My good solid Dem voting plumber is SURE that Obama is going to take his guns away.

[Mika]

So he's running out buying more guns.

:wtf:

I really don't know what to make of this. I talked with him at length, the guy seems to understand most all good Democratic politics and platforms, understands the need for better wages, unions, some form of universal health care, bring back manufacturing, killing so called "free trade", progressive taxes.

But he is POSITIVE that Obama will take/ban the guns.

[jody]

1. Such beliefs are caused by Obama's support to renew the AWB while promising “I will not take your

shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I will not take your handgun away.”

That's pure hypocrisy.

Pelosi and Reid have said they will not consider bills to renew AWB and 65 Dem congresspersons wrote Holder saying they oppose renewing the AWB.

Obama could make political capital by just saying "NO AWB!"

[Paladin]

2. You're Just In Hog Heaven, Aren't You, Jody?

Another evil, gun-grabbing Democrat in the White House for you to trash, 24/7. Doesn't get much better than that, does it?

[jody]

4. Hello Paladin, why don't you surprise me by rolling your own rather than using a ball from the Scary

Brady Bunch pre-rolled supply. :hi:

[Cha]

6. He's thinks he's in

Hog Heaven but it's just the same ol shit.

[jody]

7. With what part of my post #1 do you disagree? n/t

[Mojorabbit]

52. I know a lot of Dems

who feel the same way. I wish he would come out and clarify the position one way or another. It would pull a whole lot of people completely onboard his agenda if he would say he is not going to do it.

[krispos42]

8. But the GOP is 100% for a Democratic-supported new AWB

They won't vote for it in Congress, but you know that the Repubs would LOVE to have the Dems pass a new AWB this year or next so that the backlash helps them take back one or both houses of Congress.

My fear is basically that about 40% of elected Democrats in the Congress would actively be for the passage of a new AWB, and if put up to a vote maybe twice that would vote for it, depending on how much arm-twisting goes on.

So if 40% of Democrats (125 Congresscritters) and 100% of Republicans (219) would work actively, if covertly, for passage of a Democratic-sponsored, Democratic-passed new AWB, that's 344 out of 535, or 64%.


My personal nighmare scenario works out like this:

Republicans secretly fund anti-gun groups, using their leverage in the corporate media to put something like last session's HR1022 bill. They also create new ones with several degrees of ownership between the GOP/RW foundations and think tanks and media machines so the true origins and purposes are lost. And if any of those damn liberal reports find them, well, hey, off to page A26 with you!

Democrats push HR1022-esque through the House with a small margin of victory, then decline to filibuster in the Senate against the new populist movement. The bill passes in early 2010 and Obama signs it into law.

The Republican have secretly managed, though their anti-gun puppets, to get put into the bill some provisions that turn out to get widespread negative publicity as government agencies try to enfore ambiguous laws. Arrests are made, the accused busted for violating some obscure bureaucratic process, and their plights are shown repeatedly on national television. Black-clad ATF agents with no-knock warrants smashing in a door to arrest some hardworking family man with no criminal record because now he's "armed" and, lordy, he might swiss-cheese the entire neighborhood.

Republicans milk this for all it's worth with the "I told you so" attitude, and manage to win back the House and take control of the Senate, either with a clear majority or their recent "minority majority" schtick. Then they work to repeal the just-passed new AWB. At this point one of three things happens: they pass the repeal and Obama signs it, weakening Obama and strengthening conservatism and setting themselves up to steamroll more shit through; they pass the repeal and Obama vetoes it, making Obaman "obstructionist" and providing a running sore for them to pick at for the 2012 presidential elections; or they override Obama's veto, making him publically weak and ineffective in the run-up to his reelection while the pro-gun Caribou Barbie panders to the base.





Am I off my rocker or am I starting to channel Rove?

[jody]

10. I'm having similar thoughts. Who is funding the handful of Dems who keep "renew AWB" on the minds of

voters who desperately want we Dems to keep control of congress for a long time?

Why doesn't Obama follow the lead of Pelosi, Reid, and 65 Dem congresspersons and just say "NO AWB!"

[krispos42]

11. I was hoping I was having a paranoid delusion

Now I've been mentally touched by Karl Rove.



Ewwww.... I feel... soiled. :puke:

[jody]

14. Rove mastered using divisive, polarizing political issues to get appointed and reappointed a

person who was clearly incompetent to serve as president.

Start with four or five such issues, each with about 5% loyal, single-issue supporters, and add 30% more of the voters who are easily misled by sound bites tailored to their ethnic and cultural lifestyle and you can get an idiot elected, even a Texas Post Turtle.

RKBA is one of those very reliable divisive,polarizing political issue.

[krispos42]

16. Their unregulated capitalism idealology...

...and their Puritanicalism have prevented us from attacking the real cause of much violent crime 'cuz it makes Dems a buch of Socialist drug-using hippies, so Dems cling to gun control as a means to correct known social ills.



Yanno, if we're going to lose Congress in the midterm I'd rather it be for USP health insurance or a marijuana-legalization law. At least either of those would actually accomplish something positive.

[jody]

17. See "Unconstrained capitalism ultimately leads to monopolies with all their moral weaknesses."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5308713&mesg_id=5309009

[krispos42]

18. Exactly. Thom Hartmann calls this "the cancer stage of capitalism"

People think that corporations want to compete.



No, they don't, they want a monopoly so they can charge outrageous prices, make huge profits, squash budding competitors, and not spend money on R&D or customer service.


Competition is expensive and fraught with risk while simultaniously cutting corporate profits. No company in their right mind wants to compete if they can avoid it.


We The People want competition because it benefits US! Not corporate bottom lines.

[Hutzpa]

70. Looks like the republicans are

still fighting the fight, which is to continue the scare tactics of
the ignorant and stupid, by using loaded words to distort and confused
their poor souls.

I'm sure at the end of the day guns are what their kids eat after school.

Thats all the Republicans know, Immigration, Racism, Guns, Religion and
War.

Whatelse is new???? :shrug: huh!!

[krispos42]

3. That's shorthand, really

What he most likely is thinking of is that a percentage of senate and house Democrats will attempt so pass some kind of ban on new sales of what are arbitrarily and perjoratively called "assault weapons", quite possibly a fair bit sterner and more subject to the Attorny General's personal opinions than the now-expired 1993 ban. And unlike the previous "ban", this one probably won't have an expiration date.

You know the Republicans would LOVE for the Dems to make a serious attempt to do this... it would likely spell major victories in 2010. And if it gets through the Congress then Obama would almost certainly sign such a new ban into law, because banning "assault weapons" was put into the Democratic Party's platform again this year.



Or there are a couple of other ways to use the power of government to really put a crimp in people buying guns. Ammo taxes, for example, or registration requirements... there's a half-dozen or so ideas floating around out there in the ether that anti-gun people would like to see enacted under the guise of "public safety".

[Somawas]

5. Gun control is a no-win issue.

Why to Democrats keep embracing it?

[Sancho]

9. We should take the guns away, and he'll get over it.

:applause:

[jody]

12. What authority does government have to take away a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right?

[boppers]

27. The government has the right for taking away, or reasonably restraining:

Rights of speech, press, religion, voting...

Nobody has the "right" to have nuclear weapons, for example, or a "right" to practice a religion that kills people (even if they're volunteers).

Hence, with guns, nobody has a "right" to sell, purchase, and bear weapons that are a danger to self or others, and (more importantly, from actual decisions), a "right" to have simply any kind of weapon they want.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

For background.

(This is actually an interesting thing to discuss/debate, it's really not as simple as it looks on the surface).

[jody]

29. You said "take the guns away" not "reasonably restraining". Are you acknowledging government does

not have the authority to take a right away?

If not, please cite the specific passage in SCOTUS' decision D.V. v. Heller that supports your claim of government authority.

If you are correct, then your logic would apply to every right and a simple majority of votes can take away every right instituting the tyranny of a simple majority over every minority.

[Lyric]

50. The right to bear arms is NOT a "natural" or "unalienable" right.

It's an American right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, but it is NOT among the "rights" that John Locke (and later, Thomas Jefferson) listed as "natural" rights--those are limited to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness, depending on which version you're reading.

"Natural rights" are not all-encompassing, either. They were never meant to be. What Locke (the guy who Jefferson revered and copied) meant was that there should be no laws forbidding people from owning land, because all people had the right to purchase land if they could afford to do so. There used to be laws that literally forbade certain classes of people from owning land, even if they somehow managed to get the money to buy it. THAT was what Locke was talking about. The whole concept of "natural rights" and "unalienable rights" in our government is DIRECTLY derived from Locke's philosophy. Jefferson changed "property" to "pursuit of happiness" because he was afraid that people would confuse a right to purchase land with the right to OWN land--as in, the government has to give it to you for free, whether you can pay or not, because it's a "right." He knew that could cause a lot of confusion and trouble later, so he changed it to "pursuit of happiness," because not ALL people need to own land in order to make a living and be happy.

I don't know where you get the idea that Locke and Jefferson were talking about guns, but it's not true in the least. You can argue that it's a Constitutional right, and I'll agree with you, but Constitutional rights CAN be "taken away" by the government via the Amendment process, so your "lack of authority" argument is bullshit. Even without an amendment, certain Constitutional rights can be modified and/or limited for the sake of public safety. For example--no speaking death threats against the President (free speech modification,) no right to grow and smoke marijuana as a Rastafarian (free religion modification,) no right to own a cruise missile (2nd amendment modification) and so on. The question is not IF the government can limit our rights: the only question is how far, and how much.

At this moment, the right-wing SCOTUS seems inclined to say "No" to limiting the 2nd Amendment in certain ways. But I assure you, that will NOT always be the case. Eventually, it WILL be illegal to own and sell handguns and assault rifles in America. I probably won't see it in my lifetime, but I hope like hell that my son will. No handguns, no assault rifles, and HARSH criminal sentences for anyone caught using a gun while committing a crime--think life in prison, no mercy. That would remove a large chunk of the "outlaws" who'd have handguns while law-abiding citizens do not, and deter quite a few of them too. Couple that with legalization (or at least decriminalization) of drug use, and the crime rate will drop exponentially.

You have your priorities, I have mine.

:hi:

[jody]

53. Pennsylvania was the first state to clearly define the right to defend self, property, and

state and said it was one of the “natural, inherent and inalienable rights” and it clarified that right by saying “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right of self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

It is clear that PA and later VT (Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 177) acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the “natural, inherent and inalienable rights” regardless of the meandering and quibbling engaged in by philosophers.

History is of value in helping to define the meanings of “natural, inherent and inalienable” in 1776. In PA’s case, those definitions are simple, they meant then what they mean today, nothing more nor less.

You might wish to browse SCOTUS' decision D.C. v. Heller and see how the opinion and dissent cited "natural".

[greguganus]

21. Let's take some rights away that are important to you and let you "get over it."

:applause:

[and-justice-for-all]

13. Delusional, not gonna happen...

Tougher regulations, we can only hope. A world without firearms, give it 500 years, then maybe..

[Mojorabbit]

54. It will never happen

The whole of human history is filled with violence. If there aren't guns, there will be knives or clubs or fists. The arms industry will always thrive. I am totally against only the govt having the ability to have arms.

[CTyankee]

15. Hmm. "Clinging to guns." Wasn't that a true statement of Obama's?

Pathetic really. These poor people...

[AlCzervik]

19. good, he'll help the economy.

[bullwinkle428]

20. Is his first name...wait for it...JOE?

What? I'm the first one in this thread to make the joke?

[jody]

23. No, JOE is Vice President of the United States & sole sponsor of a Senate bill to ban semiautomatic

firearms.

[Danger Mouse]

22. President Obama is too busy conspiring to drink the blood of Christian babies.

He'll get to taking away their guns later.

[jody]

24. I don't have a source for blood drinking but the source for taking away is "support making the

expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

See, White House Urban Policy

[Danger Mouse]

26. What do people need assault weapons for again?

[jody]

30. I assume you know bills such as HR 1022 in the last congress could have banned all semiautomatic

firearms including the most popular ones used for self-defense.

If you don't, then I suggest you learn more about bills such as that so you can contribute to intelligent discussions on the topic of renewing AWB.

[Danger Mouse]

32. Semi-auto? Such as?

[jody]

34. Just two examples, Colt model 1911 and Remington model 1100.

All versions of the Colt model 1911.


All versions of the Remington model 1100

[elizm]

25. Bet he's never voted for a Democrat in his life. He's no Democrat. nt.

[jody]

33. Please present facts supporting your assertion that gun-owners do not vote for Dems. n/t

[elizm]

35. My 'assertion" is...

..that anyone who could vote on the single issue of gun ownership... while ignoring all of the other issues that are important to moving this country forward...could not be a Democrat. And I stand by that statement.

[jody]

36. I'll accept that as your opinion even though 65 Dem congresspersons recently wrote Holder saying

they would oppose Obama's efforts to renew AWB.

See http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_mike_ross.html

Two Dem senators also told Holder they would oppose Obama's efforts to renew AWB.

See http://baucus.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=309149

[elizm]

42. AGAIN..the OP talked about his friend...

...who was a 'Democrat' in every way, other than gun control. And my position is that anyone who cannot support Obama's agenda because of one SINGLE freaking issue such as gun control (which I may remind you is primarily a Republican issue) cannot be a true Democrat. It's a no-brainer...And I really question why I would be debating this with you. So...I'm done.

[jody]

43. Have a good evening. n/t

[Kaleva]

45. The friend in the OP isn't described as a single issue voter

The way I read it, the person supports President Obama's agenda for the most part but is worried that he will take his guns away.

[Mojorabbit]

55. That is not so

I have several friends who agree with everything else on the Dem platform except this one thing. They voted for Obama after Biden stood up on the stage and swore that they would not take their guns.

[dkf]

28. Obama has too many problems to do much about guns.

The last thing he needs is to wade into divisive issues like this one...

[jody]

31. Busy or not, he's in over his head until he promises voters he will veto bills to renew AWB. n/t

[dkf]

37. Why should he do that? Is there a bill currently in Congress?

[jody]

38. Not yet but Obama says he supports renewing AWB. HR 45 is a controversial bill, "Blair Holt’s

Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009" that would harm the Dem party if it passes and Obama signs it.

[elizm]

39. In over his head????

...until he promises voters he will veto bills to renew AWB? What freaking planet do you live on??? Your single issue obsession tells so much about who you are...And this is coming from a born and raised southerner just like yourself.

[jody]

40. Why attack me, why don't you stick to the issue that the Dem Party is viewed by over 80 million

gun-owners as gun-grabbers and a threat to their natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

SCOTUS confirmed that latter fact in D.C. v. Heller.

RKBA is an enumerated right and no more important nor less important than any other right enumerated in the BOR or unenumerated but protected by the Ninth Amendment.

Bill Clinton stated that the perception among voters that Gore and Kerry were anti-gun cost them the election and that perception caused we Dems to lose control of the House in the Gingrich era.

[truebluedemz]

41. Take the guns away???

If anyone gets their guns taken away it would be because the last White House occupant put forth in this country laws that give the government the power to do anything they want to do.

They can thank Bush for anything that happens to them that they don't like. They were warned about it while Bush was doing it, but did they listen??? NO!

Tell your plumber what the Bushies told us when we were yelling about the Patriot act: If he hasn't done anything wrong..his guns won't be taken away and he has nothing to worry about. :-)

[Kaleva]

44. Nobody lost their guns when the AWB went into effect

Anyone who owned an assault weapon back then could still legally keep it. One could also purchase an assault weapon with high capacity magazines as long as they were manufactured and in country prior to the AWB.

Tell your friend not to worry. The Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban much of anything.

[Freddie Stubbs]

49. Yes, but many Democratic Congressmen lost thier seats after the AWB was voted on

[Kaleva]

51. But still, the AWB didn't ban assault weapons

Altough to many, perception is reality and I do think the passing of the AWB into law was instrumental in the taking over of the House by the Republicans

[jody]

57. The AWB did ban every firearm defined by the ban while the ban was in effect. I agree the ban

had little or perhaps no effect on total sale of firearms because manufacturers quickly produced similar firearms without the cosmetic features that would otherwise have placed them on the ban list.

Gun-grabbers learned from their failed effort and revised AWB in the failed bill HR 1022 last congress that would have given the Attorney General the unilateral authority to ban any semiautomatic firearm when the design was similar to those used by the military or law enforcement.

[BlooInBloo]

46. Your good solid Dem voting plumber is a fucking idiot.

[jody]

47. 65 Dem congresspersons recently wrote Holder saying they would oppose Obama's efforts to renew AWB.

See http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_mike_ross.html

Two Dem senators also told Holder they would oppose Obama's efforts to renew AWB.

See http://baucus.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=309149

[Vinca]

48. Why does your plumber need guns? Are his customers that unhappy?

[Peacetrain]

56. At what point in time did these yahoos ever ever hear anything to even begin to think Obama would

ban guns.

[jody]

58. "Obama and Biden . . . support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent."

WHITE HOUSE, URBAN POLICY

[Peacetrain]

62. That is still not taking your guns away....

[jody]

64. Anyone who owns a semiautomatic firearm banned under HR 1022 would have them confiscated. What part

of that do you twist to conclude "That is still not taking your guns away"?

[Peacetrain]

65. I have never considered a semi automatic a gun.. in guns for hunting or even protection

semi automatics were developed for killing people. That and that alone. Nothing to twist there.

Edit to add:

I read the link you had, and the reaction of the "some" that the government under President Obama is going to take your guns away, is bogus. The Mexican drug gangs are coming to gun shows in the U. S. to buy automatic weaponry to kill people in Mexico.

I do not see the government knocking down your door and searching your house for an automatic weapon if you own one now..

Now our little buddy Glen Beck might think that, he sure as heck thinks the Fema camps are going to be concentration camps for conservatives

[jody]

68. Some popular semiautomatic firearms used for self-defense are versions of Colt 1911 & Remington 1100

[Akoto]

59. What I don't understand is ...

Why do people who think as stated rush out to buy more guns? Won't those just get taken away, too?

Just wondering, mind. I don't think it'll happen, except to the most dangerous of firearms out there (if that).

[jody]

60. IMO some/many/most pro-RKBA citizens would not obey laws and efforts to confiscate their arms just

as happened in the Revolutionary War.

The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is just one of the rights protected by our Constitution both enumerated in the BOR and unenumerated but covered by the Ninth Amendment.

SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.

That means self-defense is a personal responsibility.

Over 800,000 sworn law-enforcement officers use handguns for self-defense because they are the most effective, efficient tool for that job.

That's the same reason law-abiding citizens choose handguns for self-defense.

[ieoeja]

67. Because AWB only banned sales of the guns, not possession. n/t

[high density]

61. A lot of people think that

The gun stores around here are doing mega business right now. My dad, a Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama voter who hasn't bought a gun in years and has no use for new guns, has recently purchased an AK47 and M16. He tells my mom and I that he's buying them because he thinks they will be banned soon. So what if they are? I just don't get it. The weapons serve no practical purpose, and he admits the M16 is way overpriced for what it is.

Although I admit his short-term returns on his "investment" in guns has been a lot better than my investments in the stock market.

[jody]

66. Technical point that confuses many, if your father purchased "an AK47 and M16", then those are

select fire firearms aka automatic and have been tightly controlled by the federal government under the National Firearms Act since 1934. (See 26 USC chapter 53).

More likely your father purchased a semiautomatic firearm that resembles "an AK47 and M16".

Such semiautomatic firearms with cosmetic features may have been banned under the now defunct Assault Weapons Ban but are now legal to own.

Obama supports renewing the AWB and that worries many people including apparently your father.

[ieoeja]

69. Your father has one of the very rare licenses to purchase machine-guns?

I have never heard of any proposals to increase the already incredibly strict rules for purchasing machine-guns. Only for semi-automatics, some of which *look like* M-16s or AK-47s. But M-16s and AK-47s are already banned for the general public and have been for decades.

[Deep13]

63. Well, it's like this...

...on most things I agree with POTUS. So I'm not worried about that stuff. He's not going to give away the farm. He's going to make progress on the economy, health care reform, foreign relations, the environment etc. Unfortunately, the modern, liberal view is to be hostile to individual gun rights, so that is the one thing I'm afraid he will do wrong (in my view.) And while I'm not worried sick or anything, it is a concern.