Obama will take away your guns!

[rob]

It's true! I heard from a reliable source that if Obama is elected, he's going to take away your guns, outlaw Christianity, and institute Shariah!

[olyclimber]

[video:youtube]41o99KWS2CU

[billcoe]

It's true! I heard from a reliable source that if Obama is elected, he's going to take away your guns, outlaw Christianity, and institute Shariah!

 

That's not true according to his literature. I'll look for a link.

 

My thoughts:

 

To those who want the gov't to control weapons. I'd ask you to look around at the people you know...your neighbors and climbing partners...the question is: do YOU trust them more than you trust the President? If the answer is yes, then consider how you feel about them having weapons and control vs just the current "great leader" or the next "great leader".

 

Bottom line for me:

 

A) Political power can and does come from weapons (look around the globe for examples).

 

B) I trust my fellow citizens (that's pretty much all you, even the assholes on this site) more than I trust the power hungry people who often run for office. I want all of you to have weapons to provide a check and a balance on those other assholes.

 

Simple choice for me.

[ivan]

 

A) Political power can and does come from weapons (look around the globe for examples).

no doubt - and just look at the all the good they've done in creating stable societies in such exotic places as somalia, afghanistan, the congo, etc.

 

succesful government are that way, in part, because they monopolize the use of force - when any asshole can waste an entire school or shopping mall on a whim, how stable is your society going to be?

[olyclimber]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm

 

 

Click here for 11 full quotes by Barack Obama OR click here for Barack Obama on other issues.

 

* Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)

* FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)

* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)

* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)

* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)

* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)

* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)

* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

* Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)

* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

 

 

The idea of a full gun ban would be as effective as the "War on Drugs", IMO.

[prole]

Yeah, just look at all those other advanced democracies where the citizenry isn't armed to the teeth. Rampant crime, state repression, labor camps, the whole nine...

 

On the other hand, those countries with gun ownership on par with the US? Ethnic and tribal warfare, warlordism, 30 year life expectancy. Paradise.

[JosephH]

Bill, I think that worked for us in the earlier days of our nation, but has long since faded into our own cultural identity, legend, and mythology. Our nation is now built on system of highly distributed resources such that there are so many better and eaiser ways to abbrogate our freedoms than the use of overt force. We've just seen over the past eight years that it only takes a few words and penstrokes to abridge, corrode, and corrupt the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

The image of my neighbors held up in the local McDonalds with a generator attempting to hold off the Army, or storming the Federal building downtown, are certainly strong images, but I fear the majority of Americans, gun owners included, would quickly submit to much simpler and effective internal assaults on the nation. Nothing about Americans owning guns stopped the Neocons from all but destroying the country and I didn't see any guns in the street in an attempt to prevent them from taking a solid run at many of our freedoms.

 

I guess I simply have a very hard time seeing how private weapons would be organized or effectively employed in any form of 'militia' such that it would be a significant threat to an administration even more corrupt than this one.

 

Personally, I think McCain, and particularly his wife, have thrown so much of his integrity over the transom of the straight talk express in their bid for power that I have no doubt they'd do the same to all of you gun owners to keep it.

[el jefe]

i agree, josephh. guns aren't relevant anymore especially since there are so many of them in the world. losing our right to privacy is how we will lose our freedom in the 21st century age of information. people who think owning a gun somehow protects their freedom are living with a very false sense of security.

[rob]

I'm with you, Bill.

 

We should allow private citizens to own tanks, fighter jets, guided missiles and nuclear weapons, that way they can effectively protect me from oppressive governments which also have these weapons.

 

I mean, I trust random, unknown strangers with nuclear weaponry WAY more than i trust the U.S. Government.

 

I'm with you, Bill.

[Alpinfox]

[img:center]http://meekmok.com/muaddib/images/blog/wolverines.jpg[/img]

 

W O L V E R I N E S ! ! !

[el jefe]

[img:center]http://meekmok.com/muaddib/images/blog/wolverines.jpg[/img]

 

W O L V E R I N E S ! ! !

 

nice picture of billcoe at beacon, alpinfox. i feel safer already...

[rbw1966]

succesful government are that way, in part, because they monopolize the use of force - when any asshole can waste an entire school or shopping mall on a whim, how stable is your society going to be?

 

I'm not sure I follow this argument. Are you saying the US govt is stable because they monopolize the use of force? It would seem the second part of your sentence undermines the first. Or are you arguing that the our govt is unstable?

 

 

[prole]

The US government is stable in face of high rates of gun ownership because, despite the rhetoric about protecting our freedom, the gun lobby is in full support of the coercive apparatuses of the State, the police and military. Our society on the other hand, is unhinged.

[Bug]

If GW decides to cancel elections in teh name of a financial crisis or an attack from Iran, your handguns and hunting rifles aren't going to be worth squat. Stand up, get counted, and get shot. Then be forgotten. Just like the millions that Stalin and Hitler killed.

That being said.....

Banning guns is not a good idea but it is very unlikely to happen anyway. The political capitol required to push it through both houses would not be worth the toll on capitol needed to pass other bills.

It is similar to GW using the Religious Right to get elected. He really didn't do anything for them. He just said he would.

[billcoe]

Time will tell if Obama is an honest politician. I suspect he has enough weasel words in his policy statements that much like the Bible, it can be interpreted any way you'd like.

 

 

Here's the link for now if you want to see the PDF of that policy.

Link

 

 

And one that contradicts it:

 

Urban Policy

"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."

[WylDanimal]

 

And one that contradicts it:

 

Urban Policy

"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."

 

What part of this sounds bad to you...Solving crimes, closing open gun purchasing loopholes, childproof guns??? Really nothing on that list sounds "out of bounds" as far as gun control. Unless you like to use an AK-47 to kill snaffles...

[Doug]

 

And one that contradicts it:

 

Urban Policy

"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."

 

What part of this sounds bad to you...Solving crimes, closing open gun purchasing loopholes, childproof guns??? Really nothing on that list sounds "out of bounds" as far as gun control. Unless you like to use an AK-47 to kill snaffles...

 

It is my god given right to kill snaffles with an AK-47 or ski pole if I want!!!

 

Why do you hate 'merica?

[ivan]

succesful government are that way, in part, because they monopolize the use of force - when any asshole can waste an entire school or shopping mall on a whim, how stable is your society going to be?

 

I'm not sure I follow this argument. Are you saying the US govt is stable because they monopolize the use of force? It would seem the second part of your sentence undermines the first. Or are you arguing that the our govt is unstable?

 

that's it - no government is going to be stable if it can be overthrown at any moment (revolutionary-era france, for example) - our government is stable though b/c it has restricted gun ownership enough to preclude violent revolution, as mentioned many times above

[Doug]

ahhh.....part of the delicate balance that a democracy is.

[prole]

that's it - no government is going to be stable if it can be overthrown at any moment (revolutionary-era france, for example) - our government is stable though b/c it has restricted gun ownership enough to preclude violent revolution, as mentioned many times above

 

The sheer number of weapons in the hands of Americans would bring into question whether there has been any meaningful restriction at all. While I know that gun owners are not a homogeneous group (my Dad is a gun owning liberal), looking at the ideological makeup of "gunshow nation" would show a highly reactionary conservative group rather than a revolutionary one. Where were these "freedom fighters" when Bush was undermining the Fourth Amendment and concentrating power in the Executive? Lending a helping hand to the police and military by patrolling our borders and harassing immigrants looking fer the terrerisms. If or when the shit hits the fan, we'll need as much protection from these yahoos as we will from the guvermint.

[JosephH]

Bill, don't in any way think I believe there isn't a legitimate right to gun ownership for self-defense - I do. I simply have a hard time swallowing any form of modern day militia defending the Constitution against a would-be dictator.

 

As far as Obama's word goes - he was in no way my first choice for a candidate. I am from Chicago and know exactly what that means for someone to come up through those local politics, even if managing to bypass much of it. In fact, if it weren't for the two SCOTUS seats up for grab I almost wouldn't care who's President so long as the Congress is Democratic. But with two SCOTUS seats on the table, and McCain's vow to appoint yet more radically activist judges who would likely further support an even more imperial Executive, I find the prospect of him being elected not only problematic, but untenable for the future of our nation and our freedoms. Him filling two more SCOTUS seats with the likes of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would be the surest way to the possibility of you needing arms to defend yourself against the government.

[billcoe]

Bill, don't in any way think I believe there isn't a legitimate right to gun ownership for self-defense - I do.

 

It has nothing to do with self defense for me and everything to do with balance of powers. Checks and Balances. Strictly for political reason....for me.

 

BTW, I don't disagree that Barak will not be better than the alternative. There's no doubt to me that Barak doesn't have a lot going for him. He's extremely talented in many areas, with lots of positive charcteristics. I still find him hugely lacking.

[ivan]

I still find him hugely lacking.

hmm, never heard of a soul brother being found hugely *lacking*

[JosephH]

I would then, be curious how you envision citizens with guns would in any way counter a shift in the balance of power? Again, two more SCOTUS seats filled with people who believe in more power for the Executive is exactly the scenario you should fear if it really is all about 'balance of power' for you. McCain's vowed appointments would vastly upset the balance of power set forth by the founding fathers.

[ivan]

Checks and Balances.

 

but again, the guns out there aren't checking or balancing a damn thing, like joe said - the 82nd airborne can probably take on every gun-nut in the country together and come out just fine, no?