Posted on 12/07/2008 10:25:32 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
From the prospect of an incoming president and vice president with decidedly anti-gun-rights voting records, to a liberal West Coast mayor determined to ban firearms by "executive order" without benefit of city council or legislative review, American gun owners have good reason to doubt the sincerity of liberal Democrats now in control of Congress and soon to control the Oval Office, who claim to support firearm civil rights.
Far too many red flags are being waved for gun owners to take a benign posture just six months after a landmark Supreme Court ruling confirmed what they had known all along: that the Second Amendment affirms and protects a fundamental individual civil right to keep and bear arms.
President-elect Barack Obama is on record supporting gun registration, permanent renewal of the ban on "assault weapons," slapping an exorbitant increase on the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition, and banning handguns outright. His vice president-elect, Delaware's Joe Biden, is a veteran gun-control advocate who authored the original "assault weapons" legislation.
Recently, it was revealed that prospective Obama administration employees were being asked this invasive question: "Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."
Aside from demonstrating a serious ignorance of gun laws--only five states require some level of gun registration, and only in New York City and in New York's Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties is there a renewal requirement--this question suggests that gun owners, or kin of gun owners, will face anti-gun discrimination in their job search. Call it guilt by association, either with firearms or with a relative who owns one.
If this is the kind of "change" we can expect under the Obama administration, gun owners have reason to worry. The more some Democrats "change," the more they stay the same. American citizens flocked to gun shops after the election. Many of those people, ironically, were first-time gun buyers or gun owners who voted for the Chicago Democrat.
Obama reinforced gun-owner apprehension by appointing Rahm Emanuel--point man for the Clinton administration on gun-control issues--as his chief of staff. Eric Holder, his nominee for attorney general, signed an amicus brief in support of the Washington, D.C., gun ban, while arguing that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, positions soundly rejected by the Supreme Court.
Both houses of Congress are controlled by Obama's Democratic Party, and leadership positions are occupied by devoted anti-gunners. As we detailed in our recent book, "These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns," the party excels in pro-Second Amendment rhetoric, but labors to reduce that right to a highly regulated privilege.
This brings us around to Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle. He has promised to ban even legally-carried guns from city--make that public--property, by executive order. Nearly 250,000 Washington State residents are licensed to carry concealed handguns, and it is also legal in the Evergreen State to carry handguns openly, without a license.
Nickels was advised by the state attorney general that he lacks the authority under Washington's model pre-emption law to enact a gun ban, but he has vowed to do it anyway.
Gun owners see this as imperial arrogance, and suspect that if Nickels can ignore his own state's preemption statute, then Congress and a Democratic president might just presume to ignore the Constitution.
************
Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week.
> I wouldn’t count on that.
I’m not counting on it.
I’m just not as optimistic as you.
In the war between the Federalists and the Confederates, the military leaders picked their sides, as did the men they led. Families were divided and shooting at eachother. The military on either side had no problems effecting brutal, ruthless prosecution of the war, even shelling civilian populations and executing non-committal citizens as traitors and spies.
More Americans died in that war than in all the other wars combined.
A conflict between the Communists and the Constitutionalists has every prospect of being at least as bloody. The only thing that could make such a conflict less bloody is the overwhelming technical and arms advantage wielded by whoever controls the Federal military. That advantage would render such a conflict as merely crushing a rebellion.
Oh, and if the Communists win, and they will if they control the lion’s share of the US military, Constitutionalism will be discredited, disallowed as treason, and effectively dead.
If it were to happen it would clearly trigger America's first true civil war. The military officer corps swears an oath to the U.S. Constitution - not the "King" - and the employment of any force outside that framework simply would not be tolerated. As a retired officer, I have no doubt of that. I also have close friends and family in police and federal law enforcement that feel just as strongly. Add to that hundreds of thousands of armed civilians.
After the first few mass actions were attempted, any praetorian guardsman would have the life expectancy shorter than a rookie WWI pilot.
When I was vet - we followed orders - well... MOST of us did.
Same experience here.
The original question remains. Interesting you chose to dodge it...
I advised my parents to put the conservatives at one table and the libtards at the other on Thanksgiving. As much fun as it would have been to go toe to toe with my brother, my “funny” (not funny ha ha) cousin and my sheepish aunts, the last thing I wanted to see was my mother crying during the holidays, especially since she was the cook.
Revive 'United States Notes' and let the Treasury issue its debt directly. Retire the Federal Reserve system (middlemen), and do not pay interest on the debt (nearly 1/4 of the Federal Budget).
Yes, it is that simple.
I just have to survive Christmas, and then I can pretty much go a year without having to deal with any direct confrontations.
Unforunately for America, I am confident that Obama will cause plenty of destruction next year, so my family members would be wise to be silent at Thanksgiving/Christmas 2009. If provoked, I will probably eat them alive and not visit there ever again.
Dad can always visit me anytime he wants.
PS... Your idea is a good one. It’s just a pity that our familes are so terribly Balkanized like this.
You have no idea how much I wanted Obama to lose (aside from obvious reasons) so that I could gloat during the holidays.
Now, like yourself, I’m patiently awaiting the demise of his popularity. Only I won’t wait until next Christmas to say “I told you so.” :)
Hubby asked me if he should bring his new 1911 to dinner with us to show it off to my brother or leave it in the car. As much humor as I found in it, I was erring on the side of caution and said “Keep it in your holster. Things may get ugly.” lol
Whenever one of them starts to chime in with an Obama catch phrase, I simply say, "Let's not discuss Obama, please."
While I am polite, I do not forget just how evil Obama is. To compare my two of my own family members to Jonestown people is an understatement.
I try to keep things quiet and diplomatic.
Brilliant and I concur. Now onto the ‘doing’ part which is much harder then words and carries risks to life and limb :)
Thank you for spellchecking, you are right and I will pay a bit more attention to proper spelling.
I think I'd just lie. And then if they ever found out about my gun ownership just sue the living crap out of them.
That's when the governor calls up their NG units and orders them to defend state citizens against what rapidly turns into an invasion.
If you have any and they want them badly enough they will.
And he risks a civil war if he creates a new 'branch' of armed troops in the USA.
Marker
Question?
It was a statement with a question mark at the end.
“That’s when the governor calls up their NG units and orders them to defend state citizens against what rapidly turns into an invasion.”
Unfortunately the NG troops will have been federalized long before that would happen and they will be taking orders from 0bama.
Still dodging, huh?
Whatever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.