Americans Buy Over One Million Guns In August

[Remster 30]

Quote

I'm curious how you could buy an EBR, and vote for a politician who thinks you shouldn't have the right to own it, and has promised to take them away.

Seriously. Can you shed some light on your thought process for me.

Thanks!

Let me take a complete wild ass guess at it...

Quote

and don't expect to become a single-issue voter anytime soon

Remster

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Let me take a complete wild ass guess at it...

Quote

and don't expect to become a single-issue voter anytime soon

I'm genuinely interested in his thought process--that's why I asked him the question.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[warpedskydiver 0]

Indeed, voting for someone who vowed to take away a right that belongs to all who are in this country legally without violating a law which would prevent them from availing themselves of the 2nd is a mystery to me.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I'm curious how you could buy an EBR, and vote for a politician who thinks you shouldn't have the right to own it, and has promised to take them away.

Seriously. Can you shed some light on your thought process for me.

Thanks!

No matter who I voted for, it was going to be someone with whom I disagreed on multiple issues. Guns are just one of those issues, and in this election, I didn't consider them the most important. My hunch is that he won't affect my ability to buy firearms much, if any at all. However, I've also been hedging my bet by shopping and by getting my CPL, just in case I'm wrong. I haven't yet decided what to buy next.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,078]

>Indeed, voting for someone who vowed to take away a right that belongs to
>all who are in this country legally without violating a law which would prevent
>them from availing themselves of the 2nd is a mystery to me.

So you're saying that Obama will grab your guns. And as proof you offer the fact that millions of guns are being sold to americans, and sales are setting records? Interesting logic.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>Indeed, voting for someone who vowed to take away a right that belongs to
>all who are in this country legally without violating a law which would prevent
>them from availing themselves of the 2nd is a mystery to me.

So you're saying that Obama will grab your guns. And as proof you offer the fact that millions of guns are being sold to americans, and sales are setting records?

Actually, the proof I'd offer is Obama's own statements, made on record on his campaign web site (among other places).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,078]

>he proof I'd offer is Obama's own statements . . .

So you trust a politician's word over his actions? Interesting, but I tend to judge them on what they do, not what they say. I've found they'll say almost anything.

[TomAiello 26]

The fact that he can't get that through the Senate is no proof of his virtue.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,078]

>The fact that he can't get that through the Senate is no proof of his virtue.

Get what through the senate?

[Kennedy 0]

Bill, I've enjoyed, and stolen, many of your one liners, but now I get to throw one of them back at you.

Quote

Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence

The man is all for banning as many firearms as he can get away with, do you disagree?

Besides, part of their actions include their past voting record, don't you think? So how is Obama's record on guns and private property, hmmm, let's think real hard on this one...

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,078]

>The man is all for banning as many firearms as he can get away with, do you disagree?

Yes, I do.

>Besides, part of their actions include their past voting record, don't you think?

Sure. And I recall that he voted to allow concealed carry for retired cops in Illinois.

He is very pro gun control, there's no doubt about that. But the absurd claims of "he wants to take your guns away" or "he wants to ban as many firearms as he can get away with" aren't supportable. It would be like claiming that someone who supported user fees wanted to "ban skydiving."

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>The fact that he can't get that through the Senate is no proof of his virtue.

Get what through the senate?

The fact that President Barack Obama couldn't get a new Assault Weapons Ban through the United States Senate is no proof that he does not, in fact, wish to pass a new Assault Weapons Ban.

In fact, most of the evidence (his past voting record, his public statements, and most of all his own campaign platform) appear to indicate that he does wish to pass such legislation.


edit to add: You were the one who brought in the phrase "grab all your guns," which I took as a simplification of the (already explicitly stated) effort to ban assault rifles. No one was discussing an outright confiscation of all guns, and I had assumed that you weren't either.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[SkyChimp 0]

I picked up 3 guns in August. Nothing big but I got another P90 .45 Ruger, and E-TAC 12 gauge, and a Ruger sp-101 .357 Magnum.

Food for thought... if you don't want to fill out extra paperwork with the FBI or ATF. Have your back ground checks for each firearm at least 6 days apart from the previous back ground check or it will trigger more paperwork and questions with the Feds.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Have your back ground checks for each firearm at least 6 days apart from the previous back ground check or it will trigger more paperwork and questions with the Feds.

If you do them all simultaneously, the FFL only has to call in and say "handgun," "long gun" or "both." There's no need for them to total a number of firearms.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And I recall that he voted to allow concealed carry for retired cops in Illinois.

And AGAINST the right of the common citizens to defend themselves:

Quote

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.

On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

And I recall that he voted to allow concealed carry for retired cops in Illinois.

And AGAINST the right of the common citizens to defend themselves:

Quote

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.

On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.

The state was basically saying "Local governments may make their own laws, but cannot enforce them against criminals who are caught as a result of self-defense." That's a crappy way of writing law, I'd have probably voted against it too and told the proponents to come up with a better way of accomplishing their goal.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TomAiello 26]

Some other states have just pre-empted local legislation, by prohibiting localities from enacting gun control rules of their own. Do you like that solution better?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[livendive 8]

Quote

Some other states have just pre-empted local legislation, by prohibiting localities from enacting gun control rules of their own. Do you like that solution better?

Sure. That follows a natural flow of authority.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And I recall that he voted to allow concealed carry for retired cops in Illinois.

And AGAINST the right of the common citizens to defend themselves:

Quote

In March 2004, the Illinois Senate passed Senate Bill 2165, a law introduced in response to DeMar's case, with provisions designed to assert a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions, such that self-defense requirements would be viewed to take precedence over local ordinances against handgun possession. The measure passed the Illinois Senate by a vote of 38-20. Barack Obama was one of the 20 state senators voting against the measure.

Governor Rod Blagojevich vetoed the bill. On Nov. 9, 2004, the Illinois Senate voted 40-18 to override Blagojevich's veto. Again, Obama acted against the bill.

On Nov. 17, the Illinois House voted overwhelmingly, 85-30, to override the governor's veto and Senate Bill 2165 became law.

The state was basically saying "Local governments may make their own laws, but cannot enforce them against criminals who are caught as a result of self-defense." That's a crappy way of writing law, I'd have probably voted against it too and told the proponents to come up with a better way of accomplishing their goal.

Blues,
Dave

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[livendive 8]

Imagine a piece of state legislation that said, "Municipalities may limit traffic to speeds lower than specified by state law, however they may not enforce those speed limits against people who can prove they were wearing red underwear." That would be a stupid law, and whatever the goal is, it could be accomplished by much more logical means.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TomAiello 26]

A better analogy would be:

"Municipalities may require seatbelts be worn, but may not use traffic stops to issue seatbelt tickets."

It's still not a great analogy, because we're talking about people who've actually engaged in self defense, but I understand your point.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[livendive 8]

Quote

A better analogy would be:

"Municipalities may require seatbelts be worn, but may not use traffic stops to issue seatbelt tickets."

It's still not a great analogy, because we're talking about people who've actually engaged in self defense, but I understand your point.

The fact that someone engages in a lawful self-defense does not negate the fact that in the moments leading up to that self-defense, they were just walking around with a gun in violation of local law. Either say that the city can't ban that possession, or allow them to enforce their laws, but don't tell them "make your own laws, but only enforce them when we allow you to". To make one more attempt at an analogy...a guy gets a call at work that his wife is in labor. He speeds home, picking up a local sheriff along the way. It turns out he has an expired drivers license. The sheriff notes the special circumstances and doesn't cite him for speeding, but does that excuse the fact that he drove to work on an expired license?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...a guy gets a call at work that his wife is in labor. He speeds home, picking up a local sheriff along the way. It turns out he has an expired drivers license. The sheriff notes the special circumstances and doesn't cite him for speeding, but does that excuse the fact that he drove to work on an expired license?

That's a much better analogy. And a good summary of the question.

I think a further thought question is: "would the sheriff have ever known about the violation, if not for the special circumstances?" Does that matter?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[MaVriK 0]

bought anoter gun this year and my LTCF. anyone looking for a nice carry pistol i highly reccommend Taurus...they shoot great, great bang for the buck, no failure to loads, eject, misfires or anythig in 1200 rounds...

~MaVriK~
"The Greatest Accomplishment in life is actually Living it"

[skinnay 0]

*cough* rednecks *cough*