The untalented flotsam at the Dallas Morning News calls gun owners “sheep.”
From what I see, they are one of the most naive, most easily manipulated political groups in the country.
Naive? Why?
There’s no evidence the Obama administration has any major shift in gun laws in mind.
Oh really?
“The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said.” ABC News Link
Mr. Obama hasn’t made any move yet to enact gun control only because he doesn’t have the votes. Even he admits this. He and Joe Biden know the losses the Democrat Party suffered when they enacted the first massive gun ban in the early 1990s.
But here’s a sampling of Mr. Obama’s past quotes and positions in favor of gun control, showing if he had the votes and could sell it, Obama would ban guns in a heartbeat.
——————
Mr. Obama supports the proposed HR 45 bill that would enact draconian gun control.
He is in favor of “closing” the non-existent “gun show loophole” — despite the fact that every firearms dealer at any gun show must conduct a full background check on every buyer.
Mr. Obama opposes concealed carry.
“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.” Link
Obama’s pro gun control position from Ontheissues.org
His attorney general, Eric Holder — who never met an anti-gun law he didn’t support — wants to re-enact the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban. Obama is on the record as supporting the ban’s renewal. Link
The ban on “armor piercing bullets” that Obama supports is a Trojan Horse.
Obama voted for an amendment by longtime ammunition ban advocate Sen. Edward Kennedy (S. Amdt. 1615 to S. 397, Vote No. 217, July 29, 2005), which would have fundamentally changed the federal “armor piercing ammunition” law (18 U.S.C. ‘ 922(a)(7)), by banning any bullet that “may be used in a handgun and that the Attorney General determines… to be capable of penetrating body armor” that “meets minimum standards for the protection of law enforcement officers.”
Federal law currently bans bullets as “armor piercing” based upon the metals used in their construction, such as those made of steel and those that have heavy jackets. (18 U.S.C. ‘ 921(a)(17)). The Kennedy amendment would have fundamentally changed the law to add a ban on bullets on the basis of whether they penetrate the “minimum” level of body armor, regardless of the bullets’ construction or the purposes for which they were designed (e.g., hunting).
Many bullets designed and intended for use in rifles (including hunting rifles) have, over the years, been used in special-purpose hunting and target handguns, thus they “may be used in a handgun.”
The “minimum” level of body armor, Type I, only protects against the lowest-powered handgun cartridges. Any center-fire rifle used for hunting, target shooting, or any other purpose, and many handguns used for the same purposes, are capable of penetrating Type I armor, regardless of the design of the bullet.
“I’m consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry.”
Chicago Tribune, 4/27/04
“I think it’s a scandal that this president (Bush) did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.”
Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04
“I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers lobby.”
The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, 2006
“I think that local jurisdictions have the capability to institute their own gun laws.”
BaltimoreSun.com, 2/15/08
“There was a discussion today about a law that has just passed in California that allows micro-tracing of bullets that have been discharged in a crime so that they can immediately be traced,” he said. “This is something that California has passed over the strong objections of the NRA…That’s the kind of common sense gun law that gun owners as well as victims of gun violence can get behind.”
Baltimore Sun.com Feb. 15, 2008
So what’s really naive? Worrying that a superficial man with a long track record of supporting and voting for gun control might, indeed, try to force more gun control on us while saying he won’t?
Or is naive just taking the word of a politician who says, “Trust me”?
(h/t Tom E.)
No matter what side of issue you’re on, sloppy reporting (and pretty much a total lack of research or attribution) is always worth pointing out.
And yes, columnists are reporters, too.
Exactly right. We can disagree on the issue, we can disagree on how serious Obama is or is not, but Steve’s statements are so factually wrong it’s beyond silly.
Obama spent 8 years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, an organization that channels money to anti gun groups.
Good grief, Trey, how naive can you be? Steve doesn’t care about gun control any more than he cares about Antarctic krill. Every columnist over there has been up to this same schtick for months now. This is Steve’s version of sitting on a bar stool in front of a Bourbon Street dive and barking at fresh off the turnip truck Trey, “Ever seen a nekkid lady, sonny?” And how do you respond? Like James Bond, right? “Ladies, naked? I have a flat full, thank you.” Noooooooo, you’re, like, “Hoooo-boy! Nekkid lady? Not only I wanna see’er, Ima gonna tell everbody I know about this! This is so hot! Hooo-boy! Nekkid lady!” And then everybody goes to see what got Trey the rube so excited and it’s Mango, the toothless, one-legged day tranny. Nekkid. Pwned, Trey, old man, pwned. But why waste a good thing when you can turn around and use Steve’s same hustle on your own blog readers, eh?
^ Was that supposed to make sense?
Kyle…back slowly away from the keyboard.