WEAPONS BAN

[Skeptilius]

This is just my opinion, but I don't think we have as much to fear from the Obama administration regarding a weapons ban as some people would like us to believe. I hear a lot of talk about Obama wanting to take away our guns. I just don't buy it. Here's a quote from a recent Newsweek article regarding the much feared weapons ban:
White House strategists have decided they can't afford to tangle with the National Rifle Association at a time when they're pushing other priorities, like economic renewal and health-care reform, say congressional officials who have raised the matter. (According to his office, Emanuel couldn't be reached for comment because he was observing the Passover holiday.) A White House official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal strategy, says, "There isn't support in Congress for such a ban at this time." Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, says, "The president supports the Second Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe," pointing to $2 billion in new funding for state and local law enforcement in the stimulus package.

I'll take him at his word for now.

[nitrogen]

While I agree (and I actually like that Obama guy a bit more than is healthy [abbreviated profanity deleted] me to admit here) I also agree with folks that we have to keep our guard up.

Political winds can change quickly. Right now, there's no reward for Obama and the Democrats to push any gun control or gun confiscations. With the help of the ignorant media, this can quickly change.

I see Eric Holder starting to push his agenda, against what I think the wishes of Congress and the President are. The whole "90% of guns" thing was just a glimpse of what we are in for.

Personally, Eric Holder and certain members of congress scare me more than Obama. We need to watch those folks with sharp eyes.

My main problem with people going crazy with anger and hatred for Obama is that its reminiscent of the Wizard of Oz; He's the great green head in smoke, while Congress and some special interests are the men and women behind the curtain. THOSE are the strings we need to keep pulling, I think.

I agree; let's take him at his word. We'll keep saying, "nice doggy!" while holding the big stick behind our backs, hoping we don't need it!

[Skeptilius]

Nitrogen said: While I agree (and I actually like that Obama guy a bit more than is healthy [abbreviated profanity deleted] me to admit here) I also agree with folks that we have to keep our guard up.

While I strongly support the 2nd amendment, I also strongly support the 1st amendment. If it ever gets to the point that it is not "healthy" to hold an opinion that may not agree with the majority, then this is not the forum for me. I will always offer my opinion on any given subject after I've given it some thought - the popularity of that opinion is of secondary importance.

[Mike1951]

Obama Gets Gun-Shy

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589/page/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589/page/2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But before we get complacent:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York Democrat, is one of those who are impatient with their party's silence. She has reason to be: a gunman firing randomly on a Long Island commuter train on Dec. 7, 1993, killed her husband, Dennis, and severely injured her son, Kevin. But when she pressed Obama transition officials to take up the issue, they were clear about their priorities: "They told me that's not for now, that's for later."

[bdickens]

Ya think so, huh? Why do you think the MSM has cranked up the anti-gun propaganda blitz? It's been eight years since we've seen anything like this.

[Medino]

Obama Gets Gun-Shy

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589/page/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.newsweek.com/id/193589/page/2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

i found those sites too from:
http://www.rationalreview.com/2am" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
its a wonderful site with all kinds of firearms related articles mostly self defense articles

Back on topic i believe he will not focus on gun issues at this point in time but that doesn't mean he will not take a shot in that direction later if he accomplishes some of his other goals. "Eternal vigilance is the price for liberty" or something like that. Which means no decrease in gun prices anytime soon.

[Skeptilius]

I'm not naive or complacent. What does MSM mean and where is this anti-gun blitz? I want to learn more about it. I'm not hard headed either. If evidence warrants it I can change my mind. Educate me.

[jimlongley]

This is just my opinion, but I don't think we have as much to fear from the Obama administration regarding a weapons ban as some people would like us to believe. I hear a lot of talk about Obama wanting to take away our guns. I just don't buy it. Here's a quote from a recent Newsweek article regarding the much feared weapons ban:
White House strategists have decided they can't afford to tangle with the National Rifle Association at a time when they're pushing other priorities, like economic renewal and health-care reform, say congressional officials who have raised the matter. (According to his office, Emanuel couldn't be reached for comment because he was observing the Passover holiday.) A White House official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal strategy, says, "There isn't support in Congress for such a ban at this time." Ben LaBolt, a White House spokesman, says, "The president supports the Second Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe," pointing to $2 billion in new funding for state and local law enforcement in the stimulus package.

I'll take him at his word for now.

The problem with taking him at his word is that:

1) He is a Chicago politician, which means that by definition he is lying.
2) His use of the buzz word "common sense" sounds just the same as the version of the phrase that the Brady Bunch uses.
3) "There isn't support in Congress . . . at this time, leaves the door not just wide open, but off the hinges, for his agenda based on his activities in Illinois.

Unfortunately he is saying things that do not align with his prior activities, and I do not believe he has changed his mind, he's just biding his time.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm not naive or complacent. What does MSM mean and where is this anti-gun blitz? I want to learn more about it. I'm not hard headed either. If evidence warrants it I can change my mind. Educate me.

"MSM" means "Main Stream Media," also sometimes called the "Legacy Media." The "blitz" refers to both A) the more or less constantly negative attitude and misreporting in the press about firearms; and B) the recently increased negativity and editorializing in the media with regard to firearms in the wake of the recent spate of mass shootings. I'm not going to do all of your research for you, but if you go to the websites of CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, & CNN and search on the words "gun" or "firearm," you will find the editorial slant embedded in the articles to be universally negative. Here, LET ME GOOGLE THAT FOR YOU. The top article in that Google search is a Reason Magazine article from 2000, titled "Loaded Coverage: How the news media miss the mark on the gun issue." The MSM NEVER report on firearms issues either neutrally or accurately - let alone favorably.

The one lone exception of an MSM outlet that does cover firearms with a more or less neutral voice is Fox News. Fair and balanced. . . mostly. . .but even they get it wrong once in a while. No, Fox is not perfect. They have a tendency to linger on and on over stories that don't really matter that much from a national news perspective (Laci Peterson's murder, Drew Peterson [a different story] killing his wife, Natalie Holloway's disappearance, etc.) and they have too much of an emphasis on babe-alicious reporters with lots of lip gloss for my tastes; but they also have by far the largest market share of all news networks for a reason - the viewing audience for the most part identifies with them on a social and political level.

If you do a demographic survey of the target audiences for each of the major news networks, you will find that their social and political values tend to be represented by the editorial slant of whatever their favorite news outlet is. The demographics of the MSM - Fox News excepted - tend from the centrist toward the liberal, while Fox tends from the centrist to the conservative. Since Fox is the lone "conservative" news outlet, and since right of center Americans make up roughly half of the news watching audience, that is why Fox has such a large market share compared to the other networks. (And no offense intended to any member of this board, but those folks who get most or all of their "news" coverage from MSNBC tend to be the nutroots of the left - hence the continued employment of paranoid delusional boneheads like Keith Olberman.) Since Fox is the lone MSM voice of conservatism and all the other MSM outlets are liberal, it is easy for the left to assume that conservative thought represents a small minority of the nation. They simply ignore the inconvenient fact that Fox has the largest market share (and growing) of all the major news networks.

Having come from the newspaper industry myself, I can tell you that reporting in the nation's major newspapers is even more slanted to the left (and hence, even more anti-gun) than the broadcast/cable media. Major newspapers across the nation have almost universally suffered dramatic declines in their readership - and hence the advertising rates they may command, which are based on readership. They are hurting. The reason is two-fold. One is that the Internet is a source of free news - often from the same publishers - to anyone with a computer and a connection. The other is that, in their strident leftist agendae, major newspapers have driven people away from subscribing. An easy example is the New York Times, whose readership has declined so rapidly that they are facing having to sell their building and lay people off. They blame it on the Internet. More dispassionate sources blame it on their overt attempts to influence elections and a willingness to disclose top secret information bordering on the treasonous. That, and for being unapologetic shills for every misbegotten liberal idea that ever came down the pike. Even back in the 1920s, they were reporting favorably on Soviet food production - hook line and sinker - during which time there was actually a famine in progress which killed people in the hundreds of thousands.

Those are but a few reasons for why there is a growing disdain for the MSM. That is why the hard left (which includes Obama) are so threatened by talk radio that they want it suppressed by means of a "Fairness Doctrine" (a doublespeak term of which Orwell would have been truly proud). Talk radio is the one medium in which conservative ideas - read that PRO-GUN ideas - have prevailed, and the one medium in which attempts to launch liberal talk shows have been largely unsuccessful at the national level. In fact, that is why the MSM is often called the "Legacy Media;" because they can't start anything new which will survive, and they have to depend on what outlets they had before they slipped so far to the left that they lost the middle ground to newer networks like Fox, to talk radio, and to the blogosphere.

[A-R]

annoyed man, just curious at which newspapers you worked and general time periods. I was in the newspaper business for about 10 years myself. Wondering if we might have bumped into each other in our former lives; at a minimum, I'm sure we know some of the same people - newspapers being the incestuous business that it is.

[bdickens]

I'm not naive or complacent. What does MSM mean and where is this anti-gun blitz? I want to learn more about it. I'm not hard headed either. If evidence warrants it I can change my mind. Educate me.

All you gotta do is read the newspaper or watch the White House propaganda on TV - I mean news - and open your eyes. There's the 20/20 hatchet job, all the "mexican drug cartels getting their machine guns and RPGs from Carter's Country" stories, the incessant coverage of every criminal shooting, it goes on and on.

Do you really think that the Mexican drug cartels just started shooting people a couple of months ago or that murderous lunatics just started going on shooting sprees last week? No, that's been going on for a long time but you haven't heard much of anything for the past eight years. Now all of a sudden that we have a regime in power - I mean a Presidential administration - that has victim disarmament -I mean draconian gun control - as one of it's stated objectives in power, the illiberal leftists controlling the MSM see the opportunity to propagandize in favor of creating a safe environment for criminals by rendering law abiding citizens as helpless as possible.

[LaUser]

Like Obama or not, fact is he is the President of the United States. He is a big change from Bush. And yes I voted for him.
However, the threat to our Second Amendment is more likely to come from others, such as the Congress who has the authority to pass legislation. Obama cannot sign or veto unless Congress passes legislation. Also, don't forget the individual states and local governments. California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, D.C., New Your City, and Chicago to name a few, are examples of places that passed gun control measures and they had nothing to do with who is President.

Rather than sit back in shock and do nothing the next time some nut goes on a killing spree with a gun, we need to voice our concern and indignation at the event and the perpetrator. We need to stand up and say that we are gun owners and we are appalled that an unstable person who should never have obtained a weapon killed someone and the we are for keeping guns out of the hands of such persons. We need to drive home the fact that millions of guns owners are stable, cautious and law abiding and would never do such a thing. That is what we should be saying over and over and over. That is what the public needs to remember.

To me, bashing Obama at every turn is a waste of time and counter productive, cause it ain't gonna change a thing.

One after thought, all news media has an agenda, including FOX. It is just a case of who you agree with more.

[Purplehood]

Like Obama or not, fact is he is the President of the United States. He is a big change from Bush. And yes I voted for him.
However, the threat to our Second Amendment is more likely to come from others, such as the Congress who has the authority to pass legislation. Obama cannot sign or veto unless Congress passes legislation. Also, don't forget the individual states and local governments. California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, D.C., New Your City, and Chicago to name a few, are examples of places that passed gun control measures and they had nothing to do with who is President.

Rather than sit back in shock and do nothing the next time some nut goes on a killing spree with a gun, we need to voice our concern and indignation at the event and the perpetrator. We need to stand up and say that we are gun owners and we are appalled that an unstable person who should never have obtained a weapon killed someone and the we are for keeping guns out of the hands of such persons. We need to drive home the fact that millions of guns owners are stable, cautious and law abiding and would never do such a thing. That is what we should be saying over and over and over. That is what the public needs to remember.

To me, bashing Obama at every turn is a waste of time and counter productive, cause it ain't gonna change a thing.

One after thought, all new media has an agenda, including FOX. It is just a case of who you agree with more.

I don't see the point. We simply need to enforce the laws and not make new ones.

[tfrazier]

...We need to stand up and say that we are gun owners and we are appalled that an unstable person who should never have obtained a weapon killed someone and the we are for keeping guns out of the hands of such persons...

You have it backwards: I'm not appalled that an unstable person got a gun. I'm appalled that stable persons who have a god-given right to defend themselves are denied the ability to carry a gun so they can respond to the criminals with guns.

I'm far more concerned with the fact that the government (AND Barack Hussein Obama) is bent on removing my right to own and carry guns than I am about their pitiful and failed attempts to keep criminals from obtaining them.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... html?cat=9

[A-R]

Rather than sit back in shock and do nothing the next time some nut goes on a killing spree with a gun, we need to voice our concern and indignation at the event and the perpetrator. We need to stand up and say that we are gun owners and we are appalled that an unstable person who should never have obtained a weapon killed someone and the we are for keeping guns out of the hands of such persons. We need to drive home the fact that millions of guns owners are stable, cautious and law abiding and would never do such a thing. That is what we should be saying over and over and over. That is what the public needs to remember.

Note: full text of LaUser's paragraph re-inserted

You have it backwards: I'm not appalled that an unstable person got a gun. I'm appalled that stable persons who have a god-given right to defend themselves are denied the ability to carry a gun so they can respond to the criminals with guns.

I'm far more concerned with the fact that the government (AND Barack Hussein Obama) is bent on removing my right to own and carry guns than I am about their pitiful and failed attempts to keep criminals from obtaining them.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... html?cat=9

I realize this will sound like I'm riding the fence and trying to cozy up to both sides, but I honestly belief both LaUser & tfrazier make excellent and valid points. As responsible gun owners, we should voice our displeasure when lunatics who should not have guns somehow obtain them. And we should remind everyone of the millions of responsible gun owners who have never and will never committ such horrible acts with guns. And we should be equally displeased that law-abiding citizens are disallowed the basic human right of self-defense because of "gun free zones".

All of these lines of thought are very valid and very helpful to the cause of educating the general public to the positive benefits of guns and self-defense use of guns. The more the general public sees rational, upstanding gun owners the harder it will be for anti-gunners to demonize anyone who dares own a firearm.