Oh, I guess I read too much into it. I do that sometimes.
You want to talk about fear mongering? Gun control is all about fear mongering, and nothing else. You have two types of people in the US, those who obey the law and those who don’t. The problem with guns lies exclusively with those who don’t, but gun control is all about scaring citizens with the chimera of those who don’t obey laws in order to put restrictions on those who do. It’s complete and utter madness, and I can’t think of any other issue that is defined in terms so completely illogical, stupid and counterintuitive. Gun control just doesn’t make any sense at all.
Oh, I agree with others that it’s not a big priority with Obama, Lord knows there are enough reasons not to vote for the man, this isn’t one of them.
Sigh!:rolleyes:
The left wants total disarmament of the citizenry. Not just “assault weapons” or handguns. EVERYTHING!
1994 scares them not. Ancient history. But they don’t care anyway!
Anyone who says a Democrat President (Obama or otherwise) with or without a Dem Congress will back away from gun control is either a fool or a liar.
This is NOT an endorsement of John McCain!
My comment about Obama had nothing to do with gun control, as I said, I think it’s a non-issue for him, but I’m curious why you think it would be something he would work towards.
People who are in favor of restricting guns in America always cite the examples of European countries like the United Kingdom where guns are so rare that even cops don’t carry them, and those countries’ very low rates of gun crime, as if they are somehow applicable to the USA.
British-style gun laws would only work if every single gun in America was instantly willed by God to disappear into the ether. Otherwise, banning guns is just going to mean that people are going to be hoarding shitloads of them, it’ll be a black market industry just like weed and other drugs or prostitutes, and the gun crimes will continue.
Well, you know, the Republican President George W Bush was for banning assault weapons before he was against it.
Because:
Yep! Something I brought up all the way back in 1999. I consistently ranted that W. was not the friend to gun owners the NRA made him out to be!
John McCain also said, in the past, that he supported certain gun controls and bans. Now he’s running as Mr. Second Amendmenment. Just another reason why I don’t trust, nor will I vote for him. Do your homework and you’ll see I’ve been very
consistent about this. I do not consider JM a conservative.
All things considered, the left, Democrats especially, are a disaster for law abiding gun owners. When Obama is President (I’d say a 85-15% chance) and he pushes/signs restrctive gun laws, I will be in the PIT ranting about the liars and fools who said he wouldn’t!!!
And the ban resulted in disaster for the Democrats. A lesson that will eventually be forgotten, but not for a while.
If nothing else, it will be heartening that you will have learned which forums are for what.
I’ve always found it somewhat odd that Democrats/liberals are generally against or even terrified of concealed carry, as it accomplishes a few of the “stated goals” of people who “don’t want to ban guns, just put some restrictions on them.” First off, it puts people into the system voluntarily - people have to submit to training, testing, fingerprinting, photographs, background checks (sometimes numerous), exclusions for (some to most) misdemeanors and mental illness, and waiting periods (Kansas’ is a minimum 52 days) before they get a permit. And the individuals (in most States, IIRC) pay to do this, so it’s revenue-neutral. There are also substantial penalties for in some places for even minor things, such as not changing your address in the records in a timely manner if you move. If an oppressive future government wanted to round up gun owners, well, all those concealed carry people in the system make a great shopping list for the police to use to visit.
Second of course is the fact that concealed carry holders are proven to be much more law-abiding than the general populace. Part of this is selective screening of the CCW population, since you can’t be a felon, have certain misdemeanor records, or mental illness - and in some States you have to have a higher than average income to easily afford everything.
CCW laws in fact create a two-tier system of registered gun owners that Democrats should be embracing. Having been through the process myself, I’m of the opinion that there ought to be an even stricter level of CCW with more rights and privileges for carry, even if it costs much more. I wouldn’t mind a second level of CCW license which allowed carry pretty much everywhere, in exchange for the same background screening as police go through and much longer or more involved training classes.
Although I used to be hard-line pro individual firearms rights, over the last few years I’ve changed my opinion as I’ve taken a very hard look at the people around me, the people I see online, and the stats and concluded that there are in fact a large number of people who really should not ever have access to a firearm, or at a minimum should have serious training before they should be allowed to even touch one (I’ll omit the anecdotes). How one brings that into force without create a steeper slippery slope if the problem.
The only issue with not being hard-line pro individual firearms rights is that the other side appears to be hard-line anti-any-firearms-rights.
It’s very hard to find reasonable people to discuss things with. It’s a bit like the ACLU and the Nazis marching. Yeah, they’re horrible people, but you have to protect them, else…
(Honestly, cops are some of the worst offenders that I know.)
I don’t think gun control will be the top issue in an Obama presidency, and I think that whatever happens, it will be reasonable and manageable. I think that we have to have some faith in the NRA to lobby appropriately whenever possible.
(And that semi-automatic thing, I think, can be safely discounted - it wasn’t him filling that form out. I’m pretty sure he’s not out to ban half the hunting rifles in the USA.) Obama is a professor of constitutional law, he’s not stupid. And, most importantly, he’s got bigger fish to fry. Frankly, I’d be much more concerned about gun control under a Hillary administration, as she’s a nanny sort. McCain ain’t winning, the way things look.
It is very hard to be middle of the road about guns and be persuasive about it. That is to say, to have a solid middle of the road stance that isn’t full of holes and exceptions. Most anyone that says “I’m not opposed to guns, but…” has something fairly restrictive after the “but” which will turn off numerous folks.
My pie-in-the-sky idea would be to restrict who can possess firearms but to at the same time un-restrict the firearms themselves and the use of them. I would for example disqualify any misdemeanor/diversion record holder from possessing legally, and would end private transfers without a background check paid for by the transferee (it’s only $5 or so IIRC). I would also mandate some level of actual classroom training in safety, use, and law, on the order of a 40-hour course. But at the same time I would repeal the 1986 act that put an end-date on Class 3 weapons and would greatly expand where and how CCW holders could carry their firearms (in effect, except for private residences/homes, eliminate the ability of all employers and businesses open to the public to restrict in any way, eliminate the State/National Park ban, and the city/official buildings ban too). I would also add legal protections and civil protections for good-faith use of CCW, and repeal the portion of the “brandishing” and “disorderly conduct” statutes which allow police to harass and even arrest a CCW who accidentally has a gun revealed to a third-party (according to my instructor, this is a serious problem in Kansas).
I’m certain that like any plan at all, innumerable people would have problems with mine.
Which is why your argument is ridiculous. No one is after your guns. But how you managed to get by without assault weapons mystifies me. There are too many weapons to even consider taking them away but I read that that is exactly what Bush (a REPUB) did in New Orleans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html The New Orleans confiscation.
Bullshit.
I’m left more every day because the currant admin under GWB continues to fuck things up and refuses to look to the future let alone next week, and I sure as hell don’t want to disarm the public.
There are lots of ‘Democrats’ (what every that means today) that don’t support gun ‘bans’.
And truth be told. Considering the last 8 years, more and more people think that owning a gun is not such a bad idea.
Gonzo, what does the NO police confiscation of weapons have to do with Bush? I’m somewhat sure it was illegal (I don’t think martial law had been declared), but still, I don’t see it as a federal matter. Just a local one.
In short: Irrelevant.
I think you misspelled “Nagin”, who is in fact a Democrat.
You all realize that Dubya ain’t runnin’, right?
I’ve long pointed out that he (bush) is no friend to the 2nd, but that’s rather irrelevant at this point. McCain isn’t exactly GOA, but on this he’s better than the Dem’s that are running.
I firmly believe, based on both Obama and Clinton’s history and comments, that either of them would sign any and every gun ban that passed within a mile of them.
Obama does want to take guns away, whether he’ll have the political clout to get it done is a different story.
I want to take the guns away. I know I can not . It is so far back in th hierarchy of the problems we have that I spend no thought on it. I know it will not happen. Everybody knows it will not happen.
The guns being “taken away” isn’t something that will happen all at once - it will happen very gradually, step by step, starting with small things and getting more and more restrictive.
Right on the money.