The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old July 26, 2012, 10:00 AM   #26
Botswana
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.
Botswana is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:17 AM   #27
scottycoyote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 2005
Location: southwestern va
Posts: 654
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......"
scottycoyote is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:18 AM   #28
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 5,825
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.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:27 AM   #29
MLeake
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."
MLeake is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:33 AM   #30
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,729
Quote:
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.

Quote:
"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...

Quote:
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...

Quote:
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.
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:41 AM   #31
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,712
Quote:
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.
__________________
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:44 AM   #32
jmortimer
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.
jmortimer is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:46 AM   #33
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:48 AM   #34
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,634
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.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 10:50 AM   #35
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
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. 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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:08 AM   #36
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,411
Quote:
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.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:08 AM   #37
wingman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2002
Posts: 2,074
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.
wingman is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:08 AM   #38
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,487
Quote:
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.
gc70 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:10 AM   #39
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,106
Quote:
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"???
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!
pgdion is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:13 AM   #40
Isk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 181
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
Isk is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:17 AM   #41
jmortimer
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?
jmortimer is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:17 AM   #42
pgdion
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2010
Location: MPLS, MN
Posts: 1,106
Quote:
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.
__________________
597 VTR, because there's so many cans and so little time!
pgdion is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:19 AM   #43
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,125
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?
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:20 AM   #44
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Quote:
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.
__________________
“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.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:29 AM   #45
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,659
Quote:
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:30 AM   #46
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,229
Quote:
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.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:31 AM   #47
BigMikey76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 432
Quote:
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.
__________________
“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.”

A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
BigMikey76 is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:32 AM   #48
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMikey76
. . . .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.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:33 AM   #49
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,712
Quote:
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.
__________________
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old July 26, 2012, 11:45 AM   #50
Botswana
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.
Botswana is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14183 seconds with 7 queries