Is Obama Looking for Trouble?

[TPaine7]

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is pushing for Obama to reverse the Bush administration’s decision on concealed weapons in national parks, and is in talks with Obama’s transition team. If Obama overturned the rule, it would start an early political fight over the contentious issue of guns.
Source: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/new-rule-prompts-fears-of-guns-at-inauguration-2008-12-27.html

I voted for Obama. I even changed my registration (from independent to Democratic) so I could vote for him in the primary.

I wanted Obama to return America to reality based governance, to avoid hyper-partisanship, and to help the economy and America's standing in the world, among other things.

Obama has a reputation for intelligence and pragmatism. But like many other people, he has a huge blind spot in the gun control area; he seems to think that Chicago attitudes should rule America. He opposes the carrying of arms--at least concealed--and uses avoidance strategies to skirt the clear constitutional imperative that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I truly hope that Obama is smart enough to avoid the siren call of anti-gun fanaticism. Especially early in his first term. My plan, and I am sure I'm not alone, was to vote for him and support him for his intellect and basic values; but to make sure that my people (my Senators and Congressman) know how I feel about the Second Amendment. If Obama really wants his honeymoon to end abruptly, if he wants a quick and hopefully severe education in how things work outside Chicago, he can continue down this path.

But is it really worth all the actual good he wants to accomplish, to satisfy his personal issues with concealed carry? Do the records of the states that have adopted CCW mean nothing? Is this a faith-based position, like Bush's many idiotic, dogmatic, and inflexible stances? Is Obama a kind of Bush lite, at least on this subject?

Is Obama really smart and pragmatic? I guess we'll see.

[DontTreadOnMe]

1. I agree.

The Democrats have been losing on the "gun control" issue for 40 years.
I hope Obama is smart enough not to take the bait and go down this road.

FYI: I have never owned a gun in my life... probably never will. But I am not against anyone else owning a gun.

Obama needs to concentrate on the big issues:

Jobs
Education
Health Care

If he can just concentrate on these three things... he will be considered the best President of all time.

[panader0]

2. National parks, not infringing on states rights

Don't you think it would be weird to go to a national park and know that everyone had a concealed gun?

[TPaine7]

7. When I go into a mall in Texas

I don't "know that everyone has a concealed gun." Even though it would be legal for many to have one.

I guess I don't know how to take your question.

[Statistical]

12. Not everyone has a CCW only about 3% of the population does.

Even prior to the ruling allowing CCW in National Parks it was already legal to carry in National Forest and most state parks.

So are you saying it would be werid to think people may carry in National Park BUT not weird that they were already carrying in National Forest or State Parks?

[SteveM]

87. How would it be "weird" if you didn't know who was carrying a gun? (nt)

[AtheistCrusader]

91. I think it weird

to go out into the wilderness without a firearm, period.

Ditto for other equipment such as signalling devices, appropriate clothing, portable shelter if the trip warrants, food, water, emergency medical supplies, etc.

Edit: Typo

[texshelters]

3. Obama doesn't want to ban guns

he wants smart regulations.

Some reactionaries want NO regulation. Where are you on this?

Peace,
Tex Shelters

[Statistical]

13. Define "smart regulation" most (but not all) gun regulation is stupid & counter productive (n/t)

[TPaine7]

14. Smart regulations

No concealed carry is not smart. No concealed carry in National Parks is not smart.

Picking this fight now isn't smart.

[bossy22]

85. smart regulations

seems to end at the name of the legislation

What happens is they put some name that you cant vote against like "the child weapon protection act" and then put a whole lot of garbage underneath it. Its like the Patriot Act....how could a congress person vote against something called the "patriot act"....except the contents of the act arent so patriotic

[Pyrzqxgl]

4. Can't you gun nuts get it, the Constitution was talking about flintlocks

not automatic weapons.

[DontTreadOnMe]

5. You miss the point!

If you outlaw automatic weapons (or any other category), then only the criminals will have them.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. I am for very strict gun regulation, but you can't outlaw them.
The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on this issue. Democrats have been trying to argue this and LOSE every time on gun control!
Stop digging the gun control hole!

(and as I previously posted, I don't OWN ANY GUNS!)

[MUAD_DIB]

6. Sorry. That argument is weak at best. I'm all for the rright to own/carry, but

to use that straw dog argument that only the bad guys will have automatic weapons if they are outlawed is weak.

And yes, you can always put the genie back in the bottle.


Now if you had a better argument i.e. we shouldn't ban the use of automatic weapons because we can't trust the government forever (GOP corruption/military Junta type threat to the US) then I would agree more with your point.

[DontTreadOnMe]

25. Tell Me More

re: "to use that straw dog argument that only the bad guys will have automatic weapons if they are outlawed is weak."

It is a well established fact that all guns will never be outlawed, so if SOME people have guns... will the smarter criminals carry the "better" guns if you outlaw the "better" guns to the general public?

Go ahead, define what a "better" gun is, and then try to outlaw it.



So how do you intend to get the genie back in the bottle?

The knowledge of how to make automatic weapons is well known, and in many other countries.


As someone who has NEVER owned a gun in my entire lifetime, I can see a losing political issue a mile away.

[Statistical]

26. Thanks DontTreadOnMe

I think some of the greatest patriots of protecting liberty are those who understand the rights of others even though the have not/possibly will not benefit from them.

Your understanding that 2nd amendment is a individual right despite not owning a gun is an example. Justices who vote for a right they have not or will not use simply on the facts is another.

I am not sure if you are aware of this but Gura, the lawyer who worked 6 years to bring Heller vs DC to the supreme court hates guns. He has stated he owns no weapons and has no intention on ever owning one. For him it is a civil right. Breaking a civil right even one that as a citizen he, me, you are not individually affected by affected by weakens the Constitution, and the Union as a whole.

I am going to assume based on your forum name that you think similarly.

I understand gun owners will likely remain a minority (a large minority 42% of voters) thus we will need people who don't own a gun who understand it is still a right to make progress.

Thanks again.

[MUAD_DIB]

33. Should I have a legitimate need to own a 50 caliber machine gun?

If I don't have one will all the bad guys get them?

[X_Digger]

34. Machine guns..

.. are already heavily regulated, regardless of caliber.

[Statistical]

36. Depends

Machineguns have been regulated since 1934 so bringing up MG anything is a strawman.

.50cal rifle. Most states anyone who can purchase a rifle can purchase a .50cal rifle.
The FBI doesn't even separate out .50cal rifle deaths because there are so few.

Rifles (all rifles from .22rimfire to .50cal BMG) account for <4% of all murders. Knives make up 9% and "hands & feet" make up 12%.

I personally see no reason to own one but I wouldn't stand in your way.

I find it interesting that anytime gun control comes up people always go to "MACHINE GUN THIS" and "MACHINE GUN THAT".

Are you not even aware that Machine Guns have been regulated since 1934?

Were you also not aware that since 1934 legal machineguns (aka NFA registered weapons) have ONLY been used in 2 crimes. Yes that's right 2 crimes in 70 years. One of those 2 was a LEO using a police issue machinegun.

[MUAD_DIB]

37. But don't the bad guys have the 50 caliber guns since not many others do?

Spare me...


:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. Not much use for 50 caliber rifles in the criminal world.

Kind of like shotguns with 28" barrels.

David

[MUAD_DIB]

42. I guess the point that I am making is just because something is regulated

heavily doesn't mean that all the bad guys are going to have them.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

43. I think his point was that criminals don't obey regulations.

[MUAD_DIB]

45. That to me sounds like pandering fear.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. Seems like common sense to me.

[MUAD_DIB]

47. No, it is fear. His post...

"If you outlaw automatic weapons (or any other category), then only the criminals will have them."


My point was that 50 caliber machine guns are fairly regulated and not many US citizens have them. Do the bad guys?


Again, :rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. I'm sure some bad guys have them.

Probably some skinheads and some large drug cartels. They do confiscate several a year that are possessed illegally. If they are banned and confiscated by the government then I don't see the criminals turning them in. Although it's unlikely that someone would commit a crime with one that would effect the average citizen personally. Considering they are so rarely used in crimes I see know need for further regulation. There are many rifles made for hunting very large game that can achieve similar results. Much ado about nothing in my mind.

David

[MUAD_DIB]

49. Rarely used due to regulation.

Oh, and by the way: that's some really impressive evidence that you have regarding the bad guys.

:sarcasm:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. They have been confiscated from criminals.

I haven't seen a bit of evidence from you concerning anything.

David

[MUAD_DIB]

55. That's a nice anecdote.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

56. You are the one saying criminals don't have them.

[MUAD_DIB]

59. !

[MUAD_DIB]

61. No, I am asking for some hard stats, not anecdotale fear.

So give me more than a CNN "Fear Special."



Nice try, though...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. You have nothing to be afraid of.

50 caliber rifles do not need further regulation they need less.

David

[MUAD_DIB]

64. Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhhttttt.....

:sarcasm:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

81. NIce opinion when you have something more than your fear get back to us.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Rarely used because they are incredibly expensive and not much fun to shoot.

I know of very few people who even want one. They compete in long range shooting competitions. The AR-15 on the other hand is affordable, incredibly fun to shoot and ammunition can be found quite cheap. They are among of the most popular rifles in the country.

David

[oneshooter]

69. Mine is a BLAST to shoot !!!!!

But a little expensive to feed, even with reloading. My current .50BMG is a Armilite AR-50. A single shot bolt action that weighs 34Lb, unloaded. Current cost is about $3800, with no rail, scope, or ammo.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

52. So if there are no illegally possessed .50 cal sniper rifles, what is the problem?

[benEzra]

57. Commonly available rifles are also rarely used in homicides...

all rifles combined account for only ~3% of U.S. murders. Twice as many Americans are murdered with shoes and bare hands as with all rifles combined, even though rifles are somewhat less regulated than handguns.

2005 data: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

Total murders.............................14,860..........100.00%
Handguns...................................7,543...........50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).....1,954...........13.15%
Edged weapons..............................1,914...........12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)....................1,598...........10.75%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................892............6.00%
Shotguns.....................................517............3.48%
Rifles.......................................442............2.97%

2006 data: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

Total murders.............................14,990..........100.00%
Handguns...................................7,795...........52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged).....2,158...........14.40%
Edged weapons..............................1,822...........12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)....................1,465............9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc......................833............5.56%
Shotguns.....................................481............3.21%
Rifles.......................................436............2.91%

The 2007 data is out, and rifles are right at 3%, again, but I haven't tabulated the percentages yet.

The reason rifles are so rarely misused, of course, is that rifles (regardless of type) are extremely difficult to carry concealed on one's person or inside a vehicle.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. So you ask for evidence and then call it anecdote, here's a story anyway.

Smugglers' deadly cargo: Cop-killing guns

In Juarez, Mexico, just across the border from El Paso, Texas, a police commander was gunned down in front of his home. The weapon used to kill Cmdr. Francisco Ledesma Salazar is believed to have been a .50-caliber rifle. The guns are illegal to purchase in Mexico but can be obtained just north of the border at gun shows and gun shops in the United States.

ATF special agent Tom Mangan says the .50-caliber rifle has become one of the "guns of choice" for the drug cartels. The weapon fires palm-sized .50-caliber rounds that can cut through just about anything.

Mangan showed CNN the power of the rifle on a gun range near Phoenix, Arizona. The weapon, a Barrett, was seized in an ATF raid. A round fired from 100 yards away tore through a car door and both sides of a bulletproof vest like those used by Mexican police.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/03/26/gun.smuggling/index.html

[MUAD_DIB]

60. Thanks for going across the border to Mexico to support

your case in this country. ;D

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. I still can't believe you are arguing that no criminals possess 50 caliber rifles.

I agree with you though we should loosen the regulations.

David

[MUAD_DIB]

65. My original argument was based upon the assumptions of another poster.

The way they made their poorly crafted argument was that if you curtail the use of a particular weapon then only the bad guys would posses them...and come and get you: which is just bullshit.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. Which part?

If you confiscate all of the legally possessed anything, then only the illegally possessed anything will still be on the market. That's just common sense. The come and get you part (which you added) is clearly bullshit.

David

[MUAD_DIB]

77. In mass numbers? Spare me.

I love the justification for the possession of some firearms.

If you guys had a better argument then I would probably agree.


Like this...

Now if you had a better argument i.e. we shouldn't ban the use of automatic weapons because we can't trust the government forever (GOP corruption/military Junta type threat to the US) then I would agree more with your point.

The come and get you part (which was implied by the poster who couldn't even stay to debate his/her point) is yes, is clearly bullshit.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. I never said it was a justification for anything.

It is common sense though. However it's not a good argument for legalizing anything be it heroin or machine guns. Automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since 1934, I haven't seen any widespread support for changing those laws. The so called assualt weapons ban is a fairly recent construct based largely on cosmetic features. Where did I or anyone say anything about mass numbers?

David

[CrazyLate]

95. which brings up the topical point of

if the bad guys aren't going to use them, what is the point of banning them?

While we are on the topic of regulating what people can't and can't own, lets add some more things to the list. Personally, I hate mini-vans. We should ban them.

[rangersmith82]

44. Its not a need its a want

I have a Barrett 82 50 cal and it is tons of fun to shoot.



Mine is like the one above except, the bipod doesnt have the spiked feet.

[MUAD_DIB]

32. That's a nice opinion you have there. When you have something more

factual then get back to me. ;D

[pipoman]

15. Yep and the first is about offset printing and stone lithography..

Don't you free speech nuts get it? :crazy:

[Statistical]

18. Can't the speech nut's get it....

the constitution was talking about speech in person and hand written not internet, cellphones, land lines, digital documents, etc.

So you are fine with banning all forms of free speech except handwritten documents & person to person speech.

Just as there are new forms of speech that are protected there are new forms of weapons that are protected.

BTW:
The "assualt weapon ban" NEVER banned automatic weapons. If you don't know/understand that you need to do some research. Automatic Weapons were regulated in 1934 as part of the National Firearm Act.

Assault Weapon ban would be more accurately called the "scary LOOKING gun" ban. Weapons were made illegal based on LOOKS only. A semi-auto "hunting rifle w/ wooden stock = legal.

Same caliber, same capacity, same rate of fire but change the stock to synthetic, put a barrel shroud on it, and add a pistol grib = illegal.

Both weapons function exactly the same, use same ammo, have same number of rounds, and can fire at exactly same rate. One Illegal and the other is legal.

[aikoaiko]

35. ...

...

[benEzra]

38. Who's trying to legalize automatic weapons?

They've been as tightly controlled as 105mm howitzers and hand grenades for 74 years now.

BTW, does the 1st Amendment protect speech over the Internet and newspapers printed on high-speed webb presses, or just quill pens, face-to-face speech, and hand-cranked presses using cast lead type?

[pipoman]

54. In an effort to save face

you may want to acknowledge that this remark was off the cuff, not thought out, and just patently ridiculous..again, just in the interest of honesty.

[bossy22]

83. hmmm

and the first amendment only talks of spoken words and the printing press....

[SteveM]

88. And "press", not T.V., radio, I-Net... and your computer....

You should be aware that "flintlocks" was NOT used in framing the Second Amendment; "arms" was. It would seem, by your argument, that "arms" gives greater latitude for Constitutional protection than the specific term "press" would give to freedom of speech. Fortunately, the vast majority of folks don't follow your line of argument.

By the way, who is talking about "automatic weapons?"

[AtheistCrusader]

90. Wow.

First off, there were better weapons available around the world in 1791 than mere flintlocks. See the Girandoni Repeating Rifle, the origial 'assault weapon'.

Second, this ruling on National Parks does not pertain in any way to automatic weapons.

Third, automatic weapons are highly controlled in this country, requiring registration, special fees, and a background check, not just a NICS go-no-go check. In my state, they aren't legal at all, period.


Try and stay on topic please.

[kstewart33]

8. With all the problems we now have, the gun issue is way down the list of priorities.

People are losing their homes, their jobs, their healthcare. All of which is tied to survival.

The present financial catastrophe considered, I'd bet the most people would pass on the gun issue for now.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Given "BlackWater is Allowed to Operate in America"

We should all have the "Right to Own" Machine guns, cannons, tanks....

[billyoc]

10. The DNC knows gun control is an election loser.

If Pelosi and Boxer haven't made a peep about it in the last 2 years, nobody ever will.

Have they?

[bowens43]

20. Complete nonsense. nt

[tularetom]

11. When I was 17 my Uncle Sam (real name) gave me and my brother NRA memberships

I guess because that seemed manly and Sam was if nothing else manly. I think he gave my sister a doll or something. Anyway at the time I owned three guns, a single shot .410 popgun, a 12-ga. Winchester Model 12 my grandfather had given me and my pride and joy a Model 94 in .30-30 that I bought with money I earned hauling hay.

Over the years I looked forward to my copy of American Rifleman coming in the mail. There were helpful and informative articles on hunting shooting and gun safety. If there was a political slant to it it went over my head. By the time I was 30 I had probably half a dozen guns having begun to collect antique firearms..

Somewhere along the line the tone changed and the articles took on a paranoid turn like there was a huge government plot to seize my meager collection of guns. It really began to enter almost every correspondence I got from them and eventually detracted from my enjoyment of the magazine. It sounded whiny. So I reluctantly cancelled my NRA membership.

Anyway my point is I'm now 67 years old and I now have a sizeable collection of guns. Nobody has made one attempt to take even one of them away from me in spite of all the hissyfits I've heard over the years. So if you want to spend your life being paranoid about Obama seizing guns go right ahead. I've got better things to do with mine.

[Triana]

27. THANK YOU tularetom!

:applause:

[TPaine7]

28. If you will kindly show me the part of the OP that talks about seizing guns

I will happily address it:

So if you want to spend your life being paranoid about Obama seizing guns go right ahead. I've got better things to do with mine.

Waiting patiently...

[gorfle]

70. Sounds a little selfish.

Anyway my point is I'm now 67 years old and I now have a sizeable collection of guns. Nobody has made one attempt to take even one of them away from me in spite of all the hissyfits I've heard over the years. So if you want to spend your life being paranoid about Obama seizing guns go right ahead. I've got better things to do with mine.

Sounds a little selfish to me, though I'm sure you didn't mean it to. Except for people living in California, I don't think there have been any bans or confiscations of firearms currently in circulation. But first of all, it's certainly not because nobody wants to, but more because they simply can't muster enough support to do it. Second of all, just because in the last 67 years you have not witnessed any confiscations or bans on firearms currently in circulation perhaps you have missed things like FOPA in 1986 which, while not banning any machine guns then in circulation, banned any future machine guns from entering into circulation, thus effectively ending the possibility of ownership of such firearms for most people after that date. Then of course there was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 which likewise did not ban or confiscate any firearms then currently in circulation but prohibited certain new firearms from being introduced into circulation, thus effectively ending the possibility of ownership of such firearms again for most people afer that date.

So it seems a little selfish to me to sit back and say that your hobby and firearm collection has not been impacted by bans or confiscation legislation when for many people it has and was. You may have gotten yours, but countless others never will. Bans on future sales may not be as abrupt as confiscation but the affect is the same. As Senator Feinstein claimed, the Federal Assault Weapon ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices."

[tularetom]

76. That's a thoughtful response and I must admit

that the types of firearms I own would probably be the last targets of any government seizure attempts. Some of them are cap and ball revolvers, some are muzzleoading rifles. Most are at least 50 years old.

But I'm an old man. I don't know how many years I have left, and I refuse to allow them to be consumed by negativity. And in the final analysis, if for some unfathomable reason the government wanted all my guns, it'd be no problem whatsoever for them to just come and take 'em. If I put up a lot of resistance they could simply shoot me. But why waste time and energy worrying about things that probably won't happen.

I don't own any firearms currently prohibited under federal or state statute. If I did I certainly would not blab it to the world on a forum like this. But I'm just tired of the cold dead hand bullshit when you and I know that it just that - bullshit.

[gorfle]

84. Me too.

I have two .44 caliber cap and ball revolvers. They are the CVA "Navy" revolvers. As I understand it, they should be .36 caliber to be accurate. They have the brass frame. Next I want a 3-band Enfield. I want to shoot more black powder as it is much cheaper than cartridge shooting. I like to go shooting for the whole afternoon and the slow pace of loading muzzle loaders is nice. I can otherwise burn through $200 of cartridges without even trying.

I've got a .32 S&W that my grandfather bought in 1904. That's over 100 years old! I've got several other family heirlooms that date to the 1920's and 30's.

Shoot straight old man. :)

[yodoobo]

16. Obama knows what is and what isn't protected by the 2nd

The gun nutters can rest assured that their hunting rifles and shotguns will be fine. Probably many handguns as well.

Assault weapons are different story, and his platform rightly has them targeted to be banned.

But Obama is smart, this time there won't be a sunset date and manufacturers won't be able to evade the ban by making simple cosmetic changes. Furthermore, the loophole of allowing these weapons to continue to be sold if they claim to be manufactured prior to x will be addressed by either creating a assault weapon registry (that is closed after a year) like we have with machine guns, or just a simple ban on trading them.

This will eliminate the issue as a wedge issue. In 4 years the nutters will have forgotten and given up, just as they have forgotten and given up on fully automatic machine guns that were given a similiar treatment in the 1980's

[Statistical]

21. Wow so much wrong "facts"

Assault weapons are different story, and his platform rightly has them targeted to be banned.

Why? Do you even know what an "assault weapon is".
Large caliber? Nope most are 5.56 or 7.62 both smaller than a traditional deer "hunting rifle".
Large capacity? Nope many semi-auto wood stock rifles have same capacity
Higher Rate of fire? Nope. Many have exact same mechanics as "non assault" rifles

"Assault Rifles" are weapons that LOOK scary.

In 4 years the nutters will have forgotten and given up, just as they have forgotten and given up on fully automatic machine guns that were given a similiar treatment in the 1980's.

Really. Ever heard of the NFA. Signed into law in 1934. THAT was what regulated automatic weapons.

Obama knows what is and what isn't protected by the 2nd
I agree with this. A key point of SCOTUS Heller decision is that the 2nd protects weapons in common use.
Using the def of the 1994 AWB the so called "assault weapons" or big scary guns are the most popular form of long gun being sold in the last 10 years. There may be as many as 30-40 million semi-auto magazine fed rifles in circulation. Despite that they are used in less than 1% of all crimes. It would be hard to argue in a court of law that they are unusual or present an extreme risk to the public. It would be equally hard to argue that they are not a "weapon in common use".

The AWB had no effect on crime given that "assault weapons" were used in less than 1% of crimes before, durring, and after AWB. The AWB did help Dems lose control of Congress for 12 years though. I am sure Obama is aware of that fact.

[pipoman]

22. You are aware

that the 2nd isn't now nor has it ever been about hunting?

This will eliminate the issue as a wedge issue. In 4 years the nutters will have forgotten and given up, just as they have forgotten and given up on fully automatic machine guns that were given a similiar treatment in the 1980's

Only someone completely out of touch and ignorant of history would believe such drivel. Fully autos have never been widely owned. There were minor changes in the 80's the real changes were in 1934 as they relate to fully automatic. Even pripor to that they were not widely owned. Today the #1 selling rifles in America are defined in HR1022 as 'assault weapons'. There are millions of these guns in private collections from sea to shining sea. The owners will not forget spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on them. All of the owners are eligible to vote or they couldn't legally buy them in the first place. Go look at 1994 and every year up to 2008. Keep kidding yourself with this type of nonsense thinking and watch our party loose what it has gained back.

Furthermore you should rethink your use of insults, it only goes to further dividing the party.

[benEzra]

66. Ummm, considerably more Americans lawfully own "assault weapons" than hunt.

Replace the loaded term "assault weapons" with "small-to-intermediate-caliber, non-automatic civilian rifles" and you might see the hole in your logic. And replace it with "the most popular civilian rifles in the United States" and you might see where the backlash comes from.

I don't particularly care if "hunting rifles" are legal; like most gun owners, I don't hunt. I DO choose to own small-caliber rifles with handgrips that stick out, and I'd darn sure like to keep them, continue to be able to buy ammo and magazines for them, and replace them or buy spare parts if they break.

But Obama is smart, this time there won't be a sunset date and manufacturers won't be able to evade the ban by making simple cosmetic changes. Furthermore, the loophole of allowing these weapons to continue to be sold if they claim to be manufactured prior to x will be addressed by either creating a assault weapon registry (that is closed after a year) like we have with machine guns, or just a simple ban on trading them.

This will eliminate the issue as a wedge issue. In 4 years the nutters will have forgotten and given up, just as they have forgotten and given up on fully automatic machine guns that were given a similiar treatment in the 1980's

Nice script, there.

If you really want to put the gun issue front-and-center and create another 1994 in 2010, keep shoveling that bullshit. Unless that's what you really want.

[iverglas]

17. are you gonna give it to him?

Snicker.

[bowens43]

19. funny how the gun people always quote

"right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." but conveniently leave out the part about "a well regulated militia'. There is no clear constitutional imperative. There is no individual right to keep and bear arms despite the ruling by the conservatively biased supreme court. There is no reason in the world that anyone should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon and absolutely ALL firearms should be banned in our national parks.

BTW,, you greatly over estimate the number of people who support your point of view. MOST Americans support MORE and STRICTER regulation, not less. The evidence is absolutely clear, fewer guns, fewer gun related crimes and fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides.

[Statistical]

23. Actually all 9 justices believed there is an individual right.

That issue wasn't even in question. The dissenting opinion agreed that the 2nd protects AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.
Not ONE justice disagreed, not even the most liberal. Where they disagreed on was the issue of if DC had the right to ban a class of weapons and if that ban violated the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT that all Justices believe the 2nd guarantees.

The evidence is absolutely clear, fewer guns, fewer gun related crimes and fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides.

Really. The FBI would disagree with you:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_01a.html

Over the last 10 years the gun supply has INCREASED by about 40 million guns. There are actually even more ILLLEGAL guns (about 100 million vs 80 million). Despite that crime is substantially lower.

Violent Crime rate has fallen 17.7%. Murder rate has fallen 10%, Rape 13%, Robbery 10%.

Japan has the least number of guns per capita of any industrialized nation yet has the highest suicide rate in the world (2x the US average).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/24/japan.mentalhealth

Further more although the gun supply has risen in the US the suicide rate has fallen slightly.

[TPaine7]

24. No fair using facts!!!!!!!!!!!! For shame! n/t

[Statistical]

29. While we are here lets look at some quotes (Majority Opinion)

From the Majority Opinion (written by Justice Scalia)

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Pretty clear so far. The majority establishes clearly that 2nd protects rights outside military service. A powerful precedent (more on that later).

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Another key point. The SCOTUS is reluctant to overturn previous precedent. It is important that Miller did NOT state the 2nd is NOT an individual right. Simply put the court just ruled that based on the choice of weapon (an unusual weapon with no military purpose) it wasn't protected by the 2nd. We will never know if Miller would have been decided differently if Miller had been caught with a "common military weapon".

This is important because very rarely will the court even hear a case to overturn previous precedent. When they do it is usually is situations of where CLEARLY a GROSS MISJUSTICE occurred such as Dread Scott case. It is unlikely that future courts even ones who personally do not believe the 2nd protects and individual right will overturn it.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

This is likely the one "bright spot" for gun control advocates. The court leaves door open for further regulation. It will likely take future court decisions to determine exactly where the regulation line ends and the infringement line begins.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Black and white and very clear. This will be very powerful in future cases. The gun ban in Chicago will likely be directly challenged on this language. If (and I believe) they will the courts rule the 2nd has been incorporated against the states then any future bans will fail also.

The sentence in bold is the most powerful IMHO. Key points:
1) a weapon Americans overwhelmingly choose
2) an entire class of weapons
3) lawful
4) purpose such as self defense

So called "assault weapons" per the def in AWB of 1994 meet all 4 criteria:

1) About 20 million in circulation and for last few years they have been #1 selling rifle.

2) Assault weapons by def are an entire class of weapons: magazine fed, semi-auto rifle.

3) Most are used lawfully. Per FBI less than 1% of crimes involve "assault weapons". That is at most (stat is LESS than 1%) 800 instances per year. There are about 20 million assault weapons in circulation so 99.996% are used lawfully.

4) Scalia doesn't write BEST weapon for the job just a weapon. I would argue that handgun would be better for home defense but others would argue that a shotgun would be better than handgun. Assault weapon can be used for home defense or hunting. Scalia didn't say the weapon needs to be best or perfect. There are numerous cases of people defending homes/businesses with a carbine. Classic example would be Korean shop keepers keeping mobs away from stores during LA riots with AR-15s.

Before someone talks about machineguns or military hardware, or bullet spraying doomsday devices.....
Automatic Weapons are regulated per NFA of 1939. The AWB regulated semi-auto scary looking weapons. Semi-auto: 1 trigger = 1 bullet

[Statistical]

31. While we are here lets look at some quotes (Dissenting Opinion)

From the dissenting opinion (written by Justice Stevens)

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case.

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307
U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Stevens STILL BELIEVES state 2nd is an individual right. He rejects the idea that you have an individual right for self defense. He does concede that there exists an individual right for military purposes. Nothing in his dissent puts a requirement on this right. Simply that the weapon must have a military purpose. Well pistols, semi-auto rifles, large caliber rifles ("sniper rifles") all have military purposes. Today even Miller might be decided differently. Short barreled shotguns are used in Iraq RIGHT NOW hence they can be shown to be both 1) in common usage and 2) have military purpose.

Stevens dissent simply draws the line that in Heller vs DC, Heller did not prove that the weapon that was banned (pistol) has a military purpose. Stevens believed Scalia interpretation of self-defense broadened the 2nd unnecessarily.

For the last time (since it is incorrectly states so often):
EVERY SINGLE JUSTICE ON THE SCOTUS FOUND THE 2ND TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. There was only one majority opinion and one dissent. Each justice has the right to make their own opinion. If even one Justice believed the 2nd granted no INDIVIDUAL RIGHT then they could have stated that in their own opinion. Most court decisions will have 3, 4, sometimes 5 opinions. A court case with only 2 (the min unless unanimous) sends a very clear and strong message on the courts findings.

Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself, see Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 636 (1974) (Stewart, J., dissenting), would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law.4 As Justice Cardozo observed years ago, the “labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.” The Nature of the Judicial Process 149 (1921).

This is a lot of legalize but essentially Stevens is saying he believes Miller limits the 2nd to weapons of military purpose. The court has a DUTY and OBLIGATION to not arbitrarily change previous precedent (except in extreme circumstances like Dread Scott).

Even if in the future someone were to bring up a case that showed either
1) 2nd is NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
or
2) the 2nd should be limited to weapons w/ military purpose

SCOTUS should NOT hear it. Stevens would likely vote to not here it and I believe all the justices would. Why? Stevens correctly explains the court should respect previous decisions even if they disagree with them. To do otherwise throws EVERY court case into dispute and with 200+ years of precedent that could be a disaster.

Take STEVENS view (a view shared by all Justices now and previous) that court should let old cases remain and SCALIAs airtight opinion the likelihood that Heller could be challenged is essentially 0 EVEN IF some future court disagrees with it.

[dalus]

82. There was another dissent by Breyer

He also thinks that the Second Amendment is an individual right but says that governments in high-crime urban areas can balance the need for public safety against the right to bear arms.

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS -- namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are -- whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense -- the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

In respect to the first independent reason, I agree with JUSTICE STEVENS, and I join his opinion. In this opinion I shall focus upon the second reason. I shall show that the District’s law is consistent with the Second Amendment even if that Amendment is interpreted as protecting a wholly separate interest in individual self-defense. That is so because the District’s regulation, which focuses upon the presence of handguns in high-crime urban areas,represents a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.

He also states the points that he believes the entire court agrees on:

The Second Amendment says that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, theright of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions,based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an "individual" right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted "ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of forces." United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939); see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
(3) The Amendment "must be interpreted and appliedwith that end in view." Miller, supra, at 178.
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897); ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).

On the other hand, Scalia has publicly stated, and other justices may also believe, that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government and that states can ban firearms outright if they want to. For Scalia this follows from his across-the-board opposition to incorporation under the 14th Amendment.

[gorfle]

75. On militias.

funny how the gun people always quote "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." but conveniently leave out the part about "a well regulated militia'. There is no clear constitutional imperative. There is no individual right to keep and bear arms despite the ruling by the conservatively biased supreme court.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, all nine justices in the Heller decision, including the more liberal ones, concluded that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms irrespective of membership in any organization such as a militia.

Secondly, as I have argued for years, even if milita service were a requisite to firearm ownership, the fact of the matter is the organized militias our founders intended to exist - state armies designed to replace or at least counter federal military power - ceased to exist in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act, which federalized the militias and made them effectively federal reserve forces. If the intent was to have militias made up of armed citizens to be able to resist tyranny and oppression from the federal government, the intent is still valid even if the militias have been usurped.

Thirdly, the Dick Act not only federalized the organized state militias, but also provided for the unorganized militia, to be made up of all able-bodied men aged 17-45, which means that lots of the "gun people" are in a militia whether they know it or not.


There is no reason in the world that anyone should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon and absolutely ALL firearms should be banned in our national parks.

Of course there are reasons in the world to carry a concealed weapon. Personal self defense is one. You can bet your bippy if I were a pizza delivery man, or a psychiatrist, or a social worker, or a security guard, or a taxi driver, or a prostitute I would carry a concealed firearm. And given than CCW permit holders have demonstrated themselves to be among the safest and most law-abiding citizens in the nation, the question really isn't why should they be allowed to carry a concealed weapon but why shouldn't they?

And as for carrying in national parks, again I simply say if a man can walk down main street with a concealed pistol, surrounded by thousands of his fellow citizens, why can't he do so in the woods, in a canoe, or on a trail in some park?

BTW,, you greatly over estimate the number of people who support your point of view. MOST Americans support MORE and STRICTER regulation, not less.

And yet every time it comes into political focus it becomes an albatross around the necks of the gun-control politicians.

The evidence is absolutely clear, fewer guns, fewer gun related crimes and fewer accidental deaths and fewer suicides.

The simple facts are that crime is far more influenced by economic factors than firearm accessibility, and while the number of firearms in circulation continues to grow, firearm crime continues to decline. Nonetheless, it is certainly true that if there were no firearms there would be no firearm deaths. The question then becomes, as I have asked many times in the past: Do we abolish firearms and the essential liberty they enable in an attempt to obtain the little temporary safety that their absence might provide? Our founders were very clear on this issue.

[kladinvt]

30. Shoot me now!

OK, first off, I'm NOT a gun owner. I've lived most of my life in urban areas & now for the past 5 yrs, live in one of the most rural states in the country. And I understand the desire to own a gun for hunting purposes, but the need to walk around with concealed hand-guns or to own semi-automatic weapons, I can't comprehend the FEAR & paranoia that would drive one to such lengths. I don't need a litany of crime statistics either, I'm not swayed by that. Perhaps my refusal NOT to watch the 24/7 news casts, that latch onto local & national horrors to bolster ratings, has saved me from being mentally traumatized, like so many Americans seem to be.

[benEzra]

40. Do you even know what a "semi-automatic weapon" is?

I understand the desire to own a gun for hunting purposes, but the need to walk around with concealed hand-guns or to own semi-automatic weapons, I can't comprehend the FEAR & paranoia that would drive one to such lengths.

Do you even know what a "semi-automatic weapon" is?







"Semi-automatic" means the firearm fires once and only once when the trigger is pulled, and won't fire again until the trigger is released and pulled a second time. You sound as if you think it refers to machineguns or other automatic weapons.

FWIW, I hold a NC CHL, but don't carry a firearm out of fear any more than an off-duty police officer carries out of fear. It's a defensive tool that I happen to be very competent with.

And the fact does remain that less than 1 in 5 U.S. gun owners is a hunter, and we nonhunters would like the gun-ignorant to stay out of our gun safes too, please.

[Statistical]

53. He wants you to carry this

Because based on method of operation there are only 3 categories of weapons.

Either that or he doesn't understand the difference between
Fully automatic: Continues to fire until trigger released.
Semi-Automatic: One trigger pull = 1 bullet ONLY. Trigger must be released and pulled again for 2nd round.
Single Shot: Weapon can only be fired once (like musket above) before being rearmed or reloaded.

Since fully-auto weapons (machineguns) have been regulated since 1934 (the NFA) and he doesn't believe you should have a semi-auto I guess it is muskets, leverguns, boltactions, and pump shotguns for everyone.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

41. I'm happy for you to not exercise your 2nd Amendment rights.

Your argument sounds like some others I have heard like these no one needs to have an abortion after the 1st trimester, no one needs the morning after pill. I can't comprehend the FEAR and paranoia that would drive someone to restrict someone else's Constitutional rights in such a manner.

David

[gorfle]

73. Bang!

And I understand the desire to own a gun for hunting purposes, but the need to walk around with concealed hand-guns or to own semi-automatic weapons, I can't comprehend the FEAR & paranoia that would drive one to such lengths.

Firstly, the second amendment is not about hunting. The second amendment is about having an armed populace able to resist federal military power, so as to prevent tyranny and oppression. We can debate (as I have many times) over the efficacy of today's armed populace against our modern military, but that is not the point. The point is, the second amendment is not about hunting.

Secondly, very few people actually do walk around with concealed weapons. Something like 3% of firearm owners. For those few who do, the revocation rate seems very very low - just over 1% according to available data. In fact, concealed carry permit holders tend to be less likely to be involved in crime in general than the average citizen, and are less likely to hit innocent bystanders during a shoot-out than police officers.

Thirdly, the fundamental reason to own semi-automatic weapons is to own weapons of similar capability to that of the small arms of our standing armed forces.

I don't need a litany of crime statistics either, I'm not swayed by that.

If factual data can't sway you, logical discussion on the subject cannot be achieved.

[aldo]

67. I'm afraid it's going to get a lot worse than this, I predict they're planning false flag attacks,

as both Columbine and Virginia Tech (the feat of the miracle shooter) were, but much worse. Then Obama and the Democrats will outlaw private gun ownership and the Christianist Repukes will keep their murderous hands clean. Time will tell.

[rangersmith82]

71. Then Obama and the Democrats???

You say that like you are ashamed of us Democrats....

[Statistical]

72. I think aldo is "one round short of a magazine".

Conspiracy theories about VT being a "false flag attack" (wow)
So "they" will have some more "false flag attacks" (always the "theys" maybe we need a global war on they)
Then Obam+Dems will take all da guns (that part I get. Usual freeper stuff)
That lets the Christians keep their hands clean (Christians don't want the guns but they want the dems to do the dirty work ?!?!???)

Ok now my head hurts.

[aldo]

93. The Reichstag fire, probably the most famous false flag attack, happened 70-80 years ago

Still people act like they never heard of false flag attacks. "Oh, governments, political movements would never do anything so evil." I wish I were that innocent.

I guess the difference is that I live in a fact based reality but you live in a faith based reality. You have faith that our leaders, our government, our political parties, our media would never do such a thing or allow such a thing to happen. I don't have access to evidence you don't have, I just see the same facts differently.

[aldo]

92. No, but I am ashamed at the Democratic stand on the 2A

and amazed at its stupidity. The Million Mom march,in my opinion, helped elect Bush and hurt Gore (well actually Gore won but it was close enough for Bush to steal). Why should the Democratic Party shoot itself in the foot over and over again?

Even if one cannot understand another's position, one can still recognize it's importance to them. Please try it.

[iverglas]

74. I think there is a special forum at this site for this stuff

It's called "conspiracy theory psychosis" or something like that.

[aldo]

94. Ah, Iverglas, you never change do you?

Nobody pays you any attention, but that doesn't stop you does it. Nosiree.

[iverglas]

96. I don't recall

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=192426&mesg_id=193456

receiving your duly completed application form and membership fee.

[jody]

78. Excellent OP and it attracts posts by DUers who are grossly ignorant of RKBA facts in particular

SCOTUS' decision on Heller.

"Is Obama really smart and pragmatic?"

I believe the odds are over 50% that Obama will again ban firearms in parks.

[iverglas]

79. if you don't agree with jody, you are "grossly ignorant"

or psychotic. There seem to be only the two options.

Of course, if you don't agree with jody, you will almost always be added to jody's ignore list.

Some people come to a discussion to discuss. Others, well ...

[oneshooter]

86. And if you don't agree with iverglas

You have a warped view of reality!

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[iverglas]

89. you may be right

Depends, I guess. But you're entitled to your opinion and to express it!