Obama Calls for PERMANENT Assault Weapons Ban

spy1 · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289373,00.html

"CHICAGO — Standing before a church congregation that has witnessed inner-city violence firsthand, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Sunday that more must be done to end a social ill that is "sickening the soul of this nation."

Obama told churchgoers at the Vernon Park Church of God on Chicago's South Side that too many young lives are being claimed by violence and more must be done to combat the problem.

"From South Central L.A. to Newark, New Jersey, there's an epidemic of violence that's sickening the soul of this nation," the Illinois senator told the crowd. "The violence is unacceptable and it's got to stop."

Nearly three dozen Chicago students have been killed this year, according to Chicago Public Schools. Obama said that figure is higher than the number of Illinois serviceman who've died in Iraq in 2007.

"We need to express our collective anger through collective action," Obama said.

He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban and close regulatory loopholes that protect unscrupulous gun dealers."

.........

"He later added, "There's a reason they go out and shoot each other, because they don't love themselves. And the reason they don't love themselves is because we are not loving them enough." "

Tomahawk · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

spy1 wrote:

"He later added, "There's a reason they go out and shoot each other, because they don't love themselves. And the reason they don't love themselves is because we are not loving them enough." "

Well, Barak, we certainly don't love you, pal.

openryan · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

Okay, I am not so sure how many assualt weapons are used to kill people, but I am sure it is much, much lower than handguns.

These weapons get much more attention then needed. If he loved them, why doesn't he talk about illegal drug use, or alcohol education (citizen!!).

There are so many more pressing issues not even related to violence, if he took half this stance on any other important issue, he might have a chance.

Personally, the only way Hillary or Obama could win the election is if one of them swallowed their pride and ran on the same ticket -- but they will never do it.

FYI: I hate them both.

spy1 · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

Regardless of anything else he (Obama)says or does (and I expect him to try to weasle out of that statement within 24 hours - "out of context"/ "I didn't say that", etc) - he has just very effectively removed any chance he ever had of being nominated.

Gotta love that! <g> Pete

lockman · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

I do not beleive any of the shootings this year even involved any guns that would be banned under the previous AWB!:banghead:

Hawkflyer · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

spy1 wrote:

Regardless of anything else he (Obama) says or does (and I expect him to try to weasle out of that statement within 24 hours - "out of context"/ "I didn't say that", etc) - he has just very effectively removed any chance he ever had of being nominated.

Gotta love that! <g> Pete

I could be wrong, but I doubt his political base in found among firearms owners.

That said there are a lot of very good reason not to elect this guy President that have nothing to do with firearms. Have you looked at his position on illegal aliens?

Regards

TrueBrit · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

Another job here for mad dogs and Englishmen, methinks!

Anyone care to hazard a guess at the social demographic of these shooters and shootees? Could they possibly be Gangstas doing the shooting, and the victims are other Gangstas who are not quite as "Gangsta" as they thought they were?

Perhaps Obama needs to betake himself to the ghettos and projects where these miscreants abound, and dispense the love and hugs that they need!

As an aside, it seems curious to me that most guns behave themselves in a civilized manner in the Southern states, but behave in the most atrocious way once they cross into the Yankee states.

Ah well, what does a silly old Brit transplant know about it anyway?:?

TrueBrit.

Tomahawk · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

TrueBrit wrote:

As an aside, it seems curious to me that most guns behave themselves in a civilized manner in the Southern states, but behave in the most atrocious way once they cross into the Yankee states.

But in Britain all the guns are in jail...they must be really bad.

Hawkflyer · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

TrueBrit wrote:

Another job here for mad dogs and Englishmen, methinks!

Anyone care to hazard a guess at the social demographic of these shooters and shootees? Could they possibly be Gangstas doing the shooting, and the victims are other Gangstas who are not quite as "Gangsta" as they thought they were?

Perhaps Obama needs to betake himself to the ghettos and projects where these miscreants abound, and dispense the love and hugs that they need!

As an aside, it seems curious to me that most guns behave themselves in a civilized manner in the Southern states, but behave in the most atrocious way once they cross into the Yankee states.

Ah well, what does a silly old Brit transplant know about it anyway?:?

TrueBrit.

LMAO

It is beyond belief that this issue keeps coming up in politics. But TrueBrit, may have a handle on something there. Perhaps these folks should all have a glass of wine and a hug fest.

Regards

TrueBrit · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

TrueBrit wrote:

As an aside, it seems curious to me that most guns behave themselves in a civilized manner in the Southern states, but behave in the most atrocious way once they cross into the Yankee states.

Click to expand...

But in Britain all the guns are in jail...they must be really bad.

Close, but not quite correct. The legally held sporting guns are indeed incarcerated, when not in use, in metal gun safes, as a condition of the grant of a firearms or shotgun certificate. THESE guns never cause trouble.

The illegally held guns,belonging to the thugs hoodlums and criminals, however, remain free, and horrid mischief ensues.

If only the illegally held guns could be similarly incarcerated, Tomahawk....

TrueBrit.

CPL_in_WA · Jul 15, 2007

imported post

Perhaps if someone, under guise ofa reporter, were to ask Obama:

"What do you think could have been done before the Virginia Tech massacre, that would have prevented assault weapons from being used in such a horrible fashion?"

Gotta love leading questions. I'd like to hear that response. That would begun-forumfodder in seconds!

Another thought ... [sarcasm]Of course getting rid of/locking up assault weapons is an effective solution. Just look at all those assault weapons the military keeps locked up. Those guns never do anything bad![/sarcasm]

In other news ... It's Monday again :banghead:

HankT · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

spy1 wrote:

Obama told churchgoers at the Vernon Park Church of God on Chicago's South Side that too many young lives are being claimed by violence and more must be done to combat the problem.

"From South Central L.A. to Newark, New Jersey, there's an epidemic of violence that's sickening the soul of this nation," the Illinois senator told the crowd. "The violence is unacceptable and it's got to stop."

I don't have a problem with his stated general aim. Less gun violence would be better. I don't think anyone can effectively argue against his statedgoals. Or even his sense of alarm. I don't see why the pro-gun/rights community couldn't get behind this general aim--100%. In fact, it would be politically wise to do so. Verysmart, actually, especiallyif we could figure out some ways tosignificantly reduce the violence through some attainable changes to the status quo. I don'tsee why we couldn't. Hell, I don't see why we shouldn't.

If thepro-gun/rights folkscould work togetherwith the anti-gun/rights folks to reduce gun violence in this country....well, that'd be a wonderful thing.

The key is old paradigms. Changing them, that is.Most old-line thinkers love the old paradigms.More simplistic. Easier to handle cognitively.

spy1 wrote:

Nearly three dozen Chicago students have been killed this year, according to Chicago Public Schools. Obama said that figure is higher than the number of Illinois serviceman who've died in Iraq in 2007.

I wonder what this means? I don't have a clue. It is a pairing of two numbers involving negative concepts and, I guess, an implied relationship (or competition?).

It's just a "clever" campaign writer's attempt to produce a twofer: Decry the local gun deaths of children and denounce the Iraq war (Bush) at the same time. Guys get paid a lot of money to come up with such wordsmithing. And the dullards and the extremists in the liberal/Democratic camp just eat it up.

I blame the educational system for the failure to adequately teach our populace to use critical analysis in political, partisanand ideological discussions. That failure is going to ruin us.

spy1 wrote:

He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban ...

Hmm....besides the obvious defects of this position, my reaction is that Obama saying this this early in the campaign is probably good overall for pro-gun/rights advocates. It is becoming clear that gun control will be a major issue in the 2008 elecctions. I think that Clinton hasn't been quite so clear about her position on AWB. (Is she clear about anything?) Obama's statement will move her along in the same direction. Given a premise that the Obama/Clinton/Dems are already and will continue to be firmly anti-gun, the more out in the open they are about it, the better. Hell, the 2000 presidential election was crucially impacted by the anti-gun position of Al Gore (he lost TN).

CPL_in_WA · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

HankT wrote:

spy1 wrote:

Obama told churchgoers at the Vernon Park Church of God on Chicago's South Side that too many young lives are being claimed by violence and more must be done to combat the problem.

"From South Central L.A. to Newark, New Jersey, there's an epidemic of violence that's sickening the soul of this nation," the Illinois senator told the crowd. "The violence is unacceptable and it's got to stop."

Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with his stated general aim. Less gun violence would be better. I don't think anyone can effectively argue against his statedgoals. Or even his sense of alarm. I don't see why the pro-gun/rights community couldn't get behind this general aim--100%. In fact, it would be politically wise to do so. Verysmart, actually, especiallyif we could figure out some ways tosignificantly reduce the violence through some attainable changes to the status quo. I don'tsee why we couldn't. Hell, I don't see why we shouldn't.

If thepro-gun/rights folkscould work togetherwith the anti-gun/rights folks to reduce gun violence in this country....well, that'd be a wonderful thing.

The key is old paradigms. Changing them, that is.Most old-line thinkers love the old paradigms.More simplistic. Easier to handle cognitively.

spy1 wrote:

Nearly three dozen Chicago students have been killed this year, according to Chicago Public Schools. Obama said that figure is higher than the number of Illinois serviceman who've died in Iraq in 2007.

Click to expand...

I wonder what this means? I don't have a clue. It is a pairing of two numbers involving negative concepts and, I guess, an implied relationship (or competition?).

It's just a "clever" campaign writer's attempt to produce a twofer: Decry the local gun deaths of children and denounce the Iraq war (Bush) at the same time. Guys get paid a lot of money to come up with such wordsmithing. And the dullards and the extremists in the liberal/Democratic camp just eat it up.

I blame the educational system for the failure to adequately teach our populace to use critical analysis in political, partisanand ideological discussions. That failure is going to ruin us.

spy1 wrote:

He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban ...

Click to expand...

Hmm....besides the obvious defects of this position, my reaction is that Obama saying this this early in the campaign is probably good overall for pro-gun/rights advocates. It is becoming clear that gun control will be a major issue in the 2008 elecctions. I think that Clinton hasn't been quite so clear about her position on AWB. (Is she clear about anything?) Obama's statement will move her along in the same direction. Given a premise that the Obama/Clinton/Dems are already and will continue to be firmly anti-gun, the more out in the open they are about it, the better. Hell, the 2000 presidential election was crucially impacted by the anti-gun position of Al Gore (he lost TN).

Less gun violence would be better.

Gun violence? That article did not mention guns until this sentence:

He said the government needs to permanently reinstate an assault weapons ban and close regulatory loopholes that protect unscrupulous gun dealers.

I'm not sure what the point of throwing 'gun' in front of 'violence'would accomplish.

We want guns. They don't. Let's say:

We are after the same end. Less criminals (or crime, or violence, or whatever). However, the means to that end is why we cannot 'join' their efforts. The contrast can be shown thus:

Place the 'blame' of the 'violence' on the guns. Therefore, no guns = no violence.

Place the 'blame' of the 'violence' on the criminals. Therefore,no criminals =no violence.

The problem is that those two are mutually exclusive. We argue tooth and nail that it's criminals/crimes. They argue tooth and nail that guns are the root of all evil.

Good catch on the twofer. I tot i taw a puddy tat! I just couldn't put my finger on it.:what:

Apparently Obama thinks we need to give these violent people some wine / cheese / hugs. Then it would be all better.:uhoh:

Hopefully their support of gun control related issues will stay on track to a defeat.

:monkeyMy First Monkey!

Legba · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

Brit,

Ohio has traditionally been a "cash & carry" gun state - so it's not just southern boys who like their firearms. [indelicate remarks about the Civil War redacted] Also, it is generally criminals who gun down other criminals here, and I think Obama et al would realize that the "lax" gun laws are actually doing the work that the police and courts either can't or won't, if they looked more closely at the "problem." I know I'm not going to the ghetto in Cincinnati at night without a loaded gun in my hand - nevermind CC vs. OC.

-ljp

ProguninTN · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

TrueBrit wrote:

Another job here for mad dogs and Englishmen, methinks!

Anyone care to hazard a guess at the social demographic of these shooters and shootees? Could they possibly be Gangstas doing the shooting, and the victims are other Gangstas who are not quite as "Gangsta" as they thought they were?

Perhaps Obama needs to betake himself to the ghettos and projects where these miscreants abound, and dispense the love and hugs that they need!

As an aside, it seems curious to me that most guns behave themselves in a civilized manner in the Southern states, but behave in the most atrocious way once they cross into the Yankee states.

Ah well, what does a silly old Brit transplant know about it anyway?:?

TrueBrit.

You're probably correct, TrueBrit. Of course, Obama's position is not surprising considering his previous job was representing a portion of Chicago in the state senate.

ProguninTN

TrueBrit · Jul 16, 2007

imported post

Legba wrote:

Brit,

Ohio has traditionally been a "cash & carry" gun state - so it's not just southern boys who like their firearms. [indelicate remarks about the Civil War redacted] Also, it is generally criminals who gun down other criminals here, and I think Obama et al would realize that the "lax" gun laws are actually doing the work that the police and courts either can't or won't, if they looked more closely at the "problem." I know I'm not going to the ghetto in Cincinnati at night without a loaded gun in my hand - nevermind CC vs. OC.

-ljp

No offence meant here, I was being rather flip about the North and South, and I am sure that the gentlemen North of the river are great gun aficionados.

You are a better man than I am, Legba, to even think of venturing into the ghetto in Cincy after dark!My personal choice of weaponry would be a shotgun!

TrueBrit

HankT · Jul 17, 2007

imported post

TrueBrit wrote:

Legba wrote:

Brit,

Ohio has traditionally been a "cash & carry" gun state - so it's not just southern boys who like their firearms. [indelicate remarks about the Civil War redacted] Also, it is generally criminals who gun down other criminals here, and I think Obama et al would realize that the "lax" gun laws are actually doing the work that the police and courts either can't or won't, if they looked more closely at the "problem." I know I'm not going to the ghetto in Cincinnati at night without a loaded gun in my hand - nevermind CC vs. OC.

-ljp

Click to expand...

No offence meant here, I was being rather flip about the North and South, and I am sure that the gentlemen North of the river are great gun aficionados.

You are a better man than I am, Legba, to even think of venturing into the ghetto in Cincy after dark!My personal choice of weaponry would be a shotgun!

TrueBrit and Legba inspire a quiteinteresting idea: What if a committed and resolute OCer wanted to excercise his right to go anywhere he wished in Cincy (or Philly...or Norfolk...). And anywhere includes the ghetto! So, in order to excercise that right and to educate the public .... the guy decides to go a walk through Over-the-Rhine, check out the sights, smoke a cigarette and just, well, be. Let's say for propriety's sake he has his peacemaker in holster, not in hand as Legba might suggest.

Whoa, Nellie. Wouldn't that be a great demonstration of something?

What would even be cooler would be a group of OCers going through the ghetto. Excercising, making a statement...stopping at an eats place with local flair...kind of like the Norfolk group recently....

I dunno. Now that I think about it, I don't believe I've heard hereof much OCing in the ghetto. I don't know what that means, but it is interesting.

1st freedom · Jul 17, 2007

imported post

Maybe that's why the crime rate is so high in the "getto's"

I think that the judicial system gets the blame for our crime rate's. People don't fear the conseuence's of their actions. Armed robbery can be pleigh bargened down to about 16 momths of free room and board with free cable, medical and dental.

I think if you commit a felony with a fire arm, 25 yrs. and sould serve every day of it.

A large reduction in repete offenders.

CPL_in_WA · Jul 17, 2007

imported post

1st freedom wrote:

Maybe that's why the crime rate is so high in the "getto's"

I think that the judicial system gets the blame for our crime rate's. People don't fear the conseuence's of their actions. Armed robbery can be pleigh bargened down to about 16 momths of free room and board with free cable, medical and dental.

I think if you commit a felony with a fire arm, 25 yrs. and sould serve every day of it.

A large reduction in repete offenders.

"fire arm"?!?! That would be one hell of a hothandshake! Please tell me you meant 'deadly weapon'... please :banghead:

Prison... now there's a topic! I'm more of a creative punishment kind of guy. By the way, that includes methods of serving time, so don't get the wrong idea

Hmmm... OC in the ghetto? How about an OC dinner in the ghetto? Not for the faint of heart.Also, it would require some coordination with the restaurant. Hmmm... interesting possibilities...

HankT · Jul 17, 2007

imported post

CPL_in_WA wrote:

"fire arm"?!?! That would be one hell of a hothandshake!

LOL. Good one.

CPL_in_WA wrote:

Prison... now there's a topic! I'm more of a creative punishment kind of guy. By the way, that includes methods of serving time, so don't get the wrong idea

There was a guy who posted here a while back proposing that felony committers (i.e., bank robber) should not go to prison--but rather would be physically beateninstead. Then, he said, they should be allowed to have their gun rights back. He figured that the beating would make the felon stop doing it and that the state really didn't have the right to be denying anyone's gun rights...

Interesting proposal, I thought. But he really didn't want to discuss it much. :shock:

CPL_in_WA wrote:

Hmmm... OC in the ghetto? How about an OC dinner in the ghetto? Not for the faint of heart.Also, it would require some coordination with the restaurant. Hmmm... interesting possibilities...

Wow, that would be so cool-cool-coolio. :monkey:what:

But it will never happen. No way you could get a group of guys to go for a stroll in the heart of the ghetto while OCing...

And what's with the "require some coordination" idea? I don't recall the Manassas 7 or the Norfolk 8 coordinating anything with the eateries they went to. In fact, the conventional wisdom is "don't call ahead."

OCing in groups is obviously best done in the relative safety of the Wal-Marts, Targets, good restaurants and public libraries. Those are the people that should be educated...and protected.

I don't think anyone (me included) would want to go traipsing through the ghetto showing arms. I'd be too afraid to do it. Others would be too.

It will never happen.

Obama Calls for PERMANENT Assault Weapons Ban

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

State Researcher

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher