Gun Sales Up Since Election

The LA Times reports gun sales are up in the wake of last week's election. The Denver Post reported last week the election has spurred a rush on gun sales in Colorado due to fears an Obama Adminstration will restrict Second Amendment gun rights. The Kansas City Star recently reported gun sales are up all over the country since October, when Obama seemed poised to win the election. Sales are also up in Iowa.

I have a post at 5280.com today asking whether this is a rational fear or propaganda from the National Rifle Association (NRA)? FactCheck.Org says the NRA's claims are false. [More...]

Ten days before the election, the NRA posted on its website:

Obama has voted to ban hunting ammo, proposed a 500% increase in the excise tax on firearms, and even voted to ban single and double barrel shotguns. Obama has voted to allow reckless lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, and against Supreme Court Justices who supported the individual right to bear arms.

Just days after the election, the NRA posted a new litany of gun complaints against Obama, who, for his part, laid out his record on gun rights here.

I analyzed Obama’s record on gun rights during the campaign, concluding that he had not been consistent on the issue. In April, the Chicago Sun-Times interviewed him on his position.

We’ve got to tighten up our gun laws. I’ve said before we should have a much tougher background check system, one that’s much more effective and make sure there aren’t loopholes out there like the gun show loophole. [Or] The Tiahart Amendment [requiring destruction of gun-purchase records]. Here’s an example of something common-sense: The ATF [federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms] should be able to share info with local communities about where guns are coming from, tracing guns that are used in criminal activity. It’s been blocked consistently in Congress. As president, I’m gong to make sure we know if guns are being sold by unscrupulous gun dealers not abiding by existing laws. We should know about that.

He also told the Sun-Times he intended to assist communities with juvenile gun programs:

Finally, we’ve got to deal with the underlying social issues that are causing this gun violence as well. You’ve got gangs of young men who are lost, who are involved in the drug trade. Starting early with early childhood education, improving our K-through-12 education, having after-school programs or summer-school programs so we are providing pathways for young people to move in the right direction. As president, we’ve got to be able to help local communities put those programs in place.

Colorado’s Dave Koppel, director of the Independence Institute in Golden, wrote about Obama’s gun control record in the Wall Street Journal.

In 1999, Mr. Obama urged enactment of a federal law prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a school or park. This would eliminate gun stores from almost the entire inhabited portion of the United States.

As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he “never saw or approved the questionnaire,” and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But…Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama’s handwriting.

When the U.S. Supreme Court voted last year to hear a case on the constitutionality of the Washington, D.C., handgun ban, Mr. Obama’s campaign told the Chicago Tribune: “Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional” and that “local communities” should have the ability “to enact common sense laws.”

It seems that Obama does support an individual’s right to bear arms, but he also believes the state has the authority and duty to impose regulations on that right for the safety of the community. I don’t see a need to go out and buy more guns in advance of his inauguration.

But, given his record and that of the Clinton-Gore Administration (pdf) before him, I also suspect he will appoint an attorney general who will make enforcement of gun crimes a chief priority. This week Obama released his “Urban Policy Plan,” which includes the following:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahart Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn’t have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Then again, as I wrote here in December 2007, Colorado U.S. Attorney Troy Eid also prioritized gun crimes, at the behest of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was appointed by President Bush.

< Why John Brennan Matters | Mark Foley Speaks, Says Little >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Dear Anti-Gun lefties (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Surfrider on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 06:41:24 PM EST

    I am opening a dialogue with you to better comprehend your position through reviewing your responses to a few questions. After you've read my questions and the provided links, I'll answer any questions you may have regarding my strong belief in the right to keep and bear arms, and I hope you will truthfully answer the questions I pose to you below:

    1. Do you believe the government is always honest with the people?

    2. A woman who is unarmed is easy prey for an armed rapist. But there are many places in America where a woman cannot legally carry a gun to protect herself from attack. Do you think it is better for a woman to be raped than to fend off a rapist in self-defense with a gun? If so, why? If not, then do you advise women to resist armed rapists with their bare hands?

    3. Britain has effectively disarmed its citizens. Their own Olympic shooters had to ship guns out of the country or turn them in to be destroyed. But if more gun control decreases crime, why is Britain experiencing an epidemic of gun-related violence? (See http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/gun)

    4. Washington, D.C. has a per capita murder rate of 69 per 100,000 with the strictest gun control laws in the country. Indianapolis, with much more gun freedom, only has 9 murders per 100,000 residents. If disarming people makes cities safer, how can this be?

    5. There are tens of thousands of cases of people getting no response from the 911 system--including scores of cases where people were still wounded or killed after having dialed 911. If a criminal is already inside your house, garage, or car, is dialing 911 really the most effective way of immediately dealing with the situation?
    (See http://www.channel2000.com/news/stories/news-970713-124534.html)

    1. Police also have no legal requirement to protect you when you call for help. People attacked by criminals and injured after calling police for help cannot sue in court and win. This places the responsibility of personal protection in the hands of each individual. Does it make sense that the individual be denied the same access to tools for self-protection that police enjoy? (See http://rkba.org/research/kasler/protection and also http://dial911.itgo.com)

    2. Every national gun licensing and registration in history has led to confiscation. Gun registration in America has already led to confiscation in New York and California. (See http://www.sierratimes.com/arjj020700.htm) If you support gun registration in America, would you please explain how having their guns registered helped the citizens in China, Nazi Germany, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, or Uganda? Do you think gun registration was beneficial to the Jews in Germany, the Cambodians under Pol Pot, or the Chinese under Mao Tse Tung? (See http://www.jpfo.org/L-laws.htm.)

    3. Why are the media and the government working in unison to disarm America when the most in-depth scientific studies on the subject of private gun ownership shows that more guns in the hands of citizens REDUCES violent crime? (See http://www.reasonmag.com/0001/fe.js.cold.html) What agenda for the US do they have planned that requires disarming the citizens of our country?

    4. Criminals get guns, knives, and bludgeons any time they wish, and they disobey whatever laws they wish--including laws against robbery, rape, and murder. Why would you want to make law-abiding citizens easier prey by taking away their guns?
    (See http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/sti/2000/01/16/stinwenws02004.html?999)

    1. We rarely see both sides of the gun debate issue on national television. Why is that? It has already been proven by the most in-depth scientific study on the subject of guns and crime that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens means less crime.

    2. The ACLU and most Americans think a door-to-door search for drugs is a gross violation of civil rights. Many gun banners would like to see door-to-door confiscation of guns. Are you willing to have Your Home searched for guns (or anything else) any time the government wishes to do so?

    3. Every year Americans citizens legally kill 3-5 times as many criminals as are killed by all the law enforcement officials combined. Up to 2 1/2 million times a year, citizens use guns to legally thwart crime--usually when they are the intended victims. If citizens are disarmed, these intended victims will be defenseless against armed criminals. Are you saying that millions of Americans each year should have no right to stop criminals who are victimizing them? Would you prefer to give many more criminals the ability to succeed each year?

    4. Today, many men and women have reason to believe that the Federal government is intent on disarming the American people as a means to significantly greater control-- the way citizens in disarmed China, Germany, the Soviet Union and Cuba are controlled. If these people are right, does this concern you?

    5. There are 360-450 citizens in America for every law enforcement officer. (600,000/750,000 to 270,000,000) Do you believe each law enforcement officer can protect 360-450 people from violent criminals?

    6. When they express anger, law-abiding gun owners are presented as "extremists" in today's media. American public servants surrounded by armed bodyguards and/or living in neighborhoods with private security are telling law-abiding citizens we cannot carry or even own (some cities/states) a gun--not even to protect ourselves and our families. Do you see the hypocrisy? Can you understand why tolerance pushed beyond a limit of fairness leads to justifiable anger? Can you understand why being told we cannot enjoy the same safety our leaders enjoy invokes outrage? Is a politician's life more important than your life? If so, why?

    7. Mainstream media, which uses the publicly-owned electromagnetic spectrum to broadcast, has clearly proven to be biased against guns; it is not presenting both sides of the issue. (See http://www.keepandbeararms.org/media_bias.htm) On the other hand, http://www.citizensofamerica.org has a media program that presents the pro-gun side of the story. If you believe in "equality" regarding public property, should COA be given free media time to present their case? And just why IS the media so biased in the first place? (And why might the government be anti-gun?)

    8. In many areas of the nation, a woman who is being stalked by her ex-husband must wait 10 days to purchase a gun--even if her life has been threatened. Why should law-abiding people in fear of their lives wait 10 days to get a gun when criminals have no waiting periods?

    9. Criminals often kill people who've already turned over their money and put up no resistance. If a woman does not resist and the criminal intends to rape her, she will be raped. Do you think the government has a right to require women to submit to rape? If so, why?

    10. Are we supposed to simply Submit when confronted with an armed rapist or murderer and leave our ourselves at their mercy? If so, why? Can you see how our society would revert to utter lawlessness if everyone agreed to simply submit to armed criminals?

    11. Many anti-gun people use child gun-related accidents and/or deaths as a reason for banning guns. Seeing that more children drown every year than are killed by guns, do you support banning swimming pools?

    12. Current federal law now limits the capacity of a gun's magazine to 10 rounds. Police often empty their guns without ever stopping a criminal. If you were out alone at a roadside rest area and were approached by 3 hardened criminals with obvious intent to do you harm, would you want to be limited to only 10 rounds?

    13. Cars are commonly used to commit crimes. Far more people die in cars every year than by guns--and no Constitutional Amendment guarantees our rights to own cars. Because more people die every year in cars than by guns, do you support a ban on cars? There are also an alarming number of crimes committed under the influence of alcohol. Would you support a ban on alcohol considering it didn't work the last time they tried it?

    14. Mayors of several cities in America are suing gun manufacturers under the guise of recovering costs of gun-related injuries which took place in their cities. Because more people are hurt or killed in cars than by guns, do you support these mayors in suing car manufacturers?

    15. Numerous cities in America criminalize carrying guns for self-defense. These same cities make exceptions for people carrying money and jewels. Do you agree that money and jewels are more important to protect than people's lives?

    16. The National Guard is paid by the Federal government, occupies property leased to the Federal government, uses weapons owned by the Federal government, and punishes trespassers under Federal law. Do you truly believe the National Guard is a State agency?

    17. The National Guard is also what is commonly called the modern-day militia in anti-gun propaganda as a way of trying to deal with the Second Amendment. If the Constitution was referring to the National Guard with the term "militia," how can we account for the fact that the Second Amendment was ratified in 1787--while the National Guard was created by an act of Congress in 1903?

    18. The FBI and ATF (agencies of the Federal government) gunned down 81 innocent women and children and burned most of the evidence down to the ground in Waco and have withheld evidence which would (and still may) convict them of wrongdoing. They murdered Randy Weaver's wife. The police and other state agencies shot to death Donald Scott in a bogus drug raid in California. Why would you trust these government agencies with fully automatic weapons but not trust a law-abiding individual with a simple self-defense handgun?

    19. The law-abiding gun owners of today are presented as "gun nuts, extremists, militia fanatics, and killers" in the communications media. Is it possible they are depicted this way to sway public opinion toward disliking guns? If so, why would the media and the anti-gun politicians do that? How is this different from the way the news organs of Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Cuba propagandized against the segments of their societies that opposed complete state control?

    20. Many documented statements by anti-gun groups claim that the Second Amendment refers to the power of the States to keep and bear arms. In other sections of the Constitution, we find the following: "the right of the PEOPLE to peaceably assemble," the "right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their homes," "enumeration here of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the PEOPLE," and "the powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the PEOPLE." Do you honestly believe "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms" refers to the States but excludes Individuals?

    21. Handguns are the cheapest, lightest, most portable, easiest-to-use, and most effective means of self-defense. This is why they are used by police officers. Denying people the right to use this tool leaves them defenseless against criminals on the street. Why do you advocate that law-abiding people not be allowed to protect themselves with the best means of self-defense available?

    22. The Federal government and the United Nations (See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19991207_xex_un_coming_yo.shtml) have been working in unison for years to systematically disarm American citizens. Is it even remotely possible that the government has something planned that so many Americans would be against that it is critical that they disarm us? If so, do you see that supporting their disarmament plans could be working against the American citizens committed to preserving freedom?

    I really believe that a lot of opposition (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 08:16:42 PM EST
    to the facts you're bringing up is based on an opposition to the people who espouse gun rights, and not the issue itself...

    and that points to number 28 in your message here...that's the way most people see gun right activists...it's the truth...

    maybe if gun right activists could tell Ted Nugent to shut up and stay out of the limelight it may help the cause a little bit...I know that when I think of gun right activists I think of Ted Nugent and other burly, 'backwards' men with beards who align themselves with the fundamentalist christian right while they try and take away liberties from others (like in regard to the war on drugs, and separation of church and state)

    like you said, though, this idea could be exactly what the media is going for...maybe not all gun rights people are like this (and hey, maybe not all Police Officers are Aholes), but enough of them are that the rest are under suspicion...

    I admit it's totally wrong to be against the messenger and not the message, but that's a fact of life....the tall guy with the amazing smile is going to get more persons to agree with his message than is the fat, short guy with bad teeth...as they say in sales, it's not what you say it's how you say it (or even how you look when you say it)...this is one of the basic truths of capitalism...when deciding between two products to buy, buy from the person that you would want to be like..

    bullet point number 24 was also interesting....gonna have to try and google up some info about that...

    we can't have an old-west scenario, that's for sure...so there has to be some discussion and compromise...

    I just wish one party would be the practical one and be practical on all issues...at this point there isn't a practical party...the right loves to say that the left is idealist, whereas the right is just as idealist, trying to make a country in the name of christianity...just pick one for crying out loud....are you pragmatic (we need guns, we can't make policy based upon morals) or are you idealist (a perfect world has no need for guns, and everyone can have a perfectly moral life)...


    Out of date (none / 0) (#39)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM EST

    Current federal law now limits the capacity of a gun's magazine to 10 rounds.

    That is out of date.  I have several 13, 23, and 29 round mags.  All 100% legal.  When you shoot in competition, you are very careful to stay within the law.

    Even when the AWB was in force only the manufacture and importation was prohibited.  The ban made a lot of money for those that stocked up before the ban as scarcity drove the price up by more than triple.


    It seems to me (4.50 / 2) (#9)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    that the way to stimulate the sagging retail sector is to start a rumor that Obama plans to confiscate everyone's Christmas presents.

    Good point. (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:49:27 PM EST
    That type of rumor - that McCain had out-fundraised Obama - certainly stimulated Obama's fundraising revenues.

    presents (none / 0) (#11)
    by bobbski on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:51:01 PM EST
    What Christmas presents?

    The NRA was propagandizing against (none / 0) (#1)
    by scribe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:15:03 PM EST
    Obama on this, through push-polling since like February or March at least.  I know, because I, by virtue of being on a mailing list, got one of them.  And they explicitly put out the message that he would impose a "quota" (couldn't resist the coded racist language, I guess) on the number of guns you could buy.  Their push poll was of the plant-a-seed variety, and you can see it bearing fruit now.

    Not that my alter ego or friends can buy a gun easily anyway.  They live in a jurisdiction where to buy one you gotta get a thingy from the Chief of Police (after opening your whole life up to them inspecting it and your house and waiving your Fourth Amendment rights) before you undertake to start to buy one.  And the Chief, son-of-a-mobbed-up-bookie that he was (until he was fired in a scandal involving ... cops waving guns around while posing with strippers), announced (unofficially, of course) that he didn't want anyone having guns, so don't even bother applying.

    Not that those restrictive policies have cut into the rate of gun crime, of course.  They haven't.

    I lova ya scribe... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:18:54 PM EST
    but we can't even say "quota" anymore, no matter how apt, for fear of being accused of "code language"?  C'mon brother...

    "brother?" (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    More code? ;-)

    Scary... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    isn't it?

    In the context of the call, (none / 0) (#13)
    by scribe on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:57:07 PM EST
    there was no doubt left in my mind that it was a quite deliberate choice of words and done so to deliberately call up a racially charged-image, i.e., that Obama was another aspect of the liberal Democrats and their gun-grabbing agenda - quota hiring/advancement of a scary black man who's going to take your house and women, too.  

    Remember, in advertising of any sort and in films, video, or audio, there is no image or sound going out in the final product which has not been consciously chosen to be there.    


    It's all in the context... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    to be sure...having not heard the call I'll take your word for it my friend.  

    At first glance of your comment it seemed like a legit usage of the term.  


    The assault weapons ban.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:20:52 PM EST
    is likely to return I think, so the fear of not being able to get an AK legally is probably warranted.  Though they'd still be readily available on the black market.

    Other than that, I wouldn't worry about any other significant restrictions like quotas or anything gun-lovers.

    Yep, prohibition never works. (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM EST
    Sad gun story (none / 0) (#7)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:37:26 PM EST
    My mom (neurosurgeon) had to run in to the hospital recently to try to save the life of a child that had shot himself with an automatic gun, described as an uzzi like gun.

    The "guys"- father, 3 sons, and grandfather were having fun firing guns and the 8 year old wanted to fire the gun.  So they allowed him to fire it.  The kick back when he fired caused the gun to fly back and because it was an automatic continued to fire.

    Why is there a need for a family to own such a gun.  The point of such a gun is to kill people, it has no place in hunting.  

    And your point is? (none / 0) (#8)
    by bocajeff on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:44:14 PM EST
    What the heck were the father and grandfather thinking? I don't my 8 year old use a hammer or a knife to cut his food...

    The point is that the knife is needed (none / 0) (#19)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    The automatic weapon is not needed.   I believe in gun rights, however gun rights should not be more important then my right to live in a community without weapons that's major purpose is to kill people.  In a modern society there is need for balance.

    Forest for the trees... (none / 0) (#20)
    by bocajeff on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    I wasn't equating a knife with an automatic weapon. I was comparing unsafe parenting and with safe parenting...

    Remember, alcohol accounts for roughly 40% of traffic fatalities (look it up, I'm too lazy to link to a site) yet I believe in freedom and responsibility.


    The reason for rights (none / 0) (#12)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 02:53:57 PM EST

    The reason for rights is so there is no requirement to demonstrate "need."  How much privacy does one really need?  Do you really need to live so far from your place of work that you drive a car?  

    Letting an 8 year old drive a car is a bad idea as well.  That doesn't mean that cars should be banned, or you should have to demonstrate "need" to someone else's satisfaction.


    prostitution is a legitimate business (none / 0) (#21)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 05:16:30 PM EST
    yet some argue that it's problem is that it leads to trafficking...

    there are so many cases in our country were a relative few 'f' up everything for the people that are doing/using responsible...

    I can use drugs responsibly, some other people cannot...because of those that cannot I could be considered a criminal....not because of what I do but b/c of what idiots do...

    why should guns be any different...well, there is the 2nd amendment, obviously...and I understand the need for a well-regulated militia...I just wonder if all the gun-totin' repubs understand the need for a well-regulated militia, or if they want guns to help themselves feel safer against crime (which isn't provided for in the constitution)....


    I see no point in owning... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:00:02 PM EST
    uzis and AK's either, they serve no legit purpose except to kill...kill many and kill quickly.  Truth be told, handguns scare me more than AK's though...hard to conceal an AK, easy to conceal a Glock.  I like to see and know of the threats around me, ya can't miss a guy wielding an AK, it's the guy next to me at the bar with a Glock in his waistband that scares me because you don't know he's packing.

    All that being said, I still think people have the right to own them if they so choose.  I sure as hell don't want the state to be the only ones in possesion of 'em...tyrants and wanna-be tyrants love unarmed peasants.  


    Do you know how hard it is... (none / 0) (#30)
    by junyo on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 07:33:47 PM EST
    ... to get an automatic weapon?

    The problem with that story is that fully automatic weapons have been highly regulated since 1934. They're illegal to manufacture for sale to anyone except the military and law enforcement. It's illegal for a civilian to even own the parts required to change a weapon they own into a fully automatic weapon, up to and including a piece of string of a certain length. To obtain one legally you have to pass a far more intrusive background check than the standard one, and get a pass from the chief law enforcement officer of your jurisdiction. And since no more are entering the supply chain, the number available is severely limited, making the average price somewhere in the $10-15K range for a gun otherwise available for $600 - $1,500. Short of an out and out ban, it would be hard to make fully automatic weapons less legally obtainable.

    And the beauty, is the Assault Weapons Ban effects that not one bit. The AWB effected an entirely different class of weapon that is cosmetically similar, but functionally completely different. Any weapon available to the average citizen since 1934 has been semiautomatic; i.e. one shot per trigger pull. SO unless the child was the offspring of wealthy idiots, the gun was already illegal.


    This sounds like a (none / 0) (#34)
    by 0 politico on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 08:08:13 PM EST
    sad case of stupidity on the part of the so called "adults" in this story.  The basic physics involved in firing a weapon of this type are beyond the control capabilities of an 8 year old.  Particularly, an unprepared and untrained child in an inappropriate setting (e.g., a supervised gun range).  

    Also, one has to wonder if the weapon was "legal"?  If the weapon was bought as "fully automatic", then someone at the gathering had to have a special federal license - that does not extend to children.  If the weapon was modified to be "full auto", then the weapon may no longer be legal.

    In any case - STUPIDITY ruled.

    As an aside, I have found that 9mm ammunition seems to be in short supply around Northern Virginia.  I wanted to pick some up on sale at a local store as my limited stock is getting old, but all 9mm was sold out.  It was cheap, as the .45 ACp and .40 S&W was nearly double the price.  But, others have noted that they are encountering the same short supply issue for 9mm (the most widely used ammunition in the world).  Right or wrong, there seems to be some concern on the part of regular shooters that they will have trouble getting the items they want sometime after January 20th.


    urban myth? (none / 0) (#38)
    by fast richard on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 10:36:08 PM EST
    I have heard this story several times with slightly varying details.  It is always told by someone who appears to know nothing about firearms.  I am guessing it is an urban myth.

    Can you provide a link to any reputable news source to verify your story?  An accident of this type would certainly make at least the local newspaper and probably national news.


    Not an urban myth unfortunately (none / 0) (#42)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:25:01 AM EST
    Though I am guessing it has happened before.  And such stories I am sure are spread.  

    That appears (none / 0) (#15)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:02:06 PM EST

    It seems that Obama does support an individual's right to bear arms, but he also believes the state has the authority and duty to impose regulations on that right for the safety of the community.

    That appears no different from regulating the right to the point of meaninglessness.  

    The wing-nuts have really gone (none / 0) (#17)
    by eric on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:05:42 PM EST
    off of the deep end with some of this stuff.  Part of it probably results from pre-election fear mongering propaganda from the NRA and others.

    On the other hand, the propaganda hasn't gone away.  These people are mad and paranoid.  And not just about guns.  Michael Reagan is out there screaming about how Obama is a socialist.

    I have personally heard the wing-nuts that I have to deal with telling paranoid stories about how Obama wants to establish a national security police "just like the Nazi SS".  Taxes are going WAY-UP according to these people.  I have one acquaintance who is buying lots of guns and ammo, not because he fears that it won't be available in the future, but because of the coming police state.  (I know, how about that for irony...)

    I know this is anecdotal, but this seems to me worse than in 1992.  Many on the right will not accept Obama and they are throwing all sorts of hateful, paranoid accusations out there that some people are actually acting upon.

    Probably the same as '92... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 03:16:04 PM EST
    only now we have the joys of the internet and get to hear so much more of it.

    Might not be a bad thing...I love a good wing-nut conspiracy theory as much as the next guy...I'm an Alex Jones fan after all:)


    if you have a party that feeds its (none / 0) (#22)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 05:19:15 PM EST
    members hate, sustains them with hate and fear like the right does then what do we expect?

    people will act out on this fear and hate that was provided to them by the Hannities and the Palins....


    please stay on topic (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 05:35:38 PM EST
    the topic is buying guns due to Obama's record on gun rights/control and the prosecution of gun crimes.

    we just have to ask the people buying (none / 0) (#24)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 05:42:05 PM EST
    guns if they are doing it so they can maintain a well-regulated militia, or if they are doing it because it makes them feel safer against crime from citizens, and not the government, revolutionary groups or other countries...

    if it's to protect oneself against crime from a house robber, or a carjacker...then that right isn't protected under the constitution...
    if it's to protect oneself from the government, a civil war or outside invasion then we can talk...

    that's about all that needs to be said...

    I'm just wondering where people are getting all this expendable cash...are we not having any mortgage or credit problems anymore...guns aren't exactly cheap...
    I guess maybe there will just be a lot of ammunition under the xmas tree this year instead of toys....


    Ammo is toys, (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    especially if it's for a automatic weapon. Just because you don't dig it doesn't make it bad.

    I don't really care one way or another (none / 0) (#26)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 06:05:18 PM EST
    guns for everyone, drugs for everyone, sex for everyone...

    that's the way I see it...right, just b/c someone else doesn't dig it doesn't mean it's not fun....


    No way man, (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 06:13:28 PM EST
    drugs kill! ;-)

    lol, you kill me sometimes.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 07:57:22 PM EST
    Yes, the broader point that I was (none / 0) (#43)
    by eric on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:09:34 AM EST
    making is that some of the people buying all of these guns aren't doing so because they fear changes in the law, they are doing so because they feel afraid.  It isn't changes to gun laws that they fear, at least not exclusively.  It is the coming police state ushered in by the new Black president and his national security police.

    It is also because the fear of a government that tramples all over civil rights has suddenly registered with them - since the government won't be republican, it gets their attention.


    It Is Not Paranoia (none / 0) (#29)
    by The Opinionator on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 06:42:23 PM EST
    "They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent"

    Quote from above and the Obama website. The guns that are flying off the shelves and are in short supply are so-called "assault weapons" as it is clear from Obama and team that they will seek to re-institute a ban on them. Not paranoia. It is one of the few things they have been clear about.

    BTW, to clarify for some commenters, these weapons are not automatics. Those are illegal. They are semi-auto weapons. One trigger pull, one round.

    Pleae, read DC vs. Heller before you type militia (none / 0) (#32)
    by masanf on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 07:58:00 PM EST
    After reading this post, it is obvious why anti-gun groups are able to use so many blatant lies in their attempts to ban guns.  The inaccuracies and wrong information being spouted here are just plain unbelievable.

    Just a few examples:
    1. "if it's to protect oneself against crime from a house robber, or a carjacker...then that right isn't protected under the constitution"

    Actually, it is.  The Supreme Court ruled in DC vs. Heller that one of the primary reasons the DC gun ban was unconstitutional is because it prohibited individuals from defending themselves against intruders; the court ruled self-defense was a fundamental right. protected by the Constitution. It absolutely amazes me that, almost six months after the ruling, and years after multiple federal court rulings as well as much research and commentary by legal scholars that people are still claiming the second amendment only pertains to a well-regulated militia.  That view is now in the minority even among most liberal legal commentators.  For crying out loud, DC vs. Heller was six months ago, not six decades.

    2."uzis and AK's either, they serve no legit purpose except to kill...kill many and kill quickly"
    This is total baloney.  I own an AK-47, and I have never killed a single person with it, nor do I intend to.  I own it because it is fun to go to the rifle range and shoot it.  Thus the whole "it is only intended to kill" line is pure garbage. AK-47's are also very popular collector's items.  Furthermore, if they were only intended to kill, why do we not hear of more deaths caused by them?  They are very popular rifles,  yet the amount of deaths attributed to them in the United States is so miniscule, it is almost statistically insignificant.

    Too many people misunderstand what assault rifles really are. In this country, the designation is totally cosmetic. A gun can be considered an assault rifle simply because it has a collapsible stock and a pistol grip.  These rifles are semi-automatic, not fully automatic.  You cannot simply hold down the trigger and have a stream of bullets come out.  Moreover, there are many, many, many traditional hunting rifles that are far more-powerful than an AK-47.  AK-47s fire a 7.62x39mm round.  I can go down to the local gunshop and buy a hunting rifle that is several times more powerful than that.

    3. "My mom (neurosurgeon) had to run in to the hospital recently to try to save the life of a child that had shot himself with an automatic gun, described as an uzzi like gun."

    Firstly,  it's Uzi.  Secondly, I would be willing to bet that, if this story were true, which it almost certainly isn't, that the gun was probably a semi-automatic, rather than an automatic.  Automatics have been tightly regulated in this country since 1934.  To own one, the would-be purchaser has to fill out multiple sets of pape-work, submit fingerprints, undergo multiple background checks, receive the approval of his county sheriff and then on top of that pay a $200 federal tax. Furthermore, only Class III firearms dealers can sell them, and only a tiny fraction of gun dealers have such a license.  For these reasons, most sob stories about fully-automatic weapons are almost always bogus.

    4. "...I just wonder if all the gun-totin' repubs understand the need for a well-regulated militia, or if they want guns to help themselves feel safer against crime (which isn't provided for in the constitution)...."

    Again, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual's right to bear arms.  The most unbelievable thing about these types of comments here is the fact that we are discussing Obama's gun policies and Obama supporters are chiming in about the second amendment only being a collective right, seemingly unaware that Obama himself has admitted on several occasions that it is an individual right.  Please, before you keep claiming it only applies to a militia, read the Supreme Court decision, or failing that read Obama's own statements.  Anything is better than continually being wrong.
    As for the statement about "repubs", why is it that ignorant anti-gun people assume only Republicans own guns for protection?  Obviously this is not the case, and statements to the contrary are almost too stupid to merit a response.

    5. "Many on the right will not accept Obama and they are throwing all sorts of hateful, paranoid accusations out there that some people are actually acting upon."

    As opposed to 100% of the left who welcomed George Bush with open arms and never said a nasty thing about him.  The hypocrisy of the above quote is beyond laughable and deserves no further comment.

    6. "Current federal law now limits the capacity of a gun's magazine to 10 rounds"

    While I agree with what the rest of what this poster had to write, the above quote is wrong.  The ban on high-capacity magazines expired in 2004, when the Assault Weapons Ban was not renewed.  Several individual states, such as California and Massachusetts, have bans on such magazines, but there is no federal law prohibiting their use.

    For years the left screamed that George Bush was trampling civil liberties and shredding the Constitution.  Yet these very same people, without a hint of realization of how hypocritical they sound, argue that preventing an individual from exercising his Second Amendment rights is totally ok.  A complete prohibition on the ownership of guns, as is the case in several large cities, is not a "common-sense" restriction on guns, nor is entirely banning a widely-used type of gun simply because it looks scary to some people, particularly when you consider said guns are only used in about .1% of gun crimes.

    the constitutional right that you speak of, though (none / 0) (#36)
    by of1000Kings on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    is subjective...

    it is what a handful of people think...kinda similar to how these handful of people had this decision call RvW based upon the constitution, yet many people still disagree with it (b/c it is a subjective interpretation)...

    I happen to find it ok, but it is just that, a subjective interpretation...
    sometimes reading the constitution is like reading the bible...two people from completey different sides of an issue could read it and both would find support for their argument...subjective....

    I do appreciate the heads-up on the case, though...I'll check it out so that maybe I can read the opinions of the justices...

    more info is always a welcome thing, obviously...


    I still don't think (none / 0) (#44)
    by eric on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    Heller is relevant anywhere outside of DC.  The Second Amendment still doesn't apply to the states, as far as I can tell.

    Ya got me.... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    on # 2...It did not dawn on me that firing AKs and Uzis at the range could be someone's idea of fun...and I admit I know next to nothing about guns, not my cup of tea.

    I think you'll find more support for gun rights here than your average lefty site.  Our gracious hostess is outspoken in her support for the 2nd amendment, and I believe you have the right to own any gun that exists.  On the flipside, I hope you would support my right to own a bag of reefer, which is my idea of fun:)  Liberty and Justice for all!


    On labels. (none / 0) (#33)
    by JeriKoll on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 08:04:36 PM EST
    Further on "automatic," etc.

    Local authorities like to use their own labels, and in many cases they do have those "stinking badges" to back it up.

    In Washington, DC, certain guns were called by the City as "automatic" though they fired only one shell with one trigger pull, and had no way to be "switched" to another function.

    In NYC, some knife stores (that is mostly what they sold) were closed down by confiscating most of the inventory when the police officers and the city claimed that the knives were "gravity" knives.
    The officers claimed that they had used gravity to open the knives.
    Unfortunately for the city's case, the store video showed the officers taking the knives, grasping the blade with their fingers, and then whipping the knives out.  They did open like most folding knives will, because of "inertia" not gravity.

    I am for background checks on handgun purchases, and keep the records nationally forever.  And shut down the stores in Georgia and other places that sell a person 2 dozen hand guns or more at a time, and then these guns appear at crime scenes being carried by people that didn't make a legal purchase and in many cases are not supposed to even hold a gun.

    But over zealous stupidity trying to ban guns will just cause a strong rebound in the opposite direction.

    Background checks for handgun purchases (none / 0) (#45)
    by froggus on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    Herein lies a problem. Someone is always wanting to create some gun law which already exists. Please try to keep up with laws if you are going to propose a new one. A background check is already required to purchase any type of firearm from a licensed dealer. This applies at gun shows as well. It's known as the NICS or National Instant Check System and was part of the 1994 gun legislation and is administered by the Department of Justice through the FBI. Even if you have just a felony court case pending you will be denied a purchase.

    Hunting and full automatic weapons (none / 0) (#37)
    by Dantes on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 10:19:54 PM EST
    Everyone repeat after me. The Second Amendment is not about protecting the right to hunt.  Of the 80 million gun owners in the US, far less are hunters, and a good number of the guns they own...probably a majority...are not particularly useful for hunting.

    Full auto weapons are legal for civilian ownership provided the individual lives in a state (35 do) which allows it, that the individual pay a 200 tax and go through backround check.  Reason the feds did not outright ban full auto weapons in the 1930's, when the tax was established, was because it did not think a ban would pass constitutional muster.  So they taxed them instead...200 bucks in the 30's was a lot.

    Reagan signed bill in 86 prohibiting transfer of NEW full autos to civilians, darn him. In any event, that's why the price is so high...limited number of full autos available.

    They are not all that useful for criminal activity, contrary to popular belief.

    The UZI story about 8 year old is true. Most full auto owners think the person who was involved in letting this kid shoot that particular gun was in error.  However, most agree that there are full auto's an 8 year old can shoot, with appropriate supervision. I agree.

    Gun death rate and injury rate for children and firearms is small...far less than death rate for swimming pools, 5 gallon buckets, and a host of other childhood activities.  Doesn't mean kids should be handed guns, means they should be supervised.  For all the crap NRA gets, it has been pivotal in reducing child death rate through education initiatives.  

    Obama will drive ammunition prices up and will ban importation of ammunition such as cheap military surplus for 308, 223, etc.  He will similarly ban importation of other military surplus rifles and parts, driving price up. Expect large excise taxes on firearms,and look for fees and registration if you have more than x guns, or y amount of ammunition( aresenal license).

    Will be equivalent of poll taxes...yeah, you can have a gun if you can stand on one foot, jump up and down, touch your fingers in front of you and recite the first three chapters of the Communist Manifest...reasonable regulation, I (Obama) think.

    Seriously, (none / 0) (#40)
    by peter jackson on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:01:11 AM EST
    If President Obama wants to actually lower gun deaths, he would leave guns and gun owners alone and instead legalize pot. Then, after a year or two, legalize cocaine. Virtually overnight we'd see gun death rates drop to near European levels.

    In the deal we'd also lose racial profiling, drug gangs, a huge chunk of property crime, and most of the corruption in our criminal justice system. Really Democrats, not a bad deal. Think about it.

    no doubt... (none / 0) (#41)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:51:57 AM EST
    just think of all the benefits of legalizing certain grades of drugs...

    tax benefits, safety benefits, benefits to the inner cities and keeping dads at home, benefits to the workforce by keeping working-age men out of jail for non-violent crimes...

    less crime due to the trafficking and illegal sales...less racial profiling from police officers...

    list goes on and on...

    but wait, we're a christian nation so what would we want with all those benefits...we base policy on religion and morals, not practicality


    The story about the 8 year old (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:25:47 PM EST
    killed shooting an Uzi is true, here it is.