When I see nonsense like Newsweek’s cover about the so-called “Bubba Gap” for Sen. Obama and other members of the punditocracy saying that the path to the presidency can only be achieved by pandering to these 
(mostly southern) conservatives I always have to roll my eyes (I also roll my eyes at so called independent pundits always rushing to the same wrong conclusion, as usual). Because for a considerable amount of our national history these people are on the stupid and wrong side of most major issues.
ABC did a test to see what the reaction would be to two men kissing in public in Alabama. They called the cops.
A police officer even arrived at the scene after a woman called 911 because she saw Kaolin and James kissing each other in public.
ABC News obtained a copy of her call:
Operator: “Birmingham Police operator 9283″
Caller: “We have a couple of men sitting out on the bench that have been kissing and drooling all over each other for the past hour or so. It’s not against the law, right?”
Operator: “Not to the best of my knowledge it’s not.”
Caller: “So there’s no complaint I could make or have?”
Operator: “I imagine you could complain if you like ma’am. We can always send an officer down there.”
And they did. One of Birmingham’s finest came to Five-Points and spoke with Kaolin and James. Though city officials and the police department signed off on ABC’s social experiment, this officer was somehow not in the loop. The officer told our couple that the police dispatch received a call because the two of them were making out.
“Just don’t do that in public,” he told them before leaving the scene.
Now, look, these folks have a right to their own personal beliefs, but we debase our politics if we try to pander to them. We have only moved forward in this country when we ignored the loudest voices in the “Bubba” contingent who were never quite ready for women’s rights, equal rights or gay rights.
Larry the Cable Guy can be amusing, but I don’t want him dictating the future direction of western civilization. That probably makes me a coastal elitist snob from the midatlantic, but so be it.
Git ‘R Done.
(via)
“Just don’t do that in public,” he told them before leaving the scene.”
ACLU, Line 1!
What a joke. I like how in NJ they chose the city of Verona which is located in Essex County, a bastion of east coast left wing liberalism. I’m sure if they went further south, like in Toms River or Forked River, the reaction wouldn’t be so wonderful, despite it still being heavily Democratic. Or even if they did it in working class neighborhoods like Garfield or Patterson. They wouldn’t be calling the cops. Good Republican hating Democrats would be beating them up.
This kind of stuff is what you supposedly deplore in the media Oliver, but I guess when lousy journalism gives you a platform, you’re happy to give it credit.
Jay’s right that the neanderthal homophobe voting bloc exists everywhere, but he’s missing the point that Oliver is making–that magazines are making a big deal about a candidate’s ability to win over the “Bubba” vote, but failing to ask why these people deserve to have their outmoded ways of thinking given any credibility.
The cynical answer is “because there’s a lot of them.” I call bullshit on that. Should a candidate also make a point of hiding his ability to comprehend difficult literature lest he lose the support of people who don’t read?
Careful SpiderJ: you’re sounding ominously close to supporting the return of literacy tests and poll taxes.
that magazines are making a big deal about a candidate’s ability to win over the “Bubba” vote
Which is nothing but more shitty journalism that falls prey to identity politics. If there was some kind of overall ‘bubba’ vote that was needed, then John Kerry wouldn’t have received nearly 700,000 votes in Alabama in 2004. Or the 1.3 million votes he got in Georgia.
It’s an easy excuse to think that Barack Obama can’t win in the south because they’re all a bunch of pickup driving, Confederate flag waving, gun toting, NASCAR drive, tobacco chewing, gay hating rednecks. It does come down to issues you know for the VAST majority of voters and the fact of the matter is, it’s a regional area where Barack Obama’s (and Hillary Clinton’s) politics don’t line up with the majority of the people.
I don’t understand why this is so difficult for people to fathom. But then I realize that a good number of people don’t think of people as individuals with different points of view. Everybody is part of some kind of ‘group’ and that group is usually a bogus stereotype.
Let’s all bear in mind that Larry the Cable Guy is just an act as we all turn our backs on the media at large.
It’s an easy excuse to think that Barack Obama can’t win in the south because they’re all a bunch of pickup driving, Confederate flag waving, gun toting, NASCAR drive, tobacco chewing, gay hating rednecks.
Well, it seems to me that the Republicans have had the critical Racist Asshole Bloc locked up since 19 and 80. What with the likes of Rush Limbaugh et al, that ain’t gonna change.
I’m not at all saying that. I’m just saying that I’d be fine if Americans didn’t require their leaders to pass the “average Joe” litmus test. Why do we want to be led by an “average Joe” in the first place? Shouldn’t we be hoping for an Above Average Joe (or Jane, as the case may be) instead?
Jay: “It’s an easy excuse to think that Barack Obama can’t win in the south because they’re all a bunch of pickup driving, Confederate flag waving, gun toting, NASCAR drive, tobacco chewing, gay hating rednecks. It does come down to issues you know for the VAST majority of voters and the fact of the matter is, it’s a regional area where Barack Obama’s (and Hillary Clinton’s) politics don’t line up with the majority of the people.”
No one is saying that everyone is like that in the South, Jay. However, there are enough ignorant rednecks in states like Alabama and Georgia to make it damn difficult for a candidate like Obama.
I actually don’t think it comes down to issues for the vast majority of voters, actually. If it did, the Dems would win every time. It’s been shown time and again that the majority of people in this country agree more with the Democratic platform than the Republican one. Republicans seem better at getting elected, however, for various reasons: Better at delivering their message, better at making things simple for the nonthinking voters, better at appealing to voters’ fears and biases, better at demonizing their opponents… it doesn’t much have to do with their stance on the issues.
Spider: Amen, brother.
It’s been shown time and again that the majority of people in this country agree more with the Democratic platform than the Republican one.
Sorry, but that’s not the case because it all depends on the context in which the issue is framed.
Republicans seem better at getting elected, however, for various reasons: Better at delivering their message, better at making things simple for the nonthinking voters, better at appealing to voters’ fears and biases, better at demonizing their opponents… it doesn’t much have to do with their stance on the issues.
There you go. That’s nothing but convenient excuse making. It’s the same kind of thinking Oliver has wrapped in a different package (save for the part about delivering their message better). As for the rest, I could easily say the same thing about Democrats.
People are smarter than that. For instance, Barack Obama says he supports the right of the individual to bear arms under the second amendment. But when you peel away the gloss, you find that Obama is a gun grabber just like most liberals and his support for the rights protected under the second amendment are pretty much non-existent. It’s just that he believes people will fall for his nonsense simply because he says he supports the second amendment and gets endorsements from anti-gun front groups like the American Hunters and Shooters Association.
And Spider, I’ll be happy when a candidate doesn’t have to pass any kind of litmus test.
“I’m just saying that I’d be fine if Americans didn’t require their leaders to pass the “average Joe” litmus test.”
No you’re not: Democratics LOVE average Joe litmus test so long as they’re being used against Republicans (”Poor George. He can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.”)
As for Monseiur Chicken, I’d wager that the Democratic platforms poll better because they time and again consist of nothing but puppies and rainbows (”Free Health Care for all!” “Social Security Forever!” “We’ll Defeat our enemies by singing Kum Bah Ya!”). Republican stances of “Oh Yeah? How you gonna pay for it?” will NEVER test as well in focus groups, but it eventually wins over sober-headed voters once the election finally rolls around.
Excuse me, Farris, but I think I have a better sense of what I’m saying than your misinterpretation of what I’m saying.
(Also, I have a better sense of the difference between an adjective and a noun, but never mind.)
The Republican stance of “Oh yeah, how you gonna pay for it?” has been weakened severely by the Bush answer “With credit!!!”
Ron White is funny. Larry the Cable Guy is an idiot. Harmless, but an idiot.
And Georgia, Mississippi et al can do as they wish, but VA and NC are going for Obama in the general. The math of that switch revolutionizes the national math, by the way.
Is Obama elite? Of course he is. So is McNovocain and Hillary. They’re frekkin’ Senators, facrisssakes. The most elite group of people in the country.
I want the President of the United States to be smarter than Joe Average. I want the President of the United States to be smarter than me, and I’m pretty smahht.
Joe Average is an idiot. Joe Average thinks American Idle and Larry the Cable Guy is good entertainment. Joe Average thinks Tyler Hicks and Sanjaya are good singers.
Fuck Joe Average! I wouldn’t trust Joe Average with one of those Easy buttons from Staples.
Though “get a room” can be heard outside any nightclub in America on Saturday night, for the specific cultural test given, I daresay there are neighborhoods in South Boston, Ozone Park Queens, and South Philly where the reaction may have even been worse.
Several of the pundits who bashed the Motion Picture Academy f/ nominating “Brokeback Mountain” for an Oscar were yankees.
These are the people Hillary things we need to win the election. I say we don’t need them, and we certainly don’t want them.
Duros, most of those ‘elite’ aren’t smarter than we are. Some of them got where they are by hard work and dedication, like Obama. Others got there because they came from wealthy families and had aristocratic names (like John McCain). What the right wants to do is confuse the two.
Exactly. But being a law professor, head of the Harvard Law Review and a best-selling author is pretty elite, you gotta admit. All the more valuable because he got there through hard work and dedication. Obama is still less “elitist” than the other two by half.
Jay: “People are smarter than that.”
No, Jay, they really aren’t. There are a ton of idiots out there who vote. The average person in this country is a fucking moron. If people really WERE smarter than that, then we’d consistently be hearing about important issues like health care, education, the budget, national security… and NOT hearing about stupid shit like flag pins and guilt by association (e.g., Rev Wright). We wouldn’t have candidates feeding baby cows or downing shots with a bunch of regular Joes at a bar. We wouldn’t have television ads like the 3AM spot that specifically try to tap into peoples’ worst fears. Why do we see this kind of thing? Because the issues don’t matter as much as they should. Because a lot of people are very likely to vote with their gut instead of their head. The mob is full of morons.
Ferris: “I’d wager that the Democratic platforms poll better because they time and again consist of nothing but puppies and rainbows (”Free Health Care for all!” “Social Security Forever!” “We’ll Defeat our enemies by singing Kum Bah Ya!”). Republican stances of “Oh Yeah? How you gonna pay for it?” will NEVER test as well in focus groups, but it eventually wins over sober-headed voters once the election finally rolls around.”
Actually, you very well could be right about why Dem platforms poll better. The snark wasn’t necessary, but the essence of what you say is true. However, there is no basis in reality for asserting that the Republicans are the fiscally responsible ones. At one time, that was true… but Reagan and (especially)Bush Jr. have fucked that up pretty good.
I’d rather be a “tax & spend” Democrat than a “tax cut and spend anyway” Republican.
Larry the Cable Guy can be amusing, but I don’t want him dictating the future direction of western civilization
Its scary, isn’t it? And the least informed are unfortunately the most easily manipulated and duped.
Imagine Edward R. Murrow today- he wouldn’t last a week due to low ratings.
“It does come down to issues you know for the VAST majority of voters and the fact of the matter is, it’s a regional area where Barack Obama’s (and Hillary Clinton’s) politics don’t line up with the majority of the people.”
What the fuck? The vast majority of the people don’t follow the majority? Wouldn’t the vast majority BE the majority?
This is why I make fun of you. Or at the very least, one of the reasons I make fun of you.
“There you go. That’s nothing but convenient excuse making.”
Name an issue where the Republicans have the majority support. I bet I can find more issues where they don’t.
“People are smarter than that.”
That’s right, as the first of yours proves, people are smart. Moron.
What the fuck? The vast majority of the people don’t follow the majority? Wouldn’t the vast majority BE the majority?
Hey dumbfuck. I was talking about two different things. The ‘vast’ was in reference to why people vote. The second was in reference to how a majority sees Obama on the issues in a particular region of the country. Twit.
Name an issue where the Republicans have the majority support. I bet I can find more issues where they don’t.
What are you, six years old? “I bet you I can!! So there!!”
Go away.
No, Jay, they really aren’t. There are a ton of idiots out there who vote. The average person in this country is a fucking moron.
Except your insinuation is that such people only vote for Republicans, correct? If so, then I don’t find your argument compelling. Unless you’re willing to concede that such voters exist on the Democratic side of the aisle.
Unless you’re willing to concede that such voters exist on the Democratic side of the aisle.
Indeed, neither party has the monopoly on stupid (although Republicans are stupider–dude, just look at Glenn Beck), but the Republicans pretty much cornered the market on racist assholes. It’s called the Southern Strategy. Look it up.
I never insinuated that the average person in this country votes Republican.
Me: “What the fuck? The vast majority of the people don’t follow the majority? Wouldn’t the vast majority BE the majority?”
Jay: “Hey dumbfuck. I was talking about two different things. The ‘vast’ was in reference to why people vote. The second was in reference to how a majority sees Obama on the issues in a particular region of the country. Twit.”
I realized that after I hit send. Point for you.
Me: “Name an issue where the Republicans have the majority support. I bet I can find more issues where they don’t.”
Jay: “What are you, six years old? ‘I bet you I can!! So there!!’”
What are you, fucking retarded? I’m asking you to point out where Republicans line up with the majority of Americans when it comes to political issues. Of course you think this is childish, because you are a fucking retard. How the fuck can comparing political stances be considered childish. No wonder you are a Republican.
Jay: “Go away.”
Get killed.
Fucking sub-human.
Seriously, Jay. You are on a political blog, yet you refuse to debate the fucking issues. Why should I treat you with even the minimum of respect?
Me: “No, Jay, they really aren’t. There are a ton of idiots out there who vote. The average person in this country is a fucking moron.”
Jay: “Except your insinuation is that such people only vote for Republicans, correct?”
Nope. The majority do, but not all.
“…Obama is a gun grabber just like most liberals…”
What exactly do you mean by “gun grabber,” Jay. Has Obama supported any kind of legislation or made any kind of statement that would indicate he wants to take guns away from their lawful owners?
J arguing with J
“But then I realize that a good number of people don’t think of people as individuals with different points of view. ”
“But when you peel away the gloss, you find that Obama is a gun grabber just like most liberals and his support for the rights protected under the second amendment are pretty much non-existent.”
Has Obama supported any kind of legislation or made any kind of statement that would indicate he wants to take guns away from their lawful owners?
He supports the DC position in Heller. He supported (though he now claims he doesn’t) a complete and total ban on the manufacturing, sale and possession of handguns. He opposes concealed carry laws and has called for banning them. He supports a ban on any semi-automatic weapon. He voted against allowing women with an order of protection against another person to carry a concealed firearm. He voted against allowing a court defense of self-defense against home intruders in jurisdictions where handguns are banned.
EL, my statements are not contradictory. The first had to do with people breaking voters down along stereotypes. The second has to do with political positions. The fact is, the most liberals have the same positions as Barack Obama on the second amendment.
He supported (though he now claims he doesn’t) a complete and total ban on the manufacturing, sale and possession of handguns.
This is an incredibly general statement, and I’d like you to provide evidence of any sort of bill that sought to ban “manufacturing, sale, and possession” of handguns. Link, Jay? At least a point in the general direction?
Let me ask an off-hand question, as well…is there some sort of handgun shortage going on that I don’t know about? Is there a reason we need to continue to manufacture handguns at the rate they are being manufactured? I know that a handgun that gets used often will eventually wear down and need to be replaced, but a lot of handguns never get used at all. Surely there are enough guns in stock right now that we can maybe shut the machine down for awhile?
Seems like a good time to bring up a bill Obama proposed that would effectively ban firearms dealers. But he supports the 2nd Amendment!!!
“Obama; No Gun Shops Within Five Miles of Schools; Porn Shops Okay”
Thanks for the link, Farris, I now have another example of the ever-present American absurdity that is the disparate tolerance of violence and sex in our society.
So from what I’m reading Obama has not supported any kind of laws to take or “grab” guns away from their legal owners. Am I correct?
Spider, right here:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM43_080328_obama_iviquestionaire_091096.html
He says a staffer “mischaracterized” his viewpoint, whatever that means. However, that’s Obama’s own handwriting in the area where you see those notes. He says he wrote them, but didn’t pay attention to the rest of the questions. His explanation was a little lame.
As for the handgun sales, why not let supply and demand dictate when sales should slow?
Would you be ok with having the government dictate what can and cannot be sold in this country?
“Would you be ok with having the government dictate what can and cannot be sold in this country?”
Wait a second, are you suggesting that the government currently does not dictate what can and cannot be sold in this country?
As for the handgun sales, why not let supply and demand dictate when sales should slow?
That didn’t answer my question, which I reiterate was more of an off-hand comment than a serious statement of policy. Do we or do we not already have enough guns as it is?
SpiderJ:
“Obama; No Gun Shops Within Five Miles of Schools; Porn Shops Okay”
Thanks for the link, Farris, I now have another example of the ever-present American absurdity that is the disparate tolerance of violence and sex in our society.
Actually, isn’t that kinda the opposite of our usual hypocrisy? TV shows showing people getting blown up in prime time, no problem. Showing two married adults getting a bit intimate, no way.
Wait a second, are you suggesting that the government currently does not dictate what can and cannot be sold in this country?
Answering a question with a question is a logical fallacy. You’re not an idiot so please don’t get into semantics. You know what I meant.
Do we or do we not already have enough guns as it is?
But what’s ‘enough’? I understand now what you were asking, but there are new types of guns made all the time. If somebody is a collector, they’re probably going to want to see the new stuff. If I remember correctly, you’re involved in the arts. You probably know a musician or two and like many musicians I’m sure one that you know has more guitars, bass’s, drums or keyboards and other musical toys than he’ll ever really need. My brother in law is a guitarist and for awhile had the same kind of double neck guitar that Jimmy Page had. He owned it for 10 years and played it maybe three times.
So as long as gun owners are still being responsible and law abiding, who cares how many guns they buy?
Sean - I was talking about the article’s OUTRAGE!(TM) over that situation.
Actually, I didn’t know what you meant, either. You asked “Would you be ok with having the government dictate what can and cannot be sold in this country?”
Yes, I’m okay with that. The government already does that. Drug laws, for one, although that’s a thornier issue that I won’t get into here.
Here’s another question: how many handguns were being produced for home collectors in the early 1940s, when our government asked that we ration ourselves in a time of war? Was there a national grumbling about how there weren’t enough personal guns to go around?
Yes, I’m okay with that. The government already does that. Drug laws, for one, although that’s a thornier issue that I won’t get into here.
Yes, but I was talking metaphorically. If the government said, “We have more than enough computers in this country. We don’t need anymore.” or “We have more than enough HDTV’s that are in this country. No more.” THAT, people would have a shit fit about.
As for the 1940’s question, I couldn’t answer it.
So, as I understand it, the crux of your argument is that a handgun is an item that exists of a similar influence with computers, HDTVs, and guitars, and therefore should not be regulated in any way more strictly than these items.
I find that contention absurd, but I ask that you clarify if I’ve misunderstood.
“You know what I meant.”
Obviously I didn’t which is why I asked for some clarity. Asking someone to clarify a statement is hardly “a logical fallacy.” Accusing someone of a logical fallacy who asks for clarification, however, is most definitely a tad defensive.
As to the government regulating what we can and cannot buy, whether its guns or computers, the government can and does dictate what can be sold in this country, not only through health and safety laws, but also through trade policy.
Now unless, of course, you think it’s a logical fallacy, I’d also like to ask you to clarify your use of the phrase “gun grabber” in describing Obama and liberals, in general.
So, as I understand it, the crux of your argument is that a handgun is an item that exists of a similar influence with computers, HDTVs, and guitars, and therefore should not be regulated in any way more strictly than these items.
No, that’s not the crux of my argument at all and you should know that since you raised the issue. We’re talking the BAN of the sale, manufacture and possession of such items simply because the government feels as though it’s something we don’t need anymore.
Obviously I didn’t which is why I asked for some clarity. Asking someone to clarify a statement is hardly “a logical fallacy.” Accusing someone of a logical fallacy who asks for clarification, however, is most definitely a tad defensive.
Well, you didn’t ask for clarification. That would have said, “Jay, can you clarify this statement?” Instead you wrote, “Wait a second, are you suggesting that the government currently does not dictate what can and cannot be sold in this country?” It’s a loaded question. Again, if you want clarification……ASK FOR IT.
As to the government regulating what we can and cannot buy, whether its guns or computers, the government can and does dictate what can be sold in this country, not only through health and safety laws, but also through trade policy.
They do not however, do it on a whim or do it because they decide we “have enough” of whatever it is that’s being sold and then also ban the possession of said items.
I’d also like to ask you to clarify your use of the phrase “gun grabber” in describing Obama and liberals, in general.
Actually, I already did. I showed you his positions and the things he supports. In the realm of second amendment rights, it clearly makes him a gun grabber. It’s hard to find liberals (notice I am speaking clearly about liberals, not necessarily Democrats as there are some Democrats with strong second amendment records) that don’t support the same forms of gun control that he supports.
Jay, for a guy who “doesn’t want to get into semantics” semantics is all you seem to have.
The simple answer to my “loaded” question would have been “No.” Was that so hard? At the same time, you defended your vague statement by suggesting that you were speaking “metaphorically.” Really? Could you identify the metaphor you were using because I fail to see one.
As to the “gun grabber” label, now there’s a neat bit of semantics. So a “gun grabber,” in your mind, is anyone who proposes to limit or otherwise regulate the sale of firearms? But that isn’t exactly “grabbing” is it, if by grabbing you mean taking. Of course if you want to paint a politician as more extreme than they actually are “gun grabber” works nicely as a means to plant the impression that Obama wants to literally “take” their guns. Which he clearly doesn’t. Or are speaking metaphorically again?
The simple answer to my “loaded” question would have been “No.”
Like I said, you could have simply asked the right question. You said you wanted clarification. Again: ASK FOR IT. It’s not that difficult. You won the pissing contest. Happy? Moving along.
So a “gun grabber,” in your mind, is anyone who proposes to limit or otherwise regulate the sale of firearms?
No, a ‘gun grabber’ is the sort that supports the positions that Obama supports.
Of course if you want to paint a politician as more extreme than they actually are “gun grabber” works nicely as a means to plant the impression that Obama wants to literally “take” their guns. Which he clearly doesn’t.
Currently, if I own a 9mm pistol living in Florida and move to Washington DC, I have to get rid of the gun. Through such legislation, it is in effect, being ‘taken’ from me and Barack Obama supports that position. So my calling him a gun grabber based on that and his other extremist positions on gun control is a fair description.
Here’s one American who thinks the second amendment is crazy. But then I was born and raised in Canada.
“Currently, if I own a 9mm pistol living in Florida and move to Washington DC, I have to get rid of the gun. Through such legislation, it is in effect, being ‘taken’ from me and Barack Obama supports that position. So my calling him a gun grabber based on that and his other extremist positions on gun control is a fair description.”
You are such a fucking retard. One that is clearly afraid of debating the issues.
“Like I said, you could have simply asked the right question.”
Wait, what? I have to ask you the “right” question if I want a non-defensive response but when it comes to understanding your vague “metaphors” you can just tell me: “You know what I meant.” Whatever, Jay.
And your example Re: the DC gun ban is a stretch, at best. The law, when originally enacted allowed people who had their guns registered before the law took effect to keep their guns. If someone from outside the state wants to keep their gun now, they shouldn’t move to DC. Why? Because it is illegal to own a gun in DC. Simple as that. The phrase “gun grabber” implies that Obama supports taking guns away from citizens who legally own them. He doesn’t.
If someone from outside the state wants to keep their gun now, they shouldn’t move to DC. Why? Because it is illegal to own a gun in DC. Simple as that.
The phrase “gun grabber” implies that Obama supports taking guns away from citizens who legally own them. He doesn’t.
If a gun is banned, it no longer can be ‘legally’ owned. The only alternative is to dispose of it, or turn it over to the authorities. That’s taking guns away from citizens. And such politicians who support such policies are gun grabbers.
And I like the “Don’t move there bit.” I suppose the next time we have a debate about health care, and you touting how much better France or Germany’s system is, I can just say, “Well if you like French of German health care better, go move there!”
“If a gun is banned, it no longer can be ‘legally’ owned …That’s taking guns away from citizens.”
Maybe you missed the part where the DC gun ban allowed people who already owned registered guns to keep them. Did you miss that part or did you just ignore it?
The next paragraph is a total non sequitur.
Maybe you missed the part where the DC gun ban allowed people who already owned registered guns to keep them.
Right, so I would have had to have moved to Washington DC in 1975 to exercise my constitutional rights. Otherwise, it’s “Tough shit.”
The next paragraph is a total non sequitur.
Perhaps, but you’re “Don’t move there” is not a valid response to the issue where a person moving to DC effectively having their handguns taken from them by virtue of the districts ban. And DC may not have banned handguns retroactively, but states like New Jersey have banned guns and made the bans retroactive. And once again, since Obama says states and localities should be able to decide for themselves what regulations, should be in place, he’d have no problem with NJ’s ban and that too would make him a gun grabber.
The hole you’re digging for yourself is getting deeper.
Jay, the DC didn’t take people’s guns. If I want to move to DC and know that in doing so I would have relinquish my firearms, that’s a personal choice that I have to make.
If you can provide some information or a link about the New Jersey ban that would help. I know New Jersey wanted to ban the sale and possession of .50 caliber rifles. I will note that NJ Assembly bill no. 3998 included this language:
2. (New section) The provisions of paragraph (3) of subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:39-1 shall not apply to any person who lawfully possessed a firearm of a caliber of 50 caliber or greater on or before the effective date of this act.
So if you owned a .50 caliber rifle before the date the law went into effect, you didn’t have to surrender it. Additionally, if someone wanted to own a .50 caliber rifle, all they would have to do is buy it and register it before the law took effect. The would take effect:
3. This act shall take effect on the first day of the second month following enactment.
So someone who wanted to own a .50 rifle would have two months to go out and buy one and be able to keep it after the law took effect.
Now, I have to ask again, do you have any evidence from anywhere that Obama supports taking guns away from anyone who already legally owns one?
If I want to move to DC and know that in doing so I would have relinquish my firearms, that’s a personal choice that I have to make.
No, you don’t have a ‘choice.’ By law, you have to get rid of the gun. There’s no choice.
As for New Jersey:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=3619
The most well known example of inappropriate prosecution under the ban is the Pelleteri case:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/state_v_pelleteri.txt
which upheld a conviction for possession of a .22 rifle (Marlin model 60) as an “assault firearm” because the internal tube magazine held 17 rounds, two more than the state allowed limit of 15. Even though the rifle was legally purchased prior to the ban’s enactment, the court nonetheless convicted him, holding “WHEN DEALING WITH GUNS, THE CITIZEN ACTS AT HIS PERIL.” The court described the .22 as a “highly dangerous offensive weapon.”
Now, New Jersey is considering increasing the penalties for such a ‘crime.’
Obama supports states and localities writing their own gun laws. Therefore, he supports NJ on this one. Now, tell me how this isn’t a full fledged gun grab. I’m eager to see your explanation.