Obama & Guns

[Bunz]

I have absolutely no use for a gun. Why any of you think you need one is beyond me. I have gotten by for 67 years without one, and don't see why I would ever have needed one.

This is a bit short sighted on your part. I have the need for many guns, and I am a lefty.

What I would like to have is way of chasing the deer out my yard, but since I live in a heavily populated sububan area, firing a gun in my neighborhood is not allowed anyhow. In any case, I would probably miss and put a shell into one of my neighbor's homes, which would reduce my popularity with my neighbors very rapidly.

Then a cross bow, or even a compound bow would be useful to you. Personally, I would much rather eat wild game than factory farmed protein.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Who would buy a 30 round clip for hunting? I'm sure the 30 round clip IS for another outlet.

No doubt!​

The second amendment isn't about hunting.

It's about paranoia. ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

As for the promise of "reasonable restrictions": It's already illegal for criminals and children to own guns. Obama seems to be promising to do MORE to keep guns away from them. But it's abundantly clear that making laws, doesn't work - criminals simply ignore them, while only law-abiding people obey them.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.............


​

 

[Bunz]

No doubt!



It's about paranoia. ​

Shaman,
Coming from a leftie on this site, you are flat out wrong.

 

[Bunz]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.............


​

Criminal actions, should not disable law abiding citizens from owning guns.
There are already laws against such things, there is no reason to make me a criminal based on what someone else did with thier gun.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Criminal actions, should not disable law abiding citizens from owning guns.
There are already laws against such things, there is no reason to make me a criminal based on what someone else did with thier gun.

Most "gun-control" laws seem to be based on the notion that if even a law-abiding person has a gun, especially one with scary-looking features, he is more likely to turn into a criminal than if he didn't have the gun. Somehow 30-round mags are more sinister than, say, 20-round mags. It is an easily debunked notion, usually requiring only that the silliness of the idea be pointed out.

I find such falsehoods plentiful among reasons for most laws passed by government these days. Debunking them becomes a full-time occupation sometimes.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In reply to Pres. Obama's statement about "closing the gun show loophole":

http://www.starexponent.com/cse/new..._show_sales_not_big_source_of_problems/28592/

Richmond Times-Dispatch
Published: January 24, 2009

Recently, the state Crime Commission deadlocked over whether to recommend closing the so-called gun-show loophole. The issue has become a perennial at the General Assembly, which is considering the matter once again this year. Once again, legislators should vote no.

Licensed firearms dealers — those who buy and sell guns as a business — are required to conduct background checks on prospective buyers.

The “loophole” in question refers to the fact that individuals selling guns from their own private collection do not have to — either within gun-show venues, or in the parking lot, or in their own homes.

Gun-control advocates often muddy the issue by referring to “unlicensed dealers” at gun shows, of which there are indeed many. They sell holsters, flashlights, hunting knives, T-shirts, books, gun safes — even jewelry. But an unlicensed dealer who sold guns as a business would invite felony charges under federal law.

Gun-control advocates also suggest, albeit with scant evidence, that gun shows supply a significant share of the weapons used in crime.

Federal data indicate otherwise. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report, “Firearm Use by Offenders,” only about 1 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. In fact, most crime guns — 57 percent — come from just 1 percent of licensed dealers. Federal and state law-enforcement agencies should come down on those renegade dealers like a ton of bricks.

Another study, by the FBI concerning attacks on law-enforcement officials, found that 97 percent of the offenders had procured their weapons through illegal means.

Private sales among the hunters and target-shooting enthusiasts who frequent gun shows are simply not a significant source of weapons used in crimes. Gun shows, then, are not the real issue — except to those who recoil viscerally at the sight of large numbers of firearms in one place.

Referring to a “gun-show loophole” muddies the issue by implying, falsely, that individuals can sell or buy guns freely and without background checks only at gun shows. In fact, they can do so many places.

The real issue, in fact, is incidental firearms sales by private individuals — whether at gun shows or anywhere else.

Now there is an argument to be made that any such sales should be more tightly regulated, perhaps even recorded and reported to the authorities — just as home and car sales are. Over time, that would amount to de facto firearm registration. Some gun-control advocates say that is not their wish.

But given the weaknesses in the case for closing the gun-show loophole, one has to wonder.

 

[PLC1]

....Yet, gun-dealers are running this hustle, one-more-time...... ​

Shhhh! Don't tell anyone. Guns are one thing that is actually selling in the current market! If people catch on that Obama isn't going to try to disarm America, then gun dealers will be going the way of the auto industry.

Did you want the government to have to bail out arms manufacturers as well?

 

[Bunz]

Shhhh! Don't tell anyone. Guns are one thing that is actually selling in the current market! If people catch on that Obama isn't going to try to disarm America, then gun dealers will be going the way of the auto industry.

Did you want the government to have to bail out arms manufacturers as well?

LOL, I was talking about this with a few friends the other day, GM, Ford, Citibank and a long list of others are getting a bail out.

Considering Bushmaster, Ruger, Kimber, S&W, Springfield, and a bunch of other domestic gun manufacturers are on back orders because in some cases they sold an entire years worth of production in November/December 08. Bushmaster is a prime example of this.

 

[Andy]

But this is a logical fallacy as far as I can tell. The basic premise of the posts by Shaman, PLC, and Bunz, is effectively this... Gun manufactures sold a years worth of production in two months, after Obama won...

Therefore gun manufactures must be behind the gun sales, by claiming Obama will remove gun rights.

But there is no evidence that effect is connected to the assumed cause. At least none has been presented.

So far, this theory is on the same level as Sih's Israeli rocket attacks in Gaza being caused by a CIA front that's working for BigOil to somehow get drilling rights in other middle east countries. Which of course makes no sense.

Obama has consistently supported gun control legislation that came up while he was in the Illinois state legislature and the U.S. Senate.

For example, when Obama ran for the Illinois state senate the political group, Independent Voters of Illinois (IVI), asked him if he supported a “ban [on] the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns” and he responded “yes.”

Now, I myself will buy a handgun. Yet I have never seen a single ad for a gun, or heard nor read any literature about Obama planing to ban hand guns. I simply decided that now that we have a pro gun control president, I best get one while I can.

So is it possible that these companies have nothing to do with it, that the public is simply reacting to Obama?

 

[Bunz]

But this is a logical fallacy as far as I can tell. The basic premise of the posts by Shaman, PLC, and Bunz, is effectively this... Gun manufactures sold a years worth of production in two months, after Obama won...

I wont speak for any of the others you mentioned especially Shaman, but yes it is a fact that a few firearm makers and the retailers moving the product had a very good 4th quarter of 08.

Therefore gun manufactures must be behind the gun sales, by claiming Obama will remove gun rights.

I never said, nor implied this. Nor do I think he will in the near future take on the gun control issue. There is a bunch of other issues, and taking such an aggressive approach as is being claimed would likely put any re-election chances low(unless Palin is the nominee)

Now, I myself will buy a handgun. Yet I have never seen a single ad for a gun, or heard nor read any literature about Obama planing to ban hand guns. I simply decided that now that we have a pro gun control president, I best get one while I can.

So is it possible that these companies have nothing to do with it, that the public is simply reacting to Obama?

Good work on getting a pistol, but why stop at one? You have two hands after all.
As someone who owns numerous handguns, if you have any questions on which ones to buy, Id be happy to help.

 

[Andy]

I wont speak for any of the others you mentioned especially Shaman, but yes it is a fact that a few firearm makers and the retailers moving the product had a very good 4th quarter of 08.

I never said, nor implied this. Nor do I think he will in the near future take on the gun control issue. There is a bunch of other issues, and taking such an aggressive approach as is being claimed would likely put any re-election chances low(unless Palin is the nominee)

Good work on getting a pistol, but why stop at one? You have two hands after all.
As someone who owns numerous handguns, if you have any questions on which ones to buy, Id be happy to help.

I see that I misunderstood your post to be agreeing with the gun control nutz. My mistake.

 

[Bunz]

I see that I misunderstood your post to be agreeing with the gun control nutz. My mistake.

No worries, Andy. But again, my offer of advise still stands. You cant go wrong with a 45.

 

[PLC1]

But this is a logical fallacy as far as I can tell. The basic premise of the posts by Shaman, PLC, and Bunz, is effectively this... Gun manufactures sold a years worth of production in two months, after Obama won...

Therefore gun manufactures must be behind the gun sales, by claiming Obama will remove gun rights.

No, therefore there must be a lot of fear that having elected Obama to the White House will lead to no longer being able to purchase a firearm, so they're getting their licks in while they can.

Not that the manufacturers would contradict such fears, of course.

 

[Andy]

No worries, Andy. But again, my offer of advise still stands. You cant go wrong with a 45.

Oddly, that's exactly what I was planning to get.