I'm not a gun enthusiast personally, but I can understand why people would want to buy guns now just in case.

I'm all for protecting the right to bare arms, but I do find it rather ironic that most who are very gun ho, no pun intended, about protecting their right to bare arms are also are also o.k. with our civil liberties being shaved here and there in the name of national security.

If any gun control legislation ever made it into law it would only cover certain high powered automatic weapons. They would never touch hand guns, rifles, shotguns and semi-automatics because it would be political suicide for all of them. Just to play devils advocate; it it's alright to shave our civil liberties else where why is it not o.k. to shave high powered automatic weapons off the list? After all were guaranteed the right to bare arms, but who said which arms?

Oops I typed (are also) twice. See what happens when I get on here straight out of bed without my coffee.

Oh jeeze.

Sorry HF next time I'll have my coffee.

[ just in case.]

Just in case of what????? The world ends????

I really don't get the paranoia!

Haha. You've bared your arms in your icon, I see!

I can see why people want to protect the right to bear arms, I have no problem with people owning, say, a handgun for protection. But I don't see why anyone needs to own a semi-automatic rifle. I'm generally in favor of most reasonable gun control legislation, but it's more important to me to have bullet control. There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to trace any bullet back to the person who purchased it.

I would consider myself to be a fun enthusiast and I don't feel my right to own guns will be challenged by Obama as president. I'm all for gun control to a certain extent, I think there should be background checks so nut jobs aren't walking around with gun, but I don't feel the ban on semiautomatics should be lifted. When I can afford it, I plan to own a wide variety of guns and I don't think the government should have the right to tell me which ones I can have in my home.

Haha. I am a fun enthusiast, too!

(I don't mean to be so hard on typos today. It's just that they're really funny typos.)

Lol, everyone should be a fun enthusiast.

I blame Dell for putting the f & g so close together on the keyboard. Its totally not my fault.

the supreme court did good deed.
of course the dems want to challenge the constitution 2nd ammendment of this USA and take our rights away...Obama just says things to make people feel good...his true agenda is sooooo far left; but i think the main focus of the new administration is economy, economy, economy and it should be

I just wish that on this issue you would not all be so hung up about your constitutional rights and start thinking about the proliferation of guns in your society.
Each time another school yard massacre is reported the rest of us do wonder why you are so loath to tighten your gun laws.

Because for every wackjob that shoots up a schoolyard, there are thousand's of people who use and collect guns safely and responsibly. Gun laws don't remove guns from the criminals, only the people who are responsible anyway, and who would need them if a criminal comes for them.

Dave, I respectfully disagree with your argument.
Gun laws work in reducing the amount of guns out there and nobody needs semi automatic weapons.
We had ONE massacre in 1996 and our ultra conservative govt at the time moved swiftly to implement very stringent gun laws which everyone supports.
My point is, what about the disgruntled teen that gets a hold of his dad's collection and puts it to use? He was not a criminal until that exact point in time.

There is that. How do you explain the dramatic drop in gun crimes in Washington DC, where the gun ban has been lifted? The greatest fear, as stated among thieves who have been caught, was that they would encounter an armed citizen. Guns do deter crimes.

Not sure of the correlation between the drop in gun crime and the lift of the ban in Washington as I've not read anything about it.
I am just not convinced people need to own guns and am glad to live somewhere where this is not commonplace.
After this last election race I must say I'm also very glad we're an agnostic nation as well!

I'm glad you feel that way, and you have that option. Personally, I too don't see the need for so many guns, but I'm glad I have that option, should I change my mind.

I hope you never change your mind.

That will depend on the crime rate, and the rate of drug flow in this area that I live. I won't hesitate to arm myself to protect my family.

The 2nd amendment is one of the places I see a big disconnect between what Obama says and what he does. He claims to be for gun owners and yet he has done this:

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate "assault weapons," but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

FACT: Barack Obama also wants a federal ban on CCW permits.

Hypno, let's turn your question around. Why are you OK with shaving away at gun owner rights when typically democrats/liberals support all individual rights?

Any sources for those...?

Barack Obama has said that while he recognizes the rights granted by the second amendment, he also respects the rights of local and state government to impose restrictions.

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

But he is no longer local or state government. Will he continue to support restrictions?

In reality, the current gun laws need to be enforced. We have enough gun laws and restrictions on the books.

The list is compiled from a bunch of different places.

Link:http://www.reason.com/news/show/125180.html

http://obamacom.blogspot.com/2008/06/obamas-second-amendment-clinging-to...

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/10/obamas-second-amendment-deception...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&c...

I posted some links for the list, but it has been flagged. It should appear shortly.

Some Americans are so darn dramatic. I mean come on, are these the same people who claim that they can't even buy gas to get to work, or they're out of work, low on groceries, and etc... but they can rush out the next day after the election to buy guns and ammunition.

Calm down already. Barack Obama has more important issues to deal with first. And not to mention the apparent here...the man has not even been sworn into office yet, so there is only so much he could do now anyway.

It's true he has a record of being really anti-gun.

My hunch is that he would focus his efforts on laws relating to gun ownership, like more waiting periods, background checks etc.

I may be naive but I don't think that Obama is especially interested in trying to push any kind of handgun ban.

First of all, with everything else going on, it is just not a top priority.

Second of all, it's his first term. He stands to gain very little from alienating a huge percentage of centrists by pushing a strong left-ist agenda, including handgun bans etc.

But hey, if people want to go out and buy guns, that's fine by me. It's good for the economy!

I agree with skb9850 and popgoestheworld's views that Obama has consistently favored gun control (or been anti-gun, depending on which side you see it from).

There's nothing new, sadly, about politicians saying whatever they think will get them elected - didn't George W. Bush run as a fiscally responsible uniter? Obama didn't join the Supreme Court brief filed by 55 other Senators and 250 Representatives arguing that the Court should strike down DC's handgun ban...but after the Court did, he said he agreed with the decision.

http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacMembersUSSe...

I was playing devils advocate skb9850 and pointing out the fact that although we can bear arms who decides which arms. If it was an open ended gesture by the founding fathers than I should be able to drive down to the local airport and hope into the cock pit of my F16.

Chalk me up as one who just bought a gun since the election. I have quite a few guns, but had only 1 semi auto. I predict in Obama's tenure, he will try to outlaw semi-autos. I plan to buy 2-3 more semi-auto rifles. I don't believe what Obama says in terms of gun control. He changed his mind on hand guns as of Heller vs DC this summer. That recent of a "change of heart" during an election season and a monumental supreme court ruling leads me to believe he was just saying what we want to hear.

Gun control laws always = more crime as the criminals who get guns anyway despite of gun control laws know that they aren't going to get shot at in a gun control area. Time and time again, lifting gun control laws results in less crime.

I know a couple of people that are getting guns now and are joining the NRA.

I'm a liberal and I guns. I blame MCJROTC, I was in for four years, and all of 007 and Tomb Raider type movies . Point is I like to go on MC and Naval bases, where I am still welcome, and play. Someday I when I am stable and cans afford it I would love to own beautiful, exotic, large weapons that have nothing to do with self defense.

But being a child when all of the high school shootings happened I can't say I fully support not placing stricter laws on gun ownership. I don't want to infringe on anyone's right to bear arms, but killing someone with a gun, as opposed to a knife, is so easy and detached, it leaves little time for regret or acknowledgment of damage.

I love guns and knives recreationallly, therefore I don't think I would ever use them on a person, and wouldn't keep them in my house, I wouldn't want to put myself or my children in a situation to use them.

I guess I fall in the middle. I like the idea of regulating bullets for people who don't use them to hunt. If you're keeping a gun for protection or buying a semi automatic as a collectors item, there is no reason to buy up all the bullets at wal mart.

Ammunition control is underhanded gun control. I see it as a cheap alternative now that the supreme court has definitively defined that people, not government militias have a right to own guns.

Because you, Jessiebanana look at guns as collector items, it doesn't mean everyone else does. Because the regulation you are in support of doesn't hurt you, that doesn't make it good. Don't think of what is right for you, think of what is right. Limiting ammuntion is limiting guns, just a backdoor way of doing it.

Seriously, Obama is not taking anybody's guns away. I hope these people don't try to use their guns against the president, though. All this communist talk probably has people ready to form militias and "save the country".

He will try to take away semi-autos, and probably the right to carry. I don't think it will be right away. He's been pro-gun control his whole life. He came to the center to win an election.

And, those militias are already formed. That's the reason we have the 2nd amendment. It's the amendment that protects all the other amendments. The founding fathers knew that oppressive governments disarm their citizens, and bestowed upon us the right to take the government back if need be.

If you're not hunting to feed yourself or hurting people with guns why do you need unlimited access to bullets and why do you need access to bullets outside of a military base for a semi-automatic weapons? I'm trying to see how regulating bullets causes more harm then good.

Semi-automatics fire one bullet per trigger pull, and then load the next round into the chamber. Revolvers do the same, but are not usually deemed semi-automatic.

I can hit two clay pigeons flying in opposite directions with a pump shotgun more easily than with a semi-automatic, because of the added weight of the semi-automatic system. I can hit them even more easily with a over-and-under shotgun, which has no mechanism to load more rounds into the chamber.

Charles Whitman used a bolt action rifle to kill 14 people and wound 31 others. Not a semi-automatic. And people use semi-automatic weapons in hunting all the time.

As you can see, it's very curious that everyone is villifying these "semi-automatic" weapons. I'm not sure if many of the people making comments about this type of gun know much about guns in general.

I guess organic it is more the idea of having an entire magazine ready and loaded that disturbs most people. Revolvers have limited ammunition. If you're using a guns to defend yourself and scare away potential criminals from your property to you need to fire that many bullets. When I think of semi automatics I think of drive bys, some of us are far too aware of gun violence.

I don't much about hunting, but I would assume they use semi-automatic rifles and not pistols.

I guess protecting a hunters right to pump and animal full of lead comes after human safety.

"I guess protecting a hunters right to pump and animal full of lead comes after human safety."

I wholeheartedly agree with this. One of the very important reasons that the right of people to keep their semiautomatic reasons should not be infringed.

[He will try to take away semi-autos, and probably the right to carry.]

And if that happens -- I guess you just wasted your money.

I'm not into guns so I just don't get obsession.

[I guess protecting a hunters right to pump and animal full of lead comes after human safety.]

Good point - and for that matter since it's ok to start stockpiling weapons -- I guess it's ok if the gangs stock pile too -- I'll go run out and tell them - since Obama's gonna take their guns away. Hey maybe I can get them to move out to the suburbs too. Right next to your family. Hummm --now that's an idea -- the relocation of the "Gangsta" program -- then maybe it will hit home that we need gun control after all.

What?

If you don't live in it - Organic -- I don't expect you to get it.

Of course -- I don't live in it (anymore)- thank GOD.

Oh, I live it. I'm all over the street like 50 cent. Don't get it twisted.

dream - Do you honestly believe that gun control will keep gangs from having automatic weapons? The biggest problem in detroit, Chicago, and Washington DC is that the "gun control" policies in place their only kept the citizens who follow the laws unarmed.

Ugh, I'm sorry but I just don't get that second amendment at all. Yes, you should be able to defend yourself but WHY WITH A GUN? Your entire country is obsessed with guns and I don't understand how Americans (both democrats and republicans) can't see that the problem is neither than you can buy a gun whenever you like it nor that you may use it when someone walk over your lawn when you don't want them to. To me, the problem obviously comes from the relationship Americans have with guns. Once everybody feels like they are dangerous and NOBODY feels comfortable using them (a gun should send the signal of DEATH and not safety), less people will.

I'm not saying no criminal will ever use a gun again but these are just risks you have to take to ensure the safety of everybody. Generally speaking I would say that people would feel safer (and there would be less use of guns) if they knew that whoever they're encountering does not carry a firearm.

Also, making sure that Americans can USE their guns (and not only carry them), thus taking away the fear that comes with actually shooting it, also takes these fears away from criminals...

"Oh, I live it. I'm all over the street like 50 cent. Don't get it twisted."

Hypno - you have an F-16? I'm jealous.

Semi-autmatic rifles are used in competitions, the most famous one being the Camp Perry Competition where they determine the President's 100, the top 100 shooters in the nation. These competitors go through thousands of rounds of ammo practicing and working on getting to the level needed to compete at Camp Perry. Anyone who shoots competitively needs access to unlimited ammo.

It also helps to have access to unlimited ammo when you are becoming proficient with your gun. I can run through over 50 rounds just in one practice session.

Jessie, you ever come up to Wisconsin, we can go shooting.

Witchy, how are you going to protect yourself if you don't have a gun?