Guitargod1985
Member
Perhaps old hag McCarthy signed it because she knows the SKS has a "shoulder thing that goes up." 
They're All Urging the Great O to Restrict "Assault" Weapons
- Thread starter Thin Black Line
- Start date
- Status
MikePGS
Member
Haha sorry, failed attempt at sarcasm
Anna's Dad
Member
I think the funniest part is that they are urging Obama to support a ban. As if to imply he needs to be urged and wouldn't support it on his own. Look at his past statements (before running for President):
In 1996 he answered a survey as follows:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Since running for President he denied answering the survey and indicated that a staffer completed it.
In 2000 he cosponsored a bill to restrict gun purcahses to 1 per month (it failed to pass).
In a 2003 questionaire he indicated that he would support the ban of assault weapons and ammunition for assault weapons. He also indicated he would support limiting the purchase of handgun ammunition.
In 2004, during a debate with Alan Keyes he indicated that it was a scandal that President Bush didn't authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
In 2005 he voted against a bill that would protect gun manufacturers, distributos, dealers, etc. from civil liability for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote that he supports keeping guns out of the inner city.
In 2007 he voted for a bill that would allow retired Illinois law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. Sounds good? Nope, he clarified when questioned about his vote: "I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." He further explained that he only supported this exception because the retired officers had been trained and may be in danger because of the work they had done.
He's been much more vague since running for and winning the Presidency (what is a "common-sense gun control law", exactly) but I assure you he needs no encouragement to support any sort of gun ban.
In 1996 he answered a survey as follows:
35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Since running for President he denied answering the survey and indicated that a staffer completed it.
In 2000 he cosponsored a bill to restrict gun purcahses to 1 per month (it failed to pass).
In a 2003 questionaire he indicated that he would support the ban of assault weapons and ammunition for assault weapons. He also indicated he would support limiting the purchase of handgun ammunition.
In 2004, during a debate with Alan Keyes he indicated that it was a scandal that President Bush didn't authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
In 2005 he voted against a bill that would protect gun manufacturers, distributos, dealers, etc. from civil liability for damages resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
In his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote that he supports keeping guns out of the inner city.
In 2007 he voted for a bill that would allow retired Illinois law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. Sounds good? Nope, he clarified when questioned about his vote: "I didn’t find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry." He further explained that he only supported this exception because the retired officers had been trained and may be in danger because of the work they had done.
He's been much more vague since running for and winning the Presidency (what is a "common-sense gun control law", exactly) but I assure you he needs no encouragement to support any sort of gun ban.
AllAmerican
Member
The 2 repiblicans are from Anti states. The rest are, not surprisingly, Democrats....
Yeah, Democrats are not anti gun... only the ones that dont hanh on gun forums I guess.
Yeah, Democrats are not anti gun... only the ones that dont hanh on gun forums I guess.
azhunter122
Member
I think that it will happen, it might just take a while like a week or two.
What surprises me is that on this, as with the foreign ammunition and guns imports, the White House already has the MEANS and OPPORTUNITY to make owning firearms much more expensive and restrictive but lacked the MOTIVE in the past.
We have given them the tools...
We have given them the tools...
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Very few, given that all rifles combined account for only 3% of murders. But that hasn't stopped the Bradyites from scaremongering about them.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
And yet oddly, the 1989 ban, the 1994 ban, and the proposed bans bandied about in recent years permitted the continued importation, sale and possession of SKS rifles. I got my Romanian back in 2000.
Over the Past 10 Years
The statistics do not bear this up.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/data/table_35.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/data/table_14.html
(my summary)
Over the past ten years, 19 officers were killed with a .223/5.56 rifle (likely AR-15), 45 killed with 7.62x39 (likely AK), 38 killed with other hunting caliber rifles.
Also over the past ten years, 46 officers have been killed with their own weapons.
38 officers were killed with a shotgun.
368 killed with a handgun.
Since the ban lifted in 2004, the numbers of officers killed with "assault" type weapons has actually gone down.
Note that other than the handgun/rifle ratio (more than 3:1), none of these numbers are statistically significant due to small sample size.
Given the numbers we have, they are as likely to make an impact on officer deaths by disarming the LEOs as they are banning assault weapons!!
The statistics do not bear this up.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/data/table_35.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2007/data/table_14.html
(my summary)
Over the past ten years, 19 officers were killed with a .223/5.56 rifle (likely AR-15), 45 killed with 7.62x39 (likely AK), 38 killed with other hunting caliber rifles.
Also over the past ten years, 46 officers have been killed with their own weapons.
38 officers were killed with a shotgun.
368 killed with a handgun.
Since the ban lifted in 2004, the numbers of officers killed with "assault" type weapons has actually gone down.
Note that other than the handgun/rifle ratio (more than 3:1), none of these numbers are statistically significant due to small sample size.
Given the numbers we have, they are as likely to make an impact on officer deaths by disarming the LEOs as they are banning assault weapons!!
Last edited:
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Yeah, I was NOT shopping for another SKS, but I saw a NICE Yugo a couple months back for $175, and I just couldn't pass on the opportunity to own my own grenade launcher. Man, have I milked that.
JImbothefiveth
Member
No, it's fueled by criminals, who get their firearms in spite of Mexico's harsh laws and strict firearms control.
How many of these are criminals that died fighting Mexico's government? Out of those that were not, how many of them were killed by anything that would be even remotely affected by this ban?
Mexico has very strict laws about these, so a lot of these could be from ordinary people, not criminals. Out of those taken from criminals, how many were sold to Mexico's government, but ended up with the criminals? Then, you need to figure out how many of those would be affected by this ban, and vote those people out of office.
Crash_Test_Dhimmi
Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 256
They have "fixed" the economy with signing the economic enslavement bill, now they are setting their "sights" on other pressing matters. Can anyone believe that it hasn't even been a month yet?
Caeser2001
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2008
- Messages
- 68
I know, ***
although thta guy did lose recently for violating those mexicans civil rights for being on his propertymost shootings done with an AK are probably actually done with an SKS, but since the media is stupid, they never get it right. They prefer to call everything an AK.
Also, I'm a little confused here. Are they basically pushing to completely ban the import of parts or kits of such weapons like WASRs, etc. or are they being redundant and referring to the 'ban' that is still on the books?
Presently there is no ban on the books. However the 1968 GCA give the BATF&E the authority and responsibility to insure that firearms and ammunition that is imported into the United States is for “sporting purposes.”
But the don’t define what “sporting purposes” exactly means. So the BATF&E, or they’re higher bosses can define the term any way they want.
During the Bush administration import restrictions were relatively relaxed. But now some of those in the Obama White House and certain members of Congress see an opportunity. Without seeking any additional legislation they can effectively stop the importation of any guns, gun parts, or ammunition that they decide isn’t suitable for “sporting purposes. That includes pistols, rifles and shotguns, and in particular those that look like military weapons.
But there is a fly in their pudding. If they should upset too many people (or at least people that can and do vote) they might suffer another “election of 1994,” when gun rights advocates help the Republicans take control of both the House and Senate. This of course they don’t want. So what I think they are doing is running up the flag to see if anyone salutes. Without making waves they need to find out just how far they can go before the roof caves in.
denfoote
Member
I smell a revolution coming on.
Tyrannosaurus
Member
It would be great to have contact information for each of the representatives that signed this petition, so that gun owners could make their voices heard and point out the many inaccuracies of this letter.
You will find the names in post #3 of this thread. You can Google up the House Office Building address in Washington - which is the same for all of them, except for the individual's name. When I get time I'll come back and post it.
O.K. - Got to this link. Everything you wanted to know and then some.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=370422 You want Congress.org
moooose102
Member
well, at least we know who NOT to re-elect next time they run! whiners!
KC0QGL
Member
They need to go after the drugs not the guns. The drugs are the TRUE problem not the guns.
Thin Black Line
Member
BTW, a month or so ago I cited violence spilling over from Mexico as an
excuse that would be used by our politicians here and a THR mod deleted
the post. Irrelevant...right....
Sorry, I'm just a see the big picture in advance kind of guy.
Some of us need to get beyond the type A personalities drop the subconscious
divide and conquer tactics within our own supposedly freedom-loving group,
or WE ARE giving the antis the tools!
Travis Bickle
member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 476
According to the FBIs statistics for the year 2006 (last year available) less than 3% of murders in this country were committed with rifles of any sort, and that includes military rifles. Murders with rifles were so rare that murders committed with bare hands were more common, and 12 states reported no murders at all which were committed with rifles.
It is notable that one of the states reporting no murders with rifles is New Jersey, which is one of those urban states that the Brady Bunch would have us believe is flooded with cop-killing "assault rifles".
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked