Obama Wins! - So What's Next?

Remove all ads!

martaug, I'm a bit unclear as to why you think gun sales are up. Is it because you think people fear civil unrest? Or because you think people are going to take a shot at him the first opportunity they get? Because that's not the case at all. It's simply because people think Obama might try to restrict the sale of firearms. (Yes, the link is from the UK, but it was first on the list when I googled it; all the other links said the same thing.) So gun nuts don't trust Obama when it comes to gun control. Big deal.

 

LMAO. I'm sure Chandos will be amused to know that a guy who is pro-life, can't stand Hillary or Nader, and is a long-time fan of William F. Buckley is farther to the left than he is.

Like I said before...if you must take these little potshots at me, it'd be nice if they actually made sense.

 

Just like your avatar shows, you have been drinking way too much of something.

Splunge, these are not the typical gun-nuts we are talking about. These are people that have never even thought about owning a firearm before now.
Gun permits to those that don't own a firearm are up anywhere from 150% to over 500% depending on the state.

Heck, even the local baptist church has started holding Concealed Carry Permit classes every other saturday. Thanks to the 2 NCHP instructers that go to this church, they are able to offer the classes for less than $50 a person. The standard fee at most ranges is ~$100.

Most of those taking the classes are women. The last class that was going through it was 31 women & 4 guys.

I wouldn't be suprise if the number of gun owners doesn't double by june of this year.

 

This picture was just too funny

 

Fair enough, but that doesn't say why they're buying guns. Again, it could just mean that they want to purchase before it becomes harder to do so, and not that they feel that they need a gun because of some general, ill-defined distrust of Obama.

And the cartoon you linked to was very good.

 

Actually this raises a couple of questions. First off what do they think Obama will do? Do they think that Obama will somehow magically add a couple of letters to the US and make it the USSR and start systematically oppressing people? And secondly what will they do with the guns? Go to the Whitehouse and remove a democratically elected president with a high approval rating and replace him with someone more suitable for them?

 

Hey if you can't laugh at yourself, how can you laugh at others?

Gotta figure out how to post the picture instead of just a link to it.

I think this gives a little light on the gun deal.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_604673.html

When you duoble your business because of someone getting elected that shows the level of distrust that that person invokes in a bunch of people.

@morgoroth, we have already had the Appeals court of the 2nd circuit(ny) rule that they do not believe that the 2nd amendment applies to states.
Now think about that for a minute, if the 2nd doesn't apply then they can say that any other one they don't like doesn't apply either. Good bye free speech, good bye freedom to assemble, good bye going to a church of your own choosing.

*edit*
Just say this & you know it might just be that obama is getting contaminated by some thing in the water in DC.
http://wtop.com/?nid=596&sid=1597042

That there is pure chutzpah.

 

Followed by:

OK, it's really freaking scary that people who have never owned a firearm are rushing out to purchase assault rifles. I don't know why anyone would require an assault rifle in the first place, but if you never owned a firearm before it might actually be dangerous to start out with an assault rifle.

But a more basic question remains about the psyche of these people. If you never owned a firearm up to this point, it's probably because you never felt the need to have one. But now, because an assualt weapon ban might be reinstated you decide you should get an assault rifle? Even if you don't need one? You're buying something you don't need because in the future you may be unable to purchase something that you don't need? That doesn't make any sense.

As for the surge in conceal and carry permits, that's also a bit perplexing, because banning handguns was never part of Obama's agenda. There is also no talk of him banning hunting rifles (not that you can carry them as a concealed weapon).

I still would like to ask anyone (although I suspect martaug may be one of the few people capable of answering me) what practical purpose owning an assault rifle would serve. I don't know of any state that allows you to hunt with one. I cannot envision any situation of home defense where a hand gun wouldn't work just as well (and be more readily accessible) as an assault rifle. (I cannot see a situation where you are going to get involved in a shootout in your own home. Most handguns allow you to load 6 or 9 bullets at a time, and really that should be more than enough for any home invasion situation.) That only leaves collectors as a possibility, but if these people have never owned any firearm before then they obviously aren't collectors.

 

I think it is that weird American fear, that if you don't have guns in your home, the king of England will come and take away your rights

 

Well there was this one incident, way back...

 

I believe I can answer this. Your problem is that you have been brain washed by the "anti-gun lobby" into having a different definition of assault weapon then the legal definition.

An assault rifle is not a machine gun. In most cases what classifies a rifle as an assault rifle is cosmetic only. If it looks like something Davey Crockett used it is considered a rifle. If it looks like an M-16 it is considered an assault weapon. However, both rifles fire the same way and probably fire the same ammo.

 

Actually Snook, I was aware of many of the provisions of the 1994 ban, and that a lot of the characteristics that would categorize a firearm as an assault weapon were cosmetic in nature. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago in a gun control thread martaug and Drew went back and forth as to the nature of these resitrictions and whether or not they were reasonable. (The thread was actually really informative as I was not aware of a lot of those provisions prior to that.)

My point was simply this: If you are a hunter, there are many good hunting rifles you can purchase that would not qualify as assault weapons. If you're looking for home defense, there are a host of firearms you can purchase (heck a 9mm is a realatively cheap, reliable weapon that would work just fine) that wouldn't break the assault weapon ban. If you are a gun collector, then this isn't the first firearm you are purchasing.

I wasn't trying to critique the definition of an assault rifle. I was merely pointing out that alternatives are available, and there's no reason a first-time gun owner, who never felt the need to own any type of firearm in the past needs to go out and buy something that qualifies as an assault rifle, because Obama might reinstitute a ban that might contain the same, somewhat questionable provisions of the ban that originally passed 15 years ago. It seems to be that Obama has so much more on his plate right now that gun control would be way, way, way down on the list.

 

Aldeth - I completely understand your point. Why WOULD anyone need an assault rifle? Really, I can't see it either. But that's how we feel. There are things that people don't need, but that they just want to have. I suppose if you are into guns, then owning the right weapon is the whole objective (even if you don't intend to overthrow the American government).

It's like when I bought my drums. The wife kept saying the same thing: "What do you NEED a set of drums for? You already have a room full of guitars (that you never have time to play)." I guess it's like that with some gun owners. You want what you want and who's to say you can't have it as long as you are not doing any harm to anyone else. Would I give one to a crazy person? Or to someone who going to take a shot someone? No way.

Nevertheless, it's an odd thing that you can buy a big-ass rifle, but if you have a joint of weed that somehow it's more "dangerous to yourself and to society." Really, I wish people would make up their minds (or learn to use them). But I see your point, Aldeth.

 

Especially if you have a joint of weed AND a big-ass rifle....

 

One would hope that he would be addressing other matters. But this is the point I was trying to make in the Marriage definition thread. Politicians are elected and we hope that they will focus on important things. But then they sometimes turn around and start pushing through legislation that is the result of noisy lobbying by a minority or special interest group that really doesn't address the serious problems that face society as a whole. When others protest the kowtowing to vocal special interest groups, the protestors are told that they are the ones deflecting public discourse away from important issues, when in fact it was the politician and his cronies who started the whole mess in the first place by not focusing on the real issues from the get go.

I sincerely hope that Obama looks at the economy and actually dealing with real criminals first before poking his nose into the gun purchases of law abiding citizens.

 

Interesting you put it that way...you do realize that's exactly how we got the Defense of Marriage Act, right?

 

In response to those who wished to change the tradition, yes?

But back to the original topic, is there any real evidence that Obama will take away gun rights?

 

Since you asked - no. But you're right...we have another topic for that.

As to your question about evidence - no, there really isn't. Obama has neither campaigned on nor proposed any legislation that would radically alter anyone's gun ownership rights. It seems to be an extension of the "omg he's a mooslim marxist socialist" nonsense. That's not to say he won't in the future, but there's really no reason for him to venture into that territory, or reason to think he will. If Obama's half as smart as I think he is, gun rights are at or near the bottom of his priority list. We've got bigger fish to fry as a nation right now.

 

I was looking at this once, and it appeared that he was quite anti-guns in the Illinois senate, the one exception being his support for concealed firearms for former police/military members or some such (which some say was a gesture towards the police lobby). Afterwards, he's been pretty much toeing the Democratic party line, though his stay in the US Senate wasn't a particularly long one and didn't allow him to express his personal views all that well. I'd say the attitude towards guns in his constituency (I believe he was elected from some district in Chicago - T2Bruno probably knows better) was stricter than what is usual for the US, so that might be responsible for his sterner position then. What he would do as president is up in the air.

Given his background, I expect that he personally is not a big fan of gun rights, but he seems too pragmatic to really go all out in that. At most, I can envision him pushing for a Clinton-style AW ban (the Democrats made some noise when it was allowed to expire under Bush anyway, so he might have some backing in the House/Senate), but I don't see it anytime soon. The weapon buying spree is probably motivated more by fear-mongering than actual informed opinion, imo.