Obama Nominates Rabid Anti-gunner to Head the ATF

[raftman]

...
The importers/buyers are there ready and waiting to buy and import the Garands but Obama has in essence banned them from being imported...
...

To play a little devil's advocate here... didn't once you argue that import bans are not a violation of the 2nd Amendment? Just sayin'


http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/legal-political/39270-import-bans-violation-2a.html Post #3 :

My first thought would be no I don't think the right to buy cool firearms cheap is a constitutionally protected right.

 

[Scott]

Ofcourse I can, sir. And i won't ask you to wager anything for it, or beat around the bush, or post links to sound effectso on youtube. Although, due to lack of time i have in doing extensive research at the moment, since i'm busy studying for final exams, I can only provide you with 1 example that comes to mind. In May of 2009, Obama signed a bill that permits licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as state law allows it. The new law, which took effect in February, replaced rules from the Reagan administration that generally required that guns in national parks be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.

Don't believe me. Google it.

If you can provide me with one example of something that President Obama has done that actually limits your gun rights, that would be great. If you can show me 5 examples, i will buy a case of beer or soda of your choice as well.

Bush overturned that ruling and not Obama. Sorry

 

[Trlsmn]

To play a little devil's advocate here... didn't once you argue that import bans are not a violation of the 2nd Amendment? Just sayin'


http://www.northwestfirearms.com/forum/legal-political/39270-import-bans-violation-2a.html Post #3 :

We must stick to the original terms of KomradRazvans challenge, and I quote:

Originally Posted by KomradRazvan View Post
Can you please provide me with one example Obama or his administration has done since they are in power that his curtailed your firearms freedom? I would like just 1 example. Please?

Do you see anything that says "2nd amendment" in his challenge? You (he) can't change the terms after you've (he's) been proven wrong and expect to be treated as credible.


Nice try though Raftman, I do appreciate it when people are willing to do their homework in a debate!

 

[KomradRazvan]

Your rebuttal post missed half the information I posted and that part you ignored was key to your ignorance. I can't blame you for trying to sweep the part of your argument that shows that the foundation of your argument is in error and flawed and everything else you have said is built on that ignorance, here it is again though just so yo can ignore it again.

You're looking to pick a fight, and measure weiners. I'm trying to figure out if there IS any action that Obama as president or anyone in his cabinet or that he appointed has done anything to affect our 2nd ammendment rights. You on the other hand, have not only dodged answering a question, but continue to draw attention from it. So i'm thanking you for the extra knowledge you have provided me on the M1 issue, but still has nothing to do with 2A rights. You want to declare victory, go ahead, if it helps you sleep better at night. As for me, i refuse to continue this childish, scoreboarding, "mine's bigger than yours" e-bickering BS with you. Sorry if that sinks your boat.

 

[KomradRazvan]

Bush overturned that ruling and not Obama. Sorry

actually, he didnt. The Bush administration sought the bill in its last few months, but never got it through. President Obama was the one that signed it into effect in May 2009. It took effect Febraury 2010. Apology accepted. Now do your homework.

 

[Trlsmn]

You're looking to pick a fight, and measure weiners.

Deflection from someone who in the face of overwhelming proof still fails to admit they are wrong. You made the challenge, just because you lost is no reason to cast a dark cloud over me. This is the gun politics section and this is what we do here.

I'm trying to figure out if there IS any action that Obama as president or anyone in his cabinet or that he appointed has done anything to affect our 2nd ammendment rights.

See now you have changed the challenge to fit your fail!

You on the other hand, have not only dodged answering a question,

I've answered your original challenge, any other question was just a diversion to take the eye of fail off yourself, if you have a new question you are free to ask it.

but continue to draw attention from it.

I've only rebutted your position so stop with the diversion.

So i'm thanking you for the extra knowledge you have provided me on the M1 issue, but still has nothing to do with 2A rights. You want to declare victory, go ahead, if it helps you sleep better at night. As for me, i refuse to continue this childish, scoreboarding, "mine's bigger than yours" e-bickering BS with you. Sorry if that sinks your boat.

As stated this is the Gun politics section, you have played along, don't be a sore loser and get all self-righteous now that I've proven your fail.

You are and have been free to drop out of this debate at any time but you still seem to stick with it so don't cast your aspersions at me bukko!

 

[Scott]

But to try something is suicide for him and lib or dems as the last elections just showed. He would ban guns in a heartbeat if he could. All of his past quotes and votes show how much he wants to ban guns. He can't do it now anyway. He has done nothing to prevent any such regulations from preventing our rights. Chicago still has a ban along with other cities. If he is a gun lover he should make them overturn those rulings. He is a 1 term president anyway and a terrible one at that. But still what has he done to protect our rights as gun owners? Do you believe he would ban guns if he could? And again as for protecting them he has done nothing to protect them. So you can keep him as your gun loving president but I won't and this issue is on top of his party and waiting for a time to try and do something.

 

[raftman]

We must stick to the original terms of KomradRazvans challenge, and I quote:

Do you see anything that says "2nd amendment" in his challenge? You (he) can't change the terms after you've (he's) been proven wrong and expect to be treated as credible.

Isn't that a matter of semantics? But fair enough I suppose, but I'm not 100% sure what you mean here with the "you (he)" thing. I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not suggesting he and I are on the same "side" of you guys' disagreement. I think that import bans are violation of the 2nd Amendment (always have, as one could infer from the debate I linked to), and thus the M1's from Korea matter, the way I interpret it, is indeed a 2A violation... it may not be the most egregious violation in history, but it is one nonetheless. Therefore, it can be said the Obama administration has done something to infringe upon our firearms freedom. I've never been one to buy the argument, "he never said you can't have a Garand, you just can't have THAT Garand."

He may have been proven wrong, but I certainly haven't, mainly because I never put forth any argument in this debate. My only post in this thread was a call for objectivity.

 

[Scott]

I found this interesting.

Just a little fun.

Gun BaN Obama

 

[KomradRazvan]

We must stick to the original terms of KomradRazvans challenge, and I quote:



Do you see anything that says "2nd amendment" in his challenge? You (he) can't change the terms after you've (he's) been proven wrong and expect to be treated as credible.


Nice try though Raftman, I do appreciate it when people are willing to do their homework in a debate!

aaaa.... semantics. When one can't come up with a valid point, they turn to attacking the langauge. Firearm freedoms ARE the second ammendment. Just so you know... the following are all synonyms: Gun rights, firearm freedoms, right to bare arms, AND the second ammendment. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[KomradRazvan]

Deflection from someone who in the face of overwhelming proof still fails to admit they are wrong. You made the challenge, just because you lost is no reason to cast a dark cloud over me. This is the gun politics section and this is what we do here.





See now you have changed the challenge to fit your fail!


I've answered your original challenge, any other question was just a diversion to take the eye of fail off yourself, if you have a new question you are free to ask it.




I've only rebutted your position so stop with the diversion.



As stated this is the Gun politics section, you have played along, don't be a sore loser and get all self-righteous now that I've proven your fail.

You are and have been free to drop out of this debate at any time but you still seem to stick with it so don't cast your aspersions at me bukko!

YouTube - That is one big pile of bubblegum.

 

[Trlsmn]

aaaa.... semantics. When one can't come up with a valid point, they turn to attacking the langauge. Firearm freedoms ARE the second ammendment.

Nice of Raftman to extend you a life raft to grab onto as your sinking but, you say semantics but the word specificity rules debates in so far as proof.

Just so you know... the following are all synonyms: Gun rights, firearm freedoms, right to bare arms, AND the second ammendment. Sorry to burst your bubble

You've already impeached that statement with your own words in this very thread. Any chance you suffer from short term memory loss? just asking.....

Your challenge in itself has shown that fire arm freedoms and second amendment freedoms are two different things.

 

[KomradRazvan]

Isn't that a matter of semantics? But fair enough I suppose, but I'm not 100% sure what you mean here with the "you (he)" thing. I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not suggesting he and I are on the same "side" of you guys' disagreement. I think that import bans are violation of the 2nd Amendment (always have, as one could infer from the debate I linked to), and thus the M1's from Korea matter, the way I interpret it, is indeed a 2A violation... it may not be the most egregious violation in history, but it is one nonetheless. Therefore, it can be said the Obama administration has done something to infringe upon our firearms freedom. I've never been one to buy the argument, "he never said you can't have a Garand, you just can't have THAT Garand."

He may have been proven wrong, but I certainly haven't, mainly because I never put forth any argument in this debate. My only post in this thread was a call for objectivity.

Ok. Don't take this as an attack. I understand that you say this is your personal interpretation, but can you explain to me your reasoning. I just want to understand it. Like i said, I don't want you to feel that I'm going off on you, so instead i will go first:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the 2nd Amendment. Nowhere in there does it mention anything about importation. There are a ton of goods we can't buy from other countries for many different reasons. Maybe i am looking at this wrong, but i dont see how my RIGHTS have been curtailed from this move.

In the case of these rifle, and from what I know, these rifles were given to Korea, just as they were to other countries and their armies. Korea can't sell them. They have to be returned to the DOD, specifically the U.S. Army. They are loanded out property of the U.S. Army . The Army usually releases them to CMP, who is the only organization authorized to sell them. Trslmn is right when he said that the CMP has no say in the import. The CMP can also only sell them to legal US citizens and it requires proof of citizenship and FBI background check or the sale is not made. It is a very strict policy and you can't get around it.

 

[gehrheart]

Ofcourse I can, sir. And i won't ask you to wager anything for it, or beat around the bush, or post links to sound effectso on youtube. Although, due to lack of time i have in doing extensive research at the moment, since i'm busy studying for final exams, I can only provide you with 1 example that comes to mind. In May of 2009, Obama signed a bill that permits licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as state law allows it. The new law, which took effect in February, replaced rules from the Reagan administration that generally required that guns in national parks be locked or stored in a glove compartment or trunk.

Don't believe me. Google it.

If you can provide me with one example of something that President Obama has done that actually limits your gun rights, that would be great. If you can show me 5 examples, i will buy a case of beer or soda of your choice as well.

Yes he did sign it. It wasn't because he agreed with it. It was a rider on another bill that he wanted. Politics at work.


" The Democratic-controlled Congress passed the less restrictive measure with bipartisan support after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., inserted it into Obama-backed legislation imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Democratic leaders decided not to challenge Coburn, and Obama signed the gun measure without comment."


If I remember right, that ball started with Bush (I have issues with him as well, just a progressive with a R), Zombama did sign it, only to get what he did want.


Yes I googled it to remind myself.

 

[raftman]

Ok. Don't take this as an attack. I understand that you say this is your personal interpretation, but can you explain to me your reasoning. I just want to understand it.

No problem. My position (and it's probably explained more thoroughly in the thread I linked to my first response to Trlsman) is that an import ban is an infringement of 2A rights because it deliberately drives up costs, therefore depriving lower income individuals of firearms that could and should otherwise be available to them. While import bans are said to affect both expensive and inexpensive guns, there is no shortage of expensive guns on the market today of just about any class, from mouse guns to large caliber rifles. In contrast, quality firearms of any class are kept out of the hands of the relatively poor because few are available that are affordable. It's no different than when some states have made laws limiting the availability of "Saturday Night Specials" which is seen by many gun rights advocates (and rightly so) as an attempt to make the cost of gun ownership more prohibitively expensive. Another example would be all of the measures that were taken after the American Civil War to keep freedmen from voting, while they were written in such a way as to suggest they affected everyone, they were clearly designed with the intent to disenfranchise freed slaves.

That's the 2nd Amendment. Nowhere in there does it mention anything about importation. There are a ton of goods we can't buy from other countries for many different reasons. Maybe i am looking at this wrong, but i dont see how my RIGHTS have been curtailed from this move.

If the poor are less able to access firearms (that is access something that is their constitutional right to access, that's where the "shall not be infringed" comes in) than others, then it seems to me that their rights are indeed being violated. While the importation of certain other products is indeed prohibited for various reason, for example, we can't get any of those weird little cars that sell for $2,200 brand new in India, the ownership of such products (like cars) is not constitutionally protected, and therefore denying one access to certain cars isn't a violation of constitutional rights.

 

[Trlsmn]

No problem. My position (and it's probably explained more thoroughly in the thread I linked to my first response to Trlsman) is that an import ban is an infringement of 2A rights because it deliberately drives up costs, therefore depriving lower income individuals of firearms that could and should otherwise be available to them. While import bans are said to affect both expensive and inexpensive guns, there is no shortage of expensive guns on the market today of just about any class, from mouse guns to large caliber rifles. In contrast, quality firearms of any class are kept out of the hands of the relatively poor because few are available that are affordable. It's no different than when some states have made laws limiting the availability of "Saturday Night Specials" which is seen by many gun rights advocates (and rightly so) as an attempt to make the cost of gun ownership more prohibitively expensive. Another example would be all of the measures that were taken after the American Civil War to keep freedmen from voting, while they were written in such a way as to suggest they affected everyone, they were clearly designed with the intent to disenfranchise freed slaves.




If the poor are less able to access firearms (that is access something that is their constitutional right to access, that's where the "shall not be infringed" comes in) than others, then it seems to me that their rights are indeed being violated. While the importation of certain other products is indeed prohibited for various reason, for example, we can't get any of those weird little cars that sell for $2,200 brand new in India, the ownership of such products (like cars) is not constitutionally protected, and therefore denying one access to certain cars isn't a violation of constitutional rights.

Your statement on the correlation of gun (bans) effecting the poor and seeming to be expressly tailored to disenfranchise the poor is one that I have often thought about myself, it could be taken all the way back to Jim Crow laws.
The (modern) correlation I see is that the way our gun rights are denied us are very much the same tactics as the way freed slaves were denied their rights even though the constitution states they are free. If our rights are being usurped in the same way as Jim Crow perhaps we can be freed with the same tactics that were used to abolish Jim Crow? Certainly it merits some research into the history of that particular fight.

 

[KomradRazvan]

No problem. My position (and it's probably explained more thoroughly in the thread I linked to my first response to Trlsman) is that an import ban is an infringement of 2A rights because it deliberately drives up costs, therefore depriving lower income individuals of firearms that could and should otherwise be available to them. While import bans are said to affect both expensive and inexpensive guns, there is no shortage of expensive guns on the market today of just about any class, from mouse guns to large caliber rifles. In contrast, quality firearms of any class are kept out of the hands of the relatively poor because few are available that are affordable. It's no different than when some states have made laws limiting the availability of "Saturday Night Specials" which is seen by many gun rights advocates (and rightly so) as an attempt to make the cost of gun ownership more prohibitively expensive. Another example would be all of the measures that were taken after the American Civil War to keep freedmen from voting, while they were written in such a way as to suggest they affected everyone, they were clearly designed with the intent to disenfranchise freed slaves.




If the poor are less able to access firearms (that is access something that is their constitutional right to access, that's where the "shall not be infringed" comes in) than others, then it seems to me that their rights are indeed being violated. While the importation of certain other products is indeed prohibited for various reason, for example, we can't get any of those weird little cars that sell for $2,200 brand new in India, the ownership of such products (like cars) is not constitutionally protected, and therefore denying one access to certain cars isn't a violation of constitutional rights.

I see the point your making. I'll give you credit on the fact that gun prices DO hinder the poor from owning a certain arm. But still don't see how that transforms into limiting second amendment rights. It doesnt stop anyone from owning firearms, just owning those. As we can see that the second amendment does not define what "arms" is. So using the same logic, one could stretch it and argue that nuclear arms should fall under the same amendment and the fact that the government has placed such restrictions on them is unconstitutional. They are not saying you can't own m1 garands, so therefore they are not infringing any rights. From your response, would i be correct to gather that your belief is that the government is controlling the price of firearms? I mean, wouldn't it make more sense, that if m1's were so popular and so wanted by the the populace of the US that arms manufacturers would cater to that demand? They don't cater to it, because they like the prices to be high. These are the same people who spread disinformation and propaganda on how much "obama wants your guns", and i feel sorry to say, that many sheeple are allowing themselves to be herded into the pen. The 2nd amendment does not designate the level to which firearms have to be in order for the citizen to bare it. It just they can bare arms. In the days that of the writing of the 2nd A. the idea of a weapon like the Garand was not even around. During the time when the Garand was invented, the idea of a kel-tec sub 2000k did not exit. The way i understand your logic, and again, not an attack, is that the price of kimber should be the same as the price of a hi-point, if not, then the right to bare arms is being infringed because the price is too high and poor people don't have access to that quality level firearm. This is all considering taking the 2A's meaning word for word, without any extra interpretation.

 

[KomradRazvan]

Yes he did sign it. It wasn't because he agreed with it. It was a rider on another bill that he wanted. Politics at work.


" The Democratic-controlled Congress passed the less restrictive measure with bipartisan support after Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., inserted it into Obama-backed legislation imposing new restrictions on credit card companies. Democratic leaders decided not to challenge Coburn, and Obama signed the gun measure without comment."


If I remember right, that ball started with Bush (I have issues with him as well, just a progressive with a R), Zombama did sign it, only to get what he did want.


Yes I googled it to remind myself.

He signed it. if he really didn't agree with it, he wouldn't have signed it. anything anyone says about what he thought is merely speculating. And speculating is not held as valid evidence anywhere last i checked. You're also right, as I stated before, it did start with bush, but bush didnt put into effect, Obama did. He could have changed it if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Even after recieving lots and lots of flack from his supporters and the anti-gunners.

 

[torpedoman]

did you expect gunny emery?

 

[gehrheart]

He signed it. if he really didn't agree with it, he wouldn't have signed it. anything anyone says about what he thought is merely speculating. And speculating is not held as valid evidence anywhere last i checked. You're also right, as I stated before, it did start with bush, but bush didnt put into effect, Obama did. He could have changed it if he wanted to, but he chose not to. Even after recieving lots and lots of flack from his supporters and the anti-gunners.

Will never know if he didn't change it so he could get the original bill through, or if he really didn't have an issue with it. I, personally, do not see haw this makes him pro or anti gun.

If this was a stand alone bill, signed with a short "yea" speech. Yea, that would be pro.

The ATF appointee, there is no way any one could convince me that that is an not anti move.
Just is in my book.
That makes Zobama an anti.
He put him in that position.

But some say I need a tinfoil hat.