In 1934, President Roosevelt signed the National Firearms Act. President Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968. In 1993, President Clinton signed The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. During his tenure, President Obama has signed . . . a bill that allows guns in national parks and onto Amtrak trains (one week’s notice, locked container, checked baggage). Fears of a renewed Assault Weapons Ban—that triggered the Great Black Gun Boom and would’ve stopped Sacha from mucking about with ARs—proved groundless. OK, the ATF enabled a little gun running. But that misegos started under Bush. And yes, the ATF wants to create an illegal long gun registry via executive fiat and ban imported tactical shotguns. Bad, but in comparison? Weak beer. So what’s got gun rights’ groups proverbial knickers in a twist? Let’s check in with Fox News . . .
On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial “large magazines.” Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, “to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda,” she said.
“I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Brady recalled the president telling them. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
So President Obama drops in on the Bradys to give them some words of encouragement—despite having done sweet FA to push a gun control agenda. The CIC says something incredibly vague and obviously political to soothe the zealots’ brows and suddenly the Obama administration has a secret plan to implement gun control “under the radar”? Not feeling it.
Besides, whose word do we have on this? Sarah Brady is about as objective a “reporter” as Bill O’Reilly (if slightly less annoying). Bottom line: the ATF must die but Obama is not the main problem for gun rights. That honor belongs to the Democrats at the state and local level who wipe their ass with the Second Amendment. Just sayin’.
Awesome video.
God I love bangs. Pun intended.
In the annals of great gun grabbers, President Barack Obama doesn’t get a look in. In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the National Firearms Act. President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968. In 1993, President William Clinton signed The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
Don’t forget Reagan (pre/post ’86 Class III ban) and Bush 41 (import ban) in your rogues’ gallery. Wouldn’t want anyone to think we are biased.
Obama has this to be proud of.
Because, God forbid, we all go buy a nice M1 instead of one ofthese things.
Like button!
Damn. I was really looking forward to a garand during this influx of supply.
-D
I don’t think there will be a lot of boat-rocking by POTUS until after the next election cycle. He already spent a lot of his political capital on Obamacare and won’t be pursuing extensive gun control in this, his first term. After he’s reelected, we’re screwed if the wingnuts still control the Senate.
I hope you’re right about that, Ralph, but I don’t realy have much hope. Obama has proven to be as much a political puppet as the rest of them in spite of his slick speeches.
Frankly, what good are all the laws he signs “freeing” up our rights IF he IS working under the radar to regulate them out of our hands?
Is that a trick question?
Is that a rhetorical question? 🙂
Do you really want to know?
Well played, sir!
In case you needed a reminder. It’s a forgone conclusion that Obama is implementing gun control “under the radar.” That’s the modus operandi of a “community organizer.” His record on how he treats the Second Amendment speaks for itself. When serving on the board of the anti-gun Joyce Foundation for 8 years he helped implement a plan to destroy the Second Amendment via biased law review articles by selectively choosing and paying the most anti-gun authors to write them. The Supreme Court sometimes uses these briefs to help make decisions. He also opposed concealed carry as Senator and voted for gun bans. Today we have Kagan, Sotomayor, and his terrible BATFE pick, Andrew Traver. Potential complicity in Project Gunwalker anyone? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out.
I agree with you, but obviously some people(Robert Farago) can’t smell a skunk, even when you hit them in the face with it.
If I’ve said, or written it once, I’ve done it a million times……Obama will do whatever it takes to “remake” the Bill of Rights” into something a Chi-Town agitator would be proud of…..he will make moves to take your guns and ammo…bet on it.
Just compare the SC justices nominated by Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 to those nominated by Clinton and Obama when it comes to 2A issues. Reagan nominated Kennedy, Bush 41 nominated Thomas and Scalia, Bush 43 nominated Roberts and Alito – those are the five votes on Heller and McDonald. Look at Obama’s nominees Sotomayor (no on McDonald) and Kagan.
Not all Repubs are our friends, and Obama may not be the worst but its still hard to swallow that we came THAT close to losing the individual right to keep and bear arms via the courts. There’s your answer.
As if the Supreme Court has any authority whatsoever to determine the constitutionality of enumerated natural liberties.
The scope of any amendment is determined through our legal system. That scope will be hashed out of the next few decades. Level of scrutiny (strict, intermediate, rational basis), ability to carry outside of the home, whether arms other than pistols can be banned, whether arbitrary bans on ammunition are permissible, and/or whether states can charge excessive fees to exercise this fundamental right. Every decision makes precedent that both becomes all but permanent AND removes yet one more argument the other side can use against that which ‘shall not be infringed.’
I imagine for those who live in one of the 44 states with state 2nd amendments, Heller and McDonald mean little. But for those of us behind enemy lines in Illinois, New York and California those two decisions serve as a huge relief. Consider that before McDonald, CA could have banned ALL firearms and it would have been 100% totally legal.
Lobbying to prevent legislation is one method, but if that fails an ‘enumerated natural liberty’ means little without the legal teeth to bite back. Legally, we must grow our newly found fangs and bite back HARD.
Comments are closed.