Obama's VP Choice - Joe Biden

An excellent choice for Obama, he fills out all of Obama's weak points. Especially on political experience in foreign affairs. He is considered an expert in Foreign relations even amongst Republicans. With a man like Biden on the Ticket, the biggest criticism about Obama is negated.

No miliary expericance him, but his son works for JAG (Dalaware National Guard) and is due for deployment to Iraq in October.

He comes from Middle Class working background, and he's Irish-Catholic both groups of Obama needs the support of. He also known loss, having a wife and daughter killed in a car accident, that makes him more humble and less aloof than other Democrats. He is known to really despise the "Limosine Liberals" of the Democratic party.

The other candidates were Hillary, Byah and Kaine, Biden is better than all 3 of them combined.

Biden only flaw that I see, he's arrogent. But I'll trade arrogence for competance any day of the week.

I Wonder who McCain will pick? My guess is Romney because the biggest issue is the economy and every time McCain trys to talk economics he puts his foot in his mouth. On the other hand Romney is a known political hack and everybody knows it. Hes also not "conservative" enough for the Guns, Gays, and God Squad.
 
They better be careful, insert a few letters into their names and it spells Osama Bin Laden. Not to mention forenames. Sorry!
 
One of the most anti-2nd amendment Senator current in office.

  • Keep assault weapons ban; close gun show loophole. (Apr 2007)
  • Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
  • Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
  • Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
  • Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
  • Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
  • Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
  • Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)
http://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm#Gun_Control
Click to expand...
 
So if I as a private individual can't sell my personal pistol at a gun show? Because that is what the "Gun Show Loop Hole" is. Private individuals selling their firearms because they don't want it. The Gun Show venue is the perfect place to do so. People are looking for firearms and I'm trying to sell my mine because either I simply don't want it anymore, I need money, or I want something else.

Secondly... the Assault Weapons Ban did not to deter crime but it made criminals out of law abiding citizens. He's a supporter of the AWB. Why should a firearm become illegal because of the way it looks? Why should standard capacity magazines be banned from civilian ownership?

if I as a police officer needs a 17rd capacity pistol for my self defense why should my fellow on LEO citizen be restricted to 10rds?

Why should idiots sue firearms companies for something they have no control of. Under that logic we should allow civil suits against Car Companies because a drunk driver struck someone with a Dodge Truck or a Toyota Sedan. Because that is what Biden is for when he voted against the Gun Industry Lawsuits Protection Bill. The bill was designed to protect the firearm industry from frivolous lawsuits.

It is in noway the fault of the firearm industry for some moron/scum bag using their product to harm someone else or that through such careless handling that they harm themselves. Let's sue Louisville Slugger because their bats are used in the commission of crimes. Let's sue Microsoft because their Operating System and Internet Browser is used during the commission of internet piracy.
 
Let me ask you this 5.56. In your opinion as a police officer, why does a individual require an assault rifle to defend themselves? Is it really more effective then a .45?

"Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)"

Completely agree with him on this. There should be background checks at gun shows, Id prefer not to let some yahoo come in and buy a gun with no checks. And really, if you are a law abiding citizen, what do you have to worry about from a simple background check?

"Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)"

Agree with this too. They should be tight in preventing criminals from going to a gun show and buying whatever weapon they want.

I will admit that he is pro gun control, but he is not anti gun. He obviously believes that people should have the right to purchase a gun, but he prudently wants to limit the type and to require checks of a persons criminal record before selling one. If you are a normal law abiding citizen, not only do you not require an assault rifle, you also should not be afraid of a background check.
 
Last edited:
WNxRogue said:
Let me ask you this 5.56. In your opinion as a police officer, why does a individual require an assault rifle to defend themselves? Is it really more effective then a .45?

"Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)"
Completely agree with him on this. There should be background checks at gun shows, Id prefer not to let some yahoo come in and buy a gun with no checks. And really, if you are a law abiding citizen, what do you have to worry about from a simple background check?

"Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)"
Agree with this too. They should be tight in preventing criminals from going to a gun show and buying whatever weapon they want.

I will admit that he is pro gun control, but he is not anti gun. He obviously believes that people should have the right to purchase a gun, but he prudently wants to limit the type and to require checks a persons criminal record before selling one. If you are a normal law abiding citizen, not only do you not require an assault rifle, you also should not be afraid of a background check.
Click to expand...

Why? Because if I as a Police Officer need to then my fellow citizen should have the legal right also. A rifle is far more accurate then an "assault rifle". I can easily engage targets at the 25-50 yard distances then with a pistol. I can engage targets with a pistol but a rifle makes it far easier.

Federal Firearm Dealers are required by law to perform background checks. Private individuals are not. If I went to the gun show to sell my personal pistol I am not required to perform a background check. I don't have to fill out BATFE 4473s when I sell my personal collection. I'm not in the business hence non of that applies to me.

So if you wanted to sell off your old shotgun at the show you should have to pay for the background fee, file the BATFE 4473, and run a criminal check? Because if you make people do this at a gun show then you're going to have to make them do it when they place an add in the news paper or anything else.

It used to be that at gun shows you had to provide more information then when you simply went to a gun show. The FBI has shown more then once that most criminals acquire their through illegal means (theft, straw purchase, black market) and not at gun shows. In fact, guns shows have the lowest satatistical record of criminals buying firearms.

Close the gun show loophole," demands Handgun Control, Inc. The major obstacle to Congress's complying with HCI's wishes appears to be the desire of many Democrats to preserve gun shows as a campaign issue in the 2000 election. But if the voters learn the facts about gun shows, they will discover that there is no gun show loophole, no gun show crime problem and no reason to adopt federal legislation whose main effect would be to infringe on First and Second Amendment rights.

Despite what some media commentators have claimed, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its "instant" background check (which often takes days to complete). As a result, firearms are the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States -- the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale.

Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not "engaged in the business." And if the widow doesn't want to sell her deceased husband's guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection.

If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the the weekend) are the distinct minority.

Yet HCI claims that "25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers." That statistic is true only if one counts vendors who aren't selling guns (e.g., vendors who are selling books, clothing or accessories) as "unlicensed dealers."

​
Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette says that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. The true figure is rather different, according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 ("Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities," a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

​
That finding is consistent with a mid-1980s study for the NIJ, which investigated the gun purchase and use habits of convicted felons in 12 state prisons. The study (later published as the book Armed and Considered Dangerous) found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

​
At the most recent meeting of the American Society of Criminology, a study of youthful offenders in Michigan found that only 3 percent of the youths in the study had acquired their last handgun from a gun show. (Of course some criminal gun acquisition at gun shows is perpetrated by "straw purchasers" who are legal gun buyers acting as surrogates for the individual who wants the gun. Straw purchases have been federal felonies since 1968.)

​
According to the educational arm of HCI, the group's own survey of major-city police chiefs found only 2 out of 48 who said that guns from gun shows (both "legal and illegal sales" according to the questionnaire) were a major problem in their city.

​
Although the horrible murders at Columbine High School have energized anti-gun activists, no proposed federal law would have made any difference. The adults who supplied the Columbine murder weapons (Robin Anderson and Mark Manes -- the latter a son of a longtime HCI activist) were legal purchasers.

​
Since every gun show takes place entirely within the boundaries of a single state, Congress has no legitimate constitutional basis, under its "interstate commerce" power, to attempt to control gun shows.

​
Nevertheless, both houses of Congress have passed gun show legislation. The House bill does only what the gun control advocates claim to want: the imposition of federal background checks on personal sales at gun shows.

​
The Senate version -- passed 51-50 thanks to Vice President Gore -- goes much further, setting the stage for gun shows to be outlawed. The Senate bill gives the secretary of the Treasury nearly unlimited power to regulate gun show sales.

​
In the past, Treasury has abused its administrative authority over firearms to ban certain guns, so, similar treatment for gun shows can be expected. For example, the Treasury banned the import of various rifles that were popular for competitive target shooting. Although a federal statute specifically orders Treasury to allow the import of "sporting" firearms, Treasury claimed that only firearms that were recommended by hunting guides were "sporting."

​
The Senate version also imposes a tax on gun show promoters and allows the secretary of the Treasury unlimited power in setting the tax level. One can bet that, in this case, the power to tax really will be the power to destroy.

​
Gun shows are huge gathering points for people who are interested in Second Amendment issues. Gun rights groups frequently set up booths at gun shows to distribute literature and recruit members. Gun shows are places where Americans properly exercise their First and Second Amendment rights, and neither gun show patrons nor vendors deserve the mean-spirited campaign of abuse to which they have been subjected.



http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4835​
Click to expand...

​
 
5.56X45mm said:
Why? Because if I as a Police Officer need to then my fellow citizen should have the legal right also. A rifle is far more accurate then an "assault rifle". I can easily engage targets at the 25-50 yard distances then with a pistol. I can engage targets with a pistol but a rifle makes it far easier.
Click to expand...

Ok. Well driving 150 miles down the road would make life far easier for me. But I cant, because the law prohibits the speed at which I can travel. Where are people crying about the government infringing on their right to travel? At least you admitted that a rifle is not needed. That would seem to defend the assault weapon ban.

It used to be that at gun shows you had to provide more information then when you simply went to a gun show. The FBI has shown more then once that most criminals acquire their through illegal means (theft, straw purchase, black market) and not at gun shows. In fact, guns shows have the lowest satatistical record of criminals buying firearms.
Click to expand...

You are correct that the FBI has done studies about where criminals get their weapons. What you fail to mention is that those studies were done WITH the current laws in place. Meaning that people who can not pass a background check dont go to a gun show due to the law. It seems the FBI study proved that the law on background checks is quite effective against criminals.

On a side note, I am completely against private people selling guns with out background checks on their clients.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top