NRA Propoganda at Nations Largest Gun Show: 'Obama is an Enemy of Gun Rights'

imported post

A socialist believes that all guns should be under control of the government. They certainly do not support an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Now, if you can't point to any evidence that Obama supports that right by his actions (i.e. voting record) and not just by his pre-election rhetoric, I might consider the possibility that he is not a socialist.

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

A socialist believes that all guns should be under control of the government. They certainly do not support an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Now, if you can't point to any evidence that Obama supports that right by his actions (i.e. voting record) and not just by his pre-election rhetoric, I might consider the possibility that he is not a socialist.

Click to expand...

"Socialism: An economic system in which the basic means of production are primarily owned and controlled collectively, usually by government under some system of central planning."

Unless it is the means of producing GUNS you are talking about, I do not think "socialism" really relates.

I do not think Obama has ever votedon whetherthe governmentshould bail out Colt, Remington or S & W in exchange for stock.

imported post

SIGfreed wrote:

If you own a rifle with a detachable mag (like a ruger 10/22) take a look here!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:

http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-hr-1022-gaining-traction.html

Click to expand...

In 2 years, HR 1022 was only able to attract 67 house cosponsors. It is going nowhere.

(However, it is interesting that Rahm Emmanuel was one of the cosponsors).

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Obamahas a different personal narrative about firearms than almost all participants in this forum:

Click to expand...

REALLY??? What IS his "personal narrative"?

imported post

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Obamahas a different personal narrative about firearms than almost all participants in this forum:

Click to expand...

REALLY??? What IS his "personal narrative"?

Click to expand...

Part of it: in his book "Dreams of My Father," he tells a story about having to hit the dirt when a clueless 14 year old with a gun and no sense of consequences was shooting at another kid of similar age and disposition as he walked through a neighborhood with a friend.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

SIGfreed wrote:

If you own a rifle with a detachable mag (like a ruger 10/22) take a look here!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1022.IH:

http://akeyboardanda45.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-hr-1022-gaining-traction.html

Click to expand...

In 2 years, HR 1022 was only able to attract 67 house cosponsors. It is going nowhere.

(However, it is interesting that Rahm Emmanuel was one of the cosponsors).

Click to expand...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6257:

H.R. 6257 is newer than 1022. It only has 4 cosponsors, but they are all "republicans". Red dogs? I'm thinking 6257 is the one they'll want to run with.

imported post

Rattrapper wrote:

Maybe ANTI was a bit strong, But my guardhairs go up like crazy when ever some one supports FACT CHECK as being a real source of validation. And yes I am 100% NRA. Life Member, That does not mean that the otherPro Gun groups (w/ exceptionASHA) are less valid or with out purpose.

Click to expand...

You do realize I was quoting an entire article right?

imported post

No, And then my apologies.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Obamahas a different personal narrative about firearms than almost all participants in this forum:

Click to expand...

REALLY??? What IS his "personal narrative"?

Click to expand...

Part of it: in his book "Dreams of My Father," he tells a story about having to hit the dirt when a clueless 14 year old with a gun and no sense of consequences was shooting at another kid of similar age and disposition as he walked through a neighborhood with a friend.

Click to expand...

And this was the guns fault?

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

A socialist believes that all guns should be under control of the government. They certainly do not support an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Now, if you can't point to any evidence that Obama supports that right by his actions (i.e. voting record) and not just by his pre-election rhetoric, I might consider the possibility that he is not a socialist.

Click to expand...

Have you ever looked at his voteing record as an Illinios senator? Pretty scary stuff.

imported post

SIGfreed wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Obamahas a different personal narrative about firearms than almost all participants in this forum:

Click to expand...

REALLY??? What IS his "personal narrative"?

Click to expand...

Part of it: in his book "Dreams of My Father," he tells a story about having to hit the dirt when a clueless 14 year old with a gun and no sense of consequences was shooting at another kid of similar age and disposition as he walked through a neighborhood with a friend.

Click to expand...

And this was the guns fault?

Click to expand...

Yes,my sense from thestory was that President Elect Obama did not regard the pistol as adding positively to the situation.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Yes,my sense from thestory was that President Elect Obama did not regard the pistol as adding positively to the situation.

Click to expand...

Well, technically he's not even president-elect until after December 4 when the Electoral College selects him.

Perhaps someone needs to tell him no gun ever pulled its own trigger?

imported post

Do you realize how ignorant it is to blame an inanimate object for something? Does he?

imported post

The situation was most unfortunate, and could have been tragic.

If you want to accentuate conflict, the easiest way is to argue aboutwho --or what --was at fault.

If you want to understand Obama and how to approach the new administration, consider the different waysthe situationcould have been made less dangerous, and the costs and practicality of each.

imported post

This silly anecdote is worthless. What do we know of the underlying story? How can we address preventative measures when the only detail we know is the gun itself? Do you see the problem here? Since the story is nothing more than "two kids, one gun", the only solution we can come up with is something that will get the gun out of the kid's hands. The gun is explicitly the problem. Which inevitably leads to some kind of buyback, or ban, or... ad nauseam.

Of course, the libertarian needs to know more to make an alternative argument. Why was the kid trying to shoot the other kid? Were drugs involved? If so, we need to address the failed "war on drugs" and all its nasty effects on our society and our youth/adolescents. Deeper problems will require more complex analysis, of course, but, again, all we know is the gun.

So, perhaps now you can see how this story is inherently stilted against the pro-gun argument.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

the only solution we can come up with is something that will get the gun out of the kid's hands. The gun is explicitly the problem. Which inevitably leads to some kind of buyback, or ban, or... ad nauseam.



So, perhaps now you can see how this story is inherently stilted against the pro-gun argument.

Click to expand...

I see a more important issue, one of which the details are missing is, where did the gun come from? Did it come off the streets, or perhaps from the hands of a relative who shouldn't legally have had it, or did a criminally neglectful job of securing it?

The gun is not the problem. How it came to be in the kids hands is.

When all is said and done, when someone kills another person because they were driving drunk do we take away everyones cars, or allow the victims family to sue the manufacturer of the alcohol? No!

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Obamahas a different personal narrative about firearms than almost all participants in this forum:

Click to expand...

REALLY??? What IS his "personal narrative"?

Click to expand...

Part of it: in his book "Dreams of My Father," he tells a story about having to hit the dirt when a clueless 14 year old with a gun and no sense of consequences was shooting at another kid of similar age and disposition as he walked through a neighborhood with a friend.

Click to expand...

There are so many things that are wrong in the story that it's hard to know where to begin. Assuming that the gun in question was not of an illegal type (full automatic orshort barrelled rifle, shotgun) the gun has nothing to do with the real problem. Therefore gun control, which Obama has supported, would not solve the real problem here.

The kid was 14. Where is it legal for a 14 year old to possess a handgunout in publicwithout an adult present?

Obviously, this kid had severe problems with judgement and knowing right from wrong and a total disregard for law and order. If it hadn't been a gun it would have been a knife or a baseball bat or whatever. He was intending to do harm. Banning guns would not prevent this violent kid from acting out on his impulses.

He had "no sense of consequences". This is something that no law can fix. Being taught right from wrong and the consequences of your actions is the jobof the parents. They obviously failed in this case. Leaving a person with no sense of right and wrong, and consequences of actions,on the street is dangerous for all of society.

He "wasshooting at another kid of similar age and disposition as he walked through a neighborhood with a friend". Could this be gang related, possible drug or turf war?

Let's look at the laws violated by this kid.He was not of legal age to possess the gun. He illegally came into possession of the gun (most likelystole it fromsomebody at home). Fired the gun at another person (attempted murder). Fired it in a populated, congested area (reckless endangerment). This in addition to what ever criminal activities were involvedto start thealtercation.

If a person is willing to violate the most basic law against murder, then they will think nothing of the law which bans the tools that they choose to use.

Obama has regularly supported laws which only serve to disarm victims of violent crime, as the criminals simply ignore these laws like they do all others.

imported post

The Donkey wrote:

Deanimator wrote:

The Donkey wrote:

Obamahas a different personal narrative about firearms than almost all participants in this forum:

Click to expand...

REALLY??? What IS his "personal narrative"?

Click to expand...

Part of it: in his book "Dreams of My Father," he tells a story about having to hit the dirt when a clueless 14 year old with a gun and no sense of consequences was shooting at another kid of similar age and disposition as he walked through a neighborhood with a friend.

Click to expand...

Lightweight. I grew up on 69th and Indiana Ave. in Chicago. He'd piss himself if he ever had to live there. He's a punk who was raised by a bank vice-president.

imported post

This is from the Obama transition teams website;

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.



Looks like they have no problem telling America his stance on guns now that he has been elected. The whole thing stinks of taking guns and imposing more gun laws to restrict all of us.

Wonder why he never said any of this on the campaign trail?

imported post

"Wonder why he never said any of this on the campaign trail?"

It can be summed up by four words, Clinton Assault Weapons Ban. They may be wrong on their stance on gun control, but they aren't completely stupid. "Democrats know what a politicallysuicidal issue gun control is, so they have learned to hide their stance during an election.