Obama Nominates Rabid Anti-gunner to Head the ATF

[raftman]

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.

But how many times do the proverbial they have to say "you just can't have those" before you can't have anything at all? To illustrate with an extreme example, if your argument held true then even if only two models of gun were available on the market in the USA and they sold for $150,000/each it still wouldn't be an infringement of our gun rights because hey, we're still allowed to own guns, but only certain kinds and we gotta pay whatever price is asked.

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.

How does the same logic apply? Does an import ban on nuclear arms make them prohibitively expensive and so the only thing keeping the poor people from getting one here in the USA is that they're just so darn expensive?

They are not saying you can't own m1 garands, so therefore they are not infringing any rights.

They're not saying you can't own a Garand, they're going out of their way to say if you're poor you can't own a Garand. Sure, it's not the government's job to regulate gun prices in a such a way that makes them cheap for everyone, but it's far less appropriate for them to deliberately act to make them more expensive for everyone.

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?

Why should arms manufacturers have to make them if there are already plenty of them in existence and could be had for far less than it would cost to manufacture them in the present? That's the beauty of the mil-surp firearm. The original manufacturer doesn't seek to make a profit (after all, at this point these are used guns being sold by probably their 2nd or 3rd owners), the military no longer wants/needs them, but the guns still have a place in the possession of an armed citizen.

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.

I don't agree with alarmism either, I think if people make false accusations and claims (for example, back in the height of the ammo shortage, I've had a gun store employee tell me Obama is banning .380 ammunition), people waste their efforts railing against non-existent threats instead of real, credible threats to our rights. However, whether or not Obama will do all of the scary crazy things he's been accused of is almost irrelevant, as the question at hand is whether or not he has ever done anything to infringe upon the right to bear arms.

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.

So then you'd be satisfied if your only choice was .22lr Cobra derringer? After all, if that were your only choice, you still have the right the bear 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.

Be that as it may... guns of varying effectiveness did exist and framers of the Constitution didn't seek to make it so only the military or police got the really good guns, and that everyone else got either total crap or something no one could afford.

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.

As an aside, I reject the notion that a Kimber is a quality gun.
But that said no, a Kimber doesn't have to be as cheap as a Hi-Point... however if you can only afford to drop $150 on a firearm, should your only choice be a gun that's far too big or heavy to carry (and unsafe for +1 carry by the way), and despite that having a low capacity, that's made of pot metal? It's not the government's job to assure that quality, affordable, practical firearms are available to everyone, but it for darn sure isn't the governments right to prevent people from owning such firearms.

 

[Trlsmn]

They are not saying you can't own m1 garands, so therefore they are not infringing any rights.

They're not saying you can't own a Garand, they're going out of their way to say if you're poor you can't own a Garand. Sure, it's not the government's job to regulate gun prices in a such a way that makes them cheap for everyone, but it's far less appropriate for them to deliberately act to make them more expensive for everyone.

I would also point out that they are not saying you can't have an "original" imported Semi automatic AK47 either yet you cannot import one because they are banned from import, so what is the difference between the unavailable AK47 as a result of a ban and the unavailable Garand because of a presidential decree?

Hint, hint...nothing, nada, zip..

I feel that is ruling by decree and not democracy, they are essentially banned by decree which is worse than being banned by congressional vote.

 

[Scott]

By all means this is a losing battle and you cannot argue with people who like Obama. Plus a little less than 2 years he go attend his old church and hang out with crazies who like to bomb buildings and all of his good natured friends. Maybe if I go to South Korea I might be able to get the M1 my uncle used. I could go to China a get one too. Oh well we cannot get the M1's my former Vets used and I wonder why, oh because Obama won't let me.

 

[harleyvrodguy]

I know the truth, I didn't expect you to man up. :winkkiss:

BURN