Presidential Debate

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.

Click to expand...

Tactical9mm said:

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.

Click to expand...

Debates said:

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.

Click to expand...

CO-Joe said:

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.

Click to expand...

CO-Joe said:

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.

Click to expand...

mobiushky said:

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?

Click to expand...

Tactical9mm said:

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.

Click to expand...

CO-Joe said:

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?

Click to expand...

mobiushky said:

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.

Click to expand...

eBratt said:

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.

Click to expand...

OC for ME said:

The going street price straight out of the trunk. Or, a cheap Chinese knock-off.

Click to expand...

mobiushky said:

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?

Click to expand...

mobiushky said:

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.

Click to expand...

JamesB said:

I'm going to say he's anti-gun.

Try this one: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/18/cnn-parrots-national-rifle-association-falsehoo/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."

Click to expand...

OC for ME said:

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.

Click to expand...

JamesB said:

I'm going to say he's anti-gun.

Try this one: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/18/cnn-parrots-national-rifle-association-falsehoo/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."

Click to expand...