Obama and guns

[Jesse]

Originally posted by rolandtg
Yeah and just who is sponsoring this bill?


Five Republicans!

Not very encouraging is it!

[MikeP]

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."

â??â??Barack Obama, VPC Fund Raiser, 2007



Snagged from internet-it must be true.

[Johnny C. Kitchens]

The election certainly scared some people in Texas. Cheaper Than Dirt a big gun store in the Metroplex set a sales record the day after the election. $101,000 in sales for one day. The previous record was the day after 9/11 when they sold $52,000. They said that the price of some items had tripled by days end. I can only imagine what the next big gun show will be like...

[DonWallbaum]

As a newbie to this forum, and at the risk of now being banned...<g> and cheerfully admitting that I voted for Obama, and I am a gun owner and former NRA member, I feel pretty certain that gun rights are pretty low on this list of concerns at present.

While it is unlikely that a nation-wide CCW law that would supersede state and local restrictions is going to go anywhere, I don't think a fight over gun ownership is worth the fight.

[Jesse]

Chamberlain and the Nazi's

[crc]

I think you can feel pretty certain your obama will take our gun rights and many others. Former NRA member and gun owner, why?
Regards, Crump

[alanint]

Do yourself a favor and look up the bio on his new chief of staff.
Rahn Emanuel is THE poster boy for HCI, Brady and all other anti-gun groups.
He is a rabid hater of all center-right thought, policies and people, with a track record to prove it.
It is inconceivable to me how anybody with even a mild interest in keeping their gun rights could have voted oboma
Sheeeeshz

[DonWallbaum]

OK, let me cover three message responses in one:

Former NRA member, why? Nothing against the NRA, but the "take no prisoners" approach the NRA leadership was taking was a bit trying on me. I _firmly_ fall into the camp that hold that the government should have no more weaponry available to it than the citizenry, and as the saying goes, "People should not fear the government, the goverment should fear the people" (from the movie "V" - great flick, if you havent seen it, its worth the rental fee.).

So, dogma and ideology as the basis for making any kind of national policy has been tried and found wanting. Between every man has a right to a nuke and all knives should be banned, at some point a national consensus will have to be achieved.

I have no appreciation for HCI - there are bad people out there and every species will defend itself by whatever means available. BUT, while gun ownership is important to this group, and to a lot of groups, and to me, lets face it -- the issues in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Guantanamo, the recession, financial bailouts, Detroit bailouts, all THOSE issues are going to take precendence over a desire to do anything with gun legislation.

Finally, as with the issue of abortion, the country has settled to an uneasy equilibrium, basically a national "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Barring some national disaster involving a weapon, I think the fed. govt. will just let sleeping issues lie for a while. Not to say at some point something will bring gun ownership back to the front of national attention, but I don't see that happening now.

As for why I voted for Obama and his instinct to ban guns, I don't think that instinct is that strong. I view him as a realize, not a demagog, and frankly, I had gotten so infuriated by the Republicans running rough shod over the Constitution (does anyone remember "habius corpus"?) with issues such as rendition, and the Patriot Act, not to mention two unjustifiable wars, and letting the financial markets run amok, that I had NO faith that continued Republican control of the government would benefit MY life or the welfare of the country.

So, say Obama on 21 Jan. says all guns have to be turned in and melted down... I think there will be general non-compliance, and I am pretty sure that he is smart enough to know there would be non-compliance, and he probably has bigger issues he wants to pursue.

[DonWallbaum]

tac;

Didn't really answer your message. There are _many_ rocks upon which this country was founded, the Second Amendment was one. But there are others equally groundbreaking, and have been under increasing threat. I used to work on newspapers, so my all-time fave amendment is the First.

We don't have a national shield law for reporters. I find this as disturbing as weapons bans.

It may seem odd, but the past several years, the Democrats have been stronger proponents of the core American rights than the Republicans have. Again, I go back to limiting the govt. ability to engage in warrantless searches and seizures, wiretapping, and not allowing defendants to see the evidence the govt. has against them. THESE are the issues that need to be addressed, as much as continued assertion of the right of free and unfettered access and carry of weapons. See: Robert Heinlein "Beyond This Horizon" as one of the best analyses and justifications for an armed, civil society.

Don

[Ron Smith]

Don,

I agree, and very well stated. Freedom of Speech is our only true defense against subversion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Our country is in a deep hole, both domestically and internationally. We need to take care of first things, first.

If, and, or when gun control issues arise. Don't post your complaints here, preaching to the choir. Use that electronic box in front of you to write (read e-mail) to your U.S. State Representatives and Senators on both sides, to "politely and Diplomatically" voice your opposition.

Most politicians don't give a fat rat's butt what side you are on, and they don't need to know. All they see is a prospective vote the next time they run for office.

Name calling, finger pointing and spewing venom , hate and discontent, has never won anybody over.

[RichSr]

Don
Welcome to the Forum.
I am sure that nothing you've written would get you banned from here. With that said, I hope that my comments to your words won't result in my being forced from this site. Concerning your assertions, the naivete and ignorance of facts though unfortunately not uncommon is most troubling. A little research into the housing market would show that earlier administrations (Carter, Clinton) had set the stage for this current financial dilemma.
That this and the other "issues" you refer to would preclude the elected officials from pursuing their personal agendas shows a complete lack of knowledge concerning how Washington works. I am not referring to what you may have learned in government class but to how things really are in the the halls of Congress and in the White House.
Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion, I personally wish they would be more informed and less based on feeling and misinformation. Perhaps more should follow Twain's advice about keeping silent.
For the record, I have never been a member of the esteemed 4th estate. My insight is based on having been in and around Congress and the White House much of my adult life.

[Brent B.]

Ron: Very good and important point about emailing your State Representatives and Senators AND be polite and diplomatic when doing it. As you said, there are a lot of other issues that will probably come first but everyone needs to be ready to start emailing if and when the time comes.

Don: Welcome to the forum. Brent B.

[DonWallbaum]

Rich;

I did not say, nor do I believe, that the Bush administration is uniquely responsible for the current economic mess. Suggested reading here: "When Genius Failed - the Collapse of Long-Term Capital Management". Didn't make much of a splash with the news media at the time (1998) but at the time it was the largest federally-orchestrated bailout in history - though no federal money was involved.

Point here is that the book could have been written last week. And this happened during the Clinton administration.

ANY government is going to turn a blind eye to regulation when things are going well. And even Allan Greenspan has said "ooppss.. who knew?" regarding his role in restricting federal oversight of financial markets and derivitives specifically.

The prevailing view that institutions always tend toward their own self-interest and are therefore self-correcting has been found to be badly flawed. See: Enron, Long-Term Capital Management and now, pick your bank.

BUT, the collapse of the financial institutions DID happen during an expansive Bush/Republican watch, and therefore they must own their share of the responsibility.

I agree that if/when weapon ownership is threatened, then here is not the place to complain. We need then to mobilize and work collectively against such efforts. But, remember, we are a minority in the country. A mother in the west side of Columbus, OH won't care about the Second Amendment when she is at the funeral of her 10-yr-old kid killed in a drive-by. She won't care about "punish the act, not the weapon." She will lash out at the easiest thing to lash out against. Unless we, as the responsible owners of weapons, are prepared to answer these types of reactions, then yes, we will see restriction of our weapons rights.

So, instead of fighting the "HCI-leftists", I think we need to join with the socially-progressive side of the country and get to the root causes of violence. You know, I know, that when drunks drive, the drunk is put in jail but people with cars don't have their vehicles impounded. Alas, this logic does not apply to the world of weapons. It should, but it doesnt.

I am with youall in these regards - I differ only in the threat I perceive Obama to be. But, I could be wrong...I really thought McCain would win.

[DonWallbaum]

tac;

There is not a strong history in this country of expropriation of property. This is pretty-well hard-coded in our Constitution. And most laws have grandfather clauses, such that if you what you owned was legal before a law was passed, you are still in legal possession even though the law states otherwise.

For example, high-capacity magazines (in excess of 10 rounds) were banned in one piece of legislation. But my 9mm, bought legally pre-ban, holds 18 rounds and is still legal to use.

The US has its own swings of irrationality, but our irrationality is generally constrained within tolerable limits. Yeah, you have exceptions (Prohibition being one) but the country generally self-corrects after a period of time with little permanent damage. Doesn't make the ride pleasant however...

Don

[Edward Tinker]

Don, wow, well said!


Ed