you do a good job of making your points. People like you are why I stay here.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

People like Haymarket are why I'm glad we have an ignore function.

:lol:

I believe we all have posters like that.

But our government, and this administration in particular, are very good at incremental creep. We are seeing it in health care as we speak. Our President is a backhanded lawyer who has a vision many of us do not share. While you and I can have reasonable discussion, he will have none of that, instead opting for ignoring the will of the public and Congress. I'm not one for restricting executive orders because that would hamstring future leaders. But this President abuses those powers in contradiction of the will of the people, and I am of the mind that this country belongs to the people and the government works for us... at least it used to and should still.

And I disagree strongly with nearly everything you said here, but it's not really relevant to the discussion so maybe another time.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Yes, Nazi discrimination against Jews is irrelevant to the conversation about these two executive orders. I do not see how this can be a point of contention.

Right. It was prejudice/institutionalized discrimination, not gun control. I already said that.

His point is ridiculous, as is yours. You're comparing institutionalized discrimination against gun control. They are completely separate issues. Comparing these two executive orders against discrimination is absurd.

Like I said before, such ridiculous fanaticism to an inanimate object.

Fine, China during the Mao rebellion, Cambodia and Pol Pot, the various African genocides, pretty much the entirety of Southeast Asia last century, South American insurrection, take your pick. They all have common outcomes and factors.

 

[tech30528]

Slippery slope arguments hold no weight with me because I find it silly to worry about what does not exist. While I disagreed with most of the gun supporters on this forum when they argued against the gun control legislation introduced to the Senate, it was at least a valid position because they were arguing against something tangible. But discrediting a position upon the assumption of something which may never happen is simply not a valid position.

If you disagree with these executive orders, it should be on the merits of the executive orders.

I would disagree with this statement for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact the supply of guns in this country is quite extensive.

Of course I know that quote, but you fight the fight when it's valid.

For example, I'm a teacher. If my state passed a law which says schools need to make sure all teachers need to have in-school training for emergency intruder situations, I could extrapolate from that the following things:

1) If we need in-school training for intruders, it won't be long until we'll have to go to weekend training.
2) Once we have weekend training, the next step will be optional teachers armed
3) Once teachers are optionally armed, then it becomes required to arm all teachers
4) You require arming of all teaches because you know many teachers are opposed to guns in school. This results in an exodus of educators from the profession
5) Once quality educators leave the profession, the quality of education decreases.
6) Then education decreases to a level the state decides is no longer worth funding.
7) All public schools close.

So from a very reasonable law which has nothing to do with the demolition of public education, I could theoretically make the case my state is trying to destroy public education. But you and I both know that concept is absurd, so for me to argue against in-school training on intruders because of something which may happen down the road is simply not a valid argument.

You fight the fight when it needs fighting. In my example above, I'd happily except the in-school training, would grumble about the weekend training (because I just don't want to go on my weekend ), will disagree strongly with optionally arming teachers and will staunchly fight against mandatory arming of teachers. I'd choose step 3 because that's the step which I feel needs fighting.

If you disagree with these executive orders on the merits of the orders themselves, that's fine. I'd likely disagree with you, but it'd still be a valid argument. I just don't believe arguing what could happen somewhere way down the line is an effective argument.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

:lol:

I believe we all have posters like that.

And I disagree strongly with nearly everything you said here, but it's not really relevant to the discussion so maybe another time.

I have not heard anyone in the current administration say that they would like to dismantle public education. I have however, heard a few say that they would ban all firearms if they could. And while their efforts in the public eye and with the approval of the legislative branch have failed, they are still marching toward that eventuality. This is why I oppose these steps as they come. The final desired result has been stated, and the actions support that end. Harry Reid recently said that Obamacare is just a step in the eventual implementation of single payer. So when the effects of the current law support that, I have to conclude that that is in fact the goal. Feinstein's latest attempt at an assault weapons ban would have outlawed one of the carbines I own. I have no doubt, having been handed defeat in full view of the public, that the intended result will be sought quietly without public approval. Our government no longer fears the public, and given that the current leaders do not care one wit for the opinions of the people I have no doubt they will take what they want until the inevitable, the more bold of their opponents turning to violence. As a reasonable man I would much prefer that day never comes, but history suggests it will. I for one will be disappointed but certainly not surprised.

 

[CalGun]

I get such a kick out of this one. This person uses "ridiculous, fanaticism, gun culture" and a good ole fashion know it all syndrom and then suggests "I believe are not even allowed to normally buy" to which he shows utter and complete ignorance of the fact the government has been selling these very types of guns to trained and readied individuals for decades through the CMP program. A set of firearms I dare say the anti gun nuts like this one would have a near impossible time finding any measure of crime committed with one.

:lol:

I think it speaks to the ridiculousness of the gun culture that the following two orders are "going after your guns"...guns you don't even have, and I believe are not even allowed normally to buy.


Your source.


Such ridiculous fanaticism to an inanimate object.

 

[Slyfox696]

Fine, China during the Mao rebellion, Cambodia and Pol Pot, the various African genocides, pretty much the entirety of Southeast Asia last century, South American insurrection, take your pick. They all have common outcomes and factors.

Oh, they all have common factors? Like a system of government which divides the power of governing into three separate branches and a government framework which expressly states the right of the people to form a militia to bear arms cannot be forbidden? Tell me, did they have a system of government in which it was far more profitable to allow weapons in the hands of its citizens than not?

If all those factors are held in common with the examples you provided, I'd happily investigate further. My guess is I won't have to.

I have not heard anyone in the current administration say that they would like to dismantle public education.

Perhaps you're not in public education then.

I don't want to drift too much off-topic, but there's a very real effort to undermine (and I believe do away with) public education. But I would not see a law which requires teachers to be trained in how to handle an emergency situation to be an end to the goal of destroying public education, because it simply would not be a valid argument.

I have however, heard a few say that they would ban all firearms if they could.

And there are plenty who say no arms should be banned. That goes both ways and has for decades. The fact is there are more guns in homes now than pets. Rightly or wrongly, our guns are not going anywhere.

And while their efforts in the public eye and with the approval of the legislative branch have failed, they are still marching toward that eventuality. This is why I oppose these steps as they come.

You oppose what you feel is their end goal, not the "steps" themselves. What I'm saying is that is not a fair way to evaluate the validity of the executive orders.

Feinstein's latest attempt at an assault weapons ban would have outlawed one of the carbines I own.

I haven't read the legislation, but my understanding is it only would have outlawed the purchasing of the firearm, not the possession.

Our government no longer fears the public

I agree and disagree with this. Our government very much fears our public, but they only fear the money which inspires the public. Republicans have been tripping over themselves since 2010 to "run to the right" as fast as they can, because they fear lobbying groups like the NRA will put money into their primaries, where the public will vote them out. Our government fears the public, because they fear the money in the public.

and given that the current leaders do not care one wit for the opinions of the people

Even if you disagree with their position, you cannot disagree with the fact a large percentage of people in this country do support stricter gun control. In other words, the leaders are working for that group of the people, just not what I assume to be your group of people.

As a reasonable man I would much prefer that day never comes, but history suggests it will. I for one will be disappointed but certainly not surprised.

The fact is if it ever comes to pass where the "government" (and I absolute detest referring to it as a single entity when it most certainly is not) were to wage war on citizens, it'll be because of much larger reasons than guns.

I get such a kick out of this one. This person uses "ridiculous, fanaticism, gun culture" and a good ole fashion know it all syndrom and then suggests "I believe are not even allowed to normally buy" to which he shows utter and complete ignorance of the fact the government has been selling these very types of guns to trained and readied individuals for decades through the CMP program.

Ignoring for a moment the fact the definition of the word "ignorance" has little in common with the words "ridiculous" "fanaticism" or "gun culture", I must say it was hard to decide how I wanted to respond to this. Ultimately, this is what I've chosen, and the direction I take will depend upon your answer:

Allow me to ask you a question. Is it your assertion that, absent the government chartered CMP program, these firearms can be easily obtained in the same manner you would obtain any other firearm?

It's a legitimate question, I have no problem admitting my ignorance when it comes to what guns are sold through what programs. Are these weapons which can be easily obtained, if not for the government instituted CMP program?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Oh, they all have common factors? Like a system of government which divides the power of governing into three separate branches and a government framework which expressly states the right of the people to form a militia to bear arms cannot be forbidden? Tell me, did they have a system of government in which it was far more profitable to allow weapons in the hands of its citizens than not?

If all those factors are held in common with the examples you provided, I'd happily investigate further. My guess is I won't have to.
Perhaps you're not in public education then.

I don't want to drift too much off-topic, but there's a very real effort to undermine (and I believe do away with) public education. But I would not see a law which requires teachers to be trained in how to handle an emergency situation to be an end to the goal of destroying public education, because it simply would not be a valid argument.

And there are plenty who say no arms should be banned. That goes both ways and has for decades. The fact is there are more guns in homes now than pets. Rightly or wrongly, our guns are not going anywhere.

You oppose what you feel is their end goal, not the "steps" themselves. What I'm saying is that is not a fair way to evaluate the validity of the executive orders.

I haven't read the legislation, but my understanding is it only would have outlawed the purchasing of the firearm, not the possession.

I agree and disagree with this. Our government very much fears our public, but they only fear the money which inspires the public. Republicans have been tripping over themselves since 2010 to "run to the right" as fast as they can, because they fear lobbying groups like the NRA will put money into their primaries, where the public will vote them out. Our government fears the public, because they fear the money in the public.

Even if you disagree with their position, you cannot disagree with the fact a large percentage of people in this country do support stricter gun control. In other words, the leaders are working for that group of the people, just not what I assume to be your group of people.

The fact is if it ever comes to pass where the "government" (and I absolute detest referring to it as a single entity when it most certainly is not) were to wage war on citizens, it'll be because of much larger reasons than guns.


Ignoring for a moment the fact the definition of the word "ignorance" has little in common with the words "ridiculous" "fanaticism" or "gun culture", I must say it was hard to decide how I wanted to respond to this. Ultimately, this is what I've chosen, and the direction I take will depend upon your answer:

Allow me to ask you a question. Is it your assertion that, absent the government chartered CMP program, these firearms can be easily obtained in the same manner you would obtain any other firearm?

It's a legitimate question, I have no problem admitting my ignorance when it comes to what guns are sold through what programs. Are these weapons which can be easily obtained, if not for the government instituted CMP program?

tl;dr. Seriously, you missed the factors of divisive strategies, assigning class structures, eliminating opponents, gun control, and body counts.

 

[Slyfox696]

tl;dr.

*insert obvious and obligatory joke relating intelligence to gun supporter*



Not a shot, merely a joke.

Seriously, you missed the factors of divisive strategies, assigning class structures, eliminating opponents, gun control, and body counts.

I do not understand what you mean here. Please explain.

 

[TurtleDude]

Let me explain why the Obama action is so disgusting


Pro Gun People

1) believe that gun ownership by honest people is good

2) generally believe that government waste is wrong

3) are not willing to compromise our rights for unproven claims of public safety

4) believe in punishing those who misuse guns


anti gun people

1) generally believe that gun ownership is bad-at best they see it as something barely tolerable

2) have no problem inconveniencing gun owners for speculative claims of increased public safety

3) have no problem wasting public funds so as to prevent increased gun ownership by other citizens


The Obama orders are disgusting because

1) they assume that ownership of guns is bad

2) the want to cost the government money rather than allow law abiding people to buy stuff that our tax dollars already paid for

there is absolutely no sane argument supporting the action of this anti gun clown in the oval office

 

[CalGun]

There are two ways to obtain the weapons.

1) CMP program. To qualify you must demonstrate your handling of a weapon at a certified shooting range with a properly trained person signing off on your abilities. Then you send in payment and forms to the CMP and they send you a rifle. Its not fast either, and they are sold out of many weapons - including some that could have been imported barring obama's anti gun "ban" on the imports.

2) Buy one from someone who went through the above process. I am a native of CA but recently fled the state for Nevada. In even anti gun CA you can buy these firearms with the mere showing of a drivers license proving your age over 18. Nothing more - no back ground check, no wait period, nothing. This rule changes on Jan 1, 2014 in CA and the rifles may still be bought and sold (as of today) through the other process which requires a 10 day wait, $35 fee, and a dealer and background check.

The more important point and the reason obama's decision is wrong - THESE GUNS ARE OF LITTLE INTEREST TO CRIMINALS. The M1A for example weighs in at 15lbs in many cases. Kids on the streets using guns in violence are not using these guns, and would never likely go through the CMP program to obtain one. HENCE all he did with this "executive order" was punish law abiding citizens that want to obtain older firearms.

Why did I want one? My father used on in WWII. It mattered to me to have one of them for each of his grand children. I still need 2.

Oh, they all have common factors? Like a system of government which divides the power of governing into three separate branches and a government framework which expressly states the right of the people to form a militia to bear arms cannot be forbidden? Tell me, did they have a system of government in which it was far more profitable to allow weapons in the hands of its citizens than not?

If all those factors are held in common with the examples you provided, I'd happily investigate further. My guess is I won't have to.
Perhaps you're not in public education then.

I don't want to drift too much off-topic, but there's a very real effort to undermine (and I believe do away with) public education. But I would not see a law which requires teachers to be trained in how to handle an emergency situation to be an end to the goal of destroying public education, because it simply would not be a valid argument.

And there are plenty who say no arms should be banned. That goes both ways and has for decades. The fact is there are more guns in homes now than pets. Rightly or wrongly, our guns are not going anywhere.

You oppose what you feel is their end goal, not the "steps" themselves. What I'm saying is that is not a fair way to evaluate the validity of the executive orders.

I haven't read the legislation, but my understanding is it only would have outlawed the purchasing of the firearm, not the possession.

I agree and disagree with this. Our government very much fears our public, but they only fear the money which inspires the public. Republicans have been tripping over themselves since 2010 to "run to the right" as fast as they can, because they fear lobbying groups like the NRA will put money into their primaries, where the public will vote them out. Our government fears the public, because they fear the money in the public.

Even if you disagree with their position, you cannot disagree with the fact a large percentage of people in this country do support stricter gun control. In other words, the leaders are working for that group of the people, just not what I assume to be your group of people.

The fact is if it ever comes to pass where the "government" (and I absolute detest referring to it as a single entity when it most certainly is not) were to wage war on citizens, it'll be because of much larger reasons than guns.


Ignoring for a moment the fact the definition of the word "ignorance" has little in common with the words "ridiculous" "fanaticism" or "gun culture", I must say it was hard to decide how I wanted to respond to this. Ultimately, this is what I've chosen, and the direction I take will depend upon your answer:

Allow me to ask you a question. Is it your assertion that, absent the government chartered CMP program, these firearms can be easily obtained in the same manner you would obtain any other firearm?

It's a legitimate question, I have no problem admitting my ignorance when it comes to what guns are sold through what programs. Are these weapons which can be easily obtained, if not for the government instituted CMP program?

 

[TurtleDude]

:lol:

I think it speaks to the ridiculousness of the gun culture that the following two orders are "going after your guns"...guns you don't even have, and I believe are not even allowed normally to buy.


Your source.


Such ridiculous fanaticism to an inanimate object.

what is ridiculous is that attitude of the anti gun posters on this forum. Only someone completely ignorant about gun laws would think that a garand rifle is not something people are normally allowed to buy


that is why I have no respect for the posts of most of the anti gunners. Their posts are based on complete misunderstanding of the factual reality surrounding these issues. They spew bogus arguments supported by silly and stupid assumptions

 

[TurtleDude]

Nothing in the 2nd amendment takes away the government ability to regulate trade, especially international trade.

Sorry :/

another post that belies your often rejected claim of being pro gun. Why should the government piss away a source of revenue that the public should get for free?

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes, sadly it is typical.

One of the strategies of the anti gunners is to pretend that anyone who points out the incremental nature of the gun control scum is "paranoid" Its too bad that we cannot engage in punishment of those who claim that there is no next step when a law is passed and then, a week later, support even more restrictions

 

[TurtleDude]

I had a real hard time figuring out exaclty what this article was talking aobut with all the side bar and Obama bashing. It appears to me the only firearms this will effect will be firearms the US has donated or sold to Allies. I can only think of one entity this helps, It sounds to me like this law would benefit the gun companies.

As for the second one, if a guy cannot pass the check for a firearm I dont want him to have one and say it is for his company. I think this might be another foxrage.

"One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.


Read more: Administration announces new gun control measures, targets military surplus imports | Fox News

you don't appear to understand the real reason

in many states you can own a machine gun. But your ownership is dependent on several things including the whim of the local chief of police or sheriff. They have to agree to allow you to own it--its PURELY DISCRETIONARY and you have NO RECOURSE to seek mandamus if a chief of police says-I don't want you to own a machine gun because you donated to my opponent etc. There is nothing you can do

BUT YOU CAN GET AROUND THIS ONE REQUIREMENT by creating a trust or company to own the gun. YOU STILL HAVE TO PASS THE ATF BACKGROUND check -you just get rid of the discretionary BS

what the obama scumbags want is democrat or fascist chiefs of police to be able to unilateral ban any citizen from buying a silencer a SBR or a machine gun

 

[TurtleDude]

"military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies" It does not say loaned. I still think it just insures more gun sales.

that's really stupid. who makes real world war II garands these days?

 

[TurtleDude]

I personally dont have much interest in owning one.
And I already have 7 1911s, so one more is getting close to redundant.
Every idiotic gun law, grab and executive order needs to be fought and its impact felt throughout the gun community.
What you going to do if Obama outlaws handguns? Just send your 1911s to the smelter?

Here is the only question that matters

if american law abiding citizens want to own real WWII garands (which haven't been made for 50+ years) and there is a source of supply-should that supply be able to be accessed

YES OR NO

 

[Slyfox696]

There are two ways to obtain the weapons.

1) CMP program. To qualify you must demonstrate your handling of a weapon at a certified shooting range with a properly trained person signing off on your abilities. Then you send in payment and forms to the CMP and they send you a rifle. Its not fast either, and they are sold out of many weapons - including some that could have been imported barring obama's anti gun "ban" on the imports.

2) Buy one from someone who went through the above process. I am a native of CA but recently fled the state for Nevada. In even anti gun CA you can buy these firearms with the mere showing of a drivers license proving your age over 18. Nothing more - no back ground check, no wait period, nothing. This rule changes on Jan 1, 2014 in CA and the rifles may still be bought and sold (as of today) through the other process which requires a 10 day wait, $35 fee, and a dealer and background check.

So if I understand you correctly, the only way you can obtain one of these weapons is through this program (either you or another). In other words, it is not something you can "normally" do, would that be correct? Furthermore, would it be correct in saying the only reason you've ever been allowed to do this is because of the government in the first place? Are you willing to claim the government should not have the power to take back a privilege it has previously bestowed?

I know there are a lot of suggestive questions there. And much like another poster before you, I do appreciate your response in this post. It was actually informative, even if I used it for my advantage.

what is ridiculous is that attitude of the anti gun posters on this forum.

No, what's ridiculous is how unaware you seem to be to how little credibility your opinion has to anyone interested in an honest debate on this subject, due to your complete lack of perspective on anything but the love of a firearm. I've disagreed with several people in this thread, but at least most of them have offered intelligent and/or informative arguments (even if I disagree with them), but all you ever do is provide empty rhetoric over and over again.

What's ridiculous is that I even wasted my time telling you that anyone interested in an honest discussion on gun control is wasting their time.

 

[TurtleDude]

So if I understand you correctly, the only way you can obtain one of these weapons is through this program (either you or another). In other words, it is not something you can "normally" do, would that be correct? Furthermore, would it be correct in saying the only reason you've ever been allowed to do this is because of the government in the first place? Are you willing to claim the government should not have the power to take back a privilege it has previously bestowed?

I know there are a lot of suggestive questions there. And much like another poster before you, I do appreciate your response in this post. It was actually informative, even if I used it for my advantage.
No, what's ridiculous is how unaware you seem to be to how little credibility your opinion has to anyone interested in an honest debate on this subject, due to your complete lack of perspective on anything but the love of a firearm. I've disagreed with several people in this thread, but at least most of them have offered intelligent and/or informative arguments (even if I disagree with them), but all you ever do is provide empty rhetoric over and over again.

What's ridiculous is that I even wasted my time telling you that anyone interested in an honest discussion on gun control is wasting their time.

why don't you just admit you have no understanding of the issue rather than further proving that to some who might not have known.

there is nothing intelligent in your anti gun blather

 

[CalGun]

Am I willing to claim the govt should not have the power to "take back the privaldge" no of course I would not claim that. Now I would like to remind you why the government "gave us" the privaledge in the first place. It is because soldiers in Korea and Vietnam had so little experience with rifles that they got KILLED due to the infamiliarity. The basic training draftees went through was not sufficient to earn them competency and normalcy needed with the weapon, and the GOVT in order to protect its people instituted the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program). So to take it away - does that not mean obama ignores history and fact? I've already added in place these weapons are not of interest to gangs, criminals and thugs. They are regulated in such a way that only experienced people can obtain them originally. Now what benefit to society has obama bestowed by reducing the number of guns that can be obtained this way and by these people? I notice you like to answer questions with a question; but maybe its time you answered some?

So if I understand you correctly, the only way you can obtain one of these weapons is through this program (either you or another). In other words, it is not something you can "normally" do, would that be correct? Furthermore, would it be correct in saying the only reason you've ever been allowed to do this is because of the government in the first place? Are you willing to claim the government should not have the power to take back a privilege it has previously bestowed?

I know there are a lot of suggestive questions there. And much like another poster before you, I do appreciate your response in this post. It was actually informative, even if I used it for my advantage.
No, what's ridiculous is how unaware you seem to be to how little credibility your opinion has to anyone interested in an honest debate on this subject, due to your complete lack of perspective on anything but the love of a firearm. I've disagreed with several people in this thread, but at least most of them have offered intelligent and/or informative arguments (even if I disagree with them), but all you ever do is provide empty rhetoric over and over again.

What's ridiculous is that I even wasted my time telling you that anyone interested in an honest discussion on gun control is wasting their time.

 

[Slyfox696]

Am I willing to claim the govt should not have the power to "take back the privaldge" no of course I would not claim that.

Okay, so then can we both agree these executive orders are within the power of the government (not that you've claimed it's not, just clarifying). Furthermore, would you now agree my use of the word "normally" was not inaccurate, since it appears the only way many of these weapons can be purchased are through this program, either directly or indirectly?

Now I would like to remind you why the government "gave us" the privaledge in the first place. It is because soldiers in Korea and Vietnam had so little experience with rifles that they got KILLED due to the infamiliarity.

Considering the CMP program traces its roots back to 1903, I somehow doubt that.

The basic training draftees went through was not sufficient to earn them competency and normalcy needed with the weapon, and the GOVT in order to protect its people instituted the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program).

HISTORY OF THE CMP. CMP history goes back to late 19th century efforts by U.S. military and political leaders to strengthen our country’s national defense capabilities by improving the rifle marksmanship skills of members of the Armed Forces. The CMP traces its direct lineage to 1903 when Congress and President Theodore Roosevelt established the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice (NBPRP) and the National Matches. From then until 1996, first the Department of War and later the Department of the Army managed the program that became known as the “civilian marksmanship program. During this period, program objectives shifted from military marksmanship to training civilians who might serve in the military to developing youth through marksmanship training. In 1996, Congress acted again to establish the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearm Safety that now governs the CMP.

http://www.odcmp.co/about_us.htm

I admit I don't know much about the program, just merely what I've read there and elsewhere.

So to take it away - does that not mean obama ignores history and fact?

Not really. For example, it could mean that with the massive proliferation of firearms in the country over the last several decades, it's no longer necessary for the government to keep allowing private companies to import weapons from foreign countries. Or, better yet, it could mean our training methods have improved vastly over the years, to go along with the advances in gun technology.

Now what benefit to society has obama bestowed by reducing the number of guns that can be obtained this way and by these people? I notice you like to answer questions with a question; but maybe its time you answered some?

I've answered many questions. But before I can answer this one, I'd like to know specifically what guns are re-imported into this country by private entities. Obviously certain guns valued by collectors seem to be on the list, but what other firearms are on the list? If you could provide me a complete list of firearms which have been re-imported (apparently since 2005, there have been 250,000), I could answer this question in a much more knowledgeable fashion. I have looked for a complete list, but have been unable to find one.

 

[TurtleDude]

The rifles in question are semi automatic MI rifles and MI carbines. I have five of each through the CMP. some are rebuilt rifles that I use for Garand matches while others are service grade rifles that haven't had much work since WWII.

Garands are ideal citizen militia weapons. They are powerful very accurate and has absolutely no appeal to those who seek to use firearms illegally due to their size and weight.

 

[CRUE CAB]

:lol:

More empty and irrelevant rhetoric. It truly is all you have, isn't it? I asked you the question again, told you I'd be willing to go back and read if you simply pointed me to the post where you claimed to have answered it. But instead of debating, you instead to bring up a situation from nearly 80 years ago which is completely unrelated to this one, an issue which was not about gun control but instituting prejudice.

As I said before, I can't say I'm surprised.

And your argument? Oh, yea. Just come after me. No rebuttal, just go after posters you disagree with. Especially if they know more about the subject.

 

[TurtleDude]

And your argument? Oh, yea. Just come after me. No rebuttal, just go after posters you disagree with. Especially if they know more about the subject.

I am waiting for him to tell us why its bad for American citizens to be allowed to buy guns our tax dollars already paid for once

 

[Slyfox696]

And your argument? Oh, yea. Just come after me. No rebuttal, just go after posters you disagree with. Especially if they know more about the subject.

My argument is the same as it was before and you still have not answered it. It is a simple question. How is this going after your guns, if you never had them in the first place and could not purchase them normally, without government intervention in the first place?

Please let me know if you ever plan on answering. Your continued dodging is starting to put you in a category of what I consider useless gun control debaters like TurtleDude.

I am waiting for him to tell us why its bad for American citizens to be allowed to buy guns our tax dollars already paid for once

And I'm still waiting on someone to tell me how this is going after your guns, when you never had them in the first place and could only purchase them because of the government in the first place.

Here, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Please answer this with an actual answer, and not the usual empty rhetoric on which you usually rely.

 

[TurtleDude]

My argument is the same as it was before and you still have not answered it. It is a simple question. How is this going after your guns, if you never had them in the first place and could not purchase them normally, without government intervention in the first place?

Please let me know if you ever plan on answering. Your continued dodging is starting to put you in a category of what I consider useless gun control debaters like TurtleDude.
And I'm still waiting on someone to tell me how this is going after your guns, when you never had them in the first place and could only purchase them because of the government in the first place.

Here, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. Please answer this with an actual answer, and not the usual empty rhetoric on which you usually rely.

another bit of idiocy and a straw man. Its not about taking guns we already have. Its about dishonestly and improperly obstructing americans being able to obtain guns they should have access to

 

[TurtleDude]

I want to know what possible argument can be made preventing American citizens who can legally buy currently produced firearms from buying firearms that American citizens have already paid for and which would supply our greedy cash starved government with millions of dollars. Why destroy something that has value?

THE ONLY POSSIBLE ARGUMENT IS THAT ONE DOES NOT BELIEVE AMERICAN CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY GUNS

pure and simple