Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
All Da King's Men -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

Democrats And The Second Amendment

by Da King on March 22, 2009

in Democrats,second amendment

armed citizens

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban as soon as I take office. Within 90 days, we will go back after kitchen table dealers, and work to end the gun show and internet sales loopholes. In the first year, I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns." – presidential candidate Barack Obama

In my last post, I touched on American militia groups. I'm not in any of those groups, but I have met enough people who are in them to know what gets them fired up and what gets militia membership to increase. The number #1 reason is when they think the government is trampling the Second Amendment and coming after their guns. The militia groups refer to this as tyranny. Because gun ownership is an explicit Constitutional right (unlike, say, health care), the militia groups are correct. This is not a value judgement. It's simply a fact.

Enter the Democrats. Here's what the Obama administration and the Democratic-controlled Congress are pushing only two months into Obama's presidency:

First up – On February 25th, 2009, Obama's newly sworn-in Attorney General, Eric Holder, (who has said in the past he doesn't believe the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own guns) repeated the Obama Administration's desire to reinstate the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and make it permanent.

Next up – H.R. 45: The Blair Holt Firearm Licensing & Record of Sales Act of 2009. This one is sponsored by the former founder of the Illinois Black Panther Party, Representative Bobby Rush (D-IL). In short, this legislation would ban possession of a firearm unless the following conditions are met – It is registered. You are fingerprinted. You supply a current Driver's License. You supply your Social Security #. You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of the government's choosing. You will have to pass a firearms knowledge examination in order to own a gun. You will have to release your medical records to the Attorney General for purposes of assessing your mental health. Each change of ownership through private or public sale must be reported and a $25 fee will be charged. Each lost or stolen firearm must be reported within 72 hours. All guns must be locked and inaccessible to any child under 18. The government has the right to come and inspect that you are storing your firearm safely at any time. Failure to comply with any of these rules results in loss of your firearm, a fine, and you may be imprisoned for 1-5 years.

We might as well call H.R. 45 the "Government Can Take Your Weapon If The Government Feels Like It Act."

Next up – On March 20, 2009, Federal District Court judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (appointed to the federal bench by Bill Clinton) issued a preliminary injunction against implementation of a new rule that had passed Congress and would allow law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges for purposes of self-defense. Kotelly's reasoning to overturn Congress ? (Your gonna love this.) Kotelly blocked the rule because no environmental impact analysis had been performed. Never mind the fact that a concealed firearm DOESN'T HAVE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

Next up – Obama ends the post-9/11 program that allows pilots to carry guns on planes. The Washington Times reports:

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology. The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

So now, instead of pilots being able to defend the public against possible terrorists, Obama is hiring more people to INVESTIGATE PILOTS, because, as we all know, the pilots…are…the…problem ???

It's no coincidence that gun sales are proving to be one of the few recession-proof industries since Obama's election. Gun sales are skyrocketing. The gun shops can't keep up with the demand. People know Obama and the Dems plan to throw ever more roadblocks in front of gun owners. The Dems don't plan to repeal the Second Amendment all at once. They know there would be outrage if they tried that. Instead, the Dems plan to chip away at gun ownership step by step, the same way they chip away at your incomes little by little until you're poor and dependent.

And don't forget, we have as many as 20,000 total gun laws already on the books if you count all the local laws, and we have about 300 major federal and state gun laws if you don't count all the little local ones. We aren't lacking for gun laws.

If militia groups are getting riled up and antsy (I don't know if they are, but I imagine so), now you know why.

  • The Reverend

    I had a discussion with a guy a week ago on this gun stuff. He was all riled up because there was the possibility, he thought, that assault weapons, semi-automatic and automatic, military grade assault weaponry were every red-blooded American's absolute right to own.

    The reason? To fight back against their own tyrannical government, should it become necessary. Okay then. I'm willing to agree that the second amendment's immediate purpose for gun ownership was to maintain a regulated militia. That's what the founders had in mind.

    Now, here's my question. What's the limit? How far do we take it? If a citizen militia, with guaranteed second amendment rights to be armed, is going to fight off their own tyrannical government, shouldn't they have the right to purchase and own bigger weaponry? The government has, like, helicopter gunships and stuff…..so what about grenade launchers?….shoulder fired missile launchers with GPS?…..tanks?…..shouldn't the 21st century, second amendment militia be, you know, up to date?

    If an automatic military-assault type weapon is protected by the 2nd…..then I just can't see how anything else would be off limits, not using the militia argument. Others say I'm being too extreme with my path of logic. But I don't think I am. You know, I'm stubborn.

  • Insured By Uzi

    Reverend, let's extend your argument to other Amendments. Does Freedom of the Press refer to online delivery or just the good, old fashioned quill and ink, or manual press? I am sure that when our founding fathers touched on Freedom of Religion, they surely didn't mean Islam, also?

    I don't own assault weapons because I think I might have to fight back against my own tyrannical government. I think that premise is just foolish. I own A LOT of them, because I like them and because I CAN. If I ever have to fight anyone with them, I predict it will be used against looting hoodrats and social outcasts that get angry when they find out that Obama isn't giving them a new Escalade.

    Either way, 4.5 Million background checks run from November through January, according to the FBI. Enough guns sold in the U.S. in three months to equip China's ACTIVE and ACTIVE Reserve military, and have a few left over. I bet that is not all "neo-cons" buying those guns. 65 pro-gun Democrats in the U.S. House telling Eric Holder to jam it where the sun doesn't shine. Mid-term elections on the way. You can all rest assured that there will be no new assault weapons bans. And, if there are, I will make a monetary KILLING off the panic that precludes it.

  • Tbomb

    The Negroes are coming the Negroes are coming!

  • http://TiredofWorkingForThoseWhoWon't Kathy Dempsey

    If you know anyone who has tried to purchase ammunition recently, they will tell you that it is difficult to get. Supplies are low.

  • Da King

    Rev,
    You are making an extremist argument. We can all agree a line has to be drawn somewhere. In fact, it already has been drawn, and nobody is complaining about it. The discussion is only around the edges of the line (semi-automatic weapons). I can't think of any private group that is clamoring to own tanks and battleships.

  • larry d.

    I wonder how many folks could afford a modern tank, gunship-type helicopter or nuclear submarine. I suppose rocket launchers could cause some trouble for local authorities but someone would have to build them and jobs are jobs.

  • Da King

    I hear Fred's Nuclear Submarine Shoppe has been hit hard by the recession. People are only buying Japanese nuclear submarines these days. They're cheaper and more fuel efficient.

  • The Reverend

    You mock…..I knew you would.

    But let's hear the argument. Is the reason for gun ownership to protect citizens from a potentially, tyrannical government?

    Come on….tell me.

    I appreciated Uzi's comment. Except for this…

    "I am sure that when our founding fathers touched on Freedom of Religion, they surely didn't mean Islam, also?"

    Now I'm not sure what Uzi's intent was with that….but, yes, the founders meant Islam too…..all religion.

    So, it could follow, that the 2nd includes ALL arms….right?

  • The Reverend

    This…

    "I predict it will be used against looting hoodrats and social outcasts that get angry when they find out that Obama isn't giving them a new Escalade."

    ..is also an interesting sentence.

  • Da King

    Alright, Rev, I'll try to take you seriously. It isn't easy when you make statements like the one you made previously.

    The primary reason people want guns is for protection, self-defense. Another reason is for hunting.

    There are other ways to protect from a tyrannical government, such as the ballot box and petitioning the government for redress. The use of weapons against one's own government is a last resort. We're nowhere near that point yet, and I hope we never will be, but if our government keeps trampling all over liberty and rights, it is a remote possibility. Like MLK, I believe in non-violence.

  • larry d.

    "But let's hear the argument. Is the reason for gun ownership to protect citizens from a potentially, tyrannical government?"

    Of course. Why not? The U.S. government could not control an armed Vietnam and probably won't be able to control an armed Afghanistan. Why would it be able to control an armed United States citizenry?

  • Insured By Uzi

    Reverend,

    Please replace my term "Islam" with any religion that was not extremely prevelant in the United States during the drafting of the Bill of Rights. I used that specific example, because I BELIEVE that it was not as prevelant on this continent during that era, as it is now. I needed an example of what I thought the Founding Fathers may not have predicted. Just as they didn't predict autoloading assault rifles, internet newspapers, mass media, Blackberries, etc. I hold no ill-will towards Islam, or any other religion for that matter. You will note that my example was used in a segment of my post where I was trying emphasize that it is dangerous to try and prove obsolesence of an Amendment, based on social or technological advances. When someone says that the 2nd Amendment guarantees only the weapons that were prevelant during the time that the B.O.R. was drafted, then we open every other Amendment up to that same scrutiny? What press? The term "press" referring to the media collectively, or anything generated on a printing "press" machine? What religions? Which guns?

    Back to the 2nd Amendment. Some people argue that the 2A guarantees the right of the National Guard to possess weapons. I say, "really"? The National Guard was founded under the Militia Act of 1903. I am not quite sure that was what the founding fathers were referring to. Especially, since many of them had been militia members themselves, and they were civilians during that time.

  • http://www.airworkllc.com Taylor

    Every time i come here I am not dissapointed, nice post

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/UZ2BQVJ3C3VUF3MIIK6OPKFAAM Tailgunner

    They're entitled to own firearms too. 

    Remember what Southern Democrats and their shock troops in the KKK did during Jim Crow. They used redneck Sheriffs to disarm blacks by day so those same cowardly redneck sons of bitches could come by at night in sheets and murder them.

    If I were President I would mandate that every African-American, LGBT member and every female should be required to own and carry a firearm for self-defense and for their families. If they could not afford one I would give them vouchers to buy one.

    Racist Democrats are a clear and present danger to the very constituencies they claim to represent.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).