XCR Forum banner
1 - 20 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,839 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
For some reason I dont feel reassured.


http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1318968,obama-gun-sales-up-120808.article

Obama: Gun owners do not need to stock up
Recommend (8) Comments

December 8, 2008

BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter
As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.
"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it's not Obama's words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

"Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold," Arulanandam said.

Obama answered "yes" in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.

Nationally, background checks for gun purchases jumped nearly 49 percent during the week Obama was elected, compared with the same time period last year, according to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System.

Anecdotally, gun dealers around the country have reported spikes in sales. The Illinois State Rifle Association Reports gun sales for November were 38 percent higher than last year.

"We don't dispute [the gun sales hike] because the numbers from the federal system certainly confirm that there is increased activity out there. We just think it's a bit stupid," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence.

"Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don't think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,031 Posts
For some reason I can't get the image of Baghdad Bob out of my head. :duh:

I wonder if he even knows that when he says he supports "common sense gun control", he is directly contradicting his immediate previous statement that he "respects the second amendment", in the mind of any gun owner with the slightest clue.

As stated, who cares what he says? Actions speak louder than words, and his actions are a matter of public record.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
All these people do is misdirect. They say something that is true, but not salient.

A). Obama is not the sole, or probably even largest, threat to new 2nd Amendment infringements. There are other politicians, nearly all Democrats, with a record much more aggressive than his, and the threat is that he will go along with them. Obama may indeed NOT introduce the legislation himself, but you can be sure some other Democrat will, and he is likely to support it.

B). Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence: "...they are people who already have more than enough guns..."< These are the SOBs to watch for. They are the ones that have the bug up their asses, and have no problem deciding how much freedom is "enough" for other people to have.

If you love freedom, and would have it for yourself and your children, you're going to have to spend your money and time to keep it so that those children don't have to spend their blood to get it back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
I like the bit where Obama claims a staffer filled in the form. So does he let others set policy?

He has a few good ideas, that I will grant him, but his record on gun ownership and against people who LEGALLY OWN AND USE firearms speaks for itself.

He has already stated that "Assault Weapons" have no place. Well has he not heard of 3 Gun matches. Also the crime statistics show they form a very small part of gun crime, less than one percent. That would imply they are being used for "Legal" purposes.

On the issue of guns, I don't trust him, not one bit. Hopefully he will prove us wrong and leave us alone, but I doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
512 Posts
He has no good ideas ,did you think Stalin had some also ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,835 Posts
he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, I don't trust him as far as I can throw him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
568 Posts
Do not be distract by him.
Keep an eye on congress.
They passed the last AWB late at night when no one was watching. All they need to do is insert a sentence re enacting that law into a innocent sounding spending bill when no one is paying attention.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
Phalanx, Oh God, here we go again.

Yes, actually he does have a few good ideas (though only a few), one is to not tax the first $50,000 of seniors income. For a large number of them, it allows them to take better care of themselves and removes much of the burden from the state. Now will he get to implement that, probably not for a while given the state of the economy.

Congress and the Senate have the power to veto his bills. If you want to take him down a peg or two those are the folks you have to be concerned with. If they fear loosing their seats they will vote against. You have to be rational in your position to maintain credibility for your argument.

Meanwhile, to my way of thinking you are loosing credibility trying to compare him to Stalin. Now, if he cancels elections in two years and closes up the legislative arm and grants himself extraordinary powers you may have a point. Heck he might even round up republicans, libertarians and the rest of us right wing tossers and have us all shot but somehow I doubt it.

"He breathes air, so did Lenin, therefore they are the same" Oh, please.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,177 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,531 Posts
I know he is a lying b'stard.

I liked the section where he stated that a staffer filled in the application and he never saw it despite a newspaper getting hold of the original with his handwritten notes all over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
I'm pretty happy with BO's selection of Former Commandant of the Marine Corps and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, James L. Jones as the National Security Adviser. A Silver Star, Bronze Star and Combat Action Ribbon recipeant, he is the first combat veteran to serve as a National Security Adviser since Colin Powell did during the Ronald Reagan administration. There was some discussion that he was being considered as Obama's running mate until Jones supported John McCain's candidacy. I'm looking at Obama with a veerry jaundiced eye but I'm happy with this particular selection.

I'm going to keep stocking up just to be on the safe side, because I don't trust BO as far as I could throw Air Force One.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,071 Posts
I think he was more or less bound to say something. If he was quiet on the issue it would mean his silent approval of the opinion. I don't think it's funny that an AR receiver I just bought ended up going for over double even what dealer price is for them, but I think it's funny that his presidency is getting a little stain before he's even sworn in. I guess the messiah isn't so popular afterall?

Klatuu has a good point. Someone else telling me what's best for me and mine and what is "acceptable"? Slow your roll there Turbo, I don't recall my friends, family or myself ever bothering you with anything we've ever done. But I tell you what, all of my gun totin' friends would gladly put in a couple extra hours work to move you and your family to a less than stellar part of town. Oh, and of course we'll be sure to let everyone know how you don't believe in firearms and how you want to help them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
331 Posts
This surge of sales is the bloodless revolution. It is so large it can not be ignored. The scary part for the other side is that we are buying more guns than we need to arm are own family. We can arm are neighbors and friends.


Translations:

Common sense gun laws. = Any law that makes sense to me.
I believe in the 2nd Amendment = In the constitution there are words after it says "Amendment 2"

In other words. It all depends on what is is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,038 Posts
I especially like this statement:

"Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don't think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more."

Hell yeah - that would be me and a couple hundred thousand of my friends! ;D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,296 Posts
I don't trust Obama and God knows this country needs a change, but I agree with Mickey -- some of his ideas will be an improvement.

But not on the issue of gun control. The Brady Bunch is a good example of what's gone wrong in our country. Government has been taken over by corporations, lobbyists, lawyers and special-interest groups, which are staffed by more lawyers and lobbyists. Ever read the drivel published by the Brady Bunch? Congressmen flash their "studies" around as if they proved some essential point, when in reality, their "studies" are nothing but collections of third-hand anecdotes from other folks in the anti-gun crowd.

Unless you've lived in the Northeast or Chicago, it may be hard to grasp the perspective of these folks. It's not just about guns, it's about self-determination. The laws in some of these urban areas are unbelievable: Someone breaks into your home, is threatening your family, and you shoot him with lawfully owned firearm. You, the homeowner, are arrested and charged with attempted murder. Why? Because under the law, you should have run away from your attacker. And the cops buy into it.

That's the kind of world the Brady Bunch wants -- the kind that Obama wants.

If Obama believes in the 2nd Amendment as he says he does, then he's got no business telling folks how many arms they can have. And while the point about three-gun matches is valid, that's not the sort of argument on which we should be standing. We should be making our stand on the issue of the militia and the right of self-defense.


tk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
Up through the 1950's, there was a slogan taught in public school government (civics) classes:

"The government that governs the best governs the least"

Now we look to government for ALL the answers.

One only has to question what happened. What changed. Why it is that the self-reliance that makes up the American spirit has been quenched into the "how can mommy government wipe my butt today" amirikan spirit.

Are there "good ideas" from b. huissein ospama? Doubtful. The best idea he could have would be "leave the country alone, and let people be free to work things out for themselves!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
Let me preface this by saying that I am a gun owner and believe strongly in the right for me to own and carry firearms.

I was born and raised in the Northeast and would like to shed some light on this subject.

First, everyone I know that supports gun control (and it's a sh!tload), is concerned with CRIME. They don't really give a damn about people OWNING guns; they just don't like seeing guns hurting people. If you want to believe there are ulterior motives for politicians to ban guns, go for it. However, most politicians are probably just voting according to their constituencies' wishes for less gun violence.

Second, the real problem with gun control is the execution. If there were legislation that decreased the number of guns available to criminals and still allowed law-abiding citizens to own whatever guns they choose, everyone should be happy. The problem is that gun-control advocates can't think of anything better than banning guns and pro-gun advocates can't think of anything better than letting everyone have guns. So if there is a practical solution to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, neither side is willing to discuss it.

Every time you assert that liberals have some kind of agenda to subjugate the red states, you give them reason to be suspicious of you. They are trying to decrease violence and you are accusing them of trying to oppress you. That creates a real "us versus them" mentality. If they hear that enough (and they do hear that enough), they eventually start to think "Well now I don't feel really comfortable with all these 'pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-fingers' folks owning all sorts of military-style weapons." Then they start to think, "In fact, why does any civilian need to own that kind of firearm?" Now everyone is antagonizing everyone else, nobody works together, and everyone loses.

Look everyone can agree that gun violence is bad and civil rights are good. So instead of both sides picking one thing against the other, why can't we all work to create legislation that accomplishes both? People act like that is impossible, but we've done it many other places. We have legislation regarding piloting a plane, driving a tractor-trailer, practicing medicine or law, etc. Yet somehow we can't figure out a way to stop gun violence while letting law-abiding citizens keep their guns. That's bullsh!t. People aren't trying thinking hard enough.

I know the responses to this include, but are not limited to: accusations that Obama is out to get you (look, he didn’t invent gun control), the liberals are out to get you (liberals don’t care what anyone does as long as nobody gets hurt, that's why they are called liberals), the constitution says it so it must be true (one need only look at the example of the First Amendment and yelling “FIRE!” in a crowded theater to see that public safety is can supercede individual rights), and the government wants to subjugate its citizens (let me address that one a little more). If the government wants to force you to do something, they are going to win. No offense to anyone on this forum, but in my experience with the gun-owning community, a bunch of fat, out-of-shape, smokers and drinkers with their M4s, AKs, and 33-round Glock mags are not going to be much in the way of resistance. As far as prying your gun from your cold dead fingers, the government doesn’t give a crap about taking your gun because theirs are better. If people were serious about the Second Amendment as it pertains to governmental abuse, than people should be working out, eating healthy, organizing a real militia. If you want to use that as an argument, than you should be living it, not just citing it when you want to keep your blasters.

Until both sides can come together and recognize the goals of each side, nothing will be accomplished. Bad and ineffective gun control legislation will continue to be proposed (and now, enacted). However, pro-gun advocates must share some of the blame because they refuse to work with legislators to find a way to reduce gun violence without compromising law-abiding citizens' right to own and carry firearms. The people who love guns and know the most about gun use and gun commerce are essentially boycotting the legislative process (which works fine when pro-gun politicians hold majority, but backfires when gun control politicians hold majority). By boycotting the process, the pro-gun advocates are letting people who don't own guns, don't know anything about guns, and don't know about gun gun commerce to make the laws. As a result, we get stupid laws that don't work.

I apologize if this sounds too liberal for you guys. I agree with some of what you say and disagree with others. Like I said, I am a gun owner and believe in my right to own and carry firearms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,031 Posts
So what is your grand solution, ****?

For me, the sentence stops at the end of "it is my right to keep and bear arms as a free American citizen". No "buts". You are right, I am not interested in working with liberals on finding an acceptable "compromise". There are examples the world over on where that path ends.

As far as the gun control people I'm familiar with, they do not agree that civil rights are good. They want to ban all guns, regardless of crime levels. Same thing with the gun control in GB and Austrailia. They had low levels (compared to this country) of gun crime before their bans. Of course... nothing has changed other than the good people being less free.

This is the United States, and here, our individual rights are supposed to trump anything else. They are not supposed to be dependent on the actions and/or crimes of others. That is why they are called individual rights. Yelling "fire" in a theater (or equivalent type action) has the immediate and highly probable impact of causing injury to a number of people in the immediate vicinity. Gun ownership is not a situation that is similar in any way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,533 Posts
We have legislation regarding piloting a plane, driving a tractor-trailer, practicing medicine or law, etc.
Driving a tractor-trailer, piloting a plane, etc are not God given rights enumerated in the Constitution.

(liberals don’t care what anyone does as long as nobody gets hurt, that's why they are called liberals)
I wish this was the case. Liberals are all for enforcing - through law - their opinion of how people should live. Do you believe in charity? Doesn't matter - your money WILL be collected by force and redistributed as the liberals decide is best. It gets to the ridiculous point, no joke, of regulating how much water your toilet uses to flush - all in the name of conservation. Don't care for the idea of your kid being taught that homosexuality is GOOD? Doesn't matter - they'll MANDATE that your kid be given propaganda disguised as "learning". Good luck getting them to not hear that, as public re-education centers are MANDATORY in much of the country. Those are just a few of the thousands of examples I could cite.

And your comment about yelling fire in a theater isn't quite valid (although correct) either. It has nothing to do with government regulation of a God given right - it has to do with your right not being capable of intruding on another persons rights. Your rights stop where my nose starts (GRIN). In that light, government CAN NOT regulate a right, as that controls MY airspace.

Surely, laws are written not to control, but to punish those who violate them. A law prohibiting murder doesn't prevent a murder, it allows for the punishment of the murderer. In the same light, we find that violating anyones God given right by yelling fire in a theater is punishable. What OUGHT to be just as obvious though, ususally isn't: the government stating that anything is punishable, if it doesn't violate anyones rights, is an abomination. One can't have a crime - under the old law - without a victim. Therefore, things that liberals legislate ("victimless crimes" such as concealled carry for example), couldn't be a crime. THAT is where we're at - and it's a BAD place.

If the government wants to force you to do something, they are going to win.
Tell it to George Washington. Or Martin Luthur King Junior. Or Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandella, or a slew of other people who changed the face of society in direct opposition of the government.

No offense to anyone on this forum, but in my experience with the gun-owning community, a bunch of fat, out-of-shape, smokers and drinkers with their M4s, AKs, and 33-round Glock mags are not going to be much in the way of resistance.
True - found that one out on my own.

As far as prying your gun from your cold dead fingers, the government doesn’t give a crap about taking your gun because theirs are better.
Somewhat true - although their training isn't nearly as good in virtually all cases.

If people were serious about the Second Amendment as it pertains to governmental abuse, than people should be working out, eating healthy, organizing a real militia.
Nope, that militia is what I was in agreement with, concerning your previous statement. As I normally put it, a militia really is a quilting bee for men in camo, rifles optional.

However, pro-gun advocates must share some of the blame because they refuse to work with legislators to find a way to reduce gun violence without compromising law-abiding citizens' right to own and carry firearms.
Uh, not really. We've got PLENTY of laws on the books that prevent all classes of crimes - not to mention criminals from illegally obtaining firearms. Facts are that a law is nothing more than ink on paper. As I said before, it doesn't PREVENT a crime, just provides punishment for offenders. Until criminals (which are defined as people who don't care what the laws are) start becoming "law abiding", they're going to do what they care to. That's the nature of criminals!

Compromise? Here's a quote from my favorite philosopher on compromise:

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if, only, by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
 
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
Top