The Obama effect
 

A friend who has a relative that works at Ruger told me that there are over 1500 Ruger Mini-14s on order, that is close to 30 per state, I bet they may sell on average 5-10 per state per year. Something to think about.

I talked to the local shop and he has sold more guns since Obama took office then he did in the prior 3 years. I think the fear of losing the right to own guns is driving this.

I posted this a couple of weeks ago about the rise in weapons sales. It has gone up exponentially since O'Bama won the election. My friend who lives in Maine and reps for a dozen world-wide manufacturers can't keep pace with sales. He employs 23 from the Mississippi to the Atlantic Ocean and they are all out straight with order from dealers.

What's there to think about? The ignorant go on a frantic buying spree because "them thar crazy libs gonna be takin my guns away."

People forget that a very similar thing happened when Clinton was elected. It's not "The Obama effect." It's the "Bunch of Rednecks acting crazy because there's a Dem in the White House Effect."

I think it would be naive to assume that the people we now have in charge will not restrict gun rights as much as they can. They do not believe in the Right to Bear Arms.

Yea, read this incredibly radical statement by our current President...

If this doesn't tell you the police state is upon us you must really have your head in the sand.

At least all these gun shoppers are helping to rebuild our economy.

-spence

I don't trust a word he says. It's the actions that worry me, not the words.
I will bet anything you want, that they will be passing stronger gun control legislation within his first year.

Question: Why has Sen. Obama received a National Rifle Association “F” rating in the past?

Answer: Because those ratings were based on actual votes, not campaign rhetoric.

Taken from WHITEHOUSE.GOV

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

I want to know why Obama is wants to take away Assault Rifles. Why did he hide this in his URBAN policy agenda.

The Constitution says right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed!

Maybe its because he lives in the Southside of Chicago and has witnessed the tragedies of gun crime up close and personal. I believe there were more than 500 murders in Chicago in 2008. Willing to bet 400 of those involved an illegal firearm.

In Massachusetts the other day, a court case was decided by a "liberal judge" who stated in his written decision to overturn another judges lower court ruling, stated in his ruling that " citizens of Massachusetts our residents have the right to keep arms in the home." Further those citizens have thee right to keep the weapons at the ready in other words, no trigger locks are required due to this case law decision. So much for the idea that all of our jurists are liberals in Mass. You might or could still be charged with keeping guns unlocked, but the case will now be thrown out.

I'm willing to bet over 400 of them involved people that should have been in jail to begin with. Sounds like the Democratic leadership in Chicago is doing a wonderful job of keeping things safe.

So what does this have to do with Obama's NRA rating?

The immediate response anyone gets when this is brought up is "laws against Assault Rifles does not infringe on a person's right to own a firearm for their own protection or for sport."

First, let me state that I'm 100% in favor of people that pass a thorough background check and are of sound mind being allowed to own a firearm.

Here's an ironic comparison. Many of the same people that want to lock up the pothead because pot makes him happy, don't want their Assault Rifles taken away. The Constitution also says the pothead has the right to pursue happiness. If weed is the only thing that makes him happy, and he's arrested for possessing weed, isn't that an infringement on his Constitutional Right to pursue happiness?

No. It is not.

Regardless of my position on drug policy (and I really don't want this thread to deviate as I used it only as an example), that pothead's avenue for the pursuit of happiness is restricted for the public's best interest. The government's opinion is that those actions will infringe on the rights of others and public safety.

This is easily transferred to "Assault Rifles." The Right to Bear Arms gives every citizen the right to possess a firearm. It does not state that it gives every citizen the right to possess any type of firearm they choose. Restrictions of ownership are put into place to protect the general populace.

Frankly, aside from "it's my Constitutional Right", what is a valid reason someone should be allowed to own an Assault Rifle?

Define "Assault rifle". Do you mean scary looking gun that will perform the same as your grandfathers hunting rifle?

Um....you posted it as the reason Obama would want to vote anti-gun

Usually these voting ratings are simple up and down counts. They don't even factor in if the gun legislation in question was part of a larger bill with other beneficial elements, how many votes its based on or if it was even good legislation to begin with.

I think it's quite rational to believe someone from a major city like Chicago wouldn't be voting to expand gun ownership very often.

I'd also wager that if the NRA was specifically representing metropolitan gun owners they'd probably factor things differently.

Ultimately though, does anyone really feel that their right to hunt or protect their home is being infringed under current law? I don't see things changing all that much. This is mostly paranoia to help political groups like the NRA fundraise.

-spence

I ask you again, what does this have to do Obama's NRA rating? In particular, I think you need to reconcile the first sentence with your stance. They should be in jail to beigin with......BUT in the meantime they should be able to brandish automatic pistols.

If anything, Obama is trying to make sure guns stay out of the hands of these "400...that should have been in jail to begin with", the same Obama your faulting. Your reasoning seems to be circling in on itself.

This is what you said..."illegal firearm" would be....( help me out here) illegal, right. The thugs already lost their legal right to carry firearms by being criminals. The NRA stance is punish people that commit crimes with guns as hard as possible. It's really not that hard and it makes total sense.

So, assuming Federal Law is enforced, the real question here is if the State or City has the right to enact gun laws more strict than Federal law if they deem it's necessary to protect the population.

Some on the Right will loudly say no, but to think that East St. Louis and Anamosa Iowa are one in the same sure doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Great pheasant hunting in Anamosa by the way, brings back memories.

-spence

My 75 year old Uncle that had a restraining order placed on him 15 years ago by a vindictive girl friend, can't get an FID card in Ma. All he ever wanted to do was go to Maine once a week and hunt with his family. So the answer is yes, our rights are being infringed.

I think the NRA logic is the same as pro-choice logic. Any infringement is a start down the wrong path.

I think there was a ruling by the SPC last year that stated just that.

:soon:

Thats what I use on rabbits:nailem::nailem:

:huh:

assuming they have been convicted of a felony. The fact the gun is illegal does not stop hinder its accessibilty. Accessibility is what I'm talking about. For example, you can cross to the Potomac and go over to Virginia and purchase a trunk full of handguns at gun show. The next day, you can drive back across the potomac to DC and unload your stash like your ice cream truck on a bunch of kids who may or MAY NOT BE convicted felons. Is this registering yet?

I don't know the laws down ther but I will assume your right.

I say when you catch the smuggler, lock him up for life. I don't think he will be selling anymore guns.

Why is that Virginia has few gun laws and very little gun violence? I'm not saying that everyone having a gun makes things safer but it does question why law abiding people being prevented from owning a gun makes things less safe.

This ban is less permissive than the gun-control laws in Iraq. It appears our government will let an Islamist fanatic own an AK-47 in wild and woolly Iraq, but it wont give that same right to Americans.

My question, is why do you feel you need an Uzi or AK-47/M-16??

I have zero problem with hand guns, hunting rifles and shot guns for sporting, hunting and home defense, but I have never understood the need for fully automatic weapons...

Ergo, if person A feels he needs X, on the basis that you do not understand his need for X, he should be banned from getting it?