Barack H. Obama and your Second Amendment Rights !
 

Chris W. Cox
NRA-ILA Executive Director
02/17/2012
Obama’s Budget is a Sneak Attack on our Second Amendment
Freedoms
Editorial in The Daily Caller
Ever since taking office, President Barack Obama has tried desperately to convince gun owners and
sportsmen that he supports the Second Amendment. But actions speak louder than words, and Obama's
latest budget proposal contains numerous sneak attacks aimed at the heart of our firearm freedoms.
For example, NRA members and gun owners fought hard for a law to ban government agencies like the
Centers for Disease Control from using our tax dollars to produce blatant anti-gun propaganda. Obama
wants to kill it in his budget.
We fought hard for a law to ban the Obama administration from spending our tax dollars on illegal
schemes like Operation Fast and Furious, which funneled thousands of guns to violent Mexican drug
cartels. Obama wants to kill it in his budget.
We fought hard to protect the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, which allows armed, trained
commercial airline pilots to serve as the last line of defense should terrorists breach the cockpit and
attempt another 9/11-style attack. Obama wants to slash the funding for this potentially life-saving
program in half.
Perhaps he doesn't have the money to protect airline passengers because he spent it all sending guns to
Mexico.
We fought hard for a law that prevents the Obama White House from spending our tax dollars to ban
shotguns and to stop historic and collectible firearms from being imported into the United States. Obama
wants to kill both of these in his budget.
Obama's budgetary assault on our gun rights doesn't stop there. For years gun owners have been buying
and recycling our military's spent brass as a way to keep the cost of firearm ownership down. Not
anymore. If Obama gets his way with the budget, all of this brass will be melted at taxpayers' expense.
You have to ask yourself: If Obama is so serious about protecting our gun rights, what's so wrong with
stopping government agencies from using our tax dollars to attack our Second Amendment rights?
With innocent lives being cut short on both the U.S. and Mexican side of our border, why would Obama
go out of his way to reject a ban on funding for illegal operations like Fast and Furious?
The answer is simple. Everything Barack Obama says about protecting the Second Amendment is a
bald-faced lie. He will use every weapon at his disposal — including our hard-earned tax dollars — in his
mission to destroy our Second Amendment freedoms.
The Second Amendment is America's first freedom, because it's the one freedom that guarantees all of our precious liberties. Barack Obama's values have never been, and will never be, compatible with this
freedom. His latest budget proposal proves it.

http://home.nra.org/ds/flex_funcs/pd...&method=inline

I suppose the GOP's use of the Catholic Church to criticize Obama backfired. Why not try the NRA now? After the recent school shootings, this will fall flat as well.

I own about a dozen guns and don't feel threatened whatsoever by Obama. The GOP is just trying to find the right strings to pull to get your attention, Bill. Gun control is a non-issue in this election cycle and the GOP is trying to elevate it. Ignore them.

I suppose that our age Finn,
That we can ignore just about everything except troops breaking down the doors demanding our firearms. We can even ignore the dismantling of the Constitution of the United States, after all, we will be dead soon enough anyway. We don't need our firearms, or that old piece of paper.

But what will we leave our children and grandchildren, other than a crushed economy, a populous in kayos, a government of opportunists and thieves ?
I had hopes of leaving them something better, but your correct, I won't be here very long.

I do hope that the younger owners of firearms, fight for their freedoms, stand tall and rebuild America and her economy and even cast out the liars and thieves from Washington D.C.. We didn't, shame on us.

Bill

Oh! The drama, the drama . . . .

Regards,

D-Ray

Lots of claptrap there, BB.

echoes of McCarthyism

The Democrats learned their lesson about gun control. And the lesson they learned is not to talk about it...unless you want to lose some elections.

Beyond that, their ideology hasn't changed, only their tactics.

Chas

Nobody is coming after your penis, oh sorry, my bad...your guns, so relax, geek.

Dave

Bad day at work Dave ?

Or just a case of penis envy ?

Bill

It's a referral to Freud and "compensation". You know, men who are inadequate "down there" or suffer from other sexual insecurities must compensate with toys that make them feel masculine. Like a rack full of guns, for instance.:p

Dave

Quoted for truth.

yeah, our local militia needs all our guns

The only thing separating the men from the boys is the price of their toys.:rolleyes:

I don't know if this will work or not...

GUN CONTROL

If this what you are talking about, http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/georgia-arms/

Seems to be more of a sales pitch from suppliers.


From article

"Why It Happened

What emerges from the DLA’s letters and the accounts of the NRA’s lobbyist and the Newsmax reporter is that the policy had originated with an order the previous year (during the Bush administration) from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to prohibit the sale of uniquely military items controlled by the Department of State through its munitions list. This order eventually worked its way down to the DLA’s Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service, the department responsible for selling military surplus items. DRMS found that small arms cartridge cases were listed as "sensitive" munitions items, according to the DLA letters, and thus sales of empty cases were halted.

Cox, the NRA’s lobbyist, said the DLA’s explanation "put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet, concerning the reason for the suspension." He said the sales had been stopped "in the interest of national security." Newsmax’s reporter said the order was intended "to keep sensitive military hardware from making it into the hands of liquidators and, potentially, the enemy."

An Undead Theory

But those facts haven’t buried the zombie claims that the Obama administration is trying to eliminate the supply of reloaded military small-arms ammunition. We keep getting those messages. The most recent carries the subject line: "Why Ammo is Scarce."

Ammo may well be scarce: Georgia Arms warns buyers on its Web site that shipping times are delayed five to seven weeks. But the reason isn’t any Obama administration move to shut down reloaders. Georgia Arms states that it is "due to a huge increase in demand."

And it’s logical to think that surge in demand is coming from gun owners who are needlessly concerned"





Barney

Is Obama coming for our guns again? http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/ima...ies/boring.gif


Carl

Let me get this straight. We're going to get knocked out by a computer game?

Regards,

D-Ray

X2.

Sidenote, CCW is up 100% in Ohio over the last 3 years, and violent crime is down.

Pete

Where did I say "knocked out", "D" ?

For a Barrister, a supposedly intelligent individual, I sometimes wonder.

If you really would like to play word games, I have a few Mensa Puzzle Books you should try.

Always remember: If your not part of the solution, your surely part of the problem.

Sincerely,

Bill

Chardon.

Dave

We had a 13 year old girl in Baltimore playing with a couple of friends and they accidentaly killed her with a .22 rifle. The boys panicked and drug her body out to the alleyway and covered it with trash.

The interesting part is that the rifle turned up in the back seat of an off duty cop's cruiser. Going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

Having had a 16 year old cousin shot and killed in a hunting "accident" I am really no fan of the wild distribution of firearms.

I don't know why I am surprised that you believe that rifle and pistol cases are "Sensitive Munitions" ?
Or that you would believe that this is their concern, as the abandoned a "Super Secret Stealth Observation Aircraft" in Iran, without trying to destroy it before it could be sent to Russia and China to reverse engineered and study.

Ammunition cases have not changed in over 100 years ! I have examined them, weighted them, checked their volumes and hardness and ounce fired cases are all within the acceptable normal variances, depending on the type of weapon they are fired from. So their secrets are already revealed.

And if this was a situation of National Security, they would have our troops in the Sand Box police their cases before they left the battle field.

The politicians lie, the government confirms their lies, what else is new.
But I am sure you will continue believe what you wish. Or believe what ever they tell you to believe.

Sincerely,

Bill

You're right Bill. I wouldn't believe a word from the NRA's chief lobbyist either. :rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

While I feel for your loss Merry,

I had a friend killed by a baseball bat as we played a game. He moved to the outside of the plate to catch a curve ball, the batter pulled the bat back and struck him on the top of his head. He died days latter from brain injuries.

Any tool can and most likely has caused the death of someone, even when used properly.

But as an hunter I know that there is nothing more alarming than to have people that you do not know, handling firearms around you.

Again I am sorry for your loss,

Bill

We are also trained at exposing illogical propositions, inconsistency and deception. Now you decide whether you have a problem with that.

The particular inconsistency here, is that you questioned another poster's reliance on a report. The primary source cited for that report was a lobbyist for the NRA. I pointed out that I too, would be skeptical of an NRA lobbyist. In this case, however, he seems to be contradicting an article from his organization's publication. You were aware of that irony, were you not?

Regards,

D-Ray

Including Chardon, violent crime is down.

Pete

My apologies "D",

I find myself guilty of seeing what I expected to read, rather then what was actually printed. In the future I will try to read twice, open my mouth ounce.

Again, My Apologies.

Sincerely,

Bill

Any tool can be used to inflict pain, injury or death.

The most efficient, of course, are those tools specifically designed to do so.

I don't mind some fairly stringent limitations on who is allowed to obtain said instruments.

They've been continuously loosened here over the last 10 years or so, after a very careful start, and violent crime keeps going down, down, down.

Which makes sense.

Pete

I totally agree Zeke,

The only problem is that murders, armed robbers, drug sellers and users and other people that show diminished mental control are already prohibited from owning firearms. And criminals by nature, do not obey laws at all.
So what limitations do you feel would work ?

Bill

See, this is the part that bugs me. Although I believe the 2nd Amendment does not refer to individual ownership at all, rather it clearly refers to "the state" and "the people" in a plural (collective) context. IMHO, I am not against reasonable gun ownership, by sane, carefully vetted individual citizens.

The problem lies here; Define "reasonable".

To my mind, "reasonable" would be a few guns appropriate for legal hunting and one personal protection type weapon per qualified adult family member.
To my mind this is enough.

Some people seem to think there is no reasonable limit. That they should be allowed to own tactical nukes if they want them. I think they have mental issues. Seriously.

Here in VA, our governor recently struck down a decades old "one gun purchase per month" rule. WTF would ANYONE need to purchase more than one gun per month for?:confused: We've had this rule for a long time and it hasn't "infringed" on anybodies ability to defend themselves or to shoot varmints, believe me.

Dave

I'm not reading anything sourced from the NRA as it's probably based more in the realm of propaganda than facts.

I aspire to own a rifle someday, an M1903 Springfield or an 1898 Mauser.

However.

Handguns are made with one purpose in mind, killing other human beings. They should be banned and considered assault weapons.

+1
Well stated. Why is it people have to have be so extreme when it comes to firearms!?

Our tight gun laws here in California have not seemed to reduced gun crimes. Deaths caused by accidents do happen, but that is the fault of the gun owner and not the availability of guns IMHO. It is interesting that a lot of areas with tight gun control also have a high gun crime rate. Dramatic gun incidents get a tremendous amount of news coverage relative to the threat or use of firearms curtailing crime.

Because unless all states institute sensible laws the weapons just cross state lines. New York is very upset with Virginia because so many guns used in the commission of crime originated in Virginia.

What people? How many people have large gun collections? What percentage of firearms are used in crime or are a tool associated with accidental death? The extremists are those that seek to remove guns from individual ownership. We've already seen how effective that's been in reducing crime. What is your goal in restricting firearms? Look at where and why crime occurs and what groups are raising the crime rate. Legalization of illicit drugs would likely do more to reduce muder rates than trying to control access to firearms.

It even comes up here. We have pretty serious laws controlling the sale and possession of handguns, but whatever the bad guys need just comes across the border.

Which is why America, with hundreds of millions of guns has the worlds lowest crime rate, right?

You being a computer guy, you would have to admit that computer logic would reject that statement. If no guns were available, there would no accidental gun deaths. Ipso facto, gun deaths are related to the availability of guns. :cool:

Actually, I understand your point that there is an element of negligent ownership in most every accidental gun death. And I know that it is absurd to suggest that there be no guns available. By computer logic, a stopped watch is more accurate than a slow watch, because the stopped watch is correct twice a day. Any you can tell me that I know squat about computer logic, and I couldn't rebut it. It was just a fun little foray into sophistry.

Sophistry aside, it appears that the AMA found statistical evidence to support the effectiveness of the Virginia's one gun per month limit. I suppose that there will be an opportunity for some comparative statistics, since the law was just repealed.

Regards,

D-Ray

It has more to do with culture and the demand for illegal drugs than on the availability of firearms:

Intentional Homicide By Country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

Gun Ownership By Country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_...ita_by_country

I'd also suggest that the greater homogeneity of a society the less conflict. Who's killing who sheds a bit of light on the cause.