My favorite was always Marcia...
Posted on 01/17/2009 6:40:46 AM PST by epow
Friday, January 16, 2009
No one, including the Brady Campaign, seriously believes that Barack Obama was elected president because of his support for gun control. But Brady is pretending that it provided Obama the margin of victory in November, and has provided him with a very long list of gun bans and other restrictions that it expects from him in return.
If for no other reason, Obama might want to tell Brady "no," because if he were to do their bidding, they would be sure to demand that he do even more. That's demonstrated by Brady's statement that their current request "is not intended to present an exhaustive list . . . but does provide a starting point." It includes:
A California-style "assault weapons" ban. For several years, Brady has referred to California's ban--which is far more restrictive than the federal ban of 1994-2004--as the "model" for the rest of the nation. Brady doesn't say so, but it clearly supports--as does the Violence Policy Center--the California--like ban that Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) has proposed in Congress since before the 1994 semi-automatic firearm ban expired. Among its differences from the 1994 ban, the McCarthy bill would ban rifles like the AR-15, even if they do not have a flash suppressor, bayonet mount, or adjustable-position stock. It would ban the M1, the M1 Carbine, the Ruger Mini-14 series, the SKS, and many other semi-automatic rifles not previously labeled as "assault weapons." And it would ban every semi-automatic shotgun, by banning its receiver. Brady wants .50 caliber rifles banned as well.
A ban on standard magazines designed for self-defense. Brady calls them "high-capacity," but magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are designed for self-defense,as demonstrated by the fact
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
Glad I got that Mini 14 when I did...
They’re nuts! Do they really expect to win people to their side with this nonsense? There is an article in this month’s America’s Freedom about women and guns, and they happen to make up an increasing stake in gun purchases for self-defense.
They will not win by banning all things semi-automatic, as that is indeed NECESSARY to fight off an armed attacker.
Not to mention the pesky fact of it being unconstitutional too.
Which Brady? Mike, Greg, Peter or Bobby?
Join the NRA!
Join the GOA!
And nobody should have the attitude of “glad I got mine when I did”. This is a right which “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
What is ambiguous about that phrase?
I’ve got mixed feelings about this:
on the one hand, I know what will happen if Zero’s crowd promotes this:
We’ll get a Republican majority in Congress in 2010!
OTOH, our GOP congresscritters are such limp-wristed, spineless protozoa that they’d *never* think of repealing the legislation that brought about their return to power, so we’d be stuck with whatever mindless laws Zero enacts.
My favorite was always Marcia...
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia.
Hmmm, maybe it's not so bad after all.
Mexico on the brink of collapse, terrorists being freed from Gitmo, and an empty suit and feel good hippies in congress, and they want to take guns away from us? I just don’t understand, and what can we do about it, but complain? I have my hi cap assault rifles, but my collection is small compared to some, apparently its going to stay that way. How long do we have before gun stores start to close?
The question I have is how many NRA members commit crimes? Can they answer this honestly?
Because the answer to this is the answer to whether these laws are really “necessary”
Wouldn’t killing the gun industry be horrible for the economy? I would assume that guns, mags, ammo, gun stores, internet sites, would be somewhere equal to the automotive industry?
They want to make the White House a lifetime appointment for obombanation.
I'll bet it was Peter. He always seemed like a little pantywaist.
Talking about Amendments is one thing; passing them is another. Something like 22,000 amendments have been attempted, with only a handful successful.
The answer to this question would change dramatically if Brady legislation were ever approved.
America should never let them take the “armed” out of rebellion or it will be off to the ovens for you.
Sarah should be ashamed for wheeling poor brain dead Jim out every year.
I am sorry for Jim, if he could still think for himself, he would not want to be part of this circus.
And since the 13 ALL of them illegal.
No Constitutional Convention, no amendment. PERIOD!!!
I agree, and if another "assault weapon" ban is enacted, which I believe is almost certain given the large liberal majority in the incoming Congress, it won't have an expiration date, and it will not be repealed even after Obama is gone unless we can somehow elect a Repub Congress with an actual spine.
But IMHO even that isn't the worst that will probably happen in re 2nd A issues in the next four years. Two of the four originalist Justices are getting old, and I think it's quite possible that we could see something like a 6-3 or possibly even a 7-2 majority of "evolving Constitution" proponents on the SCOTUS by the time Obama's first term ends. The more I learn about Obama and how the political philosophy of the new generation of American voters has shifted to the left over the last few years, thanks mainly to government schools and liberal universities IMHO, the less optimistic I become about the future USA that we're leaving to our kids.
I will turn 72 this year if I make it that far so I'm primarily concerned about the long term future of the US that my kids and grand-kids will live in, and that worries me more than what may take place here while I'm still around.
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.