From Politico:
Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.
But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions
20 comments:
I am sure that they won't stop with guns , there is a lot more at stake than that !
From the Columbian's message board...
"Religious suffering is the expression of real suffering and at the same time the protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, as it is the spirit of a spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"
First quote is from writer of the late 19th century, Karl Marx. Latter quote is from presidential candidate Obama's speech at a presidential fund raiser in San Francisco, early 21st century
Oh, Snap!
I guess Billery and Hussein Obama
are forcing me to get in touch with
The Second Amendment Sisters again.
Its been a few years.
PS: I notice on the girls website
there's a link to the
Oregon Firearms federation
and HR-2640. Anyone no about this?
Seriously, e-mail me your (showing possession) address. I'll send you a dictionary, free of charge.
"It's" (it has) been a few years. ("Its" shows possession.)
"girls'" website (possessive of a plural)
Anyone "know" about this? (Dude, that's just basic. Come on, now.)
Iknow
Most of us on this sight do not want or realy care about your grammer correction !
realLy / grammAr
And what then is left for an American to cleave to, if it's somehow wrong to cleave to God, protect yourself with your constitutionally protected gun, and stand up for the rule of law? I'll tell you what the left wants you to cleave to: government.
Did these advocates of the "opposite" policy advocate taking away people's guns?
Or perhaps they advocated controls such as licensing and registration?
Not meaning to be rude or anything, iknowhowtospell, but fastidious dissection of grammer doesn't constitute an argument against what the person is saying in the midst of that horrific grammar. Perhaps address what Klatu said?
Keithy: Why don't you address what Klatu said?
Eileen, the ultimate end of all the things you term to be "controls" are confiscation. Beyond restricting genuine assault weapons and putting some system in place to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns, there are no legitimate controls. A waiting period? Useless... someone who intends to cause harm won't be any less determined 24 hours later. Microstamping ammo? Useless... it can be filed away by someone with the intelligence of a paramecium. Gun locks? Useless... they can be defeated with ease. Banning guns from certain places? Dangerous... as has been proven endlessly, open restriction of guns paints a bullseye on the location; some people just can't learn from being kicked in the head 20 times by a mule.
So can you think of any good "controls" on firearms, Eileen? Ones that aren't provably useless or dangerous?
Yes Kieth I can, but I don't expect you to agree, as you have been listening to and agreeing with the slippery slope of control now, confiscation later, for way too long.
I am in favor of requiring a license to own a weapon, that requires knowledge (similar to what is now required to operate a motor vehicle, including the learning permit phase).
That along with a law that would require reasonable controls to safeguard that weapon, that one would show knowledge of when they took the written part of the test.
Then if a weapon licensed to you, was used in a crime you MAY be liable if YOU FAILED to follow proper safe guard methods (but burden would be on those who tried to show you did not take precautions).
Of course if someone broke in to your locked area and stole your weapon, and used it to commit a crime, you would not be liable.
I am not in favor of licensing ammunition, that is ridiculous.
But it almost serves the people who fight licensing weapons, on the grounds of the first amendment, right.
If the government ever started confiscating guns, bunches of people who are in favor of licensing them, would be screaming and fighting against the confiscation.
Eileen..
Advanced controls and registration... yep.. lets get that list together so we can eventually take those weapons away from people.. thats the ulitmate goal of many "progressives" in this country... because those weapons may be used in a revolt.
Every point you made about a person using a gun that is licensed to you is actually covered in existing laws.. even if the weapon is licensed to the the person committing the crime or not.. so why the extra layer?
The license issue with firearm ownership is a concept that comes up every year.. yet.. we have licensing for car privledges and every time I drive down I-5... I can point out people who should have NEVER received the license because they are breaking the law in plain sight...
All of this is the ultimate socialist dream.. disarm the public.
Because, Klatu, there's no need to.
It's not a slippery slope unless its pure theory. It is provably true that controls on guns pile up until guns are confiscated. So, sorry, not a slipperly slope.
I see. The license would be useless. The fellow who shot up a Jewish community center some years back was mentally disturbed but, as a mechanical engineer, would have been able to acquire the gun license you're pushing in his sleep. Beyond that, you're essentially proposing a system by which you can blame an entirely uninvolved party for what a criminal did. Classic liberal thought... someone who has nothing to do with the crime is liable for it.
Oh, Eileen... are you that naive? The response to that is quoting a Protestant cleric in pre-WW2 Germany:
First they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I was a Christian.
Then they came for the Catholics and I said nothing because I was a Protestant.
So when they came for me, there was no one to speak up.
It's a crude analogy but it applies. The purpose of unneccessary and burdensome gun restrictions is that the more you pass, the fewer people will be willing to jump through hoops to get guns. The fewer people there are with a vested interest in preserving gun rights, the fewer people there are to protest further restrictions. By the time confiscation comes, there will literally be no one to speak up and THAT is why those with faith in our Constitution strongly oppose restrictions on gun ownership. A disarmed population is a population that can be controlled by whoever owns the military.
I used to strongly support the licensing and waiting period for gun buyers/owners. I certainly support the idea of gun owners receiving training on handling, firing, cleaning, storing, etc.
However, given the Big Brother state we're now living in, if I were to decide to purchase a weapon, I wouldn't want the government knowing this. If I could trust this information would never be used against me, never used to come and take away my gun for whatever reason they deemed fit or necessary, I would have no problem with licensing. However, considering my trust isn't as it once was, the less Uncle Sam knows about my personal life, the better.
The waiting period, from what I've heard, hasn't done much to reduce gun-related crimes. If someone wants to buy a gun to use for criminal purposes, he/she will simply get one off the black market. Or else steal one.
Keith,
There is a big difference between the analogy you use, and Gun Licensing/Registration.
In your analogy they are taking people away, so there is no one left to stand up.
I might be in favor of gun licensing and registration, but I am still here, to join in any fight against gun confiscation.
I wonder if they are going to come and confiscate people's vehicles?
The analogy works because in both cases, the government is reducing the number of people who can and will speak up. In the first instance, by locking them away. In the second instance, by making it more trouble than it's worth to protest.
I'm sure they'd love to... it'd mean they have USSR-level control over us all and that'd make the government overjoyed.
Post a Comment