Obama and guns

[Fat_Santa54]

Ok now in the past week I've talked to a lot of people about the election and one thing a lot of them mentioned was how obama was going to take our guns which is completly rediclous. Now I'm not saying that I support Obama, but lets not get to political here.

ok right to bare arms is constitutional right and to abolish this would be no easy feat, so here is the processes that must happen for the constitution to be ammended (changed).

1. Propose An Amendment
-Either Congress or the States can propose an amendment ot the Constitution.
-Both Houses of Congress must propose the amendment with a two-thirds vote.
-wo-thirds of the State legislatures must call on Congress to hold a Constitutional Convention.

2. Ratify An Admendment
-Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by the States
-Three-fourths of the State legislatures must approve of the amendment proposed by Congress

Ok this is A big deal for something to happen, it takes years for simple bills to pass in congress alone, and this is asking for pretty much 2/3 of America to vote on this, and the supreme court has said that the ammendment must be either ratified or turned down within 7 years.

So come on people, i know he said a lot of things during his campaighn, but lets be reasnoble it's nearly an impossible task for 1 man to ammend the constitution. plus with heavy lobiests and the fact that 2/3 of the states or a minimum of 34 must agree on it. So please be reasnoable and stop throwing around this "he's gonna nalk on my door and take my gun right out of my hand" crap, it's just not going to happen.

[AddoAduro]

There's less fear of him "taking our guns" so to speak (the ones we already have), and more of a "I won't be able to buy anything gun related at a reasonable price for the next 4+ years" thing.

The main concern is that there's talk of a rather substantial tax on ammo. Ammo is already expensive enough as it is.  There's also talk of re-instating the AWB, or possibly re-writing it to be even more strict.  Last I heard, the possible "updated" list for a potential AWB included the Remington 700 (too tactical, you know) and 870 (too evil?), along with just about every pump, semi-auto and break barrel shotgun known to man except over-unders, along with just about every semi-auto rifle known to man, including many .22's.

In any case, buy what you can now, before you can't.

[stareandwonder]

Clinton did it, remember the 10 year assault rifle ban?

Well Obama is the most liberal to date. I doubt he would be foolish enough to TAKE our firearms, because the day they attempt to take them, is the day you use them. But rather another assault rifle ban, hand gun ban, or ammo prices shoot sky high. Or hell, just let the dealers go into a freanzy and price gouge until no tomorrow as it appears their doing now. Colts jumped by 100s, lowers jumped by as much as 50$ in some cases, ammo is jumping, everything is way up and price, and i don't count on it to get better.

[Doc Hollywood]

Fail.

Actually, the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution are considered absolute.  They are baselines for the fundemental rights in this country and cannot be taken or amended by government action, or vote by the people.  So sayeth the Supreme Court.  You cannot amend the Constitution to make it violate the constitutional protections afforded prior to the amendment.

While the cases that interpret these amendments do tend to move on position, its only because each case is very fact specific.

You are correct that change is slow in this country - that was part of the design in the seperation of powers.

The Clinton Era "gun ban" only banned new production weapons that were on the list.  Studies show it had no measureable effect on crime reduction and although its kicking rocks in the Congress right now, its not going to be the first thing on any agenda.

Heller sets a new precedent that will need to be considered by any gun ban renewal.

Mostly people like to talk a lot of bullshit about things they only know a little bit about - and the Constitutional System is not generally understood by the US people.  Even lawyers don't always get it.

I already have my guns so I give aflyingfuck abut this hysteria.  

Go back to school and get the politics educated out of you....

[sandsniper]

I'd be curious to see what, if anything, Obama can do to adversely effect firearm owners.  He might get something passed which taxes ammo. But that will put more money into the governement/economy, so it will serve some good. Yeah, if you like to go out and shoot full auto all weekend and burn a few thousand rounds, then it might hit you in the pocket book. But let's face it, if you can afford to flush money away on a bunch of ammo, then you can afford the extra tax on your ammo.

I agree though that the "He's gonna' take r' guns!" response is a little premature.

[Ganef]

It is people like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

Who are passing laws on things they have no clue about.

It is like the passing of the law that disallowed CCW in "bars", well supprise... a "bar" is anywhere that they serve alcohol, so now I can't bring my gun into denny's. Was that the original purpose of the law?, maybe, maybe not, but it made an impact.

The gun industry in america provides a lot of jobs, the AW ban no.2 would cause job loss, any idiot would know that is kinda dumb to do right now.

[-MAD- SARGE]

I like this one too.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

[krash]

there are other ways to affect gun owners and shooters
1: ban all lead use on public lands, soon to be the law in several states if not already <CA thank you Arnold  has passed this for Northen KAL> Michgan and Minnesota done or are doing this
2: ban lead shot 1/4 mile of ANY WETLANDS public or private, on the books in Wa.
3: stop importing POWDERS  made off shore, 85% of the gun podwer used for reloading not made in the US
4: there are talks of as much as 500% tax on ammo
5: MICRO ETCHING for the brass as it exits the gun barrel? wtf  again Arnold in cali
6: limit the pounds of powder I can buy and store at home  and the total amount of ammo, (loaded or not) on the horizon in several places other wise "register" as a PRIVATE aresenal...........
7: there are more but can't keep them all straight, too many are bull and the others just sound way too crazy to be true.........

I owned a company that made lead cast bullets for many years, never never again. too much law, too much cost, too much insurance way way too little profit for all the work invloved.
I talk to gun stores, reloading compnaies and private reloaders, bullets casters and shot makers private and big time, I hear things that just scare me.

and never mind if some dumb-stupid-crazy  shoots or really tries to "shoot" the new leader, then we WILL have race riots, race wars and at the very least the reason why we must disarm the public, "THEY COULD REBEL AND REVOLT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT" whatever.....excuses. it is much easier to make imposible to buy, load, or afford ammo than it would be to go DOOR TO DOOR taking guns away......

but if we want to see what could happen, talk to some one in ENGLAND OR AUSTRALIA  about crime- guns- forget civil liberties pppssssh, they do not have the freedom of speech or press, why? cause no guns, means no one can stand up and say 'ENOUGH'

done!

[Altered_Soul]

NM I screwed up my language too much, don't feel like fixing now.

[stareandwonder]

there are other ways to affect gun owners and shooters
1: ban all lead use on public lands, soon to be the law in several states if not already <CA thank you Arnold  has passed this for Northen KAL> Michgan and Minnesota done or are doing this
2: ban lead shot 1/4 mile of ANY WETLANDS public or private, on the books in Wa.
3: stop importing POWDERS  made off shore, 85% of the gun podwer used for reloading not made in the US
4: there are talks of as much as 500% tax on ammo
5: MICRO ETCHING for the brass as it exits the gun barrel? wtf  again Arnold in cali
6: limit the pounds of powder I can buy and store at home  and the total amount of ammo, (loaded or not) on the horizon in several places other wise "register" as a PRIVATE aresenal...........
7: there are more but can't keep them all straight, too many are bull and the others just sound way too crazy to be true.........

I owned a company that made lead cast bullets for many years, never never again. too much law, too much cost, too much insurance way way too little profit for all the work invloved.
I talk to gun stores, reloading compnaies and private reloaders, bullets casters and shot makers private and big time, I hear things that just scare me.

and never mind if some dumb-stupid-crazy  shoots or really tries to "shoot" the new leader, then we WILL have race riots, race wars and at the very least the reason why we must disarm the public, "THEY COULD REBEL AND REVOLT AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT" whatever.....excuses. it is much easier to make imposible to buy, load, or afford ammo than it would be to go DOOR TO DOOR taking guns away......

but if we want to see what could happen, talk to some one in ENGLAND OR AUSTRALIA  about crime- guns- forget civil liberties pppssssh, they do not have the freedom of speech or press, why? cause no guns, means no one can stand up and say 'ENOUGH'

done!

+1

If the government tries to make the statement of "ban them so civis dont revolt against the government", that would be bullshit, and i could actually see Obama doing something so stupid as that. Though they would not use those terms exactly, they would more dress it up and make it sound as if it was best for the "people". The 2nd amendment was created so in the instance that an opressive government comes into play, we as Americans can protect ourselves, and overcome it. Not for hunting purposes as some politicans like to day.

One thing I'll give props to obama for is, he can stand up infront of a giant crowd, tell them hes going to rape their children and somehow come out of it with the world cheering him on. Like Hitler :cry:

Again +1 on everything you said, good stuff bro.

[Fat_Santa54]

Thanks for expanding on it a bit, I had heard some stuff about an ammo tax, but had no idea it wouold be 500%+

now I'm not sure how many people the firearms industry emplyees, but I'm guessing its a lot and probably accounts for a good bit of foriegn trade as well.

[Seedy]

+1

If the government tries to make the statement of "ban them so civis dont revolt against the government", that would be bullshit, and i could actually see Obama doing something so stupid as that. Though they would not use those terms exactly, they would more dress it up and make it sound as if it was best for the "people". The 2nd amendment was created so in the instance that an opressive government comes into play, we as Americans can protect ourselves, and overcome it. Not for hunting purposes as some politicans like to day.

One thing I'll give props to obama for is, he can stand up infront of a giant crowd, tell them hes going to rape their children and somehow come out of it with the world cheering him on. Like Hitler :cry:

Again +1 on everything you said, good stuff bro.

lol you gotta be kidding me.
is it the black thing? is that what makes you so scared?
be honest now.

[stareandwonder]

i could careless if he was black, white, purple or blue.

Hes the most liberal president to date, and if you look at his history in voting, he has voted against anything to make our 2nd amendment rights better in any way. A ban of some sort will probably come into effect sooner or later, but if hes smart it wont happen for a few years. And if not a ban, as the guy a few posts above stated, theres many ways to ruin our rights to own.

[Polie]

Here you go douche bag....


http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/10/16/gun ... ks-barack/

Alan Korwin
Gun Law Update: Brady Backs Barack

2008-10-16 at 8:54 am · Filed under 2008, Analysis, Conservatism, Current Events, Law, Politics, Second Amendment, Vox Populi

Will Anti-Gun Group’s Endorsement Help Or Hurt?

Anti-Gun-Rights Candidate Could Gut “Heller” Decision

Now that Barack Obama has received the endorsement of the Brady Campaign gun-control group, will the Supreme Court’s findings in the D.C. gun-ban “Heller” case matter?

That’s the question experts are asking in the wake of Obama’s 11th-hour support from America’s leading gun-ban advocates. The late-date endorsement was conspicuously absent from most large news outlets. Those groups have repeatedly claimed that anti-gun-rights agendas were a key issue in the Democrat election defeats of 2000 and 2004.

“Obama publicly supported Washington D.C.’s total gun ban until the Supreme Court’s ‘Heller’ case voided it,” says Alan Korwin, co-author of “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed,” which was just released (see below for news-media review copies). “His opposition to gun rights is well known and carefully documented in the new book,” he said. Obama swiftly reversed his position after the High Court found that gun rights belong to individuals, a point also documented in the new book.

“Before the ban was overturned, Mr. Obama supported the position of the Court’s dissenters — that gun bans are fine and the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect people, it protects ‘collective rights’ of states,” Korwin notes. That position had little to support it in the historical record, but was favored by people seeking to ban firearms from public hands. The “collective rights” theory, a recent creation, was dismissed with ridicule by the Court (equating it to Alice in Wonderland). The Amendment itself speaks of “the security of a free state,” and “the right of the people.”

As the first book released about the landmark gun-rights decision, “The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed” describes the events leading up to the case, and precisely what the Court said, word-for-word and in plain English. If Obama follows the Court’s decree, the civil rights of the general public should be fairly well safeguarded with respect to owning and using firearms.

If he instead follows the lead of his endorsers in the Brady Campaign, gun rights as America has known them for more than two centuries could easily end. His campaign positions so far suggest the latter, if he is elected. His widely available voting record is 100% consistent — voting for every restriction on law-abiding gun use, and against every proposed protection for innocent individuals.

Virtually all recent gun-law proposals fall into those two categories — bans on honest ownership and rights, or support for honest ownership and rights. New laws targeting criminals are rare, since every imaginable criminal activity with guns is already against the law and carries severe penalties.

The only thing left, according to leading experts, is to ban guns for non-criminals, a policy choice adopted in some circles. Gun bans on criminals have had embarrassingly little effect on street gangs, the drug war and career criminals in general. Facing abject failure of crime-related social policies, and unable to disarm criminals, many politicians are turning instead to civil-disarmament schemes. Working against this trend, “Disarm Criminals First” says one campaign slogan in the Marksmanship Movement.

The three publicly announced elements of the Brady-Obama anti-gun positions include 1- Ban the freedom to sell firearms from one innocent person to another, euphemistically called the “gun-show loophole”; 2- Allow all law enforcement officers to fish through gun-dealer records looking for paperwork or other violations, and compile data as they see fit, euphemistically known as “repealing the Tiahart Amendment” (which prevents them from doing so currently); and 3- permanently ban an enormous list of perfectly legal firearms and accessories based on looks, names and operating characteristics, euphemistically called an “assault-weapons ban.”

First, knowledgeable observers know assault is a type of behavior, not a type of hardware, plus the ban seeks to outlaw all semiautomatic firearms. Second, it’s already completely illegal for criminals to buy firearms under any circumstances, so the proposed private-sale ban would only affect innocent citizens. And third, the Tiahart Amendment protects the innocent from government registries and abuse, so all three proposals, as noted above, have virtually no effect on stopping crime, but do crush freedoms Americans currently enjoy.

A long wish list of other gun-freedom repeals have been previously announced by Brady, Obama and their supporters, but have not shown up in the candidate’s platform yet. See some of them here:

http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm

and many more here:

http://www.gunlaws.com/Left-wing%20Gun%20Plan.htm

including (as listed during the Clinton administration):

THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:

1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.

2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.

3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.

4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).

5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).

6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more than 200,000).

7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.

8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot inspections).

9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.

10. Banning all military style firearms.

11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun.

12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other.

13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer, installation) except barrel, trigger group.

14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.

15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62×54R and .303).

16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession.

17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).

18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.

19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one time.

20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.

21. A National License for Ammunition.

22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.

24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.

25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.

26. Special Licensing of ranges.

27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).

28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.

29. Banning Gun Shows.

30. Banning of military reenactments.

PLUS:

Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.

Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.

Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including “air soft” and paintball).

The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from government programs, the gun manufacturers.

Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.

The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.

ShareThis

[nemisissy]

i agree with most of you on the above posts. unless i have misinterpreted. the reason they want to limit ( and eventually nearly ban) the owning of firearms is becuase of crime rate?
if that is true i have a number of points on this.
1. look at the prohibition, they tried to ban alcohol, which only fueled organised crime, it will happen the same way with guns
2. "if nowone has guns criminals won't" total bullshit. two words black market.
of course i may be wrong, i don't know all of the political ramifications of this sort of restricition. i know that one way or another, people are going to get guns. like stareandwonder said "the day they try to take our guns, the day we use them" unfortunate but i know that is probably what is going to end up happening.