Jump to content

The actual Biden/Obama Plan

Recommended Posts

This kind of rigor has proven itself with respect to some other 'hot button' issues. It takes time, sometimes, for people to accept strong evidence, but it has happened in the not-too-distant past.


FYI, I just pulled that ladybug/earthworm thing out of thin air to illustrate the difference. And in case Beavah is about to pounce on my insensitivity toward earthworms, I'm in no way trying to minimize how earthworms feel. Some of my friends are worms, etc., etc,....well, at least some of them HAVE worms, lol. Those wacky parasitologists!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well Beaver, the good senator from Iowa says the administration would not provide requested information. I take him for his word. The senate does have the responsibility to confirm appointees. If the senate which has a Democratic majority wanted to confirm someone I'm sure it would. Sounds like candidate #2 Todd Jones has some issues with "Fast and Furious" which is a whole other world of problems. Funny how no one went to jail for that little scheme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Research is how I make my living so in general, more money for research is a positive to me. However, science that is entangled in politics or social policy demonstrate considerable bias toward the left. Most of it comes from the people involved, scientists, journal editors, and peer reviewers, who cannot admit to their personal bias. In the case of guns, the journal article in medical journals that I have read over the past couple of decades were good examples. Several of the papers were poorly done and others came to conclusions not really supported by the data. They all concluded that in some way or another that guns were evil and should be severely restricted (as in Great Britain where you can only have a gun at a range - it cannot be removed) or totally banned. I predict that the published articles portrays guns as having no reason for possession in your modern, civilized society. Thus, the left will have 'research' to back up banning firearms. Cuomo would gladly and enthusiastically confiscate all firearms and he is planning to run for the presidency. Ben Franklin was right. We are heading down a path to no liberty or safety.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admit I was pretty worried about what O-B would do but I had to snicker at a number of the proposals...Let's launch a national dialog! Because we're not having one now!


Anyhoo, the facts are there are 80 million gun owners and 60 million Obama voters...not to mention 300 million guns in the US (and growing). Politicians can still count. Guns are not going away any time soon, even the scary looking ones. That's not to say that a one-party rule in Washington coupled with a "progressive" Supreme Court that decides to ignore the constitution and judicial precedent couldn't try a grab, but at least for the moment we have them outnumbered.


Research is fine and you can't hide the numbers that people see before their very eyes. If states and localities may pass more onerous restrictions on self defense and those same areas become cesspools of violence as a result, it will get noticed and the truism of more guns, less crime will be proven again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Vol_scouter, since you're in 'the business', you'll be able to do your own independent analysis of the data to show how wrong all those biased lefties are, if you feel that strongly about it. I look forward to the submission of your good work for peer review.


Or...we can just remain ignorant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no doubt a lot of those gun owners were Obama voters, Brewmeister. ;)


So I'm a gun owner. Always have been, always will be. I believe that in da hands of a responsible citizen, guns are safe tools.


I'm also, I hope, smart enough to recognize that gun manufacturers make a profit off of guns used by criminals. In fact, they make more profit from criminals, because criminals tend to get access to more guns, and those guns tend to be captured and taken off da street, resulting in da need to manufacture more guns. The more criminal gun use is reported in da media, the more ordinary citizens want to buy guns. The more folks fear that "guns will be taken away", the more they want to buy guns while they can.


So there's an extremely strong profit incentive for da manufacturers of firearms to behave in the way they do, and fund da sort of lobbying that we see. Which is why we see it. That kind of stuff I mostly just dismiss. It's like teachers' unions advocating for more funds for schools and less accountability. Yeh have to stay mentally awake.


As a gun owner, while I feel some of these proposals are cosmetic and overall I doubt they'll achieve da goals, they're also not a big deal. Goin' to the range and shootin' off an AR-15 with a big magazine is entertaining for some young fellows, I know, I did it too, but it's honestly not goin' to bother me one way or the other. Tryin' to do things to keep guns out of da hands of criminals and mentally ill people seems perfectly reasonable and responsible. Jailing people for straw purchases which put guns into the hands of criminals seems like a no-brainer.


Nuthin' here is a big deal, and while I'm ambivalent about much of it and find things like "national dialog" hysterical, it's stuff I can support. Won't affect me in the least, because I've always been a responsible gun owner. Won't change how I vote, either, since we have other more important issues to address.




Link to post
Share on other sites

And no doubt a lot of those gun owners were Obama voters.


Oh, I'm sure there are a few, but I don't know about "a lot." We're consistently being told how old, racist, insecure white guys are the problem behind all this gun violence in our country, and that doesn't exactly describe the Obama demographic.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile New York passed the NY Safe Act 2013 which prohibits AR-15's just by virtue of it's pistol grip alone. Magazines are limited to 7 round capacity. Responsible NY gun owners legally owning firearms which are now labeled as assault weapons have one year to sell them to an out-of-state buyer. I doubt criminals took notice. My father's M-1 Garand (circa WW2/Korea) is now an assault weapon because it has a bayonet lug and takes a 8 round clip. Legally owned 10 round magazines have to be retro-fitted or sold in one year.


Massachusetts is next in line with a similar measure. If it passes, I will have to sell the 10 round mags for my son's Boy Scout Ruger 10-22 rifle.


Some of us shoot service rifle competitions to earn Distinguished Rifleman through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. That may be lost.


Maybe the federal government is not taking our firearms but some states and localities are telling us to sell them or else.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, RememberSchiff, I agree with yeh on da 7-round clip bit. I couldn't figure out what NY was thinkin'. This is where the liberal democrat approach starts to run off da rails, because yeh can't write this stuff into laws successfully. Even done as regulation, where at least yeh would have some experts involved and some public comment, it gets really too complex.


Da thing of it is, yeh get that sort of stuff when da rest of us become "the party of NO" instead of workin' with people to come up with better approaches. I note the moderate Republicans in NY state all defected, because they didn't want to be associated with da nutters on the right. That probably reflects da honest sentiments of their electorate.


I prefer simpler, more conservative approaches like TwoCubDad's liability/insurance approach, as I mentioned. Yeh can have whatever yeh want or feel you need, but you are strictly liable for it and must maintain insurance, which is set by da free market's assessment of da risk.


Or yeh can have whatever yeh want, but we tax ammunition of various types equal to the real societal costs. The safer everyone is, the less the cost. Da more careful folks are about who they sell to, the less the cost.


Neither requires a lot of regulation, and both encourage responsibility.


But if there has to be regulation, it should be as required training and proficiency type stuff.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Schiff,


I hadn't even thought about my M1 clips. Can this really be called a 'Magazine'?





To New York residents seeking to sell your ARs: I'm looking for a 6.5 Grendel.


I'm betting that the Fed magazine limitation is limited to 20. There are way too many pistols that are natively configured to hold 15 to 17 rounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my 12 guage Mossberg pump action that I retrofitted with an adjustable stock and pistol grip is now MUCH more dangerous than it was. I'll have to handle it much more carefully, lest I "assault" someone inadvertently. The liberal morons never cease to amaze me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fail to see any indication of a threat of taking guns away. It is odd to me how anyone with even basic common sense can read that into the suggestions. As Beavah says, what is feared from rational responsible rules; we would hope most gun owners already pretty much adhere to them anyway?


Now these nuts that started screaming even before anything was put on the table are really out there. There does not seem to be anything in the Presidential directives that do anything more than try and strengthen rules already in existence by National consistency in their interpretations and enforcement.


This whole paranoia and "sky is falling" reaction is very similar to the same thing we see in posters about AHG, blue cards, and so on. Instead of jumping to the worst case scenario you can possibly come up with, how about at least waiting until there is an actual, factual concern rather than being a chicken little?

Link to post
Share on other sites


You are correct the Garand takes a 8-round clip now whether politicians make any distinction between a mag and clip is another matter. Still the Garand has a bayonet lug and the state of NY says semi-auto + bayonet lug = assault weapon. I can't see my Dad grinding if off. Good luck to the state of NY against Walt Kowolski.


Here's an extract of the NY Safe Act


S 37. Subdivision 22 of section 265.00 of the penal law, as added by

chapter 189 of the laws of 2000, is amended to read as follows:


22. "Assault weapon" means















Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...