PDA

View Full Version : Obama says: No need to stock up on Guns...



Legacy 6
12-08-2008, 11:05 AM
My Thoughts:
The last quote in the article I think peers into the mentality most of these guys have.

"You have enough," can quickly become, ""You already have one," and "You already have one," also quickly becomes, "You don't need one," and therefore becomes, "You can't have one," and "Give me all your guns."

It happened in Australia. The population in Australia is small compared to ours, but the gov't there spent $500 million to collect all weapons from law-abiding citizens and destroy them. Crime there has gone through the roof! The same thing has happened in Great Britain. We'll learn at some point I guess. All this postulation will eventually be either right or wrong, and from my side of it, I'd much rather suffer the consequences of being wrong (and just owning a few extra), than being right (and not being allowed to own any).


The Article:
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH <mailto:apallasch@suntimes.com> Political Reporter
As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.
"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."
But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it's not Obama's words but his legislative track record that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.
"Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold," Arulanandam said.
Obama answered "yes" in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.
Nationally, background checks for gun purchases jumped nearly 49 percent during the week Obama was elected, compared with the same time period last year, according to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System.
Anecdotally, gun dealers around the country have reported spikes in sales. The Illinois State Rifle Association Reports gun sales for November were 38 percent higher than last year.
"We don't dispute [the gun sales hike] because the numbers from the federal system certainly confirm that there is increased activity out there. We just think it's a bit stupid," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence.
"Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don't think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more."

cotts135
12-08-2008, 01:45 PM
It happened in Australia. The population in Australia is small compared to ours, but the gov't there spent $500 million to collect all weapons from law-abiding citizens and destroy them. Crime there has gone through the roof!

I think this statement is misleading at best althought it is true they spent 500 million on collection. Check out this article for another side of the story
http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Now before you all get up in arms about this, I am only commenting on Legacy 6's statement, nothing else.

Legacy 6
12-08-2008, 02:02 PM
Well, if a 7.8% increase in elderly victim assaults is an insignificant increase, why is a 1% increase in the "unemployment" SO significant? Okay okay, I KNOW that the raw numbers or different, so don't jump on me for that... but we're talking percentages here, and that 7.8% increase is at least telling because it's relative to the population it represents.

The TRUE point of the article, to me at least, was the final statement of the Obama guy: "People who are buying are already owners. More people aren't interested in keeping their Second Amendment Rights, it's just the same Gun-totting, Bible Thumping, Racist Rednecks (thanks John Murtha!) who continue to buy more and more guns when they already own too many." And furthermore, I'd like to know exactly what the "Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue," comment is all about. That doesn't make sense to me. What kind of progress am I not paying attention to? What is the progress they are making? What direction is said progress going in? All questions that come to mind.

You "jumped" (at least in a pretty constructive way) on my for the Australia comment, but not the Great Britain comment... Any thoughts?

Thanks for the constructive criticism.

Jim Danis
12-08-2008, 02:59 PM
We all have a lot to worry about. Look at who the majority of the people are that he picked for his cabinet posts. Most of them are former Clinton people and look at what they did during Bill's tenure with the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. Also remember how often Brady and their crew has tried to ban guns of all kinds. Now that the Denms are in control of the Oval Office, Senate and Congress we will see a very hard push to ban everything they can.

cotts135
12-08-2008, 03:42 PM
Well, if a 7.8% increase in elderly victim assaults is an insignificant increase, why is a 1% increase in the "unemployment" SO

[QUOTE=Legacy 6;368647]The TRUE point of the article, to me at least, was the final statement of the Obama guy: "People who are buying are already owners. More people aren't interested in keeping their Second Amendment Rights, it's just the same Gun-totting, Bible Thumping, Racist Rednecks (thanks John Murtha!) who continue to buy more and more guns when they already own too many." And furthermore, I'd like to know exactly what the "Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue," comment is all about. That doesn't make sense to me. What kind of progress am I not paying attention to? What is the progress they are making? What direction is said progress going in? All questions that come to mind.

Fair enough, I am also a strong believer in the 2nd Amendment. My point is that both sides have their arguments and to make a fair judgement I think you need to see both sides. What I see on both sides is arguments that play on emotions and fear mongering


You "jumped" (at least in a pretty constructive way) on my for the Australia comment, but not the Great Britain comment... Any thoughts?

I just happened to look up your Australian comment. Didn't check on the British statement

Legacy 6
12-08-2008, 06:38 PM
By the way Cotts, great looking pup.

Bob Gutermuth
12-08-2008, 07:09 PM
Will be acquiring all I can afford, weapons and ammo. I cannot trust a government that doesn't trust honest people with firearms.

Patrick Johndrow
12-08-2008, 08:38 PM
Stock up on ammo...:)

JDogger
12-08-2008, 09:15 PM
L6
If you haven't already done so, google 'Australian Gun Laws'. There is a great deal of information there, both pro and con. Start on page 1 and continue for at least several pages beyond. Try not to just click on the links which seem to support you. Read and study them all. There are differences between the Australian experience, and what may unfold here in the US.
As example; there is not, and never has been, a 2nd Amendment type of provision in the Australian Constitution, for the 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms'.
In 1996, the Australian Federal Government, under pressure from the public, sought to bring the gun laws of the various, autonomous Australian States into a unified area of compliance.

Legacy, I hate to type. So read the links I suggested on google, and figure it out for yourself.
Australia,... USA,... apples and oranges. No comparasion.
We have an Amendment to our Constitution that they do not.

I support the 2nd Amendement, and I am a gun owner, even though I be labeled a 'liberal', I hunt and believe in the right to self-protection.

I know the dicotomy may be confusing to some, but as niether a 100% righty, nor a 100% lefty, I am able to view shades of gray.
Sorry interupted
by a phone call,

JD

cotts135
12-09-2008, 06:36 AM
By the way Cotts, great looking pup.

Hey thanks, I need to get an updated one posted, she is growing quickly.

Legacy 6
12-10-2008, 12:08 PM
Legacy, I hate to type. So read the links I suggested on google, and figure it out for yourself.
Australia,... USA,... apples and oranges. No comparasion.
We have an Amendment to our Constitution that they do not.

I don't think it really matters if we have a Constitution or not. Here's a few reasons why:

1) Many Liberals feel the Constitution is a living document in the sense that anything they THINK doesn't fit their ideals anymore can jsut be erased. Also, amny of them don't know what the Constitution SAYS, and have never read it, don't care to, and also don't care what it says.

2) The bottom line, with or without a Constitution, the People of Australia have NO right to the freedom of owning guns. Do you think if President Obama, or anyone else in power ever passed a "I'm going to take all your guns and ammo" law, it would matter if we have/had a Constitution or not?

I don't think so either JD. Thanks for your thoughts.

JDogger
12-11-2008, 01:42 AM
I don't think it really matters if we have a Constitution or not. Here's a few reasons why:

I think it matters a great deal that we have a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, and numerous amendments to that document, and specifically the 2nd amendment, that does not exist in any other country.

1) Many Liberals feel the Constitution is a living document in the sense that anything they THINK doesn't fit their ideals anymore can jsut be erased. Also, amny of them don't know what the Constitution SAYS, and have never read it, don't care to, and also don't care what it says.

Yes, I have read it. If you haven't lately, allow me to quote it to you; specifically the 2nd Amendment.
AMENDMENT 2:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Pretty simple statement ain't it. Open to interpretation? You betcha. Maybe that's why so many 'liberals' and yes, conservatives, view it so differently. Maybe, L6, just maybe, that's why a separation of powers was devised in the Constitution. To allow for interpretaton by the Judicial branch as situations and times evolved. Is that what you mean by 'living document'? If not, would it only then refer to a 'well regulated militia'?



2) The bottom line, with or without a Constitution, the People of Australia have NO right to the freedom of owning guns. Do you think if President Obama, or anyone else in power ever passed a "I'm going to take all your guns and ammo" law, it would matter if we have/had a Constitution or not?
Yes, I believe that our Constitution, and it's second amendment, as it has been interpreted by the Supeme Court, would not allow a 'take all your guns and ammo' ruling to be implemented. A 'buy back' scenario ala Australia is a possibility, but I doubt that most would comply.

I don't think so either JD.

Think otherwise L6. I used to build and fire black powder cannons. I once had the police show up at my door at 1:30am in the midst of an anniversary party because they had a report of an 'explosion'. They wanted very badly to enter my premises to 'investigate'. I told them that it most likely was a cannon report that had been reported, and if they waited on the porch, I would look to see if the cannon and its owner were still present. When I went back out, I reportd to them that the cannon owner had left, but left behind his cannon. I surrendered to them a small 1/2 inch steel pipe with a cap on one end and a fuse hole bored in it. they grinned like they had solved the crime of the century, and departed.

Thanks for your thoughts.

And thanks for your's too.

JD