Of course, Obama now believes the Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment ruling was just great, disclaiming the aide’s remark as “inartful.”
Obama. Change you can believe in.
Archive for the ‘Second Amendment’ Category
Take the gun, leave the cannoli
Those who made the mad dash to the gun shop following Obama’s election apparently knew what they were doing.
U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., is hoping to pass a firearm-licensing bill that will significantly rewrite gun-ownership laws in America.
Among the more controversial provisions of the bill are requirements that all handgun owners submit to the federal government a photo, thumb print and mental heath records. Further, the bill would order the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer and owner’s address in America.
The fear of liberalism
It’s amazing what the fear of liberalism motivates people to do. People to act in their own self interest, and liberalism tends to work against the self interest of individuals, and this AP story is a perfect example:
When 10-year-old Austin Smith heard Barack Obama had been elected president, he had one question: Does this mean I won’t get a new gun for Christmas?
That brought his mother, the camouflage-clad Rachel Smith, to Bob Moates Sports Shop on Thursday, where she was picking out that special 20-gauge shotgun — one of at least five weapons she plans to buy before Obama takes office in January.
Like Smith, gun enthusiasts nationwide are stocking up on firearms out of fears that the combination of an Obama administration and a Democrat-dominated Congress will result in tough new gun laws.
“I think they’re going to really try to crack down on guns and make it harder for people to try to purchase them,” said Smith, 32, who taught all five of her children — ages 4 to 10 — to shoot because the family relies on game for food.
The thought has actually crossed my mind once or twice.
Biden goes after Obama again
Senator Joe Biden once again criticized his own running mate on the issue of gun control. This is just too rich.
The Delaware senator predicted that Republicans would seek to sway voters by threatening that Obama would take away guns. Biden, claiming to be a gun-owner himself who likes “that little over and under,” called that notion bogus.
“Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey,” he said. “If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem.”
Obama was against the Second Amendment before he was for it
According to ABC News, an Obama aide was quoted last fall asserting that Barack Obama “…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.”
If gun control advocates had their way…
…stories like this would have very different endings.
David Lee walked from New Life Church after services Sunday and thought the popping sounds he heard were a car backfiring.
Then he saw a figure dressed in black walking slowly and methodically outside the church with a long gun in his hands, firing one shot after another.
“He was just walking and shooting,” said Lee, 23, who plays piano at the church.
Lee took a close look at the person to see whether he could recognize who it was. He didn’t.
He did notice that the shooter’s pockets were bulging with what looked like shotgun shells and that the gunman appeared to be wearing something like a bullet-proof vest.
Lee ran.
The gunman shot five people, killing one. A New Life security team member fired back and killed the gunman, whom police had yet to identify Sunday night.
The fact that a security guard was packing heat no doubt saved many lives at the church, where attendance was around 7,000.
Imagine a scenario where gun control is in place, and law-abiding citizens turn over their firearms. Criminals, on the other hand, cannot be expected to live according to the law, which is why they’re criminals. Therefore, shooters such as the Christian-hating gunman who walked into New Life Church would have their way as long as they had ammunition, and stories such as this would turn out with far graver conclusions.
Gun control advocates use cases such as the New Life shooting as reasons to enact gun control, when the result was actually a very telling reason not to.
Tell it to the victims at Virginia Tech
The Tennessean has trotted out another ludicrous editorial today, this one calling for limiting law abiding citizens’ legal ability to protect themselves against criminals. Here’s the money quote from the good folks on Broadway Avenue in Nashville:
In the past, Tennesseans were given wide latitude to use force against intruders in their homes. The new law, which has been signed by Gov. Phil Bredesen, extends those protections to people who use force to protect themselves in their vehicles or in any dwelling.
It’s a law that goes too far.
Here’s another absurd quote: “The law may result in more criminals getting their hands on guns. That’s especially true if more citizens seek permits to carry guns in their vehicles and those vehicles are broken into.”
Folks, what liberals don’t understand is that criminals are going to get their guns. Laws that expand the right to self-defense aid law-abiding citizens, not criminals, since criminals are criminals because they break the law in the first place.
Gun control didn’t work
The AP reports that existing gun laws should have prevented two separate gun purchases made by the Virginia Tech killer.
A judge’s ruling on Cho Seung-Hui’s mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.
Cho purchased two handguns in February and March, and was subject to federal and state background checks both times. The checks turned up no problems, despite a judge’s ruling in December 2005 that Cho “presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness.”
“On the face of it, he should have been blocked under federal law,” said Denis Henigan, legal director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
So, while the left is clamoring for more gun laws, we must acknowledge that existing gun laws ought to have prevented legal gun purchases by this maniac. Again, the Virginia Tech massacre is an example of why we need fewer gun laws in order to make it easier for law-abiding Americans to defend themselves, not more gun laws to make it more difficult.
The Second Amendment makes all the others possible
Terry Frank opines on the political ghouls who are using the Virginia Tech massacre to rally the cause of gun control. I figured the shooting spree would shake that tree, as the same thing happened following the Columbine massacre eight years ago, and my hunch is proving correct. What happened at Virginia Tech does not warrant gun control, but rather the opposite. Gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals are criminals because they break the law. So what makes gun control nuts confident that even more gun laws are going to cause criminals to suddenly lay down their arms? Passing laws that force law-abiding Americans to give up their firearms only gives criminals even greater freedom to have their way. Don’t buy the notion that yesterday’s shooting could have been prevented by legislation. This is not a cause for gun control. It is a cause for rolling back laws that only non-criminals follow in the first place.
Michelle Malkin also comments on the New York Times’ predictable call for more gun control. Plus, guess who’s planning on showing up at the funerals? Fred Phelps and his band of merry thugs.
Additional links:
Blame-the-guns bias watch
Readers point to campus ban on self-defense
State axed proposal allowing guns on campuses
McCain Backs Gun Rights After Shootings
Hasn’t gotten enough attention
The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association are headed to court to stop what they say are arbitrary and unlawful gun seizures in and around New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. This is a violation of a protected right that’s on par with Kelo, but hasn’t gotten nearly the attention it deserves. When lawlessness rules, as it did during the immediate aftermath of Katrina, is when private gun ownership is most crucial, otherwise lawlessness will rule even more. After all, the Second Amendment makes all the others possible.
Meanwhile, Reuters reports:
After the storm, the neighborhood association had to act as law enforcement and emergency response unit as city services collapsed and the police force was unable to protect them.
Citizens organized armed patrols and checked on the elderly. They slept on their porches with loaded shotguns and bolted awake when intruders stumbled on the aluminum cans they had scattered on the sidewalk.
That, folks, is why we have a Second Amendment. If you’ve got a piece, you’ve got peace.
And the problem is?
The Associated Press notes that 1.7 million American children live in homes with loaded and unlocked guns. Here’s an excerpt:
Nationally, 33 percent of adults said they kept firearms in or around their home. The highest percentage was in Wyoming, where 63 percent said they had firearms. The lowest percentage was reported in the District of Columbia, where 5 percent reported having guns at home. The district has long-standing bans on handguns and semiautomatic weapons.
Of course, Washington D.C. saw 248 murders in 2003 (or 44.0 per 100,000). In Wyoming, there were 14 (2.8 per 100,000).
For a comparison, Nashville, which has a population similar to that of both Washington D.C. and Wyoming, saw 13.3 murders per 100,000 citizens in 2003.
Today’s Lebanon Democrat column: “Congress holds gun owners in suspense”
The assault weapons ban signed into law by President Clinton nearly a decade ago will soon expire. There is currently a move afoot in Congress to not only make that ban permanent, but extend its reach to cover weapons exempted by current law.
To provide some background, according to criminologist Gary Kleck, “the term ‘assault weapon,’ has no precise definition in firearms reference works [and] seems to be an invention of gun control advocates.” Before its emergence in legislation, “assault weapon” was a slang term, created by Second Amendment foes in reference to certain semi-automatic firearms that resemble, but do not operate like fully-automatic machine guns, which have been restricted since 1934 by the National Firearms Act.
In a chilling statement on “60 Minutes” in 1995, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the Clinton gun ban sponsor, revealed her disdain for the Second Amendment by confessing “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.”
Specifically, the expanded gun ban would include all firearms prohibited by the 1994 law, as well as all semi-automatic shotguns, rifles used in marksmanship competitions, and semi-automatic shotguns or rifles an Attorney General one day claims isn’t “sporting” — even though all 50 states recognize the right to use guns for defense — to name a few. Additionally, the legislation would require manufacturers of guns and parts to identify their dealers. Dealers would then be required to report their inventories of guns and parts.
The term “assault weapon” indeed sounds rather sinister. That is by design, of course. In order to dispel a few myths, however, here are some facts about the semi-automatic firearms to which the term “assault weapon” is applied:
- Semi-automatics, including those defined as “assault weapons” by the Clinton ban, fire only once each time the trigger is pulled. Only a fully-automatic firearm — a machine gun — fires repeatedly when the trigger is squeezed.
- Semi-automatic weapons use the same ammunition as other types of guns. They are not “high-powered.”
- The AR-15, banned under the 1994 law, fires a cartridge that many states prohibit for deer hunting because it’s not powerful enough.
- A study for Congress found that semi-automatics affected by the “assault weapons” ban “were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.” The ban’s ten-round limit on new ammunition magazines is not a factor in multiple-victim or multiple-wound crimes. Police reports and felon surveys have always shown that “assault weapons” are used in only 1-2% of violent crimes. Murders with knives, clubs, and hands outnumber those with “assault weapons” by approximately 13-to-1.
- More firearms translate to less crime. From 1991 through 2002, the nation`s violent crime rate decreased every year — by 35% overall — to a 27-year low, according to the FBI. During that same period, the number of privately-owned firearms increased by more than 60 million. In fact, about 15% of Americans’ guns — more than 30 million pieces — are semi-automatic.
Less that two years into the ban, the House of Representatives voted to repeal it by a 239-173 margin. Unfortunately, President Bush has consistently favored extension of the assault weapons ban, but it isn’t clear whether he would support the expansion sought by Feinstein. It will also be interesting whether the House of Representatives, which has developed the annoying habit of capitulating to anti-conservative legislation, still has the backbone to uphold the Second Amendment.
Gun-control has exacted a costly toll on those who advocate it. Gun-rights supporter Representative John Dingell (D-MI), for example, blames passage of the 1994 ban for his party’s losing control of the House that year. Several Democrats also believe Al Gore’s support for gun-control cost him at least one state (West Virginia) in the 2000 presidential election, and possibly more. (Gore cast the tie-breaking vote in 1999 when the Senate approved legislation that restricted sales at gun shows and required that safety devices be sold with firearms.)
Unless otherwise acted upon, the current law will expire September 13 — less than two months before Election Day. This is actually a great time for Congress to be voting on key legislation, because looming elections tend to separate the men from the boys (or the men and women from the boys and girls, to be politically correct).
Should Congress roll over and pass either an extension to the current ban, or the expanded, permanent version, it would be crucial for President Bush to reject it. He wouldn’t win over any of his enemies by signing on, and would at the same time further alienate conservatives who are already hacked over his endearment toward bigger government, expanded entitlements, and boneheaded support of campaign finance reform.
Until that time, I guess conservatives and Second Amendment supporters — burned before by timid Republicans like a bride abandoned at the alter — will be left in suspense.
