I was watching the news, and Hillary said something to the effect of, "Once people see where Barack stands on the issues, the caucus numbers will change."
So to be fair, I went to issues2000.org and looked him up. Here's his gun control stance:
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
* Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons. * Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms. * Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
I quite honestly couldn't believe that. Ban all semi auto weapons? So we'll have to use bolt action and muzzle loaders?
Usually I wouldn't have cared but lately I've been wanting to pick up an M1 Garand (as a first firearm) and now I realize why gun lovers make such a fuss when their rights are compromised. I don't think I would vote for Obama if I meant that I couldn't buy the only rifle I've ever wanted. How seriously could this law actually take effect?
I just reread the issue and realized that was from 1998 I know something like that might not change in his mind but still it was 10 years ago. I looked this up to verify and while it doesn't mention semi-auto gun it does say assault weapons. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION...sues/issues.gun.html
I would have half a mind to say that his laws would probably only affect guns like small semi-autos with high capacity clips like the AKs and similar size guns.
[This message has been edited by The Poopsmith (edited 01-05-2008).]
Usually I wouldn't have cared but lately I've been wanting to pick up an M1 Garand (as a first firearm) and now I realize why gun lovers make such a fuss when their rights are compromised. I don't think I would vote for Obama if I meant that I couldn't buy the only rifle I've ever wanted. How seriously could this law actually take effect?
I just reread the issue and realized that was from 1998 I know something like that might not change in his mind but still it was 10 years ago.
I haven't seen another candidate who's said the same thing though. Even Hillary seems to be more "centrist" than Obama on this issue, she just wants registration, waiting periods, etc.
IP: Logged
02:03 PM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
As a state legislator in Illinois, Obama supported banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic firearms, increasing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms and requiring manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.[71] He has also supported a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.[72] He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month. He also voted against a 2004 measure allowing a self-defense exception for people charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home.[73]
The main thing....is that the government has no right to restrict what kind of weapon a legal possessor should be able to buy. Governments don't know limited controls. Its all or nothing. Yesterday it was full auto rifles. Today its rifles with pistol grips, and detachable magazines. Tomorrow will be pistols. The day after that will be hunting rifles and your granddaddy's shotgun. We will have none of the tools we need to defend ourselves from criminals. Even if you don't like guns, or even rap music for that matter, you have no right to limit its ownership for others. Its one of our liberties and we must protect all of them, even if we don't personally agree with them. We need to get the US out of the UN and kick the UN out of the US. The UN also tells developed countries that they should allow all forms of immigration - even illegal - from less developed countries.
Banning semi automatic weapons will never happen. A good 1911 will still be good in 2011 and 2111. Obama has this wrong, clearly, but it's not relevant since the most "toothy" legislation on gun control Democrats could pass in the past few decades gave those of us that wanted our flash suppressors AND our bayonet clips on the same assault rifle a bit of indigestion. Given the population of Blue Dog Democrats in congress, even a stronger Democratic sweep of the legislature won't hand this over. It's a stupid position and something that'll never happen. I.E. it doesn't matter to me.
He might as well insist gun manufactures include a bouquet of long stemmed red roses with a packet of plant food...
IP: Logged
02:21 PM
Derek_85GT Member
Posts: 1623 From: Flipadelphia, PA Registered: Mar 2005
That's not completely true. The supreme court has held (multiple times) that the government DOES have the right to restrict what kinds of weapons civilians can own, which means it's important to follow these issues since legislative action can erode your right to own a firearm. But no such massive legislative regulations have occurred since 1934 and no one here is old enough to remember that being passed.
quote
Originally posted by afRaceR:
The main thing....is that the government has no right to restrict what kind of weapon a legal possessor should be able to buy. Governments don't know limited controls. Its all or nothing. Yesterday it was full auto rifles. Today its rifles with pistol grips, and detachable magazines. Tomorrow will be pistols. The day after that will be hunting rifles and your granddaddy's shotgun. We will have none of the tools we need to defend ourselves from criminals. Even if you don't like guns, or even rap music for that matter, you have no right to limit its ownership for others. Its one of our liberties and we must protect all of them, even if we don't personally agree with them. We need to get the US out of the UN and kick the UN out of the US. The UN also tells developed countries that they should allow all forms of immigration - even illegal - from less developed countries.
IP: Logged
02:45 PM
Flamberge Member
Posts: 4268 From: Terra Sancta, TX Registered: Oct 2001
I was given a Marlin Model 60 .22 rifle when I was 9 for Christmas. It would be banned if Obama's stance mentioned above is true and could be enacted. It was a semi-automatic rifle with 18 shots in the tube (19 total). I never shot something I wasn't supposed to. I never took my dad's pistols out or did anything wrong. Maybe it's because I was raised in a home where a gun is a tool and not something "cool." Plus my dad taught me all the gun safety you could ever want.
My point is that it is possible for people to have guns and not go around killing everyone in sight. All that's needed is some education and respect. Probably just easier to ban everything, that way the only people who will have guns are the criminals. (Laws are for people who don't follow them.)
Just my two cents.
Flamberge
IP: Logged
02:49 PM
86blackse Member
Posts: 1778 From: Ga-TN state line Registered: Nov 2006
better get one while you can... their going up day by day.. i have a springfield m1 garand and a springfield m1 carbine both in mint condition. the carbine ammo has skyrocketed already, although the garand 30-06 ammo is still priced reasonable. im looking for a springfield M-14 now and IF you can find one their already well over 1k .. the world war II. rifles are a very good investment. i do find a few garands around but nothing like mine. and the bayonets are going for a high price on ebay...i have everything that can be put on both rifles and im glad i bought all my stuff years back... its the united states fault for these guns being hard to find and purchase cause their selling them to foreign countrys to kill US with in time of war.. thats our govt for ya.. but never tha less if your wanting a garand or carbine or M-14 better get them while you still can....just my 2 cents worth
I would have half a mind to say that his laws would probably only affect guns like small semi-autos with high capacity clips like the AKs and similar size guns.
Even if that was HIS intention the concept is too broad and would be abused even more. Governmental laws by design are incremental. 'get your foot in the door and expand on it afterwards'
Disclaimer: As a gun owner i disagree with the premise of banning 'classes' of weapons. the constitution does not stipulate, so nor should any restrictive laws be passed that do.
IP: Logged
03:40 PM
ryan.hess Member
Posts: 20784 From: Orlando, FL Registered: Dec 2002
That includes law enforcement right? Since no one at all will have semi-automatic weapons there's no need for police to have them, right?
Isn't there a candidate that wants to legalize automatic weapons?
There will never be one that is for legalization of full automatic firing weapons ( gotta watch the wording there, as 'automatic' is also used to describe auto loading, ie semi-automatic firing firearms too in order to confuse the public ) as its unpopular and they wont risk not getting the vote. The liberal media has succeeded in scaring most of the population over the decades so we are a minority.
Personally, I would happy with one that will just agree to protect our rights that we do have. Extension of them is optional.
I was given a Marlin Model 60 .22 rifle when I was 9 for Christmas. It would be banned if Obama's stance mentioned above is true and could be enacted. It was a semi-automatic rifle with 18 shots in the tube (19 total). I never shot something I wasn't supposed to. I never took my dad's pistols out or did anything wrong. Maybe it's because I was raised in a home where a gun is a tool and not something "cool." Plus my dad taught me all the gun safety you could ever want.
My point is that it is possible for people to have guns and not go around killing everyone in sight. All that's needed is some education and respect. Probably just easier to ban everything, that way the only people who will have guns are the criminals. (Laws are for people who don't follow them.)
Just my two cents.
Flamberge
Even pistols can have 15+ rounds in its magazine. My larger Glock's hold 17 and 15. I still remember the stupid 'assault weapon ban' from the Clinton days that outlawed importation of magazines for my firearms. It sounds nit-picky, but its just another example of slow encroachment. Today its a simi auto, tomorrow a 50cal, and next week your little 22 becomes illegal. Just look at what they did to our Britain friends.
That's not completely true. The supreme court has held (multiple times) that the government DOES have the right to restrict what kinds of weapons civilians can own, which means it's important to follow these issues since legislative action can erode your right to own a firearm. But no such massive legislative regulations have occurred since 1934 and no one here is old enough to remember that being passed.
That's a potato/potatoe debate.......their decisions are based on how a "militia" is defined, since the Constitution doesn't specifically do it. My dictionary says, "1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional solders". Obviously they are working with a different definition. And just because they say it's so, don't mean its right (or Constitutional)
Britain nothing, come to Canada. There are thousands of people here who are criminals because they didn't register their shotguns and now their only option is to destroy them. As for grandpa's shotgun, you can't inherit firearms, his collection must be destroyed, unless you get all the permits and buy them from him before he croaks, and then only the "legal" firearms can be saved. "Legal Firearm", any weapon that doesn't look like a gun and can't fire bullets. Increadibly, some of the restrictions on "none firing replicas" are tighter than those on the real things.
IP: Logged
04:27 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9110 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
Britain nothing, come to Canada. There are thousands of people here who are criminals because they didn't register their shotguns and now their only option is to destroy them. As for grandpa's shotgun, you can't inherit firearms, his collection must be destroyed, unless you get all the permits and buy them from him before he croaks, and then only the "legal" firearms can be saved. "Legal Firearm", any weapon that doesn't look like a gun and can't fire bullets. Increadibly, some of the restrictions on "none firing replicas" are tighter than those on the real things.
Sad thing is most of my canadian friends are FOR that..
Chill out guys, you don't want to make it on the Terrorist Watch List like 755,000 other Americans do you? http://terrorwatchlist.org/
Umm I kinda feel like this lists increasing size is a good thing. It certainly has nothing to do with terrorists.
So if it isn't really a list of terrorists who is it a list of. What kind of people does it represent. Maybe it represents people that are a threat to totalitarianism. No matter what ones views are on guns I think that almost anyone with half a brain and some common sense can see that every "protection" we receive leads only in the direction of absolute state authority. Every one is another building block to our demise as a free nation.
Anything and everything we allow and sometimes even plead for that takes the decision and the consequences out of our hands and into a governing body is inherently evil as far as freedom goes. So I say even if you're against guns you shouldn't allow them to be taken away. Guns are dangerous and there really isn't an argument about that. The argument should be whether the citizens of our nation are worthy of the responsibility to have them. If we are not worthy of such a simple thing that proves to me we are not worthy to be free. What happens in our future is exactly what should happen not for better or for worse but because it is what we wanted to happen.
As individules we need to make our own decisions and some of us may die fighting a lost cause but we won't be a part of the future so in a jacked up way we didn't lose; we just didn't win. If enough people fight then the cause won't be lost and in a jacked up way those that sat back and did nothing to protect their rights as free men will live out there lives as parasites owing their freedoms to people that died before them all the while living away their memories until so few people remember it all starts again.
So the more on the list the merrier I say. When the list dwindles to far down that's when you should really worry.
------------------
Though I am branded a devil in priests clothing I cast not the raiment I wear for I am not beholden to any flock with which any color has been given to me.
Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Umm I kinda feel like this lists increasing size is a good thing. It certainly has nothing to do with terrorists. So if it isn't really a list of terrorists who is it a list of. What kind of people does it represent. Maybe it represents people that are a threat to totalitarianism.
Here's a good video about the type of people on it:
A shorter clip, her on the Colbert Report:
Just people practicing the First Amendment really.
Simple solution to me is regardless of any law they make in the future, Im keeping what I have until they lock me up and take them by force. The legality is of no relentcy to me.
IP: Logged
08:24 AM
88GT5.0KILLER Member
Posts: 590 From: Watching a once great nation become a 3rd world slum. The power of stockpiles of ammo. Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by aceman: I see you've been working on your prejudice issues over the holidays. Nice to see you're getting all those kinks worked out.
Unfortunantly the general public wants legislation to make up for thier inadequaicies. Why is gun control such a big issue/problem? What did people do "back in the day" with thier guns? What happened when some farmers kid got ahold of "daddy's shotgun" ? Usually nothing bad happened because the child was raised properly and was taught about the gun and how to respect its abilities. If the child did get hurt when handling the gun the parents had the balls to stand up and accept responcibilty for the actions or thier child and their lack of proper parenting (which resulted in the child being hurt). Now you have a bunch of people who would rather idiot proof evrything so that they don't have to be responcible for anything that happens to THEIR kids. These guns don't magically jump out of the gun rack and go wandering down the street shooting people. When will people learn that criminals are going to break the law no matter how many restrictions are in place. These gun crimes happen because the penalties to the criminals are pathetic. A guy killed someone and got 5-10 with a chance for parole. If the honest law abiding citizens ,who exercise their rights to bare arms had more rights on how to protect theirself and their property , there would be less crime. What thief wants to break into a house knowing that the homeowner can protect his property with deadly force if necesarry. Criminals pick on the weak and unarmed. They prey on the defenseless. If people had better gun training and education, they would be better off than having new legslation to limit fire arms. Education is better than restriction. How do people get their hands on a firearm without it being registered anyway? I went and got my AR and had to have a background check and a FFL Dealer to have the gun transfered to me. How are people getting firearms that are not registered? These criminals (we shall call them that since there are breaking the law) get a weapon that isn't registered ,why? Why would you go around the system ? TO BREAK THE LAW ! Well guess what that is a prime example of why gun control will never work. If criminals want to get guns they will. The better question is, "how do we prevent criminals from getting guns"? It surely isn't by restricting peoples rights to own a firearm. How about ENFORCE the current laws and harsher punishment for people who go around the system. I'm pretty sure that there are laws in place already for owning a unregistered firearm. Why is it so hard to enforce them ? Gun control is nothing more than a hot topic,a tool if you would, for would be presidential hopefulls to use to make the uneducated, unarmed citizens feel that they will be protected against a crime involving a gun. Guess what, no one can prevent that with legislation. The only way to protect yourself and your family is to be pro-active. Take responcibility and take control of your rights. Be prepared for threats to your way of life and your liberties. Weather these threats be from a armed robber or from a crooked politicion thats slithering his/her way to the presidancy.
Here is a pic of me practicing safe firearms operation with my legal,registered semi-automatic rifle. Not one unarmed innocent civilian got injured . Not one child got shot. My rifle didn't jump off the bench and go on a wild shooting spree in a crowded mall or along the Beltway. My children know what this rifle is capable of. I have told them it is not a toy. It is an insrument of death as are all guns. they know that it will not hurt them if they respect its abilities and the rules that i have set for them concerning it. It sits ready by my bedside. My kids ask me what it's for and i told them "it's for me to make sure nothing bad happens to you ." They wanted to help me load some magazines last night. I had tears of pride
------------------
ARCHIES JUNK IS FASTER THAN SHAUNNA'S JUNK
[This message has been edited by FIEROPHREK (edited 01-06-2008).]
IP: Logged
10:05 AM
88FieroForm Member
Posts: 495 From: San Antonio, Texas 78251 Registered: Jul 2006
I live is Texas and I have a Texas concealed handgun license, and if Obama wants to take my guns he will have to pry them from my cold dead hands. I will never give up my right to bear arms!!!!
Simple solution to me is regardless of any law they make in the future, Im keeping what I have until they lock me up and take them by force. The legality is of no relentcy to me.
I will fall into that same category when the time comes, but i like the ability to legally carry and not worry about getting arrested so its worth fighting for.
IP: Logged
01:09 PM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
If the honest law abiding citizens ,who exercise their rights to bare arms had more rights on how to protect theirself and their property , there would be less crime. What thief wants to break into a house knowing that the homeowner can protect his property with deadly force if necesarry. Criminals pick on the weak and unarmed. They prey on the defenseless. If people had better gun training and education, they would be better off than having new legslation to limit fire arms. Education is better than restriction. How do people get their hands on a firearm without it being registered anyway? I went and got my AR and had to have a background check and a FFL Dealer to have the gun transfered to me. How are people getting firearms that are not registered? These criminals (we shall call them that since there are breaking the law) get a weapon that isn't registered ,why? Why would you go around the system ? TO BREAK THE LAW ! Well guess what that is a prime example of why gun control will never work. If criminals want to get guns they will. The better question is, "how do we prevent criminals from getting guns"? It surely isn't by restricting peoples rights to own a firearm. How about ENFORCE the current laws and harsher punishment for people who go around the system. I'm pretty sure that there are laws in place already for owning a unregistered firearm. Why is it so hard to enforce them ? Gun control is nothing more than a hot topic,a tool if you would, for would be presidential hopefulls to use to make the uneducated, unarmed citizens feel that they will be protected against a crime involving a gun. Guess what, no one can prevent that with legislation. The only way to protect yourself and your family is to be pro-active. Take responcibility and take control of your rights. Be prepared for threats to your way of life and your liberties. Weather these threats be from a armed robber or from a crooked politicion thats slithering his/her way to the presidancy. 
