Skip to comments.Obama: Gun dealers' best friend (...hunch about BHO's deeper motive in spurring firearm sales)
Posted on 11/29/2012 5:47:05 PM PST by Perseverando
Gun sales hit an all-time, one-day record one week ago, driving Black Friday retail sales and actually overwhelming the FBIs background check center twice.
Whats causing the gun-buying zeal?
The answer is simple the actions of a man who hates private ownership of guns, Barack Obama.
Hes been doing it for a long time.
His election in 2008 drove gun sales through the roof.
And now its happening, again, because he is supporting the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that requires member states unable to disarm their populaces to be placed under the jurisdiction of the U.N. Office of Disarmament Affairs.
Theres a lot of irony here to digest.
On the one hand, it would be accurate to say that Obama has been and continues to be gun dealers best friend.
As someone very fond of guns and the First Amendment, I believe that is Obamas very best achievement since taking office.
Its also an illustration of how counterproductive modern liberalism is. The goal of people like Obama is, quite clearly, to ban private ownership of firearms. He has made it abundantly clear he has nothing but contempt for people who cling to guns and religion. Were just not his kind of people.
Neither were the Founding Fathers the people who fired up the brightest torch of liberty in the history of the world.
Yet, each and every time Obama makes a move to accomplish his objective, he effectively decreases the likelihood of ever achieving it.
This is what you might call the silver lining under the dark cloud of Obama.
Its also ironic that gun sales are actually one of the brightest spots in Obamas efforts at economic recovery stalled as it has been ever since he took office. Try
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
In the unbelievable scenario that we concede any part of our sovereinty to the UN, how would the UN go about enforcing any international gun laws in the US?
They shut down who? Remington? Colt?
At the rate this president is going, we are going to be using guns/ammo as curency some time soon. A trip the grocery will cost you a .38 revolver and 50 rounds.
I guess my supply of powder,primers, brass and lead will actually be worth something. Who knew?
this is fast and furious II for o-hole.
he’a hoping if the treaty passes that enough patriots resist gun coniscation and get killed, to use that as an excuse to use full govt force against those on his lists. and he knows who all the gun owners are.
He’s covered by ObamaCare so no problem.
Purchasing guns and ammo is one thing. Using them is quite another. So far, Americans have accepted government outrage after government outrage from this administration and the only thing that happens is more people login to FR to complain.
What will it take before we take action? Are we waiting for zero to blink first? We have already blinked several times and all that does is embolden him.
Assuming nothing happens before the beginning of next year, it should be interesting to see the response from all the Obamabots when their paychecks shrink with the onset of Taxmageddon.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Right, but the govt has never stood up and told us to turn them over or they’d come and take them. Most of this stuff has been blacked out by the media.
Now if he let’s the UN take the helm, he will prop up a clear foreign enemy that few will have qualms disobeying. And despite some people’s wet dreams, the full might of the US military would be swamped by the nearly half billion guns out there should we choose to use them.
Those are some good points. I agree that if the UN comes knockin’ at the door wanting MY guns, they better come with something moire than a piece of paper.
IMO, the big question is the military. I am of the opinion that most of the military will be on our side. Thre will be a few who will follow orders to fire on their fellow American citizens, but I think that, if push comes to shove, most will refuse to fire on the citizens. Most of the military isn’t too fond of Benghazi Barry, anyway!
Just my opinion. There is not much to be done yet. Govorners need to lead and defend our 10th amendment rights. That is the beginning of a real movement to deal with federal encroachment. People need real leadership.
The Founding Fathers were the super wealthy, Governors and top military of their day. Without a repeat of not only that leadership, but deep spiritual faith and extreme bravery from the followers it’s a losing proposition.
Just me 2 cents.
Think Ruby Ridge and Waco - they will have many guns when they serve you with the piece of paper. It won't be the U.N. per se - it will be the willing arm of the U.N. called the Democrat-run government. They will broadcast the slaughter of a the first few to resist in an attempt to cow the rest.
“the U.N. Office of Disarmament Affairs”?
I’d have a real problem taking out U.S. military personnel.
I’d have NO problem taking out blue helmets on American soil.
It’s the U.S. Constitution, not the U.N anything.
“What will it take before we take action?”
Well, here’s your challenge to do something. South Carolina has two state-sponsored militia battalions. No, they’re NOT national guard. Come on down and pledge your fortune to muster a platoon. Equip the men, train and pay them. I’m sure the state will name the platoon in your honor.
Yep, and we need to realize the importance of getting GOP leadership in the states in ‘14. We then need to follow that with voter ID, ending same day registration, and limiting union bargaining, demanding that state employees pay their fare share of insuurance and pensions, balanced budgets, avoiding Obamacare, etc. etc.
We are on defense, but we are not out of options.
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.