NRA Propaganda At Nation’s Largest Gun Show: Obama Is An ‘Enemy Of Your Gun Rights’
NRA Propaganda At Nation’s Largest Gun Show: Obama Is An ‘Enemy Of Your Gun Rights’
Since Barack Obama’s election, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other pro-gun groups have been warning that the new president will take away their second amendment rights. This multi-million dollar campaign is already having effects. Not only is the NRA trying to profit off this fear-mongering by increasing its membership, many gun sellers are holding “Obama Sales.”
On Friday, ThinkProgress visited The Nation’s Gun Show in Chantilly, VA, where 1,000 vendors took over a building the size of two football fields. The NRA’s fear-mongering was all over the event. An ad in the Washington Post read, “GET YOUR GUNS WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!!” While we waited in a long line in the cold, visitors willing to begin or renew their NRA membership were able to get in free and skip the line.
We spoke with an NRA coordinator at the event who confirmed that the organization had seen a dramatic increase in membership after Obama’s election and noted that the turnout at this gun show was much higher than at one two months ago. When we asked whether Obama would revoke gun owners’ rights, she strayed from the official line and admitted that with important issues like the economy, he may not go after it right away. Some of the materials that were being handed out at the NRA booth:
Traces of these myths infiltrated some of the vendors’ tables as well:
One vendor with Liberty Firearms was wearing a button with Obama’s name crossed out and warned a couple, “Get ready for the Obamanation.” He told us that he was actually having trouble restocking and ordering new wares because suppliers were canceling orders and getting ready to dramatically increase prices to take advantage of the hype, as they did in 1994. The man selling the “NObama” shirts said that his business was also way up. “People are afraid,” he said.
Despite the NRA’s best efforts, many individual gun owners recognize the campaign as nothing but hype. ThinkProgress spoke with Gary Foster of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who said that while he could not speak for his organization, his personal opinion was that many media stories about a rush on guns are overblown:
As FactCheck.org has explained, much of the NRA’s information is completely inaccurate: “Obama has spoken in favor of government registration of handguns, for example, but has not called for registration of all ‘firearms’ including hunting rifles and shotguns. [Many of NRA] TV spots and fliers also make claims that are directly contrary to what Obama actually says about guns.” Obama has also reassured voters that he has no intention or desire to take away their guns.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
NRA Propaganda At Nation’s Largest Gun Show: Obama Is An ‘Enemy Of Your Gun Rights’»
– - And the collective IQ of that group is a meat-locker temperature.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:09 pmdipsh*ts
November 24th, 2008 at 4:11 pmNot even sworn in yet, and he’s already stimulating the economy.
/snark
November 24th, 2008 at 4:12 pmThe NRA has become little more than the marketing arm of the weapons manufacturers.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:13 pmPeople who own guns, especially assault guns, are very scary people!
November 24th, 2008 at 4:15 pmHey! We’re Americans! Wde never let a little thing like facts get in our way!
November 24th, 2008 at 4:17 pmOr Spelling!
November 24th, 2008 at 4:17 pm“I’m A Bitter Gun Owner and I Vote”
My my, aren’t you a well rounded individual.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:19 pmTry sprinkling some sugar on the end of the barrel before putting it in your mouth.
One vendor with Liberty Firearms was wearing a button with Obama’s name crossed out and warned a couple, “Get ready for the Obamanation.”
I have to admit I enjoy watching ignorant racists try to cover their outrage that a black man got elected by predicting all these dire consequences. This is so much fun.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:21 pmjust so long as I can still get that rocket launcher I have been longing for.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:25 pmWho cares — if these nuts want to listen to the sky-is-falling hype of the NRA and spend their $ on guns rather than sending more $ to the RNC or other right-wing hate groups, more power to ‘em…
November 24th, 2008 at 4:26 pmWhy are conservatives so freaking afraid of EVERYTHING?
Oh my God! Obama was elected!! FREAK OUT!!!
The NRA has been pushing this ridiculous meme for as long as I can remember. They have married themselves to the GOP, and this no longer are an independent organization. They are unofficially a branch of the Republican Party, and they should be known as such.
The truth is that no one is proposing or will propose that citizens’ right to gun ownership should be abolished. Instead, we will see proposals for banning certain types of firearms that no civilian has any reason to own anyway.
Does a deer hunter need an automatic weapon? Does he need an AK-47? Does he need armor-piercing bullets? Hell, does he need a surface-to-air missile? Does that mentally ill man down the street really need to register his gun or have a background check performed on him before he can buy one?
The truth is that every time that reasonable restrictions on gun ownership are proposed, the NRA goes apoplectic. The ban on assault weapons MAKE SENSE. A ban on armor-piercing bullets MAKES SENSE. Requiring background checks prior to gun sales MAKES SENSE. Requiring gun merchants to keep accurate and complete records of who buys what MAKES SENSE.
What DOESN’T MAKE SENSE is why the NRA is opposed to any of these reasonable restrictions. If the NRA had its way, we’d all be carrying around AK-47s and shooting it out with one another over any little offense. Putting more guns on the street is NOT the answer.
All of this racist-based hatred of Obama is going to backfire on conservatives big time.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:29 pmHere’s another thought.
Instead of talking about banning assault weapons that your average NRA member may lust for, let’s talk about the ease with which TERRORISTS can abuse the loopholes and lax gun laws to purchase weapons and ammunition to use in terrorist attacks on US soil and abroad.
What will the NRA say one day when it is proven that a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer kills an American with a gun purchased with no background check at a gun show? Will they even admit their complicity in the terrorist act?
November 24th, 2008 at 4:32 pmMay the souls of the slain children haunt their dreams.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w12edTq2v7A
November 24th, 2008 at 4:39 pmAs someone who has been at the wrong end of a pistol, it is essential that we require registration of handguns. We absolutely have to get a handle on every piece of hardware. We desperately need a consistent national policy.
Yet, the NRA will vigorously oppose common sense laws. The black helicopter crowd is convinced that registration will lead to confiscation when the One World Order seizes control.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:40 pmWho knew that gun owners are a bunch of whiny little babies?
November 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pmLook for increased accidental shootings and gun-related crimes as a result of this marketing pitch.
Which will spur increased sales.
It’s all good for gun retailers.
There’s a place here in El Cajon, that sells guns and ammo in one location, and liquor right next door. A one-stop shop, for all your bubba gear.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pmHow soon till the first claimer of some imagined constitutional right to whatever bullshit unneeded firearm they so desire appears?
November 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm- – I’m just sorry Chuck Heston wasn’t alive (and lucid) to see Obama get elected.
Heh.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:42 pm“Instead of talking about banning assault weapons that your average NRA member may lust for, let’s talk about the ease with which TERRORISTS can abuse the loopholes”
Been there. Done that. I have scores of email colloquys. The response is that any impediment to gun ownership makes us more vulnerable to terrorists. It;s like arguing gay marriage or evolution with a Christian conservative.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:43 pmjpopphan Says:
No, we’ll just see laws introduced that will make it ever more difficult to exercise that right.
And which weapons are those? We’ve already got plenty of restrictions on the books as it is, just where do you see the need for further expansion?
Since when does NEED come into play when exercising a fundamental right? Would you accept the requiremnet of establishing NEED before YOU could exercise your freedom of speech?
Really, then it should be simple enough for you to define what an assault weapon is, and what armor piercing bullets are.
Perhaps because your definition of reasonable is anything but.
Later,
November 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pmwhere 1,000 vendors took over a building the size of two football fields.
OMIGOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Last year there were THREE football fields and 2,000 vendors!!!!!!!!!!
The NRA is RIGHT!!!!!!!!!
What are us gun owners going to do when there’s only ONE football field of guns and 500 vendors???!!!!!???
Oh, Lawwwwwddddyyy!!!!
/snark
November 24th, 2008 at 4:46 pm2 minutes I suppose…
November 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pmHeh… a much more accurate tee shirt for these morons would read:
“I’M STUPID — AND I VOTE!”
November 24th, 2008 at 4:48 pmNRA are smart to use the people with propaganda while these people who have no jobs, food or homes run out to get guns because of the lies about Obama. I really don’t feel sorry for the people as their being used and the gun company is laughing all the way to the bank or maybe taking their money overseas where’s it’s saver then a US bank now.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pmjpopphan Says:
Does he need an AK-47?
Hey, i’ll back progressive causes all day long. Leave my AK out of this.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pmJebus. It’s really, truly too bad that we can’t outlaw ‘teh stupid’…
But, on the other hand, our prisons are already overcrowded. :o/
November 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pmthe brown acid:
November 24th, 2008 at 4:56 pmAre we talking the AK’s I think we might be talking?
The NRA and it’s supporters that advertise such outrageous propaganda are way out of line. We really have a serious problem with crazy people having unlimited access to guns. Everytime I turn on the news there are more stories about folks getting shot to death or injured. Something needs to be done about gun control.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:57 pmDepends, are you referring to Kalishnikov rifles or ak-47 strain hemp? Because both are just…fabulous.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:57 pmI actually use an “Assault rifle” to deer hunt. It has the same stopping power as a 30/30 and it fits me well (I’m a small guy). It’s a Saiga AK-Sporter with a 10 round box. Hardly a military weapon, but it would be banned if we saw another Brady type bill.
That being said I still thing that this NRA ad takes hyperbole in some interesting directions..heh.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pmVoting is a right.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pmYou have to register to vote, don’t you?
Let loose the crazies There will be several school killings and more porch shootings and then when people are sick of it and want more strict gun laws it will be all the liberals fault
November 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pmWhat? No trolls? I’m beginning to worry about the poor little fellers.
But seriously: what bothers me most about the gun”nuts”, as opposed to rational people like myself who enjoy various kinds of recreational shooting, is that they resist the implementation of ANY regulation on a national scale. Many states and municipalities have effective, reasonable, regulations in place which could be applied to a nation-wide system.
What’s doubly irrational is that many of them gleefully support a “national ID” to protect them from “illegals” but refuse a “national gun license” to protect them from each other. Idiots, liars, hypocrites, and fools.
November 24th, 2008 at 4:59 pmthe brown acid has clearly not just fallen off the turnip truck so to speak…
November 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pmdbadass Says:
How soon till the first claimer of some imagined constitutional right to whatever bullshit unneeded firearm they so desire appears?
cue Sam the Sniper…
November 24th, 2008 at 5:03 pm“the brown acid has clearly not just fallen off the turnip truck so to speak…”
I wonder if he hunts over a bait pile, too.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:05 pmDeer like sugar beets and carrots more than turnips… just sayin’…
Cicero Says:
Really, then it should be simple enough for you to define what an assault weapon is, and what armor piercing bullets are.
It is also easy to define idiot….. Cicero.
Later, idiot
November 24th, 2008 at 5:06 pmNo bait pile required where I live. The deer are numerous here, and have established paths they move along (to and from waterholes). It’s simply a matter of observation and waiting.
Should I run it down and club it with a rock?
November 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pmCicero Says:
Just out of curiosity, what would YOU use an automatic or semi-automatic assault weapon for? What would you use armor-piercing bullets for? In what way do you need these for self-protection for your home? And why would you need them for hunting?
But there’s this of course. Perhaps you should think about it.
A Jihad training pamphlet posted on a web site encourages Muslim holy warriors to use lax firearms laws in the United States to get sniper and military assault rifle training. The pamphlet informs jihad trainees, “In some countries of the world, especially the USA, firearms training is available to the general public,” and that “it is perfectly legal” to obtain weapons such as AK-47 assault rifles. It urges them to take advantage of those lax laws.
The document zeroed in on specific elements of the American gun culture to exploit for military assault- oriented terror training, including training, obtaining military style weapons and avoiding illegal trading in firearms.
According to the Violence Policy Center in Washington, DC, a.50-calibre sniper rifle is easier to purchase in the US than handguns. This is a weapon which can penetrate armor plate, destroy materiel infrastructure, down helicopters, and when loaded with armor-piercing incendiary ammunition explode high-volume fuel tanks and hazardous chemical storage tanks and pipelines.
http://www.safety-council.org/news/sc/2002/guns.html
November 24th, 2008 at 5:07 pmI am a gun enthusiast myself, and I am anxious to see what (if any) measures Obama seeks to push regarding gun laws. I see nothing wrong with a simple background check before buying a gun. I have no problem with the fact that we have to go through a testing and licensing process before driving a car, certainly we could apply the same standards to firearms. I like to drink as well, but I don’t argue with the bartender when he checks my ID. Quite the opposite, I would holler at the bartender if he was selling to children.
The right to bear arms is just that – a right. But just like driving, or drinking, firearm ownership should require a certain amount of qualification and regulation. I handled many weapons in the military that no civilian should ever get their hands on.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:08 pmthe brown acid Says:
No bait pile required where I live. The deer are numerous here, and have established paths they move along (to and from waterholes). It’s simply a matter of observation and waiting.
Should I run it down and club it with a rock?
Hand to hand is more sporty =)
November 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pmShould I run it down and club it with a rock?
November 24th, 2008 at 5:10 pmNo, you are more likely to have success if you pounce on it from above, then use the rock.
pete Says:
Must have missed my post, I suspect I’d be called a troll (unless its been yanked.)
Probably because we’ve already had plenty of regulation on the national scale over the past few decades, and we don’t see much need for any more, thank you.
Maybe because we’d see (or at least I would) a “national gun license” to be along the same lines as you would see various state efforts at requiring voters to present some form of picture ID before they can vote: disenfranchising.
Later,
November 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
What would you use armor-piercing bullets for?
I think his point was that what constitutes an “armor piercing bullet” could be debated. You could say that all calibres above 9mm are “armor piercing” since anything more powerful than that cartridge will bust the typical type II armor worn by civilian police. This would ban pretty much all hunting weapons.
More specifically you could say it’s a bullet with a tungsten core and higher yielding powder. That might be a little more reasonable. Nobody in their right mind would use these for home defense – their only application is martial
November 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pmShould I run it down and club it with a rock?
– Seems like more of a challenge. You know that whole man against nature shit and all. Me, I was just referencing your knowledge of cannabis varieties…
November 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pmthe brown acid Says:
No bait pile required where I live. The deer are numerous here, and have established paths they move along (to and from waterholes). It’s simply a matter of observation and waiting.
Should I run it down and club it with a rock?
If they are that easy to track, and that numerous, a simple rifle would do the trick I would think. Unless, of course, you are an abysmal shot. But of course, you admitted you’re a “small guy.” I guess that explains a lot.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pmChris LeJeune Says:
I handled many weapons in the military that no civilian should ever get their hands on.
My favorite was a modified Stoner 63 when I served. I would hate to see that one on the streets.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:13 pmOkay I have to get to work soon. When are the kooks that are all worried about their imagined need to battle their own government gonna show?
November 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pmNevar Says:
No, you are more likely to have success if you pounce on it from above, then use the rock.
While the thought of hunting by hand intrigues the hell out of me, you do know that it’s illegal pretty much everywhere right?
Admittedly, it’d be way more sporting, but I think the argument is that it’s excessively cruel to the animal.
dbadass Says:
– Seems like more of a challenge. You know that whole man against nature shit and all. Me, I was just referencing your knowledge of cannabis varieties…
Yeah I caught that. Unfortunately I’m not as up to snuff on the subject as our canadian and european friends. Tooo many strains to keep track of when most of them i’ll never get to see up close let alone taste.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:15 pmWayne Says:
Tacit admission you have nothing to add to this discussion except for name-calling against your opponents… duly noted.
Later,
November 24th, 2008 at 5:17 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
A 30 calibre rifle with a 10 round magazine is somehow sophisticated? Are you just being pissy because there’s no trolls here for you to bash?
What defines a “simple rifle” to you? A bolt action?
Keep in mind I have to consider my neighbors when I hunt, I can’t just go blasting away in the woods with a Wal-Mart Winchester.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pmDoesn’t “later” usually mean you are leaving?
November 24th, 2008 at 5:18 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
Not to mention the thing was a gift from my dad and the only rifle I own. Should I sell it and buy a musket so you won’t wet yourself?
November 24th, 2008 at 5:24 pmthe brown acid Says: “Admittedly, it’d be way more sporting, but I think the argument is that it’s excessively cruel to the animal.”
LOL
November 24th, 2008 at 5:24 pmWe’re being a little tongue in cheek here… if you need to pop off 10 rounds to make sure it drops before it escapes into the subdivision, then you need the Saiga Sporter.
However you hunt, never cut a deer’s throat as a means of killing it. After it is dead, and you need to bleed it, fine. Cutting the throat of a live deer interferes with it’s spirit leaving the body, you will be in the way, and you will get very sick.
LOL
We’re being a little tongue in cheek here… if you need to pop off 10 rounds to make sure it drops before it escapes into the subdivision, then you need the Saiga Sporter.
Haha, that’s the way the law reads though. FYI, I don’t use all 10 rounds. Doesn’t sound like you know a lot about deer. If you miss the first shot your odds of hitting anything, let alone the heart or the head (the only valid shots), drop in a profound manner. I rarely fill the box up past 6 anyway. I don’t have a lot of money at my disposal and buying another magazine because I wore out the first is not in the budget.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pmand I don’t live in a “subdivision”, I live on a mountainside in Appalachia.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pmSorry, troll, I just neglected to refresh the comments so I missed ya.
So long as crimes are being committed with legally acquired weapons, we must seek to improve the regulations. And, personally, I would like to see VERY strict regulations of high capacity weapons including .22 rimfire.
One local lawmaker tries, every year, to pass legislation that would require all sales of high capacity weapons to the standard of a “conceal/carry” permit. He would not restrict the weapons but would restrict multiple high capacity clips. It makes perfect sense, to me, that a person who seeks to buy a weapon capable of taking out a whole school should face some extra scrutiny.
And. A national gun license would give us a chance of catching people who are “going around the bend”. If one looks at mass shootings, one will find that virtually all of them acquired their weapons, not always legally, in the short period of time leading up to the shooting. Perhaps the worst example would be the Georgia Tech shootings. A rational national policy on high capacity weapons would have greatly diminished the chance of him acquiring those weapons and may have averted the tragedy all together.
And I can’t think of a single mass shooting suspect who would have passed even minimal scrutiny. If you are afraid that you can’t stand up to the scrutiny? You should probably get some professional help rather than spending your money on weapons.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pmPete, all of those requirements on ownership are well within reason, and if put to a vote I’d back you on it. Blanket banning weapons based on “type” is not.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:29 pmIf they also cash unemployment checks, they will really be in business.
One stop shop
November 24th, 2008 at 5:30 pmSounds like here in Kentucky, but you can buy fireworks at those places too.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:30 pmDoesn’t sound like you know a lot about deer.
Perhaps your hearing is damaged from all the shooting…
November 24th, 2008 at 5:31 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
Again, that begs the question: What is an assault weapon? What makes a bullet “armor-piercing”? Plus, you do realize that only one of categories of “assault weapon” you list (automatic or semi-automatic) was actually the focus of the late, but not lamented, Assault Weapon Ban?
As for valid uses, well, the standard list comes to mind: target shooting, home defense, hunting. Some weapons are not suitable for every category, but that doesn’t mean they should necessarily be banned or subject to unreasonable restriction.
Later,
November 24th, 2008 at 5:32 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhstuvzMiB0
November 24th, 2008 at 5:32 pmNevar Says:
Perhaps your hearing is damaged from all the shooting…
Just teasing you back. Relax. And just so you know, I never subject any animal I kill to any sort of indignity that you might see some more ignorant types engage in, such as slashing the throat of the live deer.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pmWhat about scratch tickets? You gotta have the scratch tickets to complete the entire white trash spectrum…
November 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pmThe nation’s largest gun show was probably the largest gathering of stupid, impotent men since the republican convention in st. paul.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pmIf these morons were going to get their guns and march on Washington, why didn’t they do it when Bush shredded the Constitution and started spying on everyone?
November 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pmI wasn’t challenging you “brown acid”. Sorry if it sounded that way. I’m a hunter myself and LOVE big caliber weapons. But I fail to see a legitimate reason for multiple, high capacity, weapons. Heck! If we can require “plugged” shotguns to protect ducks I see no reason not to require “plugged” magazines for to protect people.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pmoh and some beef jerky as well
November 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pmdbadass Says:
What about scratch tickets? You gotta have the scratch tickets to complete the entire white trash spectrum…
Already covered.
One of the first thing I noticed when I moved down here was the stores and their..uh..selection of inventory.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:37 pmNo. They consistently blame the victims for not being armed.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:38 pmThey also have a “Homies” vending machine where for 50 cents you can buy yourself a little plastic Hispanic stereotype.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pmThe mental midgets at the NRA who have obviously never read Baracks’s stand on the Second Amendment must be gearing up for a heavy duty membership drive. Whenever you are driving west of DC on Interstate 66 and come on to the NRA building on the left (as you head west) remember to raise your arm and give a middle finger salute. It feels so good to do that. Sieg Heil!
November 24th, 2008 at 5:40 pmI always thought it would be hilarious to propose a law limiting gun ownership to those with a 3 digit IQ, and watch the convoluted hystrionics the NRA would go through trying to explain why being incredibly stupid shouldn’t be an impediment to owning a firearm..
November 24th, 2008 at 5:41 pmpete says:
I wasn’t challenging you “brown acid”. Sorry if it sounded that way. I’m a hunter myself and LOVE big caliber weapons. But I fail to see a legitimate reason for multiple, high capacity, weapons. Heck! If we can require “plugged” shotguns to protect ducks I see no reason not to require “plugged” magazines for to protect people.
Hell I could go for this. Maybe instead of an outright ban on high-cap mags like the Brady bill, just subject them to a licensing system. I’m from the school of thought that if you need more than 7-10 shots to get the job done you have no business handling a weapon but this would be a hard sell for the more “gun nutty” (?) types
November 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pmthe brown acid Says: Just teasing you back.
Likewise, all in good humor, perhaps we’re in troll withdrawal.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:44 pmI see many hunters nowadays with the automatic weapons, and if they can’t find game, or drive them off with the noise of their generators and four-wheelers, they will start shooting at other things. Automatic weapons quickly remove the desire to be accurate.
I made the mistake once of cutting a deers throat, trying to end it’s suffering. (it had been hit by the car in front of me)
I was sick for a week with a head-splitting migraine.
Chocolate Jesus Says:
I always thought it would be hilarious to propose a law limiting gun ownership to those with a 3 digit IQ, and watch the convoluted hystrionics the NRA would go through trying to explain why being incredibly stupid shouldn’t be an impediment to owning a firearm..
Would certainly cut down on hunting accidents! Reminds me of when a couple drunken moron hillbillies shot my cow thinking it was “Thuh biggus deer we ever saw!”. Idiots were shooting from their SUV INTO my property as if I was going to let them come near it to recover their kill, assuming it was a deer.
Damn cow was only 6 months old.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:44 pmGotta love it. Mayhap these idiots will start shooting each other over parking spaces at Walmart or the liquor store. It’s called thinning the herd.
As for me, the 357 magnum is getting a good workout in practice and is kept close to the happy owner. Happy Trails everyone. Happy Thanksgiving.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:46 pmYeah Nevar, I don’t ever recall having to use a generator or a four-wheeler to bring back a deer. I know there are people who think this is hunting but it’s still hard to believe they can take any pride in what they do. Almost seems to degrade the whole experience and reduce it to something akin to the “meat factories” of modern agribusiness.
The deer come to us under their own accord, like an extension of the land (and a function of having copious amounts of persimmons, oaks, apple trees, blackberries, elderberries, etc. and a nice watering hole we dug for them! ).
November 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pmCicero – I still don’t see the point of needing an assault weapon (whether semi or full automatic) or armor-piercing bullets necessary for any of the uses you listed: target practice, home protection or hunting. (And yes, I know the assault weapon ban was for semi-automatic weapons. My understanding is that fully-automatic weapons have been banned for civilian use for a long time).
I notice you didn’t respond to the article regarding our lax gun laws and easy access to terrorists for such weapons. Can you honestly tell us that this situation doesn’t concern you?
November 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pmActually you can still own a full auto weapon as a civilian. It just requires a $12,000 “license” from the gubmint.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pmCome on there has to be one amongst us who wants to claim that they have to be armed to the gills and holed up in their compound just in case the government gets all out of control and such. I love those types. The fact that they claim this is their patriotic duty is the part that amuses me the most…
November 24th, 2008 at 5:54 pmthe brown acid…It appears you have a respect for the animals, and recognize them as a part of the whole. Kudos. My work often includes habitat improvement projects for wildlife in general, some species in particular.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:55 pmI used to hunt, now I just fish. I live in an area where hunting season is more important than Christmas for the local economy.
Ever examine the physiques of some of those involved in the “patriot” movement? Do you wonder if they really believe the lie they tell themselves when they look in the mirror in the morning and say “I am combat effective damn it!”
November 24th, 2008 at 5:56 pmI think in a perfect world only MY WIFE would have a gun but we dont live in that world and I do not advocate taking everyones guns. The NRA tries this every election. The Big Bad Democrat will take all your guns if elected, then when he gets elected he makes NO ATTEMPT to take everyones guns but the NRA recycles the stupidity the next election. Just how many times are these guys going to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. You would be suprised how often people I work with, here in N Az there is a lot of hunting, take this idiocy seriously even though they laugh at most rightwing propaganda.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:56 pmpete Says:
Interesting. Makes no sense at all, but interesting.
Pretty much any semi-automatic that loads using a magazine would fall under this restriction. And what’s the definition of “high-capacity”? 50? 20? 10? If the limit is placed at 10, what’s to stop someone from buying a whole bunch of 9-round capacity magazines? It’s not like it takes a long time to switch out. Heck, with some practice, you can get some pretty decent reload times with a revolver if you have speed-loaders available.
Actually, a rehaul of our mental health guidelines, at state and national level, would go much further in weeding out those rotten apples, than a gun license would. In fact, IIRC, there was some new legislation to that effect just recently. (I’ll have to look it up.)
As someone who has at one time been a CCW holder (but I moved, and they didn’t have reciprocity in place at the time in the state I live in now, I’ll have to look into getting a new one someday), I’ve personally got no problems with a background check. But when you start placing restrictions the only affect the law-abiding, well, that’s where I draw the line.
Later,
November 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pmthe brown acid Says:
The deer come to us under their own accord, like an extension of the land (and a function of having copious amounts of persimmons, oaks, apple trees, blackberries, elderberries, etc. and a nice watering hole we dug for them! ).
I suppose this is a nice picture for you, and I honestly wish I could accept this idea. But I remember seeing a buck standing by the side of a busy road (Skippack Pike in PA just outside of Skippack) during hunting season. Hunters behind him, and unable to escape in front of him. I will never forget the look in his eyes. Desperation.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pmNevar, I am in my senior year as an environmental science major. I used to have a pretty bleak outlook on my future prospects until Obama got elected. I’ve been spending the last year fleshing out my knowledge of sustainable living. Been reading the works of Wendell Berry, one of the guys who helped found the modern organic farming movement. Habitat improvement and permaculture are some of my other interests.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:58 pm> Since when does NEED come into
> play when exercising a
> fundamental right?
Given the full wording of the second amendment I think its hightly debatable that having weapons is a fundamental right of private individuals.
But suppose for the sake of argument it is. Even then, just because a right is fundamental doesnt mean
its not subject to restrictions, genius. For example, words which serve no purpose other than to provoke violence are NOT protected by freedom of speech. Pick up a constituitional law book before you talk about constitutional issues. It goes without saying that if an activity has no valid purpose its going to be alot easier for the government to argue that restricting it serves a compelling government purpose and that the restriction is as narrowly tailored as possible.. Its alot harder to make a compelling case for banning contraceptives than it is for banning bazookas. The idea that social utility is completely irrevelvant when determining whether the government has made a compelling case for restricting a fundamental right is a bit ludicrous..
In fact I think its reasonable to say that the supreme court ruled that words meant to incite violence are not protected speech at least partly because they serve no legitimate or necessary purpose in our society. If I threated to shoot someone I can be arrested, but if a police office threatens to shoot someone his words will likely been protected because he most likely NEEDED to utter them to do his job..
November 24th, 2008 at 5:59 pmThe NRA lost all support from me when they decided it was more important to defend gun manufacturers that produce FAULTY WEAPONS THAT HURT THE USER than it was to defend consumers from said faulty products. Most NRA members are unaware of the fact that the NRA backed companies that built, for lack of a better word, SHITTY guns.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:59 pmWhoever turned you on to Wendell Berry is most likely a member of your karass…
November 24th, 2008 at 6:00 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
So you paint me with the broad brush of the stereotypical backwoods moron because I own a rifle and hunt with it?
November 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pmdbadass Says:
Well, I’m hoping that I can put some of Berry’s work that he did in Peru with the terrace farmers there to work here in appalachia. The idea being that I turn some of the marginal hillside land into productive terraces for root crops.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:03 pmthe brown acid Says: “…future prospects…”
There’s plenty of jobs, lots of repair work for starters.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:05 pmI was thinking of trying to assist Paul Stamets with his mycofiltration technology. Using mushrooms to eat pollution, really cool stuff. Google it. I’ll stop now before we get too far off topic.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:08 pmYou may be on the path to wampeterhood, the brown acid, don’t stop now..
November 24th, 2008 at 6:12 pm;)
wampeterhood??
November 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pmKurt Vonnegut?
November 24th, 2008 at 6:15 pmI am a gun toting liberal who knows Obama will not takeaway our right to bear arms……..too bad the Reich Wing nut jobs
November 24th, 2008 at 6:16 pmare nut jobs.Sounds like more subtle racism to me.
Duh. *forehead smack*
November 24th, 2008 at 6:17 pmWhew, I was starting to feel really old there for a minute…
November 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pmThink I’ll go take a nap now. Thanks for the lively fusillade.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:20 pmthe brown acid Says:
impeachcheneythenbush Says:
So you paint me with the broad brush of the stereotypical backwoods moron because I own a rifle and hunt with it?
Not at all. If you are responding to my story about the buck in the woods, all I’m rejecting is the idea that these animals “come to us.” I admit I have a problem with hunting for sport; it makes no sense to me. Hell, I even broke up once with a guy I was dating because he was a sports hunter. I have no problem with people who hunt because they actually need the food. But just for “fun?” And as far as the argument about overpopulation and avoiding starvation of the deer population, contraception in the population is an answer and isn’t pursued. The bottom line is it’s profit for gun dealers and revenue for the state for hunting licenses. And it satisfies an atavistic need for certain people.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:25 pmOne last thing brown acid – in reading your other posts, you and I actually have quite a lot in common — except for the hunting bit.
November 24th, 2008 at 6:30 pmYou know, freedom of speech is over-rated and an argument can be made that despite what the Constitution says, there needs to be more regulations on speech.
For example, What is the “need” for people to speak when what they are saying just hurts other peoples’ feelings? I think there needs to be “reasonable limitations” on this so-called “right” pretty much because I am content just speaking a certain way and I don’t see the need for others to speak any differently!
Just because there is a right to “free speech” doesn’t mean we can’t regulate ideas, right? I mean, certain ideas are so far out of the mainstream they serve no useful purpose. The people who engage in radical dialogue need to be regulated!
November 24th, 2008 at 6:39 pmTim Vaculik Says:
So you can’t make a valid argument, and instead, choose to put up a completely unrelated ’straw man’ argument. A reach too far, my friend. Try again.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:15 pmThe NRA’s actions in recent years caused my husband to cancel his membership.
Let’s hope others will be similarly inspired now.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:17 pmWith respect to placing some “reasonable regulation” on free speech, which we all agree is a privelege granted by government – we need to start with the thinkprogress blog.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:28 pmimpeachcheneythenbush,
Oh really? I’m using EXACTLY the same arguments I hear on this blog.
What’s the matter, is the medicine too strong? Just hold your nose and swallow.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:30 pmdbadass Says:
Come on there has to be one amongst us who wants to claim that they have to be armed to the gills and holed up in their compound just in case the government gets all out of control and such. I love those types. The fact that they claim this is their patriotic duty is the part that amuses me the most…
And the sad part is that they are much more likely to kill themselves or a family member than someone who wants to do them harm. People who think a gun will protect them are total idiots. Unless they go to a gun range on a regular basis and practice shooting, chances are that they will not be able to use the gun to defend themselves if they really are threatened.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:42 pmTim Vaculik Says:
With respect to placing some “reasonable regulation” on free speech, which we all agree is a privelege granted by government – we need to start with the thinkprogress blog.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Free speech is not a “privilege” granted by government, it is a RIGHT as defined by the Bill of Rights. Unless you consider the posts and comments on TP as comparable to yelling “fire” in a crowded theatre without cause, then you are way off base. Words don’t kill people. People’s irresponsible exercise of the 2nd Amendment does and has. No one in touch with reality at all should need example of this!
Tim Vaculik Says:
impeachcheneythenbush,
Oh really? I’m using EXACTLY the same arguments I hear on this blog.
What’s the matter, is the medicine too strong? Just hold your nose and swallow.</
Your argument is not the same. Apples to oranges. In addition, as you may recall, the Supreme Court recently supported the argument that the 2nd Amendment protected the individual’s right to arms. They also, however, said their decision did NOT mean that reasonable restrictions on that right would be unconstitutional.
November 24th, 2008 at 7:52 pmTim Vaculik Says:
With respect to placing some “reasonable regulation” on free speech, which we all agree is a privelege granted by government – we need to start with the thinkprogress blog.
Priviledge means “private law,” and anyone who regards free speech as a private law, and not for ALL American citizens, is so hopelessly ignorant, that I fear for their personal safety. I hope you’re wearing protective head gear while posting, Tim.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:17 pmI support ownership for home and personal protection, and opposed for hunting purposes. I think Obama would be an absolute fool to ban gun ownership for law abiding citizens, so I am not sure why he is questioning perspective administration recruits on them.
However, with Obama’s recent Hawkish foreign policy, Wall Street friendly, surveillance increase, and military-industrial appointments, one has to wonder what he is up to.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=39345
November 24th, 2008 at 8:19 pmI think there needs to be “reasonable limitations” on this so-called “right” pretty much because I am content just speaking a certain way and I don’t see the need for others to speak any differently!
Do they make keyboards with training wheels? Tim could sure use one, the way he’s wobbling.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:19 pmBrain From Planet Arous Says:
What no skinhead links? Why not fully embrace your fascist side, and start posting Limbaugh?
November 24th, 2008 at 8:22 pmI think Obama would be an absolute fool to ban gun ownership for law abiding citizens, so I am not sure why he is questioning perspective administration recruits on them.
From Brain’s link:
Found in the questionnaire’s “Miscellaneous” section, question 59 reads, “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
Yeah, really hard to figure, that he might not want a careless vetting job to blow up in his face!
Sheesh!
November 24th, 2008 at 8:25 pmbarfly Says:
What no skinhead links? Why not fully embrace your fascist side, and start posting Limbaugh?
You know what they say about “flies”, and what they are attracted to….?
Now numbskull, Hitler, Stalin, and Castro took away gun ownership of the population. And if you are a Constitutionalist (which I doubt you are), then the 2nd amendment clearly states the right of the population to defend themselves.
So what is your problem?
And since you are obviously an Obamtron, why do you support surveillance, giving our money to Banks, extended war, and The Patriot Act?
I know you will not answer, but you will attack, so fire away, and show your “anti-war” side on a personal scale.
November 24th, 2008 at 8:36 pmBrain – just what is your problem? The only ones saying that that Obama will take guns away from citizens is the Right. I haven’t seen one argument here from anyone that we should take guns away from people, just reasonable regulations on them. and saying “And since you are obviously an Obamatron, why do you support surveillance, giving our money to Banks, extended war, and The Patriot Act?” is equally wierd. I doubt that you’ll find any commenter supporting the unbridled use of any of these measures (other than the trolls) and if you can find one, then post a link to their comments. Otherwise, stop making unsupported accusations. If you are in the survivalist school, also have the guts to admit that.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:18 pmSo tell me Timmeh, are you really saying the government should validly worry about hurt feelings to the same degree they should be concerned about death and dismemberment?
There is a compelling government interest in protecting people from being killed by violence prepetrated by say, shcitzophrenic people weilding assault rifles. A crazy person with a high powered military weapon could cause alot of physical, permanent harm or death. Thus, the government would have a “compelling interest” in keeping mentally unstable people from owning firearms, thus giving them a legal avenue of restricting an arguably funadamental right. The government has a compelling interest in keeping its citizens safe.. Can you honestly say the goverment has a compelling interest in making sure no ones feelings are hurt? Are hurt feelings something you can even quantify? Ask the people at Virginia Tech if they can quantify the injury they suffered from a mentally ill person with a gun….
November 24th, 2008 at 9:26 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Your argument like all your arguments is flat out stupid. The constitution has no qualification on free speech. The second amendment wasnt lumped into speech press petition and assembly because IT WAS QUALIFIED. Only morons think there are no restrictions allowed or regulations allowed on gun ownership. It is NOT like free speech which ITSELF isnt unlimited. You cannot incite a riot you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater and your ignorant attempt at satire was just stupid, it made no point except that you dont know what you are talking about and you have already made THAT point pretty much every time you have ever posted.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:34 pmTim Vaculik Says:
With respect to placing some “reasonable regulation” on free speech, which we all agree is a privelege granted by government – we need to start with the thinkprogress blog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We agree to no such thing it is an UNQUALIFIED right granted by the Bill of Rights which CANNOT be said about the second amendment MY GOD you are a moron.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:36 pmTim Vaculik Says:
impeachcheneythenbush,
Oh really? I’m using EXACTLY the same arguments I hear on this blog.
What’s the matter, is the medicine too strong? Just hold your nose and swallow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No the argument is too stupid. The SECOND amendment came with a qualification and the first amendemnt DIDNT. Try to keep up
November 24th, 2008 at 10:37 pmWhether you legislate their
Booze
Bibles or
Bazookas
their reaction is always the same.
One can only wonder why, but seriously, why waste the time?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:40 pmChocolate Jesus,
“Can you honestly say the goverment has a compelling interest in making sure no ones feelings are hurt?”
Well, yes. Don’t you know what’s coming next here in this country? Hate speech, my friend.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:46 pmIt’s really quite humorous to watch some folks here try to denigrate one right, while trying to prop up another right they themselves don’t want to see messed with!
Got news for ya. A RIGHT is a RIGHT under the Constitution.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:49 pmimpeachcheneythenbush,
So, how long do you think it will be before “reasonable restrictions” are put on your precious right to free speech, hmmmmm?
November 24th, 2008 at 10:54 pmHere’s some light reading for those of you who think they know what the 2nd amendment is all about!
It’s from the The Right to Keep and Bear Arms report of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS Second Session, February 1982(their caps)
See it here: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
November 24th, 2008 at 11:12 pmI actually like the one of Obama as Che… but without the subtitle.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:34 pmimpeachcheneythenbush Says:
and saying “And since you are obviously an Obamatron, why do you support surveillance, giving our money to Banks, extended war, and The Patriot Act?” is equally wierd.
Weird??
If one is an Obamatron, meaning they will support him no matter what, then the Obmamtron must support surveillance, more wars, bailing out banks, and The New Patriot Act, among others.
Last check, Obama voted for 4th Amendment violating FISA Bill, more war in Afghanistan, Bank Extortion Bill, and renewing the Patriot Act. One top of that, Clinton Hawks are now in prominent foreign policy positions, as well as NAFTA and the Deregulating Clintonistas.
On guns, I just asked the question of will Obama ban firearms, but not that he WILL do it? Legitimate question.
It seems that Obamatrons are as absolute as Bushites.
Bushies say, “You are either with us or with the Terrorists”
Obamatrons say, “You are either with us, or you are a Fascist”
Again, and this is getting boring asking this question,
“How far are Progressives ready to go in abandoning their positions”
November 24th, 2008 at 11:53 pmHi Tim!
November 25th, 2008 at 12:05 amTim Vaculik Says:
It’s really quite humorous to watch some folks here try to denigrate one right, while trying to prop up another right they themselves don’t want to see messed with!
Got news for ya. A RIGHT is a RIGHT under the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
REALLY? So then there is no difference between saying
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…
And
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…
The one just says Congress wont prohibit the second STARTS OUT WITH A QUALIFICATION. IF the writers of the Bill of Rights had MEANT them to be the same why wouldnt they have just added the right to bear arms to the first amendment? The answer of course is IF they meant them to be the same they WOULD have. Ya got no point.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:12 amTim Vaculik Says: 129
Timmeh the moron STILL thinking that as obviously ignorant as he is he needs to teach US things. Timmeh, give it up. You are a moron. You were a moron yesterday, you are a moron today, you will be a moron tomorrow and the ONLY thing you have to teach us is how a moron acts
November 25th, 2008 at 12:15 amStupid troll.
There are already limits on “free” speech. One can’t incite riot or tell another to commit murder. Plus, there are already limits on the right to bear arms. Automatic weapons, destructive devices (which includes a .50 cal.), grenades and other explosives, are prohibited for most private citizens. The laws on automatic weapons, in particular, were first enacted when sub-machine guns, specifically the Tommie Gun, allowed bootleggers to outgun law enforcement. Look it up.
The Second Amendment has been ruled, repeatedly, to not guarantee the “right” to outgun the duly elected authorities of our country. And courts of all levels have supported the rights of states and municipalities to restrict the sale and possession of weapons which are optimized for the rapid fire of “man-killing” rounds. Look it up.
So-called “assault weapons” and high capacity handguns cover all but a few. 9mm-.40 cal handguns and .223 rifles/carbines account for all but a few of those. 9mm is not suitable for hunting anything and .223 is suitable only for small game and varmints. Most military style rifles/carbines don’t even deliver the precise accuracy for most long range applications. Look it up.
I’m a life-long hunter and shooting enthusiast. I fully support the Constitution and understand it as well as anyone who isn’t sitting on a, well-deserved, Bench. I also think it’s within the duties of our government to defend the public. Most lawful citizens, not to mention every court and elected official I can think of, in the history of this country expects the government to take reasonable measures to insure public safety.Look it up.
As I’ve often said: “There’s no reason for any person who can pass a background check to resist one. And anyone who can’t wait a week or so for a weapon should suck it up“.
And that applies to ALL calibers. Period. If Every gun buyer passed that hurdle there wouldn’t need to be any additional tracking of individual weapons. And lives would be saved. Most gun related crimes are committed with legally, and casually, acquired weapons. Look it up.
So? One needn’t worry about some, renegade, “leftist” government gone psycho having a list of all one’s guns because the enforcement effort would be on people, not weapons. If one doesn’t make a habit of getting arrested or commited one’s rights would be virtually unchanged. And it would thrill me to no end if one psycho were thwarted, even if every lawful person from here till Doomsday had to wait a month for a damn clip. Or fill out a form for a gun.
[NOTE: In an earlier post I said that the purchase of high capacity (somewhere between 5 and ten rounds, lets say?) clips should pass the same level of regulation as a "conceal/carry" permit. I would like to add that local "conceal/carry" permits amount to reapplying for a simple handgun permit. The last time I renewed my handgun permit it took about a week.
There's no "tracking" of individual weapons or clips. I would, however, suggest that clips be treated as "part of the weapon". They could not be sold casually any more than the weapons they fit.]
November 25th, 2008 at 12:39 amEvenin’, dbadass. The ponds are solid but there’s still tons of waterfowl on the river.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:44 amDang cat can’t type!
Just checking in for a few minutes before bed. I’ll leave the troll roasting in your capable hands.
G’night good people.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:47 amYou too, trolls.
First real snow tonight. Just about an inch of wet stuff. I suspect it will turn to rain soon. I haven’t seen much of interest this week but I haven’t been out much either. I hope to get some birding in on Thanksgiving day before I have to go to work. I know a spot where a lot of crossbills have been hanging out for the last week or so. I saw a report of a snowy owl in a town nearby but I suspect it is gone by now…
November 25th, 2008 at 12:50 amBrainy:
Now numbskull, Hitler, Stalin, and Castro took away gun ownership of the population.
So now Obama’s a budding Hitler?
You just lost the argument.
You’re a disgruntled Clintonite. Suck it up, and move on.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:40 ampete Says:
Not prohibited, as such, but it is definitely prohibitive. So long as you can withstand the background checks, and pay the thousands of dollars on both the weapon and the tax (and don’t run afoul of local laws), you can do it. Thing is, most people just don’t have the money.
Most of which is now in question due to the recent Heller decision by the Supreme Court, which now recognizes that it is indeed an individual right, and that it applies to firearms in common use, which would likely include high-capacity pistols and “assault weapons”. In fact, several municipalities that had total handgun bans have now dropped them (Morton Grove being one, as a for instance, IIRC). Expect a rash of lawsuits at various levels to hash out the details.
Yeah, and what’s your point?
Again, the restrictions you would seem to support are not reasonable, not only to me but also to millions of others.
Nice. So the woman who has just found out her abusive ex-boyfriend has just been let out of jail is going to have to wait a week to buy a gun, while he no doubt won’t have any problem finding one.
I suspect you’d scream bloody blue murder if it was ever suggested that a woman have to wait 24 hours before getting an abortion. Well, suck it up, I guess.
Again, all these restrictions you would see passed would only have an effect on people who are already law-abiding. The criminals, they just laugh. And there’s no evidence that waiting periods have any positive benefit when it comes to reducing crime. Gary Kleck put out a study to that effect.
Look it up.
Later,
November 25th, 2008 at 8:00 am“Nice. So the woman who has just found out her abusive ex-boyfriend has just been let out of jail is going to have to wait a week to buy a gun, while he no doubt won’t have any problem finding one.”
—
November 25th, 2008 at 8:07 amgender stereotype much?
Oh pooh, missed the troll bashing again!!
For the record, there just are some weapons that shouldn’t be in the hands of some people and I am thinking of that shoot-out a few years back in Cali between the police and bank robbers specifically. And why do these people scream when you ask them to wait to purchase a weapon so you can do a back-ground check? What could possibly be needing to be shot immediately and what is it that they are trying to hide?
I personally have a Mosin-Nagant Russian assault rifle for when I go up to the UP because there are bears there. My 9mm Springfield won’t stop one of those babies charging you. Not that I have had that happen but why take the chance? And a concealed weapon permit helps (for the 9mm). Bambi and I don’t get along after so many car accidents and hunting them here is a necessity because of over population and disease (I have seen herds of over 50 before). But if people truly want to make a difference then they should try to get the price of the ammunition to be more prohibitive to purchase. There’s a reason that rapper is named 50cent. That’s the price of a bullet and it’s obscenely cheap.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:10 amNRA – shut up and get over it. The people spoke and Obama is number 44.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:46 amNice. So the woman who has just found out her abusive ex-boyfriend has just been let out of jail is going to have to wait a week to buy a gun, while he no doubt won’t have any problem finding one.
Actually she should not be allowed to buy a gun at that time, since her only purpose would be to kill a person. Your scenerio has him getting out of jail, so there is probably a restraining order, and she could go to the police. if she had not purchased a gun before this moment for her self defense in a general sense, it would be VERY telling as to her desire to have one at this moment. She can go down to the local walmart (or gun shop) and buy pepper spray. In fact, if she was not a gun owner before, she would not be familiar with the weapon and thus would be MORE likely to miss or not even know how to load the gun, and thus end up getting herself further injured by said maniacal ex-boyfriend or killed by him in a rage that she tried to kill him. Again, she would do MUCH better, and have a greater chance of staying alive, if she got some pepper spray, or even a taser.
Wheeeeeee!!!! making up stories for one’s point is creative writing extempore at it’s finest. And i stand behind my point.
You REALLY think that someone who is planning on shooting another person SHOULD be able to immediately purchase a firearm? Wow. Just, …wow.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:50 amI’d like to put in an order for a case of LAW, half a dozen DRAGON, an M16A2 with M203, a case each of concussion frag and phosphorous grenades, and a .50 cal turret mounted on the roof of my house remotely controlled from my computer.
Never know when the wildlife might get a little uppity.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:05 amthat nobama image seems strikingly third reichian…
November 25th, 2008 at 9:20 amafter the nra show i wonder what percentage of those idiots attended the local klan rally
LVR says:
Probably because I (and others) do not see a compelling state interest in requiring a useless waiting period when we already have an instant background check system available. If a person has been cleared by the background check, what possible reason is there to make him/her wait an additional 3/5/7 days? Again, waiting periods have been shown to be useless when it comes as a deterrent to crime.
Later,
November 25th, 2008 at 9:38 amthe Lone Voice of Reason Says:
“I personally have a Mosin-Nagant Russian assault rifle for when I go up to the UP because there are bears there. My 9mm Springfield won’t stop one of those babies charging you. Not that I have had that happen but why take the chance?”
The UP? As in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan? I’ve camped all over the UP (unarmed) for 25-30 years and NEVER have had any problems with black bears. ontario as well. You really have to work hard at it and/or be really stupid to get a black bear to charge/attack. If one does, then you probably deserve it.
and btw, a 9mm is MORE than enough to deter a black bear!
November 25th, 2008 at 11:52 amLividLib Says:
and btw, a 9mm is MORE than enough to deter a black bear!
Well…. actually, that is not true. A 9mm is a poor weapon to defend against anything living. An excellent aim can skew that assessment some, but a 9mm has no stopping power. Human beings can keep going when hit by a 9mm and not even slow down (depending on where they are hit). 9mm’s are best for target shooting. While there are many who love them in general, the fact remains that they have no stopping power, regarldess of how much one prefers them. Personally, given the choice, I’d like a .45 if being charged by a bear. Or, to be completely honest, I’d rather not be charged by a bear at all.
I did get your point as ‘deterrent’, but if something is wrong enough in that black bear’s world that he is going to charge you, the “bee sting” of that 9mm is NOT going to scare him off.
November 25th, 2008 at 12:52 pmObama said he wouldn’t take our guns away. However, he didn’t say he would forever let us continue buying _new_ self-loading rifles and high-capacity handgun magazines. He didn’t say he would continue protecting the industry from abusive bogus lawsuits.
This sounds like hairsplitting, but remember Clinton’s artful explanations of past statements when he was accused of lying? For example, he “didn’t have sex with that woman” -because fallatio technically isn’t “having sex”? And remember the explanation that “it depends on what the meaning of the word `is’ is”? Like Clinton, Obama is also articulate and intelligent. Therefore, we have to parse his words very carefully.
We also must remember that reinstatment of the “assault weapons” ban was in the 2008 Democratic Party platform. From the moment a ban is proposed until it is passed and signed into law, there may not be enough time for the industry to manufacture and sell enough to supply us all for life — not to mention future generations — so it’s prudent to stocking up now.
If a ban is passed we’ll be able to sell any pre-ban guns we don’t need at a huge mark-up. If the ban includes a confiscation, well, we’ve just raised the price of that. If there is no ban, we’ll just have to view the money we’re spending as insurance premiums against a disaster that thankfully didn’t occur.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:35 pmI see the troll’s reading skills are as solid as ever. Or, perhaps, I just need to repeat every thought in every post? That ain’t gonna happen so, let’s try reducing it to one issue.
If people are getting killed with weapons which have been acquired legally? We need to reconsider the laws governing the acquisition of said weapons.
I, and many others, propose some ideas that would limit the sale of some weapons to the wrong people without any changes to the right of lawful people to own weapons for recreation and self defense. Specifically I would like to see a national policy demanding that all weapons/ammo/accessories be sold by a licensed dealer, a national license to lawfully purchase weapons, and tighter restrictions on high capacity repeaters. All of those are negotiable and none would have an impact on our rights.
The problem with the Reichwhiners is that they refuse to even discuss modernizing our national policies on the ownership of weapons to match modern realities. Big surprise, huh? Rather than honestly deal with a real, and complex, issue they concoct hypothetical scenarios to deflect from the issue at hand. I think that’s why they’ve been shown the door to the halls of power.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pmBTW. The expired “assault weapon ban” was not, IMO, a good piece of legislation.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:08 pmIf the ban includes a confiscation, well, we’ve just raised the price of that.
Why, I must ask, is everyone who posts to defend complete deregulation of all gun laws also proudly boasting that they will support and even engage in criminal activity? The matter is that a ‘confiscation’ clause in a ruling would be unenforceable anyway. That would not occur. But to gleefuly claim that if restrictions are passed and these weapons are outlawed and supposed to be turned in, that you will happily start selling them on the black market — well, that is just unbelievably unlawful. So, if they are outlawed you will sell them to — who will buy those black market ‘assault weapons’? I am guessing only criminals, and probably ones intending to either use those illegal weapons in crimes or to sell them to others who will use them in crimes.
The comment is a bit childish in that it is, “If you say i can’t have these weapons, then fine! I’ll sell them to the criminals, and then you’ll see if you still don’t like them…..” WTF?
Such an attitude would, IF that were to happen (I doubt it, myself), really be a great boon to visiting or ‘homegrown’ terrorists. Nice moves.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pmpete Says:
That’s an awfully big “if” to hang on all your justification for increasing restrictions on firearms purchases. Any data to back up that “if”? (And nothing from groups like the Violence Policy Center or the Brady Campaign, I view them with the same suspicion I’m sure you would view me citing the NRA.)
Why not focus more on increasing penalties for use of a gun in a crime? Why not tighten up our mental health reporting requirements so that if someone has been adjudicated mentally incompetant, that they can be denied when the background check is run. But no, you target the law-abiding, the owners of the millions and millions of firearms in this country, 99+% are never used in a crime.
Later,
November 25th, 2008 at 3:45 pmCicero:
November 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pmWell we have had the usual smattering of hunting “accidents” here in my state in the past few weeks and a kid in the town next to me wasted himself playing with his old mans weapon he “found”. Would you suggest society would be well served by increasing the penalties for such negligence and if so what do you think the appropritae punishment for these folks would be. The kid is no less dead than if dad had shot him… As usual the newspapers reported all of these events as “tragic accidents” but not as crimes. What gives?
I don’t know why people who want gun control do not move to my State. Here in California we have an AW ban, one handgun a month, no hicap mags, all handguns may only be transfered thru a ffl. A Handgun Safety Certificate test must be taken before a hand gun can be purchased. It cost $25 to take the test. The HSC is good for 5 years. All new handgun models must be tested and placed on the “Safe Handgun List” before they can be sold here. They are tested by independent labs. No new handguns have been able to pass the new requirements that went into effect this year. It wont be to many years until new handguns will not be for sale. New environmental laws are shuting down older ranges. A CCW is almost impossible to obtain in most of the state. We are not a “shall issue” state. As you can see we are what most Dems want. So you all come. We are a crime free paradise as you can see by the news media reports.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:03 pmWow! It’s HARD to explain things to reactionary boobs.
The overwhelming majority of shootings involve weapons which are legally, or casually, acquired. Look it up wherever you wish. The facts are not difficult to find or interpret.
And WTF kinds of restrictions do you think I want? I even cited the tragedy at Georgia Tech, where a person who should never had been allowed to buy a weapon did just that, as an example of a crime which could have been prevented by a rational, national, codified, system of background checks and/or licensing. If one makes a habit of getting arrested or committed? One should not be allowed to posses weapons. And if one can’t keep one’s nose clean enough to pass the highest level of scrutiny? One should not be allowed to posses an arsenal that exceeds local law enforcement.
I have not suggested that law abiding people, who CAN pass a background check, would be forbidden from owning weapons. And the only restriction on types of weapons I would suggest (BTW. When I say “suggest” I mean just that. I offer an opinion for discussion and negotiation.) would be to restrict ownership of high capacity repeaters to those who can pass the requirements for the legal possession of same. And high capacity clips would only be traded under the same regulations as handguns.
As an example. One would be able to purchase a Ruger Mini 14, AK-47, or AR-15, with a single clip of a given size, by passing the hurdles most states have in place to purchase a long gun. If one were to purchase bigger clips, or multiple clips, that would “trigger” the next level of scrutiny similar to most current regulations on handguns. Multiple weapons/clips purchased simultaneously would entail the next level of scrutiny, similar to a “conceal/carry permit”. Ditto for high capacity handguns.
That’s a brief summation of ideas which could help the existing problem of unstable people acquiring arsenals and using them to commit heinous crimes. And they just may prevent some “tragic accidents” and crimes of passion by weeding out some of those who are incapable of living up to the responsibility of owning weapons in the first place. The only effect on lawful, responsible, people would be the inconvenience of passing the hurdles. Whatever those hurdles end up being in practice.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:33 pmHmmm. A brief search found that the last time someone walked into a mall, or school, and opened fire in California was in 2001. Several states with more lax regulations have had multiple incidents in that time.
November 25th, 2008 at 4:50 pmHere’s a little food for the troll’s thoughts.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHURCH_SHOOTING?SITE=OHLIM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
November 26th, 2008 at 12:18 amMan. If I had that rocket launcher, I sure as hell would make them people pay!
November 26th, 2008 at 1:16 amGUNS FOR ALL. ABORTIONS FOR NONE!
November 26th, 2008 at 1:25 amIam only famillar with school shootings in Southern Cal. We average about one every sixty days here. Most are gang related. Of course we have a special law to prevent these shootings. No firearm can be within 1000 feet of any school. The majority of these shootings are by teenagers. No handgun can be legally owned by any one under 21 years of age. Another testament infavor of crime free California.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:56 pmBecause as MLK Jr. said, “…one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
I’d definitely be one of those people in line to buy a gun on the black market, right next to the guy who is buying his weed on the black market, because it was unjustly outlawed as well.
November 27th, 2008 at 4:45 amGun bans are never good legislation, because they focus on an inanimate object as opposed to the criminal. Gun bans are the lazy man’s attempt to reduce crime. And like most half-hearted efforts, gun bans fail.
November 27th, 2008 at 4:53 ampete Says:
The city of Chicago has what is essentially the gun control advocates wet dream (no handguns, assault weapons ban, and registration for everything else), yet crime is so bad that at one point they’ve thought about bringing in the National Guard to help.
Yet in my state, we have laxest gun laws in the country and we haven’t had a mass shooting since a guy went crazy in a post office back in 1986.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:00 amIt would take me forever to clear up all the misinformation that been posted here, but i’ll hit the important parts:
1. No one is rushing to buy automatic weapons. There are only 180,000 available to the public, because it is illegal to purchase one built after 1986. And in order to purchase one, you’d have to first cough up the 3k-20k dollars needed to purchase it, submit to a 3-4 month BATF background check, get the permission of your local chief law enforcement officer, be finger printed and photographed, and pay for a $200 tax stamp. This same process also applies to suppressors.
An automatic AK-47 will cost somewhere upwards of $5k. No one hunts deer with a rifle that expensive. Especially when it would net you 10 years in prison if you lost it. However, some people do use semi-automatic AK-47 clones to hunt. That’s because the ammo is cheap and it has just enough power to humanely kill a deer and other medium sized game.
2. “Assault weapon” is a term created by man named Josh Sugarman with the expressed intent of confusing people and deceiving people into thinking they are banning machine guns when in reality they are banning everything from certain models of 9mm handguns all the way up to the AR-15 which is the most popular “sporting” rifle in the country. BTW, “sporting use” was a concept created by the Nazis in order to disarm the Jews of their non-sporting arms. It’s no surprise the gun control advocates picked up the term. Hitler was a big gun control advocate himself.
3. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It really does “guarantee the “right” to outgun the duly elected authorities of our country.” in the event they start working against the interests of people in this country. For those who think a bunch of guys with guns can’t fight off the US military, just look at Iraq. A bunch of insurgents with guns have essentially brought the US military to a stalemate. But in the US, it wouldn’t even be that complicated. We have something the Iraq insurrection don’t have: Access to the people who give orders to the military. To quote Ben Franklin, “Nothing concentrates the mind so wonderfully as the prospect of being hung in the morning.” Substitute “hung” with “shot” and you can easily see how the Second Amendment works as a check on government power.
4. Free people aren’t limited to their needs alone. Don’t ask someone why they need such and such evil looking gun. Free people have all kinds of things they don’t need:cars, televisions, cellphones, air conditioning, shoes, etc… There are people all over the world who do quite well without those things.
5. “A right delayed is a right denied.” – MLK Jr. With that said, waiting periods are stupid. They’ve been shown to have absolutely no effect on whether someone uses a gun for nefarious purposes or not. That’s because someone committed to breaking the law has no problem ignoring the law and inquiringly a gun the illegal way: Instantly.
6. I love background checks. I love them so much, that I think we need background checks for more things. If you’re not eligible to buy a gun, you shouldn’t be eligible to vote, buy a car, buy alcohol, or procreate. All those things are just as dangerous as guns if they’re in the wrong hands.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:40 amStill I don’t get a boner over guns…
November 27th, 2008 at 10:59 amIm sorry all of their fears are due to Obamas plan to ban all semi auto rifles from civilian ownership.
This came from his website http://www.change.org
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
This basicaly bans all AR-15’s…the most popular hunting/sport/compitition rifle in the United States
November 27th, 2008 at 11:42 amSo this is just another Brady campain anti gun site???
Why would any President be afraid of gun owners???
Why would any President want to ban the most popular rifle in the United States???
November 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pmBecause they are black and they scare the uneducated, thus it’s easy to put together some useless, unconstitutional “feel good” legislation to ban them.
It’s the same approach the democrat party took towards black people so many years ago when they came up with the useless, unconstitutional “feel good” Jim Crow laws.
November 27th, 2008 at 4:18 pmjpopphan says:
Why would a terrorist buy a gun in the US when they can buy them elsewhere cheaper and not have to worry about any paper trail or setting off someone’s suspicions? In Somalia you can buy a fully automatic AK-47 off the street for $35. In the US, even the cheapest semi-auto AK clone is going to cost you a minimum of $200. That’s probably why there haven’t been many if any terrorists purchasing guns in the US.
If I were a terrorist, i’d buy my gun in a place like Africa or Mexico and have it snuck over the border with the tons of drugs that come into our country.
November 27th, 2008 at 9:12 pmdrug runners don’t wanna move your guns. I still get no boner from the guns and I remain mystified by those that do. Tell me again about your weird “Braveheart” fantasy…
November 28th, 2008 at 2:11 amDrug runners love moving guns as they are primary source of weapons used in crimes.
That’s how guns continue to get into places like Chicago and DC, despite their bans on guns.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:43 amDo you watch all those gangsta movies?
November 28th, 2008 at 12:23 pmNo. I just stick with facts, unlike most gun control advocates.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:04 amToday’s paper carries the tale of a brother who shot his own brother in the back while unloading a handgun in the backseat of the car while returning from a hunting trip. Not sure why they would need a hqandgun for a little deer hunting but anyway. What do you feel would be the appropriate punishment for the youngster?
November 29th, 2008 at 10:15 amPeople who oppose the Constitution, an individual’s ability to protect themselves and who believe that gun control actually is actually functionally proven as beneficial are MORONS and DANGEROUS.
It is the ANTI’s menatality that one can not defend themselves against criminals that causes death in reality. I know reality is a scary place but crime exists. No law is ever going to stop them. Something you might be more willing to admit if we were talking about marijuana but that of course is ‘different’.
The blood of any gun related crime is on the hands of every individual who feels that we are not allowed to protect ourselves from people with evil intent.
November 29th, 2008 at 2:15 pmIt must be truly astounding that I have never met a single solitary person who has ever had to defend themselves with a gun. Never. Not one. Anyway, so what would be an appropriate punishment for our backseat boy wonder?
November 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pmdbadass Says:
If it was intentional, jail. If it was accidental, a thorough course in firearms safety and a few years of probation.
And handguns are used for deer hunting more often than you think. Some handguns were specifically designed for hunting.
November 30th, 2008 at 3:42 amHardly seems like any punishment at all. What about the father of the kid in the other town two weeks ago whose negligence allowed his son to find the weapon and kill himself playing with it. I suppose he needs a little training and a bit of probation as well. Am I correct. I asked around today and I can’t find anyone who even knows anyone who has ever needed to defend themselves with a firearm. Have you been hanging around with drug dealers or other lowlifes who might have this problem becuase it seems like this need doesn’t exist for normal people in normal communities.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:38 pmIf it’s intentional, jail. If it’s accidental, charge him with child negligence. In other words, enforce the laws we already have.
As for people having to defend themselves with a gun, happens approximately every 13 seconds:
http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/01/every-13-seconds-an-american-uses-a-gun-in-self-defense/
November 30th, 2008 at 11:19 pmI couldn’t open the link but the name makes my wonder of bias. Another day has gone by and despite asking everyone I meet, I still have found no one. I suppose some people must be defending themselves like 4 thousand times every 13 seconds to make up for all the people that aren’t ever.
December 1st, 2008 at 9:53 amTo better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let’s, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: “A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.” Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an “educational purpose” test? Would some States limit citizens to buying “one book a month”? Would inflammatory “assault books” be banned in California?
December 9th, 2008 at 2:28 amThe Second Amendment is easily stated by the Founding Fathers whom said of it: “Without private ownerships of guns, only the government owns guns”.
People have warped that phrase to its post-Incorporation meaning of “Without Private ownership of guns, only outlaws own guns.”
But the meaning is still valid. 2nd Amendment is to protect us from government, and yes, Obama is going to try and infringe upon that further by encouraging states to do what California did.
December 9th, 2008 at 6:59 pmThere are many pot shots on here taken at gun owners sterotyping them into a collective “bubba” type character which I find to be the opposite of “Progressive” as this site is labeled. Bluntly you wouldnt not have your very freedom to lash out with such frenzy against people who prefer to own gun without those “crazy’s” throught american history who stood up for themselves and uses weapons to fight tryanny. World History is littered with such actions. And to claim hunters do not “NEED” an ak-47 is like saying you dont “NEED’ a cadillac escalade. Under that thought process GM should only make one vehicle because the american people dont “need” all those choices and wastes of energy they call SUV. If you want to take choice out of american society by all means do so but be upset when you want to purchase a purple beret to wear on a march to protest the “right wing crazy’s” and all they offer is black.
Either way you look at this argument there are valid points on both sides. I dont think either is strong enough to change our current condition. I think many ppl on this post need to “think before speaking” and grant each side of this argument respect and not lash out against an opinion because it differs form your own.
True conservative offers no change
January 31st, 2009 at 9:00 amTrue liberalism is to open minded to even argue their own opinion