PDA

View Full Version : Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets


Botswana
July 25, 2012, 11:01 PM
He's going for it!

Obama calls for common sense regulation (http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/obama-aks-belong-on-battlefield-not-streets-130141.html)

Best Quote -
“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.

That is just amazingly tin eared considering gun control is not gaining any ground in public opinion. Is he tired of being president?

MLeake
July 25, 2012, 11:05 PM
... but it bears repeating here.

The following is a response from my representative in Missouri, to a note I'd sent him about my concerns about possible pushes for new gun control legislation; it provides a lot of ammo for our side in a debate:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the tragic shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and a potential ban on assault weapons. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.
Let me first say that as a lifelong gun enthusiast, I will continue my steadfast support of our Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States upon taking office. As such, I am committed to preserving the right of law-abiding citizens to purchase, own, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Semi-automatic firearms were introduced more than a century ago. They account for about 15 percent of the more than 250 million privately-owned firearms in the United States, and are used for the same purposes that other firearms are, including self-defense, hunting, and recreational and competitive target shooting. Semi-automatics fire only one shot when the trigger is pulled. Contrary to some reports, semi-automatics can't "spray fire," and aren't easy to convert into machine guns.
A ban on new manufacture of assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds was imposed from 1994 to 2004. Crime reports and felon surveys showed that assault weapons were used in only 1-2 percent of violent crimes before the ban, while crime victim surveys indicated the figure was 0.25 percent. In the 10 years before the ban, murders committed without guns outnumbered those with assault weapons by about 37-to-1. Additionally, there are now more assault weapons and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds than ever before, and the nation's murder rate is at a 47-year low, having decreased 52 percent since 1991.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have strongly opposed every attempt to infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. I have always considered myself a friend and supporter of responsible and law-abiding gun owners, and believe the rights of these individuals needs to be preserved. It is no secret that President Barack Obama and his liberal anti-gun activists would like to see added regulations on the gun market and decreased access to firearms for all Americans. Rest assured, however, that I will actively and aggressively oppose them at every turn. Simply put, we do not need more anti-gun regulations for law-abiding citizens.
Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. Please feel free to call my office at (202) 225-7041 should you have any further questions or concerns about this or any other issue, or visit my website at http://graves.house.gov for more information.

Sincerely,

Sam Graves
Member of Congress

Congressman Sam Graves
mo06ima@mail.house.gov

Nico Testosteros
July 25, 2012, 11:35 PM
I agree Botswana, doesn't seem to be a smart thing to say. It's disappointing to this pro 2A independent/ Democrat. But, the Republican candidate has basically said the same thing although he's probably flip flopped on that position as well.

BarryLee
July 25, 2012, 11:47 PM
I believe this is the new strategy to claim you support the Second Amendment while simultaneously looking for ways to destroy it. Attempting to make certain items or practices seem unacceptable to the general public and then restricting them. I think most gun control advocates realize that there is little difference between a 10 round magazine and a 15 round version, but the idea is to make government control seem acceptable. Then it’s just a short skip and a jump to other more aggressive policies.

Tom Servo
July 26, 2012, 12:00 AM
Wow, that was an abysmally dumb thing to say a few months before election. Just when pundits are lamenting the fact that nobody wants to talk about gun control, he chooses to do this.

Which, of course, gives his opponents something to sink their teeth into.

Will it amount to legislation? Nope. It's just pandering, but to whom, I couldn't tell you.

Botswana
July 26, 2012, 12:02 AM
It's just pandering, but to whom, I couldn't tell you.

Probably people who don't know any better. He is talking about doing background checks, which already happens. He's complaining about AK's only being in the hands of our soldiers, while clearly having no idea what that means, unless he's using the media definition of "AK".

It's ignorant and misguided.

I like watching politics in a tennis match sort of way. Unfortunately, like so many things Obama seems to say these days, I think what he gains from this will be far less then what he'll lose.

Pond, James Pond
July 26, 2012, 01:21 AM
I know people have a visceral dislike of any attempts to control guns but, really, is what he said wrong?

The AK47 is a military weapon by design, and I doubt anyone wants them being used by criminals. I can't argue with either of those points.

Now, to then say that preventing their sale will somehow make them less prevalent in the hands of crooks is a different story, but that is not what he said in that quote.

I don't have a horse in this race, but it seems to me that criminals having access to any guns is a bad thing.

For me the biggest issue is that the recent horrible events that no doubt lead to this statement, and those like them are not "gun" issues but "social" issues.

It is one aspect of modern politics that really annoys me, whoever the perpetrator: there is an attitude of being perceived as taking action is more important that actually addressing the issues.

In this case, the media, lobby groups etc are all wanting control of guns, when that is not the route cause, but it is the action that would be seen as being the most proactive...

gc70
July 26, 2012, 01:24 AM
Will it amount to legislation? Nope. It's just pandering, but to whom, I couldn't tell you.

Obama obviously has to give his supporters who favor gun control some hint of hope. If he joined the NRA and started taking his family shooting on a weekly basis, he would still attract precious few votes from gun owners (he continues to support a new assault weapons ban according to his press secretary). But a hint that he might do something to advance gun control may be enough to energize some of his supporters. And if nothing happens ... it is Congress' fault.

maestro pistolero
July 26, 2012, 02:16 AM
I believe the president felt he had to say SOMETHING, lest he lose all credibility with his base. I can imagine tremendous pressure on him if he remained silent on the matter.

But I predict nothing will happen between now and November.

Remember that Romney signed the AWB in Massachusetts and has said he would sign an AWB as president. I have yet to see him recant.

See: "Mitt Romney's Draconian Gun Control (December 2007)" on YouTube.

I am more concerned with what the Romney might do as president, than what Mr Obama might do before November.

Botswana
July 26, 2012, 07:32 AM
Funny,

In the end, who do you think will be worse for gun owners?

The sitting president who has been rabidly anti-gun and continues to be so even though public opinion is not with him.

or

The other gun who has been rabidly anti-gun but is not so dense that he fails to see it is a losing proposition.

Not to mention the national stage is a different story. Not that I want to turn this into "Campaign Mitt HQ", but Romney has made it pretty clear that he sees things differently at the state level. He also had the state legislature to back him up. Mitt is a lot of things, but stupidly obstinate is not one of them.

Although, really, this is always an interesting and oh so pointless debate between the two candidates. I am not going to be voting based on their gun control record, sorry. I do think Mitt is much less likely than Barack to make a play against guns. He can see the writing on the wall.

To take it back to the matter at hand though, Obama is not even waiting until he has secured election to start talking about this. I think he is trying to take a page from the Clinton playbook, but doing it badly.

JimPage
July 26, 2012, 07:56 AM
Pond, James Pond: I don't want criminals to have AKs either. Not that they are military weapons so not suitable for civilians. That's a long proven useless saw. On other hand, I don't want criminals to have any guns or any weapons. I don't want them to be out of prison.

If I choose an AK I should be able to have it. The AK is not that formidable. It's not "high power." It's power is approximately (slightly less actually) as the venerable 30-30,

"Formidable" is not a valid reason for gun control.

comn-cents
July 26, 2012, 08:00 AM
I liked what he said, there was a spike in gun sales after the recent tragedy, the more he spews his ignorance the better the odds that we will lose!

hogdogs
July 26, 2012, 08:01 AM
Mr.Pond,
I know people have a visceral dislike of any attempts to control guns but, really, is what he said wrong?

Absolutely...
The AK47 is a military weapon by design, and I doubt anyone wants them being used by criminals. I can't argue with either of those points.
Most folks want to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who shouldn't have them but...
"military weapon by design..." Takes out far too many firearms...
Springfield 1903? Colt 1911? Browning's automatic rifle? Where will the line be drawn?

But the point of the matter is if I want to tote either an AK or AR variant with a hundred round drum rather than 5 20 rounders when I want to hike in jeans and a t shirt to a shootin' spot is a no brainer... But I wouldn't want the 100 rounder for life safety needs as I wouldn't find it reliable enough;)

Brent

Bartholomew Roberts
July 26, 2012, 08:12 AM
Interesting that he chose to use the AK47 as an example; when that was not the rifle used in the Aurora shooting. I wonder why they decided to choose the AK47 to pick on? Apparently the Administration is sensitive enough on that issue that it didn't want to risk touching on the American weapon actually used.

Though from a practical perspective, banning the one weapon that was used last and malfunctioned causing the gunman to abandon his plans doesn't strike me as a real efficient way to mitigate spree murders even if you could show that a ban might be effective.

Of course, the opposition isn't interested in mitigating murders or crime. They are interested in banning guns. I think they are just starting to realize that saying so openly was what got them in trouble in the first place and now they are trying to play the "O I believe in the Second Amendment, but who needs one of those" game to start the ball rolling again. The key is to get them to say what is on their mind - most of them will eventually blurt out "We should ban them all!" if you get them talking long enough.

eastbank
July 26, 2012, 08:17 AM
the second admendment is not about duck hunting, its about being able to defend ones freedoms from a dictutorial president and we are very close to that now. i don,t like to watch basketball, hockey or bowling but i don,t mind you watching it,the same goes for firearms. eastbank

pgdion
July 26, 2012, 08:29 AM
He's complaining about AK's only being in the hands of our soldiers,
He's also still sitting a bit on the fence. Did you notice he said they belong in the hands of soldiers on the battle field ... and ... they don't belong in the hands of criminals on the street.

So just exactly what is saying with regards to the rest of us in between ... not a soldier, not a criminal. Not on the battlefield, and not in the street. I'm sure this is not by accident, not with this well rehearsed, teleprompter fed president.

Botswana
July 26, 2012, 08:44 AM
Interesting that he chose to use the AK47 as an example

I think he is just following the trend set forth by the media and pundits. The AK-47 is often invoked due to its negative association as the weapon of choice among terrorists and our traditional enemies.

Nevermind that no one can actually own an AK-47, it's just the generic media term for "big scary gun"

Musketeer
July 26, 2012, 08:57 AM
This swings dangerously close to political but the two are intertwined.

Obama's base hates guns.
Obama's base is not nearly as pumped up as they were in 2008
As he is rapidly loosing the middle that got him in in 2008 he needs to depress overall turnout while energizing his base.

Finally, we all know Fudds out there who agree. These are the 2A's worst enemies. They appear on the news with their trap gun or deer rifle talking about how nobody needs those other guns...

When people claim there is no need for these weapons show pictures of people defending their homes and businesses with them during the Rodney King riots, after Andrew in Miami and Katrina.

carguychris
July 26, 2012, 09:07 AM
...like so many things Obama seems to say these days, I think what he gains from this will be far less then what he'll lose.
I'm not so sure it's a net loss. After 4 years of hysterical anti-Obama rhetoric by the NRA and after the F&F scandal, perhaps his campaign advisers have decided that the pro-gun crowd is a hopeless lost cause. It's likely that they're right.
If he joined the NRA and started taking his family shooting on a weekly basis, he would still attract precious few votes from gun owners...
+1.

Tom Servo
July 26, 2012, 09:18 AM
Obama's base hates guns.
You might be surprised. I know a few gun owners who voted for him. Their justification has been that he's not made any statements or overtures towards banning anything. Until yesterday, they were right.

Heck, we really are better than we were four years ago when it comes to 2A issues. Had he kept his mouth shut, the President could have taken that with him to the debates.

Finally, we all know Fudds out there who agree. These are the 2A's worst enemies. They appear on the news with their trap gun or deer rifle talking about how nobody needs those other guns.
The "Fudd" moniker is insulting and best avoided. Frankly, I can't remember seeing anyone like that in the news since the 2004 sunset.

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 09:21 AM
For me the biggest issue is that the recent horrible events that no doubt lead to this statement, and those like them are not "gun" issues but "social" issues.


That is exactly right. School shootings and other random mass shootings are a social issue. That is why the President focused his speech on such things as making it more difficult for the guns to get into criminal hands, working with local LE to get better enforcement of existing laws and supporting youth programs in an attempt to decrease the likelihood that young people will resort to gun violence in the first place. Those were the details that provided context for the statement about AKs not belonging on the streets. The statement about AKs can be twisted any way you want if the context is ignored.

I believe the president felt he had to say SOMETHING, lest he lose all credibility with his base. I can imagine tremendous pressure on him if he remained silent on the matter.

This is also a good point. If he remained silent on the recent events in Aurora, would we be happy with that silence? Probably not. Had he not addressed the issue, there would be just as many, if not more, people upset with him because he would seem uncaring, which is certainly not what he wants in an election year.

I really don't think this speech implies that the President is going after any bans or outlandish control measures that would infringe on 2nd ammendment rights. We are so ready to assume that he wants to push gun control at all costs that any statement regarding guns is likely to evoke a visceral reaction, even when the statement doesn't really warrant it. His political opponents are likely to try to twist it that way, but that is standard politics, and both sides are guilty as charged when it comes to mudslinging.

Spats McGee
July 26, 2012, 09:31 AM
. . . the inclusion of the phrases "hunting and shooting." Equally important as the phrase he did not include: "self-defense."

I know people have a visceral dislike of any attempts to control guns but, really, is what he said wrong?
In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. It is not wrong to say that guns shouldn't be in the hands of "criminals on the street." However, there are a great many of us who are neither soldiers on the battlefield, nor criminals on the street. His speech makes no provision for us. What then? A fairly simple change in law could change many gun owners from law-abiding gun owners to "criminals on the street." For example, a law limiting all handgun magazines to 10 rounds would force every Glock 19 owner to either turn in magazines, destroy them, or be a criminal. Never mind the fact that there are millions of people who own guns with 10+ round magazines, none of whom have killed anybody.

The other problem that I have is the attempt to make gun control seem like a reasonable "common sense" measure. It's not. Not by any stretch of the imagination. All it does is disarm the populace and potential victims.

The AK47 is a military weapon by design, and I doubt anyone wants them being used by criminals. I can't argue with either of those points.
Many firearms are either military by design, or have their origins in military design. 1911, AR15, Mini-14, Beretta M9 (is that the model?) . . . Rifles based on the AR15 platform are commonly called "Modern Sporting Rifles" these days. They're actually a very good choice for multi-purpose rifles. Do I want them used by criminals? No, but I don't particularly want criminals using a blunderbuss, either. Or a crossbow. Or a bolt-action rifle. The origin of the design is of no consequence.

Lateck
July 26, 2012, 09:34 AM
This is a big deal!
If said enough times we will get tired of hearing it and then they WILL pass a law!

Mr. Pond, James Pond, stated he has no horse in this race. SORRY, We ALL have a stake in this. Even if we do not live in the USA. When rights are taken away anywhere, WE all lose. (As the other side will say; Look at that group, they are happy. ?? )

Let's not fall asleep with this jaw-boning....
As it can come to pass.... Next will be other arms!

Lateck,

BlueTrain
July 26, 2012, 09:42 AM
Did Mr. Graves promise to never attempt to change the constitution as well?

If it looks like an AK, smells like an AK, shoots like an AK, it's an AK. Doesn't even have to be in 7.62mm.

spacecoast
July 26, 2012, 09:56 AM
What Obama's really saying is that nobody needs more than a single shot rifle that's the functional equivalent of a crossbow. And ya know, some of those crossbows are awfully "tactical" with all that camo and stuff... maybe all projectile-based weapons should be painted day-glo orange and have bells attached to them so we can all be aware when someone is packing. Just a matter of public safety...

Botswana
July 26, 2012, 10:00 AM
The fact that he left out the use of firearms as a means of self defense is a pretty big deal. It's actually my biggest hang-up with his statement.

The 2nd Amendment says diddly squat about "hunting". The right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or sport shooting. That is the dodge we always see out of the gun grabbers.

scottycoyote
July 26, 2012, 10:17 AM
i believe getting a shot at more gun control has always been onthis presidents agenda. I think the fast and furious was supposed to be the path for them to make it an issue but it blew up in their faces, and thats why they are so quickly jumping on this aurora incident, its plan b. This will make his base happy and its a chance to further demonize the right, the NRA, all the "bitter people who clutch to their guns and their religion" (his words not mine).

Of course the media wont ever put forth some of the figures that have been presented in this post, the declining crime rates, how assault rifles play such a small part in crimes, how states with concealed carry laws enjoy much less violence.

You are always going to have incidents like this shooting, there is no way to stop it in a free society. Franklin said he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. The older i get the smarter our founding fathers were.

BlueTrain
July 26, 2012, 10:18 AM
If we can ignore the fact that it mentions the militia, then we can ignore the fact that it doesn't mention hunting.

MLeake
July 26, 2012, 10:27 AM
BT, the militia saw has been debunked left and right.

Yes, the phrase is there.

Its meaning has been parsed to mean either argument - IE the militia at the time of the founders was not organized like today's National Guard, and its members were using firearms they already privately owned for the pro-2A types; or the "well-regulated" in modern terms argument for the antis.

But historical review of the comments of the framers; the Federalist Papers; and the predecessor Articles of Confederation show that the intent was for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals, as do all the other Amendments in the so-called "Bill of Rights." It was intended for the people to be able to defend against tyranny.

What you present as "a given" wasn't even how the militia phrase was interpreted until sometime after Woodrow Wilson took office.

But you are right about one thing - it has never mentioned "hunting."

Pond, James Pond
July 26, 2012, 10:33 AM
If I choose an AK I should be able to have it.

Surely it is more appropriate to criticise Obama for what he said, rather than what we imagine he might have meant...

I've not heard the speech and perhaps there are other bits that are more specific but nothing in that quote made any reference to stopping you owning one, merely that criminals toting those must be addressed.

"military weapon by design..." Takes out far too many firearms...
Springfield 1903? Colt 1911? Browning's automatic rifle? Where will the line be drawn?


Same again:
Nothing in that quote made any reference to stopping you owning one, merely that criminals toting those must be addressed. "Military by design" were my words, not his...

In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. It is not wrong to say that guns shouldn't be in the hands of "criminals on the street." However, there are a great many of us who are neither soldiers on the battlefield, nor criminals on the street. His speech makes no provision for us.

From what I gather he was making a speech about the dangers of guns in the wrong hands.
If no mention was made of the average Joe's access to guns, then the average Joe can be considered as not being "the wrong hands"...
A good thing, no?

Again. I can see why people are getting worried, but perhaps criticise Obama for what he said, rather than what we might imagine he meant...

Mr. Pond, James Pond, stated he has no horse in this race. SORRY, We ALL have a stake in this. Even if we do not live in the USA. When rights are taken away anywhere, WE all lose.

No need to apologise but, no, I do not have a stake in this.

I will follow the developments with interest as I find the US political model interesting and the Bill of Rights quite unique. I've not had this much insight into the real meaning of those statutes before joining here so I find it quite fascinating, but I still have no horse in this race.

Besides, I've already been quite clear on these fora in the past that I have no issue with a degree of gun control.
Unfortunately, not everyone is mature, considerate and responsible enough to own and carry a deadly weapon, IMO... waaaaay to many people with chips on their shoulder.

BarryLee
July 26, 2012, 10:41 AM
i believe getting a shot at more gun control has always been onthis presidents agenda.

I also believe this to be the case. Remember he wants to get re-elected to a second term and then the gloves can come off. Many like to mention that Congress will not pass any gun control bills, but we have to remember the damage that can be done without the Legislative Branch.

jmortimer
July 26, 2012, 10:44 AM
Obama base supports gun control, that is a fact beyond dispute. I know we have to P.C. it up here but it is a fact beyond dispute with 2/3 of his base supporting gun control. Simple really, but we have to play semantics games and I don't have a problem with that as otherwse, it gets the thin-skinned all excited if you try to discuss facts, which are beyond dispute.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 26, 2012, 10:46 AM
Bad speech no matter what the President's intention was... it gives opponents an excellent chance to hang Fast and Furious around his neck. You just juxtapose his "AK47" comment with Fast and Furious and the privilege claim. Another easily preventable political gaffe.

One thing that did occur to me though is the President has the authority to put a real crimp in the AK47 market, at least to the degree that they are imported. All it takes is a decision by the Attorney General that such a firearm has no particular sporting purpose and it no longer reaches the U.S. That also lines up nicely with the other language Spats McGee noted (hunting & shooting; but not self-defense).

This would also be one of the few moves the Obama Administration could make given the current Congressional make-up. The problem from a campaign standpoint is the Brady's can barely fund themselves, so they aren't going to be donating much in the way of cash to his campaign. At best he gives his unhappy base something to chew on; but he will likely stir up his opponents even more with that move.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 26, 2012, 10:48 AM
Even if elected, the Pres. is tied by the Congress and will be under pressure to not nail the next candidate - Clinton did that to Gore.

In general, candidates spout extreme positions and do little - Bush would trot out various extreme positions when in trouble and then do little. Mentioning them is a no-no, so think about it.

Or that's my take. Some horror can stampede the Congress also. So far we gotten through Columbine, VT and Giffords with the usual theater but no laws.

See what happens this time.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 26, 2012, 10:50 AM
Quote:
Finally, we all know Fudds out there who agree. These are the 2A's worst enemies. They appear on the news with their trap gun or deer rifle talking about how nobody needs those other guns.

The "Fudd" moniker is insulting and best avoided. Frankly, I can't remember seeing anyone like that in the news since the 2004 sunset.

Heck, we have TFL members who are saying that (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5156112&postcount=59). There are more than a few gunowners who think feeding others to the alligator is a good idea. There aren't as many as they used to be; but they aren't as few as the should be either.

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 11:08 AM
The AK47 is a military weapon by design, and I doubt anyone wants them being used by criminals. I can't argue with either of those points.

I can. Lets take a closer look at the AK47 (and other surplus military arms).

Are they only for soldiers and criminals?????????

In 1903 President Roosevelt persuaded congress to pass acts creating the National Matches and the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice.

In 1905 Congress passed laws allowing the Army to sell "surplus military" rifles to Americans. The DCM (Division of Civilian Marksmanship) program was started to provide instruction to civilians in the use of military firearms and selling these rifles to American Citizens.

In 1996 the DCM was changed to the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program), basically the CMP is run by civilians under charter of congress, to continue the program of the DCM except now the CMP receives no federal funs (as the DCM did), but funds its marksmanship programs with the sales of surplus rifles and equipment.

Where does the AK come in? The CMP, to adhere to their charter conducts Clinics and Matches across the country. Called the GSM or Garand, Springfield and (other) military clinics and matches.

Understanding not everyone shoots vintage military rifles, the CMP created a category called Modern Military, that being AKs, SKS's AR's M1A's etc etc.

Not everyone can afford a AR or M1A as their prices are normally much higher then AKs and SKS's. Allowing such guns allows everyone to participate in the CMP programs, keeping CMP Shooting Games from being a "rich man's sport".

I'm a CMP Master Instructor, I put on CMP GSM Clinics and Matches, I see a lot of Non-Soldiers, non-criminals, compete with AKs and similar rifles.

To say AK's or similar rifles have no use outside of the military is to be un-informed. For a setting president to make such a comment is rather odd, seems like he would know about the charters of congress (during a period when a member of his party was president) commanding the CMP to conduct marksmanship activities with such rifles.

wingman
July 26, 2012, 11:08 AM
The far left would only be happy with a total gun ban,Hillary is working now in passing a UN ban.

The drug war has failed as would a gun ban.

The idea that we can prevent all death/killing is a naive idea, we would need to ban almost all products we now use, gas,vehicles, planes, etc.

Within 2 days after the Colorado shooting 13 illegal immigrants were killed and some 12 more were injured in an over turned truck they were riding in South Texas, certainly they were not shot but the media failed to circle like buzzards yet they were human and had families.

Very little came from the press(firearm wise) when a Muslim soldier killed 13 in Kileen Texas.

Politics and a liberal press.:rolleyes:

gc70
July 26, 2012, 11:08 AM
One thing that did occur to me though is the President has the authority to put a real crimp in the AK47 market, at least to the degree that they are imported.

I thought George H.W. Bush did that in 1989 (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/15/us/us-bans-imports-of-assault-rifles-in-shift-by-bush.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm).

pgdion
July 26, 2012, 11:10 AM
he's not made any statements or overtures towards banning anything. Until yesterday, they were right.
I agree with you Tom, up until 2 days ago, I wasn't sure Obama was that bad for us. He wasn't a staunch supporter, but he wasn't showing any signs of swinging the other way either. I was still leery, but certainly not concerned. Now I'm concerned (however, he wasn't getting my vote in November either way).

BTW - saw a 'Fudd' in the new just yesterday (or this morning maybe) when reading. He said exactly what Tom was just stating, to the T. I couldn't believe it. The guy said he loved guns but couldn't understand why anyone needs anything other than a 'hunting' type of gun and that legislation should ban the AR rifles. Wasn't sure the guy was even ok with hand guns. And this guy is "on our side"??? :eek:

Isk
July 26, 2012, 11:13 AM
I see this response as being the absolute least he could do to keep his side happy. The statement amounts to little more than "Guns are bad in the hands of criminals, I'll think about maybe someday getting around to doing something about that later..."

Maestro Pistolero has it right. It's as little as he can say without commiting to anything.

jmortimer
July 26, 2012, 11:17 AM
"I wasn't sure Obama was that bad for us..."
Justices Kagan and Sotomayor and the UN Treaty and Operation Give Guns to Foreign Gangs to Influence Public Opinion did not clue us in?

pgdion
July 26, 2012, 11:17 AM
Nothing in that quote made any reference to stopping you owning one, merely that criminals toting those must be addressed.
It's the fact that he didn't mention us althogether that makes me nervous Pond. He said they're ok for the military and bad for criminals. So my question then is, "Ok Mr President, where do you stand with the rest of us owning them?" He specifically (and intentionally I'm sure) avoided that one.

By the way, I Agree, Pond has no stake in this one. That's why I skimmed through to read his posts first. :)

Strafer Gott
July 26, 2012, 11:19 AM
If we were actually able to buy real select fire military weapons, it would be different. The issue is similar to the one at the range. 2 second spacing between shots speed limits. We are already keister deep in laws, regulations, and rules. We buy licenses and pay fees. In many places we are constrained from exercising basic rights. Enforcement abounds. Why should new gun laws even have a priority?

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 11:20 AM
The fact that he left out the use of firearms as a means of self defense is a pretty big deal. It's actually my biggest hang-up with his statement.


I can see taking what he SAID out of context and fearing that there is a gun control agenda on the horizon (though I don't agree that his statement implied that), but making assumptions based on what he DID NOT SAY is simply putting words in his mouth. The fact that he didn't mention self defense can just as easily mean that he is not concerned with legal possession of firearms, and he therefore did not feel it necessary to mention it.

I can't say with any certainty that I know what he meant or whether he has any hidden agenda. I can say that the things he ACTUALLY SAID were all centerred around two concepts:

1) We need to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns

2) We need to address the social aspect of the issue by supporting programs that decrease the chances of young people getting to the point that they feel violence is the answer to their problems.

I can't say that either of those points is disagreeable to me.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 26, 2012, 11:29 AM
I thought George H.W. Bush did that in 1989.

Yes, and the criteria are pretty arbitrary. If President Obama plans to enact any kind of gun control, then it will have to be similar to his expansion of reporting requirements to semi-auto rifles - by stretching out authority Congress has already delegated to him.

Assuming he wants to have that fight, the two places I see that are really open are importation of semi-automatic rifles, and perhaps implementing the proposed sporting purposes test for shotguns that they floated earlier in his term (which would turn a bunch of domestic shotguns into Destructive Devices under the NFA as well as ban a bunch of imported shotguns). I think either of those would be politically foolish though; but the Administration has done more than a few things I regarded as politically foolish.

Tom Servo
July 26, 2012, 11:30 AM
There are more than a few gunowners who think feeding others to the alligator is a good idea. There aren't as many as they used to be; but they aren't as few as the should be either.
They're still out there, but they don't really have the clout to sway policy or public opinion. Nonetheless, insulting them with silly nicknames isn't the way to convince them.

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 11:31 AM
To say AK's or similar rifles have no use outside of the military is to be un-informed.

I agree with you on this statement, but that is not what he said. He said

"AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities"

He never said that they have no use outside of the military. I suppose the second half of the statement, the part about "the streets of our cities" could be interpreted to apply to legal private ownership, but the context of the statement does not lend itself to that conclusion.

Spats McGee
July 26, 2012, 11:32 AM
. . . .I can see taking what he SAID out of context and fearing that there is a gun control agenda on the horizon (though I don't agree that his statement implied that), but making assumptions based on what he DID NOT SAY is simply putting words in his mouth. . . . . .
I have to disagree here. It is very common among lawyers to examine not only what someone said, but what they did not say. If a legislative body wrote a law and said that "everyone has to do A, B, and C," we infer from the statute that the legislature intended to exclude D from the list of things everyone has to do. Given the process by which political speeches are drafted and vetted, I think that it is fair to say that both every word and every omission is intentional. I would not hold the speech to the same standards if it were, for example, a situation in which a candidate is simply fielding questions.

BarryLee
July 26, 2012, 11:33 AM
1) We need to make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns...

...I can't say that either of those points is disagreeable to me.

While I don’t fundamentally disagree with this statement either the devil is indeed in the details. For instance what are some ways they might use to reduce access to guns by criminals?

Enact a Federal five day waiting period to buy a gun allowing more detailed background checks.

Require background checks for ammo purchases.

Require all sales to go through a FFL even individual to individual.

Eliminate on-line sales of guns and ammo.

Obviously I just pulled these points out of thin air, but we know they’re not too far off base. I would personally oppose all these ideas and feel they would start that proverbial snowball rolling down hill.

Botswana
July 26, 2012, 11:45 AM
The problem is the statement of barring access to criminals.

Prior to the shooting in Aurora, James Holmes had not committed any crime involving a firearm until the point where he left his apartment with the intent to murder others. The exact timing of when that became a crime might be under debate, but the fact is that up until he started shooting, there was nothing indicating he had illegal intent.

The police or feds are not omnipotent. We can't predict people who have bad intentions and even if we could there would be no way to tell if anyone would really follow through.

We can have a "national discussion", but usually what that means out of a politicians mouth is they want to pass a law. Of course they do, it's the only solution they have. We have enough laws. We have MORE than enough laws. If the current laws are deemed ineffective, then the proper action would be to repeal some of the current laws and replace them with something more effective.

That never happens in the USA though. They just make more behavior illegal.

There have been many stories, albeit buried by the mainstream media, of potential mass shootings that were stopped by those wielding firearms.

Maybe what we need to ask is how do we stop these shootings in gun free zones? Even that won't stop the whole problem. Just ask Rep. Giffords.

We are not going to stop murder in this country. We can either allow people to defend themselves or make them easier targets.

Sinlessorrow
July 26, 2012, 11:45 AM
I wonder if Obama realizes we use the M16FOW and our enemies use the AK-47?

motorhead0922
July 26, 2012, 11:46 AM
Lets take a closer look at the AK47

kraigwy, I learn something almost every time you post!

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 12:15 PM
While I don’t fundamentally disagree with this statement either the devil is indeed in the details. For instance what are some ways they might use to reduce access to guns by criminals?

Enact a Federal five day waiting period to buy a gun allowing more detailed background checks.

Require background checks for ammo purchases.

Require all sales to go through a FFL even individual to individual.

Eliminate on-line sales of guns and ammo.


I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things. All of the things you mentioned here are aimed at reducing the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns. If your background has no red flags, then all it would be is an inconvenience. You would still be able to purchase firearms, just not quite as fast. In an organized society, the government is tasked with protecting the populace. We may not always agree with the way they do it, but that is part of representative government. Accepting an inconvenience so the government can try to do its job is not the same as giving up rights. To the best of my knowledge, there is no "right to walk out of the store with my new gun without a waiting period."

If a legislative body wrote a law and said that "everyone has to do A, B, and C," we infer from the statute that the legislature intended to exclude D from the list of things everyone has to do.

That is true, but it doesn't really apply. We are not talking about a legislative body. We are talking about a speech. Even if we were talking about legislation, however, your logic is still not quite on track. You are talking about legal obligations, not rights. The concern is not whether we HAVE to do something, as in your example, it is whether we will be ALLOWED to do something. The logic you presented works the other way in this case. If the law says we are NOT ALLOWED to do A, B and C, but does not mention D, and we therefore assume that the legislature intentionally left D off the list, that means we ARE allowed to do D. That is a much more appropriate example in this situation. The logic of intentional exclusion as it applies to this example lends itself far more readily to the idea that anything not mentioned was left out because there is no intention of restricting it.

Mike38
July 26, 2012, 12:17 PM
Comm-cents wrote:
I liked what he said, there was a spike in gun sales after the recent tragedy, the more he spews his ignorance the better the odds that we will lose!

WE will lose or HE will lose?

BlueTrain
July 26, 2012, 12:19 PM
Do you realize the National Guard was still being called the militia in the 1920s? I think maybe the word "militia" now has a bad connotation, seeing as how some otherwise very nice folks take it upon themselves to try to organize their own private army and call it a militia.

BarryLee
July 26, 2012, 12:29 PM
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things.

Well, the issue was keeping guns away from criminals and I doubt any of the hypothetical things I mentioned would work. We have to remember that criminals are not going to follow the law and would certainly find simply ways around these supposed controls.

All these controls would do is score politicians a few points and make things more difficult for law abiding citizens. The bigger problem is that after implementing some “reasonable” controls when there is not reduction in violence guess what’s next ever more draconian levels of control.

pgdion
July 26, 2012, 12:34 PM
One thing some states have and some don't (mine does) is a requirement to have a permit to purchase a hand gun or any AR style rifle. I like this solution myself and feel it offer us all the rights we deserve with an extra barrier between the criminals/crazies and the guns. It's nothing more than a slightly more in depth background check (which everyone should still pass if not a felon and not un-stable) but it does require showing up in person at your local police dept or sheriff's office in filling out a form in front of them. There is no cost and if your good, you get your permit to purchase in about a week. It's good for a year, is continuously renewable, and lets you buy a gun and take it with you same day. I think that many would have a tough time even showing up in person or passing the screening. I don't think the Gifford's shooter would have made it and I doubt Holmes would have either. They just would have come off as too unstable I think (and I'm not sure they would even have tried to get the permit). This system also stops the heat of the moment rash thinking to some extent because there is now a waiting period for that first gun. I like the system myself and it hasn't stopped me or anyone I know from getting all the guns we want. I personally feel better knowing that not just anyone can walk in off the street at anytime and buy a handgun or AR style rifle.

BarryLee
July 26, 2012, 12:44 PM
I don't think the Gifford's shooter would have made it and I doubt Holmes would have either.

So, what do you base this on? When I got my permit the government clerical worker took my form, fingerprints and $75. There was no psychological screening and I doubt she looked at me more than once during the entire process. I suspect neither of the people you mentioned would have been denied a permit based simply on the observation of the person processing the request.

BGutzman
July 26, 2012, 12:47 PM
The president and all these anti gunners want to live in a fairly land state where only the government at various levels has guns. In history nations that have done this have ALWAYS paid a high price in blood and lives for these policies. Ask the people of North Korea what that price is...

Look at the UK and other places, the government cannot claim they lowered murder or anything else, in fact in some cities crime is higher than ever and the police have taken to skewing what’s reported as a crime to try to lower the numbers...

Australia restricted guns to the point when they had a infestation of rabbits they had to hand out dynamite to the farmers to try to help deal with the problem... Funny I never thought dynamite was a safe as a firearm... (Not that it goes off easily)

I think its funny that in a election year they are now willing to roll the gun control carpet out in front of everyone.... This is one administration that simply does not learn from the past...

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 12:48 PM
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things.

Well, the issue was keeping guns away from criminals and I doubt any of the hypothetical things I mentioned would work. We have to remember that criminals are not going to follow the law and would certainly find simply ways around these supposed controls.

This is absolutely correct. The law breakers will always find a way to break the law, but that doesn't mean that the lawmakers should not try to make it more difficult for them.

The other end of it is the enforcement of laws, which was a major point in the President's speech. He said that part of the equation is working with LE to make sure that the laws are enforced. That is really all the government can do.

pgdion
July 26, 2012, 12:50 PM
I just don't think some of these nut cases would even have the guts to go into their PD. Keep in mind that Holmes was turned away from a range on a 'bad' feeling about him. not saying this is a catch all or guarantee, just an extra barrier. BTW - I'm not suggesting to do what your state does (that's 'gone too far'). Here there are no fingerprints and there is no cost (so everyone can do it). Just requires showing up in person, filling out a background form, and then passing a little scrutiny than the FFL check does. I like the system.

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 12:50 PM
One thing some states have and some don't (mine does) is a requirement to have a permit to purchase a hand gun or any AR style rifle.

And just how would that have changed things in most of the mass shooting we've had the last few years?

Short Answer: None, none what so ever. Chicago has more restrictive firearms laws, how is that working out for them?

Your ideals are like many (all) gun control laws, the sound good, give people a warm fuzzy feeling, but haven't reduced crime one little bit.

So what do they accomplish besides "infringe" on Law abiding citizens.

Infringe.................where have I seen that word before?

Infringe: to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress:

Axelwik
July 26, 2012, 01:09 PM
I really don't think that Obama will take away gun rights. If he's so anti-gun, then why did he do these things?

From http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-21/obama-romney-views-have-evolved-toward-gun-rights

September 2008: Obama seeks to reassure gun owners: "I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. ... There are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in. But I am not going to take your guns away." Nonetheless, gun sales go up when Obama wins, apparently because of fear that new restrictions are imminent under his administration.

2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges and another that lets people carry guns in their checked bags on Amtrak trains.

2010: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives Obama a grade of "F'' for failing to push even the gun restrictions he supported while campaigning.

In 2009 he actually EXPANDED gun rights!

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 01:27 PM
2009: As president, Obama signs a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons in the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone and other national parks and wildlife refuges

Not to get political be lets be fair here.

That bill was a rider to another bill he had no choice in signing. It was not a stand alone bill. He did in fact come out with an executive order reversing another's executive order allowing firearms into National Parks.

gc70
July 26, 2012, 01:40 PM
While I don’t fundamentally disagree with this statement either the devil is indeed in the details. For instance what are some ways they might use to reduce access to guns by criminals?

Enact a Federal five day waiting period to buy a gun allowing more detailed background checks.

Require background checks for ammo purchases.

Require all sales to go through a FFL even individual to individual.

Eliminate on-line sales of guns and ammo.
I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all.

If you want to see at least some of the things Obama is contemplating, you can read about them -in his own words- in the article (http://azstarnet.com/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html) he wrote for the Arizona Daily Star following the Giffords shooting. The actions cited in that article essentially boiled down to making NICS information more accurate, complete, and timely.

I don't, however, see these as completely bad things. All of the things you mentioned here are aimed at reducing the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns.

How does an arbitrary waiting period achieve anything? The information is either available in NICS or it is not. Unlike wine, database search results do not improve with age.

How does a background search for ammo achieve anything? If NICS checks work properly for guns, criminals will not have guns in which to use ammo; if they do not work for guns, they will also not work for ammo.

Requiring all sales to go through FFLs would only enrich gun dealers. If you think all purchasers need to be checked through NICS (and I do not), open NICS up to individual use.

Please explain how eliminating "online sales" achieves anything. Buying a gun "online" simply means you have reached an agreement to conduct a transaction with/through an FFL or a face-to-face transaction with an individual. As to ammo, see above.

gc70
July 26, 2012, 01:46 PM
That bill was a rider to another bill he had no choice in signing. It was not a stand alone bill. He did in fact come out with an executive order reversing another's executive order allowing firearms into National Parks.

I don't think Obama revoked the regulation adopted by the Bush administration; a federal court took care of that without his involvement. However, the Obama administration did not pursue a challenge of the court ruling or conduct the environmental impact assessment that was the court's basis for invalidating the regulation.

tobnpr
July 26, 2012, 01:51 PM
Far as I'm concerned, he (Obama) can keep shooting himself in the foot...
There is LESS support for stricter gun regulations- not more- among the voting public.

Other than the far-left liberals, that won't let facts interfere with their arguments, informed Americans and firearms owners know that allowing self-defense weapons into the hands of law-abiding citizens has lowered violent crime and murder rates- not raised them...

The Democrats- even Reid- understands that the majority of centrist and right-leaning Dems will not support stricter gun regulations.

How are those strict gun control laws working out in Chicago for ya, Rahm?
Only the gang-bangers and criminals have guns...

The problem is, it starts under the guise of "high capacity magazines"...
Who needs them, "they" say...
Well, I would fairly say, no one...
BUT...the problem is, if you ban magazines with say, capacity of 50 rounds or more- it will open the FLOODGATES...

They won't be happy stopping there. They'll continue to whittle away at our 2nd Amendment rights. So, there must be a line in the sand...right now.

What "they" also don't realize is that anyone that trains with their weapons, can effect mag changes in two seconds.

There was just an episode of TAC TV where Vickers competed with Sterling subgun against a competition handgun shooter.
Despite the fact that the handgun shooter had to effect a mag change, he was every bit as accurate, and effective against the clock and targets as Vickers with the subgun...

The non-shooting (and some of the shooting, as well) public is just plain ignorant...and I don't mean that in a mean way, just in the pure definition of the term. They don't understand the FACTS.

Axelwik
July 26, 2012, 01:53 PM
Kraigwy, I'm just stating facts... everything else is just talk.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and will again this year.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 26, 2012, 01:54 PM
Latest Pres. statement on gun laws -

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/07/obama-focused-on-gun-control-short-of-new-laws-130201.html

Looks like the AK statement doesn't indicate push for new laws but a general look, blah, blah. Romney basically said the same thing.

It will blow over, the Olympics will fill the cable news shows. Some ranting and that's it.

Sparks1957
July 26, 2012, 02:03 PM
We are not going to stop murder in this country. We can either allow people to defend themselves or make them easier targets

Some of the ideas being posted here by gun owners are pretty disturbing... having to go your police department to get a permit to buy a gun? Eliminating on-line sales of guns and ammo? What?

Since when do criminals pay a whole lot of attention to the law? All you are suggesting will simply make it more difficult for law-abiding people to participate in the shooting sports.

Places like Chicago do not allow people to carry guns... and look at the statistics about gunshot deaths there, it clearly is working isn't it?

I'm all for keeping weapons out of the hands of the lunatic fringe, believe me. You won't do it by passing more gun laws.

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 02:09 PM
The problem is, it starts under the guise of "high capacity magazines"...
Who needs them, "they" say...
Well, I would fairly say, no one...

Again, I'll go back to my stand on competition shooting.

One of the events in Service Rifle Matches is the Rattle Battle, or Infantry Trophy Match fired at Camp Perry and other major matches.

The ITT requires high cap. magazines. You basically start out with a team of 6 shooters, you are issued a set amount of ammo and fired at different ranges. Starting at 600 yards the targets are exposed for 50 seconds. During that time the team fires at 8 targets. They then move to shorter ranges doing the same thing in the same time period. The more hits you score and the furthest ranges, rather then the shorter, the higher your score.

If you tried to fire the match with 5 or 10 round magazines you'd run out of time before you got you rounds off.

The same thing with pistol shooting. Many active type shooting matches, such as steel challenge, etc, depend on high cap magazines to be competitive. It's about time, and high cap magazines help you with the time.

I am well aware that not everyone shoots competition, but to say NO ONE but criminals and soldiers have a use for military style "service rifles" and/or high capacity magazines is misstating facts and doing a dis-service to thousands of competitors of shooting sports.

Spats McGee
July 26, 2012, 02:16 PM
That is true, but it doesn't really apply. We are not talking about a legislative body. We are talking about a speech. Even if we were talking about legislation, however, your logic is still not quite on track. You are talking about legal obligations, not rights. The concern is not whether we HAVE to do something, as in your example, it is whether we will be ALLOWED to do something. The logic you presented works the other way in this case. If the law says we are NOT ALLOWED to do A, B and C, but does not mention D, and we therefore assume that the legislature intentionally left D off the list, that means we ARE allowed to do D. That is a much more appropriate example in this situation. The logic of intentional exclusion as it applies to this example lends itself far more readily to the idea that anything not mentioned was left out because there is no intention of restricting it.
Well, yes and no. As you might imagine, I read this somewhat differently. I agree with your statement that "If the law says we are NOT ALLOWED to do A, B and C, but does not mention D, and we therefore assume that the legislature intentionally left D off the list, that means we ARE allowed to do D." However, my statement dealt with requirements, yours with prohibitions. Neither one deals with rights.

Let's take a look at the original quote from the OP:
“I – like most Americans – believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” Obama said. “I think we recognize the traditions of gun ownership passed on from generation to generation, that hunting and shooting are part of a cherished national heritage.

“But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.
We have to go somewhat far afield into speculation as to what this omission means, and I doubt that either you or I or anyone else will know exactly why SD was not mentioned, absent a clarifying statement.

Anyway, Obama specifically mentioned "hunting and shooting" as part of a "cherished national heritage." My contention is that the omission of "self defense" indicates that Obama or at least his speech-writers do not consider self defense to be part of that "cherished national heritage." My conclusion: this indicates to me a belief that while hunting and shooting are worthy of protection, SD is not (either in the speech writer's mind, or Obama's).

In the realm of legislation and caselaw, consider how the restrictive jurisdictions have briefed out the issue of "whether there is an RKBA outside the home." Those attorneys charged with upholding restrictive laws have consistently claimed that Heller stands only for the proposition that there is a 2A right to keep and bear arms inside the home, and only inside the home. Heller did not deal with carry outside the home, and courts will not (typically) answer a question that was not asked. That said, the omission from the discussion of any RKBA outside the home is being held up to mean that there is no RKBA outside the home.

It is my sincere hope that you are right and that the administration has absolutely zero designs on restricting the RKBA. I do not, however, believe that to be the case.

Pond, James Pond
July 26, 2012, 02:22 PM
Look at the UK and other places, the government cannot claim they lowered murder or anything else, in fact in some cities crime is higher than ever and the police have taken to skewing what’s reported as a crime to try to lower the numbers...



That is like suggesting that guns are the cure to crime.

If that were the case then crime rates in the US would, surely, be close to nil.

Guns are a defence against crime. That is all.

Now, I whole heartedly agree that UK firearm law is excessively restrictive and should, at least be revised to allow for personal/home protection.

I would suggest that far more effective cures to crime would be greater education, equality and opportunity for people from all backgrounds and walks of life in a given country.

tyme
July 26, 2012, 02:28 PM
I'm confused.

AK47s, by which I think Obama means part-plastic, pistol-grip, detachable-mag, semi-auto weapons like the AR-15, do not belong in the hands of street criminals. I think we can all agree on that, but no actual or proposed law is likely to be able to address that problem, and it's a very minor problem compared to criminals with guns generally.

What I cannot agree with is this administration's apparent belief that such weapons belong in the hands of gun runners who will carry them across the border and pass them on to people who shoot our border patrol agents.

Calling for public policy that will remove evil guns from the hands of criminals is like calling for a manned space mission to Alpha Centauri. Except that the latter would be ridiculed for being unrealistic, while gun-haters eat up anti-gun proposals without considering if they will actually achieve their perceived goals, and without considering collateral damage.

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 02:39 PM
I'm gonna try to stay out of this after this post, as I believe most of what I have to say has been said already, either by me or by others.

The speech the President gave was in response to a terrible and regrettable incident. As the President, he was obligated to say something, and he did. I have listened to that speech a few times now, and I can't see any legitimate way to interpret it as an attack on gun rights. He said that the government needs to take what measures it can to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. He said that the government, in the form of law enforcement, should make greater efforts to ensure the enforcement of the existing laws. He also said that social programs should be supported, particularly programs aimed at helping to stop kids from getting to the point that they resort to violence.

He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons. He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

I think a lot of people are reacting to their own fears and preconceived notions here. Because he is a Democrat, it is assumed that he is automatically an anti-gun activist, despite the fact that there is no real evidence to support that. That is the same as assuming that all Republicans have secret stashes of weapons and ammo in their cellars. The truth is that there are many different variations out there. I, for example, am a Democrat, but I love my guns, and I will stand up right next to you in defense of my right to own them. I know Republicans who don't like guns, and think there ought to be more restrictions on them.

To put it succintly (I know, too late) we are involved in a debate over the meaning of statements that were not even made. In a debate like that, there is no winner.

Soapbox dismounted.

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 02:43 PM
Look at the UK and other places

Let do look.

The UK has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. Nothing new, they've been around a long time.

So what happened after Dunkirk. The British army had to flee back to England leaving most of their equipment behind. England was short of small arms to repel the upcomming German invasion.

They couldn't rely on the British Citizens ownership of arms, so they turned to the US, barrowing individual weapons from US Citizens (The NRA played a big part in that). As luck would have it Germany couldn't defeat the RAF, so the invasion was called off.

To understand any law, you need to study the thinking of the authors of the law. The same applies to the US Constitution. What was the thinking of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't about hunting, it was defense agains oppression and self defense.

Here are a few just brought on Google.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Bartholomew Roberts
July 26, 2012, 03:00 PM
Hmm, let's quote everyone so we know where they stand:

Quote:
While I don’t fundamentally disagree with this statement either the devil is indeed in the details. For instance what are some ways they might use to reduce access to guns by criminals?

Enact a Federal five day waiting period to buy a gun allowing more detailed background checks.

Require background checks for ammo purchases.

Require all sales to go through a FFL even individual to individual.

Eliminate on-line sales of guns and ammo.

I agree that these measures are probably the most likely steps to be taken, if any steps are taken at all. I don't, however, see these as completely bad things. All of the things you mentioned here are aimed at reducing the chances of criminals getting their hands on guns. If your background has no red flags, then all it would be is an inconvenience.

So waiting five days to buy a gun isn't an inconvenience? We must have a definition of that word - and considering the millions of tax dollars we have sunk into the National Instant Check System, what exactly would be the point of having a 5-day waiting period? A "cooling down" period so that a normal, everyday person who has lived their whole life without committing any crime that disqualifies them from owning a firearm can overcome that impulse to murder someone? What the hell does this accomplish that you are so quick to accept it?

Require background checks for ammo purchases? We required people to fill out a Form 4473 for purchases of handgun ammo from 1968-1986. It was discontinued in 1986 because it was pointless. Now we should revive the same concept? Why stop there? Why not add a five-day waiting period for this too?

Please explain for me, exactly the thought process that goes into surrendering all of these hard-won rights when there is absolutely zero reason to compromise? Do you have some illusion that it is going to make all the critical news articles go away? It will not. It will not stop calls for further gun control. I've watched it my whole life. If you give them an inch, they will be back tomorrow to ask for a mile; but they'll compromise and take only 100yds if you are quick and obsequious enough.

One thing some states have and some don't (mine does) is a requirement to have a permit to purchase a hand gun or any AR style rifle. I like this solution myself and feel it offer us all the rights we deserve with an extra barrier between the criminals/crazies and the guns.

If someone kicked me in the butt every morning when I woke up since I was born, I'd probably have some good reasons to justify it to myself too. Texas (3x the size of your state in population) and Florida (2x the size) both have lower murder rates in 2010, despite your permit system. If that system is effective in reducing crime, or in any way justifiable, how are so many states doing better without it? (Source: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/OneYearofData.cfm)

And as I understand it, your state just got rid of this requirement in any case?

tyme
July 26, 2012, 03:01 PM
He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons. He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

He said specifically that AK-47s belong with soldiers and not with criminals. Given that true AK-47 ownership by criminals is extremely rare, and when it does occur it's usually not isolated criminals deciding "gee I want an AK47 to rob that liquor store", but usually the result of affiliation with a larger criminal enterprise with logistical ties that enable such acquisitions, it's absurd to mention it in the aftermath of a mass killing by a lone shooter who used a rifle that was semi-auto and not even AK-style.

If you also notice, he gets applause for his statement. What are they applauding for? They're applauding because they think (as I think) he's talking about trying to reinstitute whatever kind of AWB II he thinks he can get away with.

"No AK-47s for criminals" may sound harmless when interpreted literally, but it sounds to me like code for, "I haven't forgotten about trying to get rid of those evil assault weapons and high capacity magazines that Bush allowed the evil gun industry to start producing again for sale to private citizens back in 2004."

These sorts of anti-gun politicians would vote for any illogical, impractical, or ineffective gun law 5 times over if they could get away with sneaking around and voting on behalf of absentee colleagues in the House and Senate. They think all such laws are stepping stones to increased public tolerance of gun regulation, even if the laws have no effect or a harmful effect on society.

I think they do this not because they are malicious, but because they genuinely believe an eventual outright ban on guns is possible, and that it would reduce murder and assault rates once completed. They are willing to sacrifice the safety of certain individuals in order to ensure fewer overall gun-related casualties, and they are willing to accept almost any negative consequences in the intermediate stages of restrictions -- gun registration and partial gun bans.

http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml (search for Obama)

Sparks1957
July 26, 2012, 03:09 PM
Thank you, Bartholomew, for that eloquent post.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 26, 2012, 03:10 PM
He did not say that he wants to take away the rights of lawful gun owners. He did not say that he wants to ban assault weapons.

The man he appointed as Attorney General said that - in this term no less. You remember Eric Holder right? He'd be the same man that President Obama just used a claim of executive privilege to defend from a Congressional investigation into how the ATF came to be arming Mexican drug cartels with AK47s. Doesn't that seem like an odd move for the President to make given the speech we are dissecting here today?

He made no mention of firearms used for self-defense by law-abiding citizens.

At least not since he argued to prosecute such people as an Illinois State Senator. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/obama-would-have-prosecuted-chicago-man-for-defending-himself-with-handgun-95131129.html

I think a lot of people are reacting to their own fears and preconceived notions here. Because he is a Democrat, it is assumed that he is automatically an anti-gun activist, despite the fact that there is no real evidence to support that.

You mean besides his documented actions as an Illinois politician, his support for banning both semi-automatic firearms and handguns in that same capacity (http://www.gunbanobama.com/Whathesays.aspx), and his role as a Board member of the notoriously anti-gun Joyce Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JoyceFoundationGunControlFundingR1.png)?

I, for example, am a Democrat, but I love my guns, and I will stand up right next to you in defense of my right to own them. I know Republicans who don't like guns, and think there ought to be more restrictions on them.

So in this thread, you just welcomed 4 new restrictions as "not a bad thing" but you are going to stand with me on Second Amendment issues? Did I miss something? I welcome Second Amendment supporters from any party. However when someone claims to support the Second Amendment and then spends a great deal of time defending a man with a proven anti-Second record, I have to question how sincere they are in that belief - and it doesn't help when they start talking about additional unnecessary compromises we could make and how reasonable they are.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 26, 2012, 03:15 PM
Bush didn't allow it. He was against the AWB expiring. He said he would sign a new AWB if it got to him. Mitt said he supported the AWB because Bush did.

BTW, all the current 'reasonable' suggstions have been found not to influence crime rates.

However, the antigun folks say that because they haven't been draconian enough - total bans and confiscations are needed. That's why the AWB did nothing.

Have been amazed by pundits who still stay it did something.

Interesting nuance, there have been a wave of op-eds from police and military veterans stating that concealed carry is worthless. NY Times (suprise) has two of them, today. I grant you that the Aurora theatre was a horror show and not an easy one to deal with if you just a have j-frame but that's being used as an indictment of the whole carry idea.

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 03:17 PM
when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia...

George Mason In Virginia's Ratifying Convention

Glenn E. Meyer
July 26, 2012, 03:18 PM
BTW, if someone expresses their idea about this or that policy - let's be polite. You may disagree but we don't have to put forward a purity test in the discussion of ideas. Speak to the logic of what they say and it's not about them.

I could say that I support the RKBA whole heartedly and then say that I think more money should be spent on better mental health status report for the NICS check system. Does that make one a bad anti?

Lighten up, folks.

Young.Gun.612
July 26, 2012, 03:26 PM
Explain this to me:

How would new stricter laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns? Pretty sure its already a crime for felons to possess a firearm. It's also already illegal to commit a crime with a gun. That doesn't seem to be stopping the criminal element from acquiring and using guns in an illegal manner, so why would they stop just because a new law is written?

tyme
July 26, 2012, 03:27 PM
Bush didn't allow it. He was against the AWB expiring.

He didn't ask congress for an AWB renewal AFAIK. He could have. Presidents have no actual legislative power but they have influence. It may not have been enough to get any sort of AWB passed, but he could have tried a lot harder than he did. Saying he'd sign it was a cute dodge, but I don't think anyone in congress interpreted that as even a weak signal that Bush wanted them to pursue it.

I can say I'll eat pig brains if they show up on my plate, but if I don't order them...

Disclaimer: I think GWB's administration's policies damaged liberty in this country, and I don't think he was really pro-gun.

pgdion
July 26, 2012, 03:38 PM
To Chicago's defense, they have yet to have a mass terroristic type shooting as far as I know though, where as Texas has had 1, Virginia has had 1, AZ has had 1, and Colorado has now had 2, ... . Like it or not those are the stats and those are the fuel our opponents have to work with.

Anything that our side can do that may help prevent something like this is one less piece of fodder the anti-gun people can fling back at you. Even if a system like this doesn't stop it, at least it stops the 'He just walked in and bought a gun without any checks' argument. Just read the comments in some of the news sources. So is it really infringing your rights, or is it helping to protect them?

I'd be happy if there were no changes any where but the last thing I'd want to see is extreme changes everywhere because minor, benign changes, that may have helped the problem, were resisted. If you think a free, 10min of your time, 1 time background check is like getting kicked, well then I guess that's you, I'd call it a poke in the arm (if that).

Also, I never said a system like this would help reduce violent crime in general. Crime is bigger than this, we all know that. And I seriously believe that more responsible people owning guns reduces crime. We are talking about if a system like this would help stop the fluke nutcases from attacks like this one. In some cases it may have. Of course none of us can say for sure. ;)

Gotta run (bummer - work calls), will check back in tomorrow. btw - this has been a good thread.

hogdogs
July 26, 2012, 03:42 PM
Ain't no place in Chicago worth shootin' up like that...

To boot... The violence and predation on society has likely numbed them to the stigma of a situation like these aforementioned ones... They have more violent deaths on a warm weekend...

Brent

Baba Louie
July 26, 2012, 03:50 PM
Thru executive order Geo H.W. Bush banned importation of self loading rifles. A fast google search shows this to be hot news right now (1 hour old)

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/three-simple-steps-obama-can-take-on-gun-control-20120726

3 simple steps

Botswana
July 26, 2012, 03:53 PM
To Chicago's defense, they have yet to have a mass terroristic type shooting as far as I know though

Chicago has more murders in a week, every week, then what happened in Aurora.

These mass shooting incidents are wildly overblown by a sensationalist media. They are tragic events, but make up a tiny number of overall gun deaths.

Not only that, but IIRC, only one of the above incidents mentioned did not happen in a gun free zone. So in most cases, the states where the shootings have happened have been in places where the local firearm laws were interdicted by another authority.

As mentioned before, there have been plenty of incidents where someone with intent to do harm to many people have been stopped by people with guns. That gets thrown out way too lightly.

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 03:54 PM
We are talking about if a system like this would help stop the fluke nutcases from attacks like this one. In some cases it may have.

And what law would have prevented this. I saw no evidence he didn't buy the gun legally. Looking at the 4473, I see nothing that would have prevented the theather shooter from buying the gun or ammo.

All or most of us have bought firearms on the internet, they are sent to a local firearms dealer who conducts the background check.

I think before one can say any Gun Laws are good, they need to establish where that gun law has prevented a crime.

The theather does prohibit carring firearms inside the theater, How did that work.

Those laws only prevent honest people who have no intent of creating mischieft from the means to protect themselves from those who have mischieft intheir heart.

To say Chicago is a safe city because they havent had any mass killings is............well I wont go there.

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 04:01 PM
OK, I thought I was going to stay out, but I feel the need to respond.

So waiting five days to buy a gun isn't an inconvenience?

Read my post again. I said that a waiting period IS an inconvenience.

A "cooling down" period so that a normal, everyday person who has lived their whole life without committing any crime that disqualifies them from owning a firearm can overcome that impulse to murder someone? What the hell does this accomplish that you are so quick to accept it?


As has been stated in this thread, laws regarding who can or cannot own a firearm can only address people who are already criminals. There is no way to know when a previously law-abaiding citizen will go rogue until it happens. Perhaps a cooling off period will help to diminish such occurrences, perhaps it wont, but unless you can see the future, the only way to know for sure is to try it.

Please explain for me, exactly the thought process that goes into surrendering all of these hard-won rights when there is absolutely zero reason to compromise?

Perhaps the word we need to have defined here is "rights." Being able to buy guns without a waiting period, buying ammo with no background check, or any of the other things I was responding to are not RIGHTS. Gun ownership is a right. The laws being discussed do not take away the right to gun ownership, they just make it a slower process, hence my statement that they are inconvenient. In any case, I reiterate from one of my previous posts - Obama said nothing about curtailing the rights of legal gun owners. HE ONLY MENTIONED CRIMINALS!!!

Bartholomew Roberts
July 26, 2012, 04:03 PM
To Chicago's defense, they have yet to have a mass terroristic type shooting as far as I know though, where as Texas has had 1, Virginia has had 1, AZ has had 1, and Colorado has now had 2, ... . Like it or not those are the stats and those are the fuel our opponents have to work with.

Frankly, I'd take my chances in Colorado over Chicago any day. Chicago has had multiple weekends with 10 murders occurring over that weekend. That is basically an Aurora every weekend, just spread out over the city (and not packaged quite as media-friendly).

Anything that our side can do that may help prevent something like this is one less piece of fodder the anti-gun people can fling back at you. Even if a system like this doesn't stop it, at least it stops the 'He just walked in and bought a gun without any checks' argument.

I thought that was what NICS was supposed to do? Exactly what is the whole point of that system if we now need to go down to the police station and personally request a permit to own a firearm? If two background checks are good and not a serious inconvenience, why not 3? Just skip by the doctor and get his approval too?

You do understand that your whole argument for this system that your own state is giving up is that it will be such an inconvenience to a guy like the Aurora shooter that he will not try to acquire guns; but at the same time you are telling me it is no incovnience to me. How does that work?

Just read the comments in some of the news sources. So is it really infringing your rights, or is it helping to protect them?

Yes, it is infringing my rights. Politically, it is a stupid move. We have worked very hard to put people in the House of Representatives who understand and support the Second Amendment. We have been so successful at it that we have a clear-cut majority and a reserve there. There is zero question about whether we can block any new proposed legislation. And yet, you appear to be suggesting that we should take it upon ourselves to add new restrictions in the hopes it will quiet people who have been adding new restrictions to firearms ownership since before I was born and have never once said "Well, maybe that is too much."

To me, what you are suggesting is like folding with a K-Q-J-10-9 flush because the other guy just keeps on raising. We should be taking that guy's money. Not folding.

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 04:09 PM
Perhaps the word we need to have defined here is "rights." Being able to buy guns without a waiting period, buying ammo with no background check, or any of the other things I was responding to are not RIGHTS.

Can you define "infringed" and tell me why "shell not be infringed" was placed in the 2nd Amendment.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 26, 2012, 04:16 PM
As has been stated in this thread, laws regarding who can or cannot own a firearm can only address people who are already criminals. There is no way to know when a previously law-abaiding citizen will go rogue until it happens.

Exactly. The difference is I would prefer to live in a society that treats me like a law-abiding citizen until I demonstrate otherwise by my actions. I don't want to live in a society that focuses in all the ways I might be a potential criminal. I don't think that is going to be a pleasant society.

Perhaps a cooling off period will help to diminish such occurrences, perhaps it wont, but unless you can see the future, the only way to know for sure is to try it.

We did try it. How do you think the NICS system came about? The Brady Law as originally passed in 1994 included a 5-day waiting period for all firearms sales. This waiting period was an interim requirement while NICS was established. (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/brady-law.html)

Gun ownership is a right. The laws being discussed do not take away the right to gun ownership, they just make it a slower process, hence my statement that they are inconvenient.

So, a poll tax is an infringement on the right to vote; but the laws you mention do not infringe the right to own a firearm?

Same question to you as to pgdion, exactly what was the point of working to put all those NRA A-rated Representatives in the House (Republican and Democrat) if we are just going to compromise before the other side even proposes a bill?

Obama said nothing about curtailing the rights of legal gun owners. HE ONLY MENTIONED CRIMINALS!!!

You might want to qualify that by limiting your statement to this particular speech, given President Obama's past statements in support of curtailing the rights of legal gun owners.

RubenX
July 26, 2012, 04:34 PM
Analyzing the AK-47 comment leaves me with only 2 possible choices:

Option #1: Since Fully Automatic AK's have been banned/restricted for some time, our President must have been referring to semi-automatic weapons.

Option #2: Our President has no clue as per what an AK is.

Either way, he just lost my vote. Be it for being anti-gun or for being gun-ignorant. Take a pick.

SIGSHR
July 26, 2012, 04:43 PM
"Common sense" "Fairness" "Reasonable". Weasel words.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 26, 2012, 05:14 PM
Avoid politics - had to delete some. I know it is hard row to hoe but when you start talking about voting and someone being a devil (even obliquely) - we are going to have a problem.

sigcurious
July 26, 2012, 05:30 PM
If you think a free, 10min of your time, 1 time background check is like getting kicked, well then I guess that's you, I'd call it a poke in the arm (if that).

It's not free in all places, $25 here in Nevada, similar fee in California.

As to cooling off periods, in the most recent example of extreme violence and past examples it would not have mattered one bit. These examples are calculated attacks in which either the firearms were purchased before hand or obtained through other means. Would a cooling off period possibly prevent some incidents of gun violence? Maybe, but would it prevent the intended violence all together? On top of which, while there is an increase in purchases of firearms, only a certain percentage of those are people who don't already own firearms. Should someone who already owns firearms wait to get a new one? What's the logic in that? What's the logic of a waiting period at all, when in most states, you can simply go purchase a firearm from a private party?

To that, some might respond well all private transactions should go through an FFL. Given the roles of state and federal governments, I think it would be extremely hard for the federal government to insist on something like that on a national level, as they have no place in intrastate commerce. Which would leave it up to all states to come to a consensus to truly enforce such an idea.

Then what about C&R holders? Are all the regulations going to be rewritten to cover them too? Last time I checked a pistol or rifle that qualifies as C&R is just as capable of hurting someone as one that's not.

My over all point being, while some people don't see minor infringements as a problem, or perhaps even see them as a valid compromise, they are not. Each minor infringement can lead to more and more absurd laws, and in of themselves are often absurd to begin with.

carguychris
July 26, 2012, 05:34 PM
I know we have to P.C. it up here but it is a fact beyond dispute with 2/3 of his base supporting gun control... it gets the thin-skinned all excited if you try to discuss facts, which are beyond dispute.
I dispute your facts, particularly the 2/3 figure. Let's see your proof.

I believe that 2 decades of "culture war" politics have bred large numbers of voters who hold their noses every election year and support a party based on one or two issues these voters feel are critical. IMHO this goes for BOTH sides, and many of these voters do not feel gun rights or gun control are critical issues.
Option #1: Since Fully Automatic AK's have been banned/restricted for some time, our President must have been referring to semi-automatic weapons.

Option #2: Our President has no clue as per what an AK is.
Actually, I believe that the President is perfectly cognizant of what an AK is.

I'm with Bartholomew on this. I foresee stricter regulations on cheap imported AKlone semi-automatics under the "sporting purposes" test.

This could actually have an ironic side effect that the President's pro-labor supporters would favor: rather than choosing a product cobbled together from decades-old Warsaw Pact parts, EBR buyers would have to choose AR's, most of which are made in the good ol' USA, by American workers, using all-new American materials.

Wyoredman
July 26, 2012, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Pond, James Pond
I will follow the developments with interest as I find the US political model interesting and the Bill of Rights quite unique. I've not had this much insight into the real meaning of those statutes before joining here so I find it quite fascinating, but I still have no horse in this race.



Mr. Pond,
You see, this is where some non-Americans go wrong!
Our Bill of Rights are not statutes! They are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. I understand that sometimes it is hard to grasp, but that is the way it is!

I enjoy your input, please continue the dialog.

jmortimer
July 26, 2012, 05:48 PM
"I dispute your facts, particularly the 2/3 figure. Let's see your proof."

Not here to argue, will take all the help we can get. All scientific polls show the same results. Here is Pew Research:

Protect the right Control gun (VOL.) to own guns ownership
Yes No Unk Ref #
Republican 70 26 4 926
Democrat 30 67 3 1116
Independent 46 50 4 1328

PARTY WITH LEANERS

Rep/Lean Rep 67 29 4 1476
Dem/Lean Dem 31 66 3 1689

PARTY AND IDEOLOGY

Conservative Republican 75 21 4 678
Mod/Lib Republican 57 37 6 229
Mod/Cons Democrat 32 63 4 625
Liberal Democrat 25 74 1 452

I know facts hurt and facts can stand in the way of rational thinking. But not my facts, just reality. No big deal - just facts. Let's all just get along and work on solutions and not get away from what is important. Let's work together and not argue.

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 06:01 PM
The difference is I would prefer to live in a society that treats me like a law-abiding citizen until I demonstrate otherwise by my actions. I don't want to live in a society that focuses in all the ways I might be a potential criminal.

The alternative is a society without laws. What are laws, after all, but the government foreseeing ways that people might misbehave and making rules in advance to disallow those actions. You might as well say that because there is a law against stealing, the government is treating you like a thief by imposing that law on you regardless of whether you are a thief or not.

We did try it. How do you think the NICS system came about? The Brady Law as originally passed in 1994 included a 5-day waiting period for all firearms sales. This waiting period was an interim requirement while NICS was established.

My question to you is this: Can you say with absolute certainty that waiting periods do no good? How can any of us know whether some potential spree killer was disuaded from killing because he was given a few days to calm down and think things over? There is no study that can quantify this, since there is no way to count how many times something did not happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Even if the prevention methods don't work every time, who is to say that they don't work at all?

I am not, by the way, a proponent of waiting periods or background checks for ammo purchases, or any of the other restrictions being discussed. I am simply saying that these things are not violations of our rights and should not be treated as though they are.

So, a poll tax is an infringement on the right to vote; but the laws you mention do not infringe the right to own a firearm?


Wow, now we are really off topic. Poll taxes, along with literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and quite a few other Jim Crow laws were enacted as a specific attempt to keep "undesireable" voters from excercising their rights to vote. Waiting periods, thorough background checks and paperwork do not keep you from purchasing firearms, they just add steps to the process. The end result of poll taxes and other Jim Crow laws was people being denied their right to vote. The end result of a waiting period is that you end up owining a gun a few days later than you wanted. One is a clear violation of rights, the other is not.

You might want to qualify that by limiting your statement to this particular speech, given President Obama's past statements in support of curtailing the rights of legal gun owners.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Since this thread originated as a discussion of the speech the President made yesterday, I was engaging in debate based on that context. The main point that I have been trying to make is simply that this particular speech makes no statements about limiting the rights of citizens to legally purchase or possess guns, and there was nothing in the speech that makes it reasonable to assume that it is a harbinger of anti-gun legislation.

Can you define "infringed" and tell me why "shell not be infringed" was placed in the 2nd Amendment.

Gladly.

Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe )

When the 2nd ammendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means that the rights must not be taken away. It does not mean that the government can't pass laws that make it take a few extra days to get the guns which we have a right to own. It simply means that the government must allow us to own them if that is our choice. Waiting periods and background checks don't stop the legal purchase of guns, therefore they are not, by definition, an infringement.

BGutzman
July 26, 2012, 06:07 PM
That is like suggesting that guns are the cure to crime.

If that were the case then crime rates in the US would, surely, be close to nil.

Guns are a defence against crime. That is all.


My friend James... good to hear from you! :)

Guns are of course not the end of all crime, but absence of guns is the guarantee that the weak, old and otherwise not as fit make great targets since you have a virtual guarantee that in these places the law abiding citizens do not have guns...

No different than pretending the wolf won’t eat your sheep because you now carry a baseball bat instead of a gun... Critical thinking skills are forever lacking in gun control advocates or they are ideologues with little concern for reality. Emotional pleas sell gun control, few if any facts back gun control...

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 06:11 PM
Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe )

When the 2nd ammendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means that the rights must not be taken away.

Post the whole thing, not just part of it:

: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
— in·fring·er noun
See infringe defined for English-language learners »
See infringe defined for kids »
Examples of INFRINGE
They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.
Her rights must not be infringed.

Infringed as in tresspass on: How is putting restrictions on a God Given Right not an infringement?

Young.Gun.612
July 26, 2012, 06:19 PM
BigMikey76:

Stealing is a crime. Gun ownership is not. Comparing laws against stealing to anything that impedes my ability to buy a gun or ammunition for it is absurd. I don't have a God given right to take what isn't mine. I do however have an unalienable right to own guns.

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 06:32 PM
BigMikey76:

Stealing is a crime. Gun ownership is not. Comparing laws against stealing to anything that impedes my ability to buy a gun or ammunition for it is absurd. I don't have a God given right to take what isn't mine. I do however have an unalienable right to own guns.

I was not making a comparison between stealing and gun ownership. I was simply providing an example of a law. Laws, by nature, work on the assumption that someone, somewhere is going to do something wrong. Otherwise, laws would be unnecessary. My point is that requiring a waiting period is not treating us like criminals, just as telling us not to steal is not the same as treating us like thieves. If the laws were denying us the ability to own guns, then they would be treating us like criminals, but they are not doing that.

BarryLee
July 26, 2012, 06:50 PM
I guess it is pretty easy to see why we as a society have a difficult time with this issue. For instance we as gun owners have spent over 100 posts debating this topic. We can’t even seem to reach a consensus on whether the President supports more gun control or not.

Personally I prefer to err on the side of personal freedom and I just do not believe that our current systems need changing. Obviously this debate has been motivated by a very tragic incident, but I doubt any of the proposals being discussed would have prevented it.

One thing that probably needs to be discussed is our current mental health system and how we balance the issue of personal privacy and potential public safety.

jason_iowa
July 26, 2012, 06:51 PM
This changes nothing obama is still not interested in legislating gun control

Lots of US forces carry AK47 and 74s because they are superior to US rifles/help us blend in/use the most common ammo in the areas we are waging war. I know this from personal experience. Other then an m60 we used russian rifles the majority of the time. So saying obama does not know what our forces is using is ludicrous. He is still our president for another few months have some respect.

No obamas base is not anti gun. Anti gunners are anti gunners and come from all political ideology

Romney is still the only candidate to sign into law an assault weapons ban.

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 06:58 PM
Post the whole thing, not just part of it:


Quote:
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2obsolete : defeat, frustrate
intransitive verb
: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
— in·fring·er noun
See infringe defined for English-language learners »
See infringe defined for kids »
Examples of INFRINGE
They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.
Her rights must not be infringed.

Infringed as in tresspass on: How is putting restrictions on a God Given Right not an infringement?

Show me in the definition that you posted above where the word "trespass" is used. If you are going to ask for a definition, you need to respect the perameters that the definition provides. You can't just add words to it because the definition does not support your argument by itself. To qualify as infringement, an action must, according to the definition you posted, "violate law or the rights of another." As I stated previously, since waiting periods and background checks do not stop us from owning firearms, they are not an infringement.

As to the concept that gun ownership is a "God given right," I think there is some room for arguement there, but that is probably a topic for another time.

THORN74
July 26, 2012, 07:03 PM
Mr Obama, must have missed the cspan coverage of the congressional testamony following the la riots. The Korean convince store owner who defended his shop from looters, buy standing guard on his roof with his AK47!!!!

Sounds like a perfectly legitimate reason to own one.

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2

Brian Pfleuger
July 26, 2012, 07:09 PM
Is it too obvious to point out that none of the mass shooters of which I am aware committed the murders within 3 days of purchasing the gun?

Also, when someone's brain goes dysfunctional to the point that killing a room full of innocent people seems like their best option, does anyone really believe that waiting 3 days is going to change their minds?

The problem here is the people committing the atrocity. The people. Not the chosen object.

Imagine, if the nut who shot Gabby Giffords had chosen a suicide vest instead of a handgun. How many would be dead? What if the Aurora shooter had decided to use nerve gas or other poison? How many would be dead?

What is 3 days going to help?

BarryLee
July 26, 2012, 07:27 PM
Also, when someone's brain goes dysfunctional to the point that killing a room full of innocent people seems like their best option, does anyone really believe that waiting 3 days is going to change their minds?

One thing at play here is the fact that in reality we have very little real control of the World around us. A lot of folks are very troubled by that thought. They seek answers where none exist as a way to diminish their apprehension. At the end of the day there are just certain things that cannot be controlled and wasting resources implementing useless regulation just to make ourselves feel better is irrational.

kraigwy
July 26, 2012, 07:39 PM
Show me in the definition that you posted above where the word "trespass" is used


Sorry I met transgress not trespass

in·fringe   /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule

Still there is no way you can convince me that the restrictions, waiting period or what ever does not infringe on our rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment as invisioned by our founders and authors of the 2nd Amendment.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 26, 2012, 07:48 PM
The alternative is a society without laws. What are laws, after all, but the government foreseeing ways that people might misbehave and making rules in advance to disallow those actions. You might as well say that because there is a law against stealing, the government is treating you like a thief by imposing that law on you regardless of whether you are a thief or not.

A law that says theft is punishable by fine or imprisonment is a law that holds someone responsible for their actions. A law that forbids people to own a crowbar because they used by thieves or forbids sacks of a certain size because they can be used to gather stolen goods is a law that treats all people as potential thieves regardless of their past behavior. Do you understand the distinction in the context of my original statement?

My question to you is this: Can you say with absolute certainty that waiting periods do no good? How can any of us know whether some potential spree killer was disuaded from killing because he was given a few days to calm down and think things over? There is no study that can quantify this, since there is no way to count how many times something did not happen. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Even if the prevention methods don't work every time, who is to say that they don't work at all?

That is an interesting standard to apply to determine whether a law violates a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Can you imagine what our country would look like if that same standard applied to the First Amendment? Unless you could say with "absolute certainty" that a law would do no good, the law must be allowed because it could in theory prevent a crime or two. That sounds like a very scary society to me... the standard you propose is arguably even less strict than the rational basis test that is applied to most government regulation and it seems you are proposing this for an enumerated right in our Constitution?

I can say that I am not aware of any spree killer who bought his firearm within 5 days of the shooting. I can say that it didn't prevent any of the 9 school shootings from 1995-1998 (though a principal with a .45 in his car did bring one of them to an early end).

On the other hand, I can point to Wisconsin woman Bonnie Elmasri. She had a restraining order against her husband and tried to purchase a firearm. Wisconsin had a 48-hour waiting period at the time. Her and her two children were dead within 24 hours, so she never got her gun. During the Los Angeles riots, citizens also tried to buy guns but were foiled by the 15-day waiting period. In Charlotte, NC, Catherine Latta face a situation similar to Ms. Elmasri, after being robbed and assaulted by an ex-boyfriend several times, she attempted to buy a handgun - at the time North Carolina required police permission as our friend pgdion advocated, she was told the wait was two to four weeks. Ms. Latta chose to purchase a handgun illegally, which came in handy five HOURS later when her boyfriend attacked her outside her house. (See www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html for more examples of people dead due to waiting periods on firearms)

I am not, by the way, a proponent of waiting periods or background checks for ammo purchases, or any of the other restrictions being discussed. I am simply saying that these things are not violations of our rights and should not be treated as though they are.

Waiting periods most certainly are a violation of our rights. The people in the above links were so inconvenienced they DIED. You don't get your rights violated much worse than that. Background checks for ammo purchases are just stupid - we tried it for 18 years. It wasn't like we just dabbled in it.

Wow, now we are really off topic. Poll taxes, along with literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and quite a few other Jim Crow laws were enacted as a specific attempt to keep "undesireable" voters from excercising their rights to vote.

So in that sense, it has a great deal in common with most gun control proposals (http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html), including several you listed.

Waiting periods, thorough background checks and paperwork do not keep you from purchasing firearms, they just add steps to the process.

A poll tax is just an added inconvenience, it wasn't like they were charging $1000 to vote. It just made it a little more difficult for people who were already in a tough spot to vote. Just like the 4 laws you described as "not completely bad" make owning a gun that much more difficult. If you want to see how that works in actual practice, read some of Emily Miller and other D.C. residents experiences in trying to get a firearm there (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/?page=4) - waiting periods, extra thorough background checks, safety lessons, all kinds of "reasonable gun control" in actual practice. This is a city that once again led the FBI UCRs in homicide - having a homicide rate 5 times that of the nearest STATE. Read those stories and tell me if you think the problems these people face are useful in keeping that rate lower.

The end result of poll taxes and other Jim Crow laws was people being denied their right to vote. The end result of a waiting period is that you end up owining a gun a few days later than you wanted.

Bonnie Elmasri sure got hers a few days later than she wanted, eh?

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Since this thread originated as a discussion of the speech the President made yesterday, I was engaging in debate based on that context.

Why just that context then? If I talk about guns for 20 years and say a single sentence today, is it wrong to infer meaning to that sentence based on what I have said in the past?

BigMikey76
July 26, 2012, 08:02 PM
Kraigwy and Bartholomew Roberts:

I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on a number of topics. This is the kind of argument where no one ever wins, and opinions are very rarely changed, and if I don't put the computer away soon, my wife is going to infringe on my right to a lump-free head.

I have enjoyed the argument thoroughly, though, and I am sure there will be opportunity to take up this or another argument in the future.

Brian Pfleuger
July 26, 2012, 08:05 PM
If pointing out that a number of law-abiding citizens have been harmed by a waiting period while no known mass shooter has committed the crime within any potential waiting period doesn't end the question, I don't know what would.

tobnpr
July 26, 2012, 09:20 PM
^^^
This.
As I said in my earlier post, those in favor of further restrictions of our constitutional, 2nd Amendment rights ignore the facts that do not support their position, and cannot offer any that do...

I got carpal tunnel in the days following the G. Zimmerman tragedy trying to convince the ignorant anti-gun nuts calling FL the "Wild West" and "shoot first, ask questions later" state, that since becoming a "shall issue" state, Florida's violent crime and murder rate has declined by OVER 50%....

Then they counter with "justifiable homicides" having increased...
Duh. Criminals getting theirs...
Can't fix stupid.

Tom Servo
July 26, 2012, 09:22 PM
Looks like the AK statement doesn't indicate push for new laws but a general look, blah, blah. Romney basically said the same thing.
I got that impression as well. To call for gun control right now would be political suicide. He's got to say something to appease folks. In this case, 1993 called, and they want their soundbite back.

Here's the thing. We're actually better off than we were four years ago when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. A lot better. Can the President take credit? No, but he can bring it up in debates. Consider this:

I know some of you had some reservations about my record on the 2nd Amendment when I took office. [wait for laughter from crowd] However, my stance on the issue has evolved. As President, I did not support, condone, or sign one piece of legislation to restrict your 2nd Amendment rights. In fact, I signed the only piece of pro-gun legislation to cross my desk. Heck, I got an "F" from the Brady Campaign!

In contrast, my opponent signed the only permanent Assault Weapons Ban in the country. Over to you, Mitt. Do tell us who deserves the NRA's endorsement more.

I think he's smart enough to keep that advantage at hand.

Don't get me wrong: I know he'd love to institute gun control, but he also knows that support in Congress is scant at best, and that the proposal would be disastrous.

mayosligo
July 26, 2012, 09:58 PM
Regardless of the type of gun, the real issues is that there are not enough personal freedoms, that if taken from the individual, would have made a difference in this recent tragedy or any other. Complete enslavement of a people does not remove the violent act of a violent person. It just creates slaves. I chose citizenship over serfdom. This is what the Founding Fathers spoke to with the Second Amendment.

trg42wraglefragle
July 26, 2012, 11:12 PM
I find it quite concerning how stupid political types can be.
Anyone who thinks that gun control will effect criminals is not living on this planet, it only effects law abiding citizens.

In the UK they made it so no one is allowed to own a pistol or a semi automatic weapon, yet every day police in London are finding those sorts of weapons in the hands or criminals.

Churchmouse
July 27, 2012, 12:10 AM
Let me say that I DO have a God-given right to protect my family and myself. And if gun ownership is a part of that, which it most certainly IS, then I have a God-given right to own a gun. Which may not be infringed, as stated in the section of the U.S. Constitution which legally PROTECTS my God-given rights.

MLeake
July 27, 2012, 01:17 AM
With regard to BigMikey76, Bartholomew Roberts already beat me to the general concept, but anyway...

BigMikey said: The alternative is a society without laws. What are laws, after all, but the government foreseeing ways that people might misbehave and making rules in advance to disallow those actions. You might as well say that because there is a law against stealing, the government is treating you like a thief by imposing that law on you regardless of whether you are a thief or not.



Bart replied with an analogy involving crowbars, which I liked.

My own would have been automobiles.

The argument BigMikey put forward was akin to saying that since driving drunk is a crime, then requiring breathalyzer controlled ignitions on all cars would be reasonable since it would prevent crime.

Or, branching a different way, saying that since drunk drivers kill a lot of people while driving fast, we should ban Ferraris - they are very fast. Never mind that a drunk in a Yugo will kill you equally dead, and that there are very few Ferraris in the first place.

M

MLeake
July 27, 2012, 01:19 AM
With regard to BlueTrain post #55:

Yes, I know the NG was referred to as the militia at one point.

However, at the time the Constitution was written, the militias were not state-funded, nor state-equipped. In some cases, they were barely even trained. Citizens were expected to equip themselves with their own firearms, powder, and shot.

So the current analogy of the 18th century militia being the equivalent of the modern National Guard is off-base.

Pond, James Pond
July 27, 2012, 01:25 AM
Our Bill of Rights are not statutes! They are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.

Well, I still don't think I've gone wrong on that. I would submit that this is a personal belief not a fact.

The fact is the Bill of Rights is a document agreed upon and used to structure a set of social values within particular society. It was written by men for Man, within the USA.

Guns are of course not the end of all crime, but absence of guns is the guarantee that the weak, old and otherwise not as fit make great targets since you have a virtual guarantee that in these places the law abiding citizens do not have guns...

True enough (assuming the fit, healthy criminal isn't equally armed) but that was not the point your post was making.

You spoke of societies and their lack of guns and what happens there. You then citied how the UK has high crime in its cities. That makes a clear association which I feel is flawed, hence my response.

Mentioning crime rates is pointless unless the places being compared are identical or nearly so in every other way leaving gun ownership as the only sizeable variable.

Guns are clearly not a deterrent to criminals prior to their being faced with one. Some societies have no guns yet very low crime. Others have them, yet crime is rife.

The only connection between those two social metrics is on the possible outcomes of a percentage of those crimes. The gun may keep you alive, or may let you hold on to your wallet.

Emotional pleas sell gun control, few if any facts back gun control...

Emotions sell guns (and pro-gun policies) just as effectively. Sometimes it is for pleasure, sometimes reassurance, sometimes fear.
Colorado sales are up 43%, despite the likely repeat of that atrocity being very, very small.

Now, I know that we've debated points before, BGutzman, and that it got me in trouble (I spent 3 hours posting and hadn't hoovered as I'd promised!!), but I'd like to reiterate that I don't think we have hugely different views, on the whole. I don't like the extent of the UK's gun policies, I enjoy shooting and I'd rather have my guns than not.

Here, I only dispute some of the perceived assertions in that post...

BlueTrain
July 27, 2012, 05:56 AM
If the original definition of the militia as used in the second amendment is obsolete, what does that mean? That you have to run around and find a new meaning? Which seems to have happened.

The bill of rights is god given? Are they engraved copper plates somewhere or chiseled in stone, as handed down on the cloud covered mountain. Really, you have to come up with something better than that. That is, unless the god was Zeus.

Salmoneye
July 27, 2012, 06:16 AM
Glenn E. Meyer

Bush didn't allow it. He was against the AWB expiring. He said he would sign a new AWB if it got to him.

Because he knew full well that there was a snowball's chance in Hades of that bill making it to his desk...

The same as the UN Treaty...The current admin knows they have no chance of getting it ratified by the Senate, but they get the luxury of saying, "We did the hard work, and it's not our fault..."

Bartholomew Roberts
July 27, 2012, 08:52 AM
If the original definition of the militia as used in the second amendment is obsolete, what does that mean?

It isn't obsolete though. By current statute, all males from age 17-45 are members of the unorganized militia (i.e. subject to conscription).

The bill of rights is god given?

Are you familiar with the concept of Natural Law? Our Founders were fond of that philosophy. Saying that rights are God-given is just another way of expressing that same idea.

Brian Pfleuger
July 27, 2012, 09:36 AM
The idea that rights exist because men (and who would these men be, besides "government"?) put them on paper is an oxymoron.

If they came from men, they're not "rights", they're privileges. They could have not given them, they weren't "there" before, and they can be gone again.

If the rights are not God given, they are a figment of imagination. A convenient construct whose only purpose is to dictate an orderly society at the whim of the men who gave the rights and who can just as well take them back.

There is, after all, no real right there at all, if they are constructs of men written on paper. It is not wrong to take them away. It can't be wrong, because there is no wrong, because wrong would be defined by whomever has the power to define it.

If the right to live free, to defend oneself, to pursue happiness, are simply constructs of the powerful, who is to deny the powerful the ability to remove them at will? They are, after all, the powerful and we are weak. For what cause would we rail against them? We fight for figments of imagination? What would be the rallying cry? We are weak and you who are powerful took what we want?

No. We fight for our rights because they ARE. They exist whether they be denied or removed by force. Our only reasonable argument is that those rights are universal, built into the fabric of our existence.

Do the people in Iran not have the freedom of religion? Or is it merely denied them by force? Do they not have the right to pursue happiness, or is it merely forcefully denied them?

No, rights are universal. They must be, or they are not, at all.

Spats McGee
July 27, 2012, 09:43 AM
Our Bill of Rights are not statutes! They are GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
Well, I still don't think I've gone wrong on that. I would submit that this is a personal belief not a fact.
I haven't gone back and looked at who posted the part you quoted, PJP, but that poster was correct in the assertion that the Bill of Rights is not a statute. I won't opine as to the source, but the first part is correct. As a constitutional provision, the 2A is superior to statute.

. . . . To qualify as infringement, an action must, according to the definition you posted, "violate law or the rights of another." As I stated previously, since waiting periods and background checks do not stop us from owning firearms, they are not an infringement.
Each one of the measures that seem to be the hot topic in this thread (waiting period for guns, waiting period for ammo, mandatory permitting, etc), taken individually, represents a small infringement on the RKBA, in the sense that they encroach upon that area protected by the 2A. Start stacking them together, and you wind up with a significant infringement. For example, in a jurisdiction where you have to have:
A Firearms Owner's ID or license;
A Permit to Purchase;
A requirement for some classes to obtain the first two & attendant fees;
A 5-day waiting period;
A background check and an attendant fee.

All of this put together sure begins to look like fairly serious infringement to me.

Can anyone say "with absolute certainty" that the restrictions have never stopped a killing? No, but that's not the applicable legal standard. A prosecutor doesn't even have to meet the "absolute certainty" standard in a murder trial. Why would that ever be the standard for the constitutionality of a statute?

And I have to say that Bart's analogy about crowbars is spot on. These kinds of 2A restrictions operate on the assumption that every purchaser is a potential villain, and required to prove otherwise before ownership of a firearm is allowed.

Wyoredman
July 27, 2012, 09:46 AM
Exactly, Bartholomew! Our founders used the idea of "Natural Law" as their basis for our Constitution. maybe "God Given" was the wrong term, but our Bill of Rights are definatly not "statutes". If I am not mistaken, "statutes" are laws whereas those freedoms expressed in the Constitution and it's first 10 ammendments are not laws, they are guarantees that anyone who is a citizen of the USA is afforded.

Laws and Statutes can be changed by our elected officials in D.C by simple majority, the Consitution can not be changed without the consent of the people (ratification by 3/4ths of the State legislatures).

I realize it is hard to grasp, but it simply not true that the Bill of Rights is a set of Statutes!

hogdogs
July 27, 2012, 09:59 AM
Since this thread blossomed huge... Lemme add the "want"/"need" into the equation...

No one "NEEDS" a 500+ hp corvette...

No one "NEEDS" a 600+hp Caddillac 2 seater...

No one "NEEDS" a 200+ hp motorcycle...

All 3 of these will spool the mill and create 165 mph...

It is not a matter of need!!! It is a matter of BECAUSE I AM A DERN AMERICAN AND I CAN!!!

No one needs a 13 inch blade on a kitchen butcher blade but I have one in chef's blade and one in a boning blade... I rarely ever use them and NEVER could I NOT get by with out them but when I wash them 2-3 times per year, I am glad I CAN!!!

Brent

Glenn E. Meyer
July 27, 2012, 10:18 AM
1. Bush - knowing the AWB wouldn't get through Congress and thus saying he would sign it - that's the pure hypocrisy we see on the gun issue. If it is a basic right you support it. If you think it is a danger to society, then you are against it. Otherwise, you are not someone with a strong moral foundation. Being clever in politics is what's wrong with most politicians.

2. Why I don't like Mayor Bloomberg: http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/5846523-Bloomberg-urges-police-strike-over-gun-control/

Also, read the editor's reply. However, Bloomberg, who I have no use for, at least says what he thinks. When it comes to basic rights, no weasel words.

As far as natural law - that's a giant debate for the basis of human behavior. I'll just watch that one for a bit.

Again, as Bart points out - there are measures that have surface validity - like waiting periods. Empirically, they have done nothing.

A well run NICS might have caught Cho. Could he have gone a different route perhaps? We can't tell the negative cases with disturbed individuals like him.

BlueTrain
July 27, 2012, 10:25 AM
Some kings believed in divine rights, too. You cannot invoke the divinity to convince me.

Brian Pfleuger
July 27, 2012, 10:27 AM
No individual has rights that all individuals do not have.

I'm not trying to convince anyone, simply pointing out the self-contradictory nature of an argument about "rights" which are figments of imagination.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 27, 2012, 10:28 AM
We will not debate divinity.

hogdogs
July 27, 2012, 10:38 AM
All I can ask of those willing to hand over rights to own certain weapons or magazine capacity is this...

Is there one single LEGITIMATE use for those you are willing to give up? Not legitimate for you but legit for ANYONE?

If there is ONE SINGLE LEGIT USE than your arguments are not only wrong (no one needs an AR with 100 round drum) but detrimental to those of us who wish to use said items for legitimate uses...

Don't give up MY rights to appease some sense of "DUTY"...

Brent

Spats McGee
July 27, 2012, 10:50 AM
Brent, part of the problem comes down to how we define "legitimate." Some consider armed resistance to a tyrannical government "legitimate," and some only consider "sporting purposes" to be "legitimate."

hogdogs
July 27, 2012, 10:55 AM
I am not even implicating the "anti-tyrannical government" issue... Legit sporting use only...

And yes... I see the benefit of a single 100 round snail drum over a gob of mags or ammo boxes when I trudge out in my jeans and t-shirt...

"100 in the mag beats one in the pocket..."

Brent

pgdion
July 27, 2012, 10:58 AM
We have worked very hard to put people in the House of Representatives who understand and support the Second Amendment. We have been so successful at it that we have a clear-cut majority and a reserve there.
Yes, and lets just hope it stays that way. Votes on your side in either house is no more than a 2 to 6 year guarantee. Maybe I'm a minority here, but every time an event like this happens, it scares the heck out me. I count on nothing as being ensured no matter what the state of things are today.

Glenn E. Meyer
July 27, 2012, 11:16 AM
You are correct to be concerned that a vivid event can stampede folks into bad decisions. We don't have to just look at the gun world for such.

It is currently the case that there is a strong buffer for gun rights that might stop a stampede for draconian new laws.

Even strongly antigun bastions like the NY Times have op-eds (by some, I note) that argue that the 2nd is fundamental and SD is fundamental. Of course, the official Times position is to ban all but ducky-wucky O/U shotguns. However, the position of the legitimacy of the 2nd Amend. has been expressed.

I think the country wouldn't be stampeded anymore as happened with the AWB.

Of course, things could change with a vivid incident again but I don't think the risk is that great.

In fact, the every reintroduction of AWB, mag bans by the usual suspects just makes them get ignored - except by their little groups.

MLeake
July 27, 2012, 11:16 AM
Last time I saw UK crime statistics pop up in one of these threads, they wre solely focused on rates of crimes committed with firearms.

I don't think it requires mathematical nor statistical genius to realize that a nation that has effectively banned all handguns and most long guns won't see much gun crime.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a comparison of other violent crimes.

Crimes committed with knives? Must be some, since the UK has been talking about knife control, to the extent of possibly limiting some larger kitchen knives to licensed chefs. (I don't think that one passed, but who knows?) Also, the UK apparently limits pocket knife blades to a maximum of 3". (A friend who spends a lot of time in England can't bring his Leatherman...)

I wonder what the assault rate is, in the birthplace of soccer hooliganism.

I wonder what the robbery rate is.

I wonder about the rape rate.

I suspect that, other than gun crime, the UK probably falls into very similar percentages with the US. Humans are humans, and have preyed upon one another for as long as there have been humans.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 27, 2012, 12:18 PM
I count on nothing as being ensured no matter what the state of things are today.

Life is like that. For the time being, we have Representatives and Senators who support the Second Amendment. I think continuing to work to put people in office who recognize the importance of the Second Amendment is a better strategy than premature capitulation.

BlueTrain
July 27, 2012, 01:20 PM
When were things ever otherwise? You have to recognize that mass murderers jeopordize your gun-owning rights more than anything and that you should do everything you can to prevent such things from taking place. To do otherwise is to ignore the whole reason there is an anti-anything movement. No amount of quibbling over words will make it different.

hogdogs
July 27, 2012, 01:45 PM
Blue, I am guessing you agree it ain't about "gun or ammo control"... I am also guessing that you agree that the guns are not at all an issue... I am guessing you agree that whack-job crazy folks needn't access anything sharper or harder hitting than a Crayon....

So we are in agreement? The only thing needing controlled are the nutjobs... NOT THEIR CHOICE OF TOOLS!!!

If the latter were needing controlled, Galvanized Pipe (choice of pipe bomb makers the world around) would need controlled...

Brent

Bartholomew Roberts
July 27, 2012, 01:46 PM
You have to recognize that mass murderers jeopordize your gun-owning rights more than anything and that you should do everything you can to prevent such things from taking place.

Weren't you just arguing "What you have to do is to convince people that a small number of deaths from the illegal use of firearms is acceptable (http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5160831&postcount=17)"?

I ask because that statement seems contradictory with the statement you just made, and the more recent statement you made above, taken literally ("you should do everything you can") would basically mean creating a police state where every citizen was under such close observation and control that no mass murder could occur.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the meaning you meant to convey though given your earlier statement. Maybe you could clarify that for me?

hogdogs
July 27, 2012, 01:56 PM
Leave my guns alone (current)... Keep those who wish to predate upon me at bay (current)...

Arrest all you can and leave me to my own devices to prevent unforeseen crime... THEE AMERICAN WAY!!!

If you want a nanny state, or oversight from big brother... GO ELSEWHERE!!! America shall not need change to suit you... there are already plenty of nations to plop your Co2 producing self into...

As many who did not listen in American Public Schools... There are plenty of places for the ilks who do not want freedom or responsibility... AMERICA IS NOT FOR YOU!!! NEVER WAS... NEVER WILL BE!!!

Brent

gc70
July 27, 2012, 02:34 PM
Last time I saw UK crime statistics pop up in one of these threads, they wre solely focused on rates of crimes committed with firearms.

I don't think it requires mathematical nor statistical genius to realize that a nation that has effectively banned all handguns and most long guns won't see much gun crime.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a comparison of other violent crimes.

Murder in the US in 2010 (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl09.xls) versus Homicides in England and Wales in 2009/2010 (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs11/hosb0111.pdf):

US% UK% WEAPON
13% 37% Sharp Instrument
04% 09% Blunt Instrument
06% 22% Hiting, Kicking
02% 08% Strangulation
68% 07% Shooting
07% 17% Other

Since the British have such a low incidence of firearms deaths, I wonder whether they feel some degree of moral superiority as they cut, stab, bludgeon, beat, kick, strangle, poison, and burn each other to death?

Pond, James Pond
July 27, 2012, 03:25 PM
but that poster was correct in the assertion that the Bill of Rights is not a statute. I won't opine as to the source, but the first part is correct. As a constitutional provision, the 2A is superior to statute.

I realize it is hard to grasp, but it simply not true that the Bill of Rights is a set of Statutes!

Fair enough.
If statutes is the wrong term for their part in the function in the country, I stand corrected.

I'd be interested to know what term should be used to describe them as part of that document.

hogdogs
July 27, 2012, 03:43 PM
What terms...??? How about you try inalienable... or SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! Not much room to negotiate as our founding fathers intended... Leave our rights alone... Enforce the laws on the book... when all attempts (real ones) are exhausted... Come see me... then we can send the legal beagles on the next hunt...

Brent

Spats McGee
July 27, 2012, 03:43 PM
I'd be interested to know what term should be used to describe them as part of that document.
Technically, it is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. When dealing with language from a constitution (both the federal government and each of the states has a constitution), "constitutional provision" usually suffices. The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution are collectively known as The Bill of Rights.

Denezin
July 27, 2012, 06:12 PM
Here's whats comical. Him and Romney say "Gun control wouldnt have stopped this" But then he says that? Thats hypocritical.

maestro pistolero
July 27, 2012, 06:30 PM
Criminally insane people will never run out of ways to manifest their violent fantasies. Solutions are not found by focusing on the tool used any more than obesity is about the silverware.

In America, we don't set the bar for liberty based on the acts of a few miscreants.

Both guns and gasoline are manufactured for the benefit of mankind. There is not much that's more dangerous than a psychopath with 5 gallons of gasoline and a match.

But if gas and matches became the weapon of choice for sociopaths, we would go after the sociopaths, not matches or gasoline. There would be no rationing of gasoline, no waiting period, no registration showing the number of gallons purchased. To even suggest that approach would be properly seen as madness.

SamNavy
July 27, 2012, 08:23 PM
Maestro, I hope you don't mind that I've cut/paste your post into a small Word doc I've been building up for future reference. I was captain of my Speech and Debate Team in High School and I just don't have your gift for prose. I won't plaigiarize directly, but I'll try not to mess with your perfection.

That bit about gasoline and matches is just about as perfect an analogy as I've heard... should be able to use that one to get through some of my more thick-headed friends.

maestro pistolero
July 27, 2012, 08:54 PM
You are free to use it at will whether you attribute it to me or not.

Tom Servo
July 27, 2012, 09:08 PM
I see the benefit of a single 100 round snail drum over a gob of mags or ammo boxes when I trudge out in my jeans and t-shirt.
You've got a good point, but if we have to prove the utility of a right, its status as such is questionable in the first place.

The right to self-defense is innate, and the Framers did right to make sure it was protected. We have the high ground in the philosophical battle, something with which the Supreme Court has agreed.

I'm not saying arguments to utility aren't relevant. They certainly are, but I usually don't lead with them in a debate.

Pond, James Pond
July 28, 2012, 01:39 AM
Last time I saw UK crime statistics pop up in one of these threads, they wre solely focused on rates of crimes committed with firearms.

I don't think it requires mathematical nor statistical genius to realize that a nation that has effectively banned all handguns and most long guns won't see much gun crime.

On the other hand, I'd like to see a comparison of other violent crimes.

....

I suspect that, other than gun crime, the UK probably falls into very similar percentages with the US. Humans are humans, and have preyed upon one another for as long as there have been humans.

I don't remember the last time they were brought up off hand, but I was not not refering to gun crime on this occassion, so made no claims about their lower incidence.

I found some stats yesterday, but can't find the link again showing reported crimes being very high in the UK. It was in second place. The US was in first though, but by quite a margin.

Humans are humans, and there will be preying on one another. I've never disputed that fact. However, I think crime levels and gun ownership are not all that related.

Humans also inhabit countries with lower crime rates where they seem to co-habit far more amiably so something has to be influencing the humans in one country to be more violent/criminal than in another.

Most people then say "wealth". Interestingly, I did some basic research into quality and satisfaction with life around the world a while back. There was a survey carried out to measure "happiness" rather than disposable income. Top place? Costa Rica! Scandinavians did well, as did Central America and some other surprises. USA so-so, but higher than the UK. France did pretty well, actually. Estonia? Full of unhappy bar-stewards!! According to the tables those living in the West Bank were happier with their lot than Estonians!! :eek:

Bottom line is I don't like UK gun control and I don't like UK crime. However, I don't believe that saying the latter is influenced by the former is accurate. That is cop-out logic to me and often that seems to be the assertion being made. So, I don't like the UK being used as a pariah when it is far from justified and the claims far from supported.

The US has high crime, the UK has high crime.
The UK has next to no privately owned guns, the US has the highest levels in the world, by no small margin.
Clearly, the causes of crime are waaay to complex to attribute to one factor, just because everyone on this forum things that factor is cool or fun or an innate right etc...

As I said earlier, for me, guns can even up the terms of the engagement, and influence the outcome that would otherwise be far more certainly in favour of the crim'.

Since the British have such a low incidence of firearms deaths, I wonder whether they feel some degree of moral superiority as they cut, stab, bludgeon, beat, kick, strangle, poison, and burn each other to death?

Thanks for the stats breakdown.

Aside from that I don't really see what your kind of jibe brings to the table...

Interestingly, for what it's worth, reported deaths by violence per 100K is 3 times higher in the US than the UK (6.3 to 1.2, respectively)....

rts99
July 28, 2012, 09:39 AM
The disconnect in all the rehtoric is that the Supreme Court refused to overturn Miller in either Heller or McDonald. In both cases they went out of their way to uphold Miller. As long as the court continues to tie gun ownership & use to Militia service the type of weapons protected by the 2nd amendment is going to based on military weapons. The military is chocked full of fully automatic assault weapons and more. By maintaining a link between citizen's right to keep & bear ams and only those weapons suitable for Military service this problem simply can't be fixed.

maestro pistolero
July 28, 2012, 11:27 AM
Yet, the court specifically (mis)read Miller in a way which did not conflict with NFA and the gun control act of 1986. Miller says only weapons with a militia purpose are what is protected, and Heller said militia weapons are what is in common use at the time.

BGutzman
July 28, 2012, 11:48 AM
Interestingly, for what it's worth, reported deaths by violence per 100K is 3 times higher in the US than the UK (6.3 to 1.2, respectively)....

James - I did a paper on this about a year ago... The UK police actually make station to station judgments on what is and is not a violent crime... It’s not that they don’t have a written standard it’s that the standard gives figures that are higher than the political apparatus wants reported... Hence a certain degree of tinkering with how things get reported happens.

So there is no real way to measure using UK statics short of compiling the actual phone calls or something similar.... Everyone knows the numbers are being fudged and everyone turns a blind eye to it and pretends it really the right numbers...

Also humans are humans all over and the strong will often prey and the weak and even more so when they know the weak cannot physically fight off the predators and arent allowed guns to even the relative differences...

Hope your doing well James :)

CharlieDeltaJuliet
July 28, 2012, 02:34 PM
I have never found an AK47 on the streets.... Bout all I ever see is cans and trash... Seriously though, new gun laws are not the issue and banning them totally are not the solution. Each society is different, ours, I firmly believe, is upheld by our rights. We cannot ever sacrifice our rights. Its a shame we can't get what we lost back...thanks patriot act...

Glenn E. Meyer
July 28, 2012, 07:15 PM
Nice article on Politico.com about the issue and NRA.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78991.html

Too much common sense for Mayor Bloomers.

Tom Servo
July 28, 2012, 09:59 PM
The disconnect in all the rehtoric is that the Supreme Court refused to overturn Miller in either Heller or McDonald. In both cases they went out of their way to uphold Miller.
Actually, Ginsburg suggested in the oral arguments for Heller that Miller "might be deficient."

That said, the Court wasn't asked to overturn Miller, or to address the NFA. They were asked whether the RKBA was an individual right and whether or not the DC ban passed muster.

Had we asked for a review of Miller, we might not have been successful.

Pond, James Pond
July 29, 2012, 03:17 AM
James - I did a paper on this about a year ago... The UK police actually make station to station judgments on what is and is not a violent crime... It’s not that they don’t have a written standard it’s that the standard gives figures that are higher than the political apparatus wants reported... Hence a certain degree of tinkering with how things get reported happens.

That is one of the fine legacies of the Blair government. Metrics and targets, making numbers more important than realities.
They have it in the education system and the NHS etc...
Another sublime example of politicians doing what I hate politicians doing: opting for the illusion of action, rather than addressing the real issues of the day.

Everyone knows the numbers are being fudged and everyone turns a blind eye to it and pretends it really the right numbers...

I quoted death by violence.
I doubt anyone is going to fudge cause of death: "Fatal Stabbing?... Well, put it down as Unsuccessful Heimlich Manoeurvre!" That would be pushing it, even for Whitehall! ;)

Also humans are humans all over and the strong will often prey and the weak and even more so when they know the weak cannot physically fight off the predators and arent allowed guns to even the relative differences...

I've never disputed that.

All the same, surely you agree that we do not all give in to the predatory instinct with equal ease. Some societies do have lower crime than others. People in villages leave their front doors unlocked, whereas those, in cities have 20lbs of steel strapped to theirs.

Interesting that it appears to be a solely human condition: in the wild most predators tend to attack those of another species, rather than their own. We tend to target almost exclusively our own... nice!

This is all that I am disputing:
Crime levels and gun ownership are not a simple inverse correlation as shown by the UK's high crime levels and lack of guns in society and the US' high crime levels with record levels of gun ownership.

A gun will change outcomes.
Possibly. But clearly not the incidence.

Hence why, for me, bringing in crime levels to the debate isn't particularly enlightening.

Hope your doing well James

I am doing exceptionally well :) :
I ordered way more than was sensible on the menu last night and yet I finished the lot. Feeling quite pleased with myself!
As the day progresses , I may regret it...

RaySendero
July 29, 2012, 07:04 AM
Isn't an AK-47 select fire and such already requires a class 3 firearm license?

hogdogs
July 29, 2012, 07:46 AM
This is all that I am disputing:
Crime levels and gun ownership are not a simple inverse correlation as shown by the UK's high crime levels and lack of guns in society and the US' high crime levels with record levels of gun ownership.

A gun will change outcomes.
Possibly. But clearly not the incidence.

The incidence? How about this... In any "sub-society" such as a large urban area, there tends to be more "violent" crime committed by predators for personal gains than in very small or rural towns...

But if you compare only large urban areas of America we find that the big cities where gun carry and/or self defense are more accepted or expected you find less "violent" crime for personal gain by these predators... For an instance the state of Florida was suffering an unacceptable daily number of VIOLENT carjackings... So the state either changed or publicized an already legal method of gun carry in an auto... NO PERMIT WOULD BE NEEDED FOR THE FOLLOWING... Any legal gun owner can carry a firearm ANYWHERE in the auto with the exceptions being NOT IN PLAIN SIGHT and NOT ON THE PERSON WITHOUT A CCW PERMIT...

Anywhere? YES!!! The gun must only be "encased" with the following being accepted... Glovebox, center console etc... A holster is a legal encasement device according to florida law so putting your pistol in a holster now allows gun to be tucked between seats, under the seat, in a door pocket etc...

When this change took place we immediately saw a down turn in violent carjackings with the predators now aware anyone may be armed and the law saying a carjacking attempt IS one of the "aggravated felony" crimes makes lethal force not only legal but protections for the shooter took the ball squarely out of the court of the evil and bounced it right into the hands of the law abiding...

Has the rate of carjackings stayed so low? I am unsure...

But the rate of violent Home Invasions did also drop with the passing of our "castle doctrine"...

I think if "violent crime for personal gains" was able to be tracked accurately, we would find the armed populace suffers less than the unarmed...

Brent

Tom Servo
July 29, 2012, 09:03 AM
When this change took place we immediately saw a down turn in violent carjackings with the predators now aware anyone may be armed and the law saying a carjacking attempt IS one of the "aggravated felony" crimes makes lethal force not only legal but protections for the shooter took the ball squarely out of the court of the evil and bounced it right into the hands of the law abiding.
In cases like that, we can certainly show correlation, but we can't prove causality. That is to say, we can show that a category of crime decreased at the same time gun laws were relaxed, but we can't prove that it decreased because gun laws were relaxed.

The relationship seems evident, and it probably is, but we'd have a hard time proving it.

hogdogs
July 29, 2012, 09:19 AM
Tom, I see your point...

Brent

Pond, James Pond
July 29, 2012, 11:46 AM
When this change took place we immediately saw a down turn in violent carjackings with the predators now aware anyone may be armed and the law saying a carjacking attempt IS one of the "aggravated felony" crimes makes lethal force not only legal but protections for the shooter took the ball squarely out of the court of the evil and bounced it right into the hands of the law abiding...


OK.
So in the case of one State and two seperate types of offence, a change in gun law has probably effected a change in rates of incidence.

That is a far cry from saying that guns will affect the incidence of all crimes, or that the lack of guns will make crime rise.

There has to be the propensity for crime in the first place.

And, as I've said before, if you decide to follow that logic, then crime in the US should be very low, given its rank of world's highest rate of private gun ownership.

We know that is not the case.

So, irrespective of these two examples which, in isolation, uphold a direct correlation, overall any correlation is far from distinct and will have far more influential factors at play aside from guns. Guns may well play a part, but not the part....

On the whole the threat of bodily harm does not seem to stop people from deciding they're going to rob, or kill. If it was that simple, the States with the death penalty would have a lower incidence of murder than those without, yet in fact the opposite is true... Something greater is at play.

I simply feel that playing the crime rates card doesn't necessarily work in the favour of those who wish to defend gun ownership.

Rather than "guns help lower crime rates", for me the better arguement "guns allow me to defend myself when the police can't or won't while we all wait for the government to tackle the issues that cause high crime rates in the first place"...

And, as such, using the UK as an example of how the lack of guns causes crime to rise is misrepresentative, IMO.

By contrast a statement such as "illegally owned guns contribute to a higher crime rate" I think would apply to the US, the UK, Estonia, Australia and indeed most places...

jeepstrapped
July 29, 2012, 01:30 PM
First, to clarify my position. I think the gun laws we have are already too stringent. For example, we should be able to purchase sound suppressors without the rigamarole we have to put up with now. Also, it should be incumbent on NCIS to notify individuals of why they were declined the purchase of a firearm, not the other way around like it is now. For that matter, I don't see the reason for having to transfer a firearm from one FFL in one state to another FFL in another state to purchase a firearm, we are already going through the NICS check, so why does it matter which state I do the paperwork in? There are many more things that I think are totally outrageous that infringe on our rights, but by now you should get the idea of where I stand on these issues.

The reason we are defending against statements like the AK-47 crack is that we have set ourselves up as constantly being in the position of defending, rather than being proactive on these issues.

For example, in an interview after the Aurora shooting the Governor of Colorado stated that this was a mental health issue not a gun control issue. I for one agree with him, as well as agree with other people that make this connection.

I think instead of isolating ourselves into defending gun rights we should be proactive in looking for solutions.

Not that I am comfortable with the idea, and this is entirely speculation. If it turns out that this kid has a mental health issue and was on some prescription medication that has side effects including aggresiveness and violence, for example Luxol. We should be making the focus of the issue instead be how mental health care failed. Why wasn't this kid admitted to a mental health care facility, why didn't the psychiatrist fail to observe the behavior change that led to this.

I will admit, for a while I thought it may be a reasonable solution to prevent people with mental health issues, specifically personality disorders that lead to violence and agression wither on their own or as a result of medication, be prevented from owning firearms. However, that would not have stopped this kid from setting off the bomb in his apartment. The only way to have stoped him would have been to remove him from society, which the system allows for by being admitted into a mental health care facility where he can't harm anyone.

In a nutshell, the reason that we are constantly defending gun rights is that we fail to be proactive, and making an issue of, the real causes as well as how the current system fails in these situations.

So, my $.005 is that until we, and by we I mean the political right as well as members of the political left that support gunrights, and organizations like the NRA, start being more vocal about the failings of mental health care in instances like this we will always be playing defense and our gun rights will slowly erode.

Tickling
July 29, 2012, 11:40 PM
Written by: Pond, James Pond

Interestingly, for what it's worth, reported deaths by violence per 100K is 3 times higher in the US than the UK (6.3 to 1.2, respectively)....

Not trying to hijack the thread, but do you care to share your source?

I too wrote an essay on this subject not long ago, here is a brief article I used at the time: Here. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html)

That article is over three years old, but still very much true I believe. So it would appear, that while your fine country has a much higher rate of violent crimes, it also has a much lower rate of murders. I hate to say it, but it certainly looks like a case for the "gun-control" crowd. But of course some could argue it was due to different cultures and such.

Pond, James Pond
July 30, 2012, 01:03 AM
here is a brief article I used at the time

Aaah, the good ol' Daily Mail. Reliably scaring Middle-England in their suburbs for the last 30 years. Not saying what they wrote is wrong, but they do like to sensationalise!!

Here is my source. Very interesting site. Bit morbid, mind...

I found it here (http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/). I mis-quoted. The rates were 6.5 and 1.1 respectively. There are also stats on all the other killers: heart disease, cancer etc. All very cheerful...

I hate to say it, but it certainly looks like a case for the "gun-control" crowd.

I think that is where the problem is. People try to promote it as an antidote to crime. It is not. Not for me, anyway.

I have a licence that for self and property defence and concealed carry. Handguns, long arms, anything up to semi-auto.
The laws here are pretty relaxed by EU standards.

Yet the crime rate here is one of the highest of the EU countries. Murder rate is the highest, I believe.

For me, promoting freer access to legal gun ownership is about a right to being able to defend oneself irrespective of crime rates, not that certain social stats warrant a gun.

If a family man is faced with the two meat-heads in his living room and he's only got a rusty claw-hammer, he's not going to give two hoots about whether his country's got a crime rate of 50% or 5%. He'll be thinking "Oooooh .....!"

But of course some could argue it was due to different cultures and such.

I absolutely believe that one reason that comparing countries this way is counter-productive is the cultural aspect. Culture is, after all, the guiding system to our social behaviours.

It is easy to forget, given the common language, that the US, the UK, Australie, New Zealand etc are all very different cultures with different social values and demographies.

Tickling
July 30, 2012, 03:07 AM
Aaah, the good ol' Daily Mail.

Ha ha, I loathe using news-articles these days, but I needed some "sensationalism" in the essay as you say. However, the data is good.

The rates were 6.5 and 1.1 respectively.

Excellent site, I surrender the field to you sir. UNdata confirms the site you gave. Much as I hate to admit it, you fellows practice the art of fist-cuffs much better than we do here. Or don't take your fights quite as seriously :D

For me, promoting freer access to legal gun ownership is about a right to being able to defend oneself irrespective of crime rates, not that certain social stats warrant a gun.

You're preaching to the choir, valid points all the same. :)

A pleasure to meet you by the way Mr. Pond, I enjoyed reading your posts during my lurking days ;)

Pond, James Pond
July 30, 2012, 03:27 AM
Much as I hate to admit it, you fellows practice the art of fist-cuffs much better than we do here.

I think, for the most part, it is more the "art of windmilling"!!
Very few points awarded for style!! (ever seen the fight in Bridget Jones' Diary? Just about sums it up!!:D)

A pleasure to meet you by the way Mr. Pond, I enjoyed reading your posts during my lurking days

Nice to meet you too!!
And welcome to what is my "go-to" repository of firearms knowledge and discourse: TFL!!

G.I.DAVE
July 30, 2012, 03:02 PM
I have read this entire thread, and I am impressed with the great debate. I am learning ALOT from you guys.

Thank you

Glenn E. Meyer
July 30, 2012, 04:23 PM
Another bill that will go nowhere but let's the proposers posture a bit.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-gives-cool-welcome-bill-restricting-online-182934423.html

Note the picture of the evil gun.

Glenn

Tom Servo
July 30, 2012, 04:29 PM
According to the article, the bill,

requires licensed ammunition dealers to maintain records of the sale of ammunition.

That runs directly counter to one of the primary portions of the FOPA.

Baylorattorney
July 30, 2012, 04:44 PM
I live on the south Texas border with Mexico and am armed as much as possible. I don't live in or near a city. If you took away my guns (ak 47, m92 Yugo krinkov) I'd essentially lose control of my property. It's that simple.

cliff987
July 30, 2012, 06:48 PM
Can anyone provide a link to data on American crime statistics that parses out cities like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, etc. As those areas have the most restrictive firearm laws and for the most part also seem to have the highest crime rates.

I was just hoping to determine how we would stand up to other countries in the crime rate gun argument if we eliminated the anti-gun areas of the country.

Spats McGee
July 30, 2012, 07:47 PM
Can anyone provide a link to data on American crime statistics that parses out cities like Chicago, New York, Washington DC, etc. As those areas have the most restrictive firearm laws and for the most part also seem to have the highest crime rates.
How about the FBI Uniform Crime Reports? You can dig around and find the cities you're curious about: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr/

chuckee
July 30, 2012, 08:43 PM
To get a real AK 47 you need a class 3 license and the selector switch has 3 positions where the look alikes they sell have 2 positions but how many people in the media and the W.H really understand.

RaySendero
July 31, 2012, 05:37 AM
RaySendero asked:
Isn't an AK-47 select fire and such already requires a class 3 firearm license?



chuckee: To get a real AK 47 you need a class 3 license and the selector switch has 3 positions where the look alikes they sell have 2 positions but how many people in the media and the W.H really understand.


Thx for confirming that chuckee.

That's the very point I'm going to make in some personal discussions about these new gun control laws - They don't even know what they’re talking about!

pgdion
July 31, 2012, 09:57 AM
Another bill that will go nowhere but let's the proposers posture a bit.

What a ridiculous piece of legislation to even introduce. What I do like is reading the comments ... I think it gives a fair understanding of where the people stand and the comments are overwhelmingly negative towards any gun control. What I also found interestimng is that when McCarthy was questioned on some of the items in some anti gun legislation she tried to dodge the question and then eventually had to fess up that she didn't even know what some of the items in the legislation were even though she was endorsing controls on them. Nice work there!

raimius
July 31, 2012, 06:09 PM
To get a real AK 47 you need a class 3 license
The "class 3" is a type of firearms dealer's license. If an "average joe" wanted an AK47, they would need a tax stamp from the ATF, and a a lot of money to buy one of the legally registered pre-86 AK47s.

Tom Servo
July 31, 2012, 08:12 PM
The "class 3" is a type of firearms dealer's license.
If you want to get really technical, the dealer needs a Type 1 or Type 2 FFL, and he needs to pay a Class 3 SOT. A full-auto rifle is a Title 2 weapon, and the purchaser has to send a tax in with a Form 4.

Also, the weapons available for civilian purchase aren't really AK-47's. They're sporter versions of the AKM. The AK-47 had a milled receiver instead of stamped sheet metal.

Do I expect a politician to know that, or to care, when all he's looking for is a convenient soundbyte to appease his base? Nope. The general public just knows "AK-47."

raimius
August 1, 2012, 12:10 PM
Thanks for the correction.

jimbob86
August 28, 2012, 04:48 PM
My question to you is this: Can you say with absolute certainty that waiting periods do no good?

I cannot ..... but I don't think they will deter a determined nut. I will defer to Benjamin Franklin on this: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase temporary security will have neither."

When in doubt, err on the side of Liberty.

A waiting period might provide a bit of (likely temporary) security, but is will most surely erode Liberty.

There is a natural tendency among today's "legislators" to legislate.... as if piling on just. one. more. Law. will stop the inherently lawless ....... to quote one local "Progressive" lawmaker, "Do you suggest we do Nothing!?!?!..... I really don't care what he does, so long as it does not affect me and mine.

pnac
August 28, 2012, 06:14 PM
Tom Servo said:

Do I expect a politician to know that, or to care, when all he's looking for is a convenient soundbyte to appease his base? Nope. The general public just knows "AK-47."

I'll go a bit further and say that many do know the difference, but admitting that wouldn't suit their political agenda.

Tom Servo
August 28, 2012, 07:21 PM
I'll go a bit further and say that many do know the difference, but admitting that wouldn't suit their political agenda.

And you'd be right. Consider this fun memo (http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm) from the Violence Policy Center:

Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public (...) handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority.

Assault weapons, just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms, are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons (anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun) can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

Those guys used to have a great deal of sway in political circles.

BGutzman
August 31, 2012, 06:33 PM
What kills me is the assumption that the semi auto "Assault Weapons" which are mechanically no different than any other semi-auto are somehow more deadly. For the most part other than molding and places to hang things off of they are no different than a traditional semi-auto sporting rifle...

Im also amused (in a horrible way) that the general public seems to buy the idea that these "Assault Weapons" are "Heavy Weapons" or somehow endowed with enormous amounts of power.. Yet 2.23, 5.56, is not by any measure a particularly powerful round compared to many other offerings...

Molding the plastic to look whatever and apparently it becomes a death laser..:rolleyes:

MLeake
September 27, 2012, 01:59 AM
Without getting into party politics, it is not uncommon for office holders to exercise discretion while reelection is a potential concern.

It is also not uncommon for lame ducks to suddenly embrace positions they could not embrace when reelection was a concern.

IE a first term's caution may be thrown to the winds in a second (and last allowed) term.

raimius
September 27, 2012, 03:28 AM
Only one of the two major parties has an AWB as one of their stated goals. The candidate that actually signed a state-wide AWB belongs to the other major party.

As a matter of law, who we elect to congress would play a bigger part in an AWB becoming law or not, IMO. Who we elect as President helps determine who gets nominated for any empty SCOTUS seats.

As to the original comment by the current President, well, kind of. Mr. Kalashnikov did design them for the battlefield...specifically the Russian steppe. Now, whether that is the ONLY place they should legally be, that's different!

Besides, AK-47s shouldn't be on our streets. Somebody might run them over and ruin them! :rolleyes:

MLeake
September 27, 2012, 09:26 AM
raimius, SCOTUS appointments are not the only way the Executive can attack firearm ownership or carry.

Executive orders and ATF and Justice rules and policies can also be implemented or changed.

Patriot86
September 27, 2012, 04:59 PM
I am not a constitutional lawyer so someone educate me. Could in theory President Obama direct the ATF/JD via an EO to ban the manufacturer/import/sale of "assault weapons"? Could he use an EO to order the confiscation of all "Assault weapons"?
I took some basic govt classes in college but EO's were not brought up much. The extent to where the power of EO's end is a bit murky and honestly kind of alarming.

MLeake
September 27, 2012, 09:15 PM
Patriot86, note the recent furor (pre F&F) about ATF attempting to require FFL reporting of multiple long gun sales. Since that happened, F&F broke; Congress specifically denied funding to ATF to enforce that directive. Last I heard, there was still an effort to enforce this in the four states bordering Mexico.

Then, ATF was going to try a new ban on shotgun importations, with a "sporting purposes" review last year.

On a non-gun note, an Executive Order has re-prioritized immigration enforcement so that a wide swath of illegal aliens will not be deported, for now.

EO's can have a big impact, sometimes permanently, but sometimes only until Congress or SCOTUS take countermeasures.

Tom Servo
September 27, 2012, 09:46 PM
EO's can have a big impact, sometimes permanently, but sometimes only until Congress or SCOTUS take countermeasures.
Yes, but they're meant to clarify or further enforcment of existing laws, not make new ones. The Supreme Court has taken a dim view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer) of using them too widely in the past.

jmortimer
September 27, 2012, 09:53 PM
^ We have a few million new "residents" who would disagree with you. For sure EOs could be used on importation of firearms/ammunition and the executive branch deported a few firearms to Mexico not too long ago.

cannonfire
October 3, 2012, 11:09 AM
Besides, AK-47s shouldn't be on our streets. Somebody might run them over and ruin them!

They are AK-47s... they can be ran over and be just fine :D


On the EO notion. I understand the premise of it, in that it was [I]supposed[I] to be used as a way for Congress not to be flooded with legislation. The stuff that wasn't "important" enough for Congressional approval was given to the Executive to pass on their own.

Or that's how I was taught it and understand it. But I think that the EO power has spiraled out of control with the power that it grants the Executive Branch. You mean one person can give an EO and instantly enforce something as large as the country's immigration policy without Congressional approval? That's insane. I think it would be a much different story if an EO was put out to confiscate "assault weapons" in that they would have a huge 2nd amend lawsuit but I can see an EO banning importation as a possibility.

Tom Servo
October 3, 2012, 11:36 AM
I understand the premise of it, in that it was supposed to be used as a way for Congress not to be flooded with legislation.
It wasn't supposed to give the Executive branch the ability to legislate. EO's have been vastly abused by the last few Presidents, but the public has largely failed to notice or raise a fuss about it.

For example, the 1989 import ban met with a collective "meh" by most gun owners, and it was ignored by the general public. Things are different today. There's a greater mistrust of government, and there's a greater awareness of the 2nd Amendment.

Pulling something like that in 2012 would very likely result in a court challenge on the constitutionality of the ban. It could also give the Supreme Court a chance to clamp down on just what can and cannot be done with EO's.

Patriot86
October 3, 2012, 12:35 PM
The problem is if we lose one of those 5 votes we have been relying on to WIN these very important 2A cases in the next 4 years. The SCOTUS is scary close to shifting towards 5-4 votes AGAINST things like Concealed Carry and other firearms issues; so who is to say if EO's are abused to enact defacto AWB's that the SCOTUS would not back the administration in just a few short years.

Assuming we have a divided congress and white house after November and during the next 4 years; if you have a Senate controlled by people who are for an AWB and the house by those against it no Legislation will ever works its way through to go around the EO.


That is the only way I could see an AWB being passed/forced anytime soon; even with one party or the other having a slight majority voting for an AWB would be politicial suicide for many "moderate" candidates in both parties.


I cannot stress how important the November federal elections are going to be for gun owners and how potentially detrimental it can be as well. 1 vote in the SCOTUS and a President who is not afraid to use EO's to enact "common sense" gun control can spell decades of disaster for gun owners. I am not going to get into who is for what or against what but all of us here in the states need to make sure as gun owners we are voting for and electing people willing to protect our 2A rights.

Glenn E. Meyer
October 3, 2012, 03:06 PM
Close to the political edge but not there yet, IMHO.

Be careful folks.

Pistolgripshotty
October 8, 2012, 05:22 AM
I don't like how our rights are determined on how a persons opinion is. If I want a ak-47 than I should be able to get one...its my right! I mean jeez man, the next thing you know they'll be telling us what kinda car to drive, what kinda house to live in, what type of food to eat. I don't like it at all! This stuff is crooked SERIOUSLY!!!!:mad:

Tom Servo
October 8, 2012, 11:41 AM
If I want a ak-47 than I should be able to get one...its my right! I mean jeez man, the next thing you know they'll be telling us what kinda car to drive, what kinda house to live in, what type of food to eat.
"They" already tell you what kind of car you can drive. It needs to be registered, able to pass emissions, and comply with numerous safety standards. Your house has to comply with zoning and community standards, and the food you consume is very much regulated by the FDA.

"It's my right!" doesn't let anyone bypass that stuff. Nor does it sway judges very much as a defense.

Glenn E. Meyer
October 8, 2012, 03:21 PM
Perhaps studying history, philosophy and political science might help one better understand the arguments as compared to ranting.

Nor is it useful to just post throw-away comments here or in other subforums.

That's a hint.

Pistolgripshotty
October 9, 2012, 07:48 AM
Ok thats a good point Tom Servo. But my main point is just that politics can be a headache sometimes.

silvermane_1
October 14, 2012, 11:19 PM
interesting thread but we gun owners have to educate folks that a "assult rifle" is a rifle that is capable of burst/automatic fire, not the semi-auto sportized cousins we all know and love:D.

RamItOne
October 16, 2012, 09:23 PM
He seriously just mentioned bringing back the AWB :mad:

Tom Servo
October 16, 2012, 09:34 PM
Yep, and Romney also said he'd support a new AWB if both sides of Senate agreed on it.

Just like they did the last time.

That said, the votes aren't there, so I'm not worried.

I'll reiterate my warning that we not let this devolve into political discourse.

TX_QtPi
October 16, 2012, 11:39 PM
For those on this post saying that Obama did NOT say he wanted to ban assault rifles, here ya go... from the official transcript...

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence and they're not using AK-47s. They're using cheap hand guns.

So IF you are smart enough to read into what he is saying it's NOT just the "assault weapons" he is wanting to ban but handguns fall into his strategy too...

Ben Towe
October 17, 2012, 01:10 AM
Yep, and Romney also said he'd support a new AWB if both sides of Senate agreed on it.

Not quite. Romney used the MA bill as an example of bipartisan legislation. He did not say he would sign one as president. Crowley actually said that.

StainlessSteel215
October 17, 2012, 08:21 AM
I was wondering if last night's short firearms speech from the president would find itself in a post today. I dont think he's making a strong argument for or against gun control at this time...he was addressing a question from a woman who asked a direct assault weapons question as it related to the victims in Aurora. His objective seemed to be directed towards assuaging the victims' families anger over this issue. Seems to me that neither candidate poses a strong threat against NRA or 2A in general. Assault weapons seem to have been next on the chopping block for some time...but nobody is making a strong effort against them.

Personally, I feel safe for a while. Thoughts?

JimPage
October 17, 2012, 08:39 AM
Stainless: I believe you are misled. Obama does say he wants AWB. Romney did say he doesn't want one. Clear difference.

StainlessSteel215
October 17, 2012, 08:50 AM
I'm on the fence this election and Ill leave personal opinions out of this thread for obvious reasons.....that was just my take on his AWB stance. It's certainly not a hot item on his agenda thats for sure....he has too many other but button topics to address. I just hope it stays that way. He had a difficult task of addressing the question without stepping on NRA toes.

FACT: He said he FULLY supports 2A and always has in last night's speech. I just hope it sticks!

geetarman
October 17, 2012, 08:58 AM
I think the debate last night will light a fire under those folks who have been thinking about buying a firearm.

TX_QtPi
October 17, 2012, 10:01 AM
Seriously? Not making a strong stand against them? When someone says they want to BAN something, that is a pretty strong stance.
An he Alluded to handguns as well... Truth is, if re-elected he does not have to respond or answer to anyone after this 4 year term. First term is always a keep cool phase second term is where their real agenda comes into play.
what he is calling regulation and control sounds more like a disarming, I hate to say it but 4 more years of Obama sounds more like a prison sentence than a presidential term.

gaseousclay
October 17, 2012, 10:03 AM
Stainless: I believe you are misled. Obama does say he wants AWB. Romney did say he doesn't want one. Clear difference.

Romney was for the AWB in MA. to quote Obama, "he was for it before he was against it." two sides of the same coin imo.

i'm with stainlessteel215, i'm not worried one bit. i'll let the rest of the conspiracy theorists out there do all the speculating

gaseousclay
October 17, 2012, 10:05 AM
First term is always a keep cool phase second term is where their real agenda comes into play.
what he is calling regulation and control sounds more like a disarming, I hate to say it but 4 more years of Obama sounds more like a prison sentence than a presidential term.

to throw out a Biden-ism, what a bunch of malarkey

Al Norris
October 17, 2012, 10:38 AM
Nine political posts, immediately after Tom Servo's warning.

That's it, we're done.