Just received this from a buddy of mine in Nashville, Tenn.

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-gun-ban-list-is-out/

Lets make it alittle easier. Just close down any company that makes fire arms. Put everyone in Jail. Just leave the criminals on the outside...

This sounds like the Blair Holt Gun Control bill - http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/h...ory?id=3899236

Doesn't sound like anything to worry about. The politicians are too smart to vote for it - they'd risk not being re-elected.

Originally Posted by Taj44

This sounds like the Blair Holt Gun Control bill - http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/h...ory?id=3899236

Doesn't sound like anything to worry about. The politicians are too smart to vote for it - they'd risk not being re-elected.

They may risk not being re-elected but I wouldn't say that they are too smart to vote for it.

At least my guns are on the list. I feel better. I must have chosen well.

Ammunition in gun stores is in short supply. Rationed in some stores. Ammunition industry has cut back because of administration threats of over regulation. Gun store shelves have a lot of empty spaces where guns have been sold and not restocked. Business for them is great. Guns are selling at record levels. The people buying them are law abiding citizens.

Why?

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

Originally Posted by Taj44

This sounds like the Blair Holt Gun Control bill - http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/h...ory?id=3899236

Doesn't sound like anything to worry about. The politicians are too smart to vote for it - they'd risk not being re-elected.

I think the risk is greater... I think they realize that too... The civil unrest that would result from that type of gun control could ignite a level of unrest that would parallell the Civil War.

What hasn't been addressed out loud are the wants and desires of our northern (Canada) and southern (Mexico) neighbors on this issue.

Ottawa has been pushing for more restrictive US laws on firearm ownership and registration for a long time. Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws, and the smuggling of firearms (all kinds) and ammunition from the US to Mexico is high on Mexico's concerns.

In the administration's rush to be internationally liked, this is not a surprise.

"Out of my cold dead hands".

Let me see if I can extrapolate the effectiveness of a "ban"...it is against the law for felons and convicted criminals to have a gun...ah yes the effectiveness of legislation...

BTK

Looks like it might be wise for someone to take a long, hard look at what the heavy gun control is doing there. If gun control is so great, then how come so many are being shot and killed en masse? Betcha they don't have permits, either...just the guns with the good guys left defenseless.

No one seems anxious to quote from the actual wording of the second amendment in this discussion. Here it is.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I suspect that the gun and ammo hoarders recognize that a new Supreme Court (probably two or three new Obama appointments in the next eight years) may well require what the amendment says and look for a militia tie in in order for the people to keep and bear bear arms. The last vote on this issue was in '08 under Robert's court on a DC case with a 5 to 4 support of not requiring membership in a militia to keep and bear arms.

I'm neutral in this matter, never having owned or felt that I wanted or needed to own a gun. I don't care which way it goes.

Originally Posted by rwcw

No one seems anxious to quote from the actual wording of the second amendment in this discussion. Here it is.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I suspect that the gun and ammo hoarders recognize that a new Supreme Court (probably two or three new Obama appointments in the next eight years) may well require what the amendment says and look for a militia tie in in order for the people to keep and bear bear arms. The last vote on this issue was in '08 under Robert's court on a DC case with a 5 to 4 support of not requiring membership in a militia to keep and bear arms.

I'm neutral in this matter, never having owned or felt that I wanted or needed to own a gun. I don't care which way it goes.

You are assuming an awful lot... last I knew was that a presidential term was only 4 years!

Originally Posted by rwcw

No one seems anxious to quote from the actual wording of the second amendment in this discussion. Here it is.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I suspect that the gun and ammo hoarders recognize that a new Supreme Court (probably two or three new Obama appointments in the next eight years) may well require what the amendment says and look for a militia tie in in order for the people to keep and bear bear arms. The last vote on this issue was in '08 under Robert's court on a DC case with a 5 to 4 support of not requiring membership in a militia to keep and bear arms.

I'm neutral in this matter, never having owned or felt that I wanted or needed to own a gun. I don't care which way it goes.

The Supreme Court ruling was not to support not requiring membership in a militia to keep and bear arms. The ruling validated that the second amendment guaranteed the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

because I am not involved....(I am using the statement for my case....not railing against the poster)......well that is exactly the problem we have in America today. We cannot just cherry pick and choose the freedoms we care to defend. What has been and is becoming more significant with each passing day/week/year, is that many of our values and freedoms are being modified or eliminated without even needing the direct support of the majority of we the people. Why? Because we the people are supporting the changes to our core values and freedoms by declaring to be not involved or not participating or not contacting their representatives on issues that affect our freedoms and values.
When they take one that folks are not involved with or not concerned about, they are only allowing the precedents to accrue and then move on to the next one....which may be one they do care about or concerned about....but then it will be too late.

You are involved. The armed citizenry is in fact keeping you and yours more safe on the streets and in your homes. Just do a little home work on the crime rates in those countries where guns are not allowed. Or the before and after rates where they have been eliminated. When will we the people rise to the occasion it is not gun control that brings safety....gun control.....water boarding like too many other current administration (all incumbents) objectives is politically motivated....has absolutely NOTHING to do with the care and preservation of the rights of we the people.

Unfortunately it is going to take a major life changing incident to get the attention of the majority who are we the people...something that will be so terrible they will see they ARE INVOLVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BTK

Originally Posted by Yoda

The Supreme Court ruling was not to support not requiring membership in a militia to keep and bear arms. The ruling validated that the second amendment guaranteed the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Yoda

A member of the loyal opposition

The case involved was District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). A very good summary, with access to all the briefs presented to the Supreme Court, is at http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=DC_v._Heller

The issues involved have been convoluted by the press. The central issue was DC's ban on handguns being possessed by private citizens, while long rifles were okay.

As the case went forward challenging the constitutionality of DC's handgun ban, more and more people and organizations jumped on the bandwagons, and the case generated a mountain of amicus briefs to accompany the parties' briefs.

For those interested in the gun control issue, the case and the briefs make interesting reading.

FYI

To: ALL MEDIA
For immediate release

May 14, 2009
For more information contact:

Ted Novin
Office: 203-426-1320
Cell: 202-253-1860


Firearms Sales Figures for April

NEWTOWN, Conn. -- The upward trend in firearms sales continued in April, marking the sixth consecutive month of significant increases.


Data released by the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reported 1,225,980 checks in April 2009. This figure is a 30.3 percent increase from the 940,961 reported in April 2008.

FBI background checks are required under federal law for all individuals purchasing either new or used firearms from federally licensed retailers. The checks serve as a gauge of actual sales but do not reflect the actual number of firearms sold, since, following a background check, a customer may decide not to purchase a firearm or may purchase more than one firearm.

The April increase follows a 29.2 percent gain in March and rises of 23 percent in February, 28 percent in January, 24 percent in December and 42 percent in November when a record 1,529,635 background checks were performed.

The increase in NICS checks coincides with a rise in excise taxes reported by firearms manufacturers, another indicator of firearm sales.

###