All fired up: Gun owners rush to buy guns for fear Obama, Democ...

They had better stock up and I mean NOW.

Unfortunately, the terms assault weapon and "sensible" restrictions automatically indicate both a lack of technical knowledge and the willingness to use it. Assault weapon is a technical term and semi-automatic assault weapon is a figment of the media and pejorative used by the anti-gun groups. The often referred to and seldom understood Assault Weapons Ban which expired in 2004 is well documented to have had no impact on crime or illegal gun use. Restrictions on legal gun ownership, besides the constitutional issue, will not prevent or control crime or criminals. An in-depth reading of the "sensible" restrictions of the anti-gun groups clearly shows the goal to be a complete ban of civilian owned firearms other than single shot rifles and shotguns. The hypocrisy of sending our young men and women into harms way where their lives depend on effective use of small arms to preserve our freedom while depriving the next generation of soldiers the opportunity to grow up with an understanding and familiarity of firearms is myopic at best and fatal at worst. The up arming of the police to military true assault weapons while restricting civilian weapon ownership is the first step to fascism.
Judging by news accounts most murders are drug and gang related, creating criminals out of law abiding citizens with strong beliefs in our second amendment rights as a means of combating gangs is just one more example of sound bite governance.

How did the term "assault weapon" even develope?

I remember such arms being called -Assault Rifles.

Which comes from the name given to the predecessor of todays weapons. The WW2 German Sturmgewher (Assault Rifle).

I highly doubt that Obama and Congress will try much with gun control. It is a loser issue, and they have much bigger fish to fry. They do not want to have the "blue dog" democrats voted out in 2010. Trying to pass an assault weapons ban would be political suicide, and solve almost nothing if it did.

History has shown what happened when Hitler consficated the firearms from the law abiding citizens of Germany.

Assault Weapon is a knee jerk term.

The term 'Sensible' is open to debate according to the viewpoint of the politician.

What do they not understand about the Second Amendment and the oath they take to uphold the Constitution of the United States?

An armed person is a Citizen and unarmed person is a Subject.

If a government does not trust me with my firearms, why should I trust it with their firearms?

Boomer215 wrote:

How did the term "assault weapon" even develope?
I remember such arms being called -Assault Rifles.
Which comes from the name given to the predecessor of todays weapons. The WW2 German Sturmgewher (Assault Rifle).

The Nazis coined the term "assault weapon", now it's used genericly to describe a military grade fully automatic rifle.

The so-called "assault weapons" ban that firearm-phobic Democrats love to villify, scare people with, and want to re-instate is simply a bait and switch lie. It does not ban fully automatic firearms, it bans semi-automatic rifles, which are two completely different types of guns.

Calling a semi-automatic rifle an "assault weapon" is like calling the cars we drive on the street everyday NASCAR racers. Banning semi-auto rifles claiming they want to get the "assault weapons" off the streets is like saying they want to ban NASCAR racers and instead ban Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, and every other type of car we drive. However, considering this is coming from the Democrats it's really not too surprising.

jrptoo wrote:

I highly doubt that Obama and Congress will try much with gun control. It is a loser issue, and they have much bigger fish to fry. They do not want to have the "blue dog" democrats voted out in 2010. Trying to pass an assault weapons ban would be political suicide, and solve almost nothing if it did.

Some of the most liberal members of the Democrats who have nothing to fear from their firearm-phobic constituents like Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, etc. will likely not be able to help themselves. It will probably rear its head at some point.

Hopefully the Democrats who replaced the Republicans in 2006, most of whom claimed pro-2nd amendment positions, will hold true to their professed beliefs and tell their far left leaning colleagues where to go.

The article stated: "Obama has said he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms, but that he favors "common sense" gun laws."

America was founded with "common sense" gun laws, the 2nd amendment, which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It did not contain a disclaimer saying void where prohibited by law.

There are many illegal guns out here in the hands of criminals, gangs and such. These are the ones that need tighter controls because they are being used viciously instead of sensibly.

I'm buying EVERYTHING I want NOW!!!!

Don't trust the democrats in charge

Todd wrote:

I'm buying EVERYTHING I want NOW!!!!
Don't trust the democrats in charge

guess ya didnt hear about the aussie gun buyback

JMullen wrote:

The article stated: "Obama has said he respects Americans' Second Amendment right to bear arms, but that he favors "common sense" gun laws."
America was founded with "common sense" gun laws, the 2nd amendment, which states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It did not contain a disclaimer saying void where prohibited by law.

It's just that when the 2nd amendment was written they envisioned farmers with muskets joining the militias. I don't know that they could ever have anticipated the availability of Uzis on the open market, and that they would have considered that "sensible".

Franklin P wrote:

<quoted text>
It's just that when the 2nd amendment was written they envisioned farmers with muskets joining the militias. I don't know that they could ever have anticipated the availability of Uzis on the open market, and that they would have considered that "sensible".

They also did not envision the high speed printing press or the internet when they penned the First Amendment. So why do you just single out the Second Amendment with your illogical thinking?

The main issue that I have with the gun control groups is that they claim that this is crime control. The fact is that in areas where guns are unrestricted to law abiding citizens, crime, especially violent crime, goes down. Guns are used over a million times a year to prevent crimes.

What liberals are trying to do is pass off the responsibility for crimes occurring to inanimate objects that are incapable of voting. The actual perpetrators of the crimes and their respective behavior are off limits. They can vote as well as their attorneys. They are just "victims" of their environment.

To those who believe the framers of the constitution envisioned muskets as the militia weapon of choice, I would say that you are misinformed. The framers were so fearful of a centralized government that they wanted a way for states to directly protect their own rights. State citizens were encouraged to be armed for no other reason than to overthrow the federal government should they overstep the boundaries set forth in the constitution. Uzis and assault rifles are exactly what they meant for us to have.

As Chicago approaches the 500 murdered mark and the 2000th attempted murder, I think I will rely on myself for the protection of my family. Bringing Chicago style crime control to the whole country is frightening.

jack412 wrote:

<quoted text>
guess ya didnt hear about the aussie gun buyback

Gun buy-backs accomplish little more than to provide an oppotunity for firearms owners and gundealers to get something for an otherwise worthless pieces of unservicable junk.

jack412 wrote:

<quoted text>
guess ya didnt hear about the aussie gun buyback

America couldn't afford a gun buyback now, if ever. Not to mention it would tie up the courts for years as there would be arguements over fair market price for guns. Some people have thousands of dollars in their collections of assault rifles. Not-to-mention if they wanted the money, they wouldn't have bought the guns. And the difference between American and what happened in the UK and Australia, is that we actually have a constitution and a 2nd Amendment....and we have the Heller decision.

A new ban would have to have a grandfather clause, like the old one did; meaning everyone gets to keep what they own, they just can't buy new guns.

Franklin P wrote:

<quoted text>
It's just that when the 2nd amendment was written they envisioned farmers with muskets joining the militias. I don't know that they could ever have anticipated the availability of Uzis on the open market, and that they would have considered that "sensible".

The Founders were well aware of advances in weapons technology. One of the first rapid fire arms was invented in 1718.
Artillery existed at that time.
Grenades existed at that time.
These and other items are all by definition "arms".

And yet the Founders chose not to make a distinction or set limits.

Thanks Obama wrote:

<quoted text>
That's a good one... what about pickup trucks, hot dogs and mom's apple pie?

A Real Redneck only eats Corn Dogs.

Get off your high horse, it's not only rednecks that are worried but average, law abiding citizens. ALSO one gun shop owner stated on World News last night that people were coming in with Obama wearing their Obama button so he asked why they were there to buy a gun. Their response "because they want to get their guns before Obama bans guns".

So you see, it's not just rednecks but the democrats, liberals on others just voted because know what's coming and THEY WANT GUNS ALSO.

JOHN wrote:

Pretty sad that these rednecks are so worried about guns!

Banning the sales of assault guns is a ban that I would accept. The average citizen doesn't need a submachine gun to killl a deer. An AR-15 will do just fine as will a pistol. You people who worry about your right to bear arms is not under attack - just the type of gun that you can have. And many of you need to enroll in a civics class to learn that an Amendment cannot be deleted by the Supreme Court or by legislation. This will require a vote by the American people.