SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network

SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network (http://www.socnet.com/index.php)
-   The Lounge (http://www.socnet.com/forumdisplay.php?f=224)
-   -   Thread for Everything About Gun Control / The Second Amendment (http://www.socnet.com/showthread.php?t=74822)

wowzers 6 November 2008 21:54

Why is President Elect Obama and the Democrats getting the blame when the bill is sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk?

morelocks 6 November 2008 22:20

I could see gun regulation passing the House as there is enough representation from cities to allow it to be passed. They do not face the same pressure on 2nd Amendment issues.

It will not pass the Senate.

Now if they take baby steps or tax the shit out of ammo?

John6719 6 November 2008 23:19

Quote:

‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.

‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;

I may be wrong here, but I read this as the firearms listed in appendix A, and any replicas or duplicates of those weapons, will be legal under this bill.

I still don't like it though!

Terminator2 6 November 2008 23:19

Shays is gone now, thank God. I HATED that fucker.

Tracker275 7 November 2008 01:32

My God man!!!!

Barrel Shrouds are on the list for banning!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

I heard it straight from McCarthy!

The Fat Guy 7 November 2008 01:48

Taxes
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by morelocks (Post 1063292)
I could see gun regulation passing the House as there is enough representation from cities to allow it to be passed. They do not face the same pressure on 2nd Amendment issues.

It will not pass the Senate.

Now if they take baby steps or tax the shit out of ammo?

I think he'll let us keep them so he can tax the shit out of the ammo and the guns themselves. He needs money to be able to pay for the votes he just bought, if he takes everything away, he cannot get the tax.

iraqgunz 7 November 2008 02:57

It is my understanding that there have already been discussions on raising excises taxes on firearms and ammunition. I haven't seen the particulars but I believe that it was going to be something like 300-500% increase.

Here are but a few recent votes and positions. This is based off of his past votes and was written as an OP-ED in the Washington Times.

In 2004, he said he was “consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry,” and that he’d back “federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement.” Mr. Obama had already put that anti-self-defense belief into action in 2001, voting against a state Senate bill that would have allowed people who receive protective orders - such as domestic violence victims - to carry firearms. Why? Because, in Mr. Obama’s world, “authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation … It was a bad idea and I’m glad it failed,” he said.

Mr. Obama also claims he’s no threat to hunters.

But in 2005, he voted for a ban on all but the smallest rifle ammunition used for hunting (or for anything else). If the measure had passed, it would have classified most rifle ammunition beyond the low-powered .22 caliber as “armor piercing ammunition,” prohibited for civilian manufacture by federal law. The ammunition ban was hardly Mr. Obama’s first act against hunters, either. In 1999, Mr. Obama proposed increasing firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. Right now, a rifle that a manufacturer sells for $500 carries an excise tax of $55. Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, that amount would rocket to $330. This would turn a tax willingly paid by sportsmen, which funds many of our wildlife conservation programs, into a tool to punish gun buyers.

Also, while Mr. Obama promises hunters, “I will not take your shotgun away,” his votes tell a different story.

In 2003, while serving on the Illinois state Senate’s Judiciary Committee, Mr. Obama voted for a bill that would have banned (as so-called “semi-automatic assault weapons”) most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns, along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. If the bill had passed, any Illinois resident who possessed one of these guns 90 days after legislation went into effect, would have faced felony charges. What was that about not taking shotguns away?

To that list I would add that Obama is opposed to self defense, and favors allowing cities to prosecute citizens for successfully defending themselves with a gun in their own home. Obama voted against S.B. 2165 (IL 2004) that was designed to protect citizens who rightfully defended themselves from unjust gun possession charges. The bill passed with overwhelming support. The Governor vetoed the bill, and the Illinois state legislature overrode the veto - despite Obama’s best efforts.



Quote:

Originally Posted by morelocks (Post 1063292)
I could see gun regulation passing the House as there is enough representation from cities to allow it to be passed. They do not face the same pressure on 2nd Amendment issues.

It will not pass the Senate.

Now if they take baby steps or tax the shit out of ammo?


iraqgunz 7 November 2008 03:13

So I just stumbled across this hidden "jewel". This comes from President elect Obamas own website. Here is the link. Scroll down to Crime and Law Enforcement.

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

OldSwabbie 7 November 2008 07:44

In this short video these two were defending trying to add any .50 Cal Rifle and those "Heat Seeking" .50 cal Bullets to the List. Heat Seeking bullets, Nope, i'm not kidding. THESE are the people "Crafting" our laws...God Help us.

The one assemblywoman thinks the Bullet can find the Animal and after it hits it ~ can cook it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

GOAT556 7 November 2008 07:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by iraqgunz (Post 1063089)
I may be wrong about this but when you retire or are no longer a LEO you generally cannot retain those weapons. The same was true of the 1994 AWB and hi cap magazines.

We as gun owners need to stay together because we are all in the same sinking boat.


The federal law that covers LEO's with regards to nation wide carry allows for retired officers. Basically you carry a card that shows what your dept has cleared/qualified you to carry. Only covers pistols though.

Goat / out

Greenhat 7 November 2008 07:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by wowzers (Post 1063276)
Why is President Elect Obama and the Democrats getting the blame when the bill is sponsored by Republican Mark Kirk?

Good question. I doubt it'll get answered.

LRS Guy 7 November 2008 08:46

There is no doubt that if the BO/Dem Congress thinks they can stick it to gun ownes/ 2nd Amendment/ "people clinging to their guns & religon" and get away with it...they will. But as several here have noted, gun control is a dead issue for the Dem(& RINOs) as well. They have some big plans and they will have to expend allot of political capital to get it done.

We as Americans (not just gun owners) are in for a fight on many fronts. Be it taxes, govt regulations, energy....so we better get ready for the battles.

On this one, if you are not a NRA (or other group, GOA, RKBA,etc) join one, hell join several.

Have your Congressman's email & phone # handy. Let them know where you stand!

Another tactic is don't be afraid to ask to speak to your representive. Often they will have offices around the district and will have meeting with constituants. Remember they work for you, sometimes they have to reminded of that.

Always be polite, well-articulated and professional when dealing with them. You can always dismiss a loony, but a intelligent, well-spoken, logical person gains positive attention even if they disagree with you. Politicans are in the business of re-election and advancement of their favorite cause...which is often themselves.

Play both ends against the middle. Every politcal office holder has a challanger. Support those that most closely mirror your views. If possible convince the challanger that your opinion is the one that will get him the votes in the next election.

Darn I've went off on a tangent. But thats my .02

iraqgunz 7 November 2008 09:08

I honestly could care less who sponsored it. Democrat or Republican it's wrong and they wouldn't get my vote. I have heard that these particular Republicats are just that and they have crappy rating from the pro-gun groups.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenhat (Post 1063415)
Good question. I doubt it'll get answered.


t10Guy 7 November 2008 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by iraqgunz (Post 1063089)
I may be wrong about this but when you retire or are no longer a LEO you generally cannot retain those weapons. The same was true of the 1994 AWB and hi cap magazines.

We as gun owners need to stay together because we are all in the same sinking boat.


Dont get me wrong, I am still very AGAINST 'gun control' laws. As a matter of fact I am one of the vocal ones in my group and from where I am from (and where Dear Leader, Chairman Obama), is from Gun control is the norm.

My family has no clue. They are almost like a family from the UK. N. Illinois residents are so used to gun ban, licenses to even look at guns, being told that the next law will solve everything, they essentially just SEE a gun and freak or think its evil. Good Job Illinois Pols.

The funny thing, is I was in Colorado a few months back, stop'ed by a friends place and went shooting. A nice outdoor, state run, state maintained shooting range. Shotgun, handgun and rifle ranges, all just ther for you to use. In illinois if you tried to get that passed you would be run out of town.

t10Guy 7 November 2008 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greenhat (Post 1063415)
Good question. I doubt it'll get answered.



Mark Kirk. from the 10th District in Illinois. AGAIN. another Northen Illinois Politician. And a Repub in Illinois is really just a deomcrat that is tired of Illinois being in debt. The Repub party in Illinois is a joke.

morelocks 7 November 2008 11:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by t10Guy (Post 1063465)
Mark Kirk. from the 10th District in Illinois. AGAIN. another Northen Illinois Politician. And a Repub in Illinois is really just a deomcrat that is tired of Illinois being in debt. The Repub party in Illinois is a joke.

Chicago politics.

rubberneck 7 November 2008 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scotty (Post 1063267)
Whether it passes or not, or whether it's even VOTED on, I want to see these people - Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. FERGUSON, and Mr. SHAYS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary- out of office and shunned publically for being class A asshats! I consider these men a threat to the safety of the American people.

Scotty

Chris Shays as of Tuesday is out of a job.

Scotty 7 November 2008 11:54

Good! One down, three more to go. I hope he goes broke and ends up washing cars for a living. I know, a little harsh, but fugg'im!

Scotty

MakoZeroSix 7 November 2008 12:00

Well, that's the great thing about having a bunch of different states. If you don't like guns, and want to get taxed alot, you can live in Massachussets or Illinois. If you want to live in a place where its illegal to buy, possess or wield a dildo, move to Texas. Want something in between? Move somewhere in between...

rubberneck 7 November 2008 12:02

While I take the threat of a new AWB very seriously I am not as worried about it as I was in 1994. While the Democrats are in control of the House, 47 of them are part of the Blue Dog Coalition and represent the conservative/moderate wing of the party. Many of those 47 represent rural pro gun areas and many have A ratings from the NRA.

The Democrats in the congress are not a monolithic voting bloc. Sure they can be coerced into voting for it, but the question then becomes does a new Obama administration want to burn it's political capital trying to pass another AWB when polls show that 80% of Americans don't see the need for any new gun laws. I suspect that he will be looking for a bunch of easy an non politically toxic victories his first year in office. After that I suspect that he will expand his agenda but at that point it will be at the beginning of the campaigns for mid-term elections.

Quote:

Good question. I doubt it'll get answered.
Take a look at the list of Co-Sponsors for H.R. 1022 which is the Democrats Bill to reauthorize the AWB. It has 67 Cosponsors to H.R. 6257's 4. Both were issued in the same session and I suspect the 5 that were involved with 6257 were facing a stiff challenge in districts where there was widespread support for a new AWB and was done primarily for political reasons. That doesn't excuse the four idiots for their support it but this clearly an issue that is being driven primarily by one party.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1022


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:43.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Socnet.com All Rights Reserved