Non NRA news source on Obama gun ban

[Adjam5]

Is this enough of a Non NRA news source?

Like most of us here have predicted.

What is it gonna take for some "sportsmen" to believe BHO is anti gun?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

[PotashRLS]

There is nothing wrong with being an "I told ya So";)

As has been on here before, Government relies on the ignorance of it's citizens.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Well, it seems that my brief burst of optimism regarding President Obama and his respect for the Constitution was ill founded.

Somehow, I'm not surprised.

[muggs]

I'm not surprised either...since day one we've established that he was in favor of an assualt weapons ban. Actually, this has been known for years. This is nothing new, and it's also not anything close to supporting some of the crazy specuplation some of the member of this forum have been spreading.

What you guys are glossing over, is similar legislation was in place under Clinton- yet you still all own your guns, don't you not?

What I want to see is exactly what type of semi autos are gonig to be included. I believe military-style rifles shouldn't be something any jerk off the street should be allowed to own, but blanketing this to semi auto deer rifles, shotguns and handguns is not needed or right. So, I'll hold off my opinion until I see the scope of this ban.

Overall, I think this could potentially be a good thing and doesn't impact me in anyway. I will be in the market for a hand gun within the next calendar year- and when I buy it- I'll post my own "told ya so" threads, complete with sweet pics. I'll also be able to take my shotgun out to the Ohio deer woods and hunt. Because, nothing has changed. Meanwhile, all you paranoid guys have done by rushing out and buying guns is increased the gun companies and NRAs profits as they wanted you to. They've essentially reduce you (some of whom I consider to be intelligent individuals otherwise) to puppets. Plainly speaking that's really what it boils down to.

Edited February 26, 2009 by muggs

[OUTSIDER]

Military style weapons is one DANGEROUS term....Remington 870 shotgun is a favorite for special forces in Iraq....Colt 1911 semi-automatic pistol....Remington Model 700 bolt action sniper rifles, Winchester model 70 bolt action sniper rifles, Remington model 40x sniper rifle, I know 100 % that the members on this board own one of more of these military style weapons...**** i own three of these. I am not gonna argue politics and policy from BHO, but when he throws the term Military Style Weapon around....that scares me....

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

...I believe military-style rifles shouldn't be something any jerk off the street should be allowed to own

The only problem with that line of thinking is this little thing called the 2nd Amendment. It's purpose is to guarantee that sane, sober, law abiding adults can legally posses the means of self defense. And if my choice, or any other "jerk off the street's" choice for a means of self defense is a "military-style" rifle, the government has no business telling me I can't purchase one.

[Adjam5]

The Clinton ban had a sunset provision, that allowed the AW bill to be reviewed after the 10 years. If the ban did NOT make any decrease in crime or any less of these type semi autos being seized in crimes, it was to be done away with.

Which it was...done away with.

Do not expect BHO or Holder's current ban bill to be any less than the last one, and the anti's have had 4 years to whip up new bans and add to the list. They know whats best for me:rolleyes:...PUHLEEESE.

2004 FBI uniform crime report.

Less than 1/10 of 1% of all guns used in crimes, are these type semi autos. So why the big scare and feel good legislation pushing? To make you think they are hard on crime?

Now... who is pushing propaganda?

What does the style of guns have to do with anything? Any jerk off the street should not be allowed to own one? Who decides who is a jerk? If anyone passes the NICS check, then they should be allowed to own whatever and wherever.

That is your constitutional right.

I had no idea Mexico was a BIG concern of the Whitehouse.

Its the people who commit these crimes. Canada shares a border with the US. How come they don't have those issues?

Don't tell me it is because they banned them. Laws mean nothing to criminals. They ONLY disarm the law abiding.

Why wouldn't the Gov't want law abiding citizens to be armed?

[wtnhunt]

I'm not surprised either...since day one we've established that he was in favor of an assualt weapons ban. Actually, this has been known for years. This is nothing new, and it's also not anything close to supporting some of the crazy specuplation some of the member of this forum have been spreading.

What you guys are glossing over, is similar legislation was in place under Clinton- yet you still all own your guns, don't you not?

What I want to see is exactly what type of semi autos are gonig to be included. I believe military-style rifles shouldn't be something any jerk off the street should be allowed to own, but blanketing this to semi auto deer rifles, shotguns and handguns is not needed or right. So, I'll hold off my opinion until I see the scope of this ban.

Overall, I think this could potentially be a good thing and doesn't impact me in anyway. I will be in the market for a hand gun within the next calendar year- and when I buy it- I'll post my own "told ya so" threads, complete with sweet pics. I'll also be able to take my shotgun out to the Ohio deer woods and hunt. Because, nothing has changed. Meanwhile, all you paranoid guys have done by rushing out and buying guns is increased the gun companies and NRAs profits as they wanted you to. They've essentially reduce you (some of whom I consider to be intelligent individuals otherwise) to puppets. Plainly speaking that's really what it boils down to.

Really thought there might be hope for you Eric, Jim Zumbo got it after a little education, try to open yourself to the idea that these guns despite appearance are nothing more than semi auto's that in many cases are capable of extreme accuracy. It is a shame that some people who claim to support rights of gunowners cannot get past the appearance of a firearm that can be used by the owner for target practice, hunting, or just plain fun plinking. Whether you like it or not restricting sales of these firearms to those who would purchase them legally is not going to do a thing to stop crime or violence, that has been backed up by statistics. Those who wish to harm others will just find another mean, pretty ignorant to think otherwise on these lawmakers part in my opinion.

You ignored or failed to reply to the last posting where this topic came up http://www.realtree.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81630&page=2 where pics were posted of the evil black rifle in the hands of my daughters, the kids were 12 and 6 at the times of the pics. Oh wait I am just some jerk off the street right,:confused: sorry buddy, but I had to go through all the checks to get my gun and it was not by any means a cheap gun some crackhead could likely afford. So you want to call those of us who buy or have the intent to buy "military style" semi auto's jerks?

I think we all knew this was coming. I had hopes that it would not be before I was able to get my .308. My gun is on order with dpms, unfortunately now it looks like I will probably never get it.:mad:

[Dakota]

You know, Eric, William's right; maybe you could come to an educated decision like Jim did. And perhaps we could also have a chance to shoot ARs together like Jim and I did at the 2008 POMA conference; I would love that, bud. ARs are really fun to shoot and, while they do look like a fully automatic rifle, they are not; they are just semi-autos like the BAR and the Benelli semi-auto. That's ALL they are! There is no need to ban them and, it is also unconstitutional and violates the right of the American people to bear arms. Any push to prevent us from bearing arms is BAD, that means NOT GOOD! I believe that these weapons do need to be in the hands of the American citizen because you never know what may happen and people have the right to defend themselves if need be.

Dakota

[wtnhunt]

A little more to add on this, the media with its wonderful descriptive coverage last night when it aired the story on the mexican problem did not also tell that some of those weapons that were recovered or pictured were full auto and were not guns that just anyone can buy. They showed a .50 too, that if I am not mistaken was a full auto. Would have been nice for them to have thrown in that bit of information that those types of guns can only be legally purchased by class 3 license holders, but it is much easier for the media to sway public opinion when they make the non informed folks believe that anyone can walk in a gun show or pawn shop and walk out in 15 minutes with an oozi or a full auto m-16, or even a fully auto 50 cal, which most of us intelligent and informed gun owners know is simply not the case.

Kind of seems like what you are calling propaganda Eric, only coming from the mainstream media. Last year I read an article on the problem with Mexico, even posted a thread here http://www.realtree.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71291. Funny how the media opts to bring this back up now with Holder's obvious intentions.

[PotashRLS]

I'm not surprised either...since day one we've established that he was in favor of an assualt weapons ban. Actually, this has been known for years. This is nothing new, and it's also not anything close to supporting some of the crazy specuplation some of the member of this forum have been spreading.

What you guys are glossing over, is similar legislation was in place under Clinton- yet you still all own your guns, don't you not?

What I want to see is exactly what type of semi autos are gonig to be included. I believe military-style rifles shouldn't be something any jerk off the street should be allowed to own, but blanketing this to semi auto deer rifles, shotguns and handguns is not needed or right. So, I'll hold off my opinion until I see the scope of this ban.

Overall, I think this could potentially be a good thing and doesn't impact me in anyway. I will be in the market for a hand gun within the next calendar year- and when I buy it- I'll post my own "told ya so" threads, complete with sweet pics. I'll also be able to take my shotgun out to the Ohio deer woods and hunt. Because, nothing has changed. Meanwhile, all you paranoid guys have done by rushing out and buying guns is increased the gun companies and NRAs profits as they wanted you to. They've essentially reduce you (some of whom I consider to be intelligent individuals otherwise) to puppets. Plainly speaking that's really what it boils down to.

Taking the wait and see approach like you talk about is exactly what the anti-2nd Amendment folks want us all to do.

Reactive loses our rights..............Proactive preserves them!

Plus, you, me and everyone in this forum is "the jerk off the streets" in the eyes of the anti-gunners because we choose to own firearms and believe in the 2nd Amendment. But when you say........"and doesn't impact me anyway", I become angry because if we are not All for One and One for All, we are destined to fail from the beginning. When you buy your handgun and most likely post pictures of it, remember to thank those that actively stood up for your right to own it.

Edited February 26, 2009 by PotashRLS

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

...They've essentially reduce you (some of whom I consider to be intelligent individuals otherwise) to puppets. Plainly speaking that's really what it boils down to.

Do you really think that?

I know one thing for certain, as long as I own a gun, I'll never be a SLAVE and I will bow to NO MAN!!!!

[pendog]

This is very simple:

Is it our right to bear arms?

England?

Australia?

Once you let them slowly chip away at you they will keep chipping till there is no more left. It is our right our guns, if they want to challenge that straight out then let them. Sneaky ways to take our rights.

This is not about guns, this is about our freedom.

[Gator]

Why is it that only the 2nd Amendment is the only one that certain groups out there want changed? How about we start taking away peoples right to free speech, you know, the FIRST Amendment. Amendment 4, Search and Seizure, the one that protects you from unlawful search and seizure? I bet we start trying to take those away these same people that want to take or even INFRINGE on these would have a freakin hissy fit!!!!!

And Eric, I have told you this before, and looks like your eyes are still glossed over, so I'll say it one more time. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL ME OR ANY OTHER LAW ABIDING CITIZEN WHAT WE CAN/CAN'T OWN WITH REGARDS TO FIREARMS? NOT A THING!!!! NOTHING!

Edited February 26, 2009 by Gator

[wtnhunt]

Why is it that only the 2nd Amendment is the only one that certain groups out there want changed? How about we start taking away peoples right to free speech, you know, the FIRST Amendment. Amendment 4, Search and Seizure, the one that protects you from unlawful search and seizure? I bet we start trying to take those away these same people that want to take or even INFRINGE on these would have a freakin hissy fit!!!!!

And Eric, I have told you this before, and looks like your eyes are still glossed over, so I'll say it one more time. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL ME OR ANY OTHER LAW ABIDING CITIZEN WHAT WE CAN/CAN'T OWN WITH REGARDS TO FIREARMS? NOT A THING!!!! NOTHING!

Afraid that highlighted right may well be on its way to being compromised too Jason. If some of this legislation (HR45 for example) that may come up was to pass, from the way I understand it, it would provide that the government may deem it legal to allow for searches for firearms inside homes without search warrants. That is by all means unconstitutional.

That pistol you want to buy Eric, whether you will acknowledge it or not, Obama did in fact support legislation to ban handguns in his state. You can deny all you want, but if you really expect to get one, I don't think I would wait too terribly long if I was you. Wonder why the Brady campaign endorsed Obama, they seem to have an expectation that he will work with them, you know who the Brady folks are don't you? Might be a slim possibility that you may be right and Obama will go against the other liberals on gun control, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. Of course he really can for the most part do nothing on gun control issues, look at his administration.

As much as I would like to agree with Jason on you telling people what they do or do not have a right to own, I guess you are entitled your opinion.

[Gator]

Afraid that highlighted right may well be on its way to being compromised too Jason. If some of this legislation (HR45 for example) that may come up was to pass, from the way I understand it, it would provide that the government may deem it legal to allow for searches for firearms inside homes without search warrants. That is by all means unconstitutional.

That pistol you want to buy Eric, whether you will acknowledge it or not, Obama did in fact support legislation to ban handguns in his state. You can deny all you want, but if you really expect to get one, I don't think I would wait too terribly long if I was you. Wonder why the Brady campaign endorsed Obama, they seem to have an expectation that he will work with them, you know who the Brady folks are don't you? Might be a slim possibility that you may be right and Obama will go against the other liberals on gun control, but I sure wouldn't bet on it. Of course he really can for the most part do nothing on gun control issues, look at his administration.

As much as I would like to agree with Jason on you telling people what they do or do not have a right to own, I guess you are entitled your opinion.

I had forgot about that William. And yet why is noone speaking out about that? Is everyone willing to let the "gov't" come into their house unannounced and do a search? Man, I don't know what I would do if that ever happened, I really don't. And to think, I am a law abiding citizen, well, for the most part, other than speeding, LOL! But anyways, noone should be allowed to come into my house without a justifiable reason, and a little piece of paper

[muggs]

The only problem with that line of thinking is this little thing called the 2nd Amendment. It's purpose is to guarantee that sane, sober, law abiding adults can legally posses the means of self defense. And if my choice, or any other "jerk off the street's" choice for a means of self defense is a "military-style" rifle, the government has no business telling me I can't purchase one.

So, would you agree 12 year olds should be able to buy vodka- in light of their right to the pursuit of hapiness?

Mostly, I do agree with you though- but there are certain things that do need certain rescritions.

[muggs]

Kind of seems like what you are calling propaganda Eric, only coming from the mainstream media. Last year I read an article on the problem with Mexico, even posted a thread here http://www.realtree.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71291. Funny how the media opts to bring this back up now with Holder's obvious intentions.

Oh, it's definitely propoganda- and I'm not saying it's right either- it's as wrong as anything else.

I'm very against the media...and heck, I'm not even pro Obama...

[muggs]

Who decides who is a jerk?

Background checks, having to sucessfully pass courses that teach proper gun control weeds out the jerks.

In my life, I've come across tons of people who own guns and really have no business doing so- for the risk they pose to themselves and others.

[muggs]

WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO TELL ME OR ANY OTHER LAW ABIDING CITIZEN WHAT WE CAN/CAN'T OWN WITH REGARDS TO FIREARMS? NOT A THING!!!! NOTHING!

So, judging by your opinion on this- I would guess it's cool in your eyes for 8 year olds to smoke cigarettes?

How about an 11 year old being able to drive?

You see, it makes sense to restrict dangerous and/or hazardous things. Cigarettes, automoblies, and yes, guns fall into this category.

This all being said, and as I stated in my first reply, where I will take issue is the scope and what type of firearms are included. If it stretches too far, then I will take issue. But until I actually see the scope of this, I'm reserving judgement- you guys aren't, and it is no surprise to me because most of you have already established a paranoid behavioral pattern regarding the subject.

btw- guys, if you'd actually think about it, Zumbo's opinion changed because it was affecting his bottomline.

[PotashRLS]

So, would you agree 12 year olds should be able to buy vodka- in light of their right to the pursuit of hapiness?

Mostly, I do agree with you though- but there are certain things that do need certain rescritions.

[PotashRLS]

So, judging by your opinion on this- I would guess it's cool in your eyes for 8 year olds to smoke cigarettes?

How about an 11 year old being able to drive?

You see, it makes sense to restrict dangerous and/or hazardous things. Cigarettes, automoblies, and yes, guns fall into this category.

This all being said, and as I stated in my first reply, where I will take issue is the scope and what type of firearms are included. If it stretches too far, then I will take issue. But until I actually see the scope of this, I'm reserving judgement- you guys aren't, and it is no surprise to me because most of you have already established a paranoid behavioral pattern regarding the subject.

btw- guys, if you'd actually think about it, Zumbo's opinion changed because it was affecting his bottomline.

Big stretch to try and compare these issues!!!!!!!

[Gator]

So, judging by your opinion on this- I would guess it's cool in your eyes for 8 year olds to smoke cigarettes?

How about an 11 year old being able to drive?

You see, it makes sense to restrict dangerous and/or hazardous things. Cigarettes, automoblies, and yes, guns fall into this category.

This all being said, and as I stated in my first reply, where I will take issue is the scope and what type of firearms are included. If it stretches too far, then I will take issue. But until I actually see the scope of this, I'm reserving judgement- you guys aren't, and it is no surprise to me because most of you have already established a paranoid behavioral pattern regarding the subject.

btw- guys, if you'd actually think about it, Zumbo's opinion changed because it was affecting his bottomline.

UMMM, Hello, As a PARENT, I will NOT allow my 8yr old to smoke. However, as a PARENT I WILL allow my 11yr olod to drive, matter of fact, my step daughter WAS driving my one pickup at about 12, but as a PARENT, I was also in the truck with her. You Eric, ARE NOT MY PARENT!!!!!!!! In fact, I AM older that you, so how can YOU tell ME what I can or cannot own

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Back to the issue at hand of President Obama reinstituting the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban - here's a quote from the news article...

"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Assault Weapons Ban meant to restrict sales of semi-automatic rifles?

And where can I get some of those grenades? They'd make dandy varmint killers!

[wtnhunt]

This all being said, and as I stated in my first reply, where I will take issue is the scope and what type of firearms are included. If it stretches too far, then I will take issue. But until I actually see the scope of this, I'm reserving judgement- you guys aren't, and it is no surprise to me because most of you have already established a paranoid behavioral pattern regarding the subject.

btw- guys, if you'd actually think about it, Zumbo's opinion changed because it was affecting his bottomline.

Do a little research will you Eric. Even if the awb includes only the "military type" weapons as some like to call them, you are looking at several semi autos such as rugers line of mini ranch rifles. You really believe they want to stop at just those "military type" rifles? I guess it is your choice, but who is falling for propoganda here?

We all lose when we start giving up these rights.

And btw, Jim Zumbo did lose a lot for his ignorance, however through some education he learned that he was wrong and admitted it.