Perhaps you could just list the top ten posters here who said there was no possible way that Obama would act to restrict firearms in any way? Seems a mite exaggerated. As in, totally.
The opinion of the BATFE.
Seriously. Here is the “feature” checklist for importation of handguns. If they don’t achieve the requisite number of points they have no “sporting purpose” and cannot be imported. This leads to some interesting anomalies. For instance, the Glock 25 and 28 cannot be imported because they do not get enough import points due to caliber (.380 ACP). Yet the Glock 26 and 27, both subcompact handguns firing larger calibers, can be imported. Along those same lines, the Walther PPK cannot be imported due to caliber. But lengthen it by putting the PPK slide on a PP frame and it gets in just fine, only it’s about an inch longer and carries more ammunition.
It’s just as silly as the Assault Weapons Ban was, but this one managed to stick because in 1968 groups like the NRA weren’t politically active. However, the arbitrariness of this law and the Assault Weapons Ban had an interesting effect on firearms in general. They caused firearms to be made smaller. Granted, you could always get a little .22/.25 caliber piece of junk, but you couldn’t get a very small service caliber handgun. That started to change when companies realized that upping the caliber in a weapon got them the requisite import points. But even then it wasn’t a priority, because small guns did not have substantial ammunition capacity, and 15-17 round magazines were king.
Then along came the AWB, reducing magazine capacity to 10 rounds or less, so there was no longer any benefit to buying a service-size handgun. Next thing you know the gun makers are putting out the Glock 26/27, a gun you can completely cover with your hand, and various other short-barreled, small-gripped, single-stack weapons that you can conceal in your pocket if you choose to.
In that respect I would like to thank gun-control advocates, because were it not for their foresight in passing such asinine laws we would likely never have gotten such concealable weapons.
Anyway, that’s the story of “sporting” handguns. Aren’t you glad you asked? I know it wasn’t exactly what you were asking, but I always found it to be an interesting story nonetheless.
As to what you WERE asking, the type of handgun he’s talking about looks something like this. That is a target pistol and nothing else. Yes, you can shoot someone with it, but at $2000 it’s a poor bargain for a self-defense or murder weapon and is of unreliable caliber for that purpose.
I wouldn’t say he had an anti second agenda, but at the same time, he did not use his position to promote any second amendment issues either. It was widely known that he would have authorized the AW ban in 2004 had it been brought to his desk.
I found it interesting, too, even though I didn’t ask. Why is barrel length and weight a positive? Because it makes it less convenient to shoot up a 7/11?
Ostensibly it’s to prevent the market from being flooded with imported “junk” handguns/“Saturday Night Specials”. You’ve heard us talk about Jennings/Lorcin/Raven/Phoenix/Jimenez firearms before. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was supposed to prevent weapons like that from being imported, even though that was not a substantial problem back then. In fact, European handguns were typically of high quality, but they were too small, and the law was tailored specifically to ban their importation, which is why those numbers seem so arbitrary. Anyway, those “junk gun” companies were founded in response to that legislation, and since they were homegrown they did not run afoul of the import restrictions. Yay for us, I guess. I wouldn’t wish those firearms on anybody.
The REAL reason the law was passed was because in 1968 the country was on fire. King and Kennedy were assassinated, there were riots and protests in the streets, and Johnson took the opportunity to introduce “crime-control” legislation because somehow Vietnam and civil rights/racism were not the cause of the violence, it was the guns. Johnson had introduced the legislation prior to those assassinations, but those events were the catalyst in getting it passed.
Do you believe that outlawing protest on public land is a restriction on protest, or is it a land use restriction?
Regards,
Shodan
No, I am of the opinion that you should read a little better before you post. Since you apparently don’t understand the difference between public and private land (and hunting vs. target shooting).
It’s things like that that make your posts worthless clutter on the SDMB.
Regards,
Shodan
So you are of the opinion that the people who control land (the government) can’t tell you to keep your guns off it?
I’d appreciate a non-snippy answer if you can manage it?
No, I try not to respond to worthless clutter unless it amuses me. You don’t.
Regards,
Shodan
I can’t force you to engage in discussion. I guess we’ll have to let your inability or unwillingness to answer simple questions about your position speak for itself.
I’ll drop in my two cents, if I may.
Yes, the government can do that. They are free to regulate the land as they see fit. My objections are twofold:
-
Sportsmen pay for those lands. The fees they pay for usage go directly to upkeep and management.
-
This is akin to people moving in next to a racetrack, complaining about the noise, and getting it shut down (that actually happened near where I live). The way I see it, if someone is about to move somewhere they have a responsibility to perform due diligence with regard to something they might find objectionable. It’s no secret where the firing ranges are, but NOW it’s a problem? There are millions of vacant homes all over, go find one of them. And when you do, look for the railroad tracks or the long asphalt strip with the big airplanes on them, because unlike gun owners you can’t push them out.
Is that the definitive issue, then? Clearly, if you are going to move somewhere, you ought to have the good sense to check it out. if a firing range is already present, you have no legitimate complaint. All well and good.
But what about the opposite condition, what if you already own your property and someone wants to change the situation by bringing a firing range in? Does your principle mean that their complaint is inherently legitimate, and should be honored?
As for insisting that military installations be closed down and moved in response to demands by recent property owners, I quite take your point, that is ridiculous. You are on very safe ground there, and I totally concede that point. You win that one, hands down.
I’m actually not really against shooting on public lands, but I don’t see restrictions on it as an attack on gun rights.
That’s not true. He signed into law the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act, both of which were top NRA priorities. He was endorsed by the NRA, saying that “If you believe in freedom and want to preserve the Second Amendment for future generations, vote to re-elect President Bush and Vice President Cheney.”
Seems like the NRA thought he promoted the Second Amendment pretty darn well.
What do you mean with “any other handgun”?
Guns are made for different purposes. The most common (IME) are hunting, sports shooting (divided into subcategories like target shooting, “plinking”, clay pigeon shooting and perhaps even others), or “service” (AKA military and/or police use). Only the latter category of guns have been designed for “shooting people”. IMO, the difference isn’t between sporting guns and “other guns”, but between service guns and other guns. If not in terms of production volume (the police and armed forces are huge customers), then at least in terms of number of individual customers.
But, just to enlighten you:
A target pistol
A service pistol
“It’s not so much a safety issue. It’s a social conflict issue,” said Frank Jenks, a natural resource specialist with Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres. He adds that urbanites “freak out” when they hear shooting on public lands"
That’s great policy. “We know it’s safe, but we are thinking about banning it anyway to placate your irrational fears”
I vote we ban the boogie monster next.
Thanks ever so much.
Yes, I do not think that someone should be able to move an outdoor firing range into a well-populated area. Kinda self-explanatory, isn’t it?
Had I only said anything like that you would be on firm ground, but as usual rhetoric, word play, and generally sarcastic behavior complete with snide comments comes before what I actually said.
And both of which were hardly second amendment issues. One protected dealers and manufacturers from being liable for the inappropriate use of the firearms that they sold. The other was to disallow government agencies to be able to confiscate arms during times of emergency. They may have been pet issues with the NRA, but he did little to roll back decades of anti gn legislation that has been passed.
He ran against whom in 2004? They had to endorse Bush as Kerry is/was on the opposite side of most 2nd amendment issues. He still made it clear that he would have signed the AW ban renewal if it hit his desk. That is about as far from a defender/promoter of the Second as it gets.
Ah – now we get to the heart of the issue. You’re saying the NRA was against George Bush before they were for him.
Nope. I’m pretty sure I didn’t say anything of the sort. They were never going to endorse Kerry.