Top Navigation  
 
U.S. Flag waving
Office Hours Momday - Friday  8 am - 5 pm Pacific 1-800-835-2418
 
Facebook   YouTube   Twitter
 
 
Backwoods Home Magazine, self-reliance, homesteading, off-grid

Features
 Home Page
 Current Issue
 Article Index
 Author Index
 Previous Issues
 Print Display Ads
 Print Classifieds
 Newsletter
 Letters
 Humor
 Free Stuff
 Recipes
 Home Energy

General Store
 Ordering Info
 Subscriptions
 Kindle Subscriptions
 ePublications
 Anthologies
 Books
 Back Issues
 Help Yourself
 All Specials
 Classified Ad

Advertise
 Web Site Ads
 Magazine Ads

BHM Blogs
 Ask Jackie Clay
 Massad Ayoob
 Claire Wolfe
 Where We Live
 Dave on Twitter
Retired Blogs
 Behind The Scenes
 Oliver Del Signore
 David Lee
 Energy Questions
 Bramblestitches

Quick Links
 Home Energy Info
 Jackie Clay
 Ask Jackie Online
 Dave Duffy
 Massad Ayoob
 John Silveira
 Claire Wolfe

Forum / Chat
 Forum/Chat Info
 Enter Forum
 Lost Password

More Features
 Meet The Staff
 Contact Us/
 Change of Address
 Write For BHM
 Disclaimer and
 Privacy Policy


Retired Features
 Country Moments
 Links
 Feedback
 Radio Show


Link to BHM

Massad Ayoob on Guns

Want to Comment on a blog post? Look for and click on the blue No Comments or # Comments at the end of each post.



Massad Ayoob

OUR PRESIDENT’S “FLEXIBILITY”

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

When he first ran for President, Barack Obama was the most anti-gun candidate for that office in history.  His advocacy of “assault weapons bans” that would have covered many semiautomatic weapons your grandparents and great grandparents hunted with and used to fight for our country, was on his website during the early days of his campaign. He had made it clear that he was opposed to the right of law-abiding citizens to carry guns in public to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Since the election, the President and his apologists have noted that he has done nothing to hurt gun owners. Advocates of firearms owners’ civil rights have repeatedly warned that this would indeed be his strategy during his first term, and that both the mask and the gloves would come off once he was re-elected to his second and final term of office in 2012.  The apologists said in essence, “No, a man as sincere as President Obama would never ‘turn’ like that.”

Well, consider this, which slipped into the mainstream news media as an amusing “gaffe.”

Hmmm.  He can’t show his real intentions now, but after his next and last election, he’ll be more “flexible”?

If President Obama is re-elected, I predict that we will see the strongest attack on gun owners’ rights that has ever come out of the White House.  And forget about the strategy of “we’ll just endure four years until the next election.” The constituency of the Supreme Court, in four more years of an Obama administration, will have changed considerably from the one that barely gave us the Second Amendment-affirming decisions in Heller and McDonald.  It will set the stage for the man most likely to get the Democratic nomination for President in 2016, Rahm Emanuel.  In many ways, Emanuel is Obama’s familiar, and much less inclined than his mentor to keep his anti-gun leanings even temporarily in the closet. As mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel has already proposed a draconian, impossibly expensive gun registration and ownership scheme for the entire state of Illinois.  And don’t be surprised if President Obama announces that Rahm Emanuel will be his Vice-Presidential running mate in the 2012 election.

We’re talking about an administration that is even hostile to the most cost-effective counterterrorism program to emerge after 9/11, the armed pilots of the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program.  The pilots who have literally paid out of their own pockets to keep the rest of us safe want you to see THIS: http://www.capapilots.org/obamas-2013-budget-looks-to-cut-the-federal-flight-deck-officer-ffdo-from-25-million

We still have a few months before the election. Get involved. Do what you can to put someone in the White House who won’t appoint Supreme Court justices who vote against the obvious intent of the Bill of Rights.

Someone who hasn’t blatantly and clearly expressed their intent to “be more flexible” after they’ve won the last election they think they’ll need to win.

46 Responses to “OUR PRESIDENT’S “FLEXIBILITY””

  1. Steve Says:

    Hope you’re wrong about Obama as he is probably going to get re-elected. Not sure Congress would let anti-gun legislation be enacted, tho.

    Wow, I can’t imagine him putting Rahm on the ticket. Not sure he’d get re-elected that way. Biden is a flake but Rahm is a strident authoritarian.

    BWTFDIK.

  2. jason Says:

    The problem, Mas, is that it is currently a question of choosing which freedoms get taken away. I have to chose which to lose: gun rights, body freedom, religeous freedom, market freedom, etc. What am I willing to give up? Because they all want to take away some of them, if not all of them.

    I don’t approve of this guy, but every offering on the right is terrifying in some other way.

    Right now there is no viable option for the office that I can see.

  3. Bill Says:

    Read your 3/28/12 email broadcast regarding Pres. Obama’s threat to our 2nd Amendment, etc. You indicated that we need to vote for a candidate that supports the 2nd Amendment. Our dilemma is this… With the exception of Ron Paul, the remaining candidates have all supported anti-2nd Amendment laws. Yes, Newt spoke at the NRA Convention, but he also voted in support of Pres. Clinton’s gun ban. Also, none of the remaining 3 Candidates have filled out their 2nd Amendment Survey by NAGR last I heard. Unfortunately, I can’t get behind Ron Paul based on his foreign policy stance. While they talk good 2nd Amendment rhetoric, I am not convinced.

  4. Mas Says:

    Jason, I hear ya. But if as is likely Romney gets the Republican nomination, he has at least reached out to our side for support, and will have promises to keep…and, at worst, another four years before HE gets “flexible” …

  5. Gary of Ohio Says:

    Agreed, Mas. The slip of the tongue on the mike showed just how Obama’s party politics works behind the scenes – he would sell us down the river just for amusement – and there are still the sheep who will ignore this blatant example.

    While I don’t like any one of the Republican candidates particularly, I still argue that the PARTY is what we vote for when this is the case. The GOP is certainly not perfect, but more inclined to reduce the size of government and keep our rights and follow the Constitution, which still seems to be a very intelligently crafted document, though it is not perfect, nothing man has produced ever is.

    Those currently in power have instigated so many abuses of the American public that it has to be argued that they are “the enemy within” often spoken of, which, in itself, is a scary proposition. Don’t know where we go if they start to effect a gun grab, but I (as have many) have just about had it with their nonsense.

    Trying to convince all who are hung up on the person who gets the nomination to focus on the party and vote party lines. ANYONE would be infinitely better to lead than Obama. Sorry there are so many who don’t see the danger in this group. Advice to the loyal American’s who love our freedom and the structure of the country – sell the party.

    Will be glad when it is all said and done, then we can at least figure out where to go from that point. Thank you for all your level-headed advice. I don’t intend to stop training.

  6. Tim from CO Says:

    Thank you Mas, I’m going to have nightmares now…. Obama AND Rahm Emanuel… I never thought of that combination but that is indeed terrifying.

    I agree, the offerings from our side aren’t that great but hopefully they wouldn’t be as radical. Just about any one has to be better (except Rahm Emanuel). Sure Obama’s executive orders are bad but the real problem is the Supreme Court and what he could do to it. That’ll last a lot longer than anything I imagine.

    For what it’s worth, I vote on one issue now- 2A. Family and loved ones first, 2A helps us keep them and ourselves from harm. We can debate all the other issues later.

  7. Andy Says:

    Well said, though it is also EXTREMELY important to note the appointment of Holder, the Gunrunner crimes and scandals, and the executive order of “mandatory reporting” some types of gun purchases to the Feds. Those things have also put INCALCULABLE hurt on all US gun owners, as “benign” as they may seem to the typical uneducated person/Obama apologist.

    The GOA also said something in one of the provisions of Obamacare was discreetly but specifically anti-gun, but I can’t recall what it is/was- anyone able to chime in on that one? Maybe it was subsequently removed, just like the report-all-purchases-over-$600 mandate given to small businesses…

  8. Nello Says:

    Mas,

    Is there even just such a candidate? I’m adverse to Romney due to certain political opinions he holds and planks of his 2012 platform. Is there anyone reasonable, who supports the second amendment and stands more than a snowballs chance in hell?!?

  9. Gary McFarlane Says:

    This is not an “either/or” situation. The Second Amendment is important, so is the First, and the Third, and all the rest of ‘em too.

    Obama is not the devil incarnate, he is a product of the American political system, and a far more articulate, thoughtful, informed, and honest member of our political elite than most of our so called “representatives”.

    If President Obama gave an M-60 machine gun to every law abiding household in the USA, would you still object to him, and if so, why?

  10. Ed Says:

    The bigger problem is that the expected nominee, Romney, is not trustworthy on 2nd Amendment issues either. The party may pressure him but I wouldn’t trust him. I also don’t like most of his other views. The only candidate that truly supports the 2nd Amendment as an individual right is Gary Johnson, who was in the Republican field during the early debates but left the party (for good reason) and is now seeking the Libertarian Party nomination. He is a true friend of the 2nd Amendment, as he proved as two term governor of New Mexico. He is more like Ron Paul on these issues. I’m afraid we are in trouble with either D or R candidate.

  11. LarryArnold Says:

    I think the Flight Deck Officer program SHOULD be scrapped, and replaced with a policy that if pilots want to carry aboard their aircraft they can buy a gun and holster and do so.

    Why do we need to pretend that pilots are law enforcement officers just so they can defend their cockpit?

  12. Sian Says:

    Obama has proven to be enough of a constitutional scholar to know all the runarounds and loopholes and how to push and make a mockery of the system and the constitution without getting challenged. This makes him uniquely dangerous to our 2nd amendment rights.
    What are we supposed to do, Mas, when we have to choose between freedoms? What are we supposed to do when of the men opposing Obama, the potentially most damaging anti-gun president in history, the most electable is no great friend of gunowners and carries all the expected backwards social policies that come with being a GOP puppet, and the alternative is an outright prehistoric throwback when it comes to social policy, glbt, family and reproductive rights.

    I have to agree that 2a comes first, because without that we have no teeth to challenge the others. But this election is a bitter, bitter pill.

  13. Sian Says:

    @Steve

    Congress doesn’t have to let anything happen. This is what makes Obama so dangerous to gun rights. With an executive order he can effectively cut off all firearms importation into the country through the BATFE, foul up ammunition distribution, stall any federal applications indefinitely.. it’s ugly.

  14. kfg Says:

    “The GOP is . . . more inclined to reduce the size of government and keep our rights and follow the Constitution”

    Which is why Reagan abolished the Dept. of Education, as promised, and Bush did not create The Dept. of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act.

    They are as they do, not as they say. Both parties are expansionist and neither party is worth a damn.

    Here’s what actually happens in practice: One party gets voted in and expands government to suppress half out rights. People get upset with that and vote in the other party, which expands government to suppress the other half of our rights.

    Then they both get together and go out and party.

  15. Scott G. Says:

    This election seems to be as charged as those witnessed during the 1960s.

    I see the president as believing only he has a vision of what is right. I know some who call this some sort of world wide Marxist movement. I know others who feel America is owned by Wall Street. Everything is based on the firm belief many have that stated platforms are only a rouse and there is a larger hidden conspiracy.

    Personally, I tend to be wary of politicians and their goals. Ultimately, I only like those who have goals of staying out of the way. Politically, I have always been independent, though I have always voted Republican in national elections.

    Like many Americans, I long for a president like Reagan. I was proud to have him as my Commander in Chief.

    The flexibility Obama discussed dealt with how the missile defense program will be handled. Clearly, this is a major issue with the Russians since it includes western Europe. My question on flexibility is does it relate to scaling the project up or down? Is the president wishing to include the Russians in this initiative or enhance the Russian missile program by lowering our defenses or that covering our allies? My hope is that we will expand our friendships.

    The issue with personal firearms is also a major concern. England provides a great example of what happens. During riots, the police were not prepared to move in and the unarmed citizens were left defenseless. Egyptians faced a similar sense of helplessness after the revolution. In each of these cases, the criminal elements retained their access to firearms.

    I can imagine the current president attempting to drive Americans into the fold. Perhaps the objective is for America to become more European.

    If nothing else, I look back to when the Democrats owned the White House, the Senate and the House. The world economy was collapsing and America was becoming irrelevant. People were losing their jobs and homes. At a time when action was needed, the Democrats squandered their first year on the national health plan. To me, these actions are like painting a house that in on fire; maybe it really needed paint but the fire is the more pressing issue.

  16. Rod P Says:

    Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique Rifles. (Fox News). 1sept. 2010.
    The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America. The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.
    MY Note: This Judas-Goat has showed His “True Intentions”.

  17. Matt Says:

    Obama is a CHAMELEON. White upper class when kissing up to Wall Street – and black “street” when opportunistically taking advantage of the Trayvon Martin situation. Populist when appealing to the “99%” for votes – and elitist when bailing out Wall Streeters.

  18. ALE Says:

    Well, this is a perfect example of “you can have anything you want, as long as you’re willing to give up EVERYTHING ELSE to get it”. Bush gave us some progress on gun rights, but how many of you needlessly lost a relative “defending freedom” in Iraq or Afghanistan? And how many of you lost jobs, equity, or retirement savings to economic collapse that “smaller-government, bigger-business” Republicans gave us? If it’s Romney v. Obama, we’re screwed on guns either way.

  19. Jacob Morgan Says:

    Get real people. A pure as the driven snow candidate is not going to come along but once in a lifetime, if ever. Sitting out waiting for that is beyond dangerous. Obama intends to skip congress and trash the right to bear arms at every turn. It is in that red diaper baby’s DNA. Charge $100K a year for a FFL. Classify lead ammo as a hazardous substance. Regulate as unsafe consumer goods. Forbid imports. And load up the supreme court with ACLU trolls.

    Romney, as president, would do nothing in regards to guns, which is just fine. And skip the red herrings of invading another Iraq, that isn’t going to happen again for a generation, and of financial crashes, the housing bust has blame all around and Obama has only exploited it by stimulating his donors with sweet heart loans that ended with million dollar bonuses and bankruptcies where we, and our children, and our grand children will toil to pay off the Chinese lenders for that graft.

    And not forcing religious institutes to pay for someone elses contraception is forcing religion on someone? That is stupid beyond belief. Forget taxation without participation, how about taxation without participation. If I have to pay for someone elses contraception I better be the one involved with the one contracepting.

    One last point for the politically agnostic, the media and the progressive / secularist movement which now controls the Democratic party are the same thing. The media watchdog of the right and is the lapdog of the left. When Democrats are in power there is effectively a government ran media, which is very dangerous.

    Obama intends to bankrupt evil America and reduce it to socialisim. This isn’t the typical Republican vs Democrat election, this is the American anti-Christ versus anyone, and I’ll take anyone.

  20. Greg Camp Says:

    Republicans want to control us at home, while Democrats want to control us in public. But I can’t lay too much blame on the politicians of those parties. They do what we allow them to do. It’s the duty of Americans to demand freedom. Politicians should have to wade through the letters and messages to get to their desks. If they refuse to straighten up, we must vote for others. The only wasted vote is for someone who doesn’t represent your positions and interests.

  21. Matt Says:

    Mas is of course correct. “Anyone but Obama” winning means a president who WON’T have “nothing to lose” during the next four years.
    Vote “Anyone but Obama.”

  22. Lorenzo Says:

    And all of this is in the article is a surprise to who? Any who paid attention when Der Leader first came on the scene knew well in advance that he was not who he claimed to be. To stare doe-eyed into the headlights now is an exercise in futility, and will only get you run over.

  23. theo Says:

    My personal thought…
    The second amendment effectively dies the day after the election.
    If BHO wins, he doesn’t need to care about fallout from an executive order and ATF/EPA regulations making it impossible to own and use a gun.
    If he loses, he could have the same bans put in place just out of spite, and then it would take us a decade or more again just to get back to where we were in January 2009.

  24. william h. Says:

    i too agree that d or r other than paul is not a real choice what we really need is a house and senate to say hell no.they have the real power,and they really need to be told how to use it, thats our job. i am so tired of apathy in this country i could almost cry.

  25. bob Says:

    Straw purchases

  26. Drake Says:

    Mas, I know how you feel. I’m a new voter, and this will be my first election… guess who I support? I worry, not just about our right to bear arms, but about economic freedom, free speech, and our Fourth Amendment rights. There’s only one candidate who’s stood up for ALL of our freedoms. Ron Paul. Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich all have less-than-stellar gun rights records, and even worse on other freedoms.

    Please don’t forget that Ron Paul is still in the running. We have a chance to give the Federal government the biggest “screw you” in all of history if we elect him – along with a pro-freedom Congress.

    I also share your concern regarding “flexibility.” It really scares me, and at the very least I expect a ton of import bans and a ban on high-capacity magazines. I’m planning on grabbing an “assault weapon” and a crap-ton of ammunition and magazines for it before November. They want to keep me from having one, they can fight their way to it.

  27. Tom606 Says:

    If our diabolical Dear Leader continues to occupy the White House after 2013, we don’t need the Mayan apocalypse to destroy our nation and eventually the rest of the world.

    This dude has done nothing to better the United States and in fact has conspired with his Marxist cronies and liberal supporters to do everything possible to destroy our nation. From putting in two extremely radical Supreme Court judges who lied under oath to get confirmed, to prolonging the recession for years, to doubling the price of gasoline, to wasting trillions of American taxpayers’ dollars, he is either the most incompetent POTUS or the most diabolical.

    None of the current Republican presidential candidates are very good, but I will hold my nose and vote for any of them to get the “Anointed One” out of the Oval Office. I would vote for the cockroach living under my kitchen sink to replace our “Messiah” as it can do no worse, other than to sign an executive order banning Orkin.

    All patriotic Americans, especially those who value their Second Admendment rights, need to work together and remove Barry/Barack Hussein Obama from the white House come November.

  28. Randy Says:

    I too heard those words uttered from that open mike and felt shivers down my spine; wondering what Obama has in store for us after his re-election. It’s a cinch Joe Bidet won’t be in charge of Vice. Obama comes from Chicago Politics. I think most of us know how corrupt it is. I have to live here.
    In this last primary the Demoncrats ran a fellow by the name of Derrick Smith, in the Chicago area, who had previously been appointed to the state assembly. His opponent was more conservative and had been a Republican. The problem was, a week before the primary Smith was indicted on charges of bribery by the Federal Prosecutors office. Smith had taken a $7000 bribe to write a letter of recommendation for a fictitious organization to get a juicy grant from the State, which is broke. (This is all on tape by the FBI) Normally he would have been an easy opponent to defeat. But, his opponent couldn’t be allowed to win so the party got out the vote and got Smith elected by 78% of the vote. Now the party is demanding his resignation so Michael Madigan (who really runs the State) can name his own stooge. Michael Madigan is the State Assembly Speaker. Nothing gets called to a vote unless it serves his own purposes. Did I mention that Madigan’s daughter is the State Attorney General?
    How about that Supreme Court? Elena Kagan in case you didn’t know it is an Associate Justice. She was also the Solicitor General for Obama. Did she recuse herself from hearing the case currently before the Court? (ObamaCare) If I was a conservative on that court I would make damn sure that my bucket list was completed. One more Obama liberal on the court and you can forget about our 2A.
    Unfortunately, getting someone else elected would be an extremely tough road to hoe.

  29. Paul Edwards Says:

    Below is an excerpt from a Secret Service Agent’s book describing various Presidents, behind the scenes behavior.

    If even partially accurate, it shows that we can not trust even the smallest thing that he says, or promises us, unless it is already part of his own private agenda.

    Guess, you can figure out the rest for yourselves?

    BARACK & MICHELLE OBAMA:

    *” Clinton all over again” – hates the military and looks down on the Secret Service. He is egotistical and cunning; looks you in the eye and appears to agree with you, but turns around and does the opposite — untrustworthy. He has temper tantrums.”

    **She is a complete bitch, who hates anybody who is not black; hates the military; and looks at the Secret Service as servants.”

    “In The President’s Secret Service” Behind The Scenes With Agents…
    By Robert Kessler

  30. Enjoy Every Sandwich Says:

    Whenever Democrats say to me “…but nobody’s trying to take your guns away! The Democratic Party hasn’t passed any new gun laws!” I ask them “Okay, why not?”

    Is it because they believe there is an individual right to own a gun? No. They either flatly deny that the right exists at all, or insist that it is a “collective right”. (I haven’t met anyone yet who can give me a coherent definition of the ridiculous oxymoron “collective right”.)

    Is it because they agree that it is sometimes prudent to carry a gun for self-defense? No. They think it’s crazy and refer to it as “vigilante justice” (demonstrating that they don’t know what “vigilante” means).

    Is it because they understand that an armed citizenry is an important bulwark against state tyranny? No. They think the state and society are one and the same and resistance to the state is thus evil. Besides, they laugh, the state would easily crush any resistance (thus demonstrating their inattentiveness to current affairs and that they slept through whatever history classes they took).

    Is it because they honor the traditions of hunting and sport shooting in our culture? Please. Do I even need answer that?

    The few Democrats who are honest with me admit that the party has simply not wanted to pay the political price that gun control currently carries. It’s nothing but political expediency that keeps them from pushing major gun control legislation.

    So I just don’t buy it when they try to sweet-talk me into backing them.

  31. Noah Vaile Says:

    Keep in mind that the congress does not have to pass anti-gun legislation. The executive branch can simply create draconian new “regulations” that would make gun purchase/ownership nearly impossible. To fight such regs would require bringing them to court where they would the constitutionality would be adjudged be notoriously liberal judges probably appointed by 0bermama. Is that what we want?

  32. Bob Wilsin Says:

    A second term will give Obama at least 1 if not 2 Supreme Court nominations. That is scary enough. He got 2 Supreme Court appointments in his first term

    Plus the EPA and new Consumer Protection Bureau would run amok with regulations geared to eliminating ammunation and public hunting and shooting locations.

  33. Jo Ann Says:

    Another one for the “hold your nose and vote” philosophy. Many women fear that Santorum will be deadly to women’s causes and for various reasons, the other choices are pretty icky as well. But BHO?? Nope – his stacking of the Supreme Court alone is enough to get my GOP vote for sure. Dang.

  34. Pete Sheppard Says:

    RodP., the weapons in question are M1 carbines, not Garands–not that this makes the ban any less reprehensible.
    —-
    I was at two separate gun shops today and they both tell me the panic buying has started already.

  35. quickjoeysmall Says:

    Yes sure a politician saying “I’ve not lifted a finger for you in my first 4 years, but re-elect me and it’ll be all gravy; judge me by my words, not my deeds”
    why wouldn’t we believe that?
    Like Reagan promised a balanced budget and in 8 years never delivered one.
    If you don’t like O’Bama please cite some facts to back it up. Not invented fantasy about what your psychic powers say he will do in the future.
    qjs

  36. Matt Says:

    So buy everything you might want NOW – and make ownership of guns (including tactical ones) and plenty of ammo and mags so near-universal throughout Red Nation as to be an irreversible fait accompli.
    In other words, copy the Israeli doctrine of “creating enough facts” to make it impossible for politicians to EVER erase them.

  37. Kevin Says:

    Here in Canada we’ve been squashed with the Government’s dead-hand in regard to our gun ownership. The Registry here was thankfully over-turned. It cost us Millions upon Millions and did nothing to, “deter crime,” as it was first touted to do. Let me make this VERY CLEAR my dear American friends… DO NOT ALLOW them to take away your guns. If it means another Civil War, then so-be-it. But, NEVER allow them to do it.

  38. Drake Says:

    Definitely get tactical weapons and TONS of ammo. I’m looking at a MAK-90, myself. Stock up to the point that Obama or Romney would have a friggin’ heart attack if they saw the contents of your home.

    My rules for voting:
    I will not vote for someone who will risk our brave soldiers’ lives without a declaration of war.
    I will not vote for ANYONE who has EVER infringed anybody’s gun rights.
    I will not vote for anyone who is in favor of government manipulation of the economy.

    If we do not vote on principle, and just vote to get Obama out, we’ll continue the cycle that’s been in place since Bush the First – all we do is vote to get the Republican/Democrat out. We never vote our conscience. I won’t tell you who to vote for. If you support Santorum, don’t vote for Romney because he’s “inevitable!” Likewise for Gingrich or Paul – vote with your beliefs, and do not compromise!

    “Always vote on principle, though you vote alone.” – John Quincy Adams.

  39. Randall Says:

    As much as I respect Massad, I really think he’s being going off the deep end on this one. I think all politicians are first and foremost concerned about doing what is best for them and their party. Given the battles going on with health care and the budget, any changes to gun laws will be way down the list. Especially now, with a Republican House, there is no way new gun control will pass, barring some tragedy that politicians can use. Recall that the “assault weapon ban” had its roots in the Columbine tragedy and people were demanding of the politicians to “do something”.

    I have no more faith in Republicans than Democrats to protect our gun rights…Bush had 8 years to fix the absurd rules of the ATF and he did nothing!

    So please stop hoarding guns and ammo because of paranoia…all you are doing is driving up prices. I wanted to order a Ruger Vaquero and was told that they are 6 mos. behind on all guns…thanks to paranoia!

  40. quickjoeysmall Says:

    Exactly right Randall.
    Massad is the best gun writer, he writes common sense based on evidence.
    I follow his example whenever anyone supports gun control and ask for them to cite one single example of a gun ban saving lives. None of them can.
    We can’t demand evidence from gun banners and then claim some vague promises of ‘jam tomorrow’ to gun banners is a concrete set commitment to; as ‘Eats every Sandwich’ points out, take a political hit for no advantage.
    The only change in gun laws in O’Bamas term has been the right to carry in national parks is now allowed and DC laws are slacker.
    Anyone has some evidence based on O’Bama’s actions please present it.
    qjs

  41. Charles_J Says:

    Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration, Cass Robert Sunstein whispers anti-gun garbage into Obama’s ear more & more all the time, and wants to wipe-out our right to bear arms. Especially, rights for self-protection. This Gun Grabber (who couldn’t care less about America’s Rights), is ripped a new one (real good) on this old 2009 radio broadcast, (link below)… a must listen!

    http://tinyurl.com/ceynqdh

  42. Mas Says:

    I’ll hazard a guess that those who feel President Obama is benign toward gun owners’ issues have not seen this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story_2.html

    Please pay particular attention to page 3.

    Thanks,
    Mas

  43. quick joey small Says:

    More guilt by association. ‘Cass Roberts is anti gun therefore O’Bama is’.

    How about some real evidence?
    What if it was the other way round?
    And O’Bama had restricted gun carry in national parks and made it harder to carry a gun in DC in his first term. Would you ignore that because he’s told some pro gunners ‘I’ll be able to do more in my second term’?
    qjs

  44. Tim from CO Says:

    “[Barack Obama and Joe Biden] also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.”

    http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

    Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

    Some might say “so what?” to a new Assault Weapon Ban. The previous AWB covered magazines with +10 ten capacity. Speaking of the previous AWB, Biden helped write that piece of legislation as well. Not the mention Holder’s whole ATF thing that just happened as well…

  45. Richard Says:

    Mass how do you feel about Obama people now attacking the NRA?? Over few thing Ted Nugent had say about him at there meeting?? I found nothing wrong about rant about Obama I have heard other people say before. Yet all forgiveing white house now paint pic that all NRA gun owners not smart enough owen guns there not smart enough defend them self with guns. Where not smart enough realize that Obama start attack on firearms right now so he can dodge record on frist four years in white house. So plain looks like all out attack on NRA buy Obama white house any one doess agree with it. Obama people seem be claim those not smart enough should go back school on goverment dime so can be smart enough pick him for second term in white house. You do not be goverment smart see do nothing days about gun control are over Obama is wait start attack on NRA now goverment mud sling for gun rights keep them take place now. OBama think not smart enough run your owen health care your owen job or how much gas you put in your car daily not gone stop just there gun rights next target on list of freedoms not gone be able to enjoy them siin next term. Those say stop scaren people buy saying please tell me how feel when freedom that once enjoy no longer is your replace buy goverment that thinks not smart enough have that. This may be future not far from happening

  46. Bill Meinhardt Says:

    Barack Hussan Obama is a socialist. We had to go to war to stop the National Socialists , (NAZIs) in 1942. The NAZIs enacted a very strict gun control and registration of firearms. Jews were forbiden to own or possess them. Every German citizen was required to register their firearms with the goverment. When my father was a Combat Engineer they invaded Germany and as part of a reconosence in force with Pattons light armor they spearheaded the occupation of each German town as they fell to U S forces. Dad was assigned the job of collecting all the civilan arms. He said it was easy. They just rounded up the Burgermister and his records of firearms at the town hall and went door to door collecting them. It did no good for Germans to claim they did not have any weapons. We had the list with owners names and addresses listing each model and serial number of every weapon in town.

Leave a Reply

 
 


 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Copyright © 1998 - Present by Backwoods Home Magazine. All Rights Reserved.