Legitimate question for "gun control"

Originally Posted by 'busa

Both the Tiahrt Amendment and the provision that requires senate approval to appoint a director to the ATF were passed during the previous administration.

It's not what you think it is.

There is an acting director and deputy director so its not like leadership isn't in place. Obama's current pick for the director seat holds the director seat as we speak so who gives a shi*.

They allowed guns to walk across the border while at the same time criticized americans for being a part of the murders tha took place because of our lax gun control.

2000 guns were put there by the ATF.

On November 23, 2012, two firearms linked to the ATF were found at the scene of a shootout between Sinaloa cartel members and the Mexican military. One of the weapons was an AK-47 type rifle trafficked by Fast and Furious suspect Uriel Patino, and the other was an FN Herstal pistol originally purchased by an ATF agent. Mexican beauty queen Maria Susana Flores Gamez and four others were killed.

Since the end of Operation Fast and Furious, related firearms have continued to be discovered in criminal hands. As reported in September 2011, the Mexican government stated that an undisclosed number of guns found at about 170 crime scenes were linked to Fast and Furious. It is estimated that 200 people have been killed by guns traced to fast and furious.

They are grossly incompetent and Vice crime should be handled at the state level by officers that have a better understanding of whats going on in their backyard.

This has nothing to do with liberal vs conservative as both administrations have allowed this to go on. I simply blame the ATF.

They should be disbanded and responsibilities should be moved to the state level and the FBI.

Originally Posted by MrWesson

There is an acting director and deputy director so its not like leadership isn't in place.

The director works part time!

I hate to blame one side, but this appears to be the typical Republican approach of underfund and undercut until an agency can't function well anymore, then argue to eliminate it because it's not working well.

Originally Posted by 'busa

The director works part time!

I hate to blame one side, but this appears to be the typical Republican approach of underfund and undercut until an agency can't function well anymore, then argue to eliminate it because it's not working well.

There has not been a director in 6 years. All 6 of those years were under Democratic control.

Who's the one that should be blamed?

Originally Posted by 'busa

The director works part time!

I hate to blame one side, but this appears to be the typical Republican approach of underfund and undercut until an agency can't function well anymore, then argue to eliminate it because it's not working well.

Blame the incompetence of governement in general. The democrats are just to blame in all this.

The major point of all these threads and the reason we are upset on our side is simple.

Assault style weapons contribute to a tiny percentage of crime so why are they after them?

Why pick a scapegoat instead of meeting the problem with a direct solution.

If you want gun free zones then you have to spend money to protect them. Its that simple.

Originally Posted by kaput

There has not been a director in 6 years. All 6 of those years were under Democratic control.

Who's the one that should be blamed?

X2


Its not the people themselves who are to blame the fact is you put a bunch of save the world dopes in a room and tell them to write laws all day.

Nothing gets done and the things that do probably shouldn't.

I think the ATF should be disbanded personally but since it exists maybe a full time guy running the place isn't a bad idea.

The only problem with that is who appoints them and at what point do they use their own beliefs to "direct".

It always has to be someone extreme and never someone who comes from the center spectrum. Obama wants liberals in charge and conservatives before him were no different.

Hate Bush all you want but at least the guy was a mild/centrist republican.

Originally Posted by MrWesson

Hate Bush all you want but at least the guy was a mild/centrist republican.

Reagan was a in support of a gun ban:

Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban

In their letter, the three former presidents said: "This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. . . . Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. . . .
"While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.
"We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

Need more?

Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after "a last minute plea from President Reagan" in the form of a handwritten note.

"Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary," Reagan wrote Klug. "I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ising-details/

Originally Posted by 'busa

Reagan was a in support of a gun ban:

Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban

In their letter, the three former presidents said: "This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. . . . Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. . . .
"While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.
"We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

Need more?

Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after "a last minute plea from President Reagan" in the form of a handwritten note.

"Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary," Reagan wrote Klug. "I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ising-details/

A few things. First, they point to weapons like a TEC 9, which is neither a military style weapon, nor is it an assault weapon. They come in two flavors, and one is illegal without NFA approval. Second, those numbers a skewed. The actual numbers are less than 3.6% used in crime, and there are some odd millions of ARs in circulation.

Third, the letter was written by another person, and the names placed on it. It is quite clear, especially considering Reagan was diagnosed later that year, your source even states that.
Fourth... The Blaze???

Originally Posted by 'busa

Reagan was a in support of a gun ban:

Ford, Carter, Reagan Push for Gun Ban

In their letter, the three former presidents said: "This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. . . . Although assault weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime. . . .
"While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.
"We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons."

Need more?

Congressman Scott Klug, a Republican from Wisconsin was an opponent of the assault weapon ban and the day before the vote stated his opposition to the ban. Klug only changed his voted after "a last minute plea from President Reagan" in the form of a handwritten note.

"Dear Scott: As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary," Reagan wrote Klug. "I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed. Sincerely, Ronald Reagan." http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ising-details/

Didn't I say bush?

Why are you talking about Reagan?

This thread is hilarious.

Originally Posted by kaput

A few things. First, they point to weapons like a TEC 9, which is neither a military style weapon, nor is it an assault weapon. They come in two flavors, and one is illegal without NFA approval. Second, those numbers a skewed. The actual numbers are less than 3.6% used in crime, and there are some odd millions of ARs in circulation.

Third, the letter was written by another person, and the names placed on it. It is quite clear, especially considering Reagan was diagnosed later that year, your source even states that.
Fourth... The Blaze???

So your excuse was that Reagan had lost his mind? Should he have been allowed to have guns at that stage?

Originally Posted by Iceman00

How can we enforce existing gun laws when law enforcement's hands are tied? Why are we ok with the NRA (and the GOP) blocking our attempts to control illegal fire arms? Could it be they aren't looking out for gun owners, but rather manufactures and dealers?

And why isn't this more talked about?

Hands tied? I guess no one told Bloomberg and Rahm.