Jump to content
WildSurvive Forum
Tatonka

Here Are some Answers to Questions from Anti gunners

Recommended Posts

  Hillary Clinton on Gun Control

Democratic Jr Senator (NY)

 

 

 

 

Balance lawful gun ownership & keeping guns from criminals

Q: Both you and Sen. Obama, in the past, have supported strong gun control measures. But now when I listen to you on the campaign, I hear you emphasizing that you believe in an individual's right to bear arms. Both of you were strong advocates for licensing of guns. Both of you were strong advocates for the registration of guns. Why don't you emphasize that now?

CLINTON: I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn't reflect the common sense of the American people. We will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling & the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.

 

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

 

Give local police access to federal gun tracking info

I will be a good partner, for cities like Philadelphia, as president. Because I will bring back the so-called COPS program, where we had 100,000 police on the street, which really helped drive down the crime rate and also helped create better community relations.

I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed--the Republicans will not reinstate it--are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons.

 

I will also work to make sure that police departments get access to the federal information that will enable them to track illegal guns, because the numbers are astounding. Probably 80% of the guns used in gun crimes got there illegally. And under the Republicans, that information was kept from local law enforcement.

 

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

 

Let states & cities determine local gun laws

Q: Do you support the DC handgun ban?

A: I want to give local communities the authority over determining how to keep their citizens safe. This case you're referring to is before the Supreme Court.

 

Q: But what do you support?

 

A: I support sensible regulation that is consistent with the constitutional right to own and bear arms.

 

Q: Is the DC ban consistent with that right?

 

A: I think a total ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances, might be found by the court not to be. But DC or anybody else [should be able to\ come up with sensible regulations to protect their people.

 

Q: But do you still favor licensing and registration of handguns?

 

A: What I favor is what works in NY. We have one set of rules in NYC and a totally different set of rules in the rest of the state. What might work in NYC is certainly not going to work in Montana. So, for the federal government to be having any kind of blanket rules that they're going to try to impose, I think doesn't make sense.

 

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

 

Against illegal guns, crack down on illegal gun dealers

I am against illegal guns, and illegal guns are the cause of so much death and injury in our country. I also am a political realist and I understand that the political winds are very powerful against doing enough to try to get guns off the street, get them out of the hands of young people. I don't want the federal government preempting states and cities like New York that have very specific problems. We need to have a registry that really works with good information about people who are felons, people who have been committed to mental institutions. We need to make sure that that information is in a timely manner, both collected and presented. We do need to crack down on illegal gun dealers. This is something that I would like to see more of. We need to enforce the laws that we have on the books. I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

 

Backed off a national licensing registration plan on guns

I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this, and backed off a national licensing registration plan.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

 

Get assault weapons & guns off the street

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: I think it's important to remember that the crime rate was driven down, & gun violence was driven down in the 1990s because of a combination of policies, like 100,000 police on the street and getting assault weapons off the street, and because of a growing economy. 22 million new jobs gave people who were hopeless a better chance for a future. So I want to get back to what works. This administration has tried to kill the 100,000 police. You've got mayors whose police force is outgunned by the criminals and the gang-bangers. Assault weapons are back on the street. We've got to go and do what works again. In addition to having policies that will get guns off the street, we do have to give young men particularly a better chance of a future that includes educational & economic opportunities & second chances when they get caught up in the criminal justice system.

 

Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

 

Background check system could prevent Virginia Tech massacre

Q: Did any role that federal government plays fail those students at Virginia Tech?

A: Yes. You know, I remember very well when I accompanied Bill to Columbine after that massacre and met with the family members of those who had been killed and talked with the students, and feeling that we had to do more to try to keep guns out of the hands of the criminal and of the mentally unstable. And during the Clinton administration, that was a goal--not to, in any way, violate people's Second Amendment rights, but to try to limit access to people who should not have guns. Unfortunately, we saw the tragedy unfold at Virginia Tech. We now know that the background check system didn't work, because certainly this shooter, as he's called, had been involuntarily committed as a threat to himself and others. And, yet, he could walk in and buy a gun.

 

Source: 2007 South Carolina Democratic primary debate, on MSNBC Apr 26, 2007

 

FactCheck: VA Tech shooter not declared a danger to others

Hillary Clinton slipped up in her description of the Virginia Tech killings, overstating what a Virginia court had found about the shooter's mental state in 2005. Clinton said the shooter "had been involuntarily committed as a threat to himself & others. And, yet, he could walk in and buy a gun."

That's only half true. It's correct that Seung-hui Cho had a court-documented history of mental illness that should have precluded his purchase of a firearm. And he was indeed found to present "an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness" in a ruling dated December 14, 2005. But the Judge did not check a box that would have declared Cho "an imminent danger to others." Moreover, the judge declined to involuntarily commit Cho and sent him to outpatient counseling. Clinton's confusion on this might stem from bad reporting by some news outlets that said Cho was found to be a danger to himself and others.

 

Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 South Carolina Democratic debate Apr 26, 2007

 

Congress' failure at Littleton response inspired Senate run

A month after the Columbine shootings, Bill & I went to Littleton Colorado to visit with the families of victims & survivors. The Columbine tragedy was not the first, nor the last, episode involving gun violence at an American high school. But it ignited a call for more federal action to keep guns out of the hands of the violent, troubled and young--a lethal combination. Bill and I announced a proposal to raise the legal age of handgun ownership to 21, and limit purchases of handguns to one per month.

Source: Living History, by Hillary Rodham Clinton, p. 503-4 Nov 1, 2003

 

 

Keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them

We need to stand firm on behalf of sensible gun control legislation. We have to enact laws that will keep guns out of the hand of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced persons. Congress should have acted before our children started going back to school. I realize the NRA is a formidable political group; but I believe the American people are ready to come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who shouldn’t have them.

Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Gun Safety” Sep 9, 2000

 

Limit access to weapons; look for early warning signs

We have to make sure that our schools are safe. Our schools need more help from parents and from communities, and we also need more social workers and counselors who are trained to see the early warning signs. No school security system or metal detector can keep out the culture of violence that dominates the lives of so many of our children. We have to address issues of culture, and we have to ensure that young people do not have easy access to weapons; not only firearms but bomb making material.

Source: www.hillary2000.org, “Safe Schools” Sep 9, 2000

 

License and register all handgun sales

Hillary Rodham Clinton offered her support for a legislative proposal to license hand guns. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Charles Schumer, would require anyone who wants to purchase a gun to obtain a state-issued photo gun license. “I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry, such as Chuck is proposing.”

Source: CNN.com Jun 2, 2000

 

Tough gun control keeps guns out of wrong hands

I think it does once again urge us to think hard about what we can do to make sure that we keep guns out of the hands of children and criminals and mentally unbalanced people. I hope we will come together as a nation and do whatever it takes to keep guns away from people who have no business with them.

Source: Press Release Jul 31, 1999

 

Gun control protects our children

We will not make progress on a sensible gun control agenda unless the entire American public gets behind it. It is really important for each of you [kids] to make sure you stay away from guns. If you have guns in your home, tell your parents to keep them away from you and your friends and your little brothers and sisters.

Source: Forum at South Side Middle School in Nassau County Jul 15, 1999

 

Don’t water down sensible gun control legislation

We have to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of children, and we need to stand firm on behalf of the sensible gun control legislation that passed the Senate and then was watered down in the House. It does not make sense for us at this point in our history to turn our backs on the reality that there are too many guns and too many children have access to those guns-and we have to act to prevent that.

Source: Remarks to NEA in Orlando, Florida Jul 5, 1999

 

Lock up guns; store ammo separately

If you own a gun... make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition. In fact, make it stored where the ammunition is stored separately. We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do.

Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999

 

Ban kids’ unsupervised access to guns

Q: What actions can students take to help gun control further? A: Young people, especially teenagers, [should pledge] to not give any child unsupervised access to a firearm; not to go into homes, or let your younger siblings go into homes where you know guns are and are not safely stored and taken care of. You guys are going to a party, make sure there are no guns around. If you own a gun or you know people who do, make sure it’s locked up and stored without the ammunition.

Source: ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999

 

Get weapons off the streets; zero tolerance for weapons

The first step is to take weapons off the streets and to put more police on them. The Brady Bill, which my husband signed into law in 1995, imposes a 5-day waiting period for gun purchases, time enough for authorities to check out a buyer's record and for the buyer to cool down about any conflict he might have intended the gun to resolve. Since it was enacted, more than 40,000 people with criminal records have been prevented from buying guns. The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act banned 19 types of military-style assault weapons whose only purpose is to kill people.

As part of a "zero tolerance" policy for weapons, drugs, and other threats to the safety of teachers and students, the President signed an executive order decreeing that any student who comes to school with a gun will be expelled and punished as a condition of federal aid.

 

Source: It Takes A Village, by Hillary Clinton, p.126 Sep 25, 1996

 

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime

Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect

Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought

Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations

Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

 

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.

Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S.1805/H.R.1036 ; vote number 2004-30 on Mar 2, 2004

 

Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology.

Clinton adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

Make America the “Safest Big Country” in the World

After climbing relentlessly for three decades, crime rates started to fall in the 1990s. Nonetheless, the public remains deeply concerned about the prevalence of gun violence, especially among juveniles, and Americans still avoid public spaces like downtown retail areas, parks, and even sports facilities.

 

We need to keep policing “smart” and community-friendly, prohibiting unjust and counterproductive tactics such as racial profiling; focus on preventing as well as punishing crime; pay attention to what happens to inmates and their families after sentencing; use mandatory testing and treatment to break the cycle of drugs and crime; and enforce and strengthen laws against unsafe or illegal guns. Moreover, we need a renewed commitment to equal justice for all, and we must reject a false choice between justice and safety.

 

Technology can help in many areas: giving police more information on criminal suspects so they do not rely on slipshod, random stop-and-search methods; allowing lower-cost supervision of people on probation or parole; and making it possible to disable and/or trace guns used by unauthorized persons.

 

Above all, we need to remember that public safety is the ultimate goal of crime policy. Until Americans feel safe enough to walk their neighborhood streets, enjoy public spaces, and send their children to school without fear of violence, we have not achieved public safety.

 

Goals for 2010

Reduce violent crime rates another 25 percent.

Cut the rate of repeat offenses in half.

Develop and require “smart gun” technology to prevent use of firearms by unauthorized persons and implement sensible gun control measures.

Ban racial profiling by police but encourage criminal targeting through better information on actual suspects.

Require in-prison and post-prison drug testing and treatment of all drug offenders.

Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC11 on Aug 1, 2000

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barack Obama on Gun Control

Democratic Jr Senator (IL)

 

 

 

 

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

 

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

 

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

 

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

 

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

 

35. Do you support state legislation to:

a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.

b. ban assault weapons? Yes.

c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

 

Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."

 

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

 

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

 

Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

 

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

 

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

 

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.

Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

 

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."

 

It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

 

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007

 

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.

 

Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

 

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.

Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

 

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.

OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

 

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

 

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:

Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.

Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

 

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime

Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect

Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought

Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations

Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3 above posts are from the issues website on this subject. McCain is the best choice we have when it comes to gun owership out of the 3 or now 2. But if Obama and Clinton become a ticket which I think is going to happen then if they do make it we will lose our rights to own firearms. I know he has stated before it is one of his first agendas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats an old republican talking point Tatonka called scare tactics. "If you vote for a democrat they will take your guns" First you have to submit a bill to congress, than debate, than getting enough votes to pass , than on to the senate, more votes, than on to the supreme court after a challenge is introduced. It aint likely anything like that will get that far.

 

The radical left will keep on attacking just like the abortionists from the far right keep attacking but changes come slowly. With everything on the plate these days with way more serious things to try to solve and Obamas attempt to break gridlock dont look for anything like that coming up.

 

Its an old political trick to bring up these kinds of issues like gays in the military for instance to tie up congress and the press while they sneak through bills like wire tapping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poutine? What the hell is that? Did you misspell poontang?    :unsure:

 

It's a french Canadian french fry recipe made with gravy and cheese curds.  It's toxic for attacking wildlife and non-frenchmen.

 

To get back on topic, I think the whole 'camel' analogy is a sound principal, but it doesn't always have to hold true.  Look at alcohol for example.  It was freely available to all age groups at the turn of the century, then did a 180 and was banned during prohibition.  Over time we learned that it could be properly controlled and didn't need to be 'prohibited' in order to protect the population.  No, giving an inch doesn't mean they'll take a mile.  With the proper constraints, guns can become as integral as it's taboo counterpart.

 

I honestly think it's the NRA's lack of cooperation in this that'll lead to a full ban.  The men in charge see them as 'gun nuts' and may pursue the ban with vigour in order to, for lack of a better phrase, protect us from ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that we have  cooperated in many ways, the Instant Background Check system was always supported by the NRA, as is the idea of sharing more mental health information (such as that information that may have helped prevent the Virginia Tech shootings).  It isn't as if the anti's haven't already stated that they want all guns banned.  Why would we want to cooperate with that? 

 

Let's really work to enforce the thousands of laws already on the books, and therefore get some criminals off the street.  An example:  In 1980, John Hinkley, Jr., who shot President Regan, James Brady, and two others had been stopped attempting to board an airplane with several handguns in Nashville, Tn.  At the time, he had been following President Carter in order to make an attempt to assassinate him.  He was released.  If he had been in jail instead....

 

The problem there, of course, is the over-crowded prison system.  Convicted felons are routinely released early to relieve the crowded conditions.  When it comes right down to it, which is easier to do:  Get a grip on the criminal element of our society and overhaul the prison system, or pass new gun laws?  Instead of really dealing with the situation, stricter gun laws are passed.  Passing a new gun law is easier than preventing crime.

 

And what if a gun law doesn't apply to criminals, but only to the law-abiding?  Sound far-fetched?  The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v Haynes (1968) that it violates the 5th Ammendment guarantee against self-incrimination to require a felon to register a firearm.  Say huh what??  Yes, it's true!  Criminals DO NOT HAVE TO register their guns!!  But, in areas where it is required, law-abiding citizens can go to jail for not registering their firearms.  In New York City in 1967, the law required citizens to register all their guns, and later, a new law said they had to turn certain registered firearms in OR GO TO JAIL:

 

"In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. Concerns over the potential use of those registration lists to confiscate guns in the future were dismissed as paranoia. In 1991, gun owners` legitimate fears were realized, when the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, despite the police commissioner`s testimony that no registered firearms of the types banned had been used in violent crimes in the city. New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns were told that any licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. They were warned that they might be subject to "spot checks."  This was passed depite the then-Police Commissioner Lee P. Brown's testimony that no "assault weapon" registered with the Firearms Control Bureau had been used in a violent crime in NYC.  Mayor David Dinkins response was that he "wanted to send a message."

 

That's compromise for you, the camel shoved the New Yorkers out of the tent.

 

What about in a jurisdiction where firearm ownership is severely restricted, as in Washington, D.C.?  You must have a license to own your registered firearm, and it must be unloaded, disassembled, and locked away  while in your home.  It is a CRIME to load your firearm in your own home, and you could go to prison for it.  What if you have someone kicking in your door downstairs?  You may be out of luck.  Call 911, and guess what?  The police are not required to respond.   The Supreme Court has ruled in several cases--Castle Rock v Gonzales, South v Maryland, Bowers v DeVito, and most notably, Warren v District of Columbia--that the police have no obligation to protect the individual. 

 

Warren v District of Columbia is especially bad:

 

"Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). "

 

In other words, if you call the police and they do not respond, too bad for you.

 

Now, if you are not allowed to have a firearm useful for protection, and the police are not responisble for protecting you, what recourse do you have?  The Washington D.C. type law, heralded by the many anti's out there as a wonderful example, would have become the norm a long time ago if not for the NRA.  Ask any gun-control organization about it's feelings about the Washington D.C. law and you will find that they fully support it, and would like to see comparable laws enacted for the entire U.S.  Go to their websites and ask them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not the NRA who has brought this on the gun owers of the US. It is the people who think that taking away things from law abiding people that it will make the place safer and like disney world. That crime will stop and everyone will love their neighbor. Well crime did stop when towns made it a law that to live in their town you had to own a gun to live there. No criminal wants to take the chance that you might be armed and get themselves shot. They don't want to get hurt. Want to stop crime then get tough with them. Quit giving them 3 squares and free medical/dental and free education. fit the punishment to the crime. ie: take a life have yours taken. Abuse the elderly or children have the living crap beat out of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Preparing gun owners

for the short-term future

 

By Massad Ayoob   

 

 

…And Editor Dave Duffy says, “I’m putting together a special issue focusing on the predicted recession, and preparing to cope with the next Presidency. Write something on that, please, from the gunowner’s perspective.”

 

Hey. Hey! Hey! Aren’t my assignments supposed to be more like, “How about a story on Savage rifles?” Ayoob thinks the Bush administration has by and large been good for gun owners’ civil rights.

 

 

Let’s get one thing straight to start with: I ain’t no political pundit. Hell, my candidate isn’t even running. I was hoping Condoleeza Rice would throw her hat in the ring. International statecraft and diplomacy are a huge part of the Presidential job description, and Rice has more experience in those areas than all the rest of the field combined. Obama’s silent “vote for the first black President” message, and Clinton’s “vote for the first female President” and “the single women all want me” schticks, would all have been neutralized by a Rice candidacy. Moreover, from the gun owners’ perspective, Condoleeza Rice is solidly pro-Second Amendment.

 

But she’s not running, and we’re left with a pretty sorry crop of semi-finalists to lead a nation of more than three hundred million people. Bearing in mind that I’m no political expert, and I’m writing this a few days after Super Tuesday, here’s how it looks for “gun people.”

 

Election…

On the Democratic side of the race for the White House, nothing bodes positive for the civil rights of gun owners. Barack Obama has flatly stated in his policy outlines that he wants to ban “assault weapons,” and indeed, semi-automatic firearms. That would include the early 20th Century Browning autoloading shotgun that came down through your family from your great-great-grandfather. It would include the antique Remington Model 8 deer rifle that your great-grandfather used to put venison on the table during the Great Depression. It would include the souvenir Army .45, introduced in 1911, that your granddad brought home from World War II. It would include the military surplus M1 carbine your dad purchased for $35 through the National Rifle Association and the U.S. Government’s Director of Civilian Marksmanship in a happier, freer time. It would eliminate your brother’s semiautomatic AR15 rifle, similar to the M16 he fought with in Vietnam, and similar to the M4 your son or daughter might be fighting with right now in the Middle East. It would, for the first time in American history, prevent you and others like you from protecting yourselves with the same kind of handgun police use to protect you.

Both Clinton and Obama want to take away your right to buy 'sport utility rifles' such as this Smith & Wesson Military & Police version of the semiautomatic AR15.

 

 

Hillary Clinton’s antipathy toward firearms owners and their rights is well-known. You can be certain that she would do everything in her power to reinstate the onerous Assault Weapons Ban her husband ramrodded through Congress during his Presidency. This time around, it would not have the sunset clause that saved us after a miserable decade the last time, and the ban would be worded to encompass a great many more useful and traditional firearms.

 

Some pundits say that the Democrats “learned” from the last ban, when Republicans swept into control of the Congress shortly after the AWB was passed, and Bill Clinton himself blamed the NRA and the whole “gun control” thing for his party’s resounding defeat that year. However, Mrs. Clinton is not noted for taking good advice, and “gun control” is one of her Issues. That she would use the “bully pulpit” of the White House to push for more draconian restrictions on the civil rights of firearms owners is almost assured.

 

On the Republican side? It’s McCain or Huckabee. Ron Paul, a solid pro-gun owner candidate, does not appear to be electable. Mike Huckabee is certainly a more electable candidate, according to the conventional wisdom, among those who stand 100% for gun owners’ rights. An ideal candidate for the pro-gun one-issue voter, Huckabee’s strongest chance to do that particular bloc some good may be as Veep candidate, or as one of the brokers at a brokered Republican Convention, gathering promises to secure certain rights in return for the delegates he brings.

 

John McCain, at this writing, is well in the lead for the Republican nomination. The NRA has actually given him fair-to-middlin’ grades, though the more hard-line Gun Owners of America has downgraded him from a “C” to an “F” grade the last few years. To his credit, he had the guts and the integrity to oppose Bill Clinton’s Assault Weapons Ban. However, McCain’s vote to “close the (erroneously named) gun show loophole” hurt him badly with many one-issue voters on the pro-gun side. Moreover, his McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act was seen by many NRA members as a direct attack on their right to free speech, and was seen the same way by a lot of union people, right-to-life advocates, etc.

 

If it comes down to McCain versus “Hillbama,” thinking gun owners will find McCain by far the lesser of the two evils insofar as firearms legislation. Of course, there will be some die-hards who will vote for a fringe candidate to “make a statement.” This, in effect, will be one more vote for the greater of two evils. Dave Duffy and I could spend a goodly amount of time debating this, but I can’t help remembering when the backlash vote for Ross Perot, against the first President Bush, apparently put Bill Clinton in the White House. Recent political history shows no more classic example of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face.

 

…and recession…

Even experts such as former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan don’t think there’s anything the Government can do to keep us from slipping into recession. All the signs are there, and much of what’s causing it comes from global economic factors that the United States can do little to control. In a recent interview in a German publication, Greenspan put the chances of recession at about fifty-fifty. Some consider him an optimist.

30-round  and 20-round magazines, these for AR15, were prohibited under the first Clinton Assault Weapon Ban. Expect it to return with a vengeance under a Democratic President, warns Ayoob.

 

 

How does all that hit the firearms area? Well, from the end-user’s side, there’s good news and bad news. When individuals hit by recession tighten their belts, they buy what they need and not what they want. This can have the effect of reducing demand for high-priced sporting firearms, driving prices down for those who can still afford to purchase. Things like coin collections and gun collections go up for sale when their owners are up against it for funds. Their need for immediate cash weakens their bargaining position, and in the collectibles market, more specimens becoming available tends to drive down prices.

 

On the other hand, small businesses are among the first hurt in recessions. Most gun shops are in fact small businesses. This means less competition in a given local specialty market, which usually means higher prices.

 

I’ve heard some in the firearms field speculate that prices of new firearms-related goods—the guns and the ammo—may come down. In a vacuum, that could happen, but other things are at work, and as Greenspan noted, some of them are beyond our control. Massive construction going on in other nations, particularly China, is creating a disproportionately high demand for structural metals. This means steel is scarcer and increasing in price, and that’s what guns are primarily made of. Brass and copper and lead are skyrocketing too, and they are what ammunition is made of. Thus, it seems that expecting such prices to come down during this particular recession, if it does indeed happen, is probably unrealistic.

 

…and the two together

The backwoods home tradition is to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. In the scenario our editor postulates, that worst is a Clinton/Obama or even a Clinton/Clinton Presidency and a recession at the same time. From the gun side of things, we could expect the following:

 

Firearms: If the Democrats gain control this time around, expect attempts to severely impinge or even crush into nonexistence your rights to own semiautomatic firearms. If you don’t have one already, buy it as soon as possible. If you do own one and you can afford another, buy it as a spare.

The majority of hunting and sporting shotguns in this gun shop display are semiautomatics, the kind Barack Obama has publicly stated he wants to ban.

 

 

Stock up on magazines. Shortly before the Clinton Ban, I bought a bunch of Glock .40 fifteen-round magazines for about $11 apiece. Shortly after the ban became law, such magazines were selling for as much as $100 each. Should a President Clinton or a President Obama get their way, any magazine holding more than ten cartridges may well become illegal to manufacture for public sale, as before.

 

Remember that if a Democratic administration gets its way, such firearms and magazines will be gone for good. In England, when that happened (with semiautomatic rifles, and with all handguns) the arms had to be turned in at government checkpoints. In the U.S. as during the last Assault Weapons Ban, it’s most likely that guns and magazines currently in your possession will be “grandfathered.” This means you want to be thinking about buying and setting aside some guns for kids and grandkids who might otherwise never be allowed to acquire them.

 

Yes, that can represent a substantial cash investment, but guns tend to hold their values well. Some even appreciate, and that is definitely true once they are “banned” by some meaningless, feel-good, Yuppie legislation. I bought my Steyr AUG “assault rifle” for about $600 in the late 1980s. They were going for $3000 by the end of the Ban period. Prior to the 1986 Act that banned private sale of fully automatic weapons manufactured after that date, an HK MP5 submachine gun could be had for under a thousand dollars, plus the $200 Federal Class III license. Today, with that particular ban still in effect, I’ve seen grandfathered “pre-ban” MP5s go for fifteen thousand dollars apiece.

 

Ammunition: If famine was coming, you’d stock up on food. As this is written—no full blown recession yet, and George W. Bush still occupying the White House—the ammo famine is already coming. I went to order a large quantity of ammunition for my police department yesterday and found an eight-month waiting list. Fortunately, we had seen that coming and already ordered ahead; the current order is intended to keep us ahead. If that’s where governmental public safety entities buying in bulk stand in the queue, you know where individuals with smaller needs are in that particular food chain.

Reputable loading guides, like this one by Speer, are indispensable if you want to save money and become self-sufficient by loading your own ammunition.

 

 

As always, when preparing for shortages, “buy it cheap and stack it deep.” Yes, ammo has been going up in price—precipitously so of late, in fact—but it is still a helluva lot cheaper vis-à-vis earning power than it was twenty or even fifty years ago. You gotta look at it realistically, like it or not. I don’t much like getting older, but, as the saying goes, “I consider the alternative.” It’s kinda like, “Yes, I’m the oldest I’ve ever been…but I’m also the youngest I’m ever going to be.”

 

In this case, factory-produced ammunition may be the most expensive it’s ever been, but in all probability, it’s also the cheapest it’s ever going to be. Yes, a pullout from Iraq will reduce one drain on ammo production that has caused price increase and bottlenecked supply, but as noted above that is not the only cause, and those other factors aren’t subject to “pullout.”

 

Another option: get into reloading. In the last year, with ammo prices going up and up, I’ve seen two trends. One is shooters getting into making their own ammo for the first time. The other is folks who got into it in the past and got away from it, returning to “rolling their own.”

 

You can get into a decent reloading set-up, bare bones, for $500 in new equipment, and a really decent outfit for around a grand. There’s lots of good stuff out there. I can personally recommend Dillon Precision (www.dillonprecision.com) for great gear, great prices, and standard-setting customer service.

 

It will cost you time. The best route is to find an experienced, competent reloader who can guide you hands-on through the intricacies of setting up the equipment and making your own ammunition for the first time. With lead (for the bullets), copper (for the bullet jackets), and brass (for the cartridge casings) going up all the time, your reloading components are increasing in cost just like factory-manufactured cartridges. There are also shortages, particularly in primers. Still, there is substantial potential for cost savings.

 

Keep in mind that there’s a break-even point on all this. If you’re an old time hunter who can make a 20-round box of ammo last for twenty years with a deer in the freezer every year, reloading won’t be cost effective for you. If you’re a more cautious and practical hunter who fires a hundred or more shots in sight-in or practice before the annual hunting season opens, it’ll take you a long time to save enough to pay off the equipment. But if you’re a gun enthusiast, a serious recreational shooter, or someone who is just very serious about staying alive and practicing armed survival skills, now you’re at the ammo expenditure level where investing in reloading equipment can make a huge amount of sense.

 

Remember you’ll be literally storing explosives on the premises, the gunpowder and the primers, but common sense has taken care of that for responsible people since the 19th century. When reloading, always wear safety glasses, and never smoke in the loading room. Stay as alert as you would be shooting live-fire on the range. People have been badly hurt by chain-explosion of primers in the feeder, and by guns that have exploded, not to mention the countless fine firearms ruined by careless reloading.

 

It’s kind of a commitment thing. You need a bit of space to set up the equipment. You need to allocate time to do it when you’re alert, not exhausted and losing attention span at the end of a hard workday.

If you own the popular SKS rifle, or any other 7.62x39, you can stock up rather economically with this Russian-made Wolf brand practice ammo.

 

 

It’s literally recycling: you’re re-filling and re-using spent cartridge casings. There is a pride of workmanship and a sense of accomplishment that goes with your own ammo, much like growing and canning your own vegetables. If money is tight and you have the time, reloading can be very economical. If you’re to where your time is money, and the more you work the more you get paid, then you’ll probably find that reloading is no longer economical when you factor in what your time spent doing it is worth.

 

For a lot of folks, reloading has become a dedicated hobby, not a necessity, and they happily make time for it. Some like to tinker with more accurate loads, or more effective ones for their particular needs. Some find it relaxing for the same reasons that shooting and rock climbing are relaxing: by demanding your total attention in the name of safety, they purge you of whatever troubles were on your mind before you set yourself to the task.

 

It’s not just about money. There’s that personal satisfaction element. Many Backwoods Home readers make Jackie Clay’s home canning advice a reality in their home, not because they can’t afford to go to Sam’s Club and stock up on staples, but because it puts them in touch with America’s roots. It gives them a pleasant and reassuring sense of self-sufficiency. It gives them pride of accomplishment. Food you grew and canned yourself “tastes better” in more ways than one.

 

It’s the same with reloading. Back when I had time to load my own ammo, the prize I brought back from the shooting match held more pride, and the meat I brought home just “tasted better,” if I earned it with ammunition I crafted myself. You’ll find the same.

 

Bottom line

For activists in the area of law-abiding gun owners’ civil rights, there are no really good candidates in the upcoming Presidential election. We are likely to be offered only the choice between bad and worse. But in this case, the “worse” is truly horrible.

 

Look on the bright side: gun owners have weathered dark political times before. We got through the Clinton years once (or, if you count by terms, twice) before.

 

Not all those we supported have been perfect candidates. Ronald Reagan, an icon among pro-gun activists today, was President when the 1986 curtailment of sales of new fully automatic weapons to private citizens became law. Gun owners supported George H. W. Bush, who subsequently resigned his NRA life membership and banned the importation of a broad spectrum of semiautomatic rifles. We supported our current incumbent, George W. Bush, yet his Solicitor General Paul Clement recently submitted what is essentially a brief against private gun ownership in Washington, DC in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, District of Columbia v. Heller.

 

Many in the gun owners’ rights community see this as a betrayal by President Bush, who is widely credited with owing both his elections to the highest office to the staunch grassroots support of the citizens who make up the so-called “gun lobby.” I’ve not yet seen clear and convincing proof, however, that Bush ordered his appointee to file that brief, or even knew beforehand that the Solicitor General was going to do so. After all, it was under Bush that U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote his famous opinion that the Second Amendment spoke, indeed, to an individual right. And we notice that Vice-President Dick Cheney (and Senator John McCain) signed on to an amicus brief in the Heller case in favor of the position that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is indeed an individual right. Cheney and McCain, by the way, were joined in that by a majority of the current Democrat-controlled Congress.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good stuff, Tatonka!  :thumbup:

 

Now, going back to the subject of Washington DC:  Can you say "Papers, please!" ?

 

 

Police plan checkpoints in D.C. neighborhood

Cops to check drivers' ID, turn away folks who don't belong; ACLU angry

 

AP Associated Press:

updated 6:33 p.m. ET, Thurs., June. 5, 2008

 

WASHINGTON - Stung by an outbreak of violence, including eight killings last weekend alone, police are taking the unusual step of establishing vehicle checkpoints in a crime-ridden neighborhood in the nation's capital.

 

Starting Saturday night, officers will check drivers' ID and turn away any who don't have a "legitimate purpose" in the area — a plan that has drawn swift criticism from civil liberties groups.

 

"The Constitution and the Bill of Rights should not become the next victim of the street violence," said Johnny Barnes, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union for the National Capital Area. "This plan will treat every resident of that area the way criminals are treated."

 

The checkpoints come as police try to combat a spike in the number of homicides, which rose 7 percent in the city in 2007 after several years of decline.

 

'Something had to be done'

Most of last weekend's slayings occurred in the 5th Police District in the city's northeast section, where authorities plan to set up the checkpoints. Already this year, the police district has had 22 killings — one more than in all of 2007.

 

"The reality is, this is a neighborhood that has been the scene of many violent crimes, and something had to be done," D.C. police spokeswoman Traci Hughes said.

 

But the initiative has raised the ire of the ACLU, which plans to watch what happens with the checkpoints before deciding on any legal action.

 

Officers will stop motorists traveling through the main thoroughfare of Trinidad — a neighborhood of mostly tidy two-story brick rowhouses that includes Gallaudet University and is near the National Arboretum.

 

Enforced at random hours

Police will ask motorists to show proof that they live in the area. If they do not have proof, drivers must explain whether they have a reason to be in the neighborhood, such as a doctor's appointment or a church visit.

 

Police will only search cars if they observe the presence of guns or drugs, officials said. Anyone who does not cooperate will be arrested.

 

The checkpoints will be enforced at random hours for at least five days, though they could be extended to 10 days, police said. Pedestrians will not be subject to the checkpoints.

 

District of Columbia Council member Harry Thomas Jr., who represents Trinidad, worried about a potential backlash from angry residents, many of whom question whether the checkpoints will reduce violence.

 

"Do you want to go home every day and prove that you live at your house?" he asked.

 

Still, Thomas said, he is taking a wait-and-see approach, noting that many of the recent shootings involved people who drove into the area to buy drugs or settle scores with residents. The checkpoints should make it more difficult for outsiders to come in, he said.

 

Deterring crime

On Thursday, city officials downplayed the significance of the initiative, noting that police have used various checkpoints in the past.

 

"It's not unlike a sobriety checkpoint or a traffic-safety checkpoint," Hughes said. "This time, it's to make sure violent crime is deterred as much as possible."

 

Responding to the threat of a legal challenge, interim D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles cited a similar case involving New York City police, who once stopped motorists in the Bronx at random hours, mostly in the evening, to curtail drive-by shootings, drugs and robberies. Neighborhood residents and commercial vehicles were allowed to pass, while others were turned away.

 

A federal appeals court ruled in 1996 that those police tactics were constitutional, saying that the checkpoints "were reasonably viewed as an effective mechanism" to reduce drive-by shootings.

 

'The extra mile'

In a Supreme Court case from 2000, however, justices struck down random roadblocks used in Indianapolis to screen people for illegal drugs, ruling that they were an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The high court's majority concluded that law enforcement alone is not a good enough reason to stop innocent motorists.

 

But Nickles said the city had "gone the extra mile" to make sure the roadblocks pass constitutional muster and that officials had tried all other reasonable means to stop the killings, including flooding the area with police officers.

 

The neighborhood checkpoints aren't the first time Police Chief Cathy Lanier has drawn criticism for measures aimed at reducing crime.

 

This spring, D.C. police scaled back an amnesty program in which they planned to go door-to-door asking for permission to search homes for guns. Critics complained that some residents could feel intimidated by officers asking to enter their homes. Police later decided to offer the program by appointment only at residents' request.

 

Neighbors had mixed feelings about the plan for vehicle checkpoints.

 

"It's needed and it's not needed," said Matthew Simmons, 79, as he sat on the porch outside his rowhouse. Simmons said the checkpoints wouldn't necessarily deter crime. He said a better solution would be to have more consistent police patrols.

 

Thalia Wiggins, who heard the gunshots across the street related to some of the recent slayings, said the checkpoints are better than nothing. But she was concerned about residents' rights and giving the neighborhood a military feel.

 

"In the long run, there's no one way to alleviate this problem," she said.

 

 

 

 

 

That gun control plan is really working in ol' D.C.....

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holly and I were discussing what will happen when/if Obama wins the election.  Granted, he will have more on his plate than the last few newbies did when they started their terms, but his history with gun control will have the anti's in a sweat to catch up on all the legislation they couldn't get passed in the last decade.  You have some time to get prepared for it, but the it is likely that if/when he gets into office, the legislation will be on it's way.

 

Semi-automatic firearms (and so-called "assault weapons") and high-capacity magazines will likely be first on the agenda.  Marlin Model 60's, Ruger 10/22's, other common guns won't be likely to be left out of this sort of legislation.  Since prices are already on the rise on everything else, you may want to consider getting one of these and some ammo (the prices are probably gonna stay high on ammo for now on, darn that China!) if they've been on your wish list. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holly and I were discussing what will happen when/if Obama wins the election.  Granted, he will have more on his plate than the last few newbies did when they started their terms, but his history with gun control will have the anti's in a sweat to catch up on all the legislation they couldn't get passed in the last decade.  You have some time to get prepared for it, but the it is likely that if/when he gets into office, the legislation will be on it's way.

 

Semi-automatic firearms (and so-called "assault weapons") and high-capacity magazines will likely be first on the agenda.  Marlin Model 60's, Ruger 10/22's, other common guns won't be likely to be left out of this sort of legislation.  Since prices are already on the rise on everything else, you may want to consider getting one of these and some ammo (the prices are probably gonna stay high on ammo for now on, darn that China!) if they've been on your wish list. 

 

And that includes semi auto shotguns also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to be of some concern. I think we should check to see if any gun legislation has been proposed by the Oboma people or Oboma him self. There should be some info on the net some where.

 

I still contend that there are so many difficult problems to address that it is not going to be any time soon. I know of one problem is the gun running by the drug cartel from Mexico. I know personally of a few years ago of some Mexican Nationals selling drugs in a big town north of here who had uzis for sale for 20 bucks apiece take all you want. Thats pretty scarey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that includes semi auto shotguns also.

 

Yup!  A simple Remington model 1100 will be on that list.

 

This seems to be of some concern. I think we should check to see if any gun legislation has been proposed by the Oboma people or Oboma him self. There should be some info on the net some where.

 

Obama has a long history of supporting and voting for gun control legislation, as does Hillary Clinton.  John McCain is somewhat "middle road" on gun control:

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm

 

http://www.sportsmenforobama.org/content/view/42/34/

 

Naturally, anything on gun control will be down-played during the election process since that is what most likely kept Al Gore or John Kerry from getting an overwhelming majority in the past couple of elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was an elected official, I'd be worried about voting in a bunch of gun control and getting hit by a backlash.  I'm not sure how Canada let it get so bad.  I just think there's a whole lot of people out there with guns that don't talk much about it, but honk them off bad enough and they come out to vote.

 

Then too, doesn't the Supreme Court have to weigh in on this?  I can't see how taking away all semi automatic weapons is not an abrogation of the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to page 3 and see what I posted on the candidates and their stand on gun control. It lists McCain, Obama and Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go back to page 3 and see what I posted on the candidates and their stand on gun control. It lists McCain, Obama and Clinton.

 

I just realized that I probably posted links that show the very same thing you posted.  "Double whammy!"  Oh well, it probably bears repeating anyway.  I need to build some PVC 'gun tubes' so I can bury my guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that is what is going to happen with alot of guns now. They are going to disappear along with ammo. Or people will be buying from private people so there is no record . I think Rangar Benson did a book on this subject  if I remember. Making tubes for burying your caches. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you guys take a pill? If your looking for an excuse to vote for McCain (that you were going to anyway) you found one. Thats an old right wing ploy every time theres an election. Same o same o scare tactics.

 

Like I said >

First there has to be a bill proposed.

Than debate.

Than a nose count to see if theres enough support.

Than the bill introduced for a vote.

Than on to the Senate.

More debate and a bunch of riders added on.

Than on to passage.

Than on to veto or sign into law by the president.

Than there will be the inevitable Supreme Court challenge that will be tied up in court for years.

 

Theres too much stuff ahead of that kind of legislation any time in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will you guys take a pill? If your looking for an excuse to vote for McCain (that you were going to anyway) you found one. Thats an old right wing ploy every time theres an election. Same o same o scare tactics.

 

Like I said >

First there has to be a bill proposed.

Than debate.

Than a nose count to see if theres enough support.

Than the bill introduced for a vote.

Than on to the Senate.

More debate and a bunch of riders added on.

Than on to passage.

Than on to veto or sign into law by the president.

Than there will be the inevitable Supreme Court challenge that will be tied up in court for years.

 

Theres too much stuff ahead of that kind of legislation any time in the future.

 

Did you have to remind me that I might have to vote for McCain?  >shudder<  Lord forgive me, but I voted for Dukakis back in the......what, the 80's?  I knew then we needed a change.  But, I digress...

 

Anyway, what kind of pills ya got, Swede?  :naughty:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×