Posted on 11/26/2012 9:48:03 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
President Obama's fleeting mention of the need for stronger gun controls at a presidential debate last month was hardly the kind of forceful political statement needed to address the scourge of gun violence in this country. Even his tepid remark was considered by the nation's gun owners as a threat to take away their firearms. In what amounts to a buyers' panic, they are again ramping up gun and ammunition sales as they did four years ago, convinced that Mr. Obama intends a gun-control crackdown.
Yet in his first term, Mr. Obama did nothing to cross the gun lobby, and he actually signed legislation allowing loaded firearms to be carried in national parks. Let's hope Mr. Obama shows more courage on guns in his second term. He said during the debate that he would see "if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced" and that we need to look at "other sources of the violence," like "cheap handguns." Now it's time to follow through on those promises.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.nytimes.com ...
“Mr. Obama is free of the pressures of campaigning - and free to lead the nation toward sensible laws that can help reduce the flood of guns and related homicides.”
Hmm, I wonder if the author knows the double meaning behind that sentence.
Just wanted to clear up this "assault" weapon thingy. I may be mistaken and way off base, of course, so please step up and educate me.
So, to carry on with my analogy, if a Twinky was an approved piece of equipment for military maneuvers, or for use during the final phase of an attack, i.e., "the assault", then, with proper modification, it could become known as an "assault Twinky".
The modifications might possibly be a hardened, crush-proof case, waterproofed, snap-locked, improved grip, camo-wrapper, etc. However, it is still basically a Twinky, with its fluffy exterior and creamy center...Yum. So, the various modifications really haven't added or subtracted to its intrinsic "Twinkie-ness".
Guess I'm just never going to understand the vagaries of this issue.
“The American Revolution began when the British tried to disarm the colonists.
Seems fitting that it ends with the colonists demanding to be disarmed.”
Uhhh - not to disagree, but those clamoring for disarming of Americans are commies (if the leaders) or they are either ParasitePersons or Urban Ferals wanting safer stealing conditions.
I would say this differently.
"The American Revolution began when their own government, determined to collect taxes on tea and to punish the citizens of Boston for destroying untaxed tea, occupied the city with soldiers, surrounded it with the navy, and tried to disarm the people."
It's worth pointing out that Paul Revere did not shout, "The British are coming". He shouted, "the Regulars are coming out", meaning the regular army of his own government.
Taking guns from private citizens might be an easier sell for Idi Obama if he were willing to relinquish all weapons he has in his possession, including those he surrounds himself and his 3 bit**** with. The Kenyan vulture wants it all. His desire is to selectively eliminate all opposition and if he can use all of his weaponry against an unarmed force, he will solidify total control. How is Bo any different than Idi Amin and Robert Mugabe?
It’s not about stopping criminal misuse of guns.
It’s about increasing what legally constitutes criminal misuse, so they have an excuse to jail your a$$.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men...”
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.