Posted on 11/09/2008 2:44:27 AM PST by Perseverando
Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business:
"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.
"Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at nraila.org ...
One more thing - Liberal Democrats might be a little looney, but they ain’t that looney. Confiscation would possibly the thing that ends the Democratic party.
“Confiscation would possibly the thing that ends the Democratic party.”
Who would do all this confiscating?
The police can’t keep illegals from drunk driving because they can’t jail them fast enough.
Ok, so I have an AR-15. What else should I buy now that I won’t likely be able to buy soon? I really want a suppressor. Anyone think they’ll make changes to the 1934 NFA?
They did in 1986 by prohibiting sales of new fully automatic weapons to civilians. A used one can still be purchased through the requirements of the 1934 NFA.
I don’t know who would do the confiscating, but an enacted law would imperil every Democrat who managed to win an election in a conserevative district and the Dems would lose the White House shortly there after. Without lying and hoodwinking most gun owners, the Dems cannot be successful.
Us Southerners won’t take too kindly to his occupational army that he will call the “civilian defense force”. The occupational army is part of the original reason for the KKK.
I think, since 1994, the Democrats have infiltrated the GOP, especially with the behavior of some RNC people of late. I know as a fact that many local Republican central committees have been taken over by liberals.
A friend of mine suggested a massive movement of Republicans registering to vote as Democrats and completely dissolving the Republican party. (A colossal “Operation Chaos.”)
This would confound things nicely (and scare the $hit out of the fence sitters) and it would also FORCE these a-hole politicians to talk about ISSUES.
Let me try to stop this confiscation nonsense. It will not happen. The 2008 election was not a rejection of conservative values; it was a rejection of Republican values, whatever they are. I don’t think the current Repub leadership has any values, that’s why more Jindals and Palins are needed. Too many liberal ballot initiatives were defeated for me to think that conservatism was rejected.
The only reason the first assault weapons ban passed was because it had an expiration date. Some Dems in conservative districts lost re-election because of their votes. Clinton voiced his regrets over it. A new law will mean more Dems won’t get re-elected. For example, Tennessee has three or four newly elected Democrat Representatives in conservative districts, they would lose in 2012 if they vote for a new, Stalinesque gun control law. That is political reality as I see it. The new 2007 law went nowhere and the Dems had control of the House for two years.
That’s true. As much as I’d like one I’m not looking to buy a machine gun because of the cost. A suppressor is what I really want. I need to convince my wife it’s a necessity.
Do you want a muzzle brake or a flash suppressor? I added this to my Mini 14. It can be removed.
Gunshow vendors have lots of them.
It reduces recoil and muzzle climb. It is not a flash suppressor because I have fired it at night. It just makes a bigger flame. In most cases a flash suppressor is really a muzzle brake.
Sorry, that bridge has already been crossed, under Clinton. They passed an Estate Tax increase retroactive to 1/1/93. It went to the USSC, which upheld it. How, I cannot fathom to this day (and I'm a lawyer).
I am quite sure that the American people will be forgiving of that - especially the families of those who perished.
Not.
Rahm Emanuel was brought in for a reason. He's best known for going nuclear on Dems who stray from the Party line.
They're planning on a lot of bills being passed on straight party-line votes - count on it. That scares the crap out of me.
I hope that you're right - but most of the English population turned theirs in voluntarily shortly after WW2 when some nut killed a bunch of people.
However, I don't see that happening here - it would've already. I'm worried about a Reichstag Fire scenario. A city goes up in a mushroom cloud, and Congress grants the Executive enormous powers to root out "terrorists" (defined as anyone the AG designates). THAT is when you have to watch out.
They do that raiding stuff piecemeal, and pretty soon they’re going to find some coming back the other way. I’m not advocating anything, mind you, just making an educated guess.
Warning... Obama’s definition of “Assault Weapons” is much broader than that of the 1994 ban. It includes any semiautomatic rifle or handgun that can accept magazines and/or hold more than 5 rounds internally, any pump action shotgun, any rifle capable of firing rounds more than 300 yards, and any handgun under 8 inches.
Hey, I misunderstood what you were looking for. You want a sound suppressor, aka silencer. Oops, gee, golly, I feel kinda dumb.
Those rifles listed in the 2007 bill were also listed in the bill to extend the original ban introduced back in 03 or 04. In this case it is Pelosi and Dingy Harry who are the culprits. Also I think that old extension bill was introduced before Obama was Senator. I’m sure Mr 0 approves, but he probably had nothing to do with the content. I do remember that the old extension (renewal) bill included M-1 Carbine and Mini-14.
Remember this bill will have to be re-introduced as a new bill and go through comittees - they have to start all over.
This is an excellent site for searching for bills.
It lists sponsors, status, and who introduced it.
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.