Barry's View on Gun Control?

[DJD]

Anyone know what that is? I'm gonna look but I thought one of you fellers might save me the cipherin'.

[MrSplitshot]

As an NRA member, I get something in the mail every doggone day talking about how Obama is the gun owners nightmare. I don't know if that's all true, but here's a list from ontheissues.org -

Obama:
-Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
-FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
-Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
-Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
-2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
-Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
-Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
-Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
-Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
-Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
-Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

As a gun enthusiast (love my handguns), I'm not real comfortable with him on gun control.

Concealed Carry is okay for retired police officers only? I'm not worried one bit about the legal American who has taken CCDW training and obtained a permit for concealed carry...that guy doesn't bother me at all...glad he's out there. If more people did that, maybe that mall shooting out in Colorado awhile back could have been thwarted by someone carrying a piece and shooting that nutjob before he killed multiple victims.

Keep guns out of inner cities? Well, aint that pretty talk? Talk is all that is...easier said than done, pal. So, because I live in downtown Louisville I ought not be able to have a gun to defend myself, but if I live way out Dixie Highway it's somehow more okay? Disarm the legal public that needs to protect themselves, knowing good and well that the criminals don't give a crap about the gun laws anyway. Smart. When that dude breaks into my home in the middle of the night I'm sure that a quick call to 911 will put an officer in my bedroom in the 20 seconds it takes for the intruder to climb my stairs and shoot me in the forehead before he steals my stuff.

I've always held the stubborn belief that guns don't kill people...people kill people...never really understood outlawing semi-autos and assault weapons and such. I'll meet in the middle as a reasonable human and admit that there are certain weapons that the general public has no business owning, but still...I can kill you with a well-placed 22 round from a single shot bolt action rifle just as well as I can kill you with a fully automatic weapon. Whether it's 1 bullet or 20 bullets coming at you, you're pretty much focused on that first one, right? If it hits, bullets number 2 through 20 don't matter that much.

I'll stop...kinda passionate about this one.

[DJD]

Great website! I read McCains views on it as well and one stood out BIG TIME.

**John McCain**
Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership
John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals--criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.
Source: Campaign website, www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007 Hunts and fishes, as did her father. (Aug 2008)

**SARAH PALIN**
Hunts as much as she can; freezer-full of wild game. (Aug 2008)
Supports ending D.C.'s 32-year-old ban on handguns. (Jun 2008)
Lifelong NRA member & champion of right to bear arms. (Feb 2008)
Supports Constitutional right to bear arms. (Nov 2006)



With all the mind twisting topics that these guys toss around look at what can affect you and your right to bear arms and decide. I like McCain/Palins view. Remember once the gubment takes something away it's hard to get it back. You guys should check this site out BIDEN IS AS BAD OR WORSE THAN BARRY. JMO

[mhall]

Don I don't know of ONE single hunter and I know a bunch that would even consider voting for Barry. He is the most anti-gun candidate this country has ever seen. If he had his way no American other than military or law enforcement could legally own a gun, he's said that almost exact same statement. I'll say it like the late GREAT and true red blooded American Charlton Heston said it. They ( Barry ) can have my guns when they come pry them from my cold dead fingers.

[Col Forbin]

The only things he has in mind for guns is more strict regulations on handguns and fully automatic assault rifles. I don't think this will affect any hunter - I have never hunted with an AK, or affect any person with a clear background.

I am all for fundamental constitutional rights, but I am also for common sense. Common sense tells me there is no need for anyone other than millitary to own and use a fully automatic assault rifle. There is a big difference in a gun manufactured for hunting or for self protection purposes than there is a gun that is manufactured with the intent of effecient killing of multiple people, hence the term "assault."

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I will never think that it should be OK for anyone to own these. I can have just as much fun hunting or targeting with a bolt action, or semi-auto.

[mhall]

The only things he has in mind for guns is more strict regulations on handguns and fully automatic assault rifles. I don't think this will affect any hunter - I have never hunted with an AK, or affect any person with a clear background.

I am all for fundamental constitutional rights, but I am also for common sense. Common sense tells me there is no need for anyone other than millitary to own and use a fully automatic assault rifle. There is a big difference in a gun manufactured for hunting or for self protection purposes than there is a gun that is manufactured with the intent of effecient killing of multiple people, hence the term "assault."

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I will never think that it should be OK for anyone to own these. I can have just as much fun hunting or targeting with a bolt action, or semi-auto.

Very slippery slope my friend very slippery indeed.

[kygorski]

I've always said there are too many guns in the handes of poor people who dont deserve them, A well armed high middle class would have been good for this country, we would still be a colony. Besides armed w3hite middle class citizens dont start wars, that are fought by poor people.

[BPenrod]

I've always said there are too many guns in the handes of poor people who dont deserve them, A well armed high middle class would have been good for this country, we would still be a colony. Besides armed w3hite middle class citizens dont start wars, that are fought by poor people.

I usually don't agree with you Col. Forbin, but I don't understand this one either.

[Col Forbin]

Very slippery slope my friend very slippery indeed.

I agree, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If not the right to have arms should not be limmited to guns, but explosives, chemicals, heck why not even missles while we are at it. Of course I am being a little over the top here, but the point being is that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it needs to be within reason. Keep in mind that when this constition was written, times were different and there was a definite need for self protection - just as there still may be today - but the arms they had in mind were single shot muzzleloading arms that people not only used for self protection, but as there primary means for providing food for families. I don't think our founding fathers ever meant for people to own fully automatic assault rifles. There is no need for individuals to have the same rights to the same weaponry as our military. I am all for individual rights, and the rights to have weapons, however, limits need to be set and enforced.

"I've always said there are too many guns in the handes of poor people who dont deserve them, A well armed high middle class would have been good for this country, we would still be a colony. Besides armed w3hite middle class citizens dont start wars, that are fought by poor people. (quote from kygorski)"

What??? I don't understand this????

[Bobby Headrick]

If guns are banned then only the criminals will have guns. The thugs that but the fully auto's do not get them at the local gun shop or Gander Mtn, they. like everthing else that is illegal is smuggled in. Prohibiting law abiding citizens of not being allowed to own guns will not cure anything and I wish some of the lib's and dem's would see this, that is the one thing about the dems that gets my goat. I love splits answer, gun control to me is being able to hit your target and present a effecent killing shot to that target. I have a semi auto SKS, I deer hunt with it as it is an effective weapon and also if the SHTF, it can use NATO ammo as all our enemies use 7.62 x 39.

[Tom523]

The Dems are really sneaky. They are trying to pass legislation that looks like common sense until you read the fine print. I agree that we don't want a psychologically deranged person owning a gun. But when you read the fine print they want to ban guns for just about anyone that sees a psychaitrist for somethng. This will ban gun ownership to the majority of veterans that have PTSD. Don't trust the Dems!

[JD7.62]

I agree, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If not the right to have arms should not be limmited to guns, but explosives, chemicals, heck why not even missles while we are at it. Of course I am being a little over the top here, but the point being is that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it needs to be within reason. Keep in mind that when this constition was written, times were different and there was a definite need for self protection - just as there still may be today - but the arms they had in mind were single shot muzzleloading arms that people not only used for self protection, but as there primary means for providing food for families. I don't think our founding fathers ever meant for people to own fully automatic assault rifles. There is no need for individuals to have the same rights to the same weaponry as our military. I am all for individual rights, and the rights to have weapons, however, limits need to be set and enforced.

"I've always said there are too many guns in the handes of poor people who dont deserve them, A well armed high middle class would have been good for this country, we would still be a colony. Besides armed w3hite middle class citizens dont start wars, that are fought by poor people. (quote from kygorski)"

What??? I don't understand this????

So your freedom of speech should be limited to an ink well and quill pen?