Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 20 of 85 Posts

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
November 23, 2012
NY Times Editorial

Promises on Gun Control


President Obama’s fleeting mention of the need for stronger gun controls at a presidential debate last month was hardly the kind of forceful political statement needed to address the scourge of gun violence in this country. Even his tepid remark was considered by the nation’s gun owners as a threat to take away their firearms. In what amounts to a buyers’ panic, they are again ramping up gun and ammunition sales as they did four years ago, convinced that Mr. Obama intends a gun-control crackdown.

Yet in his first term, Mr. Obama did nothing to cross the gun lobby, and he actually signed legislation allowing loaded firearms to be carried in national parks. Let’s hope Mr. Obama shows more courage on guns in his second term. He said during the debate that he would see “if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced” and that we need to look at “other sources of the violence,” like “cheap handguns.” Now it’s time to follow through on those promises.

Wary politicians, including Mr. Obama, will issue statements of mourning for the victims in mass shootings, which seem to happen ever more frequently. But they refuse to say much about 30,000 American lives that are lost each year because of shootings.

Horrific incidents like the massacre in July at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords and murder of six others in Tucson last year produced vows in Congress to screen the mentally ill more effectively and to ban battlefield clips of 100 rounds of ammunition that have no place in a civilized country. But there have been more than 60 multiple shooting incidents since the Tucson shooting, and nothing has been done to make such killings less likely in the future.

Mr. Obama talked about starting “a broader conversation” about reducing gun violence. The best place to start is in Congress, which has been grossly negligent toward constituent safety for the past 20 years as it bows to the demands of the gun lobby.

The lobby’s defense of unregistered and untracked gun sales at black market flea markets and weekend gun shows is strongly opposed by Americans in opinion polls. In fact, four out of five gun owners see the wisdom of checking on anonymous sellers and buyers.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who was a principal in the 1994 enactment of a 10-year ban on civilian use of assault rifles, intends to propose its reinstatement. “Weapons of war do not belong on our streets, in our classrooms, in our schools or in our movie theaters,” she said after the Aurora killings. This bill affords President Obama an opportunity to follow through on his 2008 campaign promise to work to revive the ban.

Mr. Obama is free of the pressures of campaigning — and free to lead the nation toward sensible laws that can help reduce the flood of guns and related homicides.

The need for strong leadership on this issue is growing as statehouse politicians cave to ever more lethal demands from the gun lobby. State laws allowing students to go armed to class in Colorado, freeing owners in Oklahoma to wear holstered weapons in public, and letting people “stand your ground” in Florida and a score of other states have already damaged public safety immeasurably*.

*And yet the crime rate continues to fall? Hmmm. :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,763 Posts
Giffords shooting never would have happened if
1. Loughners parents had a psychiatrist evaluate him
2. The university he attended had a psychiatrist on staff
3. Our sherrif, after having run-ins with him had a psychiatrist evaluate him
In each case, if that had been done and the findings on record, he would NOT have been able to buy his gun (NICS check)

Banning hi-cap magazines? He needed only the FIRST round to do what he wanted to do, and an 8 or 13 round magazine would have sufficed for the other murders.

Obummer still hasn't figured out that nut cases and criminals will get their guns anyway they can
1. having a relative buy them
2. Stealing them
Remember when Feinstein swept the senate holding an AK with the mag inserted and her finger on the trigger?
AND thje NY Times has only three uses
1. Lining the bottom of a birdcage
2. Housebreaking a puppy
3. wrapping a fish
 

·
Gold Bullet with Oak clusters member
Joined
·
1,454 Posts
Giffords shooting never would have happened if
1. Loughners parents had a psychiatrist evaluate him
2. The university he attended had a psychiatrist on staff
3. Our sherrif, after having run-ins with him had a psychiatrist evaluate him
In each case, if that had been done and the findings on record, he would NOT have been able to buy his gun (NICS check)

Banning hi-cap magazines? He needed only the FIRST round to do what he wanted to do, and an 8 or 13 round magazine would have sufficed for the other murders.

Obummer still hasn't figured out that nut cases and criminals will get their guns anyway they can
1. having a relative buy them
2. Stealing them
Remember when Feinstein swept the senate holding an AK with the mag inserted and her finger on the trigger?
AND thje NY Times has only three uses
1. Lining the bottom of a birdcage
2. Housebreaking a puppy
3. wrapping a fish
All three actions happened with the Joker. NOTHING HAPPENED! We could find 90% of these sickos just bycheckung facebook and Twitter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,064 Posts
I'm not sure the NY Times wouldn't add a nasty flavor to the fish it wrapped around.... ugh.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
Unless the congress has about 45 people with a change of heart towards gun contol we will have exactly the same amount of new gun laws as we did in the previous 4 years of Obamas administration.....ZERO .Congress must pass any new law first ,then the Senate and then the President .Obama doesnt have the power to make gun laws ,period.this is how it works ,folks;read the Constitution
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,062 Posts
He could sure mess with us with a well worded executive order and with the support of the media we'd be the bad guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
858 Posts
to ban battlefield clips of 100 rounds of ammunition that have no place in a civilized country


Hah, yeah because so many soldiers carry 100 round mags in their m4s... no one ever seems to remember to write that his mag JAMMED on him, forcing him to continue the shooting with a .40 cal Glock... seriously, no one mentions that 99% of the time.


Guns are just another boogeyman... the media will hype it, make it seem big and scary, and then everyone will say "Please, HELP US!!!" and then the people will willingly sign over their firearm ownership rights... Problem - Reaction - Solution.


With this "spike" in public shootings, it really just makes me raise an eyebrow... To give a parallel: often during peaceful protests, police will become frustrated they cannot do anything forceful to break up protesters since no laws are being broken. So what happens? They plant a few undercovers in the crowd who start becoming violent, throwing bottles, what have you... now the riot control can step in with as much force as they want to...

They play us just like that, all the time, what we see is a charade, it is a smoke and mirrors effect where "they" let you see what "they" want you to see, media, politics, education, etc. All this gun control fear mongering is no different, the whole reason we have constitutional protection over firearms ownership is because we must be able to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, that makes us a threat, institutions seek to neutralize that threat ASAP, they won't do it by force per se, they will do it by bait n' switch, mental slight of hand and manipulation, to have the people GIVE over their rights, they've certainly been getting very good at this in the past decade, look at our oh so patriotic "patriot act".


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
He could sure mess with us with a well worded executive order and with the support of the media we'd be the bad guys.
He can't and won't do as the EO is a fallacy in the paranoia of some gun owners minds. Control of the congress is another thing however , and the GOP infighting and radical lunatic fringe can only lead to more pro gun House seat losses in the next 2 years . Luckily some Dems are not anti gun in the House and this is good because we need every vote we can get.What we do not need are supposedly pro gun members selling out gun owners like Gingrich and co. Did in Sept 1994 when congress passed the Assault Rifle Ban
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,062 Posts
He can't and won't do as the EO is a fallacy in the paranoia of some gun owners minds. Control of the congress is another thing however , and the GOP infighting and radical lunatic fringe can only lead to more pro gun House seat losses in the next 2 years . Luckily some Dems are not anti gun in the House and this is good because we need every vote we can get.What we do not need are supposedly pro gun members selling out gun owners like Gingrich and co. Did in Sept 1994 when congress passed the Assault Rifle Ban

If he wants to mess with us he can do it, there won't be a media watchdog looking after our rights. He may not go to any extremes as has happened in the past but a directive by him that adversely effects us won't effect him
so he has nothing to lose and could simply "clarify" language in an existing law or interpret it as he sees fit for the proper administration by the gov't.
In other words he'll get away with it even if it is later revoked or decided to be "unconstitutional".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

"...One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where Franklin D. Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove any or all people (used to target specifically Japanese Americans and German Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to General John L. DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II...

...To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton... "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,747 Posts
"What we do not need are supposedly pro gun members selling out gun owners like Gingrich and co. Did in Sept 1994 when congress passed the Assault Rifle Ban "
Someone should have caught this by now. Newtie and his republican crew were NOT in charge of the House in Sept 1994.
It was a Demoncrat bill pushed into law by a Demoncrat majority in House,Senate and Bubba as the Prez !
Yes,some weasel republicans voted for it.
The GOP got control of Congress in part BECAUSE of the Assault Weapon ban in 1994.They won elections in November 1994.President Bubba himself said so.In truth,there was not much they could do to stop it in September,being in the minority.
That in no way justifies any post 1994 actions or lack thereof) by GOP.It does not slight those "pro gun" democrats that stuck with us.
IMHO,the "pro gun " democrat is a dying breed.Lots of Dems(and GOPites) mouth pro gun platitudes but will sell us out in the end.The Demoncat party is especially good at enforcing party dicipline when it comes to important votes like the Obamacare Law.Expect to see "pro gun " democrats cave if our dear leader manages to get any gun control on the table.

Truth is,we cannot trust the Demoncrat party or many in the GOP leadership if push comes to shove.
Pray for the continued good health of the more "conservative" Supreme Court Justices.
Although Chief Justice Roberts has proven to be a weak sister.
Wonder what the Chicago Mob has on him ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
"What we do not need are supposedly pro gun members selling out gun owners like Gingrich and co. Did in Sept 1994 when congress passed the Assault Rifle Ban "
Someone should have caught this by now. Newtie and his republican crew were NOT in charge of the House in Sept 1994.
It was a Demoncrat bill pushed into law by a Demoncrat majority in House,Senate and Bubba as the Prez !
Yes,some weasel republicans voted for it.
The GOP got control of Congress in part BECAUSE of the Assault Weapon ban in 1994.They won elections in November 1994.President Bubba himself said so.In truth,there was not much they could do to stop it in September,being in the minority.
That in no way justifies any post 1994 actions or lack thereof) by GOP.It does not slight those "pro gun" democrats that stuck with us.
IMHO,the "pro gun " democrat is a dying breed.Lots of Dems(and GOPites) mouth pro gun platitudes but will sell us out in the end.The Demoncat party is especially good at enforcing party dicipline when it comes to important votes like the Obamacare Law.Expect to see "pro gun " democrats cave if our dear leader manages to get any gun control on the table.

Truth is,we cannot trust the Demoncrat party or many in the GOP leadership if push comes to shove.
Pray for the continued good health of the more "conservative" Supreme Court Justices.
Although Chief Justice Roberts has proven to be a weak sister.
Wonder what the Chicago Mob has on him ???
Quite true ,but if the "pro gun " folks like Gingrich would have stood up it would not have happened. There were enough pro gun Dems in 94 not to get the bill through but Gingrich & co. sold us out.(I didnt forget that) in the coming election in 2 years Gun owners MUST elect pro gun cantidates in the House of Reps ....or we are in trouble
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,079 Posts
Younger members on this forum may not remember the era of the late 1960s and early 1970s which brought you the Gun Control Act of 1968. In those days, you had to sign at the store for any handgun ammunition (including .22s) that were bought. I lived in Pennsylvania in those days. Compared to the West where I live now, it was highly controlled but compared to a lot of the surrounding states like New Jersey, Maryland, New York and New England, it had less gun controls. But in those days all handgun purchases went through a background check by the state police and the backlog was tremendous.
In my younger days, I truly believed that before I died, all guns would be banned. I don't think that any more but it could still happen. The Supreme Court rulings on the 2nd ammendment bestowing an individual right to guns (and still are controls on that, remember) were by a paper thin margin of 5 to 4.
Hunting all over the country is down as more areas are developed: as less land is available and there are less opportunity to shoot, many people who aren't that gun-possessed as most of this forum readers are can't see any use for them and why do you need them? The mainstream media continually lambasts them, and too many preachers, etc. target them. Most forum readers don't buy the current administration's position that most of the guns used by Mexican gun cartels are armed by American straw sales, etc. but there are many people in many areas where cable TV, etc. are not that prevelant that believe the New York Times and that ilk without reservation. (The latest Obama victory I fear is a bit of a return of the mainstream media to credibility by too danged many voters.)
You can also attack firearm useage at least by interfering with ammunition supply or upping taxes or similar things to drive up prices. Prices have skyrocketed and are just starting to drop although they will never be as low as the 1990s probably. (Inflation tends to be forever, unless you're in total depression and which case few people will have any money for any luxuries at all: and for most people, guns and ammunition are luxuries.)
I admit that I was overly paranoid in my younger days, but some forum members appear to have an attitude that it can't happen, that we have Constitutional guarantees, etc.. The Constitution basically means what the Supreme Court says it means, although people also forget that the Supreme Court is a single branch of 3 and its decisions can be (and have been at times) ignored. Heck, the true "unconstitutionality" is judicial activism and executive orders but you never hear that mentioned any more: "unconstitutional" to the mainstream media and apparently too many lawyers and judges means nothing but perceived violations of the Bill of Rights (minus the 2nd Ammendment of course.)
A real weakness of the party system is that you have to "pay your dues" in both parties to get into office and the party leadership can exert tremendous pressure to vote one way or the other. It isn't used that often but it does happen.
I guess the point to this diatrabe is that gun owners really do need eternal vigilance and the threat will never be over. The mainstream media is a huge threat to democracy in my opinion due to its control of the news, but you are never going to see a government that tries to break up the press monopolies: they're too scared. I fare that time is not on the side of gun ownership in this country but at the same time, it isn't as bad as I feared it would be when I was in my 20s. But it CAN definitely get worse. The GOP leadership is typically lukewarm as pro-gun, and "conservative justices" don't always vote what most of us consider "conservatively" whereas the liberal justice votes can ALWAYS be predicted.


"What we do not need are supposedly pro gun members selling out gun owners like Gingrich and co. Did in Sept 1994 when congress passed the Assault Rifle Ban "
Someone should have caught this by now. Newtie and his republican crew were NOT in charge of the House in Sept 1994.
It was a Demoncrat bill pushed into law by a Demoncrat majority in House,Senate and Bubba as the Prez !
Yes,some weasel republicans voted for it.
The GOP got control of Congress in part BECAUSE of the Assault Weapon ban in 1994.They won elections in November 1994.President Bubba himself said so.In truth,there was not much they could do to stop it in September,being in the minority.
That in no way justifies any post 1994 actions or lack thereof) by GOP.It does not slight those "pro gun" democrats that stuck with us.
IMHO,the "pro gun " democrat is a dying breed.Lots of Dems(and GOPites) mouth pro gun platitudes but will sell us out in the end.The Demoncat party is especially good at enforcing party dicipline when it comes to important votes like the Obamacare Law.Expect to see "pro gun " democrats cave if our dear leader manages to get any gun control on the table.

Truth is,we cannot trust the Demoncrat party or many in the GOP leadership if push comes to shove.
Pray for the continued good health of the more "conservative" Supreme Court Justices.
Although Chief Justice Roberts has proven to be a weak sister.
Wonder what the Chicago Mob has on him ???
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,346 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Quite true ,but if the "pro gun " folks like Gingrich would have stood up it would not have happened. There were enough pro gun Dems in 94 not to get the bill through but Gingrich & co. sold us out.(I didnt forget that) in the coming election in 2 years Gun owners MUST elect pro gun cantidates in the House of Reps ....or we are in trouble
The Republican caucus and Gingrich opposed the bill by 137 to 38. The Republicans who voted for it were mostly "moderate" (AKA Liberal) urban and suburban Republicans from the Northeast. Few survived the next election. Gingrich voted against the ban and later, after becoming Speaker, he led the effort to overturn the ban in 1996. it passed the House but the Senate Democrats tabled it and never had a vote.

The Democrats supported the bill by 177 to 77, and a lot of arm twisting from their leadership and Clinton went into changing the minds of a few of their members, who later paid the price for their vote.

Please stop parroting the Libertarian lies.


House Approves Gun-ban Bill Measure Passes By 2 Votes


May 06, 1994|by KATHARINE Q. SEELYE,
The New York Times


Thanks to a last-minute switched vote, the House of Representatives approved a measure yesterday to ban 19 semiautomatic assault weapons that the bill's supporters said had no purpose other than to kill people quickly without having to take aim.

The vote, which remained uncertain till the end, was a blow to the National Rifle Association and demonstrated what President Clinton called extraordinary courage by House members who he said had stood up for the national interest.

When the allotted 15 minutes for voting ran out in the House chamber, opponents of the ban were one vote ahead, 214 to 213. But the voting continued anyway, as usually happens. The tally was suddenly reversed when an Indiana Democrat, Andrew Jacobs Jr., who had voted no, unexpectedly switched his vote to yes. Seconds later, opponents of the ban extracted a no vote from one of the remaining members to vote, while advocates of the ban squeezed yes votes from the last two members, giving the ban a two-vote edge.

The measure passed 216 to 214.

Supporters cheered their victory and two chief sponsors, Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and Mike Synar, D-Okla., leaped into a joyous embrace.

The vote on the ban is the second defeat for the National Rifle Association in six months, following House passage in November of the Brady bill, which requires a five-day waiting period before a gun can be bought.

House passage of the ban increases the likelihood that the measure will be included in a comprehensive crime package being negotiated by the House and Senate. The Senate passed a somewhat similar ban on assault weapons last year. Supporters hope to pass the final crime bill by Memorial Day.

Schumer said that until the final vote was cast yesterday, he expected to lose. As of Monday, he said, his side was at least 15 votes short, and even as he watched the electronic tote board, he thought he would lose.

Several factors went into the victory. Schumer agreed Wednesday night to eliminate a section of the bill concerning paperwork that had troubled many who generally support the NRA. People who already own assault weapons would be allowed to keep them, but the section in question required that they had to file forms to the government if they transferred ownership to someone else. Elimination of that requirement gained a few votes.

Schumer also said that Clinton's support for the measure proved invaluable. The president called members until midnight Wednesday and resumed calls yesterday morning up until the vote. It was not until a conversation with Rep. Bob Carr, Democrat of Michigan and a longtime supporter of the NRA, who said he was voting for the ban, that Clinton felt the ban had a chance.

"After I hung up the phone -- that was right at the beginning of the vote -- I said, `You know, we just might pull this off,'" Clinton told reporters after the measure passed.

Congressional aides also said that lobbying by Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen had been especially helpful because as a Texan and a gun owner Bentsen could provide political cover for other gun owners who wanted to vote for the ban but feared political repercussions from the NRA.

Other votes were picked up by pressure from law-enforcement officials who said in news conferences and in numerous phone calls to individual members that they felt outgunned on the streets by criminals.

In more than two hours of debate, opponents of the bill pressed the long-standing arguments of the NRA: that the bill would really ban more than the 19 weapons on the list, that it would tread on the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, and that it would be used as a wedge to ban more guns later.

As the clock ticked, Schumer, haggard from three days of intense lobbying for the bill, patrolled both sides of the aisle on the House floor, buttonholing undecided members and telling them that there was no good argument against the bill.

His efforts paid off with support from 177 Democrats, 38 Republicans and one independent; voting against the measure were 77 Democrats and 137 Republicans.

Those favoring the measure included suburban Republicans like Marge Roukema of Ridgewood, New Jersey. "This debate isn't about hunting or the Second Amendment," she declared. "This is about crime control and controlling the national epidemic of gun violence."

And they included Republicans such as Sherwood Boehlert of Utica, N.Y., whose district is home to a Remington Arms factory and some of whose constituents, he said, think that the first day of hunting season should be a national holiday. He said he supported the bill because police officers were being outgunned.

On the other side, Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., said the bill would turn millions of law-abiding citizens into inadvertent criminals because they would own weapons that might be outlawed. He also warned that additional weapons could be added to the list of 19 at anytime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,622 Posts
Gingrich not only supported the bill but influenced others in the GOP ......and this came back to haunt him in this years GOP primary as others cantidates used this against him.Gingrich always has supported an assault weapons bill
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
1,653 Posts
Quite true ,but if the "pro gun " folks like Gingrich would have stood up it would not have happened. There were enough pro gun Dems in 94 not to get the bill through but Gingrich & co. sold us out.(I didnt forget that) in the coming election in 2 years Gun owners MUST elect pro gun cantidates in the House of Reps ....or we are in trouble
Yep 'progun' conservative 'heroes' sold us out on the AWB then as well. Gun rights will be saved from the bottom up. That means everyone recruiting new shooters, and getting people active in gun rights groups. It means those that brag about joining the NRA for life 10, 20 or 30 years ago for 100$ need to realize that isn't enough and they need to become active. If not politically, then in other ways. For all the problems with the NRA, no one can take away from the Foundation side, where all of the money raised goes to the shooting sports, the executives of the Foundation do not get a dime of the Foundation's money. The Field Reps get their salary out of the main organization. Get your buddies together and form a Friends of the NRA Committee, do some fund raising. For the NRA haters you can't hardly attack the foundation.

On the other side, look at where we have actually made gains. Probably the best things that have happened for gun rights in recent memory are the court cases. Support the Second Amendment Foundation. The litigation is effective and under Alan Gura's oversight. He gave us DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, in spite of the NRA trying to scuttle McDonald. I'm not attacking the NRA but those are facts. The SAF are not in competition with the NRA, despite what the uninformed opinions of those who would argue with me for the sake of arguing say. I get all of the SAF publications, and see only support for the NRA, despite what the NRA did in McDonald v Chicago. It's all water under the bridge to SAF. Your measly 15$ dues there are tax deductible. Ask yourself where are the gains being made- seems to me the courts, by Gura via SAF.

And yes still support the NRA or GOA or both.

www.saf.org for the 20+ court cases that the SAF is toting the water for all gun owners in.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
1,653 Posts
Jjk accusing folks of spitting out libertarian nonsense? Tell us JJ in your little spew of establishment republican nonsense why you would leave out pertinent facts regarding the two house members who switched their votes and who talked them into doing it? Why do you not mention the fact Ronald Reagan did this? A little too much inconvenient for your narrow view that establishment republicans will save us? They screwed us jj, and yes folks, Reagan gave us the assault weapons ban in the end. Just like he supported the Brady bill, banned machine guns and enacted gun control while he was governor of California.

Fast forward to Romney. The go along gang of clowns here were touting how he would save us from Govmt Healthcare, despite the fact he CREATED govmt healthcare. Then he was gonna save us from an AWB, when in fact he previously signed an AWB. One day......
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
12,931 Posts
there will come a day when firearm ownership in America is on par with australia and england, maybe worse. our government will keep going left till it's like france, etc. i really don't see much hope for firearm freedom in the U.S. without an all out revolution...... and don't think i'll be around if it ever came to that, but i wish i was. only good thing the white democrats will be down the river with us, it'll be run by mexicans and blacks. just look at africa, you'll see America in a hundred years.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
1,653 Posts
there will come a day when firearm ownership in America is on par with australia and england, maybe worse. our government will keep going left till it's like france, etc. i really don't see much hope for firearm freedom in the U.S. without an all out revolution...... and don't think i'll be around if it ever came to that, but i wish i was. only good thing the white democrats will be down the river with us, it'll be run by mexicans and blacks. just look at africa, you'll see America in a hundred years.
Wow Falm talking about an all out revolution? I like it. And agree with most of what you say. This is the reason supporting the shooting sports is important. Those kids in the 4H club the NRA foundation is supplying the 22 bullets too might be the ones that save liberty in this country one day.
 
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
Top