Obama moves to attract gun-owners in key state PA, “If you are a law-abiding gun owner, you have

nothing to fear from an Obama administration”.

Obama’s chances of winning in Pa. remain uncertain

Guns are big in these parts. I can't tell you how many times I've heard that the Democrats are going to take our guns.

Are there any specific weapons that are actually banned by the act that law abiding gun owners want to use for self defense, hunting, or collecting purposes? Or is it just a slippery slope argument?

As much as gun rights advocates like to talk about how gun control is a losing issue with some voters, they need to realize that many people vote Democratic BECAUSE Democrats support gun control and want to see noticeable differences between the two parties on this issue.

Remington model 1100 with perhaps 4 million in use.

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

I know my BIL used to shoot competion with his AR15HB which is on the list. Not sure how many others were adopting this as a alternatice replacement for the M1 in these competitions. Of course one could use the Bushmaster which is the same weapon with a simulated wood stock instead. (FYI That is what the DC Sniper used.)

Yeah, most of them.

Take the AR-15's and clones. Used widely in competitive shooting, ideal for defense, widely used by varmint hunters, some extremely collectable.

M1 Carbine. Less competition shooting, same amount of hunting, same defensive use, more collectable.

Etc.

Etc.

The problem was the ban came from a list developed by looking at pictures of scary guns!!!

The intent was simply to have fewer gun owners, and we should have had the guts to say it.

Which are very popular, used for hunting and defense, and were specifically excluded from the 1994 ban.

The "Feature-based" definition would be changed to one similar to California's, so a much wider range of AR-15 pattern rifles would be banned.

The very widely owned M1 Garand and M1 Carbine weapons of World War II era would become AWs by default, unless the Attorney General decides they have some kind of sporting purpose. As a collector, that is of particular concern for me because it could potentially reduce the value of my collection, which is a component of my retirement savings.

I don't trust the present AG, or necessarily any future one.

Many of the semi-automatic moderate-power carbines (re: "assault weapons") are used for long-distance target shooting because of their accuracy, relatively inexpensive ammo and mild recoil. Further, the domestic market for rifles suitable for hunting deer, hogs, elk, etc., is rapidly changing to models based on the AR 15, one of the most popular "assault weapons." Take note that the AR-15 Panther model is chambered for .260 caliber, a good round for big game. Remington and others now sell deer rifles which look more like the "scary" guns that tie the Brady's underwear into knots. Finally, this class of rifle is now the most popular center-fire rifle type sold in the U.S., and may be owned by as many as 15,000,000 folks. Kinda hard to round 'em up now, no?

There is indeed a slippery slope argument. This from Charles Krauthammer (he, as well as the leadership of the Brady Center, is right wing Republican) in the April 5, 1996 WaPo: "Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry... The assault weapon ban is a purely symbolic move whose real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." About as Orwellian as you can get (though George Orwell was a strong supporter of armed citizens in England).

In addition, Diane Feinstein (who used to have a concealed-carry permit before she hired private armed security) supports general confiscation.

I do not share your speculation that "people vote Democratic BECAUSE Democrats support gun control..." This is not a deciding issue for regular Democrats. It IS a crucial issue for many former Democrats and more libertarian fence-sitters; put another way, the Million Mom March (which supports gun control) couldn't muster enough fans to fill the visitors bleachers in a high school football game.

Thanks for the discussion.

weapons collected by collectors of military arms.

My customized AR-7 backpackers rifle, a .22 rimfire I used for plinking and hunting squirrel, was a grandfathered-in "assault rifle".

On the other hand, rifles of every stripe, regardless of the way they load or how modern they look (which are the attributes the law sought to regulate) play a vanishingly small role in crime.

I just ask them if they REALLY BELIEVE that and most admit that they don't really believe it...

I didn't find the cartoon to be right wing. But if you think pointing out gun control proponents always call for new laws to restrict the people that didn't do it is subversive, drive on.

"The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. THAT RIFLE HANGING ON THE WALL OF THE WORKING-CLASS FLAT OR LABOURER'S COTTAGE, IS THE SYMBOL OF DEMOCRACY. IT IS OUR JOB TO SEE THAT IT STAYS THERE." -- from an 8 January 1941 article George Orwell wrote for Evening Standard. I think George Orwell's remarks and credentials as a Progressive are sufficient.

On the other hand, strict gun control is the classic right wing position:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having
guns doesn't serve the State." - Heinrich Himmler 1935

But the cartoon still seems like a serious oversimplification of the situation. The gun control issue is more complex than either side makes it out to be. Plus, the artist is, I believe, one of the RW troll cartoonists.

On edit: I take that back about the cartoonist. He's not who I was thinking he was.

Law abiding gun owners remember his grandstanding in 1993 in 1994 when he gave 'em plenty to fear.

This is a good one for Obama to handle, then just let it go until after inauguration.

We can cover a lot with "common-sense" measures as long as it's our common-sense.

One more SC justice from President Obama and we can put the 2nd amendment back in a moldy history book where it's been for decades.

I don't want the 2nd Amendment put "back in a moldy history book". Do you think the rest of our civil rights should also be put "back in a moldy history book"? The hypocrisy of thinking things like the right to a fair trial and freedom of religion are sacrosanct while gun ownership is not boggles the mind. Thankfully, most Democrats and especially Obama are not on board with you. Obama has the exact correct position: guaranteeing the right to bear arms for law-abiding citizens while working to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And I seriously doubt he is just paying lip service to that position.

Wait... that wasn't Obama... just someone likely to direct this type of policy in his administration...

"I seriously doubt he is just paying lip service to that position." ; } yeah me too

We probably shouldn't repeat it.

If Gore had kept his mouth shut on guns, he might have carried Tennessee and REALLY won in 2000 without attempting all the gymnastics.

Obama should shut up on guns until after we are in, then it's open season.

Early on in the race, when it was Obama v. Hillary, Obama's position on guns was one of my major hang-ups. We are both older retired lawyers, who have CCW permits for over 25 years, and rifles for hunting (we do eat venison). We had also heard that Obama planned to fix gun crime by trying to eliminate, nationally, the ability to carry concealed.

Well, these two western old white professionals have not been out creating a two person crime wave in over 25 years of CCW holding. In fact, we are absolutely for whatever pressures and penalties can be put on the books and enforced in order to get weapons out of the hands of those who seek to do their daily business in a violent way against each other, and innocent bystanders in society. People do criminal activities with guns for a living have to be stopped. But taking away gun rights from those who are merely the easiest targets merely because those people, like us, will OBEY gun control laws even if we don't agree? Worthless. Pandering. Easy to make laws eliminating guns - duh. Potentially impossible to change what motivates criminals to attain their goals through violence.

The people who use the guns as a way of life and doing business do not obey gun control laws either - which is why there are so many on the books, yet the problem isn't going away.

Despite this, we are voting Obama, despite the ignorance of Biden on this issue (who we otherwise like) because 1) end of the day, Obama won't get what he wants on this issue, and 2) the spectre of Palin and McCain running our economy to a complete standstill through ignorance is far more frightening.

I hope you are right that he isn't just paying lip service, because on this one issue I still have doubts.

www.georgiacarry.org

enter a local search under Heller brief and get a moldy history of how gun control came about.

after 8 years of the worst Administration in the history of this country?

Heck yes, we are bitter!

Bitter is what is fueling this campaign!

He said that it was another rumor started by the GOP, that he wants to take away people's guns. He made the above quote and then went on to say that even if he *wanted* to take their guns away he *couldn't*.

natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right?

If that were possible, then laws banning religion, speech, press could also be passed. :shrug:

but by using some common sense and compromise we can all figure out a way to keep guns from gang bangers, people with mental illness, etc.

firearms, see 18 USC 922 and 26 USC 5861.

IMO the problem is government does not enforcement existing laws plus judges allow convicted felons to serve sentences for possessing a firearm concurrently with other sentences which effectively negates a sentence for using a firearm to commit a crime.

I know one of the things people went nuts about in VA when they dude shot up the college was that he had a mental health history but that didn't keep him from purchasing the guns that killed the students. So obviously, the laws you stated aren't enough.

patients that are legally committed to a mental institution, among all states.

The down side is such data can do irreparable damage to someone if the data is released to unauthorized personnel.

unfortunately, Virginia (which submits more data than other states by far to NICS regarding mental health problems) still missed this jerk. The question is: How far do you go with laws without infringing on a citizen's Second Amendment rights? Law mean nothing if they are neither viable nor enforced.

Gay rights, ganja, guns, booze, abortion: prohibition does not work, unless one wishes to establish a massive, expensive and corrupt institution to make us "feel comfortable."

have the final word on "Obama will take your guns away":silly:..& the nra probably has some crap literature out too.

this message has been out for the last 30 years or so. It's burned into the right's minds. There is no way that you can stop it. Too many nuts out there. I have a few firearms but I don't support the NRA or any of those fringe groups. Go to any site that is relaated to firearms and you will see what I mean. 2nd amendment banners all over the place and ads for NRA and other groups.

late.

we lose. Every minute we spend talking about their agenda is a minute we lose to get people thinking about ours.

The people who won't vote for a Dem over guns won't vote for Obama - unless we give them a reason to. As long as we're talking about guns - we aren't giving them the better reason to vote for Obama. Complete waste of time.

the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

Followed by a question, "Do you have a substantive question about major issues that face our nation?"

No discussion of his previous support for banning some classes of firearms, just a simple pledge will take RKBA off the table.

Do you not get it. It is and always has been nothing but a wedge issue.

Will you then admit that Democrats harping on guns does nothing but turn voters to Republicans?

Gore and Kerry on RKBA cost them the presidency.

Personally, I'll take Bill Clinton's opinion on this matter over either yours or mine.

Or that he didn't fight? Or talked about Vietnam? Or didn't give Bush a pass on the WMD lies?

Bill Clinton helped fuck this country up just as much as Bush did. There's hardly one thing Bush has done that Clinton didn't lay the groundwork for.

will you admit that Democrats harping on guns only helps drive people to Republicans. That's about telling the truth, which has nothing to do with differences of opinion.

All that Dems talking about guns does is drives people to vote Republican.

And the DU gun forum is proof of something??

:rofl:

assault weapons that expired in September 2004 because I believe these guns are used primarily for criminal rather than sporting intent. I also support requiring gun manufacturers to install child safety locks on all of their products."

for some voters.
I lived in central Virginia and I know a under 30 African-American guy who said the reason he was not going to vote for Obama was because "he is going to take my gun away."
At the time, months ago, I told him this would never happen in a million years.
Maybe this will work to get some of these voters out to vote in Nov.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You guys crack me up.

So my plumbing implements work just fine. But thank you for your concern.

Fascinating to watch folks pretend to belong to a political party they don't and pant like schoolboys with their first copy of Penthouse Forum over an inanimate object that happens to be tube-shaped, lengthy, and hard.

PA has 1 Dem senator 1 Dem governor

and then Specter, ridiculed on Saturday Night Live for his single bullet theory of the JFK assassination developed when he was trying to hide the truth
as an employee of the Warren Commission

Source OnTheIssues

NOTE: Apparently Casey knew it took a strong pro-RKBA position for him to win his senate seat and that's what he did.

Versus the 2.5mil population from Philadelphia and Allegheny counties - Strong Blue areas.

You toss in the counties with Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, Allentown, Bethlehem, Harrisburg, Erie and the suburbs around Philly - well the red counties can't compete, which is the remaing 55 out of 67 counties.

in a historically deep red area of the state.

If the Philadelphia Inquirer or Pittsburgh Post-Gazette came out with that article I'd be worried.

Trust me, I've worked this state enough times on election day and if you see the way that Philadelphia is blanketed with support it's pretty much a guarentee the rest of the state will go blue.

:rofl:

Yeah, Obama will lose those counties in a landslide probably but let me show you the money:

Bradford County: 62,761
Sullivan County: 6,556 (yeah same size as Wasilla Alaska)

Philadelphia COunty: 1,517,550
Allegheny County: 1,281,666 (that's Pittsburgh for you)

That headline is a joke.