‘Obama Sale’ on Guns and Ammo

People need to get real.

No one is coming to take your guns. You've lived under dem admins before, how many times have they seized your guns.


And I'd add the Fairness Doctrine to that. Quit whining, it ain't coming back.

And what happened to comments on TMV? They are almost non existent.

During the clinton years California went door-to-door and collected rifles from folks that in good faith registered their firearms. So it has happened here in the USA in my lifetime. Some folks that had there guns confiscated by the state included retired deputy sherrifs, and other law abiding citizens. I remember reading about it in the local news paper.

With the current economic crisis, and the memory of the LA riots, all would be wise to have the means to protect their families and property.

I thought it was me! Yes, it's awfully quiet today...

Many of these gun owners are paranoid by nature. They really believe that without a gun some swarthy horde will invade their castle. It isn't rational.

Now, this probably does NOT apply to the majority of gun owners. Most, I'd imagine, own guns for target practice or hunting. Anyone in rural America will tell you they use guns primarily for recreation.

It's in the suburbs that the NRA has instilled fear with bogus stories of "crimes deterred" through guns (conveniently leaving out the stories of gun suicides and accidental gun deaths of kids).

"During the clinton years California went door-to-door and collected rifles from folks that in good faith registered their firearms. So it has happened here in the USA in my lifetime. Some folks that had there guns confiscated by the state included retired deputy sherrifs, and other law abiding citizens. I remember reading about it in the local news paper."

Umm, no. That never happened. There was an NRA propaganda video about something like that happening in Australia. But it never happened in California. Of course, paranoia requires no evidence.

OK, just what are people expecting? SCOTUS came down fairly strongly on the individual right to own a gun being in the Second Amendment, so unless you think the Democrats are going to be able to push through a new Amendment explicitly rescinding that right, it isn't going to change, and no one is taking our guns.

Any appointments Obama makes to SCOTUS are likely to replace existing liberal votes, so unless Kennedy surprisingly retires (or dies), the balance of the court will not change during his administration. And even if it did change by one vote, I doubt that would be high on the priority list for rulings to overturn.

Besides which, as we learned during the recent confirmation hearings for Alito and Roberts, Democrats have an almost pathological addiction to stare decisis, so they certainly wouldn't support any nominee looking to overturn any established laws.

And Elrod, the stories of self protection are not bogus, and the data supports that areas with more open gun laws have lower gun crime rates. It is characterizations by Leftists people such as yourself that hate guns, and slur those who do not, that leads to the feelings of paranoia by gun owners.

Reading through all sorts of letters to the editor to various newspapers around the country in the week before the election (I was looking for endorsement editorials) - I was struck by the huge number of letters that referenced Obama and gun ownership rights. I found it curious, since the whole issue of gun ownership had received almost *zero* coverage in the television, radio, and newspapers I frequented. There were all these people with this irrational and incorrect fear that Obama was going to take away their guns -- where were they getting this information? Outside of these letters to the editor, the only place I heard about 2nd amendment rights talk was in Sarah Palin's stump speech. I guess that just goes to show that there are now two almost totally separate streams of media information reaching two totally separate groups of people. There's the 'mainstream' media, and those that make it a point of pride to avoid that nasty, left-leaning, anti-American "gotcha" media and stick to "fair and balanced" sources of news, like Rush Limbaugh or Dennis Prager or their ilk in the right hate radio channels. (I can see how opinions can be warped this way, as my mother only gets her news through these radio commentary shows. Scary stuff.)

I also saw the same thing, to a lesser extent, with the issue of "coal". Several letters to the editor in various papers mentioned the subject and the gross misrepresentation of Obama's positions reported as gospel truth. Another big applause line at Sarah Palin rallies. Yet next to zero discussion of the topic in almost all of the normal media channels. Two medias, two Americas, two totally disparate points of view. Another legacy of the ultra-partisan politics of the past couple of decades, and one which is not going to die away any time soon, I fear.

skinmansd,

in what alternative universe do you live in??

and what sane parent lets their kid use a weapon?

im so sick of the alledged statistics that show gun crimes lower in areas with carry laws....there are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics

one guy wrote a book that is so filled with innacurate statistics as to be laughable...and you think gun laws dong work at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals? well what about those nazi meth heads whose plan it was to steal guns from licensed gun dealers....in other words, they couldnt get guns any other way.

no...obama has bigger things to worry about than taking everyones guns away...

however, i hear he is planning on killing god and making everyone gay

It is not totally irrational. Obama comes from Chicago that has tried to ban guns and has tried to sue the gun makers in bankruptcy.

And it is hard to say that the Fairness Doctrine is not coming back whne Senator Schumer is on tape talking about bringing it back.

First and foremost here I see gun sellers (and gun manufacturers) cashing in on the paranoia being generated among a certain segment of the gun buying public. That segment is really so easy to predict anymore, they allow themselves to be whipped up and exploited by the NRA and each other in some sort of phony 2nd Amendment holy war. As AR already noted, the Supreme Ct. has addressed this issue, and besides, Obama has more important things to deal with. As for those who buy into the kneejerk stereotypic generalization of "leftists" hating guns... I think I just might have a bridge to sell you.

I'm curious to see just how long this "Obama will take your guns" paranoia lasts. There are probably just enough single issue people in the U.S. to keep it on a slow burn for quite a while. I think one of the reasons it has traction here in Texas and particularly in Houston is because our economy hasn't suffered anything like the rest of the country, so it's not a top priority for those predisposed to pushing gun rights issues.

This myth of law enforcement taking away guns endures because those who stand to gain economically from it keep the flames going. Far more children die in accidental shootings than gun owners save their own or others' lives through stopping some crime. Reasonable people can agree that it's not a good idea to have loaded weapons around children.

Michilines,

Please provide a cite for the number of children killed accidently by guns (defining children as 17 and below) and please provide a cite for the number of crimes prevented by armed victims.

I doubt you will be able to do it.

The second link below is a copy of a confiscation order by the State
Attorney General of CA. Check both links

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/calo...

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/confiscation/lock...

Court Records Don't Lie - Check it out yourself. It took me about 5 seconds
to have proof. You can stick your head in a hole in the ground, or do the
search yourself.

******
Update -- November 11, 1999 -- Update

skinmansd,

Not even a nice try... how about including a few facts next time.

The California Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 made illegal the purchase, sell and/or manufacture a limited (and very specific) type of assault weapon ONLY AFTER the law went into effect.

If you owned one of the weapons listed PRIOR to the law taking effect you DID NOT have to surrender it... You simply could not sell, gift or dispose of it after the law went into effect.

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE:

CHAPTER 2.3. ROBERTI-ROOS ASSAULT WEAPONS CONTROL ACT OF 1989:
12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a)...(5) Colt AR-15 series.....
(e) The term "series" includes all other models that are only variations, with minor differences, of those models listed in subdivision (a), regardless of the manufacturer.

The California State Supreme Court ruled on June 28, 2001 (Harrott vs Kings County) that, basically, in order for a firearm to be considered a "series" AR-15, the Attorney General must specifically list it by make and model.....

12276.1. (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:
(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
(B) A thumbhole stock.
(C) A folding or telescoping stock.
(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.
(E) A flash suppressor.
(F) A forward pistol grip.
(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.
(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.
(d) The following definitions shall apply under this section:
(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.
(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

-----------------------------

Here's a link to:

California Assault Weapons Identification Guide
as listed or described in Penal Code Sections 12276, 12276.1, and 12276.5
(Includes selected recent legislation)
3rd EDITION - November 2001

Category 1. The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989

This was California’s first assault weapons act. Under this act, any firearm on a list specified in Penal Code section 12276 is considered an assault weapon. SUCH ASSAULT WEAPONS ARE CONTROLLED (I.E., MAY NOT BE LEGALLY PURCHASED, KEPT FOR SALE, OFFERED FOR SALE, EXPOSED FOR SALE, GIVEN, LENT, MANUFACTURED, DISTRIBUTED, OR IMPORTED) AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1991, AND WERE REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED AS ASSAULT WEAPONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON OR BEFORE MARCH 31, 1992. In addition, the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act controlled AK and AR-15 series assault weapons (Penal Code section 12276, subd (e) and (f) - see Category 2). These assault weapons are controlled regardless of whether they have Category 3 (Penal Code section 12276.1 - SB 23) characteristics. The only legal option for Category 1 assault weapons that were not registered on or before March 31, 1992, is to surrender them to law enforcement pursuant to Penal Code section 12288.

Category 2. AK and AR-15 Series Weapons

The California Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 in Kasler v. Lockyer. This decision took effect August 16, 2000. Effective August 16, 2000, firearm models that are variations of the AK or AR-15, with only minor differences from those two models, are assault weapons under the original Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. AK and AR-15 series weapons were controlled as of August 16, 2000, and must have been registered as assault weapons with the Department of Justice on or before January 23, 2001. The only legal option forCategory 2 assault weapons that were not registered on or before January 23, 2001, is to surrender them to law enforcement pursuant to Penal Code section 12288. These assault weapons are controlled regardless of whether they have Category 3 (Penal Code section 12276.1 - SB 23) characteristics.

Category 3. Generic Characteristics

As of January 1, 2000, Senate Bill 23 (Chapter 129, Statutes of 1999) provided that firearms that have characteristics
falling under any of the categories listed in Penal Code section 12276.1 are assault weapons. These assault weapons were controlled as of January 1, 2000, and must have been registered as assault weapons with the Department of Justice on or before December 31, 2000. However, a person arrested for possession of an unregistered Category 3 assault weapon on or before December 31, 2001 could have registered it under conditions specified in Penal Code section 12280(c) pursuant to reducing the charge to an infraction. On and after
January 1, 2002, the only legal option for Category 3 assault weapons that are not registered is to surrender them to law enforcement pursuant to Penal Code section 12288. An exception for peace officers is addressed on the next page.

END OF QUOTATION

The neverending lies put out by the gun lobby (and the many, many paranoid gun nuts) is nothing more than an attempt to cloud a very specific, cut and dry law but it's all just smoke and mirrors.

It took me about sixty seconds of reading the order to realize that this in fact was a very limited case because of a court decision involving assault weapons only. It also was the state of California, not the federal government and it only involved about 1550 people out of every gun owner in the state.

SD asks: "Please provide a cite for the number of children killed accidently by guns (defining children as 17 and below) and please provide a cite for the number of crimes prevented by armed victims."

ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NINETY (1490) CHILDREN under 17 were killed by firearms in 2005 alone AND There is no way to answer your rhetorical question on how many crimes were prevented.

According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (CDC):

2005, United States
Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 17
ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24,
Y35.0,*U01.4

FWIW: There were more than THIRTY THOUSAND (30,694) deaths caused by firearms in the U.S. in 2005... "Only in America..."

UPDATE - Almost HALF of the firearm deaths in 2005 (13,615) occurred in the ::South::.. enough to make you wonder if it has something to do with the REDSTATE / BLUESTATE thing.

It's not so much Obama that we need to worry about (I liked the way Ed Schultz discussed this, on his lefty talk show), but we do need to worry about a Dem Congress that may misread the election results. Gun control is unconstitutional and the subject of idiocy by the Left; in the past, all kinds of gimmicks as well as direct controls have been tried, such as the infamous 10,000% tax on ammunition.

Again, Obama is not a cause for alarm, at least now now! There are "Hunters for Obama" or "Gun Owners for Obama"; that says it all.

Fortunately, the economic downturn is most important to nearly everyone right now, including related unseemly bailout concerns. Next is probably health care. Gun control ("common-sense [gun] safety measures," as the dishonest weasel-word blatherers say) is not tops this year. (No Million Constitution-Trashing Moron marchers any time soon.)

P.S. Here's a piece of wicked logic that may be too much for some to handle. The primary purpose most acknowedge for having personal arms is for self-defense. The principal weapon for this purpose, for personal use, at close quarters, as a defensive measure, is the object of idiocy by the Left, namely the handgun. You lose, lefties, _big_time_ on this.

If you want federal gun control, you must not only repeal the Second Amendment, but grant power to Congress to legislate such control.

The junk lawsuits that Superdestroyer was referring to constitute misuse of the courts as a political weapon (in this case, when not to bankrupt or shake down gun makers, to get them to do things not by legislation but as part of settlement agreements, which is as illegitimate and malevolent as seeking a judge to invent an activist ruling achieving the same thing) that ought to land those pursuing those illegitimate lawsuits in prison for twenty years to life.

If you run the query for non-intentional fire arm deaths, it is less than 200 and includes hunting accidents.

Of the next question is how many of the 1300 left were criminals themselves and how many were innocent bystanders.

Also, there is some data on the number of crimes prevents and even the most conservative estimate would be well above 1500. If guns to not prevent crimes, then why does the Secret Service carry guns?

superdestroyer said: "Also, there is some data on the number of crimes prevents and even the most conservative estimate would be well above 1500."

What source did you use for your "most conservative estimate"? A link to government statistics would be nice... PS - NRA is NOT a reasonable, unbiased source.

superdestroyer said: "If guns to not prevent crimes, then why does the Secret Service carry guns?"

'Cause they think they look really cool wearing those snazzy shoulder holsters?.. You didn't really expect (or need) an answer to that question did you? :)

Further to my "UPDATE - Almost HALF of the firearm deaths in 2005 (13,615) occurred in the ::South::.. enough to make you wonder if it has something to do with the REDSTATE / BLUESTATE thing."

Being curious about my glib "REDSTATE / BLUESTATE" comment I looked a little closer.

NOTE: All numbers below are CDC stats for 2005 on "Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000 - All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages" are:

United States - 10.37 per 100.000
The Northeast - 6.33 per 100.000
The West - 10.78 per 100.000
The South - 12.75 per 100.000

Then using the map that MICHAEL STICKINGS posted in his article "Where McCain Did Well: Poverty, Race, and the Vote against Obama" I dug a little deeper... into the States where the Republicans made gains in this years elections:

Arizona - 80.68 per 100.000
Oklahoma - 79.75 per 100.000
Kentucky - 78.09 per 100.000
Tennessee - 78.06 per 100.000
Alabama - 75.78 per 100.000
Missouri - 70.37 per 100.000
Texas - 10.90 per 100.000

For balance I tossed in two States that are regularly referred to as "liberal elitist":

New York - 5.29 per 100.000
California - 9.59 per 100.000

There actually does seem to be a pattern showing that there more firearm deaths in the Red States. Does anyone have a comment or explanation to shed some light on this?.. I am both surprised and baffled.

superdestroyer-

Eh...Secret Service is law enforcement. That's why they carry guns, just like the FBI, or your local police department. I think the issue here is private citizens carrying guns. No one is suggesting that the cops need to go without guns.

Also, I kinda wonder how you're pulling those numbers of "crimes prevented" out of your hat. I hesitate to be sarcastic...but, psychics, perhaps? How do you know what might have been? (That was a rhetorical question.)

Sorry, superdestoyer, I didn't stayed glued to my computer today, so I am only now getting to your request -- but it looks like SteveK has done all of the leg work, and for that I am grateful :)

The only thought I can give you this late on a Saturday evening is that accidental deaths of children involving guns was such a problem in the state of Texas was such a serious problem that the Republican legislature passed a law holding adults responsible for carelessly allowing children access to guns.

"however, i hear he is planning on killing god and making everyone gay"

HILARIOUS.

=]

This 2nd amendment stuff is so ridiculous.

When I heard this headline, the first thing I (and several others) thought was that people were using the 2nd amendment as an excuse to cover up their real reason for 'needing' to buy guns, rifles, semi-autos, etc...

Sad.

Athena - why does anyone need a 'real' reason to buy a gun? It is a right (unless you are a felon or such), and if someone wants one, that is a good enough reason.

You missed my point entirely.