Presidential Canidates: Who will be good for gun owners?

[K31]

You're just "clinging" to your guns and religion says Obama: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. ... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." http://apnewsexcite.com/article/20080412/D9001ADG0.html Or, another way to say the religion part: "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

 

[tkd1964]

I honestly don't feel safe with all three when it comes to the Constitution. we know where Ms. Hillary and Mr. Obama stand but it McCain who will sell your rights away when you least expect it. This happened to us back when the Assault rifle ban was going on. We had from my State the Great John Dingell, The great supporter of the Second ammendment, join the Anti's and voted for the Ban. This is what Mr. McCain will do. He's a Politician first and formost.

 

[stonewall1450]

Ok my few on the subject of a gun license is this: it is a great idea in theory. The problem is that it gives power and control to people who if given that power will run away with it. Stricter bans, more background checks, until you either need a proctologists permission before you can buy a gun. The other alternative is that they simply take them away. The theory behind me having to show a license to purchase a gun(not just having the money and buying the gun and waiting) is a good one. I mean if you are required to take a firearms saftey course before purchasing a gun it would be great. Prevent idiots from being an idot(though it doesnt really work with cars, but maybe it helps a little). So basically I am a no on the license only because what comes from it.
My view on the assault weapons: who needs an assault weapon that isnt going to have an assault weapon? I dont need a flash suppressor. I dont need a 30 round magazine. I dont need a retractable stock either. The thing about the ban is that it is worthless so why should we waste money enforcing it? If I am sick enough I am going to buy essentially the assault weapon civilian model(AR15 with 10 round capacity lets say). I am going to ducktape 2 magazines together and shoot just as fast with it. All you promote with the ban is accuracy with the weapon. Besides I would be far more lethal with a .308 at 200 yards than an innaccurate 1(only saying that because they are proven to be less accurate without proper training) at 10.
You want to protect us from the bad men who have guns that dont need them? Post cops and video surveilance at all public shooting ranges. The local Tallahassee public range is riddled with bullet holes from retards shooting walls. Also look at the people who come out with guns that you know they only have to shoot people(Im talkin about the "ganstas" that have these ak47s that you know arent legal). I got a shotgun,a rifle, a pistol and that is all I need really as far as guns are concerned.

 

[Grenadier]

Ok my few on the subject of a gun license is this: it is a great idea in theory. The problem is that it gives power and control to people who if given that power will run away with it.

It's only a great idea on paper. Unfortunately, criminals tend not to read those papers, and you end up only attacking law-abiding citizens.

My view on the assault weapons: who needs an assault weapon that isnt going to have an assault weapon? I dont need a flash suppressor. I dont need a 30 round magazine. I dont need a retractable stock either.

That's your choice, then. I, on the other hand, would much prefer to be able to cosmetically customize my rifle to my likings. These cosmetic alterations do absolutely nothing to make the weapon "more deadly." Furthermore, I can see past the BS that ignorant politicians try to push.

For example, I just got a flash suppressor for my AR-15. Some ignorant character asked me why I would want to hide from the police by using a flash suppressor...

I simply told him the truth, that flash suppressors do NOTHING to hide your position. Instead, they simply reduce muzzle flash, so that you, the shooter, does not get blinded by the muzzle flash. Why should I have to give up this comfort feature?

 

[stonewall1450]

It's only a great idea on paper. Unfortunately, criminals tend not to read those papers, and you end up only attacking law-abiding citizens.



That's your choice, then. I, on the other hand, would much prefer to be able to cosmetically customize my rifle to my likings. These cosmetic alterations do absolutely nothing to make the weapon "more deadly." Furthermore, I can see past the BS that ignorant politicians try to push....

Lol you repeated what I said, just in different words. Great idea in Theory=Great Idea on Paper lol. I just thought I might clarify that I am pro gun and I understand.
Also with what I said about the assault weapons. You basically made the point I did. All of the bans were basically cosmetic. I understand people misunderstanding the flash suppressor(which most people think is like a silencer[which does get rid of the flash if the proper ammunition is used]). I can also understand people not wanting someone to have a retractable stock to hide a rifle easier, but again this is basically a worthless point to make because you cant truly hide a rifle(you would have to wear a large coat or have a lot of baggage and basically the point of the retractable stock for concealabillity would be nill again). I also made my point about 10 round magazine vs. 30rounds. Like I said it isnt more deadly because if I was mentally disturbed I would just ducktape mags together and be more accurate(which would basically mean I have 20 accurate rounds).