Results 41 to 50 of 60
-
12-05-2011, 11:54 AM #41
I see nothing wrong with any of those positions. It's not that he wants to "take away your guns". If you aren't a ridiculous whack job, you can have guns. He just wants stricter background checks. I don't see anything wrong with that. And as for the ban on assault rifles, that's fine too. I don't think the founding fathers could predict things like AK-47s when they were writing the Constitution.
-
-
12-05-2011, 11:58 AM #42
The home invasion thing is dumb, he contradicts himself on the dc ban and look up the definition of assault rifles. You can't own an old british gun in places...
-
12-05-2011, 12:08 PM #43
Yes, that particular stipulation is idiotic, but that doesn't change the overarching theme that strict background checks aren't a bad thing. It's as if when you were taking your drivers' test, that you just started the car, and the guy said "OK, you pass". It just doesn't work that way, if you've proven that you aren't responsible enough to own a gun, that's it, you're done!
And again, still doesn't change the fact that there have been no significant federal gun laws passed during the Obama administration. That particular phrase is stupid and ill-informed.
-
-
12-05-2011, 12:10 PM #44
I have no problem with checks. That's not the issue. The issue is Obama has shown by his record he disproves of guns and restricts whenever possible.
It's not realistic at this time for him to ban all guns, but if he could, would he? I don't read into that phrase as he is banning all guns. I see it as he is tightening the noose as much as he possibly can.
-
12-05-2011, 12:51 PM #45
This is what I hear ALL the time when it comes to Democrats. No, he probably wouldn't. Things like that are just ridiculous assumptions. That's like me saying, "oh, well there've been a lot of private plane crashes recently, maybe the test to get a pilot's license should be a bit more strict". To which someone would respond "You must want to eliminate all planes and bankrupt the industry." No, I don't. I just want those who fly planes to prove that they can do so in a responsible manner. That's the same thing with guns. I'm a pretty liberal guy, and I would never want to take people's guns away.
-
-
12-05-2011, 12:57 PM #46
It's not a stretch with regards to Obama considering his record and he does come from the city that banned guns. He hasn't done anything to overturn that and voted alongside with it on other issues.
-
12-05-2011, 01:03 PM #47
Cain is DONE..........
-
-
12-05-2011, 01:03 PM #48
I agree with stricter background checks, within reason.
For example. An FBI background check on me reveals a charge (that was dropped) with the word terroristic in it. The exact charge is terroristic threats. I was in an altercation with a person and a 3rd party claimed that I threatened to kill the person I was having an issue with. The police accepted this 3rd party statement and charged me. I did not threaten anyone and the other person admitted that I never said that. The charges were dropped and that was the end of it.
The flaw is that every time I deal with law enforcement this issue comes up. I was checked by a game warden a few years ago and before I knew it he was asking why I was charged with terrorism when I was in Pennsylvania.
Stricter background check laws could block me from buying a gun even though I am only guilty of being accused of a poorly worded charge.
Actually laws blocking the production of ammunition have been slipped thru as riders on other laws. I own a British .303 rifle that is WWI/WWII era. For some reason it is classified as a sniper rifle. Now the production of the ammunition is banned.
My local gun shop is also having issues with getting bulk handgun ammo. His last order was for 240 boxes of 9mm ammo, when the order arrived he had gotten like 36 boxes.Last edited by duane1969; 12-05-2011 at 01:09 PM.
-
12-05-2011, 01:11 PM #49
I agree with stricter background checks, within reason.
For example. An FBI background check on me reveals a charge (that was dropped) with the word terroristic in it. The exact charge is terroristic threats. I was in an altercation with a person and a 3rd party claimed that I threatened to kill the person I was having an issue with. The police accepted this 3rd party statement and charged me. I did not threaten anyone and the other person admitted that I never said that. The charges were dropped and that was the end of it.
The flaw is that every time I deal with law enforcement this issue comes up. I was checked by a game warden a few years ago and before I knew it he was asking why I was charged with terrorism when I was in Pennsylvania.
Stricter background check laws could block me from buying a gun even though I am only guilty of being accused of a poorly worded charge.
Actually laws blocking the production of ammunition have been slipped thru as riders on other laws. I own a British .303 rifle that is WWI/WWII era. For some reason it is classified as a sniper rifle. Now the production of the ammunition is banned.
My local gun shop is also having issues with getting bulk handgun ammo. His last order was for 240 boxes of 9mm ammo, when the order arrived he had gotten like 36 boxes.
I agree that the bolded part is stupid. There's no way that should be illegal. But again, none of this changes the fact that Mr. O has not and will not just ban guns. I never understood why conservatives were always so apocalyptic on this. Most Dems totally support the second amendment.
-
12-05-2011, 01:20 PM #50
I think it is more of a fear of "give an inch, lose a mile" type of situation. Gun rights folks tend to oppose any new gun laws for fear that it is just a step in the direction of an eventual ban.
And it isn't a conservative thing either. I know lots of liberal gun owners who adamantly oppose any gun laws. I knew a retired Gunny Sgt. that HATED George W. but would fight you tooth and nail if you mentioned taking his guns.
-
Originally Posted by sanfran22 
