Posted on 11/07/2008 10:02:32 PM PST by Red Steel
On November 7, the New York Times reported that "sales of handguns, rifles and ammunition have surged in the last week, according to gun store owners across the nation who describe a wave of buyers concerned that an Obama administration will curtail their right to bear arms."
Buyers were stocking up on guns because during his time as an Illinois state senator, Obama earned a reputation as being as virulently antigun as one can get. Rich Pearson, longtime chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association, released an open letter to sportsmen in October about Obama, saying, "I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama's attitudes towards guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than Barack Obama."
Pearson went on: "While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens.... Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory."
Gun buyers also bought guns as investments, as hedges against turbulent economic times.
But despite the fact that Obama's recent pro-gun rhetoric is obviously blatantly false, should Americans worry that Obama will take away their firearms? In my opinion: not just yet. To even contemplate such an action, Obama would either have to be sure that he had nothing to lose (the be-all and end-all of most politicians' lives) or be sure that it would succeed with little political fallout for the Democratic Party. If nothing else, Obama is, after all, very politically savvy.
In recent years, attacking the Second Amendment has largely fallen out of favor at the federal level because the topic has been like kryptonite for most politicians: even approaching the subject leads to becoming a political dead duck in the next election (unless one hails from a big city and is immune). Obama would likely have trouble getting a gun-ban bill through even a Democrat-packed House.
That's not to say that all is roses on the gun front with Obama as commander in chief. As Obama tries to live up to his many very expensive campaign promises, he'll need to get the money to pay for his plans from somewhere, and a large tax increase on guns and ammunition is probable. Also, if Obama were to get reelected, it is conceivable that toward the end of his second term, he may be willing to expend the remainder of any political capital he has left in twisting Democrats arms to ban guns. Such a scenario could also play out toward the end of Obama's first term if he and fellow Democrats so ruin the economy that they stand little chance of getting a second term — there is one's legacy to look out for after all. Only time will tell, but for now, look for new taxes to come down the pipe — and maybe just stock up a little.
Unless they are prepared to use nuclear weapons on other Americans to make their thing happen, I don't think we have a lot to worry about.
Problem is .... their leaders are Marxists, conditioned by years of media propaganda to hate our guts.
Another AWB will SUCK. Taxes on ammo will SUCK.
Those are very plausible. And at least 60% at any one time are total sheep that’ll bow down to whatever.
That leaves a fair amount, but the incrementalism can be quick. The AWB years were rough, and I didn’t get into guns until around 2000.
From another thread:
After World War II, trying to explain how good Germans allowed the monstrous evil of the Nazi regime, a pastor recalled that the Nazis came for the communists, and he did nothing; then for the trade unionists, then for the gypsies and Jews; then for the Catholics – and each time he did nothing. When they came for him, none were left to defend him.
Last week, here in America, they came for Jessica Hughes, and I will not be silent. I will not turn away, hoping, in the end, they will not come for me.
Jessica Hughes of Lufkin, Texas, former Marine, mother of three, answered her cell phone in the car, coming home from the emergency room. Her 9-year-old had suffered a mild concussion, but was OK.
The caller was a female Obama volunteer who asked if Jessica would support Obama for president.
Jessica replied, “No, I don’t support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time.” Then Jessica hung up.
The next day, a man and a woman in suits showed up at the door of her home, identifying themselves as members of the Secret Service.
The Secret Service agents stated that the Obama campaign had complained of a death threat. They had quoted Jessica as saying, “I will never support Obama, and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor.”
Jessica’s husband had heard Jessica’s side of the original phone call and verified the actual quote. To which the female agent replied, “Oh? Well why would she (the Obama volunteer) make that up?”
Anyone who is relying on the rule of law during the next four years as a bulwark against incursions on the Bill of Rights is living in a fool’s paradise, IMO.
The Massachusetts example is instructive. Two succeeding, and very corrupt, state’s Attorneys General decided they wanted to reduce gun ownership as a prelude to launching political careers, conceiving that such reductions would be popular with potential voters. Unable to push restrictions through an unsympathetic legislature, they simply decided by fiat that all firearms sold in the Commonwealth would be forced to pass “safety regulations” arbitrarily concocted by them personally. These “safety regulations” greatly restricted the number of makers who could sell their products, leaving the market to those only who would subject their firearms to modifications with respect to loaded chamber indicator, weight of trigger pull, and so on. The list is a long one. Now, many very fine (and, it goes without saying, utterly safe) makes and models are no longer available in Massachusetts.
The point is precisely this: a law is only effective depending on its enforcement; likewise, if the government decides to countenance widespread corruption, for whatever reason, the corruption will arise as night follows day. Liberals, it should be understood, consider that the end justifies the means, and their respect for law is conditioned by this fact. If the Obama administration decides to eliminate gun sales and/or confiscate guns, it will do so without the slightest regard for the Bill of Rights, the opinions of the courts, or anything else.
Yes, it could very well become both expensive and messy; however, whether or not such an effort will be launched depends solely on the extent to which this administration, and the Democrats, wish to cement their hold on power.
It should also be borne in mind that in the event of a national emergency, such as that generated by another terror attack on the scale of 9/11, there very well may be declared a national state of emergency, with an ensuing declaration of Martial Law. Indeed, in the course of the next four years or so, such an attack is more likely than not. In such a case, anything is possible.
Paranoid? Perhaps. But just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean there’s no one behind you, watching and waiting.
Indeed. What a shame it’s come to this.
If he comes for my firearms, I'll take said document and roll it up real tight and insert it in him.
Same... Only *my* copy will be wrapped around in barbed wire, coated with sandpaper, and then steeped in vinegar, so that there's no mistaking the message...
the infowarrior
Based upon the Obama website at: http://change.gov/
I checked last night and gleened this that I posted in another forum...
As I am posting this I had hoped to be able to do the same thing this morning, yet this very website has removed these “agenda” topics since last night, so I am copying what I posted on the other website...
This is most disturbing, not so surprising that this is his position, yet they have removed it so that this particular issue can be kept from the public...
Here is the clip:
Address Gun Violence in Cities:
As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. 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 believe this is a direct threat to those of us who value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
Obviously Obama DOES NOT understand this Amendment, and will do whatever he can, as soon as possible to take away as best they can our right to keep and bear arms...
This is not going to be good for anyone...
“Do Obama and Democrats have any respect for the rule of law and the 2nd amendment?”
No.
“Do they know what the 2nd amendment says? Do they remember that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment means exactly what it says?”
No.
“Or do liberals/radicals/leftists only sign on to court orders that they want, such as court orders for homosexual marriage?”
Yes.
To quote G. Gordon Liddy when asked what to do if they come for your guns, “Go for the head shot, they’ll probably be wearing body armor..”
“My personal feeling, however, is that it’s much ado about nothing. The gun owning people of the United States are not like the sheeple of Chicago.”
One would hope. Oh, in the event of an attempted ban or confiscation there will be some gun owners who will cave and comply. However, there will be a sizeable number who will not, and that’s when things will get very interesting.
I think they DO know what the second amendment says.
I believe they do the “hunting rights protected” BS in order to divide and conquer.
They do delusionally believe police are sufficient to protect. They don’t care about protecting you, just protecting the beltway elites.
It’s really not his choice to “let” us keep our guns. The statement implies that we have our guns because he lets us have them.
“...and roughly 100 million firearms in private ownership.”
Actaully - it’s estimated that there are over 100 million (that’s 100,000,000) gun owners in America. I think that would put the number of guns in private ownership at approx 350 - 500 million. There is not an armed “force” in the world that can match us in this category.
LOL found a gun, in holster with two clips and two boxes of ammo tucked away in the living room when I was cleaning last night. Didn't know it was there. Left it as its a good place for self-defense if someone breaks down the front door. Had to go make sure there was still one under the bed on my side though. Apparently we don't know exactly how many guns we have in the house.
Amen!
Yeah, wait 'til the "O Squad" tries to take anybody's guns in Texas. {snicker!}
Baloney. They have the legislation all ready to go. They're just waiting for the right people to sit in the right seats come February, and for a statistically likely random event to give them an excuse to ram it through. At simplest, they just have to raise the existing excise tax on guns/ammo from 10% to 1000%, and require all guns be NFA registered. They already have a worse "assault weapon" ban ready to go (just re-submit HR1022).
Their time in power has come, and they have as little as 2 years to pull off the whole agenda. You don't seriously think they don't have the legal steamrollers already gassed up, turned on and ready to roll do you?
Obama as a Constitutional law lecturerer, enters the job with the supreme court giving ANY attempt at restriction an automatic “strict scrutiny” test.
There is no more “any reasonable government purpose” pro forma excuse.
I like that.
Obama doesn’t have a say in the matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.