Max Blumenthal took his cameras and attended gun shows in Antioch, California, and Reno, Nevada, on April 18 – 19. He found gun enthusiasts who are convinced President Obama and the Democratic majority will take away American’s guns. In fact, their conspiracy theories only begin there and get worse. They profess we will all be herded into concentration camps and everything will be taken away — taking our guns is only the beginning!
They are preparing for an armed revolt. Blumenthal reports they won’t be limited in the kinds of weapons they can choose to be prepared with. He saw rocket-propelled-grenade launchers and bazooka guns, a brand of.50-caliber assault rifle that was banned in California because it could supposedly down an airplane. Although big guns were the main attractions, also offered for sale were Swastika-emblazoned flags, photographs of Hitler and his henchmen, and anything related to the Third Reich.
Read his report on this gun culture mentality and see the video he made here. Judge for yourselves how serious these people are, and how serious a threat they may be to America.
fnord
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
What feed the fear is a bit of history and some of that is more to do about nothing.
But one of the first steps in oppressing any citizenry is to disarm them that really are a piece of history.
Also from history and generally the precursor to a disarming is the regulation of firearms, by type and power. Registration of firearms, name of owner, type and location if in the end you are going to disarm you will need to know who owns them and where they are.
For many that suffers from the fear it “fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me!”.
Add to this that the powers that be within right politics use this fear and the issue to rile up what they consider the lesser right. I know, as at one time I too was one of the lesser Right. Most issues that the upper crust of the Right want to deal with was of little concern for me. I ignored their actions and only when the mention of gun control was brought up did my ears perk up. But the issue would be used to get their candidates elected, R beside the name was a vote by the lesser right.
Most of the “big guns” at any show are there simply as window dressing we do so love the cannons!
A part of any show attendance is either former military or military want-a-bee’s. So military type weapons are a big draw. I have only one military rifle and it’s a bolt action though I would like to have a semi-auto for some reason.
The worst I ever saw was during Bill Clinton, I use to say that Clinton said he did not want to ban guns.
It was just that if your last name started with a letter of the Alphabet then you could not own a firearm!
But even then I do not remember such a hording as has been happening since Obama’s election.
I do not understand why either as so far I have not seen a great deal that would indicate there is a active move to ban or truly restrict ownership or amount of ammo held. Not even Obama openly stating he has no interest in reinstating the Assault weapons ban lessened the fear.
It is odd, I had such a concern about the Clinton administration that I wrote a trilogy about Hillary destroying the United States and declaring open war against the American people. But it was actually G.W. Bush that did more toward such an aim than the Clintons ever did. But for many of us “gun nuts” the abiding concern is our own government.
The whole state of Montana has decided to get into a battle over gun rights. And, they want this to go through the courts! Their hope is to get it to the Supreme Court.
“Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.
In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.
That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ju4QCii6Racp0tQunsGIfE8O9bqAD97SA5UG2
There’s been talk of FEMA camps for at least 8 years, only it was the liberals spreading the fear. Okay, the more nutso liberals. If I still had all the hundreds of links I had, I’d share them.
I have no doubt there is a plan in place that includes “concentration camps”, in case a large majority of people go nuts or there’s some sort of attack/invasion from foreign lands. To be honest, there has to be. Most of those FEMA camps are abandoned military bases. All active military bases, forts, etc. would also be used, so McConnell is one of them.
But I very seriously doubt this began with Dubya. The CONS are now using it for their usual propaganda. The thing is, with them, it works, because their sheeple are so accustomed to believing anything they’re told. The increase in weapons and ammo sales just shows how well it works. A sad commentary for the CONS.
What they don’t realize is that this fear can be what gets them exactly where they don’t want to be. It was rumored that Rumsfeld (or was it the Wolfowitz or maybe Cheney?) had collected the names and information of all registered gun owners in the U.S. In all honesty, this was probably a rumor started by the Libs to stir up the Cons, and I admit to helping propagate it. ::evil grin::
I do not remember either which one it was. But yes during the Bush administration there was a gather of the names and location of gun owners. I did not mention it as I could not find an independent source for the information. I learn of it through my research on Neoconservatives. Remember that they see the average American as members of the unwashed masses. We have two of the worst traits we are too stupid to see the big picture and we are naturally aggressive.
Once they had their agenda in acted and it became openly know there would be a real danger of an open rebellion. A reality that no Republican want to accept it that some of the most restrictive gun laws came under the Reagan and Bush one administrations.
What are their reasons for needing to fight this battle? What justification? What in the world has changed or makes them feel threatened?
They come off as reactionary idiots to me. I don’t normally give much thought to reactionary idiots, but these have guns and they hope they get to use them, in fact, their trigger fingers are twitching, and that makes a difference, in my opinion.
Fnord,
Montana is filled with posse comitatus, so this doesn’t surprise me. Idaho, too. Remember Ruby Ridge?
Mike,
You are over reacting. I’ve reread every word I typed and none of them say what you want to see, what you accuse me of saying. You’re making generalizations out of what I said, and changing the meaning of my words.
If the only thing that will ever satisfy you is for me to share your opinions you will never be satisfied! I will never share your opinions. I have my own. I’ve expressed them. I feel no further need to do so.
Whatever you want to assign to my words is your problem from now on. I know what I said, I know what I think and feel. If I’m a poor communicator and unable to express myself well enough for you to understand, so be it. I’m finished attempting to communicate with someone who wants to argue.
…in fact, their trigger fingers are twitching…
Evidenced by the dude that went nuts a couple of weeks ago because he was convinced Obama was going to take his guns away.
Why is it that these people DO NOT understand that a single sitting President doesn’t have the power to do this?
Nice, let’s equate millions of gun owners with nutjob murderers.
That’s like saying all environmentalists support the violent actions of ELF, or that anyone who’s pro-choice supports folks who bomb abortion clinics.
Why fear gun owners so much? Do you fear your preist because some of them molest little boys? Your kids teacher because every once in a while a teacher gets on the news for having sex with his/her students. That’s no more representative of all preists or all teachers than the actions of Poplawski and other nutjobs is representative of the 80+ million gun owners in this country.
“Why fear gun owners so much?”
Who said anyone fears gun owners? Many of the regular bloggers here are gun owners. All of us know a gun is a useful tool in some instances, a collectible in some others. PrairiePond is a farmer and uses her guns to protect her livestock from varmits. Many currently enjoy the sports of hunting and target shooting.
I am able to recognize the gun owner who is obsessively concerned with potential restrictions that have no basis in reality.
So when some restriction actually steps on the toes of the average law-abiding citizen there will be something to talk about. Until that becomes reality, there are many internet sites where you can carry on discussing and worrying about what ‘might be’ with others who are obsessively worrying about the same.
And while we’re on the subject of promoting fear, what’s all this b.s. about swine flu?
Does anyone realize that the past three “flu epidemics” have culminated in absolutely nothing? SARS, bird flu, and now this. I keep hearing reports that thousands have died from this new one. Uh, no. Last “official” count I read was 50, and the majority of those in Mexico, where medical treatment is spotty, at best. The CDC has gone nuts, once again. Maybe their definition of a “pandemic” has to do with how many countries are involved, and if so, they should say so, instead of riling up the masses.
Who knows? Fearmongering by the media?
Basic flu kills ~36,000 Americans each year. How many have died from “swine flu?” in the U.S.?
Are they deflecting attention away from something?
I, too, have felt it was a bit over the top. But then, with so many news channels trying to fill 24 hours a day, the reporting of most things seems over the top to me.
An excellent resource on the nut-jobs out there is the Anti-Defamation League. They provide a nice summary and MO of various hate groups. Here is a link to their summary of the Militia Movement (which had died out, somewhat, but no doubt there is a resurgence):
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/militia_m.asp?xpicked=4&item=19
Also check out the “Sovereign Citizen Movement” (Terry Nichols was a strict adherent to that fringe group) and the “Tax Protest Movement”.
The posse comitatus that Wicked mentions was part of the Sovereign Citizen Movement.
A really interesting tidbit related to this discussion was Richard Clarke’s writing that Terry Nichols’ fertilizer bombs never worked until he visited his wife’s family in the Phillipines. There was speculation that he had contact with the Al Qada branch there.
Some people who post on the blogthatshallnotbenamed are one JND (a perceptual psych term, meaning “Just Noticeable Difference”) this side of those nuts that the ADL watches.
If the economy gets worse, we are not in for a good time. The SPLC (Southern Poverty Law Center) has noted a recent jump in the start of and membership in various hate groups.
Thank you for this excellent thread, fnord. A double hat tip.
iggy,
I must admit that I used the term “posse comitatus” in a general way.
Let’s face it, no matter what the name, hate groups are scary…like the Nazis.
I wonder if there is such an upswing in the militia movement and other gun-buying nowadays due to the fact Obama is a black man?
I know it is seen as playing the race card when someone brings up race – but I am really concerned about this.
I wouldn’t care if our president was man/woman/white/black or purple with orange polka dots. Our country needs to get back to what is important and make ourselves into a strong, self-sufficient country again.
With all these corporate globalization that has taken place, I think we have sold our soul to the highest bidder. And for that, we will surely pay the price down the road.
The Southern Poverty Law Center specifically mentions Obama’s race as a driving force for the growth of hate groups. The popular press (I am thinking of Lou Dobbs in particular) reaction to illegal immigrants also has been a driving force for the “Nativist” groups.
And, no doubt, the economy has had an influence on the growth of hatred. Hate is a powerful diversion from one’s own misery.
“Hate is a powerful diversion from one’s own misery.”
So is love. In fact, when you start doing something for someone else it’s amazing how quickly your troubles are lighter. Being busy leaves less time to worry too.
“He saw rocket-propelled-grenade launchers and bazooka guns, a brand of.50-caliber assault rifle that was banned in California because it could supposedly down an airplane.”
Sorry to disappoint, but this is complete and utter BS. Grenades, grenade launchers, in fact ANY kind of incendiary type weapon cannot be bought or sold to civilians in the U.S.
Oh, and the .50 cal Barrett’s will not take down a plane.
It’s sad that this hysterical, unsubstantiated screed passes as “journalism” It’s pure fearmongering. In fact it’s worse than that, it’s lying.
Yes I addressed that with their window dressing in my first post. With a class A license you can have a full automatic. But it would take a permit from the BATF to have anything that is a weapon and a explosive.
Hello, Mike!
I hope you noted those words you say are lies were from a posted link. It might be a good idea if you let the author of those words know your thoughts. We’re happy to post your opposing views here as well. Welcome to Prairie P&P’s!
Oh I know. I wasn’t implying that they were your words, just noting that grenade launchers and bazookas are not available at any U.S. gun shows or gun shops.
As a gun owner I do feel that some of the Obama fear is a bit over the top. That’s not to say it’s unfounded. I guess what I mean by this is that it’s crazy to still be seeing such a high level of panic buying 3+ months into his Presidency. I thought the buying would have died down by now as people got near saturation levels.
To be worried about further restrictions makes sense, and it’s pragmatic to pick up a few things that may be banned.
I know that some people see all of this buying as “crazy” but look at it from our perspective. The last time the Dems controlled the Presidency and Congress we got 10 years of an onerous but ineffective assault weapons ban, among other restrictions.
People remember that and they’re buying just in case. Obama, Holder & others haven’t been shy about their plans for a new permanent AWB. Considering that a new AWB, like the old one, would ban (at a minimum) the most popular civilian rifle in the U.S.
I personally don’t think Obama has the votes in Congress to pass much of the gun control he’d like to see. This doesn’t change the fact that Obama’s past statements and voting records indicate extreme hostility towards the 2nd Amendment. There is no reason to believe he wouldn’t push for more restrictions if he had the political capital.
Lucky for us he doesn’t have the political capital. (IMO) Depsite Dem control there are many pro-gun Dems who will not support the gun control agenda of Obama or the Democratic leadership in Congress.
I’d also like to point out that some of this panic buying is economically based. Gun sales always spike during economic downturns. This is in part to prepare for any potential civil unrest (it’s unlikely, but it can and has happened) It’s also an investment. Many of my guns have appreciated in value significantly in the last few years.
Thank you for the welcome and I apologize for my long, somewhat rambling comment.
The last time the Dems controlled the Presidency and Congress we got 10 years of an onerous but ineffective assault weapons ban, among other restrictions.
How many times in that 10 year period were assault weapos needed by the general public?
I ask to gain knowledge, but I also wonder how important those guns have become to some. While I’m not a gun owner and probably never will be, I don’t want to see guns outlawed. I do believe it’s the right of all U.S. citizens (hopefully only sane ones) to own a gun, but I’m not sure it’s the right to own an arsenal.
To each his own. The gun owners who are most vocal do a great disservice to those who are collectors, who hunt, who are more sane and rational.
I would like to see a real factual list of what this statement entails — “The last time the Dems controlled the Presidency and Congress we got 10 years of an onerous but ineffective assault weapons ban, among other restrictions.”
I hear much on the internet about all that was taken away, all that will be taken away, but even tho I’ve asked many times, no one has ever obliged with a factual list. Why is that?
The man who wrote the piece this post is based on also produced a video where he shows what was being sold at the shows he attended. He interviewed real people and we listened to their own words. I asked each person to read his report and view his video and judge for themselves how dangerous these people might be.
fnord,
They are very dangerous people. Who’s their leader? Do they have one? Do they have several?
Where were these machine-gun-cowboys when Dubya was taking their rights? But the only right they care about is the right to bear arms. The right to kill those who disagree with them or don’t understand them or just don’t look right.
It’s a sad, sad commentary on this country that people have forgotten to think for themselves and instead follow the words of pseudo-Hitlers.
Heil Rush!
When a contentious conversation is held about guns both sides begin from a prejudiced view of the subject. It is my thinking a contentious conversation is correctly defined as:
When the conversation includes both unsupported claims and unsupported criticisms, there’s less chance of resolution or compromise, i.e.:
“To be worried about further restrictions makes sense…” Why?
“…among other restrictions…” What would those be exactly?
“This doesn’t change the fact that Obama’s past statements and voting records indicate extreme hostility towards the 2nd Amendment. There is no reason to believe he wouldn’t push for more restrictions if he had the political capital.” What statements and what votes lead you to this conclusion?
As a proud member of the Democratic Party I don’t lend my ear readily to those who make unfounded statements that color Democratic leadership as one where anyone would worry about a need to prepare for civil unrest, as this statement infers:
“This is in part to prepare for any potential civil unrest (it’s unlikely, but it can and has happened).” When was that? Was it due to a particular political philosophy? If so, what was that particular philosophy?
So my prejudices, which cause the hair on my neck to stand on end at such statements, indicate I won’t learn anything from the person who made such unsupported claims. If increased understanding is the goal, this isn’t a tactic that will further that goal.
Well said, fnord!
Would Mike W. like to step up to the mic and answer the questions presented? I’m all for hearing the truth when it’s backed up by facts.
I have no problem with people owning guns but I want them held responsible for whatever is done with their gun. I want people to be responsible enough to keep their guns away from children who may accidentally shoot the gun.
I guess what I am saying is that I want people to be held accountable for their guns.
What concerns me is that we have Republicans who are stoking the fires of fear, hate, victimization and the unstable economy and at what point will all this come to a head? I still remember the last days of the campaign when cameras caught these people in line to see McCain or Palin. Some of these people were saying some pretty threatening things. I just wonder at what point will it come to a head and something major happens?
I grew up with all the men hunting but I never saw the guns out in the open. My father and uncles all kept their guns in a safe place.
And I want that sense of being safe again – is that too much to ask?
lilac,
I don’t have a big problem with gun ownership either, and, like you, I’d like to see responsibility. We’re seeing a rash of shootings, and I have to think that it’s because of all the fear and crazy talk. It only takes a handful of nutcases, no matter what their political persuasion, to “take out” a lot of innocents.
Violence is not the answer, and this is what I’m hearing from mostly the Right.
Obama doesn’t want their guns. He wants to see people safe, and until this country is straightened out and everyone takes responsibility for their actions, whether with or without guns, fear and lies will lead the way.
Agreed, wicked. Do you think the majority of people feel the same way we do or are we in the minority?
I just read on a CNN link that a new poll showed that white Evangelical Protestants are the one religious group who strongly support using torture. Well, that is the Social Conservative Republicans base – isn’t it?
I have been worried about Obama’s safety ever since the election. Most of the Republicans’ support came from the Deep South and they didn’t want a black man in charge, let alone a black man with liberal ideas.
“Do you think the majority of people feel the same way we do or are we in the minority?”
I think the majority of people (Americans) feel the same way we do. Of course, we live in Kansas. We’re in the minority in this state.
Those who think along the lines of the socially conservative Republicans or even the Ron Paul group (whatever they’re calling themselves) are definitely in the minority in our country. They’ll tell you that’s not true, but I haven’t seen any proof of their opinions. I haven’t even seen any evidence!
Just like asking for answers, evidence or proof to their other claims about gun ownership being restricted by Democrats, the fear of their guns being taken — no proof, just claims.
What kind of credibility would anyone put in unsupported claims?
I found this link titled, “Milestones in Federal
Gun Control Legislation.”
I read it carefully. Is it a correct and accurate timeline? Because if it is I can’t find why anyone would think any particular political party or political philosophy should be feared by gun owners or people who want no restrictions to gun ownership.
I also can’t find any restriction that should cause anyone concern.
“I also can’t find any restriction that should cause anyone concern.”
Why not?
None of them restricts anyone who is not a criminal and is appropriately trained.
What kind of credibility would anyone put in unsupported claims?
Let’s look at who we’re talking about. That should answer the question. 😉
And I agree. I think the crazies are far outnumbered by those who have more common sense. The problem lies when the common sense people don’t speak out. Same song, second verse.
I like the idea of having our federal budget balanced and not taxing more than we need to, but as to exactly when has that happened?
And exactly whose interpretation of ‘too much tax’ are we going to use?
I am conservative in my financial viewpoints but as for my social viewpoints, I tend to be ‘live and let live’ – and I would probably fall into the Libertarian side of the fence for that.
But the Libertarian Party has never gone anywhere. And for every person that says they want an honest man in Washington, I can show you 10 people who only want THEIR honest man in Washington- whether he is really honest or not. There are too many people who don’t like tax dollars spent unless it is going to benefit them directly.
But whatever we wish for, we need to deal with the reality – and that is President Obama. I do feel, so far, that he is at least trying to bring this country into the 21st century and get us off the dependence of Middle East oil and into self-sufficient energy sources.
If he can even remotely make our healthcare system better, then I think he has done an amazing job.
But he has strong opposition and you know the old saying – money talks and bullshit walks.
“How many times in that 10 year period were assault weapos needed by the general public? ”
Well the term “assault weapon” in fact has no true definition per se. It is a politically constructed term with no set definition. They are not fully automatic machine guns (those have been banned through the 1934 NFA and 1986 GCA.
The term “assault weapon depends on the legislation written. In NJ for example (a very anti-gun state) a 10/22 rifle is banned as an “assault weapon.” It shoots the smallest, weakest modern cartridge available.
The 1994 ban included the AR-15. (the evil, scary black ones you sometimes see on TV) Despite what the media might tell you the AR-15 fires a round that is weaker than most average hunting rifles. In fact, in many states you cannot hunt deer with an AR-15 because it’s not powerful enough to do so cleanly and humanely.
The AR-15 is the most popular civilian rifle in the U.S. according to Joe Poyer, author of “The M16/AR-15 Rifles – A Shooter’s And Collector’s Guide”
He says in his book,
“The AR15 rifle, has been manufactured in the hundreds of thousands by more than a dozen different companies. It is the current National Match Service Rifle and the most popular target match rifle in use today.”
He’s actually wrong, since he wrote that years ago. There are now 30+ manufacturers of AR-15’s. They’re also immensely popular among police officers as patrol rifles. My brother is a state cop and he is issued one that’s basically the same as mine.
I was not inferring that dems would cause civil unrest, only that being prepared is a good idea. My dad lived in Wilmington during the race riots after Dr. King was shot. There was mass rioting and violence all over the city. He personally witnessed many business owners standing watch outside their stores with rifles and shotguns.
Another good example would be the 1994 LA race riots. There was NO police response. When it came to defending yourself, your home and your family you were on your own.
As far as needing assault weapons, it is a bill of rights not “needs.” Who really needs to have free speech on the internet (a blog?) After all, you still have a pen and paper, or a newspaper, so who cares if the government bans free speech through blogs right?
Thanks for posting, Mike. Your comments are duly noted.
Yes, thanks, Mike. I can’t say you answered my question, but I do appreciate the information you shared.
Mike,
I would venture to say if gun rights advocates conversed as you, we might be able to come to a much better consensus on gun ownership. I have owned a few guns in my time, including both small and large bore. My shotgun was reserved for skeet and Pheasant.
The thing that bothers me the most are the people who place guns on the rights issue that supersedes common sense. I have no problem with gun ownership, but do have a problem with the buying and selling of unregistered guns, as some states allow (the so-called loophole) during gun shows. I also see no reason why extensive background checks should not be done concerning gun buyers. I seriously doubt either you or I want guns in the hands of criminals or nut cases.
Obama is not going to reenact the banned weapons law, is not raising a twenty thousand man army, and is not going to start locking people up in gulags, as has been suggested by many on the right. But the recent spate of gun deaths in this country is putting people on edge, and something does need to be done to reduce that. I don’t like the idea of living in a gun crazy country, and I’m afraid that’s what I’ve been seeing and reading lately with the guns and ammo being bought off shelves faster than they can be restocked. Something’s not right and I wish I had a good suggestion to throw out there, but I don’t.
Well said, jammer.
Wicked – I wasn’t able to answer each question all in one post. I will answer the rest when I have the time.
I will say that I find it curious that anyone would really have to ask whether Obama is anti-gun.
Jammer – Do you think the NICS background check system we have now stops criminals from getting guns? Given the process you’d have to be a really dumb criminal to actually try to buy a gun through legal means. You’d be arrested shortly after the FBI told the FFL on the line who you were.
There is no gun control law that would have stopped any of those recent shootings. Each of them committed a myriad of felonies even before they started killing people. What extra law would have stopped them?
I’m not sure why you think Obama has no plans for a new AWB. He made it a platform in his campaign and has repeatedly reiterated that he has NOT backed away from that plan (even within the last month.)
This is from a CNN article on April 17th.
Speaking alongside Mexican President Felipe Calderón, Obama said he has “not backed off at all” on a campaign pledge to try to restore the ban.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/16/obama.latin.america/index.html?eref=ib_topstories
From mike w’s link:
“Obama said he has asked Attorney General Eric Holder to study how current gun laws are enforced and whether loopholes in some can be tightened. He said laws already on the books should restrict the flow of weapons into Mexico.”
Mike said:
Wicked – I wasn’t able to answer each question all in one post. I will answer the rest when I have the time.
I asked one question, and I still haven’t gotten an answer, backed up by facts, of course.
So I’ll try again.
“How many times in that 10 year period were assault weapons needed by the general public? ”
I’ll add another, just to confuse things.
How many assault weapons does one person need to be safe? 1? 10? 50? How much ammo? How long would it need to last? Could one person hold off a batalion of trained soldiers? If so, for how long? (Lots of questions that I don’t expect answers for. Why? They’re “what if” questions that can only be answer by guessing.)
Everybody tries to guess what the 2nd Amendment means. If one would only look at the wording and how it’s used, it isn’t that hard to figure out.
Hint: Commas are the key.
Let’s get back to common sense and the average gun owner.
If I have a gun, do I keep it loaded at all times, in case of a home invasion? (By invasion, I don’t mean a gov’t. run amok, just the average, run-of-the-mill robber.) If I do keep it loaded, do I have some sort of safety lock or keep it locked away, especially if there are small children in the house at any time? If I do keep it under lock, how quickly will I be able to unlock (if locked) or load (if not locked but not loaded)?
If a criminal enters my house to rob me of possessions, but didn’t bring a weapon, what if the criminal finds my gun stash before I’m aware he’s there?
And from where do a lot of guns carried by gun-t0ting criminals come from? Could it be from robberies? Are they pawning all these stolen guns, or are they selling them to their buddies?
Just some thoughts from an average person… Sorry to be so curious.
Mike,
Obama does not have the votes to institute an awb, so that’s out of the picture . . . a dead soldier as we used to call it. And you are correct: there are no current gun laws that would have stopped the current rash of gun deaths. But given the fact there are states allowing gun purchases at gun shows without background checks, the so-called loophole, criminals can legally buy guns. That, I think, needs to be closed. ALL gun purchases, public or private, should be subject to NICS background checks. And I would attach a five day waiting period to that.
I read in a recent blog one individuals complaint about those damn Liberals denying him the right to have thirteen bullets in his clip instead of the ten now allowed, and he had four clips. I’ve also read, or heard, individuals complaining about Obama starting up a private twenty thousand man army, sending people to fenced in gulags, and any number of assorted nonsense. The average person reads or hears these and thinks the gun lobby is full of slack jawed nuts. That can’t be doing the 2nd amendment any good.
It seems to me people are using the 2nd amendment as their scapegoat for stocking up on all the guns and ammo they can, and that in itself should tell you something about the gun issue in this country.
According to U.S. law-enforcement officials, about 75 percent of guns that end up in Mexico are bought in the border states of Arizona, California and Texas. This is our problem. We are feeding the Mexican gangs weapons, and in return we’re getting the drugs that keep these gangs in business. How do you stop that flow, either way?
Wicked – It’s an unanswerable question and it’s leading. It is NOT about “need.” How many times do you “need” to express your opinions on a blog per month? Hell, do you even “need” to use a blog when you can just use old-fashioned pen & paper?
As for ammo. I buy in case lots (1000 rounds per case) so I have several thousand rounds for every caliber gun I own. Why? Well it’s cheaper to buy in bulk vs. per box, it’s more convenient since I can buy online, and it’s a good way to insulate ones self from price increases.
Now for your 2nd comment, which is one with many variables. If you have kids and own guns you need to educate them about guns and gun safety once they get older. Obviously you should also lock up your weapons. That’s also the prudent thing to do to protect against theft.
That said, if you have young kids then a small bedside one-touch biometric safe is probably the best thing. As for me, I don’t have kids so mine are always loaded and available. When I’m not home, or if my nephews come over they get locked up. How you secure your guns and what condition you keep them in is a personal decision based on many different variables.
You are right, quite a few guns on the streets come from burglaries (not robbery) That’s not the fault of gun owners, it’s the fault of scumbags who commit felonies breaking into people’s homes. There’s no reason we shouldn’t keep guns at home simply because a criminal might steal them.
If the government outlawed blogging would you say that was perfectly fine, since you still had other free speech mediums available?
What about freedom of religion? How often does someone really “need” to go to church. I guess you’d be just fine with the government saying you can only go to church X number of times per month, you know, to cut down on religious extremism.
Are you getting my point yet that it’s not a Bill of “Needs” it’s a Bill of Rights?
Let me ask you a question. Why do you want to ban “assault weapons?” Show me empirical evidence that there is a threat posed by these weapons. Do you even know what an “assault weapon” is or what the AWB actually banned?
By the way, how many cars do you need? How many books, How many matches, lighters, or baseball bats? Why don’t we ban “high capacity gas cans” and lighters in order to combat arson.
Wicked. I encourage you to learn about the english language during the time the Constitution was written. (hint – commas were used in a wanton manner) Also, I’m sorry to inform you that the legal community, the SCOTUS, and the founding fathers all disagree with your “militia interpretation.” It’s not a new development either with regards to the SCOTUS (read U.S. v. Miller) nor the founding fathers (read the Federalist Papers)
I guess I don’t really understand how I was supposed to answer you question with facts. It’s like asking me “how often have American’s needed the right to counsel in the past 10 years?” as if somehow my right to legal counsel is dependent upon “need” or upon how often that right is used.
Fnord – You’re right about that quote. So is Obama. It’s already illegal on many levels for guns to be bought here and end up in mexico. Knowing that, how is the legal sale of assault weapons in the U.S. going to stop the ILLEGAL trade of weapons across the border?
Someone asked about Obama’s plans for an AWB. I supplied his own recent words that he still wants one. Is the portion you quoted supposed to refute my claim?
Jammer – That’s another thing the AWB restricts. Standard capacity magazines. It limits magazines to 10 rounds, essentially changing the gun from how it was made at the factory as well as forcing modification to the magazines, which are probably the most integral part for reliable function of the weapon.
Once you understand that you understand why law enforcement don’t have to deal with the restriction. For example, the state police here carry the same gun I do, a Sig Sauer P229 in .357 SIG. It comes with a 12 rd. magazine. LEO’s want reliable, effective pistols and so do I.
Mike,
Using blogging or religion as a substitute for gun ownership is a strawman argument. I’m not aware of either a blog, or a religion directly killing anybody. Had you used autos, I might think it closer, but even then it’s a stretch. The discussion is about guns, not anything else.
How does restricting a magazine to ten, instead of thirteen, rounds force modifications of a gun? If gun manufacturers know a ten round mag is the limit, why wouldn’t they manufacture ten round mags? Seems to me they would sell more that way, being legal and all. I am familiar with both guns and magazines, and a simple manufactured crimp at the ten round limit would serve well, without hindering operation. That’s a no brainer.
Law enforcement is a different story. They need the extra rounds at times, as the LA shoot out made clear. I have no problem with that. But I have found NO examples where a civilian, not attached to law enforcement, needed any more than two or three rounds in protecting himself or loved ones. Your thinking there is a need for more than ten rounds in a mag is backed by target practice only, not home protection.
I would venture to guess over 90% of gun owners would have either no idea what to do during a home invasion, or would freeze. Locked up guns, unloaded guns, all due to kids in the house, can do very little to stop a home invader. When a child dies, or is seriously injured due to an unlocked, loaded weapon, it turns and bites the owner in the backside, as it should. It also hurts your cause, as it should.
I writing disagreements on a friendly level, and I would hope we can keep it that way. I respect gun owners, but have a problem with gun nuts, of which there are many, and they’re doing no good for your cause.
Thanks, jammer, for pointing out Mike’s inadequate analogy re: guns and blogging.
The 1996 killing of Doug & Beth Brittain is one example of how the owner’s gun was used as the murder weapon. Gavin Scott didn’t enter the Brittain’s home with a gun. He used one of over a dozen different types of guns that he found in a gun cabinet outside the Brittain’s bedroom, intended to steal, and shot them as they and their three children were sleeping. Those guns didn’t do Doug Brittain any good. In fact, they cost him and his wife their lives.
Yes, that’s only one instance in many, but that’s two lives that can’t be replaced.
I don’t know the answer to all the gun violence in our society but I do know one thing – it seems to be getting crazier with each passing year.
It seems like the wrong people are getting the guns and causing much heartache. There has got to be some sort of common sense restored to this country before we wind up with a shoot-em-up mentality taking over.
Is it because we have allowed violence (in all forms) to become mainstream in our society through movies and video games? Have people become so desensitized to violence that it doesn’t bother them anymore?
Is it because we have allowed violence to be the way we settle scores?
Is it because we no longer see violence as a pervasive factor to our young people growing up in a world where violence is tolerated or even encouraged?
Somewhere along the line our society has allowed this me-me-me attitude to become the driving force and even if it means using violence to get what we want – then it is okay?
Where are the consequences of using violence?
Perhaps the reason I ask these things is because I am a mother and I tend to see any gun issue through a mother’s eyes? As a mother, I am always trying to make things ‘all right’ and to keep the peace.
Traditionally, men are the hunters and may view guns in a different perspective than women – or is that just my middle-aged inner woman speaking?
I just want common sense to return to our society but more than that – I want common courtesy, common decency and accountability to return to our society. Is that too much to ask?
My frustration with the “gun control” issue is that I can never get a straight answer from the gun advocates. My question is simple: government has to draw a line SOMEWHERE, the question is where?
I don’t believe that many gun owners would suggest that Joe Citizen should be able to purchase an ICBM equipped with a nuclear warhead. I don’t believe that advocates of gun control would want to ban .22 bolt action rifles.
The line is SOMEWHERE between those two extremes.
Contrary to the repeated accusations of one of the jabbering idiots on the “other” blog, I am not afraid of guns, as I am a past and likely future gun owner. I appreciate the workmanship of a fine firearm and enjoy target shooting.
The conversation on the gun owners side of the debate focuses on what SHOULDN’T be banned.
Fine!
What SHOULD be banned?
Let’s start there.
I see all of my questions are still being ignored.
“Fnord – You’re right about that quote. So is Obama. It’s already illegal on many levels for guns to be bought here and end up in mexico. Knowing that, how is the legal sale of assault weapons in the U.S. going to stop the ILLEGAL trade of weapons across the border?”
——
I never said anything about the legal sale of assault weapons and nothing about the illegal trade of weapons across the border — because I have no opinion on either subject. I am not trained nor qualified to handle either subject and will gladly leave those problems to those who are.
I’m not the least interested in owning a gun. They smell badly and leave my hands dirty. I don’t care that others who are carefully screened do own them. In fact, if gun owners were carefully screened they could own any number and kind of gun their checkbook allowed. I don’t think that screening is in place and most of the vocal gun owners leave me with the impression they aren’t sane enough to own a pocket knife.
I have no understanding why any person would be so paranoid that they would need one gun, let alone an arsenal, at their disposal for protection! Protection from other gun owners (whether they own legally or not!)? A more logical fear would seem to be getting in the way of the two gun owners in their shoot out! Someone without a gun isn’t going to shoot me!
Fnord – Montana is more of a 10th Amendment issue than a gun rights issue. Based on my understanding of Commerce Clause jurisprudence I believe they will lose in court. They will lose for the same reason the plaintiffs in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzalez v. Raich lost. I don’t agree with the majority opinion in either decision, but that doesn’t change the fact that those 2 cases will likely be relied on heavily and will all but seal Montana’s fate should they go to court.
Jammer – the comparison to blogging and religion are not strawmans. Guns do not cause crime, they do not kill people. There is NO debating that. It is a logical truism. I didn’t use cars as an analogy because there is no right to own a car in the Constitution.
Fnord – Quite frankly you’ve asked some very silly questions. Why should I be worried about further restrictions? Do you have any idea what Obama’s positions are RE: the 2nd Amendment?
Wicked – You said you don’t think anyone should be able to own an “Arsenal.” Define arsenal. Also, this should be common sense but I’ll point it out anyway. A person is either a danger to others or he is not. If he is he should be in jail or an institution. If not he should be treated as a free citizen and enjoy the exercise of all of his Constitutional rights. The number of guns is immaterial in relation to the level of danger posed by the person. Also, the presence of guns does not make someone dangerous to others.
A gun is merely an inanimate object, it cannot compel a person to act. Like any other object it cannot do or cause anything without direct, conscious manipulation by a human being. It no more causes crime or death than a spoon causes obesity.
Gun owners are carefully screened. That you claim they are not shows that you lack understanding of gun ownership and of the laws already on the books. I am a gun owner and a Concealed Carry Permit holder. As such I have been through the NICS background check via the FBI each time I bought a gun, as well as when I applied for my permit. In addition I was vetted by the Delaware State Police & the DE AG’s office each time. My fingerprints are also on file with the FBI since I am a CCW holder. Please note that this is an extremely basic explanation of the “careful screening” involved.
Why would a “more logical fear” be 2 lawful gun owners shooting eachother in a shootout? Surely you have evidence that shows such events occur with regularity? It sounds like unsubstantiated paranoia to me, which is ironic considering you claim we are paranoid for wanting to own a gun for protection. Have you considered that maybe we prefer to responsible for our own safety rather than relying on a 3rd party who will (hopefully) come to our aid in time. Ironically, who do you call when you need help? You call someone with a gun to come save you. All you’re really doing is choosing to outsource both the responsibility and risk of defending yourself. You’re also calling a stranger and asking him to put his life on the line for you because you choose not to.
Honestly I wish folks would get past gun control and realize that gun violence is merely a symptom of deeper cultural and socioeconomic problems that must be addressed. Identifying the problem is the 1st step. Unfortunately the real problems are complex and difficult, so it’s easier to blame guns and cry for more gun control. It’s the people who are the problem (and a small, identifiable subset account for most of the violent crime in this country)
You on the other hand can say virtually anything you want on the internet with no government screening whatsoever. Maybe we should change that and apply the kind of restrictions I have to deal with to exercise my 2A rights to the 1st Amendment. I doubt you’d consider them reasonable were that the case.
I was hoping to have a reasonable discussion of the issues here, but instead I see you are intent on engaging in irrational fearmongering and broad, unsubstantiated accusations and name-calling levied at the gun owning population simply because they CHOOSE to exercise a right that you don’t like.
I know several of you are gun owners, and that you also realize there’s no such thing as a silly question, so was wondering if any of you could answer the question I first asked on May 1? I’ll repost here:
May 1, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I found this link titled, “Milestones in Federal Gun Control Legislation.”
I read it carefully. Is it a correct and accurate timeline? Because if it is I can’t find why anyone would think any particular political party or political philosophy should be feared by gun owners or people who want no restrictions to gun ownership.
I also can’t find any restriction that should cause anyone concern.
Mike – I understand your views and I agree that guns are not the the cause of the violence – people that use the guns inappropriately are the problem.
But I also think that our society is so saturated with guns, that maybe that is a factor as to how the wrong people get the guns they need to do the violence?
I also agree with your assessment about how the gun violence has deeper roots in the socioeconomic and cultural problems that exist in our society.
But from what I’ve read about the gun violence across the Mexico border with the drug cartels – there are gun sellers on the US side of the border knowingly selling their guns to Mexicans who walk in the door. And this is contributing to the gun violence. Who is running a background check on these gun purchases? Are we so sure that every gun purchase has been run through a background check?
Like I have stated before, I don’t know what the answer to all the gun violence is but I am getting tired of it. I think as a country, we can do better than this.
“there are gun sellers on the US side of the border knowingly selling their guns to Mexicans who walk in the door. And this is contributing to the gun violence.”
Isnt’ that a matter of enforcement? If that is going on at gun shops near the border then the ATF needs to enforce the existing laws alreadly in place which are being broken and shut those folks down. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the idea that I should be subject to further infringement of my constitutional rights because of violence in Mexico caused in part by the ILLEGAL trade of weapons.
Bad Biker – Because I do not answer every question in one comment does not mean I “obviously avoided your post”
Lila – the “wrong people” aren’t getting guns through legal means, so how are more restrictions on the legal market going to solve anything? When has restricting the legal market for a good ever had a significant impact on the black market for said good? (see prohibition, war on drugs)
fnord – I think the current hysteria of Republicans saying that Obama is coming for their guns has more to do with the fact that they see their power hold slipping and the current economic downturn has alot of people fearing the future. It is, frankly, their rallying cry to fill up their coffers with money to line the pockets of politicians, talk show entertainers and the gun sellers.
Fear makes people do crazy things. And then we have the Radical Right spewing all their hate diatribe about Obama being a Socialist that is set out to bring destruction to America.
Given all these factors, I might just decide to get my first gun to protect myself from the crazy Righties.
If you study the timeline of gun control legislation you’ll find that it makes good common sense, steps on no one’s toes, and happens under leadership that spans the spectrum of political philosophy. Gang mentality gets people riled up and unable to see reality. That’s what I see has happened today.
Here’s what President Obama has said about gun control — “Obama said he has asked Attorney General Eric Holder to study how current gun laws are enforced and whether loopholes in some can be tightened. He said laws already on the books should restrict the flow of weapons into Mexico.”
These are his intentions. No one has brought anything contradictory to the discussion other than their unfounded fears. No supporting evidence shows any justification for those fears.
So you ignore the rest of the article, you know, the part that is contradictory to your beliefs. The part where he says he still plans to implement a permanent AWB.
Why is it so hard to admit that Obama is anti-gun and wants to push for more gun control?
Mike, So what if Obama is anti gun? It’s not going to happen for the simple reason there are not enough votes. It’s a moot point.
Bush was anti-broccoli. I love broccoli. I didn’t run out and plant massive acres of broccoli. I think your argument Obama is anti-gun is specious at best: it ain’t going to happen.
Mike,
I am well aware neither blogs or religion kill people. I am also well aware guns don’t kill people. However, blogs and religion, while they may be used as excuses for killing someone, can’t be loaded with bullets, aimed and fired at someone. I still think your argument was strawman in nature. You’re welcome to disagree.
Private individuals are not subject to federal laws when selling their guns, unless they do so across state lines. http://www.lcav.org/content/private_sales.pdf
My stance on that is they should be. That is the loophole referred to at gun shows. I think ALL gun sales should be subject to federal laws. I also think ALL guns should have rifling images factory and/or federally stored. I think any gun showing modification to serial number, rifling, etc., should be pulled from the market. New barrel? New rifling image sent to responsible agency. New firing pin? Same thing. That hurts no one.
I am also aware the basic problem is not the guns but the gun owners, legal or otherwise. Too many lately have found it okay to take out family, loved ones or complete strangers. And that’s just the legal owners. As you said, that is a basic human problem, and needs to be addressed, but how, I don’t know. All I do know is with all the laws on the books, the wrong people are still getting guns, and that has to stop.
If someone wants a gun, is legally able to buy one, passes a background check, then they should be allowed to purchase one, or as many as they want. I also have no problem with concealed carry, but I think more than the current requirements need to be put in place: is it needed buy the individual? Is the individual mentally sound (although I have no idea how to implement that, but with the recent spate of ‘legal’ owner shootings, it needs to be looked at)?
“Private individuals are not subject to federal laws when selling their guns, unless they do so across state lines. ”
Actually they are. Just because I’m conducting a private sale doesn’t mean I can sell to whomever I want. Anyone who is prohibited from buying or selling a firearm via an FFL is also prohibited from doing so via in-state private sales.
And yet we know there are guns being sold every day by ‘legal’ owners to people with the cash in hand.
Just because the law is on the books against this, does not mean it never happens.
The law says otherwise. Some states, but not all, do require private (unlicensed) sellers to follow federal law. The ones that don’t allow private (unlicensed) sellers to sell to anyone in the state. In other words, I can advertise a gun for sale and sell it to anyone I want, subject to the laws of the state, not federal. Federal law is aimed at interstate commerce of firearms, not intrastate.
Private sales between unlicensed individuals who are residents of the same state are allowed under federal law so long as such transfers do not violate the other existing federal and state laws. While current law mandates that a background check be performed if the seller has a federal firearms license, private parties living in the same state are not required to perform such checks under federal law. State laws however can prohibit such sales.
That is the loophole. That is what, in my opinion, needs to be closed.
“Is the individual mentally sound (although I have no idea how to implement that”
If an individual isn’t mentally sound they shouldn’t be trusted with a car, kitchen knife, or gasoline either.
Short of what we already have in place how do you implement that without restricting the rights of everyone? If you’re involuntarily committed you can’t buy a gun. What more do you guys want? Should anyone who’s ever suffered from depression be denied their Constitutional rights? Anyone who’s ever seeked counseling? Not only is that a clear violation of my rights, but it will keep people from seeking any kind of mental health help at all if they will lose rights as a result.
Jammer – RE rifling images stored etc. Some states already have ballistics databases for every gun bought. (see MD) Maryland has had it’s database for years and it has not solved a single crime.
“Jammer – RE rifling images stored etc. Some states already have ballistics databases for every gun bought. (see MD) Maryland has had it’s database for years and it has not solved a single crime.”
It is my opinion such images should be a federal requirement. Whether they would help solve crimes is a question that could only be answered by time.
As for the mental aspect of gun ownership, as I said, I have no idea how something like that could be done. My opinion was expressed with the conviction the recent spate of shootings by legal gun owners could somehow be avoided in the future. I would hope you would feel the same way.
I liken it to the death penalty: does the death of one innocent person via the death penalty justify the death penalty itself, or does it put a social stigma on it? If the latter, does it not then justify rescinding the death penalty?
Mike W. – I asked some legitimate questions of a gun owner – all in good faith. You obviously avoided my post.
Kindly address the SPECIFIC questions I asked – they are not too difficult, but they are material to the topic.
Must be easier to decide the question is “silly” or to avoid answering than it is to back up opinions with facts and supportive evidence.
I’m sorry, I’ve been reading your comments. I see assumptions that show ignorance, but I don’t see you qualifying your assertions with evidence.
I see no evidence you’ve provided. If you are an expert bring your credentials. If your opinions are based on something / anything concrete, bring that concrete evidence. Otherwise, I have an opinion and you have an opinion. And both our opinions are as good and as useless as the next.
“When has restricting the legal market for a good ever had a significant impact on the black market for said good? (see prohibition, war on drugs).”
Is this a valid analogy? Are people addicted to their firearms? IF you can prove this, which is doubtful, that might explain why debates such as this rage on forever, with no satisfactory outcome.
It is true during prohibition, alcohol use increased and there is a theory of use that accounts for this trend change. Don’t have time to look that up now.
I feel pretty confident, though, that the motivations to obtain drugs/alcohol are different from the motivations to obtain firearms.
Maybe it would be more efficient, if we all agreed to disagree here?
mike w.
Why is it so hard to admit that Obama is anti-gun and wants to push for more gun control
—
But I’ve heard the head of NRA say that the Assault Weapon Ban would not mean anything because there are other guns being sold legally that are the same basic guns.
So why are you so adamant about Obama being the big bad bully that wants to come get your guns?
If Obama is truly anti-gun, then he would be pushing for an all-out ban of guns – wouldn’t he?
And we all know that an all-out gun ban will never pass in this country.
I was hoping there would be some evidence that the increase in sales of guns and ammunition, or the fears of increased gun controls is warranted. That evidence would lead to understanding. Differences of opinion can often be settled with understanding. Without that, an agreement to disagree is perhaps the best possible outcome.
Why do you think AR-15’s have been flying off the shelves? 3 words. Assault Weapons Ban.
Guess who made that a platform of his campaign? Guess who has consistently reiterated his support for it? Guess who appointed the AG who says we need to pass one because of the violence in Mexico? Guess which party passed the 1994 ban?
Are you trying to tell me Obama isn’t anti-gun?
let’s see – thinks DC’s ban was Constitutional
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-camp-disa.html
Opposes the Tiarht Amendment, even though the FOP supports it. Tiarht restricts ATF trace data to law enforcement only.
From his website, scroll down to guns section
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2007/12/
Supports handgun registration, licensing, and training requirements. supports 1 gun a month laws (he both voted for AND co-sponsored one gun a month legislation)
He’s also currently backing the Inter American Arms Treaty, which includes licensing requirements and restrictions on manufacture of firearms and firearms components (I.E. ammo)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602694.html?hpid=topnews
Evidence can only lead to understanding for those who are willing to accept it.
Let’s see – Obama makes a new, permanent AWB a platform of his campaign. People remember 1994 and go out and buy a shit ton of “Assault Weapons” mags, etc. which were banned under the 94′ ban.
If we’d elected Ron Paul do you think they’d have gone out and started buying like crazy? This was a simple, plausible reaction to Obama’s words, voting record, and past stance on the issue.
BTW Obama served on the BOD of the largest anti-gun group in the country. The Joyce Foundation.
When there is specific legislation introduced that might restrict constitutional civil rights you let us know, and we’ll consider the merits of that legislation, and whether or not it has any chance of being passed. Until then, you spend all the money you want on guns and ammo. The future may prove your fears were justified. Then you can say you told us so!
so in other words no amount of evidence of Obama’s intentions, past or present statements, or voting history will justify buying of guns & ammo in your mind. (which you claim is unfounded paranoia)
And really, why do you care if we’re stocking up? How does it affect you?
Mike,
As I stated earlier, who cares if Obama is anti-gun? It ain’t going to happen. He needs votes and they aren’t there. How much simpler can it be? People running around buying up guns and ammo are doing so not because they fear Obama, but because they fear a Liberal government.
You also haven’t commented on the fact guns can be bought and sold without following federal laws, in some states, if the seller is not licensed. That is a fact and not really arguable. That is the loophole. I’d like your opinion on whether or not it should be closed.
What steps, if any, has Obama taken to re-implement the awb? I can find none. What he has done is have his AG look into current laws, and see if they are being actively enforced. How can that be a problem with anybody but those violating the law?
As for the fact congress is now Democrat controlled, how has that affected gun sales? The Democrats have said they will make no attempt to re-institute the awb. It ain’t going to happen, Mike. The votes aren’t there. If people are still buying guns thinking it’s going to happen, then who’s not up on current affairs in Washington?
You have pointed out that people who are in favor of banning guns don’t know what they’re talking about. It seems to me those using Obama as an excuse to buy guns have the same problem.
THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! But you are keeping people employed and supporting the economy. At least that’s something positive.
Incidentally, I am not in favor of the awb, I am against, however, ignorant, criminal or mentally disturbed people owning guns. I am for every gun sale, regardless of licensed seller or not, following federal law.
I see assumptions that show ignorance, but I don’t see you qualifying your assertions with evidence.
I see someone not answering direct questions put to him.
Why not go back to your buddies so you can all pat yourselves on the back and discuss how ignorant gun-hating liberals are?
I was hoping to have a reasonable discussion of the issues here,
I highly doubt that.
“And really, why do you care if we’re stocking up? How does it affect you?”
I don’t care. I just wondered why.
You’ve said you know what President Obama thinks from his statements. You state there is evidence of President Obama’s intentions in his voting history.
What statements and what votes lead you to this conclusion?
We have limits on the numbers of links allowed to one post because WordPress suggested that was one way to eliminate spammers. Nothing more than that was anyone’s intention. No person put any of your posts into moderation, you simply ran into a common-sense limitation that protects our blog. Since you are for ‘protection’ that should be easy for you to understand.
I hadn’t checked, and didn’t know there was anything not posted. I will go look. It isn’t something one can know without looking. Maybe you should calm down, and not make unfounded accusations.
Perhaps Obama voted against this bill because it also gave cover to the gun dealers who knowingly are selling their guns to drug dealers? You know, those deals that are never go through the legal paperwork.
Have you ever thought about that?
Again, Mike, even if Obama did want a permanent gun ban – it is unlikely that would ever pass – so what is your real beef with the man?
Clinton went after the guns too and the Righties all went out and bought guns and ammo. But this time they act like it is some dire prediction that the end times are here.
In fact, there were quite a few references to Obama being the Anti-Christ hurled at Obama during the campaign by the Religious Right.
And just because Obama was on the BOD of the largest anti-gun group, does not mean he has the authority to come and get your guns.
Alot of Republicans are on the BOD of some groups I don’t like but what does that really mean in the end? I just don’t like the groups they choose to associate with – nothing more and nothing less.
mike – I’ve known fnord for awhile now and she is not the type of person who would knowingly hold up someone’s posting because she does not agree with it.
Maybe that is what you’re used to at other blogs, but this blog is not that way.
I’d like to add that your latest postings seem to imply that anyone that disagrees with your position is ignorant. I have agreed with some of your points but I don’t agree with them all. And isn’t that what freedom of speech is all about – the freedom of every person to voice their opinions?
“How can you push for more laws when you don’t understand those we already have in place?”
The only place I can find that anyone other than you has addressed laws is to want current loopholes in current laws closed and many questions about why you feel additional restrictive laws will be imposed.
No one here is pushing for more laws.
Perhaps you’re bringing a history to this conversation that isn’t warranted? Maybe if you reread what posters here at Prairie P&Ps have really said and quit assigning things that haven’t been said to us, we’ll all be on the same page.
Reality. What we have said, not what someone else has said. I can’t find anything in this discussion that is what you’re accusing us of.
BTW Mike – if you want to stockpile guns and ammo – go for it. But also remember that you’re responsible – morally, if not legally – for what happens with that stockpile.
And after all your shooting is done, what will it get you in the end?
Did I not say you were ‘morally’ responsible for what happens with your stockpile of guns.
What part of morally do you not get?
Usually people who want to stockpile guns and ammo are inclined to use them – otherwise, why stockpile them?
I sense you have this attitude that all it takes to win a fight is who has the biggest or the most guns?
That is what I meant about after all the shooting. In the end – when your ammo runs out- what will it get you?
When a discussion denigrates into a pissing contest no one is well served. No one here is learning something new or gaining any new understanding, and I’m certainly not being entertained, so I personally have no interest in continuing. Seems a lot like an argument that goes:
you said _______
no that isn’t what I said.
yes it is!
argumentum ad nauseam
Everyone should feel free to continue if you’re so inclined. If a learning opportunity presents itself I might regain interest, or if something fun happens count me in. Otherwise this is just too boring to hold my interest.
“Bad Biker – Because I do not answer every question in one comment does not mean I “obviously avoided your post””
Well, now is your chance – where do YOU draw the line?
Easy, right?
Waiting, Mike………………………………………..
By the way, are you a Prairie, Populist, And, Progressive or a .net?
Just curious…………………………………………………..
Waiting, Mike………………………………………..
Waiting……………………………………………….
Apparently, our “friend” Mike is much like our old “friend” NP from that “other” blog – won’t answer a direct question – calls anyone that disagrees with him “ignorant” and generally behaves like a “gun-for-a-penis” con.
Great.
“Fnord – What do you base a mans future actions on if not his past statements and actions?”
If this is a person I know and have the opportunity to put what was said into the proper context, probably what he has said and how he has acted in the past would be one predictor of how he might behave in the future given the exact circumstances.
Take for instance what I know about you, your past statements and actions. I know you disagree with anything I say. I know you interpret what I say differently than I do, I know you attach meanings to my words that I didn’t intend, I know you accuse me of doing things I never did (and btw, you didn’t apologize for the unfounded accusation!).
Should I use that extremely limited knowledge to predict your future actions? Every action, no matter what might have changed since then? Should I use that limited knowledge to know you won’t ever reexamine an issue, take additional information into consideration? Am I to predict that if I knew you better I wouldn’t find anything different, any greater understanding, than what I know now?
I’m not going to put weight into soundbites taken out of context. Neither will I accept interpretations and opinions of what someone said or meant.
I find no reason to speculate or wonder what President Obama might do with regard to gun control legislation. If and when legislation is introduced there will be ample time for looking at that bill, what it entails, whether it has merit, what chances it has of passing…
I’m not going to waste a second of time on something that ‘might be.’ I think it’s more productive to address challenges that are present than to worry about ones that aren’t.
But, hey, if you want to spend any or all your time worrying about what might happen in the future, go for it! It’s your time to spend as you choose.
mike w.
May 5, 2009 at 11:49 am
lilachuvr – The law in question protected gun MANUFACTURERS from CIVIL lawsuits, not dealers from criminal prosecution.
If a particular dealer is selling guns illegally then it is the job of the ATF to enforce the law, build a case, and shut them down.
—-
Actually Mike – go back and read the legislation – it does give cover to gun dealers……