Obama anti-gun?No, anti-gun control ...

[spin]

February 14, 2010
Among the many groups that opposed Barack Obama's presidential race, few were more certain or vehement than gun-rights organizations. "Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history," the National Rifle Association announced. "Obama is a committed anti-gunner," warned Gun Owners of America.

So it's no stunner that after a year in office, the president is getting hammered by people who have no use for his policy on firearms. The surprise is that the people attacking him are those who favor gun control, not those who oppose it.

Obama's record on this issue has been largely overlooked — except by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which recently issued a report card flunking Obama on all seven issues it deems important. Said President Paul Helmke, "If I had been told, in the days before Barack Obama's inauguration, that his record on gun violence prevention would be this poor, I would not have believed it."

Had he listened to the candidate in 2008, he would have believed. At a September campaign rally in rural Virginia, Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

The Brady Center must have hoped he was being less than honest. And he was: He had no intention of pushing those "common-sense" laws he had previously favored. On the list of issues for which Obama is willing to put himself on the line, gun control ranks somewhere below free trade with Uzbekistan.

***snip***

In terms of actual policy, rather than his previous record, Obama is a long way from being anti-gun. This is not because he has fond memories of sitting in a deer stand as a lad in Hawaii or of talking shotguns with Dick Cheney. It's because his mother didn't raise a fool.

Like some other Democrats, he may recall that in 1994, after banning "assault weapons," they lost the House for the first time in 40 years. Obama knows that anyone who staunchly favors banning guns won't vote Republican no matter what. But some independents who are protective of their weapons may vote Democratic if that issue is off the table.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0214-chapman-20100212,0,1860230.column

[mmonk]

1. Our house has been deluged with calls from the NRA

the last couple of months, but we haven't answered the phone due to caller ID, that is, until my wife got tired of the phone calls and answered the phone. They asked to speak to me but my wife told them that I was extremely liberal and to take us off their phone list. My question is, what were they calling about and what lies are they telling the people they call?

[Tim01]

4. They do tend to cry wolf a lot. It's good for their income. nt

[mmonk]

8. I'm still interested in what they are saying.

There doesn't seem too much gun control legislating going on. In fact, everytime I turn around, there seems to be the opposite going on wit people being able to carry guns everywhere and concealed. I don't have patience with people that lie to people with such effort to generate irrational fear. I'll add that I'm not anti-gun. I do think it makes sense occasionally to address issues such as armour piercing bullets and assault weapons though. For all the talk about "pro life" in this country, life is cheap here.

[old mark]

12. The extreme right still believes all the confiscation bullshit the NRA is selling.

I am beginning to feel that we gun owning Dems should join the NRA in huge numbers and just take it over...that would reallu melt some minds in the RW delusional world, and the organization would be a great Democratic asset if we controlled it. Except for the political aspects, it is an effective and worthwhile teaching organization promoting safety, history and many aspects of firearms ownership the anti's completely overlook.


mark

[mmonk]

16. I agree with it's worthwhile measures. However, in today's

world of lies and low information, my ire has increased. There are progressive gun owner groups out there.

[DonP]

23. "There are progressive gun owner groups out there." Where and how many million voters do they have?

The only thing that matters in advocacy groups is 1. How much campaign cash can they donate and 2. How many millions of voters can they mobilize at the local, state and federal level, not neccessarily in that order of importance either.

The NRA is still the big dog on that porch. FWIW in the 2008 election they endorsed the largest number of Dem candidate ever. Largely because we recruited Blue Dog pro second amendment types to run in swing districts. We elected one in my home district.

The NRA's new hobby horse is the Chicago v. McDonald case to incorporate the Heller decision.

It's the next major step in declaring complete gun bans as unconstitutional. They even got 10 or 15 minutes of oral argument time alloted to them for the case. That's almost unheard of in a case like this.

[mmonk]

64. I do not know since I do not belong to them.

I merely stated they exist.

[DonP]

73. Sorry, I didn't mean to be snarky

I know there are some, even a couple run by folks that post here.

But they really don't have much in the way of political sway beyond being able to inform candidates of the facts, from a more credible progressive source.

I'm not nuts about everybody the NRA supports, but in spite of the ranting here (always by people that have never belonged or even bothered to check the web site) they are truly focused on one issue. With over 4 million (now closing on 5 million) dues paying members, not to mention their families and the other people they influence, and connections with state rifle associations they field a lot of voters.

Every few months we get someone that demands that we all drop any affiliation with the NRA and start our own organization. Hell, we have posts in this thread upset because they criticized Schumer et. al. Well Schumer and some high profile Dems are still calling for the same gun bans that cost us the Congress in '94.

While the facts on the ground show a much lower crime rate, no issues from concealed carry laws, beyond the lower crime rate, some of our own leaders are knee jerk calling for renewing the assault weapons ban. I'll be kind and say they are just ill or poorly informed.

If you find a progressive gun group that you like and are comfortable with, you should join it. But make sure it's a real group and not another phony facade group ginned up by Josh Sugarmann and the Brady Bunch. They seem to do that every few years. The group lasts long enough to hold a press conference or two, has no paid members and always winds up saying that handguns or AR style rifles need to be banned.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. There's ALOT of local and state issues the NRA picks up.

Nothing federally goign on except the McDonald Case right now. But there was a kid who was wrongfully expelled from school concerning gun rights recently and the NRA worked on the case. There's always alot of little thing and little battles that keep the anti-gun side from snowballing. That and nutty state legislation like the recent MA state bill proposal (that was just pulled from the floor).

Also, armor piercing handgun bullets are illegal and have been for awhile. However, nearly EVERY single centerfire rifle round can penetrate a typical "bulletproof" vest. It does not have to be a bullet of special design. It's the velocity a rifle round travels that allows it to defeat armor... not the composition of the bullet. Everything from the lowly .223rem up to .50bmg will cut through a police issue IIIa vest like swiss cheese - if vest does not have steel or other thick "plates" in it then it cannot stop rifle rounds.

"Assault Weapon" bans are meaningless. Only something like 3% of guncrime involves an "assault weapons".
The merely look scary (whatever that means) so it's easy to whip up public hysteria about them and play on peoples emotions.

[paulsby]

42. do you have any idea what an "assault weapon" is?

ime, and as evidenced by many other posts, most people who oppose them and who support the ban, don't understand what they are.

hint: assault weapons are cosmetically different weapons that look EVIL

they are not more powerful than conventional rifles. in fact, in most cases they are less powerful than REAL game rifles

they are NOT fully automatic

[mmonk]

63. They are pretty self explanatory. For one, they are created

to kill human beings (hence the word "assault").

[Callisto32]

69. Than explain it.

[mmonk]

88. Here are the definitions from all US State Codes.

http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/searchresults.html?q=assault+weapon&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9&srt=Connecticut&cx=001017683474852908061%3Acdrlpclgjlu&siteurl=law.justia.com%252Fconnecticut%252Fcodes%252Ftitle53%252Fsec53-202a.html#934

[Katya Mullethov]

96. If you input for Texas there is no such thing

We gots your basic Assault , battery , and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon . But no "a-ssault weapon" . Is that a philosophical difference between TX and CT ? You do not assault people here , it cant be any simpler .

http://law.justia.com/connecticut/codes/searchresults.html?q=assault+weapon+texas&sa=Search&cof=FORID%3A9&srt=Connecticut&cx=001017683474852908061%3Acdrlpclgjlu&siteurl=law.justia.com%252Fconnecticut%252Fcodes%252Ftitle53%252Fsec53-202a.html#862

[Callisto32]

101. You didn't recognize the call of the question.

I did not ask what various state codes call an assault weapon. I asked you to explain what you mean when you say assault weapon. Legal language doesn't really have much bearing on the actual language. Remember "to be an open field, it is not necessary for the land in question to be either open or a field."

[X_Digger]

71. So ALL guns, eh?

All firearms are of military origin, you know.

"makes sense occasionally to address issues such as armour piercing bullets and assault weapons though"

Nice to have someone admit that 'assault weapons' really means all guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

90. So a Brown Bess musket, desigened and made in 1722 is an assault weapon?

By your definition. It was created as a British infantry arm to kill human in war. Would you like to try again?

[Euromutt]

98. Killing someone is generally known as "homicide," not "assault"

Weapons created to kill people covers an awful lot of ground, from Stone Age battle axes to the present day. We don't call them all "assault weapons."

In military terminology, "assault weapons" are weapons intended to permit infantry and/or combat engineers to breach enemy fortifications: bangalore torpedoes, satchel charges, flamethrowers, rocket launchers, that sort of thing. The Marine Corps' idea of an "assault weapon" is this thing, the Mk 153 Shoulder-launched Multi-purpose Assault Weapon (SMAW):


When it comes to small arms, the term "assault weapon" was manufactured. It was contrived to elicit precisely the association that you made: that so-called "assault weapons" are ipso facto made for assaulting people. But the term isn't descriptive: it's a label. It's the equivalent of referring to cars fitted with fuel-injection engines as "collision vehicles." There's nothing about a fuel injection engine that makes a car more likely to crash than one fitted with a carburetor, but then again, so-called "assault weapons" were used in probably about 2% of gun crimes before the 1994 ban. And if you wanted to point out that fuel injection engines have been standard in cars for twenty years, and that carburetors are obsolete technology, well, guess what? Firearms that meet the definition of so-called "assault weapons" are rapidly becoming the default weapons for hunting and target shooting.

Consider the Remington R-25 big game rifle http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx
Or Benelli's semi-auto shotguns configured for hunting turkey: http://www.benelliusa.com/shotguns/benelli_turkey_guns.php
Or target rifles like the Olympic Arms UltraMatch Premium http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=29&category_id=6&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=37 and Smith & Wesson M&P 15 PC http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=11101&storeId=10001&productId=67987&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=33803&isFirearm=Y

All semi-automatics with pistol grips, and the rifle use detachable magazines: that makes them "assault weapons" in California.

[PavePusher]

105. Oh, you're talking about lever-action .30-30's then, yes? n/t

[nimvg]

79. Most People...

...don't even know what the term means, and I can't exactly tell you what it means.

For Ye Unwashed, full automatic is Class 3 under Federal law and requires the appropriate permits. Most people have no need for full auto (including myself...there are other things to spend money on) and frankly they tend to be very expensive to shoot and a complete pain in the ass to store.

When you sign up for a Class 3 permit with all the background checks and fingerprinting, you also (so I understand) surrender part of your Constitutional right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure. A old friend of mine told me the Feds can come hassle you and inspect your dwelling whenever they see fit. No thanks. Life's complicated enough already.

[Callisto32]

68. By armor piercing, what do you mean?

Anti-Material, or able to defeat body armor? Pretty much any rifle round will defeat body armor.

As far as "assault weapon," well, you could try to define it. Just don't talk about things that go up.

[Euromutt]

102. More specifically, any rifle round will defeat armor not designed to stop a rifle round

(Not correcting you, Callisto, just expanding on your point.)

It's not that rifle rounds penetrate body armor below level III because they're designed to, but because body armor below level III isn't designed to stop rifle rounds. By definition.

[gorfle]

87. What the NRA is saying.

I'm a member of the NRA. I receive their literature and monthly magazine. I know exactly what they are saying.

The NRA relentlessly calls out politicians who have either a stated goal or track record of being anti-2nd amendment. This is true regardless of what party the politician is a member of.

It is an unfortunate truth that the majority of anti-firearm legislation has been a product of Democrats, and the loudest political opponents of the second amendment are Democrats.

This gives the NRA the appearance of being partisan. But they are not. They are simply being true to their primary goal of protecting the right to keep and bear arms. They can and do endorse Democratic politicians who are pro second-amendment.

Yes, it is quite true that so far, President Obama has not touched the firearm issue.

I strongly suspect this is, however, more out of political prudence rather than because he has had an honest change of heart concerning the right to keep and bear arms.

His past record concerning firearms is damning. His pre- and shortly post-election web site statements, still available under www.change.gov, are damning. The Democratic Party Platform is damning.

Thus it is not irrational fear that drives people to be suspicious of Democratic principles concerning firearms, it is the words out of their own mouths.

I do think it makes sense occasionally to address issues such as armour piercing bullets and assault weapons though.

Bullets from just about any hunting rifle will defeat most standard body armor.

Civilian assault weapons are simply semi-automatic rifles that happen to look like military fully-automatic rifles. They also tend to be more rugged than your usual hunting rifle.

There is no functional difference between these two rifles, they shoot the same bullets the same way, yet you would probably consider one an "assault weapon" and the other one a hunting rifle:

[aliendroid]

40. the best way to prevent something is to talk about it openly.

The more the NRA talks about the UN's desire to disarm us, the less likely the UN will try it. It's when no one is paying attention that gun control laws are passed.

[paulsby]

43. exactly. kind of like the old saw

about the "greatest achievement the devil ever made was convincing the world he doesn't exist"

the concept is valid.

[old mark]

60. The earliest gun control laws in the US were passed to prohibit slaves and later

blacks and immigrants from owning guns. The Hurst papers later were big forces in creating the ideas of drug crazed minorities attacking white people. This led to gun control and to more powerful weapons for the police-most police had previously carried .32 caliber revolvers, then went to .38 caliber, then .38 specials, etc.

mark

[mmonk]

65. The ability for an incorporated town to have rules and regulations

regarding firearms is as old as the wild west. The UN is irrelevant as they cannot force the US to engage in unconstitutional bans. It sounds like the general paranoia that has swept the country by dishonest people.

[TheCowsCameHome]

I've gotten several NRA membership offers in the mail recently

along with offers for free Chinese made junk and their usual paranoid propoganda.

Meanwhile, they name Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer as enemies of their state.

I use the mailings to light the fireplace whenever they come.

Fuck the NRA.

[DonP]

28. Maybe because they support more pointless and ineffective gun control?

Just cause someone has a D after their name it doesn't mean they are always correct on an issue.

Witness our own brain dead Mayor Daley for a good example.

It ain't "paranoid" if they really are after you.

I don't know about Pelosi, but Hillary and Holder both called for gun bans, using the excuse of Mexican Gangs getting their full auto weapons from American gun stores. Schumer has never seen a gun control measure he couldn't support, as long as he got to be first to the microphone and cameras.

Sorry, as far as the second amendment goes they have a point.

[old mark]

32. I agree - I think Dems should join in droves and take it all away from the right. nt

[TheCowsCameHome]

33. I find it telling that they always single out the (D) lightning rods.

While never mentioning an (R) that might be a little wishy-washy on their agenda.

[DonP]

35. They didn't single out the "D's" the poster I responded to named them

But sadly for the last 10 years or so the odds have been that the proposed gun control legislation has come from the D side of the aisle. That's finally changing, but not fast enough for me and some in the higher, more visible ranks and in these threads still don't get it. Maybe they just want to recycle their 1993 calendar again?

The NRA has a track record of supporting the candidate with the best 2nd amendment record, regardless of party, based on first their actual votes, or second on their stated positions and third their response to questions sent by the NRA-ILA.

In my district they gave the GOP candidate for an open Congressional seat a C- and the Dem an A rating based on their actual records. The GOP guy tried to make a big show of joining the ISRA and shooting for the first time at a local range. But it was so obviously a staged event, nobody bought it.

The Dem OTOH, had a lengthy track record opposing Daley's gun bills in the state legislature and being open about being pro 2nd amendment, even against the Chicago wing of the party.

The best way to get the NRA to stop naming Dems as the bad guys, is to get the Dems to shut up about needing more gun control and take the issue off the table. And I don't mean pull a phony photo op like Kerry going goose hunting. (using a semi auto shotgun he voted to ban the next week)

[GreenStormCloud]

46. The NRA hates Bloomberg. What party is he? N/T

[TheCowsCameHome]

47. (I) Independent. Why don't they bash him in their membership drives?

[DonP]

48. They bash Bloomberg on a regular basis

His Mayors Against Illegal Guns is a favorite whipping boy for NRA editorials.

But in spite of his delusions of grandeur he is still just a local politico with limited impact nationally. His straw purchase scam almost got him indicted in Virginia.

[Callisto32]

70. Bloomberg is regularly attacked by the NRA, along with the R aligned Brady Campaign.

[nimvg]

84. Strangely Enough...

...Tom Foley was an NRA Life Member for many years. I think Patrick Leahy still is.

[paulsby]

41. t's REALLY liberal to support right to keep and bear arms

it's a right guaranteed by the constitution

hth

[jody]

2. This is Obama "spin" because he is clearly anti-gun as proven by 100% of his political history. n/t

[safeinOhio]

11. 100% Fail

"Obama declared unequivocally, "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away. .. There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away."

Rush, Sean and the NRA are mind readers and can tell you, and they spend every day telling you, what the scary Black man really thinks. Forget what he "says" and focus on what he "really thinks". Until he comes up with legislation, stop saying what right wing idiots promote.

[jody]

13. Obama's statement is duplicitous because at the same time Obama's platform called for renewing AWB.

[safeinOhio]

45. Guess you'll just have to become a

Sarah Palin supporter then. I think she is 100% NRA on all issues.

[jody]

49. No, I'll remain what I've been all my life.

[Callisto32]

74. False Dichotomy Fail

[DonP]

Umm, not really

Yeah, he said a lot of things in the campaign.

But unlike you I guess I've been around long enough to take any and all campaign promises and stump speeches with a grain or eight of salt.

Plus his version of "common sense gun safety laws" may not mesh with the majority of gun owners in this country either. Like banning all modern semi-automatic rifles with a hand grip.

The platform and the White House web site still call for a renewal of the failed assault weapon ban, closing the (imaginary) gun show loophole and allowing individual cities to decide what's right for their population, e.g. "what's right for Chicago may not be right for Cheyenne".

It's not that hard to have those planks of the platform deleted. With Holder and the Secretary of State making comments about a new ban every few months, it's hard to believe it's not just a delayed priority.

If anyone proposed treating any other constitutional right that way, a city by city interpretation, you'd have something akin to Selma Alabama and George Wallace standing in the door again because he knew what was right for his state.

[benEzra]

34. "I will not take your rifle away."

What Obama has realized is that support for the "assault weapon" fraud is a promise to outlaw the most popular civilian rifles in the United States. More Americans lawfully own so-called "assault weapons" than hunt, and it is THAT issue that looms the largest in the psyche of gun owners who remember 1994 et seq. Which, I think, is why Obama told Holder, Biden, et al to STFU about the "assault weapon" crap.

There's also the fact that "I will not take your _____ away" and "I support banning _____" are not incompatible statements. H.R.1022 and similar crapola were not confiscatory, but they were still plenty bad. It was not until Obama made it clear that new bans on future sale and transfer weren't on the table that gun owners started to relax a little.

[Tim01]

3. He has already said repeatedly he wants more gun control. He just can't do it.

He has already burned his political capital. To go after guns now, like he said he wants to, would be a political bloodbath for anybody involved. It would be stupid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Maybe it is simply that he is aware that gun control, meaning getting

guns out of the hands of criminals, is not the same as 'gun grabbing' and outright bans, but is reasonable limitations such as those that already exist for automatic weapons and explosives. Something the pro-gun lobby just doesn't seem to grasp.

[Tim01]

9. That would be a totally new point of view for him.

He has said he wants bans, his words. He said he plans to implement bans. He has said it more than once, he has put in writing publicly, and his administration has said it repeatedly. Bans ARE the agenda in his administration from the top down.
He just can't.

[SteveM]

19. If Obama's "resonableness" were limited to the examples you specificy, no problem...

and he wouldn't face the continued opposition of 2A advocates. But clearly, his record heretofore indicates otherwise. The "gun lobby" grasps this fact: Obama supports general bans, but does not have the clout to enact them.

It's like backing Ross Barnett into a corner until he says: "I'm not going to take your civil rights away," when Barnett's record indicated otherwise.

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Here is Obama himself stating that he supports a ban on concealed carry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q

That puts him at odds with 48 states that have some form of concealed carry, with 40 of them being shall-issue CC.

[nimvg]

25. He Can't...

"go after" guns because of Heller, and everyone's already talking about McDonnell further cementing Heller in place.

Gun control is a dead issue. It has been for almost ten years. It's decided. It's over.

[Tim01]

30. It's not dead. Just dead for now. nt

[paulsby]

44. passing illegal gun control laws by executive order is not unheard of

the (former) mayor of seattle, nickels, did it.

his "executive order" was just overturned and now the city of seattle has to pay to remove all the signs they paid to construct and erect.

nickels passed this executive order, banning guns in all sorts of city property (parks, swimming pools,etc.) contrary to the law and even contrary to the attorney general who told him it was illegal

let's not also forget gun confiscation during katrina

[GreenStormCloud]

5. TRANSLATION: Gun control is a loser and Obama knows it.

It is nice to see a paper like the Chicago Tribune admit it.

[Don Caballero]

6. Good to see my former Mayor Paul Helmke speaking up

This is one of the areas in which I have a bit disappointment with our President. Gun control should be one his top priorities.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. Helmke is a repubilcan... you know?

Good to know you support republican actions.

[Don Caballero]

17. I support progressive action

The guy is a very left leaning Repug.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

29. Open a history book sometime.

Stripping the peasants of their ability to defend themselves is hardly a progressive ideal.

The guy is authoritarian... that is why he supports gun control.
Plenty of repubs (and dems) are authoritarian.

[spin]

31. But his efforts have caused Democrats to lose close elections. (n/t)

[proteus_lives]

37. Gun control isn't progressive.

[spin]

50. Very true. RKBA is VERY progressive. (n/t)

[proteus_lives]

59. Freedom fist-bump.

:fistbump:

As long as you don't hurt someone: Right to vote, speak, worship, marry, work and arm yourself.

[bluestateguy]

107. Indeed. Gun control is racist.

The first gun laws were from antebellum America which banned slaves and free blacks from owning guns.

Back then they called it "common sense" gun laws.

[GreenStormCloud]

62. Your idea of "progressive action" includes a military invasion and occupation of the US.

I can't consider that as progressive.

[cowman]

18. This coming

from someone who wants foreign armies to come to america and confiscate guns

[Don Caballero]

This would be the last course of action obviously

It would have to be done voluntarily at first. I suspect 80 to 90 percent of the population will give up their arms voluntarily.

[cowman]

22. You really

believe that? You sir or madam are delusional.

[spin]

51. None of the people I know would...

at the best they would give the government a old worn old firearm and say that they had sold off all their other firearms. Many states don't require firearm registration and in some registration is actually illegal. Without registration, confiscation is a pipe dream.

Some people already have caches of weapons and ammo hidden away. Just in case.

Obviously you don't know many firearm owners.

[Tejas]

54. "I suspect 80 to 90 percent of the population will give up their arms voluntarily."

Crack is a powerful drug.

[Tejas]

55. Even if he was on crack, even Helmke wouldn't talk that crazy.

Feinenstein on the other hand...

[one-eyed fat man]

66. When will you answer the question?

Are you going to man up and join the Gun Gestapo, kicking doors and confiscating firearms?

Or are you going to hold yourself morally superior because you outsource your killing?

[Don Caballero]

75. No I am not in the military

And what killing are you talking about? This would be a peaceful process. No violence involved.

[one-eyed fat man]

76. how is it both ways?

"This would be a peaceful process. No violence involved."

Then why would you need FOREIGN ARMIES to accomplish it? Don't armies come with guns? Don't you expect them to force compliance at the point of a gun? Don't you expect them to areest, shoot at, or even KILL those who refuse?

Will you have the sound trucks driving through the streets reminding the population, "............resistance is futile!"

[Don Caballero]

77. As I have stated earlier

80 to 90 percent would voluntarily give up their arms. The foreign armies would be much like how the UN operates on a peace mission. Yes they would be armed, but they would not be allowed to use their weapons on civilians.

[inkool]

81. So how would the foreign armies get the remaining guns?

even if 80 to 90 percent voluntarily turn in there guns (not likely but whatever). That leaves 8-16 million people with guns who, unlike the foreign army, would have no issue using their weapons.

[one-eyed fat man]

82. Let's try this S-L-O-W-L-Y

You say you wouldn't use local cops. You don't trust the US military to do it. Yet, you expect that 80 to 90 per cent of the population would give up their guns without protest to a foreign army?

Let's assume you are right, only 8 million or so refuse. That's 10% of 80 million gun owners.

The current active strength of the Canadian Defense Force (all branches): 67,756

It would be the most lopsided shoot-out since Custer went to Montana.

If everyone was willing to peaceably give up their guns without a fight, YOU wouldn't need a foreign army to enforce your will. If you need a foreign army to accomplish your hoped for confiscation, than despite your obtuse statements, you must expect armed resistance.

Your stated objective is a gun free population. You advocate the confiscation be accomplished by a foreign military force. You are personally unwilling to partake in said action, then you must fear it will not be without trouble.

Go steal some more change from your mommas purse, roll yourself another doobie and go back to basement and play on the computer some more as you are clearly a coward by expecting others to fight for your convictions.

[piedmont]

97. Why would I give up my rights voluntarily?

What would compel me to do such a thing?

[proteus_lives]

100. 80-90%?

:rofl:

In your goose-stepping dreams maybe.

[bluestateguy]

110. Um

You actually believe that?

[gorfle]

85. DING! bwhahahahaha

Well done sir, well done.

[SteveM]

20. If Obama doesn't want to run for a 2nd term, he'll make gun-control a "top priority."

[Don Caballero]

21. I truly do not believe that

The more and more violent our culture becomes, the more people will realize that guns are the problem. Gun control has its ups and downs in regard to its popularity, but done incrementally most guns will be off the street in twenty or thirty years.

[cowman]

24. Now your being dishonest

you said in other posts that foreign armies would have to come in to disarm the american pop. because the american military wouldn't do it.

[DonP]

26. You keep saying that but refuse to offer any evidence

"The more and more violent our culture becomes" ... but all the measurements from government sources say exactly the opposite.

We are becoming much less violent with crime hitting record lows.

I'd understand, with your penchant for foreign storm trooper types going door to door to confiscate the hard case gun owners (and even 10% to 20% of them would still be between 8 and 16 million gun owners), that you don't want to recognize the reality of the trends, but at least accept for now that our culture is not becoming more violent. You don't even have to accept that concealed carry is having any impact on crime if you like.

What you seem to long for is a utopian society where other people, flawed human beings, are in total control of the reins of power.

That didn't work out too well for any country in history that tried it. Think Italy in the '30's.

[Euromutt]

61. "We experience the crime wave not as separate moments in time but as one long descending night."

We tend to think about crime not in terms of how many stories we've read and heard, and how many friends, family and acquaintances have become victims of crime, this year, as compared to other years. Instead, we tend to perceive it as cumulative: as each year goes by, the number of stories we've ever heard and read increase, as does the number of people we know who have become the victim of a crime, so it feels as if the amount of crime, especially violent crime, is increasing.

What adds to that is the fact that the news media, particularly television, spend ever more coverage on violent crime, because it's sensational and gets ratings, which in turn sells advertising. I seem to recall reading some comparison of the increase in mass shooting incidents during part of the 1990s, compared to the increase in media coverage of mass shootings; the increase in media coverage was over four times the increase in the number of incidents, IIRC.

So it's easy to form the idea that violent crime is on the increase, even though it's actually less than half of what it was twenty years ago, and has been for the past ten.

[cowman]

27. Just admit

every time you post you get slammed. The 2nd amend gives the american PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms whether you like it or not.

[PavePusher]

106. Err, "protects", not "gives". Otherwise correct. n/t

[spin]

52. The incremental approach doesn't work...

How successful was the assault weapons ban?

People are sick of "feel good" laws, and they can easily see where the incremental approach to banning firearms leads.

You can fool some of the people all the time, all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Abraham Lincoln (attributed)

Stop tilting at windmills and concentrate on trying to get the politicians we elect to enforce existing laws, improving the NICS background system and requiring a background check for all private sales.

The gun culture in the U.S. is so strong that it can resist any new draconian gun laws and capable of ruining the future of many good Democrats if they attempt to support anti-gun laws.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. Since 1994 your side hasn't won any national incriments, and only a few state ones.

Our side has been steamrolling your side. We now have 40 states with shall-issue CC, and WI is looking at allowing concealed carry. 25 states now have Castle Doctrine. We have had a steady string of victories, and the stream is growing.

[aikoaiko]

57. "The more and more violent our culture becomes"??? violent crimes are trending down in the US

What culture are you talking about?

[SteveM]

67. Nope. Incrementalism would be the worse strategy...

though it has its proponents:

"ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry... The assault weapon ban is a purely symbolic move (whose) real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
--Chas. Krauthammer (the right-wing columnist) in "Disarm the Citizenry, WAPO, April 5, 1996.

This is the kind of subterfuge and deception that marks the gun-control movement, i.e. the real goal is NOT to reduce crime, but to confiscate weapons, and with the right-wing authoritarian Krauthammer calling for just that, most progressives should feel a little uneasy. But don't worry, there are other "gun-controllers" of the more "liberal" persuasion calling for that as well:

"Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other."
-- Garry Wills, "NRA is Complicit in the Deaths of Two Children," Detroit Free Press, September 6, 1994.

Funny, you don't hear from these guys on this subject anymore.

[Pullo]

80. Anyone have a link to that Krauthammer article?

"ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry... The assault weapon ban is a purely symbolic move (whose) real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
--Chas. Krauthammer (the right-wing columnist) in "Disarm the Citizenry, WAPO, April 5, 1996.

You know, I have read tons of quotes from anti-gunners over the years, but this one had escaped me. That has to be the most succinct desription of the mindset behind the anti-2A movement I have read ..... from the pen of a neocon, no less.

If anyone has a link to the the article containing the paragraph quoted above, I would really like to read it. My googling so far has only yielded me only snipits.

Thanks for posting that, SteveM. :thumbsup:

[X_Digger]

86. You could visit the library or pay online for it now..

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/offers.html?url=%2Fwashingtonpost%2Faccess%2F22087117.html%3FFMT%3DFT%26FMTS%3DABS%3AFT%26date%3DApr%2B5%252C%2B1996%26author%3DCharles%2BKrauthammer%26desc%3DDisarm%2Bthe%2BCitizenry.%2BBut%2Bnot%2Byet.

[SteveM]

99. I found it in a secondary source's footnotes...

The secondary scource: The Great American Gun Debate: Essays on Firearms and Violence, Kates, Don B., Jr. and Gary Kleck, 1997, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, SF

The website at the time of publication: www.pacificresearch.org

The WAPO is so stridently anti-2A, they manage to find right-wingers who are anti-2A. The way it is written suggests its author is sublimely arrogant or sticking his tongue threw his cheek. Kates and Kleck took it seriously, and given the Post's history, I do as well.

[proteus_lives]

36. Gun control = Fool. Understand?

[aliendroid]

39. true.

You can't be very smart if you support gun control today. There has never been a situation where more gun restriction resulted in less crime. While there is a strong case that CCW has been the largest deterrent of violent crime in the last few decades.

[bluestateguy]

104. Helmke is a Republican who wants Democrats to push gun control so they will lose

In fact many of the Brady Bunchers are: Jim and Sarah Brady, and Michael Bloomberg.

[bluestateguy]

108. Yeah! I want the Democrats to lose 85 seats in the House and 12 in the Senate!

:sarcasm:

[old mark]

10. It's just a matter of choosing his battles wisely. I started emailing the Obama

campaign before the primaries making pro-gun arguments. I got into some arguments of my own with several staffers there who quoted the standard anti-gun party line in response, but I kept emailing various people on the staff trying to get the mention of more gun laws removed from his web site.

Most Democratic/Progressive voters are against gun control anyway, and nearly all "undecideds" are as well.

Don't bother to fight you can't win when there is so much to be done that is worthwhile.
rec.
mark

[aliendroid]

38. You can't hide facts, but you can also predict...

Obama has been quoted by saying various anti-gun things including passing a federal bill to eliminate CCW laws.

But...

He will probably not push for gun control because he doesn't want to repeat past history with Clinton's not only useless "assault" rifle ban (going after 1% of violent crime) but the loss of the house, senate and presidency that followed.


Will he do the right thing? probably. For the right reason? no.

Democrats need to start pushing their political leaders to get off of gun control, it's bad for the country and it's bad for the democrat party.

[Naked_Ape]

56. Obama gun boom goes bust

Prices of assault r... er, I mean "Sporting Rifles" (what the NRA wants us to call them now) are in free fall. After more than a year of bubble pricing, ammunition shortages, and shrill voices of doom everybody finally has enough and prices are crumbling in the wholesale market. Almost time for me to get a bigger safe.

Here are some examples (no, I am not trying to SPAM the site). These prices are about 50% of what they were just 3-4 months ago.

"ASK FOR THE ROMANIAN-AK MV....... ONLY...... $389.95
BUY 2 AT ONLY $379.95
BUY 3 AT ONLY $375.00
BUY 4 AT ONLY $369.95
BUY 5 AT ONLY $365.00 "
http://www.classicarms.us/

"AR Lower is machined from high tensile strength 7075T6 aircraft quality aluminum forgings. NOT CAST! $79.99"
http://www.centerfiresystems.com/ARLOWER.aspx

GINORMOUS CATALOG OF DEATH: http://www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/Centerfire-Systems-Inc/feb_march2010_centerfire/2010020901/

[X_Digger]

72. I'm waiting for an AK-pattern rifle in 223..

.. I don't have room for another couple of ammo tins in my closet, so I'm trying to limit the number of calibers I have to feed :)

[nimvg]

78. I've Done The Same Thing...

9MM is the common round for self protection but I'm old fashioned and prefer .45 ACP. Most old school Marines will tell you the same thing. Having said that, I think my next purchase will be a Glock 10MM because it's just a nice blasty round. They're a lot of fun.

[X_Digger]

83. I prefer 45acp, but it's been hard to find.

My daily carry right now is an XD sub in 40S&W with a 380 BUG when dress allows.

[Naked_Ape]

92. here ya go...

http://www.raacfirearms.com/Saiga.htm

I have Saigas in 7.62X39 and 7.62X51 (308Win). Saigas are made at the Izhmash factory in Russia (THE AK factory). They are easily converted to the non-sporting configuration. read about it here: http://jobson.us/922r/
fan club here: http://forum.saiga-12.com/index.php?showforum=22?s=9d0b243832d34814bb5b680efddcad13

[X_Digger]

93. Yah, been thinking about just getting a saiga in 223..

.. but I've seen a few romanians in 223 floating around. I know one'll pop up eventually, just keeping my eyes peeled. (I thought about converting a saiga to folding stock, etc, but that's a bit more work than I'm prepared for.)

[Naked_Ape]

94. roll yer own

That's half the fun! :-)

[X_Digger]

95. I did for my AR's, but I'm not quite ready to do that for an AK..

It would be easy to get a parts kit for a 7.62 and start from there, but since I'm trying to keep from starting on a new caliber, I'd have to find a parts kit for a 5.56.. quite a rare bird.

Not to mention that my budget can't afford the tooling- I'm nit-picky enough that if I'm going to do it, I have to do it right. So I could see at least 2x the cost of an already made romanian in 5.56, just on tools & parts kit + 10 required US parts.

[benEzra]

89. No, just back to normal.

I paid $379 for a Romanian civilian AK in 2003 (a 2002 model SAR-1) so $389.95 isn't far off that. Stripped AR lowers (just the shell of the lower receiver) have been about that same price since the late 1990's as well.

Since we are talking about the most popular civilian target rifles in the United States, calling them "sporting rifles" is fair, even though I personally dislike the term "sporting" because of its close association with the term "sportsman" (a term I despise). They're just rifles. Small- and intermediate-caliber, non-automatic civilian rifles with modern styling.

GINORMOUS CATALOG OF DEATH: http://www.myvirtualpaper.com/doc/Centerfire-Systems-In... /

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here. Just out of curiosity, how would you think rifle murders in the USA compare to, say, murders using shoes and bare hands? Knives? Baseball bats and other blunt objects?

I'm wondering how closely your perceptions match reality.

[aikoaiko]

58. I'm convinced that the massive surge in gun and ammo buying demonstrated to the administration

that large numbers of people were very motivated to protect their rights to own and use popular rifles, pistols and shotguns in popular configurations. As the recession worsened people were motivated to spend money on guns and ammo.

Clearly, it wouldn't be difficult to motivate the same people to vote against an administration that kept its promises to reauthorize the gun ban or create new idiotic gun laws.

[bluestateguy]

103. I have been delighted with President Obama's pro-gun record as president in the last 13 months

I hope it continues.

[spin]

109. +1 (n/t)