first shot in the next battle

[Partsproduction]

My understanding of what the founder's envisioned for us is that we are the government, that we have the ultimate say on anything "government" thinks it's going to do, and actually we have a duty to interfere when government becomes repressive. Going against any of the amendments in the bill of rights would be a clear cut call to action required by our citizenship duty. Letting "government" pass laws that infringe on the second amendment rights without trying our very best to stop it means we are not good citizens.

We do not have the luxury of inactivity! Thomas Jefferson would froth at the mouth watching from the balconies of history as we allow our rights to be deprived, after so many men and women have risked so much to deliver such rights into our hands.

We have a unique form of government in which we have a right to speak up, we really don't have a right to let the power mad grabbers take power, that is one right we do not have.

 

[RB87]

Every good gun owner should be a member of NRA if for no other reason than to stay informed on the increased regulations and to have a voice in DC.

NRA indeed....

Sipsey Street Irregulars: They really think they can get away with this in the face of the Gunwalker Scandal. Ask yourself why they are so confident. THE FIX IS IN.

 

[Spad]

This is part of the diversion about not wanting any focus on the gun walk. Still waiting for thier explanation, hope the media keeps thier feet to the fire. You'll notice this came from the number two nazi,the A.G. Check your back as the big stab is coming...Spad

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Wow! just wow, it's one thing to be in denial but to defend those that would take your rights away is over the top.

+1

 

[Jamie6.5]

There is a symbiosis forming around the issue. The left has indeed lost the gun control debate,... For the moment.
Obama's numbers are slipping, and he needs to restore his far left base.

So he brings the gun control debate back to restore his far left relationship(s), and the anti's welcome his charismatic approach to the debate. Mostly because they're losing the argument when it's based entirely on facts.
Few orators on the current political scene can generate the passion that the chosen one can when he's on his game.
Beware the lame duck orator.

 

[baada]

How does this change anything? I for one have no problem with adhering to the laws in place and if a background check is going to be required for FTF sales I really don't care. I'm not a criminal and can legally obtain any gun for sale on these boards anyway and I'm assuming so can everybody else. ...I can understand those of you not wanting big brother to know what you have even if it is legal but otherwise what's so major about this? He didn't even say anything about hi-cap magazines which is what would piss me off because who likes to spend all day reloading?

The major problem is:

1) Reasonable expectation of privacy. The Bill of Rights, while not explicitly granting us right to privacy, strongly implies it. We have a right to privacy in our beliefs (1st), right to privacy in our home (3rd), right to privacy in our persons (4th), and the list goes on.

2) The Second Amendment specifically states our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". Infringe means to limit or undermine. Which is what gun laws do.

To me, the major deal is that our government is overstepping its boundaries, and when it does so to disarm its people leads me to believe it is doing so to protect itself. The government does not have the right to protect itself from its people. It was built so as to be afraid of the people, because it serves us, not the other way around.

 

[Jamie6.5]

He says he doesn't want more laws. In reality, he probably knows he can't get them with a politically divided legislature. He may however, through executive order, be able to modify the NICS though DHS mandates.

The main factor in this will be definitions. We have all seen and discussed how the definition of "criminal" and "terrorist" has changed since the Dept. of Homeland Security was formed.
Then there is the issue of "potential" with regard to these new definitions.

On it's face, "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disturbed/deranged" sounds reasonable.
Unless, while you weren't looking, someone changed the definition of those terms, and/or included the word potential.
For instance, according to Janet Napolitano, there are currently thousand of "potential" domestic terrorists in this country due to their experiences in middle eastern wars. We refer to them as veterans, but,...
To the leftist in favor of federalism with a strong totalitarianism bent, these people aren't heroes, they are scary. They are VERY familiar with firearms and tactics and have demonstrated their willingness to kill *people*.
(They are likely also very familiar with the constitution they swore to uphold, and that scares the leftists even more)

Now, Napolitano has already implemented more stringent "screening" of vets with regard to getting them reclassified as "potentially" dangerous, and this has affected their gun rights. Hopefully we've all read a few of these stories.

So ask yourself, how much of a stretch would it be, under more stringent guidelines regarding potential, for a government agency to review your post(s) here (and other gun forums) and deem you a potential threat?
How many times have you quoted Jefferson's "tree of liberty" statement?
Wouldn't it be a b*tch if suddenly, under DHS's new definition you were deemed a potential threat and forbidden to own or carry, because you made an "inflammatory" post here?

The bottom line is we have a system (NICS) currently that, while some of us may disagree with it, has worked pretty well. It seems reasonable according to some.
Gun sales have gone through the roof in recent years, carry laws have been relaxed, yet gun violence and deaths have dropped significantly.
Make no mistake, this very system can be used against you by merely changing one factor in a couple definitions.

So one has to wonder,... Why now Mr President?
Are you afraid the J. Loughner crisis is going to waste? (Evidenced by where the Op-Ed was released)
Are you looking to get back in the good graces of the far left, having slipped in your job approval rating?
Are you beginning to think you won't get a second term anyway, so you're willing to spend the last of your political capital?

Inquiring minds want to know!?! Personally, I think it's all three.



*Even when those people were trying to kill them.*

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Our Dictator President, you will notice he has selective enforcement of laws, he should be empeached...Spad

That's not my president..

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Wow! just wow, it's one thing to be in denial but to defend those that would take your rights away is over the top.

Liberalism analyzed

Veteran psychiatrist calls liberals mentally ill

 

[Spad]

Sorry I didn't mean to spell president with a capital letter, should have said the Dictator playing at president..Spad

 

[CEF1959]

Trlsmn is right.

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

Anyone remember Rahmbo's statement that anyone on the "No-Fly" list would be designated a potential terrorist and denied access to firearms? It's a mystery what the criteria are to be placed on the list, and there is no appeals process once you are listed. "No Fly, No Buy". It's just a few short steps from here to there. What can't be done legally through congress is done by back-room regulation and executive order. I have no idea what it takes to stop these people. It's like whack-a-mole. Get one piece of illegal legislation shot down, two more pop up.

 

[Spad]

We just have to keep whacking at them. Spad

 

[Sasquatchvnv]

We just have to keep whacking at them. Spad

If only we could use a bigger hammer...

 

[chizuck]

Thanks for the offer of safety but i'll keep my freedoms

 

[Dave Workman]

NRA to Obama: ‘Stop Fast and Furious immediately’

In a blistering letter to President Obama yesterday, the National Rifle Association – which has about 90,000 members in Washington state – not only declined to participate in a “new discussion” about guns proposed by the president’s Sunday Op-Ed piece in a Tucson newspaper, but instead suggested that he “bring an immediate stop” to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ “Fast and Furious” gunrunning sting operation.

<broken link removed>





Bellevue v. Obama: Gun safety, not gun hysteria

Bellevue’s Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, offered some advice today for Barack Obama after reading the president’s guest column about gun rights and gun safety in the Arizona Daily Star over the weekend.

<broken link removed>

 

[Dave Workman]

NRA indeed....

Sipsey Street Irregulars: They really think they can get away with this in the face of the Gunwalker Scandal. Ask yourself why they are so confident. THE FIX IS IN.

Uh, no, the "fix" isn't "in." Read the news today, the NRA's letter to Obama and my column (above)

 

[absoluterik07]

The major problem is:

1) Reasonable expectation of privacy. The Bill of Rights, while not explicitly granting us right to privacy, strongly implies it. We have a right to privacy in our beliefs (1st), right to privacy in our home (3rd), right to privacy in our persons (4th), and the list goes on.

2) The Second Amendment specifically states our right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". Infringe means to limit or undermine. Which is what gun laws do.

To me, the major deal is that our government is overstepping its boundaries, and when it does so to disarm its people leads me to believe it is doing so to protect itself. The government does not have the right to protect itself from its people. It was built so as to be afraid of the people, because it serves us, not the other way around.

While I do agree with what the 2nd Amendment states, do you think it is unreasonable for a background check? I know alot of people do. If we didn't have laws like this though, then criminals really could just buy guns at the gun shop and then rob you on your way out. I don't agree with most every other gun law out there but I think that the NICS system is a small price to pay to keep the antis at bay. And honestly, I know they can just get one through other means but why make it any easier for them? It also does not limit any amount of arms we can buy or which ones. NFA weapons however fall into the category that I don't agree with such as having to wait months and months for your paperwork to come back and only allowing full-auto from pre 1986, which effectively has driven up the price of these weapons to thousands of dollars with a $200 tax stamp on top of it. For many people (including myself), this makes these weapons unattainable therefore infringing on my right to bear arms. However, a simple $10 background check does not.

 

[capdek]

I suspect that every background check adds another name and firearm to a database. And one day, when conditions are right, the government will use that database to confiscate guns and penalize gun owners. If you believe otherwise, you're either young and naive, or you haven't studied history.
Smooth-talking governments have been spinning lies to control, manipulate and abuse people since the dawn of civilization. Hitler came to power by manipulating the very system he was determined to destroy once he had power. At first, the Jews just had to register with the local authorities. Then their businesses were closed and they were ordered out of the universities. Eventually, the laws were changed ordering them into ghettos. And eventually, the laws were changed again to facilitate their extermination. And there was no problem identifying them since they were all registered!
And just off the top of my head, I seem to recall our own benevolent government routinely lying to native Americans, interring Japanese Americans in concentration camps, letting poor black men die of syphilis, and authorizing the release of radiation from the Hanford nuclear site to see the effects it would have on people. And I'm sure others on this board could add many more 'good government' policies and activities to this shameful list. Heck, now you even have to let a TSA agent feel up your kid just so you and the family can go visit grandma back east!
Sorry folks, I've lived long enough and read enough history to know that trusting government to do the right thing is a pretty risky business. Obama wants to make some 'adjustments' to our second amendment rights, and even though his op-ed sounds 'reasonable', his own personal history and the history of government in general gives me a very bad feeling as to what we'll actually see in the end. Just my two-cents.

 

[absoluterik07]

Sorry but I simply cannot agree with this statement. Yes our government has done some wrong doings but what you are suggesting is extreme. I am neither naive or ill adversed in history. I believe that this is Obama trying to appease the antis by acting like he is "making progress" without actually doing anything. As it stands reason is finally overcoming fear in our nation and he would not be able to actually implement any changes at this time. This is a political agenda to shift focus on other problems our country is facing. Do you really think that with the economy in shambles and the unemployment rate skyrocketing that gun control is really on the presidents "to do" list? I am not suggesting giving up any of the freedoms we have but ultimately the voters will decide. Do you not remember how the patriot act was implemented? It played on the fears of our citizens to give up some of our rights to keep us safe. As the polls have shown this is not the case with "gun control" and our nation has other more pressing issues to worry about. And let's not forget who signed the patriot act, George W. Bush and Obama has since kept the ball in motion. You simply cannot compare our nation to that of Hitlers WWII regime and obamas socialistic views. If you are serious I suggest that you read a few more history books sir. While I am not saying it is impossible, I am saying that it is highly improbable, and that we are a nation of free people and I am sure that you and every other citizen of this country wishes to keep it this way.