I believe the original intent of this thread was to point out how one candidate has a history of addressing the issue of gun control. For me, the point should be to vote for the candidate that is closest to your personal feelings on all of the issues. Determine which issues are most important to you because it's rare that a candidate will be "right on" with all our positions/perspectives. Gun Control would be an issue of significant interest to me in wanting to know what the candidate's position was but, there are other issues that are just as important. Is Gun Control more important than Illegal Immigration or the economy or how you feel about the Iraqi War and/or Afghanistan? A candidate may be very pro your position on Gun Control and yet hold a totally different position on other important issues. It ain't easy. IMHO, you have to voice your concerns to those running for elected office and ensure they know how you feel about the issues, Gun Control being one of them.
------------------ Ron
It's the Soldier, not the reporter Who has given us the freedom of the press. It's the Soldier, not the poet, Who has given us the freedom of speech. It's the Soldier, not the politicians That ensures our right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's the Soldier who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, And whose coffin is draped by the flag.
IP: Logged
07:58 AM
Jan 15th, 2008
pokeyfiero Member
Posts: 16189 From: Free America! Registered: Dec 2003
I believe the original intent of this thread was to point out how one candidate has a history of addressing the issue of gun control. For me, the point should be to vote for the candidate that is closest to your personal feelings on all of the issues. Determine which issues are most important to you because it's rare that a candidate will be "right on" with all our positions/perspectives. Gun Control would be an issue of significant interest to me in wanting to know what the candidate's position was but, there are other issues that are just as important. Is Gun Control more important than Illegal Immigration or the economy or how you feel about the Iraqi War and/or Afghanistan? A candidate may be very pro your position on Gun Control and yet hold a totally different position on other important issues. It ain't easy. IMHO, you have to voice your concerns to those running for elected office and ensure they know how you feel about the issues, Gun Control being one of them.
And then I think there are positions that tell me a little bit about the person in general. I tend to like a guy more if he is interested in what was considered important in the constitution. Guns, Free speech, Search and seizure, excessive bail or cruel punishment. When a politician shows me he or she is interested in preserving these rights and nor perverting them I thin k a lot of the other stuff falls into place.
IP: Logged
10:01 PM
Sep 19th, 2008
pokeyfiero Member
Posts: 16189 From: Free America! Registered: Dec 2003
I bumped this thread because it has to do with Obama. There's a lot of good points here.
Obama lost my vote on this point alone and I don't even own a gun. If he does get voted in I will take a good hard look at those who cheer him on. Then I will go start collecting guns and ammo, you know for the zombies
All other issues aside, this one issue would be enough to keep me from voting for Obama. It's not the only reason, of course. I believe his economic ideas will hurt rather than help the majority of people, and I don't think he's got the chops to lead this country in the face of other world leaders. But I won't vote for a candidate who doesn't support the 2nd Amendment as I interpret it, that is, the people have an individual right to own firearms. Not the militia, not the state, but the people.
Originally posted by Formula88: All other issues aside, this one issue would be enough to keep me from voting for Obama. It's not the only reason, of course. I believe his economic ideas will hurt rather than help the majority of people, and I don't think he's got the chops to lead this country in the face of other world leaders. But I won't vote for a candidate who doesn't support the 2nd Amendment as I interpret it, that is, the people have an individual right to own firearms. Not the militia, not the state, but the people.
Not to get into a political thing, but its pretty much been shown that obama wants to move closer to a UN controlled country, and *eliminating* all private ownership of weapons is part of that.
Part of the president's job ( whoever it is ) is to uphold and protect the constitution. Ignoring pieces of it because of their personal views doesn't qualify as upholding.
The change from 'all semi-auto weapons' to 'evil assult weapons that no one needs' was just a marketing thing. And don't think it can never happen here, that is what our friends in Europe thought too, but they took their rights one by one incrementally. By the time they all realized what was going on, it was too late.
Obama lost my vote on this point alone and I don't even own a gun. If he does get voted in I will take a good hard look at those who cheer him on. Then I will go start collecting guns and ammo, you know for the zombies
Wont matter what you collect, remember they have records of what you buy and will come collecting them at some point.
Having a CCW will become probable cause for search as well.
IP: Logged
01:52 PM
olejoedad Member
Posts: 18186 From: Clarendon Twp., MI Registered: May 2004
This is by far the most important difference between the two candidates, and affects our immediate and future freedom.
It is critical to the future of our way of life and our freedom to elect Congressmen and women who will uphold our right to keep and bear arms, as well as voting Sen. McCain into the Oval Office. Obama will do everything in his power to take away our fundamental right to defend ourselves and our families, not to mention the UNification of the USA.
OBAMA IS THE LARGEST TERRORIST THREAT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN!
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.
Fully automatic weapons are not illegal at the federal level (although some states do outlaw them), they are just highly regulated. If your state allows them, you have to send the paperwork into the ATF along with $200 for a tax stamp. After you receive the stamp, you may take possession. The only catch is that the weapon had to be in the NFA registry prior to May of 1986. As such, transferable full-autos are very expensive.
IP: Logged
06:01 PM
PFF
System Bot
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
You really have to look at his political connections. He has some pretty leftist associates. These are the sort of folks who would see the average guy unable to protect his family and leave the country wide open to attacks from the lunatic fringe. This is very dangerous for America. The strength of America keeps guys like me up here in Canada safer. Much safer. I just can't contemplate the Western Hemisphere being lead and protected by a social worker. It needs somebody with some you know what where it counts.
A lot of states you cant do that. But if you can, defiantly go that route.
Oh, and be sure to buy a 'sacrificial' weapon to give the feds when they come collecting. " here is my one and only gun.. boo hoo "
Don't forget to stock up on reloading supplies, i expect ammo to become prohibitively expensive as a backdoor way to a gun ban before they 'cancel' the 2nd amendment outright.
On a slightly related note, just read about how DC is getting around the recent supreme court decision:
Machine guns are still highly regulated at a state level there so they have passed a local law that says any weapon that can fire 12 rounds without a manual reload is considered a 'machine gun' and thus banned.. If us citizens tried a stunt like that we would be in federal prison for fraud.
[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 09-19-2008).]
A lot of states you cant do that. But if you can, defiantly go that route.
Oh, and be sure to buy a 'sacrificial' weapon to give the feds when they come collecting. " here is my one and only gun.. boo hoo "
Don't forget to stock up on reloading supplies, i expect ammo to become prohibitively expensive as a backdoor way to a gun ban before they 'cancel' the 2nd amendment outright.
On a slightly related note, just read about how DC is getting around the recent supreme court decision:
Machine guns are still highly regulated at a state level there so they have passed a local law that says any weapon that can fire 12 rounds without a manual reload is considered a 'machine gun' and thus banned.. If us citizens tried a stunt like that we would be in federal prison for fraud.
D.C. is trying to circumvent the Heller decision, but a suit has been filed over their attempts. Also, the House recently passed legislation to strengthen D.C residents ability to own guns, and this is now awaiting action in the Senate. With Heller in our favor, gun bans will becme harder to enact. Even when new justices are appointed, Heller will likely not be overturned, since SCOTUS generally dislikes overturning its own precedent. However, Heller is not the end, only the beginning. We need to keep the pressure up so that new bans aren't passed, and possibly we can see current bans struck down.
I agree totally that ammunition will be the next target. I expect a tax to be placed on it that is so high that ammo becomes almost cost prohibitve to purchase. Reloading supplies will likely be hit as well.
IP: Logged
08:57 PM
fieroX Member
Posts: 5234 From: wichita, Ks Registered: Oct 2001
Exactly, I know several machinists. When they took the swords away from the Samurai they started carrying walking sticks with hidden swords.
You don't even need a machinist. Buy an AK47 parts kit, along with a receiver flat. Bend the reciever yourself, and put the rifle together. Can be done with simple tools and minimal expertise. Totally legal (as long as the full-auto FCG isn't installed), and zero paperwork.
IP: Logged
09:01 PM
D B Cooper Member
Posts: 3141 From: East Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2005
Also, the House recently passed legislation to strengthen D.C residents ability to own guns, and this is now awaiting action in the Senate.
Not that it matters, but my take on it.....
The Constitutional Convention passed all the gun laws we'll ever need.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Unless Congress wants to put total dissolution of the US Constitution on the ballot and draft a new one, they have absolutely no right to mess with the Bill of Rights. They were added for the specific purpose of clarifying what our new Republic was about; and had to be defined BEFORE the Constitution was deemed acceptable. Mess with one letter in the Bill of Rights, and the deal is off. At that instant, the federal government is no longer what the signers agreed to. The men who wrote our Constitution knew exactly what they were doing; they were not friggin cavemen. IMO the Bill of Rights is ABSOLUTE and SACRED.
[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 09-19-2008).]
IP: Logged
09:47 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
The Constitutional Convention passed all the gun laws we'll ever need.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Unless Congress wants to put total dissolution of the US Constitution on the ballot and draft a new one, they have absolutely no right to mess with the Bill of Rights. They were added for the specific purpose of clarifying what our new Republic was about; and had to be defined BEFORE the Constitution was deemed acceptable. Mess with one letter in the Bill of Rights, and the deal is off. At that instant, the federal government is no longer what the signers agreed to. The men who wrote our Constitution knew exactly what they were doing; they were not friggin cavemen. IMO the Bill of Rights is ABSOLUTE and SACRED.
I agree, but that doesn't change the sad fact that the 2nd Amendment has been under siege for a long time. It's clear what the 2nd refers to--for that matter it's clear what the entire BOR refers to. The collective rights argument (the 2nd applies only to militias) put forth by gun control advocates is wrong. It's wrong for the simple reason that the Constitution and the BOR do not grant rights. Rights are inherent from birth, and belong to the people. The Constitution grants the govt certain powers, and places limits on those powers. Govt has no inherent rights, and none are given to it in the Constitution. When it is mentioning an ability of the govt, it uses the word "power". When talking about an ability of the people, the word "right" is used. The BOR is simply added protection for certain rights that the founders felt would be the first to be attacked by a tyrannical govt.
Keeping this in mind, it becomes clear that since the 2nd uses the word "right", it is not referring to the power of a militia or other govt entity, but rather a right of the people. Applying the collective rights argument to the rest of the BOR essentially invalidates the BOR. If that argument were true, govt would have all the rights, not people. And again, our Constitution does not give rights to the govt. This is ultimately why the Heller decision was crucial. Had the SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd didn't protect a right of the people, then none of the BOR would have applied.
The BOR doesn't "grant" rights. It lists what rights that government may not restrict. In all of the amendments it doesn't say what you are allowed to do - it says what you will not be prevented from doing.
Also, anyone who ever passed a High School grammar class should be able to read the Second Amendment and realize it refers to the people's rights, not a militia. "...the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say the right of the militia or the right of the state. It says the right of the "people." Gun opponents try to obfuscate the issue by saying it only refers to a militia, but either they're being dishonest or they don't have a grasp of the English language.
The language used in the Constitution was very carefully chosen.
------------------
IP: Logged
11:06 PM
D B Cooper Member
Posts: 3141 From: East Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2005
The BOR doesn't "grant" rights. It lists what rights that government may not restrict. In all of the amendments it doesn't say what you are allowed to do - it says what you will not be prevented from doing.
Also, anyone who ever passed a High School grammar class should be able to read the Second Amendment and realize it refers to the people's rights, not a militia. "...the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say the right of the militia or the right of the state. It says the right of the "people." Gun opponents try to obfuscate the issue by saying it only refers to a militia, but either they're being dishonest or they don't have a grasp of the English language.
The language used in the Constitution was very carefully chosen.
Very carefully chosen. If the 2nd was referring to a militia or the state, the word "right" would not have been used. Since only people have rights, there's no doubt what the 2nd refers to.
Along those same lines, it drives me crazy when people say "well, (whatever activity) is not listed in the Consitution or Bill of Rights, so you don't have that right". It's distressing to realize so many people don't understand what the Constitution does, namely give the govt certain powers and place limits on those powers. The Consitution wasn't designed to limit the people, it was designed to limit government. The BOR was not intended to be a definitive list of the only rights we have, it was just added protection for some rights. In fact, that was a major argument against the BOR at the time it was drafted. It was felt by some that future generations would take the BOR to be an all-inclusive list of our rights. Sadly, this has proven to be somewhat true.
IP: Logged
11:40 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Gun control is not a bad thing. Particularly when it is guns capable of killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. People can argue all they want that guns don't kill people blah blah blah. The fact is when they are not available death rates drop. I am sick of hearing with gun control only criminals will have guns. What a total load of BS.
Australia has gun control, not gun bans, as some would like to believe. Automatic weapons are banned yes, as are most semi-automatics because they can be converted to full auto. Other types of guns are controlled and legislated. Rules of ownership. Smart rules. Hell my own brother has a 22, 2 38s and a double barrel shot gun at mums place. Not scared of the kids ever getting to them though because they are safely locked in a gun safe.
Some interesting facts, and old ones at that for a University of Sydney study. The figures have probably improved even more since.
While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws.
By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."
Gun control is not a bad thing. Particularly when it is guns capable of killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. People can argue all they want that guns don't kill people blah blah blah. The fact is when they are not available death rates drop. I am sick of hearing with gun control only criminals will have guns. What a total load of BS. *snip*
You can be sick of hearing as you like but the *facts* are actually the exact opposite what what you think they are, and what you hear due to the mainstream media ( as the are declared anti-rights activists and no longer merely reporting facts ). When private citizens are denied ownership crime rate goes up. When those rights are returned, the crime rates go down. Its a pretty simple formula. Criminals prefer to prey on people that cant fight back.
By definition passing laws to illegally restrict private ownership does not effect the criminal segment of the population. It also prompts governments who then feel free to take advantage of their citizens.. Laws only effect the honest citizens that would use them responsibility.
Beyond all that, its a core *right* in this country. The right does not state you can restrict it. Its in black and white.
I guess you will next suggest banning cars? They are involved in more homicides each year then guns ever have been. ( well, wars not withstanding of course ) And driving one into a crowd or even down the side walk would qualify to your restriction of "killing a lot of people in a short amount of time"
You see, some of us are also sick of hearing the nonsense about restricting our rights, using flawed and immoral reasoning.
( dan sorry for ranting, its still early in the day here.. i rarely rant like that )
80s car with inferior emissions standards... yep, sounds like something they would tell you to scrap if they had the chance...
They can easily do it. Just remove grandfathering and require either MPG or environmental levels that older cars cant meet unless they are rolling downhill with the engine off. " its for the children "
Originally posted by User00013170: I guess you will next suggest banning cars? They are involved in more homicides each year then guns ever have been. ( well, wars not withstanding of course ) And driving one into a crowd or even down the side walk would qualify to your restriction of "killing a lot of people in a short amount of time"
)
Doctors kill many more people than guns per year too. Yup, and here it is a right, so too bad. Guns in law abiding hands SAVE lives and thwart criminal activity every year too. Even if the statistics did go the other way, I see it as freedom is not "free", it has a price. Those unwilling to pay can always move to a country like Australia, there are plenty of them to choose from.
Doctors kill many more people than guns per year too. Yup, and here it is a right, so too bad. Guns in law abiding hands SAVE lives and thwart criminal activity every year too. Even if the statistics did go the other way, I see it as freedom is not "free", it has a price. Those unwilling to pay can always move to a country like Australia, there are plenty of them to choose from.
I agree, tho i was leaning towards the use of the cars in homicide and avoiding the 'accidental' deaths to make it a more fair comparison..
I can personally attest to having a weapon being able to thwart a crime. I have had 1 case where it derailed an attempted robbery ( of myself ) one late evening heading to my car from the office and another delayed a good friend from beaten to a pulp by her stoned ex BF long enough for the cops to come and haul him away.
I can see your point, but how many cars are used as a weapon and not calling it homicide because a somebody was negligent or just slightly drunk. Let's face it, there is NO reasoning with the left on this.
Don't get me wrong here, I am in total agreement.
IP: Logged
04:05 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Gun control is not a bad thing. Particularly when it is guns capable of killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. People can argue all they want that guns don't kill people blah blah blah. The fact is when they are not available death rates drop. I am sick of hearing with gun control only criminals will have guns. What a total load of BS.
Australia has gun control, not gun bans, as some would like to believe. Automatic weapons are banned yes, as are most semi-automatics because they can be converted to full auto. Other types of guns are controlled and legislated. Rules of ownership. Smart rules. Hell my own brother has a 22, 2 38s and a double barrel shot gun at mums place. Not scared of the kids ever getting to them though because they are safely locked in a gun safe.
Some interesting facts, and old ones at that for a University of Sydney study. The figures have probably improved even more since.
While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws.
By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."
I'm all for responsible gun legislation. I have no problem with a permit and background check to purchase a pistol, etc. But I would call into question some of the studies that tout removal of firearms makes a drastic difference in homicides and suicides. They typically say "firearm homicides and firearm suicides" as your article did. What about the impact on the total number of homicides and suicides? If the total number hasn't changed by an appreciable amount, all that study shows is when guns aren't available, people find another tool to do the job.
Here in the U.S. we've done studies on armed robbery and murder rates in areas where concealed carry permits have been issued, and in most cases the crime rate has dropped after the permits became available.
IP: Logged
04:37 PM
GT86 Member
Posts: 5203 From: Glendale, AZ Registered: Mar 2003
Gun control is not a bad thing. Particularly when it is guns capable of killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. People can argue all they want that guns don't kill people blah blah blah. The fact is when they are not available death rates drop. I am sick of hearing with gun control only criminals will have guns. What a total load of BS.
Australia has gun control, not gun bans, as some would like to believe. Automatic weapons are banned yes, as are most semi-automatics because they can be converted to full auto. Other types of guns are controlled and legislated. Rules of ownership. Smart rules. Hell my own brother has a 22, 2 38s and a double barrel shot gun at mums place. Not scared of the kids ever getting to them though because they are safely locked in a gun safe.
Some interesting facts, and old ones at that for a University of Sydney study. The figures have probably improved even more since.
While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death), and more than doubled to 7.4 per cent(gun suicide) and 7.5 per centeach year (gun homicide) following the introduction of new gun laws.
By 2002/03, Australia's rate of 0.27 firearm-related homicides per 100,000 population had dropped to one-fifteenth that of the United States.
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."
The problem with your argument is that removing firearms does not remove the violence. A good example would be the rising knife crime in Britain. Ban the guns (or make them very hard to get), and people will turn to other weapons. I remember reading about soccer (sorry, football ) riots where people would roll up a magazine or newspaper, get it wet, and turn it into a highly effective club. People have been killing each other long before the firearm was invented, and will sadly continue to do even if you could magically get rid of every gun today. You may not like the idea of "guns don't kill, people do", but the fact is a gun is just an inanimate object, a tool. It takes a person to put it to use, and like any other tool, it can be used for good or evil purposes. A hammer does a great job of pounding in a nail, but it also does a great job of pounding in a skull.
We have more people dying in car accidents and from heart disease every year than we do from gun crime. Should we ban cars and fatty foods for the good of society? Here in Phoenix, there are some years where the number of children drowning in swimming pools exceeds the shooting death toll. Should pools be banned, for the children?
The bottom line is that you can't get rid of the guns. Look at the so-called war on drugs. It's been very successful at turning drug lords into billionaires, turning some urban areas into battlegrounds, corrupted many law enforcement and government officials, and has been the impetus for the passing of many other laws that infringe on civil liberties. And yet if you desire them, drugs are easier to obtain today than they ever have been.
Make the guns illegal, and the only people that will obey the law are the law-abiding. If someone is bent on murder and destruction, they aren't going to care one bit about how many gun control laws they are violating. The only thing gun bans do is to create a clear killing field for criminals. Virginia Tech is a tragic example of the fallacy of a "gun free zone".
[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 09-20-2008).]
IP: Logged
06:27 PM
AusFiero Member
Posts: 11513 From: Dapto NSW Australia Registered: Feb 2001
Originally posted by User00013170: You can be sick of hearing as you like but the *facts* are actually the exact opposite what what you think they are, and what you hear due to the mainstream media ( as the are declared anti-rights activists and no longer merely reporting facts ). When private citizens are denied ownership crime rate goes up. When those rights are returned, the crime rates go down. Its a pretty simple formula. Criminals prefer to prey on people that cant fight back.
Actually I am the one stating facts. You are using conjecture as what you are saying hasn't even been tested in the United States. Banning automatic weapons has no effect on people being able to defend themselves and crime hasn't risen here because of the ban. You are calling facts ani-rights BS. Well sorry, impartial studies by the largest university in Australia is fact.
If you live in a society where you think you NEED fully automatic assault rifles you have bigger problems than you think.
