• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Obama's plans for guns. From the Office of the President Elect's .gov website

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
imported post

That's interesting. I wrote a rather long letter to the campaign about that yesterday, and today it's unavailable. Doubt the two are related, but it does amuse me.
 

bluer1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
160
Location
, ,
imported post

Does this mean as someone that lives in a rural area, I can keep my assault rifles? (Though silly, the main focus is on "urban" centers right? So we all know which "Urban"areas WA are bad, your Kents, your Rainier Ave/MLK way, Casino Rd. in Everett. And as such, a serious question is raised, why are they only tying to limit minority area these rights?
 

3/325

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
332
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
imported post

Permanent only lasts as long as the president and congress. Not that I would want it at all. The next one can always repeal it.

The problem is that what gets done very often never gets undone. Electing a new President AND a new Congress who are both in favor of repealing unconstitutional anti-gun laws is not an easy thing to achieve. And, once they've been elected, they actually have to DO it. Also not easy.

Some studies for "Gun Violence" like to list injuries and deaths to children under 20 years old. Last I checked 18 was an "adult"...

That's their favorite way of padding statistics, by citing "teens" and expanding the definition of "children." The power of the asterisk in a chart or table cannot be underestimated.
 

The Donkey

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2006
Messages
1,114
Location
Northern Virginia
imported post

AbNo wrote:
longwatch wrote:
BREAKING NEWS!

Looks like it was a good thing I saved the text of the plan, because it has been removed from the change.gov website.

HT http://ace.mu.nu/archives/277740.php

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy
Good. Let's keep 'em on the defensive.

After they first imported the agenda from the campaign site, it looks like they wipedALL the specifics from the "agenda" portion of the transition site.

So it seems the transition team isstarting with a "clean slate" on more issues than just guns, and are properly prepared to defer to the Bush Administration until inauguration day.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
imported post

Wonder when the Obama camp will wake up to the fact that many of the "Liberal" approaches to Crime Control are the cause of the violence today. Constraints on police investigations of crime, lenient sentences for criminals, plea bargains that allow violent criminals to serve the same time as a traffic violator, fighting the execution of "the worst of the worst" criminals.

If the approach was on crime and punishment then there wouldn't be the necessity for firearms regulation that will only penalize the honest citizen.
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
imported post

The Donkey wrote:
AbNo wrote:
longwatch wrote:
BREAKING NEWS!

Looks like it was a good thing I saved the text of the plan, because it has been removed from the change.gov website.

HT http://ace.mu.nu/archives/277740.php

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy
Good. Let's keep 'em on the defensive.

After they first imported the agenda from the campaign site, it looks like they wipedALL the specifics from the "agenda" portion of the transition site.

So it seems the transition team isstarting with a "clean slate" on more issues than just guns, and are properly prepared to defer to the Bush Administration until inauguration day.
I can't seem to find the agenda on the campaign site where you say it was imported from.

So he's quietly deferring to the Bush administration until inaguration? Is that why hes' already released plans for closing Gitmo:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081110/ap_on_el_pr/obama_guantanamo;_ylt=Ak5w24q5EIcrZrOi97AlRsms0NUE

Let's face it. Your messiah officially has a hidden agenda.
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
imported post

Several people have stated that they didnt vote for Obama. You may not have checked the box for Obama/Biden but if you voted forthird party candidates who had no chance to winyou helped Obama do so.

I've heard people say that they dont like voting for "the lesser evil". Folks, since all politicians are evil that's what you will always be doing! Your favorite candidate may seem like he/she's "for the people" and in a sense they are. They care about their personal agenda, their party's agenda, for the special (read selfish) interest groups they like,and those who funded their campaign and who will own that favorite politico of yours when he/she wins. Those are "the people" any politico isreally for.

Voting on principle instead of for the lesser evilmay make you feel good about yourself but that helped the greatest evil that has ever run for POTUS get elected. How good do you folks that voted third partyon principle feel now? Like shit I hope.
 

Overtaxed

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
221
Location
, ,
imported post

I guess my head is too thick for you to drill through, Huck.

I voted for Bob Barr, and I'm still proud of it.
 

Wheelgunner

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
426
Location
Kingston, Washington, USA
imported post

Gentlemen,

I have a bleaker view on this subject. I believe that Obama is going to go for a gun seizure agenda. He knows from watching past legislation that little gun control efforts (such as the assault weapons ban) have no effect and Jamaal is not going to give up his AK because of another law.

I would not be surprised if he tried to impose Gun Control by Presidential Order.

It's going to get rougher before it gets smoother.
 

bluer1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
160
Location
, ,
imported post

My grandfather used to say, "When they come for my guns, they better bring three guys, because I'm going to get the first 2" I hope we aren't looking at that sort of a situation nationwide. That's alot of pissed off gun owners.
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

With the amount of weapons being sold right now I would think he knows that the citizens are arming themselves and that it would be foolish on his part to try and get firearms banned outright. The fact that they have taken it down to me means that it was not true to begin with or his thoughts on some things have changed now that he is getting the same briefings as Pres. Bush is and the agenda he had posted does not fit with those new views and ideals. Both scare the hell outta me because if either are true we do not know what to expect out of him at all.
 

retrodad

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2007
Messages
168
Location
Greater Seattle Area
imported post

This is hilarious; I just blogged about this last Friday.

Down the memory hole it goes. Think of this as a recurring theme you can expect for the next 4 years.
 

thewise1

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
383
Location
Moscow, ID
imported post

I've said it before and I'll say it again... there will be no seizure of guns, no full ban on guns, no rescinding of the 2nd amendment, no widespread instances of black helicopters dropping SWAT teams on your house to take your guns.

We all prepare ourselves for this possibility. Courage is something that many people have, but especially when they have friends to stand with them - and in such a case, there would be a lot of us to stand together and fight. Would we win? Probably not, but the price they pay would be dear indeed.

Unfortunately, the weakness inherent in many of us who value our freedoms is that we're excellent at putting up with incremental infringement on our rights. As long as they take it slowly enough, we will not do anything about it. I know, I know, you're thinking "If they push me to my limits, I'll fight back".. but there are some fundamental problems with this viewpoint.

First, your 'limit' can expand as long as it's done slowly. Second, not all of us have the same limit.

Face it guys. The Second Amendment means very little anymore because it's already been compromised away. Somehow 'shall not be infringed' has been interpreted to mean 'shall not be infringed except for reasonable infringement'. It spelled it out in plain English, and now that is being completely ignored.

Your real enemy is an incremental approach. Quiet determination, vigilance, and a demand that ALL freedoms be protected - whether you like them or not - are your weapons.



If we went from the restrictions in 1800 to the restrictions today, there would be a civil war, and yet today we're content with the scraps of freedom left to us. The incremental approach works quite well.
 

Richard6218

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
649
Location
LaConner, Washington, USA
imported post

joeroket wrote:
With the amount of weapons being sold right now I would think he knows that the citizens are arming themselves and that it would be foolish on his part to try and get firearms banned outright. The fact that they have taken it down to me means that it was not true to begin with or his thoughts on some things have changed now that he is getting the same briefings as Pres. Bush is and the agenda he had posted does not fit with those new views and ideals. Both scare the hell outta me because if either are true we do not know what to expect out of him at all.
He may do whatever he can get away with by EO, but it's true that he has a lot of support in the Democrat congress to pass some rather devastating legislation. He may not go forthe whole enchilada at once -- my guess is he'll chip away with items he regards as "priority" like the AWB, then start adding more and more, such as handguns. The end result will basically be a nullification of the Second Amendment. Without doubt he will have a helluva fight, but hey folks, we are nowthe minority and this guy has an agenda.
 

yankees98a

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
144
Location
, ,
imported post

Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:
"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.
"Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.
"Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.
"Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.
 
Top