Cafferty Files: Why are so many Americans worried Obama will try to ban gun sales?

[RamboLiberal]

A majority of gun owners think Pres. Obama wants to ban gun sales.

A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of those who own a gun, 53 percent who have a gun in the household, and 41 percent of all Americans believe he will attempt to ban the sale of guns while he is president.

This concern is greater among Republicans and people living in the South and Midwest than among Democrats or those living on either coast.

It also helps explain the sharp increases in sales of guns and ammunition. There are reports that U.S. bullet-makers are working around the clock and still can't keep up with the demand for ammunition. Shooting ranges and gun dealers say they've never seen such shortages.

However, President Obama has never said - as a candidate or as president - that he intends to push for a ban of gun sales. The president has said that he believes in the Second Amendment and that "lawful gun owners have nothing to fear." In May, he signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/21/why-are-so-many-americans-worried-obama-will-try-to-ban-gun-sales/

[Tim01]

1. Because he said he would, before AND after his election.

He said gun owners had nothing to fear, and he wanted to ban some guns.

[X_Digger]

11. Still up on change.gov..

"They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. "
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

That same statement was up on whitehouse.gov until a couple of months ago.

Duh!

[OregonBlue]

2. Because the NRA has made it their mantra!!

[OHdem10]

4. Exactly, the NRA is an activists group. In order for them to stay

important keep their organization alive and active(money coming in)
they must create boogey men. By acting as if the citizen's rights
are going to be infringed upon, this keeps them front and center as
an organization. Truth is first casulty in politics. They set Obama
up as the enemy, realizing that for a lot of their membership(RWers)
this would sell.

NRA is active and Obama is the target,.

[Tejas]

13. read post #1, the NRA is correct on this one - nt

[Tejas]

18. oops, meant to say post #2! -nt

[DonP]

31. and because he said he would? Ntxt

[The Court Jester]

3. The Leadership of both parties have been attacking our rights

This has been going on for years. The Repubs have eroded the 4th Amendment and other related rights including Habeus Corpus, and the Dems have been eroding the 2nd Amendment for a long time as well. We are like the guy straped to the table in the Pit and the Pendulum. The blade keeps swinging from side to side and getting closer all of the time.

[jwirr]

7. Speak for yourself, John! My gun owning family have lost none of

our rights to anyone. No one comes to search our home, no one refuses to sell us their products and no one stops us from using them legally. We do not want rights to kill other people, nor do we want rights to overthrow our government. Regulation of dangerous situations is what government is for - just look at the economic mess we are in because no one was regulating the money grubbers.

[Tim01]

9. Lucky for us gun owners out number "fudds" by a huge margin.

Zumbo and the rest would gladly give up everything as long as they get to keep their break action duck hunting shotgun.

Just like a wife who will put up a husband who beats her as long as he doesn't leave her.

This isn't Britain and I don't need or want a government who acts as my mommy, my daddy, and my mean older brother.

[jwirr]

12. 2 assault weapons - okay? Do you want every American to have

the right to own a gun? How about my mentally ill brother? The doctors told us to keep all weapons away from him. Do you object to the regulations that say he cannot carry a gun? What about my neighbor the convicted felon who is out of jail now? He is filled with hate and was in prison due to violence twice already. That regulation is wrong? Sorry - I disagree with you even while I support gun ownership rights. Yes, we use our guns mostly for hunting but the 2 above would kill and butcher the deer in one action! Those we use for target practice and if need be for self-defense someday.

[Tejas]

14. Who in the world suggested "EVERY" ? (that is sooooooooo worn out)

Not sure why you went off on this rant in response to post #9, fill in the blanks if you will.

[Tim01]

17. "the 2 above would kill and butcher the deer in one action!"

I can't adequately express my lack of respect for you after that last statement. You are a know-nothing emotional basket cast, way too ridiculous for me to take seriously.



The guns you have are what Obama promised to ban.
The "assault weapons" whatever the fuck that means, are exactly what Obama promised to ban before he was elected. He said it again after he was elected. Hillary repeated it, and Holder, Kerry, Pelosi, and Obama repeated it AGAIN over the Mexico dust up. The reason your "assault weapons" are not banned is because of the work of all the OTHER gun owners have done in spite of your counter productive views.

As for all this other bullshit you have brought up that doesn't have anything at all to do with the current topic, start a new thread.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Kill and butcher the deer in one act? Bullshit!

By saying that your assault weapon would do that casts serious doubt that you actually know anything about "assault weapons" or their capabilities. Genuine assault rifles fire lower powered rounds, such as the 5.56mm NATO. That round is so low powered that many states ban it for deer hunting as it can't reliably kill a deer. The old standby, 30.06 of 1906 has been a favorite of deer hunters for over 100 years, and it is a full sized battle-rifle round. It was used in the 1903 Springfield design rifle in WWI and the M1 Garand of WWI & Korea. The 7.62 NATO, called .308 in civilian life, is also a favorite deer round. It was/is used in the M14 battle rifle. Both of those rounds are far more powerful than the rounds that assault rifles use.

Compare the muzzle energies of the rounds:
5.56mm with 55 gr bullet 1282 ft-lbs.
.308cal with 180gr bullet 2743 ft-lbs.
30-06 with 180 gr bullet 2913 ft-lbs.

Traditional hunting rounds are more than twice as powerful as your so-called assault weapon rounds.
The fact that you try to claim that your assault weapons are super-powerful shows that you are markedly ignorant of the facts and casts doubt on your claim to actually own two of them.

BTW - There is a valid reason why militaries, world wide, opt for the lower powered rounds. A soldier can carry about 300 5.56mm for the same weight as about 120 7.62mm. Having more ammo in battle is a definite plus for a soldier. Most soldiers aren't good enough shots to engage targets at more than 250 meters, so they don't bother to waste ammo. The extra power of the heavier rounds is wasted. If the soldiers need that kind of range or penetration, the squad or platoon has other weapons for that.

[virginia mountainman]

39. BULLSHIT ON YOU!!

According to this politician, who is sided by Caroline McCarthy, these guns, kill, and COOK the deer at the same time...

It must be true, a Democrat said it, and it was on the news...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

[GreenStormCloud]

45. LOL. You got my attention with that headline.

I had completely forgotten about her. And incendiary bulets are "heat seeking" too. Just shoot it in the general direction of the deer and it will guide itself in to target, kill, butcher, and cook the deer.

[benEzra]

23. What 2 above?

Yes, we use our guns mostly for hunting but the 2 above would kill and butcher the deer in one action!

What 2 above? What models of rifle are you talking about?

You do know that both .223 Remington and 7.62x39mm (civilian AK, SKS) are less powerful than .30-30 Winchester, never mind .30-06, right?

[DonP]

41. I think he meant reply #11, that happens to be 2nd on the thread. ntxt

[Tim01]

24. I think you might be lying about even owning "assault weapons".

Name them.

[gorfle]

36. No one advocates that.

Do you want every American to have the right to own a gun? How about my mentally ill brother? The doctors told us to keep all weapons away from him. Do you object to the regulations that say he cannot carry a gun? What about my neighbor the convicted felon who is out of jail now? He is filled with hate and was in prison due to violence twice already. That regulation is wrong?

Show us one person here who thinks that criminals and insane people should be allowed to own firearms.

Except for some few extremists, virtually no one holds this position.

[PavePusher]

29. Zumbo has changed his tune. Look it up. n/t

[Tim01]

30. Yeah, and I'll bet you know why.

I'll give him credit for recanting his stupid remarks. But he was a the focus of such an incredible shit storm that I do wonder if he would have recanted otherwise.

[PavePusher]

46. Well, to give him due credit, once the storm started...

He undertook to become more familiar with the subject matter he had not been knowledgable on. By that point it was too late to save his then-current job, but he has recovered somewhat since then.

[SteveM]

47. He certainly has, even though I don't agree with how he was treated...

This was a case of near "cyber-lynching" that I researched for a prospective article; trouble is, few publications wanted to deal with gun-related issues, esp. if they were left-of-center. And the point of the article was to show how someone could be "taken down" so quickly using the internet. To this day, most Americans -- I would venture to say most tecky "nerds" -- are unaware of the Zumbo affair.

Zumbo, I believe, is one of the greatest defenders of hunting (also under attack by many of the same folks who are anti-gun), and he foolishly tried to split the hunting culture away from the huge masses of gun owners (and some of the more strident ones therein) by choosing the "assault weapon" as the bogey. He didn't realize that this weapon is now becoming our "new" hunting weapon.

[gorfle]

34. You must have missed 1994.

You must have missed 1994 with the last attempt at an Assault Weapons Ban.

[krispos42]

44. No, you have lost your right to privacy

In your specific case, the government hasn't yet chosen to violate it. As far as you know.

That is, your PHYSICAL privacy is still secure. At least, as far as you know.

Your electronic privacy? That's been gone for over 8 years now, and possibly much longer. You lost the right to speak over the phone and to send text messages and emails privately, and the government is listening to and filtering all of your electronic communications.



You've also lost the right to habeas corpus. It is now a legal assumption instead of a guarantee. So it the right to face your accuser, your right to a jury trial, your right against self-incrimination, and your right against cruel and unusual punishment.

[bbinacan]

8. I love Poe.

Welcome to DU.

:toast:

[benEzra]

28. Darn, photobucket's down...

Was going to try to put up a cartoon I had seen on the subject, but the host site is down.

[jwirr]

5. For one thing there is an organized effort to lie about this issue on

the internet and I would guess even in the NRA magazines that is telling them he is. My guess is that the articles originate from the rw. Also for years there have been groups that have been worried about losing their guns - not just now. This all comes from those who see government as the enemy no matter what you are talking about. Same old tired argument.

[Tejas]

15. Still haven't read post #2, or checked the link provided?

NRA this/RW that



blah blah blah

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Obama has fueled the fire, until the last few months.

He has voted for every gun control measure in the Senate.

He has voted against every pro-RKBA bill in the Senate, exept the Katrina bill.

He has supported, and still supports making the AWB permenant. And he is talking about the new AWB, no the old one.

He has said, while he was back in IL that he wanted to ban all semi-autos

He has taken a position against CCW.

As President he signed the parks bill because it was a rider to an appropriations bill that the had to sign. IOW - The parks bill was forced on him.

And you claim that the concern about Obama and guns is an RW lie?

[DonP]

32. NO - ARE YOU HARD OF HEARING? - The party and Obama called for a gun ban ...

... on the most popular and best selling target rifles in the country. Check out the 2008 party platform on the issue.

It's really not a RW conspiracy or NRA plot. He actually did what they are saying.

[SteveM]

48. Stand back a ways and look at the big picture...

In BOTH the Democratic Party platform and on Obama's web site are continued calls for an assault weapons ban. Further, AG Holder, Pelosi and other leading Democrats continue to call for the ban (and other measures). If you were presented with, say, a GOP platform of bans on civil rights or federal standards for emissions, but the leaders of that party said "Now is not the time," or "No legislation will make it out of committee," or "There isn't enough support for the bill as written," would you feel assured that the GOP would not ban civil rights or federal standards for emissions?

Looking back through my firearms and hunting literature, the NRA's conflicts with governmental legislation restricting firearms ownership were present, but NOT NEARLY so frequently nor intensely. Looking at the big picture, the intensity (and profound effectiveness) of NRA power did not become evident until the mid-l970s when it became apparent that the Democratic Party was going to welcome the "new" issue of gun-control under its "liberal" tent (how, in the besmirched name of Jim Crow this happened is beyond me).

And like any addiction, the Democrats can't seem to get enough, even if that addiction is causing tremendous harm to themselves.

That, sir or madam, is the argument.

[jaksavage]

6. Issues designed to divide the electorate

Gee who would want a divided electorate...

[GreenStormCloud]

22. It is an issue that many in the electorate care deeply about.

Notice that here in the gungeon there is a strong and deep divide between the those who want to keep our guns and those who want to ban them.

[jaksavage]

37. Only in a country

with more guns per cap than any other highly developed nation, are we so radically worried that the govt is going to search us and our houses and take away our guns. The majority of us are worried they are going to take away our 50 cal sniper rifles? Our machine guns? really?
I think this is a topic that is designed to create divisions.

The govt could NEVER impose a general gun ban because they don't know where the majority of guns are and because the members of the legislatures by and large do not support banning fire arms.

Those few voices that do advocate banning firearms are magnified, successfully, to give power to the NRA.

I am a gun owner and a tree hugger and a socialist. And I am tolerant as hell of others.
I am not tolerant of mental manipulation of the masses.
That is what I see in the "gun debate". ( and the 'Gay debate" and the "drug debate" and the "abortion debate". )

Flame on.

[benEzra]

38. No, we're concerned that someone might try to ban new sales of the most popular guns,

mandate mid-19th-century magazine capacities, and increase ammunition prices while reducing supply, as the gun-control lobby has been trying to do since the late 1980s/early 1990s, and Biden had very close ties to that effort. (Fortunately, I think Obama has pretty much told him to STFU on the issue, as I haven't heard anything from Biden or Holder about banning modern-looking guns in quite a while.)

BTW, machineguns have been tightly controlled for 75 years, and no one is trying to change that. Even the NRA supports the National Firearms Act.

[DonP]

40. Huh?

"Those few voices that do advocate banning firearms are magnified, successfully, to give power to the NRA."

So are you suggesting that Schumer, Feinstein, Holder, Hillary and the others calling for these gun bans are shills for the NRA to build their power base?

[SteveM]

50. Since you don't understand, I will try this...

You cannot both whine of manipulation and provocatively invite it. The Dems invite it. Do you not see this? If you do not, then I must conclude that you support (for what reasons I don't know) much of the legislation proposed by Democrats on this issue. In which case, you can expect the kind of reaction by millions of other Americans.

I can't turn the facets anymore than this to catch enough light for you to see.

[SteveM]

49. The Democrats can't complain about division when they are subtracting (nt)

[doc03]

10. For one thing Illionis is has about the most restrictive

gun laws in the US.

[spin]

16. Wow, talk about a terrifying picture...

check out the firearm in the picture in the article.



I'm pro-gun and that picture scares me.

In my opinion the picture shows media bias. The camera angle or a little photoshopping makes the firearm look enormous.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. That is a plastic classroom training demonstrator.

Notice that parts of the "rifle" are cut away to show the insides. That is for an instructor to have in front of a class as he talks about the parts. It has to be that big so the guy in the rear seat can see. Of course, most viewers would not know that and would think it was a real rifle.

[spin]

25. Well it faked me out...

I never thought of that. I feel just a little stupid at this point.

[one-eyed fat man]

35. Vet check.................

ANYONE who'd spent an afternoon not sleeping through mechanical training on the M16 during basic training would have instantly recognized that as a training aid from the local TASO on any Army post.

You will see those out sized cutaways for US small arm going back to WW2. They were used for classroom instruction and mechanical training on the the weapon involved. Soldiers were expected to understand clearing, functioning, cycle of operation and immediate action in case of a stoppage before live fire.

Training Aids

[benEzra]

26. There was some legitimate concern early on that the administration might try

to resurrect the "assault weapon" issue, as was mentioned prior to the election, particularly by Biden, and after the election by Holder et al. That would threaten the sale of the most popular civilian rifles in the United States, and led to a run on modern-looking rifles and magazines, and accelerated the post-2005 run on ammunition.

Fortunately, Obama squelched the "ban assault weapons" BS and made it clear that a new ban is NOT on his priority list, so prices have now pretty much returned to normal, and ammunition supplies are slowly catching up. This was news ten months ago; now, not so much...

[spin]

27. He could say, "Read my lips, no new assault weapons bans."...

why does that statement sound familiar?

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Still on Change.Gov.

If he'd remove that, and issue a public statement recanting, most of this would just go away, and we could focus on more important issues.

[gorfle]

33. Flat-out lie.

However, President Obama has never said - as a candidate or as president - that he intends to push for a ban of gun sales.

This is a flat out lie. Here is what is currently still up on www.change.gov under Urban Policy, and what was, until a few months ago, on www.whitehouse.gov under Urban Policy, but has since been removed:

"Address Gun Violence in Cities:
Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt 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. 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."

So there you go. President Obama supported a new, permanent Assault Weapons Ban, and firearm owners took him at his word.

Further, an Assault Weapon Ban is part of the current, 2008 Democratic Party Platform ( http://www.democrats.org/a/party/platform.html)

Further, the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, brought us the first Assault Weapons Ban.

It is just asinine that people stand around shrugging their shoulders and exclaiming, "Gee, I don't know why the firearm owners in this country think there is going to be a ban on firearms!"

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Because his platform has called for it several times.

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt 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. 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."


That's a ban on at the very least, some gun sales. An unwarranted, unhelpful, bullshit ban. Making guns 'childproof' is another bullshit agenda, that will amount to a ban, because if a firearm can be gripped by a human hand, and fired, it's probably not childproof. To make a gun 'childproof', you've probably made the gun totally useless as a firearm in the first place.

Pretty pathetic Cafferty couldn't figure that out on his own.