Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Presidential Debate

  1. #1
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271

    Presidential Debate

    I got an alert from OhioCCW saying that President Obama outed himself for plans to renew the '94 AWB and go after handguns. We don't have TV so I didn't get to see it. Anyone else catch it? How accurate was their alert?
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132
    Inaccurate.

    For future reference, you don't need a TV to watch events like the debates, as most establishment media outlets will stream such events live over the internet.

    During the debate President Obama was asked a question about whether he favored reinstatement of the semi-auto carbine ban (referencing the earlier one from 1994). It wasn't a surprise that he responded in the affirmative. He suggested "introducing legislation", but he knows he doesn't have the votes with a republican controlled house to even think about it.

    His comment about handguns was just a reference to his home area of Chicago, where "they don't use AK-47s, but use cheap handguns". I didn't pick up any inferences from that remark, and even if he intended to suggest going after handguns he once again knows he doesn't have the votes.

    No reason to worry.
    Last edited by Tactical9mm; 10-17-2012 at 02:32 AM.
    Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without. -Hávamál 38

  3. #3
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    The passing remark he made about "cheap handguns" was a little more meaningful when you look at legislation he was proposing in Chicago back in 1999. One of the planks of his proposal was banning inexpensive "saturday night specials." Which if you think it through how do you define an inexpensive gun? Who is the group that is going to define the price point?

    Granted there isn't much in terms of the political will do doing anything overt. But given his predilection to gun control the more pressing issue would be the appointment of 2-3 Justices to SCOTUS over the next 4 years. Just for reference, here is a quote from the Chicago Defender from Dec 1999 that walks through the proposal:

    Obama outlined his anti-gun plan that includes increased penalties for the interstate transportation of firearms. The maximum penalty now for bringing a gun across the border is 10 years in prison. Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.

    He's proposing restricting gun purchases to one weapon a month and banning the sale of firearms at gun shows except for "antique" weapons. Obama is also proposing increasing the licensing fee to obtain a federal firearms license.

    He's also seeking a ban on police agencies from reselling their used weapons even if those funds are used to buy more state-of-the-art weapons for their agencies. Obama wants only those over 21 who've passed a basic course to be able to buy or own a firearm.

    He's proposing that all federally licensed gun dealers sell firearms in a storefront and not from their homes while banning their business from being within five miles of a school or a park. He's also banning the sale of 'junk" handguns like the popular Saturday Night Specials.
    Just for reference.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical9mm View Post
    Inaccurate.

    For future reference, you don't need a TV to watch events like the debates, as most establishment media outlets will stream such events live over the internet.

    During the debate President Obama was asked a question about whether he favored reinstatement of the semi-auto carbine ban (referencing the earlier one from 1994). It wasn't a surprise that he responded in the affirmative. He suggested "introducing legislation", but he knows he doesn't have the votes with a republican controlled house to even think about it.

    His comment about handguns was just a reference to his home area of Chicago, where "they don't use AK-47s, but use cheap handguns". I didn't pick up any inferences from that remark, and even if he intended to suggest going after handguns he once again knows he doesn't have the votes.

    No reason to worry.
    Here's a transcript of the relevant segment of the debate:

    Quote Originally Posted by Debates
    QUESTION: President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or planned to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?

    OBAMA: We’re a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We’ve got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves.

    But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I’ve had to comfort families who have lost somebody. Most recently out in Aurora. You know, just a couple of weeks ago, actually, probably about a month, I saw a mother, who I had met at the bedside of her son, who had been shot in that theater.

    And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and we said a prayer and, remarkably, about two months later, this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new.

    But there were a lot of families who didn’t have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn’t survive.

    So my belief is that, (A), we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

    But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced. But part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because frankly, in my home town of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence and they’re not using AK-47s. They’re using cheap hand guns.

    And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there’s violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control.

    And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.
    The '94 AWB of course impacted more items than just semi-auto carbines, so you are likewise being inaccurate. It affected handguns as well. The truth is, we don't know what he intends, or what he believes he can get away with. His "compressive strategy" could be to outlaw everything but Biden's over-under Beretta. There are republicans who are sympathetic to the idea of a gun ban, and remember, the republican controlled congress is only a guarantee for the next two years. He may very well enjoy the last two years of administration with a full democratic majority.

    I really don't like either of 'em, and truth is, I was favoring Obama prior to this debate, but those words out of his lips were a major disappointment for yours truly.

  5. #5
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by CO-Joe View Post
    Here's a transcript of the relevant segment of the debate:



    The '94 AWB of course impacted more items than just semi-auto carbines, so you are likewise being inaccurate. It affected handguns as well. The truth is, we don't know what he intends, or what he believes he can get away with. His "compressive strategy" could be to outlaw everything but Biden's over-under Beretta. There are republicans who are sympathetic to the idea of a gun ban, and remember, the republican controlled congress is only a guarantee for the next two years. He may very well enjoy the last two years of administration with a full democratic majority.

    I really don't like either of 'em, and truth is, I was favoring Obama prior to this debate, but those words out of his lips were a major disappointment for yours truly.
    Just curious if you read my quote from the Chicago Defender, Dec 1999? And what if anything you have seen from Obama that would lead you to believe his position has altered from that quote in any way?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Tactical9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Manchester, New Hampshire
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by CO-Joe View Post
    Here's a transcript of the relevant segment of the debate:



    The '94 AWB of course impacted more items than just semi-auto carbines, so you are likewise being inaccurate. It affected handguns as well. The truth is, we don't know what he intends, or what he believes he can get away with. His "compressive strategy" could be to outlaw everything but Biden's over-under Beretta. There are republicans who are sympathetic to the idea of a gun ban, and remember, the republican controlled congress is only a guarantee for the next two years. He may very well enjoy the last two years of administration with a full democratic majority.

    I really don't like either of 'em, and truth is, I was favoring Obama prior to this debate, but those words out of his lips were a major disappointment for yours truly.
    Apologies for any confusion. My comment about carbines/rifles wasn't meant to suggest that it was the only thing impacted by the 94 ban. It was just a reference to the actual question that the debate moderator put to both candidates about "AK-47" weapons. I heard "AK-47", and mentally flashed to my AR, hence the carbine reference.

    I also should have closed my post with "No reason to worry. Yet."

    The President alienating gun owners during the debate was a big surprise. I would have expected him to at least remain silent, to avoid the possibility of pushing more voters away.
    Let a man never stir on his road a step without his weapons of war; for unsure is the knowing when need shall arise of a spear on the way without. -Hávamál 38

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Just curious if you read my quote from the Chicago Defender, Dec 1999? And what if anything you have seen from Obama that would lead you to believe his position has altered from that quote in any way?
    Well, let me put it this way, I think the quote from the Defender is probably on the moderate side of Obama's ideal, pie-in-the-sky scenario, which would be near-complete abolition of private firearms ownership and a monopoly on the use of force for the ruling class. The only way for them to get there is incrementally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tactical9mm View Post
    I also should have closed my post with "No reason to worry. Yet."

    The President alienating gun owners during the debate was a big surprise. I would have expected him to at least remain silent, to avoid the possibility of pushing more voters away.
    Yes, it was a big surprise for me as well. The tactful response would have been something along the lines of "I wouldn't be interested in pursuing additional legislation at this time", and then he could have got in and slipped us the mickey when the opportunity was present, or at least let congress slip it into something important and then he claim it was someone else's fault. Romney is no friend of gun owners either, except that in at least this one capacity he's seeming like the lesser of two evils. He at least knows he needs the support of the pro-gun lobby, and as a consequence, he most probably won't do anything to piss off that voter base.

    What's really F'n funny is how he spins the Massachusetts' 2004 assault weapons ban as something the entire pro-gun lobby really wanted. As far as I can tell, the legislators used a lobby group in Massachusetts called the Gun Owners Action League, which is apparently a state level branch of the NRA to promote this agenda. Even on their own site, they have the giant brass balls to claim that "During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk...." and "The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 "

    Yep, a law that removes the sunset of a previous law, forever extending an anti-gun gun control law is now a positive thing! What kind of drug does one have to take to endure such an extreme level of cognitive dissonance?

  8. #8
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by CO-Joe View Post
    Well, let me put it this way, I think the quote from the Defender is probably on the moderate side of Obama's ideal, pie-in-the-sky scenario, which would be near-complete abolition of private firearms ownership and a monopoly on the use of force for the ruling class. The only way for them to get there is incrementally.



    Yes, it was a big surprise for me as well. The tactful response would have been something along the lines of "I wouldn't be interested in pursuing additional legislation at this time", and then he could have got in and slipped us the mickey when the opportunity was present, or at least let congress slip it into something important and then he claim it was someone else's fault. Romney is no friend of gun owners either, except that in at least this one capacity he's seeming like the lesser of two evils. He at least knows he needs the support of the pro-gun lobby, and as a consequence, he most probably won't do anything to piss off that voter base.

    What's really F'n funny is how he spins the Massachusetts' 2004 assault weapons ban as something the entire pro-gun lobby really wanted. As far as I can tell, the legislators used a lobby group in Massachusetts called the Gun Owners Action League, which is apparently a state level branch of the NRA to promote this agenda. Even on their own site, they have the giant brass balls to claim that "During the Romney Administration, no anti-Second Amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk...." and "The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 "

    Yep, a law that removes the sunset of a previous law, forever extending an anti-gun gun control law is now a positive thing! What kind of drug does one have to take to endure such an extreme level of cognitive dissonance?
    Sorry, I'm not a huge Romney fan, but this is kind of a pet peeve of mine. Romney did NOT remove a sunset. That 2006 law has been completely misrepresented to imply something that is simply not true. The federal ban in 1994 had a 10 year sunset. MA law in 1998 was similar to the federal law, but it did not have a sunset clause. It was a permanent ban from day 1. The law passed in 2006 (and signed by Romney) did not have any clause that removed the any sunset. What happened was that the anti-gun group was successful in getting the 1998 law re-stated in the 2006 bill. They actually wanted to re-state the ban and even expand it's definitions, but they were prevented. So many people think that the 2006 law removed a sunset clause. Again, that's not true. The 1998 ban in MA was a permanent ban in 1998. What the 2006 law did do was remove some of the confusion and additional registration requirements that were ridiculous. Now you can argue Romney's comments during the signing were not great, but the law itself was not what you said it was.

    You can read the 1998 law here:

    http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/Se...998/Chapter180

    And an analysis of the 2004 law here:

    http://www.pagunblog.com/2012/10/17/...an-that-wasnt/

    Just a real issue that people keep misrepresenting the truth about MA and Romney. But like I said, this is not intended to be an endorsement of Romney.
    Last edited by mobiushky; 10-17-2012 at 05:26 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184
    Fair enough, I'll take a few minutes to enlighten myself this evening. Thanks for the links.
    Last edited by CO-Joe; 10-17-2012 at 05:33 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    It's kind of like the flip side where people are trying to claim Obama has been pro-gun as president because he signed a bill that included amendments that were completely unrelated to the bill. In fact, several democrats tried to get those amendments excluded but were not successful and they wanted the overall bill more. Remember that bill was the one that changed the way that credit card companies charged fees. Obama really wanted that bill and the minor inconvenience of altering the national parks regulations didn't prevent him from signing it. Essentially all the amendment said was that you could do whatever your local state allowed. It didn't really open up national parks suddenly.

    Also remember that the Brady campaign, while they were upset about the amendments, felt that they could get something passed between the signing and the implementation that would stop it from happening. They were simply not successful. So it's a bit of a stretch to claim Obama is suddenly pro-gun because his hand was forced.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    It was nice how he detailed the shot in the head .. I'm sure the family appreciated that.

    He's an anti-gunner, glad it was brought up .. even him mentioning the quality AK 47 rifle shows he wants to outlaw them.

    We have pee-shooters, gov't has howitzers ... good luck defending yourself

  12. #12
    Regular Member eBratt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Fort Collins Area, CO
    Posts
    271
    Thanks for all the info. Wasn't under the impression Obama was pro-gun but was just kind of shocked that he came out so boldly about the issue.

    The fact that Romney signed the Mass. ban leaves me feeling that neither of the major candidate is pro-gun.
    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

    As always, insert standard IANAL disclaimer here.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    The passing remark he made about "cheap handguns" was a little more meaningful when you look at legislation he was proposing in Chicago back in 1999. One of the planks of his proposal was banning inexpensive "saturday night specials." Which if you think it through how do you define an inexpensive gun? Who is the group that is going to define the price point?

    Granted there isn't much in terms of the political will do doing anything overt. But given his predilection to gun control the more pressing issue would be the appointment of 2-3 Justices to SCOTUS over the next 4 years. Just for reference, here is a quote from the Chicago Defender from Dec 1999 that walks through the proposal:


    Just for reference.
    The going street price straight out of the trunk. Or, a cheap Chinese knock-off.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by eBratt View Post
    Thanks for all the info. Wasn't under the impression Obama was pro-gun but was just kind of shocked that he came out so boldly about the issue.

    The fact that Romney signed the Mass. ban leaves me feeling that neither of the major candidate is pro-gun.
    Seriously? Are we going to go through this again? Romney never signed a ban. Read my previous posts. If you're going to say he's anti-gun at least use the accurate reasons.

  15. #15
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The going street price straight out of the trunk. Or, a cheap Chinese knock-off.
    But what if I decide that $500 is a "cheap" gun and I'm in charge of the council that sets the limits? You know actually, $750 seems cheap to me, so let's say anything less than $750 is a cheap gun and ban them. No you know, $1000 is a good even number, I think anything less than $1000 is cheap....

    You follow?

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    But what if I decide that $500 is a "cheap" gun and I'm in charge of the council that sets the limits? You know actually, $750 seems cheap to me, so let's say anything less than $750 is a cheap gun and ban them. No you know, $1000 is a good even number, I think anything less than $1000 is cheap....

    You follow?
    Uh.....no, I do not follow. Whatever you decide/define as a "cheap price" will be greatly undercut by some entrepreneur, in a dark alley, out of the trunk of his car. That is the beauty of our free enterprise system.

    And, everybody knows a cheap Chinese knock-off when they see it.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member JamesB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    703
    Quote Originally Posted by mobiushky View Post
    Seriously? Are we going to go through this again? Romney never signed a ban. Read my previous posts. If you're going to say he's anti-gun at least use the accurate reasons.
    I'm going to say he's anti-gun.

    Try this one: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10...alsehoo/190740

    "The legislation in question, signed by Romney in July 2004, actually enraged "the pro-gun folks." In a press release titled, "Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban," the then-Massachusetts governor described the weapons as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." According to Massachusetts' leading gun advocacy group, Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), Romney told reporters at the signing ceremony that his position on assault weapons was the same as Democratic gun violence prevention stalwarts Ted Kennedy and John Kerry."

  18. #18
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337

    Re: Presidential Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
    I'm going to say he's anti-gun.

    Try this one: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10...alsehoo/190740

    "The legislation in question, signed by Romney in July 2004, actually enraged "the pro-gun folks." In a press release titled, "Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban," the then-Massachusetts governor described the weapons as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." According to Massachusetts' leading gun advocacy group, Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), Romney told reporters at the signing ceremony that his position on assault weapons was the same as Democratic gun violence prevention stalwarts Ted Kennedy and John Kerry."
    In that article linked in your post there is yet another link to the archived GOAL newsletter sent to subscribers. It was very enlightening.
    BTW, I'm on my phone, otherwise I'd have posted the GOAL newsletter link myself ... my apologies.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  19. #19
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Uh.....no, I do not follow. Whatever you decide/define as a "cheap price" will be greatly undercut by some entrepreneur, in a dark alley, out of the trunk of his car. That is the beauty of our free enterprise system.

    And, everybody knows a cheap Chinese knock-off when they see it.
    Let me re-state. If you ban "saturday night specials" and then put the power to define the "saturday night special" in the hands of an anti-gun bureaucrats, they will define it in a way that limits as many guns as possible. They will rationalize that maybe anything less than $1000 is "cheap." So that they can make guns more difficult to access for most people.

    That's what I was getting at.

  20. #20
    Regular Member mobiushky's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Alaska (ex-Colorado)
    Posts
    840
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesB View Post
    I'm going to say he's anti-gun.

    Try this one: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10...alsehoo/190740

    "The legislation in question, signed by Romney in July 2004, actually enraged "the pro-gun folks." In a press release titled, "Romney Signs Off On Permanent Assault Weapons Ban," the then-Massachusetts governor described the weapons as "instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." According to Massachusetts' leading gun advocacy group, Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), Romney told reporters at the signing ceremony that his position on assault weapons was the same as Democratic gun violence prevention stalwarts Ted Kennedy and John Kerry."
    Like I said, you can argue about what he said. I won't try to defend it at all. That's not my point. But it's kind of dumb to try to argue a point about someone's position with invalid information isn't it? And just for commentary, Media Matters is a not a very accurate or factual site. It's a Soros supported organization that has never really tried to be factual.

    It might be more helpful to go to GOAL's own page about Romney rather than linking to anything from Media Matters. I won't grace them with added traffic myself.

    Here is GOAL's page dedicated to Romney:

    http://www.goal.org/newspages/romney.html

    I haven't been through it all yet, but I trust reading GOAL's version of their feelings about Romney before I would trust Media Matters skewed and spun attempts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •