moonbattery logo

Jan 07 2013

Obama’s Antigun Agenda

Gun-toting antigun Senator Dianne Feinstein’s attack on the Second Amendment is only the beginning:

The White House is weighing a far broader and more comprehensive approach to curbing the nation’s gun violence than simply reinstating an expired ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, according to multiple people involved in the administration’s discussions.

A working group led by Vice President Biden is seriously considering measures backed by key law enforcement leaders that would require universal background checks for firearm buyers, track the movement and sale of weapons through a national database, strengthen mental health checks, and stiffen penalties for carrying guns near schools or giving them to minors, the sources said.

“Mental health checks” and “penalties for carrying guns near schools” may sound reasonable superficially, but can be used to encroach unacceptably upon your indispensable right to bear arms.

This gives an idea of how serious the situation has become:

The White House is working with aides to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on a broader package of gun-violence initiatives…

There is no public figure more vociferously hostile to the liberties that define this country than NYC’s fascistic mayor, whose lust to dictate even the most trivial minutiae of other people’s lives has already resulted in a ban on large cups of soda in the hyper-regulated moonbat dystopia over which he rules.

Obama et al. are making calculations as to how far they can push their agenda without encountering armed resistance. They will not stop a millimeter short of that point.


On tips from Bob Roberts, Sean, Dr. 9, and johnnosk.

12 Responses to “Obama’s Antigun Agenda”

  1. mr_bad_example says:

    here’s something i posted to the new chicago mayor

    mr bad example ‏@misterbadex
    @RahmEmanuel give up your 24/7 armed guards (4Life) STFD and STFU, remember the Jews in Germany in 1938, you hypocritical COMMIE BASTARD!

    Emanuel was obummer’s chief of staff, “never let a crisis go to waste”

    needless to say, i am building up my arsenal.

  2. Skyfall says:

    The left is in total “we won, get over it” mode. They are going for broke, and unfortunately, the American Under-informed Voter has given them that license.

    Obama has a clear mandate, and I really mean that. We do not deserve our freedoms and our Constitution if we intentionally put those in power who would destroy them.

    Obama will push this right up to the line, i.e. gun seizures. For now. But by the time he restricts ammo and clip size and weapons that are allowable and all the other stuff he can do…WITH PUBLIC SUPPORT…it won’t matter. I won’t willingly give up my firearms, but it WILL NOT MATTER. It has, in fact, already gone too far.

    Only God can help us now.

  3. Bill T says:

    I think the vote on feinstein’s bill or anything joe biteme’s working group might come up with, is already being voted on.

    2012 was busiest year in NICS history. Each month in 2012 saw a record number of background checks set for that month with December showing an all-time record of 2,783,765 checks. November 2012 was the first month to exceed two million checks (2,006,919) in the history of the system.

    What state buys the most guns?

  4. Clingtomyguns says:

    “The White House is working with aides to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg on a broader package of gun-violence initiatives…”

    History repeats itself:

    “The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb “gang activity,” violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? “Gun control” did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.

    The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they ‘lawfully’ took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not “reliable.” Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.

    In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other “reliable” people.

    The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 — one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany — new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.”

  5. A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.
    — Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    Obama is learning from the best.

  6. Earl B says:

    As the Supreme Court hears arguments for and against the Chicago, IL, Gun Ban, I offer you another stellar example of a letter (written by a Marine), that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized society.
    Interesting take and one you don’t hear much… Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the last paragraph of the letter…..
    “The Gun Is Civilization”

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

    Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force . If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it .

    In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may
    sound to some.

    When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force .

    The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

    There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat – it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

    People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly .

    Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

    People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force, watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

    The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

    When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded . I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation… And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!

    By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

    So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced !!

    This is worth printing and sharing with others…….right?
    Remember freedom is not free.

  7. Lady Liberty says:

    Dave here’s something people should be made aware of and in a hurry!

    Jack Lew MUST NOT Be Treasury Secretary

    Bet you didn’t know what’s hidden in The Gun Control Act of 1968.

    The Treasury Secretary is vested with the right to ban importation of any firearm he finds “does not have a sporting purpose.”


  8. pa says:

    Earl B: Yes, the article is worth printing and sharing with others. However, the authorship of “Why the Gun is Civilization” is in error (a widely circulated error). The true author of this essay is blogger Markos Kloos (better known as Munchkin Wrangler). His original post is here:

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy