Obama To Confiscate All Weapons!

[nathanm]

Oh, and as far as righties not wanting government control over anything...how about marriage, Terry Schiavo, etc. ad nauseum...

It is kinda funny how they want certain things to be property of the state and then act like there's some fundamental disagreement between them and the far left who want other things to be property of the state. Everything they want is a fundamental right. Everything anybody else wants is just whining.

[Conan71]

Liberals want to control your property.

Conservatives want to control your morals.

[Gaspar]

Liberals want to control your property.

Conservatives want to control your morals.

Libertarians want you to control yourself.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yet for forty years plus it hasn't happened.  

The NRA is great at two things. Spreading misinformation and driving up the price of ammunition through that misinformation.

Main reason I will never be a member, as a responsible gun owner.

It hasn't happened to the degree that the Brady Bunch want it to happen BECAUSE of the NRA!  And the millions of members who recognize that battle that has been going on for that entire time, and have been actively been supporting the fight of that action.  Huge setback under Billy Bob with the bogus "assault weapon" carp.  That type of action is EXACTLY the tactic the Brady Clowns have taught, supported and used since time immemorial.  Well, since 1968 anyway.

The 30 shot clip argument is a specious load of carp.  No one wants that in a handgun - it is unmanageable for a self defense weapon.  I have had a 20 shot clip for my 1911A1 at one time, that even though it was kind of fun to shoot as a novelty, it was untenable for practical use.  A 100 round magazine on a Thompson sub-machine gun, on the other hand, is just about right.  (Plus it looks very cool.)

It would be almost amusing to discuss how a 20 or 30 round clip is "more evil" than just 10 or 15 rounds, if there weren't otherwise semi-functional human beings actually advancing that argument.  If I only have 10 rounds, I carry 2 more clips.  With my .45, I only have 7 shots.  I carry two extra clips.  Extremely unlikely that I would ever need more than the first 7, because the situation will be over by then, or I will have had a chance to run away.  Unless there are more than about 3 people involved in attacking, then I don't know what it would take - will have to play it by ear and have the extra clips in case.


What a coincidence - that during this conversation, Steve Carell in "The Office" just pulled out two semi-auto pistols and blew away some guy.  Now THAT'S entertainment!!

[Red Arrow]

What a coincidence - that during this conversation, Steve Carell in "The Office" just pulled out two semi-auto pistols and blew away some guy.  Now THAT'S entertainment!!

Does one need a multi-pistol endorsement on their carry license to carry more than one pistol at a time?

[nathanm]

Huge setback under Billy Bob with the bogus "assault weapon" carp.

Pick one or the other. It can't have been both bogus and a huge setback. I think it was idiotic to ban any firearm based merely on look, but that's what it was. Not any kind of real setback for gun rights. It was an ineffective feel-good measure. Sure did set the gun nuts to whining, though. On the bright side, it also happens to provide a nice yardstick to measure someone's politics by.

The pervasiveness of guns among the criminal and otherwise stupid, which is largely due to their pervasiveness in society as a whole, turns a lot of assaults into murders. I would like it if we could figure out a way to at least reduce that and other related problems and still allow mostly unrestricted gun ownership. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's pretty clear that what we're doing now is an utter and complete failure. That doesn't necessarily mean gun control in the sense of eliminating (most) private ownership of firearms. After all, there are other countries with high gun ownership rates and relatively low levels of gun violence.

[Gaspar]

Does one need a multi-pistol endorsement on their carry license to carry more than one pistol at a time?

I don't see a place for that.

Reminds me of the joke where the cop pulls over the 90yo woman and as she's going for her insurance a pistol falls out of the glove compartment.  He asks her if she has a permit for that and she produces one.  He then asks if there are any other firearms in the car and she says "Yes."   She proceeds to show him a 38 stuffed in her stocking, a 45 in the center console, a derringer in her bra-strap, and a Glock 9 under the seat. 

He asks her "What are you so scared of?"

She replies "Not a God damned thing!"

[Conan71]

Since this is the current God 'n' guns thread:

According to the Tulsa World the open carry bill which came out of the Senate will only provide for openly carrying on your own property and will allow for you to keep a loaded gun in your vehicle.  I don't have a problem with that unless we start seeing a bunch of people with a holster belt on their bathrobe in the morning when they are taking out the trash.  Talk about a fashion faux pas!

I still think there should be a permit process to keep a loaded firearm in a vehicle, but then again it would simply equivocate to the current conceal carry.  Hmmm, sounds like this bill was nothing but yet one more waste of time brought to you by the state GOP.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Does one need a multi-pistol endorsement on their carry license to carry more than one pistol at a time?

No.  It is limited only by how many you can hide and still walk.  The key is "concealed" - must remain hidden.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Since this is the current God 'n' guns thread:

According to the Tulsa World the open carry bill which came out of the Senate will only provide for openly carrying on your own property and will allow for you to keep a loaded gun in your vehicle.  I don't have a problem with that unless we start seeing a bunch of people with a holster belt on their bathrobe in the morning when they are taking out the trash.  Talk about a fashion faux pas!

I still think there should be a permit process to keep a loaded firearm in a vehicle, but then again it would simply equivocate to the current conceal carry.  Hmmm, sounds like this bill was nothing but yet one more waste of time brought to you by the state GOP.

Yep.  We gotta outdo stupid wherever it is found.

Open carry would be the most ignorant thing to do that I can imagine - well, except for electing another Bush - because if I and a couple friends wanted to do bad stuff, the very FIRST thing we would do is to go up behind an open carry person and make sure they were dead first.  Who needs that?  Not I, nor Sweet Brown!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Pick one or the other. It can't have been both bogus and a huge setback. I think it was idiotic to ban any firearm based merely on look, but that's what it was. Not any kind of real setback for gun rights. It was an ineffective feel-good measure. Sure did set the gun nuts to whining, though. On the bright side, it also happens to provide a nice yardstick to measure someone's politics by.

The pervasiveness of guns among the criminal and otherwise stupid, which is largely due to their pervasiveness in society as a whole, turns a lot of assaults into murders. I would like it if we could figure out a way to at least reduce that and other related problems and still allow mostly unrestricted gun ownership. I'm not sure what the answer is, but it's pretty clear that what we're doing now is an utter and complete failure. That doesn't necessarily mean gun control in the sense of eliminating (most) private ownership of firearms. After all, there are other countries with high gun ownership rates and relatively low levels of gun violence.

It was a setback for gun ownership rights because for a while, I could not enjoy the rifle configuration of choice.  It was bogus because, as you say, looks don't make a criteria for gun banning.  In the right hands, a .22 Winchester pump action rifle can be just as dangerous as an "assault rifle".

I think Switzerland had it right for a long time - everyone must own a machine gun.  Of course, being in Europe, they eventually had to mess it up...

[nathanm]

It was a setback for gun ownership rights because for a while, I could not enjoy the rifle configuration of choice.

Your bar for "setback" is apparently so low that even a snake can't slither under it. Sure, it was dumb as a post, and people were right to say that. But everyone who was screaming about it being some serious violation of their rights and Clinton was coming for all your guns was clearly loony on the subject. Or they had an agenda to push.

If you want to talk about your rights being abridged, why are you not screaming about the NFA, which prevents you from owning short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as machine guns? (It's obviously possible to get a license, but not many of your countrymen have the means to make that happen, and it does require means)

[heironymouspasparagus]

Your bar for "setback" is apparently so low that even a snake can't slither under it. Sure, it was dumb as a post, and people were right to say that. But everyone who was screaming about it being some serious violation of their rights and Clinton was coming for all your guns was clearly loony on the subject. Or they had an agenda to push.

It is kind of like the creeping right wing extremification of America - the classic frog in a pot of cold water, versus frog in a pot of hot water - you know the story.

We have just sat back and let the RWRE drag this country to the extreme right more and more every year, so that now, it looks like Reagan was a moderate.

Well, the same thing has been attempted in the arena of gun control since 1968 - and beyond.  Billy Bob has stated for many many years that he wants to get rid of your fundamental right to own a firearm.  And along with quite a few others, led the charge to get started down that path when he was in office.  Take away a magazine here, a bullet there, then outlaw semi-automatics, the auto pistols, the revolvers...you get the idea.  This is EXACTLY the plan that has occurred in Australia and the UK in the last many decades, culminating in the criminalization of anyone who wants to enjoy the shooting sports.  

Don't have tunnel vision on this - if you own a gun - that very act is thought to be dangerous in and of itself by these people.  I will never give an inch, because I have read and heard what these people say.  And Obama is one of them.  For now, I can live with him, but it literally IS like dancing with the devil in the pale moonlight!

As for the NRA backing politicians, well they support Dan Boren, they supported Andrew Rice, they supported Jim Jones, and quite a few others - all Democrats in Oklahoma.  They supported Harry Reid in Nevada (for quite a while now), with his work to allow firearms in national parks and recreation areas being a shining example of what a Democrat SHOULD be doing.  (Even if he is a little flakey around the edges at times...)

Generally, there are more Republicontins who get their support, because they tend to make the mewling politician mouth noises that say they support the right to own firearms.  As you pointed out about those right wingers wanting to take away certain rights, it has been a never ending source of frustration and irritation that a party that is so ostensibly about personal rights as the Dummycrats claim to be, would have anything to say about taking away one as fundamental as this.  It was important enough to be number 2!

And I have been registered Dummycrat since forever, and am also a lifetime member of the NRA.  Not mutually exclusive, at least some of the time.

I have been against much of the NFA for as long as I can remember.  Unfortunately, that one was lost long before I was even born, so I concentrate on the more immediate problem - GCA of 1968.  And that has been a losing battle.  I have filled out literally thousands of the 4473 form in a previous life (not for me, but for others to sign) and it was a total waste.  What criminal would say yes to the question, "are you under indictment for, or have you ever been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year?"  But when they lie, you get another charge to stack on them...

[heironymouspasparagus]

Actually, the GCA of 1968 is pretty much a lost cause, too.  We don't need to lose any more.

[nathanm]

It is kind of like the creeping right wing extremification of America - the classic frog in a pot of cold water, versus frog in a pot of hot water - you know the story.

I get what you're saying, but you also go on to say that Obama is a problem even though he hasn't even hinted at wanting more gun control, at least since he's been President. I'm not quite sure how that computes.

TBH, the only way the gun control battle can be won in the long term is if relatively sane folks like yourself can figure out a way to stop the gun violence. As long as tens of thousands of our compatriots die from gunshot wounds each year there will continue to be agitation for getting rid of what seems to others to be the cause. As is often said, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And this is true, but as I said earlier, guns often turn assault into murder. The real problem is still the idiot pulling the trigger, but were it not for him or her having a gun, there's a often good chance death wouldn't have been the result.

So yeah, solve that problem and the gun control lobby will be marginalized far more than they already are.