Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by jefft:
I am an advocate of right to bear arms. I have several firearms in my home and would bear them on anyone unwise enough to breach my property. In theory, the idea of any weapon I can afford sounds good, but, in the real world, I think it's probably best to draw a line somewhere lest we have private residences guarded by mounted .50 autos, RPGs, or, funds permitting, M1 Abrams or the like.
Just quick survey, who thinks there should be some limit, and if so, at what level?
P.S. Short of RPGs, .50s, and up, I think our ability to blunt an aggressive, out of control government in any substantial way was lost long ago.


Fully automatic firearms are already regulated, and fairly stringently. With all the talk of crime, I believe statistics show there has NEVER been a crime committed with a legally-owned Title III firearm. I personally enjoy shooting what the left demonizes as "assault weapons". However, a true assault rifle is capable of firing in the fully automatic mode (selective fire). While shooting machine guns is the most fun you can have with your clothes on (JMHO), it burns up ammunition (and money!) at a prodigious rate. The RPG is also regulated as an explosive/destructive device, and the Abrams Tank is not sold to civilians. However, as a whackjob showed in San Diego, they are handy for overcoming traffic tie-ups. Up until the time a police officer puts a bullet in your head...

We have enough gun laws. The libtards need to quit blaming guns for the actions of their custodians, and hold the people who use guns to the letter and spirit of the law. The anti-gunners have yet to accept the fact that in the states that have enacted "shall issue" concealed carry laws, rather than turning the "streets into a bloodbath", violent crime has been reduced. It's what they call in logic "cause and effect". DC, Chicago, LA, and NYC, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, are also the most violent.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mungo Jerry:
I do not see anyone taking away yalls guns


When you see the same groups funding anti-gun activities funding the dhimmicratic party, one tends to get suspicious. Intelligence assessments are based on capabilities, not intentions.

This is the same dhimmicratic party that is wetting themselves in anticipation of extending the assault weapons ban.
quote:
McCain has received fair to poor ratings on gun issues from the National Rifle Association, garnering a C+. According to a review by Gun Owners of America (GOA), "in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor". McCain's GOA rating went from a "C-" in 2000 to an "F-" in 2006.


It's just yet another issue both candidates suck at. YAY! Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by JJPAUL:
The BS about democrats taking your guns away is the biggest BS ever. Not true! Clinton did not take your guns,LBJ and JFK did not take your guns. This is BS started by the republicans to scare hunters. Wink


The 1994 assault weapons ban, which was a misnomer, as the guns it banned were not assault weapons (selective fire medium caliber shoulder fired rifles) was passed under Clinton. The '68 GCA was signed by LBJ, and was a knee jerk reaction to JFK's assassination.

You need to study a little history before making such asinine claims.

The Second Amendment is not about hunting.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mungo Jerry:
Regardless of who gets elected i dont ever see guns "taken away" maybe i am wrong but doubt it....But as Democrats i think we must admit the 94 bill was pointless and a complete waste of legislative time


I appreciate your sentiment, and I mostly agree with you (about the 94 bill). Unfortunately, many of the dhimmicrats I know believe the bill didn't go far enough. That's enough for me.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mungo Jerry:
Regardless of who gets elected i dont ever see guns "taken away" maybe i am wrong but doubt it....But as Democrats i think we must admit the 94 bill was pointless and a complete waste of legislative time


Take a look at some of Kalifornia's asinine gun laws, as well as those of Massachusetts, New York City, Washington DC and Chicago. They can visit on a national level in a hurry.

The 94 bill made millionaires out of gun shop owners and anybody who had a "pre-ban" gun. It did absolutely nothing to reduce crime. Nothing.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mungo Jerry:
Regardless of who gets elected i dont ever see guns "taken away" maybe i am wrong but doubt it....But as Democrats i think we must admit the 94 bill was pointless and a complete waste of legislative time


The government makes tons of money on licensing them. They will certainly never take them away. And no one wants them taken away. I just don't see why a responsible gun owner would have a problem with waiting a couple of days so that the seller can make sure that Son of Sam or some nut like the VA Tech shooter doesn't get one...
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
quote:
Originally posted by The Mungo Jerry:
Regardless of who gets elected i dont ever see guns "taken away" maybe i am wrong but doubt it....But as Democrats i think we must admit the 94 bill was pointless and a complete waste of legislative time


The government makes tons of money on licensing them. They will certainly never take them away. And no one wants them taken away. I just don't see why a responsible gun owner would have a problem with waiting a couple of days so that the seller can make sure that Son of Sam or some nut like the VA Tech shooter doesn't get one...


Please refer me to the part of the Second Amendment of the Constitution that says we should be willing to "wait a couple of days".

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

The technology is available to instantly check backgrounds. The holdup is the failure to allow mental illness records checks to be done by NICS.

Neither of the two killers you mentioned would have been prevented from obtaining a weapon....in fact, Seung-Hui Cho, the VA Tech shooter, passed the background check. At the time he purchase his guns, Virginia mental health records were not allowed to be accessed by NICS. Since then, Virginia has made those records available to NICS. David Berkowitz had never been adjucated as mentally defective prior to his shooting spree (which he started with a kitchen knife), was prior to NICS and would not have been detected.
quote:
Originally posted by ahanback:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by ahanback:
Funny how the right wing is always so scared the Democrats will take away their guns! What B.S.! Wink


So Clinton and Joe Biden's Assault Weapon Ban never happened? How about GCA '68? Are you saying that was just a rumor?

Better do some research...your point of view is faulted.


Why in the H*ll do you need an assault weapon to hunt or defend your home and life? What a joke!




Because that is my freaking right, if you dont want a gun dont get one! MY people died for my rights, and no one is going to take them away from me, so lets take guns away from the people so we can bring a knife to a gun fight, and all die when next door crack head breaks in on us, and know i dont care if it is a assault rifle or a pistol that is my right! so as far as I am concerned your opinion only means something to the ones that follows your views!!!!
In order not to place an undue burden on gun sellers, there must be a National carry permit/license that folks should be required to have before purchasing(just like the fact that you must have a valid DL to buy a car. It is not the seller’s responsibility to do check . Unfortunately, that is not the current system. Until it is, inconvenience is what people are left with.
You still have not shown any justification/proof for your statement that anyone wants to take your guns...

By the way, the constitution does not say that anyone has the right to monitor my emails, web habits, phone conversations, personal relationships, or that I can be held without due process, etc. But somehow the conservatives claim that THAT is in the public interest.
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
In order not to place an undue burden on gun sellers, there must be a National carry permit/license that folks should be required to have before purchasing(just like the fact that you must have a valid DL to buy a car. It is not the seller’s responsibility to do check . Unfortunately, that is not the current system. Until it is, inconvenience is what people are left with. You still have not shown any justification/proof for your statement that anyone wants to take your guns...


What part of "...shall not be infringed..." don't you get? The Constitution says nothing about the right to keep and drive cars. It specifically mentions arms because the founders knew the main thing that would keep the government in check was the ultimate recourse of the citizenry to violently overthrow an oppressive government. I believe the founders suspected government could become an force unto itself, trying to protect its own existence. And you would trust a government to rationally and equitably hand out firearms permits?

quote:
By the way, the constitution does not say that anyone has the right to monitor my emails, web habits, phone conversations, personal relationships, or that I can be held without due process, etc. But somehow the conservatives claim that THAT is in the public interest.


Only if you communicate with terrorist organizations or states that sponsor terrorism or other things detrimental to the national security. Freedom of speech does not include sedition, espionage, or treason. The constitution is not a suicide pact. Hopefully it has not escaped you that we are at war. During a time of emergency, even Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Anyone who believes email can even begin to be private is delusional. It's travelling, unencrypted, over public infrastructure. The reason "snail mail" is sacrosanct is because it's sealed in an envelope. Only the hopelessly stupid communicate private and sensitive information over unsecure email, and then complain when it gets read.

And it appears to be okay when some hacker cracks into an email account of a public official, but not okay when the government cracks into a email to mustafa@alqaeda.com?
quote:
Originally posted by MOBY:
In order not to place an undue burden on gun sellers, there must be a National carry permit/license that folks should be required to have before purchasing(just like the fact that you must have a valid DL to buy a car. It is not the seller’s responsibility to do check . Unfortunately, that is not the current system. Until it is, inconvenience is what people are left with.
You still have not shown any justification/proof for your statement that anyone wants to take your guns...

By the way, the constitution does not say that anyone has the right to monitor my emails, web habits, phone conversations, personal relationships, or that I can be held without due process, etc. But somehow the conservatives claim that THAT is in the public interest.


Wrong. You're not required to have a valid DL to buy a car. All you have to have is the ability to pay for it.

Why should a citizen have to have a "National carry permit/license" to possess a gun on their own property?

The issue of right to carry has (erroniously, in my opinion) been left up to the states to decide.

The constitution (Amendment 4) protects you against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. If you are in communication with terrorists, or aiding and abetting enemies of the United States, unreasonable takes on a new definition.
This is complete BS. The ONLY thing Obama has said about gun control is that he would like a longer waiting time and a more detailed background check for the purchase semi-automatic assult weapons, and penalties for those who abuse the system especially in selling used semi-automatic assult weapons. His motives are directed towards keeping them out of inner citys to protect the safty of both citizens and police.

I agree with Obama on this. And I think if more gun owners and dealers had shown the proper respect for the arms control laws already on the books, their would be no need for this. However, many of them have no respect for the saftey of their fellow citizens or the police officers who protect all of us.
On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama!

The presidential primary season is finally over, and it is now time for gun owners to take a careful look at just where apparent nominee Barack Obama stands on issues related to the Second Amendment. During the primaries, Obama tried to hide behind vague statements of support for “sportsmen” or unfounded claims of general support for the right to keep and bear arms.


But his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career.



FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.2

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9


1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 20087. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 2, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, Link 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2004 SB 2165, vote 20.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7. (http://www.joycefdn.org/pdf/98_AnnualReport.pdf)

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)
quote:
Originally posted by _Joy_:
Since I had been hearing about Obama's stance on gun control of late, I decided to look up McCain's. His position is apparently not much better, the real one, not the stump speech.

From wiki ----> Link

McCain has received fair to poor ratings on gun issues from the National Rifle Association, garnering a C+.[265] According to a review by Gun Owners of America (GOA), "in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor". McCain's GOA rating went from a "C-" in 2000 to an "F-" in 2006.


Joy, good for you in pointing out that there is virtually little or no difference in these candidates, certainly not as much as their spin machines would have us believe.

Regards
quote:
Originally posted by TRUE BLUE:
This is complete BS. The ONLY thing Obama has said about gun control is that he would like a longer waiting time and a more detailed background check for the purchase semi-automatic assult weapons, and penalties for those who abuse the system especially in selling used semi-automatic assult weapons. His motives are directed towards keeping them out of inner citys to protect the safty of both citizens and police.

I agree with Obama on this. And I think if more gun owners and dealers had shown the proper respect for the arms control laws already on the books, their would be no need for this. However, many of them have no respect for the saftey of their fellow citizens or the police officers who protect all of us.


Nothing like a liberal to try and blur the line between a criminal and an honorable citizen.

Plenty of laws exist, let's try to enforce what we have first.

You are really clueless when it comes to guns, it shows.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mungo Jerry:
These are just people spouting off who were not going to support Obama anyway

NOONE on here has gave a SINGLE SCENARIO how Obama could "take away guns" EVEN if he wanted to which he does not

How could he even do it?

Alter the Constitution?

HOW????


Alter the Constitution, are you for real? DC's recent lawsuit over the Second Amendment. Liberal's general belief is that the Constitution is a living document and can be changed constantly.
Candidate Grades and Endorsements

Coming Soon!

Candidate grades and endorsements for the 2008 General Elections will be available on October 1st. In the meantime, if you have questions about where a candidate stands on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, please call NRA-ILA's Grassroots Division at 800-392-8683 or click here to contact us by email.

For candidate grades and endorsements in previous election cycles, please visit the NRA Members section by clicking here. (You will need your member ID to login.)
quote:
Originally posted by The Mungo Jerry:
STILL noone can state how Obama will "take away guns"


By making entire classes of guns, such as those "evil" assault rifles and "evil" high capacity pistols and "evil" cop killer bullets illegal, and requiring them to be surrendered.

Won't happen? Don't bet on it.

The Cobray Streetsweeper shotgun was produced starting in the late 70's or early 80's. You could purchase one at any gunshop. Then slick willie's bunch of gun grabbers decided it was an "evil" gun and had the ATF classify it as a destructive device, and require registration or surrender the gun.

California passed legislation recently banning an entire laundry list of guns. The list includes any version of the AR-15 rifle that is the current issue for our troops, and also is the top choice as a target rifle. Residents either had to register those guns or dispose of them. All new sales are prohibited and it's a felony to bring one into the state, and being caught with an "unregistered" firearm will result in arrest and confiscation of the gun.

Massachusetts also bans the mere possession of any magazine that is capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammo, as well as virtually any semi automatic rifle. Possession will result in arrest and confiscation of the gun.

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York all have similar laws, as well as Chicago and several other large cities. All enable confiscation of the firearm for unconstitutional reasons.
Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president.A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
----

Mobin

Post Advertiser
quote:
Originally posted by dasfeb14:
Obama is the first African American to be nominated by a major political party for president.A graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he served as president of the Harvard Law Review, Obama worked as a community organizer and practiced as a civil rights attorney before serving in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004.
----

Mobin

Post Advertiser



????


Obama has consistently voted for any and all gun control measures presented in the State of IL. His track record proves his intent.

ARs look mean but function no different than a Browning BAR or Auto 5.

Machine guns and fully automatic guns are only legal through special license and there movements are strictly monitored. The Media and Liberals love to blur this line.
quote:
Originally posted by The Mungo Jerry:
California has a Republican governor why is it allowing that? Why didnt Romney overturn that in his state?

Certain states will pass out of the mainstream laws,but as far as federal law there are not near enough votes to ban guns,the votes simply are not there at all not even close


Mitt and Ahnald caved to pressure from liberals. In my book, they're RINOs, and I have no use for them.

quote:
as far as federal law there are not near enough votes to ban guns,the votes simply are not there at all not even close

That was said before GCA '68 became law, and again before the '94 AWB. Hollow words are all they are. You cannot guarantee the votes won't be there if an ultra liberal president is in office and a liberal congress is the majority.

I'm not willing to bet my God given, Constitutionally affirmed right to keep and bear arms on there not being enough votes.
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
quote:
Originally posted by _Joy_:
Since I had been hearing about Obama's stance on gun control of late, I decided to look up McCain's. His position is apparently not much better, the real one, not the stump speech.

From wiki ----> Link

McCain has received fair to poor ratings on gun issues from the National Rifle Association, garnering a C+.[265] According to a review by Gun Owners of America (GOA), "in 2001, McCain went from being a supporter of anti-gun bills to being a lead sponsor". McCain's GOA rating went from a "C-" in 2000 to an "F-" in 2006.


Joy, good for you in pointing out that there is virtually little or no difference in these candidates, certainly not as much as their spin machines would have us believe.

Regards


Thanks, 8I. Smiler

It also doesn't matter if McCain's score improves. The fact is he scored an F- in 2006. This tells us that McCain is inconsistent and not to be trusted on this issue. JMHO
I've never seen the NRA give McCain an F, a C is the lowest I've seen them rate him. Obama has consistently been an F. Which means he consistently voted against the Second Amendment.

After the Supreme Court ruling recently he backpedled a little but still supported DC's gun control measures. All they did was change the wording and a new lawsuit is being drafted. It was not the last word on the issue. Obama if elected will nominate Justices that are against guns and for all the liberal issues.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×