Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
Previous Page
/ 2
Next Page
6/11/2008 10:03:52 PM EDT
602 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 55
and far right." "^ Proclaiming, "with rights come with responsibilities," AGS
has recruited Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman as its primary
spokespersons. McCain, of course, is not alone among Republicans who
support reasonable gun regulations when balanced with effective protection of
gun rights."^ Similarly, a number of Democratic members of the House and
Senate—not to mention a growing number of Democratic governors—have
publicly affirmed their support for an individual right to bear arms when
balanced with reasonable regulation.


I didn't make this up.  This is from 2006.


I will still be voting for him but people aren't just making shit up as they go along on this site.
6/11/2008 10:05:24 PM EDT
[#1]
Do not bring truth here.
6/11/2008 10:06:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Oh and I'm not a troll.  I wasn't even looking for this.  I am writing an anti-gun control paper for my class due tomorrow.
6/11/2008 10:06:47 PM EDT
[#3]
And Balak Obalma will do what?
6/11/2008 10:07:13 PM EDT
[#4]
And you think Obama is a better choice?????

6/11/2008 10:07:21 PM EDT
[#5]
In before the voting record of doom.
6/11/2008 10:09:10 PM EDT
[#6]

Quoted:
And you think Obama is a better choice?????




READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!!


I am still voting for him because there is no other choice.  Why do I have to like it?
6/11/2008 10:10:39 PM EDT
[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
And you think Obama is a better choice?????




READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!!


I am still voting for him because there is no other choice.  Why do I have to like it?


You've questioned St. McCain's record.  Your political reliability is now suspect, comrade.
6/11/2008 10:11:15 PM EDT
[#8]

Quoted:
602 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 55
and far right." "^ Proclaiming, "with rights come with responsibilities," AGS
has recruited Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman as its primary
spokespersons. McCain, of course, is not alone among Republicans who
support reasonable gun regulations when balanced with effective protection of
gun rights."^ Similarly, a number of Democratic members of the House and
Senate—not to mention a growing number of Democratic governors—have
publicly affirmed their support for an individual right to bear arms when
balanced with reasonable regulation.


I didn't make this up.  This is from 2006.


I will still be voting for him but people aren't just making shit up as they go along on this site.

Yeah, what he should have said was "With rights come ZERO responsibilities - I want no restrictions of any kind on any use of any gun anywhere, any time for any reason by anybody!"



6/11/2008 10:12:09 PM EDT
[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
And you think Obama is a better choice?????




READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!!


I am still voting for him because there is no other choice.  Why do I have to like it?


What is objectionable, considering the source?
6/11/2008 10:12:28 PM EDT
[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
602 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 55
and far right." "^ Proclaiming, "with rights come with responsibilities," AGS
has recruited Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman as its primary
spokespersons. McCain, of course, is not alone among Republicans who
support reasonable gun regulations when balanced with effective protection of
gun rights."^ Similarly, a number of Democratic members of the House and
Senate—not to mention a growing number of Democratic governors—have
publicly affirmed their support for an individual right to bear arms when
balanced with reasonable regulation.


I didn't make this up.  This is from 2006.


I will still be voting for him but people aren't just making shit up as they go along on this site.

Yeah, what he should have said was "with rights come ZERO responsibilities - I want no restrictions of any kind on any use of any gun anywhere, any time for any reason by anybody!"






The specific topic being addressed was firearm registration.   I don't know about you but I like the 4th Amendment as much as the 2nd and 1st.
6/11/2008 10:12:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Most of us already know this. When OR had a "close the gun show loophole" bill on the ballot McCain called the VP of OR largest gunclub and tried to convince him to support it. To his credit the pompus ass of a VP our gunclub refused. The measure passed because the propaganda was sufficent to convince Republican voters that it would cut down crime. Now a "gunshow" is anywhere that 25 or more guns are avalable for sale, and every transaction for a firearm must have a background check if its at a gunshow.
6/11/2008 10:13:36 PM EDT
[#12]


Yes it is, I will read before i post

carry on

FREE



Quoted:

Quoted:
And you think Obama is a better choice?????




READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!!


I am still voting for him because there is no other choice.  Why do I have to like it?
6/11/2008 10:13:43 PM EDT
[#13]

Quoted:
Most of us already know this. When OR had a "close the gun show loophole" bill on the ballot McCain called the VP of OR largest gunclub and tried to convince him to support it. To his credit the pompus ass of a VP our gunclub refused. The measure passed because the propaganda was sufficent to convince Republican voters that it would cut down crime. Now a "gunshow" is anywhere that 25 or more guns are avalable for sale, and every transaction for a firearm must have a background check if its at a gunshow.



I was just trying to provide another quote, not one that I searched out either considering it is in page 37 of a 40 page PDF file that I have been reading and is the only time any political figure had been mentioned to that point.
6/11/2008 10:15:02 PM EDT
[#14]
So?

Obama is for unreasonable gun control measures and there isn't anyone else that is going to be President.

Sucks but those are our only two choices.
6/11/2008 10:15:24 PM EDT
[#15]
"Clearly, alleged members of terrorist organizations have been able to secure guns and weapons using the gun show loophole"
-John McCain, 2001



You'd never guess he was a friend of gun owners based on the crap that comes out of his mouth.
6/11/2008 10:15:24 PM EDT
[#16]
SHOCKING NEWS TO FOLLOW!!!!

Obama supports, promotes, sponsors, and actively seeks UNreasonable gun control laws.  

You guys really need to learn about "political speak."  This is like GWB's statement about "I support the AWB in its current form"--and then quietly making sure it didn't get to his desk from the Republican-controlled Congress.  In its "current form" it was to expire--and did.  

You make a public statement that provides political cover, but means something different than it sounds like.  This way your words can't be used against you.  

Most here support "reasonable gun control laws"--whether you realize it or not.  Think about it.  Is it "reasonable" for a batshit crazy fool to have guns?  A five year old?  A junkie with ten felony convictions?  
6/11/2008 10:15:55 PM EDT
[#17]

Quoted:
So?

Obama is for unreasonable gun control measures and there isn't anyone else that is going to be President.

Sucks but those are our only two choices.




You didn't even say McStain!
6/11/2008 10:16:15 PM EDT
[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
602 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 55
and far right." "^ Proclaiming, "with rights come with responsibilities," AGS
has recruited Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman as its primary
spokespersons. McCain, of course, is not alone among Republicans who
support reasonable gun regulations when balanced with effective protection of
gun rights."^ Similarly, a number of Democratic members of the House and
Senate—not to mention a growing number of Democratic governors—have
publicly affirmed their support for an individual right to bear arms when
balanced with reasonable regulation.


I didn't make this up.  This is from 2006.


I will still be voting for him but people aren't just making shit up as they go along on this site.

Yeah, what he should have said was "with rights come ZERO responsibilities - I want no restrictions of any kind on any use of any gun anywhere, any time for any reason by anybody!"



The specific topic being addressed was firearm registration.   I don't know about you but I like the 4th Amendment as much as the 2nd and 1st.

Show me the quote from McCain saying he supports registering all firearms. Not background checks - I mean registering firearms.

Because what you have there is simply a general statement regarding common sense. Only an IDIOT would want ZERO regulations on firearm possession and use.


6/11/2008 10:16:21 PM EDT
[#19]

Quoted:


Yes it is, I will read before i post

carry on

FREE



Quoted:

Quoted:
And you think Obama is a better choice?????




READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!!


I am still voting for him because there is no other choice.  Why do I have to like it?


Don't get me started on global warming or immigration.


SHITSANDWICHES FOR ALL!!!

6/11/2008 10:17:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Can we wait until Heller is announced?
6/11/2008 10:17:28 PM EDT
[#21]

Quoted:
"Clearly, alleged members of terrorist organizations have been able to secure guns and weapons using the gun show loophole"
-John McCain, 2001


You'd never guess he was a friend of gun owners based on the crap that comes out of his mouth.

No, you'd see it from his actual votes. And that's all that matters.

6/11/2008 10:18:24 PM EDT
[#22]

Quoted:
SHOCKING NEWS TO FOLLOW!!!!

Obama supports, promotes, sponsors, and actively seeks UNreasonable gun control laws.  

You guys really need to learn about "political speak."  This is like GWB's statement about "I support the AWB in its current form"--and then quietly making sure it didn't get to his desk from the Republican-controlled Congress.  In its "current form" it was to expire--and did.  

You make a public statement that provides political cover, but means something different than it sounds like.  This way your words can't be used against you.  

Most here support "reasonable gun control laws"--whether you realize it or not.  Think about it.  Is it "reasonable" for a batshit crazy fool to have guns?  A five year old?  A junkie with ten felony convictions?  


Is it reasonable to believe that banning legal private party sales (Yes, I'm calling a spade a spade) of firearms will prevent any of those things?

I can't believe I'm seeing EBR owners actually SUPPORT this bullshit!  No, wait.  Yes I do believe it.
6/11/2008 10:20:48 PM EDT
[#23]

Quoted:
Is it reasonable to believe that banning legal private party sales (Yes, I'm calling a spade a spade) of firearms will prevent any of those things?

I can't believe I'm seeing EBR owners actually SUPPORT this bullshit!  No, wait.  Yes I do believe it.


I think the 'gun show loophole' is BS, but humor me.

A) who wants to 'ban private party sales'?

B) who can enforce that?
6/11/2008 10:20:53 PM EDT
[#24]
He has stated he would not sign an AWB, and that is good enough for me.
6/11/2008 10:20:58 PM EDT
[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
602 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 55
and far right." "^ Proclaiming, "with rights come with responsibilities," AGS
has recruited Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman as its primary
spokespersons. McCain, of course, is not alone among Republicans who
support reasonable gun regulations when balanced with effective protection of
gun rights."^ Similarly, a number of Democratic members of the House and
Senate—not to mention a growing number of Democratic governors—have
publicly affirmed their support for an individual right to bear arms when
balanced with reasonable regulation.


I didn't make this up.  This is from 2006.


I will still be voting for him but people aren't just making shit up as they go along on this site.

Yeah, what he should have said was "with rights come ZERO responsibilities - I want no restrictions of any kind on any use of any gun anywhere, any time for any reason by anybody!"



The specific topic being addressed was firearm registration.   I don't know about you but I like the 4th Amendment as much as the 2nd and 1st.

Show me the quote from McCain saying he supports registering all firearms. Not background checks - I mean registering firearms.

Because what you have there is simply a general statement regarding common sense. Only an IDIOT would want ZERO regulations on firearm possession and use.




Its De facto registration.  Private party sales are the loophole that makes 4473s halfway useless for firearms tracking in many States.
6/11/2008 10:21:43 PM EDT
[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
602 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 55
and far right." "^ Proclaiming, "with rights come with responsibilities," AGS
has recruited Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman as its primary
spokespersons. McCain, of course, is not alone among Republicans who
support reasonable gun regulations when balanced with effective protection of
gun rights."^ Similarly, a number of Democratic members of the House and
Senate—not to mention a growing number of Democratic governors—have
publicly affirmed their support for an individual right to bear arms when
balanced with reasonable regulation.


I didn't make this up.  This is from 2006.


I will still be voting for him but people aren't just making shit up as they go along on this site.

Yeah, what he should have said was "with rights come ZERO responsibilities - I want no restrictions of any kind on any use of any gun anywhere, any time for any reason by anybody!"



The specific topic being addressed was firearm registration.   I don't know about you but I like the 4th Amendment as much as the 2nd and 1st.

Show me the quote from McCain saying he supports registering all firearms. Not background checks - I mean registering firearms.

Because what you have there is simply a general statement regarding common sense. Only an IDIOT would want ZERO regulations on firearm possession and use.






Lets see, hmmm, he was the republican spokesperson for AGS (American's for Gun Safety) which advocated it.  Thats like selling dildo's without saying you support their use.

Why dont you look up what AGS is about - now called Third Way and also read this article - link
6/11/2008 10:22:41 PM EDT
[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Is it reasonable to believe that banning legal private party sales (Yes, I'm calling a spade a spade) of firearms will prevent any of those things?

I can't believe I'm seeing EBR owners actually SUPPORT this bullshit!  No, wait.  Yes I do believe it.


I think the 'gun show loophole' is BS, but humor me.

A) who wants to 'ban private party sales'?

B) who can enforce that?


The way they enforce it in places like California is through onerous registration schemes.
6/11/2008 10:25:07 PM EDT
[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Is it reasonable to believe that banning legal private party sales (Yes, I'm calling a spade a spade) of firearms will prevent any of those things?

I can't believe I'm seeing EBR owners actually SUPPORT this bullshit!  No, wait.  Yes I do believe it.


I think the 'gun show loophole' is BS, but humor me.

A) who wants to 'ban private party sales'?

B) who can enforce that?


The way they enforce it in places like California is through onerous registration schemes.


You can't answer, so I will.

A) No one that I have ever heard of wants to outright ban all private party sales.  All I've ever heard of, at the national level, is forcing the use of NICS for private party sales.

B) They can't enforce it.  Without some broad-based registration scheme, it can't be done.  And that is several orders of magnitude more difficult than forcing NICS for private party sales.
6/11/2008 10:26:26 PM EDT
[#29]
www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm
6/11/2008 10:27:16 PM EDT
[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
Is it reasonable to believe that banning legal private party sales (Yes, I'm calling a spade a spade) of firearms will prevent any of those things?

I can't believe I'm seeing EBR owners actually SUPPORT this bullshit!  No, wait.  Yes I do believe it.


I think the 'gun show loophole' is BS, but humor me.

A) who wants to 'ban private party sales'?

B) who can enforce that?


The way they enforce it in places like California is through onerous registration schemes.


You can't answer, so I will.

A) No one that I have ever heard of wants to outright ban all private party sales.  All I've ever heard of, at the national level, is forcing the use of NICS for private party sales.

B) They can't enforce it.  Without some broad-based registration scheme, it can't be done.  And that is several orders of magnitude more difficult than forcing NICS for private party sales.



I don't want to come off as an asshole but can you prove that based on the wording of McCain Lieberman?
6/11/2008 10:28:21 PM EDT
[#31]

Quoted:
www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm


His words vs his actions are two different things.

Would Michael Jackson saying he isn't a pedophile convince you all the while he is hanging out with little boys?
6/11/2008 10:29:49 PM EDT
[#32]
These threads are about as predictable as the sunrise.

Opposition: "See what he did there? We are fucked!"
Proponents: "At least you get some lube, if Obama gets in kiss that lube good bye!"




ETA:

All politicians are fucked (or at least any that have the ability to rise to any level of authority in this country). Why argue over if you are going to be ass raped with or without lube?
6/11/2008 10:30:19 PM EDT
[#33]

John McCain Addresses The National Rifle Association

September 21, 2007


John McCain delivered remarks to the National Rifle Association Friday, September 21st at 9:30 a.m. EDT. Below are McCain's remarks as prepared for delivery:

It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning. I see a lot of old friends here, friends like Jim Baker whom I worked with as long ago as the 1980s in the struggle to preserve firearms freedom. His hair was not so gray back then -- and I had a lot more of it.

This is a sophisticated crowd. You know politics, and you know politicians. You are pretty used to hearing aspirants for public office come before you and pledge fealty to the cause of the Second Amendment. You know you need to dig into a politician's record to find out where they really stand. You know some will change their position or have little record for you to judge. That is not the case with me.

When I first ran for Congress in 1982, I was proud to have the support of gun owners and the National Rifle Association. For more than two decades, I've opposed the efforts of the anti-gun crowd to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and paint gun owners as some kind of fringe group, dangerous in "modern" America. Some even call you "extremists." My friends, gun owners are not extremists, you are the core of modern America. The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms. It guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers.

But the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners -- and those who make and sell firearms -- for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun crowd comes up with a plan to capitalize on tragedy and limit Second Amendment rights for all Americans. I opposed the ban on so-called "assault weapons" which was first proposed after a California schoolyard shooting. I thought it made no sense to ban a class of firearms based on cosmetic features. I opposed waiting periods for gun purchases. We lost on both of those in the short run, but it has worked out better in the long-run. Fortunately, that gun ban sunsetted after 10 long years. And, I was proud to vote against those who tried to extend it in 2004.

I also opposed efforts to cripple our firearms manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals. This was a particularly devious effort to use lawsuits to bankrupt our great gun manufacturers. A number of big-city mayors decided it was more important to blame the manufacturers of a legal product than it was to control crime in their own cities. Fortunately, we are able to protect manufacturers from these frivolous lawsuits.

In my years in Washington, I have seen what I will call three myths used by politicians to excuse their support for gun control. First, is the big city myth: that it is acceptable -- even necessary -- to fight crime in big cities. If you have a crime problem, they say it's really a gun problem. So instead of increasing police patrols, instituting tough sentences for lawbreakers and other measures that would actually address crime, we restrict ownership of guns and limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

We are meeting today in a city that represents the worst of this myth. The citizens of the nation's capital do not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. That is why I have co-sponsored legislation repealing the ban on firearms possession for law abiding citizens in the District of Colombia. The Second Amendment is not just for rural Arizona, it is for all of America.

The second myth is that of the "bad gun." This was at the core of the debate over so-called "assault weapons." Proponents of this myth argue that some kinds of guns are acceptable -- for now -- but others are not if they have certain features -- like a pistol grip or an extended magazine. I will continue to oppose those who want to ration the Second Amendment based on their views of what guns it applies to.

Finally, there is the hunting myth -- if you show your bona fides by hunting ducks or varmints or quail, it makes up for support for gun control. This myth overlooks a fundamental truth: the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about freedom.

Over the years, we have not agreed on every issue. We had differences over my efforts to standardize the sales procedures at gun shows and to clean up our campaign finance system. I understand and respect your position. But while we may disagree on the means we do agree on the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and, in light of the number of my colleagues who have been disgraced, are under investigation and are worried about indictment, agree that Washington needs cleaning up. Americans have lost trust in their government and that trust must be restored.

But these minor differences pale in comparison to our shared vision of a Second Amendment protected from political vagaries. And we have real differences with many of those running for President. Democratic presidential candidates have learned something since 2000. They don't talk about their plans for gun control. They pose for the cameras in camouflage. But that is all they are doing -- posing. Just because they don't talk about gun control doesn't mean they don't want gun control. Let's be clear. If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards are elected President, they will go after the rights of law abiding gun owners -- just as Bill Clinton did when he was president. Moveon.org, which seems to be calling the shots in the Democratic Party these days, will have more influence on gun control in the Oval Office, not John Dingell. These Democratic candidates voted to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existen ce as Senators. Think how much worse it would be if they had the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, name Attorneys General and use the full power of the federal government.

And just as the Democratic candidates are fundamentally wrong about the Second Amendment, they are fundamentally wrong about the key threats facing America in the 21st century.

As we meet, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces' storied past. As we all know, the war in Iraq has not gone well, and the American people have grown sick and tired of it. I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them. But we cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything -- seriously endanger the country I have served all my adult life.

In the coming month we will face a fork in the road. We can pursue our opportunity for victory in Iraq, strengthen our hand in the larger war against Islamic extremists, and make our nation more secure. Or we can fold our tents, embolden our enemies, throw a region into instability, and increase the risks faced on our home soil. Which way requires greater leadership? I am leading the fight on the floor of the United States Senate to support our troops and in support of victory and against a plan for surrender.

We have new commanders in Iraq, and they are following a counterinsurgency strategy that I have advocated from the beginning of this war, which makes the most effective use of our strength and doesn't strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics failed. Although the outcome remains uncertain, we must give General Petraeus and the Americans he has the honor to command adequate time to salvage from the wreckage of our past mistakes a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people. To concede defeat now would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. The consequences would threaten us for years, and I am certain would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would impose even greater sacrifices on us.

Our defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and I cannot be complicit in it. I will do whatever I can to help avert it. That is all I can offer my country. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that and am humbled by it. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my fellow Americans, as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I have many responsibilities to the American people, and I try to take them all seriously. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others -- and that is to use whatever meager talents I possess, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted so we can defeat our enemies. That is how I construe my responsibility to my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. It is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

Thank you for your attention.

Link

John McCain On Gun Control
Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)

Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)

Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Ontheissues.org
6/11/2008 10:31:10 PM EDT
[#34]

Quoted:
I don't want to come off as an asshole but can you prove that based on the wording of McCain Lieberman?


I just told you exactly what McCain-Lieberman does.  It isn't even a ban on private sales.

All it does is require private party sales at whatever the bill defined as a 'gun show' (which a loose enough definition to piss off anti-gunners) to go through a background check.

I don't like it, but thats what it does.

I can still sell you a gun at my home face to face.

I'm shuddering.  I haven't bought a gun at a gun show.. well, ever.  The internet has much better deals.
6/11/2008 10:32:04 PM EDT
[#35]

Quoted:

John McCain Addresses The National Rifle Association

September 21, 2007


John McCain delivered remarks to the National Rifle Association Friday, September 21st at 9:30 a.m. EDT. Below are McCain's remarks as prepared for delivery:

It is a pleasure to appear before you this morning. I see a lot of old friends here, friends like Jim Baker whom I worked with as long ago as the 1980s in the struggle to preserve firearms freedom. His hair was not so gray back then -- and I had a lot more of it.

This is a sophisticated crowd. You know politics, and you know politicians. You are pretty used to hearing aspirants for public office come before you and pledge fealty to the cause of the Second Amendment. You know you need to dig into a politician's record to find out where they really stand. You know some will change their position or have little record for you to judge. That is not the case with me.

When I first ran for Congress in 1982, I was proud to have the support of gun owners and the National Rifle Association. For more than two decades, I've opposed the efforts of the anti-gun crowd to ban guns, ban ammunition, ban magazines, and paint gun owners as some kind of fringe group, dangerous in "modern" America. Some even call you "extremists." My friends, gun owners are not extremists, you are the core of modern America. The Second Amendment is unique in the world and at the core of our constitutional freedoms. It guarantees an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. To argue anything else is to reject the clear meaning of our founding fathers.

But the clear meaning of the Second Amendment has not stopped those who want to punish firearms owners -- and those who make and sell firearms -- for the actions of criminals. It seems like every time there is a particularly violent crime, the anti-gun crowd comes up with a plan to capitalize on tragedy and limit Second Amendment rights for all Americans. I opposed the ban on so-called "assault weapons" which was first proposed after a California schoolyard shooting. I thought it made no sense to ban a class of firearms based on cosmetic features. I opposed waiting periods for gun purchases. We lost on both of those in the short run, but it has worked out better in the long-run. Fortunately, that gun ban sunsetted after 10 long years. And, I was proud to vote against those who tried to extend it in 2004.

I also opposed efforts to cripple our firearms manufacturers by making them liable for the acts of violent criminals. This was a particularly devious effort to use lawsuits to bankrupt our great gun manufacturers. A number of big-city mayors decided it was more important to blame the manufacturers of a legal product than it was to control crime in their own cities. Fortunately, we are able to protect manufacturers from these frivolous lawsuits.

In my years in Washington, I have seen what I will call three myths used by politicians to excuse their support for gun control. First, is the big city myth: that it is acceptable -- even necessary -- to fight crime in big cities. If you have a crime problem, they say it's really a gun problem. So instead of increasing police patrols, instituting tough sentences for lawbreakers and other measures that would actually address crime, we restrict ownership of guns and limit the rights of law abiding citizens.

We are meeting today in a city that represents the worst of this myth. The citizens of the nation's capital do not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. That is why I have co-sponsored legislation repealing the ban on firearms possession for law abiding citizens in the District of Colombia. The Second Amendment is not just for rural Arizona, it is for all of America.

The second myth is that of the "bad gun." This was at the core of the debate over so-called "assault weapons." Proponents of this myth argue that some kinds of guns are acceptable -- for now -- but others are not if they have certain features -- like a pistol grip or an extended magazine. I will continue to oppose those who want to ration the Second Amendment based on their views of what guns it applies to.

Finally, there is the hunting myth -- if you show your bona fides by hunting ducks or varmints or quail, it makes up for support for gun control. This myth overlooks a fundamental truth: the Second Amendment is not about hunting, it is about freedom.

Over the years, we have not agreed on every issue. We had differences over my efforts to standardize the sales procedures at gun shows and to clean up our campaign finance system. I understand and respect your position. But while we may disagree on the means we do agree on the need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and, in light of the number of my colleagues who have been disgraced, are under investigation and are worried about indictment, agree that Washington needs cleaning up. Americans have lost trust in their government and that trust must be restored.

But these minor differences pale in comparison to our shared vision of a Second Amendment protected from political vagaries. And we have real differences with many of those running for President. Democratic presidential candidates have learned something since 2000. They don't talk about their plans for gun control. They pose for the cameras in camouflage. But that is all they are doing -- posing. Just because they don't talk about gun control doesn't mean they don't want gun control. Let's be clear. If Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John Edwards are elected President, they will go after the rights of law abiding gun owners -- just as Bill Clinton did when he was president. Moveon.org, which seems to be calling the shots in the Democratic Party these days, will have more influence on gun control in the Oval Office, not John Dingell. These Democratic candidates voted to ban guns or ban ammunition or to allow gun makers to be sued out of existen ce as Senators. Think how much worse it would be if they had the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, name Attorneys General and use the full power of the federal government.

And just as the Democratic candidates are fundamentally wrong about the Second Amendment, they are fundamentally wrong about the key threats facing America in the 21st century.

As we meet, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen are fighting bravely and tenaciously in battles that are as dangerous, difficult and consequential as the great battles of our armed forces' storied past. As we all know, the war in Iraq has not gone well, and the American people have grown sick and tired of it. I understand that, of course. I, too, have been made sick at heart by the many mistakes made by civilian and military commanders and the terrible price we have paid for them. But we cannot react to these mistakes by embracing a course of action that will be an even greater mistake, a mistake of colossal historical proportions, which will -- and I am as sure of this as I am of anything -- seriously endanger the country I have served all my adult life.

In the coming month we will face a fork in the road. We can pursue our opportunity for victory in Iraq, strengthen our hand in the larger war against Islamic extremists, and make our nation more secure. Or we can fold our tents, embolden our enemies, throw a region into instability, and increase the risks faced on our home soil. Which way requires greater leadership? I am leading the fight on the floor of the United States Senate to support our troops and in support of victory and against a plan for surrender.

We have new commanders in Iraq, and they are following a counterinsurgency strategy that I have advocated from the beginning of this war, which makes the most effective use of our strength and doesn't strengthen the tactics of our enemy. This new battle plan is succeeding where our previous tactics failed. Although the outcome remains uncertain, we must give General Petraeus and the Americans he has the honor to command adequate time to salvage from the wreckage of our past mistakes a measure of stability for Iraq and the Middle East, and a more secure future for the American people. To concede defeat now would strengthen al Qaeda, empower Iran and other hostile powers in the Middle East, unleash a full scale civil war in Iraq that could quite possibly provoke genocide there, and destabilize the entire region as neighboring powers come to the aid of their favored factions. The consequences would threaten us for years, and I am certain would eventually draw us into a wider and more difficult war that would impose even greater sacrifices on us.

Our defeat in Iraq would be catastrophic, not just for Iraq, but for us, and I cannot be complicit in it. I will do whatever I can to help avert it. That is all I can offer my country. It is not much compared to the sacrifices made by Americans who have volunteered to shoulder a rifle and fight this war for us. I know that and am humbled by it. But though my duty is neither dangerous nor onerous, it compels me nonetheless to say to my fellow Americans, as long as we have a chance to succeed we must try to succeed.

I have many responsibilities to the American people, and I try to take them all seriously. But I have one responsibility that outweighs all the others -- and that is to use whatever meager talents I possess, and every resource God has granted me to protect the security of this great and good nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. And that I intend to do, even if I must stand athwart popular opinion. I will attempt to convince as many of my countrymen as I can that we must show even greater patience, though our patience is nearly exhausted so we can defeat our enemies. That is how I construe my responsibility to my country. That is how I construed it yesterday. It is how I construe it today. It is how I will construe it tomorrow. I do not know how I could choose any other course.

Thank you for your attention.

Link

John McCain On Gun Control
Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)

Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)

Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Ontheissues.org



Talk is cheap.  He has the best voting record of the candidates.
6/11/2008 10:33:15 PM EDT
[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
602 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 55
and far right." "^ Proclaiming, "with rights come with responsibilities," AGS
has recruited Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman as its primary
spokespersons. McCain, of course, is not alone among Republicans who
support reasonable gun regulations when balanced with effective protection of
gun rights."^ Similarly, a number of Democratic members of the House and
Senate—not to mention a growing number of Democratic governors—have
publicly affirmed their support for an individual right to bear arms when
balanced with reasonable regulation.


I didn't make this up.  This is from 2006.


I will still be voting for him but people aren't just making shit up as they go along on this site.

Yeah, what he should have said was "with rights come ZERO responsibilities - I want no restrictions of any kind on any use of any gun anywhere, any time for any reason by anybody!"



The specific topic being addressed was firearm registration.   I don't know about you but I like the 4th Amendment as much as the 2nd and 1st.

Show me the quote from McCain saying he supports registering all firearms. Not background checks - I mean registering firearms.

Because what you have there is simply a general statement regarding common sense. Only an IDIOT would want ZERO regulations on firearm possession and use.
Its De facto registration.  Private party sales are the loophole that makes 4473s halfway useless for firearms tracking in many States.

The gunshow loophole bill is garbage, no question about it. I don't believe it's de facto gun-registration though. There are worse aspects of it besides the background check such as registering all visitors regardless of sales. Much of the garbage wouldn't last.

However, to imply (once again) that McCain is a gun-grabber is simply ignorant. And clearly that seems to be the point of the OP.



But
6/11/2008 10:36:30 PM EDT
[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
602 EMORY LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 55
and far right." "^ Proclaiming, "with rights come with responsibilities," AGS
has recruited Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman as its primary
spokespersons. McCain, of course, is not alone among Republicans who
support reasonable gun regulations when balanced with effective protection of
gun rights."^ Similarly, a number of Democratic members of the House and
Senate—not to mention a growing number of Democratic governors—have
publicly affirmed their support for an individual right to bear arms when
balanced with reasonable regulation.


I didn't make this up.  This is from 2006.


I will still be voting for him but people aren't just making shit up as they go along on this site.

Yeah, what he should have said was "with rights come ZERO responsibilities - I want no restrictions of any kind on any use of any gun anywhere, any time for any reason by anybody!"



The specific topic being addressed was firearm registration.   I don't know about you but I like the 4th Amendment as much as the 2nd and 1st.

Show me the quote from McCain saying he supports registering all firearms. Not background checks - I mean registering firearms.

Because what you have there is simply a general statement regarding common sense. Only an IDIOT would want ZERO regulations on firearm possession and use.
Its De facto registration.  Private party sales are the loophole that makes 4473s halfway useless for firearms tracking in many States.

The gunshow loophole bill is garbage, no question about it. I don't believe it's de facto gun-registration though. There are worse aspects of it besides the background check such as registering all visitors regardless of sales. Much of the garbage wouldn't last.

However, to imply (once again) that McCain is a gun-grabber is simply ignorant. And clearly that seems to be the point of the OP.



But


And where did I say that?  If I have a gun and it is my best choice, I have a right not to like very aspect of it and bring attention to those aspects.  That is not the same thing as saying it is a shitty gun.  Therefore, bringing up negatives about Mccain when I acknowledge the positives is not the same thing.
6/11/2008 10:49:06 PM EDT
[#38]

Quoted:
SHOCKING NEWS TO FOLLOW!!!!

Obama supports, promotes, sponsors, and actively seeks UNreasonable gun control laws.  

You guys really need to learn about "political speak."  This is like GWB's statement about "I support the AWB in its current form"--and then quietly making sure it didn't get to his desk from the Republican-controlled Congress.  In its "current form" it was to expire--and did.  

You make a public statement that provides political cover, but means something different than it sounds like.  This way your words can't be used against you.  

Most here support "reasonable gun control laws"--whether you realize it or not.  Think about it.  Is it "reasonable" for a batshit crazy fool to have guns?  A five year old?  A junkie with ten felony convictions?  


I'd like to know what the Republican controlled Congress did to erase that law. That's right, nothing. All the Demonrats need to do to re-enact it is to remove the clause about it expiring.

Other than protecting manufacturers from bullshit lawsuits, they didn't accomplish much...except for vast increases in the size of the .gov, and spending like drunken idiots.
6/12/2008 2:30:41 AM EDT
[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
SHOCKING NEWS TO FOLLOW!!!!

Obama supports, promotes, sponsors, and actively seeks UNreasonable gun control laws.  

You guys really need to learn about "political speak."  This is like GWB's statement about "I support the AWB in its current form"--and then quietly making sure it didn't get to his desk from the Republican-controlled Congress.  In its "current form" it was to expire--and did.  

You make a public statement that provides political cover, but means something different than it sounds like.  This way your words can't be used against you.  

Most here support "reasonable gun control laws"--whether you realize it or not.  Think about it.  Is it "reasonable" for a batshit crazy fool to have guns?  A five year old?  A junkie with ten felony convictions?  


I'd like to know what the Republican controlled Congress did to erase that law. That's right, nothing. All the Demonrats need to do to re-enact it is to remove the clause about it expiring.

Other than protecting manufacturers from bullshit lawsuits, they didn't accomplish much...except for vast increases in the size of the .gov, and spending like drunken idiots.


You really are going to cut your nose off to spite your face aren't you.

You haven't seen spending and stupidity until you see Obama with a complicit D Congress.

Of course you are probably one of those "reset button" fantasy types.
6/12/2008 2:44:29 AM EDT
[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
And you think Obama is a better choice?????




READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!!


I am still voting for him because there is no other choice.  Why do I have to like it?


You've questioned St. McCain's record.  Your political reliability is now suspect, comrade.


Yep, Juan can do no wrong. The OP is obviously a troll, straight out of the DU who wants to make out with Obama. Hell I bet he even has hope and change tatooed on his ass


Actually Juan is pretty good on gunrights. Lots of reasons to hate that piece of shit, this isnt really one of them but.............


FUCK MCCAIN
6/12/2008 2:52:40 AM EDT
[#41]

Quoted:


FUCK MCCAIN


Yea... pretty much this.
6/12/2008 4:41:31 AM EDT
[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
And you think Obama is a better choice?????




READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!!


I am still voting for him because there is no other choice.  Why do I have to like it?


You've questioned St. McCain's record.  Your political reliability is now suspect, comrade.


Yep, Juan can do no wrong. The OP is obviously a troll, straight out of the DU who wants to make out with Obama. Hell I bet he even has hope and change tatooed on his ass


Actually Juan is pretty good on gunrights. Lots of reasons to hate that piece of shit, this isnt really one of them but.............


FUCK MCCAIN


Fuck McCain, I'm going to vote for Obama or not vote (vote for 3rd party) and give 1/2 vote to Obama because he is so much better.
6/12/2008 4:47:57 AM EDT
[#43]
Its kind of funny, but the lip service McCain has given reasonable gun control is just his way of getting votes and playing politics, but his speech to the NRA is how he really feels.

Its kind of hard to tell for sure how he feels about the 2nd Amendment now. If its politically expedient, will he change his mind?
6/12/2008 4:49:59 AM EDT
[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
And you think Obama is a better choice?????




READING IS FUNDAMENTAL!!!!


I am still voting for him because there is no other choice.  Why do I have to like it?


You've questioned St. McCain's record.  Your political reliability is now suspect, comrade.


Yep, Juan can do no wrong. The OP is obviously a troll, straight out of the DU who wants to make out with Obama. Hell I bet he even has hope and change tatooed on his ass


Actually Juan is pretty good on gunrights. Lots of reasons to hate that piece of shit, this isnt really one of them but.............


FUCK MCCAIN


Fuck McCain, I'm going to vote for Obama or not vote (vote for 3rd party) and give 1/2 vote to Obama because he is so much better.



No sir, would rather chew off my right hand than vote for the racist antiAmerican from Il. I plan to vote for the only conservative on the ballot in Nov, Bob Barr.

And no, a vote for Barr is not a vote for Obama, and yes, if Obama is elected I will blame everyone that voted for McCain instead of Barr
6/12/2008 5:28:25 AM EDT
[#45]
I support reasonable gun control.  A rifle should be able to hit a paper plate at 100 yards.  A pistol at 10.  If they can not, they need to be designation official wall hangers/safe queens until they can either be repaired or replaced.
---
To be honest, I also support mandatory firearm education.  Schools should be forced to at least offer shooting/marksmanship as a class for credit (the class by nature should included gun safety - but it needs to have plenty of hands on time)...

I have know a decent number of Russians.  I did not meet one who was afraid of a rifle or did not know how to use it - it was part of their primary education.
6/12/2008 5:32:42 AM EDT
[#46]
Define "reasonable" controls....

Instant background checks with subsequent destruction of the record? No problem.

Criminals, illegals, etc., not allowed to own? No problem.

Much of anything else? PROBLEM!
6/12/2008 5:35:07 AM EDT
[#47]

Quoted:
Its kind of funny, but the lip service McCain has given reasonable gun control is just his way of getting votes and playing politics, but his speech to the NRA is how he really feels.

Its kind of hard to tell for sure how he feels about the 2nd Amendment now. If its politically expedient, will he change his mind?


He has a 20+ year career in the Senate.  Actions speak louder than words.  Of course, several of you won't want to hear that--or accept it.
6/12/2008 5:36:31 AM EDT
[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/John_McCain_Gun_Control.htm


His words vs his actions are two different things.

Would Michael Jackson saying he isn't a pedophile convince you all the while he is hanging out with little boys?


Actually McCain's voting record is solidly pro-gun.
6/12/2008 5:37:28 AM EDT
[#49]
As much as I detest McCain, his record of voting against every attempt to ban EBR's is solid.  His gun record is better than GWB.
6/12/2008 5:38:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Source: JohnMcCain.com



Protecting Second Amendment Rights

John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right that we have a sacred duty to protect. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals - criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.

Gun Manufacturer Liability

John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry.

Assault Weapons

John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with similar characteristics.

Importation of High Capacity Magazines

John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.

Gun Locks

John McCain believes that every firearms owner has a responsibility to learn how to safely use and store the firearm they have chosen, whether for target shooting, hunting, or personal protection. He has supported legislation requiring gun manufacturers to include gun safety devices such as trigger locks in product packaging.

Banning Ammunition

John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."

DC Personal Protection

As part of John McCain's defense of Second Amendment rights, he cosponsored legislation to lift a ban on the law abiding citizens of the District of Columbia from exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.

Criminal Background Checks

John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms and has voted to ensure they are conducted thoroughly, efficiently, and without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.

Background Checks at Gun Shows

At a time when some were trying to shut down gun shows in the name of fighting crime, John McCain tried to preserve gun shows by standardizing sales procedures. Federal law requires licensed firearm sellers at gun shows to do an instant criminal background check on purchasers while private firearm sellers at gun shows do not have to conduct such a check. John McCain introduced legislation that would require an instant criminal background check for all sales at gun shows and believes that such checks must be conducted quickly to ensure that unnecessary delays do not effectively block transactions.

The Firearm Purchase Waiting Period

John McCain has opposed "waiting periods" for law abiding citizen's purchase of firearms.

The Confiscation of Firearms After an Emergency

John McCain opposes the confiscation of firearms from private citizens, particularly during times of crisis or emergency. He voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Senator David Vitter prohibiting such confiscation.

Stiffer Penalties for Criminals Who Use a Firearm in the Commission of a Crime

John McCain believes in strict, mandatory penalties for criminals who use a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegally possess a firearm. Enforcing the current laws on the books is the best way to deter crime.
Previous Page
/ 2
Next Page