Survivalist Forum banner

1 - 20 of 130 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet or if its in the right place, if not moderators please feel free to move it. I'm posting this in the gun forum too.


http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4227


"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In

Friday, November 07, 2008


Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:

"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.

"Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.

"Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.

"Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Here he goes already... I've also posted this in the assault weapons and controversial issues threads in the hopes that those affected will see it.


http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4227


"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In

Friday, November 07, 2008


Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:

"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.

"Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.

"Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.

"Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,814 Posts
As a gun owner, and aspiring CCW-citizen, I am not the least bit worried.

Banning the owning of assault rifles is not taking away all weapons. It is not an all or nothing proposition. This paranoia is the reason I quit being affiliated with the NRA.

They used to be about gun safety and responsible ownership. Now it's mostly paranoid stuff from what I see.

No one is going to try and take your shotguns, rifles, handguns away from you. If they did, I will be right along side of you to defend our right to have arms.

I know there are those that want automatic weapons because they harbor fantasies of another armed revolt by the citizens against an "oppressive" government because I've read enough on posts over the years that hint at this if not saying it out right.

There is no reason what so ever for a private citizen to need an AK 47 and armor piercing ammo.

(Just to entertain the revolution fantisizers) If it comes down to armed insurrection, it's not the middle aged guys with AKs that are going to be effective, it's the sharp shooting guys with the deer rifles playing sniper out of the bushes.

During civil unrest, (ala Katrina), it's the shotgun that's going to be the most effective for the average citizen in defending hearth and home and the handgun for the car.

In reference to another thread about unstable neighbors, do you really want the legal, but emotionally unstable neighbor next door having a weapon where he can spray hundreds of rounds a minute piercing brick/mortar/armor? (If you can have one, he can too). I'd rather he'd be limited to something he's got to reload after a few shots to give me a chance to poke up from behind cover and drop him with a controlled shot.

Forgive the rant, I just get frustrated when reason is abandoned in lieu of fear...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,362 Posts
SamHain, Thats just one step. If you ban that, what else is gonna fall along the way? Soft point hunting ammo?,you grandpas lever action rifle??There can't be any concessions when dealing with these S.O.B's.You give them an inch they take a mile.And what we'll have in there starting in January will be nothing more than an attrocity.
 

·
25 Or 6 to 4
Joined
·
8,006 Posts
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Obama= "Enemy Domestic" As defined by presidential oath to uphold the constitution. When he takes the oath and proceeds to infringe the 2nd amendment he becomes a traitor. >.<

Its up to the Dept of Justice to arrest and give him a fair trial, if he decides to collects the guns of law abiding citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,224 Posts
SamHain, Thats just one step.
Incremental.
Like boiling a frog.

If you ban that, what else is gonna fall along the way? Soft point hunting ammo?,
That's right, like a hollow point it kills and maims better than FMJ which is designed so as NOT to always kill. Center fire rifle ammo punches right through body armor too.

you grandpas lever action rifle??
Oh hell yeah.
My grandfathers Winchester 1866 held way too much ammo and so does your 30-30.


Guys like Samhain are the very people Franklin talked about with the selling Liberty for the perception of safety statements.
Actually if he were to be totally intellectually honest with things he should like to see shotguns banned.
They count for about 30 times more involvement in violent crime as do military style semi autos.
They are more likely to kill with a successful hit as well.
We won't even talk about handguns seeing as he has a use for them and thinks since he wants one they should not be banned.
 

·
Pursuing freedom.
Joined
·
296 Posts
I know there are those that want automatic weapons because they harbor fantasies of another armed revolt by the citizens against an "oppressive" government because I've read enough on posts over the years that hint at this if not saying it out right.
Uhm, you do know that only the government has automatic weapons, right?

The rest of your comments are narrow minded to your views. The 2nd amendment, and the Federalist Papers that actually explain the INTENT of the Founding Fathers, is there for the citizens to be able to protect the rest of their rights, IF NECESSARY.

I know the OLD argument that they didn't know that citizens were going to have access to semi-autos, etc. Well, neither did the Founders know, that the government would be able to significantly outgun the citizenry, with helos, tanks and fast-movers.

Rights were not outlined for people to live within it tightly secured boundaries, they are there to keep the government outside of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,814 Posts
SamHain, Thats just one step. If you ban that, what else is gonna fall along the way? Soft point hunting ammo?,you grandpas lever action rifle??There can't be any concessions when dealing with these S.O.B's.You give them an inch they take a mile.And what we'll have in there starting in January will be nothing more than an attrocity.
Nothing personal but I was thinking same thing about the NRA.

We all live with compromises in order to live in a civilized society;

Speed Limits,
Not allowing others to drive drunk,
How many wives or husbands we can take,
A forty year-old man not being allowed to marry a 13 year old girl (could be done 120 years ago, but now we will "lynch" the dirty old perv,
What areas we zone for business or residences,
What size pipe we use for sewer so that we can link up our pipes to others, Your neighbor not being allowed put a double-wide in his front yard for his mother-in-law and driving down your property values while living in a middle class suburb...

Yes there are those that dream about a gun free society and it isn't going to happen. We the citizens will not allow that to happen.

However, dogmatically hanging onto the idea that no restrictions on gun ownership is the only option will lose the day eventually. More and more of the population will turn against the NRA and out of frustration.

Moderation and balance. That is what wins out. The NRA already has the support of the guys that want AK47's under their beds.

What they stand to lose is moderate guys like me that just want a 9mm in the glove box to protect his family on the road.

I've already severed my ties long ago from the NRA because I came to associate them with wack-job soldier-of-fortune wanna-be's. That may not be a fair assessment but it is my gut reaction. I am open to re-evaluating the NRA as something worthy of being associated with, but I haven't seen anything of late that I'm impressed with.

The key to winning the hearts and minds of the middle ground (which is where the majority of the nation lives) is to look like them and sound like them.

Remember, it's not a distant government across the ocean that makes the laws we live by. It's the government that we elect. It is us that decides how far is too far.

peace,
samhain
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,362 Posts
Samhain.You have to remember one thing it will all fall like dominoes.Today an assault weapons ban.Tommorow they gonna get that 9mm you have in the glove box. And all you'll be able to do is hope some cop 10mins away can get there in time before something bad happens to your family.I'm not tryin to scare ya or change your opinion .but you have to keep in mind when it comes to this there can't be no concessions whatsoever.The people that were voted in don't care if you have a AK a
9mm or a slingshot. There gonna classify it accordingly and we all lose.
 

·
Pursuing freedom.
Joined
·
296 Posts
Dont underestimate the power of amendments.
Legislation and a stroke of a pen has more authority than protestors in a street.
WE had the protests, the arguments, the pleading.
they ignored us in favour of a gun free country.
But, it will not be a gun free country.

The criminals, including the government, will still have weapons. All law abiding citizens will either have to turn into criminals, or be victims in perpetuity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,814 Posts
Uhm, you do know that only the government has automatic weapons, right?

The rest of your comments are narrow minded to your views. The 2nd amendment, and the Federalist Papers that actually explain the INTENT of the Founding Fathers, is there for the citizens to be able to protect the rest of their rights, IF NECESSARY.

I know the OLD argument that they didn't know that citizens were going to have access to semi-autos, etc. Well, neither did the Founders know, that the government would be able to significantly outgun the citizenry, with helos, tanks and fast-movers.

Rights were not outlined for people to live within it tightly secured boundaries, they are there to keep the government outside of them.

I think the main difference is I see the government as us - the citizenry.

If the politicians do something we dislike it's because we the people allow them to.

How many people even know what districts they are in or who their representatives are? How many actually communicate with them?

I really think that people fear the government and are unwilling to compromise is that because they feel they have no power to control what it does and part of that comes from not exercising that power, by hold our representatives feet to the fire.

It is shameful that it takes a historically important election to get a measly 64% voter turn out. We can do better than that.

Sorry for the rant. But I really believe that if we consistently held our representatives accountable that we as a people wouldn't be so afraid of them "imprisoning us" and if we weren't so distracted by what's on TV, or who's screwing whom, and complacent they wouldn't be able to get away with not listening to what we want them to do.

peace,
samhain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,407 Posts
But, it will not be a gun free country.

The criminals, including the government, will still have weapons. All law abiding citizens will either have to turn into criminals, or be victims in perpetuity.
Absolutely.With tongue in cheek did I write Gun free, because those who wanted them still obtained them.Just the average honest law abiding man or woman lost out.
 

·
Pursuing freedom.
Joined
·
296 Posts
You will find reference to the Tiahrt Amendment, as well as the permanent gun ban on "assault weapons", at the following link:

Urban Policy

You should take the time to read the "Urban Policy". Very enlightening. I wonder how he is going to be helping the rest of us? The surburban, rural, and agricultural folks...those who actually produce in this country. I would hate to see what would happen if the producers stopped producing.

Imagine what would happen if the farmers said: "I'm tired and don't want to work, so I am taking a vacation for the next two years. I'm tired after feeding the multitudes seven days a week for last XX years of my life." It is pretty easy to make farm land non-productive for a couple of years. Besides, who would know how to grow products on that scale, of the general populace?

I naively thought that some of this entitlement and "disenfranchised minority" crap would settle down, since a minority was elected to the highest office, but I guess not. I am pretty sure in his acceptance speech he said that Americans needed to be self-reliant. Not sure how this new Urban Policy encourages that to happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,814 Posts
Samhain.You have to remember one thing it will all fall like dominoes.Today an assault weapons ban.Tommorow they gonna get that 9mm you have in the glove box. And all you'll be able to do is hope some cop 10mins away can get there in time before something bad happens to your family.I'm not tryin to scare ya or change your opinion .but you have to keep in mind when it comes to this there can't be no concessions whatsoever.The people that were voted in don't care if you have a AK a
9mm or a slingshot. There gonna classify it accordingly and we all lose.
JRNC26,

I have to respectfully (as always) disagree.

They aren't going to take away 9mm, etc, because we the citizenry will not let them. Only those guns that we decide as a people are not allowed. It isn't all or nothing.

Scenario: A senator files a bill that bans all semi-auto handguns, as it comes to committee for debate the constituents (us) of the senators raise 6-ways of hell and tell them "NO". If the senators do not listen to their constituents (us) they lose their jobs (we fire them).

The problem is that the politicians know that we will only raise hell for a short time before we get distracted by something else that comes up in the news cycle. They've learned that if they wait it out, it will blow over and they can go back to doing what ever they want. Right now they only listen to the lobbyists and corporations that give them money.

Why? because they're the only ones talking to politicians consistently.

That is our fault. Yeah, keeping up with what bills are being filed, and what they really mean is a lot of work. (I get cross-eyed trying to figure some of the out), but it's a lot less work than bleeding to death on a battle field, or freezing to death at Vally Forge.

For those of us today, the heavy lifting's been done by those before us. We just have to take ownership of it and do the work to maintain it.

peace,

samhain
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,224 Posts
Nothing personal but I was thinking same thing about the NRA.
I also cut off ties with NRA.
It is a sellout fund raiser for the Republicrat party.
I much prefer to spend my donations with JPFO and GOA as well as the California Rifle and Pistol ASSN.
NRA backs down way to easy.

We all live with compromises in order to live in a civilized society;
Ahh the tasty refreshing almond cool aid of the wants to be controlled for his own good class.

Speed Limits,
Not allowing others to drive drunk,
And we see how well those are enforced now don't we.
Non sequiter to the topic anyway.

How many wives or husbands we can take,
?
I'm sensing more live the way I say to mentality there.
Society is more civilized because of unconstitutionally enforced monogamy?
Please.

A forty year-old man not being allowed to marry a 13 year old girl (could be done 120 years ago, but now we will "lynch" the dirty old perv,
So there are still societies that in fact actually allow that kind of thing. It is a bug chunk of gross in my opinion but in the places in the world where it still happens that I have been I hardly see chaos over it.
But again, you are really showing us you take pride in making others live the way you do.

What areas we zone for business or residences,
Never tried to get a building permit in Southern California have you?
You logic leads to what we have here.
It's beyond not letting a guy put a smoke stack factory in the middle of a residential area.
It is moronic micromanagement....but again, I get the sense you like being able to tell the guy across town what color to paint his house.

Yes there are those that dream about a gun free society and it isn't going to happen. We the citizens will not allow that to happen.
Not today but thinking like your will get us there.
Today it's those scary black rifles.
There is already a huge effort to demonize hunting so eventually that and the arms used for it are gone to.
Then, well, you really shouldn't carry a gun in public unless you are a cop.......

However, dogmatically hanging onto the idea that no restrictions on gun ownership is the only option will lose the day eventually. More and more of the population will turn against the NRA and out of frustration.
Their membership numbers do't say as much.
Not only that the NRA IS NOT advocation NO restriction.
They have helped author bills that passed that are restrictive, are you kidding me?
Being the firearms you fear or at least don't think are necessary account for less than 2% of all gun crime what is the point of creating a new class of criminality?
How far down did the crime figures go under the original AWB?
None that's how.
Matter of fact the numbers went UP.

What they stand to lose is moderate guys like me that just want a 9mm in the glove box to protect his family on the road.
No loss really.
Wishy washy people who are only concerned with what they want and how scary the other guy is and cry out for regulation of his life need not apply.

The key to winning the hearts and minds of the middle ground (which is where the majority of the nation lives) is to look like them and sound like them.
Man you bought the media propaganda hook line and sinker didntcha?
Without extremist groups like the Brady Center and VPC there would be no hearts and minds to win or lose. The hew and cry for another AWB comes not from the center but the far LEFT and their media shills.
Tell me why, when AR 15 rifles account for about 1/8 percent of the overall gun crimes in the country do they want them banned?
They want them banned because they know dammed well they can't do what they want with a major section of the population thus armed.

Remember, it's not a distant government across the ocean that makes the laws we live by. It's the government that we elect. It is us that decides how far is too far.
Not any government I elected.
Actually there is rarely a government that IS voted in by majority including this government if you take into account all the fraudulent voter registration that went on here this year.........again.
And I am not concerned with any other.
I am concerned with THIS government here.
The one I did not vote for in any form and the one that year by year no matter how many letters I write strips away yet more layers of our liberties.
With the approval both implicit and explicit of people like you who want to control everyone around them.
 

·
Information is Ammunition
Joined
·
22,122 Posts
i think the object is to make weapons inaccessable to no one but the filthy rich- his buiddies.

"tell them to eat cake"
 
1 - 20 of 130 Posts
Top