A Guns and Obama Question ..

[BOSSHOG]

I've heard a lot of chat about how Obama will take away our guns. My neighbor recently spent a nice little sum to supplement his arsenal. He told me Obama was going to "ruin the second amendment." I've done some research and I have failed to find anything indicating such would happen. Is this just more conservative ignorance posturing as outrage or is their substance to the charge that Obama will ruin the second amendment? And if so how would he do it? I appreciate any assistance or information that I have yet to find.

[Danieljay]

1. Yes. Its conservative bullshit is what it is. Lars Larson was going on about guns being taken away

door to door. He's really stirring the pot of the nutjobs about this. Hannity and Michael Savage are doing the same thing.

This is dangerous speak.

[BOSSHOG]

2. I thought that was most likely the case

I have chosen not to engage such people "unarmed" without the facts, if you will. Its so sad how easily they are manipulated.

[aikoaiko]

16. See post 14

[loveable liberal]

3. Good Gravy, where does this stuff come from?????

I believe that every single liberal has no problem with reasonable people owning a variety of guns. The NRA seems to think that having background checks and waiting periods equates to the elimination of the 2nd amendment. That is not the case.

As always, guns dont kill, people do. I, however, do not think that joe citizen needs RPG's, fully automatic weapons or armored vehicles. The bottom line is that Democrats will never take away guns and it would be impossible to do so anyway.

Republicans confiscate weapons; just ask the people of New Orleans.

[Recursion]

32. It comes from us

We bring it on ourselves. Until we recognize this it's going to keep being a thorn in our side.

We bring it on ourselves by having strong, evangelizing opinions informed by ignorance. Consider:

The NRA seems to think that having background checks and waiting periods equates to the elimination of the 2nd amendment.

The NRA was instrumental in writing the background check law.

I, however, do not think that joe citizen needs RPG's, fully automatic weapons or armored vehicles.

Neither does the NRA. But you wrongly think the Assault Weapon Ban and other legislation addressed this question. That is why gun-owners don't trust us: we wrote a law 90% of our party didn't remotely understand.

[jody]

35. "RPG's, fully automatic weapons or armored vehicles"! I'm so very weary of refuting such statements

that are wrong because they have been tightly regulated since 1934.

I wish every Dem who wishes to discuss the Second Amendment would learn the very basic facts before passing on rumors perpetuated by the gun-grabber community.

Such people are clear evidence of the truth spoken by that great philosopher of the Okefenokee:

[Dogtown]

4. RW Fantasy

I'll remind that President-elect Obama expressed support for the DC handgun judgement. The only remark I know that he's made supports the 2nd Amendment, although he's not openly addressed the subject.

I'm sure he has more important things planned, such as painting the White House black.....(i'm joking).

[madinmaryland]

5. The rethugs and the NRA have been pushing that meme since the days

of Nixon. It seems to work the NRA gun nuts into a tizzy.

[unpossibles]

6. I've heard this to from my father in law

who somehow manages to know I am a liberal who is not anti-gun rights in the least.

I had thought that the SCOTUS ruling on the DC ban made this whole argument kind of moot. Am I wrong?

[jmg257]

11. The DC ruling should make it harder, but it also specifically left

the issue open a bit by purposely avoiding to "...cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications of commercial sales of arms".

It's ruling was rather narrow, and considered handgun ownership in DC, in deciding their popularity for self-defense made a "complete prohibion of their use invalid."

[TellTheTruth82]

17. You are somewhat incorrect

If a person is allowed to have a weapon for self defense, then the person should be allowed to use it for self defense. The regulations that DC has put on the owners of weapons (once you have determined an imminent threat - burglar in the house, whatever, then you may proceed to your safe, unlock it, assemble the weapon, and load it). Of course, by this time, you are probably dead. So the question has really changed into more along the lines of "what are reasonable restrictions?"

[unpossibles]

22. gotcha

I don't agree with the scenario however, but then I am a light sleeper on the 2nd floor of an old house with a dog. I think I'd have time to use my bow if they ever got to the stairs, so I guess I am not that worried that someone will break in and kill me in my sleep. And yes, I live in "the ghetto" where people do get shot - although it is usually over a drug deal gone bad or revenge. Sometimes a car jacking, but those are pretty rare.

I'm still not anti-gun on any level, but I find some of the "what if" scenarios unlikely and maybe even a bit paranoid.

[jeepnstein]

27. Those scenarios...

actually have a good reason. When you're learning to shoot you have to understand lots of things including the whole "shoot/no shoot" concept. This is taught by discussing certain scenarios that have happened in the past. They teach weapon retention in much the same way. You learn by dissecting past events and seeing what really works and what doesn't.

When you get down to the point of actually having to use a firearm defensively, your fine motor skills are gone. The scenarios help you process information when the tunnel vision kicks in. I've been there and can tell you it works. A good example is the "Tuller Drill". Another classic is the Miami shootout involving a bunch of FBI agents and a couple of bank robbers.

Based on what I've been taught by some very good professionals I would advise you to not try to use a bow and arrow. There's a reason why they fell out of favor with the advent of firearms. But that's really not the point of this.

Some guys use the scenarios as some kind of vicarious adventure tale. They take things to ridiculous extremes and ignore certain realities of fighting with a gun. Usually it revolves around justifying their own choice of arms and promotes their kung-fu as greater than anyone elses'. This kind of scenario has a technical term in gun circles, it's know as "Bull Shit".

[unpossibles]

28. right on

I was being somewhat facetious with the bow comment, although the light switches in my house are hard to find if you don't know where they are, so again I'd have home field advantage, in the dark, and knowing my house's entry points very well. And there's the dog too. While I was joking, I really could probably shoot an arrow through someone before they even knew I was there. I just would never want to.

If it helps, I've shot a variety of guns, and studied a variety of other martial arts (and had to use them) and weapons (bow, knives, staves of various lengths, etc.), and also have a bigger older meaner brother, so understand what you mean as far as adrenaline affecting your ability to aim, to make snap decisions, fight-or-flight problems, etc. I grew up around violence and really cannot stand it.

But yeah, having grown up in the sticks and using guns safely and properly since I was a kid, I kinda laugh at a lot of the "guy breaks into my house" scenarios. I know it does happen sometimes, but there are a lot of ways to deal with it before it gets to a gun, imo. I do own a pistol, but I really do not want to shoot anyone, nor have I ever had to. I have had to deal with many more other aspects of violence, so I am not talking out of my butt, I just feel that as physical violence is an absolute last resort option, guns are a last resort kind of violence.

[jeepnstein]

30. We refer to it as "the direst of extremes"

If you have a dog you're pretty well covered. Burglars hate dogs. They hate locked doors. They hate anything that slows them down or makes noise. Any sort of confrontation usually sends them into flight mode. The only weapons that I have at the ready are my can of OC spray and a baton. Since I'm Taser certified, I'd really like to get one as I have a great deal of confidence in it's abilities. Killing someone just doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.

Most violence occurs between people who know one another. When it gets to that point it is usually a sign of a lack of coping skills in general. You also have a pretty good idea that it's coming. Some people see that freight train coming and just can't step out of the way.

I've learned quite a bit about fighting with a gun. So much so that I don't even bother to have one at the ready unless I'm working in uniform. Even then we often joke that it would be nice if we could carry a styrofoam replica to cut down on unnecessary weight on the old Sam Browne.

That doesn't mean I'm surrendering my rights. I just choose to exercise them in a reasonable and lawful manner.

[jody]

31. Makes sense. I hope to never have a flat tire but I carry a spare just in case. n/t

[Ashy Larry]

7. Total nonsense.

Republicans have been selling this myth for decades. Never gonna happen. If you hear someone talking about Obama taking guns away, the proper response is to laugh in their face and shake your head in disbelief of their gullibility. The GOP plays gun owners for fools in every election.

[Zenlitened]

8. And this "Obama will take our guns!!" stuff is EVERYWHERE.

Coast to coast, north to south.

I'll say this: The wingnut propaganda network is a powerful thing, both in its reach and in its ability to infest the minds of its listeners.

(Of course, the task is simpler if the listeners are the type who CRAVE mind-infestation because thinking for themselves is just way too scary.)

[SteveM]

56. Obama has reaped the whirlwind of gun-control...

...and he was part of the breeze. Much of what the NRA and GOP have said about the Democrats is untrue; but you must concede that passing something like the Assault Weapons Ban (and floating a new one in Congress) has played into the hands of the GOP PERFECTLY and cost many Democrats (from the legislatures to the White House) their political careers.

If you don't want the "wingnuts" to have that kind of influence, then we must quit feeding them.

One way to see if folks (here and elsewhere) are really serious about ending the "...CRAV of mind-infestation because thinking for themselves is just way too scary" is to ask: Do you support the re-enactment of the assault weapons ban?

Do you?

[jmg257]

9. Most of it seems to stem from

his time on the Joyce Foundation Board, and the answers to a 1998 Illinois State Legislative National Political Awareness Test, where "his" answers supposedly said he favored a ban on “the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons".

A recent comment of his: “I believe in the Second Amendment, and if you are a law-abiding gun owner you have nothing to fear from an Obama administration,” Obama said. “The Second Amendment is an individual right … people have the right to bear arms. But I also believe there is nothing wrong with some common-sense gun safety measures.”

[Union Label]

10. I come from a family of hunters and they have nothing to fear from an Obama administration

but then one of my more nuttier brothers is bitching that Obama wants his high dollar guns because Obama now has a new website with an agenda. I'll give you what my brother sent me while he was having a shit conniption.

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

[jmg257]

12. Well then - there it is...

"...They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent"

Crud.

[Union Label]

13. So whats wrong with that?

Its not that bad for the guys that like to play with their big guns, its only a few common sense measures.

[aikoaiko]

15. See my post 14.

[jmg257]

19. No - no problem at all, unless of course those guns you are playing with happen to be semi-autos,

with scary features like pistol grips and bayonet lugs. Or are based on "a military design" or used by the military or federal LE (like Benelli shotguns, M1s, M1As, etc. etc.),

Nothing "common sense" about it.

[Dimensio0]

20. The "assault weapons ban" is not "common sense".

The "assault weapons ban" is an irrational and an unreasonable restriction on firearms ownership.

[benEzra]

52. You're talking about banning THE MOST POPULAR CIVILIAN RIFLES IN AMERICA.

"Assault weapon" is gun-ban-lobby-speak for small-caliber civilian target rifles and defensive carbines, like the Ruger mini-14, the AR-15 platform, the SKS, civilian AK lookalikes, Kel-Tecs, etc.

More Americans lawfully own "assault weapons," than hunt. You'd affect fewer gun owners if you banned hunting.

And FWIW, only 3% of U.S. murders involve ANY type of rifle. Rifle bans aren't aimed at criminals; they are aimed squarely at the law abiding.

[SteveM]

57. Whoo, boy. See # 56 above (nt)

[Codename46]

62. Thats why people call you "Fudds".

Hunters who don't support the 2nd Amendment

[aikoaiko]

14. Here is the kernel of truth: OBAMA supports reauthorizing the AWB

If the old AWB were reauthorized it would be bad enough, but one of the recent incarnations of the AWB gave massive discretion to ban nearly every firearm. One of the AWB reauthorizations allowed a governement official to ban weapons if they had ever been used by the military. The military have used a lot of guns, including variations of hunting rifles.

Let me look for the bill to provide the exact language for clarity.


eta: (I decided to put the entire list in the quote because many of these guns are vary popular among recreational/competitive target shooters and self-defense gun owners.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
(a) In General- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means any of the following:
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
`(ii) AR-10;
`(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
`(iv) AR70;
`(v) Calico Liberty;
`(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
`(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
`(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
`(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
`(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
`(xi) M1 Carbine;
`(xii) Saiga;
`(xiii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
`(xiv) SKS with detachable magazine;
`(xv) SLG 95;
`(xvi) SLR 95 or 96;
`(xvii) Steyr AUG;
`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
`(xix) Tavor;
`(xx) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
`(xxi) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
`(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) Calico M-110;
`(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
`(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
`(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
`(v) Uzi.
`(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(i) Armscor 30 BG;
`(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
`(iii) Striker 12; or
`(iv) Streetsweeper.
`(D) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine, and that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a pistol grip;
`(iv) a forward grip; or
`(v) a barrel shroud.
`(E)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(ii) Clause (i) shall not apply to an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.
`(F) A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has--
`(i) a second pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel;
`(iii) a barrel shroud; or
`(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at a location outside of the pistol grip.
`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.
`(I) A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
`(J) A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
`(K) A conversion kit.
(L) A semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.'.

to see the entire bill: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1022

I do not how it is possible believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and support laws that make it impossible citizens from acquiring these semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns new.

[biermeister]

21. thanks for the info- nt

[Howzit]

33. How does one reconcile items (G) with (iii) and (iv)?

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

Is the limt 10 rounds or is it 5?

[aikoaiko]

41. I didn't use the indentation notions so its difficult to read.

I think the (iii) and (iv) you quoted actually belong to (H) semi-auto shotgun, and not (G) semi-auto pistols with fixed mags that accept more than 10 rounds.

`(G) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
`(H) A semiautomatic shotgun that has--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip;
`(iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine; or
`(iv) a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds.

[krispos42]

18. Never happen

There are several things that could happen.

The most likely of what might happen is that if a new "Assault Weapons" Ban is passed is that new "assault weapons" (as defined by whatever hysterical anti-gun group's rantings make it to the Congress) will no longer be for sale. This would probably include a ban on detachable magazines of more than 10 rounds capacity.

[X_Digger]

23. Thanks for saying 'magazine', not 'clip'..

That always drives me crazy.

[spin]

25. The strange thing is that many regular shooters call a magazine...

a clip. It also drives me crazy, but it shows the effect of the media.

[Citizen Number 9]

44. Doesn't bother me...

I know what they mean. People who do that run the risk of looking like someone who has a little knowledge and wants to show it.

[spin]

48. I also understand what they are trying to say...

so I just ignore it.

But I'm a terminology freak. I get really upset when someone calls a semiautomatic weapon an "assault weapon". I will take the time and effort to explain the difference.

By the way, welcome to DU.

[Citizen Number 9]

54. Hold the program....

So, wait, you're saying that my new 9mm pistol.......NOT an assault weapon?!?

:silly:

[aikoaiko]

26. I just bought 3 18-round mags for a Berreta 92/M9 that I don't even own yet.

Almost 100 bucks for all three and shipping.

[spin]

24. Obama on his plans (Change.gov)...

I found Obama's web site Change Gov. Office of the President Elect fascinating reading. http://change.gov/

I agree with many of his ideas and hope they will be implemented and prove successful. They do promise change.

In the section on CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT, he lays out a plan with some items I agree with and some I don't.

I like his plan to fund the COPS program to put 50,000 police officers on the street and to create a prison-to-work incentive program, modeled on the successful Welfare-to-Work Partnership. He also plans to support local programs such as the CeaseFire program in Chicago and will double funding for federal afterschool programs.

But it does look like he plans to support an Assault Weapons Ban. Also he will try to repeal the Tiahrt Amendment. I feel that another Assault Weapons Ban will be as big a failure as the first. My research on the Tiahrt Amendment uncovered a interesting criticism by the Fraternal Order of Police which indicates that its repeal many do more harm than good.

Following is an excerpt from the Change.gov site that shows Obama's views on the Tihrt Amendment and the AWB. I will add an excerpt and link showing the dissenting view of the FOP.


Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Statement from the Fraternal Order of Police on the Tiahrt Amendment:

I am writing on behalf of the membership of the Fraternal Order of Police to express our strong support for the inclusion of language in the FY 2008 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies appropriations bill to prohibit disclosure of firearms trace data by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) firearms to non-law enforcement entities.

The FOP has supported this language since the original version was first enacted several years ago because of our concern for the safety of law enforcement officers and the integrity of law enforcement investigations. For example, the disclosure of trace requests can inadvertently reveal the names of undercover officers or informants, endangering their safety. It may also tip off the target of an investigation, as appears to be the case in New York City. According to media reports last year, law enforcement sources cited that as many as "four cases were compromised and an additional 14 were put at risk" by private investigators employed by the city who acted on the basis of trace data. In this case, the investigators conducted "sting" operations for the city's civil suit against several gun stores that had been identified through firearms trace data. As a result, several gun trafficking suspects under investigation by law enforcement changed their behavior to avoid scrutiny. This is exactly the type of interference that caused the FOP to originally support language restricting the use of the data to law enforcement.
http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/news_article?id=411&XSL=xsl_pages%2fpublic_news_individual.xsl

I do recommend looking at the Change.gov web site. Lots of interesting plans for the future, and you can even add your own suggestions at this link:
http://change.gov/page/s/yourvision

[jody]

29. Obama did not promise to veto a bill to renew the assault weapons ban as called for in our Party

Platform and the purpose of Biden's S.2237 bill or the more draconian H.R. 1022 bill sponsored by 67 Democratic congresspersons.

Absent Obama's promise to veto a bill to renew the AWB, gun-owners have every reason to be concerned that although Obama promised not to take rifles, shotguns, and handguns he excluded the most popular firearms in the U.S. -- semiautomatic firearms maliciously renamed "assault weapons" by gun-grabbers.

Reminds me of another president who asked "it depends on what you mean by have sex" and we could have a new phrase "it depends on what you mean by support the Second Amendment".

[BOSSHOG]

34. I appreciate all the input but I'm still confused

I'm 54 years old and still don't know what the worst punishment is (for a person who is no doubt guilty) death or life in prison. I guess all kinda stuff can be "maliciously renamed" depending upon your political persuasion.

I have a hard time believing gun owners have any reason to fear an Obama presidency. Prove to me otherwise and I will fight his efforts. And how, pray tell, does a president alter constitutional amendments?

[Dimensio0]

36. Perhaps you have not viewed President-elect Obama's "urban policy".

I have a hard time believing gun owners have any reason to fear an Obama presidency.

President-elect Obama includes, as a part of his "urban policy", the following: "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets." Many firearms classified as "assault weapons" are in fact popular recreational target rifles, and not -- as the excerpt wrongly implies -- combat firearms.

[BOSSHOG]

38. "Recreational target rifles?"

Would someone call that "maliciously renaming weapons?" "As the excerpt wrongly implies?" Its things that kill people; Its not you say potato, I say potato. I'm still confused. I don't want my brain wired one way or the other on this issue. I also don't want the second amendment manipulated. And it has been by every side in the argument. Maybe its time for a constitutional convention because that one sentence is too easily "interpreted." I am for American Citizens owning guns. I'm also incredibly leary of the NRA and their motivation. They seem like a cleaned up version of the KKK to me.

[jody]

39. I wrote "maliciously renaming weapons". Suggest you read the history of the AW as created by the

Violence Policy Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence that are discussed in dozens of threads on DU's Guns forum.

I'm weary of repeating the facts so it's up to you to discover the truth.

[Dimensio0]

40. Your statement is ironic.

They seem like a cleaned up version of the KKK to me.

The Ku Klux Klan were, at one time, vocal advocates of increased firearms restrictions.

[Citizen Number 9]

43. That must have been

Part of a wider package of restrictions aimed against non-whites, though?

[SteveM]

58. BOY, I'LL SAY. Can we all guess why? (nt)

[one-eyed fat man]

60. history deficient.........

the ugly and embarrassing truth is that from about 1865 and good chunk of the next 100 years the KKK and the Democrats in the "Solid South" were about as closely allied as Sinn Fein and the IRA. A key element of the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws was gun control. Want to feel ashamed, look at just a few of the big name Democrats historically linked to gun control from long, long before Dianne Feinstein or Chuck Schumer.

Homer Cummings, attorney general during FDR's first term. The original verson of the NFA would have included all handguns.

Or "Big Tim" Sullivan and that most Democratic of New York institutions, Tammany Hall. Gun control so Irish gangsters would have less to worry about from Italian gangsters.

Or Justice Buford who said in a 1941 case in Florida, that law prohibiting concealed weapons "....was passed for the purpose of disarming the Negro laborers … The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied … .” Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So. 2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)

Whine all you want about "gun-grabber Dems" being being right wing propaganda, it has been TRUE more often than not. Like a porn star gone straight, those old naked pictures are still out there on the Internet for everyone to find.

[one-eyed fat man]

61. unintended duplicate n/t

[beevul]

45. Boss...

I can see what you're saying, but consider this:

The reason they're frequently referred to by our side as "target rifles" is that for the most part, thats what they are used for. Benezra has links to FBI data, showing state by state and nationwide statistics on use in homicide where weapons are concerned, both firearm and nonfirearm, and broken down by weapon. I don't have the link handy, but I know from memory that ALL rifles are used in less than 3 percent of all homicides, and assault weapons are generally a subset of all rifles, with a very few exceptions which are pistols - generally, the term "assault weapons" referrs to rifles. What they're called is less important than how they're used or not used though.

And consider, that there are some 80 million + gun owners in America. Consider then, that only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts. I imagine you might have read these things before, and I'm only doing so now again, to be clear, so bear with me -were talking about 16 million hunters. So called "assault weapons by comparison, in this day and age, are owned what most people inside the gun culture believe to be some 40 to 60 million people, in America. Now before I go any farther, I do not own, nor do I intend to own a weapon that would be considered an assault weapon. I don't want one. I like high accuracy bolt rifles personally...its just personal preference. That being said, I am going on a hunting trip 1 week from today (no I'm not a hunter, but I like the opportunity to get out in the woods for a few days - but I have no problem with hunting). The folks I am going with, 4 out of the 6 own what would be considered "assault weapons". These are hard working rural folks - I build steel, and post frame buildings and grain bins with them (I'm a machinisty by trade, but thats another story). I know at least 4 of the 6 voted for Obama, but all of us are concerned about any "assault weapons ban".

I don't deny that so called "assault weapons" or "sbr" are used in crime. What I deny is that they should be given special treatment. The only special treatment ANY type firearm has recieved in the history of this nation on a federal basis, is those firearms - machineguns, short barreled (sawed off) shotguns and rifles, and destructive devices such as most rifles over .50 caliber and mortars and howitzers claymores grenades etc. Keep in mind however, even those things are not banned. Tightly controlled yes. Banned? No. This is one of the largest reasons among many, why such a ban (AWB) is opposed. And there are alot of people - millions and millions of people - who oppose it. One needs to be inside the gun culture, or able to put ones fingers on the pulse of it, to really be able to fully understand the level of opposition - how deeply important this issue is - even to people like myself who doesn't have a dog in this particular fight. And one needs just as equally to understand what exactly the weapons in question are and aren't to understand why.


If you have any questions on the weapons side of things, start a thread. The gungeon in spite of its reputation, has posters with a wealth of knowledge on the specifics of firearms, past and proposed AWB legislation, etc.

In spite of the flames these discussions usually devolve to, you have been reasonable and open minded enough to listen to myself and others, and I want to thank you for that. It makes responding enjoyable.

I and I think everyone else here, would like to see that trend continue.

[jeepnstein]

55. "I like high accuracy bolt rifles personally...its just personal preference."

Then you do, indeed, have a dog in this fight. One man's hunting rifle is another's "highly accurate sniper rifle". You know what a good bolt gun can do. The Remington 700 is the basis for a military rifle and could just as easily be subject to a ban as an AR. Or how about the good old '03 Springfield? That's a military weapon through and through. Ever shoot one on the old Mauser action? From how many yards can you reliably put a man in a bag with a good bolt gun? I'll bet it's considerably more range than with an AR. Don't think for a minute that your firearm of choice is not going to be the subject of scrutiny.

We can either hang together or hang separately.

[benEzra]

53. It is a FACT that so-called "assault weapons" dominate competitive and recreational target shooting

in the United States. We are not talking about military weapons here, we are talking about non-automatic CIVILIAN guns. And considerably more Americans own them than hunt.



Bans on small-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling aren't aimed at criminals, who rarely use long guns of any type. They are aimed squarely at lawful gun owners like my wife and I.

[jody]

37. No one can "prove" the future but a person's history does suggest what she/he might do in particular

if that person does not acknowledge past acts and pledge to never do them again.

FACT 1: Obama did support the assault weapon ban in the past.

FACT 2: Obama has not refuted the Dem platform statement "reinstating the assault weapons ban".

Whether President Obama will sign or veto a bill to renew the assault weapons ban remains to be seen.

[Citizen Number 9]

42. I'm confused too...

I just can't understand why the Dem Party can't leave the gun thing alone. It's almost like they want to needle the gun nuts for being conservative ahoes. Who cares?

I know there is a problem with gun violence, particularly in certain urban settings, but gun control that impacts most Americans negatively and has an arguably small effect on the actual problem doesn't seem to be a good answer.

[SteveM]

59. I share your confusion. Guns aren't the issue. Gun-control is:

You are on the right path when you say: "It's almost like they want to needle the gun nuts for being conservative aholes. Who cares?"

The gun-control issue since the 70s has been preeminently about culture war, and the hatred of a "class" of gun owners. Some highly corrosive myths have grown up around the issue:
(1) That whites want guns in order to keep blacks down;
(2) That primarily white men want guns in order to keep their wives down;
(3) That primarily white men by the millions are filled with unbridled lusts so injurious to the public weal that anyone else has full license to dump onto them every insult, degrading comment and stereotype once reserved for minorities.

This last myth is key. Once you have defined the "hated other," then you can say all the nasty confrontational things you want about them, and pass the most reckless legislation you can come up with, and preserve some kind of concocted moral impunity. In short, gun owners became the most enduring post-civil rights, post-feminist boogie for progressives (like the pot-smoker became the most enduring post-60s icon for right wing culture warriors).

And gun-control culture warriors push their "agenda" again and again despite the harm done to other "causes" and "more important issues." If that ain't addiction to culture war then "grits ain't groceries and Mona Lisa was a man."

[Citizen Number 9]

63. Culture War, huh?

I'll buy it.

I can't come up with any other reason for the Dem party to cling to this useless notion for so long. This is a historic opportunity. Let's CHUCK the anti-gun attitude and banish the right-wing ahoes to the wilderness where they can think about how they have a hard time living and playing well with others on this island

Then, we'll only have to deal with them when they begin to institute violence in their frustration at being marginalized.

[tisfortomi]

64. Culture War

Once you have defined the "hated other," then you can say all the nasty confrontational things you want about them, and pass the most reckless legislation you can come up with, and preserve some kind of concocted moral impunity.

That really says it all. I shoot at the range with a mostly Republican, mostly blue-collar crowd. I don't agree with their politics, but they are mainly decent, respectable people. They know how much they--hunters and shooters--are despised and reviled by what I'll call, for lack of a better word, the "intelligentsia." Why would they ever want to agree to so-called "common sense" restrictions dictated by people who have nothing but ill-informed contempt for them and their lifestyle?

It's just ugly, smug, sneering elitism, and it has helped keep the Democratic Party cut off from part of its natural constituency--the rural middle class--for quite a while now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. Who is saying he would change the constitution?

You do realize that even unconstitutional laws take time to change. See the Heller decision. If congress passes unconstitutional limits on firearms and Obama signs them it will still take years to get them overturned.

David

[iiibbb]

46. I don't think Obama will... but I wonder what congress will do, and whether Obama would block it.

I don't think Obama will make it a central element of his administration... but I can see a number of Democrats seeing this as their opening.

Four things make me not worry so much.

1) The Heller decision.
2) Obama's not going to make it his own priority.
3) I think a lot of Democrats are cognizant of what the AWB cost them in 1994.
4) A lot of the gains the Dems have made in the House and Senate has been through the election of pro-gun democrats who aren't going to go along with it.

[Hangingon]

49. Take a look at today's posting

The gun grabbers are loose and abroad in the land. Just as people said they were quiet until the election.

[jody]

50. The hate and ignorance evident in many gun-grabber comments in all internet forums convinces me we

pro-RKBA Democrats can never find a compromise position with them.

Pro-choice RKBA is the logical compromise but hostile gun-grabbers will never stop until they have banned all guns.

Such gun-grabbers are among the best friends criminals have along side judges who sentence violent criminals to serve time for possessing a firearm while committing a crime but serve that sentence concurrently with time for the other part of the felony.

With friends like that, crime will continue to be a profitable line of work.

[benEzra]

51. The primary fear is of another ban on "assault weapons,"

aka small-caliber civilian rifles with modern styling. Which happen to be the most popular centerfire rifles in America, and which the DLC has an obsession with outlawing.

19th-century-style hunting rifles aren't the issue; only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts. They/we are more concerned about new restrictions on so-called "assault weapons", spare parts, magazines, and ammunition, which are (IMO) unlikely but possible. But tens of millions of people got burned by the 1994 Feinstein law and are concerned about a repeat.