RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

I agree with big bulls if we dont get our act together, we will be seeing us on youtube talking about it. Gun owner have to band together.

RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

I see Katie Couric is pressing the assault gun/Brady bill and gun show loophole the last few days in her interview's with AG Eric Holder.She's literally salivating!I haven't watched abc or nbc but I'm sure they'll do the same if they're not already.As always it's all the NRA's fault.

RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

Can he take them away? probably not, but what so many of you fail to realize in support of him is he will make it much harder for you to own a gun, buy a gun and make it almost so costly you will not be able to afford a gun. This isn't infringing on the 2nd Amendment persay, but its going to in other way. There will be bans on Assult Weapons, there will be background databases, microstamping etc... This is dangerous as it does infringe in other ways. For any of you who voted for him and didn't think he would touch the gun issue, you are a complete moron. Sorry, no other way to say this. Its the truth. You can not support the 2nd amendment and vote for someone like him. If you really think about it, gun laws only hurt law abiding citizens. That has been proven.

RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

Edited for clarity, conciseness, and accuracy... ;)

RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

right now there are over 8 bills to restrict law abiding citizens from owning guns in our law makers hands. ABC is now running specials on "why do you need a gun" etc.... the recent shootings are fueling this. They say that over 31000 people are killed with guns every year. 55% of this number is suicide. The true facts are 931 people were killed with gun violence. Thats a very small percentage. There are more automobile deaths than that. Lets ban cars next.

The big fear is, they are going to pound the media to soften people up by asking for "reasonable gun restrictions" based on the recent shootings. The weak minded with agree and say, "i guess that makes sense". this is how the antigun crowd gets their way. Step by step. Let me say again, if you voted for OBAMA or any of the liberals you are a complete idiot to think gun rights won't be affected.

RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

I'll second that!
Not partial morons! COMPLETE Morons!
Anyone who thinks that it "can't happen here" is beyond moron!
Anyone who doesn't realize that they have been trampling the Constitution for over 200 years now, must have their heads buried in Hollywood sand!
Dig into some of the true history of at least the last 100 years, (not CBS & CNN) and you will find that this has been building since a lot longer than November 2nd. 2008!!
We need to be afraid, very afraid................
Of letting the 2 party system continue! Of allowing the Federalist tax and spend, welfare system continue growing out of control! Of letting the apologists continue to apologize for everything America ever did or stood for, dragging our country through the sewer and giving away our freedoms one by one to the U.N.!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let the Tea Parties begin!!!!!!!!!!!!

RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

Early In,

You say you want to ban all semi-auto's because they can "spit out" more bullets that you think a gun should, and you point to the Hollywood Bank Robbery incident as justification for your position. Well, first of all, these guys were not using semi-auto's modified for full-auto fire (which is not as easy as you make it out to be in most cases), they were the real-deal full auto versions illegally smuggled into this country. These were weapons that have been illegal for 80+ years (in most cases). Secondly, it's important to note that, while there were 17 people injured in the firefight, the only two fatalities were the perpetrators, both of whom were killed by the police AFTER the cops received LEGAL SEMI-AUTO rifles (AR-15's) from a nearby LEGAL GUN DEALER. If semi-auto rifles were banned, per your position, the gun dealer would not have had these AR-15's in his shop to loan to the officers. Weapons which likely SAVED several officer's lives. The two perpetrators fired roughly 650 rounds of ammo and killed NO ONE. So the argument that semi, or even in this case, FULL-AUTO rifles are somehow magically more lethal is complete ignorant rubbish.

Let me put it to you this way... IF (and it would NEVER happen, but I'm speaking hypothetically) I decided to go on a rampage, I would be FAR MORE DANGEROUS with my Remington 700 or my Savage 111 than these guys were with their full-auto AK's and M-16, because not only is both my .30-06 and my 257 Wby far more powerful than these weapons, I'm would be able to put my rounds into my targets any make lethal shots. This being the case, would you take my bolt-action rifles away? In fact, if I really wanted to kill a cop, I'd be more dangerous with my muzzleloader than these guys were with their full-auto's and 650 rounds of ammo. Granted, I'd only get one shot before I'd be killed or captured, but I guarantee one cop would die before that happened, which would give me one more kill than these bozo's were able to create. So your argument is fallacious and disingenuous because you attribute blame to the weapon, not the shooter. The fact of the matter is that if a person is bent on murder, the weapon they choose is not important. What matters is their intent and their ability to use whatever weapon they choose. My semi-auto is harmless to cops and innocents, while the butcher knife of a committed killer is a lethal instrument. In my hands, a semi-auto firearm will only be used to SAVE lives, and is an effective tool for self defense. You need to stop blaming the tool and start blaming the person who wields it. Whether a perp bashes your head in with a hammer or blows it off with a semi-auto firearm, the weapon is not to blame and is not what made that individual dangerous, it's the killer himself that is dangerous.

I feel for all victims of violent crime, but banning semi-auto firearms will only serve to create MORE victims, not less, because the criminals will always find ways to get them despite the law. At the same time, the law will effectively render their victims defenseless against them, and thus embolden the violent criminals who realize that their victims pose little threat of effective resistance. Look at places like DC, Chicago, Detroit, New York and any other city that strictly controls or outright bans civilian ownership of weapons, particularly those most effective for self defense (semi-auto handguns), and you'll see that the violent crime rate is far higher in those places than in areas where the said guns are legal.

Your "solution" is akin to banning the word "fire" from public use altogether , under pain of imprisonment, because once in awhile someone might yell it inappropriately in the proverbial crowded theater. The problem with such a ban, of course, is that a person bent on mayhem would not care about such a restriction, and a law abiding person might be reluctant to sound the alarm until the fire was definitely evident, by which time the people inside may not be able to escape safely. Therefore, the ability to yell fire is reserved to the judgement of each individual, and while it may occasionally be used inappropriately, such speech actually saves more lives than it endangers.

Mike

RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

Bravo Mike!!!!!! 1 of the best posts yet!

RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

Early, I don't agree with your thought process. If we ban a weapon because someone (it shouldn't matter whether it's a police officer or not - a life is a life) gets killed with it then what do we do if someone kills someone with a golf club or a knife or a car? I know you love bow hunting. Will you gladly turn in your bow if some nut job kills a cop with one?following your line of thought we should revert back to muzzleloader only. Do you see where I'm going with this?
As far as a semi being faster, my grandpa once flushed 3 ducks and killed them all with a bolt action. I chose a pump action 06 because I believe I am faster (factoring in accuracy) then with a semi auto. Speed without accuracy is worthless. I agree with others who believe banning one type of gun puts us closer to banning all. I also agree that our right to own guns is for our protection from the government. If things go bad and the government has auto weapons and we have single shots who wins? The men that formed this government thought it was important that the people should be able to keep the government in check.
We have to be careful about giving up all our rights because of a few bad people. That's what your proposing.
As a fellow sportsman, I hope you reconsider your feelings towards semi auto weapons.

RE: is obama taking away guns?
 

you do realize that he is breaking the constitution