Obama and gun-ownership...

Kernel Sanders said:

Not a problem.

Click to expand...

Using precedent -- the actual actions of the people in question, the fact of which is not in doubt -- to inform an opinion on what they will do under a similar set of circumstances is "fearmongering"?

Fact: during the first two years of the Clinton Administration, the last time both Congress and the White House were Democrat, they did enact the most sweeping restrictions on the 2nd Amendment in history -- the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Fact: once Congress was returned to Democrat hands in 2007, Rep. McCarthy, whose chief issue is gun control, did re-introduce the Assault Weapons ban within six weeks of that Congress taking office.

Fact: the Democratic party platform includes plans to do exactly the same.

Do you deny that there are some Democrats who want to ban all guns? Do you notice that I also said some Republicans probably want to as well?

Fearmongering? I think not. A reasoned look at history and using it to inform ideas on what will happen? Absolutely. What's "comical" is calling this "fearmongering."

Harshaw said:

Said nothing of the kind. Simply providing balance; it's hardly an exclusive "Right-wing" phenomenon. You chose to make the distinction, however.

Click to expand...

He said the fear mongering from the right was comical. You jumped on the defensive.

Harshaw said:

Using precedent -- the actual actions of the people in question, the fact of which is not in doubt -- to inform an opinion on what they will do under a similar set of circumstances is "fearmongering"?

Fact: during the first two years of the Clinton Administration, the last time both Congress and the White House were Democrat, they did enact the most sweeping restrictions on the 2nd Amendment in history -- the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Fact: once Congress was returned to Democrat hands in 2007, Rep. McCarthy, whose chief issue is gun control, did re-introduce the Assault Weapons ban within six weeks of that Congress taking office.

Fact: the Democratic party platform includes plans to do exactly the same.

Do you deny that there are some Democrats who want to ban all guns? Do you notice that I also said some Republicans probably want to as well?

Fearmongering? I think not. A reasoned look at history and using it to inform ideas on what will happen? Absolutely. What's "comical" is calling this "fearmongering."

Click to expand...

"the most sweeping restrictions on the 2nd Amendment we've seen" "ban the ownership of all guns" "all that will happen"

If that isn't fear mongering I would love to see an example of what is

Kernel Sanders said:

"the most sweeping restrictions on the 2nd Amendment we've seen"

Click to expand...

Point of fact, they were.

"ban the ownership of all guns"

Click to expand...

Point of fact, there are those who favor it.

"all that will happen"

Click to expand...

This, you take out of context and imply I'm saying that banning of ownership of all guns will happen. That's not what I said. Go back and read the context.

I can't help it if their past actions indicate that they WILL do what I suggest they will, because they did it before.

If that isn't fear mongering I would love to see an example of what is

Click to expand...

"Bush Reich."

"AmeriKKKa."

"American Empire."

"Invaded to steal all the oil."

"The KGWB."

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it

Clinton caused

1) the cost of normal capacity magazines to quadruple or more in price


2) By banning the import of the fairly high quality but inexpensive chinese/PLA ammo, he drove up the cost of shooting for those who shoot common arms in 223, 9mm, and 7.62X39

3) by banning the import of foreign made guns he drove up the price of those in the USA


can any of you gun haters tell us why there should be a 10 round limit on magazines when civilian police departments issue 15-18 round magazines for self defensive use to their civilian officers?

TurtleDude said:

A gun show in cincinnati that until yesterday never had more than a 15 minute wait in line (at the time it opens) had lines of an hour or more all day yesterday. One dealer sold 30 WASR (the cheapest romanian AK's) in the first 20 minutes at a price 70 dollars more than what he had them for a few weeks ago. AIMSURPLUS.com in Middletown Ohio sold more Eastern Bloc AK ammo in the last month than they have in the last 19 months or so.

Click to expand...

Yup...Y2K and visqueen and duct tape all over. Nothing but fear driven panic by the right wing declaration that "Obama is going to take your guns"...*cha-ching cha-ching all the way to the bank*. Bunch of ****ing mooks.

rsixing said:

Yup...Y2K and visqueen and duct tape all over. Nothing but fear driven panic by the right wing declaration that "Obama is going to take your guns"...*cha-ching cha-ching all the way to the bank*. Bunch of ****ing mooks.

Click to expand...

It is fun seeing an ObamaSlurper try to insult people who are rationally reacting to what Obama most likely will do. Obama has called for

1) More justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. RBG does not believe there is a constitutional right to own any gun

2) a complete ban on all handguns

3) a complete ban on all semi autos

The dem party is in control of both houses. The current attempt to extend and renew the clinton gun ban is sponsored entirely by DEMOCRATS

You really are foolish or dishonest to claim that Obama does not want to ban guns or that the party he serves is not interested in gun bans.

TurtleDude said:

It is fun seeing an ObamaSlurper try to insult people who are rationally reacting to what Obama most likely will do. Obama has called for

1) More justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. RBG does not believe there is a constitutional right to own any gun

2) a complete ban on all handguns

3) a complete ban on all semi autos

The dem party is in control of both houses. The current attempt to extend and renew the clinton gun ban is sponsored entirely by DEMOCRATS

You really are foolish or dishonest to claim that Obama does not want to ban guns or that the party he serves is not interested in gun bans.

Click to expand...

And, in all of the places where there is/was a total or near-total gun ban, it's been done by Democrats.

Harshaw said:

And, in all of the places where there is/was a total or near-total gun ban, it's been done by Democrats.

Click to expand...

Every federal restriction on gun rights has been dem sponsored and signed by a dem president except the HUGHES Amendment which was a poison pill attached-in violation of congressional rules and propably not properly ratified-to the pro gun McClure Volker Firearm Owners protection act. Reagan signed the overall bill

TurtleDude said:

It is fun seeing an ObamaSlurper try to insult people who are rationally reacting to what Obama most likely will do. Obama has called for

Click to expand...

If you were able to step back and take a logical look at what is going on you would admit you are overreacting, at least at this point in time. Why do I say this? Because you are basing your arguments, claims and opines on a future possible scenario.

Of course you might/will argue; given Obama's past support of hand-gun bans in Chicage, dem's platforms of gun control, etc., you are only reacting to an eventuality. This could, emphasis could, be the case and forewarned is forearmed but the whole "the sky is falling" fear mantra going on around here gives me much joy as I watch you and your ilk squirm, rant and rave.

1) More justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. RBG does not believe there is a constitutional right to own any gun

Click to expand...

The recent DC vs Heller decision was a narrow 5-4 and since Bush has had control of the SCotUS appointments for the last 7+ years methinks we will see more then a few SCJ's retiring now that a Democratic President will be in office and this will change the total make-up of the SCotUS. Thank God.

That of course does not mean an automatic change to the recent SCotUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does it...more likely it will mean a continued guarantee of privacy for women, equal rights for all men and women, homosexuals included, etc. In other words the SCotUS will probably be more progressive then it has been for many years.

2) a complete ban on all handguns

Click to expand...

Proof he will promote this as President...

3) a complete ban on all semi autos

Click to expand...

Proof he will promote this as President...

The dem party is in control of both houses. The current attempt to extend and renew the clinton gun ban is sponsored entirely by DEMOCRATS

Click to expand...

A possibility. The 'assault weapon' ban may be reinstituted. Even so does that mean every weapon owned by US citizens will be confiscated? No. Does that mean every American will no longer be guaranteed the rights of the 2nd Amendment? No. But...be afraid. Be very afraid. Obama is coming to the office of President and he's going to take your guns. Fear him. Fear the left. They are evil. They want to take your rights. They want to destroy your country. Evil, evil democrats. TO ARMS my fellow country me. TO ARMS. Prepare for war. All patriots TO ARMS TO ARMS..:roll:

You really are foolish or dishonest to claim that Obama does not want to ban guns or that the party he serves is not interested in gun bans.

Click to expand...

I'm neither. I'm simply more reserved, more reasoned, more logical then all of you living in such fear...

If a president were to ban the Episcopal and Baptist churches would you say that the followers of those faiths still had religious freedom because they could attend one of many Methodist, Lutheran or roman Catholic churches?

IF a government has the power to ban one class of commonly owned guns for idiotic reasons, you have established their power to ban all guns for idiotic reasons.

rsixing said:

If you were able to step back and take a logical look at what is going on you would admit you are overreacting, at least at this point in time. Why do I say this? Because you are basing your arguments, claims and opines on a future possible scenario.

Of course you might/will argue; given Obama's past support of hand-gun bans in Chicage, dem's platforms of gun control, etc., you are only reacting to an eventuality. This could, emphasis could, be the case and forewarned is forearmed but the whole "the sky is falling" fear mantra going on around here gives me much joy as I watch you and your ilk squirm, rant and rave.



The recent DC vs Heller decision was a narrow 5-4 and since Bush has had control of the SCotUS appointments for the last 7+ years methinks we will see more then a few SCJ's retiring now that a Democratic President will be in office and this will change the total make-up of the SCotUS. Thank God.

That of course does not mean an automatic change to the recent SCotUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does it...more likely it will mean a continued guarantee of privacy for women, equal rights for all men and women, homosexuals included, etc. In other words the SCotUS will probably be more progressive then it has been for many years.



Proof he will promote this as President...



Proof he will promote this as President...



A possibility. The 'assault weapon' ban may be reinstituted. Even so does that mean every weapon owned by US citizens will be confiscated? No. Does that mean every American will no longer be guaranteed the rights of the 2nd Amendment? No. But...be afraid. Be very afraid. Obama is coming to the office of President and he's going to take your guns. Fear him. Fear the left. They are evil. They want to take your rights. They want to destroy your country. Evil, evil democrats. TO ARMS my fellow country me. TO ARMS. Prepare for war. All patriots TO ARMS TO ARMS..:roll:



I'm neither. I'm simply more reserved, more reasoned, more logical then all of you living in such fear...

Click to expand...

If I wait to buy stuff til Obama decides to ban the stuff it will be too late. Right now finding a scary looking rifle is difficult-they are all being bought up as fast as they can be made. People who waited until clinton actually banned such stuff ended up paying twice as much for them as they cost before the ban. Glock magazines went from 15 dollars a piece to almost 100 due to clinton.


Obama has called for complete bans-now we don't know if he will try to implement them when he becomes president. Only an idiot would act as if he will not.

Not before I get my new toy..
Bushmaster 450 conversion.

TurtleDude said:

If a president were to ban the Episcopal and Baptist churches would you say that the followers of those faiths still had religious freedom because they could attend one of many Methodist, Lutheran or roman Catholic churches?

IF a government has the power to ban one class of commonly owned guns for idiotic reasons, you have established their power to ban all guns for idiotic reasons.

Click to expand...

First you would have to prove the gov'ts reasons for trying to ban one class of commonly owned guns are "idiotic" and two what exactly is meant by "commonly owned guns".

TurtleDude said:

If I wait to buy stuff til Obama decides to ban the stuff it will be too late. Right now finding a scary looking rifle is difficult-they are all being bought up as fast as they can be made. People who waited until clinton actually banned such stuff ended up paying twice as much for them as they cost before the ban. Glock magazines went from 15 dollars a piece to almost 100 due to clinton.

Click to expand...

You're free to participate in the panic buying TD. That's your right. Personally, again, it's Y2K and visqueen and duct tape to me. Pure, unbridled panic based on right wing fomented fear and not something I'm buying into. And it's not because I'm a liberal either. I'm ****ing retired Army and I've suffered, spent the majority of my adult life protecting the Constitution and its Amendments, my nation and my peoples. So don't for one instant believe my position is based on politics.

Obama has called for complete bans-now we don't know if he will try to implement them when he becomes president. Only an idiot would act as if he will not.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute. So in one sentence you're claiming Obama's calling for "complete bans" (you still haven't provided proof) and in the next stating you're don't know if he will? So it's just a fear then. Really. Not really something that's guaranteed to happen when Obama becomes President, or even guaranteed during his administration. I guess just a hunch? A gut feeling? Fear. Plain and simple man. Plain and simple.

rsixing said:

First you would have to prove the gov'ts reasons for trying to ban one class of commonly owned guns are "idiotic" and two what exactly is meant by "commonly owned guns".

Click to expand...

15 shot magazine handguns are pretty common, THe MI carbine is on the McCarthy list for banning. The US GOVERNMENT through what was a government agency until 1995 or so-the Dept of Civilian Marksmanship-has sold hundreds of thousands to citizens.

Banning a gun because it holds X amount of ammo or has a bayonet lug is silly and not a single study found that the clinton gun ban did not have a single useful effect upon crime.


The gun ban was to set the stage for future bans and was designed to punish the groups that voted against clinton.

Let's cut the crap here-

1) why are liberals often in favor of banning guns and

2) justify the proposed gun ban (HR 1022)

rsixing said:

You're free to participate in the panic buying TD. That's your right. Personally, again, it's Y2K and visqueen and duct tape to me. Pure, unbridled panic based on right wing fomented fear and not something I'm buying into. And it's not because I'm a liberal either. I'm ****ing retired Army and I've suffered, spent the majority of my adult life protecting the Constitution and its Amendments, my nation and my peoples. So don't for one instant believe my position is based on politics.



Wait a minute. So in one sentence you're claiming Obama's calling for "complete bans" (you still haven't provided proof) and in the next stating you're don't know if he will? So it's just a fear then. Really. Not really something that's guaranteed to happen when Obama becomes President, or even guaranteed during his administration. I guess just a hunch? A gut feeling? Fear. Plain and simple man. Plain and simple.

Click to expand...

You obviously are clueless about history.

Clinton was less a gun hater than Obama. You appear too dim to understand that if people wait until Obama bans stuff they won't be able to get it or they will have to pay extremely inflated amounts for it


The Dem ticket has both called for draconian restrictions on guns. The speaker of the house is a major league gun hater who has called for draconian bans. So tell me, is it PARANOID for gun owners to plan for a gun ban now?

SInce you voted for Obama and proudly proclaim your support for him why are you so ignorant as to his positions? A quick google search will reveal that he has called for the bans I speak of.

TurtleDude said:

15 shot magazine handguns are pretty common, THe MI carbine is on the McCarthy list for banning. The US GOVERNMENT through what was a government agency until 1995 or so-the Dept of Civilian Marksmanship-has sold hundreds of thousands to citizens.

Banning a gun because it holds X amount of ammo or has a bayonet lug is silly and not a single study found that the clinton gun ban did not have a single useful effect upon crime.


The gun ban was to set the stage for future bans and was designed to punish the groups that voted against clinton.

Let's cut the crap here-

1) why are liberals often in favor of banning guns and

2) justify the proposed gun ban (HR 1022)

Click to expand...

Liberals, IMO, are often in favor of banning certain weapons because they see little reasoning to own large calibered semi and automatic weapons for protection, or hunting.



Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 - Reinstates for ten years repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (the assault weapons ban).
Revises the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" to include conversion kits (for converting a firearm to such a weapon) and any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has specified characteristics, including a telescoping stock.
Prohibits the transfer of such a weapon except through a licensed dealer or a state or local law enforcement agency, subject to specified requirements. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any such weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime, and of the nature and circumstances of the crime involved; and (2) annually submit the record to Congress and make it available to the public.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device; and (2) a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer who transfers such a device that was manufactured on or before this Act's enactment from failing to certify to the Attorney General, within 60 days of the transfer date, that the device was manufactured on or before that date. Sets forth penalties for violations.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of such a weapon or device to a juvenile; and (2) the importation of such a device.


Here's a summary. You tell me what you find so egregious about it?

Full text here

rsixing said:

Liberals, IMO, are often in favor of banning certain weapons because they see little reasoning to own large calibered semi and automatic weapons for protection, or hunting.



Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 - Reinstates for ten years repealed criminal provisions regarding assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices (the assault weapons ban).
Revises the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" to include conversion kits (for converting a firearm to such a weapon) and any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and that has specified characteristics, including a telescoping stock.
Prohibits the transfer of such a weapon except through a licensed dealer or a state or local law enforcement agency, subject to specified requirements. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) establish and maintain a record of the make, model, and date of manufacture of any such weapon which the Attorney General is made aware has been used in relation to a crime, and of the nature and circumstances of the crime involved; and (2) annually submit the record to Congress and make it available to the public.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of any assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device; and (2) a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer who transfers such a device that was manufactured on or before this Act's enactment from failing to certify to the Attorney General, within 60 days of the transfer date, that the device was manufactured on or before that date. Sets forth penalties for violations.
Prohibits: (1) the transfer of such a weapon or device to a juvenile; and (2) the importation of such a device.


Here's a summary. You tell me what you find so egregious about it?

Full text here

Click to expand...

1) it violates the constitution

2 it is designed to harass gun owners

3) if governments have decided that large capacity hadnguns are suitable for police to use for self defense, they are equally useful to other civilians

Tell me why are you in favor of it other than the fact that you are a liberal and you want to stick it to the mainly conservative gun owners


I get so tired of laws passed to punish people for their poltics. Be it bans on guns or gay marriage.

Need has nothing to do with constitutional rights BTW. Hunting has NOTHING to do with the second amendment either.

TurtleDude said:

You obviously are clueless about history.

Clinton was less a gun hater than Obama. You appear too dim to understand that if people wait until Obama bans stuff they won't be able to get it or they will have to pay extremely inflated amounts for it


The Dem ticket has both called for draconian restrictions on guns. The speaker of the house is a major league gun hater who has called for draconian bans. So tell me, is it PARANOID for gun owners to plan for a gun ban now?

SInce you voted for Obama and proudly proclaim your support for him why are you so ignorant as to his positions? A quick google search will reveal that he has called for the bans I speak of.

Click to expand...

No. I said that if you want to participate in the panic buying go ahead. That's your right. I wasn't being ignorant of history but just saying personally I don't buy into the panic. You make your choice I make mine.

Additionally you admitted you weren't sure Obama would limit or ban guns as President. And you're right. None of us do. So it's your words, not mine TD. So logic says you are reacting to an unknown. Buying in to the fear. Nothing more, nothing less.

rsixing said:

No. I said that if you want to participate in the panic buying go ahead. That's your right. I wasn't being ignorant of history but just saying personally I don't buy into the panic. You make your choice I make mine.

Additionally you admitted you weren't sure Obama would limit or ban guns as President. And you're right. None of us do. So it's your words, not mine TD. So logic says you are reacting to an unknown. Buying in to the fear. Nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

He might become a big NRA supporter-WTF knows, All we have is his history and his history is rather bad when it comes to gun rights


Are you going to take a shot at supporting HR 1022 and similar gun bans?

Why do the libs have such a hard time in being direct on this issue?

Me-I like to shoot-all kinds of shooting games. I tire of being told my rights are subordinate to dem schemes to pretend they are not criminal coddlers.

TurtleDude said:

1) it violates the constitution

Click to expand...

Prove it.

2 it is designed to harass gun owners

Click to expand...

Prove it.

3) if governments have decided that large capacity hadnguns are suitable for police to use for self defense, they are equally useful to other civilians

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Tell me why are you in favor of it other than the fact that you are a liberal and you want to stick it to the mainly conservative gun owners

Click to expand...

Have I stated I am in favor of it?

I get so tired of laws passed to punish people for their poltics. Be it bans on guns or gay marriage.

Click to expand...

Now that's just paranoid thinking TD. In reality you have two consituencies who wish to further their own agenda. If you see it as retribution then they see the laws passed by conservatives which counter laws passed by liberals as retribution also.

Need has nothing to do with constitutional rights BTW. Hunting has NOTHING to do with the second amendment either.

Click to expand...

I know that but you asked why I thought liberals were against some guns. I answered.

TurtleDude said:

He might become a big NRA supporter-WTF knows, All we have is his history and his history is rather bad when it comes to gun rights

Click to expand...

I will give him time and let his actions speak for themselves. And personally I'm not worried about loosing guns. Like in the service when we got a POS commander we always knew in a couple of years there would be another come along.

Are you going to take a shot at supporting HR 1022 and similar gun bans?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where I stand on HR 1022. I'm not going to knee-jerk react over the title so I need to read the whole bill.

Why do the libs have such a hard time in being direct on this issue?

Click to expand...

I've been direct about my opinion when you've asked. Mostly you just presume my motivations or my opinions. That's your problem, not mine.

Me-I like to shoot-all kinds of shooting games. I tire of being told my rights are subordinate to dem schemes to pretend they are not criminal coddlers.

Click to expand...

Okay. This little rant is a little fractured. I'm afraid I don't quite get what you're trying to explain.

rsixing said:

Prove it.



Prove it.



Agreed.



Have I stated I am in favor of it?



Now that's just paranoid thinking TD. In reality you have two consituencies who wish to further their own agenda. If you see it as retribution then they see the laws passed by conservatives which counter laws passed by liberals as retribution also.



I know that but you asked why I thought liberals were against some guns. I answered.

Click to expand...

prove it-the right to keep and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


I am a gun owner-the ban harassed me in 1994. There is your proof.


Now lets see if you can actually step up to the plate and justify such a ban


Batter up

TurtleDude said:

prove it-the right to keep and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

I am a gun owner-the ban harassed me in 1994. There is your proof.

Now lets see if you can actually step up to the plate and justify such a ban

Batter up

Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment has not been completely defined therefore an imposement of a weapons ban is not an infringement of rights.

I'm sorry you feel you were harassed. Good thing Clinton's bill had a sunset clause huh.

Is the assault weapons ban still in effect? So why would I justify a law that is no longer extant? And where have I stated I supported Clinton's law in the first place? I'll tell you. I haven't.

For me it's the whole "sky is falling" chicken little, right wing, TO ARMS TO ARMS fear mongering going on TD. It's hilarious to me. You guys have really given me much to smile about the last couple of days. Thanks.