limbaughfan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 323
Can anyone provide me with a source of Barack Obama openly supporting gun control.I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR HIM, I just was wondering if he openly talks about banning all semi autos and so forth.
Barack Obama
- Thread starter limbaughfan
- Start date
- Status
Dan from MI
Member
It's in his state senate record as well as his senatorial record.
"Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)"
This should be broadcasted to every single home in the country.
""Voted to let retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (2004) ""
Now this shows that he supports a caste system. Government can carry firearms, but us little people can't. That's the mentality of the anti-constitution crowd.
""Unsuccessfully sponsored limit of one handgun purchase per month. (2000)""
Another anti-freedom measure. That's a lot in only eight years.
He also voted to ban .30-30 and all centerfire ammunition as a US senator. He is also on the Joyce Foundation's board of directors. They fund organizations that support total bans on firearms. Most gun grabber work starts from that organization.
"Voted against letting people argue self-defense in court if charged with violating local weapons bans by using a gun in their home. (2004)"
This should be broadcasted to every single home in the country.
""Voted to let retired police and military police carry concealed weapons. (2004) ""
Now this shows that he supports a caste system. Government can carry firearms, but us little people can't. That's the mentality of the anti-constitution crowd.
""Unsuccessfully sponsored limit of one handgun purchase per month. (2000)""
Another anti-freedom measure. That's a lot in only eight years.
He also voted to ban .30-30 and all centerfire ammunition as a US senator. He is also on the Joyce Foundation's board of directors. They fund organizations that support total bans on firearms. Most gun grabber work starts from that organization.
limbaughfan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 323
thank you
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
Please tell me you are kidding. The idea of one handgun a month has nothing to do with a single person owning lots of guns. It is designed to reduce gun-trafficking.
limbaughfan
Member
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 323
Jorg, are you saying you like one gun a month laws?
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
No, I am not. However, one can be fully cognizant of the reasoning behind a position without supporting it.
The justification for a "1 gun a month rule" has never been that one person would own too many guns. It is designed to prevent one person from buying many guns to distribute to other people.
DC3-CVN-72
Member
1 gun a month.
Why one gun a month? They have no rite to tell me how many of anything I can buy with my hard earned money!
How about 1 book a month. Maby the plan is to amend the law to 1 gun every 10 years! Just leave me alone!!!
Why one gun a month? They have no rite to tell me how many of anything I can buy with my hard earned money!
How about 1 book a month. Maby the plan is to amend the law to 1 gun every 10 years! Just leave me alone!!!Cesiumsponge
Member
Its an arbitrary number so they can pass a feel-good law, just like the 10-round magazine limit, barrel length, overall gun length, etc.
I doubt 99.999% of firearm traffickers are going to stop by the local gun shop and buy handguns so they can turn around and sell it to someone on the street
They're going to obtain them illegally somehow, otherwise they'd have paperwork tying the firearm back to them.
I doubt 99.999% of firearm traffickers are going to stop by the local gun shop and buy handguns so they can turn around and sell it to someone on the street
They're going to obtain them illegally somehow, otherwise they'd have paperwork tying the firearm back to them.
Zundfolge
Member
The stated purpose is to keep you from buying a dozen pistols some afternoon, driving to "da hood" and selling them all to gang bangers.
'cause we all know that decent people would be too tempted to arm up the street gangs without such a law
The real purpose is twofold; 1)to put any annoyance in the way of gun ownership so that less people will go through the trouble of becoming a gun owner ... thus less people will fight to keep guns legal.
and 2) they want to force ALL firearms transactions into federally licensed gun shops so that they can keep track of us (despite it being expressly illegal for them to do so)
It's allready been proven that the one-gun-a-month policy has no effect .... what-so-ever .... on gun trafficing. There really is no logical reason for the law.
The other problem is it totally disregards the right of people to purchase the guns. People should have the right to buy no guns, 1 gun, or 10 guns. It esspecially is important to a collector, who would miss opportunities because of some stupid law.
The other problem is it totally disregards the right of people to purchase the guns. People should have the right to buy no guns, 1 gun, or 10 guns. It esspecially is important to a collector, who would miss opportunities because of some stupid law.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
One Gun a Month
I really really wish they'd abolish those one-gun-a-month rules.
I mean, how the hell is a regular guy with a day job supposed to keep up?
One a month? Good lord!
I wish!
I really really wish they'd abolish those one-gun-a-month rules.
I mean, how the hell is a regular guy with a day job supposed to keep up?
One a month? Good lord!
I wish!
Jorg Nysgerrig
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,822
See, this is the problem we run into as gun owners. When we don't like a law or position, we summarily dismiss it without providing anything to refute the claims. Rather than refute the claim made by the antigun lobby, we fall too often back on the "dere tryin' tah take arr guns!"position or the "this isn't really about guns, it is about control" position. Both of those positions give off the impression of paranoid delusions to the masses.
For example, DDrake confidently points out that "It's allready been proven that the one-gun-a-month policy has no effect". However, the Brady Bunch counters with:
Virginia's law has greatly disrupted the gun trafficking pattern from Virginia to states in the northeastern United States. For guns purchased after implementation of the new law that were recovered in the Northeast, Virginia's share fell by 54% - to 16% of all guns traced back to the Southeast. Even more dramatically, the percentage of guns traced back to Virginia gun dealers fell by 61% for guns recovered in New York, 67% for guns recovered in Massachusetts, and 38% for guns recovered in New Jersey. Further, according to law enforcement officials in Virginia, straw purchases of handguns that had made that state the "firearms supermarket" dropped sharply after the law was passed.
Reports from public officials in Virginia have been very encouraging. The Virginia State Crime Commission concluded that, "Virginia's [One-Handgun-Per-Month] statute has had its intended effect of reducing Virginia's status as a source state for gun trafficking. The imposition of the law does not appear to create an onerous burden for law-abiding gun purchasers." According to Helen Fahey, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, "Since passage of the [One-Handgun-Per-Month] legislation, instances of gunrunning have decreased dramatically."
In Maryland, handgun sales dropped more than 25 percent during the first year of that state's "One-Handgun-Per-Month" law. Maryland officials attributed much of the drop to an 80 percent decrease in the number of multiple sales. Furthermore, the number of Maryland multiple-sale guns turning up at crime scenes in Washington, D.C. dropped from 23 to zero, and from 26 to four in Baltimore
The problem is that if we simply say there is no proof and the Brady Campaign provides information like that, we've lost that round. They make a pretty good argument on this page. What do we have in this thread to refute their position? Not much at all.
We need to do better, guys.
And Arfin, I tried to convince my wife that if the people who didn't want me to have guns at all thought one gun a month was reasonable, she should too. Unfortunately, it didn't work.
For example, DDrake confidently points out that "It's allready been proven that the one-gun-a-month policy has no effect". However, the Brady Bunch counters with:
Virginia's law has greatly disrupted the gun trafficking pattern from Virginia to states in the northeastern United States. For guns purchased after implementation of the new law that were recovered in the Northeast, Virginia's share fell by 54% - to 16% of all guns traced back to the Southeast. Even more dramatically, the percentage of guns traced back to Virginia gun dealers fell by 61% for guns recovered in New York, 67% for guns recovered in Massachusetts, and 38% for guns recovered in New Jersey. Further, according to law enforcement officials in Virginia, straw purchases of handguns that had made that state the "firearms supermarket" dropped sharply after the law was passed.
Reports from public officials in Virginia have been very encouraging. The Virginia State Crime Commission concluded that, "Virginia's [One-Handgun-Per-Month] statute has had its intended effect of reducing Virginia's status as a source state for gun trafficking. The imposition of the law does not appear to create an onerous burden for law-abiding gun purchasers." According to Helen Fahey, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, "Since passage of the [One-Handgun-Per-Month] legislation, instances of gunrunning have decreased dramatically."
In Maryland, handgun sales dropped more than 25 percent during the first year of that state's "One-Handgun-Per-Month" law. Maryland officials attributed much of the drop to an 80 percent decrease in the number of multiple sales. Furthermore, the number of Maryland multiple-sale guns turning up at crime scenes in Washington, D.C. dropped from 23 to zero, and from 26 to four in Baltimore
The problem is that if we simply say there is no proof and the Brady Campaign provides information like that, we've lost that round. They make a pretty good argument on this page. What do we have in this thread to refute their position? Not much at all.
We need to do better, guys.
And Arfin, I tried to convince my wife that if the people who didn't want me to have guns at all thought one gun a month was reasonable, she should too. Unfortunately, it didn't work.
Ratzinger_p38
Member
I understand WHY they have it. But, it doesnt take a genius of an FFL to realize that when some 19 year old wants 6 .38's that dont cost more than 100 a piece, there is something not right there...
Apparntly though, not everyone realizes this. We just had 4 local FFLs shut down in my area for selling to a bunch of thugs from New Jersey. Some college kids from the local Wilburforce University were straw purchasing huge ammont of them, and just hopping around to FFLs 10 miles away from each other (one in Xenia, Beavercreek, and Washington Court House) all went under because of it.
Apparntly though, not everyone realizes this. We just had 4 local FFLs shut down in my area for selling to a bunch of thugs from New Jersey. Some college kids from the local Wilburforce University were straw purchasing huge ammont of them, and just hopping around to FFLs 10 miles away from each other (one in Xenia, Beavercreek, and Washington Court House) all went under because of it.
1 old 0311
member
www.ontheissues.org gives you the rundown on ALL of them
Jorg, I understand where you're coming from, but don't get too upset. Remember this is just a forum and sometimes we use it to rant a little bit. Plus it is kind of annoying to go over the same crap again and again. It'd be nice to have a FAQ page -- did you try gunmyths.org?
To briefly address that Brady text, BATFE has said that gun trace data cannot be used to imply a reduction in crime. Also, I don't understand the last statistic: if there are no multiple-gun sales anymore, how could any multi-sale guns turn up at crime scenes? Of course it would be zero then. Sounds like cherry picking stats to me.
Continuing to get off topic, I'd gladly trade a one-gun-a-month law for a restriction on Congress to only pass one bill or law per month. That ought to stop some bleeding.
To briefly address that Brady text, BATFE has said that gun trace data cannot be used to imply a reduction in crime. Also, I don't understand the last statistic: if there are no multiple-gun sales anymore, how could any multi-sale guns turn up at crime scenes? Of course it would be zero then. Sounds like cherry picking stats to me.
Continuing to get off topic, I'd gladly trade a one-gun-a-month law for a restriction on Congress to only pass one bill or law per month.
That ought to stop some bleeding.DawgFvr
Member
It's simple. If the Brady Bunch are for it...I'm against it. Chip...chip...chip away at our rights. Once they get that, it will be only one gun purchase a year...then for a life...etc. You really just don't get it do you?
Titan6
member
I wish I still lived in a state with the one gun a month rule. That little rule has probably saved more marriages than any other gun law....
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Now that we've wandered off from Obamaville...
- Status
