Posted on 03/24/2011 2:43:07 PM PDT by JohnRLott
Despite the Libyan crisis and ongoing problems with America's massive deficit, last week President Obama decided it was time to focus on gun control. He wrote an op-ed, challenged the NRA to negotiate new gun control regulations, and met with gun control groups.
Of course, Obama's op-ed says he supports gun rights. Yet, he also emphasizes that he doesn't want people to "shout at one another" and supports "reasonable laws." Alas, this is simply positioning for the 2012 presidential election and does not accurately describe his true agenda on gun control.
Obama claimed in his op-ed: “My administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners, it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.” But he conveniently forgot to mention that he never initiated or supported this legislation. Instead, it was forced upon Obama by a large majority of Congress passing an amendment to a bill that he wanted passed, the “Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009.” Just because Obama wasn’t willing to veto a bill he wanted hardly shows support for the right to self-defense.
Indeed, Obama has been a consistent opponent of gun ownership. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Exactly. Got a couple hundred on hand, two or three hundred saved up? I would (did) pick up an extra secondhand pistol at a nearby gun show -- private sale, look for one you can buy from a private individual "in your caliber". Even if it's just a secondhand Bryco .380 or something.
Your pieces at home eat .45 ACP? Well, match that ammo supply with another piece, a backup gun like an AMT or similar -- it doesn't have to be a Para-Ordnance or Kimber, as long as it's a decent example. If you can afford a second Kimber, well, goody for you -- but the idea of shopping secondhand and downmarket is to make sure you can afford the extra piece that makes it more likely you'll keep the first one -- as you pointed out, it's really more a Fact on the Ground and a headache for grabbers, than anything else. And as always, BLOAT.
Totalitarians don’t like guns in hands of the “cattle”.
It makes them feel insecure and not as superior as they might feel if guns were eliminated.
It’s time to re-read the constitution, again, and again and again until it becomes second nature. It’s the insecticide for tyranny.
IMHO
reasonable laws?
Where in the 2nd amend does it mention reasonable laws?
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.