Today on Meet the Press, President Obama told accused criminal David Gregory that, during his second term, he would put his “full weight” behind a gun control agenda.
He went on to mock the suggestion put forward by the NRA, state officials, and numerous law enforcement agencies that armed officers be placed in all schools.
This comment is particularly hypocritical because his own children (and those of Meet the Press host David Gregory) attend Sidwell Friends which has 11 armed security guards on staff in addition to the secret service detail they enjoy.
However, this kind of double-standard should come as no surprise to those who have been paying attention. Gregory himself remains under investigation for a televised violation of DC’s strict-liability magazine ban. And yet, no arrest has been made, nor will one. Why? Because he is a liberal Democrat who committed the crime in furtherance of the liberal agenda. They are immune to the laws which they want so desperately to enforce against the ‘great unwashed masses.’
You can watch the entire appearance below if you have the stomach for it.
In the meantime, Vice-President Joe Biden is in charge of the gun-control panel established by President Obama to draft a legislative response to the madman’s attack in Connecticut. Amazingly enough however, the panel is not drafting legislation strengthening our nations failing mental health programs but rather is focusing its efforts on drafting a new ‘assault weapons’ ban.
Biden, who drafted the first ‘assault weapons’ ban, has long bemoaned the fact that his first effort didn’t go far enough and is reportedly excited about making this legislation much more extensive. A bill put forward last week by Senator Diane Feinstein is a good indicator of what we might expect to see from the administration.
- Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
- 120 specifically-named firearms;
- Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
- Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
- Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
- Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
- Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
- Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
- Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
- Gives lip-service to protecting hunters by:
- Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment (see below);
- Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
- Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
- Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
- Background check of owner and any transferee;
- Type and serial number of the firearm;
- Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
- Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
- Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
In short, they are coming for your guns!
The great irony of this situation is that, during the 2012 election, the NRA predicted that President Obama was “coming for our guns” during his second term if re-elected. They based that assertion on a 2011 White House meeting between President Obama, Sarah and Jim Brady, and Paul Helmke.
In a subsequent interview with the Washington Post, Sarah Brady quoted Obama as saying that “We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.” The reaction to this by American gun owners, including those in the Democrat party, was swift and the Brady campaign quickly went into damage-control mode.
Helmke went first, downplaying the issue and telling the press that President Obama had made no specific promises to go after guns. Sarah Brady herself, properly chastised behind closed doors one would assume, went next saying that “What ever I might have said or agreed to was purely speculative as I never spoke to the president myself about this issue.”
Based upon Brady’s retraction, PolitiFact rated the NRA’s assertion as a ‘Pants-on-Fire‘ mischaracterization.
Apparently the NRA was right once again. They are coming for your guns, and those of you who voted for President Obama made that possible.
Do not make that mistake again! When push comes to shove, there apparently are no pro-gun Democrats.
Gimme an R… R!
Gimme an E… E!
Gimme a V… V!
Give me an H!
What does it spell? Hyperbole! This is the same warmed over fear mongering we’ve seen for 80 years. As blue state member of a family who has owned well over 100 guns for decades, I speak for all of us when I say that overheated fears of government intrusion and loose talk of “revolution” makes you seem generally foolhardy, myopic, irretrievably paranoid. My family stopped supporting the NRA decades ago because we no longer wanted to be associated with their foolish comments and ill-reasoned positions. Turns out we were right.
And we’re still armed to the teeth and distinctly not living in fear of losing any of our guns. Go figure.
Your family may have been gun owners for decades but if any of those guns are covered under legislation the administration manages to pass then you won’t be for too much longer.
As for talk of “revolution”, where do I do that? What are you talking about?
And I AM in fear of losing certain guns. When the President says he is putting his “full weight” behind passing a particular agenda, it MEANS something.
And for me what it means is that any belief I might have once had in the elusive creature known as a pro-gun Democrat is gone.
As a Libertarian, I may have to hold my nose while doing so, but my vote and my wallet are focused like a laser on electing Republicans to every seat I can vote for, dogcatcher to President.
Look at the comment above mine, from Jack. I don’t suppose he’s intending to spell “revolver,” do you?
And I know you’re in fear of losing your guns. I’m not. Neither are those in my family who have stopped listening to the NRA and others who have been crying wolf for generations. Nor are we opposed to rational, rights protecting changes in gun safety laws (and we’re not remotely alone: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/23/gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein).
That’s not to say that’s what’s proposed is “rational” or “rights protecting,” because it’s likely to be ineffective and, frankly, rather pathetic. But various gun measures have come and gone over time, and that will continue. We pass and repeal laws with great regularity (though unfortunately we have a hard time ever getting them right, but that’s humans for you). At the end of the day we’ll still have the 2nd Amendment and the Heller decision and a majority of the nation supporting the right to bear arms. Same as it’s ever been.
But more importantly, I think you’d be a much more effective advocate for gun rights by focusing on what should be done about the problem some Americans have with guns (even if that means you must first admit that a significant minority of us indeed has a problem with them, which you may already have done – I don’t know) while still protecting the 2nd amendment rights. The words “well regulated” are right there in the amendment itself, after all, and we’re certainly not well regulated in that area. The “sky is falling” argument, which has been made since before you were a twinkle in your father’s eye to absolutely zero effect while also having been borne out as completely false, simply makes all but a radicalized minority of folks tune you out.
There has been ample opportunity for “Democrats” to “take our guns,” but it’s not happened. And based on all of my observances over a lifetime of gun-ownership, it’s not going to happen in any meaningful way. I don’t expect to convince you, though. What’s unfortunate about that is I think you’d be a much better 2nd amendment advocate if I could. But it is what it is.
To say that no one may be coming for your guns is to be in denial. No free access to suppressors, full auto or purchase – all controlled/limited by feds. They want your guns – no denying it. Saying “No they don’t” only confirms that you are in denial.
DHS buys 1.6+ billion bullets? For what? Can’t use hollow points in war, unless it’s war on the People. All tyrants disarm the People so their radical policies can be forced on the People without repercussion.
Yes, of course they are coming for the guns. The NRA isn’t going to save you, only YOU can save you. People standing up to a tyrant has always worked, never easy and never fast, but this ship must be turned or our children will live in fear of the government WE have allowed to grow into the dictatorship it is. WE continue to elect servants that are poisoning the U.S. pool and telling us it’s all good. All politics are local – change yourself, then your family and you can change the world.
Stand up and tell D.C. we will not tolerate a gun grab. Call, write, email – overload their phones, inboxes and mailboxes. Will they listen? Probably not, they haven’t in a long time, but 3% change this land by standing up.
Pingback: Georgia is the latest state to report skyrocketing gun sales | OpenCarry.org
For what it’s worth, this is the same ATF who, in Barack’s administration, let thousands of illegally purchased guns cross the border into Mexico. These “walked” guns were later used in several murders, one of those murders was of a US Border Patrol agent.
Less than half of the guns they let slip through have been recovered.