Post by: slingshot on October 03, 2008, 07:15:06 AM
Link: http://www.fieldandstream.com/article/Hunting/The-Sportsmans-Choice-Field--Stream-Interviews-the-Presidential-Candidates
The one question that I focused on was about "common sense" gun legislation.
Quote
LICATA: You mentioned common-sense gun legislation. Would you consider the assault weapons ban and registration of guns to fall into that category of common-sense gun control?
SENATOR OBAMA: I think those are two separate issues. I think that when it comes to the assault weapons ban, the answer is yes. I think AK-47s generally are not used for hunting. AK-47s or vest-piercing bullets are generally used to hurt people. And I think that it's legitimate for us to say military-style weapons that aren't traditionally used for purposes other than killing people, we've got to be careful about. But I'll be honest with you. I'm more interested in enforcing the laws that we do have-for example, tracing guns that are used in crimes back to people who have been using them. I don't anticipate that there's going to be a whole slew of efforts at the federal level when it comes to gun control. But I think that strong background checks; making sure that we're dealing with the gun-show loophole, which I think has been a problem; allowing us to trace guns that are used in crimes back to where they were purchased--those are the kinds of initiatives that I think pose no threat whatsoever to law-abiding gun owners.
SENATOR OBAMA: I think those are two separate issues. I think that when it comes to the assault weapons ban, the answer is yes. I think AK-47s generally are not used for hunting. AK-47s or vest-piercing bullets are generally used to hurt people. And I think that it's legitimate for us to say military-style weapons that aren't traditionally used for purposes other than killing people, we've got to be careful about. But I'll be honest with you. I'm more interested in enforcing the laws that we do have-for example, tracing guns that are used in crimes back to people who have been using them. I don't anticipate that there's going to be a whole slew of efforts at the federal level when it comes to gun control. But I think that strong background checks; making sure that we're dealing with the gun-show loophole, which I think has been a problem; allowing us to trace guns that are used in crimes back to where they were purchased--those are the kinds of initiatives that I think pose no threat whatsoever to law-abiding gun owners.
So, Obama supports an outright BAN on EBR's. He wants to close the gunshow loophole (whatever that is), and he claims to only support legislation that pose no threat to law-abiding gun owners. The gun issue is significant as he mentions vest piercing bullets and so forth and that can mean just about any centerfire caliber.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 03, 2008, 07:16:52 AM
Quote
And I think that it's legitimate for us to say military-style weapons that aren't traditionally used for purposes other than killing people, we've got to be careful about.
My AKs that put holes in paper and knock tennis balls around would not agree.
Quote
allowing us to trace guns that are used in crimes back to where they were purchased
Like I said, I'm buying lots of mags now, and will probably pick up another FAL, because if he wins, AWB indefinitely.
Post by: Ben on October 03, 2008, 07:25:21 AM
Quote
or vest-piercing bullets
I find this statement disturbing and insidious. He didn't say "armor piercing". This is way too similar to anthropogenic global warming advocates, who when they can't win on "global warming", begin to use the term "climate change" and usurp it's meaning.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 03, 2008, 07:27:13 AM
Quote
or vest-piercing bullets
I find this statement disturbing and insidious. He didn't say "armor piercing". This is way too similar to anthropogenic global warming advocates, who when they can't win on "global warming", begin to use the term "climate change" and usurp it's meaning.
It also goes right back to Kennedy's line about the 30-30.
It assumes that anyone who has any rifle round is suspected of wanting to use it against a bullet resistant vest. All gun owners are potential and likely criminals, etc. (Unless they're politically connected or members of the police tribe.)
Post by: K Frame on October 03, 2008, 07:32:04 AM
"which I think has been a problem"
No, the problem is he's thinking, but isn't knowing.
Post by: slingshot on October 03, 2008, 07:32:09 AM
Post by: slingshot on October 03, 2008, 07:46:58 AM
I will say one thing. At least Obama has the courage to state at least a part of what he believes when it comes to gun control. I'm sure he views EBR owners to be a small subset of the gun owning population. Divide and conquer. We all know it's for the children.
Throw in the UN's efforts for worldwide small arms control which Obama supports to my knowledge and the desire to snuggle up to the Europeans.... we have a problem. One world government stuff. This election is really important!
Post by: Lennyjoe on October 03, 2008, 08:19:36 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 03, 2008, 08:20:41 AM
Post by: Boomhauer on October 03, 2008, 08:31:23 AM
I keep hearing a commercial being played on the local radio station on how Obama will protect gunowners rights and McCain will take them away. I yell bullshit every time I hear it. My co-workers agree with me.
Wouldn't happen to be the trojan horse orginization known as the American Hunters and Shooters Association running those ads, would it?
Post by: longeyes on October 03, 2008, 09:36:03 AM
I haven't noticed any bears or moose or wolves knocking off 7-11s recently or trying to take over the government and tyrannize over us.
If Obama wants to deal with gun CRIME, he knows exactly where to look for the majority of perps.
Post by: slingshot on October 03, 2008, 09:41:48 AM
IF the Nature Conservancy published an interview in their magazine, I doubt their questions would focus on gun crime. Rather they would focus on the issues for which the magazine or organization is dedicated to.
I think the interview is important for many hunters or fisherman, it might be the only interview they read prior to the election. I doubt my father will read any other interview that might apply to conservation or gun rights.
The last question is interesting. They posed the same question to each candidate and McCain mentioned that sportsman may have a problem with his past stand on the gun show loophole.
That is a whole different thread topic, but I think eventually all firearm transactions will have to be funneled through a FFL dealer and a background check done with the only exception being direct or immediate family members. I don't agree with that, but I expect that to happen in future legislation. I believe it is already the law in Pennsylvania and Maryland. I could be over generalizing on that as it may be only handguns? Not sure.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 03, 2008, 10:03:59 AM
The interview was with Field & Stream magazine. I wouldn't have expected any questions about gun crime. That gets adequately covered elsewhere. Obama did say he wanted to enforce the laws that are on the books and that includes higher sentances (in most cases) for crimes where guns are used.
BULLSH__.
I've seen how that works in Mass. The "disadvantaged youth" that do drive-bys get the revolving door, the law-abiding citizens that forget to renew their FOID get tossed into the justice system meatgrinder.
Post by: slingshot on October 03, 2008, 10:08:44 AM
At first I thought your "bull..." was about Field & Stream and the magazine's issues. But I think I figured out by your comments that it was about using guns in the commission of a crime. I don't particularly like Obama and I certainly don't agree with much he stands for that is significant. Even on energy issues, I don't agree with him. He takes too green a slant on dealing with energy issues. I wonder how he would feel if he visited China's industrial areas and the pollution.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 03, 2008, 10:13:22 AM
From how Chicago is, I expect it's the same there. The same gang members shoot at each other and rob people, get out, shoot at each other again and rob some more people, get out, etc, etc, etc...
Post by: longeyes on October 03, 2008, 10:33:23 AM
When law-abiding citizens primarily interested in defending themselves, their loved ones, and their property become the first "suspects" of gun control, the elephants have taken over the government.
Post by: longeyes on October 03, 2008, 10:37:11 AM
And the deeper social reality is this:
WE. ARE. BEING. HUNTED.
By a vicious criminal element.
Wake up.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 03, 2008, 03:04:55 PM
I have news for the "sportsmen" who think that hunting is what the Second Amendment is all about. The Second Amendment is not about recreation, about getting out of the house, about fun and games in the woods. It is about self-defense and resistance to governmental tyranny.
And the deeper social reality is this:
WE. ARE. BEING. HUNTED.
By a vicious criminal element.
Wake up.
I'd say we're being hunted by politicians more than by criminals.
And the deeper social reality is this:
WE. ARE. BEING. HUNTED.
By a vicious criminal element.
Wake up.
Post by: longeyes on October 03, 2008, 05:07:48 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on October 04, 2008, 10:27:52 PM
He would let Bloomberg access all gun dealer records to back his investigations of law-abiding gun dealers.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 04, 2008, 10:36:16 PM
"Tracing guns back" is code for undoing the ban on giving out 4473 info not related to a particular criminal case.
He would let Bloomberg access all gun dealer records to back his investigations of law-abiding gun dealers.
I wonder how many gun dealers would mysteriously have tragic fires confined to the area of a filing cabinet...
Post by: Waitone on October 05, 2008, 06:24:17 PM
Quote
I'm more interested in enforcing the laws that we do have-for example, tracing guns that are used in crimes back to people who have been using them.What Carebear said and registration and ballistic fingerprinting. The three initiative taken together constitute a chain of custody. All common sense mind you.
Post by: RocketMan on October 05, 2008, 10:45:28 PM
"Tracing guns back" is code for undoing the ban on giving out 4473 info not related to a particular criminal case.
He would let Bloomberg access all gun dealer records to back his investigations of law-abiding gun dealers.
I wonder how many gun dealers would mysteriously have tragic fires confined to the area of a filing cabinet...
Very few. Most would want to stay in business and out of jail.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 05, 2008, 10:46:59 PM
"Tracing guns back" is code for undoing the ban on giving out 4473 info not related to a particular criminal case.
He would let Bloomberg access all gun dealer records to back his investigations of law-abiding gun dealers.
I wonder how many gun dealers would mysteriously have tragic fires confined to the area of a filing cabinet...
Very few. Most would want to stay in business and out of jail.
At that point, they'd likely not be staying in business much longer anyway. That letter wasn't properly formed on the last paperwork they'd filed. That means a raid!
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 05, 2008, 11:12:49 PM
Quote
And I think that it's legitimate for us to say military-style weapons that aren't traditionally used for purposes other than killing people, we've got to be careful about.
Y'know, that just stinks on ice.
I've got venison in the freezer that was taken last fall by my SAR-1 sidefolder, and it was perfectly legal here in Wisconsin to do so.
That same SAR-1 is my bedside rifle.
I'd say that's plenty legitimate, Barak. :mad:
Post by: Manedwolf on October 06, 2008, 12:09:51 AM
I wonder if he even knows what the number one rifles used by people for hunting food during the Great Depression were?
As in, surplus rifles? MILITARY rifles? Cut-down Springfields, 1878 Vetterlis, all sorts of ex-frontline battle rifles. Because they were inexpensive and reliable. Bannerman, Sears, all those supplied many, many poor people with a reliable hunting arm and ammo for it.
Post by: wacki on October 06, 2008, 07:00:46 AM
I keep hearing a commercial being played on the local radio station on how Obama will protect gunowners rights and McCain will take them away. I yell bullshit every time I hear it. My co-workers agree with me.
What state is this in? I'd love to listen to a copy of this radio ad.
Post by: Lennyjoe on October 06, 2008, 07:16:31 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on October 06, 2008, 09:08:59 AM
Maryland
Yes, because Bodymore, Murderland is such a sterling example of how gun laws work...
Post by: yesitsloaded on October 06, 2008, 05:58:52 PM
Quote
At 11:51 PM, 2008-10-05, Bobby said:
Hey hunter, "from your cold dead fingers". No problem, we can do that. GO OBAMA!
Quote
At 11:49 PM, 2008-10-02, wow said:
The picture of Palin stooping next to a bloody moose, wow. And the picture of the dead animal hanging on the airplane wing, that was great. Greater would be a guntooter hanger off of the other wing.
Quote
At 1:07 AM, 2008-10-02, To Rich said:I lol'd at the illiteracy.
Rich, you really voted for Allen Keyes? That guy is a nut. Reading the comments of you gun lovers, it is truely frighting to know that people with your brain power is allowed to own guns.
Quote
At 9:20 PM, 2008-09-29, mutt said:
Most of you care about is your gun rights. I would rather have only one gun than see my country go to hell in a hand basket. Assault rifles are not hunting rifles!!
Quote
At 8:28 PM, 2008-09-20, Jon Brunner said:
There has never been and will never be a time where the government will take away your hunting gun. This issue only comes "alive" near election time. Personally I'm voting to improve the economy so that I can afford to GO HUNTING! GO OBAMA!!!
Day by day I start thinking the tinfoilers might not be so crazy after all. Brainwashed Obamatons seem to have infiltrated everything.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 06, 2008, 06:04:58 PM
Quote
At 11:51 PM, 2008-10-05, Bobby said:
Hey hunter, "from your cold dead fingers". No problem, we can do that. GO OBAMA!
People with no guns threatening violence against people with guns. How's that work again?
Oh, right. Bombs. They love bombs.
Post by: ArfinGreebly on October 06, 2008, 06:34:03 PM
Obama.
Bombs.
Obama.
Bombs.
Has a kind of rhythm.
Post by: Boomhauer on October 06, 2008, 06:34:55 PM
Post by: freedom lover on October 06, 2008, 06:43:11 PM
Quote
There has never been and will never be a time where the government will take away your hunting gun.
Doggone Fudd. The totalitarians and socialist bastards want ALL your guns. That's the only certain way they can ensure they stay in power.
Post by: MicroBalrog on October 07, 2008, 12:58:56 AM
QuoteAt 11:51 PM, 2008-10-05, Bobby said:
Hey hunter, "from your cold dead fingers". No problem, we can do that. GO OBAMA!
People with no guns threatening violence against people with guns. How's that work again?
Oh, right. Bombs. They love bombs.
They don't need guns if they can send the government to do their violence for them.
Post by: wacki on October 07, 2008, 01:39:10 AM
Ummm...guys...guys...HOLY COW read the comments! Here are a few examplesQuoteAt 11:51 PM, 2008-10-05, Bobby said:
Hey hunter, "from your cold dead fingers". No problem, we can do that. GO OBAMA!QuoteAt 11:49 PM, 2008-10-02, wow said:
The picture of Palin stooping next to a bloody moose, wow. And the picture of the dead animal hanging on the airplane wing, that was great. Greater would be a guntooter hanger off of the other wing.QuoteAt 1:07 AM, 2008-10-02, To Rich said:I lol'd at the illiteracy.
Rich, you really voted for Allen Keyes? That guy is a nut. Reading the comments of you gun lovers, it is truely frighting to know that people with your brain power is allowed to own guns.QuoteAt 9:20 PM, 2008-09-29, mutt said:
Most of you care about is your gun rights. I would rather have only one gun than see my country go to hell in a hand basket. Assault rifles are not hunting rifles!!QuoteAt 8:28 PM, 2008-09-20, Jon Brunner said:
There has never been and will never be a time where the government will take away your hunting gun. This issue only comes "alive" near election time. Personally I'm voting to improve the economy so that I can afford to GO HUNTING! GO OBAMA!!!
Day by day I start thinking the tinfoilers might not be so crazy after all. Brainwashed Obamatons seem to have infiltrated everything.
Ever wonder why THR and the TFL politics forums are shut down? There used to be plenty of pro-Obama comments in there. Seems the owners of those sites are too soft stomached to ban/restrict access to the trolls and astroturfers =(
I swear gun owners are easy to walk over sometimes.
Post by: freakazoid on October 07, 2008, 02:37:17 AM
Quote
Oh, right. Bombs. They love bombs.
Bombs are fun, =D
Quote
and astroturfers
Astroturfers?
Post by: Boomhauer on October 07, 2008, 10:02:54 AM
As it goes, gunowners have very few friends, and EBR owners have none.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 07, 2008, 10:11:19 AM
Would this fool anyone? =D
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lakesideguns.com%2Ftitle1%2Findxlm7wlnt550.jpg&hash=18d925bea88ca900ef53b91b8deafd9a057751b0)
Post by: freakazoid on October 07, 2008, 01:43:13 PM
Quote
And yet everytime the issue comes up, some optimistic fool goes "They have learned that gun control is a losing issue" or "they are too busy with other stuff to worry about taking your guns". B.S.
As it goes, gunowners have very few friends, and EBR owners have none.
When Obama wins do you think that he will go after gun owners? How far do you think he will take it?
Post by: makattak on October 07, 2008, 02:00:57 PM
When Obama wins do you think that he will go after gun owners? How far do you think he will take it?
When he wins, item number two on his agenda is the assault weapon ban. (Item number one is taxpayer funded abortions.)
See, unlike those deluded Obama supporters who respond with: "But but but he said...!" I look at a persons actions to form an opinion about them.
Obama's past actions (what few there are) and current rhetoric do not match up. So, you can believe empty promises or believe he will act true to his revealed character. (Actions reveal character).
McCain? His actions have proved he can be a moron. But for all that is wrong with him, I trust him to be an honest moron.
Obama? The only thing I trust about him is that he will do whatever he does for Barack Obama.
Post by: Viking on October 07, 2008, 03:02:33 PM
I am considering having all wood furniture for stuff like the FAL just because for some reason, wood = harmless to the antis.Only if you colored it pink. And purple. And add some fake fur trimmings (Pink and purple of course) where you can fit them.
Would this fool anyone? =D
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lakesideguns.com%2Ftitle1%2Findxlm7wlnt550.jpg&hash=18d925bea88ca900ef53b91b8deafd9a057751b0)
Post by: freedom lover on October 07, 2008, 04:48:14 PM
Looks like the love child of an AR15 and something evil. :O :O
Post by: Manedwolf on October 07, 2008, 04:58:45 PM
What the heck is that!?
Looks like the love child of an AR15 and something evil. :O :O
As far as I can tell, it's just wood furniture on a normal AR.
Post by: Gewehr98 on October 07, 2008, 05:02:02 PM
(I'm building an AR in a 6.5 SPC wildcat for deer season up here...)
Post by: freedom lover on October 07, 2008, 05:08:17 PM
Quote
As far as I can tell, it's just wood furniture on a normal AR.
The upper is definately not an AR upper.
Post by: Boomhauer on October 07, 2008, 05:50:11 PM
I'm guessing that's a side charging handle, too...
Post by: MechAg94 on October 07, 2008, 06:08:24 PM
I am not sure Obama himself would be capable of pushing a particular piece of gun control legislation. I do think he would likely talk about it and sign whatever Democrats put in front of him.