Obama: Don't stock up on guns

[brencat]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I have about $90k in weapons down there and enough ammunition to stock a 12-15 person team and keep them in a fire fight easily a couple days in length.

:Q

:laugh:

:thumbsup:

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Obama: No need to stock up on guns.

Citizens: Too late. Already did.

Yep, and don't forget tons of ammunition as well. We're not stupid and his record and actions speak for themselves. It's going to happen and he'll just say it's "common sense gun control".

First step to communism is to disarm the citizens. And we know where obama stands on that goal. Just look at his voting record.

32 pounds of powder and another 1000 bullets should hit the mail next week.

i wish it was sane people who were into guns and not nutjobs like you two.

 

[PrinceofWands]

One thing I did think about after his statements:

Aren't we trying to encourage consumerism right now? Isn't it a good thing to have people moving money and products? Hell, Obama could stimulate the hell out of the economy by holding a press conference and stating that he's going to work to ban all firearms. Firearm sales would swiftly match the GDP of most nations.

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
One thing I did think about after his statements:

Aren't we trying to encourage consumerism right now? Isn't it a good thing to have people moving money and products? Hell, Obama could stimulate the hell out of the economy by holding a press conference and stating that he's going to work to ban all firearms. Firearm sales would swiftly match the GDP of most nations.

Very interesting idea. Let's start the rumor.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
One thing I did think about after his statements:

Aren't we trying to encourage consumerism right now? Isn't it a good thing to have people moving money and products? Hell, Obama could stimulate the hell out of the economy by holding a press conference and stating that he's going to work to ban all firearms. Firearm sales would swiftly match the GDP of most nations.

Very interesting idea. Let's start the rumor.

Create a "gun bubble" for dave to whine about?

 

[OnePingOnly]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: TallBill
I can't even think of a "heinous crime" that was committed with a legally obtained or owned assault weapon.

Originally posted by: rudder
They aren't illegal... just well controlled.

I wonder if the pro-gun people will ever put those two comments together. Well-controlled guns are our best option. Law abiding citizens can have them - as many of them as they want. Yet they are controlled well enough that criminals don't use them. In an ideal world, we'd have the same with handguns and rifles. Of course, we'll never get there.

I'll all for gun rights. Let honest citizens own any gun that they want legally. But, I just like to laugh at the misconceptions about gun control.

That said, I want to address a common theme around here. The misconception that "liberals" want to ban all guns and that "conservatives" don't. Lets look at that 1994 automatic weapons ban discussed in this thread as an example. That ban expired in 2004. But some people want to reinstate it, four representatives in the house introduced HR6257 in 2008 to reinstate the ban. Who was it?
[*]Republican Michael Castle
[*]Republican Mike Ferguson
[*]Republican Chris Shays
and
[*]Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

That is it. Those are the four sponsors of the bill to reinstate the automatic weapons ban. All Republicans, no democrats. Gun control isn't a liberal vs conservative issue.

Yet the NRA (National Rifle Association which should be renamed the National Republican Agency) pushes the idea that it is the "liberals" who want to take away gun rights. At least two people in this thread used "liberals" to describe the anti-gun people. That just isn't true. Both liberals and conservates are anti-gun people. Both liberals and conservates are pro-gun people.

This is laughable. Those four pretty much signed themselves up into their final congressional terms. Hmmm... the primary sponsor of the bill, Mark Kirk, is from Illinois. I would say most Illinois politicians are scumbags and those five Republicans who were on board for this bill are all RINOs (Republican In Name Only). Look at the States the sponsors are from: FL, NJ, CT, DE, and IL.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: TallBill
-snip-

I see this going one of two ways...

1. Obama and dems are telling the truth which would be a great thing.
2. Obama is either fibbing and will let another AWB slide in, blech.

I understand your post to be more political in nature, and not another debate about gun controll. I.e., what is Obama gonna do?

Well, clearly somebody's gonna be dissapointed. I've seen it mentioned numerous times in the MSM that some Dems are already unhappy and complaining that Obama is not *Dem* (or aggresively left) enough.

Like the typical lawyer/politician these days he has already come out on both sides of the issue:

They (Obama & Biden) also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

versus

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear...."

So which will it be?

Chris Matthews *pet theory* is that Obama has surrounded himself with *Dem moderates* to give himself cover when he moves to the left. I.e., he's betting that Obama will move left (gun ban etc) and pursue the policies so dear to the left.

But if another AWB is passed we will see it challenged under the recent Heller ruling by the SCOTUS. Many contend that the AWB was useless and based on cosmetic features of certain guns. If so, I'm sure somebody will argue under Heller that the AWD is unreasonable because it is irrational/meaningless.

Fern

 

[woodie1]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: woodie1

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
One thing I did think about after his statements:

Aren't we trying to encourage consumerism right now? Isn't it a good thing to have people moving money and products? Hell, Obama could stimulate the hell out of the economy by holding a press conference and stating that he's going to work to ban all firearms. Firearm sales would swiftly match the GDP of most nations.

Very interesting idea. Let's start the rumor.

Create a "gun bubble" for dave to whine about?

Guess not then. Dave is so worried about the union workers @ that window/door manufacturer that I'd hate to sidetrack him with this issue.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
snip-
The real trick of gun control, and one I'm sad to say neither side really seems to understand, is that controlling WHO gets the guns is far more important than WHAT particular guns they can get.

No, the "who* gets guns thingy has been addressed:

1. Every gun I've purchased required paperwork. E.g., to get a handgun requires a permit from our local Sherrif etc.

2. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right; therefore approaching the issue as one limiting *who* gets a gun is mighty damn difficult. Might as well try to define *who* gets 4th Amendment rights (some on the left would even extend this to non-US citizen charged with terrorism - BTW the SCOTUS has already ruled the 4th doesn't necessarily apply to non-US citizens) or who gets the right to vote. Is anybody trying to have the right to vote removed from those who are mentally unstable? Or take free speech away from nutcases?

Attempts to restrict the 2nd, as with any other right, to certain classes of individual is terribly terribly difficult. And I think that reality needs to be kept in the fore when opining about the correct approach to gun control. I think it's pretty clear that the approach against *certain guns* is popular is because trying the *who* approach is so difficult given the Constitution.

Geez, there are those who question prohibiting convicted felons of gun ownership. And they do go to court and get back their gun rights.

Fern

 

[JS80]

A leftist president with a poor gun rating that is telling the people not to worry and not to stock up on guns...would worry me even more and make me want to do exactly that.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fug that I already turned my basement into a veriftable armory. I have about $90k in weapons down there and enough ammunition to stock a 12-15 person team and keep them in a fire fight easily a couple days in length. I am already recruiting people in my neighborhood area (walking distance, for when the sh*t goes down) so that Skoorb's Rangers can be up and running within 12 hours of any national catastrophe and represent a force to be reckoned with in our immediate area. Maybe instead call ourselves the Regulators, but you can't be any geek off the street. You gotta be handy with the steel--know what I mean? Earn your keep.

:laugh:

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Obama: No need to stock up on guns.

Citizens: Too late. Already did.

Yep, and don't forget tons of ammunition as well. We're not stupid and his record and actions speak for themselves. It's going to happen and he'll just say it's "common sense gun control".

First step to communism is to disarm the citizens. And we know where obama stands on that goal. Just look at his voting record.

32 pounds of powder and another 1000 bullets should hit the mail next week.

i wish it was sane people who were into guns and not nutjobs like you two.

I really wish you had the chance to go shooting with me in one of our competitions. Honestly I think you'd be suprised how focused and concerned we are in regards to safety. You have to realize me getting what I do is like the guy who has a garage with a Viper, Z06 and Ford GT in it. Or the guy who buys the fanciest golf clubs every year, or the PC geek who has the fastest cutting edge hardware.

The thing is, when you really get into shooting your considered a nutjob.

 

[evident]

but but but but... obama is wearing a tux made by marx for inauguration day. hes gonna make us all slaves comrade!

 

[palehorse]

I've been to the range three times in just the last week!

Didn't the Heller ruling contain language that essentially states that guns cannot be legally banned by "type"? I could be wrong...

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: palehorse
I've been to the range three times in just the last week!

Didn't the Heller ruling contain language that essentially states that guns cannot be legally banned by "type"? I could be wrong...

Pretty much. Bans of "types" of firearms that are in common use are not constitutional.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: palehorse
I've been to the range three times in just the last week!

Didn't the Heller ruling contain language that essentially states that guns cannot be legally banned by "type"? I could be wrong...

Pretty much. Bans of "types" of firearms that are in common use are not constitutional.

Are you sure? From Wikipedia.

However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

I haven't read the majority opinion, but this quote about the second amendment not being unlimited seems like it could support bans of certain types of weapons.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fug that I already turned my basement into a veriftable armory. I have about $90k in weapons down there and enough ammunition to stock a 12-15 person team and keep them in a fire fight easily a couple days in length. I am already recruiting people in my neighborhood area (walking distance, for when the sh*t goes down) so that Skoorb's Rangers can be up and running within 12 hours of any national catastrophe and represent a force to be reckoned with in our immediate area. Maybe instead call ourselves the Regulators, but you can't be any geek off the street. You gotta be handy with the steel--know what I mean? Earn your keep.

I'm exactly 50% terrified and 50% impressed.

maybe 60/40...

edit: 2% jealous +/- margin of error

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TallBill
...
I'm all for government regulated gun ownership as long as the qualifications and tracking don't get to extreme. I think most reasonable gun owners will agree to this.

I don't know about "reasonable gun owners", but one of the big criticisms of the NRA and similar groups is that they tend to pretty vocally oppose virtually ALL regulations, especially when it comes to number of guns purchased in a set period of time, waiting periods of any length, and law enforcement tools like ballistic fingerprinting. These things in no way restrict reasonable gun ownership, and seem like they might help with gun violence without making it so law abiding citizens are stripped of their right to own a weapon. I'm pretty pro-gun rights (and pro-self defense rights in general), but I think the attitude of most gun-rights supporters borders on the ridiculous.

In any case, I think this is a non-issue. Pro-gun folks are too pro-gun, and anti-gun folks don't care enough...politicians at the national level aren't going to do anything too radical because the support just isn't there. If you think the 2nd amendment entitles you to own a F-22, then you might have a problem...but overall I think this is gun-nuts getting their panties in a bunch over nothing. Obama's policies at a local level don't come in to play, as localities have ALWAYS been more open to regulation (or not) of guns because local attitudes tend to vary a lot from place to place. At the national level, I don't think it's a big enough issue for the gun control side for anybody to do anything.

I find this interesting. The NRA is very pro-gun, but the ACLU is very pro-every other constitutional right, I don't see the problem there. I am really butchering someones quote, but the problem with defending rights is that you cannot only defend the rights of the really upright citizen who behaved perfectly, you often find yourself defending the rights of scum.

The NRA does not oppose all gun regulations, they do not oppose background checks for purchases from a dealer. They do oppose private transfer background checks, but seriously think of the problems that would open up. Private citizens being allowed to perform their own background checks on other citizens, I think that would be a privacy issue. They oppose gun ownership of violent felons. But many "common sense" gun laws are not used that way. Look at the handgun bans in Chicago and D.C.. They were not written as bans, they were registries, and then one day the registries were closed, just like they did with automatic weapons. They never actually banned the weapons, they just made it impossible to register the weapon, and illegal to own the weapon without registering.

Take a step back, and think about that, most of our gun bans in this nation were passed as common sense gun laws that did not restrict gun ownership, they just made it easier to trace weapons in crime and track ownership. Those laws were then used to ban guns through back door changes to the law. I personally cannot blame the NRA for their stance with regards to most of these laws.

And finally, another problem is that so few people seem to understand the laws of this nation, they just assume that anything bigger than a semi auto rifle is banned. If you have seen mythbusters you have probably seen old moses, the cannon brought in by a private citizen to help them test pirate myths. That IS a piece of field artillery, and he owns it. I also seem to remember a private citizen having a cannon collection in his house that they visited. I can never find the regulations for such destructive devices, but it seems clear to me that private citizens are allowed to own artillery weapons in at least some capacity. They are also allowed to own fully automatic weapons.

YET, somehow despite the fact that private citizens can own fully functioning ARTILLERY, and machine guns, the government has seen fit to prevent them from owning certain semi-atuomatic weapons because they are black, and have a pistol grip. That pistol grip and black paint make the weapon too dangerous for a private citizen. Remember this when someone says an assault weapons ban is common sense.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: palehorse
I've been to the range three times in just the last week!

Didn't the Heller ruling contain language that essentially states that guns cannot be legally banned by "type"? I could be wrong...

Pretty much. Bans of "types" of firearms that are in common use are not constitutional.

Are you sure? From Wikipedia.

However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

I haven't read the majority opinion, but this quote about the second amendment not being unlimited seems like it could support bans of certain types of weapons.

I read the entire ruling about 3 minutes after it came out. I was paraphrasing part of the ruling in my original post. They specifically say that it's unconstitutional to ban entire classes of weapons that are in wide use. That also in no way conflicts with the quote you've posted.

Handguns and assault rifles can't be banned, but grenade launchers and miniguns can be. Of course, there are already cases working their way through the court system arguing that the only reason machine guns aren't in wide use is because they've been so strictly regulated for the past 80 years.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: daishi5

The NRA does not oppose all gun regulations, they do not oppose background checks for purchases from a dealer. They do oppose private transfer background checks, but seriously think of the problems that would open up. Private citizens being allowed to perform their own background checks on other citizens, I think that would be a privacy issue. They oppose gun ownership of violent felons. But many "common sense" gun laws are not used that way. Look at the handgun bans in Chicago and D.C.. They were not written as bans, they were registries, and then one day the registries were closed, just like they did with automatic weapons. They never actually banned the weapons, they just made it impossible to register the weapon, and illegal to own the weapon without registering.

Take a step back, and think about that, most of our gun bans in this nation were passed as common sense gun laws that did not restrict gun ownership, they just made it easier to trace weapons in crime and track ownership. Those laws were then used to ban guns through back door changes to the law. I personally cannot blame the NRA for their stance with regards to most of these laws.

That's how every gun ban in the world has gone down. They need to be registered and tracked because that's "common sense gun control" that can only help. Once they know where they are, they can figure out how to outlaw them and take them as necessary. Of course, only the poor schmucks that actually bought into the "you're helping society by registering your guns" argument registered their guns to begin with, so they're the only ones that get regulated.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Fug that I already turned my basement into a veriftable armory. I have about $90k in weapons down there and enough ammunition to stock a 12-15 person team and keep them in a fire fight easily a couple days in length.

:camera:?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: JS80
A leftist president with a poor gun rating that is telling the people not to worry and not to stock up on guns...would worry me even more and make me want to do exactly that.

Yep. That should be the real take away from this. Forget about my record, forget about what I have done or said, there is no need to stock up on guns and MOST IMPORTANTLY ammunition. *wave jedi hand*

You heard it from the Brady spokesman - "these people already have more than enough".