Not a member yet? Click here to register.
Forgotten your password? Request a new one here.
|
· Guests Online: 1
· Members Online: 0
· Total Members: 1
· Newest Member: hydrashok
|
|
 From www.suntimes.com:
Obama: Don't stock up on guns
December 8, 2008
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH 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. That would depend on how long it would take him to sign the executive order to reenact the federal Assault Weapons Ban. If it takes six months to sign that order, then we have six months to purchase our "evil" assault weapons.
"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference."Common-Sense" is apparently subjective. The federal Assault Weapons Ban is not common-sense, it's ridiculous. There was absolutely nothing gained for the PEOPLE YOU SERVE when President Clinton signed that order. "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."These comments raise several questions. First, what is a "lawful gunowner" by your definition? Is it the good little citizen that doesn't own evil assault weapons? Or is it the common-sense citizen who could own a [legal] machine gun, but not use it to commit a crime? This is probably where the definition of "lawful" starts to get muddy.
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.If he didn't support a ban, then why did he vote for one? Maybe the same staffer that filled out his questionnaire is the one who casted his vote for those bans! I wonder if it's the same staffer he'll have signing his bills during his presidency????
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.Stupid? STUPID!? Did you honestly call gun-buyers actions 'STUPID'?? When President Clinton passed the original federal Assault Weapons Ban, the price of "pre-ban" rifles sky-rocketed. I couldn't afford a pre-ban rifle! If another assault weapons ban is passed, all those "stupid" gun-buyers just made a smart investment. Fortunately, I was able to buy my goodies BEFORE President-Elect Obama was elected.
"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."You've got your golden boy elected president, and you're going to quote on your speed of progress, and you call the gun-buyers stupid. Then you go on to presume none of the consumers are 'first-time buyers', which, if you read the comments left by readers of the Chicago Sun Times website where this article was published, you'll see you are wrong (again). Now the anti-gunners at the Brady Center like to argue that owning multiple guns is a bad thing (worse than owning ONE gun). Here's where I fail to see your logic. I have many, MANY guns. I also have many, MANY bottles of alcohol... I have scotch (rather good stuff), vodka, tequila, Apfel Korn (Apple Schnapps from Germany), Bailey's Irish Creme, various wines, and Miller Lite beer. I'm no more an alchoholic than I am a criminal, so is it horrible that I have all that alcohol in my house?
From change.gov:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Well, let's look at the federal Assault Weapons Ban. According to the ban, a rifle is an "assault rifle" when it has three of the five following characteristics:- Folding/Collapsible Stock
- Pistol Grip
- Magazine Capacity of more than ten rounds
- Bayonet Lug
- Flash Suppressor
When, in the last 100 years, has ANYONE been killed with a fixed bayonet?? When has it taken more than ten rounds to kill someone (during a crime, by a criminal)? The collapsing butt stock? Flash suppressor?? WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE???
|
|
|
No Comments have been Posted.
|
|
|
Please Login to Post a Comment.
|
|
|
Rating is available to Members only.
Please login or register to vote.
No Ratings have been Posted.
|
|
|
|
You must login to post a message.
No messages have been posted.
|
|
