The Lone Haranguer
Member
Exactly.rbernie said:
Does Obama intend to ban firearms?
- Thread starter Dark Skies
- Start date
- Status
Darkskies.
A lot of the concern about Obama banning firearms has at it's heart the "slippery slope" argument. (I should note here that it is a famous Republican commentator in the US who said "LIFE, is a slippery slope.") That a ban on so-called combat weapons or so-called assault weapons is another step toward an outright ban on all guns. So people point to that and say it's a sign he's out for our guns.
There are also people who point to Obama's record as a senator form Illinois and extrapolate from there that he will do the same thing in the US.
This ignores a couple truths. First of all, Obama is a SHREWD situationalist and pragmatist.
Second, Illinois is one of the most gun-unfriendly states in the US. Obama wanted to get elected in a very "gun-unfriendly" state. You do the math. Now as President, he wants to get re-elected, and he's running for the president of our vast country -- a country which is really not terribly anti-gun (statistically we are on fairly solid ground in terms of US voters' opinions of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms).
So, anyone who's intellectually honest and says "he's gonna do in the US what he did in Illinois" OUGHT to also say "Obama the situationalist and pragmatic politician will be neutral on the gun issue, because this country is fairly evenly split on the issue."
I personally find a lot of inconsistency regarding Obama and guns. Meaning, a lot of people who are convinced he's going to ban guns aren't being consistent in how they apply their logic. They're convinced he's lying now when he says he doesn't want to take away guns, and they're convinced he was honest then when he was anti-gun when he was in Illinois.
I think if you have an all-or-nothing approach to gun rights (which I'm fine with) then Obama is not your guy. Or, if you are the type of person who says, while SOME gun regulation is okay, citizens should still be able to keep and bears arms as protected by our 2nd Amendment -- you might be able to tolerate him.
Take your pick.
A lot of the concern about Obama banning firearms has at it's heart the "slippery slope" argument. (I should note here that it is a famous Republican commentator in the US who said "LIFE, is a slippery slope.") That a ban on so-called combat weapons or so-called assault weapons is another step toward an outright ban on all guns. So people point to that and say it's a sign he's out for our guns.
There are also people who point to Obama's record as a senator form Illinois and extrapolate from there that he will do the same thing in the US.
This ignores a couple truths. First of all, Obama is a SHREWD situationalist and pragmatist.
Second, Illinois is one of the most gun-unfriendly states in the US. Obama wanted to get elected in a very "gun-unfriendly" state. You do the math. Now as President, he wants to get re-elected, and he's running for the president of our vast country -- a country which is really not terribly anti-gun (statistically we are on fairly solid ground in terms of US voters' opinions of the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms).
So, anyone who's intellectually honest and says "he's gonna do in the US what he did in Illinois" OUGHT to also say "Obama the situationalist and pragmatic politician will be neutral on the gun issue, because this country is fairly evenly split on the issue."
I personally find a lot of inconsistency regarding Obama and guns. Meaning, a lot of people who are convinced he's going to ban guns aren't being consistent in how they apply their logic. They're convinced he's lying now when he says he doesn't want to take away guns, and they're convinced he was honest then when he was anti-gun when he was in Illinois.
I think if you have an all-or-nothing approach to gun rights (which I'm fine with) then Obama is not your guy. Or, if you are the type of person who says, while SOME gun regulation is okay, citizens should still be able to keep and bears arms as protected by our 2nd Amendment -- you might be able to tolerate him.
Take your pick.
On the other hand, he's already gone back on half of his campaign promises during his first two months in office - so who knows? This makes him either a liar or a pragmatic politician (actually, both - those two are one in the same). The political climate in Chicago is radically different than the country at large...
In any event, when somebody like Barack Obama or Paul Helmke talks about "common sense gun laws," you need to think about what that really means. "Common sense" works like this: if people are murdering each other, and using guns to do it, then if we take away the guns then people won't be able to murder each other (I don't think even the densest of the dense would actually think that removing the implement removes the motivation or desire...political rhetoric aside, of course). So, if you pass laws restricting or banning the acquisition and/or possession of guns (actual use is already highly regulated - go figure), then it should follow that crime and violence will decline.
Yes, it seems to make sense on a basic, intuitive level - that's why it's "common." But as a physicist, I learned long ago that such assumptions can lead you well astray - there are many proven concepts in Physics which are completely unintuitive (which serves to highlight the true genius of the men who established them), particularly in the realm of quantum mechanics. Likewise, the sociological factors underpinning crime and violence are seriously complex, so what one really needs to do is take a long hard look at the data and draw the logical conclusion, rather than relying upon intuition or "common sense" (much less emotion). Otherwise, there is a tremendous (and now proven) risk of over-simplifying both the problem and the solution to the point that one is misunderstood and the other is consequently ineffective.
bessemerbob
Member
I predict this thread getting locked! As for Barry, who knows what he will do. As already stated he is going to say whatever the voters want to hear, what he will do only Barry knows.......
Blackbeard
Member
First of all, Obama can't ban guns. The Congress has to enact the ban, which they might do. It would be up to Obama to veto it, and I don't see that happening.
bessemerbob
Member
And I will state time and time again over and over, if you really want to keep your firearms then all of us need to get out and make sure in the next election we get some people in office that will support us, Obama will pay attention to that, trust me he wants to be a two term pres!
OP
OP
Dark Skies
Member
Thanks Oro. I'll just have to keep my fingers crossed that Obama won't or can't ban guns.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
So as not to sound like a broken record, I desire to be more like a wash, rinse, and repeat - of how to better control violent crime. [size=+2] Lock up the violent criminals until they can be trusted or die. Remove all the "No Gun Zones" and all the unconstitutional laws and you'll see crimes committed with guns and other weapons diminish to near obscurity.[/size]
It's so simple that politicians can't find any flaws in the logic to justify keeping the current status quo, but they'll surely lie about, obfuscate, and simply ignore the facts. They seem to have some sort of compulsive urge to justify keeping the argument going on, and on, and on. Truth be told, Congress has delegated so much of its power to bureaucrats that Congress doesn't have much else to do but screw with our rights and make a large enough dependency class to keep them in power. Idiots. If they left all this stuff alone, we'd be happy to keep them in power.
Woody
What dastardly deed a person might do and when is nigh impossible to predict. What another person can do to stop him IS predictable. You can't prevent what you fear, but you can prepare to deal with it. Arm yourself. B.E. Wood
It's so simple that politicians can't find any flaws in the logic to justify keeping the current status quo, but they'll surely lie about, obfuscate, and simply ignore the facts. They seem to have some sort of compulsive urge to justify keeping the argument going on, and on, and on. Truth be told, Congress has delegated so much of its power to bureaucrats that Congress doesn't have much else to do but screw with our rights and make a large enough dependency class to keep them in power. Idiots. If they left all this stuff alone, we'd be happy to keep them in power.
Woody
What dastardly deed a person might do and when is nigh impossible to predict. What another person can do to stop him IS predictable. You can't prevent what you fear, but you can prepare to deal with it. Arm yourself. B.E. Wood
Last edited:
You have to go back and listen to the things he said, and his positions regarding guns before he was running for president. He's still the same person he was then, just more circumspect about it now. He's surrounded himself within his closest circle with tried and true anti-gunners, Biden, Emanuel and Holder.
"I think if you have an all-or-nothing approach to gun rights (which I'm fine with) then Obama is not your guy. Or, if you are the type of person who says, while SOME gun regulation is okay, citizens should still be able to keep and bears arms as protected by our 2nd Amendment -- you might be able to tolerate him."
To quote Chief Justice Roberts during the Heller oral arguments, "What's reasonable about a total ban?"
I think about that everytime I hear the Obamessiah say he's for reasonable and common sense gun laws.
To quote Chief Justice Roberts during the Heller oral arguments, "What's reasonable about a total ban?"
I think about that everytime I hear the Obamessiah say he's for reasonable and common sense gun laws.
AZ Desertrat
Member
What he WANTS to do......and what he CAN do are two different things.....laws still must be voted on, and pass both houses of congress.....and this one...will be awful tough to pull off.........
RedAlert
Member
As long as we have a Supreme Court, The Second Amendment and due process of law, our right to keep and bear arms will remain in place despite the rumor mongering going on here.
If a law is passed by congress and challenged by a law suit, it will eventually reach the supreme court where it would be weighed as to be in accordance with the Constitution or not. If not, the law would be struck down.
If it comes to the time to repeal the Second Amendment, that will take an extraordinary vote of the congress or by greater than a simple majority of states.
Far from an easy process to repeal an amendment; and with it our right to keep and bear arms.
Our job as informed citizens is to keep our elected officials informed of our views, and if they don't follow those views, elect someone else who will.
When all guns have been banned, mankind will take up a knife or spear or club (baseball bat) to conduct mayhem. Of course citizens will try to ban them too.
Actually, I think a dose of strict islamic customs; beheading, public stoning, might be a way to reduce person to person crime. The penalty is up front and visible. The horrors of prison are much less visible to "Joe/Jane Public."
Ralph
If a law is passed by congress and challenged by a law suit, it will eventually reach the supreme court where it would be weighed as to be in accordance with the Constitution or not. If not, the law would be struck down.
If it comes to the time to repeal the Second Amendment, that will take an extraordinary vote of the congress or by greater than a simple majority of states.
Far from an easy process to repeal an amendment; and with it our right to keep and bear arms.
Our job as informed citizens is to keep our elected officials informed of our views, and if they don't follow those views, elect someone else who will.
When all guns have been banned, mankind will take up a knife or spear or club (baseball bat) to conduct mayhem. Of course citizens will try to ban them too.
Actually, I think a dose of strict islamic customs; beheading, public stoning, might be a way to reduce person to person crime. The penalty is up front and visible. The horrors of prison are much less visible to "Joe/Jane Public."
Ralph
RedAlert
Member
OOPS, double post.
Ralph
Ralph
bessemerbob
Member
Banning guns will work as well as the banning of booze! Just like illegal guns are sold everyday that number will sky rocket if a ban ever would come...
Ignition Override
Member
Dark Skies:
An English guy works near where I do.
He married a local lady here and owns at least one rifle. Told me that he shoots on the edge of somebody's land in nw MS.
Not only can he own a Lee-Enfield ($200) but a Mauser, 'AK' with 30-rd. magazine, 'M-14' or FN FAL, among so many other types, if he can afford them and their pricey ammo.
Speaking of English weapons, wish I could find an example of your country's LE Jungle Carbine, or a good imitation near Memphis.
Don't even Have an LE and already ordered 500 rds. of old surplus British .303 (!). Must be mad
.
An English guy works near where I do.
He married a local lady here and owns at least one rifle. Told me that he shoots on the edge of somebody's land in nw MS.
Not only can he own a Lee-Enfield ($200) but a Mauser, 'AK' with 30-rd. magazine, 'M-14' or FN FAL, among so many other types, if he can afford them and their pricey ammo.
Speaking of English weapons, wish I could find an example of your country's LE Jungle Carbine, or a good imitation near Memphis.
Don't even Have an LE and already ordered 500 rds. of old surplus British .303 (!). Must be mad
.
throdgrain
Member
My point was, 25 years ago I had 3 convictions in court, nothing violent or stealing or anything like that, but as such I believe that would mean I could never legally own a gun if I was a U.S citizen.
In my country however the police have issued me with a shotgun certifcate, I can own as many as I want.
In my country however the police have issued me with a shotgun certifcate, I can own as many as I want.
For gun registration, my support is contingent upon seeing them work for illegal drugs first.
Laws enforced by the FDA and DEA require that all illegal drugs be registered and be prescribed by a licensed doctor before being taken.
Yes, every single illegal drug pusher who fails to register himself, his place of business, and his wares is violating United States Code (U.S.C.) Title 21, Chapter 9. That is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.
SEC. 502. [21 USC 352] Misbranded Drugs and Devices
"Drugs or devices from nonregistered establishments. If it was manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed in an establishment in any State not duly registered under section 510, if it was not included in a list required by section 510(j), if a notice or other information respecting it was not provided as required by such section or section 510(k), or if it does not bear such symbols from the uniform system for identification of devices prescribed under section 510(e) as the Secretary by regulation requires."
Those laws are in addition to the laws that ban illegal drugs by making it illegal to make, import, transport, package, store, offer for sale, sell, receive, or use those illegal drugs.
Laws enforced by the FDA and DEA require that all illegal drugs be registered and be prescribed by a licensed doctor before being taken.
Yes, every single illegal drug pusher who fails to register himself, his place of business, and his wares is violating United States Code (U.S.C.) Title 21, Chapter 9. That is the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007.
SEC. 502. [21 USC 352] Misbranded Drugs and Devices
"Drugs or devices from nonregistered establishments. If it was manufactured, prepared, propagated, compounded, or processed in an establishment in any State not duly registered under section 510, if it was not included in a list required by section 510(j), if a notice or other information respecting it was not provided as required by such section or section 510(k), or if it does not bear such symbols from the uniform system for identification of devices prescribed under section 510(e) as the Secretary by regulation requires."
Those laws are in addition to the laws that ban illegal drugs by making it illegal to make, import, transport, package, store, offer for sale, sell, receive, or use those illegal drugs.
BHP FAN
Member
Next Article Australia experiencing mass murder despite gun control
April 2, 9:16 AM · 5 comments
ShareThis Feed
Australia’s most heinous mass murder occurred after their gun ban in 1997.
After the recent article on the addiction of gun control, a reader left this rebuttal:
Odd. In Australia, we have very strict gun control laws, brought in by a conservative government after a gun massacre, of the type that Americans seem to experience every few weeks. Since the laws, we have not had any such massacres…
First, what defines a “massacre,” or more definitively, a mass murder? Australian criminology researcher Jenny Mouzos’s criteria is 4 or more victims per incident.
Mouzos co-authored another paper, in which they documented four mass murders since Australia enacted their gun ban:
Between 1996–97 and 2000–01 there were four mass homicide incidents: two incidents involved four victims (knife and carbon monoxide gas), one incident had five victims (carbon monoxide gas), and another incident fifteen victims (arson/fire).
There seems to be a very elastic definition among gun controllers as to what comprises a massacre. A Violence Policy Center press release calls the 1989 Stockton, California shooting a “massacre,” where a man with a history of mental illness killed five school children. Gun Control Australia notes 32 “gun massacres” where 141 people were killed. This averages out to between 4 and 5 victims per incident. But curiously, after a country enacts massive gun confiscation, mass homicide incidents with between four and 15 victims suddenly do not qualify as “massacres.”
One might as easily conclude that the best way to limit multiple murders is not to disarm, but to arm responsible, law-abiding citizens. Anti-rights supporters deny reality in order to promote an idyllic fantasy of a peacefully disarmed citizenry, but while there have been no mass murders using guns since the Australian gun ban, there have been “massacres” as defined by gun control groups.
In his book The Bias Against Guns, John Lott examined the relationship between gun availability and multiple murders. He concluded:
If right-to-carry laws allow citizens to limit the amount of attacks that still take place, the number of persons harmed should fall relative to the number of shootings… And indeed, that is what we find. The average number of people dying or becoming injured per attack declines by around 50 percent.
Lott also found that both the total number and rate of multiple murders in right-to-carry states are one-third that of restrictive states. In an email interview, he clarified this data by stating:
The simplest numbers showed a 67 percent drop in the number of attacks and about a 79 percent drop in the number of people killed or injured from such attacks. The number of people harmed fell by more than the number of attacks because some attacks that weren't deterred were stopped in progress by people with guns.
Recently, Australia experienced its worst mass murder in history, and no guns were required:
The Australian prime minister accused arsonists of "mass murder" today as the death toll from the deadliest bushfires in the country's history reached 135. Officials in Victoria believe some of the 400 fires that reduced towns to blackened ruins may have been deliberately set, or have been helped to jump containment lines. The incinerated towns have been officially declared as crime scenes.
As a perfect example of the denial prevalent in gun control addiction, the reader, whose quote appears earlier in the article, made their statement when a Google search of “Australia mass murder” returns dozens of media reports on the arson murders dating back to February 9, 2009, 48 days before the addiction article.
The next investigative report examines further disparity between anti-rights wishes and reality.
For in-depth analysis of gun control in England and Australia and its consequences, see chapter 2 in Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense.
References
John R. Lott, Jr., The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, 2003, pages 107 and 123.
April 2, 9:16 AM · 5 comments
ShareThis Feed
Australia’s most heinous mass murder occurred after their gun ban in 1997.
After the recent article on the addiction of gun control, a reader left this rebuttal:
Odd. In Australia, we have very strict gun control laws, brought in by a conservative government after a gun massacre, of the type that Americans seem to experience every few weeks. Since the laws, we have not had any such massacres…
First, what defines a “massacre,” or more definitively, a mass murder? Australian criminology researcher Jenny Mouzos’s criteria is 4 or more victims per incident.
Mouzos co-authored another paper, in which they documented four mass murders since Australia enacted their gun ban:
Between 1996–97 and 2000–01 there were four mass homicide incidents: two incidents involved four victims (knife and carbon monoxide gas), one incident had five victims (carbon monoxide gas), and another incident fifteen victims (arson/fire).
There seems to be a very elastic definition among gun controllers as to what comprises a massacre. A Violence Policy Center press release calls the 1989 Stockton, California shooting a “massacre,” where a man with a history of mental illness killed five school children. Gun Control Australia notes 32 “gun massacres” where 141 people were killed. This averages out to between 4 and 5 victims per incident. But curiously, after a country enacts massive gun confiscation, mass homicide incidents with between four and 15 victims suddenly do not qualify as “massacres.”
One might as easily conclude that the best way to limit multiple murders is not to disarm, but to arm responsible, law-abiding citizens. Anti-rights supporters deny reality in order to promote an idyllic fantasy of a peacefully disarmed citizenry, but while there have been no mass murders using guns since the Australian gun ban, there have been “massacres” as defined by gun control groups.
In his book The Bias Against Guns, John Lott examined the relationship between gun availability and multiple murders. He concluded:
If right-to-carry laws allow citizens to limit the amount of attacks that still take place, the number of persons harmed should fall relative to the number of shootings… And indeed, that is what we find. The average number of people dying or becoming injured per attack declines by around 50 percent.
Lott also found that both the total number and rate of multiple murders in right-to-carry states are one-third that of restrictive states. In an email interview, he clarified this data by stating:
The simplest numbers showed a 67 percent drop in the number of attacks and about a 79 percent drop in the number of people killed or injured from such attacks. The number of people harmed fell by more than the number of attacks because some attacks that weren't deterred were stopped in progress by people with guns.
Recently, Australia experienced its worst mass murder in history, and no guns were required:
The Australian prime minister accused arsonists of "mass murder" today as the death toll from the deadliest bushfires in the country's history reached 135. Officials in Victoria believe some of the 400 fires that reduced towns to blackened ruins may have been deliberately set, or have been helped to jump containment lines. The incinerated towns have been officially declared as crime scenes.
As a perfect example of the denial prevalent in gun control addiction, the reader, whose quote appears earlier in the article, made their statement when a Google search of “Australia mass murder” returns dozens of media reports on the arson murders dating back to February 9, 2009, 48 days before the addiction article.
The next investigative report examines further disparity between anti-rights wishes and reality.
For in-depth analysis of gun control in England and Australia and its consequences, see chapter 2 in Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?, which deconstructs the gun control agenda and motivates more people to support our civil right of self-defense.
References
John R. Lott, Jr., The Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control Is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, 2003, pages 107 and 123.
Runningman
Member
Define illegal firearms.... past, present, and ........FUTURE. Then you will better understand the problem.
OP
OP
Dark Skies
Member
Runningman ... good point. By illegal I meant illegally held. Any firearm that was stolen / straw-purchased or held by a felon or otherwise obtained illegally. What I didn't mean was a firearm that could be deemed illegal purely on the basis of it's class - IE I don't consider the action single shot / semi-automatic / fully automatic to be relevant or good law. A criminal can shoot you with a single shot antique just as easily as with a fully automatic weapon and you would still be just as dead if he / she delivered a mortal wound.
I seriously doubt it. He's swamped by much bigger and more immediate problems.
As a state senator in Illinois a few years back, he favored gun control measures because he represented a high-crime district where his constituents wanted gun control. He acted as a good representative should - he voted in the interest of his district. I think this is what upsets so many gunowners.
As president, he's in a totally different situation. He now is in a position where he needs to act in a much broader national interest. The issues are much larger and more complex. And the big issues that demand his attention do not include gun control.
Others have already mentioned that congress is not likley to pass gun control legislation, either. The last time they did that, in 1993, the Democrats lost both houses to the Republicans in the 1994 election. That isn't ancient history. Politicians tend to desire re-election. I think the lesson was learned.
Just my $.02
As a state senator in Illinois a few years back, he favored gun control measures because he represented a high-crime district where his constituents wanted gun control. He acted as a good representative should - he voted in the interest of his district. I think this is what upsets so many gunowners.
As president, he's in a totally different situation. He now is in a position where he needs to act in a much broader national interest. The issues are much larger and more complex. And the big issues that demand his attention do not include gun control.
Others have already mentioned that congress is not likley to pass gun control legislation, either. The last time they did that, in 1993, the Democrats lost both houses to the Republicans in the 1994 election. That isn't ancient history. Politicians tend to desire re-election. I think the lesson was learned.
Just my $.02
Lone_Gunman
Member
Then why is this still on the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/urban_policy/
"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. "
I think quite a few Obama voters on this website have deluded themselves into believing Obama will leave guns alone.
Tommygunn
Member
I don't know what Obama "intends." Even Obama himself may not kow what he intends.
The question may not be what he intends to do -- but what he WILL do if an AWB comes to his desk from kongress.
"The president proposes, the kongress disposes." ~~old saying.
Given his record in Illinois, I doubt he'd veto an AWB. Just my .02.
The question may not be what he intends to do -- but what he WILL do if an AWB comes to his desk from kongress.
"The president proposes, the kongress disposes." ~~old saying.
Given his record in Illinois, I doubt he'd veto an AWB. Just my .02.
- Status
