1. Brack

   I believe he will re-introduce something similar to the assault weapons ban of the 1990s… and, although I’m set as far as guns and ammo goes, I’ll be renewing my concealed carry, just to show the President-Elect that I am very interested in hanging on to those rights.

   Nov 12th, 2008

      5

2. John MacFarlane

   There is no reason a sane, normal person needs an assault weapon (outside of the military). Unless of course, you are going on a killing spree (and not for deer or ducks). If you need protection from intruders to your home, all you need is a .32, .38 or shotgun. There’s no need for an assault or automatic weapon.

   Again, the right wing media is trying to “scare” people. It reminds me of when everyone bought up plastic and tape to protect they’re family from biochemical weapons. It’s mass hysteria.

   Again, I think the idea of this hysterical buying up of assault weapons is ridiculous. And I am FOR a new ban on assault weapons. It will save lives.

   Nov 12th, 2008

      -3

3. David AKA Rico

   I hope that President-elect Obama has more important things on his agenda than gun control at this point.

   @John
   You are looking at the gun issue from a completely practical viewpoint. People want assault weapons for the same reason they want big, fast motorcycles, boats, and cars. There is some status associated, but mostly, they can do things more practical items (boats, cars, motorcycles, guns, etc.) cannot. That makes them kinda fun and cool. Since the vast majority of people who buy assault weapons are reasonably responsible citizens, they pose minimal risk to society. Compared to the number of motorcycle fatalities of late, I would say that an AK47 is a safer toy.

   Nov 12th, 2008

      6

4. Leslie

   Obama has repeatedly said, in campaign stops and even during his nomination acceptance speech at the DNC, that he respects the second amendment and has no plans to restrict gun ownership for responsible citizens. Responsible citizens is the key phrase here. He has in the past said that a low priority (in comparison to the war, economy, environment, etc) would be to look into enforcing existing gun laws and finding tighter restrictions to keep criminals from buying weapons. The gun sales news stories happen every time a democrat is elected to office. It’s a sales strategy for gun shop owners. What I would say is the more important discussion to have from these stories, including the one the Star-Telegram ran last week, is the notion some gun buyers and shop owners have that Obama “plans to let the terrorists take over the United States” and “we need to defend ourselves and buy more weapons.” Having those kinds of misconceptions to fuel buying a weapon is what I think is most dangerous.

   Nov 12th, 2008

      2

5. paul

   I believe this one sits right up there with “Obama is a Muslim” and “Obama will enslave white people.”

   Nov 12th, 2008

      -1

6. Steph

   It’s not the ’90s anymore. I think we have way bigger problems than guns right now (um, the economy, peak oil, all that fun stuff).

   Nov 12th, 2008

      1

7. David AKA Rico

   Many of our citizens rely on talk radio as their sole source of news. The kind of hyperbole and fear-mongering that is the stock and trade of talk radio can lead to an unreasonable reaction, if taken seriously. Makes the Startlegram look better though.

   Nov 12th, 2008

      -2

8. John C.

   While I think the gun-buying hysteria of late is a tad over the top, I can understand why some people might be afraid that an essential right may be taken away or even abridged in some fashion … As a state and U.S. senator, Obama voted against virtually every pro-gun rights law that came before him. (I say “virtually,” because I believe he voted to outlaw gun confiscations during times of national emergency.)

   He supports renewing the ban on “assault weapons,” and has floated the idea of raising taxes on guns, ammo and assorted materials by as much as 500% to deter ownership. He also is opposed to any and all concealed carry laws, and is in favor of using federal laws to override those states that allow the practice.

   It’s a slippery slope … when you start whittling away at SOME gun rights (like “assault weapons,” which shoot the same caliber bullets as hunting rifles, but were banned because they’re black and scary looking, evidently) it’s easy to keep right on going and take away ALL gun rights. An important thing to remember is, the 2nd Amendment does not protect the rights of hunters and sportsmen. It protects the rights of all of us …

   Bad guys definitely shoud not have guns, and I 100% support every effort to enforce existing laws to make this a reality. But bad guys don’t buy guns at a gun store or through other legal means. So, if you disarm the good guys, the only ones left with guns will be the bad ones …

   Nov 13th, 2008

      4

9. Annie

   Thank you John C.—-I couldn’t have said it better myself. A citizen that really wants to be informed can check out Obama’s record regarding guns–hence, the “hysteria”. I’d say it’s justified.

   Nov 13th, 2008

      5

10. Pete Wann

    Thanks for bringing us to the point where the Reason Train runs off the tracks, John C.. What earthly reason could a private citizen have to own an AK-47, an M-2 .50 Caliber machine gun, a Tommy Gun, and so on?

    Despite the language “shall not be infringed” in the 2nd Amendment, it’s HIGHLY unlikely that the framers intended for Joe Average Schmoe to be able to keep weapons of war in his hall closet. Think about it — when the Constitution was written, swords were still considered a primary weapon of war, after flintlock muskets and pistols. I doubt they could have imagined guns the size of a book that can fire 30 rounds in 2 seconds, considering the average reload time of a flintlock is somewhere in the 45 second range.

    Just as it’s completely unreasonable, unrealistic, and un-Constitutional to consider banning outright private gun ownership, it’s also unreasonable and unrealistic to expect completely unrestricted gun ownership.

    Hell, the way the 2nd Amendment is written (it refers to “arms,” not “guns” or “firearms”), the slippery slope could go the other way as well, and the next thing you know we’ll have guys building backpack nukes in their toolsheds “because they can.”

    Nov 13th, 2008

       -4

11. John MacFarlane

    Great comment Pete. I was going to write something in response to John C., but you put it so much more eloquently than I could. I think some people just lump all rights into one pot, and say that our rights can’t be whittled away. As people like John C. say, once they take away “THIS”, they will take away “THAT”, and sooner or later, we will have no rights left. BS!

    Its the people buying these weapons that also think that Obama will let terrorists into the country and then he will use his “power” (magic) to make everyone worship Muhammad.

    Nov 13th, 2008

       -1

12. Brack

    @ Pete

    It is important to note that the “Assault Weapons Ban” of the 90s addressed the semi-automatic weapons fashioned after their fully automatic counterparts. So, regardless of whether the framers thought of the gun that can fire 30 rounds in 2 seconds is immaterial. The ban was on guns that imitated the look, not the actual guns themselves.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

    Nov 13th, 2008

       4

13. John C.

    Pete asks: “What earthly reason could a private citizen have to own an AK-47, an M-2 .50 Caliber machine gun, a Tommy Gun, and so on?”

    Unless you’ve read some articles that I haven’t, I didn’t realize that the gun-buying frenzy has resulted in people getting Class III licenses and adding fully automatic weapons to their arsenals, like the three you mentioned (although the AK-47 is available in semi-auto versions, as well). And, nowhere in my comment did I suggest that people should do this … talk about letting the “Reason Train” run off the tracks. I was merely trying to explain why such a gun-buying spree may be occurring.

    Obama’s record is almost completely anti-gun. It’s not a hard intellectual leap to make to think that he might use the highest office in the land to further enact anti-gun policies, is it?

    I do agree with this point: “Just as it’s completely unreasonable, unrealistic, and un-Constitutional to consider banning outright private gun ownership, it’s also unreasonable and unrealistic to expect completely unrestricted gun ownership.” Which is why fully automatic weapons like the ones you mentioned ARE restricted to people who hold a license to own them.

    The bigger question is, where do we draw the line, and why? A wooden-stock hunting rifle that fires a .223 cartridge and holds five rounds is okay, but a plastic stock rifle that can hold 20 .223 cartridges (and has been labled an “assault weapon”) is not? Why? They fire the same bullets, at the same rate of speed. Is it because one looks like a scary military rifle? That’s the slippery slope I was referring to.

    Why would a .45 1911 that holds seven rounds be legal, but a Glock that holds 13 rounds be illegal? It’s arbitrary, and makes little to no sense. More important, it has NO affect on the crimes being committed in this country, which is the end goal, right?

    Nov 13th, 2008

       4

Reply to “Does Obama Want To Take Your Guns?”

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by the terms of the West and Clear comment policy.