Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.I note some in the RKBA camp have been whistling past the graveyard about such change, citing "Pro-Gun Democrats" as our hope.
[Via Jack A]
18 comments:
If they belong on foreign battlefields and not on American streets, then why do cops have them, along with full auto SMGs?
What happens when our streets become domestic battlegrounds?
Let them try a retroactive gun ban and see what happens. These assholes will start a firestorm that they can't hold back.
I think that if there is a move (and I expect there will be), it will begin with FFL 1s.
Talk with your local FFLs.
III
There are few if any 'pro gun' dems. Any dem voting nay on a fed ban has been given a pass to do so by the leadership. That pass makes him look good and hightens his chances to keep his seat next election. He of course is in thrall to the leadership for letting him off the reservation and will throw himself off high structures to assure ultimate success of the social collectivist party goals.
The 'free pass' system is used constantly as the party leadership assists members it deems useful and needed at the moment.
Gut it up, politics is blood sport and we shall be the prey. Start now to re-jigger the congress in '10, or watch the remnants of liberty swirl down the drain.
There are dang few pro-gun Republicans, either. If they are too stupid or evil to understand that there exists a basic human right to own and to carry, wherever we go, what ever type of weapon we see fit, in any way we wish, without asking permission of anyone, ever, then they are not "pro-gun" at all, but are just debating how severely to violate your rights.
They can ban whatever they want - they won't be able to get rid of them.
I, for one, would not hesitate to buy a black market gun if I could get away with it. My rights are non-negotiable.
I, for one, would not hesitate to buy a black market gun if I could get away with it. My rights are non-negotiable.
I've been thinking of doing just that lately. Change out and dispose of any parts that may link it to crimes just in case. Better in my hands then a criminals or gang bangers.
flood their "idea" link with suggestions.
Anyone have any info on when change.gov was registered and got a .gov extension? I wonder how long this was in the planning and just waiting to "go live"
Another gun ban is a virtual guarantee of its supporters being bounced out of office in the 2010 election. Everyone knows that guns are a political loser. So, that begs the question of why would they go down a path that is a known political dead end?
They have already told why ahead of time. Change. They are planning on sweeping changes that will be so radical and cause so much upheaval in our country that the 2010 elections won't matter. Their vision is that the country will have undergone such a radical and fundamental change in how government views the people and how the people view government that the prevailing circumstances at that time it will make it hard to go back to where we came from.
There is no other rational explanation for floating the issue of more gun bans, and more aggressive gun bans at that, when the issue is already known as a political death sentence. As a result, it would not surprise me if their tactical approach will be to use an aggressive, blitzkrieg-style series of attacks on our freedoms to hammer us with a mass of radical legislation and executive orders ( aka "change") from the outset. This would be used to stun us into shock and inaction and prevent an organized response.
While the future is uncertain and I do not know for a fact that this approach will be used, I recommend that you mentally prepare yourselves for just such an aggressive series of actions by the Obama administration, and make suitable plans now. There may not be time to plan later. It never hurts to plan early. Even if the Obama administration takes a different approach, you are better prepared for the unexpected.
Biden recently warned us that the first several months of the administration would bring changes that people would think was wrong. He asked for their followers to keep the faith and stick with them. They always give advance warning of their intentions in order to psychologically prepare the masses for change.
The question is: are you prepared for change?
Hey. He accepts comments on the Web page. I put a nice coherent thought on gun laws. Perhaps if we fill it with many of those he will have no choice but to leave that issue alone.
"I note some in the RKBA camp have been whistling past the graveyard about such change, citing "Pro-Gun Democrats" as our hope."-david
I believe I have pointed out time and again that "pragmatism" is fully adjustable in the pursuit of temporary safety.
I don't actually hate pragmatists, I pity them, and of course, disrespect them. Some of them are even afraid of conversation and take "pragmatic" steps to avoid the risk. Others build strawmen and then Knox them down, as though they were "principles freaks".
I think they are in for some hard Knox, they have no more chance of coming through unscathed by the enemies of liberty than does a Snowflake in Hell. But ever adjustable "pragmatism" keeps them hoping that declaring their willingness to adjust to the demands of their masters will keep them out of the meat grinder too.
And in a way, I wish they were right. No point in tainting the meat of patriots run through that grinder.
I propose we redub the pragmatists as CWD. (Chronic Wasting Disease)
Oldsmoblogger said...
"I think that if there is a move (and I expect there will be), it will begin with FFL 1s."
An excellent point which I hope to detail in writing very soon. I predict that guhnonerz will be completely surprised and entirely unprepared for this. They should be arguing for shall issue FFLs of all types. (A pragmatic first step, no?) Instead we have guhnonerz who want the fe'ral gov't to create a new, expensive bureaucracy for the purposes of creating an additional layer between Citizens and their rights, and call it a national carry permit system.
This goes in the quote file:
Kent McManigal said...
"If they are too stupid or evil to understand that there exists a basic human right to own and to carry, wherever we go, what ever type of weapon we see fit, in any way we wish, without asking permission of anyone, ever, then they are not "pro-gun" at all, but are just debating how severely to violate your rights."
So, having to do background checks at gun shows means that we have to give an address (likd Dennys) where we can meet and do the deal as private citizens. Is that correct??
TJP: I've read your first statement a couple times now--please clarify, because the context makes it sound like you're talking CHLs instead of FFLs...
What am I reading wrong?
David:
Your understanding is correct. I'm talking about both in the same paragraph:
(1) the application of the "shall issue" concept to the sale, trade and manufacture of firearms, regardless of location, net income or type of weapon
-instead of -
(2) a national concealed carry law that is basically begging the federal government to assume a new power--this is a step backward, especially if you live in Vermont, for example
Pragmatic types imply their support for the continued existence of a federal licensing system for the sale, trade and manufacture of firearms. I am suggesting that discarding anything that resembles preemption of rights is a better idea than asking the same government to assume the power of issuing and revoking individual carry permits. They are related in my mind because both give the federal government your implied consent to violate your rights at some point in the future.
I'm trying to bring attention to one of our flanks, even though most individuals will not directly feel the sting of increased restrictions on FFLs. I feel this is a middle ground that both the SBIs and the SNBIs can occupy without choking each other to death. And yes, I'm momentarily setting aside the fact that both federal licensing and a national carry permit are illegal.
Notice that the content of the entire "Agenda" tab has been removed. Maybe we weren't supposed to know about it until after the swearing in.
change.gov (new window)
Cached (new window)
Gee people, maybe we're over-reacting to the "conspiracy" since its from his campaign website BarackObama.com?
(find it under the issues tab)
Could it be that they took it down since the content was owned by the campaign, and not the transitional committee?
I guess seeing under "Agenda" is alot scarier
Gee, anonymous--that must be why they changed the .gov site where it talked about youth service from making it compulsory to making it sound like it was optional.
If you actually KNOW something the rest of us don't, by all means share it. But if you're just offering an opinion, why the snotty tone?
Post a Comment