The comments on that article are funny.

TFA: The latest example came Friday during a small political event at SCHOTT North America Inc., a glass factory in Duryea, Pa., where even a hand-picked crowd threw Barack Obama a curve ball.

Eh wot?

bulldg4life: The comments on that article are funny.

I came to say that.

...once again I find myself reminded that the number of quality comments in FARK political threads is quite impressive.

I am extremely liberal, with the exception of being pro-gun. I will be voting for Obama come November. That being said, his statement "If you have a gun in your home, I will not take it from you." sounds like a dance around the ban issue as typically a ban is on future purchases, existing ownership is grand-fathered in.

What guns? I don't have any guns.

The president doesn't have the power to ban guns, ban abortion or create any laws. He can sign or reject them.

slackin_off: sounds like a dance around the ban issue as typically a ban is on future purchases, existing ownership is grand-fathered in.

This has been noted by some.

Sounds like a good answer.

wedge wedge wedge booga booga booga

bulldg4life: The comments on that article are funny.

I adore this sentiment:

I don't by it... Obama is for growth in the government - national health care, online medical records, develop a modern communication infrastructure, encourage/organize unions, increase minimum wage, double funding for after school program, cut taxes in "middle class", grow the IRS to provide pre-filled tax forms... All this is growing the federal government... HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR THIS? How is the federal government paid now? TAXES !!! How can Obama say he is going to decrease taxes? Oh, he is going to tax the big companies - isn't that just going to push them offshore more? Leaving less jobs in the US? Don't get me wrong, I think there are merit to his ideas, but not when they will just increase the operating cost of the government.


Making life better for 90% of America? FIX problems with the IRS? Build a better infrastructure that both the public and private enterprise can use to maintain competitive parity with the world? F*CK THAT MAN, we can't burden our betters, they might PUNISH us with fewer jobs!

That's a comment made out of visceral terror.

You know, as a gun owner and someone planning on voting for Obama, I have no concern what-so-ever that the guns I currently own or any I may plan on buying in the future will be taken away from me by an Obama Administration. First, I doubt any legislation like like this will even make it to the president's desk, and second, I doubt either Presidential candidate would sign it if it did.

bulldg4life: wedge wedge wedge booga booga booga

Yep. I heard that he's going to make all of us get abortions, too.

GaryPDX: What guns? I don't have any guns.

You don't need no stinkin' guns!

Subby, I LOLd.

As a Canadian I find it hilarious how gun-obsessed many parts of the U.S. really are.

How often do you really kill someone? Seriously?

"Welp, better have this M-16 sitting behind the coffee table, I killed 3 wetbacks last week with it. Damn, they're thick this time of year."

Want to own a rifle or shotgun for hunting? Be my guest. But the obsession with gun porn reminds me of the middle east for some reason.

slackin_off: typically a ban is on future purchases, existing ownership is grand-fathered in.

Existing ownership is protected by the Second Amendment, which gives the right to keep and bear arms.

You have a Constitutionally-protected right to own a gun, and a Constitutionally-protected right to use a gun that you own, so long as you don't use it to commit a crime.

But the 2nd Amendment does not give you the right to purchase a gun or make a gun. And the regulation clause allows the government to require that you register your gun. Interesting loophole.

RockofAges: As a Canadian I find it hilarious how gun-obsessed many parts of the U.S. really are.

How often do you really kill someone? Seriously?

"Welp, better have this M-16 sitting behind the coffee table, I killed 3 wetbacks last week with it. Damn, they're thick this time of year."

Want to own a rifle or shotgun for hunting? Be my guest. But the obsession with gun porn reminds me of the middle east for some reason

It's not about that, it's about the right to do what you believe the Constitution says you can do. Kinda like being on Fark whilst naked.

keylock71: You know, as a gun owner and someone planning on voting for Obama, I have no concern what-so-ever that the guns I currently own or any I may plan on buying in the future will be taken away from me by an Obama Administration. First, I doubt any legislation like like this will even make it to the president's desk, and second, I doubt either Presidential candidate would sign it if it did.

This. I'm a long time gun-owner, avid hunter, and Obama supporter. I have about as much concern about Obama taking my guns as I do about McCain outlawing abortion, which is little to none. Our government just doesn't work that way, and it's unfortunate that these silly wedge issues can gain so much traction. Shouldn't gun owners be more concerned that, given the current rates of inflation, unemployment, and the general state of the economy that they won't be able to afford ammo to load into said guns?

He is not going to take them away from you, he is just going to try to stop you from buying more of the types of guns he does not like. I may or may not vote for Obama, and this will not be the issue that decides my vote, but he is 100% wrong on gun control. I already have an AR15 and will be buying an AK47 and plenty of magazines before the end of the year. There is no sure way for me to protect the gun rights of my fellow countrymen, but I can exercise and protect my own rights by purchasing these types of weapons before he tries to ban them. The only problem is that these are not the only two types of guns he wants to ban, and there is no way I will be able to get every type of firearm covered by the ban before it is put into effect.

RockofAges: As a Canadian I find it hilarious how gun-obsessed many parts of the U.S. really are.

An M-16 is kind of superfluous when you're out clubbing seals.

bulldg4life: The comments on that article are funny.

Creepy, more like. I don't understand what you need more than 1 gun for, anyhow.

palladiate: That's a comment made out of visceral terror.

I think it's successful brainwashing, but that's just my theory.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Democrats turned to blue dogs like Schuler and Webb to win in 2006 and will do the same in 2008. They are NOT going to try any gun ban legislation which would cost these members their seats.

I'm convinced it's gun brokers and dealers trying to scare up sales this past 18 months. You can't honestly look at this congress and tell me they can pass a gun ban. There's no farking way.

Jim Webb would cap a biatch.

"Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress,'


When he DOES get the votes that'll be another story...

Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the "traditions of gun ownership" but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of "gang bangers and drug dealers' in big cities "who already have them and are shooting people."

Oh man, he's pandering to white fear now.

"Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress,'

The FAIL is strong with Obama.

I'm all for owning guns to protect yourself. I'm not all for people owning assault rifles and automatic weapons though. Self defense is fine, but chances are the french foreign legion aren't going to be the ones breaking in to your house and stealing stuff. 1, maybe 2 guys at most.

RockofAges: As a Canadian I find it hilarious how gun-obsessed many parts of the U.S. really are.

How often do you really kill someone? Seriously?

"Welp, better have this M-16 sitting behind the coffee table, I killed 3 wetbacks last week with it. Damn, they're thick this time of year."

Want to own a rifle or shotgun for hunting? Be my guest. But the obsession with gun porn reminds me of the middle east for some reason.

The real reason behind it is, in fact, self-defense. Not from government, but from lack of government. People, especially communities, needed to be able to protect themselves from lawlessness in areas where the government was less able to exert authority. The "well-regulated militia" is a citizen's police force, but regulated to not be a mob.

I am in favor of responsible gun ownership, but I think there should be responsible regulation that protect the rights of responsible gun owners as well as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as best we can.

The two extremes -- "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!" and "OMG, GUNS BAD! BAN THEM!" -- are both naive and counterproductive. This is one issue where there IS middle ground, and both sides need to come together on it for the good of the country.

moothemagiccow: I don't understand what you need more than 1 gun for, anyhow.

Because you can't efficiently/effectively hunt antelope with a shotgun any more than you can hunt quail with a .30-06?

How the hell is this an issue. It's not even remotely an important issue in 2008!!

soy_bomb: Obama trotted out his standard policy stance, that he had a deep respect for the "traditions of gun ownership" but favored measures in big cities to keep guns out of the hands of "gang bangers and drug dealers' in big cities "who already have them and are shooting people."

Oh man, he's pandering to white fear now.

"Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress,'

The FAIL is strong with Obama.

Lets see.

Playing to white fear about inner city gun ownership... Or telling an entire nation that if we don't stay in a particular country, Terrorists are going to come over here and start blowing shiat up.

Which one's worse?

Snarfangel [TotalFark] 2008-09-06 01:27:15 PM
RockofAges: As a Canadian I find it hilarious how gun-obsessed many parts of the U.S. really are.

An M-16 is kind of superfluous when you're out clubbing seals.


But man is it great when it comes to pulling up those day labor sites and spraying a group of illegal wetbacks! It's a high velocity shooter so if you're good, you can take 2 out with 1 shot if they are standing close enough to each other.

Third Day Mark: Or telling an entire nation that if we don't stay in a particular country, Terrorists are going to come over here and start blowing shiat up.

[citation needed]

Snarfangel: RockofAges: As a Canadian I find it hilarious how gun-obsessed many parts of the U.S. really are.

An M-16 is kind of superfluous when you're out clubbing seals.

Snarfangel shots a bulls-eye.

DamnYankees: How the hell is this an issue. It's not even remotely an important issue in 2008!!

Its not, but the Republicans are looking for ANYTHING that they can use as a foothold, or leverage, or something to that effect.

McCain and Palin didn't say shiat about the issues. The Republicans are even saying this election isn't about the issues, because they are going to lose their asses when it comes to the issues. Plain & Simple.

Snarfangel: An M-16 is kind of superfluous when you're out clubbing seals.

It depends on the stock.

soy_bomb: Third Day Mark: Or telling an entire nation that if we don't stay in a particular country, Terrorists are going to come over here and start blowing shiat up.

[citation needed]

See: Any George Bush speech post-9/11 regarding Iraq

Just an add on...

The supreme court struck down the handgun ban because handguns were "common, and useful for militia service." The AR15 series of rifles are the best selling rifles in America at this point in time. If that does not meet the standard of common, then I don't know what does. They are also clearly suitable for militia service.

Point being, on top of protecting your own rights by purchasing one of these rifles before the end of the year and grandfathering yourself in, each additional rifle adds to the credibility of the "common" claim and makes an assault rifle ban that much less likely to stand up to the scrutiny of the supreme court.

Future changes of the supreme court being another topic entirely...

thyocyan: The president doesn't have the power to ban guns, ban abortion or create any laws. He can sign or reject them.

Then how has McCain "voted with Bush 90% of the time"?

soy_bomb: "Even if I want to take them away, I don't have the votes in Congress,'

The FAIL is strong with Obama.

Uh... if he had 3/4 of the votes in Congress he could pass a Constitutional Amendment which supercedes the Second Amendment and that decision and send it to the states. Unlikely to get even half, let alone 3/4 of the states, but unless the states themselves convened and submitted amendments, he would need 3/4 of the Congress to take your guns, and he doesn't have them.

The FAIL is strong with YOU.

keylock71: You know, as a gun owner and someone planning on voting for Obama, I have no concern what-so-ever that the guns I currently own or any I may plan on buying in the future will be taken away from me by an Obama Administration. First, I doubt any legislation like like this will even make it to the president's desk, and second, I doubt either Presidential candidate would sign it if it did.

I have the same sentiment as a gun owner myself plus I think there have been much bigger threats to our liberties instituted by the current administration that a McCain would do nothing to correct.

In short: I give a shiat about the rest of the Bill of Rights as well.

Larry Mahnken: Uh... if he had 3/4 of the votes in Congress he could pass a Constitutional Amendment which supercedes the Second Amendment and that decision and send it to the states. Unlikely to get even half, let alone 3/4 of the states, but unless the states themselves convened and submitted amendments, he would need 3/4 of the Congress to take your guns, and he doesn't have them.

You don't need 3/4 of the votes of the Congress to pass an amendment.

RockofAges: As a Canadian I find it hilarious how gun-obsessed many parts of the U.S. really are.

How often do you really kill someone? Seriously?


Do you also find it hilarious how obsessed we are with the right against self-incrimination?

How often is an American beaten into confession by a police department? Seriously?

/Stay out of US politics, and I'll stay out of Canadian politics, dingbat

RockofAges:
"Welp, better have this M-16 sitting behind the coffee table, I killed 3 wetbacks last week with it. Damn, they're thick this time of year."


You owe me a new laptop... coffee is sprayed all over the screen.

Seriously, your basic .22 takes them out just fine.

/I'm of proud beaner heritage
//and legal

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Just an add on...

The supreme court struck down the handgun ban because handguns were "common, and useful for militia service." The AR15 series of rifles are the best selling rifles in America at this point in time. If that does not meet the standard of common, then I don't know what does. They are also clearly suitable for militia service.

Point being, on top of protecting your own rights by purchasing one of these rifles before the end of the year and grandfathering yourself in, each additional rifle adds to the credibility of the "common" claim and makes an assault rifle ban that much less likely to stand up to the scrutiny of the supreme court.

Future changes of the supreme court being another topic entirely...

A ban on sales is expressly permitted by DC v Heller. A ban on ownership of any weapons is very clearly forbidden by the Second Amendment to this crazy commie liberal.

Third Day Mark: Its not, but the Republicans are looking for ANYTHING that they can use as a foothold, or leverage, or something to that effect.

This was a hand picked Obama crowd, not a bunch of Republicans. Obviously they are concerned with his stance on the issue. Judging by his response they are more so now.

Shouldn't all candidates look for issues that provide clear delineation between themselves and their rivals?

DamnYankees: Larry Mahnken: Uh... if he had 3/4 of the votes in Congress he could pass a Constitutional Amendment which supercedes the Second Amendment and that decision and send it to the states. Unlikely to get even half, let alone 3/4 of the states, but unless the states themselves convened and submitted amendments, he would need 3/4 of the Congress to take your guns, and he doesn't have them.

You don't need 3/4 of the votes of the Congress to pass an amendment.

You're right, I was incorrect -- it's 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of the states. Still, the Democrats are nowhere near either, and I hope neither party ever reaches those thresholds, allowing them to impose their one-sided views on future generations who are in opposition to them, but not by quite a large enough majority.

JimmyCarter'sSecondTerm: Just an add on...

The supreme court struck down the handgun ban because handguns were "common, and useful for militia service." The AR15 series of rifles are the best selling rifles in America at this point in time. If that does not meet the standard of common, then I don't know what does. They are also clearly suitable for militia service.

Point being, on top of protecting your own rights by purchasing one of these rifles before the end of the year and grandfathering yourself in, each additional rifle adds to the credibility of the "common" claim and makes an assault rifle ban that much less likely to stand up to the scrutiny of the supreme court.

Future changes of the supreme court being another topic entirely...

Larry Mahnken: DamnYankees: Larry Mahnken: Uh... if he had 3/4 of the votes in Congress he could pass a Constitutional Amendment which supercedes the Second Amendment and that decision and send it to the states. Unlikely to get even half, let alone 3/4 of the states, but unless the states themselves convened and submitted amendments, he would need 3/4 of the Congress to take your guns, and he doesn't have them.

You don't need 3/4 of the votes of the Congress to pass an amendment.

You're right, I was incorrect -- it's 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of the states. Still, the Democrats are nowhere near either, and I hope neither party ever reaches those thresholds, allowing them to impose their one-sided views on future generations who are in opposition to them, but not by quite a large enough majority.

If the Democrats ever dominate the House, Senate, and States that much, it seems the country would probably favor whatever amendment they were passing.

Third Day Mark: I'm all for owning guns to protect yourself. I'm not all for people owning assault rifles and automatic weapons though. Self defense is fine, but chances are the french foreign legion aren't going to be the ones breaking in to your house and stealing stuff. 1, maybe 2 guys at most.

Police who are assigned traffic duty often have their side arm, a shotgun and a so-called assault rifle with them. The police are trained in tactics and often work with backup. I have read incidents of home invasions that were committed by more than two people.

So in this scenario, you have a single home owner that is protecting his/her own life, and the life of their loved ones against multiple attackers. Would this person have as much need for an assault rifle as a traffic cop? Or in the extreme circumstance of lawlessness (L.A. riots, hurricanes) do citizens have as much of a need for use of the same tools that police would have available?

Larry Mahnken: Uh... if he had 3/4 of the votes in Congress he could pass a Constitutional Amendment

An amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the support of two-thirds of Congress. Please go FAIL somewhere else. Thanks!