Help End FReepathons by Donating Monthly!
Generous FReeper Sponsors are donating $10 for every New Monthly Donor!
Please Sign Up to Donate Monthly!
Posted on 11/15/2012 11:56:37 AM PST by neverdem
The NRA has been saying all along that Barack Obama would unleash an assault on our Second Amendment freedoms if he won a second term. It sure didn’t take long for him to prove us right.
Just hours after Obama won re-election last Tuesday, his administration endorsed a new effort by the global gun grabbers at the United Nations to draft a gun ban treaty early next year. The official starting point for the new talks is last year’s failed draft, which contains provisions that threaten our sovereign right to keep and bear arms through an international gun registration scheme.
And not long after Obama floated the idea of banning semi-automatic firearms, we learned that California Senator Dianne Feinstein was working with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to draft new legislation that would ban semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, so-called “high capacity” magazines, and rifles and shotguns with pistol grips. Reportedly, Feinstein wants to make it illegal not just to sell your guns and magazines, but to leave them behind in your will.
Not surprisingly, the lights had hardly gone out at Obama’s victory celebration last week when gun-hating New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with his pollster, Frank Luntz, were conducting push polls to promote government control over every firearm transfer — including between fathers and sons, and grandfathers and grandsons.
In Bloomberg’s world, a child wouldn’t be able to tear the wrapping paper off his first .22 rifle on Christmas morning unless Santa Claus had first cleared it with Obama’s bureaucrats.
I know a lot of folks are still down about last week’s presidential election. It’s puzzling how so many Americans can tell pollsters that the country is on the wrong track, then vote to keep the same guy driving the train.
But this isn’t the first time in history when gun owners and NRA members have faced a difficult challenge, and it won’t be the first time we’ve risen to the occasion and come out victorious. The Second Amendment wouldn’t be alive today if it wasn’t for the courage of tens of millions of gun owners and freedom-loving Americans across our nation, and throughout our history.
As long as dedicated patriots continue to band together and fight as though freedom itself is on the line — because it is — we will defend the Second Amendment in Obama’s second term and save it for generations to come.
For gun owners, the next four years won’t just be the fight of our lives, it will be a fight for the future of our nation. We’re ready to lead the charge.
Chris W. Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.
Your attitude needs to be adjusted. We have good, very pro-gun, conservative, Republican candidates for statewide office here in West Virginia, and the NRA ignores them.
That's inexcusable.
Romney is a gun grabber. He signed legislation into law in MA that mirrors the now sunsetted 'assault' weapons ban.
In MA...no magazine on any semi-automatic rifle can hold more than 10 rounds...handguns as well...10 rounds...except tubular rifle (.22) magazines.
No flash suppressors. No bayonet mounts. No grenade launchers, etc, etc.
That means I cannot own a stock Ruger Mini-14. Or a basic AR-15 platform rifle....and many, many others.
Basically, in MA...if you want long range stand off capability, you are relegated to a Winchester or Mossberg lever action 30-30 rifle. All because of Mitt Romney.
It might have taken him longer but Romney would have been very bad for gun owners. In my book as well, in that regard, he is no different from BHO.
You really think Boner won’t cry and cave in for a vote? Not saying it’d pass, but Boner will let this come up for a vote.
“Your attitude needs to be adjusted. We have good, very pro-gun, conservative, Republican candidates for statewide office here in West Virginia, and the NRA ignores them. That’s inexcusable.”
My attitude is fine. What’s inexcusable is bashing and discarding an organization that has been the MOST EFFECTIVE at keeping you behind the trigger. Without them our laws would look alot like Britian’s or Australia’s. I don’t agree with everything they say or do, but I recognize that they are the ones who mainly beat back RAT gun control on many occasions. They are still exremely effective and it would be stupid to weaken them by removing our support.
But when it comes down to it...they will support Dims. WHY?
FWIW-
Amen Brother. You will get no argument from me on the mission of the NRA which is to perpetuate the NRA over any perceived concern for the second amendment.
The NRA would not understand the words “shall not be infringed” if it was a tattoo on the forehead of every single paid person in their employ.
I have tried for over fifty years to understand where they are on the scale of concern. My own censored NRA rating is probably influenced by my attempts at taking them to task for the very things you have stated in your comments.
I know seriously anti-gun democrats with a higher rating. Could be my stance on the NFA of 1936. An act to stop hardened criminals from doing each other in with machine guns, at the expense of honest law abiding citizens and the arms industry. Everyone in the USA could afford one and they would still be manufactured in sustainable numbers were it not for the congress conveniently forgetting those important words “shall not be infringed”.
I say this about machine guns in general and not just the Thompson sub gun.
The long term result of 1936 law and 1986 law is the serious and obvious situation where the lowliest Sheriff is able to outgun any citizen in the USA, and the US Govt outguns everyone. The citizenry is left with WWI and WWII
relics that are considerably less than state of the art, and in numbers, decreasing with time.
The NRA should consider every single law passed by congress that infringes on the second amendment to point to abject failure on their part. Fat chance.
Any old timers remember Neal Knox? I’m not putting words in his mouth, but I think he wrestled with the same issues and eventually could no longer deal with them, and went his own way.
Too bad the NRA isn’t on the side of the American people.
I got a question for you and anyone else who wants to answer. Why didn’t Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the Dums not pass a new “Assault Weapons” ban in 2009 or 2010 when they had total control of both houses of Congress and the White House?
“DOA”
I didn’t know that you controlled Congress. /s
The House doesn’t pass treaties, the Senate does and he has all the Senators that he needs for it.
I have presented you with objectively verifiable facts which discredit the NRA.
it would be stupid to weaken them by removing our support.
It is stupid for them to weaken us by supporting our enemies in the Senate.
Do you honestly believe that Joe Manchin will do anything other than vote in virtual lockstep with Harry Reid to support the 0bama agenda?
Ummmm look at post 19. I'm a lot smarter than that.
Also, that’s sarcasm I posted. HEAVY sarcasm.
I missed the /s
...but then some feel sarcasm is obvious.
On the other hand, I made darn sure I didn’t call you stupid,
just the statement. Your come back was gracious considering.
...and I did wrestle with the word ever, or should I have just said recently. Considering how long I have been here I should have said recently.
Thanks for the reasonable suspicion of accuracy. No sarcasm intended.
“The NRA can talk a good game....
But when it comes down to it...they will support Dims. WHY?”
The NRA is a ONE ISSUE organization. The only thing they care about is the candidates position on gun control. Thats it. They support the candidate with the best position on gun control whether its Repub, RAT, or Independent. Sometimes it turns out to be a RAT. I dont agree with it but in the past it may have made sense because RATS weren’t the leftist nuts they are now.
They ran into more opposition to 0bamacare than they expected, and were busy shoving that down our throats.
“Thanks for the reasonable suspicion of accuracy. No sarcasm intended.”
No harm, no foul. I understand that what I intend as obvious sarcasm, may not be so obvious to the reader.
And another poster provided an example of why I should have used a sarcasm tag.
More to that story. Their institutional memory kicked in where they remembered getting their butts handed to them in 1994.
Blah, blah blah ...
“I have presented you with objectively verifiable facts which discredit the NRA.”
You provided nothing. Not supporting candidates you support doesnt discredit them. You hate Joe Manchin, they suported him and now you hate them. Blah, Blah, Blah.
“Do you honestly believe that Joe Manchin will do anything other than vote in virtual lockstep with Harry Reid to support the 0bama agenda?”
I don’t know anything about him. Maybe they supported him because he had a better position on gun control than your guy? Why do you think the NRA supported him?
"The NRA endorses leftist demonicRats and has the temerity to do so in the name of "voting for freedom"."
That is what we call a "fact". Joe Manchin is a leftist member of the so-called "Democrat Party". The NRA endorsed him.
I don’t know anything about him.
Yet you get all defensive when I criticize the NRA for endorsing him. Why is that?
Do some research for yourself ... find out what sort of Senator Joe Manchin has been. Cure your ignorance, so that you're capable of having an intelligent conversation.
Or not.
The enemy is reading this, and smiling. I would be too, if I were they.
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.