Meet the Press Sunday Jan. 27

[chances R]

NYC police commisioner RAY KELLY stated the following facts on today's program

 

1.  The problems are handguns.

(my comment:  don't think for a minute the gun-grabbers will be happy with any sort of magazine capacity ban or other assault weapon ban; 'they' want them all.)

 

2. 2% of the firearms arrest were for assault weapons

(refer to #1)

 

3.  60% of murders in NYC were with handguns.

(refer to #1)  (also, that is very close to half of all murders, if a gun was not available there are still plenty of other options, obviously)

 

The BHO administration has essentially ignored enforcement of current regulations.  Look at other countries where firearms are illegal.....Mexico for example, where no one is safe because of the corruption of government officials and the drug cartels.  How well did prohibition on alchohol work?  Prostitution?  Regulating psuedophed?  Or any of the other poorly ran Federal programs?  MY opinion is don't give them one more thing.....as the old saying goes, just say "NO".......or the new saying  "HELL NO."

[Guest CigarGuy]

"They" are already arguing that the 2A was never intended for "assault" weapons.  You think it's much of a stretch

to also say the 2A wasn't intended for handguns?

I actually had a friend and fellow gun owner say to me that he's ok with the weapons ban because why do you NEED

such a weapon.  Rationalizes that the 2A was for a militia, and that has been replaced by a standing army.

DOES understand the "slippery slope" concept, but, still, VERY worrisome.....from one of "us".

Oh, he's a "moderate" politically.

[Moped]

"They" are already arguing that the 2A was never intended for "assault" weapons.  You think it's much of a stretch

to also say the 2A wasn't intended for handguns?

I actually had a friend and fellow gun owner say to me that he's ok with the weapons ban because why do you NEED

such a weapon.  Rationalizes that the 2A was for a militia, and that has been replaced by a standing army.

DOES understand the "slippery slope" concept, but, still, VERY worrisome.....from one of "us".

Oh, he's a "moderate" politically.

I hope you corrected him on the spot by substituting his firearm of choice and "adding why do we need such a weapon?" behind it?  We need to keep all firearms owners in line on this or we are sunk!!!

[Glenn]

Rights are not based on need

[Guest CigarGuy]

[quote name="Moped" post="897456" timestamp="1359312136"]I hope you corrected him on the spot by substituting his firearm of choice and "adding why do we need such a weapon?" behind it?  We need to keep all firearms owners in line on this or we are sunk!!![/quote] Yes. I asked him why he needed a $30K car. He had nothing. It was very disappointing.

[m16ty]

I think it will be a plus for us if more guns are added to the ban list. I say add handguns also to the list, add them all.

 

The fact is the more guns that are on the ban list, the more people it pisses off. There's a bunch of gunowners that are ok with just sitting on the sidelines as far as "AWs" are concerned. You go to talking about taking away their personal firearms, they may move to action. The more guns that are added also makes the grabbers look more crazy.

[Guest CigarGuy]

What do you guys think of this as a response, especially to the more "progressive" of our population.

Banning "assault" rifles is, to us, as repugnant as  infringing on the 1A is to them?  How about burning the American

flag?  You "need" to do that?  I think it's offensive and ought to be against the law.  But, it's been

determined that it's free speech.  So, by banning that(flag burning), what?  Slippery slope, right?

How is that any different from banning a specific type of gun?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good response, since it is the one that defends the other.