’)Gun shops play off NRA fearmongering of Obama to scare up gun sales. Why do I feel the gun sales would match up well with the counties here who voted more GOP than in the past, mostly in the south. Or, The Rube Belt, as I like to call it.
Breaking News
CBO Report: Health Care Reform Reduces Deficit By $1 Trillion
See, Obama is already driving the economy before he is elected. Gun sales are up and I believe pie is the new dessert. BTW- Guns are a good investment anyways- they do not lose value.
I have no problem with most guns. I have a problem with the wrong people getting guns. The wrong people getting guns and doing stupid / illegal things with them hurts everyone and makes it more likely that harsher gun control laws will be passed. I think the NRA would be wise to find a way to pass and enforce common sense regulations while removing pointless laws from the books.
See, Obama is already driving the economy before he is elected.
Too bad the people of California decided to hurt the economy by crippling the wedding industry. =P
I used to think there were only two types of Republicans: multimillionaires and suckers. The McCain/Palin campaign, and the Obama victory, helped me identify a subspecies of the “sucker” category: paranoid racist tinypenis gun freaks.
I’m an avid hiker, and went to go buy a small rifle for a cross-florida hike I’m gearing up for about a week ago. On the display-glass of a pawn shop I walked into was a stupid sheet of paper listing about 10 falsehoods on Obama. “He’ll take away all handguns and make rifle ammo 300% more expensive” and on and on. I was disgusted and walked out of the store. If you want I could probably get a picture of it and send it over. This is in Holiday Florida. Pasco County.. still deep red and retarded.
I can say, quite definitively, that at least here in tried, true and blue Washington State, in the three counties I shop in, all of which voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore or Clinton in their respective elections the store here are damn near cleaned out.
I knew that Obama voters were bigots and rubes. I’m just very glad that you think so too, Oliver.
I prefer to call it “America’s Sash of Ignorance.”
[...] like TP delve deeper, like Oliver who refers to gun owners as the “rube vote.” Of course, that ignores Obama’s [...]
Why is it the most religious part of the country that has such an obsession wth guns?
How bigoted of you.
And is it really “NRA fearmongering” when it’s on Barack Obama’s own website that he wants to ban the most popular rifles in America?
Phil,
I knew that Obama voters were bigots and rubes.
So if I get a list of the folks who bought weapons in the last two weeks in those counties, they’re mostly going to be registered Democrats? Manhattan is as blue as a very blue thing, but it still had people rallying for McCain. No part of the country is all one thing.
bob,
And is it really “NRA fearmongering” when it’s on Barack Obama’s own website that he wants to ban the most popular rifles in America?
Which semi-automatic “assault weapons” are the most popular rifles in America? And are you basing your measurement of popularity on statistics from the brief period right after the Assault Weapons Ban expired (Sept. 13, 2004), at which point there was a sudden uptick in the sale of such weapons because they had been previously inaccessible?
FactCheck.org supports OW on the idea that the NRA was lying about Obama.
Why is it the most religious part of the country that has such an obsession wth guns?
“Pass the Lord and praise the ammunition!”
–The Firesign Theatre
Heaven forbid–People going out and purchasing a firearm. The NRA caused this? Look at the “ones” record on firearms, not what the guy says. His past actions speak much louder than his empty words. And I really do think if a tally was kept on what “party” the new purchasers id’d themselves with–the majority(BIG) of them would be of the blue hue. Which goes to show just how much confidence they have in the words of the “one”.
You know, I hear he’s going to outlaw doctors and churches, next. Better get your checkups and confessions out of the way now.
PG: The AR-15 is the most commonly used rifle in marksmanship competitions in the USA these days.
And it’s already been demonstrated that factcheck.org’s “unbiased debunking” of the NRA’s statements about Obama were neither unbiased nor a debunking. They essentially says “Well, Obama’s campaign says x, y, and z. That’s good enough for us. There’s no need to actually look at the record of how he voted in the past.”
Usually, factcheck.org has been pretty good about seeming non-partisan in the past, but that particular post of theirs was so egregious that I’ll be double-checking their claims on my own from now on.
Randy, a bit of context: the line “praise the lord and psss the ammunition” is believed to have been uttered by a defending Navy man (probably a chaplain) during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It was later used in a popular song in 1943. Firesign Theatre might have used it later, but it was hardly their invention.
And I dunno where people get the impression that Obama might want to curtail their 2nd Amendment rights. Perhaps it’s from a questionnaire his campaign answered during one of his earliest races, where he indicated that he supported the absolute ban on handguns. Whoops, he didn’t fill that out, a campaign staffer did. No, that’s not right, he answered part of the questionnaire, in his own handwriting, but that unnamed staffer answered the question about handguns. And got it wrong, but no one noticed until long after the fact.
Maybe it’s because Obama spent several years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, one of whose main agendas is the undermining of the precept that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
Maybe it’s because he co-sponsored a bill that would have banned gun stores within five miles of a school or a public park. This would have been a de facto ban on gun stores entirely, except for the furthest hinterlands.
Maybe it’s because Obama supported the DC ban on handguns, which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional.
Nah. That’s all just coincidence and unfounded speculation and other nonsense. Just like it’s a wild coincidence that every single unsavory person in Obama’s life has been heavily involved in Democratic/hard left politics, and not a single one from the Republican or right wing. All coincidence.
J.
Gun shops are scaring up gun sales? How? What process do the gun shops use? Do they drag people off the street and force people to buy guns? Good grief.
The only thing scaring up sales is a gun-buying public considerably better informed than Oliver Willis. That is how free markets tend to work. But then those who worship at the altar of the almighty state don’t understand free markets.
Right in the Democratic Party Platform of 2008 is a call to bring back the moronic Clinton ban on so-called “assault weapons”. People who like those kind of firearms know this fact, and are buying while they still can. The exact same thing happened in 1989 when the first ban passed in California, and the exact same market response happened in 1993-94 when Clinton muscled his ban through congress.
Gun banners are the best gun salesmen ever created. Interest in these types of firearms was modest until the idiot anti-gunners tried to ban them. The threat of a ban exploded demand and producers responded by flooding the market with new product. Thanks to the anti-gunners market penetration that might have taken decades to reach were achieved within months. The ban on imported rifles from 1989 onward created a new domestic industry to manufacture rifles from parts that could still be imported.
Now these rifles are in so popular in the gun-market that even old time sporting-rifle companies like Remington Firearms are making AR clone rifles. Thanks anti-gunners! We couldn’t have done it without your boundless hostility (thankfully matched by your boundless stupidity).
Oh and some states like California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii etc. many of those ‘blue’ states aren’t participating in this action; But not because of lack of demand, only because it is illegal in those states to buy the firearms Obama threatens to ban nationally. A point not lost on purchasers who live in the rest of the nation.
Here is Obama’s track record on gun control as opposed to what he claimed on the campaign trail.
Yeah, like that loony pinko Annenberg.
Even for you, Bruce, that’s a lame response.
Can you cite a single time when Obama EVER sided with the argument that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right?
J.
No.
How long before you trot out the lie that “Obama argued both sides of the DC gun ban decision?” You’ve said that over and over, even after I and others pointed out you were in error.
Obama sought to reassure voters many times in the campaign that no one was going to take their precious guns away. He has supported reasonable local restrictions on gun possession and such, as localities decide for themselves what to do regarding concealed weapons, etc.
I don’t own guns, but I have no problem with you owning one. I don’t think you need to own military-level weapons, or to carry a gun into a school or a store or a bank without me knowing you’ve got one on you. You want a hunting rifle, or a target pistol, or a shotgun or pistol at your house for self-protection? Fine. But I don’t support every man carrying around six-shooters like it was Tombstone, 1881.
I don’t know for sure, but I think Obama has similar opinions.
Guys, guys…..
Obama won. You can put away the ad hominems and strawman arguments. No chance of your sheeple straying from the heard for at least another 4 years.
I’m just curious, Bruce. What cosmetic feature in your mind takes a regular semi-automatic weapon to the level of “military?” The black color or how scary it looks?
Firesign Theatre might have used it later, but it was hardly their invention.
Sigh. Jay, yet again, somebody has to call you conservative folks out on your reading comprehension.
Randy posted:
“Pass the Lord and praise the ammunition!”
–The Firesign Theatre
Which is a verb exchange for comic effect.
he co-sponsored a bill that would have banned gun stores within five miles of a school or a public park. This would have been a de facto ban on gun stores entirely, except for the furthest hinterlands.
That’s ridiculous. I grew up in East Texas, and while we certainly didn’t have such zoning regarding gun stores, we DID have it for liquor stores and strip clubs. Yet the liquor stores and strip clubs continue to flourish like the green bay trees (Psalm 37:35). While urban areas may be too densely populated with schools for a gun store to be within city limits, that’s not true for the vast majority of the U.S., and especially the parts of the U.S. that have anywhere to go hunting in the first place. Seriously, do y’all think before you make these claims?
And I really do think if a tally was kept on what “party” the new purchasers id’d themselves with–the majority(BIG) of them would be of the blue hue.
Well, with your opinion, a complete absence of data to back it and $2, you can get a cup of coffee.
And it’s already been demonstrated that factcheck.org’s “unbiased debunking” of the NRA’s statements about Obama were neither unbiased nor a debunking.
Demonstrated by whom? The NRA’s saying that because FactCheck.org and the Brady Campaign both get Annenberg funds, FactCheck.org is biased against guns was a moronic claim, which FactCheck noted was undercut by Annenberg’s giving money to the pro-gun Hoover Institution. FactCheckorg did look at Obama’s votes on SB 2165 (IL legislature) and S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397 (Congress) — the claim that they only considered what Obama has said and not how he voted is a lie.
“I’m just curious, Bruce. What cosmetic feature in your mind takes a regular semi-automatic weapon to the level of ‘military’? The black color or how scary it looks?”
I’m no expert on guns. Apparently I’m no whiz at argument either.
My point was that local, common-sense restrictions on certain types of weapons, or certain gun-related behaviors, make perfect sense. So if the voters in East Bumfuck, TX want to allow concealed weapons in a 7/11, let ‘em. But if voters in NYC want to ban them, that’s OK too.
I think that’s a moderate position. No right is absolute.
“I don’t want to take folk’s guns, but I support legislation which allows local municipalities to take folks guns.”
Debating the NRA’s or Factcheck’s accuracy is a moot issue. All you need to look at is Obama’s voting record itself.
I mean really, when you support federal legislation banning concealaed carry which 48 of 50 states have some form of (and BTW, when are the streets going to Run Red With Blood(tm) because of concealed carry like the Brady Campaign and VPC predicted??),when you support Washington DC’s handgun ban and inoperable rifle/shotgun law, when you support a ban on semi-automatic weapons which have the same functionality as other semi’s but with only cosmetic differences, can you REALLY say you support an individual’s RKBA?
Must just be that rube paranoia I guess.
Bruce-
The beauty is that you don’t really have to be an expert on guns. All you need to do is look at the gun control argument itself. Where can you show statistically that gun control has reduced rates of violent crime? The UK banned guns, yet they have a violent crime rate greater than the US. Anti-gunners are always crying about guns used in suicides. Then how the hell does Japan have DOUBLE the suicides than the US, yet almost a complete ban on guns? DC and Chicago? Why spend so much time and resources trying to ban a weapon (“assault rifle”) when statistics show that ALL rifles (not just the scary black ones) only account for about 3% of annual murders?
The irrationality of the gun control argument comes down to the notion that you can solve a social problem such as crime, which is exacerbated by a breakdown of the family sphere, poor education, poverty, and a plethora of other factors, with implement control. It has never worked in the past, what makes people think it will work in the future?
“I don’t want to take folks’ guns, but I support legislation which allows local municipalities to take folks’ guns.”
Right!
So if you want to walk into a library, school, or bank with a hogleg stuffed down your pants, move to East Bumfuck, TX. If you want to live in NYC, don’t carry a concealed weapon.
No one (well, almost no one) wants to take away your hunting rifle, target pistol, or home-protection shotgun. If you think “they” do, you are, indeed, a paranoid rube.
“So if the voters in East Bumfuck, TX want to allow concealed weapons in a 7/11, let ‘em. But if voters in NYC want to ban them, that’s OK too.”
Then the only solution is a repeal of the 2nd Amendment if you believe that argument. Because an individual’s rights aren’t contingent on geographic location.
Molon Labe,
Please cite some way of fact-checking the claim about higher rates of violent crime in the UK. I don’t think it’s true. Prove me wrong.
I don’t think there is such a strong social taboo on suicide in Japan as in the US.
You have a good point that gun control, in and of itself, will not “solve” the problem of crime. Banning Sunday liquor sales didn’t stop people from drinking back in the day, but municipalities still had the right to do it.
“No one (well, almost no one) wants to take away your hunting rifle, target pistol, or home-protection shotgun. If you think “they” do, you are, indeed, a paranoid rube.”
Bruce you’re missing the point. Gun control is a reactionary measure which has not only proven a failure in the past, but shows no indication that it contributes toward what should be the ultimate goal; reduction in violent crime. Regulations on implements; the gun bans, ammo taxes, pistol grips, flash suppressors, hi-capacity mags, etc… are all feel-good substitutes for what the government and society cannot control: human nature.
Sorry I type so slowly. You’re answering one point while I’m making another.
Again, no right is absolute. You have the right to a gun, but your locality can restrict how you use it.
Just as one locality can have strict anti-profanity laws whille another is more lax, or one town can ban Sunday beer sales in a misguided attempt to “solve” the problem of public drunkenness, localities can apply what they deem common sense restrictions to guns. For instance, would it be OK with you if a 16-year old could carry a concealed handgun to school? How about a 14-year old? What about 12?
I would agree that age restrictions are ok, since age pretty much governs most of what we do in the US; voting, alcohol consumption, serving your country, driving etc… I would never advocate an unemancipated minor child being able to carry a concealed weapon. However, I do agree that college students and professors should be able to exercise the RKBA. It has been proven time and time again that “gun free zones” certainly do not deter criminals from having weapons and killing people.
Even though most pro-gun advocates do not favor universal background checks, if it was for compromise, I would favor it.
However, a blanket restriction which prevents law-abiding citizens from exercising a constitutional right is overreaching. Especially when the results of such restrictions have no deterrent or positive effect on crime.
I guess our dialogue just illustrates fundamental differences in what we believe to be “reasonable” restrictions.
What you have to remember is that when SCOTUS ruled in favor of Dick Heller in DC vs Heller it left open the idea of “reasonable restrictions.” However, a key part of that decision was that DC’s handgun ban violated the COTUS because the “arm” Heller wished to use/register for protection was “in common use of the time.” That basically encompasses every weapon which is already in production and not regulated by the 1934 NFA regulating fully automatic weapons (“true assault weapons.”) A renewal of an assault weapons ban would ban most rifles used in competative sports shooting. Even if a local municipality were allowed to regulate firearm usage, to BAN a certain class of weapons and the ability of the individual to keep and bear it, directly violates the constitution and goes against the Heller decision.
As long as we’re on the subject of compromise…and thank you, Molon, for being one of the few who is willing to…I’ve long been of the mind that part of the problem is that gun ownership rarely comes with any sort of training or educational attachment. Americans are not really taught how to respect the power and responsibility of a firearm. In theory, this is something the NRA should be doing, but the most vocal contingent of the NRA seems to be focused on making sure availability is paramount.
I agree, empty gun control doesn’t work. Every home in Switzerland has a firearm, yet Switzerland has one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world. It can be argued that this is because every gun-carrying citizen understands the nature of the tool at their command.
Nobody can drive without weeks of correspondence courses, at least. How do you feel about the same for a gun owner?
Umm, you do know that college students DRINK A LOT, right? I’d hate to think that every other pissed-off, hung-over 19 year old boy at my local campus was packin’ heat.Have you ever BEEN a drunk 19 year old boy? I have, and looking back, I’m damn glad I didn’t get to carry a pistol around with me on campus.
And “drug-free schools” are not free of drugs. Should we stop trying to achieve them?
But seriously, you have some excellent points.
What does the “K” in “RBKA” stand for?
And Brad’s points above give me food for thought, too.
Bruce-
Luckily, 19 year old boys are already precluded from carrying concealed handguns since the age restriction is 21. I certainly recognize the hypotheticals, but look at the early 90’s when anti-gun groups were s**tting their pants over concealed carry. Blood In The Streets(tm), Wild West Shootouts(tm), Dangerous Crossfire(tm). Here it is, 2008, 48 states with some form of CCW, and none of it has come to fruition.
You’re a little off base with the drug-free issue. With most drug free programs comes various levels of EDUCATION about drugs. Name me an anti-gun group which spends even $1 on gun safety education? Not one, because it is contradictory to their main goal of civilian disarmament.
Consider me educated. Now, what does the “K” stand for? Pardon me if it’s blindingly obvious.
Oh, and the difference in emotional maturity between drunk 19 year olds and drunk 21 year olds? Not so much.
Spider-
That’s a tough one. MANDATING training goes against my libertarian principles. I got into shooting when I was 4 years old. My dad used to take me out in the back “plinkin cans” (no, not like Hilary Clinton). It wasn’t so much that he wanted me to get into shooting and guns, it was more that he wanted to expose me to guns themselves and everything included with that responsibility, including the dangers. He harped on the “4 rules” and told me that if I ever broke them he would beat my ass. Today, I own more than a few weapons and carry one on my person every day. I have had no formal training, but visit the range at least a couple times a month, and would be willing to bet money that I would outshoot most “trained” law enforcement personnel.
I think the onus of personal responsibility needs to be redirected back on the individual. Not just the gun issue, but with everything. Why do we look to regulate inanimate objects and blame them for crime, while our judicial system regurgitates violent criminals back onto the streets at an 80% recidivism rate to reoffend again? Something not right there.
I suppose if a contract was drawn up which stated that if all gun owners would be willing to undergo weapons training and in turn, anti-gun groups would cease their drive to ban weapons and the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry them, I would sign up in a heart beat.
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but where my refusal to compromise comes in is the fear that any gun control measures are nothing more than an incremental step toward ending up like the country where England used to be. Can you believe they even propose banning certain length kitchen knives because of their out-of-control knife crime??
Here’s the kicker:
You would think that anti-gun groups, being so concerned for the safety of the children (the REAL children. It is already fact that anti gun groups, when citing “child gun death” statistics, include adults up to the age of 24), would support/promote/sponsor some form of child and/or adult gun safety educational classes. However, radical groups like the Violence Policy Center actually take the position that child gun safety classes are a mere “front” for the gun lobby in an effort to promote gun appeal to children:
“The primary goal of the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth. The Eddie Eagle program employs strategies similar to those utilized by America’s tobacco industry—from youth “educational” programs that are in fact marketing tools to the use of appealing cartoon characters that aim to put a friendly face on a hazardous product. The hoped-for result is new customers for the industry and new members for the NRA.”
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/eddiekey.htm
So you’re telling me that safety is of paramount concern to anti-gun groups, when they criticize programs like Eddie Eagle, which this past June, taught it’s 21 MILLIONth child??
I’m not proclaiming the NRA as god because I do disagree with some of their positions. But there is no way in hell you can claim to be anti-gun because you’re concerned about “safety” while not spending one dollar of your annual budget on EDUCATING children about gun safety.
Bruce-
Good catch. My bad. Should have read RKBA, not RBKA. Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
“Oh, and the difference in emotional maturity between drunk 19 year olds and drunk 21 year olds? Not so much.”
Apparently the same emotional maturity which turns 15 year old hormone machines into 16 year old Mario Andretti’s. But in the interest of compromise, we have regulations based on age….remember?
Apparently the same emotional maturity which turns 15 year old hormone machines into 16 year old Mario Andretti’s.
And for 16 year olds to drive, they are mandated to take a driver’s education course licensed by the state, which course includes classroom and practical teaching, and testing of both components. You can get a license to carry guns with none of the above.
The claim that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime is based on a different method of tabulation than is used in the U.S. American crime statistics are based solely on police statistics; the UK study was based on polling, i.e. calling people up and asking if they had been a victim of a violent crime. I suspect if you did the same in the U.S., many people would say they were such a victim even if the police disagreed — the FBI counts only “murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault” as violent crimes, but someone who was the survivor of an attempted rape at gunpoint probably would consider herself the victim of a violent crime.
Also, it is silly to make international comparisons on these issues because cultures are so different. According to Michael Moore, at least, Canada is armed to the teeth but doesn’t suffer from high rates of gun crime as the U.S. does.
Looking within the U.S., the gun-friendly state of South Carolina has the highest per capita rate of violent crime in the country. A friend of mine from SC who moved to NYC loved telling that to people back home whenever they fretted about how dangerous New York is. He REALLY liked telling people in Memphis that he’d never had a crime committed against him in NYC — even when he lived in Harlem, oh noes! — but had his car broken into twice while in Memphis.
The Northeast, probably the least gun-friendly region of the U.S., also has the lowest rates of both property and violent crime; the South has the highest.
So PG, the old State comparison gambit. Supposedly proving that more guns equals more crime. Tsk tsk. It’s extremely misleading to compare just the crime rates and gun ownership rates of different U.S. States. But then that’s the whole point isn’t it? To create a false perception that increased rates of firearm ownership equals increased rates of violence.
The fact is that murder in the U.S., in terms of victims and perps, is peculiarly focused among urban blacks. But that very minority also has the lowest rates of firearm ownership in the U.S. The reason State comparisons are so misleading is because of the highly uneven distribution of racial minorities in the U.S. The southern states which have high gun-ownership rates have an even larger percentage of the black population.
If instead of States you compare urban vs rural rates of gun-ownserhip, you find that more guns equals less crime! Also the total number of firearms in the U.S. climbed dramatically during the 1990’s, which is also the period of time during which rates of murder began the slide to the lower levels last seen in the early 1960’s. Clearly more guns does not equal more crime.
But the debate claiming more guns equals more crime has always been just the excuse, the agitprop, the rationalization, and not the real motivator behind the crusade for gun control. The real motivation for the gun control crusade is to destroy the ‘gun culture’ because the crusaders believe the ‘gun culture’ is evil. In a way the anti-gunners are the modern equivalent of the old failed alcohol temperance movement (which finally destroyed itself during the disastrous period known as ‘Prohibition’).
At least the prohibitionists had the decency to admit they needed to amend the Constitution in order to legally advance their mad scheme of social-engineering. If only todays anti-gunners had the decency to admit the same need. But todays social engineers won’t let something as trifling as the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment get in their way!
PG-
Your argument is nonsense. First of all, you’re actually referencing Michael Moore in an effort to discredit anything.
Secondly, if you’re trying to make the correlation between guns and crime, then why would the UK’s “cultural differences” be a variable? You discredit your own argument by referencing Canada. You’re proving in your own words, that crime is a social problem exacerbated by social inequities and shortcomings experienced by the individual.
You also forgot to explain how Washington DC consistently blew every other state out of the water with regards to their crime rates while having a gun ban. You’re not going to use the “well, DC isn’t really a state” argument are you??
“According to Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer advocate for voters funded by the Annenberg Center, Obama twice voted to uphold enforcement of a Wilmette, Ill., gun ban after a man shot and wounded an intruder in a town that had banned handguns. The homeowner was required to pay a $750 fine for shooting the intruder twice with a gun the town said he couldn’t have. Wilmette has since repealed the gun ban, and the Supreme Court has ruled a similar ban in Washington, D.C., violated the Second Amendment.
“If you have an illegal gun in a community that bans them and use it in self defense and all you have to do is to pay a fine — I would pay the fine and believe what I did was correct,” Hamm said.
http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-11132008-1620683.html
More “common sense” gun control logic. I’m just trying to determine which is worse; Obama’s position on this issue, or Peter Hamm’s (Brady Campaign spokesman) statement about paying the fine?! Geesh.
Bruce-
Great points. But you know that you are only setting yourself up for the classic gun-grabber retort of “NRA members are racist” aren’t you?
So here, I took the liberty of substantiating your points with statistics:
“In 2005, homicide victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than the rates for whites.”
“In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites.”
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm
Again, maybe we should be looking at fixing the social problems plaguing urban areas rather than implement control??
Sorry, the above post was for Brad, not Bruce.
Yeah, I had quit this fight a couple of days ago.
But I would like to say one more thing.
I will bet anyone here US money that, at the end of the Obama administration, every single person who wants to own a hunting rifle, target pistol, or home-protection shotgun will still own one. No secret police will come door-to-door confiscating guns. No one will be rounded up and imprisoned for refusal to “disarm”. These are paranoid fantasies.
Just as some localities want to have abstinence-only sex education, (which I think is a dumb idea), some localities will want to ban handguns, (which YOU think is a dumb idea). There will be no attempt by the Federal government to “take away your guns.”
It’s just as dumb to think that Democrats will take your guns as it is to think Republicans will stop anyone from having an abortion. Ain’t gonna happen.
Good grief Bruce, do the think the Clinton AW ban of 1994 was imaginary? People who were caught had all their guns taken away and some even went to federal prison for violating that insane law and Obama wants to bring it back! So don’t lecture me about the danger of gun bans.
The final barrier to Obama renewing the AW ban is the U.S. Supreme Court, but Obama will work his ill will there too. SCOTUS only upheld the 2nd Amendment by a single vote margin when it struck down the Washington D.C. handgun ban, and Obama if given the chance will exchange one of those pro-right justices for the opposite. Right now the 2nd Amendment hangs by a thread which Obama is poised to sever.
I think that gun fans have misplaced priorities. All this griping and clawing and worrying about something that 1) hasn’t happened, 2) is not guaranteed to happen, and 3) is less important than a whole host of problems we, as a nation, face. Maybe if you guys had shown a proportionate reaction to the fact our current government tortures people, spies on American citizens, and misled everyone about the reasons for war with Iraq, you’d have a modicum of respect and an ear from me. As it is, you have neither. Piss off.
Piss off? Well pardon me for trying to keep my ass out of prison. That is why the gun control crusade will ultimately fail, self-preservation is one hell of a motivator.
You left-wing clowns are more interested in preserving the due process rights of suicidal foreign terrorists than in preserving the fundamental rights of fellow citizens. That really is the fundamental difference between the right and the left in America; the right wants to make war on foreign enemies while the left wants to make war on domestic enemies. So pardon me for not taking your complaints seriously.
Prove that the people in Gitmo or at Abu Ghraib were terrorists. Prove it. Oh wait, you can’t… because they didn’t get a fucking trial. People were and are detained by our government without due process. We don’t know who they are. Could they be terrorists? Sure. Do we know that they are? Fuck no. Do I trust the fuckwits in the Bush Administration to know whether they’re terrorists or not? Do I trust the Bush Administration to tell me the truth about most anything? Fuck no.
The fundamental difference between the right and the left is that the left tends to be interested in reason and logic. Scientific thinking. Making decisions based on the evidence. See: global warming, stem cell research, etc. The current dopes of the right wing, on the other hand, often tends to be irrational, emotional, and have misplaced fucking priorities. See: you getting worked up in a tizzy about something that hasn’t happened, that no one in the future Obama administration is currently talking about at all, and really matters a whole fuck of a lot less than a lot of other problems this country faces.
Incidentally, those last two are intercorrelated. Obama has bigger fish to fry than trying to take your stupid guns away. With the economy in the shitter and with the country currently mired in two wars, he is not going to try and pick a fight as inane as trying to take away your guns.
Get your priorities in check, calm down, and STFU.
(P.S. Nowhere in my original post did I say that I was for repealing your ability to own a gun. I said that it was fucking stupid to be all worked up about the issue when bigger problems were at hand. Reading comprehension. Try it sometime.)
Evidence, reason? So is that what is meant these days by STFU? Do you even listen to yourself?
Your powers of comprehension are sadly lacking, the reverse of your own boundless sense of superiority. From Oliver Willis first clueless statement to your own denigrations echoes Obama’s own regurgitation at the S.F. fundraiser of the obscene premise of “What’s the matter with Kansas”, that gun owners don’t understand their own self interest. What hubris.
So tell me evidence boy, if Obama has so much on his plate, which he does, then why did Obama put in the party platform and among his own campaign promises and on his own transition website the promise to renew the AW ban? So am I to believe Obama’s words, which promises anti-gun action, or maybe Obama’s history of anti-gun action in office? Or am I supposed to believe your excuses and rationalizations for Obama?
Evidence and reason my ass.
“AW” stands for automatic weapons, right?
So, do you want insane people, drunks, zealots, and fanatics owning AK-47s, fully automatic weapons of war?
If you don’t want paranoid schizophrenics to own them, what reasonable restrictions would you support?
As I said, at the end of the Obama administration everyone who wants a hunting rifle, target pistol, or home-protection shotgun will still have one.
But if he wants to confiscate automatic weapons from the Aryan Brotherhood, that’s alright with me.
No, Bruce, it stands for “assault weapons.”
Which is gun-grabber speak for “scary-looking guns that are, effectively, no different than a lot of other guns.”
The legal definition of “assault weapon” included such features as:
* pistol grip
* mounting points for a bayonet
* mounting points for a grenade launcher
* flash suppressor to keep the shooter from being blinded by the flash
* mounting points for a flash suppressor
Actual automatic weapons were not covered by the “assault weapons” ban. They were already covered by law. The law only covered semi-automatic weapons — weapons that require a separate trigger pull for each shot fired.
Like I said, it was really a “scary-looking gun ban.”
J.
I stand corrected in that regard. Thanks, Jay Tea.
Do you think you will lose your hunting rifle in the Obama administration?
Umm, “mounting points for a grenade launcher”???? Definitely SOUNDS scary…..
Bruce,
When you consider pending local legislation like A2116 in the NJ assembly, which if passed, would ban certain muskets, flint locks, shotguns and yes, even marshmallow guns (I’m not kidding), simply based on the size of the hole in the barrel, you can understand why gun-rights advocates are concerned with incrememtal infringement. Obama SAYS he’s not going to “take folks guns”, but to blindly accept a statement which totally contradicts his voting record, is a little naive.
Since there are some people who hunt with large caliber handguns, shotguns, and considering that previous legislation proposed by Ted Kennedy would have outlawed most hunting ammunition, YES, I am concerned about a Democratic administration taking away hunting guns/ammo. But what’s worse, is that Obama pays almost no attention to the other 4/5ths of gun owners. Since only 1/5th of gun owners hunt, most of us are concerned about self protection rights, not hunting.
BTW, it’s good to see people like mambochicken23 adding such intellegence to the debate. You can always count on an erratic left winger for a few “It’s Bush’s Fault!(tm)” meme’s.
Mambo’s point was about misplaced priorities. Some gun-rights types worry excessively about real or supposed threats to their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, while ignoring the fact that the 800 year old right of habeus corpus has ACTUALLY been suspended by the Bush Administration.
Not that hard to grasp.
See, holding someone in prison without any recourse, just on the say-so of the government, has been forbidden in English-speaking countries since the Magna Fucking Carta. So sue me if I don’t care if you don’t get to mount a grenade launcher on Ol’ Betsy.
Mambo’s point was a red herring.
Certainly there are important issues other than gun rights facing society. But let that up to the individual to determine its importance in relation to its relevance within their own life. I have a secure job, protected investments, and wasn’t a complete idiot when I bought my house and never thought that buying a house which cost $200(k) more than I could afford, with a variable rate, could ever be a good idea.
However, I do live in the outskirts of a high crime city. So excuse me if my right to protect myself is more of a concern to me than someone else’s financial problems or views about how prisoners should be treated.
Excuse the fuck out of me, Molon, if I get pissed off reading a bunch of scared, whiny, and paranoid comments about gun rights from a group of people that haven’t given a fuck about the bad stuff that’s happened in the last eight years.
Excuse the fuck out of me, Molon, if I get pissed off that you guys are already whining about something that you think the President-elect might try to do, if he ever gets around to it, months or years down the line, even though he hasn’t said shit about it recently…. while ignoring the things that have ALREADY happened in the last eight years.
Excuse the fuck out of me, Molon, if I point out the fact that you assholes have misplaced priorities. I don’t give a damn about whether you can have a fucking assault weapon. This is a ridiculous conversation to be having. There are bigger issues at stake now.
“However, I do live in the outskirts of a high crime city. So excuse me if my [hypothetical] right to protect myself [if Obama ever does think about banning guns, which he hasn't indicated on the campaign] is more of a [fucking ridiculous] concern to me than someone else’s financial problems or views about how prisoners should be treated. [Fuck those guys, am I right? Who gives a shit about the financial problems millions of Americans have? I got mine. Also, screw prisoners. I’m more concerned with my guns than about the fair treatment of other human beings. Also, I’m a scared little bitch that can’t understand how anyone might survive in a city without a fucking assault weapon.”
There, I fixed if for you.
Mambo FTW!
Mambo-
Other than an showing an obvious need for an anger management class, you’re post is completely contradictory.
You’re preaching about misplaced priorities, yet holding the value of what YOU think should be a priority in a higher regard than the next person. Doesn’t work that way.
And if you’re under the delusion that a gun ban isn’t likely to be given serious consideration under Obama and a democratic Congress, you are either naive, ignorant, or just afraid to stray from the herd and the spoonfeeding that the media and Obama campaign has given you. Looking at someone’s voting record in an effort to ascertain their position on these issues isn’t rocket science. Obama’s voting record shows a blatent disregard for the 2nd Amendment. His web site even says that he believes that the bill of rights CREATES an individual RKBA! CREATES?? I didn’t know an inalienable right could be created by the constitution?? You’d think he’d understand this concept, being a constitutional lawyer and all…..
In any event, I do appreciate the personal attacks. Especially the “scared little bitch” part. It proves time and time again that the best ally of a pro-gunner is the anti-gunner himself.
Stay classy.
Molon,
ALL rights are “created” by man himself. Man has no rights except those he demands. While the phrase “inalienable rights” sounds great in the flowery language of the Declaration, in reality there is no such thing. Even the right not to be owned by another man had to be fought for, and once won, defended.
This is a point you, as a gun-rights advocate, should know.
Obama has not taken office yet. If, as President, he starts making noises about taking your guns, THEN get your knickers twisted. Until then, how about worrying about habeus corpus a little. My bet is that you’ll be fine.
Bruce, I don’t own any guns. Never have, probably never will.
And the grenade launchers are still controlled. The “mounting points” are there for two reasons: 1) it simplifies the manufacturing if they just put the attachment points for the military-grade stuff on all of ‘em, and 2) it’s the equivalent of vehicular “bling” — sort of like the fake hood tiedowns people put on their cars.
It’s utterly ineffective as far as making the weapons more dangerous, but that didn’t matter in the least. As I said, it was the “scary-looking guns” ban.
And Molon Labe… sorry, but other people’s Constitutional rights aren’t subject to your approval. No matter how much you rant about it.
J.
Umm, did you mean to address Molon Labe, there, JT?
Jay-
Thank you. Exactly my point. It was Mambo who suggested that my 2A rights weren’t as important than prisoners’ rights. Not me. And certainly not the other way around.
Jay-
Thank you. Exactly my point. It was Mambo who suggested that my 2A rights weren’t as important than prisoners’ rights, and that because HE believes that the Habeas Corpus issue should take precedent above 2A issues. Not me. And certainly not the other way around.
Habeus Corpus is the foundation of ALL of our other rights, Molon.
No matter how many guns you have, the government’s got more.
And if the government has the power to imprison you without trial or any due process, then your precious guns will do you no good.
That, I believe, is what Mambo is saying. That’s what I think, anyway.
Believe me, I get it. I’m not a fan of Bush or the current administration. We’ve all but lost any semblance of the 14th amendment under the current administration.
But it’s difficult to ascertain a person’s position on a subject when the retort is rife with personal attacks and incoherent ramblings. Rereading Mambo’s post, it does not sound like he was advocating the preservation of ALL rights protected by the COTUS, only the rights HE believed were important. And he made it abundantly clear that a belief in the 2A was nothing more than “gunloonery.”
And even if we agree to disagree about our interpretations of inalienable rights/created rights, it would seem that you yourself must agree that Obama’s interpretation of the COTUS creating rights is completely inaccurate, yes? Because to support him, you would have to take the position that a human’s right to self defense didn’t exist until the COTUS was ratified??
Bruce, I agree with you.
I haven’t said one word about wanting to take your guns away. I haven’t said a single word about not upholding 2nd Amendment rights. Although not a gun owner, I am not a gun-grabber in the least. My point, which you fellers seem to have a problem grasping, is that you guys are getting your panties tied up in knots about your perception of a potential, hypothetical situation where Obama takes all your guns away from you. This is not certain to happen. Hell, it may not even be likely to happen. No one in the future Obama administration is talking about this. Meanwhile, our current administration has actually, ALREADY, dissolved some of our rights. Habeus corpus, for one.
You guys are all paranoid over a hypothetical potential, while not giving two shits about shit that’s actually happened.
That is why you get no sympathy from me. You claim to want to uphold the constitution, but only when it comes to items that are personally important to you. You don’t care about actual infringements on human rights, only potential infringements that may or may not come to pass.
Your priorities are messed up.
Mambo-
I never once said that I did not care about the other infringements that the current administration has enacted. But you seem to think that an infringement on the 2A shouldn’t be worried about until the legislation is on the table? Wrong.
Clinton enacted an AWB in ‘94 and it lasted 10 years. Obama states that he would support an renewal which would encompass even more weapons. IT’S NOT ABOUT THE GUN, IT’S ABOUT RIGHTS!! I think we can BOTH agree on this, can’t we?? It’s principle! He supported DC’s ban on handguns. He believes that the 2A is contingent upon geographic location. Are you saying that it is foolish to question his position until it is a few minutes away from a vote?
This thread all started with an extremely poor attempt by the administrator to correlate increased gun sales with a derrogatory stereotype of rural citizens. It had nothing to do with habeus corpus as a whole.
The rights thing is just semantics. Whether the COTUS “created” the right or whether the right already existed (because men demanded it) and was encoded in law by the COTUS was not the point. And yes, it strayed from the original topic of this thread, but that happens after 60 or 70 comments. My point was that rights are never “inalienable.” They must be won from those who would deny them, then defended.
So go ahead and worry that Obama will steal your guns if you want. I just wish you would be equally as passionate in the defense of the ONE right that is the foundation of all the others, and which has ALREADY been stolen from us.
Try googling “Lon Horiuchi prosecution” sometime before you lecture anyone again about rights ignored or stolen.
Ah, yes, Ruby Ridge.
Bringing that up certainly proves your Non-paranoid bona fides.
I’m done with you guys.
Molon, good discussion.
Brad, loosen the tinfoil.
Your knee jerk reaction proves my point, you don’t really care about justice or rights, for you it’s all just political posturing.
But in the faint hope you might be open to reason and evidence, I’ll let you in on something your favorite media sources probably never focused on. You claim to be outraged over violations of terrs being held without charge, that this violates core jurisprudence. Well do you know the Feds claimed that FBI sniper Horiuchi couldn’t be charged with murder because he was just following orders?
That’s right, your buds in the Clinton justice department including Eric Holder were using the Nuremberg Defense to justify acts of murder. In 1992 Horiuchi shot three people, killing one, while following illegal orders from his superiors. Years later in Boundary County Idaho, prosecuters charged Horiuchi with manslaughter. Horiuchi’s principle defense was to force the trial into Federal Court and then claim Immunity from State law because he was acting as a Federal agent.
The Clinton administration (and fellow travelers) promotion of such an obscene twisting of due process is a mountain of injustice compared to the molehills you whine about from the Bush administration. A license to kill innocent Americans trumps holding without charges illegal combatants. It’s why I don’t take your complaints seriously, because I know how agenda driven they are. As long as the ‘right people’ are violating the law and the victims are people you dislike, then it’s not injustice as far as you’re concerned.
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/080601/new_freeh.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi
http://www.amazon.com/Every-Knee-Shall-Bow-Tragedy/dp/0061011312/ref=sr_1_1/192-9813972-7768303?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1227173345&sr=1-1
It’s too bad you didn’t watch the 1995 Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearings which investigated the Ruby Ridge incident. I did.