Obama's Anti-Gun Track Record

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
21

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:
I’m a gun owner and the last thing I worry about an Obama administration/Democratic Congress doing is taking away my hunting rifle.

The Second Amendment is not under imminent threat. If the Dems hope to hold on to a Congressional majority past two years, any federal laws that significantly alter the status quo will be avoided.

I can only expect change to take place on the local level, however hand gun bans outside of major coastal cities is not foreseen by me.

Yup. There’s simply not support for anything beyond minimal, reasonable regulation.[/quote]

It’s the stupid motherfuckers deciding what “minimal” and “reasonable” means that is the problem here.

You put too much faith in the government. They will vote for anything if you add enough pork to the bill. For proof, look no further than the $850 billion bailout.

22

Support your right to arm bears…

23

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
Support your right to arm bears…[/quote]

or your right to bear arms…

24

the dems want to hold on to power this time. shouldn’t see any real changes in gun laws until(hopefully not) obamas 2nd term.

25

from my cold dead hands…

26

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

They would implement 1000 small measure such as eliminating gun ranges (lead poisoning the environment) , raising the cost of ammo astronomically, suing the gun manufacturers out of existence and banning importation.

Death by 1000 cuts.[/quote]

I don’t think a couple of reasonable restrictions would be so bad:

Ammo registration - every bullet and every casing must be registered and have a serial number. Price goes up to $0.75/round for the cheapest ammo.

Microstamping / Fingerprint locks / other ‘safeties’ - Every firearm now costs 3x as much because it has to have all sort of safeties (and safeties for the safeties, just to make sure they don’t fail). No gun costs less than $1000.

Restrictions on ‘Military caliber’ weapons - Really, who needs bolt-action ‘assault’ rifles that fire rounds as deadly as the military uses, like the .223 or .308? Anything over a .22 Short requires a Class III (like full-autos now), plus the new, more efficient Form 123 in triplicate as well as Form 321 in duplicate.

Federal FOID - No change in requirements. Anyone who can fill out a Form 4473 now can get one. It just takes two sets of fingerprints, a $300 tax stamp, and when the lone semi-retarded bureaucrat in the basement closet on the typewriter gets to it, you’ll receive it in the mail. Oh, and you need to get one for each firearm.

High-capacity magazines - Most gun fights are over in 3 rounds or less. So why does anyone need more than 3 rounds, unless they are planning a drive-by or to shoot a school up? All magazines are limited to 3 rounds.

Gun-safety zones - In order to reduce school/public shootings, guns aren’t allowed within 1000ft of any school, church, park, or government (local, state, or federal) building.

Government approved ranges - Discharging a weapon is illegal except at approved ranges and game lands. There will be at least one range every other state. Discharging a firearm at the game lands is only permitted during hunting season.

Import ban - Let’s keep jobs here. All imports are illegal.

27

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Obama and a supermajority would be a disaster for gun owners rights. I don’t see how anyone can possibly deny such a thing.

[/quote]

True but a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3rds majority in both houses, they don’t have that kind of support…So they’ll stop just short of that.

28

[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:
I’m a gun owner and the last thing I worry about an Obama administration/Democratic Congress doing is taking away my hunting rifle.

The Second Amendment is not under imminent threat. If the Dems hope to hold on to a Congressional majority past two years, any federal laws that significantly alter the status quo will be avoided.

I can only expect change to take place on the local level, however hand gun bans outside of major coastal cities is not foreseen by me.

Yup. There’s simply not support for anything beyond minimal, reasonable regulation.

It’s the stupid motherfuckers deciding what “minimal” and “reasonable” means that is the problem here.

You put too much faith in the government. They will vote for anything if you add enough pork to the bill. For proof, look no further than the $850 billion bailout.

[/quote]

I’d imagine any “gun control” would begin looking like it does in Mexico. People still own guns because there are a lot of kidnappings and the cops don’t protect them or are themselves doing the kidnapping. People just simply ignore the law.

Outlawing certain basic things, kind of like Prohibition, doesn’t mean that people stop doing them - it just expands the size of the black market.

29

.223 isn’t even useful as a deer round. It’s technically a varmint round, used for shooting coyotes and mountain lions. It doesn’t have enough energy for even larger game. It’s used as a military carbine round because you can carry a lot of them at one time. .308 is a standard hunting cartridge that’s slightly less energetic that 30-06. There is some game that you can’t take down with anything much smaller. .22LR is a rimfire round. It has less energy than a lot of pistol rounds.

How are the poor, who live in the worst neighborhoods, then supposed to afford guns for self defense?

Like I said, you can try to make these laws. I, and many others, will just ignore them.

30

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

They would implement 1000 small measure such as eliminating gun ranges (lead poisoning the environment) , raising the cost of ammo astronomically, suing the gun manufacturers out of existence and banning importation.

Death by 1000 cuts.

I don’t think a couple of reasonable restrictions would be so bad:

Ammo registration - every bullet and every casing must be registered and have a serial number. Price goes up to $0.75/round for the cheapest ammo.

Microstamping / Fingerprint locks / other ‘safeties’ - Every firearm now costs 3x as much because it has to have all sort of safeties (and safeties for the safeties, just to make sure they don’t fail). No gun costs less than $1000.

Restrictions on ‘Military caliber’ weapons - Really, who needs bolt-action ‘assault’ rifles that fire rounds as deadly as the military uses, like the .223 or .308? Anything over a .22 Short requires a Class III (like full-autos now), plus the new, more efficient Form 123 in triplicate as well as Form 321 in duplicate.

Federal FOID - No change in requirements. Anyone who can fill out a Form 4473 now can get one. It just takes two sets of fingerprints, a $300 tax stamp, and when the lone semi-retarded bureaucrat in the basement closet on the typewriter gets to it, you’ll receive it in the mail. Oh, and you need to get one for each firearm.

High-capacity magazines - Most gun fights are over in 3 rounds or less. So why does anyone need more than 3 rounds, unless they are planning a drive-by or to shoot a school up? All magazines are limited to 3 rounds.

Gun-safety zones - In order to reduce school/public shootings, guns aren’t allowed within 1000ft of any school, church, park, or government (local, state, or federal) building.

Government approved ranges - Discharging a weapon is illegal except at approved ranges and game lands. There will be at least one range every other state. Discharging a firearm at the game lands is only permitted during hunting season.

Import ban - Let’s keep jobs here. All imports are illegal.
[/quote]

Damn, I hope this is sarcasm. If it is then it is really good.

31

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

.223 isn’t even useful as a deer round.
[/quote]

Well, the .223 is used by the military, and in the AR-15 (which is black, to let everyone know it is EXTRA dangerous). Which means that it is too powerful for civilian use. Logically, it follows that anything more powerful is also too much for civilians.

Also, rounds like the .30-30 are from the blackpowder days. You don’t want a return of Wild West saloon style shootouts, do you?

Haven’t you heard assassins use this caliber because the round bounces around inside the victim’s head? .22 Short is the only acceptable caliber.

Self-defense with a firearms is a myth. Everyone knows guns are for offensive violence only. You’re much better relying on the police, or your ninja/pirate skills (even if you are old or otherwise disabled), or begging on your knees.

Even if you do defend yourself with a firearm, your attacker will take it, or you’ll miss and end up shooting through your house and in to a school full of children.

32

[quote]abcd1234 wrote:
I’m a gun owner and the last thing I worry about an Obama administration/Democratic Congress doing is taking away my hunting rifle.

The Second Amendment is not under imminent threat. If the Dems hope to hold on to a Congressional majority past two years, any federal laws that significantly alter the status quo will be avoided.

I can only expect change to take place on the local level, however hand gun bans outside of major coastal cities is not foreseen by me. [/quote]

The Second Ammendment and the right to bear arms isn’t about hunting or hunting rifles.

California has some of the worst gun laws in the country. What is considered “reasonable” in Cali or NJ is appaling to most of the country.

Many of the weapons and class 3 devices I own and enjoy in PA. would make me a felon in NJ. I see Obama leaning that way more then towards freedom.

33

Dammit. I walked right into this one. LOL.

34

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
johnnytang24 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

They would implement 1000 small measure such as eliminating gun ranges (lead poisoning the environment) , raising the cost of ammo astronomically, suing the gun manufacturers out of existence and banning importation.

Death by 1000 cuts.

I don’t think a couple of reasonable restrictions would be so bad:

Ammo registration - every bullet and every casing must be registered and have a serial number. Price goes up to $0.75/round for the cheapest ammo.

Microstamping / Fingerprint locks / other ‘safeties’ - Every firearm now costs 3x as much because it has to have all sort of safeties (and safeties for the safeties, just to make sure they don’t fail). No gun costs less than $1000.

Restrictions on ‘Military caliber’ weapons - Really, who needs bolt-action ‘assault’ rifles that fire rounds as deadly as the military uses, like the .223 or .308? Anything over a .22 Short requires a Class III (like full-autos now), plus the new, more efficient Form 123 in triplicate as well as Form 321 in duplicate.

Federal FOID - No change in requirements. Anyone who can fill out a Form 4473 now can get one. It just takes two sets of fingerprints, a $300 tax stamp, and when the lone semi-retarded bureaucrat in the basement closet on the typewriter gets to it, you’ll receive it in the mail. Oh, and you need to get one for each firearm.

High-capacity magazines - Most gun fights are over in 3 rounds or less. So why does anyone need more than 3 rounds, unless they are planning a drive-by or to shoot a school up? All magazines are limited to 3 rounds.

Gun-safety zones - In order to reduce school/public shootings, guns aren’t allowed within 1000ft of any school, church, park, or government (local, state, or federal) building.

Government approved ranges - Discharging a weapon is illegal except at approved ranges and game lands. There will be at least one range every other state. Discharging a firearm at the game lands is only permitted during hunting season.

Import ban - Let’s keep jobs here. All imports are illegal.

Damn, I hope this is sarcasm. If it is then it is really good.[/quote]

It was very good sarcasm. I feel pretty dumb now. Good one, JT.

35

[quote]johnnytang24 wrote:
<<< High-capacity magazines - Most gun fights are over in 3 rounds or less. So why does anyone NEED more than 3 rounds, unless they are planning a drive-by or to shoot a school up? All magazines are limited to 3 rounds. >>>
[/quote]Emphasis mine

There’s that word again we always here from people who have fallen under the federal spell.

I don’t NEED the Detroit Red Wings hat I’m wearing right now, but I want to own it. No hypocritical bureaucrat surrounded by armed security has the constitutional power to tell me what I need. Yes, that goes for full select fire small arms, all types of ammunition, high capacity magazines, and any military hardware that someone can afford.

Weapons of mass destruction are a category the founders couldn’t have envisioned and are subject to constitutional amendment. If the constitution still meant anything that is.

They assumed the broadest liberties and instituted restrictions as the cases would arise. We assume the greatest restriction and swoon in gratitude at whatever liberties our benevolent overseers are gracious enough to allow us.

EDIT: Having reread your post I do hereby apologize for completely misunderstanding it the first time.

36

[quote]hedo wrote:
abcd1234 wrote:
I’m a gun owner and the last thing I worry about an Obama administration/Democratic Congress doing is taking away my hunting rifle.

The Second Amendment is not under imminent threat. If the Dems hope to hold on to a Congressional majority past two years, any federal laws that significantly alter the status quo will be avoided.

I can only expect change to take place on the local level, however hand gun bans outside of major coastal cities is not foreseen by me.

The Second Ammendment and the right to bear arms isn’t about hunting or hunting rifles.

California has some of the worst gun laws in the country. What is considered “reasonable” in Cali or NJ is appaling to most of the country.

Many of the weapons and class 3 devices I own and enjoy in PA. would make me a felon in NJ. I see Obama leaning that way more then towards freedom.

[/quote]

Guns should have a sporting purpose, for instance my 500 S&W magnum is perfect for hunting Sasquatch. And the next time I go to Jurassic Park, I will take my Bushmaster 50 caliber bolt action gun for T Rex and Bronto hunting.

you’re right, the 2nd amendment was made to keep guns in the hands of us, the people, for self defense and defense against government tyranny, not for hunting or punching holes in paper.

Personally, I bought a 500 and 50 just to have for fun, piss off liberals ( which don’t exist where I live in Pa.), and to just have.

37

[quote]tom63 wrote:
Guns should have a sporting purpose, for instance my 500 S&W magnum is perfect for hunting Sasquatch. And the next time I go to Jurassic Park, I will take my Bushmaster 50 caliber bolt action gun for T Rex and Bronto hunting.

[/quote]

The only thing that would put down a six-ton tyrannosaur with that caliber would be a brain shot (reptiles are notoriously immune to shock), and that brain is about the size of a tennis ball.

Also, remember that the tyrannosaur is nearly fifteen feet taller than you. Unless you’re able to fire from a tree stand or a rock outcrop or something at eye level to the beast, the only way to hit the brain is at a diagonal angle through the jaw or lower skull, which kind of obviates the bipod.

Tough shot, especially if he’s moving. And very especially if he’s moving toward you. Carlos Hathcock might have been able to pull off a shot like that. I don’t know about lesser mortals.

I would suggest something a bit larger, like a 30mm cannon.

38

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Guns should have a sporting purpose, for instance my 500 S&W magnum is perfect for hunting Sasquatch. And the next time I go to Jurassic Park, I will take my Bushmaster 50 caliber bolt action gun for T Rex and Bronto hunting.

The only thing that would put down a six-ton tyrannosaur with that caliber would be a brain shot (reptiles are notoriously immune to shock), and that brain is about the size of a tennis ball.

Also, remember that the tyrannosaur is nearly fifteen feet taller than you. Unless you’re able to fire from a tree stand or a rock outcrop or something at eye level to the beast, the only way to hit the brain is at a diagonal angle through the jaw or lower skull, which kind of obviates the bipod.

Tough shot, especially if he’s moving. And very especially if he’s moving toward you. Carlos Hathcock might have been able to pull off a shot like that. I don’t know about lesser mortals.

I would suggest something a bit larger, like a 30mm cannon.[/quote]

V

Ever the realist my friend. We’d need at least a squad to take down a T rex or at least a few good rifleman.

Bye the way I have got my M1a tuned up something fierce. Great handload recipe, unitized gas cyclinder, QD mount for the suppressor and a national match trigger. If I could only hunt with an autolader in PA I’d be a happy man.

39

[quote]hedo wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Guns should have a sporting purpose, for instance my 500 S&W magnum is perfect for hunting Sasquatch. And the next time I go to Jurassic Park, I will take my Bushmaster 50 caliber bolt action gun for T Rex and Bronto hunting.

The only thing that would put down a six-ton tyrannosaur with that caliber would be a brain shot (reptiles are notoriously immune to shock), and that brain is about the size of a tennis ball.

Also, remember that the tyrannosaur is nearly fifteen feet taller than you. Unless you’re able to fire from a tree stand or a rock outcrop or something at eye level to the beast, the only way to hit the brain is at a diagonal angle through the jaw or lower skull, which kind of obviates the bipod.

Tough shot, especially if he’s moving. And very especially if he’s moving toward you. Carlos Hathcock might have been able to pull off a shot like that. I don’t know about lesser mortals.

I would suggest something a bit larger, like a 30mm cannon.

V

Ever the realist my friend. We’d need at least a squad to take down a T rex or at least a few good rifleman.

Bye the way I have got my M1a tuned up something fierce. Great handload recipe, unitized gas cyclinder, QD mount for the suppressor and a national match trigger. If I could only hunt with an autolader in PA I’d be a happy man.

[/quote]

Wadda buncha fairies. I took my last T-Rex with a single shot to the testicles with an olympic bar.

40

[quote]hedo wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Guns should have a sporting purpose, for instance my 500 S&W magnum is perfect for hunting Sasquatch. And the next time I go to Jurassic Park, I will take my Bushmaster 50 caliber bolt action gun for T Rex and Bronto hunting.

The only thing that would put down a six-ton tyrannosaur with that caliber would be a brain shot (reptiles are notoriously immune to shock), and that brain is about the size of a tennis ball.

Also, remember that the tyrannosaur is nearly fifteen feet taller than you. Unless you’re able to fire from a tree stand or a rock outcrop or something at eye level to the beast, the only way to hit the brain is at a diagonal angle through the jaw or lower skull, which kind of obviates the bipod.

Tough shot, especially if he’s moving. And very especially if he’s moving toward you. Carlos Hathcock might have been able to pull off a shot like that. I don’t know about lesser mortals.

I would suggest something a bit larger, like a 30mm cannon.

V

Ever the realist my friend. We’d need at least a squad to take down a T rex or at least a few good rifleman.

Bye the way I have got my M1a tuned up something fierce. Great handload recipe, unitized gas cyclinder, QD mount for the suppressor and a national match trigger. If I could only hunt with an autolader in PA I’d be a happy man.

[/quote]

Awesome! I wish we could use autoloaders, but I’m happy with my tricked up Remington Police Model 308 w Leupold 3 x 9 mil dot scope. I have it bedded, barrel floated crowned and recessed, 2.5 pound trigger. It’s jsut slightly heavy for carrying, but I had two one shot kills at 145 and 190, both spine shots, with the last one a neck shot running.

Sorry, had to brag. As to the T rex, i think if you hit a hip shot you could bring it down.

As for my 500, what load would you suggest? I was thinking Hornady 325 gr xtps, but Winchester has a platinum 400 gr jhp, kind of like the black talon. there’s also a 325 gr Winchester load, I think with a 325 gr jhp and supposedly 1/3 recoil.

It’s clocking at 100 fps at about 100 yards, so there’s more than enough energy with this load. BTW, I have a leupold 2x scope on the gun. It’s the model with an 8 3/4" barrel also.