Obama Good for Business

[Ben]

Its not going to take guns off the streets, its not going to make it harder for people to own them. Its pointless.

It's not pointless -- these previously good citizens will automatically become criminals. Which means -- more work for the very, very many "internal security" agencies in this country. Hence, more (fake) justification for bigger government, more "need" for it. Nobody cares if that need is real -- unless (or is it 'until'?) they become the victims of that system themselves...

Correct me if I'm wrong Walter but...

Historically any guns already owned are grandfathered in.
So my .308 would still be legal for me to own and sell privately. There would be no new ammunition or guns sold in the country for those rounds though. So the passage of the law wouldn't mean those people who own a gun chambered in that round would have to give them up or become criminals.

I have heard of "pre-ban" AKs with a grenade launchers on them.

I can also get a grenade launcher for my M1 nice and cheap. Grenades are a little hard to find.

[Michael]

If there's a law outlawing gun shops within five miles of any school, there will not be any gun shops in the USA, so without altering the Constitution with an amendment, the 2nd amendment will have been effectively repealed. Things like banning various forms of ammo are incremental ways to outlaw guns without a constitutional amendment.

[TaoJoannes]

Obama Victory Means ‘Stronger Support for Sensible Gun Laws’

”Just look at a couple of the things Obama has proposed: a 500 percent increase on excise taxes for guns and ammunition, and a ban on gun stores within five miles of a school or a park,” said the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre..

“Those two measures wouldn’t just decimate the firearms industry, they would kill it. That, in turn, would have a drastic effect on our military, because the same companies that sell guns to civilians are also the ones selling guns to the government. I wonder how Obama would feel about a multi-billion dollar bailout of the firearms industry, because that’s what just two of his proposals would require.”

The NRA said Obama’s judgment is as bad as his Second Amendment record.

For anyone who is geographically challenged, there is no city or town of any size with people living more than five miles from a school. Except for the most remote areas, five miles from a school is just about everywhere. Awesome constitutional scholarship to come up with that one.

What you're talking about is an issue that he was pressing as an Illinois state senator, which is consistent with his stated position that states and localities have the right to regulate firearms within their jurisdiction.

It's quite a proposterous leap to hold to this belief that he will press for a federal regulation of that nature.

[Michael]

Obama's Chief of Staff selection is a top proponent of gun control and was instrumental in the Clinton admin's "assault weapon" ban legislation being passed. Emanuel co-sponsored a bill in 2005 to re-authorize the previous ban, but it did not pass. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.01312: Emanuel has the lowest rating of F from the NRA on gun control issues. Gun Owners of America also gave Emanuel its lowest rating of F- and lists Obama with an F on its web site.

Take it for what it's worth. These are the organizations that monitor the actual voting records and score Congress members accordingly. Biden also has an F--.

More info

[Walter Joyce]

You guys keep going on like gun control is a BAD thing.

I thought gun users were taught the importance of controlling their weapons?

[Walter Joyce]

Its not going to take guns off the streets, its not going to make it harder for people to own them. Its pointless.

It's not pointless -- these previously good citizens will automatically become criminals. Which means -- more work for the very, very many "internal security" agencies in this country. Hence, more (fake) justification for bigger government, more "need" for it. Nobody cares if that need is real -- unless (or is it 'until'?) they become the victims of that system themselves...

Correct me if I'm wrong Walter but...

Historically any guns already owned are grandfathered in.
So my .308 would still be legal for me to own and sell privately. There would be no new ammunition or guns sold in the country for those rounds though. So the passage of the law wouldn't mean those people who own a gun chambered in that round would have to give them up or become criminals.

I have heard of "pre-ban" AKs with a grenade launchers on them.

I can also get a grenade launcher for my M1 nice and cheap. Grenades are a little hard to find.

Most laws are state, not federal, especially on issues like guns, so the answer to your question would vary from state to state. There are some areas where federal law pre-empts state law, some areas where state and federal regulations co-exist (like guns) and some where there is only state law.

Truth is I haven't looked much at gun laws, guns really don't hold much interest for me or appeal.

[Michael]

Yeah, I don't own any.