ExRx.net

Of course if you look at Obama's actual voting record you'll get a pretty clear view of his stance on gun control. It's also worth mensioning that both of the supreme court justices he appointed ruled against an individual right to keep and bare arms. And then of course there's Fast and Furious.

Yes, it is a reaction to the shooting. A lot of people have had that reaction. Even some conservatives are changing their minds, not many, but a few.

I don't think you will because there has not been much of anything that has come up. The justices were a tad to the left, and there were many reasons for nominating them. I don't think their views on gun control had anything to do with it.

Fast and Furious wasn't Obama himself, but people that worked for him. It also had nothing to do with gun control. It was law enforcement pertaining to guns, and it was a massive screw up.

This all looks like a bunch of cobbled-together red herrings.

This is all part of the general scare tactics used to speak directly to the unthinking human amygdala. So they scare people with all their fears, gun control, gays, atheists, Muslims, immigrants from Mexico, job losses, anything to do with religion, etc. The fear requires "us VS them" group think. You divide the people by any distinction you can make, to have the in group, and out group, the "us" and the "them". Religion is a great basket of divisive issues which work perfectly. The holy and godly, VS those immoral "them", the godless, the baby killers, the destroyers of marriage, family, and tradition; the destroyers of all things that are of the "us" the "good Americans".

This is done to push through oppressive legislation, and things that serve corporations at the expense of people, which freedom-loving folks would otherwise oppose.

It even happens a little on the left, but to a much lesser degree. It is involved in any of the religion-like issues on the left. The animal rights/anti-meat folks for example, or the whole GMO conspiracy. You can also have legitimate concerns blown out of proportion.

Democrats are not free of corporate ownership either. It's to a much lesser extent, but it's there.

One should be most wary of the things one agrees with. Confirmation bias is a very detrimental foible of human psychology.

I really don't see what religion and corporate greed has to do with gun control. The firearms industry is pretty small ... much smaller than the auto industry or the tobacco industry. Groups like the NRA are funded mainly by private donations from concerned citizens.

Also, the NRA has no religious affiliation. Membership is open to men and women from all backgrounds.

Admittedly most of the political candidates endorsed by the NRA are Republicans. However, the NRA does endorse some pro-gun democrats. It's really a one-issue organization.

"Even some conservatives are changing their minds, not many, but a few." - Ironman

Some would say they're caving to public presure.

That's because it doesn't. I had moved to another point and apparently you didn't understand anything I said.



Not when it comes before the pressure.

"That's because it doesn't. I had moved to another point and apparently you didn't understand anything I said." - Ironman

You're right about that. You weren't being very clear. Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about gun control. I'd rather not turn it into a general discussion on politics or political parties.

For the record, I'm not a member of any political party and would considder myself a moderate on most issues (gun control is an obvious exception).

What about bazookas, grenade launchers, etc? Do you think they should be legal? If you are for rifles such as the one used in Newtown...seems like these would be more legitimate for private citizens to own in the case of an uprising against the gov't. Just curious.

Even better - I'd love to shoot a grenade into a pack of 30 hogs rooting up my field. One shot, 20 killed. That sure would be helpful.

_________________
Thanks TimD.

Those were just examples. The main point actually was more about psychology and critical thinking.

I have to admit- were they legal, I'd love to see them in action

"What about bazookas, grenade launchers, etc? Do you think they should be legal? If you are for rifles such as the one used in Newtown...seems like these would be more legitimate for private citizens to own in the case of an uprising against the gov't. Just curious." - Rucifer

What you're describing is already illegal. Meanwhile, full-auto weapons are HEAVILY regulated (since the 1930s) and very expensive. It's really only a few hardcore collectors who own them, and as far as I know, no registered machine gun or sub-machine gun has ever been used in a crime. It's really a non-issue, although there still seems to be a lot of confusion over the difference between semi-auto and full-auto.

Similarly, no .50 BMG rifle has ever been used in a crime is the US. However, that hasn't stopped people from trying to ban them (CA has a ban).

I wasn't debating their current legality, I was asking if you think they should be legal (bazookas and weapons of great destructive power). Like I said, these types of weapons would be one of the that would give the "people" a chance should we have to overthrow our gov't through brute force. Why do we say ar 15s and ak 47s are legal, when these types of guns are clearly for warfare, and not bazookas and the like? I don't see a logical reason as to why they are illegal and ar 15s aren't.

Saying ARs and AKs are purely for warfare is erroneous. The AR platform is one of the best for shooting hogs and coyotes.

Not just for helicopter hunting. When you have a pack of 15 it is nice to get 3. You have to realize - they are a pest - worse than rats.

_________________
Thanks TimD.

That is perhaps an unintended benefit of them Hoosegow. These guns were still created for warfare. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, as its best to arm our troops with weapons that maximize damage to the enemy and minimize it to them.