Obama & Guns

[Andy]

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.

Well of course. I think he'll screw up my right to buy a gun too. Why do you think I plan to do so as soon as possible?

Yes of course the manufacturers are not going to contradict those fears, anymore than you would if you had a garage sale, and someone thought something you had was one of a kind and invaluable. Are you going to tell him, oh that's not worth the $10 price tag, it's one of thousands. No your going to either play it up if your dishonest, or say nothing.

No one openly kills their own sales. If they did, they would be guilty of violating the trust of the stock holders and the employees.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Well of course. I think he'll screw up my right to buy a gun too. Why do you think I plan to do so as soon as possible?

'Cause, you're not old-enough to do so, yet??​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Yeah....and, the reasons for goin'-into Iraq weren't trumped-up, either.

That'd be dishonest.

​

 

[PLC1]

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

For home protection, it's hard to beat a shotgun.

And, a pump shotgun makes an unmistakable sound when the shell is pumped into the chamber, just in case you want to give an intruder a chance to surrender.

 

[top gun]

President Obama has ALREADY COME OUT AND SAID DURING THE ELECTION that as a Constitutional Law Professor his interpretation of the Constitution is that it specified individuals and not just a militia could buy and bear arms.

That's not going to change. With proper age requirements & background checks there's nothing standing in any mentally stable non-felon from purchasing a gun. Even if somewhere down the line registration of guns happened that still doesn't stop anyone of the above stated criteria from purchasing a gun.

This is all just NRA fear mongering to help sell even more guns. RELAX!!!!!!!!!

 

[samsara15]

We had a homeland security figure and former cop in our area who shot two furniture delivery men who were just doing their job. One was killed. But they were late delivering his furniture, so I suppose he was POed. He got a 45 year sentence. Yes, we need to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics, but what if the lunatics are police officeers or homeland security officers? I guess anyone can go over the edge, at any time.

http://wtopnews.com/?hlpage=3&nid=708&sid=1410556

 

[The Scotsman]

I'M JEALOUS.......us Brits ain't allowed firearms....apparently we can't be trusted with them....probably right actually as I think someone would blow Brown's brains over Whitehall and put him out of our misery.....


sorry guys carry on..............I'm just going to confront an armed intruder with harsh language.......

 

[PLC1]

I'M JEALOUS.......us Brits ain't allowed firearms....apparently we can't be trusted with them....probably right actually as I think someone would blow Brown's brains over Whitehall and put him out of our misery.....


sorry guys carry on..............I'm just going to confront an armed intruder with harsh language.......

We can't allow people who allowed a bunch of upstart colonials to whup them to have firearms, now can we?

 

[top gun]

We had a homeland security figure and former cop in our area who shot two furniture delivery men who were just doing their job. One was killed. But they were late delivering his furniture, so I suppose he was POed. He got a 45 year sentence. Yes, we need to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics, but what if the lunatics are police officeers or homeland security officers? I guess anyone can go over the edge, at any time.

http://wtopnews.com/?hlpage=3&nid=708&sid=1410556

Samsara you make a great point. And there will almost always be some overlapping of good and bad in every law or right.

But the right is the right if that's how it is legally interpreted until the people by majority vote would want to override it with a Constitutional Amendment. It wouldn't be right just to politically remove it in any other way.

Although there can be reasonable checks & restrictions as long as the overall right to own firearms remains. As someone who owns several guns I wish everyone took the responsibility they bring with them a lot more seriously. Not that many don't take them seriously but it doesn't take many mistakes to really make a sad and avoidable impact.

All that said I'll now post a true life incident that was widely reported a few years back that as a father of 2 girls just broke my heart.

A 15 year old girl wanted to play a joke by saying goodbye to her father and leaving their mobile home through the front door. She then went to the back of the mobile home where she climbed back in through a bedroom window and hid in a closet planning to jump out an scare her Dad as they often played practical jokes on each other.

But the father when hearing some noise coming from the closet and thinking he was alone thought someone had broken in and when he yelled for the person to come out and they didn't come out or say anything... he took his handgun and shot through the closet door.

He killed his own beloved daughter on a stupid mistake. I still get teary every time I think about it.

There is no such thing as being too careful with firearms... no such thing.

 

[Andy]

Let's take a quick look at what he said.

First he says that gun ownership is "probably" an individual right. Good.

But then claims "all rights are constrained and bound by the needs of the community". And then sights the classic false argument that you can't use your freedom of speech to yell fire in the auditorium.

First, why is this false? It's false because freedom of speech was never about the ability to yell fire in an auditorium. It was about the freedom to speak against government, pure and simple. That right is never constrained, never bound, and never subject to the needs of the community.

If it is, then why couldn't we jail and censor all those idiots attacking Bush right after 9/11, and being against us stopping terrorism? The needs of the community were unity in a time of crisis. Well of course the reason we didn't stop these retards, was because they had freedom of speech, and it's subject to nothing. It's an absolute right of the public.

Similarly, the right to bare arms is not subject or constrained by the needs of the community. Even if it was, the greater need is for a secure community, which can only be through an armed civilian population that can stand up to threats.

But Obama doesn't stop there. He goes on to mention 34 Chicago students were gunned down during 07/08 school year.

This to me is even more ironic for two reasons. First, Obama himself voted against a bill in 2001, that would increase penalties for gang related violence and murder. How shocking that the violence continues.

Even more ironic, some of the toughest gun control laws already exist the area Obama brings up.

Yet they don't work. So instead of admitting that gun control laws do not work, Obama's plan is to increase the ability of FDA to trace weapons, which Canada has already tried with zero success.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

For home protection, it's hard to beat a shotgun.

And, a pump shotgun makes an unmistakable sound when the shell is pumped into the chamber, just in case you want to give an intruder a chance to surrender.

Please.

Gimme a dog.....any day!!

You sleep comfortably.....

....and, he's ALWAYS on-the-job!!!!

​

 

[Andy]

A hotdog with a doggy downers in it, and your dog is out cold in minutes.

Besides that, security should not be excluding those allergic to animals, or living in apartments.

Even if I wanted a big dog, I do not have the size of place to support one, or am home enough to let it out.

Nope, a .45 will do for me, just fine.

 

[Phoenix68]

The second amendment isn't about hunting.

.

.
That's true....it was all about arming a militia.....until a standing army could be developed....a concept totally-misunderstood by the least-educated.
.​