President Obama was vehemently anti-gun before he entered the White House. He has been conspicuously silent on the issue since, for obvious reasons. Bill Clinton himself made it clear that the Assault Weapons Ban came back to bite the Democratic Party hard in the subsequent election, and Al Gore’s position on the issue may well have cost him the election. Why NOT let it drop? Barack Obama has many very pressing issues, and a man as smart as he SHOULDN’T be wasting time on hollow, feel-good legislation while he sits in the Oval Office.
However, we’re now ominously told that a statement on “gun control” is forthcoming from POTUS: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/26/david-axelrod-obama-gun-control-debate_n_814596.html
The “usual suspects” have predictably already introduced legislation you may find even more Draconian than the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban, which honest people seem to agree did absolutely nothing to reduce crime in its ten years of existence. Carolyn McCarthy has introduced this bill in the House of Representatives, and Frank Lautenberg has introduced the following in the Senate:
- Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
- Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Criminals Act
- Gun Show Background Check Act
Déjà vu, all over again.
They’ll use the 30+-round magazine in the gun of the Tucson killer as the pivot point of their attack on your rights to own firearms of a kind that have been part of America since the 19th Century.
The sort of people who fear “high capacity magazines” are the ones who have no plan but to lie down and play dead – or die – if they’re ever in the presence of someone like mass-murderer Jared Loughner in Tucson earlier this month.
But the people who appreciate that sort of technology are the ones who are determined enough to fight back against such monsters, even if they have to stand alone. People such as Condoleezza Rice’s dad, who sat alone on the front porch of the family home with a gun in his lap to ward off sheet-head racists back in the days of a gun-owning Republican named Martin Luther King.
I’ll have more to say about the magazine capacity matter in days to come…but I’d like to hear what YOU folks think.
I tend to think the vast majority of liberal politicals cannot NOT push gun control legislation. Just like the fable of the scorpion, they can’t help it: It’s what they DO. Gun control and entitlement are the bétes noir and Achilles’ heels of the Democrat party, just like abortion and gender-blind marriage are the bétes noir and Achilles’ heels of the Republicans.
Long Island Mike asks why we don’t see more pro-gun cops speaking out publicly as such, but anti-gun police chiefs speak their opinions publicly in uniform. The answer is, government employees in public service are not allowed to be publicly identified as officers when they speak on political issues. The Chief is the guy who decides department policy, and determines what issues the Department may address. He is the voice of the department. Chiefs are appointed. If the appointing authority — the mayor, let’s say — is anti-gun, he’ll pick an anti-gun chief and give him permission to speak for “more gun control” as a public safety issue, not a political one.
best,
Mas
I think a magazine capacity ban is political theater.
If the ban is a good idea then it should apply to police as well. Lets require that police carry a revolver again, and why would they need to reload.
The ban is a test of American foolishness. Maybe will will pass; maybe we won’t pass the test.
Mas, you know what my solution was–I transitioned my long guns to 1-round feeding devices.
Of course those one-round devices are metallic links, which just happen to hook together to feed my machine guns.
But each link holds just one round, so McCarthy and Lautenberg should be overjoyed.
The president can say whatever he wants. Other than issue an Executive Order his only power is to enforce the laws the legislator writes and the judiciary interprets. The other power he exerts is not in law but as the traditional head of his party.
Any House member wanting to see THOUSANDS of “single-issue voters” need only go to the next gun show in his district.
They are the margin of victory or defeat for him in next year’s election.
They won’t quit until they get us to single shots, then they’ll give it a go to ban them. Only thing stopping them is us. Remain resolute!
“…….government employees in public service are not allowed to be publicly identified as officers when they speak on political issues. The Chief is the guy who decides department policy, and determines what issues the Department may address. He is the voice of the department. Chiefs are appointed. If the appointing authority is anti-gun, ………. give him permission to speak for “more gun control” as a public safety issue, not a political one.
Mas is right on point with this. Having experienced this first hand as Chief, when I spoke out about the need for safety and limits regarding children handling firearms it was approved by the Selectmen, however when I publicly quoted George Washington and his support for private firearms ownership I was reprimanded.
I’m only glad I no longer have to deal with those short sighted politicians. And thanks to Mas’ training I still carry and publicly support the private ownership of all firearms.