- Posted by Christopher Estep on November 4, 2008
Most Democrats are anti-gun. So it’s no surprise that Obama would be anti-gun as well. But when I say “anti-gun” in reference to Obama, it is to such a degree as to have never been seen in this country since its inception, regardless of the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.
Here is just a sample of Obama’s positions on gun control:
- Opposes “Right to Carry” laws
- Supports banning gun stores within 5 miles of a school. Most of this country is within 5 miles of a school. Sexual predators and drugs are usually kept at 1000 feet from a school. To put that in perspective, Obama thinks a gun store (where you have to show ID and fill out paperwork, not guns) should be 26 times as far away from a school as most people try to keep drugs and pedophiles. The end result would be to put gun shops out of business, of course.
- Wants to outlaw any gun that is too inexpensive for regular people to buy. The result would be only the rich and criminals would have guns and the poor would not be allowed to defend themselves with legal handguns, if they are so inclined.
- Supports mandatory registration, licensing, and training of all guns and their owners. This would create a database of law-abiding gun owners. Scary stuff. The criminals wouldn’t register of course.
- Supports massive suits against gun manufacturers for gun deaths. That’s like suing General Motors because a criminal used one to run down someone else.
Next Up: Judges
- Posted by Christopher on August 19, 2008
After a 30 year wait, Dick Heller, the man whose lawsuit led to the SCOTUS affirmation of the second amendment has finally gotten his permit:
The man whose lawsuit overturned Washington’s handgun ban has successfully registered his revolver, ending a more than 30-year wait to keep the weapon in his home.
Dick Heller walked out of D.C. police headquarters Monday, clutching a yellow firearms registration certificate stamped “approved.” He gave the thumbs-up sign, grinned and said, “Victory!”
Heller was among the first people to seek a gun permit under new rules adopted after the Supreme Court struck down the city’s 32-year-old handgun ban in June. Heller was the plaintiff in that case.
Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin
- Posted by Christopher Estep on July 7, 2008
Get this:
The court ruled that a blanket ban on handguns is unconstitutional, but D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and other Washington officials want to keep in place a prohibition on semiautomatic handguns — those in which a bullet clip is inserted into the gun’s grip.
I assumed that since “handgun” is a compound word, from “hand” and “gun” that even the libs would understand that under Heller you can’t ban a “gun” that fits in the “hand”. Apparently, I was wrong.
What I don’t understand is why. Haven’t they ever seen Dirty Harry
? Clint Eastwood carried a .44 revolver in all of those movies. The criminals were just as dead. As Clint said, “… will blow your head clean off…”
Michelle Malkin » DC mayor still unclear on the concept explained in Heller
- Posted by Christopher Estep on June 26, 2008
Heller is affirmed! This means that yes, Virginia (and DC), there is an individual right to bear arms!
Huzzah!
DC v. Heller - ScotusWiki
- Posted by Christopher Estep on June 3, 2008
Prominent British anti-gun activist Pat Regan was found dead in her home, having been stabbed to death, allegedly by her grandson. This is just such a tragedy… why, if only she’d had some way of defending herself!!
Anti-gun activist stabbed to death : Stop The ACLU
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 14, 2008
In a clear victory for gun owners and citizens in general, Sonny Perdue signed legislation that expands carry rights to include parks and restaurants:
Georgians with carry licenses will be able to tote their concealed guns on public transportation, in restaurants that serve alcohol and in state parks under legislation signed by Gov. Sonny Perdue on Wednesday.
With Perdue's signature, restaurant patrons will be permitted to carry a firearm, but would be barred from drinking while doing so. Violations would be a misdemeanor. Concealed weapons will now be allowed in state — and by extension — local parks. Firearms in purses or under jackets will also be permitted on public transportation.
Note the wonderfully biased language above. I'll let them have their fun, but I'll be "toting" the next time I take the train or go out to eat and if someone tries to threaten my family while I'm there, I'll try to protect the liberals too.
Perdue signs law allowing guns in restaurants | ajc.com
- Posted by Christopher Estep on May 6, 2008
We've all heard the typical talking-points that both parties use to identify the other. Rich white guy, bleeding heart liberal, that sort of thing.
In what is sure to be the modus operandi this fall, Howard "YAAAH!" Dean has given a hint as to how he wants his party to characterize us:
"When voters see John McCain's real record, they are not going to elect a radical rubber stamp who voted for every one of President Bush's activist judges and promises hundreds more just like them," DNC chairman Howard Dean said Tuesday.
I literally had to read that twice. That is...amazing. Even democrats won't buy that. It's laughable.
You're right, Howard. Republican judges are running rampant making sure that criminals can be executed, citizens can own guns in their own homes and bitter people (with the aforementioned guns) can cling to their "god".
Bring it on, Howard. Bring it on.
McCain castigates Obama on judges
- Posted by Christopher Estep on April 15, 2008
Repeatedly over the weekend, Barack snObama responded to the criticism surrounding his elitist, condescending statements about people in small towns. It's expected of course, but once again, Obamakova channels David Copperfield and uses sleight of mouth and misdirection in the hopes he can make the truth disappear by responding as though the complaints were about him calling people from Pennsylvania "bitter".
It's sort of a reverse straw-man. When someone makes a straw-man argument, they say something negative that is to be presumed as factual and then add on a second argument. A typical straw-man argument from the MSM would be, "since surge is failing, how many troops will be on the ground by election day?" The straw-man is making the notion of surge failure appear to be a foregone conclusion. It's treating perception (or even lies) as reality.
Obama is doing the same thing, but in reverse. He's not making the straw-man to press a point, he's using it to divert from one. It's actually pretty smart, but people are catching on. He does it all of the time!
By characterizing the offense as his use of "bitter", he responds with an entire diversionary argument which causes a counter-response to be what is discussed. Meanwhile, he hopes that people will forget that the real offense was his characterization of gun owners and religious people, declaring that they are only "this way" because of the economy.
He did the same thing with the Wright controversy. The problem people have with Wright is not that he "believes differently" (as Wright has said) but that Obama had him as a trusted advisor for over 20 years and the man himself is a racist and anti-Semite who teaches a militant Black Liberation agenda. But Obama didn't want to talk about his association with an anti-Semite and white-hater, so he gave an "important speech" on race relations. My relations with blacks is fine. Just ask my boss, who is black.
Watch everything he says and look carefully for diversions.
I'll conclude with a portrait of some people in the 1600's who were frustrated and bitter, too. It's the Puritans on their way to church.
- Posted by Christopher Estep on April 14, 2008
Have you ever known anyone who says whatever the boss and other decision-makers want to hear but insults them when they think nobody is listening?
I've worked with them for years, decades even. They're all the same. They're very charismatic and know all of the right things to say. They're big on generalities and small on specifics. They tout what grand transformations can occur if only they had more authority. Anyone that questions their plans or their motives is immediately characterized as an "enemy of change" or a "steward of the status quo".
But how do they act away from wherever they're maneuvering for power? What do they do when they're with people who already like them? Those people get to hear what he really thinks of his bosses.
In business we call them toadies or climbers. In politics we call them "Senator" or "Candidate for President"
So, when Barack Obama speaks before an ultra-liberal, wealthy, big city crowd, how does he talk about those in the middle of the country:
"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
To a liberal, if you don't jump on their bandwagons there is obviously and inherently something wrong with you. It is clearly unfathomable to Barack H. Obama, Esq. that anyone could support gun rights, want closed borders, or even be religious unless something is wrong with them. They must be just ignorant of the facts or maybe they're angry, frustrated or simply confused. To Obama, if you own guns, give 10% to your church, oppose a semi-black candidate, don't want people from other countries flaunting our laws or disagree with him on trade policy, it's not a disagreement in policy. You're broken and you just don't know it yet.
The paper maché facade that Obama has crafted is quickly tearing apart before our eyes. And it's beautiful.
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin