Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Does that mean that convicted criminals are once again free to buy guns on their release?

No, it is illegal for a felon to purchase or possess a firearm in the US. I believe that should change after 10 years of good behavior, to be consistent with voting rights, but I do not believe that is how that works right now.

Kilkrazy wrote:Does that mean that convicted criminals are once again free to buy guns on their release?

-No
-And to the "gunshow loophole" its my understanding that has been closed for some time. I know in Texas it has. You have to have a background check before any purchase. Generally no felony or misdemeanor involving certain types of crimes (or be accused of). Also can't have been adjudicated as being a mental nutjob. Despite that, politicians and lawyers are still allowed to purchase firearms

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Does that mean that convicted criminals are once again free to buy guns on their release?

-No
-And to the "gunshow loophole" its my understanding that has been closed for some time. I know in Texas it has. You have to have a background check before any purchase. Generally no felony or misdemeanor involving certain types of crimes (or be accused of). Also can't have been adjudicated as being a mental nutjob. Despite that, politicians and lawyers are still allowed to purchase firearms

Yes, add to the felon thing...you can't purchase if you have a misdemeanor record involving domestic violence. I don't know if that is federal or state.

They're also really trying to crack down on straw purchases. There is a advertising and public service type thing called "Don't Lie for the Other Guy". All this is good of course, I just hope the law does not penalize straw purchases that really aren't straw purchases, such as, say, a good collectible firearm purchased as a gift for a recipient who is legally allowed to purchase. Unfortunately, I'm not going to take that risk with the way people jump to conclusions. Just give money.....

Going to have to disagree with the "mental nutjob" thing. I really don't think the mentally ill are more dangerous across the board than anyone else, that needs to be handled on a case by case basis. By a broad enough definition, that would leave about a quarter of the people in the US unable to purchase, including more than a few police officers.

i am 100% behind tougher harder laws when it comes to gun violence. what we have now is a slap on the wrist compared to what it should be.


ok KK... we can own a larger caliber black powder rifel. and mabey, if were good, a 6 shot black powder pistol. that would have the capability to allow the rights in the constutioin.

Grignard: In my post I acknowledged that gun rights in the US varies from state to state, and I was only talking about those that had fairly loose controls.
I'm not entirely sure how you failed to pick up on it.
I'm well aware that the States are not a monolithic block.

Da Boss wrote:Grignard: In my post I acknowledged that gun rights in the US varies from state to state, and I was only talking about those that had fairly loose controls.
I'm not entirely sure how you failed to pick up on it.
I'm well aware that the States are not a monolithic block.

Yes, you explicitly mentioned your understanding of state differences. I'm not sure what you mean by fairly loose controls though. That definition can vary greatly depending on your point of view. In fact, that really is the cause of the argument.

I could answer your questions better if you explained which particular states you find lax. In that way, I could find out if you are mistaken about the laws, or simply disagree with them and think more controls would be helpful. I'm not entirely sure what exactly you mean by more controls, because every state in the union has the ones you mentioned.

I'm just trying to get a grip on the idea that there are no gun licences.

It seems like there is a negative licence. Everyone can have a gun unless you are on a list that says you can't.

How is the transfer of a gun from one person to another handled?

Supposing my brother-in-law (he lives in Houston) buys a gun and gives it to his wife for her birthday. Does he have to register the transfer?

dogma wrote:
Also, the armed services cap the amount to be spent on a college education at 50k. Try getting a 4 year education with that, and then tell me about how little pity you have for the disadvantaged. Let us also not forget about how little the military actually pays those who have enlisted, and how difficult it is to transition from the enlisted world to the civilian one; both socially and economically.

Lets see,
Spent 5 years in Active duty Army as a 19Delta Cav Scout. Did 2 tours in Iraq (OIF1&2, OIF 5&6) Got out with 40k in Gi Bill.
Went to Community college for my FF1, Hasmat, Wildland FireFighting, and for fun a Flashover trailor. Going to Another College for Basic EMT then hopefully Advanced Emt.
Guess what? I still have 38k in the bank and once im done with the Emt I will be pulling on around 60k a year as a FireFighter full time (10 days a month working) and part time at the local hospital as a ER Tech.

I went from a breach man on an entry team killing Haji to someone who is commited to saveing lives. Thats about as drastic of a change/transition as one can make and I did it just fine with money to spare.

Yeah military pay sucked. I was a Corporal makeing 23k a year while deployed (less in garrison) but you know what? I was never broke in the Army. The only people who are broke are people who spend more then they make.

As for socially haveing problems... aka PTSD. I personally feel its a joke that alot of National Guardsmen and Females are useing to get a free paycheck for the rest of there lives. Reason why I say this? Ive seen it first hand. I have only seen one guy who I honestly thought he had the PTSD.... and he damn well has a good reason. Had a hand grenade go off next to his brainpan. The only thing that saved him was his CVC helmate which took most the shrapnal, but not all. He had brain damage and had to relearn basic tasks such as walking.To this day he still has a drain tube in his head cause of brain swelling/pressure.

Bottom line, dont talk about things that you dont know from first hand experience.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm just trying to get a grip on the idea that there are no gun licences.

It seems like there is a negative licence. Everyone can have a gun unless you are on a list that says you can't.

How is the transfer of a gun from one person to another handled?

Supposing my brother-in-law (he lives in Houston) buys a gun and gives it to his wife for her birthday. Does he have to register the transfer?

Yes. Technically through an FFL I believe.

Ok ontopic..... sorry for the rant.

I personally dont see what the big deal is with firearms. I am an avid gun collector (have over 20k in various firearms) and would love to get my hands on some Class 2 and 3 stuff.

I believe in strong gun control via registration and restrictions. (felons for example)
I feel that Joe Average like myself who has a clean record should be able to walk down and pull a Mp5k off the shelf for less then 20k if he or she chooses too. (hell they were going for 2k prior to the gay gun ban.)

I also feel that if you were every part of any kind of organized crime (active or not) you should not be allowed to own a gun period.

Unfair you may say? Well dont do crime gaks and you will be treatd like a normal human being.

Gangbangers should be shot on sight if you ask me.
Do nothing but pray on innocent people and spray that crap they call art on buildings and underpasses.
Idiots all of you!

Keep the background checks, the paperwork ect ect. Sure its a hassle but its worth it for the gun you want.
If you dont like it then sorry to say but maybe owning a gun isnt for you.

Also FYI Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
Keep the guns away from the idiots and most of the problems will work themselfs out. If you ban guns on a whole all your doing is dis-arming the civilian populace an makeing them prime targets for gangs who will still have guns.

jp400 wrote:

dogma wrote:
Also, the armed services cap the amount to be spent on a college education at 50k. Try getting a 4 year education with that, and then tell me about how little pity you have for the disadvantaged. Let us also not forget about how little the military actually pays those who have enlisted, and how difficult it is to transition from the enlisted world to the civilian one; both socially and economically.

Lets see,
Spent 5 years in Active duty Army as a 19Delta Cav Scout. Did 2 tours in Iraq (OIF1&2, OIF 5&6) Got out with 40k in Gi Bill.
Went to Community college for my FF1, Hasmat, Wildland FireFighting, and for fun a Flashover trailor. Going to Another College for Basic EMT then hopefully Advanced Emt.
Guess what? I still have 38k in the bank and once im done with the Emt I will be pulling on around 60k a year as a FireFighter full time (10 days a month working) and part time at the local hospital as a ER Tech.

I went from a breach man on an entry team killing Haji to someone who is commited to saveing lives. Thats about as drastic of a change/transition as one can make and I did it just fine with money to spare.

Thank for your service. I hope you achieve what you're trying to do.

@jp400: I agree with you that gun rights should be strongly protected, but you fall into the trap of defending them in such as way as to alienate the moderates and undecideds you need to convince. Preaching to the choir will get them to sing, and in this country there are enough gun owners to vote against bans, but the 2nd amendment can't count on die hard support forever. Far more effort should be expended to convince moderates and even liberal ACLU types like myself that gun rights, like any other right, are a core element of the constitution.

Every defendant has the right to due process, and can be freed if that process is violated, regardless of guilt. That is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.

People have the right to free expression. Pornography, hate speech, and vehement protest against the government are all speech that many people find offensive. That is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.

By the same token people have the right to bear arms. Gun violence, accidental deaths, and crime are all problems. Again, that is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.

Liberals need to be reminded that while they can't see the value of gun ownership, many gun owners don't see the value of an absolute freedom of speech or due process. These rights were laid down in the constitution and are cherished by many Americans, and in my opinion that should be what colors the debate.

It bothers me a little when gun control activists color guns in such a negative light, because they sound suspiciously like the anti-free speech people. The most important thing to remember about rights is that they don't protect us from each other: they protect us from the government. Government protects us from each other, but in this country we have always taken a little less protection in exchange for more rights.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm just trying to get a grip on the idea that there are no gun licences.

It seems like there is a negative licence. Everyone can have a gun unless you are on a list that says you can't.

Exactly. This is not just with ownership. This also applies to handgun carry permits. Basically there are three ways of granting handgun carry in the US. There are "shall issue" states and "may issue" ( I'll get to the third type in a second ). A shall issue state, like Tennessee, is exactly what you describe. If you have a clean record and take the class and test, then the state *has* to issue a permit. A may issue state is more like a traditional license, you take the test/class and then someone determines whether or not to issue you a permit; usually it is the county Sheriff that grants permits ( The Sheriff is an elected official, so whether you get that depends a lot on his political leanings). A good example of a may issue state is Hawaii. When I checked about 10 years ago, I found out Hawaii had all of ONE handgun permit in the entire state ( Which belonged to Magnum P.I. of course )

Edit: Oh wait, never got to my third type. Basically the third approach is that the law says that anyone who can legally purchase should be able to carry. This is referred to as "Vermont carry". Alaska just started doing this as well, but will still issue a handgun permit for other states that recognize Alaska permits.

Polonius wrote:@jp400: I agree with you that gun rights should be strongly protected, but you fall into the trap of defending them in such as way as to alienate the moderates and undecideds you need to convince. Preaching to the choir will get them to sing, and in this country there are enough gun owners to vote against bans, but the 2nd amendment can't count on die hard support forever. Far more effort should be expended to convince moderates and even liberal ACLU types like myself that gun rights, like any other right, are a core element of the constitution.

Every defendant has the right to due process, and can be freed if that process is violated, regardless of guilt. That is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.

People have the right to free expression. Pornography, hate speech, and vehement protest against the government are all speech that many people find offensive. That is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.

By the same token people have the right to bear arms. Gun violence, accidental deaths, and crime are all problems. Again, that is considered an acceptable sacrifice for the greater right.

Liberals need to be reminded that while they can't see the value of gun ownership, many gun owners don't see the value of an absolute freedom of speech or due process. These rights were laid down in the constitution and are cherished by many Americans, and in my opinion that should be what colors the debate.

It bothers me a little when gun control activists color guns in such a negative light, because they sound suspiciously like the anti-free speech people. The most important thing to remember about rights is that they don't protect us from each other: they protect us from the government. Government protects us from each other, but in this country we have always taken a little less protection in exchange for more rights.

Trust me, I'd love to know how to do that Polonius. Unfortunately it is a manner of perception. On one hand, I don't understand how social liberals can want to control a right listed in the constitution ( There are exception groups, like Pink Pistols " Armed gays don't get bashed"). Just the same I can never explain to someone how it looks odd that you want to place limits on speech and expression, yet you want to be able to own any weapon you please. That is fine to feel that way, but I think you have to realize it is somewhat inconsistent.

Unfortunately I think a lot of this results from something I can't stand, which is shoehorning people into groups based on a single belief or political position. For instance, I'm pretty extreme right on firearms. Don't assume anything else, for instance, I'm a moderate pro-choice.

Grignard wrote:

Unfortunately I think a lot of this results from something I can't stand, which is shoehorning people into groups based on a single belief or political position. For instance, I'm pretty extreme right on firearms. Don't assume anything else, for instance, I'm a moderate pro-choice.

Well, it's unfair to group a person, or to shoehorn one person into a mold. Groups do have trends.

I think some old fashioned "there is more that unites us then divides" type speech could help solve some of the problem.

The root problem, alas, has very little to do with speech or guns. It's the dislike of the people. Some of my liberal friends don't find guns to be bad, they just don't like evangelical christians or southerners or rednecks or whatever. like wise some of my conservative friends don't like activists or hippies or weirdos. That's the troubling trend underlying these debates. The movement against guns has, at at least some level, a strong vibe of dislike to stereotypical gun owners. This is due partially to the dislike many stereotypical gun nuts have for stereotypical bleeding heart liberals, but somebody has be the bigger man and simply stop being stupid.

If I could, I would have the ACLU and the NRA announce a strategic partnership to work together and mutually support each other's goals of increased freedoms, in all areas, for all Americans. If more people saw the realtion between free speech and free guns, both sides would respect the other a lot more. Besides, somebody needs to defend our soft liberal lifestyles when the revolution comes....

@ Frazzled: Thank you very much for the kind words.

@ Polonius: Very sorry for the heated wording above. I had just ranted abit and wasnt thinking straight when I wrote the above sentence. While what I said I feel is true, I believe the wording came out wrong and a little too blunt.

I believe that you cant truely have free speech without the Right To Bear Arms. You can look at other countries for prime examples to support this. Whoever has all the guns makes the rules and can force people to live or do whatever they want. A population shouldnt fear its government, its the government that should fear its people.
Now Im not saying everyone needs to be walking around California packing a Rpg, but what I am trying to say is that like it or not, all of our rights are either directly or indirectly tied in with one another.

The argument against Class 3 (aka machine guns) is that its to protect our police and give them an edge in firepower over criminals. This train of thought while noble is flawed to its core. As it stands right now Class 3 is LEGAL to Private Citizens (aka you and me). However it is a real pain the the friggin rear to get. It takes several forms signed by a local official (Sherrif, local Judge ect ect) and a $200 ATF tax stamp paid off all taken care of BEFORE you can even pay for the gun or order it. Also it takes 6 months on average for this process to be approved. Mainly due to the FBI Background check that is required by federal law that must be run on you. On top of this the United States has stopped importation of Automatic Weapons for civilian use since the early 80's. This means that every legal auto weapon in the states that can be owned by Joe Average is at least 20 years old and highly collectable, which translates to very very expensive. For example a Thompson is valued at around 20-30k pending condition/style.

What im trying to get at is that you wont often find these weapons on the wrong side of the law. Most of the weapons used by Gangs and Criminals are either Backyard Specials aka modified semi-autos that have been converted to full auto illegally or are stolen firearms bought on the black markets or smuggled into the country.
This translates into a situation where if you ban a particular type of firearm your only going to hurt the average law abiding citizen, not the criminals who the law is intended for. Like the old saying goes.... "I put a lock on my door to keep the honest man honest."

Many people like myself Enjoy the fine art of shooting. I get a thrill every time I pick up one of my many firearms and go to the range or friends house and go plinking away at various targets. I personally love to shoot the 1000 yrd Challenge... yes that right. Shooting a target at 1000 yards and hitting it. To add even more excitment we add various things to the mix like exploding targets, tracers, flamethrower shotgun rounds ect ect. For some, they will never get the chance to see shooting from this side for many different reasons. It doesnt appeal to them, or they are afraid (I mean this in a nice way I am not mocking, people fear what they dont know! Its human nature.) Or they may live in a overly restrictive state like California where once again the Gangs and criminals have ruined it for the rest of them.

Check this out..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3BhP1iPt8o
You cant tell me that this doesnt look like fun.
Yes these are all Class 3 firearms. That means every weapon there is a Legal Automatic Weapon. Do these people run out and rob banks with them? No. They just want a full auto firearm for this exact purpose... to go out and have fun on a sunny day with friends.
People really need to learn the facts about firearms and the Us. Just because someone owns a gun doesnt mean they are out looking for trouble.

I only wish our current President Elect and everyone else with his mindset could see it from our point of view for once.

jp400 wrote:The only people who are broke are people who spend more then they make.

I dearly love this sentence.

jp400 wrote:I believe that you cant truely have free speech without the Right To Bear Arms. You can look at other countries for prime examples to support this. Whoever has all the guns makes the rules and can force people to live or do whatever they want. A population shouldnt fear its government, its the government that should fear its people.

Your position is not supported by history. In Hussein’s Iraq you were free to own all manner of guns, including AK-47s. Yet it was not a free country.

When countries have slipped into tyranny, they have done so in nearly every case with popular support, or at least the popular support of the people who tend to own weapons.

In contrast, almost all democracies in the world have fairly strict gun controls. There is no threat to strip away the civil rights of these people, because they have strong judiciaries and democratically accountable governments. These are the things that really protect you from a slide into tyranny.

Many people like myself Enjoy the fine art of shooting. I get a thrill every time I pick up one of my many firearms and go to the range or friends house and go plinking away at various targets. I personally love to shoot the 1000 yrd Challenge... yes that right. Shooting a target at 1000 yards and hitting it. To add even more excitment we add various things to the mix like exploding targets, tracers, flamethrower shotgun rounds ect ect. For some, they will never get the chance to see shooting from this side for many different reasons. It doesnt appeal to them, or they are afraid (I mean this in a nice way I am not mocking, people fear what they dont know! Its human nature.) Or they may live in a overly restrictive state like California where once again the Gangs and criminals have ruined it for the rest of them.

Yeah, shooting is great fun. I’ve only been about a dozen times, but each time I’ve really enjoyed myself. But guns are not a magic tool to stop oppression.

I only wish our current President Elect and everyone else with his mindset could see it from our point of view for once.

You don’t understand Obama’s position on guns.

sebster wrote:

jp400 wrote:I believe that you cant truely have free speech without the Right To Bear Arms. You can look at other countries for prime examples to support this. Whoever has all the guns makes the rules and can force people to live or do whatever they want. A population shouldnt fear its government, its the government that should fear its people.

Your position is not supported by history. In Hussein’s Iraq you were free to own all manner of guns, including AK-47s. Yet it was not a free country.

When countries have slipped into tyranny, they have done so in nearly every case with popular support, or at least the popular support of the people who tend to own weapons.

In contrast, almost all democracies in the world have fairly strict gun controls. There is no threat to strip away the civil rights of these people, because they have strong judiciaries and democratically accountable governments. These are the things that really protect you from a slide into tyranny.

Many people like myself Enjoy the fine art of shooting. I get a thrill every time I pick up one of my many firearms and go to the range or friends house and go plinking away at various targets. I personally love to shoot the 1000 yrd Challenge... yes that right. Shooting a target at 1000 yards and hitting it. To add even more excitment we add various things to the mix like exploding targets, tracers, flamethrower shotgun rounds ect ect. For some, they will never get the chance to see shooting from this side for many different reasons. It doesnt appeal to them, or they are afraid (I mean this in a nice way I am not mocking, people fear what they dont know! Its human nature.) Or they may live in a overly restrictive state like California where once again the Gangs and criminals have ruined it for the rest of them.

Yeah, shooting is great fun. I’ve only been about a dozen times, but each time I’ve really enjoyed myself. But guns are not a magic tool to stop oppression.

I only wish our current President Elect and everyone else with his mindset could see it from our point of view for once.

You don’t understand Obama’s position on guns.

You're cherry picking there sebster. Iraq actually had a fairly westernized state. It was secular, it didn't enforce a state religion, and I understand that there were fewer restrictions on the rights of women than in many states in the area. In fact, that is one reason why supporting Saddam was palatable, it was a sort of counterweight to the theocracy in Iran ( which probably isn't as bad as people think). In fact, my understanding is that you could do pretty much what you could over here.....except criticize his regime, of course. I would bet money he made sure he had more men under arms than the Kurds. I wouldn't imagine he would encourage arms ownership there.

I think we should have let those people deal with their own problems and keep out of it, but that is another story.

The US: Several states don't have extensive controls - Democracy

Mexico: Yep, you can own handguns and long guns here. This is another country where, at one time at least, they had restrictions on "military" calibers. Not to worry though, enter the .45 short and the 9x20mm. These have the same performance as the .45 ACP and the 9x19mm, but they aren't "military", so thats ok now. - Democracy

France: Restricts larger caliber automatics...eh, no worse than several US states with high-cap bans - Democracy

Italy: You can own weapons there. Democracy

Switzerland - democracy...their liberal laws concerning firearms are well known.

All this is anecdotal though, and means nothing. It does lead me to question that "almost all" democracies have strict controls.


Also, i've never understood Obama's position on it either...I gather a middle of the road view, but I really don't know. I've heard all sorts of things, either way, none that I necessarily believed 100%

The point, I'm fairly certain, was that most democracies have weapons control laws that are a good deal more strict than those of totalitarian states. The intent being to question the idea that firearms are somehow capable or protecting a populace from oppression.

Grignard wrote:You're cherry picking there sebster. Iraq actually had a fairly westernized state. It was secular, it didn't enforce a state religion, and I understand that there were fewer restrictions on the rights of women than in many states in the area. In fact, that is one reason why supporting Saddam was palatable, it was a sort of counterweight to the theocracy in Iran ( which probably isn't as bad as people think). In fact, my understanding is that you could do pretty much what you could over here.....except criticize his regime, of course. I would bet money he made sure he had more men under arms than the Kurds. I wouldn't imagine he would encourage arms ownership there.

I think we should have let those people deal with their own problems and keep out of it, but that is another story.

Life in Saddam’s Iraq wasn’t as bad as a lot of media would have people believe, but then life is rarely as bad in a tyranny as the media would have people believe. But that doesn’t mean it was a decent government, and it doesn’t mean it was popular. In fact, it was about as popular as all tyrannies are – popular enough with the right portion of the population.

The US: Several states don't have extensive controls - Democracy

Mexico: Yep, you can own handguns and long guns here. This is another country where, at one time at least, they had restrictions on "military" calibers. Not to worry though, enter the .45 short and the 9x20mm. These have the same performance as the .45 ACP and the 9x19mm, but they aren't "military", so thats ok now. - Democracy

France: Restricts larger caliber automatics...eh, no worse than several US states with high-cap bans - Democracy

Italy: You can own weapons there. Democracy

Switzerland - democracy...their liberal laws concerning firearms are well known.

All this is anecdotal though, and means nothing. It does lead me to question that "almost all" democracies have strict controls.

See, you’ve just cherry picked your own definitions and relied on your own particularly wonky definition of ‘strict control’. Particularly in the case of Mexico, where licenses are only allowed for hunting and personal protection. But even when true, those countries would only matter if I was trying to make a claim that gun restriction somehow led to increased democracy. I’m not, that would be silly. The one trying to make a claim here is jp400, so it is up to him to establish that increased gun control somehow leads to tyranny.

He probably needs to start by reconciling the claim with the UK and Australia.

Also, i've never understood Obama's position on it either...I gather a middle of the road view, but I really don't know. I've heard all sorts of things, either way, none that I necessarily believed 100%

He isn’t a strong 2nd amendment guy, but he isn’t against guns either. I think he considers other issues, health care reform and international relations, a better way to spend his time and political capital.

There was one instance in his time in the Illinois senate where he voted against a piece of legislation that would exempt people from being fined for owning an illegal handgun when that handgun was used in self-defence. He actually agreed with the principle but felt it was up to the individual county to overturn it’s own law – it was a jurisdictional opposition.

If there are new gun controls laws, they’ll likely come from the House of Reps, and it’ll be interesting to see if enough Democrats are interested in putting through. It’ll then be interesting to see if Obama vetoes the thing – his views on the limited role of the presidency indicate he probably won’t be as veto happy as earlier presidents.

Gangbangers should be shot on sight if you ask me.
Do nothing but pray on innocent people and spray that crap they call art on buildings and underpasses.
Idiots all of you!

Shoot on sight, without a trial. or anything. how do you know the difference between hardcore thugs and a bunch of kids. What about skate boarding suburb kids painting thier names on a bridge, do they get hosed down too. A way of getting your point across about guns is not threatning to shoot people on sight.

And us enlisted have a harder time getting through school, with all do respect, sir.

@ Sebster:
Dont really want to argue on Politics too much espically with Obama as the topic (Mainly cause its very touchy, dont want to step on any toes) However here is a very cool read. Please note the links at the end to support every fact here.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate alot of gun stores in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

1. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 219, July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219)

2. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in “Obama had greater role on liberal survey,” Politico, March 31, 2008. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9269.html)

3. United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00217)

4. David Wright, Ursula Fahy and Sunlen Miller, "Obama: 'Common Sense Regulation' On Gun Owners' Rights," ABC News' "Political Radar" Blog, http://blogs.abcnews.com, 2/15/08. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html)

5. Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004, vote 20 and May 25, 2004, vote 3.

6. “Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record.” Obama ’08, December 11, 2007. (http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/12/11/fact_check_no_news_in_obamas_c.php)

7. “Candidates' gun control positions may figure in Pa. vote,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Wednesday, April 2, 2008, and "Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04. (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_560181.html)

8. 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.

9. “Obama and Gun Control,” The Volokh Conspiracy, taken from the Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999. (http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml)

10. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.

11. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.

12. “Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control,” Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007. (http://learfield.typepad.com/radioiowa/2007/04/clinton_edwards.html)

13. Chicago Tribune blogs, “Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action,” February 15, 2008, (http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/barack_obama_comments_on_shoot.html)

14. Barack Obama campaign website: “As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment . . .” (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/urbanpolicy/#crime-and-law-enforcement.)

15. Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes (http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm and http://www.ontheissues.org/IL_2004_Senate_3rd.htm) Oct 21, 2004.

16. Illinois Senate, May 16, 2003, HB 2579, vote 34.

17. United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006 and Saddleback Forum, August 16, 2008.

18. Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003. To see the vote tally go to: http://www.nrapvf.org/Media/pdf/sb1195_obama.pdf.

@ Hero:
First off, please dont call me sir, I worked for my living.
Second, can you spot the gangbangers from the kids?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/65366854@N00/2798919103/

http://blogs.ya.com/puertasabiertas/files/skinheads.jpg

http://www.westportnow.com/archives/composkateboard10310401.jpg

Seems pretty clear to me. (And thats not based off pics thats based of what Ive personally seen.)

Also please dont try the whole "School is hard in the Military" bull. I made time for mail order classes while overseas. You should look into it sometime. Most well to do colleges will mail you everything you need to any APOAE Address. It all boils down to how badly you want to further your education. The only thing holding you back is you!

jp400 wrote:
Lets see,
Spent 5 years in Active duty Army as a 19Delta Cav Scout. Did 2 tours in Iraq (OIF1&2, OIF 5&6) Got out with 40k in Gi Bill.
Went to Community college for my FF1, Hasmat, Wildland FireFighting, and for fun a Flashover trailor. Going to Another College for Basic EMT then hopefully Advanced Emt.
Guess what? I still have 38k in the bank and once im done with the Emt I will be pulling on around 60k a year as a FireFighter full time (10 days a month working) and part time at the local hospital as a ER Tech.

You were on active duty for 5 years, that's how you picked up so much cash. That's a lot longer than most people are willing to commit to the armed services. You also went to community college, which is smart as the GI bill does not apply to most unaccredited technical schools. Furthermore, you had the ability to serve on active duty for a significant period of time. In peace time the armed services like to rotate deployments in order to minimize the possible expenditure on cashed GI bills by keeping people in the preferential reserve status. You are a statistical anomaly in an even more anomalous period for the modern military.

The main issue with the GI bill is that most people never even claim it. There are two reasons for this. First, the armed services only tend to attract two types of people; lifers and burnouts. Not everyone fits into these categories, but many do. The lifers are obviously never going to need the bill, and the burnouts tend to get out before they ever accrue enough money to actually make it useful. Obviously this changes when redeployments become commonplace, but for the most part its 2 years and out for anyone that isn't in it for the haul.

This leaves the people who want to use the Army as a jumping off point for college in kind of a bind. They likely joined the Army because they had no other options, and now that they're out they find they have very few, if any, new ones. They might go to community college, but an Associates is almost completely worthless if you don't plan to make the jump to a Bachelors. They might go into job training, but they probably could have done that before they went into the services anyway, and made more money to boot as the GI bill does not cover most technical training. If they couldn't have done that, then it is unlikely that money was the thing which was preventing them from doing so. Which brings us to the real issue. The people that will be, on average, capable of actually cashing the GI bill (degree students) have better options available to them. And that the people who really could make use of the bill generally cannot apply it to their chosen field.

jp400 wrote:
I went from a breach man on an entry team killing Haji to someone who is commited to saveing lives. Thats about as drastic of a change/transition as one can make and I did it just fine with money to spare.

Yeah military pay sucked. I was a Corporal makeing 23k a year while deployed (less in garrison) but you know what? I was never broke in the Army. The only people who are broke are people who spend more then they make.

You were also a Corporal which put you at a much higher pay grade than most enlisted men. A certain by-product of your time in active service.

jp400 wrote:

Bottom line, dont talk about things that you dont know from first hand experience.

I don't know from first-hand experience, but this is also a large part of my studies pertaining to military policy. So, while I might not know the individual stories of those who have succeeded, I do know that the percentages are against the common use of the GI bill.

How ever scary those guys look. Until they actually commit a crime they are just mid to late 20 year olds doing stupid things with their hands. All I'm saying is due process is there for a reason. Shooting first and asking later is (again, with all due respect).Somthing I hope isn't a prevailing mind set. Again, I'm not for banning guns, in fact I'd be ok with every family man being allowed to carry a hand gun for self defense.

I too, have been to war, I've lost a friend, I've killed 2 men, maybe more (I hope not). I can't look at a sweet 16 anymore. I've gunned a man down, dead, killed him. I'll never have his bloodoff of my hands. Just like some of the places I've grown up, too theold west where there is abondance of guns there is an abundance of death.

I don't wanna sund like I'm bashing you guys, butI's a small jump, (for some) that some wack-o goes nuts and hoses down his class mates with all kinda crazy fire power. I guess to sum it up. because there are cazy people, you have to arm yourself, but also because of crazy people you have to (try) and clamp down on overly deadly weapons.


Oh and on the college note. I finished last year, but I was a 27 year old single male. Trying to juggle a military job, a family and ful time school, it a lot for most people to handle, hence they do 4 years get out and then go do the school bit. But then you have to worry about getting a new job, adjusting to normal life, and school.

Vets need help, and bad.

Sorry for ranting, hope I didn't offend anybody.

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

.. and why would this be a bad thing ?

On one hand you moan and bitch about people not knowing what they are doing with guns-- and rightly so-- and then moan about people be required to know about the things ?

Bottom line, dont talk about things that you dont know from first hand experience.

I await with enthusiasm your firsthand gangbanger tales.

funny how you only picked one point from that massive list

That's because that's the one I can't figure out why anyone would have any objections too, especially the original poster given his earlier comments.


Plus this is about the gajallionth time these have been posted, many already disproved ( He didn't vote for a "reckless" bill at all-- that is opinion not a "fact") and I know a fair few people stateside who don't have a problem with some/many of these ideas anyway. Seeing as he espoused nothing of this sort during his election and he has already stated that he has other concerns-- the impending economic collapse of America for example which will leave you unable to afford bullets let alone guns anyway I think may of the fears expressed are groundless.


You can scuttle off back to your troll cave now and return to your paranoia of Obama and Co. coming for your guns.

Copy-and-pasting from a NRA scare sheet doesn't make the assertions true; in fact, it's LESS likely to be accurate. I'd say about 1 in 4 hasn't been thoroughly debunked.

particularly the one about supreme court justices. I'm guessing Obama cares far less about the gun position of the originalist wing of the court than he does for their strict interpretations of other matters of con law.

I mean, would McCain have been better for single issue (gun rights) voters than Obama? I think it's safe to say that yes, he would have been.