Even if you love guns, the NRA is NOT your friend

[Taverner]

The NRA. Fighting for gun owner's rights. Not.

The NRA really has little to do with gun freedom. Look at the biggest donors to the NRA. Smith & Wesson. Ruger. Heckler and Koch. Glock (and I would love a Glock 9mm someday, just to shoot with one!)

Make no mistake, I am all for the right to bear, keep and buy arms. But that is not what the NRA is all about - its not supporting the gun owner, but the gun buyer. Yeah, as in 'how do we sell more of these things?'

The NRA is the lobbying arm of the personal weapons industry. They are not 'the ACLU of the 2nd Ammendment.' No one is, actually. There should be a Hippie Gun Club - and I would love to start a chapter.

But it is not the NRA. They are the ones who send out the sinister emails when a Black Man is elected President. Even though Obama has never threatened gun freedom, the NRA keeps writing about his 'closet anti-gun agenda.' Those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about should get on the NRA's email group. You'll get all kinds of emails asking for your money to protect us from this 'horrible anti-gun cabal.'

Anyone else on their mailing list may try to refute me...

[TPaine7]

1. "Obama has never threatened gun freedom" ?!!! OK.

[Common Sense Party]

2. I have no use for the NRA, other than I may take one of their classes

sometime. I just don't care to be a member--I'm not a joiner by nature. I just don't see the need. :shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

3. I realized that over 20 years ago.

It is not about gun rights but the ability of firearm makers ability to sell as many as possible to consumers.

[lawodevolution]

24. And selling many guns is a great way to ensure gun rights will not be infringed

[safeinOhio]

4. NRA's list of Obama's

10 point plan to ban guns.


Barack Obama's Ten Point Plan To "Change" The Second Amendment.

Here were the 10 points:

1) Ban use of firearms for home defense
2) Pass Federal laws eliminating your Right-to-Carry.
3) Ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.
4) Close down 90% of the gun shops in America.
5) Ban rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.
6) Increase federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500%
7) Restore voting rights for five million criminals including those who have been convicted of using a gun to commit a violent crime.
8) Expand the Clinton semi-auto ban to include millions more firearms.
9) Mandate a government-issued license to purchase a firearm.
10) Appoint judges to the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal judiciary who share his views on the Second Amendment.

More like the NRAs plan to get right-wing crazies in power. How many of those have happened?

[Taverner]

13. Exactly. The NRA finds something he said in a campaign speech way back

And then twists it to infer jack booted thugs will take your guns

REALITY: Among recent Democratic Presidents, Obama has been THE BEST on gun rights. Clinton was more of a gun grabber than Obama.

[rl6214]

5. " Obama has never threatened gun freedom"

Really, you really believe this?

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”
Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

OBAMA: Let’s be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

[safeinOhio]

8. Try 2008 and after that date

for Obama's statements, along with signing bills that allow CCW in National Parks and Amtrack. The NRA change Kasichs rating to a B from an F after he voted for the AWB and anti-hunting bills during the same period because he said the same things Obama was saying during the 2010 elections. Did they raise his ratings too? Hell no, he is half Irish. Just look at who serves on the Board of directors of the NRA, racist and right-wing crazy people. Name one anti gun rights bill of legislation that he has supported as a national leader? Name any part of the "10 point plan" the NRA pushed in 2008 in the National Rifle Man that has come true. This teabagger crap on DU sucks.

[Upton]

16. The NRA endorsed Strickland over Kasich..

And though I welcome it, Obama's change on gun rights is all about political expediency more than anything else. He's not stupid, he knows gun control is a loser for the party nationally.

You want the NRA to be more pro-Democrat...have the party get out of the gun control lobby's bed.

[safeinOhio]

26. If Kasich had kept his F from the NRA

he would have lost a close one.

With the current Board of Directors, the NRA will never lean or support any progressive. Ted Nugent, Don Young, Wayne Ross, Zell Miller(who makes it bipartisan).

Kasich's change, words only as he appointed an anti-carry State Police director after the election, is no different than Obama and I haven't seen Obama's rating move up.

[Sirveri]

6. I have a Glock 9mm. Kinda wish I had something else though.

I do not feel comfortable if I were to conceal carry the Glock 17. Mainly because I would prefer to have an actual safety so that I could carry in condition 1. As is I have to carry condition 3 if I carry (which is very rare) because I don't trust the 'trigger safety'. Shooting wise... I need to get back at the range, it's been way too long, but it wasn't much different from other 9mm's.

[safeinOhio]

9. I carry a P22 when I do carry.

Small, light, accurate, safety and easy to conceal. I also carry a Seacamp 32, but also a double action with no safey that has to be practiced with. Carrying a cannon is great if you want your pants to hang down on one side, you don't carry in the summer and your a bad shot.

[benEzra]

12. You can get S&W M&P's with manual safeties...

or go with an older DA/SA (e.g., an S&W 3913, various Sig-Sauers, etc.).

Having said that, I like a pistol with a manual safety so that the gun can be safed when not holstered, but a drop-safe DA/SA, DAO, revolver, or modern striker-fired pistol with internal safeties is safe to carry in a holster with the chamber loaded; you could throw them off a building and they wouldn't go off. I carry a DA/SA (3913 Lady Smith) and the safety is on when out of the holster and off when secured in the holster, as designed.

[RSillsbee]

15. You DO have an actual safety

It's right between your ears

[spin]

19. If you own a Glock a good holster is esential ...

If you carry it for self defense, I would not advise putting a target trigger in it. In fact, I might suggest putting a heavier trigger in.

There is a device called a Saf-T-Blok Safety which might solve your problem.

You can look at the various triggers at http://www.topglock.com/category/1654-Glock_Triggers.aspx

At the same site you can watch a video of the Saf-Y-Blok
http://www.topglock.com/item/42317_Saf-T-Blok_Safety___Protection_SAF-T-BLOK_R_H___NO_ACCE.aspx

I carry a revolver which has no safety. I use a holster and with the heavy double action trigger pull that a revolver has, I have no fear of having an accidental discharge.

Several manufacturers make double action only pistols without a safety. They have a long and fairly heavy trigger pull which, like a revolver, makes an accidental discharge unlikely especially in a good holster.

[Sirveri]

28. Yeah, the holster is the main issue for me... I'm kinda (really) cheap.

It's easier to just not carry than to get a good holster. Or I could just carry without a round in the chamber and not worry about it.

[spin]

31. Carrying it without a round in the chamber will work ...

unless the hand you would use to rack the slide is hindered by an attacker. This might be unlikely, but could happen.

Here's a link to a web page on Amazon.com that shows the Glock holsters they offer. There are more than 10 pages of choices.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dsporting&field-keywords=glock+holsters&x=8&y=19#/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=n%3A3375251%2Ck%3Aglock+holsters&keywords=glock+holsters&ie=UTF8&qid=1303258020


Here's a Forbus paddle holster that looks like it would work well for $19.94.
http://www.amazon.com/Fobus%C2%AE-Paddle-Holster-GLOCK-17/dp/B001BP8320/ref=sr_1_53?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1303257876&sr=1-53

I personally would trade the Glock 19 in on a smaller more compact model. The "Baby" Glock 26 looks a lot easier to carry concealed.

[benEzra]

48. That must be Andre the Giant's hand in that pic.

The G26/G27 are significantly smaller than a G17/G19, but that pic makes it look as small as an LCP.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/defensive-carry-guns/51129-glock-26-ruger-lcp-pix.html#post747927

I will say that the hardest thing to conceal about a G26 is its width, although the relatively short length and height make it a bit easier to deal with.

[spin]

53. The guy does have a big hand ...

The Ruger LCP is a very compact weapon. My son in law carries one, he found his Glock 27 a bit large for pocket carry.

[Straw Man]

55. You don't have to spend a bunch of money on a high-end leather holster.

"Good" means functional when it comes to holsters. How does $12.99 and rave reviews sound?

Glock Sport Holster

[mvccd1000]

7. NRA attempted to co-opt and derail Heller

NRA has muddied the waters on several bills that the Arizona Citizen's Defense League has brought before the legislature in recent years.
NRA opposes nearly any bill strengthening the right to open carry, or in any other manner carry without a government permission slip.

If it doesn't involve government-permitted CCW, the NRA is not for it. They MUST get the names for their mailing lists from the rolls of CCW-holders; I don't see why else they are so solely focused on that issue, rather than the 2nd Amendment.

I have no use for the NRA.

[pneutin]

10. No, NRA is not funded by manufacturers

Quit making up lies. NRA-ILA, the lobbying arm of the NRA, is funded by dues-paying members who also donate beyond the regular fees.

If you have some solid evidence that those manufacturers donated huge sums, I'd like to see it. I have a feeling I'll be waiting a long time.

[ileus]

11. NRA = junk mail and spam calls....I'll never join again.

[jpak]

14. I went through NRA hunter safety and marksmanship programs when I was young

I had respect for it then, but today the NRA has devolved today into a pack of GOP-lovin' mouthbreathers who do a disservice to ALL gun owners

yup

[RSillsbee]

17. But those NRA hats are SOOOOOOOOOOO cool NT

[PavePusher]

18. Can you cite your claims about "biggest donors"?

And while I certainly don't agree with some of their political activity, they are, by far, the best/most widespread source for basic firearms safety and skills training available.

[Taverner]

20. For starters:

http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/article-4966-what-the-gun-industry-and-the-nra-donrst-want-you-to-know.html

[PavePusher]

25. "Look at the biggest donors to the NRA. Smith & Wesson. Ruger. Heckler and Koch. Glock "

Your cite does not support your assertion.

In fact, the entire interview is laughable.

[Euromutt]

30. That was as credible as Kevin Trudeau talking about "cures 'they' don't want you to know about"

And as noted by a previous poster, even the VPC guy (hardly an unbiased source to begin with) doesn't assert that the NRA is actually funded by firearms manufacturers; the best he can do is point out how some of their interests coincide. That's about as much of a revelation as the fact that some interests of the AAA and car manufacturers coincide, in that more car owners provide the AAA with more potential members, and the car manufacturers with more customers.

[Callisto32]

21. You are flatly wrong.

Demonstrably so, in fact.

[lawodevolution]

22. After reading your post I still have no doubts when I send them money.

Gun manufacturers and gun owners benefit from gun freedom together which is why you link them.

Yes, many people thought Obama would fight for gun control and we will see if he does.

[Atypical Liberal]

23. Crock o' crap.

I, like 4 million other people, am a dues-paying member of the NRA. I have no doubt that many shooting-related industries also support the NRA. I frequently buy products from Midway USA, who has an "NRA roundup" which rounds my purchase up to the nearest dollar and the extra goes to the NRA. What is good for them is good for me.

If the NRA did not protect the interest of firearm owners, no firearm owners would be members. Yet we are some 4-million strong.

Even though Obama has never threatened gun freedom

This is blatantly, provably false. He campaigned on reinstating the Assault Weapons ban, and his initial policy is still viewable on http://www.change.gov under urban policy.

Now his actions since being elected have been rather neutral, and his latest speech concerning firearms seems pretty tame, also, though he has definitely opened the door to some kind of policy change affecting private firearm sales.

The NRA is the largest pro-firearms organization with the most influence over Congress available.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. WTF? A verifiable link? No fair bringing fact to a faith-based OP!

Carry on.....

[kurtzapril4]

44. Didn't Obama sign a bill

that made it legal to carry hand guns in National Parks? So now our parks will be a poacher's paradise? How is that gun grabbing?

[GreenStormCloud]

46. Obama signed a credit card reform bill. Guns in parks was a rider.

No president has a line item veto. To get the credit card reform he had to accept the guns.

[Logical]

27. The NRA is a right wing organization. We need a version of them for Liberals! n-t

[Hangingon]

49. The NRA is a gun advocacy group.

It has become right wing because the political spectrum now puts anti-gun legislation on the left. Where Democrats have supported gun rights, the NRA has supported.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. Will your organization be single-issue or will it include an umbrella of liberal issues?

The NRA is as effective as it is because they have no stance on issues such as abortion, gay rights, taxes, etc. They are guns only. If your organization requires a person to agree on a laundry list of causes as well as guns you won't be effective due to small membership, and you will end up compromising on guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. Obama's record is strongly anti-gun.

That Obama is black has nothing to do with it. Here is his record on guns:

FACT: Supported ban on concealed carry; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-4jqZSEo0Q

FACT: He voted for 2005 Kennedy Amendment Intended by Kennedy to ban all common center-fire rifle ammo. Kennedy, in his speech named the .30-30, first made in the mid 1890s, as a cop-killer to be banned. The .30-30 is one of the most common hunting rounds in America. Reference to Kennedy’s speech, Congressional Record: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2004_record&page=S1634&position=all

“Another rifle caliber, the 30.30 caliber, was responsible for penetrating three officers’ armor and killing them in 1993, 1996, and 2002. This ammunition is also capable of puncturing light-armored vehicles, ballistic or armored glass, armored limousines, even a 600-pound safe with 600 pounds of safe armor plating. It is outrageous and unconscionable that such ammunition continues to be sold in the United States of America.”

A ban on the .30-30 would have banned ALL common hunting ammunition. Since Kennedy wrote the amendment, and since he specifically named the .30-30, then we must assume that he did intend to ban the .30-30, and ALL hunting ammo.

Obama voted FOR the amendment.


FACT: Obama voted AGAINST the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005

FACT Obama supported a ban in Illinois on semi-auto guns

FACT: As a state senator he voted against a bill that would have given amnesty for a person who used a gun in self-defense, even if it was illegal for them to have the gun. In New York, Goetz was about to be mugged by four young men. He shot them all, none fatally. The jury accepted his claim of self-defense (The evidence was overwhelming.) but he was also charged with having a concealed weapon illegally and was convicted of that. The Illinois bill would have granted amnesty for gun possession if the gun was used in genuine self-defense. Obama said, “NO”.

FACT: On his website he supported permanent reinstatement of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.

FACT: Obama said that he believed the DC gun ban was a good example of constitutional local control of guns before the Heller decision.

FACT: The law allowing guns in National Parks was a rider to a credit card reform bill. If Obama wanted credit card reform to had to take the guns rider.

[Taverner]

33. I don't think any of those has infringed on your right to buy and have a gun has it?

What exactly is he doing now to restrict the ability to buy guns?

Last I checked, even here in California you can buy gun any time you want. And you can shoot it too.

I've done the research. If your gun is really for "home protection" you need a shotgun, and two types of ammo. First barrel gets birdshot, Second gets bigger pellets. Idea is if you shoot the gun at a 'friendly' by mistake, they live. If they really are trying to kill you, the second chamber awaits.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. You are very badly informed about shotguns and home defense.

First: At home defense distances it is extremely unlikely that a friendly will survive a blast of birdshot. You have done research? I have personally shot animals of various sizes with birdshot at close range. It destroys huge hunks of tissue. It blows hunks of the animal off. At close range the column of shot doesn't have time to disperse and hits as a solid mass, then each shot creates its own wound channel. Dozens of separate wound channels, each one several inches deep. Your statement is one of the most ignorant, dangerous, things that I have read on this forum. Burn this into your brain: AT CLOSE RANGE BIRDSHOT IS DEADLIER THAN BUCKSHOT.

This is #8 birdshot into ballistics gelatin from a few feet away:


Go to Google images and enter "birdshot wounds". It will be obvious which ones are close range. They are too graphic to post here. GET RID OF THE IDEA THAT A FRIENDLY WILL SURVIVE A CLOSE RANGE SHOTGUN BLAST OF ANY TYPE OF SHOT.

[one-eyed fat man]

35. While disabusing him of that notion

Another shotgun myth to get rid of is that "...you don't have to aim... it will cover the room..."

http://firearmsid.com/A_distshotpatt.htm

Under ten feet and the mass of birdshot acts more like an amorphous mass than a cluster of pellets.



How many people have a house with a room that is 25 feet in any dimension?

[Taverner]

41. Keyword: close range

Shotguns aren't meant for close range, which is all the better to have them for home defense

Let's just say you and I hear a bump in the night. We put all discussion aside of why you're sleeping in my bed, but hey, its a thought experiment. You have a handgun of your choice, I have a shotgun.

We see a burglar and he's going through our stuff, and he comes running at us. Who gets the most "hits"? The shotgun shooter.

Yes, I know birdshot at close range is bad. But let's step back into that thought experiment. Suddenly its not a burglar but instead Robert Downey Jr. He just fell of the wagon and is trying to lick our windows from the inside. We both like some of his movies, so we decide he's a friendly, but not before I shoot out of fear. Yes he gets knocked down but there's a better chance he would live if hit by the birdshot rather than the bigger lead balls (not a gun dude - I know what it is, not what its called)

[rrneck]

43. Adjusting technology can't backstop a life or death decision.

When you pull the trigger expect someone to die. If you can't do that (which is laudable) don't buy a gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

47. Shooting inside a house IS close range.

Unless you have a HUGE house, at typical inside-the-house distances you are going to blast a huge hole in him. Look at that ballistics gelatin pictue. The destroyed tissue measures a bit over three inches in diameter and about six inches deep. Go to you kitchen and look at a average sized can of veggies. Stack another can on top the first. That is about the size and shape of the absolute destruction of tissue in the body. Robert Downey Jr. will go to the morgue. Surviving a shotgun blast to the torso at inside-the-house distances is RARE. Shotguns do have an excellent place in a home defense plan, but I would not rely upon them as the only gun, unless I had to. And I would definately use a pump or Siaga shotgun, not a double barrel. Siaga being my choice.

If you ever have to shoot anybody with any gun you must be ready for them to die. Otherwise don't shoot.

[Hangingon]

51. Hey GSC, how can you contradict a "thought experiment"?

[GreenStormCloud]

36. Shotguns can be clumsy for home defense.

If you are going to take cover behind the bed and aim the shot gun at the bedroom door and wait, then a shotgun is absolutely the best. For personal survival the "ensconced defender" tactic is also the best. Make the bad guy come to you as you wait in ambush gives you your best chance at survival.

But you can't always do that. Sometime you have to check out that noise. Sometimes you have to answer the door at 3AM. (I once had the police knock at my door then. A drunk driver had taken out part of my fence, then hit a tree down the block.) In those situations a shotgun is clumsy, slow to bring to target, and easy for the attacker to rush if he is already close, and requires both hands to be able to use it. In a door encounter the action can start with the attacker already too close for a shotugn. For those type of situations a handgun is the best tool. It is designed to be used with one hand, is quick to bring to point, and can be kept out of sight until needed. You don't needlessly alarm the person at the door if you don't have to.

Your double-barreled shotgun is limited to two shots. Sometimes you have multiple attackers. Home invaders have started to operate as gangs with several thugs attacking at once. You may need multiple shots. A pump shotgun is preferred over the double-barrel. Better is a shotgun with a detachable magazine, such as the Siaga. It can hold up to 20 rounds of 12 gauge, or 30 of 410 bore. So what if you don't use them all? If your encounter turns out to only need seven then you had them available plus some leftovers.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Only because he failed to get his way.

Now that I have hopefully educated you about shotguns for home defense, let's get back to Obama.

I don't think any of those has infringed on your right to buy and have a gun has it?
The only reason that he hasn't infringed on my rights is because the lost that battle. He doesn't get any good guy points for losing while he was on the bad guy side. He voted for measures that would have resulted, had his side won, in severely restricting my freedoms with guns.

What exactly is he doing now to restrict the ability to buy guns?
Not much. He is smart enough to know that it would be a losing battle that would cost him major political capital. But he has NOT renounced any of his previous positions. He is still on the side of the gun-banners, and not to be trusted where guns are concerned.

[beevul]

38. We really don't know now do we.

That transparency thing he promised ya know:

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.

“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story_1.html

Maybe its just me, but "under the radar" and "transparency" dont seem to indicate nearly the same thing.

Whats YOUR take on this?

[Taverner]

42. It's political suicide - Obama is too smart to go for that

And just because its under the radar doesn't mean people won't find out

[benEzra]

39. Thoughts...

Last I checked, even here in California you can buy gun any time you want. And you can shoot it too.

No, the most popular civilian sporting rifles in the United States are banned in California, including the rifle I shoot competitively with. California is also one of only two or three states with a pre-Civil-War capacity limit across the board, considered nuts by most gun owners nationwide---which is why a lot of gun owners refer to the legislators responsible for CA gun laws as the "Caliban" (a rather remarkable triple pun, if you think about it). Also in CA, carry licensure is restricted to the wealthy and politically connected---because, you know, having lots of money, or donating to the sheriff's reelection campaign, makes you more qualified to obtain a license.

The gun laws of California and New Jersey are extreme even compared to those of gun-control-utopia Massachusetts, never mind the rest of the nation---and the gun control lobby's top priority is to take that gun-owner harassment nationwide. No thanks.

As to the President, he has very wisely chosen so far not to tie the gun-control albatross around his neck, and I very much hope that he continues that trend. His initial nomination of a gun-control activist to head BATFE was a little disturbing, but other than that his record on gun issues since taking office is quite good. Better, in fact, than the record of his last 4 predecessors, IMO. I am hoping that doesn't change.

[Taverner]

40. Sure, you can't get every gun

And I do think that should change

But having lived in countries where real gun control exists (as in you can't just go out and buy one without a permit) we have a lot more freedom here than we give credit for

Take Canada where you just CANNOT own a handgun. Take the UK where it is the same. Sure you can get rifles, but not handguns.

Here I could go out, plunk my money down, and whether there's a waiting period or not (I really don't understand the waiting period. Sure, the Simpson's joke was funny, but if you want to kill someone today, chances are you'll still want to kill them a week from now)

You are spot on with Obama. He knows its political suicide.

Even here in CA, Barbara Boxer has been sure lately not to step on that land mine

[benEzra]

45. Well, you can own handguns in Canada, and you can even own a few rifles you can't own here

(e.g., the Tavor), albeit limited to paramecium-sized magazines; go to Youtube and search "IPSC Canada" if you don't believe me about the pistols. I do agree that the rules in Canada since the early '90s have become downright idiotic, but as far as I know even Canada doesn't ban protruding rifle handgrips like California does.

I'm not saying California laws couldn't be much, much worse than they are; I'm just saying that by U.S. standards, California is gun-owner hell, and CA-style laws are completely unacceptable to most gun owners in this country.

[benEzra]

52. About Canadian pistols and "assault weapons"...

Here's a quick Canadian IPSC qualifier, for example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xDQfnK4mnY

And a 14-year-old Canadian shooting a gun that's not civilian-legal in the United States:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbDhxZ3m0CQ&feature=related

[Hangingon]

50. I think the answer to your question...

..."What exactly is he doing now to restrict the ability to buy guns?" is not necessarily what is bothering the NRA and RKBA proponents. They are worried about what will happen in a second term. To move against guns in the first term is unwise move and will hurt re-election. For the answer to the second term question, many turm to his past positions.