Who should we believe?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

Does the law abiding gun owning public have anything to fear from our democratic party? Should I believe those that post here and call me a paranoid freeper? Should I believe Obama's latest statement on the 2nd amendment or Biden's or their collective voting record? Should I believe the NRA of which I am not a member and haven't been for over 15 years? Should I believe the 68 democratic sponsors and co-sponsors of HR 1022? Lastly should I just realize that they are all parts of the same political machine that doesn't care one tiny little bit about my rights or my families protection and safety? Should I believe some of our Democratic Senators who have had concealed carry permits but want to ban all handguns? Lets keep it classy like our President Elect.

David

[leftofcool]

1. Why don't we wait and see what happens

President Obama may do the Clinton thing with the ban on assault wepaons but I do not see him banning guns for protection or hunting. We may have some tighter restrictions but he will not take away the guns you already have.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. What do you think the chances are of a permanent AWB passing in Obamas first term?

[57_TomCat]

20. Highly likely.

If he does it early enough then it will be "mostly" a non issue for most voters in two years.

[SteveM]

28. I see your point, but I don't think Obama will act in this manner...

I think as time goes by the push for another assault weapons ban will suffer the same fate of the exhausted dog trying to catch the speeding car: being left in the dust.

Nearly 15,000,000 civilians (a huge constituency) own semi-auto carbines (called "assault weapons"), the domestic manufacturers of these firearms are running 24-7 (with months-long waiting lists to order a rifle), and new hunting models are coming on-line which will short-circuit the conceit that "no one wants to ban your hunting rifles." Further, I think most Democrats are by now well aware of the damage such a measure can have on the Democratic Party.

I don't think Obama will try to cram a measure in early as this will distract from his economic and other measures for no good reason other than trying to make some gun-control interest groups feel good; these groups are quite weakened, having small activist bases and depending on big-donor financing to keep afloat.

The problem will be a potential leadership vacuum within the Democratic Party with regards Second Amendment rights. Said another way, if we (through gun-owners' caucuses like Oregon's Blue Steel Democrats) do not organize and push for our objectives, then various GOP gun-controllers (Brady Center) and big-city Democrats will try to advance some other gun-control measures which are ineffective but politically costly. (We have already seen the "internationalization" of gun-control through U.N. attempts to restrict trade in small arms, and the repeated complaints of "deadly assault-style weapons" being smuggled from the U.S. into Mexico.)

The key to sinking the gun-control movement in its own slip is to explicitly organize within the Democratic Party.

[benEzra]

13. An AWB is what most of us would be worried about.

The most popular defensive firearms would be negatively affected by an "assault weapon" ban, and only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts.

My biggest worry would be continued availability of magazines, spare parts, and ammunition. After that, I worry that I won't be able to purchase a couple of rifles I want someday when I can afford them, and that my children won't have the same freedoms I have.

Hopefully, the AWB is dead, but the repubs at the Brady Campaign are doing their damndest to resurrect it.

[krispos42]

30. "assault weapons" are guns for protection

The rifles that fall under the term of "assault weapon" are low-to-medium powered semi-automatic rifles.


Keep in mind, of course, that 'assault weapon' is an arbitrary and perjorative term typically used for semi-automatic rifles but also included semi-automatic shotguns and handguns as well.

In this example, this gun shown below is an "assault weapon" as defined under the Clinton AWB:





But these two aren't:








Yet, they're all the same rifle with the same serial number, just with different stocks bolted on:



Some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

[tularetom]

2. My question is who do you think you are protecting your family from?

If you are concerned about a random assault or mugging on the street that's one thing and if you are afraid of that happening you should acquire a CCP. On the other hand if you are stockpiling weapons because you fear someone (the government, gang bangers, the cops, or whomever) is going to mount an assault on your home forget it. You will never be able to match those who want to take you out. There are more of them than there are of you and you can only fire one weapon at a time. They're going to get you in the end. If having an arsenal makes you feel safer, by all means go to it.

I'm a collector of antique firearms. I have a FFL for Curios and Relics. There are several dozen firearms in my home. It has never occurred to me that I am more or less safe because they are there. Consequently I don't feel anyone gives a big rats ass that I have them, except my granddaughters who are a bit creeped out by all the guns. And I'm not afraid any asshole politician of the left or the right is gonna mess with me over it either.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

6. Increasing numbers of home invasions in my city.

10 minute + average response times to felony calls in my area. Several fatalities in the home invasions.

David

[57_TomCat]

23. I live in a hurricane zone.

Been hit before and will probably be hit again. In 2004 I had three of them go over my head. Katrina is a wake-up call for those that are not prepared. As a cop I can relate to the statement "When seconds count the cops are only minutes away." Hurricane aftermath has great potential for serious public disorder and a good rifle and shotgun in the house is good insurance. Having extras for family members, hunting and competition is a bonus.

The AWB would impact me in many ways and I personally disagree with the police exemption. A state with only the cops armed with the "good stuff" is a police state. I do not like that idea.

As for "whomever" that might want to mount an assault on my house being the automatic winner...I disagree. In the aftermath of a natural disaster the possibility or armed gangs looting targets of opportunity is a definite possibility with much precedent. Having arms available is quite a good idea and in my case having extras for my extended family that will be heading to my house in an emergency is a great idea. My skill at arms coupled with good planning and tactics will give my family a definite advantage in such a scenario. We will be defending a home with forethought as opposed to being brigands of opportunity.

I will be happy to stipulate that there are many situations where I and mine would be at a disadvantage but it is still smart to prepare. I have yet to need my kitchen fire extinguisher yet but I do not plan to get rid of it. I fear Obama and others will prefer us to simply take our chances.

A side note...The current popular "assault weapon" rifles and carbines are not designed to take lives but instead to save lives. They save those lives by being reliable and simple to operate. Functioning during times of stress and poor weather, easy to handle and utilize by the partially trained. Working when a "sporting arm" might simply stop functioning due to heat buildup or other adverse conditions. The AR15 as an example is a military style gun with the needed advantages of being a life saving weapon. It does NOT have the military purpose full auto/burst capability. It is NOT used in crime to great degree but IS used in sporting activities both competition and hunting. That is one of the guns they are are trying to eliminate. They (our Democratic party leadership) scare me on this issue.

[msongs]

3. dont worry, 8 year olds will still have the right to use guns nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. 8 year olds don't have that right without the permission of their legal guardian.

Hope that clears up your confusion.

David

[spin]

21. My eight year old daughter could shoot ...

a firearm at the target range as long as she was under direct adult supervision.

I believe you are referring to the tragic incident when a 8 year old killed himself while shooting a fully auto Uzi. The child was under the supervision of a certified instructor. I'm not familiar with all the details of the situation, but I would never let a child of that age fire a full auto weapon unless I had full control of the weapon. To be honest, I doubt that I consider doing this.

The last time I was offered the opportunity to fire a full auto Uzi, (yes the owner had a federal license for the weapon), my two grandchildren who are 13 and 14 years old were present and I never considered asking the owner to allow them to fire the weapon. Before I fired the weapon, the owner warned me to shoot short bursts and make damn sure I released the trigger if the weapon started to get away from me. He knew I have had extensive experience with firearms and was familiar with full auto assault rifles as I was in the service during the Vietnam era. I took no offense at his instruction, a fully automatic weapon deserves considerable respect when handling.

My daughter shot a single shot .22 caliber rifle off of a rest to start. When she was nine, I purchased a .22 S&W Kt gun with a 4" barrel and adjustable sights for her to shoot at the range. Before she ever fired the revolver, she went through an extensive training period. I required her to memorize the names of all the external components of the revolver and to learn all the rules of safe handling. She also got a lot a dry fire training. Note: I used spent .22 cases in the cylinder as dry fire with a rim fire revolver can cause damage.

After a year of shooting, I let her shoot a more powerful .38 caliber revolver. At first, I was very careful to stand behind her with my hands over hers to prevent any possibility of the recoil causing her to drop the weapon or having the barrel smack her in the head. She was soon able to handle a .357 magnum revolver and even a .44 magnum revolver, but her favorite revolver was my S&W Model 25-2 45 acp. The recoil of this revolver was manageable and it was extremely accurate which made it a fun gun to shoot.

She seem to enjoy the attention she received from other shooters when she walked up to the firing line, loaded her weapon and pointed it down range. This revolver is the same size as the Dirty Harry .44 magnum and in her hands it looked enormous as she weighed far less than 100 pounds.

But all the practice at the range came in handy one night when she was sixteen. An intruder broke into our home. He managed to jimmy the sliding glass door in the kitchen and was halfway through the door when she confronted him from about 15 feet. He informed her that he intended to rape her. She pointed her favorite .45 acp revolver at him and he fled. (Note, a burglar alarm was sounding and there was a 60 pound Labrador Retriever in the house.)

I asked her why she didn't shoot. She replied, "Dad, you told me to never shoot someone unless they were in the house. He was halfway through the door."

While her familiarity with revolvers was important in preventing a tragedy, she also had ten years training in judo with one of the best instructors in the country. She had both confidence in herself and skill in handling her weapon. Without that confidence and skill, the intruder might have disarmed her and used the weapon against her.

So yes, eight year old children may benefit from learning to shoot, but only under the guidance of a very competent adult with commonsense.

[safeinOhio]

4. NRA said the same about Bill Clinton

in 8 years not one gun was taken away from a legal owner. The only thing that might change that is if some idiot does the unthinkable.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. That's a very simplistic view.

[benEzra]

15. A lot of us were burned badly by the 1994 Feinstein law,

and H.R.1022 would have been MUCH worse.

You do not have to physically confiscate my rifle to take away my use of it. Outlawing replacement magazines and spare parts for it (a la H.R.1022 et seq) would eventually disable it just as surely as confiscation would, which is precisely why the gun-control zealots are after magazine and spare parts bans. Placing harsh restrictions on "nonsporting" ammunition (using the thumbworn "sporting = hunting" canard) would deactivate the gun in the near term; I only have enough ammunition on hand to shoot about five USPSA matches before I am out of ammunition and would need to buy more.

And there is also the fact that there are a couple of guns that I want to buy, but I am not wealthy and have a special-needs kid with lots of medical bills, so the responsible thing is to put those gun purchases off a few years. I just hope they will still be readily available in the configurations I want when I am able to afford them.

[57_TomCat]

27. Bill Clinton and the law he pushed that was

written by senator Biden, did take away my ability to purchase a brand new sporting rifle with several cosmetic features that a poorly informed congress felt was dangerous. That law has sunset and I have since purchased several of those previously proscribed arms. I will NOT support another such pile of similar legislation nor the people that introduce, sponsor or support it.

[Old Codger]

5. The way I see it

They are all part of the same basic machine, they are politicians, and as such they will do whatever they think they need to to get re-elected, and I do mean all of them.. Since the SC has passed their judgment on the second I feel we are safe for a while anyway. As long as we don't allow registration we are somewhat protected as they would have to go door to door and search all houses so I feel fairly comfortable at this time.. Subject to change at any time.. So basically I don't believe any of them NRA senate, house, judicial or executive... The so called "assault weapons" ban was a kneejerk reaction that really did nothing except make the ones that were already here and grandfathered in worth a lot of money, same with the 1968 one that LBJ signed in, that one actually had a lot to do with him not running again


(edited for spelling)

[aikoaiko]

9. I plan on writing letters as a Democrat urging my Rep, Senators, and President to not vote for/sign

and federal gun bans.

So much of Obama's gun rhetoric is good (supports 2nd amendment, 2nd as individal right, supporting Heller, what works in Chicago doesn't work in Cheyenne, etc), but then explicitly supports reauthorizing the AWB. Honestly, his support for AWB is worrysome.

[Yavapai]

11. If he goes for a renewed AWB, I can guarantee my vote for a straight Republican ticket next election

I voted that way in 1994 and will do it again. I voted Democratic (for Obama) this time because
Our country needs Heath care, etc.

All I can say is he best not become another fucking Clinton! If he does a lot of people here and
elsewhere will stop supporting him overnight.

When Clinton was in office, I wrote letters to Boxer and Feinstein to no avail. Upon retirement we
moved out of California at the first chance.

I want all my constitutional rights in place, all the time!!!

[benEzra]

16. From his prior statements, I think he had been led to believe

that the AWB was about military weapons, rather than popular non-automatic civilian guns. I am hopeful that his advisors and/or Congressional Dems will remedy that.

I believe Biden knows the AWB is about civilian non-automatics, but his problem seems to be that he thinks most lawful gun owners are either hunters, or skeet/clays shooters like himself, and that small-caliber "black rifles" are fringe guns. When in fact the vast majority of gun owners are nonhunters who own guns for defensive purposes and recreational target shooting, and "assault weapon" owners outnumber hunters by a significant margin.

[jeepnstein]

17. True...

Hunting is a sport enjoyed by fewer and fewer folks every year. In many ways it is only the very wealthy or the very poor who still do it.

I guess it's been twenty years or so since I hunted game. The last couple of times I made a half-hearted attempt at it I spent the whole time just watching the dogs bark and run and never contemplated taking a shot. I still shoot varmints from time-to-time but if the Brady Bunch saw what I use for that they'd swoon. I haven't even bothered buying a hunting license in several years.

Does this mean all of a sudden I'm surrendering my 2nd Amendment rights? Not by a long shot, bubba. For anyone to say "Oh, don't worry because we won't take your "hunting" guns just tells me they don't know what they're talking about." The Constitution didn't mention shooting a moose in the Bill of Rights.

[Rancid Crabtree]

12. Look on the bright side...

...we had an AWB and for what it was worth, it did little or nothing in the way of crime prevention...I'd like to acquire an M1A...National Match version...I dunno, maybe it'd be on the ban list...then again, maybe the ones already available will still be available...I've got a couple pre-ban (1st version of the ban) guns that I enjoy...I think the website of the President-elect has/had announced the new ban, along with something about the Tiehardt (sp?) amendment, along with something about the "gun-show" loophole, along with something about keeping children safe with some not-new scheme that will force folk out of business...has/had...because I don't believe it's on-line anymore...or something else is up...so yeah, I believe the majority in Congress will pass gun legislation, by then president Obama will likely sign it into law...and the election two years from now will see changes...meanwhile, some of the guns banned will still be available in one form or another...the media will continue to hype anything involving a firearm...the public will continue to foster and feed this fashionable ideology...folk will speak out about the issue from both sides...and eventually...maybe years down the line...we'll see some kind of gun confiscation...although it won't be called that...something along the lines of what has happened in other countries...and some folk will have kept most of their firearms back...and all the while this is going on, other events will be taking place...and in the end, who knows what will happen...so until then, keep your powder dry, your ammo boxes full...

[57_TomCat]

19. I tend to agree with you Rancid ...

a great deal. My only point of contention is whether or not the public will care. If they do the dirty deed quickly then I see two years hence nothing big changing. The outrage that caused the revolution in 94 was hot and current. The AWB was only two months old. I remember many people not nearly so bothered by it two years later. We will see.

[HiDemGunOwner]

31. It would have been

"...I'd like to acquire an M1A...National Match version...I dunno, maybe it'd be on the ban list..."

Under HR1022, it would have been banned.

[jody]

14. IMO the best defense is a strong offense and that means writing LTTE, ltrs. to senators and

congresspersons protesting bills S.2237 and H.R. 1022 and getting in our state Democratic Party.

We pro-RKBA Dems cannot trust anyone to protect our rights recognized in the Second Amendment.

The virulent hate spewed here on DU by some gun-grabbers is proof we can never let our guard down.

We pro-RKBA Dems know that our party can become an afterthought in one election that occurs every two years for the House of Representatives.

That happened before and it can happen again.

[carguy67]

18. Obama

Is a smart man, I don't see it happening until after the elections in 2 years. Burning us gun owners could cost alot of Democrates their seats. Infact if he really plays it "smart he'll wait until his second term.

I hope that no attempt is made to bring the AWB back. But when you look at all of the people around Obama, his record and Bidens it's hard not to think it.

If they attempt a ban I promise that they will lose my vote.

[one-eyed fat man]

22. Smart?? Maybe clever

The President-elect's OWN website gives military automatic weapons given as the reason, yet again, to justify a ban on guns that are not!

http://obama.3cdn.net/84b2062fc4a5114715_ftxamv9ot.pdf

Note especially the part about "As a long-time resident and elected official of Chicago, Barack Obama has seen the impact of fully automatic weapons in the hands of criminals. Thus, Senator Obama supports making permanent the expired federal Assault Weapon Ban."

Read that again, "FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS in the hands of criminals" are a problem he proposes to solve by banning guns that are not fully automatic and not in the hands of criminals.

Again, how much more directly or more plainly can he say he supports reinstating the ban on semiautomatic weapons by alluding they are machine guns?

This is a deception of the first order! Think of how many times in the past week you have read uninformed and technically incompetent posts confusing the AWB and machine guns? The confusion of the public on the issue is integral to the political calculus. They are counting on people to believe the ban is about machine guns. Nobody sits on the board of the Joyce Foundation doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to the likes of Sarah Brady, Paul Helmke, Josh Sugermann and NOT know the difference. After all, Sugarmann spelled out the strategy in 1988.

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons." -Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

Just because the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right, that doesn't mean that those who have built their careers on gun control are going to give up. The very instant that they believe that they can pass an AWB and survive the next election, Reid and Pelosi will have the bill on his desk. Any doubt it won't be signed in a big Rose Garden ceremony, replete with a gaggle of cops, and a speech about how "...'weapons of war' are being taken off our streets..........?"

[jody]

25. Comments from Obama's entourage supported by his gun-control history is cause to worry unless he

pledges " I will veto every bill that comes to me that infringes upon the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state and that includes renewing the assault weapons ban".

Absent such a pledge from Obama's lips, I will worry that his key advisers and benefactors like Kennedy, Joyce Foundation, Annenberg Foundation will pressure him to support a renewed AWB.

I see what happened in CA with Prop 8 and how Obama said he wanted people to vote in favor of same-sex marriage but that he personally opposed same-sex marriage and I realize Obama does not always mean what he says.

That may also be true about his promise to protect Second Amendment rights.

Time will tell but to paraphrase Olive Cromwell, "Put your trust in Obama but keep your powder dry to fight for RKBA."

[one-eyed fat man]

29. advisors.......

try and find one more virulently ant-gun than Rahm Emmanuel.

"Finally, the appointment of Rahm Emanuel, the strident chief architect of the Clinton-Gore gun control agenda, as President-elect Obama's chief of staff sends an unambiguous message to gun-owners and members of the firearms industry."

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Firearms-Industry-Addresses-Rising-Gun/story.aspx?guid={32428351-BB31-45BC-9823-2E653A9A3094}

[spin]

26. Remember that as a Democratic politician from Chicago...

he would have little chance of making to the national stage if he would have had a different view on gun control.

There is no state preemption of firearm laws. Some municipalities, most notably Chicago, require that all firearms be registered with the local police department.<59> Chicago does not allow the registration of handguns, which has the effect of outlawing their possession, unless they were grandfathered in by being registered before April 16, 1982.<60><61> Some Chicago suburbs also have banned handguns, including Oak Park<62> and Winnetka.<63> Highland Park bars handgun possession unless the resident has obtained a permit from the police.<64> The status of these various handgun bans has been uncertain since June 26, 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.<65><66> Chicago has indicated that it will fight in court to keep its current law,<67> but in the weeks following the Heller decision, handgun bans were repealed in the suburbs of Wilmette,<68> Morton Grove,<69> and Evanston.<70> underlining mine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Illinois

[spin]

24. If Obama does well while in office...

but does sign another Assault Weapons Ban similar to the last one into effect, I will still vote for Democrats. (Note: I intend to be very fair in my judgment of "doing well" as Bush and company has left one hell of a mess behind. I predict that several years from now, we may learn who really benefited from the "bail out" and it will not be be average Joe.

The original Assault Weapons Ban accomplish nothing. The "assault weapons" were merely cosmetically altered by the manufacturers to comply with the requirements of the ban and high capacity magazines were still readily available. If anything, the old Assault Weapons Ban made these weapons more popular and increased the number on the street. The price of these weapons and high capacity magazines skyrocketed, but still were affordable. If anything, the last Assault Weapons Ban was a bonanza to the gun manufacturers and the Republican Party.

But if Obama pushes for draconian gun laws such as taking away the right of licensed trained individuals to carry concealed weapons or any effort to confiscate weapons from honest citizens, I will have to reevaluate my reasons to vote for Democrats. I don't believe that he will move in this direction and I also believe many elected Democrats support the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to own firearms for self defense. If the very liberal faction of the Democratic Party pushes such ideas, they may fail to pass in Congress and will never reach Obama's desk.

But as I stated it will take a lot more than some impotent Assault Weapons Ban to cause me to vote for the Republicans after their performance over the last eight years.