President Obama Calls for Assault Weapons and High Cap Mag Bans, Background Checks for Private Sales

 

At a press conference this afternoon, President Obama called for an assault weapons ban (AWB), limits on ammunition magazine capacity and background checks for all private firearms sales. He urged Congress to “hold votes on these measures next year.” “I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to an individual right to bear arms,” the President assured Americans. But, he insisted, the majority of law-abiding gun owners agree that it’s a good idea to remove the public’s access to “weapons of war.” The President assured Americans that the new, VP-led task force’s “concrete proposals” won’t be long in coming or languish. Once again, the President vowed to use “all the powers of his office” to implement the findings, which will [no doubt] include an AWB, mag cap bans and federal intrusion into firearms sales between individuals.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

240 Responses to President Obama Calls for Assault Weapons and High Cap Mag Bans, Background Checks for Private Sales

  1. avatarJake says:

    Sounds like a robot. There we go! He just dropped it.

  2. avatarJTPhilly says:

    President Obama urging Congress to vote on the matters discussed indicates that an AWB won’t come through Executive Order.

    • avatarJake says:

      “I will use all the powers of this office”

      • avatarJTPhilly says:

        It still sounded (to me, anyway) like he wanted it to go through Congress.

        • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

          You really don’t believe that Obama is completely and honestly outlining all of the anti’s gun grabbing plans do you?

          Always remember Nancy Pelosi: “We need to pass the bill (Obamacare) to find out what’s in it”.

        • avatarDryw says:

          Future press conference:

          “As Congress was unable to come together in the spirit of bi-partisan cooperation and pass legislation which appropriately and meaningfully addresses the severity of this issue; I strongly believe it is my solemn responsibility to ensure the security of future generations and issue an Executive Order…”

          Not attempting to stir the pot. With each passing day I am more convinced that most of this rhetoric is smoke and mirrors. What will be, will be…

        • avatarJTPhilly says:

          If you really want me to speculate, I’d actually say that if anything, the President is more interested in using the current circumstances and situation as leverage in the fiscal cliff talks than he is in actually issuing an AWB. I think he’d rather see a victory on that front than he would on the gun control issue.

          Just my 2 cents, though. That and $5.97 (might) get you a cup of coffee, nowadays.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          You are right he wants this passed using the checks and balances of government, but he WILL use an EO if needed.

      • avatarFelix says:

        Obama has got to be one of the most ineffective inept politicians in the white house in a long long time, maybe since Carter. Even Obamacare only got passed after he pretty much told the house Dems he would sign anything, and they came up with the most ungodly pile of stink imaginable.

        Seriously, all he seems able to do is make speeches, raise campaign funds, read his teleprompter, and micromanage who gets droned. Obamacare showed how little political arm-twisting he is willing to use. He couldn’t even close Gitmo, and when the Dems came up with the mandatory insurance that he had campaigned against, he shrugged his shoulders and signed it. He doesn’t even try to jawbone the Senate on any appointments, he just makes speeches and golfs and does nothing.

        Maybe this makes an Executive Order more likely, since he hasn’t gone the cajones to actually twist arms. But I doubt he has the cajones to defend any Executive Order or even to want to put up with the resulting haullabaloo, and he is really good at avoiding anything other than speeches full of platitudes. hell, he doesn’t even get angry in his speeches.

  3. avatarJake says:

    “We need to do a bunch of things that have nothing to do with any of the shooting events that have occurred in the last few months.”

  4. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    President Obama: Blah Blah Blah.

    American Gun owners: shit, here we go again. No cure for the problem. Just a reduction of our rights!

    • avatarGunOwner says:

      You will still have the right to buy firearms.
      Just not ones based on military designs or old military cast offs.

      • avatarsdog says:

        what is this drivel you spout “GunOwner”?
        This right here:

        http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/connecticut-mental-health-bill-defeated-months-before-deadly-school-shooting/

        directly contributed to the newtown situation, but then again, i’m sure you were right there crying about how crazy ****ing *****bags might loose their civil liberties. TTAG what say you on the fact that a bill directly targeting people like lanza was defeated by the same protectionists @holes that are screaming out for “reasonable” (a la what THEY say is reasonable, but I’m preaching to the choir there) restrictions .

        • avatarPascal says:

          CT is one of 6 states where there is no AOT laws.

          Foxnews reported the mother was trying to go through the abysmal current process which requires you to go to Probate court. The ACLU has consistently argued against AOT. Some of the blame goes to the ACLU and the State.

          If CT had AOT laws, it would have been far easier to have gotten this person help.

          Gun owners will take the brunt of what is the failing of the legislature to act. I hope that this story gets more press than what it has now.

        • avatargrumpygresh says:

          ” gun owner” is just an air gun owner.

      • avatarإبليس says:

        Practically every type of rifle action is a “military cast-off.”

        • avatarDonS says:

          Not to mention revolvers and pistols.

          I cannot help but suspect that my Ruger Blackhawk has its roots in the Colt Single Action Army, and that my S&W 1911 is somehow based on Browning’s Colt M1911 design.

        • avatarLolinski says:

          We have such law in Norway when it comes to hunting: you cant use millitary weapons semi or manual. Luckily our prime minister isnt smart and hasnt realized that every firearm decends from a millitary firearm which in theory means he could ban all hunting guns.

        • avatarWLCE says:

          mauser. LOL

      • avatarCurzen says:

        which would include any bolt action rifle, revolver, musket – well essentially any gun ever manufactured.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Dear GunOwner,
        I spend a lot of time watching the history channel. I can tell you pretty much ALL guns are based off of military designs!!!!
        From the old flint lock, M1 A, 1911, all of them..

        So based on this idea, your argument is invalid.

      • avatarSilver says:

        So we shouldn’t be able to buy broadswords or recurve bows or other “weapons of war?”

      • avatarJoeBob says:

        No 1911′s that military technology! No Model 700′s, same actions as M40!!! No Mossberg 500′s, Remington 870′s, or Ithaca Model 37′s all used by the military!!! No modern bolt action rifles, because they were all based off of the German Mauser! No lever actions, that’s military tech!!! No black powder! That was developed for the military!!! Shut up GunOwner. You’re not even a real gun owner are you?

  5. avatarLogan P says:

    Link seems to no worky.
    Commencing Google-fu…

  6. avatarThomas says:

    About time. This is great news. No one needs 33 rounds in a glock.

  7. avatargearhead231 says:

    well Pres. Obama, I am a law- abiding citizen and I do NOT agree.

  8. avatarchip says:

    It’s the EO’s that I worry about….I dont believe Congress will pass a ban. There will be a lot of talk and blustering on both sides but in the end no AWB. However, they may compromise and cease the manufacture of hi-caps.

  9. avatarTom jones says:

    He’s spent more time talking about finances than guns.

  10. He might as well have said, go out and buy guns, ammo and mags like there is no tomorrow.

    The most important element of any compromise should be an expiration date of no longer then 4 years. Full Grandfathering until then.

    • +4, except for the compromise part. I don’t think the antis actually have the power to get a ban through if we fight them.

      (usually I would give a +1, but the cheapest I could find with all the price gouging was a +4)

    • avatarEvan says:

      Why do people keep suggesting compromise!? Compromise is the reason we have lost so many liberties as is. The only way new gun laws will get passed is if we compromise. Even if there had to be a compromise why would you even suggest giving the grabbers that much ground to start with. If you are haggling about the price on the purchase of an item you don’t star tin the middle. That’s how you get taken. In this case we need to make it clear to our reps that “compromise” will be unacceptable.

  11. avatarSeanC says:

    If you look back to when he was a state senator in Illinois, this should be no surprise to anyone who bothered to look. To all those who said he didn’t enact any anti-2nd amendment laws in his 1st term (correctly), you were just fooling yourself on what always was on his agenda. There’s sooo many ways he can peel this onion, given the expansive powers of the executive branch, not just the Executive Order. Relying on the house of representatives to stop this is a pipe dream. We’re going to be up against everything the EPA, DHS, HHS, etc. and even the DOJ can cook up. Lead by the 5th columnists in the MSM, the house of representatives are going to be on their heels on this.

    • avatarRalph says:

      SeanC, you are sooooo correct. Biden is cooking up an all-fronts assault on 2A as we speak.

    • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      He was also on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation, a notoriously anti-gun “non-profit.”

      But hey, all you “He’s done nothing to guns” liberals who voted for this guy… how’s that working out for you now?

  12. avatarJoatmon says:

    This is just a start. If this does get passed into law, there will be more.

  13. avatarRob says:

    And when someone pulls off a mass murder with all 10 round mags…

    The very fact that they are calling them “weapons of war” just strengthens the argument that they are the weapons intended by the Second Amendment. How can a militia be able to maintain a free state if the militia is using arms so far below the standard that has been set by modern times?

    • avatarJon says:

      Mass murder has already happened with 10 round magazines. Columbine and Virginia Tech come to mind.

      • avatarRichard W. says:

        Exactly. The Hi-Point Carbine is a post-(’94)ban weapon.

      • avatarBuddhaKat says:

        Mass murder without any kind of gun has happened thousands of times over human history. Certainly recently as well. When the assault weapons are taken away people intent on murder will use knives, swords, baseball bats, cars, poison, or thousands of any other number of weapons.

        It’s not the gun, it’s the person holding it. We have strict gun laws prohibiting crazy people from possessing a gun. Criminals, crazy people, or pissed off people can get a gun anywhere, anytime. The best defense anyone has against someone like this is to shoot back. The IHOP here in NV, the mall shooting, Gabby Giffords, Virginia Tech, et. al. would all have been terminated earlier is someone in the vicinity had a gun. Sure, action couldn’t have been taken until after the SHTF, but less people would have died if anyone else there had a gun and used it.

      • avatarBob says:

        Actually:
        “Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun with one 52-, one 32-, and one 28-round magazine and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times.” – Wikipedia

    • avatarBob says:

      Very, very, very few Americans understand that the 2nd is about repelling government tyranny.

  14. avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

    We’ve all heard it: When law-abiding citizens are unarmed, only criminals will have arms. Then how about this headline from Dec. 6, 2012?

    “Community Guns” Make it Harder to Catch Shooters

    Criminal gangs in parts of New York City are getting increasingly savvy at carrying out violent crimes and eluding police detection, thanks to a practice of hiding and sharing so-called “community guns,” police and prosecutors say.

    “They don’t want to keep the weapons on them but want to have access to them,” said Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance. “It poses challenges in terms of prosecution, to the police on the street. It all puts the weapon in the hands of a larger number of people.”

    Source: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Community-Guns-NYC-Gang-Members-Bronx-Hiding-Weapons-Prosecutors-Conspiracy-Laws-182298291.html

    So if criminals are eluding police then how are we supposed to defend ourselves? Oh right, we’re not.

    • avatarAharon says:

      “So if criminals are eluding police then how are we supposed to defend ourselves? Oh right, we’re not.”

      That is why they are pushing for national health care: to take care of you when you are in the ER being operated on after criminals have attacked you and you have not had a gun for self-defense.

  15. avatarm.ia says:

    My local scheels is already out of .223 ammo. The prez needs to go back to worrying about the economy. This will stop nothing. Ever

  16. avatarA Reasonable Man says:

    To all those that said the president wouldn’t come after are guns : You’ve been proven demonstratebly wrong. He hasn’t even been sworn in for his 2nd term, and he is pushing for restrictive gun control measures the moment it becomes politically expedient to do so.

    We were not paranoid that these things were planned to come down the pipe, we had insight. To claim otherwise is dishonest.

  17. I thought Obama-Care was going to cure all the crazy people. What happened to that plan???

    • avatarMr. Pierogie says:

      Whether it’s socialized medicine or bans on guns, the end result is ALWAYS the opposite of what the intent may have been.

      Sadly, the Constitution ,which is there to protect the rights of minorities against the oppression of a majority, means nothing to this President, the politicians, or even to the current SCOTUS for that matter.

      I told you people to vote for Gary Johnson, but you wouldn’t listen.

      • avatarRalph says:

        I told you people to vote for Gary Johnson, but you wouldn’t listen.

        You do realize that there’s no difference between Obama worship and Gary Johnson worship, right?

        • avatarMr Pierogie says:

          Who says I worship him? He was never my ideal candidate, but he was much better than Dumb (R) and Dumber (D). If somebody like Johnson would be in office, our rights would be a lot more secure than they are now, that’s the truth. Who knows, Romney would probably cave to all this pressure, so he wouldn’t be much different than Barry in the end. If Congress does not pass a strict ban, Obama will issue an EO banning guns and mags the very next day.

  18. avatarDavid-p says:

    I think the real telling sign here is to listen to the reporters asking questions. None of them so far have asked any questions about gun control all have do with the fiscal cliff. Americans are moving forward and starting into the depression phase as written in another article. I don’t why Obama did it but he may have lost his chance for gun control by waiting this long. Then sending it to a committee which will take longer. By the way 52 percent in the poll I seen is not what I would consider a majority, after a shooting of this size. It would be half of Americans at best after the margin of error. And tht number will drop very quickly if history proves true.

    • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

      How was that poll administered though? Many polls said that kook Romney had a chance in the last election and look how that turned out. It’s been well know for years now that the kind of people who actually take phone polls are skewed in a certain direction, the same is true for web polls, though in a different direction.

      Maybe 52 is high, maybe it’s low, but I don’t think we should read too much into just one poll.

      • avatarLogan P says:

        Agreed. Polls, especially when administered by media, aren’t very reliable sources of information. Granted, I’m the naturally distrustful sort.

  19. avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

    This sounds like a rational position to me – I don’t see how anybody can justify their need for 30 round mags and assault rifles beyond just wanting to have them. There is literally no use case for that kind of thing in a civilized society.

    • avatarLogan P says:

      Mostly because I don’t want to have to spend more time reloading than shooting at comp or on the range.
      Also, this is America. If I can smoke and chew tobacco (bad for me), drink beer/wine/liquor (also bad), and drive my 4×4 truck (necessary around here, but can still cause some wicked damage)… then why the hell can’t I have whatever capacity magazine I desire?

      • avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

        If you extend that logic then why shouldn’t you be able to carry sarin around with you? Or a nuke?

        • avatarA Reasonable Man says:

          You don’t need to demonstrate a “need’ to possess a 30 round magazine. There is a core philosophical question of “Are we a country were things are universally allowed, then banned based on what is determined bad, or where things are universally banned except for what the government allows us to have?”?

          By the logic of those that say we should ban “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” because we don’t “need” them, well, we can ban sports cars, mansions, and all food excepting nutrional tablets. Because think of how much safer our roads would be, and how much money we’d save nationally? The Public good on such initiatives would be astronomical. They’d also be exceptionally Totalitarian.

          The government has no overriding perogative to keep us safe, and in fact lacks THE LEGAL BASIS TO DO SO. You question that? Then I will ask you why we don’t have a national speed limit?

          The answer is because the federal government has no legal basis to do so. The vast majority of what the government passes bases on “safety and security” comes through abuses of their Commerce Clause powers.

          When people ask for these gun bans “to keep our children safe”, they are in fact asking not only for the government to ignore the Second Amendment, but to also continue abusing the Commerce Clause. Because they can’t be bothered to go through the correct motions and try for a Constitutional Amendment.

          Its lazy, irresponsible, and its painful that gun owners have to pay the price for the weak-minded.

        • avatarLogan P says:

          Well, firearms are a lot more forgiving of collateral damage than sarin gas or nukes/RDDs. In my opinion, and opinion only, NBC weaponry would be pretty useless to me.

        • avatarLogan P says:

          Also, though I’m diverting from your point a wee bit, I would really, REALLY like a tank. Because reasons.

        • avatarThe Stig says:

          It’s a common question and one that moderately intelligent antis come up with frequently.

          The problem is that it’s the wrong question. The correct question is: Why should the government have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons? The answer that almost everyone arrives at is that they shouldn’t. They have dismantled and destroyed their chemical and biological weapons and they are working on ridding themselves of nuclear weapons, albeit they have a way to go. It’s clear that these are horrific weapons that no one should possess. Not North Korea, not Iran, not Russia, not the US, and not you or I.

        • avatarSanchanim says:

          Because those are actually regulated by external forces to the US. Plus they are mighty expensive to maintain…

        • avatarWLCE says:

          no because those weapons are mass destructive tools of indiscriminate killing.

          bringing up nukes and other weapons of mass destruction is a giant red herring.

      • avatarCanopus says:

        Discrimination, not the kind you’re used to but still discrimination. Chemicals weapons and explosives, whatever they nature, will wound or kill or destroy anyone and anything within their action radius, a gun will only wound or kill or destroy whatever . A grenade be it HE or Chemical does not have the ability to wound or kill only ONE target if thrown in the middle of several people, a gun does and beyond that it will only harm the target you choose it to harm. Think of guns as broad-leaf poison and explosives as diesel, both will kill weeds in you garden but one will also kill your grass… I forgot you don’t think.

    • avatarRob says:

      I don’t see how anybody can justify their need for beer and alchohol beyond just wanting to have them. There is literally no use case for that kind of thing in a civilized society.

      Unless of course you condone the countless dead or abused spouses and children of alcoholics. Do you?

      • avatarLogan P says:

        Well you sir are ugly, and I will be sober in the morning.

      • avatarSammy says:

        Can you get a broader brush to paint with? FLAME DELETED

      • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

        People who think that Rob is being absurd are simply ignorant.

        These rationalizations were EXACTLY what the idiot women pushing prohibition said in their day. EXACTLY.

        Rob, you’re an astute scholar of history.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Perhaps we should limit the top speed of vehicles to 35 mph while we are at it, think of the children!!!!
        And yes Rob, nice one from history…

    • avatarJohn says:

      May anyone that hears me decide what is appropriate for another to own or engage in that does not harm another or infringe on another’s rights remind me how hideously wrong that is.

    • avatarCyrano says:

      how about arthritic hands. Loading mags is hard on the fingers. Changing out the mag breaks up a good posture and hold on a target when target shooting. Competitions for 3 gun or self defense courses benefit from higher capacity magazines. And a reference to hunting… For those who hunt ‘chucks, prairie dogs, and other burrowing rodents a well stocked mag will allow to take out these varmints without spending your time reloading magazines or carrying more mags when you are moving from one spot to another. AR15s are not assault rifles. Assault rifles are select fire or autos, a standard AR15 is a semiauto rifle not much different than a remington 11-87 shotgun with an extended tube.

    • avatarCommon Sense says:

      Hmmmm. Its nice to see you making arguments instead of attacking the members of this forum. I respect your opinion regarding 30 round magazines. That argument can be made effectively even though I disagree with the premise that it will do anything to prevent mass murder. The idea that a ban on “Assault Rifles” on the other hand, doesn’t hold up. I promise, there is a big difference between my AR15 and the M4 I carried in Iraq. Namely, the M4 has select fire capability. They may look similar, but they are not the same. If the idea is to ban all semi-automatic rifles, including M1s, Mini-14s, Ruger 10-22s etc, then there is a big problem. These rifles are used for hunting by thousands of hunters, for competition by thousands of sportsmen, and for plinking at the range by thousands more. They have legitimate home defense purposes as well, and are useful for animal control in the farming states where varmints, ferrel hogs, coyotes, bears and any number of four legged creatures threaten crops and human safety. Further, semi-automatic rifles are used in such a small percentage of crime in America it wouldn’t make sense. Like I said, a mag capacity limit is defensible, even though I don’t agree that it would work, but banning “evil looking” weapons is just not constructive. I also make this promise. Regardless of whether an AWB passes, and even if we could eliminate the 300 million guns already in circulations (which we certainly could not) I 100% guarantee there will be another mass murder in America at some point. What will we point to then.

    • avatarsurlycmd says:

      You don’t get it. I have no reason to justify anything. I have never committed a crime. I buy what I want to buy. If that is an AR15 with 30 round magazines or a 100 round drum so be it. The gov’t cannot deny me something when I have not be convicted of a crime.

      If this AWB is passed and it doesn’t fix crime, you will want more restrictions. You always do.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      I agree. Conducting a mass-shooting with 30 rounders is so bourgeois. The polite thing to do is temper your murderous rage with timely and well paced magazine changes – the kind afforded by a modest assortment of 10 round mags.

      STFU, TOLL!

    • avatarguzzimike says:

      What humans NEED are food, shelter, clothing, security. Anything beyond that are creature comforts we treat ourselves to for the increasingly long hours we spend working for what seem to be lower and lower take home wages.

      I would challenge your question about needing/not needing a magazine of some random capacity with how do folks justify that they NEED the latest iPhone? The latest tablet? The fastest internet? The newest computer? The newest car? The latest fashionable haircut? The list goes on and on. Do you need the computer you typed your message on or is it another one of lifes little luxuries? As long as MY activities don’t hurt you, it’s not your place to say I shouldn’t treat myself to whatever makes my life a little happier? For some people that’s a fine dinner every once and while, for others it’s a movie or a video game, and for the the folks on this site it’s going out shooting with your friends and having a good time.

      Those children and educators needed to have protection beyond a locked door and a buzzer. They never got to have that chance because someone else felt that need wasn’t their decision to make.

    • avatarMichael B. says:

      No one needs to justify a damn thing to you, you little bootlicker.

      We’re going to win, either in Congress or through the courts and you’re gonna have to ****ing deal with it.

    • avatarmountocean says:

      While I agree that a “need” is not required. It is worth addressing your final point, “There is literally no use case for that kind of thing in a civilized society.”

      1. Scary black weapons were used to protect Koreatown durring the LA riots.
      2. A civil society is not gauranteed. While I don’t think there will be anything too crazy in the next few decades our grandchildren will certinally see scary times. Just look at how the world has changed in the last 100 years.

    • avatarChris says:

      I completely agree, there is no need for these in a civilized society which is why I want them in my safe when society stops being civil.

    • avatarRandy Drescher says:

      You are absolutly right. Were the Katrina looters civilized? Or were they animals that needed to brought down by a …. wait for it… AR. People don’t riot in packs of one. There is a real need for an AR & its 30 to 60 round mags, Randy

    • avatarTed says:

      In a civilized society, we wouldn’t need ANY means of defense. If society were truly civilized, we would not even need law enforcement.

      Unfortunately we do not live in a civilized society. Law enforcement is necessary and law enforcement can not be everywhere all of the time.

      If you had to defend yourself during the Rodney King riots, or during the looting that took place after Katrina, would you rather have 10 rounds or 30 at your disposal? The police were not readily available in either disaster.

      Just because YOU have the luxury of living in a safe neighborhood, in an area of the country without much in the way of natural disasters, does not mean that all others are just like YOU.

      Come down out of your ivory tower and try to understand what it’s like outside your sheltered privileged little world.

    • avatarSilver says:

      Let me know when we live in a civilized society.

    • avatarScott Henrichs says:

      Then I’m sure you have no problems with all law enforcement officers surrendering theirs. After all if these are just “weapons of war” then police officers, who are armed for defense of the public, have no need for these evil weapons correct? Secret service can protect the president without “weapons of war”. Federal agents don’t need this “destructive firepower” that serves no justifiable purpose for civilians. After all there is no need right? Your argument isn’t logical and you know it.

    • avatarJoeBob says:

      Hmmmmm… Are you the same troll as “GunOwner” or “Thomas”?

    • avatarRoss says:

      hmmmmmmm,

      The 2nd A is about killing people, not hunting, and here is the list of those that it’s talking about:

      Foreign Invading Troops.
      Violent Criminals.
      A Treasonous/Oppressive Government.

      This is why we need 30 round mags etc.

  20. avatarDon says:

    And he is showing he is really serious this time by appointing a get it done type of guy like Joe Biden to do the job. Yeah, right.
    Watch him put his foot in his mouth now.

  21. avatarsurlycmd says:

    I am incredibly angry and frustrated. The constant defense against the loss of one’s rights and freedoms is mentally draining. Some days more than others. I feel for all of you with kids and grandkids. Those you love will continue to lose more and more rights under of the guise of false security and social equality. Days like today remind me of why I never wanted a family.

    I give this once Great Nation no more than 150 years before complete collapse. At least there will always be Texas.

    • avatarJon says:

      As the father of two young children, I think daily about the kind of country in which they are growing up. It’s easy to look around you and feel despair. But one of the amazing things about children is the hope for the future they can inspire. That’s why what happened at Sandy Hook hurts so much. Hope was snuffed out.

      But I choose to believe that even when evil wins the battle, it has not won the war. The assault on our liberties is mentally and emotionally draining. But I’m not giving up, and I hope you won’t either.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I’m feeling the same frustration and fatigue after the emotional intensity of the last 5 days.

      Just remember: the pendulum swings both ways on these issues, and even when you feel like you’re helplessly skidding backwards across the floor, you are blunting its momentum and hastening the day it swings towards justice.

      • avatarRalph says:

        You are correct. However, I don’t feel like I should be fighting my own government for my freedom. The G is supposed to protect my freedom, not diminish it.

        • avatarDyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          Ralph, don’t take this personally, but I believe that as long as we have lawyers in government, we’re going to be fighting for our rights. Lawyers are in government are always salami-slicing freedoms away, because they don’t believe what the Founders meant by “make no law” and “shall not be infringed.”

          They become tediously sophist and start saying “Well, you know, there are reasonable restrictions…” and then leave it up to yet more lawyers (the ones who dress in drag) to decide what “reasonable” is.

          When a lawyer stands in front of the American people and starts equivocating what the meaning of “is” is, then we know it’s past time to prohibit lawyers from government.

  22. “The common thread of all these acts of violence is NOT what was in their hands but what was in their hearts.” Dr. Tim Murphy (R-PA).

  23. avatarMotoJB says:

    Great, let’s see what addressing the big “space between the 2nd amendment and no rules at all” means.

    Glad I bought my AR’s and such when I did, now I just need to buy a crap load more “evil” accessories before they are potentially outlawed.

    They are obviously going to try to push California type gun laws nationally. Ouch.

    • avatarLogan P says:

      One of my fears is the outlawing of rail systems. After being stationed in Cali (lamest state ever) and researching the ’94 AWB which I was too young to comprehend, it seems that a more restrictive ban would definitely do away with the M1913 system. It’s a ‘military-style’ feature, que no?

  24. avatartexmln says:

    Here is my suggestion to preserve our rights, mollify the gun grabbers, and simultaneously expand concealed carry. Restrict assault weapons (if they can even be defined) and high cap mags to concealed carry permit holders. The same law should require shall issue permits in all states and require reciprocity. I think it’s a win for all. Access to the guns and mags we love is maintained. Assault weapon owners are state ‘licensed’ and ‘trained’ but most of us already are. There will be a huge increase in concealed carry permit holders. Discuss!

    • avatarRob says:

      I could see that as a viable middle ground.

      • avatarLogan P says:

        From what I understand, the thinking around here is that finding a “middle ground” with grabbers or even the neophytes is like giving the proverbial restriction cookie to the proverbial Democrat mouse. They’re gonna want that milk later on to wash down the sweet, sweet taste of taking my damn cookie.

        • avatarAaronvan says:

          Half of infinity is still infinity and they will always keep asking for you to meet them in the middle

    • avatarJon says:

      This idea has merit.

    • avatarHenry Bowman says:

      Having to ask for permission means it’s not a right. Compromise is how we got into this mess, more compromise won’t get us out.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      We would have massive regional shortages of Depends as legislators in CA, IL, NJ, etc all started continuously crapping their drawers.

      Then it would pass into law.

      Then… No Wild West shoot outs, rates of violent crime would fall, and the economy would be stimulated as millions of lawful citizens bought US-made products, took use of force classes, and paid their registration fees.

    • avatarphil says:

      Great idea. I would go for this. However, as others note, the other side isn’t bargaining in good faith. Their stated goal is to chip away a bit at a time (and this is much broader than just 2A rights). Any compromise is a clear win for them. Our best strategy continues to be to fight them as hard as we can for every inch, just as they do to us. Now, if they would bargain in good faith, that might be different.

      • avatarJoe says:

        How about we allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed without requiring a “permit”? Even this bit of “bear” has already been infringed. Because if you make it so everyone needs a ccw they will turn around and screw it up like they do for a suppressor and the next thing you know you will have a six month waiting period every time u buy a gun.

  25. avatarWilliam says:

    Are there more crocodile tears? Obomber’s killing foreign children with drones isn’t newsworthy; no call for banning drones! But full-fledged gun confiscation has arisen over the horizon. They’re just dumb enough, and full of enough bravado to do it.
    LOCK AND LOAD, AMERIKA!! IT’S ON!!!

    • “LOCK AND LOAD, AMERIKA!! IT’S ON!!!”

      I got your back, Brother !

      • avatarLance says:

        Time to buy up. And I dont think a AWB will pass the House!

        • avatarRalph says:

          If there are politicians in the House, then I don’t trust them. besides, the composition of the House just changed, and its 2A reputation is just that — reputation.

          Pols work just like the mob. In the mob, it’s usually your best friend who kills you.

    • avatarWLCE says:

      thank you william.

      it amazes me how obama will cry about american children being killed, blaming lawful gun owners with their inanimate objects, while his foreign policy and orders leads to the unnecessary deaths of children in foreign lands.

      apparently to the banking, self-interested amerikan empire, the killing of foreign children doesnt deserve widespread condemnation. and to think people want us disarmed with f–king psychopaths like these in office.

  26. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringe.”

    Please note that the subject of the sentence above is not about 1. our right to keep and bear arms, 2. a well regulated militia, 3. hunting, 4. assault rifles, or 5. the right of an aristocracy to control the people…… the subject of the sentence above is:

    The “SECURITY OF A FREE STATE”.

    • The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time.

      United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons”. American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    • avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

      All 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. One of those rights includes living in a FREE state, and the means to accomplish and defend that proposal.

  27. avatarwaif says:

    But…but…I read on TTAG before the election that Obama hasn’t done anything to curtail gun rights, and this is just NRA scare tactics.

    • avatarSeanC says:

      HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA! I remember that…good times…good times…

  28. avatarAharon says:

    Today they’re targeting semi-auto rifles with high-capacity magazines and tomorrow double-action revolvers. I can read the writing on the wall.

    A study to determine what are the causes of violence in modern American society will find some of the reasons being: lack of two parent stable families ie too many homes with the single parent, violence in entertainment (TV show, films, video games, etc), attitudes of entitlement setting off have-nots against others in fits of envy, lack of teaching personal responsibility and accountability, laws that are too kind to criminals, preaching moral- and cultural relevance and modern society’s disdain for ingraining more traditional morals, a high-stress society, a diet that is not healthy and natural, prescription drugs that sometimes make users worse off, not providing help that people need, unfair and unjust court systems (1 in 6 adult male suicides occur during the divorce process; those family and divorce courts are heavily biased), lack of extended family (cousins, relatives) and a close knit ‘tribal communal group’ to watch over and out for people, etc etc.

    None of the above will be addressed or acknowledged unless it fits into furthering the political agenda of the police-nanny state.

    • avatarWhilemyTZgentlyweeps says:

      The litany of causes you mention are all, to some extent, features of the type of the Progressive society that is being shoved down our throats, and also serve to reinforce it, i.e., they create societal disorder which, of course, requires more government. It’s a feedback loop that on one level creates chaos but also tightens the grip on those that tend to be law abiding.

      Of course, the Progressive elites, who make the rules and then ignore them, are able to use those anarchic forces as a lever or threat to keep those just trying to hold on to what they have in line. Its much easier to do that when the use of force lies in the hands of the government. It’s like a protection racket. They created the problem and only they can protect you from it, except lots of time the won’t or can’t. A perfect example is a subject of modern Great Britain: disarmed and unable to defend himself without, in turn, becoming a criminal. It’s no way to live, but if the Progressives have there way its coming soon a theater near you, if it’s not already playing.

  29. avatarFyrewerx says:

    And Obama is wrong, as usual. As stated by others in another thread, the crazies will just use high powered hunting rifles, and be able to shoot through 3 – 5 kids (or skinny people) with one round.

  30. avatar4thInfantryVet says:

    I don’t know guys,

    Seems like no one is going to vote for it anyway. All the anti-gun zealots are simply drowning out the normal American citizens right now. He knows that in a few weeks everything will normalize again, he’s just saying the popular thing to be saying right now.

    Look at the rushed polls (IF you can even call them that, biased language and all), still only a small margin of people in favor of stringent new laws/bans. After Columbine those numbers were through the roof. Another factor is the exponential growth of acceptance of these “assault weapons with high-cap “clips”” and ownership of guns period. 1/3 of the country owns a gun, whoever votes for this is volunteering to end their political career.

    • avatarJon says:

      While I don’t agree that “no one is going to vote for it”, I mostly agree with you. We are stronger than many of us think we are.

    • avatarLance says:

      I agree we are scared by the media making this BIG but Obama always wanted to ban guns no new news. Time to help our friends in congress kill his ban.

  31. avatarstateisevil says:

    I have a question for “gun control” advocates who might read this forum.

    If you think “assault weapons” are “weapons of war”……… why do my local police have them in their patrol cars??????????

    If all police give up their “assault weapons” I’ll give up mine. Promise.

    • avatarAharon says:

      The militarization of the local police and the growing intrusion of the federal police-nanny state into the private lives of American citizens is for some a motivating factor in buying more guns and those that are the high-capacity scary black gun types. Some people are buying those weapons because they see the trend and are aware of world history.

      • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

        Gunpowder is one of the most democratic advances in human history. Our forefathers understood this when writing the 2A. Orwell made this point in 1945. Here is an excerpt:

        “The connection between the discovery of gunpowder and the overthrow of feudalism by the bourgeoisie has been pointed out over and over again. And though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found generally true: that ages in which the dominant weapon is expensive or difficult to make will tend to be ages of despotism, whereas when the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people have a chance…”

        By this logic a ban, any ban, is a clear violation of our human right to self defense. Perhaps more than ever in the face of remote-killing drones and WMDs. And even if all state-sponsored forces lay down arms there will still be crazies and evil-doers in our midst. Such is the human condition.

        Remember: force only respects force. (May be the reason why the statist forces are working to ban individual gun ownership — we the people ARE a force to be reckoned with.)

  32. avatarRalph says:

    If the pr!cks in Washington have their way, we’ll have to rename this site “The Truth About Single Shot Twenty-Twos.”

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Be fair, Ralph. I’m sure we will also be permitted 28-gauge and .410 shotguns, AND black-powder six-shooters. After all, lever-action rifles are just old-fashioned assault weapons, so those will have to go too.

  33. avatarHenry Bowman says:

    I guess Obama really does emulate Lincoln, since he too is pushing us inexorably toward civil war.

  34. avatarRangerEd says:

    For those stocking up on AR’s and Pmags, I think that this time they are going to go as far as they can NOT to grandfather in prior ownership. If so, they are going to turn law abiding citizens into outlaws when the magazines and guns are hidden. How far they will be willing to go to check on your ownership of outlawed guns and accessories is yet to be seen, but I predict that the further down the road we go, the more and more they will intrude whether it is by scanning 4473′s, by informers or just knocking on your door. Further prediction: there will be limits on how much ammunition you can possess. After all, those evil bullets are just as responsible as those evil black guns.

    • avatarSpoons Make You Fat says:

      “How far they will be willing to go to check on your ownership of outlawed guns and accessories…”

      Consider any use of the internet, including online ordering (think Amazon, MidwayUSA, etc.), search requests and website visits. If you are reading this you are already in a database. You are not anonymous. The only question is determining how the data will be used.

    • avatarMatt b says:

      They pretend they are doing us a favor by offering any form of grandfathering, but even mags are protected under ex post facto laws because of the 5th amendment right against unreasonable seizure. The banning of any mags bought before the ban would violate 2 amendments.

      • avatarphil says:

        Counting on the bill of rights to limit the actions of progressives is like counting on gun control laws to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

        That said, the AWB proposal DiFi intends to introduce does include grandfathering (at least, that’s what available info suggests). We will see that the Biden working group suggests.

      • avatarRalph says:

        I’ll keep it simple. Ex post facto means that you do something legal, they make it illegal and then arrest for your something you did before the law was enacted. That’s unconstitutional.

        If so-called “high capacity” magazines are made illegal, you will have a period of time to turn them in without any penalty. You might even get paid for them, depending on what the statute says. If you keep them past the due date, then you are breaking the law. In no way does that violate 5A and it’s not an ex-post facto law since it criminalizes conduct occurring after the enactment, not before.

        Got it?

  35. avatarBob says:

    It’s a shameful thing that so many resources will be consumed enacting and policing these measures, none of which address root cause (crap parenting and the lack of control on people with mental instability), when there are so many real, statisitcally significant issues. Seems to me I hear more people harming children through molestation/abuse/neglect on the news than I do mass murderings. Maybe focus efforts on something that will make a difference in the state of society?

    This sort of behavior is so typical of the lazy good, people who want to “feel” good about doing “good” rather than doing it. The illusion of doing good without the effort. How many of the anti-gun now feel good about themselves now that they posted their thoughts on facebook or some other outlet. Ooohhh, wow, maybe we should put you up for a nobel peace prize? Maybe you should get out from behind you computer and go find something to do that directly helps someone in need? Soup kitchen, homeless shelter, foster parent, habitat for humanity, etc, etc…oh wait then you’d have to get your hands dirty, and we couldn’t have that could we?

  36. avatarNew Chris says:

    Dear President Obama

    When your children are no longer protected by armed guards at school, when your security detail only carries 10 round magazines, then maybe we’ll talk about gun control.

    Until then you’re a hypocrite.

  37. avatarxdsteel says:

    Ok.. I know I did not say anything to Pres. Obama about banning “weapons of war”.
    Who did?

  38. avatarhmmmmmmmm says:

    Actually you can call me cynical but by giving this brief to Biden I think Obama is throwing you pro gun folk a real bone – Biden is where good ideas go to die.

    What if Obama wants to be seen to do something, but not actually do anything? Wouldn’t giving Biden the task be the path he would take? He’s not investing his own political capital, that tells you something – I mean he’s already in his second term, if he really cares then he should be leading on this himself, it’s not like he has another election coming up.

    • avatarRangerEd says:

      That was one of my first thoughts too….I could see Biden talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and one by one the other people on the commission just wander away while Biden continues to talk and talk and talk and talk…..what a clown.

    • avatarLogan P says:

      Correct me if I’m wrong Hm8, but isn’t there a South Park episode with a very similar central idea to what you just described?

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      I have never agreed with Hmmmmmmm before … nevertheless I think he/she is spot on here.

      • avatarDoctorHog says:

        I too find my self shocked to find that I might agree with hmmmmmm. The world is upside down.

      • avatarSanchanim says:

        Yup me too… We need him in front of the cameras to gaf this bad boy up as much as possible. OMG we agree with Mr. hhhh’s ;-)

    • avatarRizzyg says:

      My bet is that a bill gets submitted that it’s unpalatable to mild gun control advocates. This way democrats in pro gun districts get to say theyre not extreme while other candidates get to hammer republicans for supporting a climate of violence.

    • avatarMartin Albright says:

      Yes, I agree. As I said yesterday, in politics, the “noble lost cause” can allow a politician to have the best of both worlds. Nothing gets done (which means his opposition isn’t mobilized against him) but he still gets credit for “trying” and “caring”, the MSM and gun banners get to blame the NRA for all gun violence, and the NRA recruits like crazy from people who don’t want to lose their guns. Everybody wins.

    • avatarphil says:

      I have believed that Obama would go after guns hardcore as soon as his second term was secure, and nothing I have seen has proven me wrong yet. Still, if he doesn’t follow up on this particular window of opportunity (disaster, to the rest of us), I will be ready to consider that I was wrong.

    • avatarRalph says:

      Do not underestimate Biden. He’s nuts, but he’s a very effective politician and absolutely ruthless.

  39. avatarLogan P says:

    Soooo question, what is our fine faux Slavic friend FPS Russia going to do if/when this comes to pass?

  40. avataruncommon_sense says:

    “the majority of law-abiding gun owners agree that it’s a good idea to remove the public’s access to ‘weapon of wars.’”

    I didn’t realize that rights are subject to majority approval. So if a majority of citizens don’t want an ethnic group to use mass media for their extreme message, we can ban them from mass media?

  41. avatarCoryJ says:

    As I’ve said in other posts, I am a LEO.

    I would like for MORE law-abiding people to own firearms, because I know as well as any other person : ‘When seconds count, the Police are minutes away’.

    What bothers me the most is that some people didn’t even wait for the blood to dry before they began dancing on their soap boxes in front of TV cameras.

    It’s pathetic.

    • avatarJon says:

      “What bothers me the most is that some people didn’t even wait for the blood to dry before they began dancing on their soap boxes in front of TV cameras.”

      Agreed. They have received a lot of flack for it, but I think the NRA has shown more class than other organizations by allowing for a time of mourning.

      • avatarCoryJ says:

        Agreed.

        I hope the NRA will stand up and present clear, concise facts and not resort to what the media and politicians have been pulling out of their collective arses.

        If not, then my $ goes elsewhere.

    • avatarguzzimike says:

      The TV coverage and lack of accuracy in reporting is what disgusts me the most. Every little nugget some talking head heard became “breaking news”. “Experts” got trotted out at light speed and the “unbiased” coverage is so biased I’m almost physically ill.

      I was watching Piers Morgan on CNN for the first time the other night and when the author/researcher John Lott was talking about how many DGUs save people annually Piers dismissed him and said if a gun wasn’t fired by the person being attacked it didn’t count & guns should still be banned because the person being threatened could call the police instead. Someone shoots a gun at a tin can out in the woods and it’s a major event, but if you use that same tool to protect yourself without firing a shot it’s lucky to get a mention in classifieds.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      It is pathetic, because it’s the difference between an emotional reaction and a thoughtful one.

      Side note: our LEO friends here might consider adding “(LEO)” to their names once they’ve made their affiliation public.

    • avatarLance says:

      I agree

    • avatarRalph says:

      CoryJ, I’m not a LEO. Actually, I’m an ARIES. But I agree with you completely.

    • avatarMark Chamberlain says:

      I am a LEO also and agree. More good people responsibly carrying makes a safer and more polite society.

  42. avatarTommy Knocker says:

    Ok we now are engaged in this fight. Everyone reading this needs to immediately make their voice heard, even if our so-called leaders are awol. Call or write your reps. Contact the traitors in or midst who have taken our money and sold us goods, but now abandon us. Tell them our money will be spent with allies. Call in to talk shows or write comments on media sites. Use the new/social media to our cause. Start organizing your shooting clubs. It is a fight for our lives.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      I informed my Representative-elect that if he voted for the AWB I would make it my mission in life to elect whoever is running against him in 2 years. And that’s even if he next guy would be just as reliable an anti-2A vote, as long as HE lost his job.

  43. avatarPatrick says:

    The good news Joe Biden not sharp tool Obama wood shed gone be one charge ram gun control down are throats. The bad news Joe Biden one most ant gun dems out there well not agree on any gun control that does suck for use gun owners well not know what in it untill passes. For those who want ar 15 or ak 47 time buy one now. You want magzines hold more than 10 rounds time buy now. If you been watch congress than have notices that republican have been slow give ground way to democrats on all kind of issues. If pay a attenion presidential election than know republican got are ass kicked buy very guy done less than great job in whitehouse. There gone be some very dark time come up for gun owners where fighting media the goverment those who want see gun rights gone.

    • avatarmountocean says:

      (paraphrase) The good news is Joe Biden is not the sharpest tool in the President’s woodshed. He will be unlikely to lead the charge ramming gun control down our throats. Unfortunately, Mr. Biden is still very anti-gun and will not accept limp-wristed gun control; if anything it will be very restrictive. Sadly we won’t know what until we are stuck with it. If you want a weapon of accessory that might be banned, better buy it now.
      You may have noticed that the GOP has slowly given ground on many important issues and the recent election did not go well for them despite poor performance from the incumbent. It doesn’t look good for us gun-owners, we are up against both the media and govt who want to eliminate our rights.

  44. avatarJay says:

    Hey guys, I am posting here because Obama and the congress will read it and then they will not take our human rights away through law/greater good/force/guns/prison.

    We know that governments only want what their people want. They wouldn’t want to take away any power the general person has to defend their rights, person or property.

    Americans know that guns are very bad and should not exist, that is why the US is at war, because guns are only for killing. So Americans must arm up young, dumb, ego driven, teens that will do all the killing via military action. This is how you stop a culture of violence, send your killers to another country, let them kill who they want down range.

  45. avatarJWhite says:

    I’m sorry, did I read that correctly? “weapons of war.”

    thats a good one… thats what happens when a patent runs out an you have no idea what you’re talking about. You’ll blindly follow the pied piper.

    gotta love how an adjustable stock, detachable magazine, pistol grip, and compensator makes it a “weapon of war” – Not sure that makes a whole lot of sense considering I can name two guns that have none of these features and contributed to war time casualties.

    Mosin Nagat
    No pistol grip
    Bolt action
    No detachable magazines
    31.5in barrel
    No adjustable stock
    Intermediate round

    M14 Carbine
    No pistol grip
    Semi automatic (do they have auto versions?)
    No adjustable stock
    No flash hider (unless upgraded)
    Semi-intermediate round (a 5.56 IMO is not an intermediate round. a 7.62x54r .308, .30-06 those are intermediate rounds to me)

    The list goes on… The point is… If it can shoot bullets, it can be use in a fight.

    “weapons of war” are nothing more than weapons employed by soldiers AT WAR. It could be a bolt action rifle, or a pump action shot gun. It make no sense to use such a phrase. When was the Tec-9 used is a war?

  46. avatarEd Rogers says:

    I wish someone would take Obama out to a public range, give him some instruction and let him actually SHOOT an “Assault Rifle” or two.

    This is one serious deficiency in our political system. It should be mandatory for any candidate to have served in the military!

    • avatarBill F says:

      Agree. A “Commander in Chief” who has never served is an oxymoron. Obama did say in an interview tht he considered serving at one time because back then he thought “the experience would have been enobling.”

  47. avatarspeedracer5050 says:

    @GunOwner
    There in lies part of the problem. I have applied for my C&R firearms license strictly for personal use. I collect old military weapons an enjoy shooting them, working on them
    And seeing how they were built long before the advent of modern CNC machining etc.
    I personally don’t own an AR15, mainly because I don’t care for the 5.56 round itself. Now an AR10(.308) I would love to have. These are not Military Weapons in the terms that many Anti’s and gun grabbers are trying to say they are. They are civilian semi auto weapons capable of the same as my .22lr semi auto rifle. Differences in caliber aside they are just another weapon.
    People use them for a lot of different things.
    As I have posted on here before banning “Military Assault Style Weapons” will not deter these horrific occurrences. The madman/men will just find some other way to accomplish their goals.
    Besides none of te AR15′s sold on the market are capable of being an Assault Weapon without a lot of mods and machining work, and a good deep pocket. Assault weapons are capable of single shot, burst or full auto.
    None of the Standard AR15′s on the market are capable of that. The requirements and licensing and general costs are very prohibitive for the average person to legally purchase and own a true assault weapon.

  48. avatarRichard says:

    Here funny part where hope that goverment knows what weapon war is. Frist off Bill Oreilly from factor on fox news did know that ar 15 ak 47 where two differnt firearms. Jay Carney press secretary been call high cap magzines clips along rest idiots in Washington Dc. This come from goverment just pass health care bill none of them read. If you think they know what hunter use in field guees again. If like high cap handguns like glock well they may just be add to list firarms he want to ban.

  49. avatarNicholas says:

    Step 1 in problem solving is to identify the problem: Mentally ill people doing mass shootings.

    Step 2 is to gather facts and make assumptions: More guns than people in USA, many pro gun people who reject gun control, reloading takes 2-4 seconds, etc.

    Step 3 is to define end goals: Reduce mass shootings/reduce victims during mass shootings.

    Step 4 is to develop possible solutions: Armed teachers, police in schools, gun control, mental facilities, laws regarding media during such events, etc.

    Step 5 is to compare all possible solutions:

    Step 6 is to Select And Implement a Solution: Police in schools. 5% tax on ammo will pay for extra police needed. This solves the problem, and maintains our 2A rights. It’s more or less a win-win situation, as the kids are safe and 2A not altered.

    Step 7 is the revise and refine the plan as needed: Change tax amount, etc.

    ———————————————————————————-

    I wrote the above as a reminder to all that we need to look at this from a problem solving perspective. If Mr. Obama was actually trying to solve the problem, he’d know that there are many “military style weapons” with their “high-cap mags” floating around the USA. So many in fact, that they won’t be going anywhere anytime soon. Which means that they would still be readily accessible to deranged maniacs. An AWB will not have much of an effect on school shootings I’d think, at least in the short term.

  50. avatarJames R says:

    This is so stupid. The whole gun control thing is a one sided event. People need to be educated about guns and what they mean for our society. Media needs to start reporting actual truth about guns and use proper terminology. There is no such thing as clips and assault weapons. There are only magazines and Rifles. Nothing more. Clips were used for rifles during the 1900s to at least the late 1950s. They haven’t been used since then.

  51. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Hey, he forgot the gunshow loophole, where anyone can walk in & come right out with an MP5. I got a hundred dollars that says 80 percent of the grabbers, given the choice, would ban a semi auto over a full auto, Randy

  52. avatarEsh325 says:

    “Weapons of war” is kind of a silly term. Mausers and Enfields are weapons of war also, but not subject to this type of ban. Modern bolt actions used by military snipers are also weapons of war. And not only that, many hunting rifles are based on Mauser actions and pretty much have the same ability as a military mauser. So when somebody shoots up people with a scoped hunting rifle, the bastards will want to ban them too I bet.

  53. avatarLance says:

    I agree this is no surprise he is anti gun and see this as his BIG opportunity to ban guns from good americans. Time to start getting our progun reps in congress we support to stop this ban. There many things we can do to stop this now.

    • avatarLarry says:

      Agreed. Contact your Representatives. We have the advantage, in that there are a LOT more people with those evil looking black rifles and high capacity magazines. So we have a lot more to lose with a AWB this time around. Our representatives need to understand that we gun owners mean votes for them and future politicians!

      • avatarLance says:

        As the NRA said some congressmen and senators want to go out on the board with Obama and ban guns we can and will cut the board off behind then. Let them know this and they may think twice about drinking the medias coolaid.

  54. avatarjwm says:

    Chill people. This ain’t going nowhere. Too many federal court rulings in our favor. Time to start pushing the pols to allow properly vetted citizens to carry on and defend school sites. Only thing that actually addresses the problem.

    Unless they send the army door to door and search every house, and that ain’t happening, there’s no way to get the 300+ million guns already out there. Put armed volunteers at every school and the sickos will go back to malls and theaters and other loudly proclaimed gun free zones.

    The only new gun control measure that will work in this type of situation is to allow constitutional carry nationwide with the only exemptions being government sites.

    • avatarRalph says:

      I’m upset with you, jwm. You’re obviously smoking some pretty high grade kush and you’re not sharing any of it.

      This is exactly what people said about Obamacare — it can’t pass. Well, it did, and the House turned Republican because of it, but we’re still stuck with it forever.

      • avatarjwm says:

        Ralph, my committment to protecting my 2a rights are just as strong as ever. Let’s just take a deep breath and relaxed the rhetoric a little. After all this is a pro gun site, not an anti gun site. We have a long fight ahead, no need to burn out early.

  55. avatarRichard says:

    Words of advice from some one who used live in state California when turn from pro gun ant gun. There all,s be people telling other people relax gun control just not gone happen are politicians in congress would let happen. I heard very same thing said in California when it went from pro gun state to ant gun state. Well measure like california assault rifle bill pass high magzine bill pass excuse of denial came fast from people told people those would pass. Unless counrty want end up like California realize this thing that happen in California on gun control can happen across counrty. Living in state denial over matter only help ant gun side.

  56. avatarJAS says:

    Well, I just checked on the net. There is not a single Glock 17/34 15 round magazine left in stock on the planet!

  57. avatarSammy says:

    What do you guys think is the most effective gun lobby? SAF, NRA, GOA? Do you think we should spread the money among them? I don’t see how we can not spent some bucks. I’m allocation 1/10 of the value of my entire collection, ammo and maintenance equipment for pro gun groups. Why 10%? Cause that’s a goal I think I can reach or slightly surpass. And it’s a bunch o bucks.

  58. avatarSilver says:

    Yeah, you all write your reps and think that’ll do any good. Good luck with that.

    This country’s beyond saving.

  59. avatarrob says:

    To all you gun folks who thought “Obama isn’t coming for my guns” I really hate to say it… but we all told you so. It amazes me when I talk to gun people who voted for the guy. “Well Romney is some rich white jerk. I couldn’t vote for him.” “Well now a rich black jerk is going to take away your guns.” Have a nice day or what’s left of it.

    Bleh.

  60. avatarMark Chamberlain says:

    If there was ever a time to join the NRA if you are not already a member and to convince as many people as possible to also join, it is now. I know there are some who have criticized the NRA in the past but it is the highest profile 2A advocacy organization in the nation. The politicians will notice if they see a large spike in membership.

    • avatarmountocean says:

      I would agree as far as to say the time to join will be on Friday, after they announce their plan to not erode our rights, until then I am firmly straddling the join-not-join fence.

    • avatarIdahoMan says:

      “If there was ever a time to join the NRA if you are not already a member and to convince as many people as possible to also join, it is now.”

      Negative.

      Can’t disagree with you more. If NRA is planning another sell-out, better make darn sure you don’t send them a cent until you see what they are going to do.

  61. avatarGs650g says:

    I thought Obama was the pro gun guy and Romney the gun grabber?

  62. avatarPowers says:

    I feel terrible about what happened at Sandy Hook. My gut wrenched when I heard of it. But I believe new laws will not do anything to stop this in the future. Nothing. I pray for the victims and their families. And I pray that somehow, the legislation does not go through. Because I believe in our Constitution, and I believe had there been someone armed to oppose the moron, the outcome may have been much different. Firearms collecting and shooting are my number one pastimes and passions for recreation. Most important they are in my home for self defense. To the people who are in the positions to stop new legislation, if you happen to read this, please stop it. I want to be able to continue to live and defend my family, as well as live my life as the Bill of Rights affirms to all of us.

  63. avatarIdahoMan says:

    Underground machining operations in the backyard may be in our future.

    How difficult is it to manufacture -from scratch- ammunition?

  64. avatarDerek says:

    “I’m going to create this panel to come up with suggestions on gun control. But here’s what I think cus I have all the fvckin answers already.”

    Also, did anyone else notice that while tugging on heartstrings he referenced half a dozen shootings involving cops and children but didn’t seem to notice the (probable) 150 or so gang bangers and career criminals that have been shot in the same amount of time?

  65. avatarGamma Ray says:

    I have already received 3 threats from “peace loving” liberals for posting the following elsewhere, along with suggestions to do what is biologically impossible, although in reality, they themselves probably consider having d!ck to butt sex with themselves a highly desirable past time to engage in –
    ___________________________________________________________
    If the government sees fit to initiate a program to confiscate firearms from the citizenry, then Obama should ask the left to lead by example. He should request that the following demographics/groups to relinquish their firearms -
    *Gang bangers and other inner city criminals
    *Union members, especially those with a violent history
    *Members of the American Communist party
    *Members of the Black Panthers
    *Occupy Wall Street and other far left anarchist organizations, many of whom are armed
    *Any other liberal who is law abiding, but owns firearms
    *Most of all, confiscation of firearms from the security details of leftist politicians and media celebrities, and confiscation of firearms from leftist politicians and celebrities themselves.

    Those listed above, being “good citizens” and faithful followers of the president, will surely cheerfully submit and peacefully turn over their firearms, correct?

    No?

    In that event, let the president initiate a program to forcibly confiscate
    weapons from his kindly but erring followers. Let the government surround cities like Oakland and Detroit with National Guard troops, and send in the ATF, FBI, DEA, etc. with assistance from state and local law enforcement. Let them do house to house searches, kicking in doors if necessary. Dispense with nonsensical technicalities like warrants, Miranda rights, due process – this is a national emergency and an urgent public safety issue, by Gawd!! Undertaken in the name of safety, security and civility!!

    Like that would happen!! For one, if such a thing happened, the already thick airwaves would be blue once again with phony screams of racism and wails about having civil rights violated – aided and abetted once again by the media misinformation mafia. Besides, we know who this is really aimed at, that being “evil, right wing gun nuts”.

    But, but – the spirits of the children murdered in Connecticut cry out for justice! Disarming the citizens of America is the just and proper way to show that we hear them – right? Yes, indeed, you could make a strong case for that – if those calling for firearms confiscation hadn’t stood silently by while far left dictators murdered – repeat – MURDERED over 125,000,000 of their own citizens. In truth, many on the left were not silent – no, they openly supported these dictators, and defend them to this day, with lofty dismissals of the slaughter such as “mistakes made in the name of progress”.

    But hey, this is America !! We’re civilized!! That would never happen here!!

    It is said that the shock of a tragedy or other mind numbing event, such as the horrendous murders in Conn. Last Friday, brings out the best and worst in people, including their innermost feelings. Since the shooting in Conn. many on the “civilized” left have made public their true feelings by going on Twitter, Facebook and other electronic public forums and calling for the murder of NRA members and other responsible gun owners, “teabaggers”, conservatives, Christians, etc. I for one am happy we got to see the true thoughts of those who claim to be civilized. Even though many of these posts have since been deleted by their authors, many of their fellow citizens have made sure these comments have been enshrined for posterity by the simple act of copying the screen or page and pasting them to their computer files. These calls for the murder of fellow citizens number in the thousands.

    We will remember.

    Sad to see so many fellow citizens willing to be totally enslaved to the will of the government and its flawed agenda – not that many already aren’t. Apparently they never read 1984 or Brave New World. Then again, maybe they look at those books as the height of human “evolution” and the perfect model for civilization.

    They have no rightful place in America.

  66. avatarGamma Ray says:

    Read and consider this -
    “Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience.”

    ~John Locke~

  67. avatarLeo Atrox says:

    I hope that they don’t pass an AWB or “hi-capacity” magazine ban. I bought and assembled an AR15 for my son when he was a year old. I haven’t been able to do that for my daugther yet. This will pretty much ruin those plans. 1) I would be able to buy one for my little girl. 2) I wouldn’t be able to transfer the one I bought for my son to him when he comes of age. 3) They could not inherit them when I die.

    I’m a gun guy. I have been since my time in the Marine Corps. I’m never NOT going to be a gun guy. I wouldn’t riot if they passed these proposed laws; but I’d be pretty darn unhappy.

    I might be tempted to riot if they actually passed a law against semi-automatic firearms … That would be miles too far.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.