News Is America Stocking Up on Guns Due to Fear of Obama?

[LowlyPion]

Is this the Real America stocking up on firepower?

http://www.adn.com/politics/v-gallery/story/585071.html?/1521/gallery/585072-a585070-t3.html

 

[noumed]

It has been reported from JC Penney's, Macy's, Target and WalMart that since Nov. 4th, the sales of white sheets, pillow cases, and scissors in the US have increased by 75%.

Coincidence?

 

[drankin]

I was listening to "Gun Talk" last (an AM talk show) Sunday and they were pointing out that the Obama transitional team had posted their intentions concerning anti-gun legislation on their website. They will bring back the Clinton assault weapons ban and make it permanent among other restrictions. Apparently, so many listeners were hitting the website to see for themselves that that particular page was taken down. It looks like the Obama administration is definitely going to expand gun restrictions. They are just keeping it on the "down-low" until they are in office. Gun owners aren't being paranoid, Obama's administration has plans contrary to gun ownership.

 

[LowlyPion]

I was listening to "Gun Talk" last (an AM talk show) Sunday and they were pointing out that the Obama transitional team had posted their intentions concerning anti-gun legislation on their website. They will bring back the Clinton assault weapons ban and make it permanent among other restrictions. Apparently, so many listeners were hitting the website to see for themselves that that particular page was taken down. It looks like the Obama administration is definitely going to expand gun restrictions. They are just keeping it on the "down-low" until they are in office. Gun owners aren't being paranoid, Obama's administration has plans contrary to gun ownership.

With the government holding so many other weapons than guns to control society it seems that automatic weapon pitched battles with citizens isn't a likely concern. That's fighting previous wars instead of future ones.

 

[edward]

It has been reported from JC Penney's, Macy's, Target and WalMart that since Nov. 4th, the sales of white sheets, pillow cases, and scissors in the US have increased by 75%.

Coincidence?

Do you have a credible source for that? You are making a highly questionable insinuation.

 

[mgb_phys]

Great marketing opportunity.
I heard that he is going to ban 3D GIS software - you should all go to my website and stock up now!

noumed - I think we should have an icon, that's says 'warning this user may contain irony'

 

[edward]

What is it that I may need a semi automatic assault rifle to protect myself from?? If I need massive protection I will need at least ten fully automatic rifles and 100's of RPG's.

A shoulder mounted assault weapon would be great.



My point is where do we draw the line?

 

[drankin]

What is it that I may need a semi automatic assault rifle to protect myself from?? If I need massive protection I will need at least ten fully automatic rifles and 100's of RPG's.

A shoulder mounted assault weapon would be great.



My point is where do we draw the line?

That's just it, there is no need to draw a line. We don't have an assault weapon problem in the US. It's not a matter of need. It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I doubt we would ever "need" an assault rifle but that's not the point. If something crazy were to happen 20yrs down the road, I rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Besides, assault rifles make a for good hunting rifles too.

 

[noumed]

noumed - I think we should have an icon, that's says 'warning this user may contain irony'

A big grain of salt would do just fine as well.

 

[Helios]

Myself, I've had a gun pointed to my head by one of two crips. I learned indeed, happiness is a warm gun. Don't anyone forget it.

 

[WarPhalange]

Do you have a credible source for that? You are making a highly questionable insinuation.

It could be one of those "joke" things I've been reading about lately.

 

[edward]

That's just it, there is no need to draw a line.

So why end the right to own weapons at assault rifles.

I have nothing against owning weapons , I have a number of them myself. Yet again, there has to be a point that the majority agrees on.

 

[chasely]

That's just it, there is no need to draw a line. We don't have an assault weapon problem in the US. It's not a matter of need. It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I doubt we would ever "need" an assault rifle but that's not the point. If something crazy were to happen 20yrs down the road, I rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Besides, assault rifles make a for good hunting rifles too.

I am somewhat torn on this issue. I think there's more of a handgun problem than assault rifle problem. Most murders with unregistered firearms are made with handguns, not assault rifles. However, in a "killing spree" scenario, the assault rifle is a much more dangerous weapon.

I personally support gun ownership, but believe that we need much stricter rules for obtaining guns of all sorts. If someone really can't plan ahead and wait a couple of weeks (hell, maybe months) to get their hands on a gun, I don't know if they should own one in the first place.

I've shot all different kinds of weapons, including assault rifles, just because I think shooting is a fun activity. However, I don't know if I'll ever own a gun because I really don't think it's necessary.

I'll also say that almost all gun owners are responsible, it's just the few exceptions that make the news. However, I've met a few crazies at the gun range too.

 

[turbo]

There is NO functional difference between "assault rifles" and regular semi-automatic hunting rifles. None. The difference is that "assault rifles" are cosmetically similar to military-issued fully-automatic rifles. Apart from that, most hunting rifles are considerably more potent than any "assault rifle". Even the Kalashnikov look-alike SKS can't hold a candle to my father's 40-year-old Remington Model 742, apart from clip capacity. I'd rather be facing someone with an AR-15 or an SKS than a skilled shooter with that semi-auto .30-06 any day of the week.

What's amazing to me is that the gun lobby AND their opponents both try to leverage non-existent differences in these guns to their benefit, ignoring the facts on the ground. Apart from legislating against the sale of high-capacity magazines (which are widely available anyway) there is nothing that can be done to get rid of "assault rifles" that wouldn't apply to many, many hunting rifles. The US government cannot and will not go there.

To those not familiar, semi-automatic hunting rifles are not "automatic" in that you can depress the trigger and fire a burst of shots. They are more properly called "auto-loading" rifles because either a portion of the exhaust gases depressing a cylinder or the recoil of the round against the bolt causes the bolt to disengage, fly back, rebound and load another round. You still need to press the trigger again to fire another round.

 

[drankin]

There is NO functional difference between "assault rifles" and regular semi-automatic hunting rifles. None. The difference is that "assault rifles" are cosmetically similar to military-issued fully-automatic rifles. Apart from that, most hunting rifles are considerably more potent than any "assault rifle". Even the Kalashnikov look-alike SKS can't hold a candle to my father's 40-year-old Remington Model 742, apart from clip capacity. I'd rather be facing someone with an AR-15 or an SKS than a skilled shooter with that semi-auto .30-06 any day of the week.

What's amazing to me is that the gun lobby AND their opponents both try to leverage non-existent differences in these guns to their benefit, ignoring the facts on the ground. Apart from legislating against the sale of high-capacity magazines (which are widely available anyway) there is nothing that can be done to get rid of "assault rifles" that wouldn't apply to many, many hunting rifles. The US government cannot and will not go there.

To those not familiar, semi-automatic hunting rifles are not "automatic" in that you can depress the trigger and fire a burst of shots. They are more properly called "auto-loading" rifles because either a portion of the exhaust gases depressing a cylinder or the recoil of the round against the bolt causes the bolt to disengage, fly back, rebound and load another round. You still need to press the trigger again to fire another round.

The Clinton ban was around before I began owning guns. I believe one of the distinctions they made is if the rifle had a pistol grip it was an assault rifle. Why a pistol grip makes a rifle more deadly than without, I have no idea. I believe it was just a play on peoples emotions about the "scary" military looking rifles.

 

[turbo]

The Clinton ban was around before I began owning guns. I believe one of the distinctions they made is if the rifle had a pistol grip it was an assault rifle. Why a pistol grip makes a rifle more deadly than without, I have no idea. I believe it was just a play on peoples emotions about the "scary" military looking rifles.

The anti-gun nuts have focused on a lot of features, such as a pistol grip, the existence of a barrel-lug to which a bipod or bayonet could be attached, flash-suppressors, etc. The fact is that there are many accurate and very powerful hunting rifles that look quite conventional (wood stocks, glossy black bluing on the metal, etc) but that are far more deadly, especially at medium-to-long ranges.

The M16 was chambered for .223 cal ammunition. It is a light round, and fairly accurate in that application (though it is a MUCH better round in a long-barreled rifle) and since it is small and light, a soldier on patrol can carry a lot more rounds than if he/she had to lug around .308's or some other more powerful rounds. The M14 was designed for .308's and was itself a very heavy weapon, reducing the infantry soldiers' ability to carry additional food, water, and other gear. The Germans and other NATO forces have stayed with their version of the .308, but with lighter rifles with composite stocks, much to their credit.

 

[WarPhalange]

That's just it, there is no need to draw a line. We don't have an assault weapon problem in the US. It's not a matter of need. It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. I doubt we would ever "need" an assault rifle but that's not the point. If something crazy were to happen 20yrs down the road, I rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Besides, assault rifles make a for good hunting rifles too.

I agree. Similarly, there is no nuclear weapon problem in the US. I should be able to make and store or just buy my own nuclear weapons. After all, bombs still count as "arms". I doubt I would ever "need" a nuclear bomb, but that's not the point. If something crazy were to happen 20yrs down the road, like a Ruskie invading my house, I'd rather have my nuclear bomb handy than to have him Communise me while I order him to tear down a wall.

 

[turbo]

I agree. Similarly, there is no nuclear weapon problem in the US. I should be able to make and store or just buy my own nuclear weapons. After all, bombs still count as "arms". I doubt I would ever "need" a nuclear bomb, but that's not the point. If something crazy were to happen 20yrs down the road, like a Ruskie invading my house, I'd rather have my nuclear bomb handy than to have him Communise me while I order him to tear down a wall.

 

[noumed]

I agree. Similarly, there is no nuclear weapon problem in the US. I should be able to make and store or just buy my own nuclear weapons. After all, bombs still count as "arms". I doubt I would ever "need" a nuclear bomb, but that's not the point. If something crazy were to happen 20yrs down the road, like a Ruskie invading my house, I'd rather have my nuclear bomb handy than to have him Communise me while I order him to tear down a wall.

Forget "nucular" weapons, I want one of http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/11/mini-nuclear-plant-is-safe-affordable-and-purifies-water-but-d/"!

 

[drankin]

I agree. Similarly, there is no nuclear weapon problem in the US. I should be able to make and store or just buy my own nuclear weapons. After all, bombs still count as "arms". I doubt I would ever "need" a nuclear bomb, but that's not the point. If something crazy were to happen 20yrs down the road, like a Ruskie invading my house, I'd rather have my nuclear bomb handy than to have him Communise me while I order him to tear down a wall.

Nuclear weapon vs assault rifle. Not the best analogy.

 

[ray b]

the bill of rights talks about a citizen ''militia''
so why should any class of firearms be outlawed
an invaiding army sure would have full automatic's
as will any gov army the citizen militia goes up against

I just don't see a legal way to bann the so call assault guns
as the bill of rights is about military arms in citizen hands

 

[WarPhalange]

Nuclear weapon vs assault rifle. Not the best analogy.

So there is a line, you say?

 

[turbo]

Nuclear weapon vs assault rifle. Not the best analogy.

Again, an auto-loading rifle that looks cosmetically similar to a military-issue weapon is no more or less dangerous than a hunting rifle. Apart from cosmetic features, the only functional discrimination to be made (vs, single-shot, lever action, bolt action, single-action, or double-action guns) is the auto-loading feature. If the government wanted to ban and confiscate all auto-loading weapons, they would have to reach back over a century. Auto-loading is not a real recent development. In fact, for side-arms, the pinnacle was established by Browning in the Colt 1911 (year) model .45. That was the standard military side-arm for many decades and still has aficionados dedicated to modifying, accurizing and tweaking them. My Glock 20 has the 1911 beat hands-down, but it is still just an auto-loading handgun, albeit with more knock-down capacity than some "assault rifles". 10mm Auto is a handful - like a .45 ACP on steroids. "Assault rifle" is a term used to scare the uninformed.

 

[drankin]

So there is a line, you say?

Yes, there is a line. And all small firearms (.50 cal and under) are behind that line. The right to bear arms, not the right to bear cannons/missiles/nuclear warheads.

 

[turbo]

Yes, there is a line. And all small firearms (.50 cal and under) are behind that line. The right to bear arms, not the right to bear cannons/missiles/nuclear warheads.

I hunt with a single-shot .45-70, and have a collection of loads that can exceed 1800 fps in both 405 and 500 gr slug weights. You don't want to do a lot of target shooting with that beast.

 

[noumed]

"Assault rifle" is a term used to scare the uninformed.

But you can still get arrested for carrying a toy "Assault Rifle" in public.

 

[drankin]

But you can still get arrested for carrying a toy "Assault Rifle" in public.

Depends on the state. It isn't a Federal law as far as I'm aware of.

 

[WarPhalange]

Yes, there is a line. And all small firearms (.50 cal and under) are behind that line. The right to bear arms, not the right to bear cannons/missiles/nuclear warheads.

Oh boy, let's play Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

My turn: The right to bear arms, not the right to bear fully automatic weapons.

How did I do? Was that good? Should I go again?

EDIT:

And by the way, it's "Assault Weapon" that is banned, not Assault Rifle. Different things entirely.

 

[turbo]

But you can still get arrested for carrying a toy "Assault Rifle" in public.

You can get arrested for carrying a mock weapon in almost any public place, but unless you are using it to coerce someone for your own benefit, you will be released. It's not a crime. In most areas of the US, it's not a crime to carry an unconcealed weapon openly, nor should it be.

 

[drankin]

Oh boy, let's play Chief Justice of the Supreme Court!

My turn: The right to bear arms, not the right to bear fully automatic weapons.

How did I do? Was that good? Should I go again?

EDIT:

And by the way, it's "Assault Weapon" that is banned, not Assault Rifle. Different things entirely.

I don't follow. Explain your charade and I'll tell you how you did.

 

[noumed]

In most areas of the US, it's not a crime to carry an unconcealed weapon openly, nor should it be.

Common sense would immediately alert that someone's up to no good. Can't start a fire without a flint? Poor analogy maybe, but you surely can't deny the potential threat someone poses by carrying a weapon in public. Unless you're advocating that everyone should have weapons and carry them in public to even out the playing field, so to speak.

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, there is a line. And all small firearms (.50 cal and under) are behind that line. The right to bear arms, not the right to bear cannons/missiles/nuclear warheads.

Why are cannons, missiles and nuclear warheads not considered "arms"?

In fact, they are just the kind of arms that I would think would be useful to a well regulated militia.

 

[drankin]

Common sense would immediately alert that someone's up to no good. Can't start a fire without a flint? Poor analogy maybe, but you surely can't deny the potential threat someone poses by carrying a weapon in public. Unless you're advocating that everyone should have weapons and carry them in public to even out the playing field, so to speak.

I carry in the public (concealed). I have a permit to do so. In many states, including mine, I can walk the streets with my weapon unconcealed on my hip without a permit. What are you getting at?

 

[drankin]

Why are cannons, missiles and nuclear warheads not considered "arms"?

In fact, they are just the kind of arms that I would think would be useful to a well regulated militia.

You have a point. I think (it's my interpretation anyway) that they meant rifles and pistols. Cannons existed then and maybe they meant that as well but I'm not sure they intended missiles and nuclear arms had they known they were to exist. But, some purist would probably argue that as well. I'm not interested in that argument. Don't restrict my small firearms and I'm content that my Constitution rights are being respected.

 

[WarPhalange]

I don't follow. Explain your charade and I'll tell you how you did.

Your "line" is very arbitrary and I can make one up just as arbitrarily.

 

[Gokul43201]

Your "line" is very arbitrary and I can make one up just as arbitrarily.

Of course it's arbitrary! It's like a revolving door - you put in a fresh set SC judges and you have no way of knowing where they will spit out the "line".

 

[drankin]

Your "line" is very arbitrary and I can make one up just as arbitrarily.

Are you going to add something to this discussion? Ask for definition about something you don't understand? Engage in intelligent discussion about the issues or lack there-of?

 

[turbo]

Your "line" is very arbitrary and I can make one up just as arbitrarily.

Small arms fire is typically characterized by our military as anything .50 cal and under. There are .50 cal bolt action rifles currently in production, and they are used for target shooting, elk hunting, and any other number of uses. There are .50 cal weapons in current production that cannot match the energy that my .45-70 single-shot rifle can deliver at target.

You want a deadly weapon to ban? Try a silenced 9mm pistol or a compact .22 cal pistol - the favorite of many hit-men. How far do you want to go?

 

[Gokul43201]

Small arms fire is typically characterized by our military as anything .50 cal and under.

I don't see the word "small" or any synonym of it in the Second Amendment. Where did that come from?

 

[noumed]

I carry in the public (concealed). I have a permit to do so. In many states, including mine, I can walk the streets with my weapon unconcealed on my hip without a permit. What are you getting at?

I guess what I was trying to say is, usually when you see someone w/out a police uniform walking with a weapon unconcealed, a flag goes off in your head saying that this person has a specific intention to do so. You can't possibly know for sure that this person is up to no good or not, so why not avoid such situation in the first place?

 

[noumed]

I don't see the word "small" or any synonym of it in the Second Amendment. Where did that come from?

You don't, and this is what the Constitution lacks. However, you can safely assume, with good, unbiased sense, that they meant muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears because those are what were available to them. So I think it benefits everybody if we were to interpret the Second Amendment by restricting "arms" to strictly "small arms" that are incapable of causing a mass destruction.

 

[WarPhalange]

Are you going to add something to this discussion? Ask for definition about something you don't understand? Engage in intelligent discussion about the issues or lack there-of?

I'm adding plenty. That you can't take any of it isn't my problem.

Small arms fire is typically characterized by our military as anything .50 cal and under. There are .50 cal bolt action rifles currently in production, and they are used for target shooting, elk hunting, and any other number of uses. There are .50 cal weapons in current production that cannot match the energy that my .45-70 single-shot rifle can deliver at target.

You want a deadly weapon to ban? Try a silenced 9mm pistol or a compact .22 cal pistol - the favorite of many hit-men. How far do you want to go?

I don't care how far we go, I'd just like a clear set of rules. For scientists, both of you are way too comfortable with the ambiguous definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment. I want a real definition I can adhere to. If not, then why can't I walk around with a pipe bomb in my hand?

 

[turbo]

I don't see the word "small" or any synonym of it in the Second Amendment. Where did that come from?

You're right, of course, and most muskets of the day could accommodate balls or composite loads much larger than .50 cal. During the Civil War, much of the front-line infantry was equipped with "buck and ball" loads in their muskets. These fired large buckshot loads with smaller shotgun-type projectiles (1:3 was common) and could disable enough of the enemy to tie up their resources even if you could not kill them outright.

 

[drankin]

I guess what I was trying to say is, usually when you see someone w/out a police uniform walking with a weapon unconcealed, a flag goes off in your head saying that this person has a specific intention to do so. You can't possibly know for sure that this person is up to no good or not, so why not avoid such situation in the first place?

Though we have the right to do so, very few people do this because it makes people not familiar with firearms nervous. I think this is why Washington state began issuing concealed carry permits. I only open carry on my own property if/when I bother at all. I like the idea of being able to without breaking the law if there were ever a natural disaster where there might be looters about, or the unlikely event like an "LA" style riot happening in the neighborhood.

 

[drankin]

I'm adding plenty. That you can't take any of it isn't my problem.



I don't care how far we go, I'd just like a clear set of rules. For scientists, both of you are way too comfortable with the ambiguous definition of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment. I want a real definition I can adhere to. If not, then why can't I walk around with a pipe bomb in my hand?

Come on, we've all at least graduated high school here (I hope).

The 2nd Amendment seems ambiguous now, but back then it was pretty clear. They didn't have the variety we have today. So the Supreme Court will need to "draw the line" in future litigation and flesh the details out. I think it's reasonable that we are able to possesses military grade small arms. RPGs etc.? I don't think that will ever be legal for civilian possession.

 

[noumed]

I like the idea of being able to without breaking the law if there were ever a natural disaster where there might be looters about, or the unlikely event like an "LA" style riot happening in the neighborhood.

But we already have people in place to act upon those unlikely events. I understand that you want to protect yourself from harm, and I'm okay with that. But people in the position of power tend to take action into their own hands.

Let's say a civilian with a gun sees a bank robbery in process, what is to stop that civilian to raise his gun to try to intervene and potentially causing harm to innocent bystanders? Then he/she has just crossed the line between following the law and becoming the law itself.

 

[noumed]

RPGs etc.? I don't think that will ever be legal for civilian possession.

Would be pretty badass though. Maybe we've just been spoiled by Hollywood.

 

[drankin]

But we already have people in place to act upon those unlikely events. I understand that you want to protect yourself from harm, and I'm okay with that. But people in the position of power tend to take action into their own hands.

Let's say a civilian with a gun sees a bank robbery in process, what is to stop that civilian to raise his gun to try to intervene and potentially causing harm to innocent bystanders? Then he/she has just crossed the line between following the law and becoming the law itself.

I really hate these make believe scenerios. We can "what-if" forever. Everyone has the right to defend themselves and others. It's not just "The Law's" responsibilty. BTW cops weren't very effective during the LA riots, people had to defend themselves.

 

[cristo]

You have a point. I think (it's my interpretation anyway) that they meant rifles and pistols. Cannons existed then and maybe they meant that as well but I'm not sure they intended missiles and nuclear arms had they known they were to exist.

Sorry, but this isn't something you can even try and guess. All one can do is read things literally: the constitution allows you to bear 'arms,' presumably to enable you to overthrow a corrupt government, should one arise. However, since the government has nuclear weapons, tanks, submarines, etc, then surely the citizens should be allowed to own such weapons. I doubt one would get away with walking around with a nuclear weapon in their jacket, though.

I've always found it a little weird how people try and hold onto antiquated laws. Thankfully, we don't do that here, else I'd have to watch out for the archers should I ever visit Cardiff on a Sunday!

 

[WarPhalange]

So the Supreme Court will need to "draw the line" in future litigation and flesh the details out. I think it's reasonable that we are able to possesses military grade small arms. RPGs etc.? I don't think that will ever be legal for civilian possession.

And I don't think it's reasonable that we can have fully automatic weapons but can't walk around with a simple bomb. I mean, if I need to kill a lot of people in a hurry, a bomb is just better.

Pea shooters just won't cut it against a foreign military invading us or our own military trying to oppress us. Our militias would get slaughtered. Ever try to kill a tank with a hand gun?