Obama Admits Gun Control Plans

Politicians know gun control is a losing issue.

Obama is aware that any outright gun control attempts would cost him the election so he has only infringed upon the Second Amendment under the radar.

But now on his website he openly states a few plans for further infringement:

Screen shot from http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Tiahrt Amendment restricts using the Firearms Trace Database to bonafide criminal investigations by law enforcement.  Anti-gun cities and organizations wish to have unrestricted access to open lawsuits against innocent citizens, gun manufactures, and distributors. The Tiahrt Amendment prevents this abuse and does not restrict law enforcement investigations, so don’t buy that lie.

Beware whenever you hear the phrase “common sense” gun laws.  More truthfully it’s just a “sounds good, feels good” political disguise to restrict law abiding citizens further from owning legal firearms.  ”Gun Show Loophole” is an misleading phrase that seeks to criminalize private party transfers.  Anti-gunners wish for all firearms transfers to get the “mother may I” from the FBI and outlaw any other purchases like selling your buddy your old deer rifle or giving your brother a .22 rifle.  It has absolutely nothing to do with gunshows because at gun shows the majority of sales are done by licensed dealers who are required by the BATFE to fill out the 4473 form and contact the FBI for clearance of each individual sale.

We must also be VERY cautious of the so called “Assault Weapons Ban”.  You may not care about owning a cool looking AR15, but the very phrase “Assault Weapon” is a fictitious liberal political phrase without definition.  This could extend from an actual ”Assault Rifle” (full automatic) which has actually been restricted from civilian ownership since 1934, to a rock that is used to assault another person.  That’s right, with a loosely written legislation we could very easily go the way of Australia and ban all semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and every pistol from civilian ownership.

Further, the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 had absolutely no affect on violent crime.  The only thing the ban did was raise the market value for a few rifles and tons of standard capacity magazines.  The ban only stopped a few cosmetic devices from being manufactured on rifles such as:
a bayonet lug (to stop all those bloody bayonet muggings you hear about *sarcasm*)
a collapsable or folding stock (because 4″ really makes a difference in concealing a 42″ rifle under your hoody *yes, more sarcasm*)
a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (because having a pretty muzzle flash is more dangerous and fanning muzzle flash out *even more sarcasm*)
a grenade launcher (because of all the mass killings by rifle grenades…  *WHAT??? I’ve never even seen a real grenade! Those too have been banned since 1934!* )

The ban on Pistols was even further infringing because it also banned any “semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm” – this could be several pistol models like Glock, Beretta, CZ because I know there are machine gun versions of these).

For Shotguns the 1994 ban extended to pistol grips, detachable magazines, and any shotguns with capacity over 5 shells – what several of us use for home defense.

 

Obviously the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 was utterly foolish and had no impact on crime, it just the skyrocketed the price of the civilian firearms market.  So how strong would the ban be this time around?  It may do much more than stop manufacturing, it could very well ban the majority of popular firearms nationwide from civilian ownership.

Your freedom is at stake.  Vote appropriately.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>