Holder Acknowledges Obama Will Seek Assualt Weapons Ban

eCountryLifestyle ^ | March 03, 2009 | National Shooting Sports Foundation

[Wpin]

In response to Attorney General Eric Holder's comments about reinstating the ban on so-called "assault weapons," the National Shooting Sports Foundation issued a press release reminding Congress and all Americans that such a ban would result in a loss of jobs, have no effect on reducing crime and would deprive millions of law-abiding sportsmen and gun owners of their Constitutional right to own the firearm of their choice...

[Atlas Sneezed]

Haven’t heard of the other group, but glad they are out there.

---

NSSF is a trade group for the firearms industry.

[TigersEye]

They will not sit out this attack on our rights!

There isn't a darned thing they can do to stop it.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

Dear BamBam,

You, your porkulus plan, your income stealing taxes, and your gun stealing laws can all go eff themselves.

Go to Hell,

American Taxpayers

---

Tea Parties are not enough. The producers in this country need to organize and go on strike. A couple days of that would make them whistle a different tune.

[Wpin]

No apology needed, no offense. I have heard og the AHSA also, bunch of phonies...

[Iron Munro]

Its about control.

The reason they don't want the people to have "assault" style weapons and the reason the people should have these weapons are one and the same.

It is almost as if Thomas Jefferson knew Obama was on the way when he observed:

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson
.

[Cacique]

Don’t worry, his domestic security army made up of nation of islam militants, ACORN people, ex convicts from the hood, mexican drug runners will get all the assault weapons they need when they use them to herd us all into re-education camps.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

At this point it makes no difference whether you are a meat hunter, varmint hunter, target shooter, personal defense shooter, gun collector or just someone who likes to go out in woods and go Bang every once in a while.

We need to stand united and actively resist passage of this ban.

Today's letter to Feinstein, Boxer, Speier, Pelosi and Reid; printed on genuine paper, signed by hand and sent via the US Mail:

Dear #;

Please allow me to express my belief by that by mobilizing millions of law abiding gun owners the "assault weapon" ban proposed by Attorney General Holder will spell an end to the Democratic majority in the House and Senate in 2010.

Of course, that assumes that you let us have elections in 2010. After all, if you can legislate the Second Amendment out of existence who is to say you can't legislate Article One, Sections Two and Three out of existence as well.

Regards,

I know it won't do any good but it made me feel better :o)

[Iron Munro]

Your comment prompted me to look up Michael Steele's position on gun control.
It's not encouraging.

Just like a democrat he pretends the 2nd ammendment is about hunting ducks instead of hunting tyrants.

Michael Steele on Gun Control

Q: Your views on gun control?

A: My views are pretty much in line with the governor's. I grew up under some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. You can have all the gun control laws in the country, but if you don't enforce them, people are going to find a way to protect themselves. We need to recognize that bad people are doing bad things with these weapons. It's not the law-abiding citizens, it's not the person who uses it as a hobby.

Q: Should people have access to buy assault weapons?

A: Society should draw lines. What do you need an assault weapon for, if you're going hunting? That's overkill. But I don't think that means you go to a total ban for those who want to use [a] gun for skeet shooting or hunting or things like that But what's the point of passing gun laws if we're not going to enforce them? If you want to talk about gun control, that's where you need to start. We've got 300 gun laws on the books right now. At the end of the day, it's about how we enforce the law.

[buccaneer81]

Yep. Very John Kerry-esque:

[Retired Greyhound]

Great job. You said a lot in a succinct way. I will sign that and send it.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

Chairman Steele's 2006 position was posted yesterday on another thread. At that time I sent an e-mail to the chairman's office asking if his position had changed and if so what his current position is.

I called the office this morning and got the reply that "The Chairman does not at this time have a stated position on an assault weapons ban."

I have not received a specific reply to my e-mail other than the auto-responder message.

In light of this I would like to recommend that no political contributions be directed to the RNC. Instead, direct any political giving to individual candidates whose positions on gun control and other issues of interest to you have been vetted by you and found to be in alignment with your own beliefs.

[UnChained]

“GW also reported the Government is trying to DEFINE what is SNIPER RIFLE based on barrel weight and diameter and rifle twist.”

A federal ban on sniper rifles would be about as contrary to the purpose of the second amendment as you can get.

The Right to Bear Arms was well understood to be a natural right possessed by men prior to the writing of the constitution. That right was to be able to kill another person if need arose. Ownership of military usable weapons is what the second amendment protects.

[UnChained]

“Second of all—the Second Amendment is all about Americans’ right to shoot PEOPLE—because oppressive governments always employ PEOPLE.”

HEAR! HEAR!

[Wpin]

“Don’t worry, his domestic security army made up of nation of islam militants, ACORN people, ex convicts from the hood, mexican drug runners will get all the assault weapons they need when they use them to herd us all into re-education camps.”

The scary thing, is while this is a distant possibility is the fact that it is somewhat a possibility.

[Wpin]

Awesome post! Bravo bravo!!!

[Cacique]

Distant possibility? What does the left radical elite know that we don’t? Why would they deliberately wreck the economy and trigger a depression right in the open without any pretense knowing full well this would be an invite to a republican take over of the house in 2010. Why do all the damage quickly in the first 90 days to destroy capitalism and plunge us into a depression? Unless of course they have already set up plans where there either will not be 2010 elections or they will be totally worthless. These guys haven’t even started. We’re barely 40 days into this administration and look at what they have done. What do you think they can do in a year? In two years? We may not have a country left by then.

[Wpin]

I agree that it looks pretty bleak right now...but first thing to consider...they cannot “destroy” capitalism. Free market economies are the ‘natural’ order of things. Evidence the Soviet Union where the black market was estimated by some economists to be as large as the ‘legit’ official economy.

In our nation, we do have the opportunity to have peaceful revolutions. That is literally what happened in the 80’s and 90’s and culminating in the Republicans won control of both houses of congress and the White House.

It can happen again. What concerns me most is that when the downturn really gets nasty, assuming it does, that there will be bloodshed on the streets. The democrats do not lead, they rule...and they rule utilizing hatred, bigotry, and greed. They have diminished the value of life within their own ranks to a point where I believe we are in danger of Nazi like government from them at some point. This is a low odd concern, but it is much greater than before.

I think that perhaps their strategy is to make so many people dependent on their rule that they stay in power. For instance, eventually they will run us into such a bad economic state that people will be demanding that the government take over GM, Ford, and Chrysler as well as the major banks, health care, etc. Unfortunately, from our experience we know their will be many Republicans who will “work” within that framework voicing minor opposition or a twist on what the democrats are doing to “position” themselves for re-election.

This is evidenced by Obama working so hard to undermine conservative Republicans, yet walk through the Republican side of congress after his talk the other night in a show of “bipartisanship”.

But, the world and reality will probably catch up with the democrats and they will lose favor with the people, that is what I would bet on. They are working against nature, they represent evil, and they are arrogant as hell. It will be tough for them to continue their successes with that combination for too long, even with many in the media propagandizing for them.