SmallCaliberCentral

The second amendment will survive Obama, (if he is elected), unless some yahoo is stupid enough to shoot him.

If he is shot the backlash could gut the second amendment in two years or less.

So, "Don't shoot Obama", and council your friends not to also.

The second amendment will survive Obama,

That might be true but how much enjoyment will there be in shooting $80 boxes of ammo with his 500% increase in ammo & reloading equipment taxes. If you can't afford to shoot em(Step 1) then there is no need to own them (Step 2). The 2nd Amendment just died due to starvation.

whatever

Glen wrote:

The second amendment will survive Obama,

That might be true but how much enjoyment will there be in shooting $80 boxes of ammo with his 500% increase in ammo & reloading equipment taxes. If you can't afford to shoot em(Step 1) then there is no need to own them (Step 2). The 2nd Amendment just died due to starvation.

Couldn't have said it better.

Whatever to this?? Just asking.

Edited to hilite the text.

"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In

Friday, November 07, 2008

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 against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws.

"Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business.

"Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.

Uh Oh. We have a battle in front of us.

Glen, I hope you don't mind, I want to pass it on. Where did the story come from?

The NRA website.

Glen wrote:The NRA website.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4227

Glen wrote:

Glen wrote:The NRA website.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4227

Thanks.

Rayfromtx, what did you mean by "whatever"? This is serious stuff we are facing and that sounded as if you believe that it's no big deal! We who are responsible gun owners need to protect our 2nd ammendment rights or we will loose them. I hope that everyone here is a menber of the NRA. You don't have to agree with everything they do, but we do need a united voice. Gary

Glen, Captqc...Don't waste your time with this guy Rayfmtexas, or WHATEVER. He's an Obama supporter and campaign worker that got his panties in a bunch when I posted a joke about "liberals".

Gary-
It's much ado about nothing. The assault weapons ban was toothless and even in it's anemic form it led to the republican takeover of both houses of congress and was used to get Bush elected in 2000. The dems will pay lip service to gun control but will not threaten their broader agenda to pander to that small part of their base. Methinks they have learned their lesson on this one. I'm not sure how the AWB affected you personally, but all it did to me was limit my ability to buy a 17 shot clip for my glock. It was a stupid bill that only accomplished turning the middle of the electorate against the left.

On the subject of the NRA, I am ambivalent. The NRA fought against the DC/Heller case for years. They tried to scuttle the case; because, they were afraid we wouldn't win. It wasn't until 2007 that the NRA got on board. Want proof of this? Read this. http://reason.com/news/show/129991.html

The reality of this issue is that most everything that is written and done on this issue is based in fear and has accomplished little more than to divide our country. Every time those of us on the right attack those of us on the left, we come off as being radical and unreasonable. It's not our position that is radical or off putting but rather our divisive dogma. I have many dear friends on both sides of this issue and both sides have valid reasons for their strongly held beliefs. Those in the middle are the key and they are apparently not impressed these days with the fear mongering and character assassination that has been employed by the right so successfully since the days of Lee Attwater.

Our strategy for future success in resisting gun control initiatives should be based on portraying a united front based on reasonable discourse, informed debate, and compassion for the views of those that want to reduce gun violence and protect their children. They don't understand guns and just want to protect themselves from the horror stories that they see in the news. "From my cold dead hands" just doesn't work with these people.

Lastly, if Lee can attack me here for my views and counsel others to not waste their time with my views, then we as a group are in bad shape. Petty attacks from either side are worse than a waste of time. They limit our ability to find common ground and work together. I started hunting at age 6. I bought my first rifle at age 12. I own 18 firearms and spend most of my time loading and shooting. I have a 200 yard rifle range in my back yard. I have personally fought against gun control and won on the local level. You don't want to compare bona fides with me.

Lee- If you think I am your enemy, then you have seriously limited those that are not. You may disagree with me but your hatred is unwarranted and is dangerous to our cause. Take the time to read the link I provided.

Be vigilant, be informed, be wise, and keep your powder dry.

Ray from Texas

Ray, thanks for a bit of reason. We all need to remember to treat others with honor and dignity, even when we disagree with them.

I'm one of the guys who believes the Second Amendment is inarguably a personal right, and responsibility. It was written by a group of men who were successful revolutionaries. They all believed that the individual had the moral and ethical responsibility to unseat a government that wasn't serving the needs of the people, by force of arms if necessary.

While recognizing that the government had valid needs to be armed, (thus the reference to militias), they knew that certain of the state governments had already tried to use force of arms, and martial law to dominate the people, (over property seizures for back taxes, mostly from veterans who had been actively serving in the Continental army, with little or no pay.)

They also recognized, (based on their own successful revolt), that should the need to once again revolt and establish a new government arise, the people would need to be equally as well armed as the militias the governments controlled.

Thus, the Second Amendment was written to guarantee that the citizens should be able, if necessary, revolt by force of arms against the government.

As long as osama is breathing gun owners have reason to be scared. And to top it off now the rumors about his new secretary of state are horrific. That woman is every bit as evil as he is. No ban is acceptable on anything firearms related. Period. And to say things aren't a big deal is to just roll over & give up. By darn if they want a fight they can have one by me. We have to bow down to them & kiss their asses yet they dont even have to listen to what we have to say. As for me,, I'm tired of it & NO BAN can ever be called good or OK.