PDA

View Full Version : 2008 Obama: "I Will NOT Take Your Guns Away"


section31
01-06-2013, 11:43 AM
At a campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama said that he will not take Americans' guns away.

"When you all go home and you're talking to your buddies and you say, ah 'He wants to take my gun away.' You've heard it here, I'm on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Video at
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/flashback-obama-i-will-not-take-your-guns-away

tcrpe
01-06-2013, 11:45 AM
"Lawful right"?

I thought it was an inalienable right.

Silly me . . . . .

cdtx2001
01-06-2013, 11:45 AM
That was then and this is now. We don't have the time to deal with rational and logical thought processes.

rexbo47
01-06-2013, 11:46 AM
So he lied again.

Is anyone surprised?

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 11:46 AM
Still bitterly clinging to guns and religion?

You're next.

kofire
01-06-2013, 12:32 PM
Am I missing something here? Has he taken away gunrights?

CessnaDriver
01-06-2013, 12:37 PM
I will not take away your rifle....

However, I will make you register, be fingerprinted, demand you report it's whereabouts at all times, it will be hobbled to fixed ten round magazines, you will not possess more then one magazine for each rifle. You will only possess 100 rounds max in your home, etc etc etc...


The possibilities are endless on what the twisted evil SOB can define on what "keeping" is isn't there?

CCWFacts
01-06-2013, 12:38 PM
I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away

So long as your rifle isn't an AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, and so long as your handgun isn't a pistol of some kind he doesn't like.

If your guns look like this:

http://www.merkel-usa.com/uploads/RTEmagicC_doppelflinten-feinstes-doppel-aus-suhl_21.jpg.jpg

no problem!

By the way, old-fashioned hunting shotguns and rifles are legally available almost everywhere, including Japan, the UK and basically all of Europe, so talking about protecting our right to own those things is like saying, "I believe in the First Amendment. I will not take away your right to post pictures of puppies and kittens."

The First Amendment is not needed to protect your right to look at pictures of puppies and kittens. It is needed to protect your right to say things which are deeply unpopular and repulsive. The Second Amendment is not needed to protect your right to own grandpa's old break-action shotgun. It is needed to protect your right to own an AR-15 and a pistol.

aermotor
01-06-2013, 12:39 PM
He's skillfully skirting the issue. He thinks the 2A was meant for hunting and sporting.

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

I don't think any politician even knows the definition of Infringed.

Infringed
Verb
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

David13
01-06-2013, 12:42 PM
Section 31. Don't you know anything about politicians and politics?
That was then. He didn't then. But now, that's different.
And in terms of this fringe business. Today, everything has fringe on it.
dc

CessnaDriver
01-06-2013, 12:43 PM
He's skillfully skirting the issue. He thinks the 2A was meant for hunting and sporting.

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.


agreed.

Always when anyone uses that tired what do you really need for hunting and sporting as reasons why certain firearms should not be possessed by the people to strongly remind that the 2nd amendment is not about hunting or sporting.

Skidmark
01-06-2013, 12:46 PM
So he lied again.

There is no lie... no one is taking away your/our guns.

CessnaDriver
01-06-2013, 12:55 PM
There is no lie... no one is taking away your/our guns.

What about Americans yet to be of age to purchase an AR?

Will they have that right still that we do?

He can take away those rifles.


Obama may not "take" them away now, but he can certainly create a very restricted situation that takes away our purchasing freedoms or abilities to transfer ownership.

Wake up.

wjc
01-06-2013, 1:11 PM
Anything the Campaigner-in-Chief says is a lie.

period.

12voltguy
01-06-2013, 1:15 PM
There is no lie... no one is taking away your/our guns.

:facepalm:

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 1:33 PM
There is no lie... no one is taking away your/our guns.

Stickly speaking, that is true.

He is just advocating taking guns away for now. Nothing has been implemented, yet...

He's working on it.

Does that make you feel better?

Should we check back in a few months to see if you are still correct? I dont get the hair splitting on this issue. He is surrounded by people that want to grab guns. They will do whatever we let them do to us.

Nothing has changed.

Skidmark
01-06-2013, 2:15 PM
Stickly speaking, that is true.

He is just advocating taking guns away for now. Nothing has been implemented, yet...

He's working on it.

Nor is he advocating "taking away guns." Words matter, yes? We should use them carefully, no?

No one is going to come take away our guns.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 2:21 PM
Nor is he advocating "taking away guns." Words matter, yes? We should use them carefully, no?

No one is going to come take away our guns.

If you are saying that in the strictest sense, armed government agents arent going to go door to door collecting guns, then yes I agree.

But Obama is absolutely advocating taking guns away. Or if I am mistaken, he and his party are surrounded by people that are.

How many executive level democrats do you need to come and say just that?

White House Plans To Overwhelm NRA With Rapid Victory
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/white-house-nra-gun-victory.php?ref=fpa


Obama has personally identified an assault weapons ban and limits on ammunition magazine size as top priorities.

So when I die, my private property goes where again? And if I want aquire a new 'assault weapons' or sell any of my private property? This gun grabbing 101.

Just because he isnt sending DHS door to door to confiscate guns doesnt mean he is not coming for guns. He and his party obviously are.

Skidmark
01-06-2013, 2:58 PM
If you are saying that in the strictest sense, armed government agents arent going to go door to door collecting guns, then yes I agree.

But Obama is absolutely advocating taking guns away. Or if I am mistaken, he and his party are surrounded by people that are.

How many executive level democrats do you need to come and say just that?

White House Plans To Overwhelm NRA With Rapid Victory
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/white-house-nra-gun-victory.php?ref=fpa


Obama has personally identified an assault weapons ban and limits on ammunition magazine size as top priorities.

So when I die, my private property goes where again? And if I want aquire a new 'assault weapons' or sell any of my private property? This gun grabbing 101.

Just because he isnt sending DHS door to door to confiscate guns doesnt mean he is not coming for guns. He and his party obviously are.

No, not so obvious. There's a lot of hot air being blown in state legislatures and Congress on all manner of new laws pertaining to firearms - and an equal amount of hot air here. But no new laws have been passed and signed, no EOs filed. But amongst all that, I see nothing that indicates anything will come down that enables any government entittie to confiscate legally owned firearms. Not going to happen.

My prediction: You and I will still be holding and legally using our guns ten years from now, well into the end of the Biden?/Clinton? presidency.

SanPedroShooter
01-06-2013, 3:10 PM
No, not so obvious. There's a lot of hot air being blown in state legislatures and Congress on all manner of new laws pertaining to firearms - and an equal amount of hot air here. But no new laws have been passed and signed, no EOs filed. But amongst all that, I see nothing that indicates anything will come down that enables any government entittie to confiscate legally owned firearms. Not going to happen.

My prediction: You and I will still be holding and legally using our guns ten years from now, well into the end of the Biden?/Clinton? presidency.

I agree.

But I worry about people taking it for granted.

As far as a biden/clinton run. I think the Democrats are going to lose a lot steam after our celebrity president is termed out. They are worried about it too. Obama, like Clinton was, is a draw. Without him, they are going to be sucking wind.

warbird
01-06-2013, 3:43 PM
if you believed Obama I have some good swamp land in the middle of the Mojave desert to sell you. I don't have to take away you weapon if i make it so restrictive and expensive that you either give it up or go to jail when you make a misstep under the law. Other than taking away your wealth and depriving you of your rights what has this man lied about?

ewarmour
01-06-2013, 4:22 PM
You know Obama is lying when his mouth is moving. He's a politician, a paid liar.

rexbo47
01-06-2013, 4:25 PM
Am I missing something here? Has he taken away gunrights?

What do you think he's trying to do?

Organize an ice cream social?

rexbo47
01-06-2013, 4:29 PM
Nor is he advocating "taking away guns." Words matter, yes? We should use them carefully, no?

No one is going to come take away our guns.


Just have another sip of Koolaid and it will all be OK.

There, there.

dfletcher
01-06-2013, 4:59 PM
Nor is he advocating "taking away guns." Words matter, yes? We should use them carefully, no?

No one is going to come take away our guns.

There is a legal definition of taking, as in an unjust taking. The President is a lawyer and I would expect he is inclined to use the word in that manner - or could assert that's how the word was used if taken to task on the 2008 remark. He is speaking carefully, people ought to examine the statement carefully and not with benefits.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t003.htm

"When the government acquires private property and fails to compensate an owner fairly. A taking can occur even without the actual physical seizure of property, such as when a government regulation has substantially devalued a property."

If future ownership of certain guns is banned and you are required to surrender yours for $150.00, that is not a ""taking". If greater than 10 round magazines are banned, if certain guns are placed under NFA - if the government did everything short of "taking" your gun then the President can be said to have kept his word.

Does that make everyone feel better - do folks still want to defend this President on guns?

cjc16
01-06-2013, 5:43 PM
... no one is taking away your/our guns.

I sincerely hope you are right.

.....the Biden?/Clinton? presidency.

:eek:I sincerely hope you are wrong.

myk
01-06-2013, 6:26 PM
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."

Politicians are liars, what else is new...

bombadillo
01-06-2013, 6:33 PM
In his twisted view, "Not taking your rifles" would entail a single shot hunting rifle, or a bolt action deer rifle. His take on "military grade assault rifles" would be to take them away and keep them away. He's just piggybacking off the unfortunate incident back east, and the ban of '94.

GOEX FFF
01-06-2013, 6:57 PM
Nor is he advocating "taking away guns." Words matter, yes? We should use them carefully, no?

No one is going to come take away our guns.


Yes words do matter, and I really hate this candy-coating BS some BO supporters on CGN spew that he's still a great guy and won't come taking firearms.

It's NOT just about the ones who already own them. It doesn't mean only confiscation.
The minute he signs a law making the sale of ANY previously legal firearm illegal, he's just taken those firearms away from people who might haven't yet owned them and/or who wants to buy more.

Seriously man, buy a clue. Banning the sale, IS "taking guns away".

elSquid
01-06-2013, 7:18 PM
http://o.onionstatic.com/images/18/18955/original/700.jpg?2865

President Barack Obama says the federal government is trying to destroy the Second Amendment.


http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-paranoid-government-coming-for-his-guns,30638/

:D

-- Michael

BigBamBoo
01-06-2013, 7:46 PM
:facepalm: :facepalm::rofl2:

Skidmark
01-06-2013, 8:32 PM
^^^ Onion

:thumbsup: :rofl2:

Full Clip
01-06-2013, 8:38 PM
"You Lie!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgce06Yw2ro)

tcrpe
01-06-2013, 8:49 PM
Our 2nd Amendment Rights are under assault. What's with the denial?

CessnaDriver
01-06-2013, 8:54 PM
You people saying nothing is to be worried about.. your going to contact your reps anyways right?

Right?

hulasboy
01-06-2013, 9:06 PM
time changes things:

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth, 1968

it is a different political climate now than it was in 2008. I have told every gun owner I know who was afraid their gun rights were going to be effected during an obama presidency that the one thing they could do to make sure that didn't happen was to stop nut jobs from shooting up civilians. Gun control wasn't a hot issue in 2008, it's become one recently because the general population doesn't see mass shootings as an appropriate trade off for us owning whatever kind of guns we want. Aurora and Newton leave the general population asking how this kind of thing could happen, and I think it's up to us to propose solutions to make sure it doesn't happen, while maintaining the rights we want for law abiding gun owners. to be clear, owning guns is not a god given right, it's a privilege bestowed by the state. god didn't write the constitution, and he doesn't interpret it. the second amendment is currently interpreted by the SCOTUS to grant us the right to own guns for personal defense, that could change. there is no mention of personal defense in the constitution. I am constantly surprised by the firearms industry's unwillingness to regulate itself.

bohoki
01-06-2013, 9:09 PM
well he hasn't taken my gun away

jdouglas
01-06-2013, 9:14 PM
Even if 0bama isn't able to take away our guns (or even the guns of future generations), we all know he WANTS to take them away.

Basically, if banning or restricting lawful ownership of guns doesn't come to pass, it won't be due to lack of desire or effort on 0bama's part.

jdouglas
01-06-2013, 9:20 PM
...it's a privilege bestowed by the state.
Bogus.

Read the 2nd. It's a natural, pre-existing right that shall not be infringed, NOT a "privilege" that can be taken away.

DrDavid
01-06-2013, 9:35 PM
The First Amendment is not needed to protect your right to look at pictures of puppies and kittens. It is needed to protect your right to say things which are deeply unpopular and repulsive. The Second Amendment is not needed to protect your right to own grandpa's old break-action shotgun. It is needed to protect your right to own an AR-15 and a pistol.

May I steal this? ^^^^ Love it!

hulasboy
01-06-2013, 9:43 PM
Bogus.

Read the 2nd. It's a natural, pre-existing right that shall not be infringed, NOT a "privilege" that can be taken away.

what I'm saying is that the way the constitution works, it's constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted by the state (the supreme court). At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, arms meant all the weaponry available to the military. Currently, civilians no longer have access to all the weaponry available to the military, and that's exactly because the court, which is an arm of the state has interpreted the constitution to mean that the second amendment does not apply to howitzers or mortars or grenades. The state took away our privilege to own military hardware like that.

this is a good write up about the changing reading of the second amendment through recent history:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5200

jdouglas
01-06-2013, 10:07 PM
I suppose you are right in that the goverment is only limited by what it physically can/cannot do. However, even if the goverment was to completely rewrite or remove the 2nd Amendment, the natural right to bear arms remains. Nobody would have to feel guilty about creating improvised weapons and even taking up these arms against such a government.

GOEX FFF
01-06-2013, 10:36 PM
You people saying nothing is to be worried about.. your going to contact your reps anyways right?

Right?

^^ THAT is the worst part about it. The one's that are still in denial have no reason in their minds to lift a finger. When it's too late, they'll either make up some other dumb excuse or just go silent. :facepalm:

doctor_vals
01-06-2013, 11:53 PM
He's skillfully skirting the issue. He thinks the 2A was meant for hunting and sporting.

SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.

I don't think any politician even knows the definition of Infringed.

Infringed
Verb
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Like one guy on Hannity show said "they mean muskets when they wrote infringed." As we know at that time British army and American army used only muskets; nobody know at that time about assault weapon (as leftist said - "high capacity clips" or "assault pistols and revolvers" etc)
Nobody in 18 century thought that army will use assault weapon; but....
they explicitly, EXPLICITLY wrote - people have a right to have exact same rifles and pistols as army used.

Weapon was among people all the time - 50 and 100 years ago. And kids never killed other kids.
Massacre in the schools started in 80th.
And every 10 years it happens more and more... WHY????
Very easy answer - because teens playing games on PC where they kill and got bonuses. They have broken mind. So, society should fight against violent games AND movies.
It is only here Hollywood produce action movies full of blood and shootings and what a sarcasm - the same actors made a clip to ban our guns....

Full Clip
01-07-2013, 12:01 AM
...to be clear, owning guns is not a god given right, it's a privilege bestowed by the state.

Maybe we should change it to the Bill of Privileges...

hulasboy
01-07-2013, 12:11 AM
Maybe we should change it to the Bill of Privileges...

if you did not get my point, it is that there have always been limitations on our "rights" and those limitations have always been imposed by the state. For example, my first amendment rights do not extend to fraud. my second amendment rights do not extend to RPGs, the extent to which these rights exist is dependent on the decisions of the interpreters of the constitution. If they decide to interpret it differently, your rights change. These documents are elastic and their interpretation changes according to the prevailing feelings of the citizenry. if there are enough massacres, policy will change. if you like the status quo, figure out a way to stop massacres, which create public outcry, which changes the political landscape, which creates legislation to represent the feelings of the constituency, which gets trotted in front of the SCOTUS, which makes its decisions in part based on the prevailing feelings of the constituency (see recent healthcare ruling)

kel-tec-innovations
01-07-2013, 12:30 AM
Woohoo big surprise, all politician lie. They have way too much power and has no accountability

SanPedroShooter
01-07-2013, 7:09 AM
time changes things:

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth, 1968

it is a different political climate now than it was in 2008. I have told every gun owner I know who was afraid their gun rights were going to be effected during an obama presidency that the one thing they could do to make sure that didn't happen was to stop nut jobs from shooting up civilians. Gun control wasn't a hot issue in 2008, it's become one recently because the general population doesn't see mass shootings as an appropriate trade off for us owning whatever kind of guns we want. Aurora and Newton leave the general population asking how this kind of thing could happen, and I think it's up to us to propose solutions to make sure it doesn't happen, while maintaining the rights we want for law abiding gun owners. to be clear, owning guns is not a god given right, it's a privilege bestowed by the state. god didn't write the constitution, and he doesn't interpret it. the second amendment is currently interpreted by the SCOTUS to grant us the right to own guns for personal defense, that could change. there is no mention of personal defense in the constitution. I am constantly surprised by the firearms industry's unwillingness to regulate itself.

Did brady cut you loose to come over here and bother us? Every human on earth from here to China has a natural right to their life and their property. They also have the right to defend the same. The God given, natural right to self determination, self defense, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is written in the Founding Documents in a thousand places. Free men arms bear arms, slaves dont. That is clear and has been clear since the dawn of civilization.

Are the other parts of the Bill of Rights a priviledge? Notice the NRA quote say 'workable enforceable'. That was back during the last massive federal stomp on the RKBA, the Gun Control Act.

I havent seen proposal one that is 'workable' or 'enforceable' since then, including the one he was describing.

Maybe you shoud go 'self regulate' yourself.

dixieD
01-07-2013, 9:44 AM
The First Amendment is not needed to protect your right to look at pictures of puppies and kittens. It is needed to protect your right to say things which are deeply unpopular and repulsive. The Second Amendment is not needed to protect your right to own grandpa's old break-action shotgun. It is needed to protect your right to own an AR-15 and a pistol.

The First Amendment is not really that at all. It is the right to speak against the government, petition against it, allow for free exercise of religion, and not be forced to practice a particular religion. Really has nothing to do with porn, 'hate' speech, saying anything that might be unpopular with either the majority or a minority of the people. Unfortunately it has devolved into what most Americans now recognize as the 1A. You are absolutely correct on the 2A. It is for the protection of the right, to possess arms as carried by common soldiers.

jwkincal
01-07-2013, 9:55 AM
...to be clear, owning guns is not a god given right, it's a privilege bestowed by the state. god didn't write the constitution, and he doesn't interpret it. the second amendment is currently interpreted by the SCOTUS to grant us the right to own guns for personal defense, that could change. there is no mention of personal defense in the constitution.

Wait, so if there was no state... nobody would have guns? That gives me a great idea for gun contol!

dixieD
01-07-2013, 9:56 AM
The founders intended the meaning of the 2A to imply only muskets because they were codifying existing rights to allow only government officials to design, deploy and use assault weapons as was done in 1944 by the Nazi's with the introduction of the first named assault weapon, Sturmgewehr 44, literally "storm (or assault) rifle model 44, or the Soviets with the AK-47, and the ??? with the M4/AR-15, while making sure The People could defend themselves with muskets.:rolleyes:

hulasboy
01-07-2013, 10:25 AM
Did brady cut you loose to come over here and bother us? [B]Every human on earth from here to China has a natural right to their life and their property. They also have the right to defend the same.[/B} The God given, natural right to self determination, self defense, 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is written in the Founding Documents in a thousand places. Free men arms bear arms, slaves dont. That is clear and has been clear since the dawn of civilization.

Are the other parts of the Bill of Rights a priviledge? Notice the NRA quote say 'workable enforceable'. That was back during the last massive federal stomp on the RKBA, the Gun Control Act.

I havent seen proposal one that is 'workable' or 'enforceable' since then, including the one he was describing.

Maybe you shoud go 'self regulate' yourself.

you make a great point. if we all have the same rights, from here to China, why is life here so different from life in China? Oh, that's right, because the state dictates which of these so called "God given rights" an individual can practice. China is a totalitarian state and we live in a republic, where the state is, ostensibly, a representation of the will of the citizenry. So again, you can believe you have a god given right to own a RPG, but unless you can convince a majority of your countrymen to support you on that, when you go to practice your "right" you are going to run squarely into the will of the people, in the form of LE.

dixieD
01-07-2013, 10:33 AM
if you did not get my point, it is that there have always been limitations on our "rights" and those limitations have always been imposed by the state. For example, my first amendment rights do not extend to fraud. my second amendment rights do not extend to RPGs, the extent to which these rights exist is dependent on the decisions of the interpreters of the constitution. If they decide to interpret it differently, your rights change. These documents are elastic and their interpretation changes according to the prevailing feelings of the citizenry. if there are enough massacres, policy will change. if you like the status quo, figure out a way to stop massacres, which create public outcry, which changes the political landscape, which creates legislation to represent the feelings of the constituency, which gets trotted in front of the SCOTUS, which makes its decisions in part based on the prevailing feelings of the constituency (see recent healthcare ruling)

A few thoughts come to mind. The Constitution is/was a contract between the People and a government they were forming. The purpose was to control the government not the other way around.

The First Amendment is for free speech against the government, the freedom to petition the government, the right to freely exercise religious beliefs, and freedom to not be subjected to State religion. The modern 'elastic interpretation' of the contract has extended it to porn, and speech directed to parties other than the people and their government and has diluted it. We now have a Supreme Court Justice who actually orally advocated for government control of political speech including movies, books and pamphlets (check out oral argument for Citizen's United), but she will stand strong on ones 'right' to view porn. Now, I think that people should be allowed to view porn as long as the creation of the particular porn does not violate laws regarding age of consent, etc. The problem is that by interpreting the 1A to include this 'right', an elastic interpretation, the original intent to protect political speech is diluted.

The 2A was designed to ensure that the people had the sort of arms that were carried by the common soldier. The founders were against standing armies, and rather relied on a well armed populous. Why? They feared standing armies, particularly those of their government. Interpretation of the 2A to include the 'right' to target shoot, and hunt dilutes the original intent and weakens the contract for what it really is, a guarantee that the people will have the tools for their own defense whether it be on a personal scale, or larger scale against tyranny. If the citizenry is so inclined to change this right then the only appropriate way is through election of public officials who will then push for repealing the 2A through the amendment process. To enact legislation and then use elastic interpretation to invoke it only weakens the entire constitution.

Finally, an 'elastic' contract is as good as no contract. Elastic interpretation of one element of the contract weakens the entire contract. If I decide that I don't like the interest rate on my home mortgage contract I cannot unilaterally change the terms. However, through mutual agreement the terms can indeed be changed. For the constitution the mechanism for change of the terms is the amendment process.

"China is a totalitarian state and we live in a republic, where the state is, ostensibly, a representation of the will of the citizenry.", as allowed through the Constitutional Contract.

SFgiants105
01-07-2013, 10:36 AM
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/293577_457643334284524_1793763773_n.jpg

missiontrails
01-07-2013, 10:41 AM
He didn't lie. He will simply make it illegal to transfer or purchase. As far as longuns go, how could they take away what they don't know you own?

dixieD
01-07-2013, 10:41 AM
http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/293577_457643334284524_1793763773_n.jpg

Other movies regarding events in the not too distant past, carried out be people fooled by articulate demagogues include Sunshine, Defiance, and Uprising.

njineermike
01-07-2013, 10:43 AM
Allow me to translate that into English:

"I will say anything and everything you want to hear to get you to vote for me".

dixieD
01-07-2013, 10:46 AM
He didn't lie. He will simply make it illegal to transfer or purchase. As far as longuns go, how could they take away what they don't know you own?

The same way that they always find out. After the Connecticut massacre the police chief said they will find out the workbench where the rifle was manufactured. How can they do that? They have a serial number, they go to the manufacturer who tells them to which distributer it was sold, who then tells them to which retailer it was sold who then look up their paperwork to find out to which individual it was sold. All they need to do is request all of the serial numbers from manufacturers and then pass a law requiring all 4473s to be turned in to the government. Gun dealers are required to keep 4473s for 20 years, and turn this documentation in if they go out of business. The only way it could not be done is if manufacturers and gun dealers shredded their documentation, 4473s and bound books.

missiontrails
01-07-2013, 11:01 AM
The same way that they always find out. After the Connecticut massacre the police chief said they will find out the workbench where the rifle was manufactured. How can they do that? They have a serial number, they go to the manufacturer who tells them to which distributer it was sold, who then tells them to which retailer it was sold who then look up their paperwork to find out to which individual it was sold. All they need to do is request all of the serial numbers from manufacturers and then pass a law requiring all 4473s to be turned in to the government. Gun dealers are required to keep 4473s for 20 years, and turn this documentation in if they go out of business. The only way it could not be done is if manufacturers and gun dealers shredded their documentation, 4473s and bound books.

There is no way they have the resources to do that on a wide scale. When a crime is commited- yes. Imagine, tracing back millions of rifles to the "workbenches" where they were produced. There is NO way manufacturers would have the resources to accommodate that either. No way. Rifles can go through NUMEROUS PPT'S in their lifetime also. Again, NO WAY. Oh ya, how long are ffl's required to keep long gun PPT records on file? Yes, 20, so anything older is lost.

leonard6084
01-07-2013, 11:16 AM
The First Amendment is not needed to protect your right to look at pictures of puppies and kittens. It is needed to protect your right to say things which are deeply unpopular and repulsive. The Second Amendment is not needed to protect your right to own grandpa's old break-action shotgun. It is needed to protect your right to own an AR-15 and a pistol.

this is the most clear statement I've read here. great post.

1859sharps
01-07-2013, 11:18 AM
I think people are STILL confusing what is possible and what is not with ultimate desire.

Right now, confiscation is basically NOT possible. NOT being possible does NOT equal not interested in being able to or willing to confiscate.

IF there was the will and the votes, do NOT for one SECOND think Difi or Obama or anyone else like them would NOT hesitate to take your guns, any type be it a single shot 200 year old rifle or a just manufactured today AR. they do NOT think you should have arms period.

I know things look grim...and to a point they are. BUT this isn't 1994. We have a MUCH better shot at coming out with our rights intact than we did back then.

The threat/risk of a gun control law of some kind coming out of the Federal Government has NEVER been greater since 1994. But that still isn't the same as a forgone conclusion a law will pass or there will be a ban.

Our greatest enemy right now ISN'T Obama, or Difi or any of their VERY EXTREME proposals. Our GREATEST enemy is giving up, complacency, accepting defeat before the fight has even begun.

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember 92-94. The Federal AWB was NOT the worst thing that could have happened to us. There were LOTS of other proposals FAR, FAR worse.

And like then, we are hearing proposals left and right that are FAR, FAR worse than any law to date or even the 94 ban. But simply because some one says "there should be a law that does this and that" does NOT mean such a law will suddenly exist.

There is a process proposals have to take in order to be a bill and for bills to take in order to become law. So, keeping tabs on proposals is wise, but getting worked up over proposals and talk is a wast of energy.

Lets do our parts. join the NRA, write our reps, talk to friends and family and coworkers (when appropriate) and at the very least focus on debunking the hysteria. and most importantly don't give up, don't surrender and assume we lost before a bill has even been introduced.

Oh and when people suggest compromise...I am going to start saying, sure I am all for compromise. I will support McCarthy banning those supper dangerous shoulder things that go up, IF she agrees to NOT support a ban on semi auto rifles. :D

see, there IS room for compromise. ;)

dixieD
01-07-2013, 12:10 PM
There is no way they have the resources to do that on a wide scale. When a crime is commited- yes. Imagine, tracing back millions of rifles to the "workbenches" where they were produced. There is NO way manufacturers would have the resources to accommodate that either. No way. Rifles can go through NUMEROUS PPT'S in their lifetime also. Again, NO WAY. Oh ya, how long are ffl's required to keep long gun PPT records on file? Yes, 20, so anything older is lost.

Hope you're right. Resources and spending don't seem to hand in hand with this government.

hulasboy
01-07-2013, 9:47 PM
Hope you're right. Resources and spending don't seem to hand in hand with this government.

those haven't been values of any administration in recent memory. as much as I hate to admit it, Clinton is the only one who had a balanced budget.

Merovign
01-08-2013, 3:05 AM
those haven't been values of any administration in recent memory. as much as I hate to admit it, Clinton is the only one who had a balanced budget.

The Republican house and senate shut down a significant portion of the federal government to force Clinton to sign those budgets, and took a big political hit in the process of trying to get spending under control.

As ineffectual as Bush was, the deficit was falling from about 2003 until 2006. In 2007, the Democrats took control of both the House and the Senate, and spending rose dramatically. While that process was already in place, it didn't have to continue to this day.

Unfortunately, rewriting history has become the national pastime, and people have so many contradictory "official" sources of information that we don't even have a common history to work with to have a "conversation" anymore - so the people at the ground level hate each other because they can't agree on anything, and the politicians keep spending a trillion and a half more than they take in every year. And we get the bill.

stix213
01-08-2013, 3:16 AM
The difference between then and now is Obummer doesn't have to face the voters again, so can finally be himself.

TTT
01-08-2013, 7:27 AM
I am constantly surprised by the firearms industry's unwillingness to regulate itself.

Care to expand on this?

CDFingers
01-08-2013, 7:34 AM
Where are the votes for this alleged "gun grab?"

See? They don't exist.

CDFingers

Skidmark
01-08-2013, 8:15 AM
Where are the votes for this alleged "gun grab?"

See? They don't exist.

No one is coming to take away our guns.

The huffing and puffing over this would be much better directed at stopping and/or fighting stupid bills like the Skinner 48 ammoe legislation.

hulasboy
01-09-2013, 1:39 AM
I am constantly surprised by the firearms industry's unwillingness to regulate itself.

Care to expand on this?

Sure, everyone is familiar with the movie rating system, it was implemented by the film industry so that they could avoid government intervention but respond to the public concern that the content of some films was not suitable for family viewing. Whether you think that was a problem or not, it was perceived as a problem by the public and the film industry proactively developed the rating system to avoid the government intervening (on behalf of the people) to solve this problem.

The general public perceives that the nation has a problem with gun violence. Whether or not one agrees that there is a problem is irrelevant, it is the public perception. When a priest rapes a bunch of kids, the Catholic church immediately issues a statement condemning the action and saying it does not represent the values of the church. When working conditions at the Apple factory in China are shown to be abysmal, Apple issues a statement about not only what they are going to improve, but what they have been working on already to make things better, because they know that these public relations problems are hugely important to them maintaining business as usual.

If gun owners want business as usual, we have to get out in front of this stuff instead of *****ing about the solutions other people are proposing. why was the NRA silent on Newtown for a week? why aren't they seen as a key player to ending the epidemic of gun violence? whether or not we or they believe it to be a real thing, the perception that it is real is all of our problem if we want to own guns and not be demonized by society. why hasn't the gun industry been vocally working for years to make it harder for nutjobs to buy guns?

my point is that the operating procedures by the gun industry and the NRA thus far have landed us where we are now, and most of the country thinks where we are with guns is unacceptable. most of the country supports some form of gun control http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2012/12/gun-control-policies.jpg (from the washington post) so I think it's in our best interest to suggest ways to solve the problem rather than have the solutions proposed to us by the folks who don't know the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic.

SgtMerc
01-09-2013, 2:36 AM
A few thoughts come to mind. The Constitution is/was a contract between the People and a government they were forming. The purpose was to control the government not the other way around.


This. I read his first post about "privileges" and had to post.

Read the bill of rights again. They are limitations on what the government is able to affect. It is not a laundry list of things we are allowed by our government to have. And in fact even includes an amendment admitting that they didn't want the people's rights infringed because they may have left it out (9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")

SgtMerc
01-09-2013, 3:11 AM
If gun owners want business as usual, we have to get out in front of this stuff instead of *****ing about the solutions other people are proposing. why was the NRA silent on Newtown for a week? why aren't they seen as a key player to ending the epidemic of gun violence? whether or not we or they believe it to be a real thing, the perception that it is real is all of our problem if we want to own guns and not be demonized by society. why hasn't the gun industry been vocally working for years to make it harder for nutjobs to buy guns?

my point is that the operating procedures by the gun industry and the NRA thus far have landed us where we are now,

1. The NRA was silent for a week because anything they said immediately after the event would be seen as opportunistic at worst, insincere at best. Better to let all the facts come out before jumping on the media bandwagon. How many conflicting reports came out about what weapon was used, the death toll, the shooters history and access to the firearms used?
And with that, why didn't the makers of anti-psychotic medications come out with a statement? Surely the makers of the shooters medication were at fault for his actions, right?
The NRAs condolences would not have done any good, and would have been twisted against them.

2. The NRA has always supported that inappropriate people should not own firearms. What NRA press release have you been watching where they advocated "nutjobs should have guns,"? The NRA has long stood by responsible gun owners, and never defended the actions of the criminals. But unfortunately the laws don't affect criminals.

3. Operating procedures of the gun industry and NRA have gotten us here? Not the actions of the mentally unstable individuals who perpetrate these heinous crimes? How about blaming the people who actually do this stuff? Or the governors who sign early releases for violent criminals? Or blaming the police departments who don't update NICS with felony charges/convictions?

We already have laws in place. But the system refuses to enforce those laws. Prisons work on the catch and release mentality, practically running inmates through a revolving door. Felons attempting to buy guns are not in the system because it's not being updated or shared.

How about making the negligent parties responsible instead of the gun owners who abide by the laws that criminals ignore?

You say the industry is to blame, but it's not like the industry packages each firearm with a pamphlet on how to shoot up a shopping mall.

SanPedroShooter
01-09-2013, 6:54 AM
you make a great point. if we all have the same rights, from here to China, why is life here so different from life in China? Oh, that's right, because the state dictates which of these so called "God given rights" an individual can practice. China is a totalitarian state and we live in a republic, where the state is, ostensibly, a representation of the will of the citizenry. So again, you can believe you have a god given right to own a RPG, but unless you can convince a majority of your countrymen to support you on that, when you go to practice your "right" you are going to run squarely into the will of the people, in the form of LE.

An RPG? Thats seems like a bit of little left field example. RPG's might be pushing it bit, but think about it like this. I could an RPG for the rest of my life and never do anything but blow up junk cars and tree stumps.... A psycho might get a hold of a common item like a kitchen knife and stab 20 children.

You see where I am going with this?

I thought you were just another troll, but I see that you are actually making fair points, so I apologize.

tcrpe
01-09-2013, 7:20 AM
I want some high capacity clips. The ones that hold a lot of bullets.

SanPedroShooter
01-09-2013, 7:22 AM
I want some high capacity clips. The ones that hold a lot of bullets.

assault clips, assault bullets

tcrpe
01-09-2013, 7:25 AM
I want some high capacity assault clips. The ones that hold a lot of assault bullets.

ChrisC
01-09-2013, 7:39 AM
I want some high capacity assault clips. The ones that hold a lot of assault bullets.

Now if you could attach a hammer to those high capacity assault clips you would have yourself one scary weapon of mass destruction. And for the love of all good and bad don't paint them black.:D

TTT
01-09-2013, 7:46 AM
Sure, everyone is familiar usual [...] the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic.

My mistake, my request was too open-ended. Can you provide specific suggestions you think the firearms industry could implement?

tcrpe
01-09-2013, 7:51 AM
I want some high capacity assault clips. The ones that hold a lot of assault bullets. Painted assault black, with assault claw hammers attached.

hulasboy
01-09-2013, 8:43 AM
1. The NRA was silent for a week because anything they said immediately after the event would be seen as opportunistic at worst, insincere at best. Better to let all the facts come out before jumping on the media bandwagon. How many conflicting reports came out about what weapon was used, the death toll, the shooters history and access to the firearms used?
And with that, why didn't the makers of anti-psychotic medications come out with a statement? Surely the makers of the shooters medication were at fault for his actions, right?
The NRAs condolences would not have done any good, and would have been twisted against them.

2. The NRA has always supported that inappropriate people should not own firearms. What NRA press release have you been watching where they advocated "nutjobs should have guns,"? The NRA has long stood by responsible gun owners, and never defended the actions of the criminals. But unfortunately the laws don't affect criminals.

3. Operating procedures of the gun industry and NRA have gotten us here? Not the actions of the mentally unstable individuals who perpetrate these heinous crimes? How about blaming the people who actually do this stuff? Or the governors who sign early releases for violent criminals? Or blaming the police departments who don't update NICS with felony charges/convictions?

We already have laws in place. But the system refuses to enforce those laws. Prisons work on the catch and release mentality, practically running inmates through a revolving door. Felons attempting to buy guns are not in the system because it's not being updated or shared.

How about making the negligent parties responsible instead of the gun owners who abide by the laws that criminals ignore?

You say the industry is to blame, but it's not like the industry packages each firearm with a pamphlet on how to shoot up a shopping mall.

You misunderstood my post. I am not blaming anyone, I am saying that public opinion is against us. I am suggesting that there is a way for responsible gun owners to be seen as part of the solution. Right now, IMO, the problem is largely perceived as gun ownership, as the public sees that as inextricably related to gun violence. I am suggesting that our public relations campaign could do better. One of the ways we could do better is by having responsible gun owners be seen as being actively working to prevent gun violence. The reason the NRA was silent is that it has (in my memory of news coverage) always been the NRA's policy not to comment on shootings. This one was horrific enough to make them change their policy. I wasn't looking for a big political statement, but just something like millions of other Americans had at their businesses "we pray for the families in Newtown," to show that the organization had enough humanity to recognize this tragedy without worrying that showing remorse for dead children was going to weaken their political position. I think their silence was at best, very bad politics.

hulasboy
01-09-2013, 8:51 AM
This. I read his first post about "privileges" and had to post.

Read the bill of rights again. They are limitations on what the government is able to affect. It is not a laundry list of things we are allowed by our government to have. And in fact even includes an amendment admitting that they didn't want the people's rights infringed because they may have left it out (9th amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")

Totally get it, but all these things come to us through the filter of the elected government. And the constitution is ultimately interpreted by appointees of the elected government, so our ability to exercise all the rights laid out in the constitution is, in practice, dependent on the current interpretation of the Constitution.

donw
01-09-2013, 8:56 AM
this president has done NOTHING but cause division within this nation...gun rights are only a part of the damage he's done/doing...

we ain't gonna be able to afford the ammo for 22 rimfire by the time he gets thru with this taxation agenda...

hulasboy
01-09-2013, 9:23 AM
My mistake, my request was too open-ended. Can you provide specific suggestions you think the firearms industry could implement?

this will be unpopular here I am sure, but I think for starters, there should be some training required to purchase a gun. I think this would be a good step public relations wise, but as a person who frequents public ranges, I'd be grateful for it because there are so many people who have never had any. I cannot tell you how many times I have been swept by a barrel at a public range because they seem to be full of people who don't have any idea about the four rules of gun safety. I think it's kind nuts that if I want to drive a car I have to go out with a guy from the DMV and prove that I can actually drive it safely, but if I want a gun, I take just take a written test. That's one suggestion, which to me would definitely be preferable to limiting what guns I am allowed to buy. I am not saying I have a silver bullet [rimshot] but that what I believe gun owners/industry should do is proactively suggest solutions that are more preferable to us than the further restrictive legislation the general public/senate/house will propose.

Sublime_AC
01-09-2013, 9:26 AM
Originally Posted by hulasboy
...to be clear, owning guns is not a god given right, it's a privilege bestowed by the state.


Au contraire mon frere

I have a God Given Right to defend myself, from you, from criminals and from an oppressive government should they mean to do me harm. The second amendment was put in place to give us the ability to do so, with firearms, the founding fathers made it very clear that this right was not to be infringed.

Sublime_AC
01-09-2013, 9:27 AM
We have a right and a duty to defend ourselves against people like Stanley McChrystal...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLCtlKQzvq4

Sublime_AC
01-09-2013, 9:29 AM
what I'm saying is that the way the constitution works, it's constantly being interpreted and reinterpreted by the state (the supreme court). At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, arms meant all the weaponry available to the military. Currently, civilians no longer have access to all the weaponry available to the military, and that's exactly because the court, which is an arm of the state has interpreted the constitution to mean that the second amendment does not apply to howitzers or mortars or grenades. The state took away our privilege to own military hardware like that.

this is a good write up about the changing reading of the second amendment through recent history:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5200

The constitution was written in plain and simple English, it is not rocket science. When you look at the meaning of the words / phrases from an originalist view it is quite clear. There is no need for interpretation, means what it says.

If people don't like something in the constitution there is an amendment process to change it.

What part of shall not be infringed is difficult for you to understand?

skyscraper
01-09-2013, 9:34 AM
The constitution was written in plain and simple English, it is not rocket science. When you look at the meaning of the words / phrases from an originalist view it is quite clear. There is no need for interpretation, means what it says.

If people don't like something in the constitution there is an amendment process to change it.

What part of shall not be infringed is difficult for you to understand?

I believe his point is that history would prove otherwise to your interpretation. We cannot own tanks, rpg's and new machine guns. As much as I dont agree with it, it has happened this way.

russ69
01-09-2013, 9:49 AM
this will be unpopular here I am sure, but I think for starters, there should be some training required to purchase a gun. ...

Two things come to mind. Do we need training to exercise our first amendment rights? Of course not. And we don't need a license to buy or drive a car either. You can buy a car without restrictions if you operate it on private property. Even with car licensing they still manage to kill 30,000 in the USA alone. So adding another requirement to firearm purchasing to prove I'm worthy to the state does nothing to insure my safety. Accidental firearm deaths are a very small number, we would have more affect if we trained people about pool safety.

hulasboy
01-09-2013, 10:44 AM
I believe his point is that history would prove otherwise to your interpretation. We cannot own tanks, rpg's and new machine guns. As much as I dont agree with it, it has happened this way.

exactly.

hulasboy
01-09-2013, 10:50 AM
Two things come to mind. Do we need training to exercise our first amendment rights? Of course not. And we don't need a license to buy or drive a car either. You can buy a car without restrictions if you operate it on private property. Even with car licensing they still manage to kill 30,000 in the USA alone. So adding another requirement to firearm purchasing to prove I'm worthy to the state does nothing to insure my safety. Accidental firearm deaths are a very small number, we would have more affect if we trained people about pool safety.

I am all for pool safety!

and I would feel safer if I knew that the people at the range around me, (or on the hunting trips I've been on with friends of friends) had a basic amount of firearms safety training.

like I said, if my suggestion is not to your liking, that's fine. all I'm advocating for is suggestions.

ChrisC
01-09-2013, 10:54 AM
this president has done NOTHING but cause division within this nation...gun rights are only a part of the damage he's done/doing...

we ain't gonna be able to afford the ammo for 22 rimfire by the time he gets thru with this taxation agenda...

This country has been divided way before Obama stepped into office so you really can not blame him for this one. And we won't be able to afford ammo thanks to all the panic buying that has been happening for over 4 years now due to nothing but speculations by the right as to what Obama might do to our gun rights. The ammo and gun makers are laughing all the way to the bank, their sales are through the roof due to nothing but assumptions on what this administration might do.

Wherryj
01-09-2013, 11:31 AM
"Lawful right"?

I thought it was an inalienable right.

Silly me . . . . .

He would have said "God given right", except that he has far too much contempt for religion-at least Chrsitianity- to say that.

SgtMerc
01-09-2013, 7:20 PM
I am all for pool safety!

and I would feel safer if I knew that the people at the range around me, (or on the hunting trips I've been on with friends of friends) had a basic amount of firearms safety training.

like I said, if my suggestion is not to your liking, that's fine. all I'm advocating for is suggestions.

That's your own fault for not calling people out when they flag you or are unsafe. I don't know the regulations on purchasing in all states, but here you have to demonstrate the ability to load and clear the firearm before you take it home.

Even if there were a standardized test, certain people would take it once then forget the safety rules unless someone calls them on it.

Legislating doesn't fix it. Education and accountability would.

hulasboy
01-09-2013, 9:04 PM
That's your own fault for not calling people out when they flag you or are unsafe. I don't know the regulations on purchasing in all states, but here you have to demonstrate the ability to load and clear the firearm before you take it home.

Even if there were a standardized test, certain people would take it once then forget the safety rules unless someone calls them on it.

Legislating doesn't fix it. Education and accountability would.

education is a great idea, I wish with every gun they sold they put people in touch with local NRA chapters who would teach basic firearms safety.

njineermike
01-09-2013, 9:34 PM
this will be unpopular here I am sure, but I think for starters, there should be some training required to purchase a gun. I think this would be a good step public relations wise, but as a person who frequents public ranges, I'd be grateful for it because there are so many people who have never had any. I cannot tell you how many times I have been swept by a barrel at a public range because they seem to be full of people who don't have any idea about the four rules of gun safety. I think it's kind nuts that if I want to drive a car I have to go out with a guy from the DMV and prove that I can actually drive it safely, but if I want a gun, I take just take a written test. That's one suggestion, which to me would definitely be preferable to limiting what guns I am allowed to buy. I am not saying I have a silver bullet [rimshot] but that what I believe gun owners/industry should do is proactively suggest solutions that are more preferable to us than the further restrictive legislation the general public/senate/house will propose.

Would you support a training and licensing requirement to the exercise of speech or religion? What about a trial by jury of one's peers? Which test allows me to peaceably assemble? How do I train to be able to be secure in my person from unreasonable search and seizure. Which exam gives me the certification to be free from cruel and unusual punishment?

dfletcher
01-09-2013, 9:38 PM
This country has been divided way before Obama stepped into office so you really can not blame him for this one. And we won't be able to afford ammo thanks to all the panic buying that has been happening for over 4 years now due to nothing but speculations by the right as to what Obama might do to our gun rights. The ammo and gun makers are laughing all the way to the bank, their sales are through the roof due to nothing but assumptions on what this administration might do.

You may be correct regarding division in general. However people recognized this President as being anti-gun long ago simply by reading his previous statements. The current buying is due not to what this administration "might do" as you have put it, but what they have openly stated they prefer to do and are now working very hard to do.

I haven't bought a single "black gun" or round of ammo for a while.

tommyfly
01-09-2013, 10:09 PM
he dosnt plan on taking them away. He just plans on not letting us buy a new one

one
01-09-2013, 10:34 PM
Let's see what happens on the 22nd.

hulasboy
01-09-2013, 11:59 PM
Would you support a training and licensing requirement to the exercise of speech or religion? What about a trial by jury of one's peers? Which test allows me to peaceably assemble? How do I train to be able to be secure in my person from unreasonable search and seizure. Which exam gives me the certification to be free from cruel and unusual punishment?

I get that those are all in the bill of rights, but those other rights aren't at the center of a public policy discussion right now because people don't use free speech to shoot up schools full of kids. is your position that we would not be better off if all gun owners didn't have to have any training before they were sent home? if that's the case, I'd invite you to come shooting at the LA gun club on a friday night.

CDFingers
01-10-2013, 7:35 AM
russ69 asks:

>Do we need training to exercise our first amendment rights?

We get training in public school about how to make sentences, how to spell, how to structure our writings. This is paid for by our California tax dollars. There was a time when .22 rifle teams existed in many colleges and high schools, with training provided by tax payer dollars. I'd be in favor of that kind of training paid for by tax payer dollars to return to our civilized society.

CDFingers

TTT
01-10-2013, 7:42 AM
this will be unpopular here I am sure, but I [...]general public/senate/house will propose.

All you have is that you’d like firearms manufacturers to require training of buyers? When you said you were “constantly surprised by the firearms industry’s unwillingness to regulate itself” I thought you must have had some solutions you thought they should be acting on. No other suggestions, huh?

njineermike
01-10-2013, 8:28 AM
russ69 asks:

>Do we need training to exercise our first amendment rights?

We get training in public school about how to make sentences, how to spell, how to structure our writings. This is paid for by our California tax dollars. There was a time when .22 rifle teams existed in many colleges and high schools, with training provided by tax payer dollars. I'd be in favor of that kind of training paid for by tax payer dollars to return to our civilized society.

CDFingers

But there is no requirement to have an education to he allowed to speak.

tcrpe
01-10-2013, 8:31 AM
Right, the government will train its vassals to take up arms to challenge government tyranny.

Who believes that?

njineermike
01-10-2013, 8:38 AM
I get that those are all in the bill of rights, but those other rights aren't at the center of a public policy discussion right now because people don't use free speech to shoot up schools full of kids. is your position that we would not be better off if all gun owners didn't have to have any training before they were sent home? if that's the case, I'd invite you to come shooting at the LA gun club on a friday night.

No, people use free speech to incite riots, to list the names of innocent people making them targets for violence, for creating propaganda to sway public opinion, and other such benign acts. I never took a day of training until last week when I took my son. I've also been hunting and shooting for almost 40 years. Nobody took any training until hunter safety courses became mandatory, we took guns to school during hunting season, and nobody managed to get shot. Maybe you should advise the PRIVATELY OWNED shooting range to institute mandatory safety training prior to anyone being approved to use the range, or proof they have received it elsewhere. Maybe you should advise the RSO about unsafe procedures and let THEM deal with it. Actively stating we should all be REQUIRED to attend some mandatory training to be able to exercise the right to defend ourselves is ludicrous.

CDFingers
01-11-2013, 5:43 AM
njineermike writes that there is no requirement to be educated to be allowed to speak.

He is correct.

Yet what happens when some who cannot string a sentence together properly, creating a "word salad" such that she is never understood, causes people to question her sanity?

I'm thinking Sarah Palin.

So, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

It is true that there is no requirement to learn how to read and write in order to speak freely, but absent a command of the language, that person would be ineffective.

The same logic to me holds about guns: if I don't practice, I won't be able to hit the X ring I'm aiming for.

Freedom is untidy, and those who who aren't effective will not succeed.

CDFingers

njineermike
01-11-2013, 6:52 AM
njineermike writes that there is no requirement to be educated to be allowed to speak.

He is correct.

Yet what happens when some who cannot string a sentence together properly, creating a "word salad" such that she is never understood, causes people to question her sanity?

I'm thinking Sarah Palin.

So, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.

It is true that there is no requirement to learn how to read and write in order to speak freely, but absent a command of the language, that person would be ineffective.

The same logic to me holds about guns: if I don't practice, I won't be able to hit the X ring I'm aiming for.

Freedom is untidy, and those who who aren't effective will not succeed.

CDFingers


Point missed.

While education improves the quality of a message, it is not a LEGAL REQUIREMENT to be allowed to speak. Neither is a law degree a requirement to have the right invoke the 5th amendment or a trial by jury of ones peers. There is no license, no fee, no background check, no course, and no waiting period to be read Miranda rights, the right to an attorney, the requirement for a warrant for a search, or any other RIGHT.

Look at it this way. Will mandatory gun safety programs and licensing stop gang banging thugs from shooting each other? Will it stop criminals from robbing convenience stores? How many bank robberies will it prevent? Adam Lanza reputedly WAS a trained shooter. He was also reputedly mentally unstable. The genie is outout of the bottle and has been for some time. Criminals already have guns, and if there's surplus guns in any war zone anywhere on the planet, they'll find a way into the hands of thugs and killers and crazy people. No license, no class, no waiting period, no magazine restriction, none of these would have prevented the criminal with a crowbar from breaking into the home of the woman who had to shoot the guy with a .38 the other day. All making it even harder for her to get a firearm would have done was make it easier for the scumbag with a crowbar to make victims.

Now ask yourself this: When people still commit suicide, when murderers still kill people, when convenience store clerks are still being shot, and some nutcases snaps, only now he's highly trained and MUCH more proficient, and kills many More, what right will you feel it necessary to give up when the gun banners clamor next time, when they now say we're all trained killers, when this idea is a failure like thebrest?

section31
11-15-2013, 4:28 PM
If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.....

mag360
11-15-2013, 4:34 PM
No he went full retard after the navy yard shooting calling on us to go ALL OUT BAN and confiscation ala england and Australia after they "learned from their shootings".

cannonfodder
11-15-2013, 6:04 PM
I cant help but point out that our demonization of him pushed him to what he is at.

We effectively created a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy by turning him away instead of trying to get good dialogue with him. The vile and idiotic rhetoric from people like Ted Nugent and Wyane LaPierre made us look stupid. We needed level headed and reasonable people like theyankeemarshal or MrColionNoir to speak on our behalf, not the other two clowns.

We in effect, contributed to our own doom.

bohoki
11-15-2013, 6:48 PM
i gotta say he hasn't taken any of my guns so he has broken no promises to me

i dont have a doctor so i have no doctor to keep

mag360
11-15-2013, 6:50 PM
That is a bunch of hubbub cannonfodder. He could habe just as easily agreed with us and realized how wrong he was on guns. Hahahhaha bohoki says he still hasn't taken his guns I love it!

cr250chevy
11-15-2013, 6:54 PM
http://www.ammoland.com/2013/09/130016/#axzz2klxK7c5w

He might not have "taken" any, but he sure did do everything in his SOLE power to stop us from getting any, including the elusive M1...

therealnickb
11-15-2013, 7:09 PM
I cant help but point out that our demonization of him pushed him to what he is at.

We effectively created a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy by turning him away instead of trying to get good dialogue with him. The vile and idiotic rhetoric from people like Ted Nugent and Wyane LaPierre made us look stupid. We needed level headed and reasonable people like theyankeemarshal or MrColionNoir to speak on our behalf, not the other two clowns.

We in effect, contributed to our own doom.

Um... Hell no.

Before this arsecat was elected he told us in no uncertain terms what he wanted to do. Transform America. Spread the wealth. Create a civilian security force armed as well as our military. Yada yada yada.....

His lies only went so far with his (REMEMBER) democratic majority of congress!!!!!!

If o could have done more damage he would have.

Just ask yourself this. Is there anyway in the world ocare would have been voted through congress had o not told his #1 bold face lie over and over again? "If you like your plan, you can keep it. No one will take it away from you. PERIOD."

We didn't force him to do squat. Thank God for the conservatives that came along and stood their ground.

o refused to call Islamic Terrorists what they are. He used words like "man made disasters" to describe their hideous attacks. But o ha no trouble at all calling tea party conservatives "bomb vest wearing, hostage taking extortionists". Really mr president? Really???!!!

Uh o. I have a feeling I jumped on you about the wrong guy. Sorry but that rant felt too good so I'm keeping it. :)

therealnickb
11-15-2013, 7:17 PM
This country has been divided way before Obama stepped into office so you really can not blame him for this one. And we won't be able to afford ammo thanks to all the panic buying that has been happening for over 4 years now due to nothing but speculations by the right as to what Obama might do to our gun rights. The ammo and gun makers are laughing all the way to the bank, their sales are through the roof due to nothing but assumptions on what this administration might do.

Fortunately for us, the smartest most transparent and uniting president ever came along to end the destructive and divisive policies enacted by the evil w.

The list is long indeed. LOL.

terry4130
11-15-2013, 7:21 PM
Quote:
i gotta say he hasn't taken any of my guns so he has broken no promises to me



i dont have a doctor so i have no doctor to keep

You do realize you are now required to have a doctor, or pay at the least pay a fee to not have one. So, that is directly affecting you, along with everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

IVC
11-15-2013, 7:25 PM
We effectively created a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy by turning him away instead of trying to get good dialogue with him. The vile and idiotic rhetoric from people like Ted Nugent and Wyane LaPierre made us look stupid.

That's not an excuse for attacking our rights.

Any other group needs to sugar-coat their message and messengers before their rights are not trampled? Say, in red states, do women have to be nice if they want to keep their right to abortion? Do minorities have to make sure they don't alienate politicians lest they start facing calls for segregation?

See, there is this implicit assumption in talk like yours that "gun rights" are not really rights and that it's just some extremist rhetoric from the "crazy, vile and idiotic people" who don't want to accept that gun rights are "different" because the urbanites really, really don't like them.

Well, Heller and McDonald unequivocally clarify the issue.

IVC
11-15-2013, 7:26 PM
BTW, this is a necro thread...

kcjr1125
11-15-2013, 8:00 PM
Quote:
i gotta say he hasn't taken any of my guns so he has broken no promises to me



i dont have a doctor so i have no doctor to keep

You do realize you are now required to have a doctor, or pay at the least pay a fee to not have one. So, that is directly affecting you, along with everyone else.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

You do realize that the correct term is "health care provider". What the heck does that exactly mean? Good luck seeing an actual doctor. It's going to be nurses, lab techs etc if we're lucky. Shoot, I put a bandaid on my nephews cut and guess what I JUST PROVIDED HEALTH CARE.

cjc16
11-15-2013, 8:45 PM
I cant help but point out that our demonization of him pushed him to what he is at.

We effectively created a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy by turning him away instead of trying to get good dialogue with him. The vile and idiotic rhetoric from people like Ted Nugent and Wyane LaPierre made us look stupid. We needed level headed and reasonable people like theyankeemarshal or MrColionNoir to speak on our behalf, not the other two clowns.

We in effect, contributed to our own doom.

Stupidest thing I've heard all week. Congratulations.

therealnickb
11-15-2013, 8:57 PM
BTW, this is a necro thread...

Double LOL!

Ripon83
11-15-2013, 8:58 PM
Guess I never expected low info voters around here.....sad

njineermike
11-15-2013, 9:05 PM
I cant help but point out that our demonization of him pushed him to what he is at.

We effectively created a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy by turning him away instead of trying to get good dialogue with him. The vile and idiotic rhetoric from people like Ted Nugent and Wyane LaPierre made us look stupid. We needed level headed and reasonable people like theyankeemarshal or MrColionNoir to speak on our behalf, not the other two clowns.

We in effect, contributed to our own doom.

It still amazes me that in this day and age, when anybody with an IQ higher than potato can manage to bludgeon their way through a google search for public records and find Obama's state level voting record, where he not only voted anti-2A he INTRODUCED a gun law so bad it got bounced from pre-Heller/MacDonald Illinois of all places, we still have people this completely lost without it being completely willfully voluntary denial or outright cooperation.

Get it: Barrack Hussein Obama has never been, is not now, and never will be our friend or ally on the 2A and civilian gun ownership. He is fundamentally and idealogically opposed at the cellular level and has already proven that.

ChuangTzu
11-15-2013, 10:13 PM
At a campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama said that he will not take Americans' guns away.

OMG, a politician said one thing and did something totally different!

*yawn*

katranch
11-15-2013, 11:18 PM
He's a Muslim and a lier and he wants to disarm america.

cannonfodder
11-15-2013, 11:29 PM
He's a Muslim and a lier and he wants to disarm america.

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::rofl:

numpty
11-16-2013, 7:14 AM
It still amazes me that in this day and age, when anybody with an IQ higher than potato can manage to bludgeon their way through a google search for public records and find Obama's state level voting record, where he not only voted anti-2A he INTRODUCED a gun law so bad it got bounced from pre-Heller/MacDonald Illinois of all places, we still have people this completely lost without it being completely willfully voluntary denial or outright cooperation.

Get it: Barrack Hussein Obama has never been, is not now, and never will be our friend or ally on the 2A and civilian gun ownership. He is fundamentally and idealogically opposed at the cellular level and has already proven that.

Ding ding ding...for the win! Actions always speak louder than words. It's like an abusive husband, why do people continue to give him the benefit of the doubt when they are repeatedly abused? It's maddening!

Skidmark
11-16-2013, 10:55 AM
He's a Muslim and a lier and he wants to disarm america.

Everyone lies down at some point, each day. Nothing untoward about that.

OTOH, spreading lies about a man's religious affiliations... that's just plain wrong, and un-american.

sakosf
11-16-2013, 6:47 PM
281323

valley82
11-16-2013, 7:24 PM
If you believe he doesn't want to disarm you, (start sarcasm) he also will not force insurance companies to cancel your existing policy as of 12/31/13.Ask me how I know.

dfletcher
11-16-2013, 9:30 PM
I cant help but point out that our demonization of him pushed him to what he is at.

We effectively created a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy by turning him away instead of trying to get good dialogue with him. The vile and idiotic rhetoric from people like Ted Nugent and Wyane LaPierre made us look stupid. We needed level headed and reasonable people like theyankeemarshal or MrColionNoir to speak on our behalf, not the other two clowns.

We in effect, contributed to our own doom.

The President was that way on guns a long time before he came on to the national scene. All one need do is look at his record and his rhetoric when working in IL. The President has never expressed any inclination to discuss or be receptive to our interests.

Black folks making nice with Bull Conner or Laurie Pritchett wasn't going to change their minds, the same can be said for dealing with this President on guns. Being right, being united and being forceful is the only language these folks understand.

When "background check" legislation looked like it might pass the President went one step farther - to include registration. This is not a fellow interested in a discussion about guns.

I'll take help from anyone willing to contribute. I like Noir and YM. Nugent may not be my cup of tea, I know folks criticize Lapierre's strident tone - but it worked.

AA9MM
11-16-2013, 9:58 PM
If you like your gun.. you can keep it! Period. Guarenteed. :D

Springfield45
11-16-2013, 10:03 PM
If you like your gun.. you can keep it! Period. Guarenteed. :D

Everyone not named Period are out of luck.

rootuser
11-17-2013, 3:21 AM
If you believe he doesn't want to disarm you, (start sarcasm) he also will not force insurance companies to cancel your existing policy as of 12/31/13.Ask me how I know.

Hah I'll bite. How do you know? :D

donw
11-17-2013, 10:21 AM
That was then and this is now. We don't have the time to deal with rational and logical thought processes.

^^^how very true

very few legislators know and understand what logic TRULY is.

redhead
11-17-2013, 10:29 AM
It still amazes me that in this day and age, when anybody with an IQ higher than potato can manage to bludgeon their way through a google search for public records and find Obama's state level voting record, where he not only voted anti-2A he INTRODUCED a gun law so bad it got bounced from pre-Heller/MacDonald Illinois of all places, we still have people this completely lost without it being completely willfully voluntary denial or outright cooperation.

Get it: Barrack Hussein Obama has never been, is not now, and never will be our friend or ally on the 2A and civilian gun ownership. He is fundamentally and idealogically opposed at the cellular level and has already proven that.

There's a book by David Freddoso, The Case Against Barack Obama, that came out before the 2012 election. There's a lot of his history there, including his voting history. His anti-gun stance should be no surprise, and wasn't "pushed" to be what he is by demonization.

x-007
11-17-2013, 10:41 AM
"If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it....PERIOD"

(Uh, what I REALLY meant to say was, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan......IF it hasn't changed since the law passed!")

"You can keep your shotguns! You can keep your rifles! You can keep your handguns!"

(Uh, what I REALLY meant to say was, "You can keep your shotguns, your rifles and your handguns....IF I don't change the law....PERIOD!")

Trust me! No one is listening to your phone calls!

Best sale
11-17-2013, 11:23 AM
Funny when california gun owners get all riled up over some Obama stupid, grab a gun NATIONAL issue, that we all know will never pass.
On the flip side we suck up big time to OUR more than crazy laws here at home………. just don't get it

sl0re10
11-17-2013, 11:35 AM
I think marriage is between a man and a woman

I won't take your guns

You can keep your insurance and doctor if you want to

I'll run the most transparent administration in history -= true... transparently full of bs

russ69
11-17-2013, 11:48 AM
There is a difference between a guy full of BS and a guy that looks you in the eye and flat out deliberately misleads you. People can tolerate some BS but I can't tolerate a liar.

seo
11-17-2013, 9:12 PM
It was Mitt Romney (a Republican!) who actually signed a bill and took certain guns away from law abiding citizens in Mass.

If Wittman had been elected governor or Arnold was still governor they would have signed the bills that Brown vetoed.

And yet some people are so focused on the "Democrats" and while some Republicans take away our rights!

njineermike
11-17-2013, 9:19 PM
It was Mitt Romney (a Republican!) who actually signed a bill and took certain guns away from law abiding citizens in Mass.

If Wittman had been elected governor or Arnold was still governor they would have signed the bills that Brown vetoed.

And yet some people are so focused on the "Democrats" and while some Republicans take away our rights!

Mitt Romney isn't the President and Meg Whitman isn't the governor. Just figured you might like to know it's 2013 now.

therealnickb
11-17-2013, 9:23 PM
It was Mitt Romney (a Republican!) who actually signed a bill and took certain guns away from law abiding citizens in Mass.

If Wittman had been elected governor or Arnold was still governor they would have signed the bills that Brown vetoed.

And yet some people are so focused on the "Democrats" and while some Republicans take away our rights!

Wow.

newdeal
11-18-2013, 12:18 AM
Thank you all for your posts, it's very interesting to hear the thoughts of the Calguns community on such a "loaded" issue. If you'll allow it, I'll inject some neuro-thermobaric strike packages of thoughts into your lustily quivering cerebrums. I'm just going off the top of my head here, so if anyone would require specific support for my statements please let me know.

Firearms are fascinating not just because of their precise mechanical functioning but also because of the incredible power and responsibility associated with them. Similar to other tools we've developed in our hyper-evolved monkey brains, firearms function according to highly predictable phenomena in relatively controlled conditions. Often in the media you hear "...and the gun just went off" as if it grew a mind and decided to discharge. The mainstream media tends to spread fear and propaganda when it comes to gun ownership. What responsibility do we have, if any, to correct such misinformation?

Though it does fall to us to inform the public about the reality of guns, there's a time and place to "drop science." Many are so passionate about their ideology regarding guns that they don't really stop to consider the opposing point of view. I'd opine that the formula for success in advancing gun culture to the 21st century is an attitude of education. There's so much nonsense out there and it's easy to get sucked into the vortex of ignorance. Jefferson said "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." I'd go so far to say that it's the price of critical thinking as well. It's imperative that we have a proactive attitude about these things. The state has grown and grown like The Blob, sucking away individual wealth through dollar devaluation and gross taxation. Alexander Hamilton fought the creation of a central bank but they won out and have been sucking at the prosperity of the nation like plump leeches. They unlocked the printing presses and have been churning out cheap money for a hundred years. By loudly protesting increased regulation and resisting against heavier restrictions, we bring attention to the vital nature of the issue. That's the least we should do. California is already like a lion's den of tyrannical authority. When will it ever be enough? If you have licensing and regulation and expanding mental health restrictions and registration then where do you say "that's enough!" Look at the history of the Soviet Union. They would lock people up in mental asylums and forcibly drug them for being political dissidents, calling them insane. When you allow the government to define what sanity is, you are going down a dangerous road! Government is just about the least sane type of organization (religion a close second). How about you guys work, I'll sit in an office all day, paid exorbitant sums by you, protected by you (military), and I'll help you protect you from yourself.

Any rational person will be reasonably able to protect themselves from assailants. Assessments are made about degree of risk, diverse and layered means of protection, effectiveness of various techniques, and all applicable factors. Living in constant fear or ignorance of an assault on your life is going to be harmful, so it's left to the individual to decide the appropriateness of different strategies. Basically, if you are a responsible adult, you should be equipped on a mental and physical level to defend your life if need be. A person who's mentally not equipped to defend themselves without significant risk to others should not be physically equipped in such a manner. It's tough to say whether more laws would solve the problem. Maybe if we stopped beating our kids and blowing up innocent people all over the world it would do something to prevent such violent behavior in our society? If one requires security cameras, armed guards, and nannies to feel safe, they probably have bigger issues than simply being a law abiding citizen desiring security. And if such things happen to make them feel warm and toasty at night, why not hire from the private sector and get the best bang for your buck? Know that the people working for you didn't steal it from you, then provide you two dollar service, saying that you should be thankful to owe only fourteen trillion dollars? The police are there mostly to file the paperwork after a violent crime has taken place, not usually to ride in to the rescue. They have no legal obligation to protect you. To rely on government protection from violence is negligent at best. That's simply the reality of the world we live in. Once you accept that and deal with it, you realize that you don't need supervision of your most basic need, security, or any other area of your life. The most interesting people are the ones who follow their own set of rules, so why go out of the way to hinder that? Things tend to work themselves out. Every last thing in the world is part of a vast, interlocking web that knows nothing about the concepts of Good and Evil. It's up to us to create our very own definition of those, and I think we do a better job than we like to give ourselves credit for. Justice is something that manifests itself in unpredictable ways, and "enforcing" it is walking a very fine line. The prison system in this country is abhorrent and a disgrace to the very word "justice."

The founders of America were pretty remarkable people who fought against empire to guarantee themselves freedom. Freedom not meaning "freedom to drone strike," "freedom to sell drugs and smuggle guns under official guises," "freedom to molest travelers," and all the rest. To them, that meant individual freedom from oppressive taxation, burdensome foreign entanglements, and government intrusion into private affairs. The one thing that they understood is that more laws won't make us safer. The only thing that will make anyone safer is to change in the most courageous way possible- by changing themselves.

stevedusa
11-18-2013, 11:39 AM
Thank you all for your posts, it's very interesting to hear the thoughts of the Calguns community on such a "loaded" issue...

I haven't read such well-thought out comments in the community for a while and I applaud you for your thoughts.

As you mentioned, the media thrives on the public's fear and lack of knowledge when it comes to subjects such as gun rights. I'm sure there are editors in many different media outlets who would not agree with the very media he or she worked for. However the only way these editors can get paid is to attract eyeballs. When majority of the media are leaning towards one side, everybody else follows and competes for the biggest wow factor. Twisting the facts, spread ignorance and even take words out of context are common tools for them to use. It's sad to see the public would essentially go off to the media outlets who publishes opposing views and deemed such outlets the "enemy".

It's quite difficult to remain calm with clear thoughts, while being pointed at by the society, even the government for support and exercise 2A rights. Some of the acts we've seen as a community deserves a mention or two. However there are other actions expressed by some individual, even groups deserves frowns. Then again it's like Newton's law, for each action there is an opposite and equal reaction. i.e. if we didn't get pushed, even provoked by outrageous acts from the anties, most likely there won't be no "crazy" reactions from our end as well.

Seems like to me everything boils down to political. Everybody has their reasons for what they decided to do.

Bottom line, if he said we can keep it, don't count it since he clearly can't kept the promise he gave to us when it comes to existing insurance plans.

-hanko
11-18-2013, 12:33 PM
It was Mitt Romney (a Republican!) who actually signed a bill and took certain guns away from law abiding citizens in Mass.

If Wittman had been elected governor or Arnold was still governor they would have signed the bills that Brown vetoed.

And yet some people are so focused on the "Democrats" and while some Republicans take away our rights!
:rolleyes: You should be able to do a lot better than that...

Paragraph by paragraph...

Stupidity and violating the Constitution by one candidate does not justify another candidate doing the same thing, once he's elected.

Hypothesis on your part. Wittman wasn't elected because we were all advised to vote for Moonbeam. Arnold used to be the governor, but Jerry replaced him.

Generally speaking, more Dem's are anti-2nd Amendment than most Republicans. Dem's also favor letting the government solve your own problems, and generally don't favor personal responsibility.

cannonfodder
11-18-2013, 1:37 PM
Thank you all for your posts, it's very interesting to hear the thoughts of the Calguns community on such a "loaded" issue. If you'll allow it, I'll inject some neuro-thermobaric strike packages of thoughts into your lustily quivering cerebrums. I'm just going off the top of my head here, so if anyone would require specific support for my statements please let me know.

Firearms are fascinating not just because of their precise mechanical functioning but also because of the incredible power and responsibility associated with them. Similar to other tools we've developed in our hyper-evolved monkey brains, firearms function according to highly predictable phenomena in relatively controlled conditions. Often in the media you hear "...and the gun just went off" as if it grew a mind and decided to discharge. The mainstream media tends to spread fear and propaganda when it comes to gun ownership. What responsibility do we have, if any, to correct such misinformation?

Though it does fall to us to inform the public about the reality of guns, there's a time and place to "drop science." Many are so passionate about their ideology regarding guns that they don't really stop to consider the opposing point of view. I'd opine that the formula for success in advancing gun culture to the 21st century is an attitude of education. There's so much nonsense out there and it's easy to get sucked into the vortex of ignorance. Jefferson said "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." I'd go so far to say that it's the price of critical thinking as well. It's imperative that we have a proactive attitude about these things. The state has grown and grown like The Blob, sucking away individual wealth through dollar devaluation and gross taxation. Alexander Hamilton fought the creation of a central bank but they won out and have been sucking at the prosperity of the nation like plump leeches. They unlocked the printing presses and have been churning out cheap money for a hundred years. By loudly protesting increased regulation and resisting against heavier restrictions, we bring attention to the vital nature of the issue. That's the least we should do. California is already like a lion's den of tyrannical authority. When will it ever be enough? If you have licensing and regulation and expanding mental health restrictions and registration then where do you say "that's enough!" Look at the history of the Soviet Union. They would lock people up in mental asylums and forcibly drug them for being political dissidents, calling them insane. When you allow the government to define what sanity is, you are going down a dangerous road! Government is just about the least sane type of organization (religion a close second). How about you guys work, I'll sit in an office all day, paid exorbitant sums by you, protected by you (military), and I'll help you protect you from yourself.

Any rational person will be reasonably able to protect themselves from assailants. Assessments are made about degree of risk, diverse and layered means of protection, effectiveness of various techniques, and all applicable factors. Living in constant fear or ignorance of an assault on your life is going to be harmful, so it's left to the individual to decide the appropriateness of different strategies. Basically, if you are a responsible adult, you should be equipped on a mental and physical level to defend your life if need be. A person who's mentally not equipped to defend themselves without significant risk to others should not be physically equipped in such a manner. It's tough to say whether more laws would solve the problem. Maybe if we stopped beating our kids and blowing up innocent people all over the world it would do something to prevent such violent behavior in our society? If one requires security cameras, armed guards, and nannies to feel safe, they probably have bigger issues than simply being a law abiding citizen desiring security. And if such things happen to make them feel warm and toasty at night, why not hire from the private sector and get the best bang for your buck? Know that the people working for you didn't steal it from you, then provide you two dollar service, saying that you should be thankful to owe only fourteen trillion dollars? The police are there mostly to file the paperwork after a violent crime has taken place, not usually to ride in to the rescue. They have no legal obligation to protect you. To rely on government protection from violence is negligent at best. That's simply the reality of the world we live in. Once you accept that and deal with it, you realize that you don't need supervision of your most basic need, security, or any other area of your life. The most interesting people are the ones who follow their own set of rules, so why go out of the way to hinder that? Things tend to work themselves out. Every last thing in the world is part of a vast, interlocking web that knows nothing about the concepts of Good and Evil. It's up to us to create our very own definition of those, and I think we do a better job than we like to give ourselves credit for. Justice is something that manifests itself in unpredictable ways, and "enforcing" it is walking a very fine line. The prison system in this country is abhorrent and a disgrace to the very word "justice."

The founders of America were pretty remarkable people who fought against empire to guarantee themselves freedom. Freedom not meaning "freedom to drone strike," "freedom to sell drugs and smuggle guns under official guises," "freedom to molest travelers," and all the rest. To them, that meant individual freedom from oppressive taxation, burdensome foreign entanglements, and government intrusion into private affairs. The one thing that they understood is that more laws won't make us safer. The only thing that will make anyone safer is to change in the most courageous way possible- by changing themselves.

:rockon:

seo
11-18-2013, 7:37 PM
Mitt Romney isn't the President and Meg Whitman isn't the governor. Just figured you might like to know it's 2013 now.

You and others seem to miss the point. Too many people say it is a democrat vs. republican thing. Voting on the basis of party affiliation based on a single issue (as some seem to advocate at times) is not the way to go.

And you are right, thankfully neither of those two got elected or things could be worse (with regard to gun laws) than they already are.

OneLoneShooter
11-18-2013, 7:54 PM
You know...

I wouldn't be surprised if 150 to 200 some-odd years ago, some government official stood up in front of a group of Native Americans, and perhaps through a translator, told them:

"If you like your land, you can keep it."

njineermike
11-18-2013, 8:00 PM
You and others seem to miss the point. Too many people say it is a democrat vs. republican thing. Voting on the basis of party affiliation based on a single issue (as some seem to advocate at times) is not the way to go.

And you are right, thankfully neither of those two got elected or things could be worse (with regard to gun laws) than they already are.

We got the point. You feel like deflecting from the fact that democrats are the biggest offenders, not just here, but nationwide, with things that don't exist. It's an old tactic that's been employed repeatedly, and fails every time. Saying things could be worse with Romney instead of BHO is pure, unadulterated BS. If you're going to argue that, you better go back and do your homework, cause schools about to start.

therealnickb
11-18-2013, 8:41 PM
No 2A, and eventually all the other A's are gone as well.

Read any history.

JDay
11-20-2013, 12:04 AM
He's telling the truth. I can guarantee you that Obama will never come to your house to take your guns.

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk

stix213
11-20-2013, 1:00 AM
At a campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama said that he will not take Americans' guns away.

"When you all go home and you're talking to your buddies and you say, ah 'He wants to take my gun away.' You've heard it here, I'm on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Video at
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/flashback-obama-i-will-not-take-your-guns-away

He said the same thing about keeping your health insurance you already have. Not a very good track record in keeping to his word.

Fishslayer
11-20-2013, 12:42 PM
At a campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama said that he will not take Americans' guns away.

"When you all go home and you're talking to your buddies and you say, ah 'He wants to take my gun away.' You've heard it here, I'm on television so everybody knows it. I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away."

Video at
http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/flashback-obama-i-will-not-take-your-guns-away

If you like your plan you can keep your plan. Period.

russ69
11-20-2013, 12:58 PM
This one is easy. If you see a politician holding an AR15 AND smiling, that's your guy. But if you see one holding an AR15 at a press conference, it's trouble coming. Pictures of politicians duck hunting/shotgunning ain't enough.

glbtrottr
11-20-2013, 1:04 PM
Seriously...

...how could *anyone* believe anything that comes out of that scumbag's mouth?

Obama hasn't told the truth about *anything*.

Not about Fast and Furious.
Not about "Keep your healthcare plan".
Not about marriage and his beliefs.
His religion? His nationality? Birthplace? Student Records? Those may all be debatable, but there is no bigger scumbag in American political history than the guy who sold the woman and gay voting block into "hope" and "change"...and they believed it.

The sooner he is out of office, the better off this nation will be.

May we be saved from the impact of his dishonesty and policies.

therealnickb
11-20-2013, 2:39 PM
37% of the country still believes o is doing a good job.

Scary.

CombsForce
11-26-2013, 9:00 AM
So he lied again.

Is anyone surprised?

Nope. :)

CombsForce
11-26-2013, 9:02 AM
He said the same thing about keeping your health insurance you already have. Not a very good track record in keeping to his word.

And the feds knew when he lied then that they were anticipating millions of lost insurance policies due to Obamacare...

CombsForce
11-26-2013, 9:04 AM
"If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it....PERIOD"

(Uh, what I REALLY meant to say was, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan......IF it hasn't changed since the law passed!")

"You can keep your shotguns! You can keep your rifles! You can keep your handguns!"

(Uh, what I REALLY meant to say was, "You can keep your shotguns, your rifles and your handguns....IF I don't change the law....PERIOD!")

Trust me! No one is listening to your phone calls!

Dianne Frankenstein would agree with that statement...

Skidmark
11-26-2013, 8:22 PM
37% of the country still believes Obama is doing a good job.

Scary.

And 44% support the draft deal to curtail Iran's nuclear program, while only 22% oppose it - go figure.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/11/26/world/middleeast/26reuters-usa-iran-poll.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

therealnickb
11-26-2013, 8:25 PM
And 44% support the draft deal to curtail Iran's nuclear program, while only 22% oppose it - go figure.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/11/26/world/middleeast/26reuters-usa-iran-poll.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

Well, they had to pass it so they could find out what was in it.......

And that article was quite biased IMO.

rero360
11-26-2013, 8:55 PM
if you did not get my point, it is that there have always been limitations on our "rights" and those limitations have always been imposed by the state. For example, my first amendment rights do not extend to fraud. my second amendment rights do not extend to RPGs, the extent to which these rights exist is dependent on the decisions of the interpreters of the constitution.

You are incorrect, if you look back in history, at the time of the founding of this nation, all cannon and ships of war (minus the ones seized from the British) were privately owned. And you most certainly can own an RPG if you want in free America. Also, I don't have the ability to pull it up right now, but there was a weapon designed prior to the revolutionary war that was the precursor to the Gatling gun, it was known to the founders, so the 2nd amendment most certainly does not pertain to just brown Jesse's and other muskets.

The only real restrictions at the time were in regards to the storage of powder, and that was due to it being black powder, loose and the fire hazards it presented, which is understandable given the construction of structures at the time and the state of fire fighting equipment (buckets) in essence those laws of the times were no different than the various building codes we see around the country dealing with local hazards, earthquakes, wild fires, tornados, hurricanes.

garand1945
11-26-2013, 9:55 PM
"There have always been limitations on our rights" is the new talking point of the statist. I'm seeing it everywhere, even good old Dick Metcalf in Guns and Ammo bought into it.