world

U.S. liberals ask how they lost gun rights, Guantanamo votes

66 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

66 Comments
Login to comment

gun control, long overdue in the US, will be a second term item.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Frustrated liberals are asking why a Democratic-controlled Congress and White House cannot manage to close the Guantanamo prison or keep new gun-rights laws from passing."

What comes after frustration?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Keep and bear this in mind; In June 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the right to keep and bear arms as an individual constitutional right. Preventing people with a concealed carry license from entering National Parks would then be, by extension, illegal and unconstitutional. I'm glad to see some justice finally for those who follow the law and value the freedoms recognized in the Bill of Rights. Hurray for freedom(!) and pass the ammunition...if you can find any!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Republicans stirred public fears about relocating suspected terrorists.

Republicans? Fearmongering? For political gain?

Now there's a novelty. It's nice to know, in this uncertain world, that there a few constants.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As with so many issues, Democrat's have that pesky Constitution getting in the way of their policy ambitions. If they want to deny law-abiding citizens the right to own a gun, then they must first repeal the second amendment. Good luck with that - you are going to need it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think what ultra-libs need to start doing is opening their eyes. Recent polls show more and more people are becoming independents and that is what is being catered to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think what ultra-libs need to start doing is opening their eyes.

This is a good point. It is one thing to be a tree-hunging, tofu-eating critic when you are not in power. It is another to make decisions when you actualy have the ability to do so. I think the democrats, for all their high social ideals have just woken up to the fact that there is a significant gap between what should be done and what can be done. For example, despite wide-spread calls for closing down Gitmo and turning the page on that piece of American history, there are few legislators who would openly stand up and offer to host inmates (either temporarily or permanently) in their own electorates. From a real politik perspective such an action would be tantamount to commiting political suicide.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If they are not happy, vote for the other lot. Hail democracy, the people have power?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

suicide is letting your party be run by a drug addicted radio shock jock. suicide is letting an VP with a 8 percent support rate be the face of the party. Suicide is letting bush run the party for 8 years.

A chimp could run the democratic party right now successfully against the republicans. Losers is too kind a word for the GOP. 2010 will be more of the same.

The demos are not going to win every time in congress, since its an open party there will be stops and starts. Not all demos are angry white retired downwardly mobile gun runner bible thumpers which of course defines the majority of the republican party today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Despite control of both houses and the White House, Democrats seem unable to advance their agenda. No wonder liberals are frustrated.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's simply because unpatriotic and treasonous Right-wing nuts would rather see Obama look bad than do what's right for their country. If another terrorist attack occurred because of the people wrongly locked up in Guantanamo and that sort of attitude that they should be kept there without charges, evidence, etc., the Right-wing nuts would be happy because it happened on a Dem's watch, and they could somehow think they are justified in saying, "I told you so!".

They nit-pick on non-issues, threaten to filibuster on Senate choices, and blame the Dems for every wrong-doing they have condoned, and now they are simply traitors who want to see the government fail so that they can point fingers away from themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, "progressives", I have the answer for you:

You lost the Guantanamo vote becasue of simple praticality. Closing the prison, and getting the detainees to a place where they are not a danger to the US without trampling on their "rights" is much easier said than done. The congress won't approve funding because it is afraid of releasing these guys back into the system and the suffering the consequences later. Obama's got a lot of work to do to find an feasible solution and get the congress in line behind it. Note the word: feasible, as in you are going to need something that works for the majority of parties involved. Obamas compromise strategy (miltary tribunals with expanded rights, dentention is supermax prisions) seem to be practical enought to work, even if they aren't ideal. There was never a chance he could snap his fingers and just have the whole problem dissapear.

You lost the gun rights vote because you simply never had the gun rights vote. Notice the title of the article "gun rights" not "gun control". How's that for framing the issue. "Gun Control" is politically dead the US for the time being. Why? Check this quote out:

"She placed less blame on the White House than on ordinary Americans"

That's your anti-gun lobby at work. The American people (and the courts) have decided that the "right to bear arms" means exactly what it says. There was no way you were going to win a "gun rights" vote.

You see, the simple fact of the matter is Obama is not the "progressive" you thought he was. You bought into the whole right wing "liberalistest senator evah!" propaganda just as hard as the right did. Well, it turns out Obama is an extremely cautious and practical moderate with liberal ideals and conservative tendecies.

This moderate says hooray for that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triumvere,

...without trampling on their "rights" is much easier said than done.

I completely agree with that statement. It's also reason number 1, in my opinion, why we shouldn't have been cutting legal corners in the first place. I believe it was penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triumvere: Excellent post, my friend. Probably the best from you I've read.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama has taken a solemn oath to uphold the US Constitution, of which the following remains a key component: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Keep up the good work, sir!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium:"2010 will be more of the same."

So now we have "liberals" vowing that change will come - in 2010.

Take that, repubs!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,

It's also reason number 1, in my opinion, why we shouldn't have been cutting legal corners in the first place. I believe it was penny-wise, pound-foolish thinking.

Amen, brother.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Things are more complicated than they look, because the issues involve both financial concerns and the political constraints. Transferring the Guantanamo prisoners to the state prisons will strain the financial budget of a designated state to keep them under a strict control. It may also involve political concerns on whether the US Department of Justice should give the suspects Miranda rights if they are tried on the US soil. Political referendum on gun control is also heavily challenged not just by the NRA, but, possibly, by a complicated form of public opinions and concerns reflecting the concerns with a public safety depending on districts/counties of each state.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Triumvere - "The congress won't approve funding because it is afraid of releasing these guys back into the system and the suffering the consequences later."

There is more than a bit of emotion involved in the publics scepticism of relocating Gitmo inmates. President Obama is sensibly talking about keeping a number of them incarcertated in Supermax prisons.

Here's a fact - no one has ever escaped from a SuperMax facility.

No one.

Add to that, there are approximately 2 million individuals in U.S. jails at the present moment (highest lock-up rate on Earth).

Adding a few more is not going to cause a great deal of impact, and let's face it - who should be feared most - a convicted All-American serial killer? Or an Iraqi man who is only suspected of possibly being involved in attacks on U.S. forces but at this stage has no evidence against him?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"President Obama has taken a solemn oath to uphold the US Constitution."

If only the last resident of the Oval Office had done so, and obeyed the laws of his own country, President Obama wouldn't be in this current mess.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

for those that want Gitmo guys to be moved, into US prisons. May I ask, then what is the real difference? Gitmo is a US base, thus US territory. There may even be US servicemen in the brig there. Why such a push to move them to the continental US? Is there really a difference?

At least keeping them there would save a lot of cash and not for nothing, a lot safer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Gosh, 15,000 firearms murders a year (on the average) is a cheap price to pay for the Second Amendment and all our other wonderful freedoms. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition! And God Bless America!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No way Americans are ever going to amend the 2nd amendment!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip, a big part of the problem is the simple existance of Gitmo.

It has become the poster object of U.S. government-instigated torture, abuse of human rights and incarceration without trial.

This is simply not a cash issue - it's an image issue, and the longer it stays open in its current form, the easier it will be for the bad guys to recruit more bad guys to hit Americans.

Even Admiral Mike Mullen (USN), Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, wants the place shut down (but no doubt there'll be more than a few Right Wing "military experts" on JT who think they know better).

Colin Powell said yesterday: "Guantanamo has become a major, a major problem for America’s perception — as it’s seen, the way the world perceives America. And if it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo — not tomorrow, this afternoon. I’d close it. And I’d not let any of those people go. I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system. The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system. And so I would get rid of Guantanamo and I’d get rid of the military commissions system, and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts martial."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sushi: have ever been inside a jail in the US? personally, if I ever got locked up, I opt for Gitmo. Everyone of the people I know who have been in jail have had some horric stories to tell. Aren't you worried for the guy in Gitmo getting jumped, raped?

And so I would get rid of Guantanamo and I’d get rid of the military commissions system, and use established procedures in federal law or in the manual for courts martial."" Even for a POW? legally, they didn't break a law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3;

Profound words indeed. What mess exactly are you speaking of? Bad loans being defaulted on when the balloon payments kick in? That was an ACORN/Dem plan. Terrorists in Paki? Humm, Musharif and Bush are gone, why can't they all be friends? Violence up again in Iraq starting the same week Obama announced our departure date? N Korea backed off agreements made to the Bush admin and are testing nukes again? Perhaps they didn't hear Obamba peace to the world messages? Iran kicks all inspectors out and refuses to heed international pressure? Me thinks the world knows bambi better than his "supporters" do........

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Headline is right. There really are a lot of frustrated liberals out there.

Obama seems to think he is still on the campaign trail.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Skip - "personally, if I ever got locked up, I opt for Gitmo."

Personally, I'd vote for that to win Quote Of The Week :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Midnightpromise - "Methinks the world knows bambi better than his "supporters" do........"

And methinks bambi makes a whole lot more sense than your post just did. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter - "Obama seems to think he is still on the campaign trail."

Heh, and some Right Wingers seem to think the GOP is still in power. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frustrated libs are forced to admit Obama is a gifted politician, great at compaigning, but as a leader he is apparently quite content to just cement Bush's legacy in Iraq.

Gun control? Heh, they would have a better chance if Obama Reid and Pelosi hadn't made quite real the possibility that we soon face rampant inflation, and in an America whose demographic is vastly different than what we had 30 years ago.

Rising unemployment isn't helping.

My prediction: Obama's handlers will find him another radio talk show host (or maybe a guy like Hannity) to demonize.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter, what are the chances the GOP might be able to decide who they are and what they stand for, let alone find someone besides a druggie talk show host, a lying lowlife former VP or a small town hick former beauty queen to articulate the GOP's position on these crucial issues?

I mean, this side of 2016. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

this side of 2016

We're going to have 8 years of Obama doing his Bush routine?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what are the chances the GOP might be able to decide who they are and what they stand for, let alone find someone besides a druggie talk show host, a lying lowlife former VP or a small town hick former beauty queen to articulate the GOP's position on these crucial issues?

Or a better question - why bother? What's the incentive for the GOP to take the lead when the Democrats and Obama seem unwilling or unable to change much of what Bush created?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake: a druggie talk show host, a lying lowlife former VP or a small town hick former beauty queen to articulate the GOP's position on these crucial issues?

Well given your opposition to Obama on Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, gun rights, bailouts, etc., it's probably fair to say that you have quite a lot in common with the people above. With the exception of environmental issues I can't think of a single issue where you actually support Obama.

So...um....are you sure you support Obama? Because at the rate you're going you'd be welcome to give a speech at the next GOP convention...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You see, the simple fact of the matter is Obama is not the "progressive" you thought he was.

He will pick his battles carefully.

The detention center at Gitmo will be, for all practical purposes, closed in due time. Liberals will get a new justice to replace David Souter to their liking.

And then there is health care -- a FAR more important issue than letting someone carry a loaded weapon into Yellowstone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guantanemo will close ...they just have to figure out what to do with the prisoners. Guns will go on...nothing will change that, though there may be some possibility to get a ban on some automatic weapons...they really mess up the dear meat...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry...deer meat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In 1934,due to the use of the "tommy gun" by Bonnie and Clyde, a law was passed severely restricting ownership of automatic weapons. An automatic weapon is a weapon that can fire more than one bullet when you press the trigger one time. In 1968 a law was made that forbid the manufacture of any new automatic weapons for the use of the civilian population. In effect those two laws made it impossible for a U.S.A. citizen to purchase a new automatic weapon. U.S.A. citizens can not make their own automatic weapons due to the 1968 law and they have to go through an intensive background check and pay an extra $200.00 tax stamp on the automatic weapon if they can find one that was manufactured before 1968. That is just the federal law, Some states also have their own laws banning automatic weapons.

To speak of new laws needing to be created suggests the person speaking is not aware of already existing laws. If someone is willing to break the law they can purchase automatic weapons from other countries or they can pay to have automatic weapons manufactured in the U.S.A., by people willing to break the law to make extra money.

You may say that new automatic weapons are being produced by companies in the U.S.A. and you would be correct. Those weapons are made for the military and the state and local law enforcement organizations. Those weapons can not be legally bought by or sold to civilians in the U.S.A. due to the existing law that was passed in 1968.

In my opinion the polarization of the U.S.A. people by politicians is a joke. It is a way to get people to divide and in that division power can be maintained by both the groups that support the 2nd Amendment and by groups that would rather repeal the 2nd Amendment.

If a politician tells you they need more laws to control guns, they are lying to you.

If a politician tells you they need to protect your gun rights they are also lying to you.

Unless 3/4s of the states agree on repealing the 2nd Amendment there is no constitutional way the government can take away your gun rights. They can pass laws that mean essentially nothing, but those laws will be struck down by court rulings, as has happened in the DC verses Heller case.

So feel free to beat the drum for whatever side of this issue you are on, but until you get 3/4 of the states to agree with you enough to pass a constitutional amendment you are just making meaningless noise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"U.S. liberals"

People who think they know better than everyone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I think it's one of the few times he ( Obama ) didn't think it all the way out"

There's been more than a few times this president hasn't thought everything out.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"There's been more than a few times this president hasn't thought everything out."

That makes a whole lot more times than the last president... who didn't think a SINGLE thing out before he did it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's been more than a few times this president hasn't thought everything out.

Anybody else's irony alarm just go off the scale?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"That makes a whole lot more times than the last president.. who didn't think a SINGLE thing out before he did it"

Lessee... no more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11... two countries liberated... re-elected... yeah, he didn't think a SINGLE thing out before he did it!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I must admit there's been one time that Obama had thought just about everything out - how to get elected president. Of course having a recession, which we have from time to time, come just before the election didn't hurt any.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That makes a whole lot more times than the last president... who didn't think a SINGLE thing out before he did it.

Not a SINGLE thing?! Oh no, someone contact the UN!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[U.S. liberals], Sarge writes: "People who think they know better than everyone else."

Leaders who follow the liberal tradition, as Obama certainly does, usually produce better decisions and policies not because they inherently know "better" than anyone else, but because they nearly always let everyone have a say so that the general population can tell who knows and who doesn't have a clue.

The Republicans lost heavily in the last election -- all over the country -- because it was clearly revealed that they did not have a clue. And their supporters continue to demonstrate that here on an hourly basis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sarge: "Lessee... no more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11... two countries liberated... re-elected... yeah, he didn't think a SINGLE thing out before he did it!"

I'm glad you agree he didn't. Unless of course you are suggesting he thought out 9/11, but I don't think that's what you're suggesting. I agree he didn't or couldn't think of anything to do after it... in fact, if word is correct, after the single-worst terrorist attack on US history occurred on his watch because he refused to take intelligence seriously, he sat there and continued to read My Pet Goat. But go ahead and tell us again how carefully he thought things out. Hell, if he bothered to think for two seconds about all the evidence of an upcoming attack prior to 9/11 the world might be a whole different place. So again, thanks for helping to prove my point, sargie.

Like it or not, sarge, Obama still retains mass popularity, and despite not being able to carry out his word on all his promises, still has far more integrity than your man bush. What's more, there is no even remotely viable alternative in the crumbling GOP. They're tearing themselves apart and morons in the US are listening to draft-dodging crack heads on the radio steer them towards the ultra-right while people like Powell try to open up the minds of the people in said party. It's quite laughable to watch the Republicans crumble, but hey, if you guys want to reduce your base to nothing wider than an upside down chair leg for you to sit on, by all means.

Obama and the Dems could lose far more than they are now according to this article, but the Republicans have ZERO by way of offerings to better it. Just a whole lot of infighting and suggesting leaders that will ensure a Democratic White House and congress for at least another 8 years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Reading what my boy teleprompter has written here, one would think that President Obama is in pretty bad shape.

He's posted:

What comes after frustration?

Headline is right. There really are a lot of frustrated liberals out there. Obama seems to think he is still on the campaign trail.

Frustrated libs are forced to admit Obama is a gifted politician, great at compaigning, but as a leader he is apparently quite content to just cement bush's legacy in Iraq.

Rising unemployment isn't helping.

My prediction: Obama's handlers will find him another radio talk show host (or maybe a guy like Hannity) to demonize.

Wow. A rational person reading that would probably assume Pres. Obama is really screwing the pooch. Yet, his popularity ratings haven't fluctuated more than 2 points since March of this year and is still in 60s. Yep, "the shine is off." "The honeymoon's over." "It's just a matter of time...mumble mumble mumble...."

Whatever.

Next, "rising unemployment" teleprompter shrieks.

Really? Let's take a look at reality, instead.

In January of 2009, when Pres. Obama took office, unemployment was at 8.5%. It spiked at 9% in March and is now at 8.6%. So, this unemployment rate increase shrieking is nothing but more neo-con nonsense. Unemployment that is currently trending downward and a tenth of a point higher than when he took office is really not quite shriek worthy. What may be shriek worthy is jump in unemployment that our neo-cons, ironically enough, never found time to talk about. You know, the jump from 4.8% to 8.5% that happened under the dear leader in 2008.

This story and this idea are both neo-con fantasy projection. Their desire for Pres. Obama to fail is so great, that they are seeing signs of it everywhere. Next thing you know, we'll be seeing news stories about images of Obama murdering fetuses being seen in a potato in Idaho.

Again, whatever.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dzimmerm - You are confusing the Gun Control Act of 1968 with the machine gun ban which took effect in May 1986.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think it is rather ironic that people are buying guns and ammunition at records in fear that a Democratic led Congress and president will take them away. As for Guantanamo people are doing what they have done in America since day one. Standing on a soap box and yelling "Not in my neighborhood".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

people are buying guns and ammunition at records in fear that a Democratic led Congress and president will take them away.

Yeah, I wish I had invested in Smith and Wesson. Year-to-date up 132%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Getting back to the subject of the article. Being Democrat, doesn't neccesarily make you liberal. Particularly if you're from a western state that has a long history of hunting and using guns. Colorado, the Dakotas, Montana. Lot of these places have Democratic senators and congressmen who desperately want to be reelected in areas that if they vote wrongly, will boot their butts out of office. Thats really all there is to it. The guantanamo is good for a soundbyte, but when it comes down to it, its NIMBY.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama made a lot of campaign promises he can't keep, and sensible people-albeit the few that are in the U.S. Congress-realize that to close the special prisons at Guantanamo Bay requires a plan detailing what to do with the inmates.

To take away gun rights requires something more than certain liberals have in Washington, regardless of their majority in the U.S. Congress for now.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure there are very many big differences between supposed liberals and conservatives anymore. They've all failed the United States of America this decade.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The idea of putting the worst Guantanamo detainees in "Supermax" prison sounds good until reality strikes - there is only one Supermax prison in the federal Bureau of Prison system - ADX Florence in Colorado and it has only 4 spaces left. And the reality of moving the prisoners in and out for court appearances would be impossible to do without huge cost - I was in Seattle during the initial court appearances of the Millenium Bomber, Ahmed Ressam. Everytime he moved in and out of the federal courthouse it shut down the downtown area for security reasons. The concealed guns bill in National Parks didn't face opposition because there is not a crime problem in the parks now and there is no reason to anticipate that lawfully carried firearms will create one. It is funny how defensive the Democrat strategists got to support Obama's signing of the bill. Paul Begala rushed onto CNN to announce that he's a hunter - why he was even going hunting this weekend - and how supportive Obama is of gun rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is simply amazing and explains much about the Iraq invasion, the lies created to justify it, and the blind zealotry of the bush losers who supported the failed invasion. This is why the GOP phants will be out of power for a long, long time.

In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France's President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.

In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins".

The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elyse Palace, baffled by Bush's words, sought advice from Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Romer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university's review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper.

The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush's invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and "wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How many here can mention a previous administration to cover up the shortcomings of the present one? Let me guess... 1 especially. The US may need to ask for help from Canada now to see how it's all to be done. After all there is a utopia up there in the great white north.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dzimmerm,

"...Those weapons can not be legally bought by or sold to civilians in the U.S.A. due to the existing law that was passed in 1968."

Nice diatribe, but the earlier ban expired in 2004. A proposed revival of the assault weapons ban was proposed, but "This bill never became law, as it was still in Subcommittee when Congress ended the 110th Session on January 3, 2009." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_Weapons_Ban)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Those automatics are classified as "NFA class 3" firearms. I am unsure if an antique (100yrs+) machine gun is NFA class 3 also -but I assume it is.

The NFA class 3 firearms are typically 5k-10k$+ =most people don't buy them. +the licensing is more stringent.

What is doable: you can buy the parts kits (minus the receiver or it is cut-up) or an AK can go full auto with just a paper clip (??that's what they say??)

And who needs full auto when you can buy an SKS, Cetme, M1 Garand, M16 etc anyway?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Farmboy - You are confusing the assault weapons ban which expired with ongoing restriction under the National Firearms Act (NFA)on machine guns. Badsey - The terms Class 2 and Class 3 refer to the type of tax payment made by either firearms dealers or manufactures to work with NFA firearms. The firearms themselves don't have that classification. Antiqure firearms are those manufactured before 1898. If you want to have a full auto firearm, then you better make the proper application and pay the tax - otherwise you are looking at a 10-year prison sentence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium - your 5:37 post is lifted entirely from a Counterpunch article currently appearing on Lefty sites like alternet and informationclearinghouse.com

You really ought to provide sources for your conspiracy theorizing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Suzu,

That's true. My bad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yeah, I wish I had invested in Smith and Wesson. Year-to-date up 132%.

That and General Dynamics, I threw my lot in with them in 03 and sold it all off in 08 right when Obama started to take the lead in the polls and made a tidy profit. In times of conflict invest in conflict.

“You just don’t get it, Woolsey. You don’t have our districts.”

Politicians that understands what pisses off their people and modifies their voting habits to accomodate the voters wants in order to remain in her position. Democracy I love it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So it is perfectly legal for me to own (and make!) a pre-1898 Gatling gun (with no license at all !!) -and I always wanted to make a copy of a French cannon =We must think of the positives!

American gun laws are fairly good -You can thank the Liberals for that. And soon my house will be fortified with Gatling guns and French style cannons.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was listening to my brother-in-laws last week talking about how hard it is to get ammo now.

Then I was also listening to guys at a gun store debating it.

The NRA and the republicans are scaring gun enthusist to buying more and more rounds and guns. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wolfpack at 09:39 AM JST - 25th May

As with so many issues, Democrat's have that pesky Constitution getting in the way

Yea good old GWB never let that pesky thing bother him. He used it for toilet paper and called it a "Patriot Act"...what a guy

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites