|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 26, 2012, 10:00 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
|
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. |
July 26, 2012, 10:17 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2005
Location: southwestern va
Posts: 830
|
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.
__________________
"i got the most powerful gun in the world........an .88 magnum. It shoots thru schools......" |
July 26, 2012, 10:18 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
If we can ignore the fact that it mentions the militia, then we can ignore the fact that it doesn't mention hunting.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
July 26, 2012, 10:27 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
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." |
July 26, 2012, 10:33 AM | #30 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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... Quote:
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... Quote:
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.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
||||
July 26, 2012, 10:41 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
Quote:
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
|
July 26, 2012, 10:44 AM | #32 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
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.
|
July 26, 2012, 10:46 AM | #33 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
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. |
July 26, 2012, 10:48 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 26, 2012, 10:50 AM | #35 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
July 26, 2012, 11:08 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
|
July 26, 2012, 11:08 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 20, 2002
Posts: 2,108
|
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. |
July 26, 2012, 11:08 AM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Quote:
|
|
July 26, 2012, 11:10 AM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,214
|
Quote:
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"???
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time! |
|
July 26, 2012, 11:13 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
|
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.
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh |
July 26, 2012, 11:17 AM | #41 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
"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? |
July 26, 2012, 11:17 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,214
|
Quote:
By the way, I Agree, Pond has no stake in this one. That's why I skimmed through to read his posts first.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time! |
|
July 26, 2012, 11:19 AM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
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?
|
July 26, 2012, 11:20 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
|
July 26, 2012, 11:29 AM | #45 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
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. |
|
July 26, 2012, 11:30 AM | #46 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 26, 2012, 11:31 AM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
Quote:
"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.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
|
July 26, 2012, 11:32 AM | #48 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
July 26, 2012, 11:33 AM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
|
July 26, 2012, 11:45 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 4, 2012
Posts: 203
|
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. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|