Newsweek article: "Obama gets gun-shy"

Yipieeeeeeeeeeeee

and has a stockpile of 15 guns at home—Boren is an NRA member

Click to expand...

I now officially have a stockpile at home. EEERRRRR I mean lost in that boating accident.

Not exactly a balanced article, no surprises there.

"The president supports the Second Amendment, respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country, and he believes we can take common-sense steps to keep our streets safe,"

--------------------------

But when she pressed Obama transition officials to take up the issue, they were clear about their priorities: "They told me that's not for now, that's for later."

Click to expand...

That shows exactly what kind of two faced liars we're dealing with. Obama's people say he supports the second amendment, while telling Washington insiders he's going after our guns as soon as it's politically feasible.

We can NEVER let up the pressure on these people. It needs to be ratcheted up higher and higher every day.

Related:

EDITORIAL: Obama's bogus gun statistics

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/obama39s-bogus-gun-statistics-mexican-crime-is-not/

Polytech side-folder in .223 (Chinese) Pre-ban and $1400-2000

If 15 is a "stockpile", then what do most of us on this board have?!

If 15 is a "stockpile", then what do most of us on this board have?!

Click to expand...

An arsenal.

I thought four was an "arsenal"?

I'm going to continue to not trust these insidious officials and assume that they're putting this on as an act so we'll stop buying so many guns and so much ammunition.

I don't own an assault weapon. Those make more than one bullet come out on one pull of the trigger. But these idiots don't know the difference

Yet many past champions of stricter gun-control measures are silent. These include top Obama White House officials who have squelched any talk within the administration about pushing further gun-control measures."It's weird," says Peter Hamm, the communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "When you see people like [Attorney General] Eric Holder or Hillary Clinton or [White House chief of staff] Rahm Emanuel become muted on this issue, you feel like you want to call up a friend and say, 'What's up?' "

Click to expand...

Silence may be the sound of progress...

Click to expand...

It's the sound of pragmatism. I can't help but suspect that part of the goal here with all the "we're leaving it alone talk" is to generate complacency among gun owners and then slip new controls in as riders on little known bills. If there's one thing we know about congress, it's that they're one of the most sereptitious groups out there. Most of what they do is very clandestine.

I can't help but suspect that part of the goal here with all the "we're leaving it alone talk" is to generate complacency among gun owners and then slip new controls in as riders on little known bills. If there's one thing we know about congress, it's that they're one of the most sereptitious groups out there. Most of what they do is very clandestine.

Click to expand...

I agree, it's like the calm before a storm.

I don't think it'll be a clandestine series of small moves; I think it'll be much more energetic and all encompassing than that would be.

The studied avoidance of all things gun by people with well documented histories of support for gun restriction or removal from the national sphere leaves me thinking that there's a plan for an attempt to remove gun ownership entirely. They're quietly getting everyone on the same page for a rewrite of the second amendment during Obama's second term.

You heard it here first.

They're quietly getting everyone on the same page for a rewrite of the second amendment during Obama's second term.

You heard it here first.

You did actually stay awake during civics class I take it?

In case you've forgotten, here's a recap in how it works........:banghead:

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

They're quietly getting everyone on the same page for a rewrite of the second amendment during Obama's second term.

Click to expand...

I expect so. "sure is quiet"..........."yeah, a little too quiet"

We all know BHO's manifesto; I don't think any of us are so deluded as to think that he and his chronies will leave it alone for any longer than they have to. They're just being good little demagogues until the stars align.

That said, we can't deny that the results of his being elected have been serendipitous to our cause in one way. No other single event has inspired so many people to become gun owners; not even 9/11 and the fear of terrorism abounding in the following weeks and months. What were the figures? 1.2 million more 4473's filled out from November to March than in that same 5 month period of '07/'08, IIRC. And how many of those had multiple purchases on a single form?

I am gratified to hear that the anti-Second Amendment politicians are fearful of the repercussions of gun control legislation, but I don't believe for a second that they will fail to pounce the second they feel there's an opening.

Articles like this, which try to look objective, but drip with anti-gun sentiments, are found everywhere and pop up on a daily basis.

Here's what I'd urge every one of you to do when you see this type of article: If there's an option to comment on-line, write a polite, but strong rebuttal. Don't get caught up in arguing with the rabid antis who will attack you. Make these points: (1) the RKBA is a civil right, guaranteed by the United States Constitution (it is no less a civil right that the other rights enumerated the Bill of Rights); (2) sociological studies support the notion that law-abiding armed citizens significantly reduce violent crime; and (3) the purported "facts" used to support gun control are often exaggerated or outright lies (like the intentional confusion about automatic versus semi-automatic weapons, or the intentional lies of Mexican politicians).

A steady drumbeat of logical support for the RKBA from rational people can influence others opinions.

They're quietly getting everyone on the same page for a rewrite of the second amendment during Obama's second term.

You heard it here first.

You did actually stay awake during civics class I take it?

In case you've forgotten, here's a recap in how it works........

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Click to expand...

Just to clarify, under either method (an amendment approved by 2/3 of each house or proposed by 2/3 of the state legislatures), an amendment only becomes law if approved by 3/4 of the states. I believe that's unlikely--at least at present--but this is a reminder that the Second Amendment is under constant attack on a variety of fronts.

I know the mechanism quite well, and I think that the "gun lobby" or whatever you chose to call us frequently overestimates it's sway in this country.

What makes perfect sense to me, that no gun ever harmed anyone, is not so firmly known by the man in the street, if you'll allow that collective phrase, and that more of the populace are alarmed by the violence perceived than are not. I said 'perceived' because so much of public positioning is dependent upon what is fed the public -(why, you'd wonder if there's anyone who thinks for himself any more wouldn't you?)

There are strong anti gun elements in the country, we all know that too well. But so far there has not been a strong anti gun upswelling of collective zeal, and if one is ever begun here I think an amendment to alter the second would not be far behind. It was such zeal that took booze away from our daddies for ten long years and at that time there may have been a larger percentage of the populace who took a drink than the percentage of gun owners today.

A little sampling of the sort of zeal I mean imbued the country after 9/11 and now a bit of it has got us a president no one expected.

I hope the author is honest about this being an editorial, as biased and slanted as it is (at the expense of the truth).

If the perp lied on his firearm buying form (they ask about military discharges, restraining orders, etc.) then it's the BATF's fault he was able to arm himself, and it's a lie to say the gun shop workers could not have known (again, unless he lied, which absolves them but NOT the BATF of responsibility).

What a worthless load of snivelling posturing . . .

I'm surprised anyone here would admit to taking a red sheet like Newsweek.

Seems there are a lot of preachers and a very big choir in this thread (granted, this is a gun forum). What're bizarre about the bile being spewed (by emoticon) on anti-gunners is that our argument with them is really over semantics.

I, for one, take the majority of anti-gunners at their word when they say they don't want to repeal the 2nd. What they want is some gun control, not abolishment. And most of us in this forum would agree with them about "gun control" as a concept.

I can already feel the flame coming, but think about it. Some people draw the line at "civilians shouldn't be able to legally own nuclear weapons". For some people the line is "if it can be carried/operated by one person it's fine, if it takes support (tanks, artillery, belt-fed machine guns) it should be illegal". For some people it's "no fully automatic weapons, everything else is just dandy". For anti-gunners it's "no big guns that scare me!"...and of course that's a fluid designation which is where you get into real trouble. For a few anti-gunners it's "no guns, period, never ever," and those people are just kidding themselves.

I only know ONE person who's line is "If the government is allowed to have one, I should be allowed to have one". And good for him, but I'm leaving him and his ilk out of this conversation. The majority of us, pro- and anti-, just disagree on where the line is drawn.

Now the fact that so many antis, as DocBoCook pointed out, don't know the damn difference between a semi-automatic and a genuine "assault weapon" certainly makes them harder to reason with, and points to a need for more firearms education. Clearly people who don't know what they're talking about should stay the hell out of the decision making (like that ever happens).

But I think it's a mistake to assume, like Rep. Boren does, that an "assault-weapons ban is just an excuse to take away a sportsman's shotguns." I'm sorry, but that's just crap. Maybe there are some people in the government who would happily subjugate the general citizenry just for the heck of it, but by and large what we're dealing with is far less nefarious. Anti-gunners aren't concerned with sportsmen and they aren't concerned with shotguns. They aren't even really concerned with Assault Weapons! They're concerned with gun deaths, and they have every reason to be concerned, as do we all. If anti-gun legislation has no hope of preventing gun deaths then it's up to us to explain that to them.

And it's also up to us, as responsible gun owners, to take seriously and debate reasonably solutions that actually DO stand a chance of reducing gun violence. Let's not just generally hate on people whose primary intent is a good one...to see fewer Americans getting killed. Let's tell them why they're going about it the wrong way.

"Something is very, very wrong with the system," she says. That might sound like a sensible refrain. But you'll struggle to hear a leading Democrat repeat it these days.

Click to expand...

Yeah, blame it on the system, not the individual... sounds like typical, moronic socialist sentiment to me. If the Dems are smart, they will avoid this issue now and later. They better not think for one second that if they shut up about it, we will forget and let down our guard. I/we will be watching them like hawks for the remainder of their little tenure.


...

moronic socialist sentiment

Click to expand...

Fixing the "system" by taking away everyone's guns sounds more like a Fascist sentiment, actually. A truly socialist solution would be "Guns for everybody! But everyone must have the same type and number of guns, and they must be paid for with tax dollars."

Ahh, the un-biased, objective media...

The Penis Mightier: "Maybe there are some people in the government who would happily subjugate the general citizenry just for the heck of it, but by and large what we're dealing with is far less nefarious."

That's what they thought in England. Gun owners there made the mistake of using "sporting purposes" (fox hunting and target shooting) as a sort of "Alamo." Eventually the sporting purposes were destroyed -- fox hunting via class warfare and animal anthropomorthism, target shooting by inconvenience and hardware isolation (guns and ammunition must be locked up at the target range).

Don't underestimate the antis -- they want us disarmed. That's the only way they can move on to the next phase of their agenda. And any agenda that begins with crushing guns ends with crushing people.

Hey! You can't say my name like that without using a faux Sean Connery voice: http://www.vidstogo.com/player.php?vfname=snl6a&ext=wmv


As far as what's happened in England, I think there are some intrinsic sociological differences to keep in mind. England, and nearly all western european countries, have a long history of forking over a certain number of personal liberties in exchange for what they see as "security" from threats. Some of it's cultural. Much of it comes from so many different countries, often with different agendas and beliefs, bordering each other so closely with easy movement between them. And maybe there's something to their being nations with a historically feudal power system.

We've got a very different situation here in terms of geography, attitude and history. While I won't say that what happened in England couldn't happen here, I'd say that it's incredibly unlikely. We can be vigilant, but let's not panic.

As for this...

Don't underestimate the antis -- they want us disarmed...And any agenda that begins with crushing guns ends with crushing people.

Click to expand...

You're predicating this assessment on the agendas of those antis with federal power. Assuming "crushing people" is the end game of every anti-gun politician (which I highly doubt that it is), that still says nothing of the average anti-gun civilian who has no political axe to grind. What's their end game? Why do they want us disarmed? Is it because they're masochistically looking to get "crushed" by their government? Or is it because they equate - whether correctly or not - firearms proliferation with firearms crimes?

The question I often ask antis myself is, what about Canada? We have an example of a traditionally pro-gun culture, where firearms ownership is very high, but where gun crimes are not as prevalent as they are here. I'm not saying that there's something in their system we should be emulating (and I know they're up to some gun control nonsense these days as well), but I think Canada is a useable reference when talking to antis to say, "Look...the guns themselves aren't necessarily the problem. Something else is. Let's work on the something else."

The Pen have you chatted with any gun owners in Canada???? IE what they can have for guns and how many and the amount of ammo, When they can use them (have to call local PD to go to range with PD permission to sight in rifle for hunting, then call PD when gun is back home),etc.
It is not as bad as England, but don't tell me I have to shoot high power matches with my sharps 45-70, because my Garand is illegal. OOPS can't use 45-70 as it's a military caliber and almost a 50.

Right you are, and I'm ignoring Canada's specifc gun policies and focusing on how their historically pro-gun culture and ratio of guns owned to gun deaths recorded points to a problem other than guns themselves.